England v Samoa - Who should play?

First topic message reminder :

You are limited to the 28 man squad that Lancaster retained - what would be your team?

England Squad

Loose-head prop
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Matt Mullan (Wasps)

Tight-head prop
Kieran Brookes (Newcastle Falcons)
David Wilson (Bath Rugby)

Hooker
Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints)
Rob Webber (Bath Rugby)

Lock
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby)
George Kruis (Saracens)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints)

Back row
Calum Clark (Northampton Saints)
James Haskell (Wasps)
Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby)
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)(c)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)
Tom Wood (Northampton Saints)

Scrum half
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)
Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens)

Outside back
Brad Barritt (Saracens)
Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints)
Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby)
Owen Farrell (Saracens)
George Ford (Bath Rugby)
Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby)

Back three
Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby)
Marland Yarde (Harlequins)

thomh wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Joseph too thomh

Didn't know that. Was he injured for the JWC? Can only remember Daly at 13.

Played wing in opening match

Charlie Hodgson summed it up for me:

[i]"It's a difficult situation putting Farrell and Ford on at the same time. Owen is a strong character himself and he wants to have control of what's going on. He might find that a bit difficult to do that from 12 and it might go against what George is trying to do at 10."[/i]

I really hope he doesn't mess up Fords game and chance by being a petulant little s@#t.

In a way though I hope it goes well and it all clicks for the 10 - 12 axis because that will be another piece in the jigsaw in place and we'll all be on here saying we were right all along and we knew Lancaster would get it right!

fa0019 wrote:Does the centre pairing remind you a little of Jamie Noon and Mike Tindall together???

Wonder what the strategy is going to be here???

No, both Tindall and Noon could at least make ground and break tackles, Farrell and Barritt can do neither.

The only comparison is none of them can pass more than three metres and neither set have any pace.

Don't know why we're surprised - Stewie's tried every other centre combination.

Looks like what marks out an inexperienced coach is how easily they lose their bottle. Still, at least it's not the RWC.

Well not impressed with Farrell at 12 but i guess we'll judge after the game.

The fact he isn't dropped also says to me he will start v OZ.

I think you're right Geordie, whatever happens, Farrell will be playing against Oz. I hope Ford does enough to be allowed to play alongside him too, we need a second fly half with some caps prior to the WC.

The most frustrating thing through all this is the coaches inability to identify that Farrell is both injured and out of form. He needs rest sort the injury out and a few games with Sarries for his own benefit.

The fact that the coaches persist on playing a guy who is injured and prepared to run a young man in to the ground is alarming.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The most frustrating thing through all this is the coaches inability to identify that Farrell is both injured and out of form. He needs rest sort the injury out and a few games with Sarries for his own benefit.

The fact that the coaches persist on playing a guy who is injured and prepared to run a young man in to the ground is alarming.  

GF,

We have similar issues with Priestland, he was (by Howley) consistently played while out of form and by his own admission low on confidence. Gatland himself seems hell bent (though seen light this weekend) on icluding him come what may in the squad.

Whilst not his biggest fan but some of the criticism he has come in for is way out of order.

That's the thing BW. I can see Farrells value when fit and on form...but not in his current state.

10 ford
12 Barritt

Would be fine if they wanted an experienced leader beside a young Fh.

What is the point of playing Ford if you stick Farrell and Barritt outside him? Anything he creates they will destroy with their slow ponderous play. Maybe that is Farrell Snr's plan?

Emglands best performances under Lancaster have come with a second playmaker/distributer at 12! Don't really understand 12trees on the bench if he is there why not okay him???? Burrell is not fit... Had a STORMING a debut 6 nations and BARRIT is now preferred?

Everyone complaining about Farrell but actually the dropping of Burrell is scandalous!

An off form 10 is now a better choice 12 than specialist centre's selected for the squad?

This coaching lark is clearly far more complicated than I thought.

Been thinking about the 10 - 12 axis again and it "could" actually work moving Farrell to 12. England are after 2 play makers to offer a 2 sided attack and a 2 sided kicking option, a la NZ, and they will get that with Ford and Farrell.

Now consider the platform we're getting from the pack; set piece is developing into world class and hopefully the changes we are seeing will develop our loose play further. With players coming back from injury for the 6Ns we are in a position whereby the pack is very strong, world class even, and will provide us with the required platform to dominate any team up front I have no doubt.

Place behind that a strong decision making, low error count, 9-10-12 axis and we can safely say we should dominate territory, posession and control of the game and I think this the gameplan they are looking for.

I think Youngs is going to go well in the coming games as he will have a massive pack infront of him giving him the time he needs and space to make the right plays. He does offer a running threat but more importantly he is a clever player given the right players around him, i.e. strong pack and an intelligent 10.

Place Ford and Farrell behind that platform and I think we should see some very controlled, intelligent play (providing Farrell can lift his game) with Ford running the shots.

I think for me the weak link is going to be 13 in this game as it could prove a stumbling block of using the back three and our overall attacking play. My concern is if it all falls apart because the 13 is useless going forward then we may not even give this partnership any further thought. If they bring Twelvetrees on for Barritt it could actually work in their favour as he is strong enough to play the crash ball 13 better than Barritt but can also link play with the outside backs.

Its clearly a brave decision from the management, but I have a feeling Ford and Farrell could work.

My first thought on seeing Farrell at 12 was OMG.  I agree with GF he seems out of form and fitness which seems a strange qualification to pick him there.  Even if fully fit and bang on form there seem many better 12s.  As for a playmaker there, it may be early days but Slade looks a very decent footballer.

The backline against Samoa seems more conservative than before with less pace.  I hope and just about expect England to win, but we are not being very ambituous.

If Eastmond was injured/(dropped), Barrett at 12 and Joseph at 13 would have been an interesting choice (Ford still at 10).  Joseph has been in good form with Bath and would allow Barrett to play his more normal position.

My concern also that it will be hard on Ford with no flair outside him.  Farrell and Barrett should be easy to defend against - Ford could be targetted.

Not impressed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/11242190/England-v-Samoa-How-fly-half-Mike-Stanley-fell-in-love-with-rugby-again-while-playing-for-Southend.html


Away from England and onto the opposition, anyone read this story? Another Englishman poached by those Samoans! Seriously though, its a good story and his mention of the difference between NZ and English academy rugby is interesting.

So as far as I can tell all we'll learn from this AI's is:

1. Farrell is undroppable
2. An out of position 10 and 12 are preferable to actual on form centre's playing in their positions
3. Jo Joseph will never get an England cap
4. Kyle Eastmond's days are numbered
5. Lancaster has his particular game plan, and will not deviate from that no matter the form or fitness of players


A truly enlightening series.

Nb all the above is meant tongue in cheek but I am a little disappointed with this AI's. I feel we'll go into the 6N's with no better understanding of who should play 9-14 and there might now be question marks over 6 and 8 too, although hopefully after Sat there won't be.

jamesandimac wrote:Been thinking about the 10 - 12 axis again and it "could" actually work moving Farrell to 12.  England are after 2 play makers to offer a 2 sided attack and a 2 sided kicking option, a la NZ, and they will get that with Ford and Farrell.

Now consider the platform we're getting from the pack; set piece is developing into world class and hopefully the changes we are seeing will develop our loose play further.  With players coming back from injury for the 6Ns we are in a position whereby the pack is very strong, world class even, and will provide us with the required platform to dominate any team up front I have no doubt.

Place behind that a strong decision making, low error count, 9-10-12 axis and we can safely say we should dominate territory, posession and control of the game and I think this the gameplan they are looking for.

I think Youngs is going to go well in the coming games as he will have a massive pack infront of him giving him the time he needs and space to make the right plays.  He does offer a running threat but more importantly he is a clever player given the right players around him, i.e. strong pack and an intelligent 10.  

Place Ford and Farrell behind that platform and I think we should see some very controlled, intelligent play (providing Farrell can lift his game) with Ford running the shots.

I think for me the weak link is going to be 13 in this game as it could prove a stumbling block of using the back three and our overall attacking play.  My concern is if it all falls apart because the 13 is useless going forward then we may not even give this partnership any further thought.  If they bring Twelvetrees on for Barritt it could actually work in their favour as he is strong enough to play the crash ball 13 better than Barritt but can also link play with the outside backs.

Its clearly a brave decision from the management, but I have a feeling Ford and Farrell could work.  

We've had that in almost every game we've played! IT'S NOT THE POSSESION STATS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM, it's the total lack of try scoring capability in the opponents 22. Now just remind me how moving the single least effective attacking player from the 10 to the 12 shirt is suddenly meant to change that around?

Like most people, I too am more than a little disappointed with the selection of Farrell at IC. In the larger squad we have Eastmond, Burrell, Barritt and Twelvetrees who all ply their trade week –in-week-out for their clubs at IC. Now I know a couple of those names are injured but to turn to them and say that an out of form, possibly injured fly-half is going to be better at their job than they are must be extremely demoralising for those players.
I hope I’m proved wrong and OF puts in a great performance and we get a comfortable win on Saturday, but I would still like to see GF at 10 against Oz with a proper IC outside him. Give Owen a rest next week and let him regain some form and fitness before the 6N.

yappysnap wrote:So as far as I can tell all we'll learn from this AI's is:

1. Farrell is undroppable
2. An out of position 10 and 12 are preferable to actual on form centre's playing in their positions
3. Jo Joseph will never get an England cap
4. Kyle Eastmond's days are numbered
5. Lancaster has his particular game plan, and will not deviate from that no matter the form or fitness of players


A truly enlightening series.

Nb all the above is meant tongue in cheek but I am a little disappointed with this AI's. I feel we'll go into the 6N's with no better understanding of who should play 9-14 and there might now be question marks over 6 and 8 too, although hopefully after Sat there won't be.

That's the most demoralising thing of all for me. Imagine how the other England centre hopefuls feel about being dumped for an off-form, and out of position Owen Farrell? SL's made it abundantly clear that this team is centred and built around Owen, when in reality, I don't think he's good enough to shoulder the burden. At all. 

Joseph deserves a recall, and what a waste of an opportunity to see him play on the international stage again. 

I'm struggling to think of a less creative centre pairing than Farrell and Baritt!? Erinle and Hipkiss back in 2009 perhaps? 

Utter dross of a selection really, and couldn't be more disappointed with it if I'm honest. May and Watson must be praying that the ball will reach the wings this week!

How likely is that side to score 20 points against a team who kept Italy to nil earlier this year?

What the coaches seem to have missed is the importance of across-the-board threat in attack. Picking two deadwood centres doesn't just kill our threat in the centre, it kills our threat all across the backline because Samoa can keep our talented wide men out of the game and then focus their resources on stopping 6-10 from creating anything. As others have said the worst thing is that this makes everyone look bad in attack, whilst Farrell and Barritt shine in defence thus probably convincing Lancaster that they are the top contributors.

The pack does look increasingly demon and sadly I think we will have to resort to big mauls again this weekend. But even in that department Samoa aren't a pushover. In fact Samoa's main limitation at the moment is that they lack penetration in attack. In theory this should reduce the importance of defence to us, but that doesn't seem to be reflected in the selection.

Grrr.

We'll win easily on Saturday, it's not a problem. People were saying 36 wasn't working a short time ago, Eastmond injured, they want to play with a 2nd receiver which rules out Barritt and a recovering Burrell anyway. Personally I would give Slade more time with the squad rather than giving him such a pivotal position and it's far to early for Devoto.

No disrespect intended to Samoa, but this represents the last game between now and the start of the WC that can be considered a certain win. If this isn't the time to test out new combinations, then we certainly won't see them at any time after unless there's a massive injury crisis. 

Slade, Joseph, Ewers, LCD, Kitchener, Slater....they've all missed the boat.

bluestonevedder wrote:No disrespect intended to Samoa, but this represents the last game between now and the start of the WC that can be considered a certain win. If this isn't the time to test out new combinations, then we certainly won't see them at any time after unless there's a massive injury crisis. 

Slade, Joseph, Ewers, LCD, Kitchener, Slater....they've all missed the boat.

Agree with that, at some point Lancaster has to pull hid head from his arse and take risks. He is even more conservative than Heyneke Meyer, and that takes some doing.

Biltong wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:No disrespect intended to Samoa, but this represents the last game between now and the start of the WC that can be considered a certain win. If this isn't the time to test out new combinations, then we certainly won't see them at any time after unless there's a massive injury crisis. 

Slade, Joseph, Ewers, LCD, Kitchener, Slater....they've all missed the boat.

Agree with that, at some point Lancaster has to pull hid head from his arse and take risks. He is even more conservative than Heyneke Meyer, and that takes some doing.

So conservative Biltong. Are you not a happy man with Meyer in control?

Why do you think Lancaster's conservative Biltong?

Maybe he's not conservative, because he does actually try loads of different combinations (often too many). The issue is, a lot of the time his selections are just wrong and he seems incapable of realising that himself.

yappysnap wrote:

jamesandimac wrote:Been thinking about the 10 - 12 axis again and it "could" actually work moving Farrell to 12.  England are after 2 play makers to offer a 2 sided attack and a 2 sided kicking option, a la NZ, and they will get that with Ford and Farrell.

Now consider the platform we're getting from the pack; set piece is developing into world class and hopefully the changes we are seeing will develop our loose play further.  With players coming back from injury for the 6Ns we are in a position whereby the pack is very strong, world class even, and will provide us with the required platform to dominate any team up front I have no doubt.

Place behind that a strong decision making, low error count, 9-10-12 axis and we can safely say we should dominate territory, posession and control of the game and I think this the gameplan they are looking for.

I think Youngs is going to go well in the coming games as he will have a massive pack infront of him giving him the time he needs and space to make the right plays.  He does offer a running threat but more importantly he is a clever player given the right players around him, i.e. strong pack and an intelligent 10.  

Place Ford and Farrell behind that platform and I think we should see some very controlled, intelligent play (providing Farrell can lift his game) with Ford running the shots.

I think for me the weak link is going to be 13 in this game as it could prove a stumbling block of using the back three and our overall attacking play.  My concern is if it all falls apart because the 13 is useless going forward then we may not even give this partnership any further thought.  If they bring Twelvetrees on for Barritt it could actually work in their favour as he is strong enough to play the crash ball 13 better than Barritt but can also link play with the outside backs.

Its clearly a brave decision from the management, but I have a feeling Ford and Farrell could work.  

We've had that in almost every game we've played! IT'S NOT THE POSSESION STATS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM, it's the total lack of try scoring capability in the opponents 22. Now just remind me how moving the single least effective attacking player from the 10 to the 12 shirt is suddenly meant to change that around?

I think you are missing my point. Possesion hasn't been a problem agreed but the way we've used it has. We haven't had the penetration from our pack in the loose that we would've perhaps liked and our decision making has been pretty horrendous of late. What my point was, is that the changes made in the pack should give us a certain impestious in our carrying game giving our backline frontfoot ball, not only off set piece but also in open play. My other point was that if you put a sound decidion making axis behind that we should be able to attack and score accordingly. Having a second decision maker in there to assist with the "vision" element of the game for 10 will help in the attacking thought process, creating more width and chances for our backline. We have the try scorers out wide and if we can get them suitable attacking ball then they will score.

My concern is there isn't that there isn't the carrying ability in the midfield to offset this. If Farrell is to be employed as a pivot in the middle, for Lancaster to have his 2 sided attack, then we need to have extra carrying ability in the 13 channel to augmet that. Barritt doesnt offer that threat to hold the defence and he is also slow with his distribution so we wont get the ball wide enough, quick enough. Thats was the point of my post.

What do you think the selction mistakes have been blue? Personally the only issue for me has been Farrell at 10 over the last 2 games.

It's interesting but Barritt is a pretty good carrier at international level and normally makes a pretty good amount of meters. Haskell for all he looks the part isn't a particlarly good carrier for me. Vunipola has been far below where he should have been in this respect so far.

I think Lancaster has a certain vision he wants from his backline. He blatantly wants a large ball carrier at 13 with Tuilagi being that player. He wants a solid decision maker/second play maker at 12 who can assist the flyhalf in constructing the attacing plays.

Now he's never hide that vision and has employed Flood at 12 and Farrell at 10 before now. He stated regularly last season and this season that he had been training with Ford and Farrell at 10 and 12 and had designs of playing them together.

I think his ideal backline is Ford-Farrell-Tuilagi. The problem is he's never had the opportunity to employ this backline because of injury.

i do fear what an england team would be like if 606 were selecting the players. We would have different players in the team each and every week. If their form suffered for a few games we would start with another 15 - we would end up with all the registered players in england with 1 cap

I agree nathan. Of course if your team is winning it becomes harder to criticise.

it is easy to be a forum selector as our choices are never tested. Plus we all live in a world where the players we want are fit - and we never see them in training.

For me the main mistakes that SL and team have made in summer and Autumn are:

1) Owen Farrell - he was not fit when selected for the 2nd test in NZ (nor was Care) and not match fit for the AIs.
2) Manu on the wing - but as with many of his selections other pundits (SCW as an example) were clamouring for this. when it failed they all went quiet.


SL has been criticised for mass changes after T1 in NZ when the Saints and Sarries players were brought in. Had he kep the T1 team and they had lost - which is highly likeley - he would also have been criticised.

Comes back to whether you are winning - win and the critics need to bide their time.

bluestonevedder wrote:

Biltong wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:No disrespect intended to Samoa, but this represents the last game between now and the start of the WC that can be considered a certain win. If this isn't the time to test out new combinations, then we certainly won't see them at any time after unless there's a massive injury crisis. 

Slade, Joseph, Ewers, LCD, Kitchener, Slater....they've all missed the boat.

Agree with that, at some point Lancaster has to pull hid head from his arse and take risks. He is even more conservative than Heyneke Meyer, and that takes some doing.

So conservative Biltong. Are you not a happy man with Meyer in control?

I don't like his selection philosophies.

He values experience above anything else. The only way young talent gets a chance is due to injury. He is also size obsessed. We have some wonderful skilled players who don't get a chance simply because they are too small.

bluestonevedder wrote:Maybe he's not conservative, because he does actually try loads of different combinations (often too many). The issue is, a lot of the time his selections are just wrong and he seems incapable of realising that himself.

If Lancaster was less conservative he would select playmakers and not robots. He has the same issue as Meyer, big strong players will be both their downfalls

No 7&1/2 wrote:What do you think the selction mistakes have been blue? Personally the only issue for me has been Farrell at 10 over the last 2 games.

It's interesting but Barritt is a pretty good carrier at international level and normally makes a pretty good amount of meters. Haskell for all he looks the part isn't a particlarly good carrier for me. Vunipola has been far below where he should have been in this respect so far.

Farrell at 10 the last two weeks is the major one. Like a couple of posters on here, I would have rested him for the Autumn and taken the chance to test Ford and another FH of choice- probably Cipriani. 

Care's selection against the Boks was another issue. He had a mixed game against the Kiwi's, and his ponderous delivery ruined us on Saturday. Box-kicking showed no signs of improvement either. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Care and during the 6N he was superb. He just seems to have lost his way a bit. 

Barritt I've been very critical of, but is a real asset if used in the right way. Using him alongside Farrell is certainly not using him the right way. 

I guess the above issues aren't so much selection problems, but rotation issues. Immediately against the Boks our backs looked more engaged with Youngs and Ford on. Delivery was faster and the ball reached the hands of all our backs. Ford was on for Barritt's try which I don't think was a coincidence. Interestingly Farrell was also at 12 so perhaps I am being too unfair. 

As much as I do like SL, he seems pretty obstinate. The perseverance of playing guys out of position is a real issue. Brown at wing, Foden as wing, Wood at 8 (!), Manu on the wing, Farrell at 12 now. This is elite level international sport and the margins are microscopic. Players have their preferred positions for a reason. 

For what it is worth, against Samoa I would be choosing a centre partnership of 12. Twelvetrees and 13. Barritt, with Joseph on the bench.

Biltong wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Maybe he's not conservative, because he does actually try loads of different combinations (often too many). The issue is, a lot of the time his selections are just wrong and he seems incapable of realising that himself.

If Lancaster was less conservative he would select playmakers and not robots. He has the same issue as Meyer, big strong players will be both their downfalls

I agree with this to an extent. However, our backline is full of play-makers, but they simply don't see the ball. Eastmond, May, Watson, and Brown are all amazing attacking talents and are hardly the biggest players! We rarely see what they can do because they aren't given the opportunities. Is this the result of a systematic approach to the game rather than relying a small bit on flair? Potentially. But also the ball is hardly making it passed Farrell and Barritt. Certainly with all the aimless kicking it seems that our players are not playing what is it front of them, but are sticking to a game plan.

bluestonevedder wrote:

Biltong wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Maybe he's not conservative, because he does actually try loads of different combinations (often too many). The issue is, a lot of the time his selections are just wrong and he seems incapable of realising that himself.

If Lancaster was less conservative he would select playmakers and not robots. He has the same issue as Meyer, big strong players will be both their downfalls

I agree with this to an extent. However, our backline is full of play-makers, but they simply don't see the ball. Eastmond, May, Watson, and Brown are all amazing attacking talents and are hardly the biggest players! We rarely see what they can do because they aren't given the opportunities. Is this the result of a systematic approach to the game rather than relying a small bit on flair? Potentially. But also the ball is hardly making it passed Farrell and Barritt. Certainly with all the aimless kicking it seems that our players are not playing what is it front of them, but are sticking to a game plan.

I think the game plan does have some to do with it, I never see Brown joining the line ala Willie le Roux, his attacks are mainly solo efforts from deep, Farrell does not create any doubt in defences.

You need a first playmaker that by virtue of unpredictability and varying his play create hesitation in defence, then have Brown or another distributor who understands and can read space join the line. Then gaps will come.

Farrell isn't in good form by any stretch of the imagination but he is a good 10.

People have and will continue to call for players out of their preferred positions, sometimes you've just got to try it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Farrell isn't in good form by any stretch of the imagination but he is a good 10.

People have and will continue to call for players out of their preferred positions, sometimes you've just got to try it.

He is a good 10, undoubtedly. But there are different types of 10s. Farrell's game revolves around good game management, solid goal kicking, and good defence. If you compare him against the criteria of an attacking 10, he doesn't compare well. 

A huge positive to Farrell is that he is young and willing. There's still time for him to adapt his playing style, and we've already seen from the Lions tour how much he improved from being around a player of Sexton's quality. 

In a full strength England team with Tuilagi and Burrell in the centres, there's less pressure on Farrell to be the creative source because Tuilagi at OC is capable of creating something from nothing and forming a platform for attack. Unfortunately with Barritt and Eastmond in the centres, the pressure shifts back to Farrell and his weaknesses are exposed.  Combine this pressure with a complete lack of form and it's the perfect storm where Farrell is George Clooney. 

That's just how I see it anyway.

bluestonevedder wrote:Farrell isn't in good form by any stretch of the imagination but he is a good 10. Combine this pressure with a complete lack of form and it's the perfect storm where Farrell is George Clooney. 

That's just how I see it anyway.

My mother would sleep with George Clooney. Lord I hope she would leave young Owen alone.



Run Owen, Run.

The problem with Farrell is that he isn't match sharp.

I really don't understand why he has taken part in the AI, as he hasn't done himself any justice and it was a perfect opportunity to try out others, we all know that on his day Farrell is solid and a safe option at this level but he is never going to be a game changer like Ford or Cips could be.

yappysnap wrote:So as far as I can tell all we'll learn from this AI's is:

What I take from the selections so far is that Lancaster sees the top 4 centre candidates as Twelvetrees, Barritt, Burrell and Tuilagi. If Twelvetrees is in form by the time the World Cup comes around, Lancaster will probably be choosing between Burrell and Barritt for the third centre spot in his squad.

Twelvetrees isn't always reliably fit or in form, so Lancaster has a lot riding on Farrell, since he is the only one of the fly half contenders who can do a job as a second kicking option at inside centre.

Currently, two of Lancaster's four candidates are out, and one isn't in great nick, so Barritt is getting a long run because there's a growing chance he'll be involved at the Cup.

We will be short of centre cover at the World Cup. Martin Johnson selected Hape, Tindall and Tuilagi for 2011, but he also had Flood, Armitage and Banahan and could even call on Wilkinson and Cueto in an emergency. Lancaster has no-one else among his back three or fly half candidates who could comfortably slot in. It's too late to in the day to talk about Slade.

That's one reason why he wants to give his likely midfield selections as many caps before the World Cup as possible, to give them experience of pressure situations.

One thing he knows, though, is that he probably won't have his prime four centre candidates all fit and in form by the World Cup. That just hasn't been his luck so far. The fact that Eastmond was preferred to Joseph alongside Barritt suggests he's the next in line.

Biltong wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

Biltong wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Maybe he's not conservative, because he does actually try loads of different combinations (often too many). The issue is, a lot of the time his selections are just wrong and he seems incapable of realising that himself.

If Lancaster was less conservative he would select playmakers and not robots. He has the same issue as Meyer, big strong players will be both their downfalls

I agree with this to an extent. However, our backline is full of play-makers, but they simply don't see the ball. Eastmond, May, Watson, and Brown are all amazing attacking talents and are hardly the biggest players! We rarely see what they can do because they aren't given the opportunities. Is this the result of a systematic approach to the game rather than relying a small bit on flair? Potentially. But also the ball is hardly making it passed Farrell and Barritt. Certainly with all the aimless kicking it seems that our players are not playing what is it front of them, but are sticking to a game plan.

I think the game plan does have some to do with it, I never see Brown joining the line ala Willie le Roux, his attacks are mainly solo efforts from deep, Farrell does not create any doubt in defences.

You need a first playmaker that by virtue of unpredictability and varying his play create hesitation in defence, then have Brown or another distributor who understands and can read space join the line. Then gaps will come.

I'm hoping that this is what Ford will bring. He's got a good all-round game and has certainly created that element of 'unpredictability' in the premiership this season.

I reckon this 2 sided attack thing is just a massive ruse by Lancaster

At some point in this game we will see a 2 sided attack, with Farrell, Barritt, and the props on the left side and Ford, the back 3 and Morgan on the right.

He's hoping the Samoans fall about laughing at the left side just long enough to give Ford the chance to make some magic happen on the right

BamBam wrote:I reckon this 2 sided attack thing is just a massive ruse by Lancaster

At some point in this game we will see a 2 sided attack, with Farrell, Barritt, and the props on the left side and Ford, the back 3 and Morgan on the right.

He's hoping the Samoans fall about laughing at the left side just long enough to give Ford the chance to make some magic happen on the right

 I bet Marler can run faster than the centers....

I fear this could be a whitewash even if England play badly.


 SRU havn't turned up for neither of the 2 player meeting with the IRB present like it was suppose to.
 http://www.planetrugby.co.uk/story/0,25883,16024_9570958,00.html

 http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_9570658,00.html

 SRU wants to have a meeting after tour but the players all go their separate ways with there clubs.

 If England get a couple of quick tries that will be the game imo.

yappysnap wrote:So as far as I can tell all we'll learn from this AI's is:

1. Farrell is undroppable
2. An out of position 10 and 12 are preferable to actual on form centre's playing in their positions
3. Jo Joseph will never get an England cap
4. Kyle Eastmond's days are numbered
5. Lancaster has his particular game plan, and will not deviate from that no matter the form or fitness of players


A truly enlightening series.

Nb all the above is meant tongue in cheek but I am a little disappointed with this AI's. I feel we'll go into the 6N's with no better understanding of who should play 9-14 and there might now be question marks over 6 and 8 too, although hopefully after Sat there won't be.

3 and 4 I just don't understand. The best midfield/centre combination in the Aviva this season is Ford, Eastmond and Joseph, and whilst they would not be my first choice for England, with both Tuilagi and Burrell out, and Twelvetrees in mixed form, surely to goodness Lancaster would have given the trio a chance in England jerseys. I do realise club form and combinations do not always translate, but these guys are playing so well as a unit that I can't believe he would choose Farrell and Barritt instead. These are guys that do play what's in front of them and have the skills and pace to make yards through guile and playing off script, and not just mindlessly crashing into the opposition.

This team selection gives Samoa a real opportunity.

Yappy

A truly enlightening series.

Absolutely...and alarming. At least we can see either Lancaster is completely rigid...or he doesnt trust any players outside the current EPS.
If your a 10 unless your name is Farrell id start looking for Scottish, Welsh, Italian,  Bermudan etc etc...grandads as you wont play for England.

Nb all the above is meant tongue in cheek but I am a little disappointed with this AI's. I feel we'll go into the 6N's with no better understanding of who should play 9-14 and there might now be question marks over 6 and 8 too, although hopefully after Sat there won't be

I'll go in to the 6n expecting a royal humping of Ireland just for starters.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

yappysnap wrote:So as far as I can tell all we'll learn from this AI's is:

1. Farrell is undroppable
2. An out of position 10 and 12 are preferable to actual on form centre's playing in their positions
3. Jo Joseph will never get an England cap
4. Kyle Eastmond's days are numbered
5. Lancaster has his particular game plan, and will not deviate from that no matter the form or fitness of players


A truly enlightening series.

Nb all the above is meant tongue in cheek but I am a little disappointed with this AI's. I feel we'll go into the 6N's with no better understanding of who should play 9-14 and there might now be question marks over 6 and 8 too, although hopefully after Sat there won't be.

3 and 4 I just don't understand. The best midfield/centre combination in the Aviva this season is Ford, Eastmond and Joseph, and whilst they would not be my first choice for England, with both Tuilagi and Burrell out, and Twelvetrees in mixed form, surely to goodness Lancaster would have given the trio a chance in England jerseys. I do realise club form and combinations do not always translate, but these guys are playing so well as a unit that I can't believe he would choose Farrell and Barritt instead. These are guys that do play what's in front of them and have the skills and pace to make yards through guile and playing off script, and not just mindlessly crashing into the opposition.

This team selection gives Samoa a real opportunity

What you could say is that that 12-13 combo is pretty solid defensively (assuming the attacking players choose to run at/near them instead of around them)

lostinwales wrote:

BamBam wrote:I reckon this 2 sided attack thing is just a massive ruse by Lancaster

At some point in this game we will see a 2 sided attack, with Farrell, Barritt, and the props on the left side and Ford, the back 3 and Morgan on the right.

He's hoping the Samoans fall about laughing at the left side just long enough to give Ford the chance to make some magic happen on the right

 I bet Marler can run faster than the centers....

When Marler was on loan at Esher, he would regularly run in tries from the half way line, seems to have slowed down a bit now.

I remember a Marler try for the U20 against Wales. Burst through the defensive line and ran half the pitch to score.