QF1 - Match Thread - England v Australia - 19/10/19 - K/O 08:15 BST

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

Thought I'd get these made nice and early for a few reasons - but one being that we're already now looking ahead to the QFs with several teams having finished their group stage, so it's all heating up for the proper knockout stuff...barring any more disruption.

England



Team: Daly; Watson, Slade, Tuilagi, May; Farrell (capt), Youngs; M Vunipola, George, Sinckler; Itoje, Lawes; Curry, Underhill, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Cowan-Dickie, Marler, Cole, Kruis, Ludlam, Heinz, Ford, Joseph.


Australia



Team: Beale; Hodge, Petaia, Kerevi, Koroibete; Lealiifano, Genia; Alaalatoa, Latu, Sio; Arnold, Rodda; Naisarani, Hooper (c), Pocock.

Replacements: Uelese, Slipper, Tupou, Coleman, Salakaia-Loto, White, To'omua, O'Connor.



Venue: Oita
Referee: Jerome Garces
AR1: Romain Poite
AR2: Mathieu Raynal
TMO: Ben Skeen

[lostinwales]

It is funny in that it feels like Slade has never had a consistent run in the team despite being around the squad for 4 years. Injury plus the ford/farrell combo getting in the way I guess.

[robbo277]

Well yeah, he got a brief shot at the last World Cup. Since then we've seen Ford/Farrell/Joseph dominate that midfield. Te'o and Tuilagi have come in and out with injuries, Cipriani got one tour at 10. Wasnt really until last year he really got in and stayed in.

[bsando]

With Scotland out I will be supporting Australia for the remainder of the tournament, the country where I grew up. From an Aus perspective it’s not a bad side actually. I’m glad Lealiifano is at 10 alongside Genia and not White. Bench is decent as well. Chieka just loves to throw in young players in the hope that they will do something game game changing. Personally I’d have had O’connor at 13 but I’ll be interested to see how Petaia goes at 13. Eddie Jones loves to a good set piece backs move and o could see that Australian midfield getting sliced open a few times. Hopefully a fast and furious test match!

[Guest]

Garces has improved from probably being the weakest of the French refs to the strongest but he is still French and will let an awful lot at the breakdown go, which will probably suit Oz.

Since when? He's easily been the best French ref for about 7 years.

It goes:

Garces


Gauzere



Poite








Raynal

[Guest]

Personally on refs, I'm amazed Mitrea didn't make it. Thought he'd become a really top class ref after a really average start. Assume his face must not fit for some reason.

[Guest]

Lots of criticism for the Farrell-Ford decision.

Out of interest, when was the last time England won a top class tier 1 test match with Ford starting at 10?

And if England lose, will starting with Farrell at 10 be held up as the key mistake EJ made? Same goes for Tuilagi not at 13 and having him 'run at space like he likes to', which is a weird view of things tbh as I'm not sure there is a player better suited to smashing through weak shoulders or who enjoys it more than Tuilagi.

Just seeing narratives forming that I don't' agree with, and wondering if English fans are perhaps prejudicing how this game is going to go - which, if England do lose, might mean the wrong reasons are blamed for the loss rather than judging it clearly on what happens on the field.

[Guest]

We could discuss Farrell in the warm up games where he was also off the pace. Anyone else, apart from Youngs, would have. Been dropped.

I don't like the midfield combination, it's had a tendency to fail such as in the 6N Vs Wales they couldn't create anything and against Scotland where we imploded second half and needed Ford to come on and rescue us. There's not enough control even with Slade in there for my liking and an off form Farrell just deepens my concern. The extra physicality might work Vs Australia but I hope we look at a different option for NZ if we get through.

Part of the problem of EJ's selection tactics from 2016/17 through to this season. Didn't blood a new 9, doesn't trust Care etc. By and large there's been a big slice of luck at 6 and 7, and elsewhere with no real fitness or injury issues taking out the first choice player, but what else can EJ and England do?

Slade and Tuilagi were two of the best players v Wales. Slade looked likely ball in hand, was getting clean breaks, putting in nice kicks, but think one break ot called back for a knock on or something, or he was in touch. Wales just smothered Englandsecond half, nothing the centres could really do. Farrell the obvious one who was rattled, likewise Care's kicking. Tuilagi made a nice outside break v Parkes. Don't think either were poor. Not sure how Ford offers 'control' tbh. Guaranteed easy 5-10m with Kerevi down his channel, Ford clinging on for the ride, and 2 other defenders coming across to actually bring him down.

I like how Ford plays some of the time but he looks like a great flat track bully, hence why it's pointless using what are going to be some of the easiest 'proper' games the English team will ever play for club and country as evidence he's good to go. I'd ask again, when was the last time England won with Ford @ 10 v top class opposition? Has to be before the losing streak, in which case - there's your answer why he's a bench option.

It's going to be a loose enough game from both teams - Australia in the hands, England with the boot. Wouldn't worry about control etc., it's about taking chances.

[Guest]

I'm sure I read miaow that you felt that tuilagi had performed better at 12 than 13? Maybe it wasnt you.

Yeah think there was a discussion like that a few weeks ago. I basically said Tuilagi is better suited to 12, I think - that's what I think, anyway. You don't even line up like 10-12-13 at set pieces anymore, let alone in the phases. Tuilagi is just an obvious crash ball/big hitter option for closer to the rucks as/when it's tight. But he clearly has license to roam and it appears England play with 2 playmakers at 10 and either 12/13 - this time it's Slade - and Tuilagi is the running option. A bit like NFL - one a running back, then effectively 2 quarter backs, with Daly perhaps being something between the two (my knwledge of NFL isn't great but I know EJ has said it's a bit like NFL these days, I thought for a long time that their long kicking game came from soccer as much as anything else).

You don't lose anything with Tuilagi at 12 in the phase plays, he'll still be on shoulders, running hard, used as a dummy runner etc. But you get extra solidity from him in the defence and when it tightens up, or from some first phase plays. 13 is a tough defensive position as well and as he's prone to looking for the big hit, although I don't actually think he's a liability or particularly tactically weak in defence, good teams could exploit that if they sacrifice someones' ribs on a dummy run/offload move.

[No 7&1/2]

Last time ford was at 10 for a win against tier 1? 5th October.

[Guest]

Slade was talking up the understanding he has with Manu in the run up to the RWC.

Thing with this is, as well, which pro rugby player/back/centre wouldn't want to play with him? It gives you so, so much freedom, security, confidence etc. You know you can ship it on and he can smash it up under pressure. You know if you give him an outside shoulder he'll go through weak defence. You know he'll bust holes for you, be brutal going forward and back. It's about as close as an armchair ride as you can get in the modern game. Imagine every centre wants to pair with him. He really is the difference for me. Any injury to him and it's a huge, huge blow.

[Guest]

Last time ford was at 10 for a win against tier 1? 5th October.

Top class. Argentina are way off atm. On par with Scotland. Awful winning record in the last 3 years, and 14 men for 63 minutes.

Basically, any game that's not a warm up, and not against the likes of Italy/Argentina 'tier 1' teams. It's not a trick question - just showing you where EJ's mind is as well. Ford's been played back to form and that's great. Adds an extra string to the bow.

[No 7&1/2]

Right. Ok. So just discount games you dont want to focus on. That's fine. So it was you for the tuilagi conversation. When were the games at 13 you were talking about then?

[Guest]

Haven't changed, 7.5 haha...still as needessly awkward as ever.

[majesticimperialman]

I am really surprised that Ford and Farrell are not together for this big game. England do seem to play a better type of rugby with Ford at 10 Farrell at 12.

I just hope that  the Slade, Tualagi, partner ship is not working,(Australia keep finding hole's in our defence line) he EJ will have the sence to bring Ford on and change the game in England's favour.

[robbo277]

If you ignore warm ups and every game this World Cup, you have to go back to 2018 when George Ford steered us through against World Cup quarter-finals Japan and Wales. He was also the Premierships top point scorer in a Leicester team going backwards, so I think "flat-track bully" is wide of the mark.

I'm a big Ford fan, but Slade is also a good player and I don't necessarily disagree with the selection, even if I raised an eyebrow at it.

Maybe he's going for the start of the Scotland game, 31-7 at half time and then bring Ford on earlier to close it out. I hope if Farrell isn't firing and the centres are then Eddie considers a straight swap at 10. But then if Farrell is going well we've got the option to change shape.

I also think whatever "luck" Eddie had at 6 and 7 (and let's not forget he id'ed Curry and Underhill in 2017. Curry took a bit longer to come through though and Underhill was unlucky with injuries) is counter-acted by his bad luck at 9. He tried to get Robson up to speed and then was robbed of him by illness.

But I take your wider point. This team should be strong enough to win. Eddie has basically his strongest 23 (debate Nowell if you want) but he has his strongest guys there and has configured it to suit his plan. People can disagree, but even if we were to lose that wouldn't necessarily condemn Eddie or vindicate the people criticising. We'll have to see what happens.

[No 7&1/2]

Why is it awkward to ask you which games you felt tuilagi wasnt playing well in at 13? I disagree with your thought hes better at 12 but without knowing what games you were basing it on it's hard to tell what you're looking at.

[lostinwales]

I know its nothing to do with the thread but so far today a certain poster who is not English but is slightly reminiscent of beshocked has posted comments 43 times.

[No 7&1/2]

Beshocked seems calm and relaxed on the bbc forums. So many saracens seems to have placated him. Doesnt even talk about training anymore.

[mikey_dragon]

About the best French ref convo.... all French refs are shocking.

[Guest]

Why is it awkward to ask you which games you felt tuilagi wasnt playing well in at 13? I disagree with your thought hes better at 12 but without knowing what games you were basing it on it's hard to tell what you're looking at.

I didn't say he played badly at 13. You're trying to look for an angle. I said he's a better 12 - both in the past, and, more importantly, in the future. You know what you're doing. You seem to have cooled off a bit, but you have a track record for deliberately derailing discussions by wanting to drag it to the sidelines. I've answered your question several times now. Not going to again. Thanks.

[Guest]

If you ignore warm ups and every game this World Cup, you have to go back to 2018 when George Ford steered us through against World Cup quarter-finals Japan and Wales. He was also the Premierships top point scorer in a Leicester team going backwards, so I think "flat-track bully" is wide of the mark.

Likewise, but it feels like I have to work very hard to hammer home what should be an obvious point about context for some.

Either way, does seem like the narratives are set in place already. Ford's become the new Cipriani in les than 24 hours...

[No 7&1/2]

I'm still asking what game(s) you were basing it on. Still not answered. Much easier to do so. But there you go. Guess you were just making stuff up.

[Guest]

I also think whatever "luck" Eddie had at 6 and 7 (and let's not forget he id'ed Curry and Underhill in 2017. Curry took a bit longer to come through though and Underhill was unlucky with injuries) is counter-acted by his bad luck at 9. He tried to get Robson up to speed and then was robbed of him by illness.

Good fortune that both came through at the right time, so there's luck in that sense. Also worked out that he didn't have to justify dropping Shields, Robshaw, or Haskell, as they all injured themselves out of the equation. Robshaw less so perhaps. The Robson point has been done to death but EJ hardly 'tried' to get him up to speed. Does he have 80 minutes of test rugby yet?

In any case, I expect Youngs to be a key focal point of attack. As I said earlier, lots going through him, lateral runs from the ruck around the 10m lines, with Sinckler and George the inside/short ball option ready go smashing through weak Australian fringe defence.

Really could be something special. Hope it lives up to the hype.

[SecretFly]

Beshocked seems calm and relaxed on the bbc forums. So many saracens seems to have placated him. Doesnt even talk about training anymore.

Poor Beshocked. Midlife calming has befallen him. Damn those drooping testosterone levels

[lostinwales]

Why is it awkward to ask you which games you felt tuilagi wasnt playing well in at 13? I disagree with your thought hes better at 12 but without knowing what games you were basing it on it's hard to tell what you're looking at.

I didn't say he played badly at 13. You're trying to look for an angle. I said he's a better 12 - both in the past, and, more importantly, in the future. You know what you're doing. You seem to have cooled off a bit, but you have a track record for deliberately derailing discussions by wanting to drag it to the sidelines. I've answered your question several times now. Not going to again. Thanks.

*sigh. And a lot of people who have spent a lot longer watching the man play say hes a better 13 than 12, that his outside break is a much more important skill than the ability to run over people, that just because he can run over people doesn't mean he should and its a common way for him to get injured.

[Guest]

Oh, ok. Sorry. I defer to 'a lot of people'. You're spot on. It was the *sigh* that convinced me...

[Taylorman]

Cannot see England losing this but Oz are the French of the SH, capable of doing anything. As Miaow says, like France they seem to have lost that x factor these days.

Though they did rip NZ in Perth by 21 so if England happen to strike that team, they could be pipped, but thats the best oz can hope for. They won't win three straight and are strictly upset value.

England look the most complete side of the comp. Can match a variety of styles, up and down the tempo when they please, and have a lot of x factor. Have goalkicking covered and how the back row go will be absorbing.

Curry's good to watch. Keep coming back to them as the ones to beat.

[Pie]

Eddi needs to take the temperature of the country he is in. Talking about life and death in rugby terms right now highly inappropriate.

[Rugby Fan]

Eddi needs to take the temperature of the country he is in. Talking about life and death in rugby terms right now highly inappropriate.

At the team announcement press conference, he read out a message of sympathy and support for victims of the typhoon in Japanese. which has been well-received locally. I don't think there's anyone in Japan who thinks Jones is being inappropriate.

[Pie]

Eddi needs to take the temperature of the country he is in. Talking about life and death in rugby terms right now highly inappropriate.

At the team announcement press conference, he read out a message of sympathy and support for victims of the typhoon in Japanese. which has been well-received locally. I don't think there's anyone in Japan who thinks Jones is being inappropriate.

Yes there is, I have family there and it has already been remarked upon that calling these games 'life and death' is not appropriate in the circumstances. only an idiot in Japan would do so and think otherwise

[kingelderfield]

Truth is we STILL have not found Greenwood's replacement;
Barrett
Twelvetrees
Eastmond
Farrell
Some kiwi ive never seen do anything vaguely club level who carries Jonses bags
And now we're moving our best strike weapon to cover this coaching selection failure. Call as it is, its a humiliating compromise that Frak us all ends up.....unless ofcourse Slade and Tuilagi swap round?

[LondonTiger]

Believing Manu can be a better 12 is an opinion, not one I agree with but a viable opinion.

Stating he has played better at 12 though in the past is to deny all evidence. He has put in a huge number of barnstorming displays at 13 over the last decade. He has managed less than a handful of decent performances at 12.

[BigTrevsbigmac]

That is what will I believe will happen  during the game King.
Second and subsequent phase ball Slade will effectively be inside centre after Manu has punched a hole or taken out some defenders on a dummy run.

[LondonTiger]

That is what will I believe will happen  during the game King.
Second and subsequent phase ball Slade will effectively be inside centre after Manu has punched a hole or taken out some defenders on a dummy run.

My worry, based on the 6Ns, is that when we have a full attacking line Manu will usually be a decoy runner. In multi phase play he will spend too much of the game in the role of ruck inspector, and when the attack is split either side we will see Manu at first receiver one side but the ball going the other way where Farrell/Slade are first and second receivers.

[formerly known as Sam]

That is what will I believe will happen  during the game King.
Second and subsequent phase ball Slade will effectively be inside centre after Manu has punched a hole or taken out some defenders on a dummy run.

My worry, based on the 6Ns, is that when we have a full attacking line Manu will usually be a decoy runner. In multi phase play he will spend too much of the game in the role of ruck inspector, and when the attack is split either side we will see Manu at first receiver one side but the ball going the other way where Farrell/Slade are first and second receivers.

As per Matt Toomua's recent interview you can't give Manu space and have to close him down. That's a bit easier with him being closer in to the action. I'd imagine in set piece defence Pocock will be man marking Manu. As you say in phase play he won't see enough worthwhile ball. I worry the lessons haven't been learnt from the 6N.

[Big]

As a point of curiosity, given comments about Ford starting against Tier 1 sides... I looked back at all the matches against Tier 1 sides over the period since the last world cup and up until now (excluding warm ups because I agree with the sentiment that they aren't really competitive matches in the same sense as the others - if teams are using the game to test combinations, work on fitness, etc, I do think that genuinely is not the same).

As for the others I'm counting them all. You could argue that the Argentina game doesn't count because they had a player sent off etc, but to me that's just swings and roundabouts - the flip side is you have matches against them like the one Daly got sent off in the first few minutes, and others like the away matches during the Lions tour where England had a much depleted squad but Ford still captained them to good wins. And I'd also add that over the same period they've been good enough to get a win against France, South Africa and Australia.

Surprisingly to me our points for/against is virtually unchanged whether Ford starts or not - we have 29 for and 18 against, and without 30 for and 19 against.

However, in terms of win/loss - against Tier 1 we have won 81% with Ford starting and 64% without. And both of what I consider to be our worst results (drawing at home to Scotland and losing at home to Ireland) came in games where Farrell started.

I expect us to lose a few away games against decent opposition - and as far as I can tell that is what every game we have lost with Ford starting has been. Away against Ireland in 2017, and away against (an in form) Scotland, France and South Africa x 2 in 2018. With the latter 4 happening at the end of a post Lions season when England invariably underperform because we don't manage the recovery of our players well - not because Ford was suddenly terrible.

There's clearly a lot more going on here than simply whether or not Ford started, and England can clearly play without him. However, I can't see any justification for Matt Dawson's view of his move to the bench being inevitable. It looks to me that he has been a central player in England's best runs, but that Eddie has decided to bring him on from the bench. Will see what happens tomorrow morning, but Eddie has generally made decent calls so far and I'm happy to see how it goes. I also expect Ford to be back in the line up - in the latter stages of the tournament if we get past Australia, or in the next 6Ns.

[lostinwales]

My biggest complaint with Manu 1st time around was that he would get involved in rucks rather than getting back into position. I do think he's better at not getting so involved these days.

But the comments above are interesting. Against Argentina its not that he had a quiet game so much as he just wasn't given the ball very often.

[lostinwales]

Oh, ok. Sorry. I defer to 'a lot of people'. You're spot on. It was the *sigh* that convinced me...

Well I could spend time going back to previous threads and find and reference the relevant comments (usually from Leicester supporters if that is any help - if you remember that is where Manu occasionally plays) but if you could not be bothered to read and take on those arguments back then I can't see you doing it now. So I am afraid its going to be 'a lot of people'.

[BamBam]

That is what will I believe will happen  during the game King.
Second and subsequent phase ball Slade will effectively be inside centre after Manu has punched a hole or taken out some defenders on a dummy run.

My worry, based on the 6Ns, is that when we have a full attacking line Manu will usually be a decoy runner. In multi phase play he will spend too much of the game in the role of ruck inspector, and when the attack is split either side we will see Manu at first receiver one side but the ball going the other way where Farrell/Slade are first and second receivers.

That last scenario could then see the defence being more worried about Manu and leaving less / weaker defenders on the Farrell / Slade side .. if Daly and/or winger is also that side then things become very interesting

[Gooseberry]

As a point of curiosity, given comments about Ford starting against Tier 1 sides...  I looked back at all the matches against Tier 1 sides over the period since the last world cup and up until now (excluding warm ups because I agree with the sentiment that they aren't really competitive matches in the same sense as the others - if teams are using the game to test combinations, work on fitness, etc, I do think that genuinely is not the same).

As for the others I'm counting them all.  You could argue that the Argentina game doesn't count because they had a player sent off etc, but to me that's just swings and roundabouts - the flip side is you have matches against them like the one Daly got sent off in the first few minutes, and others like the away matches during the Lions tour where England had a much depleted squad but Ford still captained them to good wins.  And I'd also add that over the same period they've been good enough to get a win against France, South Africa and Australia.

Surprisingly to me our points for/against is virtually unchanged whether Ford starts or not - we have 29 for and 18 against, and without 30 for and 19 against.  

However, in terms of win/loss - against Tier 1 we have won 81% with Ford starting and 64% without.  And both of what I consider to be our worst results (drawing at home to Scotland and losing at home to Ireland) came in games where Farrell started.  

I expect us to lose a few away games against decent opposition - and as far as I can tell that is what every game we have lost with Ford starting has been.  Away against Ireland in 2017, and away against (an in form) Scotland, France and South Africa x 2 in 2018.  With the latter 4 happening at the end of a post Lions season when England invariably underperform because we don't manage the recovery of our players well - not because Ford was suddenly terrible.

There's clearly a lot more going on here than simply whether or not Ford started, and England can clearly play without him.  However, I can't see any justification for Matt Dawson's view of his move to the bench being inevitable.  It looks to me that he has been a central player in England's best runs, but that Eddie has decided to bring him on from the bench.  Will see what happens tomorrow morning, but Eddie has generally made decent calls so far and I'm happy to see how it goes.  I also expect Ford to be back in the line up - in the latter stages of the tournament if we get past Australia, or in the next 6Ns.

I discount the Argentina game to some extent because they arent very good (also any Italy games). 
I think Miaows original question was regarding TOP tier one sides, not just tier one sides.  
Focus on just the recent games against teams with a realistic shout of winning the world cup/good recent test records (Aus, Ireland, NZ, SA, Wales) , if we ignore the wins in the warm ups then you have to go back to Wales in 2018 6 nations for one where he started as 10 and they won. Bt that does ignore the warm ups, which kinda suggested that Ford/Farrell was the first choice axis and was effective. 

So all in its a bit of a fence sit. You're absolutely right, the Ford/Farrell combination has worked very well for England for much of the past 4 years. But then so has Farrell at 10, as its did for much of the period before Jones....

Going back to the early days of Jones he didnt really want Farrell at all, and had to be won over. He later admitted he was wrong. He then started naming him as captain. What we have seen is a gradual shift toward Farrell being a go to guy. Chuck Tuillagi in the mix, Jones has consistently backed the guy despite all his injuries and discipline problems and never shown any hesitation in bringing him into the squad and team. Its pretty clear hes always wanted him, and that faith has been repaid pretty well. 

The 10/12 we have now is a pretty big shift from the one that had bought Jones a lot of the early success. But theres also a visible gradual shift that can be seen over time in this becoming if not inevitable but certainly understandable as a first choice combination. 

Theres pros and cons to either option, Miaows taking a bit of a extreme one side of the fence and that leading to a bit of over top commentary to support the opposite view. For me its not a clear cut right/wrong choice but i do agree with the point Miaow made way back that its one that will draw focus if things go very well or if they go badly. Its one of the few controversial areas of selection for England, and quite probably one of the few that was a difficult choice for the leadership. It wouldve been a lot easier if Farrell hadn't had a kicking melt down in their last game.

[Guest]

He has put in a huge number of barnstorming displays at 13 over the last decade. He has managed less than a handful of decent performances at 12.

This seems fictional considering how often he plays for England. Club level's a mostly different beast.

[Big]

I discount the Argentina game to some extent because they arent very good (also any Italy games). 
I think Miaows original question was regarding TOP tier one sides, not just tier one sides.  
Focus on just the recent games against teams with a realistic shout of winning the world cup/good recent test records (Aus, Ireland, NZ, SA, Wales) ...

Focusing just on those sides still doesn't look too shabby for Ford though - 10 wins and 3 defeats with him starting as opposed to 5 wins and 3 defeats without him starting. His run as untouchable starting 10 seems to have come to an end with the two test defeats in South Africa. However, if Eddie thought he should be dropped for that, rather than reflecting on his own decision not to train at altitude in preparation for Johannesburg and Bloemfontein questions should be asked. As it is I hope he has just tried something else over last season with Farrell at 10 and Slade outside, and can now vary tactically between the two.

[Rugby Fan]

He has put in a huge number of barnstorming displays at 13 over the last decade. He has managed less than a handful of decent performances at 12.

This seems fictional considering how often he plays for England. Club level's a mostly different beast.

Miaow, this came up on the last thread where you seemed unconvinced about Manu at 13. Strongly suggest you go back and read the responses there rather than have everyone repeat what they said here. If nothing else, just look at what shirt he was wearing when England beat New Zealand in 2012, which is widely regarded as a defining match for the player.

[lostinwales]

Yes it has to be a horses for courses approach. Ford is likely to have a say in the match.

[No 7&1/2]

And when are you basing his performance at 13 worse than at 12?

[Guest]

As a point of curiosity, given comments about Ford starting against Tier 1 sides...  I looked back at all the matches against Tier 1 sides over the period since the last world cup and up until now (excluding warm ups because I agree with the sentiment that they aren't really competitive matches in the same sense as the others - if teams are using the game to test combinations, work on fitness, etc, I do think that genuinely is not the same).

As for the others I'm counting them all.  You could argue that the Argentina game doesn't count because they had a player sent off etc, but to me that's just swings and roundabouts - the flip side is you have matches against them like the one Daly got sent off in the first few minutes, and others like the away matches during the Lions tour where England had a much depleted squad but Ford still captained them to good wins.  And I'd also add that over the same period they've been good enough to get a win against France, South Africa and Australia.

Surprisingly to me our points for/against is virtually unchanged whether Ford starts or not - we have 29 for and 18 against, and without 30 for and 19 against.

However, in terms of win/loss - against Tier 1 we have won 81% with Ford starting and 64% without.  And both of what I consider to be our worst results (drawing at home to Scotland and losing at home to Ireland) came in games where Farrell started.  

I expect us to lose a few away games against decent opposition - and as far as I can tell that is what every game we have lost with Ford starting has been.  Away against Ireland in 2017, and away against (an in form) Scotland, France and South Africa x 2 in 2018.  With the latter 4 happening at the end of a post Lions season when England invariably underperform because we don't manage the recovery of our players well - not because Ford was suddenly terrible.

There's clearly a lot more going on here than simply whether or not Ford started, and England can clearly play without him.  However, I can't see any justification for Matt Dawson's view of his move to the bench being inevitable.  It looks to me that he has been a central player in England's best runs, but that Eddie has decided to bring him on from the bench.  Will see what happens tomorrow morning, but Eddie has generally made decent calls so far and I'm happy to see how it goes.  I also expect Ford to be back in the line up - in the latter stages of the tournament if we get past Australia, or in the next 6Ns.

The key answer to the part in bold is: who is the opposition? England had what is probably going to be an unmatched winning streak in the first year of EJ's tenure with Ford at 10, but since then he's been starting against the walkovers of this world. It's not 'fake stats', but it doesn't confirm what it suggests - that Ford are more likely to win any game v any opposition simply because Ford is starting.

I actually can see some disappointment/anger in Ford being dropped. From a distance, it's a bit strange to see English fans sort of 'entrenching' certain players, combos, or systems as 'vital' because they worked, say, when England were winning - like how Ben Youngs suddenly became 'the best scrum half in the world'TM in 2016 after the Australia tour. Every country is guilty of it I suppose, of equating that success with the

For me, Farrell's clearly your key man - for better and for worse. As expected I'm not sure the captaincy call is the right idea, and EJ mentioned he'd got the balance of that wrong so far. But the choice has been made, so be it. He's the heartbeat on the ield, and while I think he was a better 12 than 10 6-7 years ago, the game's moved on. You *need* an explosive runner at 12 these days, you need that gainline-tackling, well rounded unit who can do it all for 80 minutes. Farrell doesn't have that. He's got too much '10' in him and, as captain, too much pressure to run the game - not good enough defensively, not powerful enough defensively, and probably not effective enough as a running option (let alone straight line running) to play 12 against the very best.

At least from minute 1 - when the explosivity has gone from the game, and legs are a bit more tired, it makes a lot more sense to bring Ford on from the bench, shift Farrell out and use him as a second playmaker etc.

But that's the key decision, really. It's 'inevitable' because Farrell is key, and Farrell is better at 10 than 12 now. Ford is droppable - he's not undroppable, basically, has too many flaws, particularly defence - and so you end up with Farrell at 10, and fitting in the centres to fit that. Tuilagi is there as Farrell's out ball. He's clearly the best 12 England can pick. I don't understand how it's contentious to pick him at 12 - this idea that Tuilagi doesn't make his breaks by smashing through people, leg pumping and twisting out of 2 defenders' clutches, is revisionist. But the more salient point is - you don't have to wear 13 to line up in wider channels in phase play.

Nothing about the way England plays suggests Tuilagi becomes a first receiver or 'ruck observer' during a move where he could be put through a gap 5-10m wider than he might otherwise be. Nope. Tuilagi is the best player to have on slow ball, same as Billy. It's when it's quick that you'll see Tuilagi used outside the props, hookers, Itoje etc. and become a carrying option who can go short, straight, wide, whatever. England don't line up 10-12-13. It's a strange thing to think. The opposite argument is, seemingly, play Slade at 12 and deal with Kerevi ploughing down his channel? Or expecting Farrell to do much better at 12 (high shot and yellow/red card potential is clear) or that Ford won't be targeted elsewhere.

Just seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of how games like this are won and lost to suggest Tuilagi at 12 rather than 13 is key or criminal. The chances Tuilagi will get in this game aren't likely to be vast, yet who controls it from 10-12 for each team is more important. Ford or Farrell? Farrell. That's the decision, quite an easy one to make, no? But even so, it's an 80 minute, 23 man game. Nothing wrong with Ford @ 10 and, more importantly, Farrell @ 12 against tired legs, minds, and possibly hearts.

Stats don't tell the whole truth. They can often be misleading.

[Guest]

Oh, ok. Sorry. I defer to 'a lot of people'. You're spot on. It was the *sigh* that convinced me...

Well I could spend time going back to previous threads and find and reference the relevant comments (usually from Leicester supporters if that is any help - if you remember that is where Manu occasionally plays) but if you could not be bothered to read and take on those arguments back then I can't see you doing it now. So I am afraid its going to be 'a lot of people'.

Why are you so condescending and patronising? The discussion has been had. I disagree. Your 'sighs' and 'wells' just show complete disdain with no substance to back it up. Who cares at the end of the day. Just talk for yourself and support your own views without vague evocations of 'the other people who know better than you'. Lazy.

[No 7&1/2]

Lol. No substance to back it up. You've been asked which games at 13 you're basing your view that tuilagi is better at 12 and can't. Soil asked you a question and you side stepped. Lazy indeed.

[BamBam]

Oh, ok. Sorry. I defer to 'a lot of people'. You're spot on. It was the *sigh* that convinced me...

Well I could spend time going back to previous threads and find and reference the relevant comments (usually from Leicester supporters if that is any help - if you remember that is where Manu occasionally plays) but if you could not be bothered to read and take on those arguments back then I can't see you doing it now. So I am afraid its going to be 'a lot of people'.

Why are you so condescending and patronising? The discussion has been had. I disagree. Your 'sighs' and 'wells' just show complete disdain with no substance to back it up. Who cares at the end of the day. Just talk for yourself and support your own views without vague evocations of 'the other people who know better than you'. Lazy.

I'm sorry Miaow (and mods), but that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Lol you beat me to it.

2 minutes after posting about other people's "fundamental misunderstanding of how games like this are won and lost". The lack of self awareness is incredible

[lostinwales]

Oh, ok. Sorry. I defer to 'a lot of people'. You're spot on. It was the *sigh* that convinced me...

Well I could spend time going back to previous threads and find and reference the relevant comments (usually from Leicester supporters if that is any help - if you remember that is where Manu occasionally plays) but if you could not be bothered to read and take on those arguments back then I can't see you doing it now. So I am afraid its going to be 'a lot of people'.

Why are you so condescending and patronising? The discussion has been had. I disagree. Your 'sighs' and 'wells' just show complete disdain with no substance to back it up. Who cares at the end of the day. Just talk for yourself and support your own views without vague evocations of 'the other people who know better than you'. Lazy.

There is a lot of projection going on there. There are also well written and evidence based arguments in this and previous threads that support my views which I am not capable of improving on. As far as I can see you have an opinion that at best is based on a very subjective reading of the evidence. Shear quantity of words does not reinforce that opinion.

This is also a distraction from the discussion of the game and as such I am quite happy to agree to disagree and to now leave this alone.

[Sponsored content]