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)

TightHEAD wrote:SL and his coaching staff are beginning to look out of their depth to be honest.

Yes they have set us on the right path but I feel we now have a very talented squad who need to step up a level or two and I really doubt these are the right guys to make that happen.

To be honest I don't think they are out depth, they are just missing one key component for my money.

Lancaster as a head coach has done exceptionally well laying the foundations for success. Everything is moving in the right direction off the field, such as the new training complex. The elite player programme is working well, and we are devloping a very good squad for next year. Also as overall his gameplan is very progressive for England and I think its moving in the right direction.

Rowntree as forwards coach has developed one of the best packs we've had in a long time. Look at the depth we have even given our injuries. The pack functions well both at set piece and, when on form and injury free, on the loose against the best teams. When was the last time a team went against SA in the lineout and won 19 out of 20 throws? and 100% of scrums?

Andy Farrell as defence coach (granted he does backs but I'll conviently ignore that for now!). Englands defence at the moment is fantasticand we only really conceed points through our glaring errors rather than constant miss tackles. Very impressed with the line speed and commitment to the tackle when our backs are against the wall over the past few weeks.

Catt as skills coach. Although people critise him and question what he does, since he has come in England have gradually improved there attacking game (less the last 2 games obviously! but thats down to decision making) and their skill set has improved, i.e. a good offloading game from the forwards, good width and skill throughout the 6Ns.

Whats missing is a dedicated backs coach. A proper Rugby Union backs coach who knows how a backline functions and what it takes to create an attacking force out wide. We're relying on Farrell to do this but whats his RU backline experience? Where is the knowledge going to come from? If we had a dedicated back line coach then I believe the selections wouldn't be as erratic as they have been as we would have someone in these selection meetings who knows what is best and who will work best. Can you imagine someone like Wayne Smith or Alex king suggesting that Farrell Jr at 12 is a good idea? Or Tuilagi on the wing?

England are lacking a proper backs coach. Now whether that can come from shifting responsibility within the current structure by giving Catt a go I'm not sure. But either way thats something that should be identified and changed. Now I think deep down Lancaster knows this which is why he called in Brian Ashton during the first week to offer advice and guidance to the attack/backline activities.

England arent a million miles away.

1) Creativty and game control from 10. (Care is fine at 9)
At his best on form Farrell is limited. His kicking is not as good as everyone says and he isnt this "iceman" i keep hearing about. But i do see his value...when he is fit and on top form.
Its time to see what a playmaker can do there.

2) Breakdown
I dont think its a case of our players not being good there...i think its more the tactics. When to flood it when we get a chance of a turnover etc. etc. When to keep players out and give them the ball...no point competing when you cant win it.

3) Pack Carrying
Vunipola or Ben Morgan are the key carriers. Aside from that theres only a couple who are "decent" at best. This puts a lot of pressure on those two as carriers both making ground in attack but also relieving pressure when we get the ball in defensive areas.
We need to look at the balance in the back row. For me...6 should be a monster carrier, and 7 a runnner / link man. Robshaw has done that pretty well to be fair.

Fix those and i think we'l see the differences....

GF

Agree with some of that - in defence of Owen Farrell, he is still a very young player and was showing signs of serious improvement as a playmaker in the last 6Ns. The last couple of matches he has looked like a player just back from an injury lay-off and lacking some match sharpness. He even showed some flair and ambition as a runner in the SA match, in running from in front of his own posts - pity he completely spoiled it by getting outside the defence and then giving Watson a deadly hospital pass on the inside...

It is right though that someone else should have had the first chance this series, with OF back at Sarries regaining match sharpness.

Breakdown I think will go better this week and next in the absence of Walsh's reffing - he was soft on tacklers not releasing and harsh on the ball carriers holding on. We are though missing the work of Cole and Launchbury in this area, meaning Robshaw and Wood have been over-worked and less able to influence the game in open play.

As for ball carriers, as well as at least one more really dynamic forward, we are missing either Burrell or Manu in the centre. Barritt has done the boshing up to the best of his ability, but he lacks the pace and power of either of the above and so does not draw additional defenders away from the fringes. Last year it looked like Hartley was finally showing for England the ball carrying power he has for Northampton, but he seems to have regressed somewhat at the moment.

1) Without Farrell our kicking at the posts looks a bit suspect.  If you go with Ford his kicking is unreliable – I am not saying he can’t kick, it is just not consistent.  There is no obvious alternative, other than Care, who is at best a part-time kicker.
2) If you watch New Zealand they are light years ahead of us at the breakdown.  They consistently produce quick ruck ball – players number 1 to 15 know how and when to hit a ruck hard.  They also know when to stand out and defend the fringes, or get extra attackers in the line.  Until we learn these skills, we are going to struggle to compete.  Our players seem to rely on being told a game plan – either stand out and don’t commit, or hit every ruck in numbers – and don’t seem to be able to adjust on the field according to requirements.
3) Why do England need heavyweight ball carriers?  Yes having the big guy carrying the ball some hard yards looks great, but as neither Vunipola or Morgan appear to be able to play 80 minutes because of their weight, this causes issues.  I think the reason why we need these heavyweight carriers is because they take the ball stationery most of the time and we generally run at people rather than space.  I hate to blow the All Black trumpet too loud, but having watched their second team against Scotland, their carrying by all the forwards just seems so much better than ours – and not because they are bigger, or stronger.

Last year it looked like Hartley was finally showing for England the ball carrying power he has for Northampton, but he seems to have regressed somewhat at the moment..

Yeah one of my issues with Hartley. He was outstanding in the 6n...showed what he does for Saints and in which case he is one of the best hookers in the world.....but he's gone backwards again.

I try not to be overly critical of Owen Farrell. I have defended him alot on here in the past as i do see his value. And i absolutely appreciate that he is not on form and injured and so should not have even played in any of the AI's. He shoud have been given a total rest...not even playing for Sarries.
However i just dont think he has the real natural ability to play at 10 that is going to benefit England in the long run.

We havent hid the fact that we are trying to copy the style of the AB's...yet they have Carter etc at 10...we are playing the equivalent of their Stephen Donald.

1) Without Farrell our kicking at the posts looks a bit suspect.  If you go with Ford his kicking is unreliable – I am not saying he can’t kick, it is just not consistent.  There is no obvious alternative, other than Care, who is at best a part-time kicker.

I actually dont think Farrell is mr marvelous kicking. He is guilty of a lot of misses.

2) If you watch New Zealand they are light years ahead of us at the breakdown.  They consistently produce quick ruck ball – players number 1 to 15 know how and when to hit a ruck hard.  They also know when to stand out and defend the fringes, or get extra attackers in the line.  Until we learn these skills, we are going to struggle to compete.  Our players seem to rely on being told a game plan – either stand out and don’t commit, or hit every ruck in numbers – and don’t seem to be able to adjust on the field according to requirements.

Thats what i said.

3) Why do England need heavyweight ball carriers? Yes having the big guy carrying the ball some hard yards looks great, but as neither Vunipola or Morgan appear to be able to play 80 minutes because of their weight, this causes issues. I think the reason why we need these heavyweight carriers is because they take the ball stationery most of the time and we generally run at people rather than space. I hate to blow the All Black trumpet too loud, but having watched their second team against Scotland, their carrying by all the forwards just seems so much better than ours – and not because they are bigger, or stronger.

Look at the top 2 sides....and the 6n teams....most have 2-3-4 good carriers. I personally believe its essential.

Some of you guys saying that the coaching team is out of their depth is just bizarre, not only have we continually progressed as a team we are starting to build a fair bit of depth (remember the injuries we have).

I think people are just being over optimistic, yes we're on a upwards trend but there will be dips in it. I can remember the last 6 nations when we had issues creating opportunities, we've fixed that and are creating just not finishing.

We are a work in progress, we're not at the point to beat the best two teams in the world yet - we've come close to both.
People should understand that this world cup is too soon for England, get that in to your heads now!

Probably my biggest concern regarding the coaching team is the lack of backup at 10. None of the other options have much experience at international level or playing with this squad of players. I understand that Farrell himself isn't very experienced and needs that building up but if he gets crocked or doesn't regain his form...?

Although the plan may be to call up Flood as an emergency if Farrell gets crocked before the World Cup.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

1) Without Farrell our kicking at the posts looks a bit suspect.  If you go with Ford his kicking is unreliable – I am not saying he can’t kick, it is just not consistent.  There is no obvious alternative, other than Care, who is at best a part-time kicker.

I actually dont think Farrell is mr marvelous kicking. He is guilty of a lot of misses.

2) If you watch New Zealand they are light years ahead of us at the breakdown.  They consistently produce quick ruck ball – players number 1 to 15 know how and when to hit a ruck hard.  They also know when to stand out and defend the fringes, or get extra attackers in the line.  Until we learn these skills, we are going to struggle to compete.  Our players seem to rely on being told a game plan – either stand out and don’t commit, or hit every ruck in numbers – and don’t seem to be able to adjust on the field according to requirements.

Thats what i said.

3) Why do England need heavyweight ball carriers?  Yes having the big guy carrying the ball some hard yards looks great, but as neither Vunipola or Morgan appear to be able to play 80 minutes because of their weight, this causes issues.  I think the reason why we need these heavyweight carriers is because they take the ball stationery most of the time and we generally run at people rather than space.  I hate to blow the All Black trumpet too loud, but having watched their second team against Scotland, their carrying by all the forwards just seems so much better than ours – and not because they are bigger, or stronger.

Look at the top 2 sides....and the 6n teams....most have 2-3-4 good carriers. I personally believe its essential.

His average is apparently 100 in 127 so 79%. That's very good, not outstanding.. the best range around 85% and its always questionable on where the kicks take place.
I read a study on goal kicking which rather than calculated the kicks coverted simply they looked at placement. Morne jumped for something like 6th to 1st in SR on that showing that he takes far more diffciult punts, punts most would reject as not worth it.

Also I agree, if you watch NZ play all their players look for the offload, all of them. Its not just SBW its their forwards, their backs the lot. That takes 2 players... one players willing not necessarily to smash players but also themselves but also having players on their shoulders to collect.

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

1) Without Farrell our kicking at the posts looks a bit suspect.  If you go with Ford his kicking is unreliable – I am not saying he can’t kick, it is just not consistent.  There is no obvious alternative, other than Care, who is at best a part-time kicker.

I actually dont think Farrell is mr marvelous kicking. He is guilty of a lot of misses.

2) If you watch New Zealand they are light years ahead of us at the breakdown.  They consistently produce quick ruck ball – players number 1 to 15 know how and when to hit a ruck hard.  They also know when to stand out and defend the fringes, or get extra attackers in the line.  Until we learn these skills, we are going to struggle to compete.  Our players seem to rely on being told a game plan – either stand out and don’t commit, or hit every ruck in numbers – and don’t seem to be able to adjust on the field according to requirements.

Thats what i said.

3) Why do England need heavyweight ball carriers?  Yes having the big guy carrying the ball some hard yards looks great, but as neither Vunipola or Morgan appear to be able to play 80 minutes because of their weight, this causes issues.  I think the reason why we need these heavyweight carriers is because they take the ball stationery most of the time and we generally run at people rather than space.  I hate to blow the All Black trumpet too loud, but having watched their second team against Scotland, their carrying by all the forwards just seems so much better than ours – and not because they are bigger, or stronger.

Look at the top 2 sides....and the 6n teams....most have 2-3-4 good carriers. I personally believe its essential.

His average is apparently 100 in 127 so 79%. That's very good, not outstanding.. the best range around 85% and its always questionable on where the kicks take place.
I read a study on goal kicking which rather than calculated the kicks coverted simply they looked at placement. Morne jumped for something like 6th to 1st in SR on that showing that he takes far more diffciult punts, punts most would reject as not worth it.

Also I agree, if you watch NZ play all their players look for the offload, all of them. Its not just SBW its their forwards, their backs the lot. That takes 2 players... one players willing not necessarily to smash players but also themselves but also having players on their shoulders to collect.

i do think awareness of all players needs to be upped.

nathan wrote:Some of you guys saying that the coaching team is out of their depth is just bizarre, not only have we continually progressed as a team we are starting to build a fair bit of depth (remember the injuries we have).

I think people are just being over optimistic, yes we're on a upwards trend but there will be dips in it. I can remember the last 6 nations when we had issues creating opportunities, we've fixed that and are creating just not finishing.

We are a work in progress, we're not at the point to beat the best two teams in the world yet - we've come close to both.
People should understand that this world cup is too soon for England, get that in to your heads now!

Is there anything to show that they are in their depth. He took over England as 6N champions. They had a poor world cup by their standards but otherwise it wasn't a terrible squad of players to take over inc. Corbisiero, Hartley, Cole, Wilson, Lawes, Haskell, Wood, Care, Youngs, Tuilagi, Ashton.

People make out that it was the dark ages.

Stuart Lancaster's win rate is 58% with 4 wins in 16 vs tier 1 opposition (3N + FRA)
Martin Johnson's win rate was 55% with 4 wins in 14 vs tier 1 opposition (3N + FRA) inc. a win in the SH.

How was Jonno out of his depth compared to Lancaster's Woodward like potential?

Lancaster has come 2nds three times in a row in the 6Ns. Jonno came 2nd, 3rd & 1st which is literally the same.

The only difference is .... out of the players which came through in 2008/10 to 2012/14 I would say the latest players are better, a lot better.

fa0019 wrote:

nathan wrote:Some of you guys saying that the coaching team is out of their depth is just bizarre, not only have we continually progressed as a team we are starting to build a fair bit of depth (remember the injuries we have).

I think people are just being over optimistic, yes we're on a upwards trend but there will be dips in it. I can remember the last 6 nations when we had issues creating opportunities, we've fixed that and are creating just not finishing.

We are a work in progress, we're not at the point to beat the best two teams in the world yet - we've come close to both.
People should understand that this world cup is too soon for England, get that in to your heads now!

Is there anything to show that they are in their depth. He took over England as 6N champions. They had a poor world cup by their standards but otherwise it wasn't a terrible squad of players to take over inc. Corbisiero, Hartley, Cole, Wilson, Lawes, Haskell, Wood, Care, Youngs, Tuilagi, Ashton.

People make out that it was the dark ages.

Stuart Lancaster's win rate is 58% with 4 wins in 16 vs tier 1 opposition (3N + FRA)
Martin Johnson's win rate was 55% with 4 wins in 14 vs tier 1 opposition (3N + FRA) inc. a win in the SH.

How was Jonno out of his depth compared to Lancaster's Woodward like potential?

Lancaster has come 2nds three times in a row in the 6Ns. Jonno came 2nd, 3rd & 1st which is literally the same.

The only difference is .... out of the players which came through in 2008/10 to 2012/14 I would say the latest players are better, a lot better.

I never said Johnno was out of his depth? I'm not sure why you've jumped to that conclusion?

Teams out

two things, bit disappointed that Farrell hasn't been rested and also that Mullen doesnt have a twitter account!

Matt Mullan has just become my favourite player

Bath fly-half George Ford will make his first international start as England look to end a run of five games without a win against Samoa on Saturday.

The 21-year-old, one of five changes to the side beaten by South Africa, is in for the injured Kyle Eastmond, meaning Owen Farrell moves to inside centre.

Ben Youngs replaces Danny Care at scrum-half, while Rob Webber at hooker relegates Dylan Hartley to the bench.

Ben Morgan ousts Billy Vunipola at eight and Wasps' James Haskell starts.

Haskell, 29, has impressed for his club side this season and returns to the starting XV at blindside flanker, having made his most recent start in the first Test against New ­Zealand in Auckland in June.

England team in full: Mike Brown, Anthony Watson, Brad Barritt, Owen Farrell, Jonny May, George Ford, Ben Youngs, Joe Marler, Rob Webber, David Wilson, Dave Attwood, Courtney Lawes, James Haskell, Chris Robshaw (c), Ben Morgan.

Replacements: Dylan Hartley, Matt Mullan, Kieran, Brookes, George Kruis, Tom Wood, Richard Wigglesworth, Billy Twelvetrees, Marland Yarde

I propose that Barritt and Farrell are used as forwards in place of Ben Morgan like they were trying in the maul against SA, leaving Morgan and the back 3 to run lines off Ford.

Centres can do some hard rucking and stay out of the bloody way

nathan wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

nathan wrote:Some of you guys saying that the coaching team is out of their depth is just bizarre, not only have we continually progressed as a team we are starting to build a fair bit of depth (remember the injuries we have).

I think people are just being over optimistic, yes we're on a upwards trend but there will be dips in it. I can remember the last 6 nations when we had issues creating opportunities, we've fixed that and are creating just not finishing.

We are a work in progress, we're not at the point to beat the best two teams in the world yet - we've come close to both.
People should understand that this world cup is too soon for England, get that in to your heads now!

Is there anything to show that they are in their depth. He took over England as 6N champions. They had a poor world cup by their standards but otherwise it wasn't a terrible squad of players to take over inc. Corbisiero, Hartley, Cole, Wilson, Lawes, Haskell, Wood, Care, Youngs, Tuilagi, Ashton.

People make out that it was the dark ages.

Stuart Lancaster's win rate is 58% with 4 wins in 16 vs tier 1 opposition (3N + FRA)
Martin Johnson's win rate was 55% with 4 wins in 14 vs tier 1 opposition (3N + FRA) inc. a win in the SH.

How was Jonno out of his depth compared to Lancaster's Woodward like potential?

Lancaster has come 2nds three times in a row in the 6Ns. Jonno came 2nd, 3rd & 1st which is literally the same.

The only difference is .... out of the players which came through in 2008/10 to 2012/14 I would say the latest players are better, a lot better.

I never said Johnno was out of his depth? I'm not sure why you've jumped to that conclusion?

ok, my apologises but I assume from your comments that you think Lancaster is well worthy of his job.

The reason I brought in Jonno was because many people cite England being in crisis when he took over and how well in relation to the past he has done before. The records show that neither is the case.

If I look at Lancaster what I do see is a naivety and loyalty to certain players. He hasn't really changed anything. When Woodward came about England really took off, it was like darkness and light. It wasn't just pro and amateur rugby, from the off the very same players which had previously stuck to conservative rugby were throwing it around like it was being played at a beach party.

If I had to compare him to any England coach I'd probably say it would be Jack Rowell.

Big in the forwards, limited in the backs even though they have undeniable talent within. The captain's place is semi-questionable, the balance of the backrow is off, the 10 leads to a game which frustrates teammates, tries are rare, wins are vs penalties.

Can they win the big one, they have the talent to do so... I just feel they are picking the wrong players and the strategy is very poor. Robshaw and Wood... both tackle their hearts out, both are decent ruck operators, both are useful lineout jumpers but who gets the turnovers, who sits on the shoulders of the centres for the offload, who smashes the gainline repeatedly? Its not balanced like Clarke and Rodber for differing reasons.

The players have little idea what to do. After 2 phases they are literally passing it around not knowing what to do. I know a strategy... inside man, inside man.  Any support runners? no... turnover/penalty. In 3 years I've seen Farrell do one positive thing... one positive exceptional thing in 30 odd caps, a single pass to Parling vs. Scotland. Hell I once saw Jon Callard put in a world class display against us 20 years ago... against us it happens!

In the SH they attack in pods, in Europe they are in 1s and 2s. They always have men to receive the offload, always have men to quickly secure possession, always receive the ball running at full pelt. England are lucky to do 1 of those 3 at any one time... sometimes none.

That's official. SL has lost his marbles. Farrell at 12 is a joke. I sincerely hope Youngs starting is just a rotational thing too. Care is way out the most in form player. SL obviously has forgotten how slow and ponderous Youngs is. England need a new coach.

englandglory4ever wrote:That's official. SL has lost his marbles. Farrell at 12 is a joke. I sincerely hope Youngs starting is just a rotational thing too. Care is way out the most in form player. SL obviously has forgotten how slow and ponderous Youngs is. England need a new coach.

As good as a form player he has been in the past.... his form probably lost England the game on the weekend.

Caused the try and gave away the first kicked penalty to put SA up 10 up in the first 20 mins. As good as you are, if you cost the team 10 points you're unlikely to get back to being worth your shirt.

He has finally shown that he does not understand back play. I don't think I will evan both to watch it.

England will win, but it will be a ground out win and a lost oportunity to see how some of the partnerships that might feasibly be used in the RWC ( please do not tell me that Farrell is a feasable option for then) go. Joseph must think he is persona non grata; Sl has moved an out and out 12 to 13 to accomodate an out of form 10 in at 12 and the form 13 of the Premiership is not even on the 22.

I have never said it before, but he has lost it.

What will he find out on Saturday, other than if Haskell is fit and if Webber can throw accurately.

Ford can be on the form of his life but with those two outside him, what is going to happen. Miss pass, Barritt gets tackled, Pass to OF, gets kicked or he gets tackled. No finess there at all, lets hope the wingers come looking for the ball, they are the only pace we have in the side.

Bit strange that SL hasnt changed the team that much. Only five changes? What is the point of playing Farrell at 12 and flogging players like Robshaw, Lawes, Brown and May etc. for what should be a dead rubber?

GunsGerms wrote:Bit strange that SL hasnt changed the team that much. Only five changes? What is the point of playing Farrell at 12 and flogging players like Robshaw, Lawes, Brown and May etc. for what should be a dead rubber?  

Its a joke isn't it

Lawes was concussed in the first game and on his knees a number of times in the 2nd... and now he's facing 80mins vs. 15 samoans looking to smash everything they see.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:He has finally shown that he does not understand back play. I don't think I will evan both to watch it.

England play rugby league rather than union in the backs. I wouldnt be surprised if Farrell wiggles around when he gets tackled and tries to roll the ball back between his legs at some point.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Bit strange that SL hasnt changed the team that much. Only five changes? What is the point of playing Farrell at 12 and flogging players like Robshaw, Lawes, Brown and May etc. for what should be a dead rubber?  

Its a joke isn't it

Lawes was concussed in the first game and on his knees a number of times in the 2nd... and now he's facing 80mins vs. 15 samoans looking to smash everything they see.

I dont see the point. Are England planning on playing more or less the same 15 all the way through the WC? Hope so, they will be knackered when we meet them in the semis.

Playing Farrell at 12 is akin to playing Wilkinson at 12 in the Scotland game of 2008. An awful decision that i'm afraid is bound to back-fire, with the repercussions on Ford!

Perhaps it's a ploy by Farrell Snr to make GF an untenable option in the future?!

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

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

Chjw131 wrote:Playing Farrell at 12 is akin to playing Wilkinson at 12 in the Scotland game of 2008. An awful decision that i'm afraid is bound to back-fire, with the repercussions on Ford!

Perhaps it's a ploy by Farrell Snr to make GF an untenable option in the future?!

JW had a very good distribution mind and also a decent short game. Farrell... well he can kick penalties (albeit not as good as JW). Near as good tackler though.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Bit strange that SL hasnt changed the team that much. Only five changes? What is the point of playing Farrell at 12 and flogging players like Robshaw, Lawes, Brown and May etc. for what should be a dead rubber?  

Its a joke isn't it

Lawes was concussed in the first game and on his knees a number of times in the 2nd... and now he's facing 80mins vs. 15 samoans looking to smash everything they see.

I dont see the point. Are England planning on playing more or less the same 15 all the way through the WC? Hope so, they will be knackered when we meet them in the semis.

Not like it ain't a long season either.

Nov - AIs (4)
Feb-Mar - 6N (5)
Aug-Sept - Pre RWC matches (3)
Oct-Nov - RWC (7)

fa0019 wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:Playing Farrell at 12 is akin to playing Wilkinson at 12 in the Scotland game of 2008. An awful decision that i'm afraid is bound to back-fire, with the repercussions on Ford!

Perhaps it's a ploy by Farrell Snr to make GF an untenable option in the future?!

JW had a very good distribution mind and also a decent short game. Farrell... well he can kick penalties (albeit not as good as JW). Near as good tackler though.

He did indeed but and is often wrongly criticised for his distribution. What he wasn't and isn't though (akin to Farrell) is any sort of running threat whatsoever. That's a problem for a 12.

A Farrell/Barritt combination is probably the most limited centre partnership we'd possibly have available to us. It's crackers. Barritt doesn't carry particularly well but he's a far better option at 12 than Farrell. I just don't know where to start with the selection. If he'd have put 36 back in that would've been something. Or play Barritt and JJ (the form OC!).

The only way this selection would make sense is if it was made last week and we were saying 'Ok we'll play a very limited defensive game against SA and we'll make sure we've got four good kickers and two place kickers, on the pitch'. For Samoa it's insane.

Chjw131 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:Playing Farrell at 12 is akin to playing Wilkinson at 12 in the Scotland game of 2008. An awful decision that i'm afraid is bound to back-fire, with the repercussions on Ford!

Perhaps it's a ploy by Farrell Snr to make GF an untenable option in the future?!

JW had a very good distribution mind and also a decent short game. Farrell... well he can kick penalties (albeit not as good as JW). Near as good tackler though.

He did indeed but and is often wrongly criticised for his distribution. What he wasn't and isn't though (akin to Farrell) is any sort of running threat whatsoever. That's a problem for a 12.

A Farrell/Barritt combination is probably the most limited centre partnership we'd possibly have available to us. It's crackers. Barritt doesn't carry particularly well but he's a far better option at 12 than Farrell. I just don't know where to start with the selection. If he'd have put 36 back in that would've been something. Or play Barritt and JJ (the form OC!).

Play an actual outside centre at outside centre!!! Don't be so daft man, where is the sense in that!?!?!?

As has been said here by many the centres are a joke. If SL plays these two together at the RWC then we will not get out of our group. I like Barritt as a back up 12 as he tackles and leads the defence so well, but would prefer to see Burrell there. SL and Catt seem fixated on having another playmaker at 12, but I fail to see how OF gives that?

I think it is good to see Webber and Haskell get a run out and for Ford to start at 10 (but not with those centres). I think we have missed an opportunity to rest some forwards before the Aus game and to give further match experience to the back ups, such as both props and Lawes who must surely need a rest?

I read a lot about how it is not SL's fault and that he does not have players of sufficient quality to implement the game plan, but surely he is making a mess of selection?

Chjw131 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:Playing Farrell at 12 is akin to playing Wilkinson at 12 in the Scotland game of 2008. An awful decision that i'm afraid is bound to back-fire, with the repercussions on Ford!

Perhaps it's a ploy by Farrell Snr to make GF an untenable option in the future?!

JW had a very good distribution mind and also a decent short game. Farrell... well he can kick penalties (albeit not as good as JW). Near as good tackler though.

He did indeed but and is often wrongly criticised for his distribution. What he wasn't and isn't though (akin to Farrell) is any sort of running threat whatsoever. That's a problem for a 12.

A Farrell/Barritt combination is probably the most limited centre partnership we'd possibly have available to us. It's crackers. Barritt doesn't carry particularly well but he's a far better option at 12 than Farrell. I just don't know where to start with the selection. If he'd have put 36 back in that would've been something. Or play Barritt and JJ (the form OC!).

What JW didn't have was the pace to see a gap. Someone who was very underrated at this was Toby Flood. He's not in the same league as Cipriani, Townsend in this respect but those chaps had blistering pace, Flood never did.

Does Samoa cause a backrow threat? Do you need 2 kickers? Are England really going to need to win by points with try scoring limited? No on all 3 counts... they should win at a canter. Therefore you only need 1 kicker. Simple.

Wasn't Lancaster coach of the U20s when Ford and Farrell last played 10-12????

Lancaster's very problem.... he goes back to his U20 experience and players again and again and again.

10-12 dual flyhalves has its merits but not when you're playing a weaker pack and should win at a canter.

It has less merit when the one playing at 12 poses no running threat and the man at 13 is a 12 who also poses very little threat ball in hand.

fa0019 wrote:Wasn't Lancaster coach of the U20s when Ford and Farrell last played 10-12????

Lancaster's very problem.... he goes back to his U20 experience and players again and again and again.

10-12 dual flyhalves has its merits but not when you're playing a weaker pack and should win at a canter.

I remember that game, it didn't work

fa0019 wrote:Wasn't Lancaster coach of the U20s when Ford and Farrell last played 10-12????

Lancaster's very problem.... he goes back to his U20 experience and players again and again and again.

10-12 dual flyhalves has its merits but not when you're playing a weaker pack and should win at a canter.

I think he was in charge of Age Group Development and was Coach of the Saxons - think rob Hunter was the U20s coach.

How many international teams pick a playmaker/2nd kicking option at 12?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Wasn't Lancaster coach of the U20s when Ford and Farrell last played 10-12????

Lancaster's very problem.... he goes back to his U20 experience and players again and again and again.

10-12 dual flyhalves has its merits but not when you're playing a weaker pack and should win at a canter.

I remember that game, it didn't work

Thought they won the U20s Grand Slam with Ford at 10 and Farrell at 12

That is a complete stinker of a centre selection - right up there with Wood at 8 and Manu on the wing.

Farrell - 12
Barritt - 13

When will international coaches learn to pick sides based on form and use players in the positions they play week in week out. If Eastmond and Twelvetrees really are out, why not Barritt to 12 and Joseph at 13?

Farrell at 12 and Barritt at 13, a combination which is depressingly dull.

Tell you something, Sarries fans can no longer complain that Lancaster is ignoring their players!!

Kinda looks like Lancaster is running out of ideas?

FES

12trees is on the bench. Really don't see why he isn't starting and Farrell on the bench (where he can sit for 80 minutes and watch unless fo r injury).

SL is a kn@b . Farrell at 12 must make all other selection blunders pale in to insignificance

It seems that:

1) Mike Catt's attacking strategy requires a "second playmaker". So we have seen Goode, 36 and now Farrell slotted in to fill that job.
2) Andy Farrell's defensive strategy is based on his defensive leader - Brad Barritt.

Given these two - we get a selection like this.

Given Eastmond's unavailability it would have been lovely to see Burrell/Joseph playing. But England have their strategies and will select personnel accordingly.

I may not agree - but now I will shut up and wait to see what it looks like.

LondonTiger wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Wasn't Lancaster coach of the U20s when Ford and Farrell last played 10-12????

Lancaster's very problem.... he goes back to his U20 experience and players again and again and again.

10-12 dual flyhalves has its merits but not when you're playing a weaker pack and should win at a canter.

I remember that game, it didn't work

Thought they won the U20s Grand Slam with Ford at 10 and Farrell at 12

That was Farrell's breakthrough season, and they tried him at 10 in I think the first game of the JWC 2011. It wasn't that effective and they went straight back to 10. Ford 12. Farrell. Were unlucky not to win the tournament actually. That u20 team also had M Vunipola, H Thomas, Launchbury, Kvesic, Daly, Wade and Yarde.

Joseph too thomh

Ps for all those slating the Farrell selection at 12, not saying you are wrong by the way, but SCW has been demanding a Cipriani/Farrell 10/12 axis all season.

GunsGerms wrote:Kinda looks like Lancaster is running out of ideas?

All I can assume is he's terrified of losing and doesn't trust any one but his first choice players to guarantee it for him, even if that makes life harder for everyone involved.

LondonTiger wrote:Joseph too thomh

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

If Farrell is supposed to be a 10. Then why is he being played at 12.

This to me is stupid, haven't England tried this before? playing players out of position, look what that proved...it does not work.

Why is Lancaster afraid to (1) put him Farrell on the bench? (2) drop him all together?

Surely if he is not 100% fully match fit. Then he should not be in the squad.