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?

majesticimperialman wrote:

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

You miss the point. And not very witty maj, but nowhere near as bad as your attempt at telling us Biggar drop-goals in every single match.

majesticimperialman wrote:

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.

Spectacularly missing the point. Pretty standard for you though.

quinsforever wrote: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.

Quins,
Here is my conundrum:  I see what you see and I want to agree.  The first semi-rational part of my brain does see exactly what you see.  Improvement in depth, experience with key players, and a significant upgrade in the back three.  Even better are decent performances with a lot of injuries, which, when players return can only plus-up the team.  

Corbs and Cole will continue to improve as they continue their recoveries.  For Props it can take a while.  The lineouts have been passable now, will be better.  The back three is a developing unit, though the wings need a bit more under the pressure of high kicks.  England are almost in a selection standpoint of horses for courses.  

So, given that we seriously do appear to be better, why are we positioned for our one millionth consecutive second place finish in the Six Nations? Another typical English ‘good show’, brave in defeat, and all that?

That other semi-rational part of my brain says our young, exciting scrum halves are now not so young nor are they quite so exciting.  Indeed Ford is an attacking upgrade over Farrell and should stay at 10.  But, lordy mama, please make your kicks.  Centres, well, nuff said.  Burrell looks like a tired player and needs a seat.  JJ has started extremely well, but have we not said that bout other players before?  Looking great for today, maybe that is all we can ask.  My feeling is Lancaster will end up starting the RWC with Barrett at 12 and Farrell at 13, taking the kicks.  Not sure what happens if Tuilagi becomes healthy and in game shape.  

I can’t stand wordsmithing defeat.  Ireland were better and beat us.  And we didn’t come close to a Plan B.  And so the plan against Scotland was to run, run, run, and maybe hold on to the ball.  Only result from one game to the next was sub-par performances.  Smells almost like we have no real direction.

I think you may need to take time away from England Doc. Far too pessimistic.

Unless of course you had thought we were RWC contenders. Then your undue optimism has merely been treated with a dose of reality.

Tbh, I think England are as good as anyone in the NH. But despite a few wins in November I don't think any of us are good enough to stand up to the big three in the World Cup knockout stages. I haven't seen anything in this Six Nations that will worry Steve Hansen.

England are creating chances by they bucketload but their conversion rate is appalling. Too many players with blinkers on missing the support player or failing to execute simple passes. They don't have a very long time to improve these basic things. These players have gone through their whole career without nailing these things down, I don't know if they're going to become clinical at finishing off line breaks by the World Cup. Against the teams who really know how to defend in knock-out rugby, they'll get a couple of those chances in a game. Maybe just one. And if they don't increase the number they convert they will probably lose.

My call; England win Six Nations on points difference, lose in the World Cup semi-final. Not a bad season all things considered.

i think ireland win 6Ns on points difference, and England get to the RWC final (beating ireland in the semis)

Hmm... I'm not sure which one I'd prefer if I was you (assuming England lose in the Final).

Notch wrote:
England are creating chances by they bucketload but their conversion rate is appalling. Too many players with blinkers on missing the support player or failing to execute simple passes.

Admittedly not the Tom Youngs break, that was just a poor pass, but in most other cases much of the blame actually lies with the support runners. For instance with the Burrell break, Watson stayed far too wide and needed to come closer. We have sen that a lot so far - and much of that is down to unfamiliarity. However we do indeed have limited time to build that understanding.

What are they doing in training if they're not building that familiarity though LT?

And both those guys are pro players in their early 20's. So they've been playing this game for at least say 10 years. They've gone through academies, national academies, coaching schools, A leagues, 1st XV training and then EPS training, and they still don't know how to scan, look for a pass, make that pass or run closer to the passee so that it's easier?!

What the frak

Doctor Grey is just being realistic.

People say oh look how "exciting" England are with people who run,run and run! Doesn't matter if you can't do the basics. This England team seem to be quite poor at the those simple basics like a good kick chase, not dropping the ball and supporting their team mates in attack.

Where are the support lines that were so integral to England's good 6 nations last year?

People say how amazing Ford has been - he played well enough against Wales,Italy and Scotland but got well and truly outmuscled and outplayed by Sexton.

Joseph was basically a nonentity vs Ireland in attack.

It's not doom and gloom - England are creating quite a few opportunities but the finishing of these opportunities needs a lot of work. With a bit more clinical finishing England would have a far healthier points difference.

LondonTiger wrote:Unless of course you had thought we were RWC contenders. Then your undue optimism has merely been treated with a dose of reality.

clearly my first mistake. I think I may have made that mistake in the past.

Obviously England haven’t improved since last year, how possibly could they have, with all the injuries, disruptions, new combinations, limited test experience – it’s a miracle to me that we could actually win this 6N. If anything it’s a bit of a sad reflection on the quality of the whole competition this year. The team that, at their best, are the best in the NH are Ireland. But the loss to Wales shows how slight that advantage is. Sorry, but the SH two won’t be losing too much sleep ahead of the RWC.

barney mcgrew did it

England have 12 teams to pick from, 4 sides in the quarter finals of the ERCC, plenty of strength of depth - should be no excuses. England have the resources to be realistic world cup contenders and should be challenging the big three SH sides consistently.

beshocked wrote:barney mcgrew did it

England have 12 teams to pick from, 4 sides in the quarter finals of the ERCC, plenty of strength of depth - should be no excuses. England have the resources to be realistic world cup contenders and should be challenging the big three SH sides consistently.

When have we ever consistently challenged NZ?

against SA we had a tiny window of dominance betwen 200 and 2006. Before and after that we have been whipping boys.

Australia are the only side we have ever had any sustained dominance over - and that is because really they are not a rugby super-power. What they have done is punch above their weight for a decent amount of time, but they lose so many guys to Aussie Rules and RL that Union is pretty much ignored over there.

beshocked wrote:barney mcgrew did it

England have 12 teams to pick from, 4 sides in the quarter finals of the ERCC, plenty of strength of depth - should be no excuses. England have the resources to be realistic world cup contenders and should be challenging the big three SH sides consistently.

And so they are. Realistically, England are favourites to top their RWC pool and have a strong chance to make the final. And they are challenging the "big three" (though I would argue that Australia are clinging on to that epithet by their fingernails). They've not had many wins, but I can only think of two games - one of the SA tests on Lancaster's first tour, and the third test in NZ last summer - where the game has not been close and England have not had the opportunity to win it.

Narrow losses don't make trophies, and I share that frustration. But I'm also realistic about the progress that's been made despite the level of injury disruption. It's not as if the chances aren't being created. They are. There's a lack of accuracy in the opposition 22, and that is bound to happen when the players in question have only played together internationally a handful of times. The good news there is that England will gain comparatively more from their RWC preparation than teams who have been together longer.

The bigger worry is an approach to the breakdown that does not adapt well to certain referees. England have shown no signs of fixing that, and until they do they will always be vulnerable. Ireland suffer from it as well, albeit to a lesser extent.

Still: would you rather go back to the Flutey / Hape / Vainikolo / Farrell Snr era of Martin Johnson?

On an unrelated note - just how fast is Watson? Watch his disallowed try in the first half. Hogg is travelling in the right direction but Watson still manages to fly past him. Unbelievable pace. He doesn't yet have that ability to go round a player in no space that Wade or Nowell do, but his straight line speed is ridiculous.

England need to borrow (notice I said borrow) Alex King for a while pre-rwc.

All ( barring a certain 12) the Saints players have great ball handing skills, watch a Saints game and apart from size and pace, you would struggle to tell forwards and backs apart. This goes right down through the academy.

You rarely see them butcher a chance by not passing, if anything they do it too often instead of backing themselves to make it. Situational awareness is drilled into them, if they don't think they have the pace when they break they go looking for support runners.

They are the exact opposite of most England players who seem to either have poor passing skills (forwards) or lack awareness of the break or who is out/inside them in support (that includes Burrell) who is often the weak link in Saints attack when they break through.

Mike Catt does not seem to have the ability to coach these skills, although to be fair to him, you would expect professional players to have those skills anyway.

thomh wrote:On an unrelated note - just how fast is Watson? Watch his disallowed try in the first half. Hogg is travelling in the right direction but Watson still manages to fly past him. Unbelievable pace. He doesn't yet have that ability to go round a player in no space that Wade or Nowell do, but his straight line speed is ridiculous.

Quick, but not as fast as May who is just scary over anything between 5m and 100m.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

thomh wrote:On an unrelated note - just how fast is Watson? Watch his disallowed try in the first half. Hogg is travelling in the right direction but Watson still manages to fly past him. Unbelievable pace. He doesn't yet have that ability to go round a player in no space that Wade or Nowell do, but his straight line speed is ridiculous.

Quick, but not as fast as May who is just scary over anything between 5m and 100m.

May's problem is he's thick.

thomh wrote:On an unrelated note - just how fast is Watson? Watch his disallowed try in the first half. Hogg is travelling in the right direction but Watson still manages to fly past him. Unbelievable pace. He doesn't yet have that ability to go round a player in no space that Wade or Nowell do, but his straight line speed is ridiculous.

Watson is very quick and as you say, it's his straight line speed that is so impressive. It's why he should stick with 15 rather than wing, and why England should look to May and Wade for the wing positions. Pace isn't everything in rugby, but with Ford at 10 and Joseph at 13 (with either Burrell or Tuilagi at 12) England could deploy an extremely dangerous backline.

See I'd have thought that a player with out and out gas, but who doesn't necessarily beat the first man in the way that say Brown does, and isn't as secure under the high ball, is better suited to wing. Have commented that I think Nowell is the more likely to move to 15 long term as he has that ability to fight his way past a defender, but not necessarily the same out and out pace as May/Watson

And by 'not necessarily' I really just mean 'not'.

And don't forget Watsons brother Marcus has just signed for us from the England 7's team. He was electric both in attack and defence....

Of course that is 7's...a mickey mouse game....However once Dean and Walder get to work with him...and utilise the skills....you could have two Watsons in the England backline.

2 Youngs', 2 Vunipolas and 2 Watsons. Would that be a first time for any Tier 1 nation, three sets of brothers all on the field at the same time for the same side?

LondonTiger wrote:

Notch wrote:
England are creating chances by they bucketload but their conversion rate is appalling. Too many players with blinkers on missing the support player or failing to execute simple passes.

Admittedly not the Tom Youngs break, that was just a poor pass, but in most other cases much of the blame actually lies with the support runners. For instance with the Burrell break, Watson stayed far too wide and needed to come closer. We have sen that a lot so far - and much of that is down to unfamiliarity. However we do indeed have limited time to build that understanding.

Why didn't Youngs go through the floor if he had no one on his shoulder? This is a fairly basic procedure in rugby that we all learn aged 5 so i just dont get the ridiculous speculative throw away pass that he employed?

From where Watson started I'm not sure he could have got much closer in without being too far behind.

Notch wrote:Hmm... I'm not sure which one I'd prefer if I was you (assuming England lose in the Final).

given its a home RWC, i'd rather we make the final and lose, than win the 6Ns and get knocked out in the semis. just my preference.

not even daring to voice what i'd really like...

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:Hmm... I'm not sure which one I'd prefer if I was you (assuming England lose in the Final).

given its a home RWC, i'd rather we make the final and lose, than win the 6Ns and get knocked out in the semis. just my preference.

not even daring to voice what i'd really like...

Quins, I am unaccustomed to you being shy with your opinions.  So as your doctor, please allow me to help you say what we would really like:

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering........You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be;

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/multimedia/archive/00068/chruchill-580_68674a.jpg

to the sound of "Dambusters"

No doubts!