Team for France

[Oakboy]

Is it a coincidence that Nowell is out now Lawes is in? Maybe, Jones sees Lawes's destructive element in the loose as sufficient and can add an extra attacking element with Ashton's try-sniffing. Also, it may be another element in the attacking development that he referred to before the Irish game. Then, the talk was about only having had time to fully prepare defence. One can only speculate. I am interested to know that Mitchell does not see Ashton as a defensive risk.

Launchbury in the 23 and Shields not in it are good.

Now, I want lots of game time for Robson and Launchbury. I don't want Farrell at IC at all. If Ford comes on let it be to replace Farrell . . . .

[Puja]

I'm not surprised at Ashton's selection for the specific match v France. What does surprise me is that nobody has commented on his bringing to the English team the valuable experience he gained over the recent past playing with and against those selected for the French team.

Good point! Hadn't even thought of that.

I dont get it.
If we were bringing in a superior player, then fair enough. But no one is saying that - cos it aint so - so we're dropping a player who performed well for us last time out for someone who isnt better, who isnt as versatile and who isnt an established team member.

Depends how it's seen within camp. I'm starting to suspect that Eddie's looking to have different options and different selections based on how he wants to approach a game, so it may not be so much a dropping as it is a horses-for-courses approach.

Puja

[Banquo]

Is it a coincidence that Nowell is out now Lawes is in? Maybe, Jones sees Lawes's destructive element in the loose as sufficient and can add an extra attacking element with Ashton's try-sniffing. Also, it may be another element in the attacking development that he referred to before the Irish game. Then, the talk was about only having had time to fully prepare defence. One can only speculate. I am interested to know that Mitchell does not see Ashton as a defensive risk.

Launchbury in the 23 and Shields not in it are good.

Now, I want lots of game time for Robson and Launchbury. I don't want Farrell at IC at all. If Ford comes on let it be to replace Farrell . . . .

Not sure I want Manu playing 80 mins, tbh

[Puja]

Is it a coincidence that Nowell is out now Lawes is in? Maybe, Jones sees Lawes's destructive element in the loose as sufficient and can add an extra attacking element with Ashton's try-sniffing. Also, it may be another element in the attacking development that he referred to before the Irish game. Then, the talk was about only having had time to fully prepare defence. One can only speculate. I am interested to know that Mitchell does not see Ashton as a defensive risk.

Launchbury in the 23 and Shields not in it are good.

Now, I want lots of game time for Robson and Launchbury. I don't want Farrell at IC at all. If Ford comes on let it be to replace Farrell . . . .

Not sure I want Manu playing 80 mins, tbh

Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Is it a coincidence that Nowell is out now Lawes is in? Maybe, Jones sees Lawes's destructive element in the loose as sufficient and can add an extra attacking element with Ashton's try-sniffing. Also, it may be another element in the attacking development that he referred to before the Irish game. Then, the talk was about only having had time to fully prepare defence. One can only speculate. I am interested to know that Mitchell does not see Ashton as a defensive risk.

Launchbury in the 23 and Shields not in it are good.

Now, I want lots of game time for Robson and Launchbury. I don't want Farrell at IC at all. If Ford comes on let it be to replace Farrell . . . .

Not sure I want Manu playing 80 mins, tbh

Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

Depending on the state of the game, why not Slade at IC and Nowell or Daly at OC?

[Puja]

Not sure I want Manu playing 80 mins, tbh

Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

Depending on the state of the game, why not Slade at IC and Nowell or Daly at OC?

That's what I was suggesting - that you can have both Ford replacing Faz and Manu not playing 80.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

That looks like a centre partnership where not one player has proved he can play test rugby in that position. Heck, Slade and Nowell haven’t even proved they can play Prem rugby in those positions.

[Oakboy]

That looks like a centre partnership where not one player has proved he can play test rugby in that position. Heck, Slade and Nowell haven’t even proved they can play Prem rugby in those positions.

True, but it would be a useful back-up scenario if they both proved they were up to it.

[Scrumhead]

I’m looking at it in a different way.

To me, Eddie is looking at it in a ‘horses for courses’ way. Picking Ashton suggests we’re going out to score tries/target the BP.

I’m a fan of Nowell’s and I think he’s underrated as an attacker, but I’m choosing to believe that Eddie has a plan in mind that suits Ashton’s strengths better.

[ckeyn]

Of course its a horses-for-courses selection. Eddie's comments indicate exactly that. Just like Moon in for Genge. I'm at peace with tactical changes now we have balanced units up and down the 15 - excellent front-row, 4 fantastic SRs, a balanced back-row and a (ostensibly) complementary and functioning midfield.

[francoisfou]

I'm not surprised at Ashton's selection for the specific match v France. What does surprise me is that nobody has commented on his bringing to the English team the valuable experience he gained over the recent past playing with and against those selected for the French team.

Sorry, but that doesn't count for much with me. It's like saying drop Wilson for Shields when we play NZ.
Nowell is a more than competent player - more so than Ashton in my opinion, and he had an excellent game against the Irish ( and to my knowledge, he's not played over there !!)

[francoisfou]

I'm not surprised at Ashton's selection for the specific match v France. What does surprise me is that nobody has commented on his bringing to the English team the valuable experience he gained over the recent past playing with and against those selected for the French team.

Sorry, but that doesn't count for much with me. It's like saying drop Wilson for Shields when we play NZ.
Nowell is a more than competent player - more so than Ashton in my opinion, and he had an excellent game against the Irish ( and to my knowledge, he's not played for any teams over there !!)

[morepork]

I'm loving the way England consistently ignores the fastest and most dangerous outside backs in their domestic comp on the basis of assumed defensive frailties and then recalls Chris "I think I'll just let that one bounce out rather than compete for it" Ashton.

[Puja]

I'm loving the way England consistently ignores the fastest and most dangerous outside backs in their domestic comp on the basis of assumed defensive frailties and then recalls Chris "I think I'll just let that one bounce out rather than compete for it" Ashton.

Didn't he score against your lot?

Puja

[morepork]

I'm loving the way England consistently ignores the fastest and most dangerous outside backs in their domestic comp on the basis of assumed defensive frailties and then recalls Chris "I think I'll just let that one bounce out rather than compete for it" Ashton.

Didn't he score against your lot?

Puja

So? Point still stands.

[fivepointer]

Horses for courses would have seen Brown at FB in Ireland, surely?

[Puja]

I'm loving the way England consistently ignores the fastest and most dangerous outside backs in their domestic comp on the basis of assumed defensive frailties and then recalls Chris "I think I'll just let that one bounce out rather than compete for it" Ashton.

Didn't he score against your lot?

Puja

So? Point still stands.

Not sure it does. He's scored at more than a try a game for the past two seasons. Who're we ignoring that's more dangerous than him?

Puja

[Puja]

Horses for courses would have seen Brown at FB in Ireland, surely?

Horses for courses, except when it would require Eddie to admit that he was wrong.

Puja

[morepork]

Didn't he score against your lot?

Puja

So? Point still stands.

Not sure it does. He's scored at more than a try a game for the past two seasons. Who're we ignoring that's more dangerous than him?

Puja

OK. Good luck with him.

[Banquo]

Is it a coincidence that Nowell is out now Lawes is in? Maybe, Jones sees Lawes's destructive element in the loose as sufficient and can add an extra attacking element with Ashton's try-sniffing. Also, it may be another element in the attacking development that he referred to before the Irish game. Then, the talk was about only having had time to fully prepare defence. One can only speculate. I am interested to know that Mitchell does not see Ashton as a defensive risk.

Launchbury in the 23 and Shields not in it are good.

Now, I want lots of game time for Robson and Launchbury. I don't want Farrell at IC at all. If Ford comes on let it be to replace Farrell . . . .

Not sure I want Manu playing 80 mins, tbh

Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

Playing where?

[Banquo]

Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

Depending on the state of the game, why not Slade at IC and Nowell or Daly at OC?

That's what I was suggesting - that you can have both Ford replacing Faz and Manu not playing 80.

Puja

So.....you'd put Slade at 12 where he hasn't played much, if at all internationally, and Nowell at 13 (ditto). Or Daly at 13, ditto, with Nowell at 15 (ditto). Either way making three changes. Ballsy.

[Oakboy]

Not sure I want Manu playing 80 mins, tbh

Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

Playing where?

?? Do you mean Nowell? If so, OC or FB, presumably.

[Banquo]

Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

Playing where?

?? Do you mean Nowell? If so, OC or FB, presumably.

see above

[Puja]

Depending on the state of the game, why not Slade at IC and Nowell or Daly at OC?

That's what I was suggesting - that you can have both Ford replacing Faz and Manu not playing 80.

Puja

So.....you'd put Slade at 12 where he hasn't played much, if at all internationally, and Nowell at 13 (ditto). Or Daly at 13, ditto, with Nowell at 15 (ditto). Either way making three changes. Ballsy.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. The original thing was someone saying they wanted Ford to replace Faz, not one of the centres and somebody else saying that they didn't want Manu to play 80. All this assumes that we're in a comfortable enough position where we can make subs to rest players, rather than requiring "finishers".

I was pointing out that replacing Faz with Ford doesn't preclude then taking Manu off for the last 10 if we're comfortable, not an expression of desire for a Slade/Nowell centre partnership as a first resort.

And it's ironic that I've got caught up in defending this, as I'm not even sure why one wouldn't want Manu to play 80 in the first place!

Puja

[Banquo]

That's what I was suggesting - that you can have both Ford replacing Faz and Manu not playing 80.

Puja

So.....you'd put Slade at 12 where he hasn't played much, if at all internationally, and Nowell at 13 (ditto). Or Daly at 13, ditto, with Nowell at 15 (ditto). Either way making three changes. Ballsy.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. The original thing was someone saying they wanted Ford to replace Faz, not one of the centres and somebody else saying that they didn't want Manu to play 80. All this assumes that we're in a comfortable enough position where we can make subs to rest players, rather than requiring "finishers".

I was pointing out that replacing Faz with Ford doesn't preclude then taking Manu off for the last 10 if we're comfortable, not an expression of desire for a Slade/Nowell centre partnership as a first resort.

And it's ironic that I've got caught up in defending this, as I'm not even sure why one wouldn't want Manu to play 80 in the first place!

Puja

Mostly because he needs some protection against fatigue based injury.

We aren't at cross purposes though- if Manu was forced off with 20 mins to go, what would you do?