England vs Australia 19th of Oct, 8.15am GMT

[Mellsblue]

Which combo is that?

The Farrell, Tuilagi, Slade combo. As far as I know they've not turned out together before. Let alone the fact that Manu has looked back to being close to his best at 13, and that Farrell has looked far worse than Ford at 10

Didn't Farrell, Tuilagi, and Slade play the entire 6N?

Puja

Yes, other than the Italy match in which we fielded the rugby version of the Magic Circle Sleight of Hand Symposium with a midfield of Farrell - Te’o - Tuilagi.

[Stom]

We’re in for a bumpy ride if Billy is significantly less than 100% fit - don’t like the idea at all of Curry being our back up 8. Even less like the idea of Farrell at 10 mind you

Haha. Of course that’s the big talking point.

I think everyone has basically covered it, but anyway;

Ford dropped is insane. We’ve removed our best player, in the most pivotal position, because our captain isn’t good enough at his current role? I really like the idea of Tuilagi doing his thing at 12 but it seemed like he/EJ have only made good use of him at 13.

Slade has just about hobbled on to the pitch for cameos at 15 and inside centre, to then take a starting spot at 13 from a guy who was tearing it up? Joseph is worth a spot in the squad but we’ve limited ourselves with bench options (Slade covering 15 with Daly to wing again?) to account for a player who is probably not fully fit.

I’m sad for Wilson that he hasn’t got a chance or got fit enough to take part.

Lawes seems to be at a point he offers you the same amount in a 25 minute burst off the bench as he does overall when starting, whereas Kruis is only really there to fix the set piece of it goes wrong. I assumed we were going to attack Australia’s set piece from the off and avoid letting it get loose. Don’t understand this selection at all.

I can kind of understand parts of it. Australia are good finishers but start slow. So tighten up in the last 30 after putting points on them.

Doesn’t excuse Ford mind, that’s just certifiably insane.

[Sandydragon]

So to be clear, England want to beat the Aussies up in the forwards and rely on Farrell to get them in the right positions?

I don't get this dropping of Ford for the big games. Ford is either good enough or he isn't. Farrell may be a better defender, but it limits you in other ways and reacting to the threat of one opposition player seems a bit odd. I think Ford at 10 would have given the Aussies more concern defensively.

[Banquo]

So to be clear, England want to beat the Aussies up in the forwards and rely on Farrell to get them in the right positions?

I don't get this dropping of Ford for the big games. Ford is either good enough or he isn't. Farrell may be a better defender, but it limits you in other ways and reacting to the threat of one opposition player seems a bit odd. I think Ford at 10 would have given the Aussies more concern defensively.

I don't even think Faz is a better defender; he doesn't cede the gainline 'when' he makes a tackle, but he misses a lot, and often risks being penalised. His scrambling defence is very good in fairness.

But yes, Eddie is gambling the front five dominate, the back row do enough, and Youngs and Faz (and likely Slade) kick well, with the odd bosh from Manu.

[Peej]

The Farrell, Tuilagi, Slade combo. As far as I know they've not turned out together before. Let alone the fact that Manu has looked back to being close to his best at 13, and that Farrell has looked far worse than Ford at 10

Didn't Farrell, Tuilagi, and Slade play the entire 6N?

Puja

Yes, other than the Italy match in which we fielded the rugby version of the Magic Circle Sleight of Hand Symposium with a midfield of Farrell - Te’o - Tuilagi.

Oh, clearly that passed me by completely. Cheerfully withdrawn then!

Though I still think Ford should be at 10

[normanski]

The QBE computer is forecasting a 22-22 full time score with Australia winning in extra time.

Wins for Wales, NZ and SA.

When we played Oz the computer said Wales by a point; in the end it was a late penalty which gave us a four point win.

Good luck for Saturday and hope to meet your lot in the final!

[Son of Mathonwy]

Eddie's bottled it, but I suppose Ford is on the bench for when the ice man gets carded, so not all hope is lost.

[Beasties]

Just watched highlights of us vs Aus 2017. And, well, Danny Care off the bench was the game winner.

Set up 2, scored 1.

Why the flying fuck was he discarded...

Eddie Jones, you've pissed us all off again, just when we were coming round.

I’ll give you one example. In training England were working on clearing their own rucks with a tackle of the competing (defensive) player. Lawes was absolutely excellent at it, as an aside. The premise of such was that it cleared our ball for the SH and also created a gap to exploit with the snipe. They took the drill into match scenarios and despite the tackle clear being used Danny Care failed to spot it over and over again having just been through it in the drills. That’s the kind of thing that marks your card with EJ, rightly or wrongly.

I can see why it would mark his card but his performances on the field haven’t justified being dropped, especially for an average player like Heinz. It’s even more a surprise given that Care is our best sniping 9, tackle clear or no tackle clear. I’m also wondering whether the forwards, Lawes aside, have mastered it given the defence of Youngs’ ponderous play and poor passing is often explained away by poor ball presentation.

EP did just say one example tbf. However I'm baffled by this particular annoyance of Eddie. Care is by nature a sniping SH and can spot his own opportunities without being forced into selectively doing them to a gameplan. Obv the likes of Heinz and the Wiggler were so much more dangerous using this tactic........

[Mellsblue]

I’ll give you one example. In training England were working on clearing their own rucks with a tackle of the competing (defensive) player. Lawes was absolutely excellent at it, as an aside. The premise of such was that it cleared our ball for the SH and also created a gap to exploit with the snipe. They took the drill into match scenarios and despite the tackle clear being used Danny Care failed to spot it over and over again having just been through it in the drills. That’s the kind of thing that marks your card with EJ, rightly or wrongly.

I can see why it would mark his card but his performances on the field haven’t justified being dropped, especially for an average player like Heinz. It’s even more a surprise given that Care is our best sniping 9, tackle clear or no tackle clear. I’m also wondering whether the forwards, Lawes aside, have mastered it given the defence of Youngs’ ponderous play and poor passing is often explained away by poor ball presentation.

EP did just say one example tbf. However I'm baffled by this particular annoyance of Eddie. Care is by nature a sniping SH and can spot his own opportunities without being forced into selectively doing them to a gameplan. Obv the likes of Heinz and the Wiggler were so much more dangerous using this tactic........

It’s what you get with Jones. He’s a control freak and has his favourites. It ain’t the best but we all have flaws and his haven’t stopped him being a top coach. Still leads to puzzling and/or annoying decisions, though.

[Spiffy]

Eddie has moved Farrell to 10 to save his embarrassment at being trampled by Kerevi at 12. He will regret it. Hope there's time for Ford to save the day in the second half.

[francoisfou]

Eddie has moved Farrell to 10 to save his embarrassment at being trampled by Kerevi at 12. He will regret it. Hope there's time for Ford to save the day in the second half.

Eddie’ll send on Ford with 5 minutes on the clock and a 7 point deficit. Ford will duly score the try and offer to take the conversion but is over-ruled by his captain who fecks up the chance to go to extra time and England are on their way home. And hopefully, so will Eddie.

[Mellsblue]

I know most of it is tongue in cheek but we are currently doing to Ford what we so hate the meeja doing to Farrell.

[Raggs]

Wrote this elsewhere, but can't be arsed to adapt it for anywhere else:

Slade has looked very very good in his recent international appearances, he's a class player who, when coaches aren't trying to shoehorn him at 10 or 12, is very effective. Slade is also a much better 13 in defence than Manu, and the Aussies will want to get it wide.

Daly looked far far better recently under the high ball, including competitive high balls (which was where he seemed to lack confidence). You want him at 15 for turnover ball. Virtually every time England get a turnover it goes straight to Daly to make a decision on what to do. Watson is a better strike runner, but Daly is a better decision maker. For the most part during the games, Daly also seems good positionally, and especially good at getting his aerially more accomplished wingers in position to take most high balls.

I did notice Lawes starting in place of Kruis, but that doesn't change the Kruis vs Launch debate (and by god do I love Launch). Lawes offers us more pace, and with Mako, Sink and Billy, there's a better balance to having another carrier who's more effective on the fringes of the ruck defence, than another heavy carrier like Launch.

I'd expect to see Lawes and George hanging out closer to the wings in attack, with Mako, Sink and Billy doing the heavy lifting (but also all 3 have wonderful hands for tip ons and pull back passes). Curry and Underhill smashing Pocock and Hooper all day.

Main disappointment is Farrell over Ford, but the game shouldn't be won or lost there to be honest, even if I think Ford would help us far more.

[Oakboy]

There is no doubt in my mind that we ought to beat that Australia side. If Jones gets the right on-field performance, it should be a comfortable win.

[Digby]

Of course if we wanted a really good defender at 13 we could just pick JJ

[Raggs]

Of course if we wanted a really good defender at 13 we could just pick JJ

True, but Farrell, Manu, JJ just looks awful for distribution for me. Slade at least balances out Farrell a bit.

It strikes me as a more conservative lineup, whilst still trying to actually play similar patterns in attack.

[Banquo]

Of course if we wanted a really good defender at 13 we could just pick JJ

well yes, and Slade can't be that fit- and I don't rate him as highly as Raggs and Eddie in any case. He'll need to be very sharp and all over the Oz midfield.

[Banquo]

Of course if we wanted a really good defender at 13 we could just pick JJ

True, but Farrell, Manu, JJ just looks awful for distribution for me. Slade at least balances out Farrell a bit.

It strikes me as a more conservative lineup, whilst still trying to actually play similar patterns in attack.

Solved by picking Ford instead of Farrell.

You can sort of run the same patterns if you shoehorn Slade in at 10 or 12 in attack , but its a quite big switch around

[Mellsblue]

Of course if we wanted a really good defender at 13 we could just pick JJ

Ha. True. However, you’d then have nobody in the backline who can pass off their left hand other than Daly.

Rages beat me to it but I’ve typed it so I’m posting it.

[Raggs]

Of course if we wanted a really good defender at 13 we could just pick JJ

True, but Farrell, Manu, JJ just looks awful for distribution for me. Slade at least balances out Farrell a bit.

It strikes me as a more conservative lineup, whilst still trying to actually play similar patterns in attack.

Solved by picking Ford instead of Farrell.

You can sort of run the same patterns if you shoehorn Slade in at 10 or 12 in attack , but its a quite big switch around

Solved by still playing Slade instead of JJ, seems rather more important to fixing the patterns than Ford replacing Farrell.

I'd much rather Ford, but as mentioned, I don't think that's going to be the part of this game that wins/loses it for us.

We'll go 1/3/3/1 in attack, and that is where we'll win this if we do. The pack we've put out is ridiculous really. The Aussie defence is going to have to commit players to try and stop someone, and that will leave gaps elsewhere.

[Banquo]

True, but Farrell, Manu, JJ just looks awful for distribution for me. Slade at least balances out Farrell a bit.

It strikes me as a more conservative lineup, whilst still trying to actually play similar patterns in attack.

Solved by picking Ford instead of Farrell.

You can sort of run the same patterns if you shoehorn Slade in at 10 or 12 in attack , but its a quite big switch around

Solved by still playing Slade instead of JJ, seems rather more important to fixing the patterns than Ford replacing Farrell.

I'd much rather Ford, but as mentioned, I don't think that's going to be the part of this game that wins/loses it for us.

We'll go 1/3/3/1 in attack, and that is where we'll win this if we do. The pack we've put out is ridiculous really. The Aussie defence is going to have to commit players to try and stop someone, and that will leave gaps elsewhere.

I don't understand this....is the punctuation correct or am I being dim? Maybe I should explain- the distribution problem you mentioned would be no/less of an issue if Ford, Manu and JJ played (JJ plays second receiver a lot for Bath btw, so isn't too bad), but you are right if you are saying the patterns would likely be different. I'm also saying that running the Ford/Farrell axis patterns would mean a significant change in role for Slade (and some change for Farrell); I don't recall them using the Ford/Faz patterns in the 6N for example.

You are right that its all about what happens up front though- I'd think our front 5 should be much better, but we need the back row to step up and hang in there; if Oz get a lot of ball (and given we will likely be kicking a lot), I think our midfield will be pretty sorely tested. We'll see.

[Raggs]

I don't understand this....is the punctuation correct or am I being dim? Maybe I should explain- the distribution problem you mentioned would be no/less of an issue if Ford, Manu and JJ played (JJ plays second receiver a lot for Bath btw, so isn't too bad), but you are right if you are saying the patterns would likely be different. I'm also saying that running the Ford/Farrell axis patterns would mean a significant change in role for Slade (and some change for Farrell); I don't recall them using the Ford/Faz patterns in the 6N for example.

You are right that its all about what happens up front though- I'd think our front 5 should be much better, but we need the back row to step up and hang in there; if Oz get a lot of ball (and given we will likely be kicking a lot), I think our midfield will be pretty sorely tested. We'll see.

Thought you were saying we could run the same 2 distributor approach we have, if Ford just replaced Farrell (with JJ at 13). Misunderstood.

I hope that Underhill/Curry can produce a Haskell like performance in neutralising Pocock, however I don't think either of them can achieve a similar level of clearout. Which means we need to make sure we're first man over, and/or target pocock with the carry, so he's not likely to be able to jackal at the same time.

[p/d]

All is ok. Matt Dawson, fresh from some 'celebrity z-list reality show' has spoken.........

Farrell, with Manu Tuilagi and Slade outside him was a good combination during the Six Nations.

It is a combination that the opposition struggled to get any change out of in defence, and which was very threatening in attack.

It shuts down a lot of options for the opposition in terms of where they can attack because Farrell is so solid there - they have got to come up with something different.

[Banquo]

I don't understand this....is the punctuation correct or am I being dim? Maybe I should explain- the distribution problem you mentioned would be no/less of an issue if Ford, Manu and JJ played (JJ plays second receiver a lot for Bath btw, so isn't too bad), but you are right if you are saying the patterns would likely be different. I'm also saying that running the Ford/Farrell axis patterns would mean a significant change in role for Slade (and some change for Farrell); I don't recall them using the Ford/Faz patterns in the 6N for example.

You are right that its all about what happens up front though- I'd think our front 5 should be much better, but we need the back row to step up and hang in there; if Oz get a lot of ball (and given we will likely be kicking a lot), I think our midfield will be pretty sorely tested. We'll see.

Thought you were saying we could run the same 2 distributor approach we have, if Ford just replaced Farrell (with JJ at 13). Misunderstood.

I hope that Underhill/Curry can produce a Haskell like performance in neutralising Pocock, however I don't think either of them can achieve a similar level of clearout. Which means we need to make sure we're first man over, and/or target pocock with the carry, so he's not likely to be able to jackal at the same time.

Cool- but as I said, I think we've only ever run that system with the Ford/Faz axis, unless I'm misremembering the 6N with Faz/Manu/Slade?

Think that is the game right there in the back row; whether underhill and Curry can sufficiently neutralise their frankly better oppos, but the front five will help enormously- big role for Itoje and lawes.

[Digby]

Of course if we wanted a really good defender at 13 we could just pick JJ

Ha. True. However, you’d then have nobody in the backline who can pass off their left hand other than Daly.

Rages beat me to it but I’ve typed it so I’m posting it.

Rages has been beating people for a long time, thus the flying into a rage as it happens.