England v France, 15 August

First topic message reminder :

  
ENGLAND v FRANCE
15 August 2015
KO: 20:00 local
Twickenham, London

Live on telly

Referee: John Lacey (Ireland)
Assistant Referees: George Clancy (Ireland) & Leighton Hodges (Wales)
Television match official: Simon McDowell (Ireland)

A. Head to Head

99 Played 99
54 Won 38
7 Drawn 7
38 Lost 54
1,553 Points 1,230

B. Recent Form

21 March 2015
Twickenham, London
55 – 35 to England

1 February 2014
Stade de France, Saint-Denis
26 – 24 to France

23 February 2013
Twickenham, London
23 – 13 to England

11 March 2012
Stade de France, Saint-Denis
22 – 24 to England

8 October 2011
Eden Park, Auckland, New Zealand
19 – 12 to France

C. Teams

ENGLAND

Alex Goode; Anthony Watson, Henry Slade, Sam Burgess, Jonny May; Owen Farrell, Richard Wigglesworth; Mako Vunipola, Rob Webber, Kieran Brookes, George Kruis, Geoff Parling, Tom Wood, Calum Clark, Ben Morgan

Replacements: Luke Cowan-Dickie, Alex Corbisiero, David Wilson, Dave Attwood, James Haskell, Danny Care, Danny Cipriani, Billy Twelvetrees

FRANCE

Scott Spedding; Sofiane Guitoune, Remi Lamerat, Alexandre Dumoulin, Brice Dulin; Francois Trinh-Duc, Morgan Parra; Louis Picamoles, Fulgence Ouedraogo, Yannick Nyanga; Yoann Maestri, Alexandre Flanquart; Nicolas Mas, Dimitri Szarzewski, Vincent Debaty

Replacements: Guilhem Guirado, Xavier Chiocci, Uini Atonio, Sebastien Vahaamahina, Loann Goujon, Rory Kockott, Remi Tales, Gael Fickou

I'd take Thomas over Brookes personally and that's as a Falcons fan.

A slight bitter one?

I think Brookes is a better player than Thomas. He impressed me against a very strong French pack on Saturday.

Not bitter in the slightest, good luck to the lad. I just don't think he's a strong starting prop. He's effective from the bench but Thomas is more solid imo

Brookes is excellent for 30 minutes but tends to fade rapidly after that with his scrummaging often the first thing to disintergrate.

I'd agree that Thomas is on a very similar level to him as a starting prop. For the purpose that Brookes would be used for in the RWC as back up to Cole or Wilson he would work well if fit though.

I think it likely that Brookes has never been as fit as he is now.

I watched the match this evening for the first time. As a Welshman, I thought England did pretty well and the game will have helped SL fine tune his selection. Watson is class (but I'm a Bath ticket holder) and Goode and May performed well. Slade is special and IMO will develop into a world class centre.

Burgess is still a league player and miles from a test centre. He has a fantastic attitude and will be a very good back row in time, but SL shouldn't keep him in the squad as a 12. Australia and maybe even Wales will expose him.

PS: France were better and more organised than I've seen for two years. Will they spring another surprise? ........

Hood83 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:One telling point came in the post match interview. Asked why he didn't get Farrell to kick for goal when we won a scrum penalty near the end, Tom Wood said it wasn't a gimme; he wanted to keep the pressure on, and a penalty would only have increased the lead to seven points anyway.

Of course, it would have given England an eight point lead, and sealed the match.  

It's a small point, but I think that shows the folly of not giving Wood more captaincy opportunities at Test level. Like Robshaw, he runs himself into the ground, so isn't always thinking as clearly at the back end of a match. This one didn't cost us but I worry that similar muddled thinking at the tournament will hurt us.

More importantly he can be steam-rollered by a full-back, Haskell can't, which is why I will tell everyone until I'm blue in the face...Haskell may be a bit of an idiot and a show pony, but he is still a better bet than Wood. Wood is an excellent, committed player but he lacks both pace and power for a 6.

If you mean the carry by Spedding in the last 10mins coming out of his 22, it was Clark that he clattered onto the floor.

I have no idea where this leaves our World Cup chances. There really aren't too many, if any, players you could say are being criminally overlooked for selection, so this really is probably about as good as we are going to get.

We are going to be extremely short on experience, and I think that may cause us some problems. All through Lancaster's tenure, the team has looked short on ideas about how to turn things around when a game starts going against them.

We have come from behind at times - The French match two years ago would have filled me with optimism if we hadn't promptly lost it at the death. We've also weathered storms and come out fighting - notably against NZ in 2012.

However, in tight spots, when momentum shifts, or seems about to shift, the team needs to be on the same page. That's going to be hard to achieve, when our midfield will barely have played together, and our set piece may not be as strong as we want.

I see the Steffon Armitage debate has started up again, with Tindall and Balshaw both open lamenting the lack of a proper fetcher:

http://www.kicca.com/miketindall13/posts/55cfa924cc10ed7365773120

Calum Clark…unfortunate challenge and not overtly idiotic/dirty/criminal like previous stuff he's got up to, I wonder if lancaster will feel he is just too much of a liability though?

Rugby Fan wrote:I have no idea where this leaves our World Cup chances.

From my probably twisted perspective, Lancaster has shown himself to be a good enough coach who, in the very British tradition, gets his team to fight bravely and come in second.  I have seen no evidence this will change.  Always have to have hope! But he seems one of those nice calm generals we had in WW1.

I was impressed by the ambition in the backs but IMO Lancaster has left it way too late to establish his first choice team and i just think he doesn't know how to solve the 12 issue. I think England will be a tough ask for any team though.

In Ford, Watson, Joseph, Brown and Goode - a real surprise to be honest - they have some real class; the problem is still 12 though. It ain't Burgess that's for sure. Could Slade be the solution?

The English back line I would least want to face would be:
Youngs
Ford
Nowell
Slade
Joseph
Watson
Brown/Goode

As a neutral, I am fascinated by the Burgess question and I cannot help but agree with the comment above that Lancaster seems to be determined to find a way to get him in the squad.

Something should worry England fans, however. If you take a look at all of the 12s who have played in recent Rugby Championship matches - de Allende, de la Fuente, Gitau, Williams, Toomua and Nonu - you have to say that all of those men have an excellent passing and offloading game. Very few good modern teams would accept a strong biff-merchant who gets over the gainline but through which moves often break down because the ball doesn't travel any further than their 12.

Even renowned strength men like Jamie Roberts and Robbie Henshaw have a deceptively good linking game. Would Burgess be more of an impediment to the progression of the team as a whole? I have to say that I thought Slade looked superb and has a complete centre's skillset.

offload wrote:The English back line I would least want to face would be:
Youngs
Ford
Nowell
Slade
Joseph
Watson
Brown/Goode

I wonder whether that would also be the least experienced back line in the tournament. Only Youngs and Brown have a decent number of caps.

@george

Bit unfair to label him as a biff merchant, I've seen players have worse debuts than that and he did show some decent link passes

I agree Nathan & 3 quality tries from the wings suggest the ball is obviously getting there.
We should be focusing on the positives more & the 2 centres both played well & deserve to be retained.
12Ts should be gone & Burrell should be under serious pressure to perform.

nathan wrote:@george

Bit unfair to label him as a biff merchant, I've seen players have worse debuts than that and he did show some decent link passes

I'm not saying that Burgess has no passing game at all - just that I don't believe it is international standard at the moment and it really should be going into the most important tournament in the sport.

Burgess will be a future star, no doubt - just that this RWC might be too early for him if he really is only in the mix as a centre.

I still that that loose forward would be a better position for him, but clearly SL is the man who knows.

DaveM wrote:I think it likely that Brookes has never been as fit as he is now.

You're not wrong Dave, he's the fittest I've ever seen him. The problem is he's a 30min player, he just seems to be his all then capitulate. Somebody mentioned earlier that his scrummaging is the first thing to suffer, I totally agree.

Great bench option but he can't start.

offload wrote:I watched the match this evening for the first time. As a Welshman, I thought England did pretty well and the game will have helped SL fine tune his selection.  Watson is class (but I'm a Bath ticket holder) and Goode and May performed well.  Slade is special and IMO will develop into a world class centre.  

Burgess is still a league player and miles from a test centre.  He has a fantastic attitude and will be a very good back row in time, but SL shouldn't keep him in the squad as a 12.  Australia and maybe even Wales will expose him.  

PS:  France were better and more organised than I've seen for two years.  Will they spring another surprise? ........

Offlaod,

It's ok, as I am neither a Bath ticket holder nor English but I will second your opinion of Watson he is a class act with a huge future in front of him. For me Burgess showed up a lot better than I expected him to but it's too early for him, give him another season or two developing and I have no doubt at all that he will make the grade in Union.

George Carlin wrote:

nathan wrote:@george

Bit unfair to label him as a biff merchant, I've seen players have worse debuts than that and he did show some decent link passes

I'm not saying that Burgess has no passing game at all - just that I don't believe it is international standard at the moment and it really should be going into the most important tournament in the sport.

Burgess will be a future star, no doubt - just that this RWC might be too early for him if he really is only in the mix as a centre.

I still that that loose forward would be a better position for him, but clearly SL is the man who knows.

The bigger dilemma is that Bath have stated quite clearly...they will play him at 6. So it causes an issue.

Slade must go to the WC

At least the match gave SL food for thought.

Big French pack but England were out muscled which goes back to a general concern that the pack needs a bit more beef.  The first choice players (Cole, Marler, Lawes, Launchbury) are not really bigger with the exception of Vunipola at 8, so it will be very interesting to see what happens in Paris, if France field a first choice pack (again).

I was a bit unwelmed by Wood and I thought Haskell had a good cameo.  I was sorry for Cipriani as really his talents are at FH and as full-back cover surely Watson, Nowell would be preferrable.   Best England game for Goode, but is it justifiable to have a second full-back in the 31?  Slade could be the 3rd FH as well as covering both centre positions.

Both yellow cards were harsh.  I thought Burgess played well but is not really a centre.

I look forward to next Saturday.

George Carlin wrote:

nathan wrote:@george

Bit unfair to label him as a biff merchant, I've seen players have worse debuts than that and he did show some decent link passes

I'm not saying that Burgess has no passing game at all - just that I don't believe it is international standard at the moment and it really should be going into the most important tournament in the sport.

Burgess will be a future star, no doubt - just that this RWC might be too early for him if he really is only in the mix as a centre.

I still that that loose forward would be a better position for him, but clearly SL is the man who knows.

Hi George, when you say "SL is the man who knows." what are you inferring??

I was a bit unwelmed by Wood and I thought Haskell had a good cameo.

That's the problem though Cb, we know on his day Haskell is a quality performer who brings power to the team...and he won two turnovers at the weekend aswell.

Its his consistency...he rarely has a few good games on the trot for England...

GeordieFalcon wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

nathan wrote:@george

Bit unfair to label him as a biff merchant, I've seen players have worse debuts than that and he did show some decent link passes

I'm not saying that Burgess has no passing game at all - just that I don't believe it is international standard at the moment and it really should be going into the most important tournament in the sport.

Burgess will be a future star, no doubt - just that this RWC might be too early for him if he really is only in the mix as a centre.

I still that that loose forward would be a better position for him, but clearly SL is the man who knows.

The bigger dilemma is that Bath have stated quite clearly...they will play him at 6. So it causes an issue.

Slade must go to the WC

Slide and Joseph could be a great combination. Thought spade looked really good vs France.

CB justifiable to have a second full back in the 31? What do you suggest?

Nowell and Watson have not been tried properly at FB have they? I guess Watson covered against Italy I believe but that's one match.

Goode whether you like him or not he's one of Lancaster's favourites. He has strengths and weaknesses - just need to utilise him strengths like his playmaking abilities to their maximum.

We all know Goode's biggest weakness is his lack of pace - I wonder if it would help if he worked with Margot Wells - I know I've mentioned it a few times.

Slade hasn't played 12 as far as I'm aware. Slade/Joseph midfield lacks any physical presence, I couldn't see it working.

George Carlin wrote:

nathan wrote:@george

Bit unfair to label him as a biff merchant, I've seen players have worse debuts than that and he did show some decent link passes

I'm not saying that Burgess has no passing game at all - just that I don't believe it is international standard at the moment and it really should be going into the most important tournament in the sport.

Burgess will be a future star, no doubt - just that this RWC might be too early for him if he really is only in the mix as a centre.

I still that that loose forward would be a better position for him, but clearly SL is the man who knows.

In fairness to SL I don't think he's said "his best position is and always will be centre". It's more England's particular circumstances now. SL values the lineout very highly, and while Bath are happy to take a risk with their lineout while Burgess learns it, I think Lancaster is right that a World Cup isn't the place to be doing so. You could say "**** the lineout" and pick him anyway of course, but Lancaster sees it as too important.

I don't think he would be shoehorning him at centre if manu was available.

DaveM wrote:I think it likely that Brookes has never been as fit as he is now.

The assumption seems to be that Brookes isn't too badly injured. But when I saw the state of his wrist as he walked off on Saturday, it looked a lot like a break to me (heavily swollen and some deformity).

GeordieFalcon wrote:I don't think he would be shoehorning him at centre if manu was available.

I would think that's a 'given', Geordie.

Thought Goode had one of his better games. He seemed to be a little more sensible than he usually is.

Burgess also played a little better than I thought he would although not sure he has done enough to be included in the squad. Doubt Lancaster will take a risk on him and neither would I.

France for the first time in a while seemed quite cohesive with a fairly clear game plan albeit a fairly limited one. Their backs offered very little but I hope Trinh Duc and Parra have been dropped by the time Ireland play them as they are easily their best 9 and 10 combo.

Jimpy wrote:

DaveM wrote:I think it likely that Brookes has never been as fit as he is now.

The assumption seems to be that Brookes isn't too badly injured. But when I saw the state of his wrist as he walked off on Saturday, it looked a lot like a break to me (heavily swollen and some deformity).

Isnt that the definition of a prop forward?

What concerned me was the apparent lack of strategy defensively - a couple of excellent steals by Haskell late on aside, the team didn't seem to know whether they were going to throw people into the ruck or fan out, people were just milling around the fringes.
Also the lineout defensively was a concern - England didn't contest and then didn't sack quickly enough - you cannot defend a rolling maul by trying to push them into touch, that hasn't worked since last century!

bathmad wrote:What concerned me was the apparent lack of strategy defensively - a couple of excellent steals by Haskell late on aside, the team didn't seem to know whether they were going to throw people into the ruck or fan out, people were just milling around the fringes.
Also the lineout defensively was a concern - England didn't contest and then didn't sack quickly enough - you cannot defend a rolling maul by trying to push them into touch, that hasn't worked since last century!

There was some cause for concern, but it has to be looked at through the lens of France fielding something like 6 first-choice forwards with a ton more experience than the English pack.

England I think also suffered through having a pack that was light on breakdown specialists - only really Wood and Clark (who suffered for his lack of experience). It was noticeable how much better the breakdown was once Haskell came on, and in the full first choice you have Youngs, Cole, Launchbury, Robshaw and Haskell/Wood who are all good at the breakdown.

England's strategy under Lancaster has been not to overcommit to the breakdown and instead concentrate on defensive organisation. That actually worked pretty well; France had plenty of power, a strong offloading game and more of the possession, but aside from the second sin bin period England only conceded 3 penalties and most of the game was played in the French half.

On the rolling maul, the French made most of their big gains when England were a forward down. Defense still needs to be better but there's no cause for alarm just yet. However, if we don't see an improved performance when most of the preferred starters take the field, that would be a cause for concern.

On the Clark yellow i've got to say it's about time this was penalised and I remember someone posting a month or so ago that it would be now but I have 2 questions. Has anyone told the players and commentators as they all seemed genuinely shocked both sky and BBC didn't mention it when it happens. The 2nd is it's obviously not going to be consistent, after about 78 min that same clear out it used on Clark this time and doesn't get pinged.

Going back to choosing the backs in the final 31 for the moment.  I believe SL has announced a 17/14 split.  Thus with 7 backs in the starting 15 and usually 3 from the 8 on the bench.

These typically might be: -

2nd SH
2nd FH
3rd Centre or 3rd  Winger

This then leaves 4 more backs (among the remaining 8 players).

These 4 are likely to contain: -

3rd SH
3rd FH
3rd AND 4th centre(s) {depending on who's on the bench} OR 4th centre and 3rd Wing

if the 3rd FH and 4th centre were combined (i.e. Slade), then there is room for one more player - e.g. a second full back (say Goode).  Twelvetrees could also do this role but may not find favour on this board.

If 4 centres are picked and 3 FH's then there is not room for a 2nd FB.

Alternatively the 3rd FH and 2nd FB role could be combined which would probably be Goode or Cipriani.

As a wild-card the 2nd FB could be dispensed with (and covered by the wings or Farrell) and Slade chosen as the 3rd FH and Burgess as the 4th center (with Burrell/Barrit/Joseph).

Slade is class....he covers 10, 12,13 probably even wing and fb if needed....

He has to go to the WC...its a no brainer....

Hope he gets a bench spot and some time with Joseph and Ford just to see what happens.

Has Slade ever played 12?

Not officially as far as I know but he's wound up there loads. Strong defender, good communicator, 2nd receiver, good boot from hand and even offers long distance place kicks if needed. I'd like to see it tried.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Slade is class....he covers 10, 12,13 probably even wing and fb if needed....

He has to go to the WC...its a no brainer....

I can't see what all the praise of Slade is about. For me he looked out of his depth for large periods of time. As for Burgess, he tackled well, but was so positionally inept that at least two back line moves had to be cancelled because he was so far out of position. His defensive work is fine, but going forward he's verging on a liability.

Burgess should be a 6 Jimpy every one agrees with that. Hopefully he can work on his lineout work with bath this season and be a cracking 6...

Jimpy wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Slade is class....he covers 10, 12,13 probably even wing and fb if needed....

He has to go to the WC...its a no brainer....

I can't see what all the praise of Slade is about. For me he looked out of his depth for large periods of time. As for Burgess, he tackled well, but was so positionally inept that at least two back line moves had to be cancelled because he was so far out of position. His defensive work is fine, but going forward he's verging on a liability.

Slade's not the fastest runner, but neither was Greenwood. On the other hand, his pass to Watson created the first try (having called the play according to the newspaper reports) and he played first receiver for the second. His understanding of the game looks very sound to me.

I didn't see the Burgess moments you mentioned, but the backs moves in the second half looked pretty inept most of the time and I think the blame has to be laid at the feet of the pack. Care had a real struggle to get the ball back from the ruck at all, let alone clean ball, and it looked to me as if the whole backline were over-running their moves, meaning he had to send the ball deep and behind players. It wasn't pretty, but it's probably fixable.

Jimpy wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Slade is class....he covers 10, 12,13 probably even wing and fb if needed....

He has to go to the WC...its a no brainer....

I can't see what all the praise of Slade is about. For me he looked out of his depth for large periods of time. As for Burgess, he tackled well, but was so positionally inept that at least two back line moves had to be cancelled because he was so far out of position. His defensive work is fine, but going forward he's verging on a liability.

You might not agree with it, but this is a nice breakdown of Burgess and Slade's performances.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/england-countries/analysis-how-centres-sam-burgess-and-henry-slade-combined-for-england-47362

I certainly didn't see Slade looking out of his depth. He had time on the ball, threw some lovely passes and defended well. Only question was that turnover he kicked away but I'm not sure we had a clear overlap and some of the players outside him weren't the quickest.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Has Slade ever played 12?

Not as far as I can remember.

No 7&1/2 wrote:On the Clark yellow i've got to say it's about time this was penalised and I remember someone posting a month or so ago that it would be now but I have 2 questions. Has anyone told the players and commentators as they all seemed genuinely shocked both sky and BBC didn't mention it when it happens. The 2nd is it's obviously not going to be consistent, after about 78 min that same clear out it used on Clark this time and doesn't get pinged.

I seem to remember it was communicated earlier in the year - but it clearly hasn't sunk in totally.

One thing that was clearly communicated but no-one seems to have taken in except (thankfully) the ref is the change to the interpretation of taking the man in the air. Slade's hit was nowhere near a yellow by the new interpretation of the law, which reduces a mistimed hit or genuine contest for the ball to a penalty and reserves cards for dangerous play or the player not competing for the ball. Wayne Barnes even did a demo on Rugby Tonight.

The other rule change that seems to have come in is that it's not a trip if the ball was in touch before it happened. Though only Mr Lacey and the French squad appear to have been briefed on that one.

Hadn't clocked the in the air thing. Looked a yellow to me on previous even if he did land on his feet. So was Slade competing for the ball so ok (ish) and a pen correct?

LondonTiger wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Has Slade ever played 12?

Not as far as I can remember.

He played there in the Barbarians game between Cips and Daly, and spent a fair bit of time there in the France game. I don't think he's played there for Exeter but with the way England are looking to play I'm not sure how much difference the number on his back makes anyway.

There we go, a match I cannot remember

This week we played a second string xv against France's almost first team.

What i would like to see this is our first choice players getting a run out with the likes of Wood, Haskell, Farrell, Goode, given a rest this week. Danny Care to start scrum half Ben Youngs on the bench ( give them 40 minutes each) George Ford at 10 Cipriani on the bench.

One of either Slade or Burgess on the bench to cover centre spot.

Billy V  to start at eight Morgan on the bench he ( morgan )needs the game time.

I do think LCD should be given a second chance maybe on the bench.

That is what i would like too see. But then i guess that Lancaster knows the players better than i do.