England v Samoa - Who should play?

by **LondonTiger** Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:43 pm

First topic message reminder :

You are limited to the 28 man squad that Lancaster retained - what would be your team?

England Squad

Loose-head prop
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Matt Mullan (Wasps)

Tight-head prop
Kieran Brookes (Newcastle Falcons)
David Wilson (Bath Rugby)

Hooker
Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints)
Rob Webber (Bath Rugby)

Lock
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby)
George Kruis (Saracens)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints)

Back row
Calum Clark (Northampton Saints)
James Haskell (Wasps)
Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby)
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)(c)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)
Tom Wood (Northampton Saints)

Scrum half
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)
Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens)

Outside back
Brad Barritt (Saracens)
Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints)
Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby)
Owen Farrell (Saracens)
George Ford (Bath Rugby)
Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby)

Back three
Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby)
Marland Yarde (Harlequins)

by funnyExiledScot Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:19 am

lostinwales wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
yappysnap wrote:So as far as I can tell all we'll learn from this AI's is:

1. Farrell is undroppable
2. An out of position 10 and 12 are preferable to actual on form centre's playing in their positions
3. Jo Joseph will never get an England cap
4. Kyle Eastmond's days are numbered
5. Lancaster has his particular game plan, and will not deviate from that no matter the form or fitness of players

A truly enlightening series.

Nb all the above is meant tongue in cheek but I am a little disappointed with this AI's. I feel we'll go into the 6N's with no better understanding of who should play 9-14 and there might now be question marks over 6 and 8 too, although hopefully after Sat there won't be.

3 and 4 I just don't understand. The best midfield/centre combination in the Aviva this season is Ford, Eastmond and Joseph, and whilst they would not be my first choice for England, with both Tuilagi and Burrell out, and Twelvetrees in mixed form, surely to goodness Lancaster would have given the trio a chance in England jerseys. I do realise club form and combinations do not always translate, but these guys are playing so well as a unit that I can't believe he would choose Farrell and Barritt instead. These are guys that do play what's in front of them and have the skills and pace to make yards through guile and playing off script, and not just mindlessly crashing into the opposition.

This team selection gives Samoa a real opportunity

What you could say is that that 12-13 combo is pretty solid defensively (assuming the attacking players choose to run at/near them instead of around them)

You could say that. Although I think you would reach the same outcome with Lawes and Haskell in the centres.

by WELL-PAST-IT Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:24 am

lostinwales wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
yappysnap wrote:So as far as I can tell all we'll learn from this AI's is:

1. Farrell is undroppable
2. An out of position 10 and 12 are preferable to actual on form centre's playing in their positions
3. Jo Joseph will never get an England cap
4. Kyle Eastmond's days are numbered
5. Lancaster has his particular game plan, and will not deviate from that no matter the form or fitness of players

A truly enlightening series.

Nb all the above is meant tongue in cheek but I am a little disappointed with this AI's. I feel we'll go into the 6N's with no better understanding of who should play 9-14 and there might now be question marks over 6 and 8 too, although hopefully after Sat there won't be.

3 and 4 I just don't understand. The best midfield/centre combination in the Aviva this season is Ford, Eastmond and Joseph, and whilst they would not be my first choice for England, with both Tuilagi and Burrell out, and Twelvetrees in mixed form, surely to goodness Lancaster would have given the trio a chance in England jerseys. I do realise club form and combinations do not always translate, but these guys are playing so well as a unit that I can't believe he would choose Farrell and Barritt instead. These are guys that do play what's in front of them and have the skills and pace to make yards through guile and playing off script, and not just mindlessly crashing into the opposition.

This team selection gives Samoa a real opportunity

What you could say is that that 12-13 combo is pretty solid defensively (assuming the attacking players choose to run at/near them instead of around them)

Can't quite see that happening, mind you I can't see them running around the Samoaneithers . I can see OF getting hurt though, if he is not 100% the physicallity of the Samoans will find him out. Then who is back up for Aus? Both 10's are in the squad, 36 covering 10 and/or 12, it would have to be Myler or Cips.

by sad_gimp Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:49 am

I'm giving Lancaster the benefit of the doubt for this one. OF being on the pitch to take the kicking pressure off Ford and let him grow into the game. No real stand out fit centres so worth a go in this game.

A win here by a score or two will be worthwhile for giving Ford the experience starting in white at twickenham.

by jamesandimac Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:55 am

England could cut loose in the second half once the cavalry come on. Looking at the England bench, if you bring then all on with 20 mins to go, with Twelvetrees coming on for Barritt, and Yarde for Brown with Watson going to FB, you've then got 3 ball players in the midfield, 2 of which are running threats in Ford and Twelvetrees (who incidentally can also play the crash ball role) and 3 players out wide with electric pace. It could open up the game.

by lostinwales Fri Nov 21, 2014 4:20 am

I'd be happy enough with Farrell rested and a 36/barritt midfield

by thomh Fri Nov 21, 2014 4:26 am

Ford has been confirmed at the primary goal kicker, which will further confuse those who question Farrell's inclusion.

Personally I just can't see why one running centre hasn't been selected, whether Burrell or Joseph. Ford takes the ball to the gainline and has the ability to either pass late and flat or break through a hole himself. That would be so much more effective with someone the defence were wary of as a running option outside him. As it is it may be easier for the defence to just number up and trust the inside men to deal with Ford.

That said, if Morgan, Lawes, Marler, Wilson and co get involved in midfield it might still work.

by mbernz Fri Nov 21, 2014 6:35 am

I'm not a fan of the Farrell position shift, but it's interestingly being backed by possibly the greatest ever IC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30124669

Former Australia centre Tim Horan, who won two World Cups, believes Farrell can thrive in the England number 12 shirt against Samoa on Saturday.

"He's a wonderful player [and] I think it's a good move," Horan told BBC Radio 5 live.

"Owen has a very good kicking game, a good rugby brain, and I think he will adapt really well," he added.

Former England fly-half Charlie Hodgson - who played alongside Farrell at the start of Stuart Lancaster's spell as head coach - has questioned whether his Saracens' club-mate should shift across the backline, a view supported by the former England centre Jeremy Guscott.

But Horan is confident that replacement fly-half George Ford and Farrell can combine to good effect.

"George Ford will take the pressure off Owen Farrell and it will allow Owen to run the ball a bit more, and view the game without trying to dictate," Horan added.

"I think Owen will show that with less responsibilities - playing at number 12 - he will be able to show the real form everyone is waiting to see,. It would be harder moving from 12 to 13 than from 10 to 12."

"The great thing about England now is that if George Ford wants to run himself, he knows that if he gets caught in the breakdown, he has someone else to step in to first receiver."

Horan played in both centre positions during his 80-cap international career, and says the role of the inside centre is every bit as critical as that of the fly-half.

"The number 12 is the link, and the eyes and ears for the nine and the 10. You have to be able to get the ball past the number 12 to ignite the backline," he said. "It's important to have that link player at 12 to create some width in the game."

Ford and Farrell are old friends who played together throughout the age-group levels, helping the England U20s reach the final of the 2011 Junior World Championship.

And Bath stand-off Ford - who will take on the goal-kicking duties at Twickenham - has rejected suggestions the combination will struggle at the highest level.

"We've played a lot together and we've got a good understanding of what we need from each other," the 21-year-old told BBC Radio 5 live.

Hear more from Tim Horan and George Ford on 5 live Rugby with Matt Dawson, Thursday, 20 November from 21:00 GMT.

by Geordie Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:34 am

thomh wrote:Ford has been confirmed at the primary goal kicker, which will further confuse those who question Farrell's inclusion.

Personally I just can't see why one running centre hasn't been selected, whether Burrell or Joseph. Ford takes the ball to the gainline and has the ability to either pass late and flat or break through a hole himself. That would be so much more effective with someone the defence were wary of as a running option outside him. As it is it may be easier for the defence to just number up and trust the inside men to deal with Ford.

That said, if Morgan, Lawes, Marler, Wilson and co get involved in midfield it might still work.

But Thomh, aside from Morgan has any of them showed remotely any signs of good carrying in previous games...

Attwood, Haskell and Robshaw maybe. Possibly Webber.

by thomh Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:01 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:
thomh wrote:Ford has been confirmed at the primary goal kicker, which will further confuse those who question Farrell's inclusion.

Personally I just can't see why one running centre hasn't been selected, whether Burrell or Joseph. Ford takes the ball to the gainline and has the ability to either pass late and flat or break through a hole himself. That would be so much more effective with someone the defence were wary of as a running option outside him. As it is it may be easier for the defence to just number up and trust the inside men to deal with Ford.

That said, if Morgan, Lawes, Marler, Wilson and co get involved in midfield it might still work.

But Thomh, aside from Morgan has any of them showed remotely any signs of good carrying in previous games...

Attwood, Haskell and Robshaw maybe. Possibly Webber.

Not much recently I agree but they're all players who should be capable of making an impact carrying in midfield.

I just reeled off a few example of forwards who can step up their carrying to be honest rather than going through it forensically. Yours apply as well.

by yappysnap Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:47 am

I still expect the 9-12 axis just to kick the Poopie out of anything that gets passed to them to be honest, so it's a pretty moribund point as to who can or can't carry.

80 mins of any possession we have being kicked away and then our back three doing just enough returning kicks to get our hopes up, right before they knock or or get turned over from a lack of support. Expect a few dozen grubbers,chips if we ever get in their 22 too. We are in for a neat time...

by johnpartle Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:30 am

mbernz wrote:I'm not a fan of the Farrell position shift, but it's interestingly being backed by possibly the greatest ever IC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30124669

Former Australia centre Tim Horan, who won two World Cups, believes Farrell can thrive in the England number 12 shirt against Samoa on Saturday.

"He's a wonderful player [and] I think it's a good move," Horan told BBC Radio 5 live.

"Owen has a very good kicking game, a good rugby brain, and I think he will adapt really well," he added.

Former England fly-half Charlie Hodgson - who played alongside Farrell at the start of Stuart Lancaster's spell as head coach - has questioned whether his Saracens' club-mate should shift across the backline, a view supported by the former England centre Jeremy Guscott.

But Horan is confident that replacement fly-half George Ford and Farrell can combine to good effect.

"George Ford will take the pressure off Owen Farrell and it will allow Owen to run the ball a bit more, and view the game without trying to dictate," Horan added.

"I think Owen will show that with less responsibilities - playing at number 12 - he will be able to show the real form everyone is waiting to see,. It would be harder moving from 12 to 13 than from 10 to 12."

"The great thing about England now is that if George Ford wants to run himself, he knows that if he gets caught in the breakdown, he has someone else to step in to first receiver."

Horan played in both centre positions during his 80-cap international career, and says the role of the inside centre is every bit as critical as that of the fly-half.

"The number 12 is the link, and the eyes and ears for the nine and the 10. You have to be able to get the ball past the number 12 to ignite the backline," he said. "It's important to have that link player at 12 to create some width in the game."

Ford and Farrell are old friends who played together throughout the age-group levels, helping the England U20s reach the final of the 2011 Junior World Championship.

And Bath stand-off Ford - who will take on the goal-kicking duties at Twickenham - has rejected suggestions the combination will struggle at the highest level.

"We've played a lot together and we've got a good understanding of what we need from each other," the 21-year-old told BBC Radio 5 live.

Hear more from Tim Horan and George Ford on 5 live Rugby with Matt Dawson, Thursday, 20 November from 21:00 GMT.

Did anyone listen to this? Did Timmy flesh out the positive view or was it creative journalistic highlights? Worth listening to?

by doctor_grey Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:16 am

jamesandimac wrote:England could cut loose in the second half once the cavalry come on. Looking at the England bench, if you bring then all on with 20 mins to go, with Twelvetrees coming on for Barritt, and Yarde for Brown with Watson going to FB, you've then got 3 ball players in the midfield, 2 of which are running threats in Ford and Twelvetrees (who incidentally can also play the crash ball role) and 3 players out wide with electric pace. It could open up the game.

So you are predicting 60 minutes of utter frustration followed by 20 minutes of very relieved England supporters? If all we see is kick, kick, kick because that is what they didn't do against the Boks, then we can certainly open up real questions about the coaching staff.

But let's not jump to premature conclusions. England might put on a display for the ages, right?????????

by beshocked Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:08 pm

Lancaster has lost the plot.

You don't need to be a genius to realise that Farrell should be dropped. The only people who believe that Farrell shouldn't be dropped are Farrell Jr himself, his family, Lancaster and perhaps Catt?

It's unfair on Ford to play with that centre partnership and it's also unfair on Barritt to be stuck with Farrell Jr.

Barritt will inevitably be criticised for being too slow, predictable etc - he works if you balance the backline correctly.

I wouldn't want to see a Farrell - Barritt partnership at Club level let alone for England!! It would be one of my last options.

by Geordie Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:12 pm

Agree totally Beshocked.

Barritt should be at 12 to give Ford that power and experience beside him...then someone like Joseph or Daly...or whoever at 13

by Barney McGrew did it Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:32 pm

SL's either lost patience or bottle - he wants a 'playmaking' IC; 12T hasn't been that impressive and has lost form, Eastmond lacks the full skill-set (kicking, defence and may be injured), Barritt is needed for his experience and defence (he'd be at 12 if we hadn't lost Manu and Burrell who's just back from injury), so OF is a no-brainer for him. He also doesn't fully trust Ford and therefore doesn't want another rookie in such as Joseph. He's clearly not taking form into account form but is looking to cover a number of eventualities at the RWC. And this game is seen as lower risk.

Here's the thing Stewie - you've left it a bit late.

by bluestonevedder Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:09 pm

Barney McGrew did it wrote:SL's either lost patience or bottle - he wants a 'playmaking' IC; 12T hasn't been that impressive and has lost form, Eastmond lacks the full skill-set (kicking, defence and may be injured), Barritt is needed for his experience and defence (he'd be at 12 if we hadn't lost Manu and Burrell who's just back from injury), so OF is a no-brainer for him. He also doesn't fully trust Ford and therefore doesn't want another rookie in such as Joseph. He's clearly not taking form into account form but is looking to cover a number of eventualities at the RWC. And this game is seen as lower risk.

Here's the thing Stewie - you've left it a bit late.

I thought that was qualification to be included in the match day squad?

by bluestonevedder Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:10 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:
thomh wrote:Ford has been confirmed at the primary goal kicker, which will further confuse those who question Farrell's inclusion.

Personally I just can't see why one running centre hasn't been selected, whether Burrell or Joseph. Ford takes the ball to the gainline and has the ability to either pass late and flat or break through a hole himself. That would be so much more effective with someone the defence were wary of as a running option outside him. As it is it may be easier for the defence to just number up and trust the inside men to deal with Ford.

That said, if Morgan, Lawes, Marler, Wilson and co get involved in midfield it might still work.

But Thomh, aside from Morgan has any of them showed remotely any signs of good carrying in previous games...

Attwood, Haskell and Robshaw maybe. Possibly Webber.

Wilson is a good carrier to be fair. Not as good as Brookes, but he's decent. Remember that break against Wales during the Six Nations?

The boy can seriously shift his weight when he wants!

by No 7&1/2 Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:20 pm

Are people expecting a close cagey game then judging by some comments? I think we'll kick quite a bit for some practice but Ford will want to play very flat and I can see 6 or 7 tries.

by bluestonevedder Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:40 pm

I reckon a very nervous first 10 minutes while we adjust to the new back line combinations. After that, I expect us to play wide and run in some tries. Agree with you on the try count- mainly coming in the last quarter or so.

by Geordie Fri Nov 21, 2014 10:41 pm

bluestonevedder wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:
thomh wrote:Ford has been confirmed at the primary goal kicker, which will further confuse those who question Farrell's inclusion.

Personally I just can't see why one running centre hasn't been selected, whether Burrell or Joseph. Ford takes the ball to the gainline and has the ability to either pass late and flat or break through a hole himself. That would be so much more effective with someone the defence were wary of as a running option outside him. As it is it may be easier for the defence to just number up and trust the inside men to deal with Ford.

That said, if Morgan, Lawes, Marler, Wilson and co get involved in midfield it might still work.

But Thomh, aside from Morgan has any of them showed remotely any signs of good carrying in previous games...

Attwood, Haskell and Robshaw maybe. Possibly Webber.

Wilson is a good carrier to be fair. Not as good as Brookes, but he's decent. Remember that break against Wales during the Six Nations?

The boy can seriously shift his weight when he wants!

The problem is Eddie i dont want to see one run every 6 games or so. I want to see him more consistantly.

I do agree with what people are saying that its not all about boshing it up into contact. You need forwards clever enough to hit the gaps etc. I think for all his huge weight Ben Morgan is excellent at that. He just needs to keep his performance level consitant. He seems to fluctuate between top class and unnoticeable on the pitch.

Attwood appears able to hit the gaps with this big runs...but who else runs good lines in the forwards....hell we dont even seem to do that in the backs!

EDIT...just to add...im not actually fussed about my two props being big carriers...i prefer them smashing the scrums and rucks / breakdowns.

by SecretFly Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:00 pm

Who should play?

Samoa...

...but we've been through that episode already. When threatened, always play. Wink

by Cumbrian Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:06 pm

Carrying aside, it worries me that we are running our only fit first choice (given the injuries and all that) props into the ground. If Wilson breaks and Brookes has had next to no international game time we will be back to square one in that respect. I believe that the complete flogging that Cole got has contributed to his long term lay off.

by alcoombe Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:48 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:
bluestonevedder wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:
thomh wrote:Ford has been confirmed at the primary goal kicker, which will further confuse those who question Farrell's inclusion.

Personally I just can't see why one running centre hasn't been selected, whether Burrell or Joseph. Ford takes the ball to the gainline and has the ability to either pass late and flat or break through a hole himself. That would be so much more effective with someone the defence were wary of as a running option outside him. As it is it may be easier for the defence to just number up and trust the inside men to deal with Ford.

That said, if Morgan, Lawes, Marler, Wilson and co get involved in midfield it might still work.

But Thomh, aside from Morgan has any of them showed remotely any signs of good carrying in previous games...

Attwood, Haskell and Robshaw maybe. Possibly Webber.

Wilson is a good carrier to be fair. Not as good as Brookes, but he's decent. Remember that break against Wales during the Six Nations?

The boy can seriously shift his weight when he wants!

The problem is Eddie i dont want to see one run every 6 games or so. I want to see him more consistantly.

I do agree with what people are saying that its not all about boshing it up into contact. You need forwards clever enough to hit the gaps etc. I think for all his huge weight Ben Morgan is excellent at that. He just needs to keep his performance level consitant. He seems to fluctuate between top class and unnoticeable on the pitch.

Attwood appears able to hit the gaps with this big runs...but who else runs good lines in the forwards....hell we dont even seem to do that in the backs!

EDIT...just to add...im not actually fussed about my two props being big carriers...i prefer them smashing the scrums and rucks / breakdowns.

Does he? The only evidence I've seen of him targeting space was where he ate up what he should have been giving to his outside backs with an early pass and certain try. And even with that gift run to him in open space from Care, even Tom Wood made more ground than him last week.

by nth Sat Nov 22, 2014 12:52 am

Attwood is no more impressive a carrier than most of our other forwards, those assuming that he is are usually the same who believe size automatically translates into carrying power, when leg pump, acceleration and where the bulk muscle mass is are just as if not more important aspects.

What his howler at the weekend proved (as well as the AB forwards in pretty much every match) is that intelligence on the ball is more useful than size.

by SecretFly Sat Nov 22, 2014 12:55 am

Cumbrian wrote:Carrying aside, it worries me that we are running our only fit first choice (given the injuries and all that) props into the ground. If Wilson breaks and Brookes has had next to no international game time we will be back to square one in that respect. I believe that the complete flogging that Cole got has contributed to his long term lay off.

A flogging for just one more year...and the rewards might be a Glorius bunch of memories never to be forgotten by the flogged.

by doctor_grey Sat Nov 22, 2014 1:29 am

Cumbrian wrote:Carrying aside, it worries me that we are running our only fit first choice (given the injuries and all that) props into the ground. If Wilson breaks and Brookes has had next to no international game time we will be back to square one in that respect. I believe that the complete flogging that Cole got has contributed to his long term lay off.

Mate, In my opinion you are 100% right about Cole (the other point about our Props, too).
Life in pro sport is pay now or pay more later. In many, many ways.
And Rugby globally is electing the pay more later tactic almost universally. This is why the NFL Player's Union recently rejected a proposal to increase the length of the season by two games. This despite the extra revenue for the teams and proportional extra salary for the players. Not worth the trip. Absolutely the correct decision.

by Cumbrian Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:38 am

SecretFly wrote:
Cumbrian wrote:Carrying aside, it worries me that we are running our only fit first choice (given the injuries and all that) props into the ground. If Wilson breaks and Brookes has had next to no international game time we will be back to square one in that respect. I believe that the complete flogging that Cole got has contributed to his long term lay off.

A flogging for just one more year...and the rewards might be a Glorius bunch of memories never to be forgotten by the flogged.

True enough, but they’ve got to make it through the year to make those memories.

doctor_grey wrote:
Cumbrian wrote:Carrying aside, it worries me that we are running our only fit first choice (given the injuries and all that) props into the ground. If Wilson breaks and Brookes has had next to no international game time we will be back to square one in that respect. I believe that the complete flogging that Cole got has contributed to his long term lay off.
Mate, In my opinion you are 100% right about Cole (the other point about our Props, too).
Life in pro sport is pay now or pay more later. In many, many ways.
And Rugby globally is electing the pay more later tactic almost universally. This is why the NFL Player's Union recently rejected a proposal to increase the length of the season by two games. This despite the extra revenue for the teams and proportional extra salary for the players. Not worth the trip. Absolutely the correct decision.

It’s funny, people (me included) often write about players like they are chess pieces in our games and we forget that they’ve got lives and futures now and in the future. I’d never like to get to a situation where we see players at the end of their rope by the time they are 27-28.

by **LondonTiger** Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:48 am

64, 73, 77, 41, 80, 80, 80, 80, 68, 80, 60, 76, 75, 51, 80, 80, 80, 65, 41, 80, 63, 80, 75, 80, 69, 75, 80, 49, 80, 65, 80, 75, 72, 73, 76, 56, 73, 72

73, 76, 62, 70, 76, 56, 73, 72.

First set of numbers minutes played by Dan Cole in his starts - very few matches missed till injury. Second set the minutes played by Wilson.

by hugehandoff Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:46 am

Interesting to see that both Eastmond and Rocko are fit and selected by Bath this weekend. Would have been nice for Eastmond to have been given a go alongside Ford, but I guess the concussion protocols were a convenient excuse to get rid of him? SL waited all week for Lawes to be fit for the SA match, but I guess consistency does not transfer to less favoured players?

by bluestonevedder Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:01 am

LondonTiger wrote:64, 73, 77, 41, 80, 80, 80, 80, 68, 80, 60, 76, 75, 51, 80, 80, 80, 65, 41, 80, 63, 80, 75, 80, 69, 75, 80, 49, 80, 65, 80, 75, 72, 73, 76, 56, 73, 72

73, 76, 62, 70, 76, 56, 73, 72.

First set of numbers minutes played by Dan Cole in his starts - very few matches missed till injury. Second set the minutes played by Wilson.

Staggering detail LT- where did you get this from??

by No 7&1/2 Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:07 am

hugehandoff wrote:Interesting to see that both Eastmond and Rocko are fit and selected by Bath this weekend. Would have been nice for Eastmond to have been given a go alongside Ford, but I guess the concussion protocols were a convenient excuse to get rid of him? SL waited all week for Lawes to be fit for the SA match, but I guess consistency does not transfer to less favoured players?

Lawes trained all week whereas Eastmond did nt. Lancaster was also criticised for considering Lawes despite him passing all tests.

by doctor_grey Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:34 am

I would ike to know the results of the concussion tests. They should not be f**ked with, nor should they be used as cheap excuses.

by No 7&1/2 Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:36 am

Too right.

by hugehandoff Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:36 am

surely a player is either fit or not?

by No 7&1/2 Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:40 am

Eastmond was passed fit eventually before I think he was even released back to Bath but hadnt been training.

by aucklandlaurie Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:27 pm

I believe now would be a good time for Manu Samoa Tuilagi, to make a public statment in support of his Samoan brothers in their attempts to resolve issues with the SRU.

The more publicity this gets now, the more pressure will go on the SRU.

by Geordie Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:41 pm

nth wrote:Attwood is no more impressive a carrier than most of our other forwards, those assuming that he is are usually the same who believe size automatically translates into carrying power, when leg pump, acceleration and where the bulk muscle mass is are just as if not more important aspects.

What his howler at the weekend proved (as well as the AB forwards in pretty much every match) is that intelligence on the ball is more useful than size.

Oh so everyone is focusing on a clanger of a lock forward not passing when even our centres can't but ignoring the fact it was nice to see one of out lock forwards in that position in the first place.

Maybe he's learnt and next time he'll be more intelligent. Name another forward bar Morgan who's ran like that in consecutive matches.

by alcoombe Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:55 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:
nth wrote:Attwood is no more impressive a carrier than most of our other forwards, those assuming that he is are usually the same who believe size automatically translates into carrying power, when leg pump, acceleration and where the bulk muscle mass is are just as if not more important aspects.

What his howler at the weekend proved (as well as the AB forwards in pretty much every match) is that intelligence on the ball is more useful than size.

Oh so everyone is focusing on a clanger of a lock forward not passing when even our centres can't but ignoring the fact it was nice to see one of out lock forwards in that position in the first place.

Maybe he's learnt and next time he'll be more intelligent. Name another forward bar Morgan who's ran like that in consecutive matches.

It wasn't nice to see him there at all, he was out wide whilst the ball was turned over from the Boks in midfield, he received the ball in open ground, didn't have anyone in front of him for about 20m, a lock wasn't needed there, a back was, and the right thing to do would have been to give it asap to the faster backs outside him, not run a line that chewed up the space and time they could use. A forward running like that, getting easy metres that anyone in the side could have made isn't of benefit, good basic rugby decision making is. I would have happily traded his metre stats for a timely pass.

by Geordie Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:16 am

Well personally I want my pack in the nitty gritty yes but when it opens up then im happy to see them stretching their legs. He should have shown more intelligence to pass it yes but im encouraged to see him giving it a go.

He will learn from that.

If it was Retallick or Whitlock doing that it people would have been salivating. "oh its world class running etc"

by Sgt_Pooly Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:16 am

Forward misses an overlap shocker.....

Attwood has looked pretty good in his primary duties and has made some great breaks as a bonus, why focus on one little error that most of backs do also??

by **Rugby Fan** Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:21 am

When Courtney Lawes had an overlap at Twickenham, he drew his man, shipped it on, and Ashton scored a memorable try against Australia.

It really isn't too much to ask that a lock show awareness of scoring opportunities.

by alcoombe Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:44 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well personally I want my pack in the nitty gritty yes but when it opens up then im happy to see them stretching their legs. He should have shown more intelligence to pass it yes but im encouraged to see him giving it a go.

He will learn from that.

If it was Retallick or Whitlock doing that it people would have been salivating. "oh its world class running etc"

I disagree, I think the Kiwi fans would have held them to account, they certainly expect their forwards to know better, and they do, which is the biggest difference between ours and theirs.

If there isn't a better option then a forward should certainly give it a go, but more important is being able to identify when there is. Giving what was definitely the wrong option a go was not encouraging, much like Farrell trying to run the ball out of his 22 into a dead-end of Boks wasn't. We have to expect more from our internationals.

by Geordie Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:25 am

Well I don't expect my forwards to be great handlers because we don't have a history of it.

by alcoombe Sun Nov 23, 2014 5:24 am

It's not even handling, it's just a basic understanding of when to pass. If that is your true opinion however I think that's quite a sad position to take on ability development and one that I hope isn't shared at any level of the game. That sort of mentality will only serve to increase distance between the best sides and ourselves.

by Hood83 Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:22 am

If Attwood had passed i guarantee the first back receiving it would have drifted, the defence would also have drifted and it would have gone nowhere. In addition the nearest back, to my memory, made no attempt to get closer to Attwood or to cut back inside slightly so the space wasn't chewed up. The lack of nous runs through the whole team.

by flankertye Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:26 am

Anyone watching this terrible terrible match?

by The Saint Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:28 am

Switched on to this channel to hear bad music and see over-celebrating from the England players, sums up Twickenham for me.

by Hood83 Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:30 am

flankertye wrote:Anyone watching this terrible terrible match?

Trying to avoid it. We've gone backwards haven't we?

by nobbled Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:33 am

The Saint wrote:Switched on to this channel to hear bad music and see over-celebrating from the England players, sums up Twickenham for me.

Then go and watch strictly come dancing.

by flankertye Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:40 am

Trying to watch it on a laptop, but having trouble with the stream. In fairness, I might just give up on it. I expect us to get thumped by Australia and then come third in the six nations, behind Scotland and Ireland.

by Sponsored content