England vs Australia player ratings and changes for Argentina game

First topic message reminder :

So a scrappy game all round thinking back on it with the two full backs on show both being given plenty of work and probably the two players coming out of the game with enhanced reputations as a result. Below are my take on the individual performances during the game with the all round low scores indicative of what I felt wasn't a particularly fluid game at any stage.

England

1.M Vunipola - 6.5 - Carried and scrummaged well throughout
2.T Youngs - 5.5 - Struggled at the line-out but lively as ever in the loose
3.Cole - 6
4.Launchberry - 6
5.Lawes - 6
6.Wood - 7
7.Robshaw - 7
8.B Vunipola - 7.5 - Strong carrying throughout and a much needed source of gain line running

9.Dickson - 5 - EDIT - Lowered from 6 to 5 having viewed the game again this morning, poor distribution and decision making given what he was brought into the side to do
10.Farrell - 5.5 - Struggled to get the backline running for much of the game and struggled from the tee but took his try well and organised the in field defence well for the majority

11.Yarde - 6 - Fiesty if underused in attack
12.Twelvetrees - 4.5 - A poor game from the young man but he is extremely talented and will grow into the role if given time
13.Tomkins - 5 - Struggled to impose himself on the game but wasn't helped by the backs around him
14.Ashton - 4 - Offered little in attack and caught out of position frequently in defence
15.Brown - 8 - Marshaled the game from the back extremely well and offered rare attacking sparks for England

16.Hartley 17.Marler 18.Wilson 19.Attwood - 6.5 - All three offered solidity at set piece and showed good energy in loose
20.Morgan - 6 - Looked to do a lot with little of it working for him, no real errors though
21.B Youngs - 7 - Looked lively and injected some much needed pace into the game
22.Flood - 6 - Came on out of position and got little chance to show what he can offer

Australia

1.Slipper - 5 - Really struggled in the scrum at times and failed to impose himself in the loose
2.Moore - 6 - Good in the line-out and solid in the loose put part of a front row that struggled at scrum time
3.Alexander - 5.5 - Dealt with the scrum better than his counterpart but still struggled at times
4.Timani - 6
5.Horwill - 7.5 - Ran the line-out extremely well and solid in the loose
6.Fardy - 6
7.Hooper - 6.5
8.Mowen - 6 - Part of a back row that made few errors but didn't shine as we've come to expect the Australian loose forwards to do

9.Genia - 5 - A poor game from the SH with some basic handling and kicking errors throughout
10.Cooper - 6.5 - A mixture of good and bad as you so often get from Quade but offered an attacking spark that England sorely missed

11.Cummins - 6 - Some good work but also a few basic errors
12.Toomua - 7 - Offered a controlling influence in a backline that had poor ball to work with for much of the match
13.Kuridrani - 7.5 - Looked dangerous throughout but needed to be given more opportunity to shine
14.Ashley-Cooper - 6.5 - Solid in defence but got little ball in attack
15.Folau - 8 - Looked dangerous whenever he got the ball throughout

Other than Douglas who I thought added some more aggression the Aus forwards in the loose and White who added some much needed structure to their play I felt the bench made little impact on the game.

Until tom youngs can throw straight and accurate 19/20 then his round the field play is irrelevant. His mis throws destroyed England any chance of any genuine front foot ball in the AUS half and often gave AUS the territorial advantage.

See what happened when Hartley came on... The side was so more assured and started to go through their attacking play book.... Just by regular lineout conversions.

NZ have a very strong lineout and scrum too, youngs will get battered if he faces them. It also doesn't help that lawes is a new by at this level... Best put his club hooker with him to give him assurances. It all makes sense.

Jhamer25 wrote:Your Scrums were stronger than I expected I must be honest. Think there were some harsh calls against the aussies somtimes but mako done a job and thats all u want of a prop. However when wilson cam on u went from nudging them at the scrum to completely destroying them. Why isn't he you first choice? Better scrummager than Cole by far in ky eyes.
your pack were brilliant really their pressure at the rucks were immense. The sooner barett and tuilagi are back the better, both centers were aweful and yet again ashton was a waist of space; three missed tackles i counted. Youngs, robshaw, mike and launchbery were all really good though. Some luck may I say but the deserved winners

Wilson is a better scrummager but Cole is good enough and the rest of his play is better. He gets a remarkable number of turnovers for a prop.

1.) Great win at home
2) Aussies were awfull -England backs were awfull
3) Great scrum- argies dont have the Figallo beast so no worries for me
4) Awful lineout- almost entirely youngs fault hartley in...then lets judge lawes
5) Farrell/twelvetrees = shocker, 1 more chance against argies then changes
6) Tompkins due to inept 10/12 he gets another go to see what happens when he actually gets the ball, !!
7)Arise Sir mike brown of twickenham.
8) Youngs for Dickson...simply offers more, so does Care TBH
9) B Vunipola is a unit...if we can actually create some bloomin space then give him the ball we have a superstar !!!
10) Yarde looks the real deal when his youthfull jitters calm, Ashton gets 1 more go then Foden or Wade....anyone see Wades try against gloucester !

Sirtidychris, your backs were awful because your forwards didn't manage to gain any momentum.

They were stationary when recieving ball and I can't remember the forwards managing to run onto the ball with any pace, that meant they couldn't gain front foot ball, so the English backs were never on the front foot and the Australian defence was not stretched.

The forced offloads and passes going to the ground was a direct result of that pressure.

I think you have a point but not sure i'd entirely agree Biltong, I saw the Vunipola bros and youngs make some inroads and id say we beat the aussies at the breakdown (without an apparent proper openside !!). Once we win the ball at the breakdown its up to the 9/10/12 to do something with it, obviously if the ball is slow then forcing back moves is not on but likewise the 9 should be trying to attack round the fringes or get it away quickly (setting a quick tempo, screaming at his forwards) and the 10/12 should be looking to get the bigs boys charging at space off their shoulders to make some dents...before whipping out wide.  All I saw was farrell standing deeper than Johnny wilkinson, kicking the leather off the ball or passing behind the man next to him with an orrible loopy, fumbly pass (i shudder just picturing them again), i didn't see ashton or tompkins with any ball !!! and was dickson on the pitch ? Youngs made more of an impression  and added more tempo in 15 minutes than Dickson did in 65.  For me the pack (bar the lineout) were fine verging on good, the problem was 9/10/12.      

I Guess its two ways of looking at the same problem..getting england to create bloomin space !

Billtong raises a valid point, I was screening at the screen most of the game.

Every time our forwards received the ball it was was from a standing start, I don't understand it.

Ball goes into a ruck, ball becomes available to the scrum half and the carrier times a run to receive the ball at some kind of pace. It's schoolboy basics.

sirtidychris wrote:I think you have a point but not sure i'd entirely agree Biltong, I saw the Vunipola bros and youngs make some inroads and id say we beat the aussies at the breakdown (without an apparent proper openside !!). Once we win the ball at the breakdown its up to the 9/10/12 to do something with it, obviously if the ball is slow then forcing back moves is not on but likewise the 9 should be trying to attack round the fringes or get it away quickly (setting a quick tempo, screaming at his forwards) and the 10/12 should be looking to get the bigs boys charging at space off their shoulders to make some dents...before whipping out wide.  All I saw was farrell standing deeper than Johnny wilkinson, kicking the leather off the ball or passing behind the man next to him with an orrible loopy, fumbly pass (i shudder just picturing them again), i didn't see ashton or tompkins with any ball !!! and was dickson on the pitch ? Youngs made more of an impression  and added more tempo in 15 minutes than Dickson did in 65.  For me the pack (bar the lineout) were fine verging on good, the problem was 9/10/12.      

I Guess its two ways of looking at the same problem..getting england to create bloomin space !

Yes, you did win the breakdowns and the collisions, but winning that area you should have had the momentum as well, and that didn't happen.

Compare your momentum against the Boks in June last year and the All Blacks in November last year to this game, no comparison.

For me, B. Youngs in for Dickson - Think Dickson played poorly and didn't offer the tempo he was brought in for. Some of his supposed better passing was head height most off the time and kicking was poor. Farrells game seemed to improve when Youngs came on too.

Hartley in for T. Youngs - Hartley certainly improved the line out when coming on, not sure if this was because he was working with his club mate Lawes who was calling the line out. Will be interesting to see what happens if Parling comes back in to call the line out.

Ashton's defence wasn't as bad as mentioned above other than his mistake which led to Australia's try. I think we should stick with him.

I think most of them same team should be running out again, give the new combinations (and theres a lot of them) a chance to gel.

Its always a thin line between giving new players a run seeing how they go and also trying to get results.

Quick question for those English fans who care to answer.

Last season we (Wales) lost all our AI games in a disastrous 4 week period but then turned it round and won the 6 Nations, now whilst I hope we do better this November as I firmly believe winning breeds success etc etc I would be happy if we lost but won the 6 Nations again.

SO would you guys sacrifice a poor remaining AI series (and would you have if lost yesterday) if it meant success in the 6 Nations?

To be honest I was expecting England to win yesterday, the only surprise was the scoreline, I thought England would have won by a lot more, and bar a few handling errors and some silly decision making it probably could have been. The thing is, I always expect England to win against the big three, they always seem to have their number, it's when you play us lot in the six nations where you seem to struggle, and I do not think it is an ability thing, I just do not think England show as much passion in the "home" games as Wales, Ireland or Scotland do. 

LD,

I agree and whilst I am sure the players and coaches don't have the 'as long as we beat the English' mentality I know some of the fans do.

I also thought England would win but then again an Aussie victory wouldn't have surprised me either, I think we all admit that SA and NZ are in a different league at the moment and more of a 'benchmark' as to where teams are.

I was listening on radio yesterday and read various reports that the attitude was quite subdued for lot of the game yesterday, was this the case?

[quote="bedfordwelsh"]LD,

I agree and whilst I am sure the players and coaches don't have the 'as long as we beat the English' mentality I know some of the fans do.

I also thought England would win but then again an Aussie victory wouldn't have surprised me either, I think we all admit that SA and NZ are in a different league at the moment and more of a 'benchmark' as to where teams are.

I was listening on radio yesterday and read various reports that the attitude was quite subdued for lot of the game yesterday, was this the case?[/quote]

Yes, England were a little conservative especailly in the first half, but in the second half the Enlglish just bullied the Aussies out of the game, it was nice to here renditions of swing low being sung on a few occasions as well, you just do not here the crowd like that in the six nations, they must all be to nervous when it come's to playing against there neighbours.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Its always a thin line between giving new players a run seeing how they go and also trying to get results.

Quick question for those English fans who care to answer.

Last season we (Wales) lost all our AI games in a disastrous 4 week period but then turned it round and won the 6 Nations, now whilst I hope we do better this November as I firmly believe winning breeds success etc etc I would be happy if we lost but won the 6 Nations again.

SO would you guys sacrifice a poor remaining AI series (and would you have if lost yesterday) if it meant success in the 6 Nations?

I believe you always need to be looking to beat the best & right now that is the SH teams. So I would be more than happy beating those teams & narrowly losing the 6Ns again.

Wales surely need to step up & prove to themselves & the world that they are more than just capable of beating the home nations?

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Its always a thin line between giving new players a run seeing how they go and also trying to get results.

Quick question for those English fans who care to answer.

Last season we (Wales) lost all our AI games in a disastrous 4 week period but then turned it round and won the 6 Nations, now whilst I hope we do better this November as I firmly believe winning breeds success etc etc I would be happy if we lost but won the 6 Nations again.

SO would you guys sacrifice a poor remaining AI series (and would you have if lost yesterday) if it meant success in the 6 Nations?

I believe you always need to be looking to beat the best & right now that is the SH teams. So I would be more than happy beating those teams & narrowly losing the 6Ns again.

Wales surely need to step up & prove to themselves & the world that they are more than just capable of beating the home nations?

 
I agree. I think Wales at home should have no reason to not beat any of the SH sides, if we took the same attitude from the six nations into the AI then there is no reason at all why we should not win all 4 games.

I'd be extremely surprised if Wales beat any of the bigger SH teams.

Tom Youngs seems to be getting a lot of flak for three lineouts that England lost. The first hit Vunipola at the back but was dropped, the second saw the arm of the England jumper pulled as Lawes got out muscled in the air and the third was an ugly over throw. So three missed lineouts with one being the fault of Youngs. Considering Parling will return next week and we will gain a better jumper and a defensive lineout I fail to see the need to panic.

The Dickson, Farrell, Twelvetrees combo did not work and Wood had a pretty poor game. Give Wood another game bring in our two returning Lions Corbs and Parling. In the backs well I don't know, either Eastmond needs to come in for Twelvetrees or Benny comes in for Dickson. We need more creation and there's no way they'll drop Farrell for Flood or Burns.

There's no defence for Youngs Sam, I rate him but he was back to his old self yesterday. You can't throw that badly on the Int stage.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:There's no defence for Youngs Sam, I rate him but he was back to his old self yesterday. You can't throw that badly on the Int stage.

but thats the thing, he didn't throw that badly. there was only 1 called not straight wasn't there?

The lineout certainly improved when hartley came on but that was likely because he was then playing with his club mates. lawes, wood etc.

[quote="LordDowlais"]

bedfordwelsh wrote:LD,

I agree and whilst I am sure the players and coaches don't have the 'as long as we beat the English' mentality I know some of the fans do.

I also thought England would win but then again an Aussie victory wouldn't have surprised me either, I think we all admit that SA and NZ are in a different league at the moment and more of a 'benchmark' as to where teams are.

I was listening on radio yesterday and read various reports that the attitude was quite subdued for lot of the game yesterday, was this the case?

e]

[b]Yes, England were a little conservative especailly in the first half, but in the second half the Enlglish just bullied the Aussies out of the game, it was nice to here renditions of swing low being sung on a few occasions as well, you just do not here the crowd like that in the six nations, they must all be to nervous when it come's to playing against there neighbours.

 
 
Yes it was a nervy quiet place in the first half wasn't it - eerie almost - or was that my nerves projecting ? Things improved in the second half however and I agree that it was nice to hear some singing, passion and atmosphere.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Tom Youngs seems to be getting a lot of flak for three lineouts that England lost. The first hit Vunipola at the back but was dropped, the second saw the arm of the England jumper pulled as Lawes got out muscled in the air and the third was an ugly over throw. So three missed lineouts with one being the fault of Youngs. Considering Parling will return next week and we will gain a better jumper and a defensive lineout I fail to see the need to panic.

The Dickson, Farrell, Twelvetrees combo did not work and Wood had a pretty poor game. Give Wood another game bring in our two returning Lions Corbs and Parling. In the backs well I don't know, either Eastmond needs to come in for Twelvetrees or Benny comes in for Dickson. We need more creation and there's no way they'll drop Farrell for Flood or Burns.

Almost none of his throws were tidy, a few of them should have been given not straight. The one to Vunipola was dropped because of it's lack of accuracy. The one to Lawes was dragging him right over to the Australian side and not at the right height, which was why the Aussies were able to attack it. He can throw more accuarately than that, which is why it was so disappointing, consistency seems a real issue for him. The timing seems OK, just occasionaly questionable on his release for height, angle and turn.

Sam, Should Parling come straight back in? Im not so sure..

"SO would you guys sacrifice a poor remaining AI series (and would you have if lost yesterday) if it meant success in the 6 Nations?"

Nooooo. Beating the SH sides is the defining pinacle in world rugby. Until you can do that you have no chance whatsoever of winning a RWC. How on earth can beating Italy be better than beating NZ? (I don't mean any disrespect to Italy/Italians per se but their position in world rugby means they should be much easier to beat).

Changes for Argentina.

1. Corbs in for Mako who drops to the bench.
2. Hartley in for T.Youngs. Webber on the bench.
5. Parling in for Lawes who drops to the bench.
12. Burrell in for Twelvetrees. Burrell deserves a go on recent AP form. Spotted over a year ago. https://www.606v2.com/t34920-luther-burrell-saints-outside-centre
14 Wade in for Ashton. Wade is a missile and much better defender.

Yarde looked like a new boy on his first day at school but clearly has got oodles of talent. Give him a couple of chances to get better. He'll have to shape up quickly if he is to play in the NZ game for fear of looking like another Ashton.

The rest I would keep.

Niwatts, the throw to Vunipola hits the palms of his hands. The missed lineout was because the Aussie pulled the arm in the air. Atop listening to Stuart Barnes and watch it again.

Geordie, we can't continue without a defensive lineout. You cannot give the likes of Wales, NZ and the Boks unchallenged lineout ball for 80 mins. If not Parling then a lineout lock is required.

Youngs always looks a bit awkward when preparing to throw in. He's very broad across the chest for his height and doesn't have the longest arms, which doesn't make for the most fluid thowing action over the top of his head. Hookers with a longer, smoother action tend to have better control though their motion.

I've watched the match twice, both times without Sky's commentary.  You are incorrect.  You're letting your Tigers bias show through I'm afraid.

Youngs overthew a couple then a really ugly not straight one. I dont think we can judge Lawes on anything we saw yesterday, personally i would't drop lawes as the hartley-lawes combo could be good. Difficult whether to bring Parling in or not, the lineout seemed to work well when hartley came on and i'd prefer the grunt of attwood or the athletism of Lunchbox to parling's leadership mmmm probably attwood lawes for me with lunchbox off the bench.

I'm happy to keep going with the Lawes & Launchbury pairing, I thought they gave a good energy & pace around the tackle & breakdown areas. The lineout was more than effective when Hartley came on and Lawes can be very effective in a defensive lineout capacity, he did a great job stealing 3 lineouts in Castres against a side that contained Richie Gray.

Youngs thowing was definitely sketchy yesterday, even when he did find his man. None of them were pinpoint. We need to have implicit trust in our lineout and the ability to accurately hit front or back and get good off the top ball, it's too critical an aspect of our game and unfortunately Youngs has just been too hit and miss so far, with and without Parling (who tends to shy away from back ball internationally with Youngs). I think he is best used from the bench as impact until he's able to solidify that aspect of his game.

timhen wrote:

mbernz wrote:There's a fair bit of nonsense in your post Hood.  An attempt at trying to prove yourself right by misrepresentation.

I'm a big fan of Twelvetrees, but to try and blame his disappointing performance on anyone but himself is just shoddy analysis and devalues your opinion.

He is one of a few players that was underwhelming today, but shouldn't be discarded after one poor/average performance.  Though given it was the more concerning area I would tend to having a 12/13 centre option on the bench like Burrell or Eastmond rather than a FB/wing like Foden, with an eye to bringing them on early if there is similar underperformance against Argentina.

I agree, 36's lacklustre shift was purely down to him, not those around him.  He hasn't been in top from this season.  I'd stick with him for the next match, but on current from Burrell is pushing him hard.  The thing is if he doesn't go well next week it's a bit late to drop someone new in for NZ.  Fingers crossed he finds some of his previous seasons' from.

To both. Fair points re his performance yesterday, certainly his mis-tackle was his fault alone. But I'm not sure he received much ball without having the Oz line up very fast, nor did he have Tomkins running on to the ball at pace more than a yard away from him.

I'm afraid you're going to get exactly the same with Burrell and quite possibly a lot less. If we want to smash it up at 12, that's fine, but his distribution is still some way away from international level.

mbenz - OK, tell me this, how did you rate Dickson and Tomkins? Based on their performances in isolation. My general point was that these players aren't good enough for this level, my secondary point was this has a wider negative effect on other players having to react to their dross. Perhaps the latter point was overstated, but do you disagree with the former?

I can't see Lancaster dropping Twelvetrees for next week. They've invested a lot of time in him, he has the talent to nail the shirt for a number of years if he hits form, and Lancaster spoke last week about this being Twelvetrees' big chance to deliver at this level.

Think the initial ratings were harsh on the pack who, a few dodgy lineouts aside, were completely on top of the Australian one in the scrum, maul and breakdown. Dickson didn't kick brilliantly, and didn't get the ball away from the breakdown as quickly as everyone was expecting I don't think. A few times the Australian back row got to him before he'd got it away.

I would stick with Vunipola for next week and then bring Corbisiero in for the New Zealand game, just to get him the extra start. It might also be worth giving Attwood a start over Launchbury, and Wilson probably deserves one too.

Wilson in for Cole
Attwood in for Launchbury
Youngs in for Dickson
Wade in for Ashton

...with the first one probably being reversed for the All Blacks.

After I have been bigging him up so much, I'm glad Mike played reasonably well

Biltong wrote:Sirtidychris, your backs were awful because your forwards didn't manage to gain any momentum.

They were stationary when recieving ball and I can't remember the forwards managing to run onto the ball with any pace, that meant they couldn't gain front foot ball, so the English backs were never on the front foot and the Australian defence was not stretched.

The forced offloads and passes going to the ground was a direct result of that pressure.

This is true. The Aussie forwards carried from a run up or in packs of 3, we didn't and only the Vunipolae can really get away with that regularly

I think people need to remember that Twelvetrees has a man of the match performance in his mere four starts before calling to drop him after one poor game! If you look at the guys we've had at IC pretty much since Greenwood retired in Tindall, Flutey, Hape, Erinle, Barritt, etc 36 has the talent to offer a much better all round game than any of them and still has so much time left to improve. One poor performance doesn't make a bad player. Just look at how far Tom Youngs has come with some perseverance.

If we're looking at guys who should be struggling for a place Ashton has to be the one people should be screaming about as he hasn't been in good form for almost 18 months now and his all round game is badly lacking at Int level. His defence, handling, passing, kicking and playmaking ability are all poor and with a guy like Wade waiting in the wings that's the one area I'm now really dispirited by Lancs selection.

On a different note are we sure Corbs is going to be fit and ready to play this weekend?

His return would add an interesting slant on the front row options given that Mako played well with Wilson also making a really strong impact when he came on.

splenetic wrote:

Jhamer25 wrote:And you woukd hugehandoff. I mean corbs and Wilson woukd be an solid scrum. Bath by far have the best scrum in the premiership with paul james amd wilson at the helm. Really under rated play.
If cole is up against ayerza or even worse mako up against figallo, then u will be exposed. Ayerza is one of the best scrummagers in world rugby, both tactically and uses his pure strength. Same as figallo. If Corbs is back then great I think he is capable of stabilising figallo for u. But if dan starts ayerza will go to town on him.

Bath don't have a standout record so far this season, 10 lost scrums to 40 won in 7 matches (Exeter by comparison have lost 4 and won 54 in 7 matches). James was one of the most penalised props in the premiership last season, 27 in 19 matches (Mako by comparison conceded 13 in 17).

Yes ok your stats might be correct but they aren't really relevant to what I mean. They might have lost 10 scrums but that doesn't mean that Paul or Wilson were at the helm when those scrums were lost. I mean you have Perenise as well who isn't the strongest scrummager and a lot others. I mean when Bath have Paul and Wilson there they make the strongest scrum in the Premiership. The Saracens scrum would ave no chance in hell with Mako and Stevens (they have two great scrummagers and player in Johnstone and Gill but choose the weaker instead  ), the only team who would compete with Bath really is Leicester.

Hood83 wrote:

timhen wrote:

mbernz wrote:There's a fair bit of nonsense in your post Hood.  An attempt at trying to prove yourself right by misrepresentation.

I'm a big fan of Twelvetrees, but to try and blame his disappointing performance on anyone but himself is just shoddy analysis and devalues your opinion.

He is one of a few players that was underwhelming today, but shouldn't be discarded after one poor/average performance.  Though given it was the more concerning area I would tend to having a 12/13 centre option on the bench like Burrell or Eastmond rather than a FB/wing like Foden, with an eye to bringing them on early if there is similar underperformance against Argentina.

I agree, 36's lacklustre shift was purely down to him, not those around him.  He hasn't been in top from this season.  I'd stick with him for the next match, but on current from Burrell is pushing him hard.  The thing is if he doesn't go well next week it's a bit late to drop someone new in for NZ.  Fingers crossed he finds some of his previous seasons' from.

To both. Fair points re his performance yesterday, certainly his mis-tackle was his fault alone. But I'm not sure he received much ball without having the Oz line up very fast, nor did he have Tomkins running on to the ball at pace more than a yard away from him.

I'm afraid you're going to get exactly the same with Burrell and quite possibly a lot less. If we want to smash it up at 12, that's fine, but his distribution is still some way away from international level.

mbenz - OK, tell me this, how did you rate Dickson and Tomkins? Based on their performances in isolation. My general point was that these players aren't good enough for this level, my secondary point was this has a wider negative effect on other players having to react to their dross. Perhaps the latter point was overstated, but do you disagree with the former?

Average at best, similar to Twelvetrees.  Though of the three I'd probably say Tomkins did the least wrong and was most dependent on the players inside him to show anything noteworthy.

You seem to be willing to give Twelvetrees a free pass but write-off the other two based more on preconceptions rather than their match performance.

Dickson certainly isn't our best SH, though he probably is our third.  I would have started Care, but understand why Lancaster gave Dickson an opportunity given his recent club form and the others' by comparison.

Tomkins, as with anyone else in the 13 shirt is just keeping it warm until Tuilagi is back.  Again he wouldn't have been my selection (I would have chanced an arm on Twelvetrees & Burrell), but I have seen enough from him in the past to suggest he can do a job at this level.  Before his injury at the end of last season, based on his Premiership performances he was a deserving candidate to go to Argentina in the summer.  I certainly wouldn't write him off given the new look side and that it was his debut (not a similar excuse for Dickson or Twelvetrees).

The other options for the 13 shirt would be Trinder who started the season well but hadn't played for a month prior to yesterday and doesn't look notably more an international.  Eastmond, who I think needs to concentrate on 12 but would be happy to see on the bench as general centre and wing cover.  Burrell who is more of a 12 these days, but has played plenty of 13 in the past and whose distribution has come on leaps and bounds at Saints (not as good as Twelvetrees at his best, but similar to his current form).  Joseph, who is still a fair bit off the form of a couple of seasons back.  Daly, who I wanted to go to Argentina as a 13 but is unfortunately playing 15 for his club (he also seemed to struggle a bit with the step up when playing for the Barbarians at 13, though I still consider him one for the future).


The point of my original post was that Twelvetrees is as responsible for his performance as the others and shouldn't receive a different level of criticism because he is a personal favourite (he's been a favourite of mine as well, I've been calling for his inclusion for years).  Once a player has been selected they should be given a decent crack of the whip, a high number of good international players take a few matches to find their feet, particularly when part of a large number of changes to a side.

We saw the difference Ben Youngs made from the bench, so he should start next week, but even though I wanted Care to start against Australia I'd still give Dickson one more opportunity from the bench to show if he has something to offer in the future.  For the centres we didn't have the luxury of seeing an alternative from the bench (unless you consider Flood's arrival that), so the centres who hadn't played a match together before should get another opportunity outside Youngs and what should be a more settled new pack combination.  As I said, I would want an alternative centre option on the bench though, and we shouldn't shy away from replacing either starting centre if they are having another unimpressive game or not showing some signs of improvement.

Jhamer25 wrote:

splenetic wrote:

Jhamer25 wrote:And you woukd hugehandoff. I mean corbs and Wilson woukd be an solid scrum. Bath by far have the best scrum in the premiership with paul james amd wilson at the helm. Really under rated play.
If cole is up against ayerza or even worse mako up against figallo, then u will be exposed. Ayerza is one of the best scrummagers in world rugby, both tactically and uses his pure strength. Same as figallo. If Corbs is back then great I think he is capable of stabilising figallo for u. But if dan starts ayerza will go to town on him.

Bath don't have a standout record so far this season, 10 lost scrums to 40 won in 7 matches (Exeter by comparison have lost 4 and won 54 in 7 matches). James was one of the most penalised props in the premiership last season, 27 in 19 matches (Mako by comparison conceded 13 in 17).

Yes ok your stats might be correct but they aren't really relevant to what I mean. They might have lost 10 scrums but that doesn't mean that Paul or Wilson were at the helm when those scrums were lost. I mean you have Perenise as well who isn't the strongest scrummager and a lot others. I mean when Bath have Paul and Wilson there they make the strongest scrum in the Premiership. The Saracens scrum would ave no chance in hell  with Mako and Stevens (they have two great scrummagers and player in Johnstone and Gill but choose the weaker instead  ), the only team who would compete with Bath really is Leicester.

It would seem that you don't watch much Premiership rugby given a few of your statements.

Not sure how you think James being penalised twice as often as Vunipola over a similar number of games isn't relevant. As further comparison Perenise more similar to Vunipola was only penalised 11 times in 19 matches, whereas James Johnston was penalised 38 times in 22 matches, the only prop with a worst record than James last season.

splenetic wrote:

Jhamer25 wrote:

splenetic wrote:

Jhamer25 wrote:And you woukd hugehandoff. I mean corbs and Wilson woukd be an solid scrum. Bath by far have the best scrum in the premiership with paul james amd wilson at the helm. Really under rated play.
If cole is up against ayerza or even worse mako up against figallo, then u will be exposed. Ayerza is one of the best scrummagers in world rugby, both tactically and uses his pure strength. Same as figallo. If Corbs is back then great I think he is capable of stabilising figallo for u. But if dan starts ayerza will go to town on him.

Bath don't have a standout record so far this season, 10 lost scrums to 40 won in 7 matches (Exeter by comparison have lost 4 and won 54 in 7 matches). James was one of the most penalised props in the premiership last season, 27 in 19 matches (Mako by comparison conceded 13 in 17).

Yes ok your stats might be correct but they aren't really relevant to what I mean. They might have lost 10 scrums but that doesn't mean that Paul or Wilson were at the helm when those scrums were lost. I mean you have Perenise as well who isn't the strongest scrummager and a lot others. I mean when Bath have Paul and Wilson there they make the strongest scrum in the Premiership. The Saracens scrum would ave no chance in hell  with Mako and Stevens (they have two great scrummagers and player in Johnstone and Gill but choose the weaker instead  ), the only team who would compete with Bath really is Leicester.

It would seem that you don't watch much Premiership rugby given a few of your statements.

Not sure how you think James being penalised twice as often as Vunipola over a similar number of games isn't relevant.  As further comparison Perenise more similar to Vunipola was only penalised 11 times in 19 matches, whereas James Johnston was penalised 38 times in 22 matches, the only prop with a worst record than James last season.

Jhamer is Welsh - hence James is great (instead of just very good)

king_carlos wrote:On a different note are we sure Corbs is going to be fit and ready to play this weekend?

His return would add an interesting slant on the front row options given that Mako played well with Wilson also making a really strong impact when he came on.

Corbs is a great scrummager but I think Mako is good enough under the new scrum rules. He offers a lot more outside of the scrum. I suspect that Corns could be on the bench with Marler dropped. The great thing is that England have three decent loose heads.

Why rush corbs back? We know what he is.capable of and with his injury issues we need Marler and Mako to get as much gametime under their belts as possible.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Why rush corbs back? We know what he is.capable of and with his injury issues we need Marler and Mako to get as much gametime under their belts as possible.

+1

The man is a propping star, but he's also a walking sick-note. Wrap him in cotton-wool til we really need him.

splenetic wrote:

Jhamer25 wrote:

splenetic wrote:

Jhamer25 wrote:And you woukd hugehandoff. I mean corbs and Wilson woukd be an solid scrum. Bath by far have the best scrum in the premiership with paul james amd wilson at the helm. Really under rated play.
If cole is up against ayerza or even worse mako up against figallo, then u will be exposed. Ayerza is one of the best scrummagers in world rugby, both tactically and uses his pure strength. Same as figallo. If Corbs is back then great I think he is capable of stabilising figallo for u. But if dan starts ayerza will go to town on him.

Bath don't have a standout record so far this season, 10 lost scrums to 40 won in 7 matches (Exeter by comparison have lost 4 and won 54 in 7 matches). James was one of the most penalised props in the premiership last season, 27 in 19 matches (Mako by comparison conceded 13 in 17).

Yes ok your stats might be correct but they aren't really relevant to what I mean. They might have lost 10 scrums but that doesn't mean that Paul or Wilson were at the helm when those scrums were lost. I mean you have Perenise as well who isn't the strongest scrummager and a lot others. I mean when Bath have Paul and Wilson there they make the strongest scrum in the Premiership. The Saracens scrum would ave no chance in hell  with Mako and Stevens (they have two great scrummagers and player in Johnstone and Gill but choose the weaker instead  ), the only team who would compete with Bath really is Leicester.

It would seem that you don't watch much Premiership rugby given a few of your statements.

Not sure how you think James being penalised twice as often as Vunipola over a similar number of games isn't relevant.  As further comparison Perenise more similar to Vunipola was only penalised 11 times in 19 matches, whereas James Johnston was penalised 38 times in 22 matches, the only prop with a worst record than James last season.

Ok mate whatever.
I hope to see Mako up against the likes of Wilson and Johnston and see how he goes; then we will see how relevant and important you stats are ok. Also 38 times in 22 matches seems a bit far fetched, was that all at scrum time or are you over exaggerating a bit.

Also

Jhamer is Welsh - hence James is great (instead of just very good)

If you knew me of have ever read my recent posts you would know that i'm not a massive fan of Paul, i would have a number of English loosheads (believe it or not) ahead of him. The fact is Wilson is one of the best tigheheads in the premiership (but no a one eyed welshman couldn't think that could he).
Paul James isn't the best scrummager in the premiership but he is a descent scummager, best in the premiership = NO,  but he can do a good job and compliments Wilson well.
However you seem like a know it all so i'm just wasting my time. Also can you place show me where i said Paul James was GREAT (as you said I did).

ANyway all i meant from my post was that Wislon was better than Cole and somoehow you lot turned it to me being biased to Paul James, well done  folks