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.

yappysnap wrote:Well done Scotland! I have been going on YouTube to watch these games when they're available but may skip this one...

Still haven't managed to bring myself to re-watch the 2nd Lions Test from 2009.

Ha, sometimes it's just not worth the pain!

carpet baboon wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Is Farrell starting to slip back into his old I have to be a hard man, I'm better than you all, ways?
I know you need a certain amount of arrogance but he seems to be going back to his gobby high hits stroppy mode which took away a lot from his game, as he was constantly trying to prove how much better he is than everyone, rather than just playing the game.

I don't think so. Farrell was by far the best player for you yesterday, followed closely by Robshaw who did everything he could to try and stem the turnovers. Farrell at least grabbed a try and did his best to defend that tricky 12 channel that Jones attacked with impunity. A bit of credit has to go to Hogg who despite not cutting into the line was lurking behind the 10-12 channel and it drew a lot of attention, that created gaps for Jones to exploit.

Farrell for me is still the best 12 in the world, but faced with that attacking display there wasn't much he could do.

Remarkable stat from the game England made it into the Scottish 22 ten times.

They were turned over 6 times.
Gave away 3 penalties.
Scored a converted try.

In short, not very good. A bad day at the office but I would throw the baby out with the bathwater. The backrow needs to be a bit lighter and mobile, and Jones needs to stop trying to force square pegs into round holes. I know England have fantastic locks, but I can't believe a country with as many players can't unearth a real breakdown terrier.

Radge I'm Irish. He wasn't playing for me

doh, sorry. Just with the location being the Midlands I presumed you were from England.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Is Farrell starting to slip back into his old I have to be a hard man, I'm better than you all, ways?
I know you need a certain amount of arrogance but he seems to be going back to his gobby high hits stroppy mode which took away a lot from his game, as he was constantly trying to prove how much better he is than everyone, rather than just playing the game.

I don't think so. Farrell was by far the best player for you yesterday, followed closely by Robshaw who did everything he could to try and stem the turnovers. Farrell at least grabbed a try and did his best to defend that tricky 12 channel that Jones attacked with impunity. A bit of credit has to go to Hogg who despite not cutting into the line was lurking behind the 10-12 channel and it drew a lot of attention, that created gaps for Jones to exploit.

Farrell for me is still the best 12 in the world, but faced with that attacking display there wasn't much he could do.

Remarkable stat from the game England made it into the Scottish 22 ten times.

They were turned over 6 times.
Gave away 3 penalties.
Scored a converted try.

In short, not very good. A bad day at the office but I would throw the baby out with the bathwater. The backrow needs to be a bit lighter and mobile, and Jones needs to stop trying to force square pegs into round holes. I know England have fantastic locks, but I can't believe a country with as many players can't unearth a real breakdown terrier.

Radge I'm Irish. He wasn't playing for me

 doh, sorry. Just with the location being the Midlands I presumed you were from England.

Tis alright. We get everywhere

Some more thoughts this morning:

Barclay said after the game that the original plan was to neglect the rucks and fan out in defence such was Scotland's fear of the Ford-Farrell axis. However they quickly noticed on the pitch that England were slow in getting to the rucks so changed the tactics and decided to relentlessly target them instead, and it worked. It wasn't all about holding on penalties - there were 3 turnovers were Scotland aggressively counter rucked and just picked the ball up because England didn't have enough men there. Scotland were able to think on their feet and change the gameplan, where England didn't do this - especially in the first half.

The England tactics clearly weren't working in the first half yet they didn't change them until half time when the coaches do doubt would have told them to - was this a lack of rugby nous from the England players or was this a coaching decision to carry on and re-assess at halftime? England also struggled to cope with our maul defence, where we varied our tactics and England didn't know what to do.

On that note I think Scotland's forwards coach Dan McFarland deserves a lot of credit. At the beginning of the tournament we all thought we'd be watching scrums from behind the sofa but we have held our own against 3 top scrummaging teams, and even gained a few penalties. We have also varied out forward play, with some nice lineout moves and good mauling and maul defence as highlighted earlier. The Lineout could be better - we're currently in the 80% success rate whereas we need to be in 90% - but that gives us something to focus on going into Ireland.

Essentially we know we are one of the smallest packs in the competition so we have varied our play and had smart tactics to compete. We're going to have to do the same against Ireland next game as they have one of the most brutally intense packs in the tournament.

The ref can never see every offence and also if he did whistle of every offence then the game would be so stop start. A case in point is the robshaw turnover. Clearly off his feet. Owens calls hands away ( the offence has already been committed at this point). Scotland get the ball back and throw the interception. Owens whistles. If Scotland had got the ball away cleanly he would have ignored Robshaws offense but as they didn't he had to whistle it

Fans also only see when they are sinned against - not when they are sinners. I counted 4 high tackles on Scots players unpunished. One pullback off the ball etc etc.

It was an advantage to Scotland having Owens - his style of reffing the breakdown favours them and also the players are used to him.

But thats not why you lost - you lost because of fantastic breakdown work and inflexibility in tactics

Haven't read all above, but just want to say well done to Scotland!

Huw Jones reminds me a bit of a young BOD. Though hopefully we will be able to keep the shackles on him in Dublin.

Good point on the forwards RDW. Maul defence in particular I thought very good

TJ wrote:The ref can never see every offence and also if he did whistle of every offence then the game would be so stop start.  A case in point is the robshaw turnover.  Clearly off his feet.  Owens calls hands away ( the offence has already been committed at this point).  Scotland get the ball back and throw the interception.  Owens whistles.  If Scotland had got the ball away cleanly he would have ignored Robshaws offense but as they didn't he had to whistle it

Fans also only see when they are sinned against - not when they are sinners.  I counted 4 high tackles on Scots players unpunished. One pullback off the ball etc etc.

It was an advantage to Scotland having Owens - his style of reffing the breakdown favours them and also the players are used to him.

But thats not why you lost - you lost because of fantastic breakdown work and inflexibility in tactics

It does sound like we massively failed to adapt to the referees interpretation, or even analyse how he'd let the rucks play out. It's not even a surprise with Owens, every one knows his style of game.

Owens was not inconsistent (apologies for double negative). It could be argued that his style and what he lets people get away with suited Scotland - but complaining about that is like the minority of Irish fans who moan about Wayne Barnes.

On Saturday the team that played better won.

No we didn't fail Yappy...we were just blown away at the breakdown...simple as that.

The biggest concern is that we didn't adapt to it...

GeordieFalcon wrote:No we didn't fail Yappy...we were just blown away at the breakdown...simple as that.

The biggest concern is that we didn't adapt to it...

Not sure we actually had the players to adapt properly - we were not going to get to the breakdown any quicker.

Poor section with a real flanker on the bench and others playing Jeff games available.

My reflections on the game as a whole, I think Horne is the perfect 12 to play with Russell, and I'll explain why.

Horne isn't the biggest or meanest centre we have at our disposal, he's also probably not the quickest. However I'd say he is one of the most intelligent, he typically reads Russell very well and that showed on Saturday. I reckon Matt Scott would also be quite a good fit for Russell at 12.

I also think our front row, who haven't really had a mention did well too. England has one of the most formidable Scrums in the tournament and we had parity at the very least. Huge shout out to WP Nel, first game back after 10 weeks and he drew a penalty form Joe Marler in his first minute on the park. He is a phenomenon.

Johnny Gray also had a stormer notching up 25 tackles and Gilchrist is now the player Vern Cotter saw when he made him captain. He carried like a truck and his workrate was through the roof.

To be honest 1-23 everyone played a part and it's nice to see Glacial Greig is no more, his service was snappy, his passing accurate and he tactically destroyed Danny Care.

Totally with you on Horne Radge, he's really found his game at international level recently and I think he does Finn a lot of favours and helps him settle into his game.

It was great to see the satisfaction on Nel's face after he won that penalty, it was a man back where he belongs. Let's hope he can get a good run injury free for the remainder of the season

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:No we didn't fail Yappy...we were just blown away at the breakdown...simple as that.

The biggest concern is that we didn't adapt to it...

Not sure we actually had the players to adapt properly - we were not going to get to the breakdown any quicker.

Maybe not...but most of the game we seemed to go in to the rucks with 2 players to generate quick ball. When your getting blitzed there maybe they should have gone in with more 3/4 to ensure the possession was secured. Yes it would slow the game down...but they could play a more power forward game.

You have to be able to adapt to the teams you are playing against.

We simply didn't...

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

To be honest 1-23 everyone played a part .

This. A real team performance all playing from the same book of plays.

Another thing that stood out for me was after one long kick into the 22 from England. 3 scots backs ran full speed back into the 22 to make a chance of a counter attack rather than just waiting for the ball to be kicked again. I also think the Scots fitness was far superior

TJ wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

To be honest 1-23 everyone played a part .

This. A real team performance all playing from the same book of plays.

Another thing that stood out for me was after one long kick into the 22 from England.  3 scots backs ran full speed back into the 22 to make a chance of a counter attack rather than just waiting for the ball to be kicked again.  I also think the Scots fitness was far superior

I saw no evidence of this.

First to the breakdown all game and finding space all over the park? I suspect especially the backs the Scotland guys ran further. Its only an impression tho - nowt to back it up. folk beforehand were saying Englands fitness would show in the last 20 mins. It didn't. even with all that attacking in the last 20 mins the defence never broke and The english flyers out wide were never even one on one - always at least 2 defenders there.

I equated the "first to the break down" and "finding space" to speed of foot and thought, but not superior fitness. But who knows, other than the analysts who will have logged and studied all the data down the absolute minutiae.

Sorry TJ, im with Tiger, that was nothing to do with fitness ...Scotland just wanted it more, and had their gameplan perfect.

Technically Scotland lost the 2nd half so no Scotland weren't fitter.

It was Scotland's superior first 40 minutes which saw them win the game. Not saying Scotland were bad in the 2nd half but they were defending a 16 point lead.

England got their selection wrong and will need to make changes vs France.


Scotland had the potential to truly crush England in that second half after being 22-6, it's a missed opportunity in that sense. Not just an opportunity to win but truly humiliate England.

LondonTiger wrote:Owens was not inconsistent (apologies for double negative). It could be argued that his style and what he lets people get away with suited Scotland - but complaining about that is like the minority of Irish fans who moan about Wayne Barnes.

On Saturday the team that played better won.

You're making two separate points.

Scotland were the better team.

That does not mean that Owens was not inconsistent. You mention that what he lets people get away with suited Scotland. As I've said earlier, what he let Scotland get away with, England were pinged for, ergo, inconsistent.

No-one is saying that Owens' is to blame for England losing (at least not that I've seen).

Perhaps not fitness, but perhaps just a bit too heavy? I was there and even Robshaw looked enormous. He was never a small man but he looked like a titan on that pitch.

I think that was the big difference from last year because our backrow barely changed, the difference was we got to the breakdown quicker and your much larger backrow couldn't clear us out as effectively as last year.

Scotland tactically were superior and England just didn't have the personnel or brains to adapt to the Scottish tactics.

Bringing on Underhill was a good decision but his silly yellow stopped any potential momentum.

Have to factor in that our bench were playing with 14 men vs 15 so it's going to affect the bench's impact.

If it was the other way round with Scotland with a man in the bin it might have changed things.


When England look back at the tape of the game, there's a lot of improvements that can be made.

TJ wrote:The ref can never see every offence and also if he did whistle of every offence then the game would be so stop start.  A case in point is the robshaw turnover.  Clearly off his feet.  Owens calls hands away ( the offence has already been committed at this point).  Scotland get the ball back and throw the interception.  Owens whistles.  If Scotland had got the ball away cleanly he would have ignored Robshaws offense but as they didn't he had to whistle it

Fans also only see when they are sinned against - not when they are sinners.  I counted 4 high tackles on Scots players unpunished. One pullback off the ball etc etc.

It was an advantage to Scotland having Owens - his style of reffing the breakdown favours them and also the players are used to him.

But thats not why you lost - you lost because of fantastic breakdown work and inflexibility in tactics

If you're referring to the incident I think you are, it was Launchbury. Owens asked him to release, Launchbury did, and Owens told him he was fine. Owens did not play advantage and play moved on (ie the ball was passed away). When it was intercepted, Owens suddenly decided actually Launchbury holding on WAS an offence (which contradicts the communication and lack of playing advantage) and brought play back. I actually have no problem with Launchbury getting pinged for what he did (although would point out it's no different from things Scotland were allowed to do) but telling him he's fine, not playing advantage and then bringing play back is NOT good reffing. It's not clear (ie either it's a pen or it's not. It shouldn't be based on what happens next) and it's contradictory to the prior communication. It must have been incredibly frustrating to play that.

To your other points, this isn't about who sinned more. I'm not making the point that the reason Scotland won was Owens. I'm literally saying he was inconsistent in what he was pinging. You mention Owens and his style, and who that suits, and that's a problem to me. It shouldn't be who it suits, it should be WHAT it suits. Look at each breakdown and see what's happening. It's dangerous to just think, Scotland are attacking the breakdown, my style suits them so that's that. When England attacked the breakdown, they should have been allowed the same leeway as the Scots, but I saw examples to show otherwise. When Scotland got isolated in contact, they should have been given the same time to release as England. I saw examples to show otherwise.

Again, for the people in the back, Scotland definitely deserved their win and were the better side. England poor, particularly in the first half. But putting all that aside, I can't agree that Owens was consistent.

Another point that goes to something I have been banging on about for ages. Speed speed speed is important in the modern game - both between the ears and over the ground. england simply do not have enough of this hence barclay and Watson were able to disrupt breakdowns because they were there first. Scots centres able to create space by being faster of thought and over the ground. England slowness meant that even when they got the ballwide to the fast guys the scots defence was there in numbers.

England are playing the game from a few years ago. Scotland have moved on. running into space not people and playing with pace.

First things first, just want to say that well done to the England fans, both here and those at the game, the ones I spoke to came across as very knowledgeable and dignified in defeat. Having experienced that feeling on a number of occasions, I can understand that sometimes it’s not the easiest to be magnanimous in defeat but you’ve done yourselves proud.

I’m not going to bother going into whether Owens favoured one team or another, as I saw a few things England got away with which they could easily have been pinged for and likewise I’m sure there were things Scotland got away with (don’t tend to notice your own teams infringements quite so much).

As for Scotland I think to a man they stood up and played well. It’s not been mentioned much on here, but I think that was probably Maitland’s best game for us, in ages. He was hungry looking for work and seems to have been working on his handoff as he rolled that out a number of times, didn’t always pan out, but it generally got him a few extra steps.

But, it means nothing if we don’t start to back it up with away performances, so a nice easy trip to…..Dublin…..DAMMIT! We will go into the next game as underdogs and rightly so, but if other teams are going to take us seriously we need to start getting wins away from home. It’s easy to raise your game at a packed Murrayfield playing England, but these results need to be the norm not a one off.

EWT Spoons wrote:

But, it means nothing if we don’t start to back it up with away performances, so a nice easy trip to…..Dublin…..DAMMIT!  We will go into the next game as underdogs and rightly so, but if other teams are going to take us seriously we need to start getting wins away from home.  It’s easy to raise your game at a packed Murrayfield playing England, but these results need to be the norm not a one off.

Agreed! I feel the exact same about Ireland.....

Great win by Scotland, not entirely surprising to be honest.

Hopefully that is as good as it get though and we stuff you in Dublin in a couple of weeks

cascough wrote:

TJ wrote:The ref can never see every offence and also if he did whistle of every offence then the game would be so stop start.  A case in point is the robshaw turnover.  Clearly off his feet.  Owens calls hands away ( the offence has already been committed at this point).  Scotland get the ball back and throw the interception.  Owens whistles.  If Scotland had got the ball away cleanly he would have ignored Robshaws offense but as they didn't he had to whistle it

Fans also only see when they are sinned against - not when they are sinners.  I counted 4 high tackles on Scots players unpunished. One pullback off the ball etc etc.

It was an advantage to Scotland having Owens - his style of reffing the breakdown favours them and also the players are used to him.

But thats not why you lost - you lost because of fantastic breakdown work and inflexibility in tactics

If you're referring to the incident I think you are, it was Launchbury. Owens asked him to release, Launchbury did, and Owens told him he was fine. Owens did not play advantage and play moved on (ie the ball was passed away). When it was intercepted, Owens suddenly decided actually Launchbury holding on WAS an offence (which contradicts the communication and lack of playing advantage) and brought play back. I actually have no problem with Launchbury getting pinged for what he did (although would point out it's no different from things Scotland were allowed to do) but telling him he's fine, not playing advantage and then bringing play back is NOT good reffing. It's not clear (ie either it's a pen or it's not. It shouldn't be based on what happens next) and it's contradictory to the prior communication. It must have been incredibly frustrating to play that.

To your other points, this isn't about who sinned more. I'm not making the point that the reason Scotland won was Owens. I'm literally saying he was inconsistent in what he was pinging. You mention Owens and his style, and who that suits, and that's a problem to me. It shouldn't be who it suits, it should be WHAT it suits. Look at each breakdown and see what's happening. It's dangerous to just think, Scotland are attacking the breakdown, my style suits them so that's that. When England attacked the breakdown, they should have been allowed the same leeway as the Scots, but I saw examples to show otherwise. When Scotland got isolated in contact, they should have been given the same time to release as England. I saw examples to show otherwise.

Again, for the people in the back, Scotland definitely deserved their win and were the better side. England poor, particularly in the first half. But putting all that aside, I can't agree that Owens was consistent.

There has been some clarification on that incident. Launchbery was over the wall and up to devilment and when he did release he dropped the ball in a very unhelpful manner, that was the reason for the penalty.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/22574668/espn-six-nations-review-player-weekend-flop-more

ESPN wrote:Nigel Owens (Scotland vs. England). En route to Murrayfield a Scotland-supporting colleague confided his belief that Owens would favour the "bigger team", England. By full-time social media was awash with accusations of a Scottish bias from the Welshman. The truth? Owens refereed the game fairly and as he saw it. Danny Care's non-intercept was a case in point. Joe Launchbury had been told to let go of the ball, but as he does so it spills forward before Greig Laidlaw's attempted pass is picked off by Care. Penalty. Regardless of how Owens came to it, the right decision was reached.

Well clearly a wrong decision then as it should have been a scrum from a knock on.

NOpe - penalty for holding on the toball when off feet. Owens was prepared to let the penalty go if Scotland got the ball away cleanly. As they didn't he called it back for the pen

cascough wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Owens was not inconsistent (apologies for double negative). It could be argued that his style and what he lets people get away with suited Scotland - but complaining about that is like the minority of Irish fans who moan about Wayne Barnes.

On Saturday the team that played better won.

You're making two separate points.

Scotland were the better team.

That does not mean that Owens was not inconsistent. You mention that what he lets people get away with suited Scotland. As I've said earlier, what he let Scotland get away with, England were pinged for, ergo, inconsistent.

No-one is saying that Owens' is to blame for England losing (at least not that I've seen).

But in my mind the difference was body position. Scotland getting there quicker right over the ball.
England a little slower having to reach, so makes it a lot harder to convince the ref your supporting your weight

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Wow. My head. Like seriously, my head....  

Anyway! Oh my goodness what a night. Straight off the bat Ian Bru you were every bit as charming and funny in real life as you are on this forum. It was a pleasure to meet you and your lovely lady yesterday. I do hope I was not too vulgar and boorish.

Mate, what can I say? It was an absolute pleasure to meet you! Shame we didn't have longer to chat, but definitely worth it. Apparently you're 'Reet canny', according to Sophia. I'd go so far as saying meeting you was the best part of her day, but we can thank Messrs Barclay, Watson and Wilson for that!

Note to everyone else, if you ever get the chance to meet up with a fellow 606er for a pint, you should definitely do it. It gives this place a bit of real-world flavour that the computer screen filters out.

Agree EWT.


Scotland have now won 9/10 at Murrayfield so it shows that they are no pushovers there.

Losing to Scotland is not an embarrassment, there was always the potential for Scotland to put in a performance like this - especially at home vs England.

England just need to make sure that they learn from this defeat and the loss to Ireland last year.

Think the loss to Ireland was ignored by Jones personally. Seen as a blip when it should have been ringing alarm bells as it exposed England's limitations.

As for Scotland, this win at home doesn't necessarily mean they are prepared for Ireland away.

Scotland's win record at home is much better than the one away from home.


It shows that it's not easy to win on the road aside from vs Italy.



England aren't now suddenly a bad side but there many aspects that England must improve.


As for the Ireland game, England's record at Twickenham is still very good and no team has yet beaten England at Twickenham with Jones in charge.

I'm just going by the espn esplanation tj. They said it was because the ball went forward. Yes he's off his feet but poor communication by the ref who didn't signal a penalty or advantage. If he's made a decision due to the type of release its a scrum. He dint he gave it retrospectively as he thought scotland had been slowed but was happy until the intercept.

Not sure he ireland loss has been ignored. We were under most pressure there due to the lineout. Think that may be why he's not jumping away from the 3 locks.

Aye - he should have called "advantage" but he was - in typical Owens fashion - trying to let the game flow by not giving the penalty but once the intercept happened he had to go back.

It is one of the reasons I prefer barnes. Clearer communication. It was also not fair on scotland in a way as they didn't know they were playing with an advantage.

I think if Scotland had got the ball away cleanly he would not have given a penalty or advantage. Sometimes in his desire to let the game flow he is a bit lackadaisical perhaps but overall I prefer it to a whistle every 2 mins.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well clearly a wrong decision then as it should have been a scrum from a knock on.

not if it is cynical.

Sigh, no 7 & 1/2 it seems as if the vast majority of the time that you disagree with me. It's why I call your comments wum like.

Whilst I don't expect posters to agree with me on everything I also don't expect them to disagree on almost everything.

I don't believe that lessons from the Ireland game have been learnt and no England didn't lose to Ireland because of just the lineout.

he is not Wumming - just strong opinions that some disagree with

IanBru wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Wow. My head. Like seriously, my head....  

Anyway! Oh my goodness what a night. Straight off the bat Ian Bru you were every bit as charming and funny in real life as you are on this forum. It was a pleasure to meet you and your lovely lady yesterday. I do hope I was not too vulgar and boorish.

Mate, what can I say? It was an absolute pleasure to meet you! Shame we didn't have longer to chat, but definitely worth it. Apparently you're 'Reet canny', according to Sophia. I'd go so far as saying meeting you was the best part of her day, but we can thank Messrs Barclay, Watson and Wilson for that!

Note to everyone else, if you ever get the chance to meet up with a fellow 606er for a pint, you should definitely do it. It gives this place a bit of real-world flavour that the computer screen filters out.

I don't know what that means but since I have a new Twitter follower it must be good!

I agree with the sentiment about meeting a fellow 606er when you get the chance. It's a nice to put faces to names and have a proper chat instead of through a keyboard! Ian Bru also kept his musical gifts on the QT on here!

You're correct it's not wumming. It's pointing out that the thing that did for us against Ireland was POM killing us in the lineout and stopping us dead stealing ball and forcing us to go safe. From that I think it doubled down jones and the coaches thoughts about using lawes as the excellent 3 Rd jumper or Launchbury if you prefer to think of t that way round. What is wumming about that.

TJ well I am not the only one who thinks, no 7 & 1/2 is a wum.

No 7 & 1/2 as I said it's because you disagree on almost everything. You argue for the sake of argument.

England did not lose to Ireland just because of the lineout. If it was as straightforward as that they'd be nothing to fear from when we play them next.

England's lineout has not been a weakness under Jones in general. I'd say it's been a strength actually.

Even before the Ireland game.


Breakdown issues, imbalanced backrow, lack of dynamism from certain forwards, poor support play - these are serious issues.

Giving away too many penalties compared to the opposition as well.

People can hink what they like I suppose. I don't change my opinion to suit, consistent with my assessments and will explain any point you'd like. I'll also say when I disagree more as it's a discussion forum. We were taken to the cleaners against Ireland from the lineout.that's why I hink he's keen to keep that big jumper at 6. I think that's what they primarily took from that games that their set pieces have to be top notch. That does weaken us im other areas it's always a balance. To me for someone to suggest a coach as experienced as jones with a coaching team that many rate very highly don't take from games win or lose is stretching it. Now you could well be saying our lineout is good enough with 2 locks and Robshaw as backup and that would strengthen our breakdown work much more. I'd agree with that. I wouldn't be surprised if borthwick was pushing lawes' case though from what he saw last year.

Personally I don't think there is any issue with the ref.

England couldn't cope with Scotland are their tactics.

Eddie has now lost two games where breakdown has been key. It needs address immediately.

The lineout question is still going to be interesting. If we do go with the back row that many want to see - Robshaw/Underhill/Hughes, do Robshaw and Underhill offer enough as jumpers?

Launchbury has been claiming his fair share this tournament to the eye, I haven't looked at the stats. Can Robshaw/Underhill claim enough ball to offset losing Itoje if he is the one that is dropped?