6N Round 4: The Calcutta Cup clash

First topic message reminder :

    
ENGLAND v SCOTLAND  
Saturday 14 February 2015
KO 17:00 (GMT)
Twickers

Live on BBC1

Referee: Romain Poitey (FFR)
AR1: George Clancy (IRFU)  
AR2: Marius Mitrea (FIR)
TMO: Ben Skeen (NZR)

Teams:

ENGLAND

M Brown (Harlequins); A Watson (Bath), J Joseph (Bath), L Burrell (Northampton), J Nowell (Exeter); G Ford (Bath), B Youngs (Leicester); J Marler (Harlequins), D Hartley (Northampton), D Cole (Leicester), D Attwood (Bath), C Lawes (Northampton), J Haskell (Wasps), C Robshaw (Harlequins, capt), B Vunipola (Saracens).

Replacements: T Youngs (Leicester), M Vunipola (Saracens), K Brookes (Newcastle), G Parling (Leicester), T Wood (Northampton), R Wigglesworth (Saracens), D Cipriani (Sale), B Twelvetrees (Gloucester).

SCOTLAND

Stuart Hogg (Glasgow Warriors); Dougie Fife (Edinburgh), Mark Bennett (Glasgow Warriors), Matt Scott (Edinburgh), Tommy Seymour, Finn Russell (both Glasgow Warriors), Greig Laidlaw (captn) (Gloucester); Alasdair Dickinson (Edinburgh), Ross Ford (Edinburgh), Euan Murray (Glasgow Warriors), Jim Hamilton (Saracens), Jonny Gray (Glasgow Warriors), Robert Harley (Glasgow Warriors), Blair Cowan (London Irish) David Denton (Edinburgh).

Replacements: Fraser Brown, Ryan Grant (both Glasgow Warriors), Geoff Cross (London Irish), Tim Swinson (Glasgow Warriors), Johnnie Beattie (Montpellier), Adam Ashe (Glasgow Warriors), Sam Hidalgo-Clyne and Greig Tonks (both Edinburgh)


The result of the Ireland game beforehand could make things very interesting from an English perspective. Tournament could be blown wide open, & see England looking for a big score with an eye to next weekend & things coming down to points difference.

For us, there's nothing at stake bar pride & some melted Indian Rupees.

Twickenham was always going to be tough, but given how things have gone this tournament I'm absolutely dreading this match.
Our record down South is more embarrassing than Natalie Bennett on LBC! 32 long years since we last won at Twickenham and in the last half century we've managed just one other win in 1971. Stretch things back to the whole century and we can double our total with wins in 1926 & 1938!

Fear we'll see a similar game to England - Italy, valiant start by us & some swashbuckling stuff before ultimately being crushed in the final quarter. Although if we 'defend' the maul like we did against Italy the score will be worse.

On the bright side though, scoring any points would be an improvement on last years Calcutta Cup match...

Preconditions people? Am I being too gloomy?

reallybored wrote:I'm positively buzzing about this match, we're not quite at full wack with Gray, Dunbar and Maitland missing but it's still a bloody good side.

As usual, main concern against the English is getting overpowered up-front but inclusion of Hamilton and Denton gives us more physicality.  Our set-piece has been pretty good so far and Hamilton will improve it, would like to see us compete more on opposition ball because the driving maul has been a real achilles heal for us.

Not overly concerned by the English back line, without Tuilagi it's a very different prospect, haven't seen enough from Ford to get particularly worried about him and confident Bennett will keep tabs of JJ like he did in Europe.  Appears that our back-line's attacking threat has been overlooked in the media.

Sounds like Cotter has been getting stuck into the squad over last couple weeks, which they probably needed.  

Have a feeling we could see something a little special this weekend, this squad really owes the Scottish rugby public a performance.  Not just for the loss last week against Italy but for the shameful capitulation last year against England, they showed no fight that day.

If we play with intensity and our pack can gain parity then I'm confident our back-line can out score them.

That's where your hopes fall down, right there.... although I do admire your optimism. Cotter has got Scotland playing some nice rugby now, but ironically, the only way I feel Scotland could win this match is if they revert back to type and drag England into an arm wrestle, and I'm sorry, they don't have the pack to do it.

TJ wrote:A year ago I had England as favourites for the WC and believed Lancaster was well on track.  However no progress seems to have been made in this year.  I am not sure why really.

Don't buy that, think England are well placed for world cup, the result against Ireland just suggests to me that Ireland are too. Albeit I see no reason why the normal rules of engagement won't carry in the WC. Namely South Africa will likely have the only pack capable of bullying the English; France will have pretty much no chance other than upsetting the New Zealanders; Australia will beat Wales if they meet them; Ireland are dark horses unless they meet the Welsh; and unfortunately Scotland will do what they do and run one or two of the big teams close, but no more than that. Will depend on who meets who and when in the competition, with home advantage England can certainly win.

Totalflanker wrote:

TJ wrote:A year ago I had England as favourites for the WC and believed Lancaster was well on track.  However no progress seems to have been made in this year.  I am not sure why really.

Don't buy that, think England are well placed for world cup, the result against Ireland just suggests to me that Ireland are too. Albeit I see no reason why the normal rules of engagement won't carry in the WC. Namely South Africa will likely have the only pack capable of bullying the English; France will have pretty much no chance other than upsetting the New Zealanders; Australia will beat Wales if they meet them; Ireland are dark horses unless they meet the Welsh; and unfortunately Scotland will do what they do and run one or two of the big teams close, but no more than that. Will depend on who meets who and when in the competition, with home advantage England can certainly win.

Precisely.

Well placed maybe - but have they progressed in the last year? I don't see them as favourites now but I did a year ago - why? 'cos they have not progressed

TJ wrote:Well placed maybe - but have they progressed in the last year?  I don't see them as favourites now but I did a year ago - why?  'cos they have not progressed

So has progressed then? Ireland? Maybe, but they won last year - the only way is down. All the other 6N teams haven't exactly set the world alight have they.

Jimpy wrote:

reallybored wrote:If we play with intensity and our pack can gain parity then I'm confident our back-line can out score them.

That's where your hopes fall down, right there.... although I do admire your optimism. Cotter has got Scotland playing some nice rugby now, but ironically, the only way I feel Scotland could win this match is if they revert back to type and drag England into an arm wrestle, and I'm sorry, they don't have the pack to do it.

Sorry champ, our best chance of winning this match is to revert back to type and play like traditional Scottish sides did; fast-paced, aggressive rucking and chaotically keeping the game moving.  Getting into an arm-wrestle is literally the worst thing we could do against a strong English pack.

15 - Brown vs. Hogg         ( adv Sco )
14 - Watson vs. Fife          ( adv Eng )
13 - Joseph vs. Bennett     ( adv Sco )
12 - Burrell vs. Scott         ( adv Sco )
11 - Nowell vs. Seymour    ( adv Sco )
10 - Ford vs. Russell          ( adv Sco )
9  - Youngs vs. Laidlaw      ( adv Eng )

Slightly navy tinted specs IMO

I'd find it very difficult to call who the better players were at 15, 13 and 12 due to form and returning from injuries.

Both 10s are similar in that they are youngsters with plenty of talent but lack a bit of experience

I'd give you Seymour > Nowell

Brave set of assumptions right there

We'll see

What I really really don't want to see is aimless kicks from Ford with nobody chasing. That scares me.

That's a little optimistic reallybored! I'd have Seymour ahead of Nowell, Youngs ahead of Laidlaw, Watson ahead of Fife, but otherwise I don't think there is much to split them.

lostinwales wrote:What I really really don't want to see is aimless kicks from Ford with nobody chasing. That scares me.

I think we Scottish fans are fearing the same from Laidlaw! Our kick chase work has been non-existent all tournament

reallybored wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

reallybored wrote:If we play with intensity and our pack can gain parity then I'm confident our back-line can out score them.

That's where your hopes fall down, right there.... although I do admire your optimism. Cotter has got Scotland playing some nice rugby now, but ironically, the only way I feel Scotland could win this match is if they revert back to type and drag England into an arm wrestle, and I'm sorry, they don't have the pack to do it.

Sorry champ, our best chance of winning this match is to revert back to type and play like traditional Scottish sides did; fast-paced, aggressive rucking and chaotically keeping the game moving.  Getting into an arm-wrestle is literally the worst thing we could do against a strong English pack.

15 - Brown vs. Hogg         ( adv Sco )
14 - Watson vs. Fife          ( adv Eng )
13 - Joseph vs. Bennett     ( adv Sco )
12 - Burrell vs. Scott         ( adv Sco )
11 - Nowell vs. Seymour    ( adv Sco )
10 - Ford vs. Russell          ( adv Sco )
9  - Youngs vs. Laidlaw      ( adv Eng )

If your match ups were correct (and that's a brave set of assumptions there), you might have a point, but Scotland's backs wont see the ball past fly-half, so its moot.

Scottish White Line Fever wrote:That's a little optimistic reallybored! I'd have Seymour ahead of Nowell, Youngs ahead of Laidlaw, Watson ahead of Fife, but otherwise I don't think there is much to split them.

Well Hogg has shown he can be just as angry as Brown

Jimpy wrote:

TJ wrote:Well placed maybe - but have they progressed in the last year?  I don't see them as favourites now but I did a year ago - why?  'cos they have not progressed

So has progressed then? Ireland? Maybe, but they won last year - the only way is down. All the other 6N teams haven't exactly set the world alight have they.

Indeed they have not - bar perhaps Ireland. I am just a bit disappointed that the potential I saw last year has not become concrete

Jimpy wrote:

reallybored wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

reallybored wrote:If we play with intensity and our pack can gain parity then I'm confident our back-line can out score them.

That's where your hopes fall down, right there.... although I do admire your optimism. Cotter has got Scotland playing some nice rugby now, but ironically, the only way I feel Scotland could win this match is if they revert back to type and drag England into an arm wrestle, and I'm sorry, they don't have the pack to do it.

Sorry champ, our best chance of winning this match is to revert back to type and play like traditional Scottish sides did; fast-paced, aggressive rucking and chaotically keeping the game moving.  Getting into an arm-wrestle is literally the worst thing we could do against a strong English pack.

15 - Brown vs. Hogg         ( adv Sco )
14 - Watson vs. Fife          ( adv Eng )
13 - Joseph vs. Bennett     ( adv Sco )
12 - Burrell vs. Scott         ( adv Sco )
11 - Nowell vs. Seymour    ( adv Sco )
10 - Ford vs. Russell          ( adv Sco )
9  - Youngs vs. Laidlaw      ( adv Eng )

If your match ups were correct (and that's a brave set of assumptions there), you might have a point, but Scotland's backs wont see the ball past fly-half, so its moot.

Why do you think this is the case? We didn't have consistent front foot ball in any of our three matches earlier in the tournament, but we still tried to run it at times. We threw it wide in our first possession against Italy when we were only about 10m from our own line. That's been one of our main criticisms of Scotland - namely, that we don't play smart rugby. We've either been booting the leather off it through Laidlaw and not chasing it, or trying to play too much rugby in our own half and being turned over/giving away penalties. And that was against weaker packs than yours, so surely logically we're going to avoid getting into an arm-wrestle which we would inevitably lose? Our backs are by no means better than yours, but it is a closer match-up between the two sets of backs than it is between the two sets of forwards.

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Jimpy England were emphatically outplayed by Ireland and only the injury to Sexton prevented the scoreline from being worse.

it was a very simple gameplan which every man and his dog knew what Ireland were going to do. England had no answers - they did not adapt either.

It's just yet another opportunity for a GS that England have not taken.

England are meant to be on par with Ireland but were well off the pace. It wasn't a close loss.

A big win against Scotland won't get rid of the poor display against Ireland.

I believe England has stagnated under Lancaster - I certainly wouldn't say they are improving. A GS has been well overdue and it's yet another year of no GS.

If England want to aspire to more than 2nd place in the 6 nations/4th or 5th in the world then need to be winning GSs.

The only thing a big win over Scotland (if it happens) will tell us is what we already know - England are better than Scotland at rugby currently.

Quite simply, nonsense.

Wales, for example, have a hatful of contemporary GS under their belts, yet they are languishing in the bottom half of the top ten world rankings and haven't made it past a semi-final in a WC. Oh, and when they're not winning GS, they're pretty mediocre at 6N time as well..

And yet Wales performed much better in the last RWC than we did and if it wasn't for Warburton's red card given by Monsieur Rolland, a French man then Wales would have likely have made it to the RWC final.

England were absolutely appalling in the last RWC - both on and off the pitch.

Anyway I am not talking about Wales, I am talking about England - England are consistent but too often come unstuck in the big GS deciding matches. Need to improve their big match mentality.

To get emphatically outplayed by Ireland like that isn't just down to injuries - I think it's more down to the gameplan,coaches,lack of intensity,tactics,decision making and adapting.

Where was the support for runners? Where was the kick chase? Where was the decision making in general?

You can say it was a bad day at the office - seen far too many of them in important matches.

Stick your head in the sand if you want but there are serious issues England need to address before the RWC if they want to stand a chance.

England should thump Scotland - Scotland are low on confidence with no wins currently in the 6 nations, with a new coach who still doesn't know what he wants, also it's at Twickenham - a daunting venue for Scotland.

England also won't be complacent because they got comprehensively outplayed by Ireland.

lostinwales wrote:

Scottish White Line Fever wrote:That's a little optimistic reallybored! I'd have Seymour ahead of Nowell, Youngs ahead of Laidlaw, Watson ahead of Fife, but otherwise I don't think there is much to split them.

Well Hogg has shown he can be just as angry as Brown

Indeed, thankfully Hogg has shown a bit more composure than he used to and has matured this season. I think he learned a lot from watching us get humiliated at the Millennium whilst he was sat in the dressing room. (Cue the inevitable yellow/red card tomorrow, now that I've said that!).

BamBam wrote:Slightly navy tinted specs IMO

I'd find it very difficult to call who the better players were at 15, 13 and 12 due to form and returning from injuries.

Both 10s are similar in that they are youngsters with plenty of talent but lack a bit of experience

I'd give you Seymour > Nowell

Perhaps

Hogg is better than Brown, Brown had a great tournament last year but he's little more than solid to be honest.  Hogg has 5 tries in last 10 tests and currently tops the 6 Nations stats table for carries, clean-breaks, defenders beaten and metres gained.

Joseph and Bennett is tight, Joseph has been getting all the headlines recently but they've played each other twice this season and Bennett had the upper hand.

Burrell and Scott is another tight match up, honestly could go either way.

Ford vs. Russell is a great match up, Ford probably has a more consistent kicking game whereas Russell is great at attacking the line.  

It's funny how people just assume our backs are poor because during the 00's they were, this generation coming through are anything but.

With all respect TJ if any team lost their 1st choice lock pairing then, their4th choice lock who was a Lion they'd start to struggle. Throw in your 1st choice 6 who was the 3rd jumper in the lineout. Your back up/1st choice props. Your first choice 8. Your 1st choice fly half, though Ford is doing fine he's very new to the scene. Forced changes in midfield due to 3 or 4 injuries and the loss of 1st choice and arguably 2nd choice full backs one of whom was player of the tournament last time it's an issue. Get those players back and things look very good.

So is this England side worse than the one that went into the 2007 RWC without a hope then Beshocked?

You cite bad days at the office in important matches - wasn't v Wales in Cardiff on the opening Friday an important match?

Stick my head in the sand? Blimey, you really do have an axe to grind sometimes - I'm amazed you haven't blamed anyone either singularly or collectively yet.

It was a loss, no more, no less. That was always going to be a tough match in Dublin. And despite what some say, SL's hand has been forced by injuries and inconsistent form of his players. He's done pretty much a good job with what he's had to work with. The England players put their hands up and admitted they'd been outplayed. It happens.

No 7&1/2 wrote:With all respect TJ if any team lost their 1st choice lock pairing then, their4th choice lock who was a Lion they'd start to struggle. Throw in your 1st choice 6 who was the 3rd jumper in the lineout. Your back up/1st choice props. Your first choice 8. Your 1st choice fly half, though Ford is doing fine he's very new to the scene. Forced changes in midfield due to 3 or 4 injuries and the loss of 1st choice and arguably 2nd choice full backs one of whom was player of the tournament last time it's an issue. Get those players back and things look very good.

Tell Beshocked will you?

AS SWLF says - Scotlands outside back have had a lot of ball in this tournament

reallybored yet we don't see the Scottish backs scoring many tries.

I've seen Scotland's 3 games despite all the huff and puff from your backline you haven't really blown the house down.

Bit of flash and sparks here and there but not much substance. Same old Scotland.

Particularly really poor against Italy. Chris Paterson at half time was waxing lyrical about Scotland's backline but Scotland barely created any try scoring opportunities if any.

YouroOnly try came from an interception.

It's laughable to rate the Scottish backs higher than English ones when you've not won any games, scored less tries and not been as threatening.

No 7&1/2 wrote:With all respect TJ if any team lost their 1st choice lock pairing then, their4th choice lock who was a Lion they'd start to struggle. Throw in your 1st choice 6 who was the 3rd jumper in the lineout. Your back up/1st choice props. Your first choice 8. Your 1st choice fly half, though Ford is doing fine he's very new to the scene. Forced changes in midfield due to 3 or 4 injuries and the loss of 1st choice and arguably 2nd choice full backs one of whom was player of the tournament last time it's an issue. Get those players back and things look very good.

Its not the forwards that has been the issue for me tho - this is where the strength in depth / 2 players in every position has worked well for England. its the lack of cutting edge in the backs IMO

Its just an observation from where I sit. "the leinster lesson" means that you have a player ready to come in if injury strikes

No 7&1/2 wrote:With all respect TJ if any team lost their 1st choice lock pairing then, their4th choice lock who was a Lion they'd start to struggle. Throw in your 1st choice 6 who was the 3rd jumper in the lineout. Your back up/1st choice props. Your first choice 8. Your 1st choice fly half, though Ford is doing fine he's very new to the scene. Forced changes in midfield due to 3 or 4 injuries and the loss of 1st choice and arguably 2nd choice full backs one of whom was player of the tournament last time it's an issue. Get those players back and things look very good.

England are suffering from injuries but then again, your player base is largest in the world so stop whining.

Looking at your injury list, imo there's only 4 that would walk back into your 1st XV, 4 that would be in your squad and 3 squad players.

Tuilagi
Farrell
Launchbury
Wood

Wilson
Parling
Morgan
Barritt

Slater
Foden
Eastmond

Compared to us right now:

Gray Snr
Dunbar
Maitland
Barclay (in exile)

Gilchrist
Brown (in exile)
Weir

Welsh
Reid
Jackson
Taylor
Lamont

Do English fans ever feel like the number of available players actually hampers England or has it been bad luck with injuries that have prevented Lancaster from moulding a back-line?

beshocked wrote:reallybored yet we don't see the Scottish backs scoring many tries.

I've seen Scotland's 3 games despite all the huff and puff from your backline you haven't really blown the house down.

Bit of flash and sparks here and there but not much substance. Same old Scotland.

Particularly really poor against Italy. Chris Paterson at half time was waxing lyrical about Scotland's backline but Scotland barely created any try scoring opportunities if any.

YouroOnly try came from an interception.

It's laughable to rate the Scottish backs higher than English ones when you've not won any games, scored less tries and not been as threatening.

We have scored far more tries and looked far more dangerous in the backs than in previous campaigns. Put it this way which of the english backs would you say were better than their scots counterparts / which ones would get in the scots team?

TJ wrote:AS SWLF says - Scotlands outside back have had a lot of ball in this tournament

And Scotland have scored three tries in three matches (one of those was an interception). England have eight, with supposedly dodgy backs...

beshocked wrote:reallybored yet we don't see the Scottish backs scoring many tries.

I've seen Scotland's 3 games despite all the huff and puff from your backline you haven't really blown the house down.

Bit of flash and sparks here and there but not much substance. Same old Scotland.

Particularly really poor against Italy. Chris Paterson at half time was waxing lyrical about Scotland's backline but Scotland barely created any try scoring opportunities if any.

YouroOnly try came from an interception.

It's laughable to rate the Scottish backs higher than English ones when you've not won any games, scored less tries and not been as threatening.

I accept your point, but do you agree that it is easier for backs to look threatening behind a dominant pack creating plenty of front foot ball? Ultimately, our forwards have been so poor in this tournament that we've lost the breakdown in every game, and any quick ball we've had has been hampered by Laidlaw's dawdling at the base of the ruck. In fairness, it is very difficult to assess the quality of a team's backs because it is so dependent on the quality of the pack that you have, so this whole discussion is probably quite pointless!

Scottish White Line Fever wrote:

beshocked wrote:reallybored yet we don't see the Scottish backs scoring many tries.

I've seen Scotland's 3 games despite all the huff and puff from your backline you haven't really blown the house down.

Bit of flash and sparks here and there but not much substance. Same old Scotland.

Particularly really poor against Italy. Chris Paterson at half time was waxing lyrical about Scotland's backline but Scotland barely created any try scoring opportunities if any.

YouroOnly try came from an interception.

It's laughable to rate the Scottish backs higher than English ones when you've not won any games, scored less tries and not been as threatening.

I accept your point, but do you agree that it is easier for backs to look threatening behind a dominant pack creating plenty of front foot ball? Ultimately, our forwards have been so poor in this tournament that we've lost the breakdown in every game, and any quick ball we've had has been hampered by Laidlaw's dawdling at the base of the ruck. In fairness, it is very difficult to assess the quality of a team's backs because it is so dependent on the quality of the pack that you have, so this whole discussion is probably quite pointless!

Robshaw and Co are going to give Scotland a hard day at the breakdown office I feel.

Its going to be crucial and losing Dunbar is a big blow for us. a centre who is as good at the breakdown as anyone

beshocked wrote:reallybored yet we don't see the Scottish backs scoring many tries.

I've seen Scotland's 3 games despite all the huff and puff from your backline you haven't really blown the house down.

Bit of flash and sparks here and there but not much substance. Same old Scotland.

Particularly really poor against Italy. Chris Paterson at half time was waxing lyrical about Scotland's backline but Scotland barely created any try scoring opportunities if any.

YouroOnly try came from an interception.

It's laughable to rate the Scottish backs higher than English ones when you've not won any games, scored less tries and not been as threatening

We've played poorly so far this tournament, not sure any Scottish supporter would disagree, the back-line just hasn't been provided enough quick ball but that's been the pack's problem.  

Yet we've been in all three matches without getting out of 1st gear. Scored 11 tries in 3 during the Autumn but our general play hasn't been anywhere near that level yet.

You are welcome to disagree with me, having watched the matches this tournament and the European Cup matches I think this English back-line is vastly over-rated and behind a weaker pack would look average.

TJ wrote:Its going to be crucial and losing Dunbar is a big blow for us.  a centre who is as good at the breakdown as anyone

This is where England 'should' win the game. Turning the ball over at ruck time and getting the backs running.

Jimpy wrote:

Scottish White Line Fever wrote:

beshocked wrote:reallybored yet we don't see the Scottish backs scoring many tries.

I've seen Scotland's 3 games despite all the huff and puff from your backline you haven't really blown the house down.

Bit of flash and sparks here and there but not much substance. Same old Scotland.

Particularly really poor against Italy. Chris Paterson at half time was waxing lyrical about Scotland's backline but Scotland barely created any try scoring opportunities if any.

YouroOnly try came from an interception.

It's laughable to rate the Scottish backs higher than English ones when you've not won any games, scored less tries and not been as threatening.

I accept your point, but do you agree that it is easier for backs to look threatening behind a dominant pack creating plenty of front foot ball? Ultimately, our forwards have been so poor in this tournament that we've lost the breakdown in every game, and any quick ball we've had has been hampered by Laidlaw's dawdling at the base of the ruck. In fairness, it is very difficult to assess the quality of a team's backs because it is so dependent on the quality of the pack that you have, so this whole discussion is probably quite pointless!

Robshaw and Co are going to give Scotland a hard day at the breakdown office I feel.

No arguments there - the disadvantage of picking your best pack of forwards for the set-piece is that you lose dynamism in the loose and lose breakdown work. Plus we've lost Dunbar who was like an extra 7 at the breakdown. So yes, you're right, we will have a very hard day at the breakdown office!

TJ every single English back are better than their Scottish counterparts.

Hogg vs Brown is close though. Perhaps on current form I would have Hogg - he's the one Scotsman who might get in the England side.

We both played Italy at home - we scored 6 tries against them, you scored an intercept try.........

reallybored wrote:

Hogg         ( [color=#0000cc]adv Sco )
14 - Watson vs. Fife          ( adv Eng )
13 - Joseph vs. Bennett     ( adv Sco )
12 - Burrell vs. Scott         ( adv Sco )
11 - Nowell vs. Seymour    ( adv Sco )
10 - Ford vs. Russell          ( adv Sco )
9  - Youngs vs. Laidlaw      ( adv Eng )

I am so much happier to see Scots talking up their team rather than the 10 days of doom and gloom they have had.

Now for me it would be:


15 - Brown vs. Hogg         ( slight adv Eng )
14 - Watson vs. Fife          ( adv Eng )
13 - Joseph vs. Bennett     ( adv Eng )
12 - Burrell vs. Scott         ( slight adv Eng )
11 - Nowell vs. Seymour    ( slight adv Sco )
10 - Ford vs. Russell          ( adv Eng )
9  - Youngs vs. Laidlaw      ( adv Eng )

reallybored wrote:

beshocked wrote:reallybored yet we don't see the Scottish backs scoring many tries.

I've seen Scotland's 3 games despite all the huff and puff from your backline you haven't really blown the house down.

Bit of flash and sparks here and there but not much substance. Same old Scotland.

Particularly really poor against Italy. Chris Paterson at half time was waxing lyrical about Scotland's backline but Scotland barely created any try scoring opportunities if any.

YouroOnly try came from an interception.

It's laughable to rate the Scottish backs higher than English ones when you've not won any games, scored less tries and not been as threatening

We've played poorly so far this tournament, not sure any Scottish supporter would disagree, the back-line just hasn't been provided enough quick ball but that's been the pack's problem.  

Yet we've been in all three matches without getting out of 1st gear. Scored 11 tries in 3 during the Autumn but our general play hasn't been anywhere near that level yet.

You are welcome to disagree with me, having watched the matches this tournament and the European Cup matches I think this English back-line is vastly over-rated and behind a weaker pack would look average.

This is irrelevant.

Additionally, any back line looks average behind a weak pack, not sure what your point is there. Its true that England's backs aren't world class, but they are at least scoring tries.

reallybored wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:With all respect TJ if any team lost their 1st choice lock pairing then, their4th choice lock who was a Lion they'd start to struggle. Throw in your 1st choice 6 who was the 3rd jumper in the lineout. Your back up/1st choice props. Your first choice 8. Your 1st choice fly half, though Ford is doing fine he's very new to the scene. Forced changes in midfield due to 3 or 4 injuries and the loss of 1st choice and arguably 2nd choice full backs one of whom was player of the tournament last time it's an issue. Get those players back and things look very good.

England are suffering from injuries but then again, your player base is largest in the world so stop whining.

Looking at your injury list, imo there's only 4 that would walk back into your 1st XV, 4 that would be in your squad and 3 squad players.

Tuilagi
Farrell
Launchbury
Wood

Wilson
Parling
Morgan
Barritt

Slater
Foden
Eastmond

I was answering a question. Lose that many players from a team and it will be affected.

beshocked wrote:TJ every single English back are better than their Scottish counterparts.

Hogg vs Brown is close though. Perhaps on current form I would have Hogg - he's the one Scotsman who might get in the England side.

We both played Italy at home - we scored 6 tries against them, you scored an intercept try.........

Nonsense - utter rubbish. really - your credibility just went thataway

I wouldn't take any of the english backs. Not one. ( well before we broke som of ours anyway. I'd have a few of your forwards tho.

Do you really think Ford /' Farrell is better than Russell - really? Any English centres better than Dunbar?

IMO there is much of a muchness about them. Scots guys more exciting and mercurial but less solid defensivly across the whole lot.

LondonTiger wrote:

reallybored wrote:

Hogg         ( adv Sco )
14 - Watson vs. Fife          ( adv Eng )
13 - Joseph vs. Bennett     ( adv Sco )
12 - Burrell vs. Scott         ( adv Sco )
11 - Nowell vs. Seymour    ( adv Sco )
10 - Ford vs. Russell          ( adv Sco )
9  - Youngs vs. Laidlaw      ( adv Eng )

I am so much happier to see Scots talking up their team rather than the 10 days of doom and gloom they have had.

Now for me it would be:


15 - Brown vs. Hogg         ( slight adv Eng )
14 - Watson vs. Fife          ( adv Eng )
13 - Joseph vs. Bennett     ( adv Eng )
12 - Burrell vs. Scott         ( slight adv Eng )
11 - Nowell vs. Seymour    ( slight adv Sco )
10 - Ford vs. Russell          ( adv Eng )
9  - Youngs vs. Laidlaw      ( adv Eng )

For the avoidance of doubt, we'll lose this match. By at least 15 points. Our pack is not strong enough to compete with your pack, and therefore we will be unable to generate any front-foot ball. But I think this discussion is ultimately just us Scottish fans explaining that our backs aren't as bad as they're being made out to be - but you will only find a handful of Scots who are optimistic about this weekend. As I've said, it's very difficult to compare the quality of backs when the quality of the forwards is so markedly different.

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:TJ  every single English back are better than their Scottish counterparts.

Hogg vs Brown is close though. Perhaps on current form I would have Hogg - he's the one Scotsman who might get in the England side.

We both played Italy at home - we scored 6 tries against them, you scored an intercept try.........

Nonsense - utter rubbish.  really - your credibility just went thataway

I wouldn't take any of the english backs.  Not one. ( well before we broke som of ours anyway.  I'd have a few of your forwards tho.

Do you really think Ford /' Farrell is better than Russell - really?  Any English centres better than Dunbar?

IMO there is much of a muchness about them.  Scots guys more exciting and mercurial but less solid defensivly across the whole lot.

beshocked is right, Hogg over Brown as he's coming back from injury. No one else at present.

The Scottish pack created enough opportunities for the backs vs both Wales and Italy but the backs didn't follow through. In particular far too many chances were squandered vs Wales.

Neither Italy or Scotland really had an edge in the backs but Italian's mauls made the difference in the end. Scotland should have beaten Italy.

Anyway backs play isn't just about attacking and tries, it's intelligence and decision making.

I would say bar the Ireland game the English backs have been far more accomplished in the basics and decision making than Scotland.

Scotland's missed kick for touch was costly vs Italy for example as it can be.

Aye - and none of the English backs would get into the scotland team 'cos they are no improvement. Maybe we could do with a winger - got any decent ones?

You really would prefer Ford / farell to Russell? Non so blind. I think you might just get your eyes opened a bit on saturday

No 7&1/2 wrote:With all respect TJ if any team lost their 1st choice lock pairing then, their4th choice lock who was a Lion they'd start to struggle. Throw in your 1st choice 6 who was the 3rd jumper in the lineout. Your back up/1st choice props. Your first choice 8. Your 1st choice fly half, though Ford is doing fine he's very new to the scene. Forced changes in midfield due to 3 or 4 injuries and the loss of 1st choice and arguably 2nd choice full backs one of whom was player of the tournament last time it's an issue. Get those players back and things look very good.

I'm not sure I'd say very good but...

England have three sizeable advantages: strength in depth, home advantage and a favourable draw. The squad that faced Ireland was missing 9 players (albeit including 3 locks) who would arguably be ahead of the ones who started if fit. There aren't many other teams who can lose half a first choice team and still be competitive. The XV that faced this weekend's starters in training would run most teams close.

It's an attritional 7-week tournament and every squad can expect to lose at least a couple of players over the course of it. England are better placed to cope with that than anyone bar NZ, which should stand them in good stead come the knockout phases.

England have three sizeable weak spots: the breakdown, experience as units, and vulnerability in a couple of key positions.

England play the breakdown in a particular way, that doesn't seem to play well with particular referees - most notably Joubert and Walsh. It's disappointing that there can be so much difference in officials' interpretation, but what's frustrating is that they haven't really adapted over the last 2-3 years. It's a weakness that gets magnified if they face Ireland, SA or NZ under Joubert, or Wales under Walsh (please god, no. Not again. Haven't we suffered enough?).

Experience as units. Lancaster set out aiming to build a core of around 30 players with 30 caps each, on the basis that that's the kind of experience needed to win an RWC. What he's ended up with is a larger, less experienced squad, mainly because of injuries in the backline. That gives strength in depth, but England have very few settled combinations behind the pack. He may be able to fix that with an extended training camp, but we don't know how it will stand up to the scrutiny of test rugby.

Vulnerability in key positions. The three key problem positions: 7, 12 and 15. Cover for Robshaw is probably Wood or Haskell, followed by Kvesic, and Armitage will probably be looked at in the pre-RWC squad. But what about the other Robshaw?

Brown hasn't hit the same heights he did last year, but I think Dublin showed what he brings: competitiveness in the air and someone who will draw in defenders on the counter. Foden's out; Goode looked, well, not goode; it would be a big risk to try Nowell or Watson at 15 in a big game.

12 has the opposite problem: plenty of players who could excel in theory, none who are doing so. Is it worth a gamble on Slade? If Barritt can get fit, is he the reliable option with Joseph and / or Manu outside to make things happen?

Oh come on. We know all this. We've known all this for a while. It's just not clear when it will come together.

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:TJ  every single English back are better than their Scottish counterparts.

Hogg vs Brown is close though. Perhaps on current form I would have Hogg - he's the one Scotsman who might get in the England side.

We both played Italy at home - we scored 6 tries against them, you scored an intercept try.........

Nonsense - utter rubbish.  really - your credibility just went thataway

I wouldn't take any of the english backs.  Not one. ( well before we broke som of ours anyway.  I'd have a few of your forwards tho.

Do you really think Ford /' Farrell is better than Russell - really?  Any English centres better than Dunbar?

IMO there is much of a muchness about them.  Scots guys more exciting and mercurial but less solid defensivly across the whole lot.

Maybe Scotland should give some of the England backs a go, that way your backs might be scoring some tries...

True Poorfour, those key areas can be vital.

Out of interest, do you guys think that Ford will start the WC at 10 ahead of Farrell? I don't see a great deal of them so it's a genuine question, but from what I have seen, Ford offers more in an attacking-sense, whilst his defence is absolutely fine?

TJ wrote:Aye - and none of the English backs would get into the scotland team 'cos they are no improvement.  Maybe we could do with a winger - got any decent ones?

You really would prefer Ford / farell to Russell?  Non so blind.  I think you might just get your eyes opened a bit on saturday

Forget our eyes, its your defence you ought to be worrying about...

TJ wrote:

beshocked wrote:TJ  every single English back are better than their Scottish counterparts.

Hogg vs Brown is close though. Perhaps on current form I would have Hogg - he's the one Scotsman who might get in the England side.

We both played Italy at home - we scored 6 tries against them, you scored an intercept try.........

Nonsense - utter rubbish.  really - your credibility just went thataway

I wouldn't take any of the english backs.  Not one. ( well before we broke som of ours anyway.  I'd have a few of your forwards tho.

Do you really think Ford /' Farrell is better than Russell - really?  Any English centres better than Dunbar?

IMO there is much of a muchness about them.  Scots guys more exciting and mercurial but less solid defensivly across the whole lot.

Rugby isn't just about attacking.

I would say Russell is a better attacking 10 than Farrell but Farrell is bigger,stronger, better defender, more experienced, more assured, better goal and tactical kicker.

Farrell was 10 when England beat the ABs - it wasn't an one man show but he helped control matters. He hasn't lost an international head to head with Sexton - 3-0 to Farrell. Sexton can't bully a man the same size as him. Farrell has helped England win many matches.

As for Ford - Ford has less experience than Farrell but more than Russell, he has inspired England to victories over Wales and Australia - not bad for a youngster.

Being so called exciting doesn't matter when you've got no structure and make poor decisions.

Substance over style every day of the week.

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:With all respect TJ if any team lost their 1st choice lock pairing then, their4th choice lock who was a Lion they'd start to struggle. Throw in your 1st choice 6 who was the 3rd jumper in the lineout. Your back up/1st choice props. Your first choice 8. Your 1st choice fly half, though Ford is doing fine he's very new to the scene. Forced changes in midfield due to 3 or 4 injuries and the loss of 1st choice and arguably 2nd choice full backs one of whom was player of the tournament last time it's an issue. Get those players back and things look very good.

I'm not sure I'd say very good but...

England have three sizeable advantages: strength in depth, home advantage and a favourable draw. The squad that faced Ireland was missing 9 players (albeit including 3 locks) who would arguably be ahead of the ones who started if fit. There aren't many other teams who can lose half a first choice team and still be competitive. The XV that faced this weekend's starters in training would run most teams close.

It's an attritional 7-week tournament and every squad can expect to lose at least a couple of players over the course of it. England are better placed to cope with that than anyone bar NZ, which should stand them in good stead come the knockout phases.

England have three sizeable weak spots: the breakdown, experience as units, and vulnerability in a couple of key positions.

England play the breakdown in a particular way, that doesn't seem to play well with particular referees - most notably Joubert and Walsh. It's disappointing that there can be so much difference in officials' interpretation, but what's frustrating is that they haven't really adapted over the last 2-3 years. It's a weakness that gets magnified if they face Ireland, SA or NZ under Joubert, or Wales under Walsh (please god, no. Not again. Haven't we suffered enough?).

Experience as units. Lancaster set out aiming to build a core of around 30 players with 30 caps each, on the basis that that's the kind of experience needed to win an RWC. What he's ended up with is a larger, less experienced squad, mainly because of injuries in the backline. That gives strength in depth, but England have very few settled combinations behind the pack. He may be able to fix that with an extended training camp, but we don't know how it will stand up to the scrutiny of test rugby.

Vulnerability in key positions. The three key problem positions: 7, 12 and 15. Cover for Robshaw is probably Wood or Haskell, followed by Kvesic, and Armitage will probably be looked at in the pre-RWC squad. But what about the other Robshaw?

Brown hasn't hit the same heights he did last year, but I think Dublin showed what he brings: competitiveness in the air and someone who will draw in defenders on the counter. Foden's out; Goode looked, well, not goode; it would be a big risk to try Nowell or Watson at 15 in a big game.

12 has the opposite problem: plenty of players who could excel in theory, none who are doing so. Is it worth a gamble on Slade? If Barritt can get fit, is he the reliable option with Joseph and / or Manu outside to make things happen?

Oh come on. We know all this. We've known all this for a while. It's just not clear when it will come together.

Agreed - I had hoped it would have come togther by now. I wanted to see and saw the potential for england to have a pack to match SA ( and they are 99% there) and backs to match NZ - no where near at this moment.

Jimpy wrote:

TJ wrote:Aye - and none of the English backs would get into the scotland team 'cos they are no improvement.  Maybe we could do with a winger - got any decent ones?

You really would prefer Ford / farell to Russell?  Non so blind.  I think you might just get your eyes opened a bit on saturday

Forget our eyes, its your defence you ought to be worrying about...

Oh I am. I predict a thumping. I predict a raft of penalties and think England will play for penalties. I do think you will be surprised by how good our backs look compared to yours ball in hand tho. Where it will be lost is in the pack - and for us it will be a horrorshow. So much I am not stopping in to watch the game. 30 pt win to england on the back of penalties giving shots at goal and field position.