England v Wales

First topic message reminder :

Anyone know much about the ticket sales for this game?

I may head down for this, however just took a quick peak for tickets and there is only one block available, and not 2 tickets sat together. It can't be sold out already can it?

Anyone know?

You pays your money, you takes your choice. Ford's overall game will win us matches. But his kicking at goal will certainly lose us some tight games. Let's hope we don't have 3 tight games in Aus.

Reminds me a bit of the good old days – remember the England with a FH who couldn't kick, a hooker who couldn't throw the ball in, a flanker who couldn't carry, a winger who couldn't tackle, a FB who couldn't catch, and a centre who wasn’t a centre. Happy days.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Shifty wrote:Wales play slow rugby, with poor skills.  New Zealand will recycle quickly and the Welsh defense won't be able to realign, New Zealand will look to use skills and speed, not power and we won't be able to cope with that.  I fully expect New Zealand to score just short of 50 points in each of their games with Wales around 10.  

It's all the more baffling that Gatland, a Kiwi, seems not to want us to play the same way. Does he just think Welsh players can't do it?

I'm a big Gatland fan but I do think Wales could be badly exposed by NZ this summer. For the Gatland/Edwards defence to work Wales are going to need to find a way of slowing down NZ at the ruck, no easy task, otherwise Shifty is correct, NZ will just flood in behind before the defence can align. A rush defence that isn't set properly is a complete liability. No disrespect, but Moriarty and King are not the ideal flankers you need to halt the tempo of the ABs, and I'd question their international credentials. Wales will need Warburton back and fit, otherwise the decision not to take a specialist 7 is going to really hurt them.

Gooseberry wrote:...But then you are picking someone in your starting line up to act as a back up kicker just incase. Which means you don't trust your first choice kicker. So should you be selecting them?

A back-up kicker isn't just for when your front line guy gets the yips. He could take a knock, which puts him out of the game for a few minutes, during which you need to take a penalty. Referees won't hold the game up to let him run it off. Your kicker could also get a yellow card - certainly a possibility with Owen Farrell - which means you either go ten minutes without the chance to kick for goal, or break up your starting back line to bring on your replacement.

To be honest, I've always thought it bizarre that England have so few kickers. Even when Wilkinson was in his pomp, we usually had Dawson or Catt around. We often relied on full backs as place kickers (Hare, Webb and Hodgkinson) which automatically gives you two, since fly halves are always goal kickers.

That's one reason I regretted losing Delon Armitage to France (and his temper). He not only acted as a back-up, but could take on long range challenges, just as Daly does for Wasps.

If you think you end up fielding a weaker backline to accommodate more kickers, then you ought to despair that we put ourselves in that position. While we now have Slade and Daly on the horizon, which will help if they become starters, it was evident for a long time that English rugby was cultivating a wave of scrum halves, centres, wingers and full backs who can't take place kicks. It can't have been beyond the wit of some part of the England set-up to encourage the skill in tandem with the clubs.

My complaint is mainly with Lancaster's tenure, albeit it was Jones who finally fell foul of that limitation. His whole rationale for dropping Dylan Hartley from the World Cup squad was based on a possible scenario which ended up not occurring. I don't have a problem with him looking to cover that possibility, but it was baffling that he showed no signs of covering the rather more likely scenarios I described above, which would leave us short of a kicker.

Listening to EJ when he's on 5Live rugby special, he rates Ford very highly. Complimenting his skill and potential and still a relatively young age for a FH. So unless Fords form dips terribly, he'll be our starting 10 when fit. The yips he had Sunday will be on doubt ironed out before the tour..

Rugby Fan wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:...But then you are picking someone in your starting line up to act as a back up kicker just incase. Which means you don't trust your first choice kicker. So should you be selecting them?

A back-up kicker isn't just for when your front line guy gets the yips. He could take a knock, which puts him out of the game for a few minutes, during which you need to take a penalty.  Referees won't hold the game up to let him run it off. Your kicker could also get a yellow card - certainly a possibility with Owen Farrell - which means you either go ten minutes without the chance to kick for goal, or break up your starting back line to bring on your replacement.

To be honest, I've always thought it bizarre that England have so few kickers. Even when Wilkinson was in his pomp, we usually had Dawson or Catt around. We often relied on full backs as place kickers (Hare, Webb and Hodgkinson) which automatically gives you two, since fly halves are always goal kickers.

That's one reason I regretted losing Delon Armitage to France (and his temper). He not only acted as a back-up, but could take on long range challenges, just as Daly does for Wasps.

If you think you end up fielding a weaker backline to accommodate more kickers, then you ought to despair that we put ourselves in that position. While we now have Slade and Daly on the horizon, which will help if they become starters, it was evident for a long time that English rugby was cultivating a wave of scrum halves, centres, wingers and full backs who can't take place kicks. It can't have been beyond the wit of some part of the England set-up to encourage the skill in tandem with the clubs.

My complaint is mainly with Lancaster's tenure, albeit it was Jones who finally fell foul of that limitation. His whole rationale for dropping Dylan Hartley from the World Cup squad was based on a possible scenario which ended up not occurring. I don't have a problem with him looking to cover that possibility, but it was baffling that he showed no signs of covering the rather more likely scenarios I described above, which would leave us short of a kicker.

How many times has that actually happened in England test matches?
Its bad enough picking a bench trying to fill in for "what ifs" but a first team?

As for limitation ..was it? Jones couldve fielded a replacement, maybe he just chose to give his number one guy every chance he could to overcome his issue. Sure if theyd had Farrell at 12 then he couldve taken that on (or likely wouldve started as prime kicker anyway) ..but does anyone believe hes Englands best 12? If you have to trade off to get Ford in the side dont you have to at some point question whther its better to just pick someone that wont need backing up so often (and in many cases by the time that decision is made it would be too late anyway)

Yes it would be nice to have a secodn kicker in the side, it would also be nice to have chuck norris. But picking one just to make sure there is back up or just to get Ford in (whislt at the same time having someone to tackle for him) suggests that hes somehow vital to everything good england do. If he is then they have bigger problems than the kicking to worry about.


As foa  lack of part time kickers under Lancaster...England have regulalry played Goode and Twelvetrees in recent years and Slade even more recently ...guys who have been regular kickers for their clubs. Farrells made a number of appearances in the centers too. In real emegency if they couldnt figure out how to delay a kick then guys like Eastmond and Barrit have previous experince of being goal kickers and Ben Youngs has kicked one a penalty at club level. Care offers a genuine drop goal option.
A good number of England test sides have had the back up kicker in the first 15 as well as the specialist 10 on the bench. Im struggling to think when they got used though, even with Twelvetrees being a long range specialist. (Quick check, Goodes taken one penalty when Farrell came off....Twelvetrees was on the pitch, so they still had a spare regular kicker). Now we have Devoto and Daly as additional fringe occasional goal kickers in the sqaud to back up Slade and Goode who have a strong chance of being in a normal starting 15. The selection for this game was odd because of availability, normally England will have options on and off the pitch.

Short version:
A back up kicker in the first 15 is a nice luxury.
England often have them, very rarely use them till first choice is replaced.
The scenario of the first choice going for a fag break when a quick penalty is needed pretty much never happens.

Welly wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:At least England did not have to destroy thousands of Grand Slam T shirts this time round.  I bet there's a Grand Slam DVD too!!  Kettle calling the Pot it seem's.  Mind you 1 GS in 13 years I hope it was done in Blu-Ray. and or 3D if only to show how Wales almost did it again in 20 minutes hahaha

1 RWC = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 GS's

How much is beating the hosts at home worth?

All this 'back-up' kicker stuff seems to be a red herring. England continued to use their front line kicker all day even though he couldn't hit a barn door. I'm pretty sure Care is a half descent goal kicker as I'm sure several others in the squad are. Most young players practice kicking at goal just for the pure fun of it.

I worry about how Ford will come back from this. His first kick at goal is going to put huge pressure on him. Getting rid of the yips is not easy.

SecretFly wrote:Yeah, of course.  But it almost bit them... the cruising and pacing.  Sometimes they do take the foot off the peddle and a Welsh team that tastes something in a final quarter wouldn't be the team to try it against.

I suspect Wales will have at least one game where they push New Zealand hard.  

To be fair Ireland pushed them hard in one test when they went over. It was 0-0 for 6 minutes

"How much is beating the hosts at home worth?"

Answer:- Absolutely FA if you don't go on to win it.

englandglory4ever wrote:"How much is beating the hosts at home worth?"

Answer:- Absolutely FA if you don't go on to win it.

Especially if its in the very next round and then not 4 months later go back and get the sh*t kicked out of you by the same so called 'poor team' on the same pitch.

Gooseberry wrote:How much is beating the hosts at home worth?

I wonder whether I'm the only person who doesn't think losing as a host matters any more than losing when you aren't. I don't want to lose any less at a World Cup just because it isn't being played at home.

As hosts in 1991 we also lost twice. The 1999 venue horse trading meant that England were also at Twickenham when we lost to NZ. We've now lost five World Cup matches at home.

I don't feel any better at losing the 2007 Final because it was away, compared with the 1991 final when we were hosts.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:How much is beating the hosts at home worth?

I wonder whether I'm the only person who doesn't think losing as a host matters any more than losing when you aren't. I don't want to lose any less at a World Cup just because it isn't being played at home.

As hosts in 1991 we also lost twice. The 1999 venue horse trading meant that England were also at Twickenham when we lost to NZ. We've now lost five World Cup matches at home.

I don't feel any better at losing the 2007 Final because it was away, compared with the 1991 final when we were hosts.

Level of expectation
Level of interest from the casual fan
Once in a generation opportunity
Feeling of "getting one over" from the opposition

Losing home games is always worse, doubly so when the world is watchning and its the worst bunch of trolls on the internet who do it.

Gooseberry wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:How much is beating the hosts at home worth?

I wonder whether I'm the only person who doesn't think losing as a host matters any more than losing when you aren't. I don't want to lose any less at a World Cup just because it isn't being played at home.

As hosts in 1991 we also lost twice. The 1999 venue horse trading meant that England were also at Twickenham when we lost to NZ. We've now lost five World Cup matches at home.

I don't feel any better at losing the 2007 Final because it was away, compared with the 1991 final when we were hosts.

Level of expectation
Level of interest from the casual fan
Once in a generation opportunity
Feeling of "getting one over" from the opposition

Losing home games is always worse, doubly so when the world is watchning and its the worst bunch of trolls on the internet who do it.

From FIFA WC, Olympics to all other sports, home advantage, home support is always seen as a major benefit, a once in a lifetime event. SA fell at first hurdle too at 2010 SWC but to be fair they were also the lowest ranked hosts, had only ever featured in 1 WC prior and they still beat France to compensate. Group of death in 2015 yes but it was a massive fall from grace, perhaps its a good thing though.. had they scrapped through and lost in the QF to South Africa, Lancaster would still be in the job, have got another runners up place in the 6N and continue to say England are building to the future.

Gooseberry wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:How much is beating the hosts at home worth?

I wonder whether I'm the only person who doesn't think losing as a host matters any more than losing when you aren't. I don't want to lose any less at a World Cup just because it isn't being played at home.

As hosts in 1991 we also lost twice. The 1999 venue horse trading meant that England were also at Twickenham when we lost to NZ. We've now lost five World Cup matches at home.

I don't feel any better at losing the 2007 Final because it was away, compared with the 1991 final when we were hosts.

Level of expectation
Level of interest from the casual fan
Once in a generation opportunity
Feeling of "getting one over" from the opposition

Losing home games is always worse, doubly so when the world is watchning and its the worst bunch of trolls on the internet who do it.

Yes, the usual Welsh antagonists have been strangely quiet since Sunday, well, since the 6N actually. Wonder why.

Gooseberry wrote:...Level of interest from the casual fan...

I suspect we're mostly on the same page, so please don't take my replies the wrong way, but that comment interests me.

Viewing figures will have grown over the years, but I reckon you can make a case that interest from the casual fan was higher in 1991 than 2015.

I don't know how you go about proving it, but there were probably more household names in that 1991 England team than Lancaster's squad. Coaches were less prominent, so the casual fan might not even know Geoff Cooke but would have known at least some of Andrew, Carling, Guscott, Underwood (with his mum cheering in the stands), Richards, Teague, Winterbottom, Moore, Leonard, Dooley and Ackford.

It was a pre-internet era, so interest was always more concentrated because there were fewer authoritative media voices to set the agenda. Rugby wasn't yet professional but England had begun to look sharp since just before the 1989 Lions tour. The 1990 Murrayfield Grand Slam decider was one of the biggest media events rugby had ever seen at that point.

Breadvan wrote:The yips he had Sunday will be on doubt ironed out before the tour..

Is that enough time for Ford to recover his confidence though? Aus will know that 1 mistake and his game can deteriorate (see Wales game in 6n) so they'll be targeting him. I for one couldn't justify picking him unless I was 100% sure he was mentally over Sunday; only EJ can make that call but IMO it could do more damage than good if it backfires. The SH is a tough place to play away from home.

Ford had a worse than normal kicking game but they weren't yips... he's been bad his whole test career. He's simply not good enough.

It might be my brain becoming addled in my dotage, but didn't Brown used to take a lot of long range shots for Quins a few years ago.

I think Care has been an emergency kicker for Quins as well, see to remember him slotting a couple over in a game, but they were ones that I could probably have got.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:It might be my brain becoming addled in my dotage, but didn't Brown used to take a lot of long range shots for Quins a few years ago.

I think Care has been an emergency kicker for Quins as well, see to remember him slotting a couple over in a game, but they were ones that I could probably have got.

Nope. Brown has taken precisely one place kick in the years I've been watching him and it was surprisingly comedic in its ineptness. I've always wondered why he didn't develop that skill - it would be a very useful one to have.

Care is a very good drop goal kicker but I don't think I've ever seen him place kick successfully.

You can't go into a tight test match with a poor kicker. You just can't... why because in 50/50 matches kicks are what makes the difference. So at the moment I'd rank Englands opponents as thus

Should win
Scotland
Italy
Argentina

Tight 50/50 (home team often has advantage)
Ireland
Wales
France

Optimistic
South Africa
Australia

Need perfect game
New Zealand

So everything from 50/50 tight games you need to nail all your kicks in almost all circumstances. So he got away with it vs. Wales. Would have done vs. AUS, vs. Ireland? Please.

First halves are often tight. Say in a tight game each kicker has 4 pots at goal. If one nails 4 and the other 2 then you're six points down even though your equally matched... and then you have to start chasing games. Good example is 2015 vs. Ireland in 6N. Sexton hit his, Ford didn't. Ireland brought up 9 point lead and England had to open up... let in a try and the game was lost.

In a kicking duel if your player is inferior you have to make sure the rest of your game is superior, significantly so. You can't say that about England to a point that Ford kicking (even off the bench) is worth a shout. He was lucky not to lose the game to Wales in the 6N. His charge down try, his missed kicks. Its not form. Its lack of quality.

Poorfour wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:It might be my brain becoming addled in my dotage, but didn't Brown used to take a lot of long range shots for Quins a few years ago.

I think Care has been an emergency kicker for Quins as well, see to remember him slotting a couple over in a game, but they were ones that I could probably have got.

Nope. Brown has taken precisely one place kick in the years I've been watching him and it was surprisingly comedic in its ineptness. I've always wondered why he didn't develop that skill - it would be a very useful one to have.

Care is a very good drop goal kicker but I don't think I've ever seen him place kick successfully.

Brown has 2 conversions for quins
Care has 3 international drop goals and 6 for Quins

fa0019 wrote:You can't say that about England to a point that Ford kicking (even off the bench) is worth a shout. He was lucky not to lose the game to Wales in the 6N. His charge down try, his missed kicks. Its not form. Its lack of quality.

That charge down was due to the refusal of others to take responsibility. Hartley refused to risk a throw past the front and so wenter for safety. The jumper doesn't risk trying for the catch so palms the ball down to the scrum half who catches it on his wrong side and then throws a pass instead of recycling or going for the box kick. Ford gets shafted with a poor pass off of very slow ball and a back line all up flat and unable to take the pressure off him. It was horrific tactics from England.

His general play away from kicking is a key aspect in moving England forward. Ford's kicking isn't great and has always been a weakness (really the only major weakness) in his game. It's also a responsibility that can be undertaken by someone else.

After all those mistakes isn't Ford just as culpable for then making the decision he makes that leads to the charge down try as everyone else. At times he'll get shot ball and needs to use it right

Charge downs are never a certainty. In hindsight he should have stepped and bought time to recycle the ball. What was a cetainty was that the ball to the front straight off the top would give him no time on the ball.

Anybody notice how similar the game was to the 2015 6N game? Wales on top early on only to be 2nd best from about 20 minutes and then get nilled in the 2nd half.

There are reasons why Sunday was tougher for Wales but of course it was an inexperienced and reduced England squad also.

Charlie Hodgson would have had much more caps for England if he could hold his nerve at international place kicking....
Its just that George Ford at the moment fits that mercurial, but slightly flakey mould.
That's not to say that he wont improve given the chance........But there are guys like Andy Goode that got call ups due to high kicking percentages, Wilko became a bit stale with attacking play but maintained due to high %.

fa0019 wrote:Ford had a worse than normal kicking game but they weren't yips... he's been bad his whole test career. He's simply not good enough.

1st game you've really been able to say that after a long wait. Feels better?

Ford is a far better 10 than Farrell but a worse kicker. Why in english rugby does it HAVE to be the 10 who takes the goal kicks? Patterson used to from 15 for scotland, laidlaw does from 9

You play your best 10 which for England is Ford and the best kicker in the 15 takes the kicks. MIke Brown?

Tries win matches and with Ford you will score more tries.

TJ wrote:Ford is a far better 10 than Farrell but a worse kicker.  Why in english rugby does it HAVE to be the 10 who takes the goal kicks?  Patterson used to from 15 for scotland, laidlaw does from 9

You play your best 10 which for England is Ford and the best kicker in the 15 takes the kicks.  MIke Brown?

Tries win matches and with Ford you will score more tries.

Well tries don't actually win matches, as seen last week....points win matches.

Ford will resume at 10 with Farrell at 12, so our 10 will not be taking the kicks.

to me Farrell at 12 is an even worse option. Surely someone else in the england team can take the kicks?

Its pretty tough to criticise Farrell at 12 after a performance where he helped tighten up our defence, we scored 3 tries and he kicked 20 odd points from all over their half?

As it happens, we don't have another recognised goal kicker in the side, maybe Slade if he locks up a starting place, or Daly from long range if he gets a starting place

Farrell has been the best 10 in Europe, inc Carter, this year, including good attacking play. He has also been good in his last few games at 12.

Implying he isn't good enough is very very strange, saying we should just find another kicker even stranger, in my opinion

8 unbeaten games with Ford at 10 isn't it? 6N clean sweep with him along with Farrell at 12 who also happens to be their frontline kicker - without actually checking I would assume his kicking at goal success rate is one of the best. To me changing that up would be lunacy. I also had reservations about that 10/12 combo but that was long ago now, and if it ain't broke then......

ChequeredJersey wrote:Farrell has been the best 10 in Europe, inc Carter, this year, including good attacking play. He has also been good in his last few games at 12.

Implying he isn't good enough is very very strange, saying we should just find another kicker even stranger, in my opinion

I'm increasingly coming to the view that International rugby is a different game from club rugby to the extent that the requirements of a few key positions are very different. For instance, it's pretty much orthodox now that at least one wing needs to be able to cover fullback.

For 10 & 12, it looks to me as if 10s get so little time on the ball that it becomes very important to have a second creator in the backline. When was the last time England had a really great team without one? You probably have to go back to the 1991 RWC squad where you had Andrews and Carling - and we were playing a 10 man, forward dominated game. Since then our good backlines have had two or even three (Wilkinson - Catt - Greenwood).

Farrell's previous best spell at International level was in 2014 when he was playing with Care (and I will never understand why Lancaster didn't play Care alongside Farrell in the RWC once he dropped Ford), and now he and Ford look very effective as a pairing. I think he can handle the physical demands and it works. I just don't get all the hand wringing about it.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Farrell has been the best 10 in Europe, inc Carter, this year, including good attacking play. He has also been good in his last few games at 12.

Implying he isn't good enough is very very strange, saying we should just find another kicker even stranger, in my opinion

Nonsense. Bigger has been the best. then Ford / sexton second best. Farrell is slow, lies too deep and loses his temper too much. He wastes a lot of attacking opportunity and kicks the ball away far too much. Bigger is clearly the best 10 in the NH this year.

Not this year. Farrell was great.

Opinions eh? IMO Farrell simply is too slow between the ears and not daring enough. sure he kicks his goals and kicks well from hand but as for finding space for the guys outside him?

You haven't watched him much this year then.

TJ wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Farrell has been the best 10 in Europe, inc Carter, this year, including good attacking play. He has also been good in his last few games at 12.

Implying he isn't good enough is very very strange, saying we should just find another kicker even stranger, in my opinion

Nonsense.  Bigger has been the best.  then Ford / sexton second best.  Farrell is slow, lies too deep and loses his temper too much.  He wastes a lot of attacking opportunity and kicks the ball away far too much.  Bigger is clearly the best 10 in the NH this year.

Completely lost with this.

Ford has been pretty poor for most of the year. Bigger, although a fantastic FH, has hardly played any meaningful club rugby in Europe and didn't have a great 6N. Sexton has also had a very poor season.

Your comments are very 2014/15.

TJ wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Farrell has been the best 10 in Europe, inc Carter, this year, including good attacking play. He has also been good in his last few games at 12.

Implying he isn't good enough is very very strange, saying we should just find another kicker even stranger, in my opinion

Nonsense.  Bigger has been the best.  then Ford / sexton second best.  Farrell is slow, lies too deep and loses his temper too much.  He wastes a lot of attacking opportunity and kicks the ball away far too much.  Bigger is clearly the best 10 in the NH this year.

I respectfully, as a previous critic of Farrell's attacking game, disagree. That is not what I have seen from Farrell this year, and Biggar and Ford have both been hot and cold in Int and Club matches showing little consistency at all

If Ford is really considered to be one of the best in the NH then god help the rest of them.

Farrell has been head and shoulders the best 10 in NH this year.

Its what I have seen of Farrell and BIggar this year. Maybe I have only seen the poor games he had as I haven't seen him much but two images stick with me. One of him kicking ahead with a a 2 on one outside him and one of him shovelling on Poopie so slowly the man outside him got man and ball

Its all opinions tho ain't it. I want more than a good kicker from my 10. shame we can't get the best of Russell with his magical passing ( at times) with farrells kicking

So out of a whole season of Farrell playing great, really Frak great rugby (as painful as that is to say about him).

You pick two incidents which every fly half going has probably as well.

Great.

Farrell Jr had a shocker vs Wasps in the ERCC semis but other than that he's generally played well this season.

Was that the one game you saw TJ?

As for Russell, the bloke plays like a headless chicken. I can't call him overrated because I don't think he's very highly rated bar yourself.

Farrell's merits as an international 10 are largely unproven in 2016 mainly due to all bar about 30 minutes being played at 12.

His form for Saracens however, bar a slight post 6Ns dip, has been excellent and certainly it was justified that he made the shortlist for Euro Player of the Year - while anyone doubting his improved attacking game should search out highlights of Sarries two good wins over Ulster.

Farrell plays better with an alternate playmaker. To be honest, most do and the resurgence of Giteau proved the second five-eigth with the right players is a winning strategy.

England tried it a number of times but never really had the players who were comfortable playing there. It always was forced. Hodgson & Wilkinson, Flood & Wilkinson.

However when you look at players like Mauger, Horan, Hernandez, McAllister, Giteau, Henson, Steyn it is clear when you have the right personnel its a very good option to have... and often superior to the standard Roberts, Tindall, De Villiers type.

Been working for England thus far.

The best play-maker's these days are very much in the mould of Biggar and Farrell, even Foley plays the same way and that's why Cheika prefers him to the likes of Cooper the headless chicken. He can control a game and his fly-half basics are far superior. People always seem to expect a good all-round 10 like Carter; the truth is that aside from Sexton those guys are pretty rare.

Is this the football thread or still an old rugby one?

Agree Mikey, Foley is a far superior player to Cooper

I would say Ford is a far better playmaker than Farrell is at the moment, but with everything else Farrell brings I'd be starting him over Ford at 10 if we ever find a competent 12

Cooper is worth the money though. You never know what a headless chicken might do but a lot of it has potential to be entertaining/