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.

stub wrote:

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!!

I actually quite like him in print when he's had time to flesh out his thoughts and give reasoning, even if I don't agree with it. In the commentary box he can be a bit reactionary and agenda-driven.

thomh wrote:

stub wrote:

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!!

I actually quite like him in print when he's had time to flesh out his thoughts and give reasoning, even if I don't agree with it. In the commentary box he can be a bit reactionary and agenda-driven.

True - I suppose that quick comments on a commentary always run the risk of misinterpretation... He just seems a little bitter to me but I guess it's his job to promote discussion/debate.

Not so much misinterpretation that I'm worried about, more than on reflection people might not actually believe the things they said in haste.

Burgess is a unique talent that can play equally well at flanker or centre. If he looked better than Burrell last week its because he IS better than Burrell in the centre. Slade is too lightweight, much like the rag doll that was M. Tait. They look good at prem level but get found out horribly when they come up against world class opposition.

He's a strange one Barnes.

He either goes completely ott about a performance (Burgess springs to mind) or is overly critical of something quite minor. I personally think he's a bit of an idiot.

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.

I agree, Lawes, Launchbury, Marler and Billy V are all far better players than they showed yesterday. The fact England could have won away to France despite not turning up at-all for much of the game is almost heartening. If we play that badly against Ireland then that is the time to panic.

It was interesting how much better the backs looked when Twelvetrees and Cipriani came on. No matter how talented Ford is, expecting him to provide all the creativity is too much - there has to be someone else or our wings are wasted, and as it doesn't look like it will be Twelvetrees then who might it be? I have a slight concern that the back-up plan might be Farrell at 12.

I thought Cipriani looked a class act when he came on. Tbh I'd be happy for him to play 10 for us in this WC, but I doubt he'll make the squad. Incidentally, was he playing at centre?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:He's a strange one Barnes.

He either goes completely ott about a performance (Burgess springs to mind) or is overly critical of something quite minor. I personally think he's a bit of an idiot.

Ah, here, he's fine. I just wouldn't want him as my father in law.

DaveM

I thought Cips came on at full back, with Brown moving to cover wing with May being taken off.

englandglory4ever wrote:Burgess is a unique talent that can play equally well at flanker or centre. If he looked better than Burrell last week its because he IS better than Burrell in the centre. Slade is too lightweight, much like the rag doll that was M. Tait. They look good at prem level but get found out horribly when they come up against world class opposition.

Im trying to work out if you really believe this or not?

majesticimperialman wrote:DaveM

I thought Cips came on at full back, with Brown moving to cover wing with May being taken off.

Yes, exactly. Cipriani was inserted at fullback.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Burgess is a unique talent that can play equally well at flanker or centre. If he looked better than Burrell last week its because he IS better than Burrell in the centre. Slade is too lightweight, much like the rag doll that was M. Tait. They look good at prem level but get found out horribly when they come up against world class opposition.

Im trying to work out if you really believe this or not?

I disagree with you regarding Slade. He looks like the best England centre since Greenwood.

It might be easier to list who actually played well.  Amongst the starters:
Nowell was fine
Burrell was fine
Joseph was fine, but only from 65 minutes on
Billy V.  was fine from 65 minutes on
Lawes was generally passable throughout, but was fine from 65 minutes

Most disappointing?  That was most of the team.  However, my most disappointing from the great mass  of the dissappointing:
Ben Youngs needs to show a lot more
George Ford needs to show a lot more
Tom Youngs was atrocious in the lineouts
Chris Robshow - he is supposed to be the leader.  So lead, sonny.  The measure of a leader is when things are going off the rails to grab people by the neck and get them moving.  He didn't do squat.  And didn't play well.

doctor_grey wrote:It might be easier to list who actually played well.  Amongst the starters:
Nowell was fine
Burrell was fine
Joseph was fine, but only from 65 minutes on
Billy V.  was fine from 65 minutes on
Lawes was generally passable throughout, but was fine from 65 minutes

Most disappointing?  That was most of the team.  However, my most disappointing from the great mass  of the dissappointing:
Ben Youngs needs to show a lot more
George Ford needs to show a lot more
Tom Youngs was atrocious in the lineouts
Chris Robshow - he is supposed to be the leader.  So lead, sonny.  The measure of a leader is when things are going off the rails to grab people by the neck and get them moving.  He didn't do squat.  And didn't play well.

We need to start with having an actual platform for the backs to play from - last night we were expecting them to create with slow ball or even no ball at all. it was only the 10 or so minutes at the that we had a platform to play from which is where we actually performed better.

I blame the England performance for making Michalak look better than what he is. Result: Trinh-duc has been dropped from the squad

whocares wrote:I blame the England performance for making Michalak look better than what he is. Result: Trinh-duc has been dropped from the squad

Tales didn't look good when he came on... Omitting Trinh-Duc seems to be a current theme with St Andre, but one that I disagree with.

I have admired him since I first saw him vs Wales at Stade de France in 2010. Great player

One thing I have never understood with the England team is that when the line-outs start going wrong, why do they persist with throwing long??? Keep it simple: front jumper, less chance of it going skewiff, quick ball, and it will likely give the hooker and team some much-needed confidence.

Mr Bounce wrote:One thing I have never understood with the England team is that when the line-outs start going wrong, why do they persist with throwing long??? Keep it simple: front jumper, less chance of it going skewiff, quick ball, and it will likely give the hooker and team some much-needed confidence.

Bounce,

I don't think that problem is solely limited to England we were/are guilty of it and its one thing that makes me really scream at tv or watching live etc. Despite it getting better our lineout has been woeful for a long time which when you think we have 3 hookers in our coaching set up its even more baffling, but time and again we go back ball instead of just securing possession.

whocares wrote:I blame the England performance for making Michalak look better than what he is. Result: Trinh-duc has been dropped from the squad

I mean.. why? What has he done to urine off PSA so much? Lol.

EDIT: Urine off? Really?

Yesterday i thought England had little to worry about but watched the tape last night.

Makes no sense with such talent but they are so lacking in any cohesion, sense of understanding of a game plan. 2nd phase was just bloody awful.

Likewise Tackle area, much vaunted scrum looked well, shocking. Likewise line out. Flashes of brilliance from Nowell, Ford looked hunted, Care played well…..front and back rows anonymous. They looked like big immobile lumps. Discipline unbelievably bad.

I just hope Lancs has the balls to pick the players who stood up…Cirpiani's effort was exceptional. But yet again, typical lancaster, he says the performances have given him much to think about.

Stop being so ponderous Stewie, time has run out!

That said, so good to see France at their mercurial best again…gotta love the garlic chuggers, one day they play like sulky schoolboys, the next the flair has returned! Vive les Bleus!

Mr Bounce wrote:One thing I have never understood with the England team is that when the line-outs start going wrong, why do they persist with throwing long??? Keep it simple: front jumper, less chance of it going skewiff, quick ball, and it will likely give the hooker and team some much-needed confidence.

front jumper at this level is like an admission your done. And you can't attack from it.

Gwlad wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:One thing I have never understood with the England team is that when the line-outs start going wrong, why do they persist with throwing long??? Keep it simple: front jumper, less chance of it going skewiff, quick ball, and it will likely give the hooker and team some much-needed confidence.

front jumper at this level is like an admission your done. And you can't attack from it.

I get that but whats worse, retaining the ball off a front jumper or losing like we do so many times by trying to go long.

Gwlad wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:One thing I have never understood with the England team is that when the line-outs start going wrong, why do they persist with throwing long??? Keep it simple: front jumper, less chance of it going skewiff, quick ball, and it will likely give the hooker and team some much-needed confidence.

front jumper at this level is like an admission your done. And you can't attack from it.

Better to take it in, box kick and contest possession downfield than to give away a turnover where the lineout is.

Gwlad wrote:

Yesterday i thought England had little to worry about but watched the tape last night.

Makes no sense with such talent but they are so lacking in any cohesion, sense of understanding of a game plan. 2nd phase was just bloody awful.

Likewise Tackle area, much vaunted scrum looked well, shocking. Likewise line out. Flashes of brilliance from Nowell, Ford looked hunted, Care played well…..front and back rows anonymous. They looked like big immobile lumps. Discipline unbelievably bad.

I just hope Lancs has the balls to pick the players who stood up…Cirpiani's effort was exceptional. But yet again, typical lancaster, he says the performances have given him much to think about.

Stop being so ponderous Stewie, time has run out!

That said, so good to see France at their mercurial best again…gotta love the garlic chuggers, one day they play like sulky schoolboys, the next the flair has returned! Vive les Bleus!

France played reasonably well last week too. Defensive errors and dropped passes let them down. Great footwork by Watson and good playmaking by Slade for England a win. But had a few more French passes been caught they could of had two wins from two

maesteg/Gwlad,

always good to get the views of interested others. One of the puzzles for me is that, without ever looking very good, England scored five nice tries over the two games while France managed one (formerly?) England-esque forward rumble over the line and an isolated moment of individual genius, but little else to suggest serious and regular line crossing ability.

I'd say that, rather than French flair, France showed an almost Anglo Saxon efficient - and effective - approach: 100% commitment, great strength at the set piece and the breakdown, and a relentless advancing of the scoreboard by multiples of three. I think they'll need more than that to do well at the RWC. As for England, I've already said earlier in this thread that, come what may, we wouldn't be the first home nation to lose embarrassingly on the first night of the RWC. After last night, that prospect looks less improbable.

Notch wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:One thing I have never understood with the England team is that when the line-outs start going wrong, why do they persist with throwing long??? Keep it simple: front jumper, less chance of it going skewiff, quick ball, and it will likely give the hooker and team some much-needed confidence.

front jumper at this level is like an admission your done. And you can't attack from it.

Better to take it in, box kick and contest possession downfield than to give away a turnover where the lineout is.

Or hit the front and rolling mail to tie in the opposition and then move the ball to kick. The insistence on throwing to the tail when in the opposition 22 is so scripted that it's picked off with ease irrelevant of who the hooker is.

englandglory4ever wrote:Burgess is a unique talent that can play equally well at flanker or centre. If he looked better than Burrell last week its because he IS better than Burrell in the centre. Slade is too lightweight, much like the rag doll that was M. Tait. They look good at prem level but get found out horribly when they come up against world class opposition.

He is a unique talent but he's not a centre. He's a flanker that can offload. Bath abandoned the centre experiment because in the midfield the amount of big hits and big carries he makes are much reduced and his defensive discipline isn't great.

Sorry penultimate line above should be 'host nation' not 'home nation'

Notch wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:One thing I have never understood with the England team is that when the line-outs start going wrong, why do they persist with throwing long??? Keep it simple: front jumper, less chance of it going skewiff, quick ball, and it will likely give the hooker and team some much-needed confidence.

front jumper at this level is like an admission your done. And you can't attack from it.

Better to take it in, box kick and contest possession downfield than to give away a turnover where the lineout is.

Completely agree with that.

maestegmafia wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Yesterday i thought England had little to worry about but watched the tape last night.

Makes no sense with such talent but they are so lacking in any cohesion, sense of understanding of a game plan. 2nd phase was just bloody awful.

Likewise Tackle area, much vaunted scrum looked well, shocking. Likewise line out. Flashes of brilliance from Nowell, Ford looked hunted, Care played well…..front and back rows anonymous. They looked like big immobile lumps. Discipline unbelievably bad.

I just hope Lancs has the balls to pick the players who stood up…Cirpiani's effort was exceptional. But yet again, typical lancaster, he says the performances have given him much to think about.

Stop being so ponderous Stewie, time has run out!

That said, so good to see France at their mercurial best again…gotta love the garlic chuggers, one day they play like sulky schoolboys, the next the flair has returned! Vive les Bleus!

France played reasonably well last week too. Defensive errors and dropped passes let them down. Great footwork by Watson and good playmaking by Slade for England a win. But had a few more French passes been caught they could of had two wins from two

On the other hand (and for the sake of balance) Had England's last move (steady progress from one end of the pitch to the other) resulted in a try last night that would have been one of the weirdest wins ever. While it wouldn't have glossed over a very poor performance it does seem odd that England were so close to winning in France last night with the way they played. It's not often practically your entire side has such as off-game. Perhaps France will be a bit disappointed that as well as they played they only just sneaked it on the scoreboard?

Would Goode have scored Cipriani's try? Not for me.

Piper has the whistle against Fiji

Barrett should never be picked, he played a few games at the end of last season, but when did he last play for england and when did his performance last deserve an international selection? He is a shocking pick especially as he is perpetually injured.

Burgess should not be selected at centre, perhaps he's in contention for 6?

Hartley should be selected with youngs or webber dropping out. Remember Johnson was a violent thug who was often in front of the disiplinery panel.

Alot of players desperately needed the game last night

Robshaw is not a better than average international captain, limited on field direction. How many other options has bomber prepared.....Was such a shame Slater got injured as seems to have it, otherwise might as well make Hartley vice captain if he's going to be selected.

The backrow, flankers particularly are a disaster. We need a big 6 and a fetcher 7. Both Oz and Wales will be playing two 7's. Launchbury could play 6 but is desperately rusty, I would have preferred Garvey or Slater. Probably to soon for burgess though he's obviously a special player. I don't think croft meets the requirement.

Kvesic is the only really 7 apart from Armitage.

I wonder what the vibe is like in the camp? I don't just mean after this game but generally with ironed underpants incharge. Players generally know whats what and bomber is pretty much proper crap.

Cyril wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Yesterday i thought England had little to worry about but watched the tape last night.

Makes no sense with such talent but they are so lacking in any cohesion, sense of understanding of a game plan. 2nd phase was just bloody awful.

Likewise Tackle area, much vaunted scrum looked well, shocking. Likewise line out. Flashes of brilliance from Nowell, Ford looked hunted, Care played well…..front and back rows anonymous. They looked like big immobile lumps. Discipline unbelievably bad.

I just hope Lancs has the balls to pick the players who stood up…Cirpiani's effort was exceptional. But yet again, typical lancaster, he says the performances have given him much to think about.

Stop being so ponderous Stewie, time has run out!

That said, so good to see France at their mercurial best again…gotta love the garlic chuggers, one day they play like sulky schoolboys, the next the flair has returned! Vive les Bleus!

France played reasonably well last week too. Defensive errors and dropped passes let them down. Great footwork by Watson and good playmaking by Slade for England a win. But had a few more French passes been caught they could of had two wins from two

On the other hand (and for the sake of balance) Had England's last move (steady progress from one end of the pitch to the other) resulted in a try last night that would have been one of the weirdest wins ever. While it wouldn't have glossed over a very poor performance it does seem odd that England were so close to winning in France last night with the way they played. It's not often practically your entire side has such as off-game. Perhaps France will be a bit disappointed that as well as they played they only just sneaked it on the scoreboard?

Yep, that's true IMO - if you turn it around and England won in the same way I don't think we'd be feeling that confident just now. That said, it could be argued that the French prevented the English playing well and therefore their confidence should be high as England are not a bad side and they made England look poor for 65 mins. In reality I don't think we'll understand the true picture until October.

kingelderfield wrote:Would Goode have scored Cipriani's try? Not for me.

Piper has the whistle against Fiji

Barrett should never be picked, he played a few games at the end of last season, but when did he last play for england and when did his performance last deserve an international selection? He is a shocking pick especially as he is perpetually injured.

Burgess should not be selected at centre, perhaps he's in contention for 6?

Hartley should be selected with youngs or webber dropping out.

Alot of players desperately needed the game last night

Robshaw is not a better than average international captain, limited on field direction. How many other options has bomber prepared.....

The backrow, flankers particularly are a disaster. We need a big 6 and a fetcher 7. Both Oz and Wales will be playing two 7's. Launchbury could play 6 but is desperately rusty, I would have preferred Garvey or Slater. Probably to soon for burgess though he's obviously a special player. I don't think croft meets the requirement.

Kvesic is the only really 7 apart from Armitage.

I wonder what the vibe is like in the camp? I don't just mean after this game but generally with ironed underpants incharge. Players generally know whats what and bomber is pretty much propa crap.

I think I agree with that - however unpalatable.

kingelderfield wrote:Would Goode have scored Cipriani's try? Not for me.

Piper has the whistle against Fiji

Barrett should never be picked, he played a few games at the end of last season, but when did he last play for england and when did his performance last deserve an international selection? He is a shocking pick especially as he is perpetually injured.

Burgess should not be selected at centre, perhaps he's in contention for 6?

Hartley should be selected with youngs or webber dropping out. Remember Johnson was a violent thug who was often in front of the disiplinery panel.

Alot of players desperately needed the game last night

Robshaw is not a better than average international captain, limited on field direction. How many other options has bomber prepared.....

The backrow, flankers particularly are a disaster. We need a big 6 and a fetcher 7. Both Oz and Wales will be playing two 7's. Launchbury could play 6 but is desperately rusty, I would have preferred Garvey or Slater. Probably to soon for burgess though he's obviously a special player. I don't think croft meets the requirement.

Kvesic is the only really 7 apart from Armitage.

I wonder what the vibe is like in the camp? I don't just mean after this game but generally with ironed underpants incharge. Players generally know whats what and bomber is pretty much proper crap.

And Johnson cost us a few wins, but his record is nowhere near Harley's. It's pretty simple, you include Hartley, who then gets sent to the bin in a game and costs us the win - we're back to where we are now. I don't think Hartley is a solution

stub wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:Would Goode have scored Cipriani's try? Not for me.

Piper has the whistle against Fiji

Barrett should never be picked, he played a few games at the end of last season, but when did he last play for england and when did his performance last deserve an international selection? He is a shocking pick especially as he is perpetually injured.

Burgess should not be selected at centre, perhaps he's in contention for 6?

Hartley should be selected with youngs or webber dropping out.

Alot of players desperately needed the game last night

Robshaw is not a better than average international captain, limited on field direction. How many other options has bomber prepared.....

The backrow, flankers particularly are a disaster. We need a big 6 and a fetcher 7. Both Oz and Wales will be playing two 7's. Launchbury could play 6 but is desperately rusty, I would have preferred Garvey or Slater. Probably to soon for burgess though he's obviously a special player. I don't think croft meets the requirement.

Kvesic is the only really 7 apart from Armitage.

I wonder what the vibe is like in the camp? I don't just mean after this game but generally with ironed underpants incharge. Players generally know whats what and bomber is pretty much propa crap.

I think I agree with that - however unpalatable.

I'm a big webber fan but when he needed it he had a poor season not even owning his club jersey. Youngs does a good human cannon ball in the loose but scrum and lineout are inconcistent at the very best and can be appalling.

I remember Johnson missing due to injury but not suspension - I'm probably wrong about that?

I think a few guys in here and elsewhere are having a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction

whocares wrote:I blame the England performance for making Michalak look better than what he is. Result: Trinh-duc has been dropped from the squad

Whocares, our resident French correspondent, I agree completely. Freddie was given a free ride last night by a completely dominant pack. Hope I'm right but I don't see Ireland folding like the English pack and so would far prefer Freddie against us than trinh duc in RWC

ChequeredJersey wrote:I think a few guys in here and elsewhere are having a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction

Everyone realises it was the 1st game of the season for the majority of this selection, and yes they're being prepared for Fiji and beyond, however we've been at this stage prior to other wc's and did not look such a ducking shambles then so why now?

..

ChequeredJersey wrote:I think a few guys in here and elsewhere are having a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction

Perhaps - I hope so!!

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Notch wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:One thing I have never understood with the England team is that when the line-outs start going wrong, why do they persist with throwing long??? Keep it simple: front jumper, less chance of it going skewiff, quick ball, and it will likely give the hooker and team some much-needed confidence.

front jumper at this level is like an admission your done. And you can't attack from it.

Better to take it in, box kick and contest possession downfield than to give away a turnover where the lineout is.

Or hit the front and rolling mail to tie in the opposition and then move the ball to kick. The insistence on throwing to the tail when in the opposition 22 is so scripted that it's picked off with ease irrelevant of who the hooker is.

englandglory4ever wrote:Burgess is a unique talent that can play equally well at flanker or centre. If he looked better than Burrell last week its because he IS better than Burrell in the centre. Slade is too lightweight, much like the rag doll that was M. Tait. They look good at prem level but get found out horribly when they come up against world class opposition.

He is a unique talent but he's not a centre. He's a flanker that can offload. Bath abandoned the centre experiment because in the midfield the amount of big hits and big carries he makes are much reduced and his defensive discipline isn't great.

From PR.com


Former Ireland and British and Irish Lions centre Brian O'Driscoll feels Sam Burgess' attacking game is not up to Test standard.
O'Driscoll praised Burgess' defensive performance during his Test debut for England against France at Twickenham last weekend, but said the league convert is still below par on attack and hailed the performance of Henry Slade, who also made his Test bow against the French.
"Burgess has proper defensive X Factor, of that there's no doubt," O'Driscoll wrote in a column on his website, www.brianodriscoll.com.
"His tackle technique and strength in the hit were never in question and for me, he has just the right amount of thug in him to make having a go just a fleeting thought.
"When his team has the ball though, I just don't think he's quite up to speed at international level just yet.
"I said it last season watching him play for Bath that the difference between attack play in league and union is that in union the hard work starts when the player is tackled and the ruck forms.
"In league, the tackle completes the play with no rucking needed. Two very different mindsets.
"As much as all eyes were on the league convert, it was actually his centre partner that stole the show for me.
"I’ve only seen small quantities of Henry Slade but what I’ve seen, I’ve really liked.
"I’m not sure he’s going to be considered for this years World Cup due to his lack of international experience.
"I also think the way Stuart Lancaster wants to play the game, his size could count against him but he has plenty of good years to come.
"I can see him playing 12 in a Mike Catt type role going forward, if England have aspirations to play a more expansive brand in time."

The claim that Lancaster is an inveterate tinkerer, who never lets anyone settle doesn't hold up. In the back line, injuries have often thwarted plans to build partnerships, while form has seen some players drop out of contention and others press their claim.

Should he have settled on Farrell at flyhalf and never given Ford a shot? Would we be better off with Alex Goode at full back rather than Mike Brown?

I'm fairly certain Lancaster has had the following back line in mind for a while: Youngs, Ford, Barritt, Joseph, Watson, Nowell, Brown. They have never played together because they have never all been fit and in form at the same time. With Barritt sidelined, that's still true.

If all we want from our midfield is that they be settled, then we could pick Farrell at 10, with Burrell and Twelvetrees outside, and leave it at that. Maybe that would work, but it doesn't seem like the best England can muster.

I do think that Lancaster has over-egged the trial aspect of these warm-up matches. Cipriani, for instance, has done everything you could want. At the same time, if he had played at fly half and turned in a performance like Ford did at the weekend, all the talk would be about how he just couldn't hack it under pressure.

If Lancaster is going to forgive blunders by likely starters, and not reward start turns from probable outsiders, then these matches were never a trial in any real sense, and we might have been better off giving our first XV more time together.

Consequently, it's a bit disappointing to hear that Lancaster wants to leave naming his squad until the last moment. What more is there to learn? It's not a great state of affairs if selection comes down to who drops a ball in training this week.

The only legitimate reason to hold off naming the squad for a few days is if we have injury concerns. Perhaps we do: rumours about a crocked Brad Barritt have been denied but still linger. Even if he does get cleared for Ireland, there might be worries that he will break down during the tournament, which means we'll need to be as certain about our first choice reserves as the squad players themsleves.

nathan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:It might be easier to list who actually played well.  Amongst the starters:
Nowell was fine
Burrell was fine
Joseph was fine, but only from 65 minutes on
Billy V.  was fine from 65 minutes on
Lawes was generally passable throughout, but was fine from 65 minutes

Most disappointing?  That was most of the team.  However, my most disappointing from the great mass  of the dissappointing:
Ben Youngs needs to show a lot more
George Ford needs to show a lot more
Tom Youngs was atrocious in the lineouts
Chris Robshow - he is supposed to be the leader.  So lead, sonny.  The measure of a leader is when things are going off the rails to grab people by the neck and get them moving.  He didn't do squat.  And didn't play well.

We need to start with having an actual platform for the backs to play from - last night we were expecting them to create with slow ball or even no ball at all. it was only the 10 or so minutes at the that we had a platform to play from which is where we actually performed better.

I agree with you. What do you think was Robshaw's culpability with all this? I didn't see much leadership on the pitch.

I think there is a real danger of over emphasising the performance of the players who came on in the last 10 mins.

With so many French changes in a warm up match it could give a false positive as they were playing a much weaker and less structured team.

Take some positive but with a pinch of reality i say

Re: Hartley, he wasn't dropped for the ban itself - he was dropped because the ban was long enough to take in the opening game, meaning that if one of the other hookers in the squad picked up a minor injury, England would either need to name a prop in place of a hooker on the bench or drop the injured player to bring in another one.

It wasn't some over-zealous application of a point of principle, it was the harsh practicalities of RWC rules. Hartley and the RFU between them put the coaching team in a position to which there's no easy answer.

Had the ban been a week shorter, I am sure Lancaster would have kept him in the squad. But imagine if Lancaster hadn't dropped Hartley and we were facing going into the opening game with a choice of Youngs, Webber and Cowan-Dickie. How would we be feeling now?

Though just to add to an already bizarre situation, Australia seem quite content to take that risk not just for the first game but for the whole tournament. And everyone thinks they are either mad or have worked out something that we haven't.

I think some people are over emphasising everything about Saturday Risky. If we go by that game all we need is 2 new props to help with lifting and are monster scrummagers, 2 2nd rows who caryying all day long, hit rucks like they're going out of fashion and great jumpers, a huge 6, a proper 7, a 8 who isn't going to play as bad as that, a 9 who isn't whoever is being picked at 9, a 10 who won't make a mistake, I'll let the rest of the backline off. Even Woodward had bad games, that was terrible but it still is only 1 game. Perform like that in 2 weeks I'll start to worry.

Riskysports wrote:I think there is a real danger of over emphasising the performance of the players who came on in the last 10 mins.

At risk of repeating myself, if that period could never count for anything towards selection chances, why field fringe players at all? Surely it would have been better to see how first choice squad players coped with the same situation.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Riskysports wrote:I think there is a real danger of over emphasising the performance of the players who came on in the last 10 mins.

At risk of repeating myself, if that period could never count for anything towards selection chances, why field fringe players at all? Surely it would have been better to see how first choice squad players coped with the same situation.

Yes to a degree

BUT in warm up games, there are often times when players are changed for reasons other than winning the matches - including experimenting with players who are very unlikely to be anywhere near the real team

Scrum dominance isn't something you just can make up, very seldom do teams have bad days in the office and then bounce back. The worst the best teams do is not dominate as per usual.
AUS are much better in set piece, Wales are solid... but all the KO teams they will face bar Scotland will have very good set piece operations be it as RU vs. SA and NZ or as group winners vs. France or Ireland.

People on here know I'm not convinced about Tom Youngs but even if he shores it up its going to make England look predictable. With no back jumper moves it makes your lineout far more difficult to disguise.

The whole thing about England not setting themselves up to peak fitness wise until next month though is absolute BS. Its a paper excuse over a large crack.

Scrum dominance on that surface though, I thought it was going to go to uncontested for a while. dreadful pitch.

You don't expect to see any improvement against ireland then fa? If we put in a good performance and beat them well are we then favourites for the cup?

It's a warm up game. It's not nice that England got some of their weaknesses exposed but better now than in the RWC.

Some posters on here don't understand the difference between a warm up match and an important knockout game.

The problem is that two of the biggest issues the hooker situation and the breakdown aren't easy to fix at this stage.

Lancaster has put so much emphasis on Robshaw - effectively built his team round him by making him captain and never dropping him that any issues at the breakdown need to be dealt by Robshaw himself.

The worries from getting beasted at the breakdown by Ireland have been shown again to be not just one bad day at the office (admittedly a warm up isn't the same as a 6 nations title decider).

It's difficult to say how to fix this because Lancaster left out Ksevic and Itoje who could have asked some real questions and answered some too. A proper 7 and a powerful youngster who could be another lineout option.

Lancaster is relying on T.Youngs delivering at hooker but the omens aren't looking good so far. He's never really been particularly good at the set piece for England - hence why he's been kept on the bench as an impact option.

The options after Youngs don't look so good. You have Webber who couldn't even get in the Bath team ahead of an average hooker - Ross Batty. The other two hookers, George and LCD are still inexperienced and still have to prove themselves at lineout time.

George looks the most likely to fill the Hartley shaped hole though as he's bigger and stronger than T.Youngs. Think Lancaster needs to start him in the next warm up game.