England Team v Ireland

The team sheets up for the final match of the tourny.

Thought i'd post it up on its own thread as the current EngvIre threads becoming a little...backwards.

England: B Foden (Northampton Saints); C Ashton (Northampton Saints), M Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers), B Barritt (Saracens), D Strettle (Saracens); O Farrell (Saracens), L Dickson (Northampton Saints); A Corbisiero (London Irish), D Hartley (Northampton Saints), D Cole (Leicester Tigers), M Botha (Saracens), G Parling (Leicester Tigers), T Croft (Leicester Tigers), C Robshaw (Harlequins, capt), B Morgan (Scarlets)

Replacements: L Mears (Bath Rugby), M Stevens (Saracens), T Palmer (Stade Francais), P Dowson (Northampton Saints), B Youngs (Leicester Tigers), C Hodgson (Saracens), M Brown (Harlequins)

Only changes are Strettle back in for Sharples and Mears coming on to the bench in place of Webber (injured).

Not too fussed by Strettles inclusion, his defence so far has been good and he'll fit the gameplan I assume we'll use against the Irish. Mears is an odd one, but then who else is there? No one really.

I was hoping we'd see starts or bench spots for a few other fringe players in this game but I guess the job interview pressures are adding to the win every game mentality. Still it's a shame for players like Brown, Marler and Clarke who all could potentially add more to the 22 then the current incumbants.

I'd imagine that Ferris's comments will spur England on to a great victory.

Or is that being to arrogant?

yappysnap wrote:The team sheets up for the final match of the tourny.

Thought i'd post it up on its own thread as the current EngvIre threads becoming a little...backwards.

England: B Foden (Northampton Saints); C Ashton (Northampton Saints), M Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers), B Barritt (Saracens), D Strettle (Saracens); O Farrell (Saracens), L Dickson (Northampton Saints); A Corbisiero (London Irish), D Hartley (Northampton Saints), D Cole (Leicester Tigers), M Botha (Saracens), G Parling (Leicester Tigers), T Croft (Leicester Tigers), C Robshaw (Harlequins, capt), B Morgan (Scarlets)

Replacements: L Mears (Bath Rugby), M Stevens (Saracens), T Palmer (Stade Francais), P Dowson (Northampton Saints), B Youngs (Leicester Tigers), C Hodgson (Saracens), M Brown (Harlequins)

Only changes are Strettle back in for Sharples and Mears coming on to the bench in place of Webber (injured).

Not too fussed by Strettles inclusion, his defence so far has been good and he'll fit the gameplan I assume we'll use against the Irish. Mears is an odd one, but then who else is there? No one really.

I was hoping we'd see starts or bench spots for a few other fringe players in this game but I guess the job interview pressures are adding to the win every game mentality. Still it's a shame for players like Brown, Marler and Clarke who all could potentially add more to the 22 then the current incumbants.

Lancaster started out well with his bench. Now that some of the benchers are now starters, the bench looks weak. Who would be better than our current bench?

HERSH! You're back!

HERSH wrote:I'd imagine that Ferris's comments will spur England on to a great victory.

Or is that being to arrogant?

Well i've never been so.... in all my years.... splutter.... bobbins... etc

HERSH wrote:
Or is that being to arrogant?

Oh I see there's an Irish Ref??? Didn't know that. That should come in handy but I hope he doesn't wear the hat - that kind of Oirishness gets embarrassing.

Triangulation wrote:

yappysnap wrote:The team sheets up for the final match of the tourny.

Thought i'd post it up on its own thread as the current EngvIre threads becoming a little...backwards.

England: B Foden (Northampton Saints); C Ashton (Northampton Saints), M Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers), B Barritt (Saracens), D Strettle (Saracens); O Farrell (Saracens), L Dickson (Northampton Saints); A Corbisiero (London Irish), D Hartley (Northampton Saints), D Cole (Leicester Tigers), M Botha (Saracens), G Parling (Leicester Tigers), T Croft (Leicester Tigers), C Robshaw (Harlequins, capt), B Morgan (Scarlets)

Replacements: L Mears (Bath Rugby), M Stevens (Saracens), T Palmer (Stade Francais), P Dowson (Northampton Saints), B Youngs (Leicester Tigers), C Hodgson (Saracens), M Brown (Harlequins)

Only changes are Strettle back in for Sharples and Mears coming on to the bench in place of Webber (injured).

Not too fussed by Strettles inclusion, his defence so far has been good and he'll fit the gameplan I assume we'll use against the Irish. Mears is an odd one, but then who else is there? No one really.

I was hoping we'd see starts or bench spots for a few other fringe players in this game but I guess the job interview pressures are adding to the win every game mentality. Still it's a shame for players like Brown, Marler and Clarke who all could potentially add more to the 22 then the current incumbants.

Lancaster started out well with his bench. Now that some of the benchers are now starters, the bench looks weak. Who would be better than our current bench?

Well, I'd say Flood should definitely bench. Ideally Wood would too. Marler instead of Stevens. Or Wood. Or pretty much anyone atm. Attwood. Sharples on the bench. Maybe May. Joseph. Pretty much any change to that bench (except Youngs) would make it better as Brown and Hodgson are not really bench players- they cover 1 position and though Hodgson offers a different approach (in theory) to Farrell and Brown is on form, I can't see them changing the game off teh bench. They add neither security by covering multiple positions nor particular impact. That is a massive waste

Agree with that Chequered. Some one like May or Joseph at 22 could be a brilliant impact sub, likewise Flood would add so much more coming off the bench against the Irish rather then Hodgson.

Still should be a good match and if England can be as physical as the Irish no doubt will be I think we'll win it.

Agree that the bench looks nowhere at the moment. You really want to be able to change things up from the bench, but Lancaster seems to use it more for it's most simplistic purpose, i.e covering injuries.

I'd definitely have Flood over Hodgson. The debate's been had, and I don't dislike Hodgson, but as a bench player I just think Flood offers much more of a 'plan b'.

Similarly, Dowson. Fine, he's there for his versatility (and he's played ok, in fairness, since having an iffy game vs Scotland). But he's very much 'cover' rather than 'impact'. If we're going all-out to win this game (which we absolutely should be) then I'd much rather see Waldrom on the bench - at least he is capable of punching holes. Or Wood, as he is a superior link man if the game opens up.

Stevens, again, is clearly there because he 'covers' both sides of the scrum. But Marler is a genuine 'impact' player - if, on 60 minutes, we need to make things happen, then I would much rather see Marler trotting on to run at the defence.

Brown, I feel, should have been given a start prior to now, but that's a different issue.

This bench screams 'cover' as opposed to 'impact' and - in what is likely to be a tight game - fading in the final 10 might well prove the difference between winning and losing

Adam wrote:Agree that the bench looks nowhere at the moment. You really want to be able to change things up from the bench, but Lancaster seems to use it more for it's most simplistic purpose, i.e covering injuries.

I'd definitely have Flood over Hodgson. The debate's been had, and I don't dislike Hodgson, but as a bench player I just think Flood offers much more of a 'plan b'.

Similarly, Dowson. Fine, he's there for his versatility (and he's played ok, in fairness, since having an iffy game vs Scotland). But he's very much 'cover' rather than 'impact'. If we're going all-out to win this game (which we absolutely should be) then I'd much rather see Waldrom on the bench - at least he is capable of punching holes. Or Wood, as he is a superior link man if the game opens up.

Stevens, again, is clearly there because he 'covers' both sides of the scrum. But Marler is a genuine 'impact' player - if, on 60 minutes, we need to make things happen, then I would much rather see Marler trotting on to run at the defence.

Brown, I feel, should have been given a start prior to now, but that's a different issue.

This bench screams 'cover' as opposed to 'impact' and - in what is likely to be a tight game - fading in the final 10 might well prove the difference between winning and losing

I agreee with all of this as i said the bench looks weak. However as much as i want to see Marler have a run out. IF he does not cover tighthead and Coles is injured then were feckered no?

You HAVE to have a both sides prop on the bench dont you?

Bench doesn't even scream cover

Why do internationals not have the extra prop? It just seems really stupid!

Corbs does cover TH in theory Tri, he has played there. I agree that Marler would be a better impact sub than Stevens, and i'm amazed that Marler hasn't had a go from the bench in at least one of the games.

I also accept that the bench is nothing like the impact that it could possibly be. The problem Lancaster has is that apart from the obvious new players, there is no one bar Nick Easter who has any experience to add to the bench, and that is why, in one way it lacks any real impact. Having said that you need to go with promise, I think a bench of

16. Gray (even though i'd rather see George)

17. Marler

18. Garvey

19. Waldrom

20. Youngs

21. Burns

22. Joseph

Looks to me like a bit more of an event from the bench, even if they have sod all experience between them.

I think Lancaster is still making his way as a coach, and when he develops a more rounded game plan then perhaps he'll develop a more coherent bench; rather than just providing cover for Moragn (is he still not match fit?) and allowing Matt Stevens to boost his caps.

yappysnap wrote:Why do internationals not have the extra prop? It just seems really stupid!

+1

Well, my nerves have started screaming!

I think it's partly because I feel this is make or break for Lancaster - probably wrongly, since he's likely already made or broken, but that's how it feels.

And I really want these lads to win it. These boys have a freshness and charm that's got me. chuckle. Maybe I'm getting old. But I don't just want them to win because they are England, I want to see those lads do well. Compared to them, all sides since 2003 have seemed a bit jaded.

Dooomed. We're dooooooooomed I say! It's going to be like watching tennis: 15-0; 30-0; 40-0; game set and match Ireland. I've dug the grave in the garden ready to bury myself in a fit of dramatic anglo-saxon despair. After all, it's well known we're bad losers.

Triangulation wrote:

Adam wrote:Agree that the bench looks nowhere at the moment. You really want to be able to change things up from the bench, but Lancaster seems to use it more for it's most simplistic purpose, i.e covering injuries.

I'd definitely have Flood over Hodgson. The debate's been had, and I don't dislike Hodgson, but as a bench player I just think Flood offers much more of a 'plan b'.

Similarly, Dowson. Fine, he's there for his versatility (and he's played ok, in fairness, since having an iffy game vs Scotland). But he's very much 'cover' rather than 'impact'. If we're going all-out to win this game (which we absolutely should be) then I'd much rather see Waldrom on the bench - at least he is capable of punching holes. Or Wood, as he is a superior link man if the game opens up.

Stevens, again, is clearly there because he 'covers' both sides of the scrum. But Marler is a genuine 'impact' player - if, on 60 minutes, we need to make things happen, then I would much rather see Marler trotting on to run at the defence.

Brown, I feel, should have been given a start prior to now, but that's a different issue.

This bench screams 'cover' as opposed to 'impact' and - in what is likely to be a tight game - fading in the final 10 might well prove the difference between winning and losing

I agreee with all of this as i said the bench looks weak. However as much as i want to see Marler have a run out. IF he does not cover tighthead and Coles is injured then were feckered no?

You HAVE to have a both sides prop on the bench dont you?

You make a good point - if this is the reason then fair enough. I know Marler's not seen as the best scrummager at LH, let alone TH. Having said that, the extent to which Stevens really covers LH is debateable!

...I'm not a prop, so prepared to concede on this one. But I stand by the others: Dowson and Hodgson, in particular, are wasted bench spots for me

As I said above, Corbs does cover TH - probably as well as Stevens covers LH!

Honestly I think it'll be close.

This team are far more aggressive then the limp squibs of the past and finally Ireland are going to meet an England side that gives as good as it gets in the tackles.

Maybe they'll still shade us at the breakdown but it's what they make of that which counts. And their centres running at ours are going to take a battering. Like wise Sexton if he chances his arm against Farrell or the wings against ours.

Ireland could win this, so could England though. Neither team has had the kind of run of form that makes you bank on them or against the other one.

Chjw131 wrote:Corbs does cover TH in theory Tri, he has played there. I agree that Marler would be a better impact sub than Stevens, and i'm amazed that Marler hasn't had a go from the bench in at least one of the games.

I also accept that the bench is nothing like the impact that it could possibly be. The problem Lancaster has is that apart from the obvious new players, there is no one bar Nick Easter who has any experience to add to the bench, and that is why, in one way it lacks any real impact. Having said that you need to go with promise, I think a bench of

16. Gray (even though i'd rather see George)

17. Marler

18. Garvey

19. Waldrom

20. Youngs

21. Burns

22. Joseph

Looks to me like a bit more of an event from the bench, even if they have sod all experience between them.

I think Lancaster is still making his way as a coach, and when he develops a more rounded game plan then perhaps he'll develop a more coherent bench; rather than just providing cover for Moragn (is he still not match fit?) and allowing Matt Stevens to boost his caps.

Grey - OK

Marler - Can't take teh risk on Cole being injured, PDJ much better then Stevens

Garvey - Garvey and Botha would not do very well in the lineout, hence Palmer who has not let England down.

Waldrom - Doesn't cover 7 neither does Morgan or Croft.

Youngs - OK not much choice at the moment

Burns - Covers only 10 and possibly 15 same as Hodgson, not sure he is a better player then Charlie yet.

Joseph - Centre / Wing, not a kicker or really a 12. Would not 36 be better covering 10,12 and 15 allowing an out and out flyer to be picked in lieu of Burns.

Adam wrote:
You make a good point - if this is the reason then fair enough. I know Marler's not seen as the best scrummager at LH, let alone TH. Having said that, the extent to which Stevens really covers LH is debateable!

...I'm not a prop, so prepared to concede on this one. But I stand by the others: Dowson and Hodgson, in particular, are wasted bench spots for me

Well Dowson does cover all three, and deserves credit for his try saving ball recovery at the weekend.

Marler doesn't play tighthead at all, but his scrummaging at loosehead is really good these days. He's barely taken a step back since the new year, won man of the match for his scrummaging against Worcester, with Mullan having real problems on the other side, and won the equalising penalty against Newcastle 2 weeks ago.

I have just noticed this on the bbc web site.

England: 15-Ben Foden, 14-Chris Ashton, 13-Manu Tuilagi, 12-Brad Barritt, 11-David Strettle; 10-Owen Farrell, 9-Lee Dickson; 1-Alex Corbisiero, 2-Dylan Hartley, 3-Dan Cole, 4-Mouritz Botha, 5-Geoff Parling, 6-Tom Croft, 7-Chris Robshaw, 8-Ben Morgan

Replacements: 16-Lee Mears 17-Matt Stevens, 18-Tom Palmer, 19-Phil Dowson, 20-Ben Youngs, 21-Charlie Hodgson, 22-Mike Brown

What i dont understand is why Lee Mears is on the bench?

What happend to Rob Webber?

Did he lose his spot because of the try at the end of the game?

It was not realy his fault playing in the back row now was it?

Mears has better darts than Webber, more experience and is a better carrier in open spaces if the game breaks up late on. I have no issue with his inclusion.

Dooomed. We're dooooooooomed I say! It's going to be like watching tennis: 15-0; 30-0; 40-0; game set and match Ireland. I've dug the grave in the garden ready to bury myself in a fit of dramatic anglo-Sexton despair. After all, it's well known we're bad losers.

Fixed that for you

Webber hurt his shoulder against France

thomh wrote:Well Dowson does cover all three, and deserves credit for his try saving ball recovery at the weekend.

If you'd read my earlier post, this is pretty much exactly what I said. But I also think that the mindset of having a bench as 'cover' rather than 'impact' is a dangerous one and slightly out of date. Waldrom is a better carrier than Dowson. Wood is a better link man than Dowson. Both would have more impact off the bench.

Picking a bench to 'hold the fort' is essentially banking on being ahead on 60 minutes. Bold, is all I can say. If I were a coach I'd much rather be holding a couple of cards up my sleeve...

Adam wrote:

thomh wrote:Well Dowson does cover all three, and deserves credit for his try saving ball recovery at the weekend.

If you'd read my earlier post, this is pretty much exactly what I said. But I also think that the mindset of having a bench as 'cover' rather than 'impact' is a dangerous one and slightly out of date. Waldrom is a better carrier than Dowson. Wood is a better link man than Dowson. Both would have more impact off the bench.

Picking a bench to 'hold the fort' is essentially banking on being ahead on 60 minutes. Bold, is all I can say. If I were a coach I'd much rather be holding a couple of cards up my sleeve...

Whilst I don't disagree with you, you could argue that it is more negative to be looking at the game saying "we won't be winning at 60mins" and that the positive approach would be to cover all bases because you have confidence in your 1st XV. Just playing devil's advocate a little...

I think more likely you should look at the game being very tight at 60 minutes and you need a bench who can either extend a small lead or else make up a small loss. Maybe Brown will get 20 mins or so?

yappysnap wrote:I think more likely you should look at the game being very tight at 60 minutes and you need a bench who can either extend a small lead or else make up a small loss. Maybe Brown will get 20 mins or so?

I wish England had let Brown start against Italy or something. I'm very happy with how this 6N has worked out so far, but it feels like we have wasted a bit of an opportunity

Glas a du wrote:

Dooomed. We're dooooooooomed I say! It's going to be like watching tennis: 15-0; 30-0; 40-0; game set and match Ireland. I've dug the grave in the garden ready to bury myself in a fit of dramatic anglo-Sexton despair. After all, it's well known we're bad losers.

Fixed that for you

Don't worry England. Our lads will just have their anthem finished when they begin to cramp up in their calves. Four weeks on the trot will get to them and you'll be going through the battleground putting fallen injured to the sword for mercy's sake before half time.

What you'll all do for the other half I don't know. Karaoke? I hear Tuilagi does a great Elvis.

SecretFly wrote:Don't worry England. Our lads will just have their anthem finished when they begin to cramp up in their calves. Four weeks on the trot will get to them and you'll be going through the battleground putting fallen injured to the sword for mercy's sake before half time.

What you'll all do for the other half I don't know. Karaoke? I hear Tuilagi does a great Elvis.

A Little Less Distribution, A Little More Traction?

Wood is not really match fit yet (played about 80 minutes in total since returning) and hasn't trained with the England squad whatsoever so was never going to be considered, Clark or Waldrum would have made the bench before him. I think the England management feel that Morgan can't last 80 minutes in an international at full tilt (yet) so feel they must have someone who covers 8 on the bench. I've never seen Clark play 8 for Saints so that leaves Wldrum or Dowson as the bench option, and if Robshaw got injured early on, we wouldn't have any 7 cover whatsoever if it was Wladrum.

Regarding the one prop on the bench thing - as I understand it from this board others have said it is the SH international teams who are opposed to the idea for whatever reason, and until they change their mind all international games will remain this way.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:
Grey - OK

Marler - Can't take teh risk on Cole being injured, PDJ much better then Stevens

Garvey - Garvey and Botha would not do very well in the lineout, hence Palmer who has not let England down.

Waldrom - Doesn't cover 7 neither does Morgan or Croft.

Youngs - OK not much choice at the moment

Burns - Covers only 10 and possibly 15 same as Hodgson, not sure he is a better player then Charlie yet.

Joseph - Centre / Wing, not a kicker or really a 12. Would not 36 be better covering 10,12 and 15 allowing an out and out flyer to be picked in lieu of Burns.

I can take all the points you've made here Well Past It. The problem I have is that, as I said above and as Adam has been alluding to an international bench requires impact as much as cover. What I have laid out is a bench that will provide impact.

We can go into the ins and outs of who doesn't cover what position but that somewhat misses the point. ie: Whilst PDJ is good in the scrum, Marler offers more impact in the loose late on. Equally Garvey is acting as a sub for Botha not Parling - thus it would be 18. Garvey 5. Parling - still there to run the lineout. Palmer offers zero impact from the bench.

Similarly, whilst Waldrom does indeed only cover 6 and 8 we're looking for impact. Morgan HAS to be subbed around the 60 min mark and as such you need someone to come in at 8 and provide a lift which I feel Waldrom does far better than Dowson. Corft could easily cover 7 in an emergency and obviously Robshaw already plays there.

What Burns provides over CH at 10 is unpredictibility and real pace to exploit a more broken game. Also some superb kicking from hand. Again more impact than CH.

For Joseph I would read the same as above. Burns covers 15 if Foden gets injured, but Joseph offers a real alternative to either Tuilagi or Barrit - with Manu moving to 12 if Joseph were to come on.

Waldrom - Doesn't cover 7 neither does Morgan or Croft.

Waldrom and Croft have played 6/7 before with Crane at 8. It was a tactic used last season when Tigers were still in need of a try after 50 mins. Sub Newby and bring on Waldrom switching Croft to 7. Gave Tigers a lot of go forward in the final stages of a game.

Waldrom and Croft have played 6/7 before with Crane at 8. It was a
tactic used last season when Tigers were still in need of a try after 50
mins. Sub Newby and bring on Waldrom switching Croft to 7. Gave Tigers a
lot of go forward in the final stages of a game.

I think that's Tigers' best back-row combination actually, when everyone's fit. Certainly the best attacking one.

Newby's form was a bit off last year so I would have agreed with you. At the minute Newby is looking in better form and Salvi is playing even better than that so I'd be tempted to bring one of those in at 7, probably Salvi as he carries better. Then again with Crane out there's no awkward "who to leave out?" question unlike next year when 8 will be very competitive.

I don't have a huge issue with the bench. I think players like Marler and Garvey will get their International heads in the midweek team in South Africa in I think that would actually be a better way to introduce them into the team and then they could press for further inclusion in the Autumn games.

Personally I would have liked to seen Lawes and Wood in there, but they're both ruled out by injury. Other than that I would only go for Flood over Hodgson as a change. I just think Flood has been the lynchpin of everything good England have done over the last couple of years, and even though Farrell has been playing well Flood deserves a place in the 22.

Definitely, but from the coaches point of view Farrell knows
Hodgson a lot better and he'll be quicker to get up to speed on the game plan.

I don't mind too much at the moment but I wouldn't want Hodgson going on the summer tour, Burns/Clegg/Heathcote/Flood/Farrell are all better alternatives.

Personally I would have liked to seen Lawes and Wood in there, but they're both ruled out by injury.

Wood played last weekend in the LV Cup Semi Final against the Scarlets and is playing again this weekend in the Final vs Tigers.

Man i cant wait for the match tomorrow. This is going to be a cracker

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Personally I would have liked to seen Lawes and Wood in there, but they're both ruled out by injury.

Wood played last weekend in the LV Cup Semi Final against the Scarlets and is playing again this weekend in the Final vs Tigers.

Didn't catch the LV matches last week, (just watching a repeat of the rugby club now), so I wasn't aware of that. Is he ready for an International recall though? I'm not sure and I would possibly stick with the consistent option, although I would look to bring Wood back in the summer.

Tbh it's probably a better move leaving Wood at Saints. We do miss Lawes though.

Wood hasn't spent anytime with the England squad so it would be very tough to come into the 22 without training with the rest of the players and learning the new systems. I agree about missing Lawes though.