Scotland v England, Murrayfield, Sat 8th Feb, 17:00

by yappysnap Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:32 am

First topic message reminder :

Thought I'd start a thread to discuss next weeks game.

ENGLAND

England head coach Stuart Lancaster has kept faith with the side which lost to France and named an unchanged line-up for Saturday's match against Scotland.
Gloucester's Jonny May starts on the wing despite breaking his nose nine minutes into the 26-24 loss in Paris.
Courtney Lawes will be in the second row after his cheekbone bruising eased, while Danny Care and Owen Farrell form the half-back partnership.
"They're determined to put last week's result behind them," said Lancaster.
England will be hoping to avoid a third successive Test defeat, having lost to New Zealand in the autumn and France in the opening weekend of the Six Nations.
Scotland, however, were well beaten by Ireland on Sunday have not prevailed in the Calcutta Cup since their 15-9 win at Murrayfield in 2008.
"Scotland will be hugely motivated by their defeat in Dublin and, as we found two years ago, Murrayfield is a tough place to play," added Lancaster, who began his England reign with a 13-6 win against Scotland in 2012.
May is not expected to wear a protective face mask when he wins his third cap in Edinburgh.
Luther Burrell, who scored on his debut at the Stade de France, will make his second Test appearance at centre, while Jack Nowell takes up the right-wing spot for what will also be his second cap.
Wasps prop Matt Mullan will travel as the 24th man.

England XI v Scotland: Mike Brown (Harlequins, 22 caps), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap), Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints, 1 cap), Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby, 9 caps), Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 2 caps), Owen Farrell (Saracens, 20 caps), Danny Care (Harlequins, 43 caps), Joe Marler (Harlequins, 16 caps), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints, 51 caps), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 44 caps), Joe Launchbury (London Wasps, 15 caps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 26 caps), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 24 caps), Chris Robshaw (Harlequins, capt, 21 caps), Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 6 caps)
Replacements: Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 13 caps), Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 11 caps), Henry Thomas (Sale Sharks, 2 caps), Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby, 6 caps), Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby, 16 caps), Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints, 13 caps), Brad Barritt (Saracens, 17 caps), Alex Goode (Saracens, 14 caps)

Scotland

Scots team:

1.grant
2.ford
3.low
4.swinson
5.hamilton
6.wilson
7.fusaro
8.denton
9.laidlaw
10.weir
11.lamont
12.scott
13.dunbar
14.seymor
15 hogg

by demosthenes Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:20 am

Manky-Flanker wrote:"Several of the players who did emerge physically unscathed from Sunday will still be receiving bad news. Humphreys said: “There will be some change in the positions that we feel we have strength."

Surely, he's got to be talking about Ford.

"...that we feel we have strength"

Gray for Hamilton
?/? for Wilson/Denton

"But we feel that keeping Ross Ford at hooked brings stability when we make changes elsewhere in the pack"

What's the odds?

by **RDW** Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:22 am

Scathing words from forwards coach Humphries in the Scotsman this morning - pulls no punches in saying how bad Scotland's pack were.

Gearing up to be a colossal and brutal game - both teams desperate to make up for last week's results.

by demosthenes Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:31 am

RDW_Scotland wrote:Scathing words from forwards coach Humphries in the Scotsman this morning - pulls no punches in saying how bad Scotland's pack were.

Gearing up to be a colossal and brutal game - both teams desperate to make up for last week's results.

And does he accept any responsibility for the poor coaching, systems, etc., that have brought what was at least a respected pack down to this level? Doubt it!

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:47 am

My favourite Humphreys quote: "There is no hiding the fact we were dreadful in every aspect"

by EWT Spoons Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:57 am

RDW_Scotland wrote:Scathing words from forwards coach Humphries in the Scotsman this morning - pulls no punches in saying how bad Scotland's pack were.

Gearing up to be a colossal and brutal game - both teams desperate to make up for last week's results.

Have to say it makes a nice change from the "things are coming together" and "there were a lot of positives and we were really close" nonsense that normally comes from the coaches.

Here's one of the articles that Humphreys features in

David Ferguson in the Scotsman wrote:SCOTLAND have postponed naming their team for Saturday evening’s Calcutta Cup clash with England by 24 hours due to injury worries.

That will not, however, spare a handful of players from the axe after a performance against Ireland labelled “awful” by one of their coaches.

The frustration of Jonathan Humphreys, a former Wales hooker and captain who took over as Scotland forwards coach last summer, was clear yesterday as he faced the media at Murrayfield.

A scheduled training session was cancelled because there were too many players still recovering from injuries suffered in the 28-6 defeat in Dublin. Due to a poor forecast for today the squad will train indoor at Ravenscraig but the announcement of the team to face England in Saturday’s Calcutta Cup match has been put back to tomorrow.

Several of the players who did emerge physically unscathed from Sunday will still be receiving bad news. Humphreys said: “There will be some change in the posiitons that we feel we have strength.

“You can ask me all the questions you want, but the fact is that we were awful [on Sunday] and we’re not hiding away from that. It’s nowhere near the standards that we set ourselves, nowhere near where we want to be and nowhere near where we want to go.

“You can talk about what it’s going to be like against England, but that’s not the point. We don’t need to have high spikes and low troughs the whole time. The standards we set must be constant and the internal motivation must be the driving factor in our performance, not the team we are playing against.

“There is no hiding away from the fact that we were dreadful in every aspect of forward play at the weekend. Every aspect.

“You can talk about honesty, but this is fact. We were awful. And, if you say that we’ll turn around because we’re playing the ‘Auld Enemy’ and we’ll put on a performance, it doesn’t hide the fact that we were still awful.”

Scotland’s lineout was the main problem, costing the team good scoring chances and handing Ireland chances at the other end of the field, but Humphreys also criticised the players’ mindset. He added: “There’s a certain thing called intent. Intent to do things. We certainly lacked the intent to do things.

“I won’t go into the details of what that intent is about, that’s for us, but I’ll keep on reiterating the fact that it’s not about getting a reaction to play against England. It’s too simplistic to say players can’t ‘get up’, or question how passionate they are. It’s about sticking to the principles that you drive on a weekly basis and over the top of that you bring the other stuff, so right now we can’t be talking about the other stuff until we do our core principles correctly.

“Your set-piece functions off principles, for example, and, unless these are constant factors, then you will lose lineouts in key, critical areas.

“We lost three of our first five attacking lineouts through nothing that Ireland did. Nothing. They were nowhere near winning the ball off us. It was our error. The key things that we’re talking about apply right there. We win three, or even two of those lineouts and, all of a sudden, we create more pressure on them.

“You could say we were dreadful in that first half, but we created many opportunities. What we didn’t do was squeeze them with the opportunities that we had at set-piece. That’s what cost us the game.

“Had we gone into half-time 6-3 behind and got that penalty after half-time, all of a sudden you’re in the game and Ireland get tight, because they expect to beat us.

“England will expect to beat us but the game changes when it’s you squeezing the opposition, keeping pressure on the opposition. You release that pressure through your own errors and you allow the opposition into the game, and allow them to create go-forward, and that was what we did. And it wasn’t about anything other than simply sticking to what we needed to do at these lineouts.”

Humphreys made his feelings known to the players on Monday and head coach Scott Johnson sees things similarly. But, asked how much responsibility the coaches took, Humphreys was as strident in his response.

“I’m completely culpable. It’s me. I am culpable for everything [to do with the forwards] that goes on out there, because that’s me. I will never hide away from that fact.

“A coach’s job is to step forward when it doesn’t go right and step back when it does. I will step forward and take complete responsibility for that shambles at the weekend.”

by EWT Spoons Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:01 am

demosthenes wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:Scathing words from forwards coach Humphries in the Scotsman this morning - pulls no punches in saying how bad Scotland's pack were.

Gearing up to be a colossal and brutal game - both teams desperate to make up for last week's results.

And does he accept any responsibility for the poor coaching, systems, etc., that have brought what was at least a respected pack down to this level? Doubt it!

He kind of does:

From the Scotsman wrote:Humphreys made his feelings known to the players on Monday and head coach Scott Johnson sees things similarly. But, asked how much responsibility the coaches took, Humphreys was as strident in his response.

“I’m completely culpable. It’s me. I am culpable for everything [to do with the forwards] that goes on out there, because that’s me. I will never hide away from that fact.

“A coach’s job is to step forward when it doesn’t go right and step back when it does. I will step forward and take complete responsibility for that shambles at the weekend.”

by beshocked Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:03 am

The worrying thing about Scotland is that they have a potentially good pack if the Scott Johnson decides to pick the correct players for once - specifically get rid of Ford and rejig the imbalanced backrow.

I think the Ireland game could be a wake up call for Scotland whereas Stuart Lancaster is still in denial.

by demosthenes Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:33 am

EWT Spoons wrote:
demosthenes wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:Scathing words from forwards coach Humphries in the Scotsman this morning - pulls no punches in saying how bad Scotland's pack were.

Gearing up to be a colossal and brutal game - both teams desperate to make up for last week's results.

And does he accept any responsibility for the poor coaching, systems, etc., that have brought what was at least a respected pack down to this level? Doubt it!

He kind of does:

From the Scotsman wrote:Humphreys made his feelings known to the players on Monday and head coach Scott Johnson sees things similarly. But, asked how much responsibility the coaches took, Humphreys was as strident in his response.

“I’m completely culpable. It’s me. I am culpable for everything [to do with the forwards] that goes on out there, because that’s me. I will never hide away from that fact.

“A coach’s job is to step forward when it doesn’t go right and step back when it does. I will step forward and take complete responsibility for that shambles at the weekend.”

Well, well, well. Glad to see that, which makes a change from some coaches.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:55 am

Exactly how many people advocating his public execution didnt 8 months ago demand Fords inclusion as a token Scot in the Lions test side?

by funnyExiledScot Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:05 am

Well well well - a refreshing blast of honesty and culpability from Humphreys. I'm actually impressed!

He is wrong in one respect, he isn't completely culpable. Certain players should be shouldering a heftly slice of blame as well. I have no doubt that Humphrey's didn't instruct the players to tackle like a wet blanket when Kearney charged through the side, and I'm equally confident that he didn't request that our forwards fold like a cheap suit when faced with the Irish driving maul.

However, the lineout is his domain and we were beyond terrible. I'm delighted to see him step forward in that regard. The players will want to play for him all the more now, and the fans will respect that. Whether he's the right man or not, there's no questionning his honesty and integrity.

The forwards need to make Saturday a horrible experience for the English, and our backs need to run with complete conviction. If we don't win the collisions, as we failed to do in the second half against Ireland, then England will win with a landslide.

by funnyExiledScot Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:09 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Exactly how many people advocating his public execution didnt 8 months ago demand Fords inclusion as a token Scot in the Lions test side?

Certainly not me, although the problem with Ford is that he fluctuates from being extremely effective, particularly his work in the loose, to being a complete basket case.

Annoying other hookers, like Hibbard, Best and Hartley, have at different stages of their careers had similar yips with their throwing, but they all seem to have been able to sort it out and improve consistency. Ford on the other hand can nail three in a row, and then completely lose the plot for the rest of the game, sometimes missing his jumper by metres. It's been an issue for too long now, and when compounded with his inability to hook the ball at the scrum (a recent issue down to the correct enforcement of crooked feeds), his position in the side is impossible to defend.

Pat MacArthur must start on Saturday.

by R!skysports Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:11 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Exactly how many people advocating his public execution didnt 8 months ago demand Fords inclusion as a token Scot in the Lions test side?

In this tour - none of us wanted Ford there - he had not been good enough

by R!skysports Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:13 am

"“I won’t go into the details of what that intent is about, that’s for us, but I’ll keep on reiterating the fact that it’s not about getting a reaction to play against England. It’s too simplistic to say players can’t ‘get up’, or question how passionate they are. It’s about sticking to the principles that you drive on a weekly basis and over the top of that you bring the other stuff, so right now we can’t be talking about the other stuff until we do our core principles correctly.

“Your set-piece functions off principles, for example, and, unless these are constant factors, then you will lose lineouts in key, critical areas."

I find this a fantastic paragraph - as it implies to me that the intend was not there and people do not fear the chop - complacency as a standard?

I hope that really does mean a rocket is put up the jacksees and certain 'undroppable' people are dropped - to think again

by beshocked Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:14 am

FES that's what worries me. Humphreys has done the right thing. Acknowledge that he is at fault which will win him plenty of support. Scotland should perform much better against England than they did Ireland.

I expect Scott Johnson to make better selections.

Lancaster in comparison refuses to take any of the blame and has not made any different selections which does not fill me with confidence.

Wouldn't surprise me if Scotland expose England's flaws in the back three again. Could well be a Scotland win.

by **BigGee** Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:28 am

We have kind of got three threads going, talking on similar themes and I might as well make the same comment here as on the other two. Do we think that KB place is at risk, particularly if they are only going to look at him as an openside. There were hints in those articles that there would be a change there, which would have to mean Fusaro, as Rennie is clearly not physically or mentally ready yet and is the only other one in the squad.

Did KB have a good game on sunday, not really and he ended up being hooked early. Did he provide good captaincy, doubtful as well and so he has to accept his share of the blame at a personal and team level. I would probably keep him on the bench as the most versatile sub. left field backrow of Beattie-Denton-Fusaro for me!

by little_badger Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:29 am

Beshocked my worry too is that Lancaster takes too long to learn the lessons. On the one hand yes ok he's giving those players a chance to prove themselves but to do that he's unbalanced the bench again.

If it doesn't work, again, then he might put Ford on the bench for Ireland as a debutante, by which point he could already have two caps. I can't understand why there is no fly-half cover for a game where there will be a lot of kicking.

by **RDW** Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:40 am

On KB's captaincy, it annoys me how little Scottish captains talk to refs. Half the Irish team were in regular conversation with the ref throughout the game (despite him telling them not to, and not following up his threats) - our captains hardly get their say in

by funnyExiledScot Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:26 pm

RDW - that was always going to be an issue with Kelly Brown. He isn't a shouter and a screamer, and he isn't aggressive with the ref. In some respects Laidlaw would make a better captain, purely because he's more forthright and confident with officials.

I thought Ireland were very good with Joubert. They were in his ear for 80 minutes and yet managed to just fall short of annoying him. He warned them a couple of times, but they got the balance about right.

Still, Brown has the respect of the players and to be honest Laidlaw's performance on Sunday wasn't out of the top drawer. This isn't the right time to change captains in my opinion.

by munkian Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:30 pm

It annoys me how OFTEN Irish players talk to the ref, should be Captain only

by **BigGee** Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:31 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:On KB's captaincy, it annoys me how little Scottish captains talk to refs. Half the Irish team were in regular conversation with the ref throughout the game (despite him telling them not to, and not following up his threats) - our captains hardly get their say in

Maybe KB, with his obvious communication issues is not best suited to being the captain. A leader by deeds not words clearly, but maybe it is starting to effect his form as well. It has been debated before that the captain has to have his position in the team nailed down as a bare minimum. He is struggling to fulfil that requirement at the moment, probably at no.6 and definitely at no.7. We made some pretty poor tactical decisions as well, both in that game and in the autumn when we kicked into the corner before taking straightforward penalty points, well before we were chasing the game.

Even my wife, who was humouring me by watching the match with me commented on how chatty the Irish were! She is Italian and so I had to explain to her that it was a national characteristic, both on and off the rugby pitch!

by quinsforever Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:33 pm

munkian wrote:It annoys me how OFTEN Irish players talk to the ref, should be Captain only

110% agree with that munk.

was embarrassing on saturday.

by funnyExiledScot Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:35 pm

munkian wrote:It annoys me how OFTEN Irish players talk to the ref, should be Captain only

I completely agree, but if the ref allows it then it's fair game for the players to influence him.

Just look at the SH sides, masters of getting into the ref.

Clearly I think we'd all agree that the captain only rule should be preserved, lest we end up with football's bad habits, but if the ref isn't enforcing the rule, then I think what us Scots are saying is that we shouldn't just stand by and allow the likes of POM asking the ref to watch out for this and that.

by Cyril Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:41 pm

munkian wrote:It annoys me how OFTEN Irish players talk to the ref, should be Captain only

Agreed. At one point on Sunday Joubert had to say 'you have to ask them to stop shouting at me' Shocked

by **BigGee** Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:49 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:RDW - that was always going to be an issue with Kelly Brown. He isn't a shouter and a screamer, and he isn't aggressive with the ref. In some respects Laidlaw would make a better captain, purely because he's more forthright and confident with officials.

I thought Ireland were very good with Joubert. They were in his ear for 80 minutes and yet managed to just fall short of annoying him. He warned them a couple of times, but they got the balance about right.

Still, Brown has the respect of the players and to be honest Laidlaw's performance on Sunday wasn't out of the top drawer. This isn't the right time to change captains in my opinion.

There are always other captaincy options. Some of our better performances recently have been when KB has been injured. That may be a complete co-incidence and believe me I do think a lot of KB as a player, he has certainly pulled his weight for Scotland over the years but the significance of the captaincy is perhaps overstated. There really should be several senior players in the side capable of stepping up and fulfilling that role. They talk a lot about leadership roles and teams, it really is silly to put all the onus on one player. Laidlaw, Cusiter and Fusaro have all captained this season to my knowledge and probably some of the others as well. Johnny Gray was given the A team arm band and seemed to do a pretty good job.

I think we should pick the team first and the captain second. We have had this before with Big Al, a captain who does not really deserve to be in the team is a liability. Trying to shoehorn him into the wrong position makes things even worse!

by Chjw131 Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:50 pm

Doesn't look as if George Ford is going to get a look-in this Championship unless we lose the Scotland match and then there's only an outside chance. Not selecting him on the bench for this match is absurd.

GF is the number one back-up FH to Farrell and come the most testing rugby tour on the planet he will have had the total of zero game time. That's given he's likely to have to start in the first Test against NZ.

Really really short-sighted bench selection in my view. You've got Jonny May there who might not last long given the 'undisplaced fracture' in his nose. Farrell has been cramping up badly from 68 mins or so and Dickson who added the sum total of naff all when he came on last time.

So that's no wing cover for a potentially injured wing, no FH cover for a FH who can't last in top nic for the full 80 and a SH who doesn't offer a great deal.

Fair enough pick a bench to play some dreadful conditions. Goode I can see as being a good positional option and kicker at FB a la Ireland last year. But if one is going down that road surely it's more important to have a proper FH who's an excellent kicker from hand, a SH who's the best kicker in the league and a wing who's spent most of his time as a FB?!

It smacks of defiance for the sake of it.

by Scrumpy Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:03 pm

I'd love to sit in on a selection meeting.

SL - So we're all agreed we need to give Ford a place on the bench, to cover for Owen and to gain some experience for the RWC etc…

GR - Yarp.

AF - Hmm, why? My boy can do the job on his own his that great and much better than the rest.

SL - I know Andy don't bring all that up again!

GR - Yarp.

AF - I just think we need more cover for 15, it’s a big weakness for us.

GR - Yarp.

SL - That’s a very good point!, are you chewing Graham?

GR- Yarp.

SL - Then please wait outside and see me later.

by tigertattie Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:17 pm

If he's picked, make big Jim the captain!

His comment to Joubert on Sunday was priceless

Joubert "I'm not saying it's always your fault, but everytime there is an issue, you are involved"

Hamilton "it's nothing personal sir"

by beshocked Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:33 pm

Scrumpy in your scenario where is Mike Catt? I know you believe that Andy Farrell has all the other coaches under his thumb but ultimately it's Stuart Lancaster's decision.

I would say that Brown's form has suffered because he has not been played in his best position which is 6. You're not being given much confidence by your coach if he won't pick you in your preferable position even when there are options available at 7.

Brown has been one of Scotland's most reliable and best players yet his position in the backrow is constantly under scrutiny. His name should be one of the first on the team sheet but under Johnson it hasn't.It doesn't help Brown when Johnson prefers Strokosch to him as a 6.

Just imagine a similar scenario for England if they kept picking Chris Robshaw at 8 for England.

If you are picked as captain, you shouldn't be fearing for your position in the starting line up. Brown has not had the support from the Scottish management and I feel that has affected his form.

Don't pick him as captain if you don't feel like his place is secure - at the moment Scotland are in a halfway house.

Brown does have issues with his communication but the Scottish management are making it worse by not wholeheartedly supporting Brown.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:44 pm

beshocked wrote:Scrumpy in your scenario where is Mike Catt? I know you believe that Andy Farrell has all the other coaches under his thumb but ultimately it's Stuart Lancaster's decision.

MC : "I really dont see what the problem with players who scerw up and gift tries to the opposition is, never did me any harm"

by Majestic83 Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:48 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:On KB's captaincy, it annoys me how little Scottish captains talk to refs. Half the Irish team were in regular conversation with the ref throughout the game (despite him telling them not to, and not following up his threats) - our captains hardly get their say in

I have noticed this aswell, think it is a problem with the Scotland team at the moment that they are too nice and have lost their nastyness. Had my reservations about Kelly being captain as i know he has always been quite a quiet figure even when we were teenagers. He is a player who leads by example but not someone who is in constant conversation with his team or the ref. Laidlaw probably would be a better choice to try and sway the ref but his place is under threat too.

by Bathman_in_London Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:54 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
beshocked wrote:Scrumpy in your scenario where is Mike Catt? I know you believe that Andy Farrell has all the other coaches under his thumb but ultimately it's Stuart Lancaster's decision.

MC : "I really dont see what the problem with players who scerw up and gift tries to the opposition is, never did me any harm"

or:

MC: "Of course Goode has the pace to play at full back internationally, look how well I did there. As for his defence, its easy to be made a fool of by a winger, Lomu Huget, they are all the same really."

by Scrumpy Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:13 pm

beshocked wrote:Scrumpy in your scenario where is Mike Catt? I know you believe that Andy Farrell has all the other coaches under his thumb but ultimately it's Stuart Lancaster's decision.

SL - Where is Catty, I haven't seen him all week? We could do with his input on these selection issues.

AF - Err, he was having these crazy ideas Boss that we need a more attacking 10 rather than my Boy, so I umm, I don't want to talk about it Stu!

SL - Have you shut him in the training grounds broom cupboard again? Go and let him out Graham, oh Graham BTW have the front row learnt how to scrumage yet?

GR - Yarp.

by nlpnlp Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:21 pm

Just what kind of bench do people want England to have? France had a 6:2 split forwards to backs compared to England's 5:3. You need to have a scrum half and then?? I assume SL thinks Twelvetrees or Goode are capable as playing at 10. Twelvetrees has played 10 at club level pretty regularly, including this year and is seen as a second flyhalf in the England team. For a long time Goode has been talked of as being a flyhalf rather than a fullback. If we went in with a bench of scrumhalf, Ford and say Eastmond, you would have no fullback or wing cover.

The problem is that you need so many forward replacements now, that you are always going to have to cut corners with your back replacements. Plus I think the SL / AF thinking is very rugby league based in that anyone can play anywhere if you can catch, pass and tackle. I don't necessarily agree with this, but don't think having to bring Ford on at fullback or wing is a better proposition than moving Brown or Burrell to the wing. It is a risk/reward gamble and I can't see Ford making a significantly bigger contribution at flyhalf for say 15 minutes at the end of a match if Farrell goes off, than Twelvetrees or Goode would. I accept the arguement that it would be good experience for Ford in the long run, but I think just looking at winning the Scotland match it is a gamble/risk worth taking.

by Geordie Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:25 pm

Just keep the team exactly the same (assuming May is able to hack it).

The bench however need looking at.

Dickson needs replaced. Hopefully Youngs can regain fitness and form and challenge Care to greater heights.

Im also not happy with Thomas on the bench...not a great prop or going to be in my opinion.

by Bathman_in_London Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:36 pm

That is a bit of an assumption, you wouldn't bet against his nose coming in for a little extra attention from the likes of Hamilton at the bottom of a ruck!

Thomas just shows how bare we are in in terms of TH's in their mid to late 20's. I'm not sure I'd risk any of the other options for now mind you...

by bluestonevedder Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:45 pm

I think Thomas will be a very decent tighthead, but at the moment he certainly isn't an encouraging name to see on the bench. He needs game time, and England are really struggling to find time to play him in internationals. In the Autumn would have been best and I know he did get a few minutes here and there, but there wasn't really an opportunity to give him a start. Argentina's scrum is very strong so we needed an experienced player to start there, and against Australia and NZ we were going for the win so wanted the first team out.

Time is really running out to test these players. Maybe the summer tour of NZ this year will be a baptism of fire for players like Thomas, Ford, Eastmond, etc.

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:50 pm

Heads certainly have to roll in the Scotland camp. I also feel Humphries is one of them.

Granted he doesn't coach the lineout to be in disarray, nor the scrum to be a shambles but he will have huge influence in selection. It's not as if Ford's failings at the scrum and lineout are a new problem.

Ford is the quintessential pro rugby player. Super fit, super strong but no technical acumen for his position whatsoever.

by Geordie Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:02 pm

Bathman

I would be interested in what the coaches opinions of the falcons lads are? If they have spoke to Dean Richards or Wells about them. I may be totally biased, but id prefer to see either of those (probably Brookes first) on the bench than Thomas.

by doctor_grey Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:40 pm

Ah screw it. Just pick the EQ playuers in the Saints pack and be done with it. Christian Day will drive the Tighthead forwards whether he likes it or not. England will go forwards and not lose the scrums or lineouts. But then, I am completely biased, and are very tired from shovelling snow and need a beer (although it is only 9:30am).

by yappysnap Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:11 pm

nlpnlp wrote:Just what kind of bench do people want England to have? France had a 6:2 split forwards to backs compared to England's 5:3. You need to have a scrum half and then?? I assume SL thinks Twelvetrees or Goode are capable as playing at 10. Twelvetrees has played 10 at club level pretty regularly, including this year and is seen as a second flyhalf in the England team. For a long time Goode has been talked of as being a flyhalf rather than a fullback. If we went in with a bench of scrumhalf, Ford and say Eastmond, you would have no fullback or wing cover.

The problem is that you need so many forward replacements now, that you are always going to have to cut corners with your back replacements. Plus I think the SL / AF thinking is very rugby league based in that anyone can play anywhere if you can catch, pass and tackle. I don't necessarily agree with this, but don't think having to bring Ford on at fullback or wing is a better proposition than moving Brown or Burrell to the wing. It is a risk/reward gamble and I can't see Ford making a significantly bigger contribution at flyhalf for say 15 minutes at the end of a match if Farrell goes off, than Twelvetrees or Goode would. I accept the arguement that it would be good experience for Ford in the long run, but I think just looking at winning the Scotland match it is a gamble/risk worth taking.

Most teams especially the SANZAR sides cover wing with their 9's if they don't have a specialist on the bench. If we have Youngs on the bench instead of the glacial Dickson then this could be a viable back up plan as either he or Care are quick enough to cover there. Allowing for a bench of Youngs, Ford, Twelvetrees/Goode/Watson/Eastmondetc.

by yappysnap Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:12 pm

Oh and with the return of the nasty weather that'll definitely effec this weekends game right? So a Barritt/Burrell midfield might be safer then Twelvetrees and his loopy wayward passing.

by WELL-PAST-IT Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:13 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Just keep the team exactly the same (assuming May is able to hack it).

The bench however need looking at.

Dickson needs replaced. Hopefully Youngs can regain fitness and form and challenge Care to greater heights.

Im also not happy with Thomas on the bench...not a great prop or going to be in my opinion.

Why GF, he is playing behind a pack trying to imitate the Saints style, quick ball, driving play before loosing the backs. He puts plenty of pace on the game and unlike any other England 9, bosses the forwards in the rucks and mauls, gets them moving and pushing the right direction. That is why Saints driving maul is one of the best in the business. Must be something to do with the water in Northampton, Dawson was the last 9 to be able to do that. Care and Youngs are very quiet by comparison.

You state Dickson needs replacing but then state the Youngs is unfit and out of form, who with? Simpson, equally out of form and not in the same class even when on form, Robson or one of the other young pretenders, untried and not even guaranteed a first team club spot. The only alternative is Wiggy who is similar to Dickson, good passer, strong defence but doesn't offer much sniping, surprising as he used to cover wing. Doesn't quite put the pace on the game Dickson does although he would be playing with his team 8 and 10.

by yappysnap Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:32 pm

Well- Past-It, at club level I agree with all of that about Dickson. Unfortunately at Int level i've seen none of it and I think it's been proven over the AI's and last weekends game that for England to have any attacking threat there must be pace at 9. That is more important then anything else while we have Farrell and a hodge podge midfield.

by yappysnap Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:33 pm

As to who'd replace Dickson I'd still go with Youngs if he is fit. He's potentially the best 9 England have and the only one that's upped his game for England in the past.

by Geordie Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:44 pm

Well past It

My reasons are as Yappy has mentioned, i havent seen any of it at international level.

Plus, personally with a real lack of running ability at 10-13 i think we need a 9 that has the ability to snipe and keep the defence guessing, something i dont believe Dickson does.

Whilst we havent really seen it on a consistant basis yet.... i believe that a running 9 like Youngs or Care balances out better with Farrell who impressed me on Satruday but doesnt have that real running edge to his game.

Ps As for a replacement..well Youngs and Care starter and bench if both fit and on form...but we are struggling in that position so i guess Dickson or Wigglesworth.

by RubyGuby Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:47 pm

Dickson should be no where near the squad, he's a limited player with a temperament that does not suit international rugby. Has to be 6 or 7th best SH at best. Stubborn Lancaster but that sub cost England the game no matter what others may think. Care was on fire and controlling the game with ease. thumbsup

by Taffineastbourne Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 pm

If this foul weather continues the odds of an upset get better and better.A mud bath with a howling wind would be a great leveller.

by yappysnap Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:14 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:If this foul weather continues the odds of an upset get better and better.A mud bath with a howling wind would be a great leveller.

Or the game gets cancelled? Could that be likely if the weather is really bad? Murrayfield does get pretty bad during normal winters...

by Chjw131 Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:36 pm

nlpnlp wrote:Just what kind of bench do people want England to have? France had a 6:2 split forwards to backs compared to England's 5:3. You need to have a scrum half and then?? I assume SL thinks Twelvetrees or Goode are capable as playing at 10. Twelvetrees has played 10 at club level pretty regularly, including this year and is seen as a second flyhalf in the England team. For a long time Goode has been talked of as being a flyhalf rather than a fullback. If we went in with a bench of scrumhalf, Ford and say Eastmond, you would have no fullback or wing cover.

The problem is that you need so many forward replacements now, that you are always going to have to cut corners with your back replacements. Plus I think the SL / AF thinking is very rugby league based in that anyone can play anywhere if you can catch, pass and tackle. I don't necessarily agree with this, but don't think having to bring Ford on at fullback or wing is a better proposition than moving Brown or Burrell to the wing. It is a risk/reward gamble and I can't see Ford making a significantly bigger contribution at flyhalf for say 15 minutes at the end of a match if Farrell goes off, than Twelvetrees or Goode would. I accept the arguement that it would be good experience for Ford in the long run, but I think just looking at winning the Scotland match it is a gamble/risk worth taking.

Eastmond has played wing a fair bit and was based there for Bath before being moved to centre. He has also played full back for England Saxons and has played FH as well for Bath. He's the definition of a multi-skilled back.

My suggestion would be 21. R Wigglesworth 22. G Ford 23. A Watson - that gives you wing/fb/centre and FH cover (x2). That's about as good as it's going to get. Further, what it gives you is a bit of joined up thinking with the forwards.

What's the point of having big impact carriers like Mako V, T Youngs, D Attwood and Ben Morgan without having the incision in the backs capable of taking advantage of the holes and dis-organised defence.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:53 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:If this foul weather continues the odds of an upset get better and better.A mud bath with a howling wind would be a great leveller.

Close the roof! ....
Oh

It does mean Scotland more than ever need their pack to wake up.

by Sponsored content