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.

Geordiefalcon perhaps but we can't forget that Wood has been good for England on quite a few occasions. Current form vs previous form is a dilemma.

I guess sometimes we are guilty of criticising players because they don't match up to the old England greats like Greenwood and Hill (in the case of Twelvetrees and Wood).

Probably the two players that England would most want back in their prime for the RWC!

As for Haskell I agree. Want him to be consistent.


Think the French game showed that discipline is still a big issue that England need to address. A better side than France would exploit this more - as Ireland did in the 6 nations.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

offload wrote:Burrell may be limited, but he is a centre.  Burgess will never be a top class Union centre.  With experience he may make it in the back row.

Maybe but do we want a limited centre in the squad or someone that has great potential to provide something different.?
As was commented after the last game Burgess didn't look out of place.

I like Burgess and I hope he succeeds, but IMO he did look out of place.

offload not looking out of place against a 2nd string French centre partnership is not the same as facing stronger opposition.

Fofana-Bastareaud you would have expected would have asked a lot more questions but neither faced Burgess.

Burgess clearly has raw talent but he's not experienced enough in rugby union. Having to adapt from RL to RU in a small period of time is tough enough but swapping between 6 and 12 is even more diffciult.

I am sure Burgess would be fine against Uruguay and perhaps even Fiji but it's Wales and Australia that would cause the most problems.

Not sure it has anything to do with swapping to union that means he won't excel there more that he's a 6 and plays like it.

no 7 & 1/2 he could excel but he still needs time to adapt to the game.

Flipping between centre and 6 doesn't help a player's development IMO.

Interesting you say he's a 6 - surely it depends what you want from your 6?

Could you see Burgess as a 7, 8 or lock? I say it because generally backrowers are comfortable playing in more than one position.

One thing I noticed of Burgess on Saturday was that in multi-phase attacks he seemed unsure where to rejoin the line, instead he seemed to hover behind the ruck looking for to carry.

Not sure if this is a ploy England are using or his old RL prop forward instinct to follow the ball kicking in but seemed to line up in attack more like a backrower than a back at times.

He could possibly get away with playing at 8 I think but obviously not at this stage as he'd need time there to get used to controllnig ball in scrum etc. Not sure I'd want him as a 7 as I'd still want to play more to his strengths. Lock? Not a chance for me.

6 for me as he plays bloody well there, and that'll be his position for Bath. Add in a lineout option which will happen as he gets the training and experience there and be challenging for the England spot (assuming he's not off to league again).

And if he had had a full pre-season with Bath he could have worked on the line-out.

But ifs and maybes etc

I agree...Burgess will be an option at 6. He will improve his lineout work with Bath, and he has shown ability to learn quite quickly.

Ive said it before though....Haskell should have been playing that role for years if he had shown any kind of real consistency.

Maybe its the coaches fault aswelll...they should have kept haskells role very basic...
"carry as hard as you can....and tackle anything that moves...knocking it back from where it came from!" Don't move from that plan.

Beshocked,
I rate Wood exceptionally highly and he has been a massive player for us for years. That doesn't take away from the fact there has been some imbalance in the back 5 as a whole which in my eyes has never been fixed under Lancasters term.

Geordiefalcon the problem is how do you fix that balance?

Perhaps England would be better suited if we had an all singing dancing 8 like Read, Parisse or Harinorduquy but our best no 8s Billy and Morgan are very different to that.

Are there any potential 8s who could challenge them by offering something different?

Oh by the way I don't think Hughes is something different plus he's not yet qualified.

Is Clifford being seen as a 8 or 6 by Quins?

What's your dream back five?

I guess it comes down to what you think the ideal 6 should do too.

Just to get away from Burgess for a moment, can I ask England fans whether they hold Lancaster accountable for this uncertainty in terms of optimal midfield and loose forward combinations this close to the World Cup?

Was building a whole backline around Tualagi a mistake? Shouldn't he have found the right player to partner Robshaw and Vunipola by now? Is the problem that if the team keeps winning, there is less of an imperative to fine tune in this way?

I would be very interested to know what England fans think about this.
Nobody is denying SL had substantial injury problems. However, how many of his current selection headaches are of his own making?

Not a WUM at all - just trying to educate myself.

I guess im a bit old fashioned but I like my back 5:
LH Lock - A lineout athletic guy (Lawes)
TH Lock - A bruising old tough nut...whos not bothered about having a six pack.
6 - Tough as old boots and fearless. Runs in to a brick wall at full pace all game if need be....and tackle a rampaging rhino. A lineout option would be nice
7 - Link man, tackler, hassle the opposition and attack the breakdown intelligently
8 - Superman - Do everything

The Current back 5 don't match my expectations but as I said im old fashioned and times have changed. However the issues I have with this current pack are

4 Lawes
5 ? Launchbury is top class...but is this a balanced lock partnership)
6 ? Haskell would maybe be the guy, but is inconsistsant. Maybe Burgess
7 Robshaw (to a degree)
8  Billy and Ben are Fine

So I guess its one lock and 6 that's my issues....

Wood is the 6 that Lancaster wants to play, he's just trying to see if anyone can challenge Haskell. Midfield injuries have been horrible in general.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon perhaps but we can't forget that Wood has been good for England on quite a few occasions. Current form vs previous form is a dilemma.

I guess sometimes we are guilty of criticising players because they don't match up to the old England greats like Greenwood and Hill (in the case of Twelvetrees and Wood).

Probably the two players that England would most want back in their prime for the RWC!

As for Haskell I agree. Want him to be consistent.


Think the French game showed that discipline is still a big issue that England need to address. A better side than France would exploit this more - as Ireland did in the 6 nations.

I'm beginning to think that's the only game of rugby you ever watched, it's the only game you ever talk about anyway.....

George Carlin wrote:Just to get away from Burgess for a moment, can I ask England fans whether they hold Lancaster accountable for this uncertainty in terms of optimal midfield and loose forward combinations this close to the World Cup?

Was building a whole backline around Tualagi a mistake? Shouldn't he have found the right player to partner Robshaw and Vunipola by now? Is the problem that if the team keeps winning, there is less of an imperative to fine tune in this way?

I would be very interested to know what England fans think about this.
Nobody is denying SL had substantial injury problems. However, how many of his current selection headaches are of his own making?

Not a WUM at all - just trying to educate myself.

I'd say most definitely. I'm a Leicester supporter through and through, but I'm denounced as a heretic whenever I suggest that he's one dimensional. He was really only effective for one season, after that teams worked out how to defend against him and his impact was lessened. People used to criticise Tindall, and they still criticise Jamie Roberts for their style of play - but they're the exact same attributes that England (and Tigers) supporters seem to hold in awe when it comes to Tuilagi. I've never rated him above the 'useful to have' but many would have you believe he's 'World Class'. I don't think he is (BTW - he's STILL injured and not yet back in full training for Tigers, so he wouldn't have made the cut here anyway).

GF - I cannot remember England ever having a pack back 5 like that.


GC - England know exactly what back row they want, and all this talk of wood out of form covers a single match where he was A) Captain, B) Behind a beaten tight 5 C) with a debutant at openside (also note that at Saints Clark is usually 6 to Wood's 7).
As to the centres - Tuilagi has barely played and the problem has been at 12. Sadly that is an issue that dates back to Will Greenwood's retirement. Whoever has played at 13 has looked decent (including Barritt, Burrell and Twelvetrees) but 12 has been an issue - exacerbated by injuries.

In the decade since Greenwood retired i can think of the following who have had a go:

Catt
Barkley
May
Noon
Farrell Sr
Erinle
Flutey
Hape
Turner-Hall
Geraghty
Allen
Barritt
Tuilagi
Twelvetrees
Farrell Jr
Burrell
Burgess

GF - I cannot remember England ever having a pack back 5 like that.

LT, I didn't say they had...I said im old fashioned and that's my preference over an overall athletic based pack.

George Carlin building a backline based on one player is always dangerous IMO.

Problem I think is that SL's dream centre partnership was Barritt-Tuilagi but I don't think it's a good balance. Both have their own strengths individually but as a partnership I don't think it shone bar exceptions like of course the NZ game.

Plus both have had their injuries.

I don't think Lancaster has been particularly lucky with injuries but without injuries Lancaster would probably stick with the same players.

Injury to Tuilagi has been good for England because alternatives at 13 like Burrell and Joseph have been useful. If Tuilagi was fit then Lancaster would have probably steadfastly stuck with him. With Tuilagi ruling himself out at least 13 is not a weak spot.

He's stuck with Robshaw and now there's no ideal 7 back up. Just using Wood and Haskell as 6s means there is an experience gap at 6 too.

Not trying out other options at hooker has left a significant experience gap at hooker with Hartley ruling himself out of the RWC with his poor discipline.

Lancaster has been praised for trying out new players but he's only really done it when his hands have been tied by injuries or bans forcing him to.


Jimpy you learn a lot from losses IMO.

Manu might be one dimensional but what a dimension that is! He's a good player - just like any player he needs to be utilised properly.

Equally he needs to be managed properly - player management is an underrated skill - it means don't overplay them, keep them out of trouble both off and one the field, utilise their strengths etc.

Hartley keeps having poor discipline but hasn't been punished by Saints. He's still captain despite his numerous disciplinary misdemeanours. He's a good player but he can't control himself.

Same with Manu.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

GF - I cannot remember England ever having a pack back 5 like that.

LT, I didn't say they had...I said im old fashioned and that's my preference over an overall athletic based pack.

I just think it is a panacea that can only ever occur with the freak occurrence of the right players. the risk is you put in substandard players to fill a role and end up with a worse result.

Of course as Cardiff 2013 showed the opposite is equally bad where you shoe-horn the best players into wrong positions.

As to slating Bomber over not resting Robshaw - there will be plenty in Wales who feel that Kvesic is not the only openside of Serbo/Croat ancestry who is being kept out by the coaches undimmed faith in his skipper. At least Bomber rested Robshaw for the Argentina tour - Warburton is only left out when injured.


It is quite possible that England, Ireland and Wales will go into WRC with 7s that most consider as better 6s, while Scotland seem to have no clur who there back row will be, and may yet fly in another Kiwi who once had a can of Irn Bru.

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

GF - I cannot remember England ever having a pack back 5 like that.

LT, I didn't say they had...I said im old fashioned and that's my preference over an overall athletic based pack.

I just think it is a panacea that can only ever occur with the freak occurrence of the right players. the risk is you put in substandard players to fill a role and end up with a worse result.

Of course as Cardiff 2013 showed the opposite is equally bad where you shoe-horn the best players into wrong positions.

Oh im certainly not saying its easy LT, Lancas is a level 5 coach and gets paid the big bucks.

But in my humble opinion its not the shape I would have in my pack.

Of course on Saturday they will go out and prove me wrong by putting in a performance of power, muscle, aggression and blitz the French pack.

In answer to beshocked, Clifford played 6, 7 and 8 for Quins last season, and settled at 8 (with Easter moving to lock) by the end. I'm not sure it's his ultimate position - he lacks a bit of bulk compared to Billy and Ben - who are both young enough to hang onto the shirt for a good while yet.

That said, I think he'll be in the England squad sooner rather than later (and so does Conor O'Shea). I thought his performance in the Barbarians game was genuinely exceptional and while he doesn't have Morgan or Vunipola's outright power, he's strong enough to break tackles, fast enough to play 7s at a high level and has better handling than many of the current backline.

My guess is that he'll be played as a 6 or off the bench initially but if he maintains fitness and form could replace Robshaw within a year or two. They have similar skill sets but Clifford is quicker and a better carrier.

Given time, 6. Itoje, 7. Clifford 8. Morgan 20. Vunipola (or vice versa) could be the back row we've been looking for.

LondonTiger wrote:As to slating Bomber over not resting Robshaw - there will be plenty in Wales who feel that Kvesic is not the only openside of Serbo/Croat ancestry who is being kept out by the coaches undimmed faith in his skipper. At least Bomber rested Robshaw for the Argentina tour - Warburton is only left out when injured.


It is quite possible that England, Ireland and Wales will go into WRC with 7s that most consider as better 6s, while Scotland seem to have no clur who there back row will be, and may yet fly in another Kiwi who once had a can of Irn Bru.

Ooooooh, low blow.

I don't think Lancaster ever got a chance to build a centre partnership around Manu, so I can't fault him for putting all his eggs in one basket.

Barritt/Tuilagi went well enough against NZ in 2012 but looked a bit limited elsewhere, so Lancaster went looking for a different combination. He wanted to pair Manu with a ball-playing inside centre - Twelvetrees - but never really got the chance. Twelvetrees ended up playing alongside virtually everyone else.

Lancaster had also begun to wonder whether playing Manu in midfield was keeping the back three out of the game, which is why he tried putting him on the wing, to increase his options.

In the end, I think Lancaster was leaning towards going back to a Barritt/Tuilagi pairing because Burrell and Twelvetrees hadn't set the world on fire. However, it had become increasingly clear that Manu had injury problems, so I'm sure the coach was pondering how to live without him even before his conviction. The reappearance of Joseph was a happy bonus in that respect.

I don't think Lancaster has overlooked anyone obvious for selection, so it's not the same as the back row, where some players just haven't had a sniff of game time. Eastmond has probably been unlucky but Lancaster has at least had a look at him and taken a view.

Londontiger I can understand why Lancaster has stuck with Robshaw.

Lancaster can't afford to rest Robshaw because there's no decent 7 back up. There's no decent back up because Lancaster won't pick anyone except for Robshaw at 7 in the big games.

To be fair it doesn't help that the 7 contenders haven't exactly been tearing up trees in the last few years. Ksevic has been good this season but has struggled for consistency in others IMO. Fraser has been injured too much, Wallace can't get a look in for Quins, who else is there?

Scotland backrow isn't great but that's their problem. Plus that could be a benefit for us if we happen to meet them in the quarter finals of the RWC.

No Brown is a benefit for England - a backrower who can play 6,7 and 8 - one of Scotland's most experienced and best backrowers.

LondonTiger wrote:As to slating Bomber over not resting Robshaw - there will be plenty in Wales who feel that Kvesic is not the only openside of Serbo/Croat ancestry who is being kept out by the coaches undimmed faith in his skipper. At least Bomber rested Robshaw for the Argentina tour - Warburton is only left out when injured.


It is quite possible that England, Ireland and Wales will go into WRC with 7s that most consider as better 6s, while Scotland seem to have no clur who there back row will be, and may yet fly in another Kiwi who once had a can of Irn Bru.

Fortunately for Tipuric, Warburton is injured on a fairly regular basis. Personally, I like them both but have never bought into the Lydiate hype. I am quite glad that Gatland doesn't seem to want to play them together.

England seem to have been very lucky with most of their injuries - a lot of key forwards have had injury breaks in the last 12 months (Marler, Cole, Wilson, Launchbury, Lawes, Robshaw, and Farrell and Brown who are honorary forwards) but look to be close to full form and fitness now. That has to be set against Morgan's late return and Tuilagi's extended absence, but those enforced breaks might pay dividends as the tournament wears on.

Rugby fan Sigh why do people keep mentioning the so called dream partnership - Twelvetrees-Tuilagi?

That was tried out at Leicester. It was not as effective as Allen-Tuilagi. Don't see why it would work at international level if it didn't at Leicester.

Poorfour surely Clifford will be prevented from playing 7 by Robshaw? Blocking him and Wallace at club level?

Also Quins will need a 8 with Easter surely not having too many seasons left now!

beshocked wrote:Rugby fan Sigh why do people keep mentioning the so called dream partnership - Twelvetrees-Tuilagi?

It's never been my dream partnership, but it's one Lancaster clearly had in mind.

The current England pack have rarely been out classed when available against any opposition, they have had issues with SA and once with Wales (not a full 1st choice 8) but generally thay are the dominators of the set piece, both scrum and lineout. All teams have off days, see nZ against Aus, before they returned the favour with interest.

Most teams are going for the atheletes these days, even SA, big lumps just cannot hack the pace and ground coverage needed today, see Jim Hamilton although age comes in there as well.

beshocked wrote:Londontiger I can understand why Lancaster has stuck with Robshaw.

Lancaster can't afford to rest Robshaw because there's no decent 7 back up. There's no decent back up because Lancaster won't pick anyone except for Robshaw at 7 in the big games.

To be fair it doesn't help that the 7 contenders haven't exactly been tearing up trees in the last few years. Ksevic has been good this season but has struggled for consistency in others IMO. Fraser has been injured too much, Wallace can't get a look in for Quins, who else is there?

Scotland backrow isn't great but that's their problem. Plus that could be a benefit for us if we happen to meet them in the quarter finals of the RWC.

No Brown is a benefit for England - a backrower who can play 6,7 and 8 - one of Scotland's most experienced and best backrowers.

The Scottish backrow *could* be very good indeed - there are some very good players - we just need to decide what the best combination is and stick with it rather than fannying around like we did in the 6N.

Glasgow's captain Josh Strauss is a cert for 6 or 8 for the RWC, which leaves a shoot out at 7 between John Barclay, Hamish Watson, Blair Cowan or John Hardie and between David Denton, Adam Ashe and Ryan Wilson at 8. All very capable.

Most Scotland fans would agree that not having Kelly Brown in the squad is madder than a box of hair, but we're used to it now, unfortunately.

Good to see a strong side sent out by Lancaster for this one.

Victory in Paris will deliver a huge confidence boost to England before the World Cup begins.

I would agree with those that say England are a year short in terms of where they want to be on the eve of this World Cup; Lancaster has never really had a chance to build a consistent and settled side with injuries and whatnot. Two things to remember, though:

1) The draw is set perfectly for England to make their third World Cup final in four attempts. On home turf, I make England favourites against anyone - except South Africa (50-50) and New Zealand (60-40 in the Kiwis favour), both of whom England should avoid until the final.

2) 2019 in Japan is the real target for Lancaster!

George Carlin the Scottish backrow have a lot of proving to do - as of now I think you have the weakest backrow in the 6 natons.

Will take some good performances to move up the pecking order.

rodders wrote:One thing I noticed of Burgess on Saturday was that in multi-phase attacks he seemed unsure where to rejoin the line, instead he seemed to hover behind the ruck looking for to carry.

Not sure if this is a ploy England are using or his old RL prop forward instinct to follow the ball kicking in but seemed to line up in attack more like a backrower than a back at times.

Maybe it's what he was told to do given his limited experience in the IC position. Indeed post match I only heard praise from SL and ex Pros. The only exception has been Matt Dawson.

Anyway I do wish Burrell a good game and consequently a good but hard decision for SL to call.

Sam is a top rugby player, but he’s not a class RU centre (lack of experience, lack of pace). We got a taste for one of the early French nearly-tries. The French grubber had him floundering, and he didn’t even seem to want to chase it down. Only May, with his pace, could have stopped that attempt – and then what would we be saying about Sam’s performance. Fofana would have tied him in knots. But with a bit more experience at 6 we’ll see what a great asset to England he’ll be. I can see him soon leaving Wood & Haskell in his wake.

As for Stewie, he’s at a level consistent with the England team: close but no cigar. He’s exactly what England needed this time and we’ll do pretty well in this RWC - but we won’t win it, because we’re not quite good enough yet. I’ll be putting money on England making the RWC’19 final. But for that we’ll need to improve. And find a world class coach.

On another note, despite May how did the French guy not score that try?

One of the easiest finishes in history and I've barely seem anyone mention it. All he had to do was literally put a hand on the ball, but for some unknown reason he didn't?!

Funny that. I'm thinking that there's too many old buggers in our team (NZ that is) so we'll probably not win this world cup but we will have built a better team by 2019 and have a good chance of winning in Japan (sort of a neutral ground).

beshocked wrote:George Carlin the Scottish backrow have a lot of proving to do - as of now I think you have the weakest backrow in the 6 natons.

Will take some good performances to move up the pecking order.

Not to worry - if we're still p!ss poor in the spring, we'll just bring in some new Kiwis.

George Carlin equally you could just bring back the Killer Bs as an unit.

Josh Strauss is a dead cert when he's one of your most inexperienced players, a 28 year old SA too?

Brown
Barclay
Beattie

Denton on the bench

Scottish backrow problem sorted.

Would they want a 6 who's a notable 2nd/3rd choice for his club?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Would they want a 6 who's a notable 2nd/3rd choice for his club?

Hasn't stopped England picking Webber.

Plus Scotland picked Hamilton who is 2nd choice.

Oh and Brown is better than any other Scottish backrower even if he is currently 2nd/3rd choice at his club.

A proven international performer - I talk about credit in the bank - Brown has lots.

A few didn't want Webber picked but fair point. Brown is a bit on the slide but should probably be able to still cut it.

What club side does Kelly Brown play for?

Saracens.

Oh ok. I was wondering why an ageing Scottish backrower was being discussed on a France v England thread, but it all makes sense now .....

 

Anyway back to England - Scotland can make poor decisions if they want but I would rather England didn't.

Good side vs France. Should win.

Probably the most crucial performances will be T. Youngs,Launchbury, Haskell,Burrell and George from the bench.

T.Youngs is likely to be no 1 hooker so needs a big performance in the set piece to settle nerves.


Launchbury hasn't played an international match in a while - hopefully he can hit the ground running.

Haskell has a real opportunity to seal the 6 shirt and show some consistency.

Burrell needs to prove his worth at 12 - from what I've seen I have preferred him as a 13.

George -has to hold his nerve and show some solidity from the bench.


Care regaining some form would be nice too.


Bambam is 33 really that old when England are happy to throw in 37 year old Easter?

beshocked wrote:  George Carlin equally you could just bring back the Killer Bs as an unit.

Josh Strauss is a dead cert when he's one of your most inexperienced players, a 28 year old SA too?

Brown
Barclay
Beattie

Denton on the bench

Scottish backrow problem sorted.

Ah Beshocked. 5 years ago maybe, but not now.

In the next 6 Nations, our back row should be:

06 Harley/Strauss
07 Hardie/Watson
08 Strauss/Barclay

Then you'll see some stuff.

Hardie will start against Italy at the weekend. Watch him. You may even be impressed...

Launchbury hasn't played an international match in a while - hopefully he can hit the ground running.

Yeah ill be watching his performance with great interest. He certainly was very good when he came back for wasps.

Which Haskell will turn up...

beshocked wrote:Rugby fan Sigh why do people keep mentioning the so called dream partnership - Twelvetrees-Tuilagi?

That was tried out at Leicester. It was not as effective as Allen-Tuilagi. Don't see why it would work at international level if it didn't at Leicester.

Poorfour surely Clifford will be prevented from playing 7 by Robshaw? Blocking him and Wallace at club level?

Also Quins will need a 8 with Easter surely not having too many seasons left now!

Quins are OK for No 8s - we just signed Mathew Luamanu from NZ and we have James Chisholm coming up through the Academy. I don't think either Lancaster or O'Shea are that bothered about what number a player wears (Lancaster plays Wood at 6 when he often wears 7 for Saints; O'Shea's on record as saying that he doesn't see a role for specialist one-sided flankers in the modern game).

For the Barbarians, Clifford wore 7 and Josh Beaumont 8.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Sam is a top rugby player, but he’s not a class RU centre (lack of experience, lack of pace). We got a taste for one of the early French nearly-tries. The French grubber had him floundering, and he didn’t even seem to want to chase it down. Only May, with his pace, could have stopped that attempt – and then what would we be saying about Sam’s performance. Fofana would have tied him in knots. But with a bit more experience at 6 we’ll see what a great asset to England he’ll be. I can see him soon leaving Wood & Haskell in his wake.

A couple of thoughts on this...

Firstly, is that I do worry about having Burgess in the centres with Goode at full back, particularly when we're playing an aggressive defence that leaves Goode with a lot of ground to cover. It's inviting the chips and grubbers. In the incident you've highlighted, Burgess turned like a tanker.

On the flip side, it looked to me as though after the first few unsuccessful attempts, France tried to avoid taking the ball up at Burgess. Frankly, I thought Burgess' physicality put the Poopie up them. Perhaps I'm calling that wrong though.

The Media think Burgess is a Demigod and therefore where shocked he wasn't playing this weekend too.