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

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

Webber has been going fairly well in the games I've seen him play. Strong scrummager, good lineout thrower, excellent defender around the fringes. Decent ball carrier, but will do his carrying in the tight rather than make the big busting runs that Youngs did on Saturday.

I think he is worth a bench place at some point in the 6Ns

Mehitnks if Webber makes his throws, can make some hard yards and defends well, then that is what we need.  The big runs are nice, but fundamentals first, right?

Well said Yappysnap.

Bambam 6/10 seems generous in my opinion.

I would give Nowell,Goode and Twelvetrees 5/10.

Care,Farrell,Burrell and Brown 7/10.


Concede 3 tries out wide and it's not exploiting it?

I presume Barritt was on the bench to cover either of the centre positions as the Boy Scout bomber feared the French centres? 12T's and Burrell have been consistent throughout the season so if you're going to have a centre on the bench it should be someone who is capable of covering other positions as well. Furthermore Barritt has only recently returned from injury and has played in only a few games without distinction. Surely this was the opportunity (squandered) to select Eastmond on the bench.

Beshocked you have a very bad case of Saracenitious.

Can everyone please stop selecting May at OC. He is winger who can adequately play fullback. His OC performances have been injury induced only and he does not have the skills, defence or vision to seriously start OC for England.

doctor_grey wrote:Mehitnks if Webber makes his throws, can make some hard yards and defends well, then that is what we need.  The big runs are nice, but fundamentals first, right?

I agree. Now I think about it, his defence is something that stands out, he really is a brick wall around the fringes. With our fairly athletic back 5 in the pack, someone who will not give up the gainline could be very useful against the likes of South Africa and Wales.

Obviously this is based on his defence at club level, but defensive strength usually does translate to the international scene

kingelderfield

you suffer from Gloucester-itis. Twelvetrees can do no wrong in your eyes. He is a deity.

Twelvetrees has been consistent? Consistent at making errors perhaps. He is meant to be a creative 12 yet he has not delivered except for one game vs Scotland. I think he's overrated and have seen nothing to the contrary.

Eastmond? Really?

Barritt has played in 4 games since coming back from injury.

So if those 2 bounces of the ball go Englands way you would have been happy beshocked?

For all Tom Youngs carrying over the gainline, if we continue to lose crucial lineouts in the last minutes of games then something has to change. I'm not saying it's unsalvageable but I think he missed a front jumper, 5 metres from the French line.

I think some are missing the point. 12T isn't a bad player - he just doesn't do what it says on the tin. It's more muddled thinking by SL. If you want a playmaker - select one. 12T has proven he is not one. If you want a solid organized defensive 12 - Brad is better at doing this than 12T. A Farrell/12T/Burrell is no more rugby-playing than a Farrell/Barritt/Burrell. Only Brad is a bit better at the slightly limited game he plays. What we need is a back 3 that can create and finish with pace. Oh, and doesn't cry off with a tummy ache every time someone shouts at them. This is where SL needs to earn his money.

I don't understand why each other's club allegiances have to be brought up. I don't support an AP club, but support English rugby in general, so its hard for me to understand why others wouldn't want the best England team, regardless of who they play for

beshocked wrote:
I would give Nowell,Goode and Twelvetrees 5/10.

Care,Farrell,Burrell and Brown 7/10.

I'd agree with that

They didn't. England lost. England did not lose because of the bounce of the ball. These things happen. They lost because of poor decision making, poor selection and poor substitutions.

Should have taken the 3 points before half time, arguably shouldn't have started Twelvetrees,arguably shouldn't have started Nowell or May, foolishly taking players off, picking the wrong substitutes, T.Youngs should have nailed his lineout, etc.

England should have won - you can talk about the bounce of the ball but it should have not mattered.

I would have been satisfied if England had won but it would have just papered over cracks. England need to stop playing players out of position. This is something that Lancaster has done time and again with detrimental effects.

If England had won it would have vindicated Lancaster's decisions but they didn't.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I think some are missing the point. 12T isn't a bad player - he just doesn't do what it says on the tin. It's more muddled thinking by SL. If you want a playmaker - select one. 12T has proven he is not one. If you want a solid organized defensive 12 - Brad is better at doing this than 12T. A Farrell/12T/Burrell is no more rugby-playing than a Farrell/Barritt/Burrell. Only Brad is a bit better at the slightly limited game he plays. What we need is a back 3 that can create and finish with pace. Oh, and doesn't cry off with a tummy ache every time someone shouts at them. This is where SL needs to earn his money.

Agree with most of that, though I do think Twelvetrees is overrated. Perhaps for the reasons you say - he is supposedly meant to be a playmaker but has not delivered there.

Finding a back three that can create and finish with pace - the million £ question.....

Nowell's inexperience was exposed but you can see the potential there. Now that Lancaster has picked him he must be retained for Scotland.

Lancaster should either pick Ashton or Watson vs Scotland - what do you think?


Bambam I think we have differing views of what is best for England and yes there is a bit of club bias.

beshocked wrote:kingelderfield

you suffer from Gloucester-itis. Twelvetrees can do no wrong in your eyes. He is a deity.

Twelvetrees has been consistent? Consistent at making errors perhaps. He is meant to be a creative 12 yet he has not delivered except for one game vs Scotland. I think he's overrated and have seen nothing to the contrary.

Eastmond? Really?

Barritt has played in 4 games since coming back from injury.

Remember Twelvetrees has been playing outside your boy 'stands in the stands' Farrell.

The fact is the Care, Farrell, 12T’s combo actually worked on Saturday and there were real signs of progress with Farrell standing a lot flatter. Defence was solid and barring one obvious missed overlap by 12T's his performance was in the main similar to the teams mean. Furthermore like it or not barring injury the Farrell/12T's partnership is here to stay so I would suck it up if I were you.

And yes for once open your eyes, Eastmond has international talent written all over him and though he will struggle to break into the starting 15 his ability allows him to cover across the backline. Or are you trying to tell us that you actually supported the Barritt Goode bench options?

They were only out of position after May went off. We replaced a man who can run 100m in 10.71s with a sloth.

I actually rate Goode but with Brown on as well and a novice winger, it was a ridiculous back 3.

Realistic Lancaster backline;

Care
Watson
Farrell
Twelvetrees
Burrell
Nowell
Brown

My bench; Youngs, Ford, Eastmond
Bombers bench; Dicky, Barritt, Goode

'Finding a back three that can create and finish with pace - the million £ question.....'

I whole heartedly agree with this; however we have to find the confidence to play with the ball in hand and learn to be more accurate and astute in our overall kicking game - though I believe Saturday was an improvement - options and execution must improve. Box kicks and bombs have to be of the highest order to be effective.

On a positive note although our wings are still unsettled we do have backline options to return from injury, especially Wade who I have real hopes for.

kingelderfield wrote:

beshocked wrote:kingelderfield

you suffer from Gloucester-itis. Twelvetrees can do no wrong in your eyes. He is a deity.

Twelvetrees has been consistent? Consistent at making errors perhaps. He is meant to be a creative 12 yet he has not delivered except for one game vs Scotland. I think he's overrated and have seen nothing to the contrary.

Eastmond? Really?

Barritt has played in 4 games since coming back from injury.

Remember Twelvetrees has been playing outside your boy 'stands in the stands' Farrell.

The fact is the Care, Farrell, 12T’s combo actually worked on Saturday and there were real signs of progress with Farrell standing a lot flatter. Defence was solid and barring one obvious missed overlap by 12T's his performance was in the main similar to the teams mean. Furthermore like it or not barring injury the Farrell/12T's partnership is here to stay so I would suck it up if I were you.

And yes for once open your eyes, Eastmond has international talent written all over him and though he will struggle to break into the starting 15 his ability allows him to cover across the backline. Or are you trying to tell us that you actually supported the Barritt Goode bench options?

Well I hope you are wrong.

Farrell Jr showed more attacking threat and creativity than Twelvetrees did.  It was Farrell Jr showing progress agreed but not Twelvetrees.

Err, no it was the Care/Farrell halfback combo working properly.

Eastmond has international talent written all over him? Shame he couldn't show much of that in the two Saxons matches!

No I don't support the Barritt,Goode options. I would drop Goode and start Barritt instead of Twelvetrees.

kingelderfield you want to pick another losing backline?

I would say the two bounces had a big say on the result beshocked as France didn't look that dangerous going forward.

 Blame the ball and the pitch then no 7 &1/2.

For what it's worth the changes I would make would be minimal (and potentially enforced).

Webber potentially for Youngs (not gonna happen but anyway). Watson for May (if needed).

Bench: Youngs, Ford, Eastmond

Or just accept that these things happen beshocked. It's unfortunate but can happen to any player. It doesn't mean the wrong players were chosen.

Having watched the Scotland game last night there are a lot of areas that need drastic improvement for us to start winning. The main areas though that i spotted that really contributed to Scotland losing and putting in a pretty weak performance were.
1. Lineouts
2. Hooking
3. slowness at the breakdown
4. Backrow combination

The Scottish Lineout has not operated well for a few seasons now. There seems to be various factors for this, Ford not being able to throw straight which has resulted in some players lacking in confidence. Also there seems to be a willingness to try over complicated line out moves that players don't seem comfortable with or seem to know the calls. A couple times yesterday scottish ball was thrown in and the jumper didn't even get off the ground. Not sure if this is purely down to the players but also the coaching of Jonathan Humphries who is forwards and line out coach. The period when the Scottish line out operated best was when Scott Murray was playing. He is coaching these days so why not get him in to work on the line outs!

The hooking or more so non hooking was unforgivable, Ford never even made an attempt at hooking the ball. It wasn't the first time it happened yesterday. In the autumn tests there were at least 2 scrums that we lost against the head, I am sure one was even against Japan! A change at hooker is needed, MacArthur looked more confident throwing the ball in and looked comfortable hooking the ball. He needs to start, yes there might be bulk lost but Ford isn't putting his bulk to good use at the moment.

Scotland seemed to be very slow to the breakdown yesterday and also getting down and across the ball at ruck and tackle situations. Definitely lacking a genuine openside. Noticed at least on 3 occasions Brown and Chris Henry going up against each other for the same ball on the deck and Henry beat Brown to is by a good fraction. For all Brown is a good player he is not a scavenger on the deck, Scotland have some very good 7s in Rennie, Barclay, Fusaro and now Cowan but for what ever reason Johnson just doesn't seem to want to pick a 7 or realise that this is one of Scotlands biggest problems at the moment.

The backrow just didn't gel. Thought it was one of the poorest performances by a Scottish back row in a long time. They were beaten to the ball by the Irish far too often and turned over very little ball where as the Irish were able to get a good bit of turn over possesion or at least slow or ball down. Wilson, Brown and Denton are all good players but it just didn't work as there are too many similarities between them. Brown either needs to move back to 6 which is by far his best position but if Johnson insits on Brown being a 7 then he needs to be dropped becase he just isn't effective enough to be a 7.

Changes for Saturday i think will be limited due to the short turn around but I would change MacArthur for Ford, Brown to 6 and Rennie to 7. I would make more if there was a bigger gap between games but i think those 2 positions are the key for Scotland improving from the Ireland performance.

reallybored wrote:Set-piece cost us the game, their tries came form mistakes there and we couldn't capitalise on good positions.  This is the biggest issue to fix for England match, personnel changes are necessary if we're to compete with England.

MacArthur for Ford, most obvious change but will lose bulk in front row at scrum time.

Welsh for Low, may be least experienced TH but he's the most solid scrummager.  

I'd bring J Gray onto the bench ahead of Richie, he's got more bulk and will have greater impact.

Back-row performed well in 1st half, thought Beattie had a good impact. Would like a genuine open-side but would stick with Brown unless Rennie or Barclay are available.

Half-backs did well enough, hopefully introduction of Scott at 12 will give us more threat in midfield alongside Dunbar.

Hogg did well, Lamont and Evans were poor but lack of options may force Johnson's hand.  Fingers crossed Maitland's ankle isn't as bad as it looked and Seymour is available for selection.

No need for a radical change of tactics, keep England deep and make sure we're clinical at set-piece.  I'd like to see more pick and goes round the fringes to keep the opposition on their toes, need Dunbar & Scott hitting the gain line.

1 - Grant
2 - MacArthur
3 - Welsh
4 - Swinson
5 - Hamilton
6 - Wilson
7 - Brown
8 - Denton
9 - Laidlaw
10 - Weir
11 - Lamont
12 - Scott
13 - Dunbar
14 - Seymour
15 - Hogg

16 - Ford
17 - Dickinson
18 - Low
19 - Gray
20 - Beattie
21 - Cusiter
22 - Tonks
23 - Taylor

I'd disagree about Evans, I was pretty pleased when he came on. He tackled well, covered in defence well and when he got the ball he looked to run with it and did
make some good yards. He looked hungry for it as he will know himself his chances are test level are limited these days.
Thought Lamont played fairly well too, again he tackled very well and ran hard with the ball, just the same as usual he didn't get a lot of ball and when he did it wasn't in
space. Planet rugby have actually named Lamont at number 11 in team of the week due to the stats that came back. Thought the backline looked fairly solid but just didn't
get enough good ball to really do anything.

no 7 &1/2 that's your opinion fair enough.

Personally I think England blew it. Threw away an opportunity at a grandslam with poor selection and decision making.

You perhaps feel that England could not do more but I think they could have done a lot more.

little badger why would you make those changes? Is it your desire for England to lose again?

I don't understand how poor selection led to that result though beshocked. Even if we say that Twelvetrees didn't have a great attacking game we didn't suffer defensively. It's unlikely Barritt would have added anything extra in attack and we could have played anyone on the wings and full back and they still would have been undone with a similar bounce. On the attack they scored 2 tries and scored over 20 points away to France.

While I think the selection on the 1st 15 was ok there was a lack of balance in the backs on the bench (all more defensive players than the starters) but even then as a few people pointed out previous to the game if the debutants were having nightmares you'd want a Goode or a Barritt coming on.

beshocked wrote:no 7 &1/2 that's your opinion fair enough.

Personally I think England blew it. Threw away an opportunity at a grandslam with poor selection and decision making.

You perhaps feel that England could not do more but I think they could have done a lot more.

little badger why would you make those changes? Is it your desire for England to lose again?

England lost, partly because the replacements couldn't match the extra speed France brought to the game in the last 5 mins. This is in my humble opinion down to backs on the bench who lacked impact. England finished with the slowest backline possible, I don't think it's a coincidence that a quick ball wide found them out.

I can not justify picking Goode again, he was not good. Watson comes in because he's the next one in line, traveled with the squad etc, basically the most similar to May and therefore the game plan.

England suffered from not having a recognised 10, what if Farrell gets injured in the first 10 mins? Youngs basically because Lee Dickon flaps around like a footballer and I don't like him.

no 7 &1/2 yes I suppose that's true but Twelvetrees is meant to be in the XV as a playmaker. If he isn't doing that then what does he offer?

little badger It would make more sense to recall Ashton. What would be the point of playing another inexperienced winger. Watson will just flounder like Nowell.

Goode was not the only poor player yet he's the only one to be dropped? Doesn't sound consistent to me - Twelvetrees needs dropping too.

Remember Goode had been playing for 75 minutes against a fresh quicker player who had just come on.

I could be pursuaded to agree that Tweletrees hasn't set the world alight with his attacking but I thought the midfield defended well. If you're dropping him for attacknig reasons surely you can't replace him for Barritt?

With Barritt you put in a better defender and he'll be partnering his no 10 team mate. Seems like a logical decision. I feel that Barritt is also a more reliable option, less likely to throw stupid passes or knock on.

The midfield did keep Fofana and Bastareaud in check. I'll accept that.

Nowell made mistakes yes, in his first test start he had a shakey 30 mins. From then on he actually made some excellent tackles, ran well with the ball, I think it's harsh to say he floundered. We're back to Ashton again, realistically he might not lose us a game but I think England's plan was to use May's pace out wide, why not pick a similar player? Yes he uncapped but, no disrespect, if Scotland play like they did on Sunday it won't matter.

My reason for 12Trees is that simply I don't want to change the centre partnership yet again. He's in danger no doubt.

I'm also dropping Barritt and Youngs, no just Goode. On that point he didn't even try and tackle Fickou even though he could have, man running at your line with the ball, you don't know where the cover is, you smash him, simple as.

I completely agree with you up to a point. Barritt is great at what he does and should remain in the squad as a valuable option but if the direction England are wanting to go in is have a more attacking team who do get their backs moving I feel a more attacking option is necessary. We need to sort this ASAP for the good in the medium to short term. For me the options are stick with 36, bring in Eastmond, move Burrell to 12 and bring in Daly or Barritt in with either Eastmond or Daly outside. Don't think Barritt and Burrell is a balanced partnership.

I think both side's disadvantages cancel each other out - no decent centres - though Burrell is prob the better player on the pitch

little badger Nowell was a mixed bag. It's not surprising it's his first cap and he's very inexperienced. Did he vindicate his selection in my eyes? No.

Putting in Watson who is just as inexperienced seems a recipe for disaster and another loss on the cards.

How many chances will Twelvetrees get? It's not even as if he's in good club form.


Disagree munkian. I think England have the much superior half backs and a stronger pack.

So Barritt to start to get the midfield going forward...

Personally glad in one instance that Nowell started ahead of Ashton and that was when Picamoles was marauding down the wing!

Well he'll certainly do no worse than Twelvetrees.

beshocked wrote:little badger Nowell was a mixed bag. It's not surprising it's his first cap and he's very inexperienced. Did he vindicate his selection in my eyes? No.

Putting in Watson who is just as inexperienced seems a recipe for disaster and another loss on the cards.

How many chances will Twelvetrees get? It's not even as if he's in good club form.


Disagree munkian. I think England have the much superior half backs and a stronger pack.

I think Nowell played reasonably well for such a young lad winning his first cap away. His mistake at the start was hardly his fault the ball was obscured. He was positionaly out at times but he offered something going forward, under the high ball and in defence.

The difficulty is going to be left wing. It really seems a shoot-out between shifting Nowell, Ashton or Watson over there. Playing Ashton there would seem the obvious move but i'd like to see Watson start there, even though it's out of position for him as well. He offers pace and stepping akin to May, which is something the team will have trained with for two weeks.

Tom Youngs will stay, although i'd like to see Webber there. Myler, Webber and Wigglesworth have been released back to their clubs.

I think Lancs will go with Watson but i'd expect him to bring Barritt into the centre and shift 36 to the bench.

I'd like to see: 11. A Watson 14. J Nowell 15. M Brown then 21. B Youngs 22. G Ford 23. K Eastmond

Lanc's bench will look more like 21. L Dickson 22. A Goode 23. B Twelvetrees which again is pretty dire.

beshocked wrote:Well he'll certainly do no worse than Twelvetrees.

What exactly is your basis for decrying Twelvetrees' performance? He offers good defence, a long kicking game, option to stand-in at first receiver, carrying and an ability to get the ball wide from 10/12 or 13.

Barritt is a seriously high quality quasi-flanker and little more. His organisation of others in defence is good and he tackles better than 36. Bar that he offers no kicking, passing or FH qualities from 12.

chjw131 I think Lancaster will pick both Watson and twelvetrees unfortunately.

As to what he does on the bench - I don't know.

I have lost faith in Lancaster.

I think you have to look at his aim which is to increase our attacking options. He wants a passing inside centre which Barritt isn't. Twelvetrees hasn't pulled up any but he does fit the bill. He wants solid defence out wide and ability to beat a man hence Ashton dropped for the minute. I can see where he's trying to get to.

Chjw131 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Well he'll certainly do no worse than Twelvetrees.

What exactly is your basis for decrying Twelvetrees' performance? He offers good defence, a long kicking game, option to stand-in at first receiver, carrying and an ability to get the ball wide from 10/12 or 13.

Barritt is a seriously high quality quasi-flanker and little more. His organisation of others in defence is good and he tackles better than 36. Bar that he offers no kicking, passing or FH qualities from 12.

Not much use when he kicks instead of passing for the overlap. Altho his passing is mediocre, so maybe he was playing percentages .

Without a pacey back 3 who can create stuff (as well as chase down the oppo) we’re in trouble because no obvious selection in the midfield is going to provide that extra spark now; unless we say the GS gone so wtf, let’s have an all new backline - again. I guess it’s not Stewie’s fault all our pacey wingers are committing hari kari – I mean Yarde had 1 proper game in the AI, May 5 minutes and Wade zero – if I wasn’t sobbing I’d be bereft of ribs.

So it almost doesn’t matter who we now have at 12, 12T or Barritt, they’re both there doing the same job. I just think Barritt at his best has shown much more skill than 12T (who’s no better a choice at 12 than Tomkins was at 13).

As to the problem back 3 – provided we pick the only wingers left in the country at wing, that’ll have to do. But to blood yet another new boy just sounds a bit desperate. So it’s Ashton and Nowell.

Also Ashton will be peeved if he’s gone from 1st choice winger to 13th in the space of a couple of games. And he doesn't seem to hobble off after a few minutes (only to be replaced by the slowest winger in history - Goode).

beshocked wrote:They didn't. England lost. England did not lose because of the bounce of the ball. These things happen. They lost because of poor decision making, poor selection and poor substitutions.

Should have taken the 3 points before half time, arguably shouldn't have started Twelvetrees,arguably shouldn't have started Nowell or May, foolishly taking players off, picking the wrong substitutes, T.Youngs should have nailed his lineout, etc.

England should have won - you can talk about the bounce of the ball but it should have not mattered.

I would have been satisfied if England had won but it would have just papered over cracks. England need to stop playing players out of position. This is something that Lancaster has done time and again with detrimental effects.

If England had won it would have vindicated Lancaster's decisions but they didn't.

Beshocked, I was with you to an extent until the bold highlighted bit. For once just about everybody in the starting XV were playing in their club positions.

I don't think Barritt should be on the bench, he either plays or is out of the 23. He is a specialist centre. Goode should be dropped altogether, not necessarily for his performance but again he is too one positional. You only get three backs on the bench, one has to be a 9, the other a 10 if Barritt is playing in lieu of 36, the third has to be a true utility player that can play 11,14,15 or if necessary 13. Watson is possible for this as Ford can go 10 and Farrell 12. Miller could probably do it, Goode can't. We arguably lost the game due to having too many players playing out of position i.e. Burrell and Brown. What was also UNFORGIVABLE (Beshocked is not going to like this) but both Goode who failed to make the tackle and Barritt who was covering back, both gave up and failed to try and limit the damage by keeping the try in the corner, they stopped and watched whilst he ran under the post.

I think as much as anything it was SL's muddled thinking in selecting the bench that cost England the game, that and the nutritionist, at this level we should not be getting players going down with cramp. It is not the first time Farrell has suffered form it playing for England, does he cramp up for Sarries Beshocked?

As Manu is a cert when he gets back and the only position up for grabs is 13, I would be interested in seeing a combo of Burrell at 12 and Barritt at13. The potential combo of Burrell and Manu is mouth watering. Burrell distributes perfectly well for Saints getting Pisi into space. Also defences might know the crash ball is coming, but will not know from where, this should free up space for Farrell to send out his miss-pass straight to Manu who could feed the wing in space rather than hard on the touch line as we usually get now.

How close is Wilson to be fit, Cole always suffers against good scrummaging shorter props, especially the likes of Domingo and Ayerta. He also looks like he needs a rest.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Well he'll certainly do no worse than Twelvetrees.

What exactly is your basis for decrying Twelvetrees' performance? He offers good defence, a long kicking game, option to stand-in at first receiver, carrying and an ability to get the ball wide from 10/12 or 13.

Barritt is a seriously high quality quasi-flanker and little more. His organisation of others in defence is good and he tackles better than 36. Bar that he offers no kicking, passing or FH qualities from 12.

Not much use when he kicks instead of passing for the overlap. Altho his passing is mediocre, so maybe he was playing percentages .

We can all pick on one decision made by a player that probably wasn't the right call. Even Conrad Smith.

36's passing game left to right is actually very good, his right to left is weaker but by no means poor. At least he can and does pass the ball, neither of which Barritt does.

Burrell seems to be able to pass and carry but whether he's confident enough to execute his passing at the highest level remains to be seen. Twelvetrees is a good player and can be a lot better. He needs more time in the shirt and bar one very poor attempt at a tackle he's not done much wrong for England.

Put it this way, as far as SL is concerned it's either Billy at 12 or Goode at 15 and I know which way my call would go!

Maitland is out of the match

I was very dispondant after losing a game a i really felt we should have won.

Keep the same team, give them another chance to get the victory. IF twelvetrees doesnt perform then consider a change...but give him another chance.

Tom Youngs is a big concern for me. His loose play may be excellent etc but it is irrelevant when it comes to his key skills as a hooker...and in the last two England games those have had major impacts.

chjw131 comparing Conrad Smith to Billy Twelvetrees?  Twelvetrees' passing was poor - I remember one when he threw the ball at Billy.V's ankles and unsurprisingly he knocked it on.

Well-past it Brown is not a winger, neither is Goode or Burrell.

Burrell was playing at 13 when he's a 12 then he was moved to wing.

Lancaster has a habit of playing players out of position. Other than that I agree with most of what you said.

Farrell went down with cramp but so did Nowell. Farrell soldiered on, Nowell didn't. No he doesn't generally cramp up but he has on occasion limped off. He doesn't generally play the full 80.

Agree with the rest though.

12Trees needs a big game, Cole needs a flipping rest and Tom Youngs needs to make all his throws or else he's in real danger (for me anyway, he'll probs still be picked).

Chjw131 wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Well he'll certainly do no worse than Twelvetrees.

What exactly is your basis for decrying Twelvetrees' performance? He offers good defence, a long kicking game, option to stand-in at first receiver, carrying and an ability to get the ball wide from 10/12 or 13.

Barritt is a seriously high quality quasi-flanker and little more. His organisation of others in defence is good and he tackles better than 36. Bar that he offers no kicking, passing or FH qualities from 12.

Not much use when he kicks instead of passing for the overlap. Altho his passing is mediocre, so maybe he was playing percentages .

We can all pick on one decision made by a player that probably wasn't the right call. Even Conrad Smith.

36's passing game left to right is actually very good, his right to left is weaker but by no means poor. At least he can and does pass the ball, neither of which Barritt does.

Burrell seems to be able to pass and carry but whether he's confident enough to execute his passing at the highest level remains to be seen. Twelvetrees is a good player and can be a lot better. He needs more time in the shirt and bar one very poor attempt at a tackle he's not done much wrong for England.

Put it this way, as far as SL is concerned it's either Billy at 12 or Goode at 15 and I know which way my call would go!

No real evidence of that at international level so far though.  I've been a big fan of 36 and wanted him in the England squad for years, but he's shown next to none of the playmaking and passing ability that he's displayed for his clubs in the past and that he was selected for.

His best England performance to date was last year's match against Scotland, but that was due to his running of the ball rather than playmaking.  He made good metres from his 16 runs, with a nice line break for his try.  He only passed the ball 6 times however (none of which were notable attacking plays), and that that match saw more ball and opportunites for our back three than they've seen all year was actually largely due to Barritt providing the linking role outside him (a mix of straighforward and some nice touches over 15 passes and 3 offloads).

36 shouldn't be dropped yet, but unless over the next couple of games he can bring that playmaking ability to his international performances or show more of the running he did on his debut, Burrell or Barritt will rightly be given opportunities in the 12 shirt.

I don't think Nowell asked to be taken off. I also don't want to see Ashton in the squad for Scotland, yes Nowell made some errors (only at the start, he made very few for the rest of the game) but no more so than Ashton normally would plus he was actually a threat going forwards, he also made tackles!! I back him to continue where he finished off and would have Watson on the other wing, another pacey guy who is good under the high ball and solid in defence.

The 2 tries that France scored couldn't have been helped, we could have had world class wingers out there and the bounce would have beaten them too. It's not a case of our wings being a weakness, just some bad luck. The only person i hold responsible for the 2nd try is Goode who made a pathetic attempt at a tackle on Huget before watching him run around him, incidentally this was Goodes only attempt at a tackle for the whole game. Makes you wonder what he did in defence for the rest of the game.....

I hope that SL and his coaches learn from Paris and stop this automatic use of the subs. I agree that Webber should be on the bench, but obviosly there will be no changes and we can only hope that Youngs throws his darts a bit better this time. The combo with Mako Vunipola does not work. We keep losing the scrums as we saw in the Lions series as well. Even more reason for Webber to be there. Last yeasr we all agreed that Farrell, Barrit and Manu were just not creative enough and that 36 had to come in. I have been hugely disappointed in 36 as has everyone else and now think that Barrit may be the better option. He has come back looking fit and has played well for Sarries. However, there is something to say for continuity so I won't complain too much if 36 has another crack. If it is not working out then take him off and move on. I would probably prefer Eastmond in there with Burrell and later with Manu, but I know that his defence would be questioned. But I would at least like to see Eastmond on the bench. Give Nowell another crack as he showed character to come back into it and start Watson if May unfit. The reasons for dropping Ashton are still valid.

As for Scotland.....pray for wind and rain and just smash into us with all your hearts. You have turned us over before and with real desire you can do it again. A scrappy arm wrestle could just see you home.