England subs vs Italy

Couldn't watch the game on Saturday as I was playing a re-arranged league fixture, but just watched the highlights.

Noticed that interestingly, Lancaster brought on Ford and left Farrell on too, so that the game finished with a midfield axis of

10. Ford
12. Farrell
13. Tuilagi

Was there any indication of why this decision was made? Was it an injury or tactical?

I've always liked Farrell at 12 and actually think that even though our centres have been good that midfield looks decent. Anyone agree?

Don't think I'd ever start Farrell there but he was left on for his kicking.

I think Bomber also said in passing that 36 had not trained all week. It did mean it was a surprise when Burrell was taken off for Manu instead.

I thought it suggested a lack of faith in Ford's goalkicking - the one thing that worries me about him.


Not worried at all about his defence. For Leicester we trusted him to make the tackles, opponents ran at him and he usually put them down. From memory in a similar number of games to Farrell in AP last season Ford made 93 tackles (about 8 missed) to Farrells 87 (about 15 missed). Of course Owen was playing at 13 as well as 10. Bath should trust Ford rather than trying to hide him.



The numbers I quote were on the Telegraph website up until about 2 weeks ago. Sadly gone now.

lostinwales wrote:I think Bomber also said in passing that 36 had not trained all week. It did mean it was a surprise when Burrell was taken off for Manu instead.

Yeah i didnt get the logic there.

Burrell playing class all tournament, and is a 12 playing at 13...Twelvetrees not trained all week...surely logic would be you move Burrell 12 and bring Tuilagi on for Twelvetrees at 13??

GeordieFalcon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I think Bomber also said in passing that 36 had not trained all week. It did mean it was a surprise when Burrell was taken off for Manu instead.

Yeah i didnt get the logic there.

Burrell playing class all tournament, and is a 12 playing at 13...Twelvetrees not trained all week...surely logic would be you move Burrell 12 and bring Tuilagi on for Twelvetrees at 13??

Too logical. Lancaster got it wrong when it came to the usage of the bench in the 6 nations and vs NZ (   I know). I can understand why Burrell was angry. I would be too.

Yep, SL got that wrong at so many levels. Burrell was really peed off and rightly so especially as Manu and Luther might well have had a field day for those 10 mins or so. A well, tis history now

I think the logic might simply have been that Farrell and Ford (and Manu) have played a lot of age grade rugby together and might have been expected to click faster than Ford, Burrell & Manu, who I suspect have never played together

If 12trees had missed some training and was a fitness doubt, I can understand even more why Burrell was steaming about being subbed. Not to say that Billy T was having a poor game, and indeed he did quite well ball in hand, but Burrell was causing some serious problems to the Italians, and when he was subbed had just been stopped from scoring by a stray Italian leg knocking the ball away as he went to ground it (led to the slightly harsh yellow card for Bortolami picking the loose ball up offside).

I'd have brought Manu on for either May, who was getting no joy on his wing or 12trees, moving Burrell inside to try and maximise the ball-carrying power in midfield. Now, whether it would have made any difference to the final score is obviously unknown, but I think would have been a more aggressive substitution.

I thought the 'empty the bench' attitude didn't really help the flow of our game and may have been the difference between setting Ireland a taarget on the points difference and not - no real issues with Mullan or Thomas coming on at prop and Attwood produced one great break, but Johnson offers less quality than Wood, while Dickson replacing Care really took some momentum out of our sails. And Youngs yet again missed his first lineout (badly - miscommunication?) and so blew another attacking opportunity.

Why once Morgan started and we had Johnson on the bench did Lancaster insist on Wood being subbed? He was a key contributer to our ball retention in those games but it seemed like SL just wanted to give TJ a run out anyway.

Both the Wales and Italy games became a lot more sloppy when Wood came off and others came on to the pitch

I think the idea was too give both Tualaghi and Ford and Some game time.

Luther Burrel was not a happy chappy when he was taken off.

I personaly thought they made the Tualaghi replacement too early to be honest, would of liked to seen him stay on longer.

Burrell should not have come off...Burrell should have gone to 12, with Tuilagi at 13.
Very simple.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Burrell should not have come off...Burrell should have gone to 12, with Tuilagi at 13.
Very simple.

  

well neither Tuilagi or 36 will likely be in the AV final so perhaps he had one eye on the first test against NZ.

nathan wrote:well neither Tuilagi or 36 will likely be in the AV final so perhaps he had one eye on the first test against NZ.

Agree with 36 but Tuilagi could easily be playing in the final. Not basing this on you Nathan but I'm surprised so many people seem certain it will be a Saints Saracens final - it's knockout rugby, teams form can and will change and Tigers especially could improve if/when influential injured players return before the end of the season. Same as last season when people assumed it would be a Tigers Sarries final and Saints came along and won on the plastic....