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?

Sgt_Pooly wrote: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.

Not true, you obviously didn't see the recent game against Saracens. He was strong in the tackle and excellent under the high ball.

Add to that he scored a try that no other current english player could have and you begin to realise that he's the closest talent to Robinson we have yet produced. The fact that Lancaster is an arse is far more a reason than Christian Wade's defensive ability.

LondonTiger wrote:

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.

Obviously Ashton didnt redefine wing play well enough

Think the number of 'chances' is a red herring tbh. If you can't see the pass, and you can't make the pass, you won't score. This England side (particularly in the backs) suffers from poor basic handling skills, as well as composure and vision - all the basics then. On thing that might help is the injection of some pace. And keeping both boots on.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think the number of 'chances' is a red herring tbh. If you can't see the pass, and you can't make the pass, you won't score. This England side (particularly in the backs) suffers from poor basic handling skills, as well as composure and vision - all the basics then. On thing that might help is the injection of some pace. And keeping both boots on.

How much extra pace to you boys bloody want???  
Perhaps the greatest 'weakness' of England is that they indeed see their 'pace' as the golden ticket to heaven.  
Perhaps they try too hard to play a rugby League game on a Union field?  It's just often so dynamic that it muddles itself up, trips over it's own space forming and strike running feet.  It's a ball of energy that can often just run away from the players' ability to control it.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think the number of 'chances' is a red herring tbh. If you can't see the pass, and you can't make the pass, you won't score. This England side (particularly in the backs) suffers from poor basic handling skills, as well as composure and vision - all the basics then. On thing that might help is the injection of some pace. And keeping both boots on.

Brown's form has not returned to his 2012/13 peak, plus he has not overcome his instinct to keep the ball when the pass is available (he is a selfious player who dosn't scan). Before his injury, I thought Foden was making a real challenge for the shirt. Add to this Lancaster's man sausage ability as a selector and you begin to understand our failure to develop a coherent attacking backline. Furthermore we need a 7 to link the attack.

Watson
Wade
Joseph
Eastmond
May
Ford

Kvesic
Vunipola
Robshaw

SecretFly wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think the number of 'chances' is a red herring tbh. If you can't see the pass, and you can't make the pass, you won't score. This England side (particularly in the backs) suffers from poor basic handling skills, as well as composure and vision - all the basics then. On thing that might help is the injection of some pace. And keeping both boots on.

How much extra pace to you boys bloody want???  
Perhaps the greatest 'weakness' of England is that they indeed see their 'pace' as the golden ticket to heaven.  
Perhaps they try too hard to play a rugby League game on a Union field?  It's just often so dynamic that it muddles itself up, trips over it's own space forming and strike running feet.  It's a ball of energy that can often just run away from the players' ability to control it.

Arrrr sorry who currently selected do you think has pace? I can only see Watson and Joseph, everyone else is either average to slow.

The backrow is certainly too slow.

Bull kingelderfield.  Brown has no pace???  Had Ireland Brown we'd be on our way to a GrandSlam

Nowell has no pace?
Ford no pace?
Burrell might be the only questionmark and that's down to being more naïve than not having the required 'pace'.

I don't know what you English are looking at sometimes.  England has tons of pace.  The problem isn't in the pace, it's in creating tons of chances that for some reason don't currently come off.  
We're back to the over-trying angle and how it causes players to make bad decisions and often sees them run a little away from support too at times.  Too much pace not controlled well enough would be my reading.
I wish we had the same problems

SecretFly wrote:Bull kingelderfield.  Brown has no pace???  Had Ireland Brown we'd be on our way to a GrandSlam

Nowell has no pace?
Ford no pace?
Burrell might be the only questionmark and that's down to being more naïve than not having the required 'pace'.

I don't know what you English are looking at sometimes.  England has tons of pace.  The problem isn't in the pace, it's in creating tons of chances that for some reason don't currently come off.  
We're back to the over-trying angle and how it causes players to make bad decisions and often sees them run a little away from support too at times.  Too much pace not controlled well enough would be my reading.
I wish we had the same problems

Brown does not have pace. Apart from applying copious amounts of vasiline he is an excellent positional player who is very brave. He is not a pace merchant who, as I understand it, attends sprinting training to help him maximise his ability.

Nowell has potential but is raw, however again he does not have real pace. If you compare him to May who does then you will take my point.

I accept that Ford has a reasonable turn of foot as is required for a 10. It was always one of Wilkinsons failings not to - for a more current comparison see Owen Farrell.

Ultimately it is all about rugby brains/skills and being able to execute at PACE!

There you go - the ability to 'execute at PACE' is the key.

I still say if you lads want to dispense with Brown, we'll take him And Nowell if he's excess baggage.

In all seriousness though, it is only a little more tactical brains that is needed to put those guys into better positions to make the runs count.

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.

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.

As mentioned before, our forwards were well beaten against Ireland. Think you are being overly harsh, our attack has improved no end this year - you must of been watching another game if you think it was all just individual skills.

Lack of pace is a complete red herring. There's plenty of pace. What England's backs lack is composure that only comes with experience. What we are seeing is the lack of a cool head that only a few more caps will produce. Unfortunately the RWC is getting too close for that to be achieved.

Thought Parling was a huge improvement on Attwood. There is something of the ineffective wuss about Attwood.

I bet you all of the colourful local currency in my pocket that at the end of their careers Nowell will have scored more tries with his superb step than May will have with this mythical 'pace' that people suddenly are creaming themselves over.

I know that England fans are a bit urined off about the team's performance, but all of the missed chances will be rectified if that England team just spends more game time together. This is the brittle edge of Lancaster constantly chopping and changing his midfield.

George Carlin wrote:I bet you all of the colourful local currency in my pocket that at the end of their careers Nowell will have scored more tries with his superb step than May will have with this mythical 'pace' that people suddenly are creaming themselves over.

I know that England fans are a bit urined off about the team's performance, but all of the missed chances will be rectified if that England team just spends more game time together. This is the brittle edge of Lancaster constantly chopping and changing his midfield.

+at least 1 there. Think Nowell is a proper footballer, not the finished article by any means yet, but with more than one way to hurt sides. The only English back to bother Ireland with any frequency and an excellent game yesterday. May will have the occasional day when he burns a sleeping defence but I'd also want to bet any old currency that Nowell will notch more tries than the man with more pace but less nous. Add in potential numbers of assists and I can only see the ledger reading one way in the end. I wouldn't mind Nowell in an Irish team just now, put it that way. He's always looking for work, which is worth its weight in diamonds.

SecretFly wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think the number of 'chances' is a red herring tbh. If you can't see the pass, and you can't make the pass, you won't score. This England side (particularly in the backs) suffers from poor basic handling skills, as well as composure and vision - all the basics then. On thing that might help is the injection of some pace. And keeping both boots on.

How much extra pace to you boys bloody want???  
Perhaps the greatest 'weakness' of England is that they indeed see their 'pace' as the golden ticket to heaven.  
Perhaps they try too hard to play a rugby League game on a Union field?  It's just often so dynamic that it muddles itself up, trips over it's own space forming and strike running feet.  It's a ball of energy that can often just run away from the players' ability to control it.

There is some truth in this. Even in the worst days when England scored tries through the backs the whole process tended to be very fast, not so much the mazy running that everybody loves and thinks makes for good back play. The problem is that so often there is a handling error which makes us look poor, but when the odd pass actually is on target and not dropped we have always been dangerous.

captain carrantuohil wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I bet you all of the colourful local currency in my pocket that at the end of their careers Nowell will have scored more tries with his superb step than May will have with this mythical 'pace' that people suddenly are creaming themselves over.

I know that England fans are a bit urined off about the team's performance, but all of the missed chances will be rectified if that England team just spends more game time together. This is the brittle edge of Lancaster constantly chopping and changing his midfield.

+at least 1 there. Think Nowell is a proper footballer, not the finished article by any means yet, but with more than one way to hurt sides. The only English back to bother Ireland with any frequency and an excellent game yesterday. May will have the occasional day when he burns a sleeping defence but I'd also want to bet any old currency that Nowell will notch more tries than the man with more pace but less nous. Add in potential numbers of assists and I can only see the ledger reading one way in the end. I wouldn't mind Nowell in an Irish team just now, put it that way. He's always looking for work, which is worth its weight in diamonds.

It is - but May looks for (and does) a great deal of work also. And May's pace isn't mythical

Oh and Brown. One of the things I was impressed with from watching yesterday was his support lines. When one of the wings went for it Brown was often there to help pick up the pieces. I may be being harsh but I can't remember Goode being very visible when we were running the ball back last week except when he was carrying.

The support play could still be a lot better but it was a vast improvement on last week

SecretFly wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think the number of 'chances' is a red herring tbh. If you can't see the pass, and you can't make the pass, you won't score. This England side (particularly in the backs) suffers from poor basic handling skills, as well as composure and vision - all the basics then. On thing that might help is the injection of some pace. And keeping both boots on.

How much extra pace to you boys bloody want???  
Perhaps the greatest 'weakness' of England is that they indeed see their 'pace' as the golden ticket to heaven.  
Perhaps they try too hard to play a rugby League game on a Union field?  It's just often so dynamic that it muddles itself up, trips over it's own space forming and strike running feet.  It's a ball of energy that can often just run away from the players' ability to control it.

Unfortunately we thought that we could switch pace for 'footballing skills/vision'..or actually basic skills. We were wrong, none of back 3 players has this to the level required, so we may as well pick the best athletes.

lostinwales wrote:Oh and Brown. One of the things I was impressed with from watching yesterday was his support lines. When one of the wings went for it Brown was often there to help pick up the pieces. I may be being harsh but I can't remember Goode being very visible when we were running the ball back last week except when he was carrying.

The support play could still be a lot better but it was a vast improvement on last week

Nobody can explain or justify Goode's selection. All it tells us is that Lancaster is not the full shilling, everyone be warned.

Hood83 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think the number of 'chances' is a red herring tbh. If you can't see the pass, and you can't make the pass, you won't score. This England side (particularly in the backs) suffers from poor basic handling skills, as well as composure and vision - all the basics then. On thing that might help is the injection of some pace. And keeping both boots on.

How much extra pace to you boys bloody want???  
Perhaps the greatest 'weakness' of England is that they indeed see their 'pace' as the golden ticket to heaven.  
Perhaps they try too hard to play a rugby League game on a Union field?  It's just often so dynamic that it muddles itself up, trips over it's own space forming and strike running feet.  It's a ball of energy that can often just run away from the players' ability to control it.

Unfortunately we thought that we could switch pace for 'footballing skills/vision'..or actually basic skills. We were wrong, none of back 3 players has this to the level required, so we may as well pick the best athletes.

I honestly believe That Wade is the real deal. A genuine rugby player.

I just think England should settle down a bit (the fans I mean - but maybe I also mean the team).  

I'd like some of what they have.  Some of what they have would go a long way to opening up the potential of a sluggish 'safe' team

Don't be so hard on yourselves.  You have a lot to work with there.  Other sides don't have nearly the luxury...so far.

kingelderfield wrote:

I honestly believe That Wade is the real deal. A genuine rugby player.

He has the size to be evasive and the speed to make it count. But you have to question why more sides don't use such players at International level. I assume other nations are loaded with Shane Williams types. But they've fallen out of fashion for a reason.

Maybe a re-birth of the little trickster bastarde is on the cards though

Well unfortunately I can no longer say that it has been 32 years since I last saw a Scottish team lose at Twickenham.

I really enjoyed the game though and the whole Twickenham experience. A good crowd and a great experience. As a match it probably gave a reasonable indication of where both teams are at, neither of the finished articles, though England clearly a bit closer to that than Scotland. Both sides if they ever really click, could be a handful for anyone.

For my money Nowell was the MoM. He scared me and the Scottish defence, every time he got the ball. He is a rare talent and should be a nailed on starter in that team.

If he can hold onto the ball, and learn to run with it in two hands.

kingelderfield wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote: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.

Not true, you obviously didn't see the recent game against Saracens. He was strong in the tackle and excellent under the high ball.

Add to that he scored a try that no other current english player could have and you begin to realise that he's the closest talent to Robinson we have yet produced. The fact that Lancaster is an arse is far more a reason than Christian Wade's defensive ability.

Actually it is true.

He was bloody awful agsinst Newcastle and the game I seen before that. If he awful in the AP what's he going to be like at Int.

Grass is always greener with a lot of people on here.

And Thank God too! I had enough of nematode pitches last year!

SecretFly wrote:And Thank God too!  I had enough of nematode pitches last year!

Oi! Watch it - I'm quite offended by that

You gotta admit you were very headstrong last year. You knew nobody wanted you but you still wouldn't leave. That's downright ill mannered.

It's actually interesting to remember last year.  I think England came to yesterday's game with the intention of showing just what they could dish out to the Scots on a good field, considering what they dished out on a mucky nematode stuffed wet one last year.

That's the spirit that informed their wickedly fast and furious start.  And it did look ominous for the Scots.

But I guess the Scots had built up enough Gandalf defiance by then to say "Thou Shalt Not Pass!".  They did pass of course but not by the sackful most predicted at the start of the game.

kingelderfield wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think the number of 'chances' is a red herring tbh. If you can't see the pass, and you can't make the pass, you won't score. This England side (particularly in the backs) suffers from poor basic handling skills, as well as composure and vision - all the basics then. On thing that might help is the injection of some pace. And keeping both boots on.

Brown's form has not returned to his 2012/13 peak, plus he has not overcome his instinct to keep the ball when the pass is available (he is a selfious player who dosn't scan).  Before his injury, I thought Foden was making a real challenge for the shirt. Add to this Lancaster's man sausage ability as a selector and you begin to understand our failure to develop a coherent attacking backline. Furthermore we need a 7 to link the attack.

Watson
Wade
Joseph
Eastmond
May
Ford
 
Kvesic
Vunipola
Robshaw

Thank god you're not selecting for England, that backline shows a complete lack of understanding of how to construct one to compete at the highest international level, it would be embarrasingly shown up against the likes of NZ or SA. No serious international coach past or present would consider it, apart for a meaningless charity match.

nth wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think the number of 'chances' is a red herring tbh. If you can't see the pass, and you can't make the pass, you won't score. This England side (particularly in the backs) suffers from poor basic handling skills, as well as composure and vision - all the basics then. On thing that might help is the injection of some pace. And keeping both boots on.

Brown's form has not returned to his 2012/13 peak, plus he has not overcome his instinct to keep the ball when the pass is available (he is a selfious player who dosn't scan).  Before his injury, I thought Foden was making a real challenge for the shirt. Add to this Lancaster's man sausage ability as a selector and you begin to understand our failure to develop a coherent attacking backline. Furthermore we need a 7 to link the attack.

Watson
Wade
Joseph
Eastmond
May
Ford
 
Kvesic
Vunipola
Robshaw

Thank god you're not selecting for England, that backline shows a complete lack of understanding of how to construct one to compete at the highest international level, it would be embarrasingly shown up against the likes of NZ or SA.  No serious international coach past or present would consider it, apart for a meaningless charity match.

+1

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

I don't think so, certainly not me although Saint may have been responding to my post...

doctor_grey wrote:

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.  

Yes I agree, the almost there thing is getting very old. England should be doing better.

kingelderfield wrote:...Furthermore we need a 7 to link the attack.

Watson
Wade
Joseph
Eastmond
May
Ford
 
Kvesic
Vunipola
Robshaw

I know you like to be ambitious but I still think it makes sense to play a scrum-half as well, rather than rely solely on the 7 to do all the linking work between backs and forwards.

The Saint wrote:

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.

I see, I agree that does get said a bit. I do think the Scots really like to beat the English though (as the Welsh do) and why not?

"Raise their game" isn't a cliché exclusive to Englishmen.

David Sole: ""If there's one team in the world the Scots will raise their game for it is England"

Doddie Weir "They've got England and Ireland to play. They're very strong sides...but Scotland generally raise their game for these two teams"

David Hilton "I think every player in the Scottish side that play against England will raise their game by 40%, maybe 50%"

nathan wrote:

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.

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.

As mentioned before, our forwards were well beaten against Ireland.  Think you are being overly harsh, our attack has improved no end this year - you must of been watching another game if you think it was all just individual skills.

Individual skills extends to the forwards. Basic vision and handling skills in our backs is shocking, truly awful. It may be they're past this in their development but we need a skills/backs coach to drill them on some very, very basic skills.

Our forwards - I genuinely think we are the worst breakdown team in world rugby. We seem to show some improvements then slip back to rucking late, slow and too high. The same goes for our carrying, it is often bolt upright. Quick pick and goes are totally vacant. No-one is willing to attack the sides of rucks, get in a good body position, make a yard or two and have support players blasting opposition players 5 metres past the ruck. Ireland at their best do this brilliantly. We just ship it on one. Sometimes this is useful in moving opposition packs around but it also means we're often starting 5 metres back.

Hood83 wrote:

nathan wrote:

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.

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.

As mentioned before, our forwards were well beaten against Ireland.  Think you are being overly harsh, our attack has improved no end this year - you must of been watching another game if you think it was all just individual skills.

Individual skills extends to the forwards. Basic vision and handling skills in our backs is shocking, truly awful. It may be they're past this in their development but we need a skills/backs coach to drill them on some very, very basic skills.

Our forwards - I genuinely think we are the worst breakdown team in world rugby. We seem to show some improvements then slip back to rucking late, slow and too high. The same goes for our carrying, it is often bolt upright. Quick pick and goes are totally vacant. No-one is willing to attack the sides of rucks, get in a good body position, make a yard or two and have support players blasting opposition players 5 metres past the ruck. Ireland at their best do this brilliantly. We just ship it on one. Sometimes this is useful in moving opposition packs around but it also means we're often starting 5 metres back.

Are we beter than we were last year at this time?  
Not being sarcastic because I don't think so.  I genuinely want to know what people think.

Doc Grey.  I think static would be my reading.  Buzzing around the same quality rating as last year.  Other sides upping and downing around you making some performances appear good and others not so.

I think Wales have definitely come on since last year.

Ireland have backtracked a little - less variety than last year. No punch.

France are in seriously bad shape but have still good enough players to raggedly drag them through games and keep them somewhat competitive without being clinical enough to be in the top end.

Scotland are in a honeymoon period that isn't going swimmingly, but still have enough hot flashes to show what might be after a season or two of Cotter.

Italy I think have notched up a little but not enough to register on any Major Threat board.

stub wrote:

The Saint wrote:

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.

I see, I agree that does get said a bit. I do think the Scots really like to beat the English though (as the Welsh do) and why not?

I can't speak for them but the Welsh like to beat everyone. We've a good rugby rivalry with England though, but I wouldn't say it's the only game we look at during the calendar year.

Rugby Fan wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:...Furthermore we need a 7 to link the attack.

Watson
Wade
Joseph
Eastmond
May
Ford
 
Kvesic
Vunipola
Robshaw

I know you like to be ambitious but I still think it makes sense to play a scrum-half as well, rather than rely solely on the 7 to do all the linking work between backs and forwards.

so what do you want? to either debate a back line and accompanying back row or to just throw Poopie about? I can do both so let me know and we'll take from there.

nth wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think the number of 'chances' is a red herring tbh. If you can't see the pass, and you can't make the pass, you won't score. This England side (particularly in the backs) suffers from poor basic handling skills, as well as composure and vision - all the basics then. On thing that might help is the injection of some pace. And keeping both boots on.

Brown's form has not returned to his 2012/13 peak, plus he has not overcome his instinct to keep the ball when the pass is available (he is a selfious player who dosn't scan).  Before his injury, I thought Foden was making a real challenge for the shirt. Add to this Lancaster's man sausage ability as a selector and you begin to understand our failure to develop a coherent attacking backline. Furthermore we need a 7 to link the attack.

Watson
Wade
Joseph
Eastmond
May
Ford
 
Kvesic
Vunipola
Robshaw

Thank god you're not selecting for England, that backline shows a complete lack of understanding of how to construct one to compete at the highest international level, it would be embarrasingly shown up against the likes of NZ or SA.  No serious international coach past or present would consider it, apart for a meaningless charity match.

Really, why's that then?

It's very easy just to be critical, but you need to give reason to your argument. Do you think they're to small, weak in the air, lack kicking skills or what is it?

Admittedly defence would need to be high on the agenda, but the point is you win by scoring more points than the opposition and that back line would score tries.

The Saint wrote:

stub wrote:

The Saint wrote:

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.

I see, I agree that does get said a bit. I do think the Scots really like to beat the English though (as the Welsh do) and why not?

I can't speak for them but the Welsh like to beat everyone. We've a good rugby rivalry with England though, but I wouldn't say it's the only game we look at during the calendar year.

Saint - I do have a recollection of visiting the in laws one year and the Stereophonics singing (on a 6 nations build up) " As long as we beat the English that's OK " or similar.. I know it's a special game in Wales to be honest. That's not to say the Welsh don't like to beat everyone - would agree with you there

kingelderfield wrote:

nth wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think the number of 'chances' is a red herring tbh. If you can't see the pass, and you can't make the pass, you won't score. This England side (particularly in the backs) suffers from poor basic handling skills, as well as composure and vision - all the basics then. On thing that might help is the injection of some pace. And keeping both boots on.

Brown's form has not returned to his 2012/13 peak, plus he has not overcome his instinct to keep the ball when the pass is available (he is a selfious player who dosn't scan).  Before his injury, I thought Foden was making a real challenge for the shirt. Add to this Lancaster's man sausage ability as a selector and you begin to understand our failure to develop a coherent attacking backline. Furthermore we need a 7 to link the attack.

Watson
Wade
Joseph
Eastmond
May
Ford
 
Kvesic
Vunipola
Robshaw

Thank god you're not selecting for England, that backline shows a complete lack of understanding of how to construct one to compete at the highest international level, it would be embarrasingly shown up against the likes of NZ or SA.  No serious international coach past or present would consider it, apart for a meaningless charity match.

Really, why's that then?

It's very easy just to be critical, but you need to give reason to your argument. Do you think they're to small, weak in the air, lack kicking skills or what is it?

Admittedly defence would need to be high on the agenda, but the point is you win by scoring more points than the opposition and that back line would score tries.

But that is exactly the point, they wouldn't, or at least not anywhere near what you believe against the best.  It's the sort of naive side that a schoolkid would pick based on their favourite youtube highlights.  There are a couple of players there who simply can't replicate internationally against the best sides what piques the interest in their performances from the bigger margined club game, but more critically than that you're picking players based on what you hope they might do individually, you need more in the blend of attributes to combat what the best sides can halt and counter them with.  That side might look good against 2nd tier countries, but the well drilled and quality readers of the game like NZ or SA would not be outdone by what they offer as a unit, they would be stopped dead, unpicked and then dismissed.

Compare the backline as a whole that you've picked to every one that has ever lifted the World Cup and you'll see what elements you are missing for serious top level contention.

Doc - regarding are England better this year.

yes i honestlly think they are.

back three of brown, nowell and watson look really good
jj at 13 is a massive improvement and he owns the jersey barring injury
12 we still have huge issues, but manu, burgess, slade and devoto are pushing the quasi-incumbents of burrell, barrett and 36 (crazy how many 12s we have)

ford is a MASSIVE improvment on Farrell

youngs is playing better than he did last year, but not quite as well as Care did last year, although Care this year has been really inconsistent

Forwards gelling really well with some strong scrummagers available again (Cole and Corbs)

lineout has suffered with missing lawes, launchbury and wood (all our jumpers!), but attwood, parling and haskell have been good (for the most part). impact of lawes yesterday showed though.

morgan owned the 8 jersey and billy v seems to have seized his opportunity with gusto, but he still is missing that step and dangerous line that morgan always seems to pick.

so yes definitely better than last year. Ireland have had a year under schmidt so were always going to be a well drilled dangerous machine at home.

we thumped wales in MS.

have had 6 i think tries disallowed so far this 6Ns and squandered plenty of other opportunities, so we are creating chances by the bunch.

i think we are much better. although i wouldnt credit lancaaster particularly. i and many others had been clamouring for ford and joseph, but only injury got them into the side.

kingelderfield wrote:..so what do you want? to either debate a back line and accompanying back row or to just throw Poopie about? I can do both so let me know and we'll take from there.

I wanted you to tell us who your preferred scrum half is, but you don't seem interested in doing so, even on a second pass.

For me, that's a crucial position, and one which Care seemed to have locked down until he tripped over himself in New Zealand. I would like the Care of last year's 6N but there's not a lot of evidence he's back to that level. If he starts looking sharp again in the World Cup build-up then I'd rather have him. Youngs has done all right, and has a reasonable relationship with Ford, but he has been inconsistent in the past, and struggles more than than most top scrum halves when his pack isn't on top.

I dont think Ford owes his opportunity to injury to Farrell at all. Joseph is a bit of a bolter but with 4 tries already he has seized his chance big time.

I'd add that I think Watson has a big future, but right now we might have better alternatives. I could see us play with Manu at 13 and JJ on the wing

stub wrote:

The Saint wrote:

stub wrote:

The Saint wrote:

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.

I see, I agree that does get said a bit. I do think the Scots really like to beat the English though (as the Welsh do) and why not?

I can't speak for them but the Welsh like to beat everyone. We've a good rugby rivalry with England though, but I wouldn't say it's the only game we look at during the calendar year.

Saint - I do have a recollection of visiting the in laws one year and the Stereophonics singing (on a 6 nations build up) " As long as we beat the English that's OK " or similar.. I know it's a special game in Wales to be honest. That's not to say the Welsh don't like to beat everyone - would agree with you there

2005 - we were coming in off the back of a couple of very dark era's. I think 2005 set the foundation for where we are now. Back then we hadn't beaten England in years, and shortly before that they were world champions. Plus they were more English back then so of course, everyone loved to beat England . I think now we'd rather see wins over NZ.....and Australia!

The Saint wrote:

stub wrote:

The Saint wrote:

stub wrote:

The Saint wrote:

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.

I see, I agree that does get said a bit. I do think the Scots really like to beat the English though (as the Welsh do) and why not?

I can't speak for them but the Welsh like to beat everyone. We've a good rugby rivalry with England though, but I wouldn't say it's the only game we look at during the calendar year.

Saint - I do have a recollection of visiting the in laws one year and the Stereophonics singing (on a 6 nations build up) " As long as we beat the English that's OK " or similar.. I know it's a special game in Wales to be honest. That's not to say the Welsh don't like to beat everyone - would agree with you there

2005 - we were coming in off the back of a couple of very dark era's. I think 2005 set the foundation for where we are now. Back then we hadn't beaten England in years, and shortly before that they were world champions. Plus they were more English back then so of course, everyone loved to beat England . I think now we'd rather see wins over NZ.....and Australia!

And how many times have you done that in the last couple of years.