The Rugby Thread
- Thread starter tototoner
- Start date
- Jul 27, 2004
- 24,868
- 11,368
- Staff
- #1,183
True.
Once again a late surge by England papering over what has been a very poor performance.
mpickard2087
Patient Zero
- Jun 13, 2008
- 21,900
- 32,611
Pass should have gone left from Ford at the end, that would have been up there with the great tries!
Very worrying though overall. In both games we have been beaten up well and truly up front. Yes its the first game for many of them, but France were faster, sharper and hit harder. England seem to have de-powered a bit and gone for fitness to last for 80 mins, which although we saw tonight could work for them, we also saw that the game could be over if they get smashed for the first hour or so.
I also wonder if Lancaster is searching for Hartley's number yet?...
Very worrying though overall. In both games we have been beaten up well and truly up front. Yes its the first game for many of them, but France were faster, sharper and hit harder. England seem to have de-powered a bit and gone for fitness to last for 80 mins, which although we saw tonight could work for them, we also saw that the game could be over if they get smashed for the first hour or so.
I also wonder if Lancaster is searching for Hartley's number yet?...
A few things from tonight's performance:
- Ford needs to learn how to stamp his authority when the forwards are on the back foot.
- Why does Lancaster insist on playing two 6.5's in the backrow in every fixture? We need a specialist in the breakdown; on this form we will get destroyed by Ireland and Australia in these areas during the upcoming fixtures. A back three trio of Haskell, Vunipola and Robshaw doesn't give us any clout in the lineout.
- The loosehead position is beginning to worry me. Mako is a good impact player but shouldn't start; Marler was overwhelmed this evening. Corbisiero doesn't look anywhere near the player he was circa 2013.
- Cipriani deserves a proper opportunity to demonstrate what he can offer.
- How can Lancaster justify given Twelvetrees chance after chance, but discard Kyle Eastmond at the drop of a hat?
- Ford needs to learn how to stamp his authority when the forwards are on the back foot.
- Why does Lancaster insist on playing two 6.5's in the backrow in every fixture? We need a specialist in the breakdown; on this form we will get destroyed by Ireland and Australia in these areas during the upcoming fixtures. A back three trio of Haskell, Vunipola and Robshaw doesn't give us any clout in the lineout.
- The loosehead position is beginning to worry me. Mako is a good impact player but shouldn't start; Marler was overwhelmed this evening. Corbisiero doesn't look anywhere near the player he was circa 2013.
- Cipriani deserves a proper opportunity to demonstrate what he can offer.
- How can Lancaster justify given Twelvetrees chance after chance, but discard Kyle Eastmond at the drop of a hat?
mpickard2087
Patient Zero
- Jun 13, 2008
- 21,900
- 32,611
Ford definitely looks better when there is another playmaker/passer option on the pitch alongside him, takes some of the pressure off him and allows him a bit more time to scan the field and then put people through gaps. Not going to happen though unless Slade gets a chance at 12. Cipriani I think will lose out to Goode. I thought 12T got a couple of shocking hospital passes way behind the gainline and felt sorry for him, but he did fuck up that move off the scrum and it hasn't happened for him in an England shirt.
Forwards we are largely stuck with. Our scrum does look shaky but its the 2 spot that is most concerning for me. At this point I'd probably give George the spot with Youngs off the bench. Lineout needs sorting as a first priority.
The backrow is a mess and he should have looked at Kvesic. Wood is getting shitter and shitter and I'd be tempted to drop him and, I cant believe I'm saying it, take Easter. At least he has a bit of nous and carries the ball. BV could cover 6.
I agree. A second distribution option would be beneficial. I would take Slade at the expense of Burrell. The latter is too one-dimensional at this level. Slade is a star in the making.
You're probably right, although I would rather see Watson/Nowell start at 15 than Goode. I've always seen the latter as more of a 10 than a 15 - his lack of athleticism makes him an ineffective international full back. I still have nightmares over his performance against Ireland in this year's 6N. Twelvetrees, on paper, has all the attributes you want in a centre, but for whatever reason, it just hasn't worked out for him. With our current options and the likes of Hill & Devoto on the horizon, I don't think he's worthy of selection.
Hooker is a real concern. I'm not particularly fond of Hartley, but his throwing accuracy is sorely missed. LCD has genuine potential but is overrated at present; Ford is dynamic in the loose but a liability in the lineout and Webber can't even keep his place in the Bath starting XV. I think George should start against Ireland with a view for him to retain the shirt for the Fiji game. As logical as that sounds, it's ridiculous considering you can count his international caps on one hand.
Sadly, I don't believe Kvesic will ever be a routine fixture in the England set-up so long as Lancaster is in charge; the same applies to Ewers who is are arguably our best ball-carrying 6. Easter has some great qualities, but I think his inclusion in this squad is short-sighted. He doesn't have the pace for the international scene and I would rather have seen Itoje get game time ahead of him and Clarke.
mpickard2087
Patient Zero
- Jun 13, 2008
- 21,900
- 32,611
England squad is now out:
Marler, M.Vunipola, Cole, Wilson, Brookes; T.Youngs, George, Webber, Lawes, Launchbury, Kruis, Parling; Wood, Robshaw, Haskell, Morgan, B.Vunipola;
B.Youngs, Care, Wigglesworth; Farrell, Ford; Barritt, Joseph, Burgess, Slade; May, Nowell, Watson; Brown, Goode.
Burgess will obviously be the big talking point. I don't expect him to play much, but think better teams will exploit his positioning/experience and lack of pace if he is called upon. From those that were left in the wider squad I don't think there are too many calls I disagree with, Cipriani over Goode but I understand why that's been made. I would have definitely taken Attwood over Kruis though as our second rows aren't the most powerful and he adds power in the scrum and carrying threat off the bench.
Just for fun, my squad would have been:
Marler, M.Vunipola, Cole, Wilson, Brookes; T.Youngs, George, Webber, Lawes, Launchbury, Attwood, Parling; Wood/Haskell, Robshaw, Kvesic, Morgan, B.Vunipola;
B.Youngs, Care, Wigglesworth; Farrell, Ford; Barritt, Joseph, Daly, Slade; May, Nowell, Watson; Brown, Cipriani.
Marler, M.Vunipola, Cole, Wilson, Brookes; T.Youngs, George, Webber, Lawes, Launchbury, Kruis, Parling; Wood, Robshaw, Haskell, Morgan, B.Vunipola;
B.Youngs, Care, Wigglesworth; Farrell, Ford; Barritt, Joseph, Burgess, Slade; May, Nowell, Watson; Brown, Goode.
Burgess will obviously be the big talking point. I don't expect him to play much, but think better teams will exploit his positioning/experience and lack of pace if he is called upon. From those that were left in the wider squad I don't think there are too many calls I disagree with, Cipriani over Goode but I understand why that's been made. I would have definitely taken Attwood over Kruis though as our second rows aren't the most powerful and he adds power in the scrum and carrying threat off the bench.
Just for fun, my squad would have been:
Marler, M.Vunipola, Cole, Wilson, Brookes; T.Youngs, George, Webber, Lawes, Launchbury, Attwood, Parling; Wood/Haskell, Robshaw, Kvesic, Morgan, B.Vunipola;
B.Youngs, Care, Wigglesworth; Farrell, Ford; Barritt, Joseph, Daly, Slade; May, Nowell, Watson; Brown, Cipriani.
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,321
- 47,545
- Staff
- #1,191
I'd like to say it's unbelievable that Burgess is in the squad but ever since a lot of money changed hands he was always going to be in there regardless of performances.
I just hope he doesn't actually get any game time.
I agree that I'd have taken Attwood over Kruis. Other than that it's hard to argue with the rest of the squad.
Not a World Cup winning squad though. And with a couple of weeks to go we still don't know who our starting fly-half should be which is very worrying.
I just hope he doesn't actually get any game time.
I agree that I'd have taken Attwood over Kruis. Other than that it's hard to argue with the rest of the squad.
Not a World Cup winning squad though. And with a couple of weeks to go we still don't know who our starting fly-half should be which is very worrying.
mpickard2087
Patient Zero
- Jun 13, 2008
- 21,900
- 32,611
What is unbelievable is that we will be going into the World Cup with a centre combination (and backline) that has never played together before. You have to hope it clicks.
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,321
- 47,545
- Staff
- #1,193
Really don't know what we're going to do in the centres. I assume JJ is going to play, so that probably means Barritt doesn't it? Not particularly exciting.
It's a real shame because a couple of years ago I thought this England squad would develop into one with genuine World Cup aspirations. But having watched the forwards get mullered against France and looking at what is a very inconsistent backline, I think we need to be concerned about getting out of the group rather than anything else.
Oh, please! In comparison to some of the mediocre dross that is and has been selected over the years, I would hardly call his inclusion 'unbelievable'.
E17yid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 21, 2013
- 17,125
- 30,982
So, will England get out of the group?
If I had to put my house on it (not that I have one) I'd say yes. Just.
Should be pretty tight. I wouldn't mind betting that we beat England, England beat Australia then we lose to Australia in the last group game. Then it'd come down to who beat Uruguay by the most points.
If I had to put my house on it (not that I have one) I'd say yes. Just.
Should be pretty tight. I wouldn't mind betting that we beat England, England beat Australia then we lose to Australia in the last group game. Then it'd come down to who beat Uruguay by the most points.
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,321
- 47,545
- Staff
- #1,196
It's unbelievable in that he's played 70 minutes of international rugby and we're going into a World Cup.
It's even more unbelievable considering he's been picked in a position that he doesn't even play in for his club.
I've got no doubt that he'll end up being a quality union player (albeit I don't know in which position) but for him to be picked in this squad is ludicrous and I suspect is purely happening because the RFU have said it has to happen.
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,321
- 47,545
- Staff
- #1,197
We're all going to lose to Fiji.
E17yid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 21, 2013
- 17,125
- 30,982
I'm not getting knocked out by Fiji again. No fucking way.
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,321
- 47,545
- Staff
- #1,199
I'm not sure if either Wales or England are going to beat the Aussies. A year ago I was fairly confident, but they've improved and we haven't. And Wales get the shit kicked out of them by the Southern Hemisphere on an alarmingly regular basis.
It could all come down to England v Wales.
E17yid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 21, 2013
- 17,125
- 30,982
You're probably right. Still think either of us can beat the ozzies, though.
I've watched all their championship games and while they got great results against SA and NZ (first test) I wasn't massively impressed.
SA were very un South African in their poor game management in that match and NZ showed in the second test that you can quite easily get at them. Granted that is NZ but with the home advantage and some favourable referring I think we can do the biz.
Similar threads
