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?

stub wrote:Not a great performance really but great to get the win. Typical England really - almost there but not quite clicking. A brave effort by the Scots today with some great attacking play at times.

But every 6 nations and, so it seems to me, every ruddy International series under Mr. Lancaster we always end up the same: Almost there but not quite clicking. Time for that nonsense to stop: One match in the 6 nations to go. Win, click on properly, or say adios.

And was it just me or did Scotland seem to take an age any time there was a scrum/lineout/ruck. It was like at that stage they just decided to try and stop the score getting embarrassing by just not playing.

Oh and poor Russell. Looks like he got hit by one of Lawes' specials

lostinwales wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:England had 11 clean breaks - that's truly abysmal defending

And truly abysmal finishing

That Tom Youngs break had it all. Great timing with his run, great hitting the gap, made tremendous ground, and then that total F up of a pass. You have to give the man credit for making that kind of break (very much in the style of the centre he used to be) but that pass was awful.

I was pretty impressed that he managed to get it between two England players. Not anyone can pass like that.

The Saint wrote:So apparently Scotland raised their game for you and made you look ordinary. Yet another team that raises their game for England; why does every team on the planet only want to beat England?

Because every team on the planet "HATES " England. THAT'S WHY. ok.

lostinwales wrote:And was it just me or did Scotland seem to take an age any time there was a scrum/lineout/ruck. It was like at that stage they just decided to try and stop the score getting embarrassing

Two words - Greig Laidlaw

majesticimperialman wrote:

The Saint wrote:So apparently Scotland raised their game for you and made you look ordinary. Yet another team that raises their game for England; why does every team on the planet only want to beat England?

Because every team on the planet "HATES " England. THAT'S WHY. ok.

Sure. One day you should hop on a plane and go to another country. You might be surprised at what you discover. Why do the media and most fans have to say that every team raises their game for England though, it's tedious. You just aren't that great. Wales to win the tournament next weekend on p/d, you heard it here first .

The Saint wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

The Saint wrote:So apparently Scotland raised their game for you and made you look ordinary. Yet another team that raises their game for England; why does every team on the planet only want to beat England?

Because every team on the planet "HATES " England. THAT'S WHY. ok.

Sure. One day you should hop on a plane and go to another country. You might be surprised at what you discover. Why do the media and most fans have to say that every team raises their game for England though, it's tedious. You just aren't that great. Wales to win the tournament next weekend on p/d, you heard it here first .

You maybe right. about Wales winning on points different. But it is not a given disspite what you may think.

Every person thought that Scotland would beat Italy with a cricket score. It was not to be. Italy at the last minute score a winning try(penalty try)but a try n non the less. So just because Wales won today. Dose not mean they will win the tournament.

The Saint wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

The Saint wrote:So apparently Scotland raised their game for you and made you look ordinary. Yet another team that raises their game for England; why does every team on the planet only want to beat England?

Because every team on the planet "HATES " England. THAT'S WHY. ok.

Sure. One day you should hop on a plane and go to another country. You might be surprised at what you discover. Why do the media and most fans have to say that every team raises their game for England though, it's tedious. You just aren't that great. Wales to win the tournament next weekend on p/d, you heard it here first .

can i fly to Wales?

quinsforever wrote:

The Saint wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

The Saint wrote:So apparently Scotland raised their game for you and made you look ordinary. Yet another team that raises their game for England; why does every team on the planet only want to beat England?

Because every team on the planet "HATES " England. THAT'S WHY. ok.

Sure. One day you should hop on a plane and go to another country. You might be surprised at what you discover. Why do the media and most fans have to say that every team raises their game for England though, it's tedious. You just aren't that great. Wales to win the tournament next weekend on p/d, you heard it here first .

can i fly to Wales?

Drive down the M4 and visit your relatives.

majesticimperialman wrote:

The Saint wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

The Saint wrote:So apparently Scotland raised their game for you and made you look ordinary. Yet another team that raises their game for England; why does every team on the planet only want to beat England?

Because every team on the planet "HATES " England. THAT'S WHY. ok.

Sure. One day you should hop on a plane and go to another country. You might be surprised at what you discover. Why do the media and most fans have to say that every team raises their game for England though, it's tedious. You just aren't that great. Wales to win the tournament next weekend on p/d, you heard it here first .

You maybe right. about Wales winning on points different. But it is not a given disspite what you may think.

Every person thought that Scotland would beat Italy with a cricket score. It was not to be. Italy at the last minute score a winning try(penalty try)but a try n non the less.  So just because Wales won today. Dose not mean they will win the tournament.

Yes it does .

The Saint wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

The Saint wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

The Saint wrote:So apparently Scotland raised their game for you and made you look ordinary. Yet another team that raises their game for England; why does every team on the planet only want to beat England?

Because every team on the planet "HATES " England. THAT'S WHY. ok.

Sure. One day you should hop on a plane and go to another country. You might be surprised at what you discover. Why do the media and most fans have to say that every team raises their game for England though, it's tedious. You just aren't that great. Wales to win the tournament next weekend on p/d, you heard it here first .

can i fly to Wales?

Drive down the M4 and visit your relatives.

My last visit to Cardiff, was not all that good to be honest. They would not let us into Cardiff arms park. I cannot remember who was playing at the time. to be honest.

Did anyone on here actually say Scotland raised their game for England?

good call Saint. dont have any relatives there any more. time caught up with them. but i grew up down the road from the old CAP.

the welsh in general dearly love beating us at rugby, but in general dont hate the english. imho.

scotland is a bit different. seems like half the population does actually hate the english and almost voted to go their own way.

wales, after the scotland referendum, polled 92% in favour of staying within the UK.

Why this suddenly about Wales

have you met Saint before?

quinsforever wrote:good call Saint. dont have any relatives there any more. time caught up with them. but i grew up down the road from the old CAP.

the welsh in general dearly love beating us at rugby, but in general dont hate the english. imho.

scotland is a bit different. seems like half the population does actually hate the english and almost voted to go their own way.

wales, after the scotland referendum, polled 92% in favour of staying within the UK.

Ohhh, purlease.
Not wishing to be drawn into an indy debate, but hatred of the English wasnt the reason behind people wanted to leave. Dont swallow the negative image of Scotland that the gutter press like the Mail tried to create.

I have to say I wish Barritt was fit.

I genuinely think he would be perfect for the leader between Ford and Joseph.

We have young exciting backs out there and we need someone solid and consistent and a leader especially defensively. Burrell nor twelvetrees give that.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I have to say I wish Barritt was fit.

I genuinely think he would be perfect for the leader between Ford and Joseph.

We have young exciting backs out there and we need someone solid and consistent and a leader especially defensively.  Burrell nor twelvetrees give that.

What have the 12 s done wrong that demand a Barritt?

I just think we're missing consistency of performance and a real leader in the middle there.

I just don't believe we get that from the other two.

Its about a 6 out of 10 for all of them fot me. Rather we have the overall (36) or attacking (eastmond) than defensive given the desire for open play though.

In an ideal world I totally agree. But we don't so for the moment I don't think 36 alrounder is very good at this level And until we find the right one we need to get the balance. I personally think Barritt is the right option with ford and Joseph. Thats just my opinion of course which means jot when all said and done

Burrell certainly hasnt made a convincing case

Why not consider Eastmond, may I be so bold to ask? Is there a size issue there?

Yes, he's considered too small. We want a big 12, hence 36, Burrell, Barrett and Burgess being around the squad.

Eastmond with Manu would be worth a consideration.

Attack is what we want but every top side has a general who leads. It's just they happen to have a great attacking game aswell. We haven't yet.

Again just my opinion.

Nowell is great but his finishing is poor….and since his main job as a winger is to finish chances he just needs to find a little composure and then i think he will become a central part of england's attack.

Ford, Joseph and Nowell are coming of age this 6 Nations. I hope to see Armitage in contention in June so that the missing link in england's back row can be tried out, a pack of Marler, Hartley, Cole, Lawes, Launchbury, Robshaw, Armitage and Morgan would be immense. Backed by Youngs, Ford, Nowell, ?12, Manu, Joseph, Brown.

Eastmond had some chances. I hope he gets some more.

What does happen is that with him and Ford you have two guys who are very good at tackling bigger guys but really dont have the size to stop those bigger guys making some yards in the process.

Well a win's a win I guess, but tbh I watch 2 sides that won't be troubling the RWC final. Not until we find players who can pass. I had to laugh at TY's pass to thin air - that would be his training as a centre . Burrell's a bit of a donkey - a kind of Barritt without the attacking flair . Maybe this was a game for 12T - he only plays well against Scotland. Barritt will never be world class and is a limited player - but still the best IC England have... by some distance. Haskell's like a less conspicuous Wood. Still, if we can ever get Barritt, Manu & Launchbury back, plus Morgan, and someone in the back 3 with real pace...then who knows.

I thought Joseph really looked the part. ford a good game as well although a few poor kicks. Vunipola was well policed tho - tied up players but didn't make a lot of ground. Russell took him down 4 times IIRC - 16 carries for 40 m and 14 tackles is a lot of work to get thru. England need another ball carrier in the forwards

I still think may has a part to play. I don't believe he's just the sprinter everyone thinks he is.

I also wonder where Wade will be in all this. He is a talent Like no other.

It's all about balance and it's one thing Lancasters teams have always lacked since his tenure began for whatever reason be it injuries or just poor selections....

Heaf wrote:Did anyone on here actually say Scotland raised their game for England?

I'm not sure, I haven't been paying attention to this thread. But it has been mentioned quite often on this forum in the past. And after the match when Lancaster was interviewed, it was mentioned how Scotland always raise their game for England... It just seems a bit arrogant to be having that in the psyche.

For scotland the stats make interesting and in places depressing reading.
fife - a real curates egg - 9 carries for 65 m - the most of anyone. 2 clean breaks, 3 defenders beaten - again the best numbers but 3 turnovers and 4 missed tackles. Hmmmmmmm. He worked really really hard I thought. Definatly second choice - but again a better second choice than we have had for long time
Ickle Jonny - 14 tackles n one missed acorrding to espn - I could have sworn I saw him miss one. 7 carries for 15 m but 2 defenders beaten
Denton - 10 carries for 32 m. Only 3 tackles made tho
Ginger tackle monster has had better games.
Russell 11 tackles - 2 missed. so much for his defensive weakness.

quinsforever wrote:good call Saint. dont have any relatives there any more. time caught up with them. but i grew up down the road from the old CAP.

the welsh in general dearly love beating us at rugby, but in general dont hate the english. imho.

scotland is a bit different. seems like half the population does actually hate the english and almost voted to go their own way.

wales, after the scotland referendum, polled 92% in favour of staying within the UK.

I agree, we do like beating England in rugby, not sure why we like to beat you more than any of the other 6 Nations. It would be better to be beating New Zealand though.

Yes it's long been known that Wales want to stay in the UK. And I also have to say that some of my English friends agree with you, they've had bad experiences with the Scots. I think that movie Braveheart went to their heads a bit!

GeordieFalcon wrote:I still think may has a part to play. I don't believe he's just the sprinter everyone thinks he is.

I also wonder where Wade will be in all this. He is a talent Like no other.

It's all about balance and it's one thing Lancasters teams have always lacked since his tenure began for whatever reason be it injuries or just poor selections....

Me too. He is another 'busy' player like Nowell. Nowell makes a lot of mistakes but he does work hard also and ends up in credit. I think the same is true of May. For all the so called 'issues' there aren't many players who could of made Cipriani's try vs Italy like May did

lostinwales wrote:Burrell certainly hasnt made a convincing case

Burrell is not an international clas player. He is a big lump. That is about all you can say for him. He doesn't run with the ball in two hands. He can pass adequately but no better one way but not the other.

In the AP he gets away with it. He does not look classy however. Henry Slade on the othe hand oozes class. The more pressured the situation the more time he seems to have. He has learned the schoolboy lesson of running with the ball in two hands. Gove him his chance before it is too late.

P.S. What is the point of giving Cipriani three minutes?

Exiledinborders wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Burrell certainly hasnt made a convincing case

Burrell is not an international clas player. He is a big lump. That is about all you can say for him. He doesn't run with the ball in two hands. He can pass adequately but no better one way but not the other.

In the AP he gets away with it. He does not look classy however. Henry Slade on the othe hand oozes class. The more pressured the situation the more time he seems to have. He has learned the schoolboy lesson of running with the ball in two hands. Gove him his chance before it is too late.

P.S. What is the point of giving Cipriani three minutes?

Didnt Cips come on for Brown? I wonder if there was an injury, (or maybe they needed to get him in an ice bath quickly to stop him self combusting)

This was a great game, it should be sent off to Steve Hansen to prove that actually we don't need to change any rules and its still possible for a big game in test rugby to produce a lot of line breaks and attacking rugby. It's perfectly possible to have an entertaining match if Scotland defend like a team of mannequins both sides want to play positive rugby.

Even if we do change the laws teams will always figure out ways to play negatively if thats what they want to do.

Unless Lancaster makes a change for France, Burrell will have played the entire six nations at 12.  He has not been as good as last year (at 13) but has been OK at times but no more than that.  However unless Burrell is in the final WC squad this will have been a total waste of an opportunity.  Eastmond could have been given another (almost all his matches have been against New Zealand and South Africa) or Slade could have been trialed.

If Manu and Barritt are fit, they with Joseph are likely to be selected.  Will Burrell squeeze into the squad?  If he does  not make it then this series has been a waste.

The Saint wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

The Saint wrote:So apparently Scotland raised their game for you and made you look ordinary. Yet another team that raises their game for England; why does every team on the planet only want to beat England?

Because every team on the planet "HATES " England. THAT'S WHY. ok.

Sure. One day you should hop on a plane and go to another country. You might be surprised at what you discover. Why do the media and most fans have to say that every team raises their game for England though, it's tedious. You just aren't that great. Wales to win the tournament next weekend on p/d, you heard it here first .

Don't think you'll beat Italy by nearly enough

Manu and Barritt being injured does probably mean that would have been true of whoever played instead of Burrell though, cb

thomh wrote:Manu and Barritt being injured does probably mean that would have been true of whoever played instead of Burrell though, cb

Twelvetrees and Slade offer much more utility for the world cup squad, Lancatser has already stated thats explicitly why he is looking at Slade for the extended training squad. They want a guy who can cover the centers and 10. 

The flip side is that if Burrell is place sitting for Barritt he is a much more "like for like" (especially in  the way he has been utilised) pick, and enables England to test and develop the style of play through 12 that they are looking at with Barrit. Also it could be argued hes straight up competing for a spot with Barritt, but has blown his chance. 

All that said England will have a largish extended training squad from which the final world cup squad will be picked. At the minute it may be looking most likely JJ, Tuillagi and Barritt nailed on but there is room for a 4th utility center to force a place, or for someone on form to demand a spot. Tuilagi and Barritts fitness and form isnt a given either. 

The lack of opportunity form the bench given to 36, let alone his inability to displace Burrell,  and the desperation shown to not let Cipriani on the pitch unless theres no option shows where they lay in the the thinking. Lancaster has made a lot of noise about Slade, so yes maybe he should be given the bench slot for France. But not getting it wont mean the end of his world cup chances by any stretch.

I don't see how Manu, or Barrit can be nailed on, given the lack of game time they have had. I do think Eastmond should be given more time along with JJ and Ford.

What i don't understand why have twelvetrees on the bench and not use him? plus what was the point in giving Cipriani the last 3 minutes of game time.

Burrell had a bit of a shocker yesterday, he knows he is under pressure and boy is it effecting him.

majesticimperialman wrote:
What i don't understand why have twelvetrees on the bench and not use him? plus what was the point in giving Cipriani the last 3 minutes of game time.

As Burrell looked really poor, I agree that 36 should probably have been brought on. I did not see the point of bringing Cipriani on - perhaps Brown was flagging?

It is funny with Backs replacements. Other than the SH, who has to cover a lot of ground getting to every breakdown, there is usually little need to bring someone on to replace a tired starter. So the only reasons to change are eithet for injury or to alter tactics/try something new. In a tight game that was not won, with Ford running the show and playing fantastically well, it would be crazy to take him off - which limits Cipriani's opportunity.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I still think may has a part to play. I don't believe he's just the sprinter everyone thinks he is.

I also wonder where Wade will be in all this. He is a talent Like no other.

It's all about balance and it's one thing Lancasters teams have always lacked since his tenure began for whatever reason be it injuries or just poor selections....

Geordie our back 3 should be rw Wade fb watson everyones favourite box of frogs on the lw ....its jonny may

Pace pace pace, plus unlike Brown, Watson can actually pass the ball.

One positive that I don't think anyone has mentioned is how many chances we're now creating. Last year we struggled in that area.

I think we need to work on actually finishing those chances of now and we should start scoring far more tries

The problem with Wade this season is his defence, he's been really bad. He'd be hammered at Int level despite him being a fantastic attacking talent.

nathan wrote:One positive that I don't think anyone has mentioned is how many chances we're now creating. Last year we struggled in that area.

I think we need to work on actually finishing those chances of now and we should start scoring far more tries

Nathan,

If you had finished half of those you created then the Championship would now be yours as you would have smashed Scotland. Like you said though at least you are creating rather than not.

Are we creating them because if Scotland's terrible defence or are attack though?

Against a better team defensively (Ireland) we created.... Zero tries. Against wakes at their worst this championship we created two.

At the moment it's difficult to judge the effectiveness of our attack.

I'd hazard that a large percentage of our chances were created by the oppositions poor kicking, and then an individuals skill at running it back. Worryingly when we had to actually link up and were as a team to score we f'ed up, every time. Scotland attacked far more coherently then us.

yappysnap wrote:Are we creating them because if Scotland's terrible defence or are attack though?

Against a better team defensively (Ireland) we created.... Zero tries. Against wakes at their worst this championship we created two

Difference between Ireland and Scotland was the pack gave us front foot ball yesterday. That allowed the half backs to dictate. The majority of our chances were created by good work from one or both of those.

Our main issue in attack is still support runners. Either they are too lazy and not helping the ball carrier, or they overrun him. Three tries ruled out for forward passes and one for obstruction, all down to overeager support. We need a happy medium.