Burns or Farrell

I can only see Farrell starting as he is next in line simple as that. If asked whether Burns should start I am sure Lancaster will say Owen Farrell has been training with the squad for a year now he knows the calls.. Blah blah.

I am not one for chopping and changing the side every game or for bringing in new players all the time but there has to be an argument to see burns.

Burns has kicked 50 out of 53 kicks in the prem this season, surely this makes farrells goal kicking irrelevant. Despite common belief Farrell does have an attacking game he can pass well off both hands but sometimes struggles to do so on the move. Mobility is Farrells weakness, he will never be the type of player to burn someone on the outside or even step on the inside but he can work on his passing and offloading game and I do think he has a future at test level. Burns however does have a running game, he can beat players. He can also pass well but most importantly for me he kicks better out of hand than Farrell.

The only thing that Farrell really brings over Burns is defensive stability in the 10 channel and it has to be said that NZ do like to target that area.
I would like to start Burns but can see an argument for starting with Farrel and bring burns on when defenses tire, lets hope we are still in it come the later stages!

Farrell can pass, the problem is he doesnt ....or if he does hes standing so deep the next playing recieves it static with the defence running headlong at them.

That aside Id be surprised if he doesnt start. We at least know he has the head for big games and doesnt flap under pressure even if he lacks spark. Lancaster trusts him, he is part of the team and well its just easier that way round.

Lancaster doesnt strike me as someone whod go for the all or nothing crazy Gatland plan.

Either way I still expect the score to be similar to that of Wales, and par for the course in the post 2003 era between these sides.

Its too late for Burns to start. He's had no time with the ENG calls, the set up or have any idea on fellow players strengths and weaknesses.

It would be his debut and against the best team in the world... let alone the best backrow elect.

Lets not Matthew Tait him please.

Farrell isn't a terrible player... he's just limited. He has little vision (strange for a kid growing up playing league) for a break but is good in defence and has a semi-decent kicking game.

He played in big games before, away to France and the 3rd test in SA so he's solid.

Burns looks like the full package though and should have been monitored by ENG a little better.
Would be great if he could take ENG into the 6N but even that is too early I feel. Personally I think Burns should be tested out at 12 to give him some test match exposure.

Lambie, Carter, Wilkinson, Giteau.. even Farrell..... all of them were blooded at 12 first.

Agree fa

Flood also started as a 12 btw. Pretty sure Cips got his first game as a sub at 15? Not that Im advocating Burns at 12, just saying its a bit much to chuck him in to this kind of game first up

Yeah throwing him in at 12 against Nonu would be almost just as bad.

Farrell will start...no point thinking otherwise (though id start Burns)

Farrells made one pass on Saturday that made me think...you know he actually CAN pass...but he just seems so scared or reluctant to do it...that it just nullifies any ball we have or attacking threat.
He is just so comfortable with putting his boot on the ball no matter where we are on the field....and it drives me crazy!!!

The pros of Farrell is that he wont remotely be fazed that its the AB's and hes a big solid lump of a lad...who wont miss any kicks.

The thing is Burns kicking has been VERY impressive aswell...and this season his game management has just been so much better...knowing when to play territory and knowing when to use that attacking instinct and try things.

Lets hope he gets a run out on Saturday...when its in the second half and the game is opening up...with the AB's trailing, Burns could have a field time.

Would be great if he could take ENG into the 6N but even that is too early I feel.

FA,

He simply MUST be in the new EPS in January...hes been the most impressive English 10 this season by quite some way.

I agree... but at 12 first.. give him some game time with the team, a feel for test rugby.

Johnson ruined Cipriani a little by throwing him in at 10 straight away and he struggled... he was too slow, got charged down and couldn't deal with the pace and was quickly discarded. If he was given a Grayson like JW, a Spencer like Carter had and a Larkham like Giteau had, I think he would have grown more as a player and may still be in the setup today.

Bit unfair on Johnson....Cips had already got caps at 10 under Ashton, including his only good performance in which he made Jamie Noon look good.

My preference would be to give Burns 20 minutes from the bench, otherwise it truly is a baptism of fire. He's a very confident guy, so I'm sure he'd take it in his stride, but even so that's a tough a debut as you can get.

There is a school of thought amongst Glaws supporters that one of the reasons Burns has been playing so well is having 36 outside him. So whilst it has the potential to derail our season, we really should see the pair of them playing in the 6N.

fa0019 wrote:Its too late for Burns to start. He's had no time with the ENG calls, the set up or have any idea on fellow players strengths and weaknesses.

It would be his debut and against the best team in the world... let alone the best backrow elect.

Lets not Matthew Tait him please.

Farrell isn't a terrible player... he's just limited. He has little vision (strange for a kid growing up playing league) for a break but is good in defence and has a semi-decent kicking game.

He played in big games before, away to France and the 3rd test in SA so he's solid.

Burns looks like the full package though and should have been monitored by ENG a little better.
Would be great if he could take ENG into the 6N but even that is too early I feel. Personally I think Burns should be tested out at 12 to give him some test match exposure.

Lambie, Carter, Wilkinson, Giteau.. even Farrell..... all of them were blooded at 12 first.

What vision he did have will have been sucked out of him by the remorseless Saracens vision hoover..

I'm a Glaws & Burns fan. Perhaps bring him on at 50 minutes when NZ have slowed a bit and thinking about the hot bath and tucker.

But Freddie 'launching' Barritt or Tui into those clever angles, acutely timed runs, clever offloads ? could make our man look quite bad I fear.

IMO Burns is the best young 10 England have (better than Ford I think). I hope he gets on against the AB's but there is no 10 anywhere (Carter included) that could "make" Barritt and Tuilagi a creative centre threat.

Yes, exactly my point, they'll tarnish Burns (so far) golden reputation.

"Its too late for Burns to start. He's had no time with the ENG calls, the set up or have any idea on fellow players strengths and weaknesses"

That might be an advantage, isn't flair and creativity what Burns brings and what Farrell will never have. England will not lose their ranking position so give Burns a run. Farrell will not be the difference between England and NZ, he is a pretty average player and its debatable if he is even international quality. Burns is cocky enough to survive a baptism of fire and it may be a eureka moment for English rugby

So couldve Preistland kicking a penalty to the corner and 15 welshmen pileing over for a try

Lancaster could also take all the RFU savings to Vegas with him and bet on 13

I guess its all about ambition vs fear of looking right a complete twerp and damaging the team long term

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:So couldve Preistland kicking a penalty to the corner and 15 welshmen pileing over for a try

Lancaster could also take all the RFU savings to Vegas with him and bet on 13

I guess its all about ambition vs fear of looking right a complete twerp and damaging the team long term

I don't see how it damages the team long term. England won't win with Farrell at 10, so where is the risk. The AB back row will sleep well Friday night if as is likely OF is selected. Lancaster is too conservative, his job is safe why the fear. England if anything overperformed in the 6 nations with a pretty conservative game plan. They will always be tough, but is anyone really worried about playing them. Burns may be a bust but there is little risk in finding out. He might just as easily take to the game at this level like a duck to water. He will certainly give NZ plenty to think about. Lack of time for Lancaster to coach every ounce of flair out of him is as I said not necessarily a bad thing

I would like to see Burns start and Frarrel on the bench.

Farrel has looked good when he has come on oiff the bench.

If we are close in the second half..then keep farrell on (he must be doing ok)

If the AB's have a decent lead and are just strolling but its not a cricket score either...then put Burns on at say 50 - 55 mins to give him a little taster.

Even if the AB's are strolling he will be pressured...he'll get put on his backside a few times but most important he'll very quickly get an idea of whats required at the very top level...but hopefully not in a position thats going to traumatise him.

Geordie, you speak my thoughts

Realistically Farrel will start.

What could be interesting is if he gets injured early, will Burns have to come straight on at 10? Or will they do what they did in SA and play Goode there? I don't think he'd struggle at 10 to be honest, may even do very well if Youngs is kicking well for him.

Id play Brown at 15 on Sat Yappy...i think he did a hell of a lot v SA out of position....and think he has more than earned his shot at FB. And he gives you that little bit of cockyness / aggression (not arrogance) i like to see on the pitch.

Then Goode can come off the bench for FB and Burns for Farrell...

Farrell is almost certain to start.

The back 3 is less clear, I find it unlikely they'll go with 2 fullbacks again this week.

sharples, monye or biggs to come into the side and either goode or brown at full back?

Really? I was expecting the same again in the back three.

Maybe Lancaster will make a change to the back three, but to be honest that't not where the problem is is it? It's in the center's and unless he does something about those two then the back three may as well be flankers.

I'd liked to have seen wade called up into the squad over tom biggs, whilst i like biggs and he could have potential at this level, wade is something else.

Wasps do play a style that suits wade but i just feel his pace and footwork would be a threat at any level.

perhaps you're right, lancaster probably will stick with the same back 3. Initially i think it was tactical to play 2 fullbacks against SA, but brown has probably outplayed the other wing options.

HQ matt wrote:I'd liked to have seen wade called up into the squad over tom biggs, whilst i like biggs and he could have potential at this level, wade is something else.

Wasps do play a style that suits wade but i just feel his pace and footwork would be a threat at any level.

How many passes did Ashton, Brown and Sharples receive in the last two games? Looking at England's current approach it's more important that the wings can catch and tackle.

http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/173758.html

"He has trained well. He looked comfortable and accomplished when he came on (against South Africa). I have no problem with Owen whatsoever.

"I am disappointed for Toby but I'm excited to get Freddie in the squad, to have a player coming in who is playing well and confident. I am not sitting here worried about Freddie coming in. He is a quality player. I want more strength and depth in every position and he gives us that. It is a great opportunity for him."

I just find his whole interview technique a mix of boring and cliched! You can literally see him reading it from a script and the panic on his face when he can't figure a word out is a mix of worrying and genious.

yappysnap wrote:

I just find his whole interview technique a mix of boring and cliched! You can literally see him reading it from a script and the panic on his face when he can't figure a word out.

Then turning to Rob Andrew and asking if he can change his mind....

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

I just find his whole interview technique a mix of boring and cliched! You can literally see him reading it from a script and the panic on his face when he can't figure a word out.

Then turning to Rob Andrew and asking if he can change his mind....

Rob Andrew would beg him to swap at this point in time