6N 2016: Scotland v England, 6 February

by **George Carlin** Wed 20 Jan 2016, 12:13 pm

First topic message reminder :

6N 2016: Scotland v England, 6 February - Page 19 Scot_f10

6N 2016: Scotland v England, 6 February - Page 19 Englan10

SCOTLAND v ENGLAND
6 February 2016
KO: 16:50 GMT
Murrayfield, Edinburgh

Live on BBC, RTE, FR2, DMAX / ITV(H)

Referee: John Lacey (Ireland)
Touch judges: [tbc]
Television match official: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

133 Played 133
42 Won 73
18 Drawn 18
73 Lost 42
1,132 Points 1,547

B. Recent Form

14 March 2015
Twickenham, London
25 – 13 to England

8 February 2014
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
0 – 20 to England

2 February 2013
Twickenham, London
38 – 18 to England

4 February 2012
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
6 – 13 to England

1 October 2011
Eden Park, Auckland
16 – 12 to England

C. Teams

SCOTLAND
6N 2016: Scotland v England, 6 February - Page 19 Pia_mi10

6N 2016: Scotland v England, 6 February - Page 19 Pia_mi10

15. Stuart Hogg
14. Sean Maitland
13. Mark Bennett
12. Matt Scott
11. Tommy Seymour
10. Finn Russell
09. Greig Laidlaw (captain)

01. Alasdair Dickinson
02. Ross Ford
03. Willem Nel
04. Richie Gray
05. Jonny Gray
06. John Barclay
07. John Hardie
08. David Denton

16. Stuart McInally
17. Gordon Reid
18. Zander Fagerson
19. Tim Swinson
20. Blair Cowan
21. Sam Hidalgo-Clyne
22. Duncan Weir
23. Duncan Taylor

ENGLAND
6N 2016: Scotland v England, 6 February - Page 19 Daisy_11

6N 2016: Scotland v England, 6 February - Page 19 Daisy_11

15. Mike Brown
14. Anthony Watson
13. Jonathan Joseph
12. Owen Farrell
11. Jack Nowell
10. George Ford
09. Danny Care

01. Joe Marler
02. Dylan Hartley
03. Dan Cole
04. Joe Launchbury
05. George Kruis
06. Chris Robshaw
07. James Haskell
08. Billy Vunipola

16. Jamie George
17. Mako Vunipola
18. Paul Hill
19. Courtney Lawes
20. Jack Clifford
21. Ben Youngs
22. Alex Goode
23. Ollie Devoto

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:25 pm

I have to go to work in a bit, so will post on them tomorrow probably, but the current match stats make for interesting analysis - it seems we very carefully designated which players, especially forwards, we had carry the ball at all and the others all focussed on hitting the ruck, each 9 only made 1 run attempt, both of which were scrambles I think, and Farrell at 12 only kicked once. Interesting to see if that approach is for this game only

by **Notch** Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:27 pm

Every year we get excited about the Six Nations, but the quality is invariably very low. When will we learn that giving coaches just two weeks to prepare a test side in the middle of the club season generally leads to poor quality rugby? It's just not enough time to get the familiarity and the structures that give us ambitious, attractive rugby. I think there were two poor games today and I;m expecting a third tomorrow.

What works commercially for the tournament might not help it remain compelling on the field. Just saying.

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:28 pm

Notch wrote:Every year we get excited about the Six Nations, but the quality is invariably very low. When will we learn that giving coaches just two weeks to prepare a test side in the middle of the club season generally leads to poor quality rugby? It's just not enough time to get the familiarity and the structures that give us ambitious, attractive rugby. I think there were two poor games today and I;m expecting a third tomorrow.

What works commercially for the tournament might not help it remain compelling on the field. Just saying.

by nathan Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:29 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
beshocked wrote:Sgt pooly you have never admitted you are wrong. Why should I say I was wrong when the overall problems are still there?

The positive is England have a win to build off. Hopefully Eddie Jones will make more positive selections against Italy though sadly I believe Italy's battling loss might force EJ to continue to be conservative.

We won, that's what counts. You were wrong but lack the metal to admit this, lets move on.

Care wasn't great but Youngs was really bad. His kicking and passing left a lot to be desired and the less said about that intercept the better. Not a good day at the office for Mr Youngs.

Haskell put in a big shift and outplayed Robshaw on the flanks. I thought Robshaw was pretty quiet, he put in his tackles but offered very little else. I honestly can's see him being around the England set-up too much longer.

Youngs wasn't really bad, your being silly again. Will be interesting to see what the stats say about Robshaw, he is normally unseen but puts in a good shift.

by stub Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:30 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
True Raven wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
stub wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:Scots rather poorly represented in the pre-match commentary team doing the build up.

I know what you mean, I don't like Andy Nicol either.

Considering there have been so many great Scottish players who have personalities, it's a crying shame.

Yeah but he's the only Scotsman you can understand, I have no idea what Grieg laidlaw says when he talks

Mind you

Can barely understand Brian Moore today, think he forgot his false teeth..???

Too much port I expect!

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:31 pm

Looking at the stats, I take it back, Haskell's look better than Robshaw's, even accounting for difference in time on the pitch. 16 tackles (plus the late "roughing up" of the Scottish 10), 7 carries (only for 1 yard but still) and his ruck work looked acceptable to me. Would keep the backrow the same against Italy though, but give Clifford more time off the bench

by Hoonercat Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:32 pm

Robshaw was a lot quieter than I expected. Not the best spectacle ever but it's a win and gave EJ a good insight in to the team. I thought England played well in the second half though they had me worried in the first, didn't seem as though they had any direction and played very much like a Lancaster side.
3 people who will come away very happy today: Billy V who was tremendous, Kruis, who I thought had a great game, and whoever has to wash Ford's shirt.

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:33 pm

nathan wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:
beshocked wrote:Sgt pooly you have never admitted you are wrong. Why should I say I was wrong when the overall problems are still there?

The positive is England have a win to build off. Hopefully Eddie Jones will make more positive selections against Italy though sadly I believe Italy's battling loss might force EJ to continue to be conservative.

We won, that's what counts. You were wrong but lack the metal to admit this, lets move on.

Care wasn't great but Youngs was really bad. His kicking and passing left a lot to be desired and the less said about that intercept the better. Not a good day at the office for Mr Youngs.

Haskell put in a big shift and outplayed Robshaw on the flanks. I thought Robshaw was pretty quiet, he put in his tackles but offered very little else. I honestly can's see him being around the England set-up too much longer.
Youngs wasn't really bad, your being silly again. Will be interesting to see what the stats say about Robshaw, he is normally unseen but puts in a good shift.

Stats say Robshaw was quiet

by nathan Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:34 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
nathan wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:
beshocked wrote:Sgt pooly you have never admitted you are wrong. Why should I say I was wrong when the overall problems are still there?

The positive is England have a win to build off. Hopefully Eddie Jones will make more positive selections against Italy though sadly I believe Italy's battling loss might force EJ to continue to be conservative.

We won, that's what counts. You were wrong but lack the metal to admit this, lets move on.

Care wasn't great but Youngs was really bad. His kicking and passing left a lot to be desired and the less said about that intercept the better. Not a good day at the office for Mr Youngs.

Haskell put in a big shift and outplayed Robshaw on the flanks. I thought Robshaw was pretty quiet, he put in his tackles but offered very little else. I honestly can's see him being around the England set-up too much longer.
Youngs wasn't really bad, your being silly again. Will be interesting to see what the stats say about Robshaw, he is normally unseen but puts in a good shift.

Stats say Robshaw was quiet

Ah cool, cheers CJ

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:34 pm

Though the ESPN stats are lacking

by glamorganalun Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:34 pm

I feel sorry for any flyhalf with Laidlaw at 9 his speed getting the ball out and his floated passes do nothing for the back line.

by majesticimperialman Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:35 pm

little_badger wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:THought all the starters were solid at the very least, thought England were solid and did what they had to. Can't call it poor, Scotland were deemed favourites by many and we won quiye comfortably, handling to work on, discipline in first half wasn't great.

I am biased but I thought Brown was better and back to his usual self or nearly in the air and in running the ball into contact - he did kick poorly though. He's also better at rucking than most forwards. Care was miles and miles ahead of Youngs, quicker pass, made Laidlaw think about him and even kicked better. Marler was solid, held the scrum so that Mako could come on and do damage against tired opposition in the loose and set piece. Robshaw was better than Haskell who mostly seemed to late tackle the halfbacks, but neither was their best or poor. Clifford was decent in his cameo, didn't do much.

Ford was a bit shaky, still missing his confidence, and I'm not sure what our eventual attack will be. Billy V was the best player on the pitch. Kruis also had a very good game, Lawes was better than I expected, Cole was a menace on the floor, Launcbury solid, Hartley solid, Youngs slow slow slow but not dreadful. Farrell ok but not a natural 12, and not sure why he needed to push Laidlaw, also lucky with several high tackles. Joseph better than at Bath, one great man and ball tackle and some steps. Watson and Nowell both worked hard.

6/10 start, which will do, look to build over the tournament.

Would play:

Brown
Watson
Joseph
Hill/Devoto
Nowell
Farrell
Care
Vunipola
Haskell/Kvesic
Robshaw
Launchbury
Kruis
Cole
Hartley
Marler

George, Vunipola, Brookes, Itoje, Clifford, Youngs, Ford, Daly

next match

Mostly agree with that team, it's Ford or Farrell to start, not both.

I certainly agree with you. It is Ford or Farrell. to start.

For me in the next game i would start Ford and Farrell on the bench.

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:37 pm

glamorganalun wrote:I feel sorry for any flyhalf with Laidlaw at 9 his speed getting the ball out and his floated passes do nothing for the back line.

Yeah he's not a passing 9, I'd have him on the bench covering 9 and 10, esp as I don't think Weir is great

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:38 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:Though the ESPN stats are lacking

They are usually touched up properly the following day or so.

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:39 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:Though the ESPN stats are lacking

They are usually touched up properly the following day or so.

No as in compared to Green and Gold etc they don't look into gainline wins/losses, rucks hit or even turnovers won, their format is a bit bad but they are often the only ones I can find

by **LondonTiger** Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:41 pm

Listened to the game on the radio as travelling home, will watch the recording at some point, maybe.

Have to say CJ, that the commentators were not complementary of the Quins starters at all, and according to Gavin Hastings (who i rarely agree with so will take his comments with a pinch of salt) England looked much more focussed when Mako and Lenny came on.

Sounded like Cole should be dropped.

by stub Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:43 pm

Much as I expected really - a tightly fought match with little to get excited about (apart from the result from my perspective.) I think that Eddie and England will be pleased with that - Scotland are a dangerous team imo and to beat them at home at this point is no mean feat. I hope that England can take great confidence from this and get another win in Rome.

by WELL-PAST-IT Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:45 pm

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon I agree the win is good but still not completely convinced by the issues highlighted before the game.

Needs to make some tweaking for Italy.

Possibly Lawes for Kruis, the Lawesbury partnership is after all a proven winner.

Hill for Farrell, need some bite at 12

Anyone in for Goode as he just disrupts the team being able to play at 15 in slowmo only, might as well pack in another forward.

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:46 pm

I really don't think Cole should be dropped, I thought he had a good game.

I agree England looked more focussed in the second half, I do believe however that this is an error of assuming correlation = causation. Mako scrummaged better and carried well, but bringing him on against tired players in the scrum to take advantage of this whilst the first half scrum was solid against a very good Scotland unit was actually a much better idea than the other way around.

I assume Youngs is Lenny? I thought his kicking and passing actually held us back quite a lot when he came on, despite overall playing better in the second half

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:47 pm

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:
beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon I agree the win is good but still not completely convinced by the issues highlighted before the game.

Needs to make some tweaking for Italy.

Possibly Lawes for Kruis, the Lawesbury partnership is after all a proven winner.

Hill for Farrell, need some bite at 12

Anyone in for Goode as he just disrupts the team being able to play at 15 in slowmo only, might as well pack in another forward.

Taking trolling a bit far? Wink

by lostinwales Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:48 pm

beshocked wrote:Who knows? George and a open side might have been better.

Can't just think of one game, need to think of the bigger picture too.

It was noticeable when Georgw came on for Hartley the scrum improved.

So a hooker who possibly lacks some match fitness does 70 odd minutes and the new guy comes on and looks better in the scrum. What. a. surprise.

That isn't exactly the best bit of evidence

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:48 pm

But, if people aren't happy with how the Quins players are doing, we'll happily have them all back to play for Club in an instant

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:49 pm

Scrum was fine, all game, looked much better in the second half because our back ups were much much better than theirs

by HammerofThunor Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:57 pm

Anyone remember how we did against Scotland 4 years ago, with a new coaching team? Scrapped past them due to charged down Charlie. And I'd say Scotland are significantly better now.

I'd say a win is a win. Of course we've won the same number of games as the 6 nations champions for the last 3 years now.

by **LondonTiger** Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:58 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:But, if people aren't happy with how the Quins players are doing, we'll happily have them all back to play for Club in an instant

i was just trying to offer someone elses point of view. Until i watch it I am reliant on others, so havve no opinion myself. For what it is worth we won away from home against a tricky opponent. Any changes should merely be tweaks.

by Mad for Chelsea Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:59 pm

On CJ's view of the Quins players.

I thought Marler was solid enough, IIRC the penalty England conceded at the scrum when he was on it was Cole who was pinged? Mako is the more destructive player, but the dynamic with him off the bench might be better. Not fussed either way.

Disagree about Care vs Youngs, don't think either played well TBH, not helped by England at times struggling at the breakdown, and a gameplan which didn't really suit their games. Both kicked poorly IMO, not helped by a generally poor chase either.

Robshaw had a quietish game but made an important turnover in the first half, and a good covering tackle off a dangerous Hogg run in the second. Haskell put in some big hits, and worked harder, but his carrying was average. England in fact lacked big carriers apart from Billy, which is hardly a new issue.

Brown was good though, I agree, though Scotland shackled him well in attack. Clifford did fine when he came on.

On others. Hartley did fine without setting the world alight. Suspect had it been Youngs Pooly would have more to say about the line-out he lost, and some dodgy quality ball Wink

Cole had a good game. Solid in the scrum, useful on the floor. Kruis was very good, Launchbury under par, with Lawes making a difference when he came on.

Ford had a poor game IMO, too many poor kicks from hand and didn't really get the backline going. Farrell was solid enough without ever looking like the answer at 12, Stupid stupid penalty too. Nowell did well with limited opportunity, Watson wasn't great though again limited opportunities, also did they seem to be playing on opposite wings?

by Sgt_Pooly Sat 06 Feb 2016, 7:59 pm

nathan wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:
beshocked wrote:Sgt pooly you have never admitted you are wrong. Why should I say I was wrong when the overall problems are still there?

The positive is England have a win to build off. Hopefully Eddie Jones will make more positive selections against Italy though sadly I believe Italy's battling loss might force EJ to continue to be conservative.

We won, that's what counts. You were wrong but lack the metal to admit this, lets move on.

Care wasn't great but Youngs was really bad. His kicking and passing left a lot to be desired and the less said about that intercept the better. Not a good day at the office for Mr Youngs.

Haskell put in a big shift and outplayed Robshaw on the flanks. I thought Robshaw was pretty quiet, he put in his tackles but offered very little else. I honestly can's see him being around the England set-up too much longer.
Youngs wasn't really bad, your being silly again. Will be interesting to see what the stats say about Robshaw, he is normally unseen but puts in a good shift.

If you have a counter please provide it Nathan, no need for insults.

I rate Youngs but he was poor, most would agree (bar Tigers fans). His box kicking was poor and his passing slow and inaccurate. He also threw a shocker which could have cost us the game.

I think that's a fair assessment of poor.

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:01 pm

It was more a comment on how we are struggling without them, LT, would happily have even one of them back and I think it would make a huge difference. Especially if it's Robshaw, to be honest.

by WELL-PAST-IT Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:03 pm

I actually thought Cole had a good game, played all 80 minutes, was solid in the scrum and very useful at the breakdown when Lacey let him, as I said previously, he was awful.

Hartley brought an edge missing in the RWC and managed to play 75 minutes at a competent level.

Neither Ford or Farrell made much of some good quick possession at times, one needs to go.

Nowell was the most impressive of the back three, looked for work. Watson OK but needs confidence. Brown was defensively sound, but where is the Brown that attacked at pace, he looked more like Goode, stop and try and roll around the tackle, not looking for the weak shoulder at speed.

JJ did okay with what little he got.

How can you comment on the breakdown with an idiot like Lacey officiating.

BV is now becoming World Class, different from most but very, very effective. Best player on the pitch by a country mile.

Lawes did not look out of place when he came on, not sure what the penalty given against him was for, but did what was needed and added a boost in a tiring pack. Him and Clifford AS WELL AS GEORGE made the pack look stronger against what by then was a very second rate Scottish front row.

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:03 pm

To note on the England call carrying- it's not just that the carrying was poor from the forwards- we didn't really even attempt to carry, except rescue ball, with almost all our forwards

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:06 pm

Most of my changes would be on the bench, except i am not sold on the 10-12 axis

by nathan Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:06 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
nathan wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:
beshocked wrote:Sgt pooly you have never admitted you are wrong. Why should I say I was wrong when the overall problems are still there?

The positive is England have a win to build off. Hopefully Eddie Jones will make more positive selections against Italy though sadly I believe Italy's battling loss might force EJ to continue to be conservative.

We won, that's what counts. You were wrong but lack the metal to admit this, lets move on.

Care wasn't great but Youngs was really bad. His kicking and passing left a lot to be desired and the less said about that intercept the better. Not a good day at the office for Mr Youngs.

Haskell put in a big shift and outplayed Robshaw on the flanks. I thought Robshaw was pretty quiet, he put in his tackles but offered very little else. I honestly can's see him being around the England set-up too much longer.
Youngs wasn't really bad, your being silly again. Will be interesting to see what the stats say about Robshaw, he is normally unseen but puts in a good shift.

If you have a counter please provide it Nathan, no need for insults.

I rate Youngs but he was poor, most would agree (bar Tigers fans). His box kicking was poor and his passing slow and inaccurate. He also threw a shocker which could have cost us the game.

I think that's a fair assessment of poor.

His passing was better than cares for a change, I thought care made a few incorrect decisions. Didn't Marshall his forwards and was guilty of going sideways.

I'm not sure how you can say care was better, I admit neither were brilliant, but is that because of lack of clean ball?

by nathan Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:07 pm

Oh and have I mentioned how bad Lacey was for both teams? How he is allowed to ref is just crazy

by Sgt_Pooly Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:07 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Listened to the game on the radio as travelling home, will watch the recording at some point, maybe.

Have to say CJ, that the commentators were not complementary of the Quins starters at all, and according to Gavin Hastings (who i rarely agree with so will take his comments with a pinch of salt) England looked much more focussed when Mako and Lenny came on.

Sounded like Cole should be dropped.

Bizarre comments from Hastings.

Cole played really well. His scrummaging and breakdown work were excellent.

Brown was steady, Robshaw pretty ineffectual bar tackling. Care wasn't at his best but better than Youngs. Youngs certainly didn't improve us.

Mako was hit and miss in the scrum as he always is, Marler played well.

by Sgt_Pooly Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:09 pm

I honestly can't believe you thought Youngs played better than Care Nathan.

I actually prefer Youngs to Care but Youngs barely put a foot right. He had a real game to forget, he was so slow.

by Mad for Chelsea Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:10 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:Most of my changes would be on the bench, except i am not sold on the 10-12 axis

Tend to agree with this. Would like to see one of Ford/Farrrell benched, just didn't seem to work IMO. Other than that, maybe Daly and Itoje to the bench, albeit Lawes did well today I thought. Wouldn't change much about the starting XV.

by Breadvan Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:11 pm

Thought Youngs added more zip than Care when he came on but I wish DC would stop waving his arms in the air and just dig the ball out ala BY. We still kicked far to much possession away or was it our gameplan?

by stub Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:12 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Listened to the game on the radio as travelling home, will watch the recording at some point, maybe.

Have to say CJ, that the commentators were not complementary of the Quins starters at all, and according to Gavin Hastings (who i rarely agree with so will take his comments with a pinch of salt) England looked much more focussed when Mako and Lenny came on.

Sounded like Cole should be dropped.

Bizarre comments from Hastings.

Cole played really well. His scrummaging and breakdown work were excellent.

Brown was steady, Robshaw pretty ineffectual bar tackling. Care wasn't at his best but better than Youngs. Youngs certainly didn't improve us.

Mako was hit and miss in the scrum as he always is, Marler played well.

What was Hastings saying? He never seems to have much good to say about the English.

by nathan Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:13 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I honestly can't believe you thought Youngs played better than Youngs Nathan.

I actually prefer Youngs to Care but Youngs barely put a foot right. He had a real game to forget, he was so slow.

You must of been watching another game then, to say one was much slower than the other is just bazaar. The forwards didn't do a good enough job of clearing to give either consistantly quick ball. That's not the fault of the either of the 9's.

by WELL-PAST-IT Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:15 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
WELL-PAST-IT wrote:
beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon I agree the win is good but still not completely convinced by the issues highlighted before the game.

Needs to make some tweaking for Italy.

Possibly Lawes for Kruis, the Lawesbury partnership is after all a proven winner.

Hill for Farrell, need some bite at 12

Anyone in for Goode as he just disrupts the team being able to play at 15 in slowmo only, might as well pack in another forward.

Taking trolling a bit far?

Who? Me? Never?

by Exiledinborders Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:24 pm

nathan wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:I honestly can't believe you thought Youngs played better than Youngs Nathan.

I actually prefer Youngs to Care but Youngs barely put a foot right. He had a real game to forget, he was so slow.
You must of been watching another game then, to say one was much slower than the other is just bazaar. The forwards didn't do a good enough job of clearing to give either consistantly quick ball. That's not the fault of the either of the 9's.

I was at the game and England played much better with Youngs. He was quicker to move the ball. Both were much better than Laidlaw who was as ponderous as ever.

by lostinwales Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:31 pm

Just noticed stats saying ENgland were awarded 11 scrums to scotland's one. Sounds like a lot of scottish handling errors

by ChequeredJersey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 8:35 pm

lostinwales wrote:Just noticed stats saying ENgland were awarded 11 scrums to scotland's one. Sounds like a lot of scottish handling errors

Both sides had more scrums than that, I think. We certainly knocked it on more than once!

by Cumbrian Sat 06 Feb 2016, 9:08 pm

I’ve just got home and I’m slightly peed, but two observations. The English scrum didn’t get taken to the cleaners the way I was told it would be, despite the hand rubbing about Marler starting. Also, Hardie really didn’t dominate the breakdown like I was told he would. If anything England were better, despite the ref ignoring the Scots literally crawling into the ruck at times.

by DaveM Sat 06 Feb 2016, 9:45 pm

Well I thought that was a pretty good start. The scrum was much improved, and the line-out was decent. The tries were excellent. On the downside the breakdown was a mess, and I thought Ford was disappointing (because he lacks physicality he really needs to play well to justify his place).

Interesting Jones decided not to use some of his bench. I hope Devoto gets some game time next week.

by doctor_grey Sat 06 Feb 2016, 9:53 pm

DaveM wrote:Well I thought that was a pretty good start. The scrum was much improved, and the line-out was decent. The tries were excellent. On the downside the breakdown was a mess, and I thought Ford was disappointing (because he lacks physicality he really needs to play well to justify his place).

Interesting Jones decided not to use some of his bench. I hope Devoto gets some game time next week.

Dave,
I'm actually glad Eddie didn't go to his bench if he didn't feel it was warranted. Lancaster used to do it automatically regardless of game situation. I give Eddie credit for riding his starters as long as he felt they were going strong and performing. I'm sure we will have a chance to see the subs/next group of players soon, likely next weekend.

by TJ Sat 06 Feb 2016, 10:02 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:Scrum was fine, all game, looked much better in the second half because our back ups were much much better than theirs

True. Scrums were parity most of the game until flate on when England got a bit of a nudge. Good scrumming performance from England and a big step up from the WC

by majesticimperialman Sat 06 Feb 2016, 10:24 pm

Can some one explain why Scotland find it hard to score a try against England at Murryfield?

by DaveM Sat 06 Feb 2016, 10:33 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
DaveM wrote:Well I thought that was a pretty good start. The scrum was much improved, and the line-out was decent. The tries were excellent. On the downside the breakdown was a mess, and I thought Ford was disappointing (because he lacks physicality he really needs to play well to justify his place).

Interesting Jones decided not to use some of his bench. I hope Devoto gets some game time next week.
Dave,
I'm actually glad Eddie didn't go to his bench if he didn't feel it was warranted. Lancaster used to do it automatically regardless of game situation. I give Eddie credit for riding his starters as long as he felt they were going strong and performing. I'm sure we will have a chance to see the subs/next group of players soon, likely next weekend.

Yeah, I agree with that (although I'm slightly disappointed we didn't see two more debuts), but I thought it was worth commenting on. I'd much rather we made substitutions because there is a need rather than as pre-planned moves. So well done Eddie on that one.

by Mr Bounce Sat 06 Feb 2016, 10:34 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
DaveM wrote:Well I thought that was a pretty good start. The scrum was much improved, and the line-out was decent. The tries were excellent. On the downside the breakdown was a mess, and I thought Ford was disappointing (because he lacks physicality he really needs to play well to justify his place).

Interesting Jones decided not to use some of his bench. I hope Devoto gets some game time next week.
Dave,
I'm actually glad Eddie didn't go to his bench if he didn't feel it was warranted. Lancaster used to do it automatically regardless of game situation. I give Eddie credit for riding his starters as long as he felt they were going strong and performing. I'm sure we will have a chance to see the subs/next group of players soon, likely next weekend.

I'm so pleased you picked up on this Doc. I have never understood why the coaches rely so heavily on subs as it can change the dynamic of the game significantly (i.e. Ford for Burgess in the RWC when our defence disappeared against Wales). If it's a fitness thing then that player shouldn't be in the 23. If you can't physically do 80 minutes then don't expect a place.

I was impressed today by Kruis, Billy, Nowell & Haskell. They did very well. There's always room for improvement and I expect Clifford to get more game time next week as well. Well done Eddie - good work.

by Sponsored content