France v England - Paris - 01/02/2014

First topic message reminder :

French XXIII

1. T Domingo 2. B Kayser 3. N Mas
4. A Flanquart 5. P Pape
6. Y Nyanga 7. B Le Roux 8. L Picamoles
9. J-M Doussin 10. J Plisson
12. W Fofana 13. M Basteraud
11. M Medard 15. B Dulin 14. Y Huget

16. D Sarzewski 17. Y Forestier 18. R Slimani 19. Y Maestri 20. A Burban 21. D Chouly 22. M Machenaud 23. G Fickou

England XXIII

1. J Marler
2. D Hartley
3. D Cole
4. J Launchbury
5. C Lawes
6. T Wood
7. C Robshaw
8. B Vunipola
9. D Care
10. O Farrell
11. J May
12. B Twelvetrees
13. L Burrell
14. J Nowell
15. M Brown

16. T Youngs 17. M Vunipola 18. H Thomas 19. D Attwood 20. B Morgan 21. L Dickson 22. B Barritt 23. A Goode

rosbif wrote:On the rugby forum Sunday  Jiffy highlighted the defensive errors for the Fickou try  and blamed Barrit  for lack of organisation of the line and Goode failing to tackle ensuring a try under the post.

Goode should have been covering the winger and let his inside man cover Fickou. He didnt seem to know what to do though and in the end didnt do anything at all. It was fairly poor.

chjw131 I doubt it. Twelvetrees is one of Lancaster's favourites.

I agree Goode was a mixed bag. I am not against him being dropped but Twelvetrees should join him.

Sgt pooly no Manu should not be forced onto the wing.

gregortree wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Heaf wrote:Normally I'd agree and say you should play on to see what comes rather than take a drop goal, but to be fair England gave up an easy 3 point opportunity at the end of the 1st half through playing on and losing advantage that ultimately would have won them the match if someone had taken that instead.

England have often been criticised in the past for winning too many games by the boot, rather than playing for tries.

But in rugby, as in life, you should do what you're good at, and traditionally, England are good at keeping possession, using a monstrous forward pack to get penalties close enough to goal to take a kick for 3 points, and then closing out the game by sticking the ball up their shirts until the referee, as well as everybody else gets so bored with it that they all just want to get off the pitch and go home.

It aint pretty, but it sure can be effective.Of course, it would be nice to run in tries, entertain the crowd and win lots of plaudits for playing "champagne rugby".  We'd all like that.   But whenever three points are on offer, they should be taken, at least until the game is in the bag and a bit of wild abandon can be indulged in.   The most important tactical priority should always be to win the game first.


There are only two problems with that:

1.   It lays you wide open to accusations of being one dimensional and boring (usually by opponents who  do exactly the same thing when it suits them).

2.   If you get too far behind in a match, as England did in the first quarter on Saturday, then sometimes, the "three points at a time" philosophy can be very precarious.

'Boring' England and also the leading try scorers in 6n history.

I have no doubt that what you say is true, Gregor, but that doesn't win matches in 2014, does it.?

Yes 4th Lion, but 2014 is still young. I'm torn by the paradox. We need to try out new young backs for 2014 / 2015. We need a settled 3/4 line, to establish confidence and better understanding. These 2 considerations fight each other at the moment. We need Tui back and fit. I agree insufficient tries are happening given the possession the pack are generating. I would like to see a Tui / Burrell partnership in the centre, young wings get some more game time, and a more settled back 3. The tries will resume to the historic 6n pattern.. or so I would expect. RWC ? I'd be happy to win on just penalties if that were the only boring way to do it.

GunsGerms wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote:Interesting stats from the game, despite his poor start Nowell ended up making the most metres and was 2nd in defenders beaten (MOrgan took this) he did however turn over the ball 3 times but made 10 out of his 11 tackles.  He has been scapegoated a fair bit but if you take out those turnovers then those are some very good stats for such a young guy.  Conversely, Goode who is a more experienced player made ZERO tackles all game (missed one) and got turned over 5 times, we need to get rid of him, he clearly isn't an test standard player.

Finally someone who agrees with me re Goode!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally?

Well you definitely dont agree anyway.

I don't?

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote:Interesting stats from the game, despite his poor start Nowell ended up making the most metres and was 2nd in defenders beaten (MOrgan took this) he did however turn over the ball 3 times but made 10 out of his 11 tackles.  He has been scapegoated a fair bit but if you take out those turnovers then those are some very good stats for such a young guy.  Conversely, Goode who is a more experienced player made ZERO tackles all game (missed one) and got turned over 5 times, we need to get rid of him, he clearly isn't an test standard player.

Finally someone who agrees with me re Goode!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally?

Well you definitely dont agree anyway.

I don't?

So you agree he isnt test standard?

beshocked wrote:Munkian he's a decent club player? He's not even been playing well for his club when I have seen him.

belovedfrosties where are you getting those stats? I can't believe Morgan and Nowell beat more defenders than Billy Vunipola.

ESPN stats which are taken from the OPTA stats, they're normally very reliable. I think the reason that Vunipola didn;t beat more defenders is because he generally took them with him!

Oddly enough when SL made the call to bring Barritt on I was quite happy, i thought it meant that 36 was coming off to be replaced with a good solid defender to close out a close game, it made sense. Then i saw Nowell leaving the pitch and was baffled.

I agree that webber should be given a shot, Youngs frequently messes up a few high pressure lineouts that can cost us scoring a try and can also give away possession in key areas. It's definitely a mental thing and perhaps SL thinks that by regularly exposing him to this he can get over it.

Webber has been released back to play for his club this weekend so it looks unlikely he'll be on the bench. Watson is apparently first in line to replace May

Frankly I can see Ashton worth a recall vs Scotland- without Maitland their wings are hardly scary

Nowell had cramp apparently.

I said a few things after the game which in hindsight was wrong..i was just gutted we lost.

I wouldnt change the team (aside from injuries) and give them all a chance to get a victory.

France isnt an easy place to go to and they were up for the game aswell...so the Likes of Nowelll etc deserve praise and another chance.

Everyone played very well...and even Twelvetrees wasnt utterly horrific as has been made out. If he has another quiet one then maybe consider a change for the next game.

But Lancasters bench and substitutes are a problem...not necesarily the personnel more the timing and such. Why take care off when him and Farrell were in control. Why take Hartley and Lawes off?

belovedfrosties suppose that makes sense.

That disappoints me. It's as if Lancaster has learnt nothing.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Frankly I can see Ashton worth a recall vs Scotland- without Maitland their wings are hardly scary

They may have looked poor v Ireland...but lets not doubt Scotland too much..they're ALWAYS up for the auld enemy!!!

gregortree wrote:Nowell had cramp apparently.

So he was probably more tired than Care or Hartley then?

We lost. That hurts. However, when we had all our players on the field I thought we looked better going forward than we have done in ages.
Care-Farrell works as partnership, Farrell definitely showed more attacking intent. I think that 12Trees-Burrell could work. Worth trying again - not every partnership is going to click instantly.
Nowell went looking for work and made the yards - after a nightmare start I have to credit the lad for keeping his head up and taking the French on.
Think the game was mis-managed at the end, but the injuries cost us. Our wingers suffer an attrition rate comparable to bacardi's on a hen night in Cardiff.

at the end of the day there is a massive positive in the way he hurt France we really knocked the stuffing out of them and zapped there stamia..

It was high class rugby that game from both sides.. Not world class stuff- but very high level 6 nations stuff.

It bodes well for both teams- losing by 2 points away is effectively drawing a game..

we dont have the points and no GS is on. But hey that means no pressure anymore.

Cant wait for the Ireland and Wales games involving France and England to come.

all 4 could have a very decent WC come 2015.

I can see the NH to sh gap closing

Why do England need to try new backs out for next year?
Haven't they tried enough already?
Except for fly halves.

Meanwhile the two guys Lancaster had a raging hard on for 3 years ago to the point he deemed it appropriate to publicly criticise the then England manager for not taking to the last World Cup languish in the Saxons still... Because they apparently aren't good enough after having gained experience, only before they have.

Picking soup of the day is all very well but it's usually made of leftovers from yesterday's main course.

No England shouldnt try any more backs. We have a nice mix there now...and should just work on getting them caps experience and used to each other.

Even wings...Yarde, Wade, May, Ashton and Nowell are a nice mix offering lots.

Meanwhile the two guys Lancaster had a raging hard on for 3 years ago to the point he deemed it appropriate to publicly criticise the then England manager for not taking to the last World Cup languish in the Saxons still... Because they apparently aren't good enough after having gained experience, only before they have.

Who are you refering to Peter?

gregortree wrote:Yes 4th Lion, but 2014 is still young. I'm torn by the paradox. We need to try out new young backs for 2014 / 2015. We need a settled 3/4 line, to establish confidence and better understanding. These 2 considerations fight each other at the moment. We need Tui back and fit. I agree insufficient tries are happening given the possession the pack are generating. I would like to see a Tui / Burrell partnership in the centre, young wings get some more game time, and a more settled back 3. The tries will resume to the historic 6n pattern.. or so I would expect.  RWC ? I'd be happy to win on just penalties if that were the only boring way to do it.  

I think you and I are not a million miles apart on what we would like to see, but I'm worried that Lancaster is doing too much experimenting and not enough settling on a team.

We can all argue the merits of this player or that player, or who is the best combination here or whether this winger's hair is more nicely coiffed than anothers, but when it comes to crunch time in the world cup, we are still going to struggle to get out of the group if we're putting fifteen strangers on the pitch.

We're all putting up a case for including the players we would like to see and it makes for interesting chat, but we're losing sight of one important aspect of it all:

Rugby is a TEAM game. And teams don't happen overnight. And they are not always automatically made up of the best players. To take an example from cricket, Mike Brearley wasn't a very good batsman, but as a captain, he got the best out of Botham. Result: A lost cause in the Ashes in '81 turned into the greatest victory in the history of the game.

I'm sure you'll get my point. A team doesn't always need the most highly rated players. Just the ones that the manager can get the very best out of, and who will contribute to the team as a whole.

As I said before: Sometimes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

There will come a time when Lancaster has to say: "Right: No more messing. This is what we are going to go with." And that time has tocome significantly before the morning of the first match in RWC. You can bet your boots the Welsh and Australians will go into RWC knowing what their best team is. Count on it.

I would very much like to see Lancaster pick a XV for the next match and stick with it (barring changes forced by injuries) for the rest of the 6N then review the situation. If we win, we win. If we lose, we lose. But at least he'd have something he could either keep, fine tune or throw out wholesale.

Right now, I don't think he has the faintest clue what his best XV is. And he's a long way from finding it.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Why do England need to try new backs out for next year?
Haven't they tried enough already?
Except for fly halves.

Meanwhile the two guys Lancaster had a raging hard on for 3 years ago to the point he deemed it appropriate to publicly criticise the then England manager for not taking to the last World Cup languish in the Saxons still... Because they apparently aren't good enough after having gained experience, only before they have.

Picking soup of the day is all very well but it's usually made of leftovers from yesterday's main course.

Keep trying backs this 6 nations.. then after that stick with them for the build up to the Cup.. We have issues and this is the last time we have to choose.. Unlike other sports there are no true friendlies in this sport.. But we have to possibly approach the next few games as try outs.. BUt there is no point playing them against the lesser teams as that will tell us nothing.

The Fourth Lion wrote:Right now, I don't think he has the faintest clue what his best XV is.  And he's a long way from finding it.

For me that's the most worrying aspect. 19 games or so out from the World Cup, and how many players that are 90% sure to be starting the first game of the World Cup do England have? I would say Hartley, Launchbury, Robshaw, Brown.

Four. Out of fifteen. Maybe, if you're generous, you could extend it to Cole, Farrell and Tuilagi as well, but they do all have question marks over them.

Worrying. Still, Lancaster will hopefully learn a lot more over the coming year. In terms of overall importance, the Six Nations is stone dead last this year for England; the summer tour to New Zealand and the Autumn Internationals will reveal so much more.

Duty281 wrote:For me that's the most worrying aspect. 19 games or so out from the World Cup, and how many players that are 90% sure to be starting the first game of the World Cup do England have? I would say Hartley, Launchbury, Robshaw, Brown.

Four. Out of fifteen. Maybe, if you're generous, you could extend it to Cole, Farrell and Tuilagi as well, but they do all have question marks over them.

He has more names inked in than that.

Cole, Hartley, Corbs, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, look bolted on when fit. Add Vunipola or Morgan and that's probably how Lancaster sees his pack. If anyone else plays to challenge these players then it's a bonus.

In the backs, Tuilagi, Farrell and Brown look like first XV choices. That makes ten or eleven players who are 90% certain to start the World Cup. You can debate whether these are the right choices, but there seems little doubt Lancaster has these players pegged.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:For me that's the most worrying aspect. 19 games or so out from the World Cup, and how many players that are 90% sure to be starting the first game of the World Cup do England have? I would say Hartley, Launchbury, Robshaw, Brown.

Four. Out of fifteen. Maybe, if you're generous, you could extend it to Cole, Farrell and Tuilagi as well, but they do all have question marks over them.

He has more names inked in than that.

Cole, Hartley, Corbs, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, look bolted on when fit. Add Vunipola or Morgan and that's probably how Lancaster sees his pack. If anyone else plays to challenge these players then it's a bonus.

In the backs, Tuilagi, Farrell and Brown look like first XV choices. That makes ten or eleven players who are 90% certain to start the World Cup. You can debate whether these are the right choices, but there seems little doubt Lancaster has these players pegged.

Cole is struggling with form at present, exemplified by his poor show on Saturday.
Corbisiero is struggling with injury, and has competition from Marler and Vunipola.
Is it Lawes or Parling next to Launchbury?
Wood wasn't too good on Saturday - still time for Croft to take that place.
Vunipola or Morgan is still the question for no.8.
Tuilagi has encountered criticism recently. Ditto Farrell.

None of those players are more than 90% sure to start.

Duty281 wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:Right now, I don't think he has the faintest clue what his best XV is.  And he's a long way from finding it.

For me that's the most worrying aspect. 19 games or so out from the World Cup, and how many players that are 90% sure to be starting the first game of the World Cup do England have? I would say Hartley, Launchbury, Robshaw, Brown.

Four. Out of fifteen. Maybe, if you're generous, you could extend it to Cole, Farrell and Tuilagi as well, but they do all have question marks over them.

Worrying. Still, Lancaster will hopefully learn a lot more over the coming year. In terms of overall importance, the Six Nations is stone dead last this year for England; the summer tour to New Zealand and the Autumn Internationals will reveal so much more.

I would agree that I don't feel I know what the best XV is but I think Lancaster does, at least at present. This is what I think he'd pick for a RWC game:

1. A Corbisiero
2. D Hartley
3. D Cole
4. J Launchbury
5. C Lawes
6. T Wood
7. C Robshaw
8. B Vunipola
9. B Youngs (form permitting!)
10. O Farrell
11. M Yarde
12. B Barritt
13. M Tuilagi
14. C Wade
15. M Brown

Even though the wings have as many caps as I do I think that would be his pick. He's tried 36 in order that he may be able to pick Brown at the back but I think he'll abandon that and revert to type. A conservative plan with the faint glimmer of hope that Yarde or Wade might do something off script. But not too off script!

Duty281 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:For me that's the most worrying aspect. 19 games or so out from the World Cup, and how many players that are 90% sure to be starting the first game of the World Cup do England have? I would say Hartley, Launchbury, Robshaw, Brown.

Four. Out of fifteen. Maybe, if you're generous, you could extend it to Cole, Farrell and Tuilagi as well, but they do all have question marks over them.

He has more names inked in than that.

Cole, Hartley, Corbs, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, look bolted on when fit. Add Vunipola or Morgan and that's probably how Lancaster sees his pack. If anyone else plays to challenge these players then it's a bonus.

In the backs, Tuilagi, Farrell and Brown look like first XV choices. That makes ten or eleven players who are 90% certain to start the World Cup. You can debate whether these are the right choices, but there seems little doubt Lancaster has these players pegged.

Cole is struggling with form at present, exemplified by his poor show on Saturday.
Corbisiero is struggling with injury, and has competition from Marler and Vunipola.
Is it Lawes or Parling next to Launchbury?
Wood wasn't too good on Saturday - still time for Croft to take that place.
Vunipola or Morgan is still the question for no.8.
Tuilagi has encountered criticism recently. Ditto Farrell.

None of those players are more than 90% sure to start.

Cole will start as we have no alternative, Wilson can be back up but he won't start. Jones is in the same position and Australia don't have a TH of any quality anyway
Corbs, true
Lawes clearly next to Launchbury, esp with Hartley at 2...
If Wood is in danger on one mediocre performance, loads of Welsh and Aussie key players would have been out of contention by now
Vunipola is the answer to that question
Farrell will clearly, clearly start. Manu probably will as clearly nobody has put their hand up properly for either centre shirt yet

Basically we look to have our RWC starting pack, with LH the area that can change, as well as the bench. The backs, harder. Farrell is set, Brown is set, Manu probably is. The wings aren't, and 3 of the favourites there are injured. 12 certainly isn't. The bench isn't. I hope by the end of the 6N 9 will be set in stone

beshocked wrote:Very true kiakahaaotearoa.

It's very frustating - taking off two of England's best performers - Care and Hartley and seeing their replacements being ineffectual.

It's the 2nd game in a row that England have faltered in the last 20. Very much mirroring the NZ game - falling behind by quite a few points before fighting back, to take the lead before losing.

Seems the timing of replacements is still an issue. We had it in Ellis back where the boks were on attack and leading and du plessis was hauled off. Now some coaches may subscribe to the theory that the plan is to get 100% out of a player for sixty minutes knowing they should be spent at that point and the incoming player knowing they have twenty minutes to impact.

But players aren't robotic and the plan must include a level of flexibility. Sometimes a player deserves to stay on longer regardless of the plan.

Taylorman wrote:

beshocked wrote:Very true kiakahaaotearoa.

It's very frustating - taking off two of England's best performers - Care and Hartley and seeing their replacements being ineffectual.

It's the 2nd game in a row that England have faltered in the last 20. Very much mirroring the NZ game - falling behind by quite a few points before fighting back, to take the lead before losing.

Seems the timing of replacements is still an issue. We had it in Ellis back where the boks were on attack and leading and du plessis was hauled off. Now some coaches may subscribe to the theory that the plan is to get 100% out of a player for sixty minutes knowing they should be spent at that point and the incoming player knowing they have twenty minutes to impact.

But players aren't robotic and the plan must include a level of flexibility. Sometimes a player deserves to stay on longer regardless of the plan.

Taylorman

I do agree regards replacements, it seems some coaches and yea i do include SL seem to want to give ALL the players a run out, that includes taking players off just for the sake of it. Which is wrong in my view. If a players get's injured, then fair enough but Danny Care, what had he done to be replaced?

majesticimperialman wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

beshocked wrote:Very true kiakahaaotearoa.

It's very frustating - taking off two of England's best performers - Care and Hartley and seeing their replacements being ineffectual.

It's the 2nd game in a row that England have faltered in the last 20. Very much mirroring the NZ game - falling behind by quite a few points before fighting back, to take the lead before losing.

Seems the timing of replacements is still an issue. We had it in Ellis back where the boks were on attack and leading and du plessis was hauled off. Now some coaches may subscribe to the theory that the plan is to get 100% out of a player for sixty minutes knowing they should be spent at that point and the incoming player knowing they have twenty minutes to impact.

But players aren't robotic and the plan must include a level of flexibility. Sometimes a player deserves to stay on longer regardless of the plan.

Taylorman

I do agree regards replacements, it seems some coaches and yea i do include SL seem to want to give ALL the players a run out, that includes taking players off just for the sake of it. Which is wrong in my view. If a players get's injured, then fair enough but Danny Care, what had he done to be replaced?

He was breaking the rules by playing attacking rugby

Duty281 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:For me that's the most worrying aspect. 19 games or so out from the World Cup, and how many players that are 90% sure to be starting the first game of the World Cup do England have? I would say Hartley, Launchbury, Robshaw, Brown.

Four. Out of fifteen. Maybe, if you're generous, you could extend it to Cole, Farrell and Tuilagi as well, but they do all have question marks over them.

He has more names inked in than that.

Cole, Hartley, Corbs, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, look bolted on when fit. Add Vunipola or Morgan and that's probably how Lancaster sees his pack. If anyone else plays to challenge these players then it's a bonus.

In the backs, Tuilagi, Farrell and Brown look like first XV choices. That makes ten or eleven players who are 90% certain to start the World Cup. You can debate whether these are the right choices, but there seems little doubt Lancaster has these players pegged.

Cole is struggling with form at present, exemplified by his poor show on Saturday.
Corbisiero is struggling with injury, and has competition from Marler and Vunipola.
Is it Lawes or Parling next to Launchbury?
Wood wasn't too good on Saturday - still time for Croft to take that place.
Vunipola or Morgan is still the question for no.8.
Tuilagi has encountered criticism recently. Ditto Farrell.

None of those players are more than 90% sure to start.

Tuilagi has encountered criticism when he hasn't been playing, sounds a bit GE-ish to me.

I think SL has caught the haircut disease, Mallinder regularly changes half the team on sixty minutes, usually to the detriment of the team, the number of bonus points we have thrown away because we made wholesale changes and we lost our rhythm! Coaches with shave heads don't seem to understand that the guys on the bench are there because they are not as good as the guys on the field. If they were, they would be starting. Making unnecessary changes weakens the team, end of.

"Corbisiero is struggling with injury, and has competition from Marler and Vunipola." Not if he is fit he doesn't.

"Is it Lawes or Parling next to Launchbury?" Get real, the way Lawes is playing at the moment he would be a candidate for a world XV

"Wood wasn't too good on Saturday - still time for Croft to take that place." Not with the way England are playing the game at the moment, not Croft's style, bench maybe.

"Vunipola or Morgan is still the question for no.8." What a good problem to have.

"Tuilagi has encountered criticism recently. Ditto Farrell." Tuilagi, see above, only from those that fear him. Farrell any criticism answered on Saturday.

Subject to injury, Corbs, Hartley, Cole, Lawes, Launchbury, Wood and Robshaw are 90% + to start in the back. BV or Morgan 60/4 - BV.

Farrell, Manu and Brown 90%+ to start in the backs.

That leaves 4 positions in doubt discounting 8 where they are both equally good.

Most sides in the world would like to have that sort of certainty at this stage.

Getting a game plan together is another matter.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:  Coaches with shave heads don't seem to understand that the guys on the bench are there because they are not as good as the guys on the field. If they were, they would be starting. Making unnecessary changes weakens the team, end of.

I was noticing the shaven head, funny you should bring it up.  Yes, I know he's had the shaven head since - well, since ever I've known him (coming into the England job)  but what's the deal with the shaven heads?  Gatland too often shaves his close to the bone - not a pretty sight when he does!  I mean why so many even middle aged men want to buzz-cut?  Is it really an attempt to project an image of toughness and bulldogishness?  Or is it simply a hatred of combs and shampoo?

re england starters for RWC. someone suggested there are only 4 nailed on starters. maybe, but i think that's great as it means there is genuine competition for places, and when the choice is lawes or parling alongside launchbury, mako/marler/billy v/morgan, i dont see why we should want to give them the false comfort of a guaranteed start and they are all quality anyway IMO.

look what being dropped has done to Hartley's intensity.

in the backs we clearly have issues with injury, but maybe after this 6N series, SL will have (hopefully) a genuine selection headache based on some awesome performances from Nowell and Burrell (and hopefully may if his schnozz gets straightened). nothing like competition to force players to given 120%.

and if he picks goode again, even on the bench, i'm not going to watch the scotland match i will be so disgusted.

majesticimperialman wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

beshocked wrote:Very true kiakahaaotearoa.

It's very frustating - taking off two of England's best performers - Care and Hartley and seeing their replacements being ineffectual.

It's the 2nd game in a row that England have faltered in the last 20. Very much mirroring the NZ game - falling behind by quite a few points before fighting back, to take the lead before losing.

Seems the timing of replacements is still an issue. We had it in Ellis back where the boks were on attack and leading and du plessis was hauled off. Now some coaches may subscribe to the theory that the plan is to get 100% out of a player for sixty minutes knowing they should be spent at that point and the incoming player knowing they have twenty minutes to impact.

But players aren't robotic and the plan must include a level of flexibility. Sometimes a player deserves to stay on longer regardless of the plan.

Taylorman

I do agree regards replacements, it seems some coaches and yea i do include SL seem to want to give ALL the players a run out, that includes taking players off just for the sake of it. Which is wrong in my view. If a players get's injured, then fair enough but Danny Care, what had he done to be replaced?

That's a third reason for subs and not a good one (playing all players for the sake of giving them a run)- that's tactically naive in the concept of the game when the game is in the balance- especially on this occasion when England had regained the ascendancy.

My thinking is tell the two players for the position that one will definitely get 60, and one will definitely get 20 to impact. That way you effectively get 100%+ for 80 minutes for the position. Its not just about 'giving both a run'.

It means the first knows he has until the 60th minute to do his lot and WILL be off at that point. So if the plan works, he should be 'unable' to play on after 60 minutes because he has timed his run for the 60 minutes only.

It has its merits- both players are clear with their expectations, both know what is ahead of them. But the game can be such that at 60 minutes the player isn't spent because of the run of the game and has yet to make his best contribution.

That's what happened here and certainly what happened when Du Plessis was hauled off.

On this form, Lawes should be one of the first names on the team sheet! Cant believe people are suggesting Parling??!!

Ill say again we have the stable of backs now...give them games...the last thing we need is yet more youngsters coming in. The only possibility being a new SH to replace Dickson.

9 - Care, Youngs, ??
10 - Farrell, Ford, Burns (Im confident he will find his form again)
Centres - Burrell, Barritt, 36, Eastmond, Daly
Wings - Yarde, Wade, May, Nowell, Ashton
FB's - Brown, Foden, Watson

Work with that lot.

Duty281 wrote:Cole is struggling with form at present, exemplified by his poor show on Saturday.

He was good in the autumn and it's not the first time he's struggled against Domingo. Still no-one close to challenging him.

Duty281 wrote:Corbisiero is struggling with injury, and has competition from Marler and Vunipola.

Fair. We need to assume he won't be there, and it's a bonus when he is

Duty281 wrote:Is it Lawes or Parling next to Launchbury?

Lawes, by so far. So so far. His form for Northampton and England this year is on another level completely from anything I've ever seen from Parling.

Duty281 wrote:Wood wasn't too good on Saturday - still time for Croft to take that place.

Wood has been our most consistent player for 18 months. One slightly quiet showing isn't going to jeopardise his place.

Duty281 wrote:Vunipola or Morgan is still the question for no.8.

Vunipola has been much better recently. Morgan good off the bench but hasn't shown form and fitness starting for Gloucester.

Duty281 wrote:Tuilagi has encountered criticism recently. Ditto Farrell.

Primarily from people with their own agendas when watching them. Tuilagi had one bad game against Wales but was phenomenal for most of last season and on the Lions tour. Probably the best centre in the gametime he actually managed but a badly timed injury and Roberts' previous Lions form meant he didn't get a test start. Farrell has been a bit more mixed but there is a clear progression in his game and I don't there's much actual doubt about his selection.

Agree Thom.

Cant believe anyone is questioning Lawes...  

And I didn't think Wood was too bad on Saturday.

I know hes injured and out for you guys at the mo but what about Lawes and Parling?

I thought Parling was outstanding with the Lions.

Too lightweight, Lawes needs somebody to add some grunt alongside him so he can roam.

Parling & Lawes are too similar

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Too lightweight, Lawes needs somebody to add some grunt alongside him so he can roam.

Parling & Lawes are too similar

Fair one

And the fact Launchbury is class...

Outstanding GF, although a little quiet on Saturday.

Boys is a star though, we should be building our pack around him Lawes and Billy.

Its always a good position to be when you have players such as Lawes, Launchbury and Parling battling for 2 slots.

i think we have an awesome pack. some scrum and lineout issues (bit worrying) aside, englands pack look to me to be stand out certainly in the NH at the moment.

i would imagine no-one is excited about playing england's pack in this 6N. even france with 6 forwards on the bench couldnt even begin to dominate englands forwards in open play.

quins,

Nothing has hcnaged there though England have (pretty much) always had a strong forward base and can match and better most teams on their day.

I still think SL is struggling to know what his best backrow combo is or maybe he's not been able to pick it due to injuries etc but other than that its' a pretty settled pack with good options in reserve.

I'm pretty sure SL knows that our current backrow is the strongest he can put out.

Nobody can touch the current trio imo

i really liked the way that youngs and morgan saw an enormous amount of the ball in the 20mins they were on. that had clearly been planned. didnt surprise me that morgan made the second most yards forward and men beaten. clever use of fresh powerful runners in the forwards.

now if only the lineout and scrum were rocksolid after the changes i would be very happy

bedfordwelsh wrote:

I still think SL is struggling to know what his best backrow combo is or maybe he's not been able to pick it due to injuries etc but other than that its' a pretty settled pack with good options in reserve.

Wood and Robshaw have both been nailed on first choice for quite a long time now. Croft hasn't been available for much of it admittedly, but still. Vunipola has also started every game this season.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm pretty sure SL knows that our current backrow is the strongest he can put out.

Nobody can touch the current trio imo

apart from steffon armitage but if lancaster is not prepared to admit that GPS measurements are not the right basis for deciding who and when to substitute, then i cant see him rethinking his policy on overseas-based players...

Perhaps Youngs should have came on for May, he's certainly not a hooker!

I fail to see the hype around Steffon tbh

Thats what I am saying if Croft Wood and Robshaw were all fit what would he do then, some say Croft is a luxury so are Wood and Robshaw clear 1st choice at the moment even if Croft was fit?

bedfordwelsh wrote:Thats what I am saying if Croft Wood and Robshaw were all fit what would he do then, some say Croft is a luxury so are Wood and Robshaw clear 1st choice at the moment even if Croft was fit?

I would say so, Croft is a good back up though