England vs Italy

First topic message reminder :

28 players that have been kept.

Forwards (16): Jack Clifford (Harlequins), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Charlie Ewels (Bath), Jamie George (Saracens), Teimana Harrison (Northampton Saints), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), James Haskell (Wasps), Nathan Hughes (Wasps), Maro Itoje (Saracens), Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins), Mako Vunipola (Saracens), Mike Williams (Leicester Tigers), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints)

Backs (12): Mike Brown (Harlequins), Danny Care (Harlequins), Elliot Daly (Wasps), Owen Farrell (Saracens), George Ford (Bath), Jonathan Joseph (Bath), Jonny May (Gloucester), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs), Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors), Anthony Watson (Bath), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Scottrf wrote:Are we over-reliant on Ford-Farrell?

For pretty much every game under Jones we've started Ford and Farrell at 10/12, often without a playmaker on the bench. The two exceptions are the Wales game last May and the first test in Aus, when Burrell stepped out at 12. He hasn't played International rugby since.

If we want to play two play-makers, we are quite reliant on Ford and Farrell. Devoto was named last year but didn't come to much and Lozowski is around the squad, but could go the same way as Devoto. In this instance, the inclusion of Slade in the 22 shirt is a positive move because it allows us to change the personnel without changing the game plan.

I'd love to know what goes on in Eddie Jones head!

I guess the fact he's resisted putting Daly at 13 means he sees Daly as a back 3 player and not a midfielder.

He maybe the one to replace Brown at 15.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I'd love to know what goes on in Eddie Jones head!

He brought his dog to training this week!

Underwhelmed, but in Jones we trust.

Well there youy go ...never trust the papers.
It sounds like theyve tried a lot of combos out in training.

Wind back a year ...imagine them selecting a side without a fit JJ and Watson even making the bench. In otherwise its a less controversial/experimental line up than predicted. And hes finaly giving Slade another sniff after teasing him so often recently.

Personaly Im happier with Daly as an oustide back than center.


Cant wait to see Beshockeds response to May getting picked ahead of Watson and Nowell though.

Gooseberry wrote:Cant wait to see Beshockeds response to May getting picked ahead of Watson and Nowell though.

I think his response to one of the other picks might be even more pronounced.

The bench looks more like a replacement than finisher oriented one this week. Although hopefully we wont need impact.

Scottrf wrote:The bench looks more like a replacement than finisher oriented one this week. Although hopefully we wont need impact.

I think with Italy it's more about taking the game away from them earlier until their heads go down. They don't tend to come back once they're behind. If they stay in the game until half-time (like with Wales) they're much more difficult to break down and get the big score.

Vunipola, George, Sinckler and Clifford could have some fun against a tiring Italy side for the last half hour.

Youngs will probably look better than Care for the last twenty minutes and we'll be back to the usual headscratcher about scrumhalf.

On refection this is a missed opportunity to shake things up and to challenge/rest some of the seniors.

Cole needs a rest, Hartley though short of game time needs a hurry up and Ford needs to buck his ideas up. Youngs also needs a rest and Brown needs retiring.

All should have been dropped.

I think there are a few experiments in there! Not sure about Teo at 13! But I am sure they will interchange. There is plenty of experienced cover across the park too - Slade/Daly can all slot in. Might find Ford comes off, Farrell steps in to 10, with Teo to 12 and Slade to 13.
It isn't a bench of finishers, but it is a bench for completely changing the game/tactics.

Unlucky for Watson but perhaps too soon for him.

kingelderfield wrote:Cole needs a rest.

He got one last week and will get one next week.

kingelderfield wrote:Hartley though short of game time needs a hurry up.

Being subbed after 50 minutes each week and having his position constantly scrutinised by the press doesn't count as a "hurry up"?

kingelderfield wrote:Ford needs to buck his ideas up.

Didn't think he had been playing badly. Who comes in?

kingelderfield wrote:Youngs also needs a rest

He got one last week and will get one next week.

kingelderfield wrote:Brown needs retiring.

Again, didn't think he had been playing badly. Who comes in?

I think kingelderfield would play a different starting XV every week. Just to keep 'em 'fresh' and 'on their toes'.

Ford is going fine.

Because he's small people assume he is a running/passing fly half, only good with front foot ball. Actually despite his attacking talents he's also a really good defensive flyhalf. He is a good tackler (he may not win the gainline but most 10s and backs in general don't) and his tactical kicking is actually arguably the strongest facet of his game.

Just because he is not flashy, doesn't mean he isn't good. Same with Brown. He might not have had a great effect in the oppos 22 so far this tournament but his kick returns have been brilliant for Eng being able to recycle ball and not have to kick it away. Also his defence and ability to affect the breakdown continue to be excellent.

I'm quite happy with that line up.

Haskell will have the perfect preparation for the Scotland and Ireland games where he'll be a key player, his instructions will be simple as always; if it moves tackle it and run straight.

Te'o could have a field day with the Italians and I'd disagree about him lacking pace, he's much more than a battering ram as his break against Wales showed, it's the only real change of note.

Care for Youngs is a logical move and follows the Jones blueprint of picking one or the other depending on opponent, Youngs kicking won't be required so he's gone for the better runner.

May in for Nowell again seems tactical as we shouldn't need the latters defensive work and a rapidly tiring Italian team will give May space to run.

England's toughest game is upon them. Nerves must be growing.

cascough just because a player makes their tackles doesn't make them a good defender if they got knocked back every time and need someone to assist.

Agree with a lot of what kingelderfield has said.

Brown isn't playing well but Jones hasn't tried alternatives at 15 yet.

Jones is being bold in some ways but in others he's being overly conservative - not sure it's the right balance. Think he's got it the wrong way round but we'll see.

Gooseberry I hope May plays well, it's rare he plays well in the 6 nations, hopefully he can conquer his demons.

Personally I think it's worrying how many out of form players have been retained in the starting line up, will be interesting to see if this game can help re energise these players.

George gets his record on Sunday as well I think.

beshocked wrote:cascough just because a player makes their tackles doesn't make them a good defender if they got knocked back every time and need someone to assist.

Agree with a lot of what kingelderfield has said.

Brown isn't playing well but Jones hasn't tried alternatives at 15 yet.

Jones is being bold in some ways but in others he's being overly conservative - not sure it's the right balance. Think he's got it the wrong way round but we'll see.

Gooseberry I hope May plays well, it's rare he plays well in the 6 nations, hopefully he can conquer his demons.

Personally I think it's worrying how many out of form players have been retained in the starting line up, will be interesting to see if this game can help re energise these players.

Or maybe that 6n systems are more defensive and rigid giving May less space and against the more open SH teams his running game comes to the fore.

beshocked wrote:cascough just because a player makes their tackles doesn't make them a good defender if they got knocked back every time and need someone to assist.

Agree with a lot of what kingelderfield has said.

Brown isn't playing well but Jones hasn't tried alternatives at 15 yet.

Jones is being bold in some ways but in others he's being overly conservative - not sure it's the right balance. Think he's got it the wrong way round but we'll see.

Gooseberry I hope May plays well, it's rare he plays well in the 6 nations, hopefully he can conquer his demons.

Personally I think it's worrying how many out of form players have been retained in the starting line up, will be interesting to see if this game can help re energise these players.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/02/24/eddie-jones-right-stick-george-ford-fly-half-seen-playing/

This is far more eloquent then I could put it.

beshocked wrote:cascough just because a player makes their tackles doesn't make them a good defender if they got knocked back every time and need someone to assist.

No, it doesn't. But to expand, he has the desire, he has the positioning and he has the technique. The only thing he doesn't have is power. A lot of defenders (backs mostly, and especially fly halves, don't possess all 4 attributes. As I've posted many times Desire>Positioning>Technique>Power. Not every player can smash a player back in the tackle, but you absolutely HAVE to want to defend. You can have all the power in the world but if you're not up for it then you will be a turnstile. You HAVE to be in the right position. You're out of position and no matter how good or powerful a tackler you can't actually make the tackle. It's advantageous to be a good tackler but without the first 2 it makes no difference. The power is the only bit Ford is missing. If he is in the line, his line speed is good enough so that even if he loses yards the opposition don't gain. As for the tackle assist? Endemic in the modern game for a variety of reasons. George Ford is a good defender, I think you're buying into cliches if you think otherwise.

beshocked wrote:
Brown isn't playing well but Jones hasn't tried alternatives at 15 yet.

Why isn't Brown playing well? Because he isn't running in tries in 2 really tight games? Brown's contribution has been valuable, there's no problem there.

beshocked wrote:
Personally I think it's worrying how many out of form players have been retained in the starting line up, will be interesting to see if this game can help re energise these players.

If these players are so out of form why do we keep winning? It says a lot for just how poorly France and Wales must have played (and yet, I've seen nothing but plaudits for those teams' performances against England).

I think the Telegraph article is very good. I think as above that form can be in the eye of the beholder, and certain 'eyes' don't seem to see straight at the best of times.

It is a sensible and exciting line up, as well as a very healthy reminder of how lucky we are to have Billy when he is playing. Hopefully Teo will pull in more defenders and give Hughes and the outside backs more room to do their thing.

As for Brown and Hartley. Hartley does seem very important to the team and the team do respond to him very well. George is a better player but we are a better team with Hartley starting and both have an important role in that. It is similar for Brown. Compared to what he used to do he isn't performing as well, but then we are used to very high standards from him. But he is still a very safe pair of hands at the back. He can still cause chaos with his runs. And he still offers what Hartley does - leadership and direction. It would be nice to see a pass occasionally but nobody only Itoje is perfect....

cascough it's because firstly not all the England players are in poor form. 2ndly the bench has bailed England out of trouble in the last couple of matches.

Look fair enough if you think 5/10 and 6/10 performances are good enough. It's been enough just about but how about if England faces tougher opposition?

Obviously you can outplay your opposite number and lose. Picamoles and Spedding outclassed their opposite numbers.

England performed better for 80 minutes than Wales and France - that's why they won.

You can have poor individual performances and still win. Burrell did that in 2015 6 nations, May and Nowell in 2014 6 nations. Brown,Joseph,Youngs,Ford,Hartley etc this year.


England have been getting the victories but those players haven't been the most valuable.

I guess we can give credit for making the game realistically close enough for the bench to chase down though.


lostinwales indeed it's exciting to see so many players out of position and out of form players retained.

To be honest it doesn't really matter vs Italy. They'll win comfortably. It's just IMO poor preparation for tougher games.

Strange I've thought that England have looked like a better team with Hartley off the pitch in the 6 nations but if you think Hartley has had a great tournament so far fair enough.


Brown wasn't particularly good in last year's 6 nations either but he's just plodding along. As for having direction, would be nice if he passed the ball in the direction of his team mates....


I should add that there's no proof that Hartley is a better starter than George. George hasn't been an opportunity to prove himself as a starter. Equally Hartley hasn't been given an opportunity from the bench.


I know's it's an absolutely crazy thought but with the likes of George and Haskell starting, England might perform better from the beginning instead of waiting till the latter stages of the game....

beshocked wrote:cascough it's because firstly not all the England players are in poor form. 2ndly the bench has bailed England out of trouble in the last couple of matches.

Look fair enough if you think 5/10 and 6/10 performances are good enough. It's been enough just about but how about if England faces tougher opposition?

Obviously you can outplay your opposite number and lose. Picamoles and Spedding outclassed their opposite numbers.

England performed better for 80 minutes than Wales and France - that's why they won.

You can have poor individual performances and still win. Burrell did that in 2015 6 nations, May and Nowell in 2014 6 nations. Brown,Joseph,Youngs,Ford,Hartley etc this year.


England have been getting the victories but those players haven't been the most valuable.

I guess we can give credit for making the game realistically close enough for the bench to chase down though.


lostinwales indeed it's exciting to see so many players out of position and out of form players retained.

To be honest it doesn't really matter vs Italy. They'll win comfortably. It's just IMO poor preparation for tougher games.

So Wales and France drew plaudits, and England were "outplayed for most of" those games. You say we have a number of players out of form. So the ones that aren't out of form were responsible for dragging the rest of team above teams who were playing very well and out playing us. By God, they must be world beaters!? Who are these stand out performers?

See I've heard that England haven't had many standouts and this is evidenced in various media outlets team of the week (more opposition players that were beaten than England players) Now you're saying (by proxy of singling out poor performers) that actually England have had some amazing performers that have not only equalized the English poor performers but have then indeed dragged the team up to surpass the illustrious opposition. Both of these things can't be true (I actually think neither of these things are true)

There's a lot of bull floating round here, other teams/medias throwing out cliches like "Better team" "lost on one moment" and there's fans championing their favourite players (or running down players they don't like). The truth is probably a lot more boring, (England are looking really solid, have good depth and are beating everyone), but let's try stick a bit closer to it.

beshocked wrote:


I know's it's an absolutely crazy thought but with the likes of George and Haskell starting, England might perform better from the beginning instead of waiting till the latter stages of the game....

They had 75% possesion in the first 20 minutes against Wales, scored a try and won two kickable penalties.
Im not sure how Haskell and George wouldve helped the goal kicking percentages.

beshocked wrote:cascough it's because firstly not all the England players are in poor form. 2ndly the bench has bailed England out of trouble in the last couple of matches.

Obviously you can outplay your opposite number and lose. Picamoles and Spedding outclassed their opposite numbers.

England performed better for 80 minutes than Wales and France - that's why they won.


Brown wasn't particularly good in last year's 6 nations either but he's just plodding along. As for having direction, would be nice if he passed the ball in the direction of his team mates....

And can we just put one other thing to bed. France, collectively, were a big steaming pile of brown stuff.

Their forwards were pretty good and carried well, but their backs were spectacularly crap. Despite all those breaks and gainline successes they still couldn't string a pass together (incidentally the same thing you criticise brown for). So if you must hold players to account for a criteria other than the result, then you should do the same to the opposition too. Then perhaps you'll come to realise that actually in the context of international Rugby, everything is going pretty well for England players at the moment. And lets be fair, we've beaten everyone except NZ, and we've still got 18 months to get ready for them.

To be honest I think Wales have taken too many positives from the game.

They lost at home to an understrength England who left two of their best players on the bench.

England were beatable.

Well I thought Haskell and George galvanised England off the bench. Others like Teo and Sinckler have made notable contributions too.

England's bench have outclassed the opposition benches. Adding so much.

England have used their superior strength in depth to brutal effect when you can not just replace players but put better players on the pitch it's worrying for the opposition.

I thought England made quite a few errors vs Wales and France. Just not punished enough.

Gooseberry wrote:

beshocked wrote:


I know's it's an absolutely crazy thought but with the likes of George and Haskell starting, England might perform better from the beginning instead of waiting till the latter stages of the game....

They had 75% possesion in the first 20 minutes against Wales, scored a try and won two kickable penalties.
Im not sure how Haskell and George wouldve helped the goal kicking percentages.

Robbos excellent piece of analysis the other day put this one to bed for me. Going into the last quarter (ie the time everyone is trumping the "finishers") England are nearly always leading anyway. What was it Robbo? 14 out of the last 17?

cascough wrote:

beshocked wrote:cascough it's because firstly not all the England players are in poor form. 2ndly the bench has bailed England out of trouble in the last couple of matches.

Obviously you can outplay your opposite number and lose. Picamoles and Spedding outclassed their opposite numbers.

England performed better for 80 minutes than Wales and France - that's why they won.


Brown wasn't particularly good in last year's 6 nations either but he's just plodding along. As for having direction, would be nice if he passed the ball in the direction of his team mates....

And can we just put one other thing to bed. France, collectively, were a big steaming pile of brown stuff.

Their forwards were pretty good and carried well, but their backs were spectacularly crap. Despite all those breaks and gainline successes they still couldn't string a pass together (incidentally the same thing you criticise brown for). So if you must hold players to account for a criteria other than the result, then you should do the same to the opposition too. Then perhaps you'll come to realise that actually in the context of international Rugby, everything is going pretty well for England players at the moment. And lets be fair, we've beaten everyone except NZ, and we've still got 18 months to get ready for them.

I haven't criticised many of the forwards other than Hartley and Hughes. Hughes improved vs Wales though. Okay I've criticised Wood and Clifford but do you really think they've been that good?

Itoje hasn't been at his best but he's still been superior to those others. Itoje also played better when you guessed it - Haskell and George were playing vs France.

I thought Spedding was very good for France. France have their own problems. I thought we were primarily talking about England though.

Cup half full or empty. Given you watch Saracens quite a lot I thought you'd be used to watching a team grind down others then pull away?

beshocked wrote:

cascough wrote:

beshocked wrote:cascough it's because firstly not all the England players are in poor form. 2ndly the bench has bailed England out of trouble in the last couple of matches.

Obviously you can outplay your opposite number and lose. Picamoles and Spedding outclassed their opposite numbers.

England performed better for 80 minutes than Wales and France - that's why they won.


Brown wasn't particularly good in last year's 6 nations either but he's just plodding along. As for having direction, would be nice if he passed the ball in the direction of his team mates....

And can we just put one other thing to bed. France, collectively, were a big steaming pile of brown stuff.

Their forwards were pretty good and carried well, but their backs were spectacularly crap. Despite all those breaks and gainline successes they still couldn't string a pass together (incidentally the same thing you criticise brown for). So if you must hold players to account for a criteria other than the result, then you should do the same to the opposition too. Then perhaps you'll come to realise that actually in the context of international Rugby, everything is going pretty well for England players at the moment. And lets be fair, we've beaten everyone except NZ, and we've still got 18 months to get ready for them.

I haven't criticised many of the forwards other than Hartley and Hughes. Hughes improved vs Wales though. Okay I've criticised Wood and Clifford but do you really think they've been that good?

Itoje hasn't been at his best but he's still been superior to those others. Itoje also played better when you guessed it - Haskell and George were playing vs France.

I thought Spedding was very good for France. France have their own problems. I thought we were primarily talking about England though.

What is this post even saying!? It's like it doesn't relate to mine at all.

Also worth having a think about how NZs bench often comes on and looks a shade above their starters pretty consistently. It doesn't always follow that if those players started they would have the same impact. Looking forward to Sunday anyway.

beshocked wrote:
England's bench have outclassed the opposition benches. Adding so much.

England have used their superior strength in depth to brutal effect when you can not just replace players but put better players on the pitch it's worrying for the opposition.

The thing is this is the point, the bench players are better than the oppositions bench player rather than being better than the starters, obviously that isn't quite true of Haskell but it is of Te'o, Care, George and Sinckler.

Thing is, we have never seen Eddie Jones' England really click yet. They have played well in parts but have also made errors and not been as ruthlessly clinical as they can be.

If they click, I can see this England team putting a hundred on that Italy team. They have shipped nearly 80 points at home to a wildly mediocre Wales and an Ireland team that let them off the hook at least half a dozen times.

Twickenham is a hard place to win for any visiting team and this Italy team look extremely fragile.

cascough wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

beshocked wrote:


I know's it's an absolutely crazy thought but with the likes of George and Haskell starting, England might perform better from the beginning instead of waiting till the latter stages of the game....

They had 75% possesion in the first 20 minutes against Wales, scored a try and won two kickable penalties.
Im not sure how Haskell and George wouldve helped the goal kicking percentages.

Robbos excellent piece of analysis the other day put this one to bed for me. Going into the last quarter (ie the time everyone is trumping the "finishers") England are nearly always leading anyway. What was it Robbo? 14 out of the last 17?

12 in 15 under Eddie and never trailing by more than a score.

England winning the last two in the last 20 is also not a simple case of saying Hartley, Cole, Clifford, Youngs and Ford are worse than George, Sinckler, Haskell, Care and Te'o.

Take the Welsh game as an example. If you can completely compartmentalise the game, we were losing after 60 and won after 80. The only thing you can deduce from that is:

England's starting team < Wales' starting team
England's finishing team > Wales' finishing team
The difference between England's finishing team and Wales' finishing team > the difference between Wales' starting team and England's stating team

Obviously the whole team doesn't change (although 50% does), but the bench weakened Wales. I don't think their bench players are as strong as their starters, and then there's the inexplicable decision to take of Moriarty.

If we take that as a given, then if the bench only manages to hold England's performance constant, there will still be a relative improvement, which could be why it appears that England's bench players are better than their starters, or at least that England perform better with the bench on.

It's definitely got some anecdotal evidence with analysis of Youngs and Care, with the finisher normally looking better.

Robbo, I love your posts.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Thing is, we have never seen Eddie Jones' England really click yet. They have played well in parts but have also made errors and not been as ruthlessly clinical as they can be.

If they click, I can see this England team putting a hundred on that Italy team. They have shipped nearly 80 points at home to a wildly mediocre Wales and an Ireland team that let them off the hook at least half a dozen times.

Twickenham is a hard place to win for any visiting team and this Italy team look extremely fragile.

It's an odd thing to say. I know exactly what you mean, but we scored 39 points (3 tries, 3 cons, 6 pens) and 44 points (4 tries, 3 cons, 6 pens) in Australia and 37 points (4 tries, 4 cons, 3 pens) at home against South Africa and Australia, which shows we can go out and score tries. But even then we were taking a lot of kicks, and in the Six Nations we've never got hold of anyone, not even Italy away last year.

England feel more like a points-accumulating machine, which is no bad thing, rather than a "try from anywhere" kind of team, which makes me think talk of 60-80 points is possibly a bit much.

I'm also not sure if Eddie Jones' England will ever "click" to the point they are scoring from anywhere, I'm not sure if he's trying to set us up that way. We don't really have an attack coach, our whole game is built on power and defence, and rightly or wrongly I can't see him abandoning those pillars when we've shown we can score tries and win games playing like this.

Really basic point

Players do their thing, and players affect the team around them (either making others look brilliant or making them work harder to cover for deficiencies)

The England team seem to think that what Hartley offers helps the rest of that team play better. And that includes setting things up so that George can come on, do his thing, and look as good as a fat boy who can run a bit can.

That will change, but right now things seem to be working pretty well.

So we have to stop the fat boy or the fat boy's handler and England are there for the taking?

SecretFly wrote:So we have to stop the fat boy or the fat boy's handler and England are there for the taking?

We have plenty of fat boys... (may even have the biggest one available for Ireland if he's fit enough - and given what he did to you guys last year I'd be a hell of a lot more confident about England playing you lot with him available)

England always let folk take things - you know that Secret.

It's just this year in Dublin, you going to have to do it without a SH ref....

lostinwales that's the thing though I don't think Hartley has necessarily helped England play better in the 6 nations so far.

I don't think he's been using mind control. Of course I know that seems to be the perception. It's him moving the limbs of the other players..... When he's off the pitch, the players are stronger, when he's on the pitch he's a leadership master.

Problem is if you don't give a player an opportunity to start then you can repeatedly say they are not good enough to start when that might not be true.

Player X is the greatest because he starts etc. Well no actually I disagree.

Also it's only tired bodies that make the players off the bench look good - well we don't know that... if you decide not to start players.

Do you think that if our much vaunted bench had to play 55-60 minutes rather than 20-25 they may not look so dynamic. Fresh players coming on, knowing they only have 20 minutes to play and can go flat out from the start are bound to look more dynamic than players that have had to pace themselves / have already played 60 minutes.

Being professionals, the pacing may only be a 10% drop off, but very few players, forwards in particular can go flat out from the start, especially as they may have to go all eighty if someone else gets injured.

There is an old saying, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Looking forward to Sunday, will be there and expecting to only see half the match close up, as we are behind the posts in the South Stand, I would hope that for the other half England will be camped in the Northern end.

Recwatcher16 wrote:England always let folk take things - you know that Secret.

It's just this year in Dublin, you going to have to do it without a SH ref....

Who is the ref for that game? It's not Wayne is it? If it is, don't say it out load, Guns may be about...

I think over the 55-60 minutes they'd put in more work than they do in 20-25 yes. I think it's better to have superior players on for more time.

You might not notice the cracks but they are there. A team like Ireland away might be able to exploit them.

We are winning though so the cracks don't matter....

One of Jutge's proteges from his time in the big Refs office in Dublin.

Having said that, there are a distinct lack of senior Oz/NZ refs at the moment - probably another of Jutge's legacies.

Uh oh, just checked that Wayne is up for the Welsh game

Someone in the 6N admin wants to start WW3. That will be some pre-game week. I might take that week off.

Never understood the Irish dislike of Barnes. He's a very good ref.

At least it's not like having a Frenchman reffing French clubs in the Heineken Cup and France in the RWC.....

Now if that was the case I would understand the uproar.

Yes, I saw that for the next Cardiff game, but chose to say nothing.
In Barnes vague defence, in anticipation of the potential result, it is unusual for Wales to lose both their home games in a 6N season....
It is also fairly unusual for Ireland to win both of their home games in a 6N season, so I am assuming an Irish victory this weekend.....

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Do you think that if our much vaunted bench had to play 55-60 minutes rather than 20-25 they may not look so dynamic. Fresh players coming on, knowing they only have 20 minutes to play and can go flat out from the start are bound to look more dynamic than players that have had to pace themselves / have already played 60 minutes.

Being professionals, the pacing may only be a 10% drop off, but very few players, forwards in particular can go flat out from the start, especially as they may have to go all eighty if someone else gets injured.

It's a bigger difference than you might think. One of the Aussie sites - I think it was theroar - did an analysis of starter and bench involvements before the RWC and found that most of the England bench players made about 30-35% more interventions per minute played than the equivalent starters. (The exception was Robshaw, who was putting in a similar workload to a bench player for the whole 80 minutes - and Pocock does about 20% more than that, though that was a different article).

Given those stats, it's hardly surprising that bench players look impressive - but the skill is in picking players who can make those interventions count. I'm comfortable with Youngs starting ahead of Care, for instance, because later in the game Care's quick taps and breaks are more likely to come off than against a fresh defence. Likewise, I think Hartley-George has more impact overall than George-Hartley.

Wonder how Italy are going into this game...

Is their target to keep England below 30, 40, 50, MORE!!!

I actually think Italy will be awarded a few penalties, but whether they'll be able to convert them who knows. But I do think they'll score a try or even two against England, simply because England will have opened such a massive lead, they'll make mistakes throwing it about and leaving themselves exposed in attack.

Either way, I can see a 50+ point gap, so needless to say there'll be a try BP in there for England.

I'm not a fan of the idea of relegation and promotion in the 6 Nations, but I'm afraid to say, that Italy's involvement in this tournament should be brought to an end for maybe another, Georgia maybe.