Yet Another Sam Burgess Discussion Thread

[LondonTiger]

First topic message reminder :

Sam Burgess, demigod or not?

[robbo277]

My team for Fiji would be pretty much be full strength, but with a couple of tweaks.

Personally, I'm not sold at hooker or lock, but for differing reasons. Hooker we seem to have a dearth of options, while lock is more an embarrassment of riches.

Looking at the options, I'd possibly give starts to George and Launchbury and move Youngs and Parling to the bench. I think George offers us more on both set-pieces and would like to see how he goes from the start. Launchbury offers more around the park than Parling, which may be key in a physical game. Lawes can call the line-out and Wood remains in the team as a good jumping option.

After we have seen off their first choice front row and Launchbury has tackled a few Fijians into the ground, Youngs can come on against a weaker scrummage and tired legs and provide an extra carrying option in the loose. Parling would come on at the same time and provide that balance between open play and set-piece by shoring up the line-out. If this worked well, we could consider it for the Wales and Australia games.

In the backs, I'd look to start Burgess between Ford and Joseph. If he gets a couple of trademark hits, it will really raise the crowd for the start of this World Cup, and if he meshes well in between his club teammates, we've got a realistic alternative to Barritt against Wales and Australia. I'm not saying that Barritt is a bad player, but Burgess has a presence that Barritt lacks, and I think it would be a waste if he only played against Uruguayan amateurs, and we wouldn't be able to gauge his performance at all.

I've considered run-outs for Farrell and Goode to protect Ford and Brown, but I think that would just be too many changes.

My 23:

Marler, George, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, Morgan, Ben Youngs, Ford, May, Burgess, Joseph, Watson, Brown.
Tom Youngs, Mako Vunipola, Brookes, Parling, Billy Vunipola, Wigglesworth, Farrell, Goode.

[Jimpy]

My team for Fiji would be pretty much be full strength, but with a couple of tweaks.

Personally, I'm not sold at hooker or lock, but for differing reasons. Hooker we seem to have a dearth of options, while lock is more an embarrassment of riches.

Looking at the options, I'd possibly give starts to George and Launchbury and move Youngs and Parling to the bench. I think George offers us more on both set-pieces and would like to see how he goes from the start. Launchbury offers more around the park than Parling, which may be key in a physical game. Lawes can call the line-out and Wood remains in the team as a good jumping option.

After we have seen off their first choice front row and Launchbury has tackled a few Fijians into the ground, Youngs can come on against a weaker scrummage and tired legs and provide an extra carrying option in the loose. Parling would come on at the same time and provide that balance between open play and set-piece by shoring up the line-out. If this worked well, we could consider it for the Wales and Australia games.

In the backs, I'd look to start Burgess between Ford and Joseph. If he gets a couple of trademark hits, it will really raise the crowd for the start of this World Cup, and if he meshes well in between his club teammates, we've got a realistic alternative to Barritt against Wales and Australia. I'm not saying that Barritt is a bad player, but Burgess has a presence that Barritt lacks, and I think it would be a waste if he only played against Uruguayan amateurs, and we wouldn't be able to gauge his performance at all.

I've considered run-outs for Farrell and Goode to protect Ford and Brown, but I think that would just be too many changes.

My 23:

Marler, George, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, Morgan, Ben Youngs, Ford, May, Burgess, Joseph, Watson, Brown.
Tom Youngs, Mako Vunipola, Brookes, Parling, Billy Vunipola, Wigglesworth, Farrell, Goode.

Have you been watching England's scrum recently?

[robbo277]

My team for Fiji would be pretty much be full strength, but with a couple of tweaks.

Personally, I'm not sold at hooker or lock, but for differing reasons. Hooker we seem to have a dearth of options, while lock is more an embarrassment of riches.

Looking at the options, I'd possibly give starts to George and Launchbury and move Youngs and Parling to the bench. I think George offers us more on both set-pieces and would like to see how he goes from the start. Launchbury offers more around the park than Parling, which may be key in a physical game. Lawes can call the line-out and Wood remains in the team as a good jumping option.

After we have seen off their first choice front row and Launchbury has tackled a few Fijians into the ground, Youngs can come on against a weaker scrummage and tired legs and provide an extra carrying option in the loose. Parling would come on at the same time and provide that balance between open play and set-piece by shoring up the line-out. If this worked well, we could consider it for the Wales and Australia games.

In the backs, I'd look to start Burgess between Ford and Joseph. If he gets a couple of trademark hits, it will really raise the crowd for the start of this World Cup, and if he meshes well in between his club teammates, we've got a realistic alternative to Barritt against Wales and Australia. I'm not saying that Barritt is a bad player, but Burgess has a presence that Barritt lacks, and I think it would be a waste if he only played against Uruguayan amateurs, and we wouldn't be able to gauge his performance at all.

I've considered run-outs for Farrell and Goode to protect Ford and Brown, but I think that would just be too many changes.

My 23:

Marler, George, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, Morgan, Ben Youngs, Ford, May, Burgess, Joseph, Watson, Brown.
Tom Youngs, Mako Vunipola, Brookes, Parling, Billy Vunipola, Wigglesworth, Farrell, Goode.

Have you been watching England's scrum recently?

Poor choice of words, perhaps, although I think having George in there might shore things up. Regardless whether we see them off or merely survive them, the first choice guys will probably be subbed off somewhere between 55 and 65 minutes, which is when I'd be looking to make our changes.

[Jimpy]

My team for Fiji would be pretty much be full strength, but with a couple of tweaks.

Personally, I'm not sold at hooker or lock, but for differing reasons. Hooker we seem to have a dearth of options, while lock is more an embarrassment of riches.

Looking at the options, I'd possibly give starts to George and Launchbury and move Youngs and Parling to the bench. I think George offers us more on both set-pieces and would like to see how he goes from the start. Launchbury offers more around the park than Parling, which may be key in a physical game. Lawes can call the line-out and Wood remains in the team as a good jumping option.

After we have seen off their first choice front row and Launchbury has tackled a few Fijians into the ground, Youngs can come on against a weaker scrummage and tired legs and provide an extra carrying option in the loose. Parling would come on at the same time and provide that balance between open play and set-piece by shoring up the line-out. If this worked well, we could consider it for the Wales and Australia games.

In the backs, I'd look to start Burgess between Ford and Joseph. If he gets a couple of trademark hits, it will really raise the crowd for the start of this World Cup, and if he meshes well in between his club teammates, we've got a realistic alternative to Barritt against Wales and Australia. I'm not saying that Barritt is a bad player, but Burgess has a presence that Barritt lacks, and I think it would be a waste if he only played against Uruguayan amateurs, and we wouldn't be able to gauge his performance at all.

I've considered run-outs for Farrell and Goode to protect Ford and Brown, but I think that would just be too many changes.

My 23:

Marler, George, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, Morgan, Ben Youngs, Ford, May, Burgess, Joseph, Watson, Brown.
Tom Youngs, Mako Vunipola, Brookes, Parling, Billy Vunipola, Wigglesworth, Farrell, Goode.

Have you been watching England's scrum recently?

Poor choice of words, perhaps, although I think having George in there might shore things up. Regardless whether we see them off or merely survive them, the first choice guys will probably be subbed off somewhere between 55 and 65 minutes, which is when I'd be looking to make our changes.

I knew what you meant (I think) but was being typically facetious.... but it did rather read as though Fiji will be a formality.

[robbo277]

I think it should be for our first team. I think our defence will be stronger and more organised than the teams they have come up against before and our attack is really starting to develop some potency. If we start making wholesale changes then we could find ourselves in a real battle and end up surviving the game, but if we play what is pretty much our strongest team, I think we should have more over 80 minutes and would give us the win at Twickenham at least 95 times out of 100.

The changes I have suggested only represent minor experimentation, and changes I'd be happy to keep for the Wales game were they to come off. It's not a given though, and if we see 12 changes to our starting line-up we could come unstuck.

[englandglory4ever]

I believe England have a very strong 31 that can compete with any number of different combinations they care to put on the pitch. Virtually any sensible selection should be more than enough for Fiji. I've watched some highlights of theirs and the defences they've been up against are Div 1 standard in England. Any AP side would not let in the tries I saw them score in my opinion. They should find it very difficult to score anything against England other than 3 points here and there if they are close to our posts.. The different England combinations must replicate the discipline we saw against Ireland to prevent even that. I am not being arrogant just confident when I say England should be looking to nil Fiji and Uruguay.

[lostinwales]

....

What are peoples assessments of Barrett though?  He hasn't changed much as a player over the past few seasons yet opinion of him has shifted from him being seen as somewhat of a limiting player to now as the first choice.

What we have been saying for a while. In Ford and Joseph you have plenty of attacking threat but lack of bulk. Both are competent defenders but that isn't their strengths. Barritt is seen as a terrific defender and organiser who will put his body on the line all the time. He will also truck the ball up when needed and rarely makes mistakes, although he isn't the greatest attacking threat. His plus and minus points just seem to be very complementary to Ford/Joseph

[Poorfour]

....

What are peoples assessments of Barrett though?  He hasn't changed much as a player over the past few seasons yet opinion of him has shifted from him being seen as somewhat of a limiting player to now as the first choice.

What we have been saying for a while. In Ford and Joseph you have plenty of attacking threat but lack of bulk. Both are competent defenders but that isn't their strengths. Barritt is seen as a terrific defender and organiser who will put his body on the line all the time. He will also truck the ball up when needed and rarely makes mistakes, although he isn't the greatest attacking threat. His plus and minus points just seem to be very complementary to Ford/Joseph

He also seemed to straighten the line pretty well against Ireland. He didn't draw defenders like Burgess does, but he did enough to create space out wide against one of the better defences in world rugby. Barritt's main flaw is simply that he doesn't offer a kicking or wide distribution option at 12 - which is why Twelvetrees was preferred for a while, but he's inconsistent.

[yappysnap]

My team for Fiji would be pretty much be full strength, but with a couple of tweaks.

Personally, I'm not sold at hooker or lock, but for differing reasons. Hooker we seem to have a dearth of options, while lock is more an embarrassment of riches.

Looking at the options, I'd possibly give starts to George and Launchbury and move Youngs and Parling to the bench. I think George offers us more on both set-pieces and would like to see how he goes from the start. Launchbury offers more around the park than Parling, which may be key in a physical game. Lawes can call the line-out and Wood remains in the team as a good jumping option.

After we have seen off their first choice front row and Launchbury has tackled a few Fijians into the ground, Youngs can come on against a weaker scrummage and tired legs and provide an extra carrying option in the loose. Parling would come on at the same time and provide that balance between open play and set-piece by shoring up the line-out. If this worked well, we could consider it for the Wales and Australia games.

In the backs, I'd look to start Burgess between Ford and Joseph. If he gets a couple of trademark hits, it will really raise the crowd for the start of this World Cup, and if he meshes well in between his club teammates, we've got a realistic alternative to Barritt against Wales and Australia. I'm not saying that Barritt is a bad player, but Burgess has a presence that Barritt lacks, and I think it would be a waste if he only played against Uruguayan amateurs, and we wouldn't be able to gauge his performance at all.

I've considered run-outs for Farrell and Goode to protect Ford and Brown, but I think that would just be too many changes.

My 23:

Marler, George, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, Morgan, Ben Youngs, Ford, May, Burgess, Joseph, Watson, Brown.
Tom Youngs, Mako Vunipola, Brookes, Parling, Billy Vunipola, Wigglesworth, Farrell, Goode.

Agree completely with that Robbo. George and Launchbury both need a start Imo, and with the experienced guys on the bench to help it'll take a lot of pressure off. If they go well and then alternating at the 50/60 min mark works then I'd do the exact same against Wales, with the opposite against Oz, depending on actual form.

Agree with Burgess as well. He was trying too hard against Ireland and a starting spot should be easier. Plus he needs to be used anyway. And off field his presence plus a few big hits will really get the crowd going and start the RWC with a bang!

[LondonTiger]

If you think TYoungs is crap starting, he is much worse off the bench. so if George is starting, Webber should be on the bench.

[No 7&1/2]

I hope we see a strong starting team maybe with 2 or 3 people from outside the expecetd 'strongest' team and go to set up a good win. Another plus point would be if we can make changes from the bench and not lose any momentum. Points may be very important.

[lostinwales]

Re Burgess I guess its also worth remembering that the Ford/Burgess/Joseph unit is one that is familiar with each other

[jamesandimac]

My team for Fiji would be pretty much be full strength, but with a couple of tweaks.

Personally, I'm not sold at hooker or lock, but for differing reasons. Hooker we seem to have a dearth of options, while lock is more an embarrassment of riches.

Looking at the options, I'd possibly give starts to George and Launchbury and move Youngs and Parling to the bench. I think George offers us more on both set-pieces and would like to see how he goes from the start. Launchbury offers more around the park than Parling, which may be key in a physical game. Lawes can call the line-out and Wood remains in the team as a good jumping option.

After we have seen off their first choice front row and Launchbury has tackled a few Fijians into the ground, Youngs can come on against a weaker scrummage and tired legs and provide an extra carrying option in the loose. Parling would come on at the same time and provide that balance between open play and set-piece by shoring up the line-out. If this worked well, we could consider it for the Wales and Australia games.

In the backs, I'd look to start Burgess between Ford and Joseph. If he gets a couple of trademark hits, it will really raise the crowd for the start of this World Cup, and if he meshes well in between his club teammates, we've got a realistic alternative to Barritt against Wales and Australia. I'm not saying that Barritt is a bad player, but Burgess has a presence that Barritt lacks, and I think it would be a waste if he only played against Uruguayan amateurs, and we wouldn't be able to gauge his performance at all.

I've considered run-outs for Farrell and Goode to protect Ford and Brown, but I think that would just be too many changes.

My 23:

Marler, George, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, Morgan, Ben Youngs, Ford, May, Burgess, Joseph, Watson, Brown.
Tom Youngs, Mako Vunipola, Brookes, Parling, Billy Vunipola, Wigglesworth, Farrell, Goode.

Agree completely with that Robbo. George and Launchbury both need a start Imo, and with the experienced guys on the bench to help it'll take a lot of pressure off. If they go well and then alternating at the 50/60 min mark works then I'd do the exact same against Wales, with the opposite against Oz, depending on actual form.

Agree with Burgess as well. He was trying too hard against Ireland and a starting spot should be easier. Plus he needs to be used anyway. And off field his presence plus a few big hits will really get the crowd going and start the RWC with a bang!

Ditto the starting 15. The only changes to the bench for me would be Webber and Nowell for Youngs and Goode. I can't see Fiji looking to play a solid kick chase game a la Ireland therefore we can chance our arm in relying on Watson to cover 15. At least this way we have cover for 10 - 12 from Farrell and 11, 13 - 15 from Nowell (13 worst case) and 13 from Barrett.

[yappysnap]

If you think TYoungs is crap starting, he is much worse off the bench. so if George is starting, Webber should be on the bench.

Actually I have no problem with Youngs starting, I just feel that George needs some game time too. Youngs has been better off the bench recently too.

Oh and I'd forgot about Webber, don't really mind if he starts/benches to be honest.

[jamesandimac]

....

What are peoples assessments of Barrett though?  He hasn't changed much as a player over the past few seasons yet opinion of him has shifted from him being seen as somewhat of a limiting player to now as the first choice.

What we have been saying for a while. In Ford and Joseph you have plenty of attacking threat but lack of bulk. Both are competent defenders but that isn't their strengths. Barritt is seen as a terrific defender and organiser who will put his body on the line all the time. He will also truck the ball up when needed and rarely makes mistakes, although he isn't the greatest attacking threat. His plus and minus points just seem to be very complementary to Ford/Joseph

He also seemed to straighten the line pretty well against Ireland. He didn't draw defenders like Burgess does, but he did enough to create space out wide against one of the better defences in world rugby. Barritt's main flaw is simply that he doesn't offer a kicking or wide distribution option at 12 - which is why Twelvetrees was preferred for a while, but he's inconsistent.

I know what you mean about the defense we do need that physical presence there, especially the organisational skills he brings, you certainly notice a difference with him there.

Personally though I do have reservations about his attacking game. He does straighten the line, although he very rarely dominates any collisions he make and will hardly break the gain line, something you need to win a world cup. I just don't think he challanges for me, teams know they can stop him one on one. You look at the set play wrap around against Ireland in the first half, the one where Ford got stopped, he didn't commit any of the inside defenders which allowed the outside defence to step in and press to close off the move. Had that been a Roberts, Nonu or De Villiers running the line, they would've commited and the defender (Kearney or Zebo) would've been isolated and i doubt they would've commited to the rush hit. One instance i know but quite a telling one.

Don't get me wrong i can see his qualities he brings and they are a massive plus, but i wonder if he attacking qualities will be enough. It should be enough to get out of the pool when he's up against Roberts and Toomua as all he has to do is contain them, those games will be won elsewhere. However to win the competition we'll have to beat the likes of NZ and SA and when the teams are so closely matched its the odd bits of brilliance that win it and in the past few games its been Nonu and De Villers that have made those impacts in the midfield.

[ChequeredJersey]

On Barritt- the key previous issue for me was that Barritt- Tuilagi (though very effective in some matches) is a bit samey and lacks subtlety, and Farrell-Barritt lacks creativity in a key area. Barritt' good attributes have been consistent, but he needs players to complement that, so with Farrell and Manu as the oyher players in the backline, the balance is not there and the attack can look very stodgy and predictable. With Ford and JJ, his strengths cover for their relative weaknesses and their strengths allow for the fact that he's not a "flair" player. If Farrell were first choice, I would rather not start Barritt but there's never been a problem with Barritt per se

[lostinwales]

It does make for Burgess to be an interesting option. Limitations or no you can see more and more why he's in there.

[Wi11]

Burgess will bring a lot more in attack than Barritt, if only by virtue of being more likely to divert the attention of defences.

[Poorfour]

On Barritt- the key previous issue for me was that Barritt- Tuilagi (though very effective in some matches) is a bit samey and lacks subtlety, and Farrell-Barritt lacks creativity in a key area. Barritt' good attributes have been consistent, but he needs players to complement that, so with Farrell and Manu as the oyher players in the backline, the balance is not there and the attack can look very stodgy and predictable. With Ford and JJ, his strengths cover for their relative weaknesses and their strengths allow for the fact that he's not a "flair" player. If Farrell were first choice, I would rather not start Barritt but there's never been a problem with Barritt per se

I'd agree with that analysis. Barritt doesn't bring much excitement in attack, but with Ford, Joseph, May, Watson and Brown on the pitch (and the option of Care) we have plenty to offer in attack; in that context, sacrificing a little attacking verve for defensive solidity is a reasonable trade-off. Burgess and Slade (and even Farrell) give different options to change up the game when needed.

[ChequeredJersey]

I've no issues with Burgess being there. I wouldn't dream of starting him vs Nonu though

[HongKongCherry]

On Barritt- the key previous issue for me was that Barritt- Tuilagi (though very effective in some matches) is a bit samey and lacks subtlety, and Farrell-Barritt lacks creativity in a key area. Barritt' good attributes have been consistent, but he needs players to complement that, so with Farrell and Manu as the oyher players in the backline, the balance is not there and the attack can look very stodgy and predictable. With Ford and JJ, his strengths cover for their relative weaknesses and their strengths allow for the fact that he's not a "flair" player. If Farrell were first choice, I would rather not start Barritt but there's never been a problem with Barritt per se

I'd agree with that analysis. Barritt doesn't bring much excitement in attack, but with Ford, Joseph, May, Watson and Brown on the pitch (and the option of Care) we have plenty to offer in attack; in that context, sacrificing a little attacking verve for defensive solidity is a reasonable trade-off. Burgess and Slade (and even Farrell) give different options to change up the game when needed.

I'd agree with that to an extent. The difficulty is that neither Barritt or JJ are distributors, so for all the attacking flair in the back 3 are they able to get the ball to them quickly enough before the defence catches up? JJ is heads and shoulders above the other 13s at present and 36 was deservedly dropped, but the concept of a ball playing 12 is still sound and I'd love to see Bomber start Slade there. Slade was excellent in his one appearance and I'd have him over the God Burgess everyday, sadly Bomber has a track record of only selecting on form when his hand is well and truly forced; would JJ be here if it wasn't for the injuries that gave him a run in the team?

[ChequeredJersey]

I think the ball has been distributed wide quickly enough.

[jamesandimac]

Having an out an out ball playing 12 certainly offers a lot of variety to your attacking game and it would certainly assist Ford having an extra set of eyes. The downside is that with the options we have to play that role we lose a physical edge in the midfield. Who would take up the crash ball they so dearly love off first phase?

Saying that though, we only really ever see that off first phase and during phase play we tend to rely on out the back passes and strike down the wide channels, i which instance a ball playing 12 is better suited.

Anyway by employing a balling playing 12 we certainly lose the physical option and presence in midfield which may/will effect the defence.

[Poorfour]

I'd like to see Slade at 12, too. But perhaps not against Fiji or Wales... I'd be inclined to have him on the bench for Australia and maybe Fiji (to give him gametime in the role) so that we have an option who can outthink the Aussie backs.

[No 7&1/2]

Slade would be a nice option off the bench initially. Won't be ahead of Farrell so would be vying against Goode and Nowell?

[ChequeredJersey]

With a ball playing 12, I think we'd need Brown coming into the line as the "crash option" and utilise the inside pop to Billy/Morgan/Marler/T Youngs a lot more

[No 7&1/2]

Was there a recent stat which showed Barritt only carried twice in a game and about 3 passes? May have been popped in by Wilkinson on the Sky coverage. Seems to suggest they work around him in attack and he's there to tackle and ruck.

[lostinwales]

EPSNscrum says kick/pass/run 0/7/6 for 5m
JJ by comparison 2/14/7 for 25m
Not his best game for meters run but he was at least getting the ball out

[beshocked]

Chequeredjersey you are right.

The main thing is balance.

Barritt is a rock - he's not subtle, he's not particularly attack but he's stable, difficult for an opposition defence to get past. He's also a forward's friend.

Nice article of why Barritt is picked by Lancaster.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/13601275/tom-column-why-brad-barritt-key-england-rwc-hopes

jamesandmac they can stop Barritt one on one but Barritt can stop the likes of Roberts and Nonu, not many centres could say that with confidence.

Remember when England beat Ireland in Ireland on one occasion, Barritt at 13 kept his opposite number BOD quiet. I think shutting down one of Ireland's best players was important.

[Geordie]

My problem with England on Saturday was how they let Ireland back in it and the eagerness to go wide TOO much and too quickly.

England had the game by the scruff of the neck in the first half...and did so with a short pick and carry game from the forwards, then whipping the ball out quick to the backs when it was on. I haven't given many of the forwards enough credit for being able to play that game so I was pleasantly surprised and also had to eat my words.

However, whether it was a change of tactics or slack discipline they began to just fling it out (recklessly) at times, letting Ireland back in the game. Farrells horrific attempted miss pass when there was absolutely no need for it, was a prime example.

I also question why when this happened Robshaw as captain did not drag them back to the game that was controlling the game.

England showed me that if they get the tactics right they can be an efficient and dangerous side to play against...

[ChequeredJersey]

My problem with England on Saturday was how they let Ireland back in it and the eagerness to go wide TOO much and too quickly.

England had the game by the scruff of the neck in the first half...and did so with a short pick and carry game from the forwards, then whipping the ball out quick to the backs when it was on. I haven't given many of the forwards enough credit for being able to play that game so I was pleasantly surprised and also had to eat my words.

However, whether it was a change of tactics or slack discipline they began to just fling it out (recklessly) at times, letting Ireland back in the game. Farrells horrific attempted miss pass when there was absolutely no need for it, was a prime example.

I also question why when this happened Robshaw as captain did not drag them back to the game that was controlling the game.

England showed me that if they get the tactics right they can be an efficient and dangerous side to play against...

Once the game was likely won (Ireland never really looked like getting back into it at all, just looked like not losing by more), they may have wanted to achieve/test secondary aims

[Scottrf]

Never looked like getting back into it? They were less than a score behind and 10 metres out at one point.

[ChequeredJersey]

Never looked like getting back into it? They were less than a score behind and 10 metres out at one point.

And never once did I worry

[Geordie]

Oh I understand testing different games...and I welcome that...having a plan A/B etc. I just wonder if the last friendly game before a WC is the time to do it.

However common sense dictates we were loose and sloppy and going backwards with Ireland getting the upperhand and only 10 points adrift. Even though it was a friendly, why not see how good the plan A is...by pulling in the forwards and going back to basics. Take back the upperhand.

Then you know what you have in your armoury.

[Scottrf]

Never looked like getting back into it? They were less than a score behind and 10 metres out at one point.

And never once did I worry

I don't know your personality but that's not particularly relevant. We were at risk of throwing it away.

[Gooseberry]

You would hope and expect that they would play a real game differently, but there was also some pressure to get the attacking game flowing and execute some of their training ground stuff as the previous games they had looked pretty blunt.

Youd also assume that the coaches and players will be reviewing that and seeing excatly what happens when they start being over silly (if the didnt already know). The farce vs Farnce at the end of the 6 nations was another example; its noice to know England can turn it on and be a threat when they need to but the danger still remains that they can ship soft points when doing that.

For me rather than focussing on the period where they had slacked off and started mucking about Id look at the start of the game. How often have we seen England in the reverse situation recently? They have been notoriously bad starters for some time now; it was really good to see them turning up with the foot on the pedal from the start of the game and getting the sort of lead thats hard to throw away even when you try to within 20 minutes.

You can focus on the negatives or the positives with that really. All said its a warm up game, not a test and not the world cup. I pretty much garuntee you England will be more conservative unless they end up a chasing a game.

[beshocked]

Geordiefalcon mind games by England. Keep the opposition guessing.

Start slowly vs France, finish quickly
Start quickly vs Ireland, finish slowly.

As long as England can put together good 80 minutes throughout the tournament doesn't matter about the warm ups.

Peaking at the right time is what England need which is why I wouldn't go guns blazing against Fiji.

I want the peak to be against Wales and Australia - not Fiji.

To be honest so far so good for England.

England have won their two home games in the warm ups.

A loss vs France shows that there are cracks but I think it's good to expose weaknesses so you can try and fix them instead of going into a tournament thinking all is perfect then getting caught out.

People say pick Burgess. As kingelderfield said - that's exactly what Fiji would want. They could then target him.

Barritt is the ideal centre to face Fiji because he brings structure and organisation to a defence, if Fiji break the line, Barritt will be able to organise the defence so it can deal with the threat.

A frenetic fast game would suit Fiji, England need to play their game.

[BamBam]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/10/manu-tuiilagi-england-rugby-world-cup-harshly-treated

Interesting from Manu

[yappysnap]

Perhaps it also showed that players like Farrel and Wigglesworth just can't play that style of attacking rugby off the bench? Good starters and good at closing out games but just not the right tools for upping the tempo in a short time.

[BamBam]

I'm starting to think that Barritt should have been brought in to organise the defence at the last stand of Thermopylae, the Persians would have had no hope getting through

[Geordie]

I'm starting to think that Barritt should have been brought in to organise the defence at the last stand of Thermopylae, the Persians would have had no hope getting through

[yappysnap]

Interesting take from Tuilagi. Although I'm always a little skeptical of this boobie for tat pieces about how people were treated.

And if he knew he wasn't going to make the RWC though injury, why smear his own character by pleading guilty? He had nothing to lose by fighting it.

[yappysnap]

I'm starting to think that Barritt should have been brought in to organise the defence at the last stand of Thermopylae, the Persians would have had no hope getting through

He was there at Troy at least, and I seem to remember something about him popping up at Agincourt, Waterloo and then I think he was flying spitfires in the Battle of Britain...

[No 7&1/2]

He is a really top notch defender but in the spirit of 606 where 1 game trumps it all, he did jack all to stop the Welsh running through us in Cardiff (I'm sure he played but going to look stupid if he didn't as I can't be bothered to double check!) and he did nothing to organise the defence effectively enough against France when he came on and allowed Fickou to dance through.

[lostinwales]

Look Barritt is much more experienced and is a smart player. All round a better option, but I'm sorry I just don't think that Fiji will be able to exploit Burgess much either

[yappysnap]

I would be stunned if anyone exploits Burgess that much tbh. He's not a prop in the backline, he's not stupid and he's got solid players around him. Heck what's the point in having two workhorses like Woodshaw in the team of they can't help out!

I think it's mainly just people's fear of the unknown/league players.

[beshocked]

no 7 & 1/2 not sure that Barritt missed a tackle in those two instances. Might have against Wales but he wasn't to blame for the tries.

Against France the player he was marking passed the ball, Launchbury allowed Schwarzeski the space. Joseph was forced to tackle Schwarzeski which gave France the 2 on 1.

Barritt can only tackle people himself, he doesn't have the power to make forwards move faster or Brown move faster.

Wales attacked Brown for their two tries. Can Barritt be blamed for that?

In both instances Wales and France attacked a backline which wasn't a proper backline - in the France game it was a hodge podge mess of players. Plus don't know what the replacement 9 was doing.

As for the Wales match, Wales exposed the full back on the wing to brutal effect.

Yappysnap and Lostinwales it's things like positionally being caught out. Physically he's fine, it's technically I would worry.

He also got sin binned in his first game. England can't afford that.

As for workhorses like Robshaw and Wood, even they need help.

[BamBam]

I was just being facetious about Barritt stopping the Persians, but its lines like this that overegg it a touch

"Barritt is the ideal centre to face Fiji because he brings structure and organisation to a defence, if Fiji break the line, Barritt will be able to organise the defence so it can deal with the threat."

If the Fijians break the line, i think our scramble defence and the pace on the wings will be the most important factor, otherwise no defensive organisation will prevent a try

[No 7&1/2]

I would just expect Barritt to have organised it better, that's what he's there for. If we're really saying he is there to make his 1 on 1 tackles and only that...

[No 7&1/2]

Plus it was tongue it cheek!

[Sponsored content]