6N 2018: Scotland v England, 24 February

First topic message reminder :

     
SCOTLAND v ENGLAND
24 February 2018
KO: 16:45 GMT
BT Murrayfield, Edinburgh

Live on [Old BBC Colonial]

Referee: Nigel Owens (Wales)
Assistant 1: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Assistant 2: Andrew Brace (Ireland)
TMO: Simon McDowell (Ireland)

A. Head to Head

135 Played 135
42 Won 75
18 Drawn 18
75 Lost 42
1,162 Points 1,623

B. Recent Form 

2 February 2013
Twickenham, London
38 – 18 to England

8 February 2014
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
0 – 20 to England

14 March 2015
Twickenham, London
25 – 13 to England

6 February 2016
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
9 – 15 to England

11 March 2017
Twickenham, London
61 – 21 to England

C. Teams

SCOTLAND 

Hogg, Seymour, Jones, Horne, Maitland, Russell, Laidlaw; Reid, McInally, Berghan, Gilchrist, J Gray, Barclay (capt), Watson, Wilson.

Replacements: Lawson, J Bhatti, WP Nel, Swinson, Denton, Price, Grigg, Kinghorn.

ENGLAND

Brown, Watson, Joseph, Farrell, May, Ford, Care; M Vunipola, Hartley (capt), Cole, Launchbury, Itoje, Lawes, Robshaw, Hughes.

Replacements: George, Marler, Williams, G Kruis (Saracens), Underhill, Wigglesworth, B Te'o, J Nowell.

EJ as all ways picked the best players for every game. But i just get the feeling that he is relying on the same players too much. 

He is not either through injury or not good ( form wise) player to suit every game.

Seems to be going back to when 2003 team ran out every game, you knew who was going to be in the team with out reading the team sheet.

England need  to freshen up the scrum some how.

Ibet if you looked at every backs try this 6N you could see a foreward pass

I assume we've got to the point you're going to avoid questions then beshocked.

Isd the reason Lawes is getting selected at 6 because they want 3 locks or because they have 4 locks who are better than most of their flankers...epecially when theres a number unavailable.

Regardless of the sleections though even those players who were picked are capable of better. They arent always that flat footed and have played with greater intensity on other days.

Yes there was a (relative) weakness in mobility ion Englands backrow compared to scoitlands but theys till shouldnt have come off second best to such an extent. And the pack shouldve done better in the shoving contests given who was selected.

For me the most concerning point in all this fiasco was just how badly the team as a unit froze on the day for no real obvious reason. It wasnt the biggest game theyve had together or the most hostile atmosphere theyve faced or the best oppsoition ( although Scotland did turn up very well). The famed leadership of Hartley, Brown, Robshaw and Farrell didnt materialise to slap them awake, and the finsihers just werent there on the bench as they had been the previous two years.

England are capable of being better than that. The case for changing the backrow, Hartley and Brown has intensified a bit but still isnt the key thing for me. Nor is the bench as strong as it was/could be, certainly for when chasing a game Wigglesworth isnt the number one option. But again mucking about with that isnt going to fundamentaly change the collective attitude displayed.

There of course has to be credit to Scotland who have shown they " can beat anyone on their day" but England really havent kicked up like they did the previous two years.


Jones' talk is not of making wholesale changes to the side (as always) but we do need something to spark them up. France may be a mess but still have the potential to be very good if they turn up switched on. Beating Irelands going to take their best performance of the year, and a lot better than the previous two.

TJ wrote:Ibet if you looked at every backs try this 6N you could see a foreward pass

Isnt that what the TMOs are there for?

Depends if they are asked. There is a certain argument to say that the tmo process for try could follow a set number of checks like cricket. Issue there is that I believe they can check up to 2 breakdowns before so it would start to up he amount of time it takes from an already lengthy process. As it is it remains to the refs judgement of what they hink may be an issue.

no 7 & 1/2 I am tired of your arguing for the sake of arguing

You say I am avoiding the question but I answered it - Jones wanted Itoje, Lawes and Launchbury all to start.

He wants them all on the pitch.

You are not acknowledging that Jones got Itoje,Lawes and Launchbury on the pitch before the Ireland game also.

The problem is the 3 lock starting strategy isn't working. England need a proper backrow.

You are arguing just because you want to argue.

It doesn't matter then beshocked. Thought we my be able to learn somthing from you. If you want to keep your analysis close to your chest that's something we'll have to live with.

I don't rate Lawes, always off the pace and only makes big tackles when the ball has gone.

I'd drop him altogether to be honest.

Oh and I didn't say te locks didn't start together before that. I just merely said they'll have learnt they need a rock solid lineout and along with injuries is why you've seen no major move to breakdown specialists as yet. But you're the expert you know all this

beshocked wrote:The problem is the 3 lock starting strategy isn't working. England need a proper backrow.

You two might choose to disagree about a lot but I'd genuinely like to see you address this issue independent of what you think the coaching team is trying to achieve.

England have wrestled - I wouldn't say struggled - with this issue for years. Tom Croft's lineout work was seen as indispensable; at the same time his value as a gritty flanker was questioned. Further back, Tim Rodber switched between the two positions, and I think Martin Corry might have done too.

Let's pose this question to you both (beshocked and 7 1/2). If we play a lock at six, is our backrow balance bad because Robshaw isn't a good enough seven?

Alternatively, do we have someone who could play seven, who would validate the choice of a lock at six? That is, would Lawes/Vunipola/Underhill or Curry or Simmons do the job we want?

Or, do we ditch the two lock strategy and play two eights? Hughes/Vuniploa/Underhill etc etc?

Or, do we decide the six role is important, and go with whoever we think is best in each position, say, Robshaw/Vunipola/Underhill?

No 7 & 1/2 what team doesn't want a rock solid lineout?

The lineout has been irrelevant against Scotland.

Well Jones could have picked Underhill to start this 6 nations but would rather have a lock in the backrow.

You'd learn something if you stopped disagreeing with me for the sake of argument and just listened.

I am only stating the obvious, England have a lot to work on.

Knowing more than you doesn't make me an expert.

Rugby fan

Our backrow balance is bad because we are playing a lock at 6 and a 6 at 7. Let's say for argument sake a 5.5 and 6.5, we are still not dynamic enough.

Yes we have Underhill.

Robshaw,Underhill and Hughes I think is the answer.


I say we pick the best in each position.


Our inability to compete at the breakdown is also a lack of dynamism in the rest of the pack as well.


Itoje is out of form and not operating as well as normal.

Hartley is not a dynamic hooker.

Cole is mediocre but not as dynamic as someone like Sinckler.

It is the support play as a whole.

Ha. The 1st point would be if everyone is fit. Robshaw is not the best 7 in the best back row for me so I'd consider him a 6 only. Underhill or curry at 7. I agree with gf curry is the guy with the brighter future; maybe even his brother. Right now underhill is better and his carrying is improving. Vunipola is the 8 no real question. Robshaw is the best 6 but it does leave us light in the lineout. If Clifford gets back to the form pre injury he could be the guy.big if as he needs to stay fit like billy! Simmons om the bench.

I think we should look at what we did in Australia over the 3 test series, and work out why we're NOT doing that now.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think we should look at what we did in Australia over the 3 test series, and work out why we're NOT doing that now.

I think our attack has been found out a bit. And the players are losing their edge. Perhaps too much Rugby????

..but everyone is beating Australia these days. It really does have to be factored into the equation.

There can’t be much doubt that our BR is a problem at the moment – it’s so far off world class it’s scary. Our best in recent years was Robshaw, Haskell & Billy - all on form and a simple game-plan. But with Billy sicknote out and Haskell’s toe & form on the wobble, EJ has struggled to have much vision of where to go. It hasn’t helped that our top 3 no 8s have been out. I’d say of all the current BR problems, Billy is the biggest. With Billy’s carrying & presence in place it would give EJ some scope for getting the balance right, maybe with mini-Haskell Underhill in. But this is where top coaches earn their wad. And EJ is struggling with this one.

Rugby Fan wrote:

beshocked wrote:The problem is the 3 lock starting strategy isn't working. England need a proper backrow.

You two might choose to disagree about a lot but I'd genuinely like to see you address this issue independent of what you think the coaching team is trying to achieve.

England have wrestled - I wouldn't say struggled - with this issue for years. Tom Croft's lineout work was seen as indispensable; at the same time his value as a gritty flanker was questioned. Further back, Tim Rodber switched between the two positions, and I think Martin Corry might have done too.

Let's pose this question to you both (beshocked and 7 1/2). If we play a lock at six, is our backrow balance bad because Robshaw isn't a good enough seven?

Alternatively, do we have someone who could play seven, who would validate the choice of a lock at six? That is, would Lawes/Vunipola/Underhill or Curry or Simmons do the job we want?

Or, do we ditch the two lock strategy and play two eights? Hughes/Vuniploa/Underhill etc etc?

Or, do we decide the six role is important, and go with whoever we think is best in each position, say, Robshaw/Vunipola/Underhill?

On Robshaw at 7 - I don't think he is a bad 7, and can be effective against certain opposition, Wales and SA would be two under their current guise. I do think his lack of pace is his biggest issue, and regardless of how effective he can be when he gets to a breakdown, the extra second or two that a speedier back rower like Watson/Barclay will have to set themselves can make a difference. I would expect Leavy to look great against the England back row that started on Saturday too

Equally, its the responsibility of the whole team to challenge at the breakdown, not just the back rowers. I just think having that expertise and fleet of foot player at 7 can make a huge difference. Underhill doesn't strike me as having the absolute best technique at the breakdown, but he is quick and powerful, that may well be enough to make a difference. I said earlier I think its a shame Tom Curry is out, as I genuinely think he could cement a spot at 7 in this England side if he gets a run of games

I also don't want to see locks at 6 - Robshaw is a terrific 6 for me, and I would start him there every game. I do see the line out issues, but think Itoje/Lawes either need to take on the carrying responsibility that Launchbury provides, giving us two top class jumpers at lock with support in the back row, or Launchbury needs to take on more jumping responsibility. I'm in favour of starting Launchbury and 1 other at lock, with Robshaw and whoever is at 7 offering a lineout option

I certainly wouldn't be picking Hughes/Billy in the same back row

doctor_grey wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think we should look at what we did in Australia over the 3 test series, and work out why we're NOT doing that now.

I think our attack has been found out a bit.  And the players are losing their edge.  Perhaps too much Rugby????

Not a word of it. More ruthless training weeks are what is needed. dawn til dusk. Maybe dragging a herd of elephants up Ben Nevis or something. More heavy duty training please.

Well Geordiefalcon we had Haskell in beast mode.

I also wonder if Jones will throw the dice and recall Manu.

Basteraud vs Manu would be an impressive battle of the beasts.

I myself didn't think Manu would be able to recover but the prospect of Manu's physicality in midfield.... well it could be something Jones might consider.

beshocked wrote:Well Geordiefalcon we had Haskell in beast mode.

I also wonder if Jones will throw the dice and recall Manu.

Basteraud vs Manu would be an impressive battle of the beasts.

I myself didn't think Manu would be able to recover but the prospect of Manu's physicality in midfield.... well it could be something Jones might consider.

Very true, and barely seen it since.

Underhill is the nearest I think. But i'm a MASSIVE fan of Tom Curry. He looks a very intelligent 7. When he's fit we have options.

But I agree with what was said above...the whole pack contributes to the breakdown not just the back row. Hookers are usually good in that area but Hartley doesn't seem to be pulling up trees there...

Rugby Fan wrote:

beshocked wrote:The problem is the 3 lock starting strategy isn't working. England need a proper backrow.

You two might choose to disagree about a lot but I'd genuinely like to see you address this issue independent of what you think the coaching team is trying to achieve.

England have wrestled - I wouldn't say struggled - with this issue for years. Tom Croft's lineout work was seen as indispensable; at the same time his value as a gritty flanker was questioned. Further back, Tim Rodber switched between the two positions, and I think Martin Corry might have done too.

Let's pose this question to you both (beshocked and 7 1/2). If we play a lock at six, is our backrow balance bad because Robshaw isn't a good enough seven?

Alternatively, do we have someone who could play seven, who would validate the choice of a lock at six? That is, would Lawes/Vunipola/Underhill or Curry or Simmons do the job we want?

Or, do we ditch the two lock strategy and play two eights? Hughes/Vuniploa/Underhill etc etc?

Or, do we decide the six role is important, and go with whoever we think is best in each position, say, Robshaw/Vunipola/Underhill?

I think to a certain extent you have to go with your strongest players. 6, 7 and 8 are just numbers, there's no way to say how they should play. However, you have to have a blend of skills.

Currently, we have Lawes offering in the lineout and making hits around the park. We have Robshaw in for his ruck work and Hughes in for his carrying. Robshaw is a thorn in opposition team's side, he's a very intelligent player and his anticipation sees him clear up a lot of messes for England, but I don't think he's particularly fast or particularly adept at removing jacklers when he arrives second, which is an issue because as mentioned he's not the quickest. This is amplified when England try to play wide as they did in the Scotland game, especially in the first half.

Although I disagree with a number of Gatland's selections, it is telling we had 1 flanker on the Lions tour who was called up as an injury replacement, didn't feature in the tests and subsequently has been injured for England and we've since struggled a bit at the breakdown.

This is why I'd put Underhill into the team and I'd be asking him to watch tapes of 2016 Haskell, especially that second Aussie test, and get him to focus on making big (legal) tackles and clearing rucks. If he's not doing the business then we can bring Haskell on. Given our current options at 7, we should be judging our 7s on how few turnovers the opposition win as much as how many turnovers our 7 wins.

I think Robshaw, Underhill and Hughes is good enough for the next 2 games, with Vunipola ready to reclaim a spot at 8. It would be interesting to see that with Simmonds on the bench over the summer.