France team v England

First topic message reminder :

http://www.espn.co.uk/six-nations-2014/rugby/story/211933.html

23 players picked - only 9 backs, so you can probably work out the backs - Fickou and Doussain on the bench ?

Forwards: Thomas Domingo (Clermont), Yannick Forestier (Castres), Benjamin Kayser (Clermont), Dimitri Szarzewski (Racing-Métro), Nicolas Mas (Montpellier), Rabah Slimani (Stade Français), Alexandre Flanquart (Stade Français), Yoann Maestri (Toulouse), Pascal Papé (Stade Français, captain), Bernard Le Roux (Racing-Métro), Antoine Burban (Stade Français), Yannick Nyanga (Toulouse), Damien Chouly (Clermont), Louis Picamoles (Toulouse).

Backs: Jean-Marc Doussain (Toulouse), Maxime Machenaud (Racing-Métro), Rémi Talès (Castres), Mathieu Bastareaud (Toulon), Gaël Fickou (Toulouse), Wesley Fofana (Clermont), Yoann Huget (Toulouse), Maxime Médard (Toulouse), Brice Dulin (Castres)

Lots of new names in there. Again. Tactic for England to beat this team = knacker Remi tales as early as possible ? Get Big Billy V running over him.

Bit disappointed not to see Michalak play in this years 6 nations. Will miss his comedy value.

beshocked wrote:Chequeredjersey Greenwood is a decent pundit. One of the best. I take his opinion far more seriously than Stephen Jones,Guscott,Barnes etc. If he rates Goode then that's good enough for me.

Goode has been performing far better than Watson for example but has been getting less hype.

thomh that's your opinion. Fair enough. I feel that Goode is unfairly criticised. He has his weaknesses sure but I feel that they are heavily focussed upon whereas his strengths are ignored.

I don't feel like he is utilised properly by England - if you pick him then use his strengths - e.g. his brain and playmaking abilities.

Brown fits Lancaster's gameplan more effectively and has done very well.

Goode played particularly well vs Ireland away and was hampered with Brown on the wing (no offence but his defensive positioning was woeful) when he was given the 15 shirt.

I think a back three of Wade,Ashton and Goode would work far better than Brown,Ashton,Goode for example.

I reckon Goode was Englands worst player in the last 6 nations. Very weak.

Basically every time he caught a kick he would run it back and throw about 20 pointless sidesteps in the process and run into an opposition defender everytime. Utterly clueless, ineffective and inefficient running. He never beat any defenders or linked with any of his teamates.

I wouldnt pick him in a million years for any six nations team.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Beshocked...thats the question isnt it.

I do think Lancaster has been a little unlucky with injuries to key players etc...however for me there just seems no plan B if said players are unavailable.

To me its the interaction between the forwards and back, and crucially its almost as though some of the backs are playing different styles to their normal club game.

Some of our forward carrying has been woeful...on Saturday i want to see Billy, Mako, Hartley etc in rampaging form hitting spaces and dragging in defenders to create space for the backs. That in itself would be a start.

So true. Injuries to the likes of Wade and Tuilagi has robbed England of more attacking threats. England badly missed Tuilagi vs NZ but we weren't far off. It's not exactly as if England got humiliated.

I agree. Sometimes I feel like the forwards and backs are two seperate entities with their own agendas. England should flow in one fluid motion.

beshocked wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

beshocked wrote:Chequeredjersey the thing is that Yarde and Wade are largely unproven at international level. We can speculate how amazing that could be but till they play.....

Perhaps they'll struggle just as much - starved of ball any winger looks ineffective.

Geordiefalcon I agree. It's the tactics but what you would change?

The obvious thing is to tell Farrell to play flatter but what else?

Me personally? Have big runners from the pack running the inside ball for 12 and the blindside winger looking for the occasional inside "Flood" pop. Full back joining the line. But most importantly, RUNNING it from 9. How can the 10 spark an attack when the defence is dead set because there's no need to mark 9 or 10? Inside runners and a threat at 9 immediately takes defensive pressure off the backline

That's a good idea.

Problem with running it from 9 is that Youngs is in woeful form, Care in my opinion has not convinced at international level for some time. Dickson or Wigglesworth are not a running threat.

Also that's not how Lancaster's England play. He likes the Dicksons and Wigglesworth's.

You could argue the backline balance is all wrong. I think there is room for more defensive players but they need to be balanced out with more attacking players.

But I'd say Youngs and Care are encouraged to not run for England- they just don't do it even though it's their natural game!

Failing that, ensuring there is a threat inside Farrell for him to pop to (Ashton used to do this well for England, and whoever plays at Fullback could do it, or players like Billy, Mako/Marler, T Youngs etc) would at least mean that the opposition didn't know where the ball was going. Or attacking crossfield kicks- Farrell is a very good kicker and I'm sure he can produce attacking kicks as well as defensive ones

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:Chequeredjersey Greenwood is a decent pundit. One of the best. I take his opinion far more seriously than Stephen Jones,Guscott,Barnes etc. If he rates Goode then that's good enough for me.

Goode has been performing far better than Watson for example but has been getting less hype.

thomh that's your opinion. Fair enough. I feel that Goode is unfairly criticised. He has his weaknesses sure but I feel that they are heavily focussed upon whereas his strengths are ignored.

I don't feel like he is utilised properly by England - if you pick him then use his strengths - e.g. his brain and playmaking abilities.

Brown fits Lancaster's gameplan more effectively and has done very well.

Goode played particularly well vs Ireland away and was hampered with Brown on the wing (no offence but his defensive positioning was woeful) when he was given the 15 shirt.

I think a back three of Wade,Ashton and Goode would work far better than Brown,Ashton,Goode for example.

I reckon Goode was Englands worst player in the last 6 nations. Very weak.

Basically every time he caught a kick he would run it back and throw about 20 pointless sidesteps in the process and run into an opposition defender everytime. Utterly clueless, ineffective and inefficient running. He never beat any defenders or linked with any of his teamates.

I wouldnt pick him in a million years for any six nations team.

Yet he still played well against Ireland and outperformed whoever you had at full back. Being a full back is not all about beating defenders, you have to be solid under the high ball and kick well. Something that Goode generally does well.

In the horrific conditions Goode was very effective. Oh and England won by the way.

Also we can go on about Farrell playing flatter for ever but unless the centres run onto the ball from more depth that won't really accomplish much

I have seen an article or 2 about the new performance guy in the England set up - you know the ex cycling guy with all the theories about small improvements. I am wondering what if any differences we shall actually see.

Guys i think we've pretty much sussed its not just one thing.

1)Injuries to key players, and a lack of good enough replacements, or out of form.
2)Lack of genuine carriers in the pack, consistantly getting well over the gainline, dragging in defenders creating space.
3)Lack of a running threat from 9 and 10 makes us predictable
4)Lack of inteligent play in our backline when we do have the ball..
5)Questions over the tactics...are players told not to take risks etc?

12trees and Burell for me, with Baritt on the bench

beshocked wrote:
Yet he still played well against Ireland and outperformed whoever you had at full back. Being a full back is not all about beating defenders, you have to be solid under the high ball and kick well. Something that Goode generally does well.

In the horrific conditions Goode was very effective. Oh and England won by the way.

Jeez if you say so. I thought he was dreadful. I know Kearney isnt perfect but he is a hell of a lot better than Goode.

There is a lot more to being a fullback than "solid under the high ball". I was fairly astonished to be honest how clueless with ball in hand Goode was.

"Oh and England won by the way" - Well done but that makes Goode a good player? I think not.

Id actually consider..

10 Farrell
12 Burrell
13 Daly

Yes inexperienced...but its balanced, in form has power, defence and ability to get past players either with Dalys skill or Burrells power.

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Yet he still played well against Ireland and outperformed whoever you had at full back. Being a full back is not all about beating defenders, you have to be solid under the high ball and kick well. Something that Goode generally does well.

In the horrific conditions Goode was very effective. Oh and England won by the way.

Jeez if you say so. I thought he was dreadful. I know Kearney isnt perfect but he is a hell of a lot better than Goode.

There is a lot more to being a fullback than "solid under the high ball". I was fairly astonished to be honest how clueless with ball in hand Goode was.

"Oh and England won by the way" - Well done but that makes Goode a good player? I think not.

Well it does make him a better player than the Irish equivalent when the game is reduced to scrums and kicking in the mud and too much rain.

Gunsgerms but equally there is more than just running and beating men.

Kearney wasn't better that day. England won the kicking battle that day, mostly down to Goode and Farrell in my opinion.

A kick can territoriality gain you far more ground than a full back running the ball back. There's always risk when a full back decides to run the ball back instead of kick because they might concede a penalty or be turned over.

You lost. I think that's important. Whatever Ireland did that day was not effective to win the game. I thought England winning the kicking battle was integral in the win.

Geordiefalcon that's risky because it's two new caps in the centres vs Fofana and Basteraud.

If it was another match then perhaps....


France are picking a big side which is meant to smash England physically. I think England need to bear that in mind - especially when considering the centre options.

And the weather...

Maybe against Fofana yes, he's a class act...but Basteraud is overrated in my opinion. He's a prop forward.

Defensively, Farrell and Burrell should be more than able to cope with him (especially with our pack covering)

Lets see how Basteraud copes with Daly running at him instead...

Goode is a better all round player for me but Kearney is a better fullback and given its a team sport I would have Kearney over Goode myself.

Goode is one of the most talented players in the NH for me but lacks killer pace and isn't world class at one particular aspect of the game... but first class in near all.. tackling, running, distribution, kicking.

Excellent bench option as it means you can open up a space or 2 for more specialist players alongside him.

I think England look quite balanced though potentially.

Youngs, Farrell 9 & 10
Twelvetrees and Barritt 12 & 13
Brown at 15

no idea on the wings. Ashton needs some time on the bench though. Lost his mojo (although I always thought Farrell's lack of distribution skills had a lot to do with that).

GeordieFalcon wrote:Maybe against Fofana yes, he's a class act...but Basteraud is overrated in my opinion. He's a prop forward.

Defensively, Farrell and Burrell should be more than able to cope with him (especially with our pack covering)

Lets see how Basteraud copes with Daly running at him instead...

Basteraud just needs re-assessing of himself, outstanding player though if he just lost a bit of weight.

In 2010 I think he truly embarassed Jamie Roberts (the foremost 12 in NH rugby) and made his life hell. When he's on form he is dynamite... but he needs to visit the treadmill more often.

Apparently he lost weight since he joined Toulon (not sure compared to what as he seems bigger to me!). agree that he was more of a threat before the whole NZ fake injury affair.

lostinwales wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Yet he still played well against Ireland and outperformed whoever you had at full back. Being a full back is not all about beating defenders, you have to be solid under the high ball and kick well. Something that Goode generally does well.

In the horrific conditions Goode was very effective. Oh and England won by the way.

Jeez if you say so. I thought he was dreadful. I know Kearney isnt perfect but he is a hell of a lot better than Goode.

There is a lot more to being a fullback than "solid under the high ball". I was fairly astonished to be honest how clueless with ball in hand Goode was.

"Oh and England won by the way" - Well done but that makes Goode a good player? I think not.

Well it does make him a better player than the Irish equivalent when the game is reduced to scrums and kicking in the mud and too much rain.

So you are saying Goode is a better player than Kearney basically because he is better under the high ball and better at kicking.

Thanks, I needed a laugh. Priceless.

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms but equally there is more than just running and beating men.

Kearney wasn't better that day. England won the kicking battle that day, mostly down to Goode and Farrell in my opinion.

A kick can territoriality gain you far more ground than a full back running the ball back. There's always risk when a full back decides to run the ball back instead of kick because they might concede a penalty or be turned over.

You lost. I think that's important. Whatever Ireland did that day was not effective to win the game. I thought England winning the kicking battle was integral in the win.

Geordiefalcon that's risky because it's two new caps in the centres vs Fofana and Basteraud.

If it was another match then perhaps....


France are picking a big side which is meant to smash England physically. I think England need to bear that in mind - especially when considering the centre options.

I am aware Ireland lost. You have mentioned that twice, I saw the game too. Its not relevant in a debate as to whether Goode is a decent player or not. Basically long story short he was England's weakest player in last years campaign.

Anyway, Brown will be playing 15 for England, so Kearney doesn't have to be better than Goode, he has to he better than Brown and that's an interesting match up.

fa0019 wrote:Goode is a better all round player for me but Kearney is a better fullback and given its a team sport I would have Kearney over Goode myself.

Goode is one of the most talented players in the NH for me but lacks killer pace and isn't world class at one particular aspect of the game... but first class in near all.. tackling, running, distribution, kicking.

Really???? Did you see him in the 6 nations last year? Cant understand how you think he was one of the most talented players around. Surely Foden and Brown are much more talented fullbacks than Goode.

Players like Farrell, Barritt, Burrell etc can defend against him all day long.

As i said...lets get Daly running at him...make him turn and run...

I understand experience is essential etc...but can we not put a few players in our backline that actually threatens THEIR team....not just worries about defending against them. Especially when we know Farrell and Burrell are top class defenders.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Anyway, Brown will be playing 15 for England, so Kearney doesn't have to be better than Goode, he has to he better than Brown and that's an interesting match up.

Yep, I think Brown is a very good full back and that certainly will be interesting. Brown does know how to counter attack and is pretty good at everything else.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Goode is a better all round player for me but Kearney is a better fullback and given its a team sport I would have Kearney over Goode myself.

Goode is one of the most talented players in the NH for me but lacks killer pace and isn't world class at one particular aspect of the game... but first class in near all.. tackling, running, distribution, kicking.

Really???? Did you see him in the 6 nations last year? Cant understand how you think he was one of the most talented players around. Surely Foden and brown are much more talented fullbacks than Goode.

Guns

The reason I say he's more talented is that he can play 10, 13, 15 at a very high standard, test standard without looking out of place.

Few players can say the same. But he's not standout or first choice for his country in either position and given its a team game and not one of individuals then its the collection of players to make the best team not the best 15 individual players which count.

As I said... I don't think he's the best fullback in his own country let alone the NH. But I rate his skills highly, unfortunately for him he's not a specialist.

Do you think Kearney could do a job like Goode can at 10?

You could probably say the same about James Hook and a host of other versatile players.

GunsGerms wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Yet he still played well against Ireland and outperformed whoever you had at full back. Being a full back is not all about beating defenders, you have to be solid under the high ball and kick well. Something that Goode generally does well.

In the horrific conditions Goode was very effective. Oh and England won by the way.

Jeez if you say so. I thought he was dreadful. I know Kearney isnt perfect but he is a hell of a lot better than Goode.

There is a lot more to being a fullback than "solid under the high ball". I was fairly astonished to be honest how clueless with ball in hand Goode was.

"Oh and England won by the way" - Well done but that makes Goode a good player? I think not.

Well it does make him a better player than the Irish equivalent when the game is reduced to scrums and kicking in the mud and too much rain.

So you are saying Goode is a better player than Kearney basically because he is better under the high ball and better at kicking.

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

I dont think he is a better player than Kearney but he WAS better on the day. It wasnt even close.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Players like Farrell, Barritt, Burrell etc can defend against him all day long.

As i said...lets get Daly running at him...make him turn and run...

I understand experience is essential etc...but can we not put a few players in our backline that actually threatens THEIR team....not just worries about defending against them. Especially when we know Farrell and Burrell are top class defenders.

Turning is a big enough challenge for old Bast, let alone adding running

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms but equally there is more than just running and beating men.

Kearney wasn't better that day. England won the kicking battle that day, mostly down to Goode and Farrell in my opinion.

A kick can territoriality gain you far more ground than a full back running the ball back. There's always risk when a full back decides to run the ball back instead of kick because they might concede a penalty or be turned over.

You lost. I think that's important. Whatever Ireland did that day was not effective to win the game. I thought England winning the kicking battle was integral in the win.

Geordiefalcon that's risky because it's two new caps in the centres vs Fofana and Basteraud.

If it was another match then perhaps....


France are picking a big side which is meant to smash England physically. I think England need to bear that in mind - especially when considering the centre options.

I am aware Ireland lost. You have mentioned that twice, I saw the game too. Its not relevant in a debate as to whether Goode is a decent player or not. Basically long story short he was England's weakest player in last years campaign.

Of course it's relevant. You say that Goode was England's weakest player. Yet his performance vs Ireland was integral to England beating Ireland in my opinion. Ireland failed to score a try and most importantly they lost. You could argue that they failed to adapt to the conditions - in the wet weather, England performed better.

When you say talented - does that mean running quick and beating defenders? If so fair enough but Goode has a far better rugby brain than Brown. As fa0019 says Goode's weakness is his lack of pace at international level and struggles to beat defenders. Again you could argue he's not been helped by being in a back three including Brown who was a full back on the wing.

Geordiefalcon true but you don't want to give the opposition areas for them to exploit in attack.

Is Burrell a top class defender at international level? How can we know that until he is proven?

How many new caps do you want to throw in vs France? Watson? Nowell? Burrell? Daly?

GunsGerms wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Yet he still played well against Ireland and outperformed whoever you had at full back. Being a full back is not all about beating defenders, you have to be solid under the high ball and kick well. Something that Goode generally does well.

In the horrific conditions Goode was very effective. Oh and England won by the way.

Jeez if you say so. I thought he was dreadful. I know Kearney isnt perfect but he is a hell of a lot better than Goode.

There is a lot more to being a fullback than "solid under the high ball". I was fairly astonished to be honest how clueless with ball in hand Goode was.

"Oh and England won by the way" - Well done but that makes Goode a good player? I think not.

Well it does make him a better player than the Irish equivalent when the game is reduced to scrums and kicking in the mud and too much rain.

So you are saying Goode is a better player than Kearney basically because he is better under the high ball and better at kicking.

Thanks, I needed a laugh. Priceless.

Arent they two critical parts of a FB's role...? Halfpenny is classed as the best FB in the world based on it..  

Kearneys a decent FB nothing more.

He has never played a test match at fly half and I doubt anyone would rely on him to do so.

He has played two matches at centre as a sub yet England lost both those games and he didnt get much game time. I doubt any six nations team would pick him as a centre. Maybe Italy.

All his other games have been at full back. As such there is no evidence that he can play any of 10,13 or 15 at test level. Where are you getting the notion that he can play those positions at test level?

Do you think Kearney could do a job like Goode can at 10? Kearney has played as many test matches as Goode at 10. Zero.

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Arent they two critical parts of a FB's role...? Halfpenny is classed as the best FB in the world based on it..  

Kearneys a decent FB nothing more.

When Goode has Lions caps and has won European player of the year a grand slam and three heineken cups maybe I will consider taking any comparision between the two players seriously.

Goode has never even scored a try for England.

GunsGerms wrote:He has never played a test match at fly half and I doubt anyone would rely on him to do so.

He has played two matches at centre as a sub yet England lost both those games and he didnt get much game time. I doubt any six nations team would pick him as a centre. Maybe Italy.

All his other games have been at full back. As such there is no evidence that he can play any of 10,13 or 15 at test level. Where are you getting the notion that he can play those positions at test level?

Do you think Kearney could do a job like Goode can at 10? Kearney has played as many test matches as Goode at 10. Zero.

He's often jobbed in the position intra-games from memory and also in the HC, he doesn't look out of place IMO.

Seen him many times at 10 to make me think he's a very good 10, not quite there but very good still.

Kearney just isn't that sort of player.. better fullback, better attacker but if you had to weigh up the individual skills of both players I would stand by my assertion that whilst Kearney specialist skills outrank Goode, Goodes overall skills is superior.

its thoery anyhow as I said before... Its a team game. Its not tennis.

Kearney is a good long range goal kicker and has scored a good few drop goals for both Ireland and Leinster. He has good hands and a good boot so maybe he could play 10 but he doesnt, never has and never will so its pointless comparing him to another player based on his ability to play 10.

Geordiefalcon true but you don't want to give the opposition areas for them to exploit in attack.

Is Burrell a top class defender at international level? How can we know that until he is proven?

How many new caps do you want to throw in vs France? Watson? Nowell? Burrell? Daly?

I appreciate we dont want to give them a chance, but we need players to attack them. Without Tuilagi (as mentioned above) the replacements have done nothing or arent good enough.  I would prefer to risk someone like Daly than continue with the stodge which is failing to shine. Its a risk but one i believe we need to take.

Well yes Burrells defence isnt proven at that level im only going on club games...but unless tried how will we know.

I wouldnt flood the team with newbies....however if Yarde, Wade etc were fit they'd more than likely be starting so its no difference.

Personally i think id go for

9 Care - He needs a chance, is a threat from the base and can balance Farrels authority with creativity
10 Farrell
11 May
12 Barritt / Burrell
13 Daly
14 Ashton
15 Brown

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:He has never played a test match at fly half and I doubt anyone would rely on him to do so.

He has played two matches at centre as a sub yet England lost both those games and he didnt get much game time. I doubt any six nations team would pick him as a centre. Maybe Italy.

All his other games have been at full back. As such there is no evidence that he can play any of 10,13 or 15 at test level. Where are you getting the notion that he can play those positions at test level?

Do you think Kearney could do a job like Goode can at 10? Kearney has played as many test matches as Goode at 10. Zero.

He's often jobbed in the position intra-games from memory and also in the HC, he doesn't look out of place IMO.

Seen him many times at 10 to make me think he's a very good 10, not quite there but very good still.

Kearney just isn't that sort of player.. better fullback, better attacker but if you had to weigh up the individual skills of both players I would stand by my assertion that whilst Kearney specialist skills outrank Goode, Goodes overall skills is superior.

its thoery anyhow as I said before... Its a team game. Its not tennis.

Good post.

Bear in mind with England they often use Goode in a flexible role : In attack he would step in to the centers to act as a second playmaker (not recent comments from Catt about the way center partnerships should be split) and be the stand in for the FH if he was buried under a pile of forwards or busy admiring Cares haircut.
Goode is not just used as a traditional specialist fullback.
So yes as one he is no where in Kearnys league. But that doesnt mean he doesnt offer in other areas.
Which isnt to say I think England wouldnt bit their own arms off to get Kearny or Halfpenny. But they have to pick from players available to them.

This maybe goes back to England trying to be too smart for their own good with their backs. They seem to have a side thats really good at doing everything except scoring tries through their backs. Why? Partly because they keep picking players who are really good at doing everything except scoring tries in their backs and asking them to do things other than score tries.
Goode is far from unique in having a woeful try scoring record under Lancaster.

exactly guns. I doubt anyone out there would say Goode is a better fullback (although he was on the specific day) but I just appreciate guys like Hook and Goode for being multi-talented.. but not necessarily worth a position in their respected teams.

Gunsgerms sorry I am trying to understand the relevance of your original point.

As it stands Brown is first choice England full back, Goode is 2nd choice full back with Foden injured. I don't think any English fans would argue with that.

If you don't rate Goode, fine that's your opinion but it seems as if when posters like lostinwales,fa0019 and I make some good points you seem to ignore them.

Well said fa0019 it's a team game. About having the right balance in a team.

England look to have found the right balance in the forwards but are still struggling in the backline.

Plus we differ in how we should combat France. I think we need to put in some stronger defenders to weather the storm but bring on some more attacking backs in the latter stages.

E.g. have Care,Ford and Watson on the bench.

This would be my 23.

1.Vunipola
2.Hartley
3.Cole
4.Lawes
5.Launchbury
6.Wood
7.Robshaw
8.Vunipola
9.Wigglesworth/Dickson
10.Farrell
11.May/Nowell
12.Burrell
13.Barritt
14.Ashton
15.Brown

16.Marler
17.Youngs
18.Whoever is fit
19.Attwood
20.Morgan
21.Care
22.Ford
23.Watson

Why not just pick Brown or Foden at full back. Both are outstanding? Leave Goode on the bench if he is so versatile.

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms sorry I am trying to understand the relevance of your original point.

As it stands Brown is first choice England full back, Goode is 2nd choice full back with Foden injured. I don't think any English fans would argue with that.

If you don't rate Goode, fine that's your opinion but it seems as if when posters like lostinwales,fa0019 and I make some good points you seem to ignore them.

Actually I debate them. If you think my posts are irrelevant to you feel free to ignore them.

Forgot about May.

Beshocked, i accept what your saying...im just sometimes concern that we often worry about stopping an opposition so much more than making THEM worry about what we can do.

To me a midfield of Farrell, Barrit and Burrell is powerful and huge defensively...but offers barely anything in attack aside from crash ball which im expecting to see far more from our forwards anyway.

It curious how we have both missed out Twelvetrees. Is that an indicator than neither of us are convinced?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Id actually consider..

10 Farrell
12 Burrell
13 Daly

Yes inexperienced...but its balanced, in form has power, defence and ability to get past players either with Dalys skill or Burrells power.

If the weather reports are indeed correct and the pitch is a bog and it turns into a penalty duel, it may not be a bad idea to have Daly on the pitch. The lad has an absolute howitzer of a boot and kicks long for Wasps. I reckon he easily has a 60m kicking range from the tee. He's pretty accurate too I think.

Kearney hasnt been outstanding for a year or two anyway and seems to have lost some form and confindence since he last won the HC... while Goode has a lot to prove at test level. Both are equally bad. end of discussion. no charge
The one I used to fear is Foden. Also happy if good runners like Youngs and Croft are not starting.

We could go for;

9- Care/Wriigles
10- Farrell
11- best defender
12- Twelvetrees
13- Daly
14- best defender
15- Goode

And just go for drop goals every play...

Twelvetrees is getting a bit of a raw deal. His midfield partner hardly helped in the AIs. He has to start.

Has PSA given the game away too early, massive cumbersome pack and 6 forwards on the bench or is it all a ruse and we are expected to think that they will try and out muscle England, whilst they really intend to cut loose in true French style.

I am not sure the forwards picked are capable of that sort of game for 80 minutes, but that maybe why there are six replacements.

whocares wrote:Kearney hasnt been outstanding for a year or two anyway and seems to have lost some form and confindence since he last won the HC... while Goode has a lot to prove at test level. Both are equally bad. end of discussion. no charge    
The one I used to fear is Foden. Also happy if good runners like Youngs and Croft are not starting.

Croft is injured and if Youngs starts and plays to Tigers form you would be very happy indeed, may as well pick Burns or Lamb

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Has PSA given the game away too early, massive cumbersome pack and 6 forwards on the bench or is it all a ruse and we are expected to think that they will try and out muscle England, whilst they really intend to cut loose in true French style.

I am not sure the forwards picked are capable of that sort of game for 80 minutes, but that maybe why there are six replacements.

But then, if they can get on top of our pack and get momentum, Fofana is waiting at 12...

GunsGerms wrote:Why not just pick Brown or Foden at full back. Both are outstanding? Leave Goode on the bench if he is so versatile.

I agree.

Best place for him. This generations Martin Corry.

Watson from some small cameos I've caught here and there looks the real deal though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Twelvetrees is getting a bit of a raw deal. His midfield partner hardly helped in the AIs. He has to start.

Agree.

A midfield of:

10. Owen Farrell
12. Billy Twelvetrees
13. Elliott Daly

has a bit of zip about it too.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Why not just pick Brown or Foden at full back. Both are outstanding? Leave Goode on the bench if he is so versatile.

I agree.

Best place for him. This generations Martin Corry.

Watson from some small cameos I've caught here and there looks the real deal though.

This is what I would do with Luke Fitz too. Lots of Ireland fans think he is great cause he can cover 11,12,13,14 or 15 but IMO he isnt particularly good at any position but is probably worth a bench spot because he is somewhat versatile.

I would like to see that Cumbrian but with Daly being played at 15 by Wasps I don't think we'll see it soon. Shame as when he moved there against the WHs he looked good.