Starting England XV for the november internationals.

by flankertye Mon 23 Sep 2013, 9:51 pm

First topic message reminder :

Based on current form in the premiership, what would your ideal starting XV look like?
Mine would be

Corbs
Hartley
Cole
Attwood
Parling
Wood
Robshaw
Vunipola
youngs
Burns
twelvetrees
Tuilagi
Strettle
Yarde
Brown.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 23 Oct 2013, 4:08 pm

And Ewers....

by Triangulation Wed 23 Oct 2013, 4:13 pm

Yes and Ewers!

I have worked out why our pack vs Wales and possibly still is almost entirely made up of lineoutjumping, ruck clearing "grafters" and is absent ball carriers...............head coach is an ex 7 and farrell is league.

Rowntree needs to pipe up a bit more.

by Chjw131 Wed 23 Oct 2013, 4:18 pm

It's a real shame Carl Fearns has picked up so many injuries this past season. Had he been able to keep fit he could've been the answer at 6.

I see what you're driving at Tri, I just think Billy V doesn't get round the park enough for a blindside. Had Lawes not had an awful showing there against France he might've been another option there.

Slater has gone very well for Tigers so far this season at 4 or 6. I wouldn't have minded seeing him called into the squad to add a different dimension.

by Geordie Wed 23 Oct 2013, 4:19 pm

Captain is named at 16.45

by Chjw131 Wed 23 Oct 2013, 4:20 pm

Hasn't the Telegraph already announced Robshaw's retention of the Captaincy?

by Geordie Wed 23 Oct 2013, 4:20 pm

If you want a lump at 6...Garveys yer man.

by Geordie Wed 23 Oct 2013, 4:21 pm

Ah i didnt know Chj

In that case:
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan / Billy

It is.

by Chjw131 Wed 23 Oct 2013, 4:22 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:If you want a lump at 6...Garveys yer man.

Seems to be a pariah in Lancs' eyes.

by Chjw131 Wed 23 Oct 2013, 4:23 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ah i didnt know Chj

In that case:
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan / Billy

It is.

I think he may stick with Morgan at 8 otherwise i'd have assumed he'd be sent back to get more game time for Glaws.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 23 Oct 2013, 4:28 pm

I agree with the ball carrying, it's essential to breaking the oppositions defensive structure.

It's the main reason I can't see Lawes & Parling being a strong paring as it puts too much pressure on others.

Ideally you'd want at least 4 strong carrying options in your pack, more would be great.

1. Mako
2. Youngs
4. Attwood

Would certainly start in my team for the AI, I'd look to find balance elsewhere as GF says.

I have major concerns over Morgan, he strikes me as a luxury player at times, making the odd break from FB but not carrying hard or putting in the graft.

I'd love to see Ewers involved as he's a hybrid of a 8/6, fantastic carrier, great clearing work and a good offload. I really think he could be something special.

Not that is going to happen but perhaps against Arg...

1. Vunipola
2. Youngs
3. Cole
4. Launchbury
5. Attwood
6. Vunipola
7. Robshaw/Wood
8. Ewers

Has some serious graft/power to it.

by BamBam Wed 23 Oct 2013, 5:09 pm

Has Ewers committed to England? Or is it just a formality

by Poorfour Wed 23 Oct 2013, 6:14 pm

In the first 60 minutes, didn't Wales pick up most of their points from penalties won in scrums refereed by Steve Walsh? My point being that you can't judge anythng much from that - Adam Jones (IIRC) admitted after the match that he collapsed the scrum 6 times and got away with it, and he certainly got away with binding on the hem of the sleeve at every single scrum.

England did have a serious issue with not having a powerful No 8 - but both Morgan and Vunipola are available. But I think the bigger issue was with not being able to get quick ball at the rucks. We won't know if they've addressed that until we see them play, but having Lawes and a proper 8 will help, and Youngs, Mako and Marler have all stepped up their game in this area in the intervening period.

Do we know who the refs are yet? I think that will also have a big bearing; NH refs would give me a lot more comfort than SH

by kingelderfield Wed 23 Oct 2013, 6:44 pm

Ducking bell, the omens are cat trap.............we're expecting either of Trinder or Tomkins to perform first game out against a hardened Oz side. Niether has shown any real/consistent form this year. Lancaster/Farrell/Catt this is one desperate gamble. Both players have potential but could each be crucified in the manner of Paul/Allen. My confidence in Lancaster et al, never high, have been further diminished.

Tri talks a lot of sense with regards the pack size/power balance and again lessons don't appear to have been learnt. I am extra Mr angry tonight......things don't look good and if we screw this autumn then for me Lancaster should be done and gone.

by bedfordwelsh Wed 23 Oct 2013, 6:47 pm

Given that Robshaw has been named captain and will start where do you guys expect to see him play, 6 or 7?

by ChequeredJersey Wed 23 Oct 2013, 7:38 pm

7, Wood at 6

by timhen Wed 23 Oct 2013, 8:14 pm

Poorfour wrote:In the first 60 minutes, didn't Wales pick up most of their points from penalties won in scrums refereed by Steve Walsh? My point being that you can't judge anythng much from that - Adam Jones (IIRC) admitted after the match that he collapsed the scrum 6 times and got away with it, and he certainly got away with binding on the hem of the sleeve at every single scrum.

England did have a serious issue with not having a powerful No 8 - but both Morgan and Vunipola are available. But I think the bigger issue was with not being able to get quick ball at the rucks. We won't know if they've addressed that until we see them play, but having Lawes and a proper 8 will help, and Youngs, Mako and Marler have all stepped up their game in this area in the intervening period.

Do we know who the refs are yet? I think that will also have a big bearing; NH refs would give me a lot more comfort than SH

Quite right. A powerful carrying 8 would have been a huge help in that game, but getting bullied at the breakdown was far more critical to the loss than a lack of metres made (we actually just shaded Wales in that area). And that breakdown weakness seemed as much down to gameplan as personnel. Against NZ last autumn and Scotland at the beginning of the 6N we had much the same forwards but flooded the breakdown, hard & fast. After that players were generally less agressive at the breakdown, hanging back more and looking to become part of the next phase, the results suffered accordingly.

I hope we see a return to that full physical commitment to the breakdown, close support to smash through and over, generating quick ball, or better still more offloading options before the breakdown is even set.

by formerly known as Sam Wed 23 Oct 2013, 9:05 pm

What we lacked against Wales was creation in the backs. When Flood replaced Farrell we created far more, Flood was hauled down a couple of metres short and a cross field kick just skidded away off the surface, if it had stood up we would have scored. We must be looking to try and create and not just keep it tight and try to eek out the three pointers.

by yappysnap Wed 23 Oct 2013, 9:38 pm

Well said Sam. And I think we will do that with the new more versatile Farrell at the helm and Lancaster being forced by injuries to not go down the defense first rout.

by mbernz Wed 23 Oct 2013, 11:00 pm

I agree with the comments about the breakdown. When we've lost with this current group of players it's principally been down to this. Decent numbers into the breakdown and drive them back, not just passively stand there. Quick ball is everything with the quality of modern defences.

by jamesandimac Thu 24 Oct 2013, 12:45 am

I agree with most and say we do need to consider a big bruiser at 6, but the one most seem to have forgotten about the the Brand Haskell. For me he was the form backrow for England over 2010/2011 season and didn't play too shabby last season either off the bench.

Whilst he may not be first choice behind Wood, and some would say Croft, I do think he is the best overall bench option as he covers every backrow position to international standard as well as offering a good blend of breakdown, tackling and ball carrying ability.

I just hope he comes back to good form after his injury lay off as he offers a lot. Also seeing him play against Bayonne last week he appears to have beefed out even more since his injury and now weighs in at a hefty 118 kg.

by niwatts Thu 24 Oct 2013, 2:23 am

Jacques Burger gives the credit to Billy Vunipola for flying start

He has been called the best ‘signing’ of the summer after putting two years of injury hell behind him – but Jacques Burger claims he cannot compare to wrecking-ball clubmate Billy Vunipola.

Such was the impact of the returning Burger for Saracens at the start of the season that he picked up the Aviva Premiership player of the month award for September.

He also reaffirmed director of rugby Mark McCall’s statement he was the best addition of the summer, despite the arrivals of Vunipola and front row colossus James Johnston.

But while Burger is again displaying his unique brand of ultra-aggressive tackling, he says Vunipola, favourite to start for England at No.8 against Australia, with Ben Morgan out of form, is the man behind Sarries’ flying start.

“Billy’s been a really good addition to the team, a big carrying No.6 or No.8 and I think we did lack a bit of carrying power,” he said. “We had back rowers who could play the game but not really a good carrier, we had Jackson Wray who is a good carrier but Billy has that size as well.

“He’s matured so much and is top-class, he can play for England any moment.

“I was surprised with Billy’s work-rate, obviously he’s a big guy, carries really well and runs hard, but when he got here I was really impressed with how hard he works on the pitch.

“He chases hard and does things that guys don’t really see as they only notice his running with the ball. When he got here he was better in that than I expected.”

Lancaster, meanwhile, admits Morgan has “a lot of credit in the bank” with England despite his average start to the season, but the England head coach’s eyes lit up at the prospect of unleashing Vunipola and brother Mako on Australia on November 2.

“Billy’s having an outstanding start to the season. He has made the transition from Wasps to Saracens well,” said Lancaster.

“As ball-carrying threats, as a pair, you could probably build quite a lot around them.”

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/domestic-club-rugby-union/english-rugby-premiership/11823/jacques-burger-gives-the-credit-to-billy-vunipola-for-flying-start/

by Geordie Thu 24 Oct 2013, 8:20 am

I think most of the pack is pretty clear, the second row is the only area im not sure on:
1 Mako V
2 Youngs
3 Cole
4 ?
5 ?
6 Wood
7 Robshaw (C)
8 Billy V

by beshocked Thu 24 Oct 2013, 8:56 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:What we lacked against Wales was creation in the backs. When Flood replaced Farrell we created far more, Flood was hauled down a couple of metres short and a cross field kick just skidded away off the surface, if it had stood up we would have scored. We must be looking to try and create and not just keep it tight and try to eek out the three pointers.

Sam England created an early try scoring opportunity that Manu wasted. Could have settled nerves if he could just catch the ball.

I know you dislike Farrell intensely and heart

Flood and Ford but you need to put that to the side. England did not lose to Wales just because of Farrell. It was the forwards who didn't give him a particularly good platform.

You talk about Flood. If Flood is so competent why did England struggle so badly vs Italy with him at the helm? I presume you'll find someone else to blame for Flood's failures.

by yappysnap Thu 24 Oct 2013, 9:10 am

More and more I find myself agreeing with the posters who say that Flood just can't hack International games. Yes he can step up from time to time but he just never does enough to nail down the shirt. He's had more then enough chances as well now.

by beshocked Thu 24 Oct 2013, 9:22 am

Yappysnap it's strange because Flood is only 28 with an impressive 57 caps. I think Flood can hack it in international games but seem to go through phases of being the complete fly half and being ineffective.

For example Wilkinson overtook Flood for the 2011 RWC because Flood wasn't playing well enough at the time. Then again Flood was unlucky not to be given a chance when Wilkinson faltered.

Flood has had some really good games for England but hasn't really done enough to be above Burns or Farrell for the 10 shirt.

by mystiroakey Thu 24 Oct 2013, 9:31 am

Flood is a great player- just not quite as good as others- its nice to have that depth tbh!

Whats everyones thoughts on cipriani- is he doing enough again, I heard he has had a few influential games.(i dont watch enough club stuff)

by fa0019 Thu 24 Oct 2013, 9:34 am

beshocked wrote:Yappysnap it's strange because Flood is only 28 with an impressive 57 caps. I think Flood can hack it in international games but seem to go through phases of being the complete fly half and being ineffective.

For example Wilkinson overtook Flood for the 2011 RWC because Flood wasn't playing well enough at the time. Then again Flood was unlucky not to be given a chance when Wilkinson faltered.

Flood has had some really good games for England but hasn't really done enough to be above Burns or Farrell for the 10 shirt.

Personally I always thought Johnson gambled at the RWC naively on Wilkinson's star quality coming through using the theory that on their best days, JW was better and come the big occasion JW always seemed to grab the headlines.

Flood was the starting 10 for the last 2 years, JW was the backup. The change over added to Manu's sudden appearance shook that team a little too much. They had no clear backline strategy and it was almost a case of running out of ideas and simply throwing it to Manu and expecting him to make miracles.
Wilkinson himself did not re-discover form and suffered with the tee also. Had Flood ran the campaign I think they would have done a lot better, for stability reasons alone.

by beshocked Thu 24 Oct 2013, 9:42 am

fa0019 wrote:
beshocked wrote:Yappysnap it's strange because Flood is only 28 with an impressive 57 caps. I think Flood can hack it in international games but seem to go through phases of being the complete fly half and being ineffective.

For example Wilkinson overtook Flood for the 2011 RWC because Flood wasn't playing well enough at the time. Then again Flood was unlucky not to be given a chance when Wilkinson faltered.

Flood has had some really good games for England but hasn't really done enough to be above Burns or Farrell for the 10 shirt.
Personally I always thought Johnson gambled at the RWC naively on Wilkinson's star quality coming through using the theory that on their best days, JW was better and come the big occasion JW always seemed to grab the headlines.

Flood was the starting 10 for the last 2 years, JW was the backup. The change over added to Manu's sudden appearance shook that team a little too much. They had no clear backline strategy and it was almost a case of running out of ideas and simply throwing it to Manu and expecting him to make miracles.
Wilkinson himself did not re-discover form and suffered with the tee also. Had Flood ran the campaign I think they would have done a lot better, for stability reasons alone.

faa019 I am pretty sure Wilkinson got the shirt because Flood had been lacklustre in the games leading up to the world cup.

I agree in the RWC Flood should have been given more trust.

Johnson's problem was not picking Flood when Wilkinson was playing poorly. Flood showed in his cameos in the world cup he was the better fly half at the time.

Fortunately England now have a fly half in good form - Owen Farrell. He's a better player than a year ago too. At last he's getting a week off too!

by bedfordwelsh Thu 24 Oct 2013, 9:45 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think most of the pack is pretty clear, the second row is the only area im not sure on:
1 Mako V
2 Youngs
3 Cole
4 ?
5 ?
6 Wood
7 Robshaw (C)
8 Billy V

GF,

Surely Parling is a shoe in for one of the 2nd row spots, really impressed by him in Oz.

by Geordie Thu 24 Oct 2013, 10:55 am

Well we all assume that much BW. I like most others however think a second row combo from Lawes, Launchbury and Parling doesnt have enough nastyness or pure power and strength.

And if it is to be those three...Launchbury and Lawes (apparently on fire at the moment) as individuals offer more, in my opinion.

by bedfordwelsh Thu 24 Oct 2013, 1:43 pm

Fair one GF, Lawes when on form certainly has that dog and grunt about him.

by Triangulation Thu 24 Oct 2013, 2:09 pm

Did Simon Shaw and Martin Johnson ever play in the same starting XV?

That would have been a sight for sore eyes.

Shaw was told that he wouldn't/couldn't be selected with Johnno because they were "too similar".

I would loved to have seen it at least once.

Shaw also said once that in an interview that he believed that in some respects he was a better player than Johnson. I agree with that.

Coming back on to topic......

Attwood
Lawes

with Launchbury on the bench

That has to be the dream combination assuming all are firing on all cylinders?

by sirtidychris Thu 24 Oct 2013, 3:02 pm

It depends how much importance you put on the lineout, that pairing would be amazing around the park and are both very exciting players but having a team full of exciting players doesn't win matches. A team is about balance that is why shaw and johnson were never an established pairing with Kay being the lineout man and Johnson being the lump and a leader of men. Parling is not an exciting player but he is one of the best lineout men in the world being very very intelligent and able to break down oppositions lineouts quickly. Lawes is supposedly developing his lineout skills but he will never be a parling.

by Sgt_Pooly Thu 24 Oct 2013, 3:09 pm

"Parling is not an exciting player but he is one of the best lineout men in the world being very very intelligent and able to break down oppositions lineouts quickly. Lawes is supposedly developing his lineout skills but he will never be a parling."

I don't see this Chris, for a supposed expert I've never see Parling dominate at Int level.

I think we could sacrifice him for somebody like Lawes who's looked solid in the line out and adds more around the park.

by Triangulation Thu 24 Oct 2013, 3:13 pm

Sgt is right and Lawes is improving his lineout work all the time

by fa0019 Thu 24 Oct 2013, 3:15 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"Parling is not an exciting player but he is one of the best lineout men in the world being very very intelligent and able to break down oppositions lineouts quickly. Lawes is supposedly developing his lineout skills but he will never be a parling."

I don't see this Chris, for a supposed expert I've never see Parling dominate at Int level.

I think we could sacrifice him for somebody like Lawes who's looked solid in the line out and adds more around the park.

If Parling is so good at the lineout as everyone seems to state (bar Sgt)... why is it that England had the worst lineout retention rates in the 6N?

He has few excuses, the starting hooker was his clubmate Youngs.

by Chjw131 Thu 24 Oct 2013, 3:36 pm

fa0019 wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:"Parling is not an exciting player but he is one of the best lineout men in the world being very very intelligent and able to break down oppositions lineouts quickly. Lawes is supposedly developing his lineout skills but he will never be a parling."

I don't see this Chris, for a supposed expert I've never see Parling dominate at Int level.

I think we could sacrifice him for somebody like Lawes who's looked solid in the line out and adds more around the park.
If Parling is so good at the lineout as everyone seems to state (bar Sgt)... why is it that England had the worst lineout retention rates in the 6N?

He has few excuses, the starting hooker was his clubmate Youngs.

Exactly, the line-out needs to be pretty flawless this AI for Parling to retain his place.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 24 Oct 2013, 3:36 pm

fa0019 wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:"Parling is not an exciting player but he is one of the best lineout men in the world being very very intelligent and able to break down oppositions lineouts quickly. Lawes is supposedly developing his lineout skills but he will never be a parling."

I don't see this Chris, for a supposed expert I've never see Parling dominate at Int level.

I think we could sacrifice him for somebody like Lawes who's looked solid in the line out and adds more around the park.
If Parling is so good at the lineout as everyone seems to state (bar Sgt)... why is it that England had the worst lineout retention rates in the 6N?

He has few excuses, the starting hooker was his clubmate Youngs.

I would say 1 of his excuses was the starting hooker!

by fa0019 Thu 24 Oct 2013, 3:39 pm

why I'm surprised more people are not calling for Hartley to start. He's a safe bet in the tight and doesn't shy away from the physical stuff... shame he often acts like he's in a bar and had a one too many mind.

Better then Youngs though. Youngs is a good impact player, no more... and requires a massive pack to compensate for his lack of bulk.

by thomh Thu 24 Oct 2013, 3:45 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:"Parling is not an exciting player but he is one of the best lineout men in the world being very very intelligent and able to break down oppositions lineouts quickly. Lawes is supposedly developing his lineout skills but he will never be a parling."

I don't see this Chris, for a supposed expert I've never see Parling dominate at Int level.

I think we could sacrifice him for somebody like Lawes who's looked solid in the line out and adds more around the park.
If Parling is so good at the lineout as everyone seems to state (bar Sgt)... why is it that England had the worst lineout retention rates in the 6N?

He has few excuses, the starting hooker was his clubmate Youngs.
I would say 1 of his excuses was the starting hooker!

It was bad with Hartley on the pitch as well

by fa0019 Thu 24 Oct 2013, 3:49 pm

always thought Tom Croft is far superior to Parling anyhow.... probably the closest player in the world to Matfields standard in terms of dominance.

With Croft playing, Parlings usefulness drops significantly. England miss him.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 24 Oct 2013, 3:51 pm

Does anyone have the stats for the 3 hookers in and around the squad (albeit Webbers came against a 2nd string)? Never seen them but I just perceive Hartley and Webber to be better at lineouts from watching the games in general.

by sirtidychris Thu 24 Oct 2013, 3:55 pm

He is the only nailed on starter in the second row and that is for a reason, he was only 1 of 2 english people to make the final lions starting test team above all the other Lions locks, during that match he made a try saving tackle on jesse mogg and tackled 14 people. He is a leader, whereas cournteny lawes is a walking yellow card/injury. Dont get me wrong they are all awesome and we are spoilt for choice but I guess you have to be a coach to really appreciate what Parling does.

by Chjw131 Thu 24 Oct 2013, 4:02 pm

sirtidychris wrote:He is the only nailed on starter in the second row and that is for a reason, he was only 1 of 2 english people to make the final lions starting test team above all the other Lions locks, during that match he made a try saving tackle on jesse mogg and tackled 14 people. He is a leader, whereas cournteny lawes is a walking yellow card/injury. Dont get me wrong they are all awesome and we are spoilt for choice but I guess you have to be a coach to really appreciate what Parling does.

Lawes' discipline is far ahead of where it has been for a little while now. I don't disagree that Parling's stats in terms of input to the game are very good. He works hard around the park.

The probelm in a nutshell is this: Joe Launchbury is exactly the same. Massive input in terms of tackles, rucking etc... So is Tom Wood, so is Chris Robshaw so is Dan Cole etc.. etc... The balance of the pack as a whole is all skewed in favour of high work rate, tackle count/rucking. What we lack is impact. You need players who have a lower work rate but higher impact in terms of carrying, hard stopping defence and physicality.

Getting that blend is important but none of the above players make good hard yards going forward or stop aggressively in defence. The question is who is sacrificed in favour of balancing the pack.

by fa0019 Thu 24 Oct 2013, 4:11 pm

I'm not a coach nor a lineout specialist but

by almost all accounts both the general public (me, you etc) and people in the media state that Parling is there for the lineout and he's a lineout specialist. I acknowledge he plays better then people take him credit for in the loose... yet he never seems to be as prolific as Lawes, Launchbury etc.

So if you have a specialist who just happens also to run the worst lineout in a given tournament (as in worst retention rate of own ball)... then why is he continually picked?

The lions for instance.... Hamilton is a 10 times better lineout operator and a beast to boot. Not only does Scotland retain their own ball well, Hamilton is known for his stealing prowess (something England don't do often). Yet Parling got chosen... stated for his lineout.

Perhaps he does things that we can't see, I agree.... but lineouts, scrums etc are pretty basic when it comes to stats.... the best are the ones that can near guarantee getting their own ball and mess up the oppositions.

The issue is which I think is the reason why he is continually picked is that there are no other middle jumpers bar Borthwick in contention. Parling was first capped aged 29... it seems that rather than being the best out there by talent its more of a case of him being the best of a poor bunch as people have retired and there being no youngster around who looks the business.

Would he have got in the squad 5 years ago?

Lineouts are very technical though Teams have something like 30+ calls now and it seems to run a lineout takes years of experience.

by beshocked Thu 24 Oct 2013, 4:21 pm

sirtidychris Wouldn't go as far as to say Parling is one of the best lineout men in the world. Not even in the best in the AP. Not even the best at his own club either.

fa0019 for all Croft's supposed lineout dominance I have never really seen it at international level. Tigers don't have the best lineout in the AP either. It's up there but not the best.

by Chjw131 Thu 24 Oct 2013, 4:32 pm

Parling played pretty well for Falcons for several seasons before being taken on by Tigers. His line-out at club level has been good and judging him on one tournament with a developing hooker is not a true reflection of his full ability.

Having said that it's a case of do or die now. Attwood has turned himself into a line-out leader and if he can run it as well as Parling then he offers a better blend in the pack. If Parling can run a world-class line-out this series his place is cemented.

Hartley over Youngs is not a good call. Yes he's a bigger player but Youngs is by far the better carrier. I've seen him throw one skew line-out this season so far. He doesn't need a monster pack to make up for his short-fall in weight that's a misnomer.

Hartley is a good bench option. He's good in the set-piece and brings an edge but his carrying has been well below par for as long as I can remember. In terms of technique the two are complete diametric opposites. Youngs accelerates into contact, using his height to his advantage much in the style of a cannon ball. Hartley slows when going into contact, dropping his shoulder to the side and doesn't make many hard yards.

by BamBam Thu 24 Oct 2013, 4:54 pm

Very much agree on Youngs, he is a very good carrier, strong tackler and excellent rucker. His height worries me slightly in the scrum, but his lineout looks to be improving so he is definite starting hooker for me

by Triangulation Thu 24 Oct 2013, 5:28 pm

Re Youngs v Hartley

Chjw is right.

Fa0019

what is it with you saffas and your obsession with size. you are the second saffa who has commented that youngs is "too small" the other is a mate of mine.

by thomh Thu 24 Oct 2013, 6:05 pm

Quote from Andy Farrell in that Lions Raw selection meeting preview:

"The best part of Tom [Youngs]'s game, yeh he's got the carrying and the work rate, is his rucking. He just f***ing annihilates people."

In the game against New Zealand the key factor in the first half, that led to the second half dominance in my opinion, was that players like Youngs, Launchbury, Robshaw and Wood were hitting rucks with such high intensity. Given that none of our back row are of the Tipuric/Cane/Hooper fast, tracking type, I'd say that Youngs' speed and rucking would be more valuable in attack than the extra ballast Hartley has.

by Sponsored content