6N 2016: England v Wales, 12 March

First topic message reminder :

  
ENGLAND v WALES
12 March 2016
KO: 16:00 GMT
Twickenham, London

Live on ITV, RTE, SC4, FR2, DMAX / BBC (H)

Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa)
Touch judges: [tbc]
Television match official: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

119 Played 119
53 Won 54
12 Drawn 12
54 Lost 53
1,428 Points 1,371

B. Recent Form

26 September 2015: Twickenham, London
25 – 28 to Wales
2015 Rugby World Cup Pool A

6 February 2015: Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
16 – 21 to England
2015 Six Nations

9 March 2014: Twickenham Stadium, London
29 – 18 to England
2014 Six Nations

16 March 2013: Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
30 – 3 to Wales
2013 Six Nations

25 February 2012: Twickenham Stadium, London
12 – 19 to Wales
2012 Six Nations

13 August 2011: Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
19 – 9 to Wales
2011 Rugby World Cup warm up test

6 August 2011: Twickenham, London
23 – 19 to England
2011 Rugby World Cup warm up test

C. Teams

ENGLAND

[tbc]

WALES

[tbc]

Based on what I've seen this tourney, I can't see past an England win but we all know it doesn't work like that.

We look to be using our strength in depth finally!

I'm not sure how any English fan with hand on heart could deny that Wales deserved the WC win, they soaked up the pressure then let loose in the second half, putting England on the back foot. Taking Burgess off may have contributed to the defeat but there were 14 other Englishmen on the field who failed to step up to the mark.
Welsh fans do their team a disservice by claiming England choked in that that game, they were simply beaten by a team who wanted it more and refused to lie down and die.

Rugby Fan wrote:Good post, miaow. Thanks for that.

I agree very well written and objective analysis

Hoonercat wrote:I'm not sure how any English fan with hand on heart could deny that Wales deserved the WC win, they soaked up the pressure then let loose in the second half, putting England on the back foot. Taking Burgess off may have contributed to the defeat but there were 14 other Englishmen on the field who failed to step up to the mark.
Welsh fans do their team a disservice by claiming England choked in that that game, they were simply beaten by a team who wanted it more and refused to lie down and die.

That and considering the desamation to Welsh selection before and during the game. We won with several players out of position and about ten unavailable

HammerofThunor wrote:Yep, good post miaow. Wales win due to being superior. England only win due to intercepts, silly yellow cards, anomalies or Wales just being poor. I think that just about covers it.

Quite unecessary. Do you only see what you want to see or is your only purpose to antagonise?

Decent analysis, miaow, but the English side of the coin is that Lancaster was terrible at selecting and using his bench. England had the edge for the first 60 minutes, but when Wales had players who could open the game up, England tried to close it down with players who just weren't dominant enough to do that.

Eddie's philosophy is entirely different and much more closely aligned to Gatland's, based on the three games so far. Keep it tight for 60 minutes and then bring on a bench who are faster and able to open up the game.

It seems to me that it'll be a game decided by close margins. In the first 60, England have a good chance to edge the scrums, Wales the breakdown. Lineout, I don't know. Both sides have a solid defence, some big carriers and a decent kicker. If England give the Welsh back three room to run, they'll suffer; if they can kick behind the Welsh line, I'd expect Watson and Joseph to be able to capitalise.

The other interesting question is whether Eddie's backline foxtrot (two short stabs on one side, one long swing to the other, repeat as necessary) will work against Wales. It did for Japan against South Africa, another big, physical team, and for England against Ireland. It's an effective tactic for forcing gaps as the defensive line shifts - the question is whether England can keep their handling tidy enough to exploit it.

When the subs come on, Wales have the advantage of familiarity and fluidity, but I think England have more unpredictable game changers. Tuilagi is a risk, but it might only take one half-break and an offload to Joseph or Clifford to turn the game.

offload wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Yep, good post miaow. Wales win due to being superior. England only win due to intercepts, silly yellow cards, anomalies or Wales just being poor. I think that just about covers it.

Quite unecessary. Do you only see what you want to see or is your only purpose to antagonise?

I think Miaow's piece is very good but have sympathy for HoT's comments too. It is a long post and there are things that are worth arguing about within it. It is great seeing in detail how someone else sees the games but its not entirely objective, not that I could do any better on that front.

Poorfour, that's a good point about the English bench.

What do English fans think of Farrell in the 12 shirt again? Is he growing in the role or just wrong? The outside backs are potent but I still can't see the midfield working well enough.

lostinwales wrote:

offload wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Yep, good post miaow. Wales win due to being superior. England only win due to intercepts, silly yellow cards, anomalies or Wales just being poor. I think that just about covers it.

Quite unecessary. Do you only see what you want to see or is your only purpose to antagonise?

I think Miaow's piece is very good but have sympathy for HoT's comments too. It is a long post and there are things that are worth arguing about within it. It is great seeing in detail how someone else sees the games but its not entirely objective, not that I could do any better on that front.

Agreed, being entirely objective is very difficult and a skill. Perhaps it helps to select a point for discussion and present an alternative opinion?

Yes, I apologise to miaow for disrespecting the time and effort he clearly put into the post with a crass post. I should have either not commented or put something like "I don't agree with all your points, I'll try and put together something to explain".

I stand by my basic point (it's fighting one-eyedness with one-eyedness) but that is the nature of opinions with no real way round it, and I'm fully aware that the reason I think it's one-eyed is because I'm looking at it from my own biased viewpoint.

So yes, I was acting like a Tinkywinky.

HammerofThunor wrote:Yes, I apologise to miaow for disrespecting the time and effort he clearly put into the post with a crass post.  I should have either not commented or put something like "I don't agree with all your points, I'll try and put together something to explain".

I stand by my basic point (it's fighting one-eyedness with one-eyedness) but that is the nature of opinions with no real way round it, and I'm fully aware that the reason I think it's one-eyed is because I'm looking at it from my own biased viewpoint.

So yes, I was acting like a Tinkywinky.

offload wrote:Poorfour, that's a good point about the English bench.  

What do English fans think of Farrell in the 12 shirt again?  Is he growing in the role or just wrong?  The outside backs are potent but I still can't see the midfield working well enough.

Farrell at 12 is... okay. I think that Eddie's long term aim is to have Slade and Manu as options at 12, and Faz is covering the Slade role. He's done well defensively and helped to create a two sided attack without feeling like it's a permanent role. Dealing with Dr Jamie is going to be a whole other challenge, though.

Poorfour wrote:

offload wrote:Poorfour, that's a good point about the English bench.  

What do English fans think of Farrell in the 12 shirt again?  Is he growing in the role or just wrong?  The outside backs are potent but I still can't see the midfield working well enough.

Farrell at 12 is... okay. I think that Eddie's long term aim is to have Slade and Manu as options at 12, and Faz is covering the Slade role. He's done well defensively and helped to create a two sided attack without feeling like it's a permanent role. Dealing with Dr Jamie is going to be a whole other challenge, though.

I thought Manu was a 13 not 12. Does he have the distribution or kicking game for a long term 12?

The choices at 12 for England don't play there for their clubs. I don't see this as a major issue as Farrell has played there in the past and is a stop gap, who's actually played better than I expected. Slade for me is one of the most gifted players in England; think he could make it at the top level as a 10, 12 or 13. There is a danger he may fall between all 3 but I'd try to get him in the team somewhere: Ford, Tuilagi and Slade looks a very good combo for some time in the future. Tuilagi is seen as a project at 12 like Nonu. His passing has always been under rated and he does need to develop a kicking game, alongside Slade though that becomes less of a pressing issue.

Poorfour wrote:

offload wrote:Poorfour, that's a good point about the English bench.  

What do English fans think of Farrell in the 12 shirt again?  Is he growing in the role or just wrong?  The outside backs are potent but I still can't see the midfield working well enough.

Farrell at 12 is... okay. I think that Eddie's long term aim is to have Slade and Manu as options at 12, and Faz is covering the Slade role. He's done well defensively and helped to create a two sided attack without feeling like it's a permanent role. Dealing with Dr Jamie is going to be a whole other challenge, though.

Good mix of styles of centre in the England squad. Could see horses for courses deeming selection.

Griff wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Yep, good post miaow. Wales win due to being superior. England only win due to intercepts, silly yellow cards, anomalies or Wales just being poor. I think that just about covers it.

Disappointed in you Hammer. Yours is exactly the sort of post that is ruining this forum.

Have you not read miaow's post then? HoT's comment pretty much sums up what miaow is saying.

Cyril wrote:

Griff wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Yep, good post miaow. Wales win due to being superior. England only win due to intercepts, silly yellow cards, anomalies or Wales just being poor. I think that just about covers it.

Disappointed in you Hammer. Yours is exactly the sort of post that is ruining this forum.

Have you not read miaow's post then? HoT's comment pretty much sums up what miaow is saying.

Christ. Now I know I was badly in the wrong. Cyril's agreeing with me

offload wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

offload wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Yep, good post miaow. Wales win due to being superior. England only win due to intercepts, silly yellow cards, anomalies or Wales just being poor. I think that just about covers it.

Quite unecessary. Do you only see what you want to see or is your only purpose to antagonise?

I think Miaow's piece is very good but have sympathy for HoT's comments too. It is a long post and there are things that are worth arguing about within it. It is great seeing in detail how someone else sees the games but its not entirely objective, not that I could do any better on that front.

Agreed, being entirely objective is very difficult and a skill.  Perhaps it helps to select a point for discussion and present an alternative opinion?

You are right but that of course takes time - and as HoT implies its a lot easier to respond as he did

offload wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

offload wrote:Poorfour, that's a good point about the English bench.  

What do English fans think of Farrell in the 12 shirt again?  Is he growing in the role or just wrong?  The outside backs are potent but I still can't see the midfield working well enough.

Farrell at 12 is... okay. I think that Eddie's long term aim is to have Slade and Manu as options at 12, and Faz is covering the Slade role. He's done well defensively and helped to create a two sided attack without feeling like it's a permanent role. Dealing with Dr Jamie is going to be a whole other challenge, though.

I thought Manu was a 13 not 12.  Does he have the distribution or kicking game for a long term 12?

I'd be amazed if he ever developed anything like a reasonable kicking game. I don't think legs his size adapt well to kicking. But he has a decent chance of developing the other skills.

He is being treated as the new messiah though, and that is not easy (and as we all know the crowd can turn very quickly).

Cyril wrote:

Griff wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Yep, good post miaow. Wales win due to being superior. England only win due to intercepts, silly yellow cards, anomalies or Wales just being poor. I think that just about covers it.

Disappointed in you Hammer. Yours is exactly the sort of post that is ruining this forum.

Have you not read miaow's post then? HoT's comment pretty much sums up what miaow is saying.

Yes I did, and no I think it was a sarcastic retort that tried to make out that the tone of Miaow's piece was derogatory towards England, which it wasn't. Good on Hammer for admitting to a not so good response though

lostinwales wrote:

offload wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

offload wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Yep, good post miaow. Wales win due to being superior. England only win due to intercepts, silly yellow cards, anomalies or Wales just being poor. I think that just about covers it.

Quite unecessary. Do you only see what you want to see or is your only purpose to antagonise?

I think Miaow's piece is very good but have sympathy for HoT's comments too. It is a long post and there are things that are worth arguing about within it. It is great seeing in detail how someone else sees the games but its not entirely objective, not that I could do any better on that front.

Agreed, being entirely objective is very difficult and a skill.  Perhaps it helps to select a point for discussion and present an alternative opinion?

You are right but that of course takes time - and as HoT implies its a lot easier to respond as he did

True, but that's exactly the way that Gwlad, Lord Dowlais, TightHEAD, HERSH (of old), England4ever (or whatever his name is), et al. respond and are accused of WUMming!

Offload I do not think that Farrell Jr is comfortable in the role, missing too many tackles, giving away too many penalties.

Worried about him facing Roberts, in the RWC both Australia and Wales exposed Farrell Jr as a centre.

Ireland,Scotland and Italy did not but I believe Wales are better placed to cause England problems in the centres.

The thing about Farrell Jr at 12 is that the bar for 12s hasn't been high in recent 6 nations for England.

I don't think Burrell was good last season nor Twelvetrees in 2014 so Farrell Jr has basically just needed to match them.


maestegmafia you say it as if England had no injuries. Billy and B.Youngs going off were big blows.

miaow whilst there is some credibility to what you say Billy and B.Youngs being absent for most of the 2nd half was bad for England when you take into account that a lot of the good work for England was done by them.

You mention 2008 - England were hit hard by injuries - Only Wales get hit hard by injuries of course.

England: Balshaw; Sackey, Tindall, Flood, Strettle; Wilkinson, Gomarsall; Sheridan, Regan, Vickery (capt), Shaw, Borthwick, Haskell, Moody, Narraway, Rees.
Replacements: , Vainikolo for Strettle (13), Rees for Moody (14), Kay for Rees (41), Mears for Regan (58), Cipriani for Tindall (64) Stevens for Vickery (69).
Not Used: Wigglesworth.

That's the rule - only Wales can mention injuries.

You effectively say that the 6 nations 2015 was thrown away.... okay....

England had a lead that they should have not relinquished in the RWC. You could argue that England bottled it but also Wales wanted it more. It's a bit of both.

England should be beating Wales at home. To not do so is not good enough. Wales are a good side but they just like England aren't as good as the tri nations. Wales aren't an unstoppable juggernaut - you scraped past us in the RWC by exposing two out of position centres but have lost to us in the last two 6 nations.

In 2013 and 2015 Wales tries have come from exposing out of position players - Brown in 2013 and Farrell plus Barritt in the RWC. Had a field day vs Wood at 8 in 2013.

One of Wales' most potent weapon vs England with Gatland in charge - out of position players - it's why I fear Roberts vs Farrell the most and the backrow battle.

We know that England have been less effective at exposing Wales' out of position backline as was shown in the RWC.



You get the sense this is something of an anticlimax; considering Wales and England have played each other three times in just over twelve months, this game feels like it has the 'least' riding on it, which is odd considering there is a title on the line.


Got your excuse lined up if you lose I see. A likely title winning match isn't anti climatic....

offload wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

offload wrote:Poorfour, that's a good point about the English bench.  

What do English fans think of Farrell in the 12 shirt again?  Is he growing in the role or just wrong?  The outside backs are potent but I still can't see the midfield working well enough.

Farrell at 12 is... okay. I think that Eddie's long term aim is to have Slade and Manu as options at 12, and Faz is covering the Slade role. He's done well defensively and helped to create a two sided attack without feeling like it's a permanent role. Dealing with Dr Jamie is going to be a whole other challenge, though.

I thought Manu was a 13 not 12.  Does he have the distribution or kicking game for a long term 12?

Manu is preferred at 12 for Tigers. Mainly because it takes the pressure of being able to put accurate passes out from 13 off of him. At 12 he's free to play the crash ball and if he gets caught, to offload to Tait coming in from the 15 position. I feel he's almost a liability at 13 because at 13, by the time he's got the ball he's already well marked, and doesn't have much speed, the opposition having had time to move their defence up.

Of course, to bring him on at 12 means you have to get rid of Farrell - and Tuilagi most definitely wont kick your points. I think we need Farrell at 10 (Ford is in poor form) playing off Care. Tuilagi is better at 12 - but the other thing is, he isn't ready for an international return yet (even his own DoR said so) and in any case, he ought to earn his place back in the team, not just walk back in because he's even vaguely fit.

I've always thought as Manu as a 12 not a 13 but like you said Jimpy you do then lose the kicking option of having Farrell or the like there.

maestegmafia wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

offload wrote:Poorfour, that's a good point about the English bench.  

What do English fans think of Farrell in the 12 shirt again?  Is he growing in the role or just wrong?  The outside backs are potent but I still can't see the midfield working well enough.

Farrell at 12 is... okay. I think that Eddie's long term aim is to have Slade and Manu as options at 12, and Faz is covering the Slade role. He's done well defensively and helped to create a two sided attack without feeling like it's a permanent role. Dealing with Dr Jamie is going to be a whole other challenge, though.

Good mix of styles of centre in the England squad. Could see horses for courses deeming selection.

That could well be the case - but if you look at how Eddie's using the bench I think he's gearing up towards being able to completely change our attacking style once he empties the bench. If you start Slade-Joseph with Manu on the bench, you can then go to Slade-Manu, Manu-Slade or Manu-Joseph - each of which would pose very different challenges for a defence than the starting combo. I think Eddie's plan is basically to force opposition defences to adapt as he brings his bench on, and to exploit the opportunities that presents. It's 23 man rugby.

Jimpy how long has Manu been playing for you at 12?

You say he's a liability at 13 but his international games have all been from 13.

His best performance for England was his rampage vs NZ in 2012.

There's only been a shift of opinion for Manu to be 12 because of a lack of options for England.

Manu hasn't had too many starts since 2013.

I always find it amusing - Manu has been a 13 , England fans are desperate for him to play 12. Slade was initially a 10 then tried out at 13. Now England fans are desperate to play him at 12.
There is no guarantee either will be a success.

Just as Lancaster was desperate to play Burgess to fill the 12 shirt.

It's why 36 was hailed as Greenwood's successor, a desire to see someone claim the mantle.

Now Farrell is being shunted uncomfortably in the 12 shirt as a stop gap.

Seriously who hailed 36 as Greenwoods successor?

miaow wrote:There's a lot being said about Wales' style of play, their supposed inability to score tries, and in particular England "throwing away" the World Cup game through indiscipline. There's a few things I'd take issue with here.

Firstly, the World Cup game is available to watch on youtube, in full. It might be worth rewatching for those making statements about the game.

The reason England gave away so many penalties in that game- and apparently why Wales can 'only' score points via Biggar's boot- is due to the fact that, from the 45th minute onwards, Wales played the better rugby.

....

*Wales do have weaknesses. England should look to get a big lead by the 50th minute mark. Tries either side of half time would probably knock Wales over. Wales' self belief, or lack thereof, may come into play; much like in 2014, they tend to be reliant upon or hopeful for an individual moment of magic to swing momentum, rather than to really do so as a team if they're having a bad day.

Good analysis in general, but if I could come back on my points about the World Cup game - as I mentioned England's discipline being a key factor.

It was 16-6 going into half time, before England gave away a penalty at the close to let Wales break at 16-9. England scored a penalty in the 44th minute but then conceded on in the 48th minute to bring the score after 50 minutes to 19-12.

I don't disagree that Wales were the better team in the second half (despite the injuries), and they deservedly won the final 30 minute period 16-6. I think Lancaster made a mistake by bringing off Burgess, but there's a chance he was panicked into it by seeing Wales picking up the pace. We don't know if keeping Burgess on would have made the difference or not, but personally I think it was an error.

I take your point about "3 being better than 7", and England giving penalties away in kickable range could have stopped tries 3-4 phases down the line, however I think England's discipline was poor even when we were on top in the first half. Taking the penalty with the clock in the red as mentioned earlier, 16-6 at half time, 19-6 in the 44th minute and maybe some of the belief goes from Wales. Maybe Wales would have done the same and clawed their way back in little by little, but I think if England could have opened up a bigger than 7 point lead at the 50th minute (as you site as England's objective for the weekend), then maybe that would have been enough.

We could also consider the much-discussed decision for Robshaw to go for the corner in the last few minutes; had England not given away the 40th minute penalty and were the scores sitting at 25-25, I'm sure he would have gone for the posts and the final score could have been 28-25 the other way.

I will admit though that this is all from memory and checking timings on the match report, I will decline your suggestion to rewatch the game!

Thing with Twelvetrees is that when he played in that game against the Ospreys which ended up in a draw (with a TBP to Tigers) he played pretty well and was jokingly made out to be amazing. It was so hyperbolic that it was (I thought) obvious that it was a urine take. Some people seem to have taken it as serious. But really, the only player who's every really deserved that level of accolade is George Marvin and we all know what happened to him.

And now Mallinder of course.

Jamie George out for the rest of the tournament, LCD on the bench

That'll please Pooly!

Ok going back to making more of an argument I'd like to briefly mention the 2 most recent 6N games

2014. The scoreboard was close which was all down to Halfpenny. Mainly down to the kicking but also the fearless (and as it proved very damaging) try saving tackle on Burrell. For whatever reason Wales did look toothless in attack and could have played another couple of hours without scoring a try. It felt like a comfortable win for England despite the closeness of the scores.

2015. Wales did start very strongly. There is no denying that. They were all over England at the start of the game, and yet all they came away with was one (slightly fortunate - but aren't so many?) try. It wasn't even a game of two halves. It was a game of 25% /75%. After the 23rd minute (Pen to 1/2p) the only score Wales manufactured was Biggar's drop goal on the stroke of half time. I just don't get the 'tired themselves out' argument after just 25 minutes, given their reputation for fitness.

It was one way traffic thereafter, with only the usual exceptional welsh defense plus English butter fingers keeping it close. From an England point of view what was very satisfying was the time and patience taken to construct the tries, even if those were helped by some exceptional play by JJ and North not being all there courtesy of him diving on a ball that Parling was trying to hack on. (Williams looked a lot more dangerous when he came on).

From memory Wales made more half breaks in the 2014 game but they were quickly stifled.

Of course Gatland was aiming to learn from the game but that is what any half decent coach should do. To think he was deliberately stifling the Welsh game in order to plan for the RWC does stretch credulity a little

I do agree that Wales are a team that grinds their opponents down, and that this does demand a very structured approach, and becomes difficult against teams that can match the physicality.

I'd also agree with some points about the RWC game in that England were holding on for a long time in the 2nd half, but thought it was interesting that the Welsh try seemed very against type for 'warrenball' as at the time the combination of players would have meant that keeping the same structure would have been very difficult. We had been dealing with the 'structured attack' well even if we had been giving away penalties from time to time

Jimpy wrote:

offload wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

offload wrote:Poorfour, that's a good point about the English bench.  

What do English fans think of Farrell in the 12 shirt again?  Is he growing in the role or just wrong?  The outside backs are potent but I still can't see the midfield working well enough.

Farrell at 12 is... okay. I think that Eddie's long term aim is to have Slade and Manu as options at 12, and Faz is covering the Slade role. He's done well defensively and helped to create a two sided attack without feeling like it's a permanent role. Dealing with Dr Jamie is going to be a whole other challenge, though.

I thought Manu was a 13 not 12.  Does he have the distribution or kicking game for a long term 12?

Manu is preferred at 12 for Tigers. Mainly because it takes the pressure of being able to put accurate passes out from 13 off of him. At 12 he's free to play the crash ball and if he gets caught, to offload to Tait coming in from the 15 position. I feel he's almost a liability at 13 because at 13, by the time he's got the ball he's already well marked, and doesn't have much speed, the opposition having had time to move their defence up.

Of course, to bring him on at 12 means you have to get rid of Farrell - and Tuilagi most definitely wont kick your points. I think we need Farrell at 10 (Ford is in poor form) playing off Care. Tuilagi is better at 12 - but the other thing is, he isn't ready for an international return yet (even his own DoR said so) and in any case, he ought to earn his place back in the team, not just walk back in because he's even vaguely fit.

For the Wales game; I'd like to see England start as they have been - Youngs/Ford/Farrell/Joseph, and then bring on Care and Manu for Youngs and Ford and rejig to the backline you've suggested.

I think England will look for control at the start (big pack, kickers at 9, 10 and 12) and chaos at the end of games (using Clifford, Care, Manu and Daly to up the pace) - similar to how Miaow outlined Gatland's game plan.

Griff wrote:True, but that's exactly the way that Gwlad, Lord Dowlais, TightHEAD, HERSH (of old), England4ever (or whatever his name is), et al. respond and are accused of WUMming!

Hang on a minute, I have not contributed to this thread until now. 

You no 7 & 1/2.

You were championing 36 for some time.

I liked Miaow's post and it does illustrate how we all see games differently. The one main thing I disagree with is the Wales v England game in Cardiff last year where IMO England bossed it throughout apart from the huff and puff of the home team in the first 5-10 minutes and a fortuitious try from Falatau. At 16-8 at HT I never thought Wales would win and at the end of the game the score-line flattered Wales IMO even though it was a defeat. That's exactly how I saw it.

Wales's main problem in the second half of last season's game is that their lineout fell apart. Hibbard couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo. With our lineout gone, we couldn't get (usable) field position and we were stuck in our own half.

N.B. I've only watched the game once, but that's my recollection of it.

From a neutral point of view. Having Farrell playing 12 just seems stop gap to me, although working sufficiently, its not what I would call a good 10-12-13 axis.

Farrell still has that petulance that is going to see him focused on more and more by ref's and it will cost England against good sides.

That said, at the moment, I feel he is the better option at 10 for England than Ford.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And now Mallinder of course.

Leave the boy alone, Saints backline doesn't work well without him at 12. He can be the saviour of England next year when we have Stephenson back.

Who are they going to bring into the squad to replace George?

Youngs is out of favour, who is next in line. Don't say Haywood. PLEASE don't say Haywood, England already have three of our front row.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Who are they going to bring into the squad to replace George?

Youngs is out of favour, who is next in line. Don't say Haywood. PLEASE don't say Haywood, England already have three of our front row.

LCD is in to show us how well a sub hooker who can't throw can do

I hope Eddie can see past T. Youngs. Most people look over the top of his head.

beshocked wrote:You no 7 & 1/2.

You were championing 36 for some time.

I'm going to say it clear then. You're lying.

Poorfour wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

offload wrote:Poorfour, that's a good point about the English bench.  

What do English fans think of Farrell in the 12 shirt again?  Is he growing in the role or just wrong?  The outside backs are potent but I still can't see the midfield working well enough.

Farrell at 12 is... okay. I think that Eddie's long term aim is to have Slade and Manu as options at 12, and Faz is covering the Slade role. He's done well defensively and helped to create a two sided attack without feeling like it's a permanent role. Dealing with Dr Jamie is going to be a whole other challenge, though.

Good mix of styles of centre in the England squad. Could see horses for courses deeming selection.

That could well be the case - but if you look at how Eddie's using the bench I think he's gearing up towards being able to completely change our attacking style once he empties the bench. If you start Slade-Joseph with Manu on the bench, you can then go to Slade-Manu, Manu-Slade or Manu-Joseph - each of which would pose very different challenges for a defence than the starting combo. I think Eddie's plan is basically to force opposition defences to adapt as he brings his bench on, and to exploit the opportunities that presents. It's 23 man rugby.

I was thinking the same this morning. We may seem him building a team based more on combinations (Kruis & Itoje, Launchbury & Lawes, Haskell & Robshaw, Clifford & ???) depending on the team to be played. One dimensional teams are easy to prepare for if you have the right players, but a team that can change tact with a few subs could force the opposition into planning their subs to foil this, rather than picking the best/in-form players. Or maybe I'm just seeing something that isn't there

Anything that makes the other side have to think about what they are doing is a good thing.

Should be a tight game if it goes to paper.

Lostinovercrowdedengland

no 7 & 1/2 it's you who is lying. You generally been talking up Twelvetrees. Perhaps not now that you realise he's not good enough.

It's a relief though that you have seen the error of your ways.

Will be interesting to see how LCD does. Hope he plays well.

Find one quote where I said he's the successor to Greenwood. Just one. When you don't come back here and apologise.

Is this the England v England thread now?!