England - Work to be done

Thought I would start a topic away from the usual my dad is bigger than your dad "banter" which goes on, and discuss what people think England need to improve on moving forward. Conscious that the 6Ns is still not finished but what would people like to see England focus on improving prior to travelling down under in the summer? Not one for criticising a winning side but its much better to tweak a winning side than it is to overhaul a losing one.

If people could look for 3 areas, if you think its that many, and also back up you statement with reasons for.

For me the biggest areas are:

Discipline

England have conceded 12 + penalties in every game so far and it is costing England valuable territory and possession at times when they are looking dangerous. Whilst they are getting away with this now, against the tier 1 nations it will become a problem and may even be amplified more.

Now the question is, is it a technical issue, one which can be coached out, such as going in off the feet or in from the side at the breakdown? Is it a mind set issue as a result of the change of thought from Saints to Sinners which Jones has adopted? Or is it a personality issue with the same individuals getting penalised?

I think its a little of all three if I'm honest, and in a way they are all linked. England have and still struggle at the breakdown with our technique and there is no denying that having someone of the technical ability of a Kvesic would improve the issue, and negate the need for every man and his dog to attempt turnovers when they don't have the technique for it, however we would potentially lose elsewhere, i.e. physicality. Also there is has been a fair few penalties given away for over zealous behaviour in the tackle area, Haskell is a case in point here. I like the attitude shift but there is a difference between hitting some hard legally and just taking them out. Finally, it does seem as though it is the same individuals giving away these penalties and getting receiving cards as a result. Against arguably the better two teams in the tournament we've had to play 30 minutes with a player less and that is unacceptable. Will the likes of Haskell and Cole (6 penalties conceded against Wales) ever learn? You could argue after the caps they have no, but then you have to replace them with someone of equal or better ability. Thoughts?

The Second Half

Against both Ireland and Wales, England dominated both territory and possession in the first half, however due to the above discipline issues failed to capitalise to good affect and should have been a lot further ahead come the break in both games. Come the second half however, Ireland and Wales' purple patch, England failed to get the ascendancy they had in the first half and because of the lack of a points buffer let the pressure build. Mistakes crept in and the opposition caught up. This is a big concern for me. Was there an element of complacency? Did the players switch off? Games are won in the final quarter and of those 40 mins in the last 2 games England have played 30 mins of it with 14 players.

They need to develop a ruthless composure to just keep the board ticking over and keep the opposition deep in their half, building pressure on them rather than just throwing the ball around from anywhere. Keeping to the same script and same mind set is key throughout. Take Fords charge down as an example. In the first half Youngs would've had no hesitation but to box kick it down the 15 m channel, but instead he throws a poor pass to a rather flat Ford, surely if he was shaping to kick he would've been deeper? Is this a conscious change it tactics from the management or the players being over confident?

Lack of penetration in the backline

A key one for me as it affects the whole attacking shape. Yes England managed to subdue the Welsh midfield in the first half with clever use of the forwards in tying up the likes of Roberts and Davies, but this didn't come off in the second half. The backs attacks are very lateral and can be read all too easily, leaving very little room or the outside backs to work. I like the idea of having the 2 play makers and think it generates a lot of width in the attacking line when it works, but the do need to have the physical foil in there for it to work. Now whether that means having Tuilagi in there to hold the midfield or having a more powerful winger such as Roko to bring into the line I'm not sure. People have pointed to playing both Tuilagi and Joseph together, I'm not sure this would give the speed of ball to the wings we require and I think that Ford and Farrell work better with the additional play maker in there next to them.

Also I'm a big fan of a fullback who hits the line at pace, at an angle, something the Cullens and Muliana's were good at. As goo as Brown is, he does limit our attacking options in this regard for me. Personally I would like to see Nowell developed here as he has the pace and power to come into the line very well for a full back and does run clever lines. It would also give him the license to come into the game more than he does now. Finally, this would allow us to bring another winger in with more pace as I don't think Nowells top speed is quite there for a winger. I would look at having Watson and May/Yarde/Roko on the wings for Australia with Nowell at Fulback, for at least one of the games anyway.

Summary

Not trying to WUM, merely trying to spark a thoughtful debate. Everyone will have there own opinions so if you disagree with mine that's fine, please just back up the debate rather than saying you're wrong.

Apart from the Dan Cole brainfart in the 2nd half I thought we did pretty well on the penalty count, for once

Discipline is a massive issue. It may just be my perception, but Dan Cole does seem to give away a lot of silly and costly penalties. Wales were coming back strong whatever, but I have to suspect the game would have been a lot less close had England had fifteen men on the pitch.

On the subject of Nowell at full back - is he that much quicker than Brown? I think he's a much more rounded player, but he's not especially quick.

3 area's of improvement;

Fundamental understanding of ball in hand rugby skills; creating space, running angles and passing. In addition to this we must settle on a 10/12 axis. I am not a fan of F&F as simply the dynamic does not work. I would rather a genuine orchestrator who pulls the strings across the board, which is what I believe Cipriani or Ford can do, with Tuilagi at 12.

Dynamic set plays; scrums, lineouts and mauls. Understanding that these functions are the bedrock to creating attacking field position for the team to exploit. If done poorly then the ball and position/opportunity dies in the collapse that ensues.

Kicking; when to kick, type of kick. We need to specifically examine our offensive kicking strategy. There were 3 examples yesterday where we bottled excellent ball in hand try scoring opportunities because we didn't know how to attack so we kicked it away. Furthermore our systematic kicking from the base of the ruck must be challenged. I believe it is counter productive often simply passing the ball and position to the opposition.

Taking chances...or converting possession in to points.

We should have been out of sight v Ireland in the first half and likewise Wales.
To ne hanging on at the end is just not good enough.

Penalties are killing us.

get fitter so we can keep the intensity going for longer or find ways of containing the other team that takes less effort...

As an Exeter fan I've seen see a lot of Nowell. When he first came thorugh for England U20's and our A/LV cup team he was a fullback, hitting the line and breaking tackles for fun but as soon as he progressed to the first team he was used on the wing and more recently at 13.

I'm a huge fan of his but he hasn't played 15 for a long time, only really in an emergency when Dollman has been injured. I'm not sure he is good enough under the high ball to play there internationally and doesn't seem to get the ball enough on the wing to do what he does for Exeter. He's very similar to Joseph at 13. I think that eventually if we want to go for 2 pacey wingers he may well end up on the bench as the perfect 23 covering 3 positions.

I was actually very frustrated by the first halves of both the Ireland and the Wales game. I think that with the dominance we had we should have scored more points in both and that we were not as clinical as we should have been. Can you imagine the All Blacks leaving as many points on the field after so much possession and territory? I'm not saying we are that good yet, in fact, I am saying the opposite, but we should aspire to be the best side in the world and that means being better than the current number one.

Yes, the second half against Wales was massively frustrating and needs to be fixed, but we should have been 30 odd points up by then, not 20 odd.

Oh, also, teach Ben Youngs to pass. Good god he gave some awful service on Saturday!

Youngs was a bit ponderous at times....I hope Care gets the start against France. Ford needs a break but I'd be tempted to start him against France as a solid win and GS could do wonders for his confidence which seems to be shot at the moment.

Cole needs his discipline sorted out...it's just bad decision making. Ditto Haskell. I wouldn't mind if they were giving away smart penalties (like when defending in the opposition half with a potential overlap threatening) but Cole is particular is prone to giving away really stupid penalties at the worst time. I don't think we've got a good enough scrummaging replacement for Cole though......but Clifford could slot in for Haskell easy enough, and Haskell would still make a decent impact sub.

mid_gen wrote:Youngs was a bit ponderous at times....I hope Care gets the start against France. Ford needs a break but I'd be tempted to start him against France as a solid win and GS could do wonders for his confidence which seems to be shot at the moment.

Cole needs his discipline sorted out...it's just bad decision making. Ditto Haskell. I wouldn't mind if they were giving away smart penalties (like when defending in the opposition half with a potential overlap threatening) but Cole is particular is prone to giving away really stupid penalties at the worst time. I don't think we've got a good enough scrummaging replacement for Cole though......but Clifford could slot in for Haskell easy enough, and Haskell would still make a decent impact sub.

Not sure I would agree here. Kieran Brookes was the form Tighthead in the AP leading upto the EPS announcement and his injury. He certaily offers a viable replacement in the scrummaging department, the question would be whether he can sustain it at test level over 60+ mins. Also would we lose out elsewhere in replacing Cole? Not seen enough of Brookes to comment really. Cole is very experienced afterall and one of the senior members so they are big shoes to fill. Also we cannot get away from his pressence at the breakdown, however could this be overcome by employing a more breakdown savvy 7?

If he can fill the scrummaging role without the penatlies then great, I'm all for it.

screamingaddabs wrote:I was actually very frustrated by the first halves of both the Ireland and the Wales game.  I think that with the dominance we had we should have scored more points in both and that we were not as clinical as we should have been.  Can you imagine the All Blacks leaving as many points on the field after so much possession and territory?  I'm not saying we are that good yet, in fact, I am saying the opposite, but we should aspire to be the best side in the world and that means being better than the current number one.

Yes, the second half against Wales was massively frustrating and needs to be fixed, but we should have been 30 odd points up by then, not 20 odd.

England are certainly leaving a lot of points on the field - but to be honest I think that this early into learning a new attacking system I am happy that they are creating opportunities and putting enough of them away to win games. If you compare that with previous changes of coach, it's generally taken a season or two to have any attacking fluidity. I think both Eddie and Lancaster deserve credit for that.

The finishing instinct should come with a bit more time as a squad. The real acid test will be in Australia - they'll be punished if they can't get the points.

It should also be said that for the Wales game, Martin Johnson's famous quote on why England kicked so many of the points rather than scoring tries applies: "It's not us that's giving the penalties away."

mid_gen wrote:Cole needs his discipline sorted out...it's just bad decision making. Ditto Haskell. I wouldn't mind if they were giving away smart penalties (like when defending in the opposition half with a potential overlap threatening) but Cole is particular is prone to giving away really stupid penalties at the worst time. I don't think we've got a good enough scrummaging replacement for Cole though......but Clifford could slot in for Haskell easy enough, and Haskell would still make a decent impact sub.

On the subject of Cole, a quick scan of the ESPN stats from England's four games to date shows that Cole has conceded 12 penalties in total. The next highest is Haskell with five, then Robshaw, Hartley and Farrell, with four each. I have no idea whether scrum penalties are included in that (although the fact that Marler is reported as not conceding a penalty to date suggests not), but even if it is, that must be a problem.

Our scrum still doesn't look completely convincing. I suspect Jones might follow his usual pattern on that front and settle for having a competent scrum with players who do more around the field. Might hurt us against sides who do develop a real edge there.

Poorfour wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:I was actually very frustrated by the first halves of both the Ireland and the Wales game.  I think that with the dominance we had we should have scored more points in both and that we were not as clinical as we should have been.  Can you imagine the All Blacks leaving as many points on the field after so much possession and territory?  I'm not saying we are that good yet, in fact, I am saying the opposite, but we should aspire to be the best side in the world and that means being better than the current number one.

Yes, the second half against Wales was massively frustrating and needs to be fixed, but we should have been 30 odd points up by then, not 20 odd.

England are certainly leaving a lot of points on the field - but to be honest I think that this early into learning a new attacking system I am happy that they are creating opportunities and putting enough of them away to win games. If you compare that with previous changes of coach, it's generally taken a season or two to have any attacking fluidity. I think both Eddie and Lancaster deserve credit for that.

The finishing instinct should come with a bit more time as a squad. The real acid test will be in Australia - they'll be punished if they can't get the points.

It should also be said that for the Wales game, Martin Johnson's famous quote on why England kicked so many of the points rather than scoring tries applies: "It's not us that's giving the penalties away."

Certainly better than before, but this is something we need to improve. We got away with it against both Wales and Ireland. I don't think we will get away with it against Aus, SA or NZ.

Basically I think you are right that it is better than before and I hope you are right about us improving! I really hope though that we do focus on this. Certainly the media have been all over our new found creation of chances, but for the past couple of years Scotland have created a lot of chances for example. They just always dropped the ball at the last moment and were rubbish. We mustn't do the same or even similar.

That's better than I expected from the flankers, particularly considering how England's breakdown has improved over the tournament so far.

That said, Cole is very heavily involved in the breakdown for a prop - but has clearly got his calibration a bit off.

Rugby Fan wrote:Our scrum still doesn't look completely convincing. I suspect Jones might follow his usual pattern on that front and settle for having a competent scrum with players who do more around the field. Might hurt us against sides who do develop a real edge there.

Maybes. He did say though that he wanted to focus on England's traditional strengths. Personally I want a strong scrum that we use as an attacking platform, not just a way to get penalties (like most NH sides) and not just as a way to restart the game (Like Japan with their ultra fast scrum).

screaming

I don't think you can use the scrum as an attacking weapon rather than milking penalties - the opposing pack are so reticent to yield ground that they would rather give away a penalty for collapsing than be pushed back 2 or 3 metres and so place their defence under pressure on first phase.

I'd actually prefer England to adopt an intention to get quick clean ball from the scrum and let Billy and Youngs/Care attack the fringe defence. Keeping the ball in the scrum just tends to end up with a mess and we are as likely to be penalised for (e.g.) Cole binding illegally as for the opposing loosehead boring in or collapsing - so many offences for the ref to pick from that there's always a risk that we'll be the ones penalised.

If we are going to look to impose a power game from the forwards, I think that should be more based on driving mauls from the lineout, as that is an area we seem to be getting better at.

As for the work to be done, I agree with many of the comments above:
1 - Must get better at taking the chances we create. This week it was Cole getting over the line but unable to (visibly) ground the ball, Youngs failure to gather and ground a loose ball, Brown choosing the wrong line and Ford not passing to a faster man (Watson) for a run-in. Should have finished at least 2 of those 4, and the lead on the scoreboard at half time would have been more fitting to our dominance and Welsh incompetence in the first half. Similar story with the Ireland game, could easily have had 10-14 points more at half time after a dominant first half performance.

2 - Discipline. Until things went jubblies-up in the last 15, our penalty count was much better on Saturday. One daft pen from Haskell (neck roll) and Itoje getting done for not rolling away after an excellent tackle are the two I remember, and I assume the others were mainly scrum penalties. It's an area that we've had issues with for a couple of years or so, and is particularly frustrating how often we give away promising attacking positions .

3 - linking between the forwards and backs. Obviously neither Haskell nor Robshaw have genuine pace, and neither are great ball handlers (Robshaw OK, Haskell woeful), and the rest of our forwards are not noted in that regard. Had a couple of nice moments on Saturday (an early wrap-around move off Hartley and Itoje's pass in the lead-up to the try), but too often we look like a team where the forwards train on one pitch and the backs on another.

4 - Still some selection / balance issues to get right. Flankers and 10/12 are still the biggest issues. If we are playing Robshaw and Haskell, they are the wrong way round, but I'd rather have a more athletic young player in there - Clifford may be the answer but he hasn't yet grabbed his chance in the way Itoje has.
The 10/12 combination of Ford and Farrell has grown on me a bit at least with regard to getting the back line moving - the ball gets out to the dangerous runners out wide faster and more accurately. The problem is that in defence Ford is quite lightweight and Farrell is a good defender for a 10 but lacks a bit of pace and power when defending the 12 channel. Also, kicking from hand has been moderate at best. As for Biggar's charge down, I'm not convinced the blame belongs with Youngs (he threw some bad passes but that wasn't one of them).

Overall, I think this 6Ns has seen some encouraging things (players taking the ball at pace, the emergence of Itoje as a really athletic lock who is a right pain for opposing lineouts and half backs) but we are still a work in progress. Oh, and at least we are in this position and winning, which has got to be good for confidence.

Don't forget England DID get over the line on two further occasions. Youngs try correctly called as a knock on, however this was very marginal. Cole also crossed the line, the ref asked the wrong question and the try should have stood.

wrfc1980 wrote:Don't forget England DID get over the line on two further occasions. Youngs try correctly called as a knock on, however this was very marginal. Cole also crossed the line, the ref asked the wrong question and the try should have stood.

Agree re Youngs non-try. On another day the ball would have been over the line when he got it, so only needing touching down, but he did have a little knock-on.

Cole's one, I think the question was correct in that Joubert never saw a grounding, so has to as 'try, yes or no?' Similar to the one Ireland didn't get against us, in that I suspect both actually were grounded at some point during the sequence but the video didn't demonstrate it. Pre video ref, I'm sure that would have been 'held up over the line'.

To be honest, I thought the ref got most things right (or at least not obviously wrong - difficult to judge the scrums when at least 3 props are cheating at each one) other than the call against Francis, who should have been carded.

dummy_half wrote:screaming

I don't think you can use the scrum as an attacking weapon rather than milking penalties - the opposing pack are so reticent to yield ground that they would rather give away a penalty for collapsing than be pushed back 2 or 3 metres and so place their defence under pressure on first phase.

I'd actually prefer England to adopt an intention to get quick clean ball from the scrum and let Billy and Youngs/Care attack the fringe defence. Keeping the ball in the scrum just tends to end up with a mess and we are as likely to be penalised for (e.g.) Cole binding illegally as for the opposing loosehead boring in or collapsing - so many offences for the ref to pick from that there's always a risk that we'll be the ones penalised.

If we are going to look to impose a power game from the forwards, I think that should be more based on driving mauls from the lineout, as that is an area we seem to be getting better at.

As for the work to be done, I agree with many of the comments above:
1 - Must get better at taking the chances we create. This week it was Cole getting over the line but unable to (visibly) ground the ball, Youngs failure to gather and ground a loose ball, Brown choosing the wrong line and Ford not passing to a faster man (Watson) for a run-in. Should have finished at least 2 of those 4, and the lead on the scoreboard at half time would have been more fitting to our dominance and Welsh incompetence in the first half. Similar story with the Ireland game, could easily have had 10-14 points more at half time after a dominant first half performance.

2 - Discipline. Until things went jubblies-up in the last 15, our penalty count was much better on Saturday. One daft pen from Haskell (neck roll) and Itoje getting done for not rolling away after an excellent tackle are the two I remember, and I assume the others were mainly scrum penalties. It's an area that we've had issues with for a couple of years or so, and is particularly frustrating how often we give away promising attacking positions .

3 - linking between the forwards and backs. Obviously neither Haskell nor Robshaw have genuine pace, and neither are great ball handlers (Robshaw OK, Haskell woeful), and the rest of our forwards are not noted in that regard. Had a couple of nice moments on Saturday (an early wrap-around move off Hartley and Itoje's pass in the lead-up to the try), but too often we look like a team where the forwards train on one pitch and the backs on another.

4 - Still some selection / balance issues to get right. Flankers and 10/12 are still the biggest issues. If we are playing Robshaw and Haskell, they are the wrong way round, but I'd rather have a more athletic young player in there - Clifford may be the answer but he hasn't yet grabbed his chance in the way Itoje has.
The 10/12 combination of Ford and Farrell has grown on me a bit at least with regard to getting the back line moving - the ball gets out to the dangerous runners out wide faster and more accurately. The problem is that in defence Ford is quite lightweight and Farrell is a good defender for a 10 but lacks a bit of pace and power when defending the 12 channel. Also, kicking from hand has been moderate at best. As for Biggar's charge down, I'm not convinced the blame belongs with Youngs (he threw some bad passes but that wasn't one of them).

Overall, I think this 6Ns has seen some encouraging things (players taking the ball at pace, the emergence of Itoje as a really athletic lock who is a right pain for opposing lineouts and half backs) but we are still a work in progress. Oh, and at least we are in this position and winning, which has got to be good for confidence.

That's kind of what I mean. Just get a slight shove on to get the opposition backs on the back foot (move the scrum a metre and the backs have to step back a metre) and then get the ball out through either 9 or through a big charge from 8. Japan simply got the ball out ASAP and didn't care about moving forward, the NH approach is seemingly to keep it in until you get a penalty. The approach I would like is to keep the ball in until you can get a slight shove on and then fire it out quickly (or pick and go).

Discipline does seem to be an issue. I'd say Brown or Farrell are one tantrum away from getting a red card.

Good side though with their best backs since 2003 by a long way.

Cole has given away 12 penalties in 4 games, it could have been so costly luckily it hasn't been.

I thought we did ok vs Wales on the discipline front.

I've got to say, Joseph has disappointed me slight this 6 nations. Granted he scored a hatrick agaiunt Italy but he had a couple of walk ins. He has seemed slightly sluggish and off the pace and has failed to contribute either in attack or defense the last couple of games.

I would focus on players to be found, which if possible will improve the discipline, the second half 'drop-off' and the penetration. For me players win matches and I don't think England have an 'issue' with giving away penalties. We give away penalties because we are under pressure and lack a bit of experience.

I am not convinced by Marler or Mako as scrummagers - both are good around the park, but can struggle at the scrum.  if we could find a good all round loose head (as Corbisiero was), then that will improve our scrummaging.  I would like to see Itoje at 6, as good as Robshaw has been, to me Itoje has the abilities to offer more there and it enables us to field Launchbury, Kruis and Itoje together.  We desparately need a 7 and I don't think Clifford is the answer.  We need a 9 to take control of the shirt rather than the 1 good 1 bad game cycle we seem to get with Youngs and Care.

When fully fit Manu would give us a better option at 12 and improve the backline penetration.

You can quibble about who should be 15 - Brown, Watson or whoever - but the gain to me whichever you pick is marginal.  It is the 1,7 and 9 positions which I don't see answers for, which if sorted out will I think mean a lot of the issues will disappear.

He must be doing something right if Watson keeps seeing the ball, people are so quick to judge a player just because he doesn't shine in every game.

The Farrell Ford combo is fine for now but it won't last. If Ford cannot kick like a first class operator (or a first choice back or lock in Eales' case) as a place kicker both length and accuracy then Farrell should be given the reins full time.

Haskell is still the same as usual, if he doesn't carded in a game, he is generally lucky not to have been done. Going to cost England eventually, Itoje looks like he will eventually take place at 6 and the captaincy with Launchbury fitting back into 4. But that's probably a while away given Robshaw is doing not bad as a six... yet they still have no 7.

For me Ford is playing himself out of the shirt, he'll hang onto it vs France but unless Youngs improves the service he is getting then he may be dropped sooner rather than later.

His kicking is either on the money or woeful, Farrell is the safer bet.

TightHEAD wrote:For me Ford is playing himself out of the shirt, he'll hang onto it vs France but unless Youngs improves the service he is getting then he may be dropped sooner rather than later.

His kicking is either on the money or woeful, Farrell is the safer bet.

Ford was totally at fault for Biggars try. People say it was Youngs... that is loco.

Ford was standing so flat, Youngs pass wasn't bad nor slow and didn't take an age to get it to him. They ran an attacking kick from their 22 with the fullback in the line. Why?

fa0019 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:For me Ford is playing himself out of the shirt, he'll hang onto it vs France but unless Youngs improves the service he is getting then he may be dropped sooner rather than later.

His kicking is either on the money or woeful, Farrell is the safer bet.

Ford was totally at fault for Biggars try. People say it was Youngs... that is loco.

Ford was standing so flat, Youngs pass wasn't bad nor slow and didn't take an age to get it to him. They ran an attacking kick from their 22 with the fullback in the line. Why?

Whilst Ford was definitely at fault (probably more so than Youngs), Youngs' pass was at his toes, so I wouldn't call people blaming Youngs crazy exactly.

Poor play all round from both Ford and Youngs, it happens sometimes.

But Youngs constant crabbing sideways and telegraph passes have not helped Ford out at all this 6 nations.

He did take the pass on his shoelaces but should have tried to step him. Easy to say after the event.

wrfc1980 wrote:I've got to say, Joseph has disappointed me slight this 6 nations. Granted he scored a hatrick agaiunt Italy but he had a couple of walk ins. He has seemed slightly sluggish and off the pace and has failed to contribute either in attack or defense the last couple of games.

That's odd, I feel the opposite. Yes, he hasn't been scintillating with ball in hand, but he's had a few nice touches and I actually think his defence has been superb. He's played against far bigger centres in Henshaw, McCloskey, Roberts, Davies, etc. It hasn't been the best six nations in terms of attacking rugby, but Joseph's done just fine. Remember too that he's playing outside a pseudo-inside centre who doesn't exactly suck in defenders when he's got ball in hand. Playing alongside another centre who actually is a running threat will open up more space for him to do what he does best.

And whilst its not what we are looking at with outside centres...but Josephs defence has in general been rock solid. Give him some decent ball and we'll see what he can do in attack.

Ford looks utterly lost.
At one point we started an attack in our own try line, and it got to the 22 with Ford in space...he either had to pass the ball, or kick it. Instead he didn't know what to do and got smashed with the ball.

That play summed him up this season.

Went much better with Farrell at 10.

GeordieFalcon wrote:And whilst its not what we are looking at with outside centres...but Josephs defence has in general been rock solid. Give him some decent ball and we'll see what he can do in attack.

Ford looks utterly lost.
At one point we started an attack in our own try line, and it got to the 22 with Ford in space...he either had to pass the ball, or kick it. Instead he didn't know what to do and got smashed with the ball.

That play summed him up this season.

I agree on Ford. The problem is that he can be such a good player. Do we send him back to Bath (who are playing woefully) to get confidence? How much confidence do you get playing in a losing team?

I think he stays in the team for France then we just hope that he gets some form between then and the summer tour!

Oh I would keep the same team...no question. He's played every game and you let him try to help the team get a Grand Slam.

Then he can return to bath.

But if his form and confidence doesn't improve and Farrell shows continue form at 10 for Sarries, and Slade returns with a bang, then his position will be under threat for the Oz tour.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He did take the pass on his shoelaces but should have tried to step him. Easy to say after the event.

Yes I think it would be harsh to be too critical of Ford for that one. He would have had his eyes down trying to pick the awful pass up off his toes and didn't have time to react. Sure maybe he should have been able to react quicker and step him.....but still, he got served an awful ball.

Cipriani back at Wasps as well. Team on the up not at forgotten Sale, or is he deemed the past?

GeordieFalcon wrote:And whilst its not what we are looking at with outside centres...but Josephs defence has in general been rock solid. Give him some decent ball and we'll see what he can do in attack.

Ford looks utterly lost.
At one point we started an attack in our own try line, and it got to the 22 with Ford in space...he either had to pass the ball, or kick it. Instead he didn't know what to do and got smashed with the ball.

That play summed him up this season.

Happened so many times this 6n...he dithered with ball in hand and ended up getting smashed. I think he should be given the GS game to redeem himself though...if he fluffs that then Farrell gets the 10 shirt for the summer tour.

Sorry yes Cipriani aswell.

So there are numerous options.

But on the other hand, I want us to pick say 3 for the position and stick with them through thick and thin. Not just moving to the next player on the conveyor belt because one has a few bad games. This season will hopefully strengthen Ford and give him much valuable experience for his struggles, so hopefully he will find his form back at bath.

Wales sometimes have no options but to play players due to numbers available, and it gives players experience.

Apart from Youngs and Care who could be considered at SH?

Simpson and Robson?

nobbled wrote:Apart from Youngs and Care who could be considered at SH?

What's particularly frustrating is that both Care and Youngs can be excellent, but they both seem to find and lose form at the same time! Currently they are both off their game.

screamingaddabs wrote:

nobbled wrote:Apart from Youngs and Care who could be considered at SH?

What's particularly frustrating is that both Care and Youngs can be excellent, but they both seem to find and lose form at the same time!  Currently they are both off their game.

I disagree I think both of them are playing as well as they can. They have different strengths and both make mistakes at crucial times but that's easy to say with hindsight. eg, The Ford charge down probably should have been a box kick by the 9. Maybe that's what Ford was expecting and it looked to me that he was positioned to field any returned high ball. I think Ford was caught slightly off guard and then had a brain fade.

screamingaddabs wrote:

nobbled wrote:Apart from Youngs and Care who could be considered at SH?

What's particularly frustrating is that both Care and Youngs can be excellent, but they both seem to find and lose form at the same time!  Currently they are both off their game.

And both their passing has been way off.

Passes going to head height, behind players running at pace, and spinning when it's not necessary. It's the difference between them and someone like Aaron Smith- good, basic, scrum half skills.

bluestonevedder wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:

nobbled wrote:Apart from Youngs and Care who could be considered at SH?

What's particularly frustrating is that both Care and Youngs can be excellent, but they both seem to find and lose form at the same time!  Currently they are both off their game.

And both their passing has been way off.

Passes going to head height, behind players running at pace, and spinning when it's not necessary. It's the difference between them and someone like Aaron Smith- good, basic, scrum half skills.

Has Care's passing been off? I agree Youngs' has at times been pretty poor but he also did look good at times on the front foot on Sat. Care always looks good behind a dominant pack but i think he is viewed more as an impact player to come on in the last quarter to speed things up. Not sure i'm 100% happy with that thought myself.

jamesandimac wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:

nobbled wrote:Apart from Youngs and Care who could be considered at SH?

What's particularly frustrating is that both Care and Youngs can be excellent, but they both seem to find and lose form at the same time!  Currently they are both off their game.

And both their passing has been way off.

Passes going to head height, behind players running at pace, and spinning when it's not necessary. It's the difference between them and someone like Aaron Smith- good, basic, scrum half skills.

Has Care's passing been off?  I agree Youngs' has at times been pretty poor but he also did look good at times on the front foot on Sat.  Care always looks good behind a dominant pack but i think he is viewed more as an impact player to come on in the last quarter to speed things up.  Not sure i'm 100% happy with that thought myself.  

Might be harsh on Care, though his passing certainly hasn't struck me as particularly great. I remember getting frustrated with him during this competition, but it's hard to remember each pass. To be fair, i thought Youngs had a very decent game on Saturday, but totally agree with you that he's had his poor moments this tournament too.

I think youngs offers a better kicking game, but care offers a better passing game.

I thought Robson looked good against Tigers on Saturday though I have been a fan of Simpson as well.  Rosbon's passing looked good and he can run as well.   He seems to kick well (didn't he play fly-half once?).

Generally I am sure Jones will leave things as they stand for the French game but for the summer tour, younger players might get a chance.