France v England, 22nd August

First topic message reminder :

 
FRANCE v ENGLAND
22 August 2015
KO: 20:00 BST (21:00 Local)
Stade de France, Paris

Sky Sports

Referee: Jaco Peyper (South Africa)
Assistant Referees: John Lacey (Ireland) & Marius Mitrea (Italy)
Television match official: Simon McDowell (Ireland)

A. Head to Head

100 Played 100
38 Won 55
7 Drawn 7
55 Lost 38
1,244 Points 1,572

B. Recent Form

15 August 2015
Twickenham, London
19-14 to England

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


C. Teams

ENGLAND

15. Mike Brown (Harlequins, 37 caps)
14. Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 8 caps)
13. Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 11 caps)
12. Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints, 12 caps)
11. Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 14 caps)
10. George Ford (Bath Rugby, 11 caps)
9. Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 47 caps)

1. Joe Marler (Harlequins, 31 caps)
2. Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 22 caps)
3. Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 50 caps)
4. Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 22 caps)
5. Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 38 caps)
6. James Haskell (Wasps, 59 caps)
7. Chris Robshaw (captain, Harlequins, 37 caps)
8. Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 13 caps)

Replacements

16. Jamie George (Saracens, uncapped)
17. Mako Vunipola (Saracens,21 caps)
18. David Wilson (Bath Rugby, 42 caps)
19. Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby, 21 caps)
20. Nick Easter (Harlequins, 51 caps)
21. Danny Care (Harlequins, 51 caps)
22. Danny Cipriani (Sale Sharks, 13 caps)
23. Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby, 21 caps)

FRANCE


Spedding; Huget, Bastareaud, Fofana, Nakaitaci; Michalak, Tillous-Borde; Arous, Guirado, Slimani, Pape, Maestri, Chouly, Le Roux, Picamoles.

Replacements: Kayser, Debaty, Atonio, Flanquart, Nyanga, Kockott, Tales, Fickou.

England’s main weakness last night was the pack, breakdown & scrum (no shoite Sherlock). The scrum and FR were the most worrying given they are usually our strength. At least Cole made some contribution in the loose, but this area will lose us tight games. But I can’t shake the feeling that at the breakdown some of the problem is SL and the coaching. For someone who tries to emulate the ABs he seems to have no idea at how to at least maintain parity in this area. It’s almost as if he’s too influence by RL tactics. Where were the numbers at the breakdown, where was the carrying, where was the aggression? And what the hell was Lawes doing skulking on the wing so much, May must have been fuming? It’s RU ffs Stewie! Surely it’s a worry when old man Easter is brought on for his carrying.

It’s not just SL though. There’s something sick in English rugby where the hooker position has been so down-graded. We don’t need a 3rd prop or 3rd flanker (or a 3rd centre Tom) we need a hooker in the hooker position. I don't care how many tackles you put in, if you can't hit your man you're not a test level hooker.

Hartley back, Armitage brought in from the cold as plan B off the bench, the tight 5 told to physically dominate their opposition, and in particular locks told to get stuck in.

And after the RWC a fresh coaching team.

Surely if your pack are that bad at the actual jumping in the lineout then you want to get away from that as much as possible! Take them quickly when ever you can and if you can't throw it to the front or pop it to the front player then back to the hooker. Or come up with something new!

With the players we have if we're going to be a strong lineout side then we'll give a lot away across the park alse where. If we choose to pick less jumpers then we need to be smarter with our tactics. A lot of this comes down to SL, Rowntree before the game and then I guess Robshaw and Lawes in the game.

Gwlad wrote:

Hood83 wrote:I've never been keen on SL and this is why. He just cannot get a team out there that consistently turns up from one week to another. And for all Rowntree is lauded, our set piece has never truly been a consistent positive under him. Sometimes excellent, but then sometimes worryingly average, even a liability.  

Our breakdown work has, however, been rubbish, forever. Watch Ireland when we play them, they'll blast us back about 5 yards behind the ball. We on the other hand will trundle up,stop, grab them, and try and painfully slow crocodile 'death-roll'. Pathetic. Whoever works on this, Rowntree or whoever, should be embarrassed.

I will say it til I'm blue in the face but I'm amazed he cannot see that slow-arm B Youngs is an inferior SH to Care. The idiocy around Hartley is bearing fruit - all the guffage about 'culture' has left us with a hooker who can only occasionally throw and zero experience outside of him.

The rest you have to point the finger at the players. Maybe a couple can be forgiven for just coming back from injury, but not many.

I think that the problem is he can't get a consistent team. The talent is there but the problem is he is aiming for constant perfection by chopping and changing all the time instead of saying something like right, Care, Ford, Burrell, Joseph, Watson Nowell Brown. This is my back line and I am sticking with it.

May and Roko are good examples, in for a while then out in May's case but now he is in favor again, Roko in for a game out then back in. Yarde, Wade etc, they are the flavor of the month for 5 minutes and then not deemed good enough.

PICK A TEAM AND STICK WITH IT, NOW!!!!!!

Don't make excuses, this game aside, bomber is a loser. He has won nothing, ever, and never will.

With regards to the game yesterday. Did England come out with expectation of France playing a certain type of game, but France did not play the way they was expecting.

What i mean is when England beat the Abs in 2012. according to Justin Marshall who was commentating at the time saying, England have not played the way the Abs thought they would. ie kicked the leather off it.

I know their is no excuse for the in discipline and the amount of penalties England gave away. And it goes with out saying if England want to win their group in the RWC they will have to improve a hell of a lot.

Not just the throws were crap, the calls were awful, France had their man up competing first every single lineout. I think this may play heavily in Wood's favour.

thomh wrote:What do you reckon for a solution, Sam? Lawes and Launchbury went fine in the linout when they had Wood with them at 6, but he's out of form. Drop Launchbury?

Unfortunately, I think we could have had gents 7 foot tall in the lineout and Youngs would have missed them. I do agree about having more jumpers giving more options, but off target and off timing is down to the thrower. Simply weird. He is good with Leicester. I wonder if it is nerves, the calls, or unfamiliar people? All all three? Given the good things he does away from the lineout, it is a shame, but I would be worried having him on the pitch with 2 minutes to go in the RWC final and a lineout down deep in our territory.

doctor_grey wrote:

thomh wrote:What do you reckon for a solution, Sam? Lawes and Launchbury went fine in the linout when they had Wood with them at 6, but he's out of form. Drop Launchbury?

Unfortunately, I think we could have had gents 7 foot tall in the lineout and Youngs would have missed them.  I do agree about having more jumpers giving more options, but off target and off timing is down to the thrower.  Simply weird.  He is good with Leicester.  I wonder if it is nerves, the calls, or unfamiliar people?  All all three?  Given the good things he does away from the lineout, it is a shame, but I would be worried having him on the pitch with 2 minutes to go in the RWC final and a lineout down deep in our territory.  

I can't agree with this entirely doc. Off target is definitely the thrower, and Youngs did through a couple of squint ones no question. Timing, is down to everyone, and it's all to easy to blame the hooker. The bottom line yesterday was that France seemed to know where it was going and get their first. That is a calling and timing issue. That's not Youngs, or any of the other hookers fault. That is an issue with the caller and the mechanics of the lineout.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

thomh wrote:What do you reckon for a solution, Sam? Lawes and Launchbury went fine in the linout when they had Wood with them at 6, but he's out of form. Drop Launchbury?

Unfortunately, I think we could have had gents 7 foot tall in the lineout and Youngs would have missed them.  I do agree about having more jumpers giving more options, but off target and off timing is down to the thrower.  Simply weird.  He is good with Leicester.  I wonder if it is nerves, the calls, or unfamiliar people?  All all three?  Given the good things he does away from the lineout, it is a shame, but I would be worried having him on the pitch with 2 minutes to go in the RWC final and a lineout down deep in our territory.  

I can't agree with this entirely doc.  Off target is definitely the thrower, and Youngs did through a couple of squint ones no question.  Timing, is down to everyone, and it's all to easy to blame the hooker.  The bottom line yesterday was that France seemed to know where it was going and get their first.  That is a calling and timing issue.  That's not Youngs, or any of the other hookers fault.  That is an issue with the caller and the mechanics of the lineout.

Or just, as has been suggested, them marking Lawes all day.

Last night I was on the sideline at Met Life Stadium doing covering med stuff at the Giants pre-season game (My practice provides the ortho support).  The team had a poor performance and their coaching staff was active and with the players explaining and teaching.  Their approach seems 180° opposite Lancaster's.  Missed tackles, dropped balls, and poor execution was not tolerated.  And the players all knew the expectation and constantly talked to each other, pushing each other to improve on the side and in the game.  Fascinating in comparison, especially from the leadership pov.

Oh, one more point, my teenage daughter's comment about Haskell: He looks great singing GSTQ, but it is downhill after that......

Ozzy3213 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

thomh wrote:What do you reckon for a solution, Sam? Lawes and Launchbury went fine in the linout when they had Wood with them at 6, but he's out of form. Drop Launchbury?

Unfortunately, I think we could have had gents 7 foot tall in the lineout and Youngs would have missed them.  I do agree about having more jumpers giving more options, but off target and off timing is down to the thrower.  Simply weird.  He is good with Leicester.  I wonder if it is nerves, the calls, or unfamiliar people?  All all three?  Given the good things he does away from the lineout, it is a shame, but I would be worried having him on the pitch with 2 minutes to go in the RWC final and a lineout down deep in our territory.  

I can't agree with this entirely doc.  Off target is definitely the thrower, and Youngs did through a couple of squint ones no question.  Timing, is down to everyone, and it's all to easy to blame the hooker.  The bottom line yesterday was that France seemed to know where it was going and get their first.  That is a calling and timing issue.  That's not Youngs, or any of the other hookers fault.  That is an issue with the caller and the mechanics of the lineout.

Fair enough. I do agree with you in general. But Youngs has a history, and a pretty consistent history at that (for England). If it was only one game, I would certainly agree. But I really don't recall a Hooker who continues to throw fine for his club who goes downhill at international level like this.

On the other hand, there was so much disfunctional yesterday, maybe that coloured my opinion.

doctor_grey wrote:Oh, one more point, my teenage daughter's comment about Haskell:  He looks great singing GSTQ, but it is downhill after that......  

Still better than Wood. Wood may help solve the lineout problem, he'll do nothing to help the problem of being out-muscled, which he will be, comprehensively.

This constant defending of Youngs from the Tigers fans is commendable but c'mon lads, he can't throw at Int level. Every test we have the same discussion and it's always something else.

It's fine margins and timing at the top level and Youngs just isn't accurate. He gives out jumpers little to work with, he's just not good enough.

Do we bring in Wood to help Youngs out (but offers nothing around the park) or stick with Haskell who offers work around the park but doesn't help the line out?

If it had just been Youngs missing I'd agree doc, but the lineout has been pretty shambolic regardless of which of the 4 hookers was on the pitch.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:This constant defending of Youngs from the Tigers fans is commendable but c'mon lads, he can't throw at Int level. Every test we have the same discussion and it's always something else.

It's fine margins and timing at the top level and Youngs just isn't accurate. He gives out jumpers little to work with, he's just not good enough.

Do we bring in Wood to help Youngs out (but offers nothing around the park) or stick with Haskell who offers work around the park but doesn't help the line out?

i'm fairly sure that Ozzy isn't a Tigers fan.....

"Gives the jumpers little to work with" - it's those sorts of comments that show you have a complete lack of understanding of what's involved in a line out. It's not as simple as a hooker throws the ball in when a forward jumps - the ball has to be there at the same time.

This place is getting a bit tedious with fans that want to swap players out when they have a bad game - which they all pretty much did last night. If it was down to the folks on here we would have a different 15 every single match.

For instance people calling for Care to start - anyone wonder why he looked better? Could it be because the French changed most of their forwards when Care came on which meant our forwards started to win some quick ball - allowing us to actually play.

It borders on arrogance sometimes when people on here expect us to run over teams each time.

Ozzy3213 wrote:If it had just been Youngs missing I'd agree doc, but the lineout has been pretty shambolic regardless of which of the 4 hookers was on the pitch.

This is the problem. With the exception of Hartley, we do not have consistent (or proven) throwers at International level. Compared to the rest Youngs has a body of work over a long period of time for England which is poor.

Hood83 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Oh, one more point, my teenage daughter's comment about Haskell:  He looks great singing GSTQ, but it is downhill after that......  

Still better than Wood. Wood may help solve the lineout problem, he'll do nothing to help the problem of being out-muscled, which he will be, comprehensively.

First of all, don't argue with a teenage girl (if you are not in that stage of life yet, watch out, hell is coming to dinner.....). Haskell has the - potential - to be very good, but he has shown over his playing history that he virtually disappears in matches after playing fine in others. I can't see the competition between Haskell and Wood is still open. Wood as starter and Haskell as cover for 6, 8. Once again Haskell had virtually no impact yesterday.

Doc,

You say Haskell has the potential but he has over 50 caps so surely that potential should have been realised by now if it was ever going to be.

As for the line out problems one England player who I have been impressed with ever since the Lions tour is Geoff Parling but he seems to have slipped down the order a bit.

I wonder how Tom Croft did in training last week.

doctor_grey wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:If it had just been Youngs missing I'd agree doc, but the lineout has been pretty shambolic regardless of which of the 4 hookers was on the pitch.

This is the problem.  With the exception of Hartley, we do not have consistent (or proven) throwers at International level.  Compared to the rest Youngs has a body of work over a long period of time for England which is poor.  

It hasn't been as poor as you make out. There have been times when Hartley has been poor too which haven't necessary down to him. We need to judge players on the "bigger picture"

doctor_grey wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Oh, one more point, my teenage daughter's comment about Haskell:  He looks great singing GSTQ, but it is downhill after that......  

Still better than Wood. Wood may help solve the lineout problem, he'll do nothing to help the problem of being out-muscled, which he will be, comprehensively.

First of all, don't argue with a teenage girl (if you are not in that stage of life yet, watch out,  hell is coming to dinner.....).  Haskell has the - potential - to be very good, but he has shown over his playing history that he virtually disappears in matches after playing fine in others.  I can't see the competition between Haskell and Wood is still open.  Wood as starter and Haskell as cover for 6, 8.  Once again Haskell had virtually no impact yesterday.  

but who did?

for me, i say don't panic and start with roughly the same team against Ireland. I would imagine this performance will have shoved a rocket up their arses. If we put in a performance like this again, then it's time to worry.

I thought Haskell showed up more than Robshaw who was almost invisible.

Come on Nathan, even you can't defend Youngs again. We have this discussion after every test and every time Youngs has a mare.

"Gives our jumpers little to work with"

I understand how a line out works, no need to be condescending.

As in....if the the throw and timing is off the jumpers have to work to get the ball and this causes issues securing (for starters) and then getting any kind of quick ball away.

Youngs is generally off target and the timing isn't right. The lad isn't international quality.

I'd keep Ben in ahead of Care if it helps, he's a much better starter.

nathan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Oh, one more point, my teenage daughter's comment about Haskell:  He looks great singing GSTQ, but it is downhill after that......  

Still better than Wood. Wood may help solve the lineout problem, he'll do nothing to help the problem of being out-muscled, which he will be, comprehensively.

First of all, don't argue with a teenage girl (if you are not in that stage of life yet, watch out,  hell is coming to dinner.....).  Haskell has the - potential - to be very good, but he has shown over his playing history that he virtually disappears in matches after playing fine in others.  I can't see the competition between Haskell and Wood is still open.  Wood as starter and Haskell as cover for 6, 8.  Once again Haskell had virtually no impact yesterday.  

but who did?

Doesn't matter. Each player is responsible for their own behaviour. When a team is underperforming, it is even easier to demonstrate competence. Cole was poor, but has a strong history, so he gets a pass. Haskell has an up and down past, so doesn't earn a pass.

To be fair, if we were to choose an England roster of 31 players based on yesterday's match in a vacuum, not considering their playing history, who would actually make the cut?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I thought Haskell showed up more than Robshaw who was almost invisible.

Come on Nathan, even you can't defend Youngs again. We have this discussion after every test and every time Youngs has a mare.

"Gives our jumpers little to work with"

I understand how a line out works, no need to be condescending.

As in....if the the throw and timing is off the jumpers have to work to get the ball and this causes issues securing (for starters) and then getting any kind of quick ball away.

Youngs is generally off target and the timing isn't right. The lad isn't international quality.

I'd keep Ben in ahead of Care if it helps, he's a much better starter.

I'm not defending Youngs, i'm defending Hookers.

How do you know his timing isn't right, how do you know that the jumpers didn't jump too late/early? This is my point, everyone blames a hooker because it's the lazy way to look at it.

I don't really care who starts, i just get annoyed when people call for players to be dropped without looking at all of the variables, again it's the lazy way to look at it.

doctor_grey wrote:

nathan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Oh, one more point, my teenage daughter's comment about Haskell:  He looks great singing GSTQ, but it is downhill after that......  

Still better than Wood. Wood may help solve the lineout problem, he'll do nothing to help the problem of being out-muscled, which he will be, comprehensively.

First of all, don't argue with a teenage girl (if you are not in that stage of life yet, watch out,  hell is coming to dinner.....).  Haskell has the - potential - to be very good, but he has shown over his playing history that he virtually disappears in matches after playing fine in others.  I can't see the competition between Haskell and Wood is still open.  Wood as starter and Haskell as cover for 6, 8.  Once again Haskell had virtually no impact yesterday.  

but who did?

Doesn't matter.  Each player is responsible for their own behaviour.  When a team is underperforming, it is even easier to demonstrate competence.  Cole was poor, but has a strong history, so he gets a pass.  Haskell has an up and down past, so doesn't earn a pass.  

To be fair, if we were to choose an England roster of 31 players based on yesterday's match in a vacuum, not considering their playing history, who would actually make the cut?  

Not many i suspect

Timing is a suspect issue I agree but it's much more likely to be a hookers throw than lifters/jumpers. It's up to a hooker to nail the point as it's much easier to time a throw than a jump.

To be fair Youngs should not be in the squad imo so saying he should be dropped is neither here nor there.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Doc,

You say Haskell has the potential but he has over 50 caps so surely that potential should have been realised by now if it was ever going to be.

As for the line out problems one England player who I have been impressed with ever since the Lions tour is Geoff Parling but he seems to have slipped down the order a bit.

Your'e probably right about Haskell. Having 50 caps shows that being a very up and down (present and invisible?) is his potential. Don't you think he is such an unusual character that after 50 caps we still think he has the possibility of a further upside? As you suggested, his body of work shows the opposite: What we see is what we get.

I rather like Parling too. Another player who does a lot of hard work around the pitch and is very good in the lineouts.

doctor_grey wrote:

thomh wrote:What do you reckon for a solution, Sam? Lawes and Launchbury went fine in the linout when they had Wood with them at 6, but he's out of form. Drop Launchbury?

Unfortunately, I think we could have had gents 7 foot tall in the lineout and Youngs would have missed them.  I do agree about having more jumpers giving more options, but off target and off timing is down to the thrower.  Simply weird.  He is good with Leicester.  I wonder if it is nerves, the calls, or unfamiliar people?  All all three?  Given the good things he does away from the lineout, it is a shame, but I would be worried having him on the pitch with 2 minutes to go in the RWC final and a lineout down deep in our territory.  

George and Youngs were both excellent at throwing in this year until last night. Hartley had a poor six nations even at the lineout with more jumpers to aim at.

Lancaster has painted himself into a corner by refusing to experiment. Slater, Kitchener, Wilson and Kvesic were all options that would have added significantly more power in the tight exchanges, jumped at the lineout  (to varying degrees of ability) and in Kvesic given us a presence at the breakdown. At the minute our only hope of a turnover is Cole.

nathan wrote:for me, i say don't panic and start with roughly the same team against Ireland. I would imagine this performance will have shoved a rocket up their arses. If we put in a performance like this again, then it's time to worry.

Is Ireland your last warm-up or do you have another one after that?

Cole was a walking penalty at the breakdown last night fkaS. if he is our only hope, we are screwed!

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Timing is a suspect issue I agree but it's much more likely to be a hookers throw than lifters/jumpers. It's up to a hooker to nail the point as it's much easier to time a throw than a jump.

To be fair Youngs should not be in the squad imo so saying he should be dropped is neither here nor there.

I think people are being a bit hasty in general but not to include Youngs would be silly.

Yea perhaps 3rd choice is more realistic. It shows how bad our hooking resources are when we have to include Youngs.

Ireland is our final warm up game Notch. i suspect it will be a case of sticking out our best side and trying to see where exactly we are at.

SL and his coaches have been saying these warm up games are about seeing who can front up when the pressure is on. He hasn't gone with a settled side so if he is true to his word then he has some startling decisions to make because the "wrong" players actually stood up to be counted. Notably - Burgess, Cipriani, Care, Webber, Brooks, Easter, Haskell all played well and better than the so called first choice.

Burrell - gave two stupidly unnecessary penalties away and was not great anywhere.
Ford - seemed to fold under the pressure of a warm-up game. Looked flaky.
B. Youngs - just looked slow and one dimensional.
T. Youngs - couldn't hit my garage door from 5 metres.
Cole - gives away possibly the most stupidest penalties EVER. Looked dumb.
B. Vunipola - just not very good.
Wood - Unseen contribution, MIA for most of the time.

And another thing. Why is that only England field possibly the smallest hookers in world rugby? T. Youngs and Lee Mears wouldn't look out of place in Snow White and the Seven dwarfs.

Not a greate performance but as the entire starting 15 were virtually guaranteed a place in the final squad of 31 except for injuries, I wonder if that had an impact.

France were up for the game particularly after losing last week, and of course playing at home.

What was worrying for England is the long that train togther, the worse they seem.  The 'template' of an athletic pack can give problems, though normally an athletic pack should be good at jumping.  To be poor at the scrum and line-out is a concern. (Can we ask Wales for Francis back?).

Not sure there are any quick fixes, since the choice of players is now limited and will become more so with the final 31.

Left-field solutions might include trying Launchbury, Lawes or Kruis at blindside and also select two proper locks.

englandglory4ever wrote:And another thing. Why is that only England field possibly the smallest hookers in world rugby? T. Youngs and Lee Mears wouldn't look out of place in Snow White and the Seven dwarfs.

Ha ha!!

Good that.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Ireland is our final warm up game Notch.  i suspect it will be a case of sticking out our best side and trying to see where exactly we are at.

Similar approach likely from Ireland. Of course, last night may have raised some questions as to what your best side actually is.

Surprised by the high ratings Burrell has got in all the papers. Looking at the game and the stats I thought it was Nowell who was the star of the backline. Made ten carries, beating ten defenders with two clean breaks and two offloads along the way. First choice for me but probably on the left wing to accommodate Watson.

Notch wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Ireland is our final warm up game Notch.  i suspect it will be a case of sticking out our best side and trying to see where exactly we are at.

Similar approach likely from Ireland. Of course, last night may have raised some questions as to what your best side actually is.

Indeed. As has been mentioned here by others and by me elsewhere, some supposed nailed on starters were appalling and a couple of guys who looked likely to be cut actually stood up and performed.

I suspect that it will matter little to Bomber however, and he will continue blindly on along the course he was already plotting.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Cole was a walking penalty at the breakdown last night fkaS.  if he is our only hope, we are screwed!

A lot of that was desperation. The back row were non-existent at the breakdown so we saw other forwards trying to take up the slack. Cole was the only one who got even close to a turnover. He should be contesting occasionally and not being used as our major breakdown threat.

At least 3 of the points he gave away came from a shocking decision by the referee though. Calling ball held up as one English player and one French player contest the ball over a ruck and then pinging Cole for in at the side is a shockingly bad call. If the ball is up off the floor, as the ref called, then there's no ruck and if there's only one player from each side it's not a maul so how was Cole offside? That decision annoyed me greatly, very poor reffing.

I think you have to go with Cipriani on the bench, he's shown his versatility and his ability to open up the game when he comes on. Sure, it's between Ford and Farrell to start and if one gets injured the other definitely starts. But if things go wrong and you have to chase a game, he's the guy.

Well that was not a lot of fun from an English point of view - it made for very depressing viewing. I was left with the familiar yet frustrating feeling that if England had shown a bit more of the spirit that they showed in the last 10-15 mins then we'd be discussing a very different match. That said I can't see England playing that badly again for a while so I'm hoping they've got it out of their system until well after the world cup! France looked good though so maybe they will be a force to be reckoned with again over the coming months - I do hope so.

I thought Nowell looked good and Cipriani and Jamie George had real go forward impact when they came on. The starting team were a shadow of what I hoped for and they did look lethargic and perhaps even fatigued. Burrell made one memorable well timed powerful attack but that is all I really remember. I dreaded lineouts and expected very little from England on the ground. Even when Joseph scored his try the run in looked laboured and I wasn't sure he was going to make it. Lancaster and co looked gutted on the bench..

Oh well, I can only hope there is better to come.

I thought one of the bright spots was Nowell who again confirmed what an all-round player he is. He was superb in defence I thought, brought down French forwards, tenacious, good going forward too and not overawed by the occasion. Gotta be him and Watson for the wings now surely?

As for the pack, let's hope it was a combination of overtraining and rustiness from some players. It could well be a different story at Twickenham in a month's time. We do need to sort the balance out though. As others have said if we pick Wood for the lineout we are going to lose even more grunt in the loose, we almost might as well pick Croft at least he offers something extra. Do we go instead for bulk and carrying power at 6 (why was Ewers not included?), Haskell is probably the best all-round option there. Robshaw I think gave probably his worst performance in an England shirt and Billy didn't look right.

As for the centres, who knows which way we should go now, Slade certainly gives us more variety, JJ will surely start so if he goes for Barritt or Burrell at 12, you're going to miss out on that. I would take Burgess just because you might as well, he offers something no-one else in the team can, huge physical presence, also doesn't hurt that could provide a bit of back row cover in an emergency.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Cole was a walking penalty at the breakdown last night fkaS.  if he is our only hope, we are screwed!

A lot of that was desperation. The back row were non-existent at the breakdown so we saw other forwards trying to take up the slack. Cole was the only one who got even close to a turnover. He should be contesting occasionally and not being used as our major breakdown threat.

At least 3 of the points he gave away came from a shocking decision by the referee though. Calling ball held up as one English player and one French player contest the ball over a ruck and then pinging Cole for in at the side is a shockingly bad call. If the ball is up off the floor, as the ref called, then there's no ruck and if there's only one player from each side it's not a maul so how was Cole offside? That decision annoyed me greatly, very poor reffing.

Yeh that was a particularly poor one. Barnes' commentary criticising Cole afterwards annoyed me too. He must have realised that Cole didn't actually think that was a legitimate angle of ruck entry and thought the ball was out, but he had already decided that he was going to bang on endlessly about the breakdown so castigated Cole for it anyway.

Do we know when Bomber is announcing the squad? I know it has to be by 31st August, but do we think he'll drag it out until then?

thomh wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Cole was a walking penalty at the breakdown last night fkaS.  if he is our only hope, we are screwed!

A lot of that was desperation. The back row were non-existent at the breakdown so we saw other forwards trying to take up the slack. Cole was the only one who got even close to a turnover. He should be contesting occasionally and not being used as our major breakdown threat.

At least 3 of the points he gave away came from a shocking decision by the referee though. Calling ball held up as one English player and one French player contest the ball over a ruck and then pinging Cole for in at the side is a shockingly bad call. If the ball is up off the floor, as the ref called, then there's no ruck and if there's only one player from each side it's not a maul so how was Cole offside? That decision annoyed me greatly, very poor reffing.

Yeh that was a particularly poor one. Barnes' commentary criticising Cole afterwards annoyed me too. He must have realised that Cole didn't actually think that was a legitimate angle of ruck entry and thought the ball was out, but he had already decided that he was going to bang on endlessly about the breakdown so castigated Cole for it anyway.

Is it me or is Barnes getting worse? I can't quite work out what his agenda is - he appears to unhealthily enjoy England's faults!!

He said something about using Tuesday and Wednesday training for a 15v15 as the final selection contest, so presumably not before then.

Notch wrote:I think you have to go with Cipriani on the bench, he's shown his versatility and his ability to open up the game when he comes on. Sure, it's between Ford and Farrell to start and if one gets injured the other definitely starts. But if things go wrong and you have to chase a game, he's the guy.

Agree on Cipriani. The big question will be who provides the bosh Burrell who was poor last night or Burgess who was good last week but is a flanker. Who partners them is a debate as Joseph is the obvious choice unless Farrell is a ten then we need another playmaker in midfield and we have to find a place for Slade.