England vs Australia 19th of Oct, 8.15am GMT

[Raggs]

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.

Not convinced that their opposite numbers are necessarily better, just different. I'm not crazy about Hooper, but he does allow Pocock to work. Pocock is very very good at what he does, but not much else. If you can't neutralise him, you'll struggle, but given the ref, and how his tournament has gone so far, I think we'll be OK. I guess I might take Hooper over one of our two, but that would be looking at balance. Just waiting on Jack Willis to rightfully take his place though .

[Puja]

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.

Shouldn't be flying into a rage - need to be binding onto a teammate first.

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.

The outstanding paragraph of that article is: In the handful of huge pressure games at international level in his career he has maybe slightly wobbled.

Can anyone name a single huge pressure international match where Ford has "maybe slightly wobbled"? I genuinely cannot think of what occasions he's referring to.

Puja

[Banquo]

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.

He clearly didn't watch England Scotland, where this three missed 8 tackles and we were shredded for half an hour.

[Banquo]

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.

Not convinced that their opposite numbers are necessarily better, just different. I'm not crazy about Hooper, but he does allow Pocock to work. Pocock is very very good at what he does, but not much else. If you can't neutralise him, you'll struggle, but given the ref, and how his tournament has gone so far, I think we'll be OK. I guess I might take Hooper over one of our two, but that would be looking at balance. Just waiting on Jack Willis to rightfully take his place though .

Hmm....think we need to disagree over Hooper, and indeed over the limits on Pococks game, though injury has dimmed him a bit. They have tons more experience than our tyros....we shall see. I do think though, that we have a significant edge in the front five (bit worried about Mako)
Totally agree on Willis.

[Spiffy]

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.

Not convinced that their opposite numbers are necessarily better, just different. I'm not crazy about Hooper, but he does allow Pocock to work. Pocock is very very good at what he does, but not much else. If you can't neutralise him, you'll struggle, but given the ref, and how his tournament has gone so far, I think we'll be OK. I guess I might take Hooper over one of our two, but that would be looking at balance. Just waiting on Jack Willis to rightfully take his place though .

Why not crazy about Hooper? For several years he has been one of the world's best 7s, and probably the most consistent. This guy empties the tank every time he plays, punches way above his weigh, has the gas of a centre, is tremendously competitive and is a hard nut. First man on the Oz team sheet for me, including Pocock.

[Oakboy]

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.

Banquo, are you at all concerned about how Billy will be used? If he coughs up ball like he has been doing I can see us getting burned with fast-ball counter-attacks. I think even Billy needs more close-quarter support and I see the way he has been playing (getting himself isolated)as a real weakness.

A fully fit, on-form Billy V is hell of an asset. An off-form, unfit Billy is a liability.

[Raggs]

We'll have 3 big carriers, that'll give Billy the space and opportunity. He'll go well i suspect.

[Scrumhead]

I have a horrible feeling that this game might ruin my weekend before it’s even really started.

[Raggs]

Why not crazy about Hooper? For several years he has been one of the world's best 7s, and probably the most consistent. This guy empties the tank every time he plays, punches way above his weigh, has the gas of a centre, is tremendously competitive and is a hard nut. First man on the Oz team sheet for me, including Pocock.

Hooper is very good, and as I said, I'd probably take him over Curry or Underhill (not sure which) as a balance issue, but I see him as a very good all rounder, who doesn't really excel anywhere. There's just a number of players I rate higher than him.

[Mellsblue]

Can anyone name a single huge pressure international match where Ford has "maybe slightly wobbled"? I genuinely cannot think of what occasions he's referring to.

Puja

He obviously had the wobbles with some kicking whilst in his final season at Bath, not nothing else stands out.

Also, it’s not as if Farrell doesn’t wobble. He had very ordinary games, with notable bad interventions, in last two 6N ‘grand slam deciders’ and the NZ test last year.

[Banquo]

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.

Banquo, are you at all concerned about how Billy will be used? If he coughs up ball like he has been doing I can see us getting burned with fast-ball counter-attacks. I think even Billy needs more close-quarter support and I see the way he has been playing (getting himself isolated)as a real weakness.

A fully fit, on-form Billy V is hell of an asset. An off-form, unfit Billy is a liability.

He spilled a couple of balls last time out (notwithstanding Timbo, one was a highly unsympathetic pass from Youngs), I'm not condemning him on that. More worried about his ankle. 'getting himself isolated' usually says more about the support than him, given that he can stay on his feet for decades; the one thing I'd be kicking him over is getting turned over through being unable to get to the floor. As you nearly say, even 3/4 of BV is better than anything else we have, bar a totally different option in Wilson, who if fit, I'd play anyway.

[Banquo]

Why not crazy about Hooper? For several years he has been one of the world's best 7s, and probably the most consistent. This guy empties the tank every time he plays, punches way above his weigh, has the gas of a centre, is tremendously competitive and is a hard nut. First man on the Oz team sheet for me, including Pocock.

Hooper is very good, and as I said, I'd probably take him over Curry or Underhill (not sure which) as a balance issue, but I see him as a very good all rounder, who doesn't really excel anywhere. There's just a number of players I rate higher than him.

Interesting, who?

I think he's excellent over the ball, a terrific support runner, and a very good carrier; his decision making, and he carries a lot of playing responsibility, is also excellent. He's also very resilient, as 92 caps, at the age of 27 kind of testifies- at the same time as fighting off Pocock in the main.

[fivepointer]

Dawson is talking out of his backside and lazily invokes the Farrell ice man mantra despite his current form being largely second rate. Farrell's alarming dips in consistent form is rarely noted and all too easily glossed over. Do these people actually watch these games?
For my money, Ford has been one of our better players in Japan and has historically, more often than not, galvanised our attacking game when it really mattered.

[Raggs]

Why not crazy about Hooper? For several years he has been one of the world's best 7s, and probably the most consistent. This guy empties the tank every time he plays, punches way above his weigh, has the gas of a centre, is tremendously competitive and is a hard nut. First man on the Oz team sheet for me, including Pocock.

Hooper is very good, and as I said, I'd probably take him over Curry or Underhill (not sure which) as a balance issue, but I see him as a very good all rounder, who doesn't really excel anywhere. There's just a number of players I rate higher than him.

Interesting, who?

I think he's excellent over the ball, a terrific support runner, and a very good carrier; his decision making, and he carries a lot of playing responsibility, is also excellent. He's also very resilient, as 92 caps, at the age of 27 kind of testifies- at the same time as fighting off Pocock in the main.

Thing is, I see him as a 6 in a 7s body. So I'd take Curry, Cane and Watson (maybe others) in front of him at 7, and then numerous players at 6 over him.

He's a very good player indeed, I won't argue that, I just think there's better 7s and better 6s, but if he makes the balance right, then I'd pick him ahead of some of those other options.

[Oakboy]

Dawson is talking out of his backside and lazily invokes the Farrell ice man mantra despite his current form being largely second rate. Farrell's alarming dips in consistent form is rarely noted and all too easily glossed over. Do these people actually watch these games?
For my money, Ford has been one of our better players in Japan and has historically, more often than not, galvanised our attacking game when it really mattered.

Agreed. We have been round and round this issue so many times. Is it a Saracens thing? Because Farrell plays for our best club team and Ford does not does that make him a better FH?

One factor that we cannot know is how good Ford is in difficult circumstances (or Farrell, come to that). Yes, we can observe how he plays but we canmot know how he, or Farrell, affect the other players in terms of confidence and attitude when the chips are down. Are these hints of Ford being jittery so much nonsense or is there no smoke without fire?

I don't rate Jones or Borthwick at all but can such high-standing coaches be wrong about the two players to the extent that we maintain?

[p/d]

Why not crazy about Hooper? For several years he has been one of the world's best 7s, and probably the most consistent. This guy empties the tank every time he plays, punches way above his weigh, has the gas of a centre, is tremendously competitive and is a hard nut. First man on the Oz team sheet for me, including Pocock.

Could not agree more Spiffy. Absolute class of a player.

[Scrumhead]

Dawson is talking out of his backside and lazily invokes the Farrell ice man mantra despite his current form being largely second rate. Farrell's alarming dips in consistent form is rarely noted and all too easily glossed over. Do these people actually watch these games?
For my money, Ford has been one of our better players in Japan and has historically, more often than not, galvanised our attacking game when it really mattered.

Agreed. We have been round and round this issue so many times. Is it a Saracens thing? Because Farrell plays for our best club team and Ford does not does that make him a better FH?

One factor that we cannot know is how good Ford is in difficult circumstances (or Farrell, come to that). Yes, we can observe how he plays but we canmot know how he, or Farrell, affect the other players in terms of confidence and attitude when the chips are down. Are these hints of Ford being jittery so much nonsense or is there no smoke without fire?

I don't rate Jones or Borthwick at all but can such high-standing coaches be wrong about the two players to the extent that we maintain?

I think appearance has a lot to do with it. Farrell visibly exudes confidence and aggression whereas Ford is a lot more understated. It has nothing to do with their ability, but a lot to do with people’s perceptions IMO.

[Mikey Brown]

Dawson has had that article ready for weeks, waiting for Ford to make a mistake, but him getting dropped having barely put a foot wrong (outside of our collective obsession with pointless kicks) is close enough.

[p/d]

I think appearance has a lot to do with it. Farrell visibly exudes confidence and aggression whereas Ford is a lot more understated. It has nothing to do with their ability, but a lot to do with people’s perceptions IMO.

Yep. And may be he does 'inspire' those around him, is good at rallying the troops and leads by example. He is also a tough feck who doesn't take a backward step, always in the face of the opposition and pissing off the ref.

Jones might just view Ford as a posh boy ................. but then again he did select a Piers, so this view might not hold up.

[p/d]

Dawson has had that article ready for weeks, waiting for Ford to make a mistake, but him getting dropped having barely put a foot wrong (outside of our collective obsession with pointless kicks) is close enough.

in the DM tomorrow SCW will back it all up, with a get out paragraph about how the forwards could let the Iceman down....... or the ball, or the 'moving posts', or the length of grass

[Renniks]

Can I just say how I really hope we’re all wrong. That Owen Farrell plays 3 fantastic games and doesn’t put a foot wrong. That Tuilagi tears up trees and Slade brings naunces that other teams can only dream of

[Oakboy]

Dawson is talking out of his backside and lazily invokes the Farrell ice man mantra despite his current form being largely second rate. Farrell's alarming dips in consistent form is rarely noted and all too easily glossed over. Do these people actually watch these games?
For my money, Ford has been one of our better players in Japan and has historically, more often than not, galvanised our attacking game when it really mattered.

Agreed. We have been round and round this issue so many times. Is it a Saracens thing? Because Farrell plays for our best club team and Ford does not does that make him a better FH?

One factor that we cannot know is how good Ford is in difficult circumstances (or Farrell, come to that). Yes, we can observe how he plays but we canmot know how he, or Farrell, affect the other players in terms of confidence and attitude when the chips are down. Are these hints of Ford being jittery so much nonsense or is there no smoke without fire?

I don't rate Jones or Borthwick at all but can such high-standing coaches be wrong about the two players to the extent that we maintain?

I think appearance has a lot to do with it. Farrell visibly exudes confidence and aggression whereas Ford is a lot more understated. It has nothing to do with their ability, but a lot to do with people’s perceptions IMO.

But, do coaches select on appearance? I've never been in a high level rugby camp but surely Jones will get a lot from player feedback. For example, maybe Farrell just convinces players to produce more when it matters?

I can't explain it but there must be some reason for Farrell being rated and picked that we are not allowing for.

[Stom]

Hooper is very good, and as I said, I'd probably take him over Curry or Underhill (not sure which) as a balance issue, but I see him as a very good all rounder, who doesn't really excel anywhere. There's just a number of players I rate higher than him.

Interesting, who?

I think he's excellent over the ball, a terrific support runner, and a very good carrier; his decision making, and he carries a lot of playing responsibility, is also excellent. He's also very resilient, as 92 caps, at the age of 27 kind of testifies- at the same time as fighting off Pocock in the main.

Thing is, I see him as a 6 in a 7s body. So I'd take Curry, Cane and Watson (maybe others) in front of him at 7, and then numerous players at 6 over him.

He's a very good player indeed, I won't argue that, I just think there's better 7s and better 6s, but if he makes the balance right, then I'd pick him ahead of some of those other options.

Watson? You're insane.

Watson isn't close to Hooper.

And I'm saying that as someone who's also not a big fan of Hooper.

Hooper is just a typical Aussie. He is a nuisance, he's everywhere, he gives his absolute all, and he bends the rules like feck.

And when the going gets tough, he moans and needles and gets his team in trouble. Hence him not being captain anymore.

If he gets on the wrong side of the ref, he will be carded, no doubt.

[Stom]

I think appearance has a lot to do with it. Farrell visibly exudes confidence and aggression whereas Ford is a lot more understated. It has nothing to do with their ability, but a lot to do with people’s perceptions IMO.

Yep. And may be he does 'inspire' those around him, is good at rallying the troops and leads by example. He is also a tough feck who doesn't take a backward step, always in the face of the opposition and pissing off the ref.

Jones might just view Ford as a posh boy ................. but then again he did select a Piers, so this view might not hold up.

Jones put a lot of stead into making England more "dog". He had Hartley as captain. He has an obsession that England have been too nice and Robshaw was the shining example of this for him.

But the thing is, he's wrong. We're not chippy bastards like Aussies, we're not big, hard smashers like the Saffas, we're not passionate whiney Welsh, we're not woe betide us Scots, and we're not Gallic shrug French.

For me, that has been Jones' fundamental flaw.

We have, I believe, the group of players to win a World Cup.

We have a contender for World XV at 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 11. And the rest of the team aren't dog shit.

But we need to play to our strengths. What do we have that no-one else does? We have 2 props who can distribute. We have a lock who gets in everyone's face. We have a wing who will beat nearly everyone for pace and has an incredible eye for a gap and underappreciated ball handling. And we have a 10 who runs a game as well as any 10 in World rugby. Seriously. But we don't pick him because we want to pick our chippy fucking Northerner so we can act the hard men and be more fucking Aussie.

Bah

[Mikey Brown]

Interesting, who?

I think he's excellent over the ball, a terrific support runner, and a very good carrier; his decision making, and he carries a lot of playing responsibility, is also excellent. He's also very resilient, as 92 caps, at the age of 27 kind of testifies- at the same time as fighting off Pocock in the main.

Thing is, I see him as a 6 in a 7s body. So I'd take Curry, Cane and Watson (maybe others) in front of him at 7, and then numerous players at 6 over him.

He's a very good player indeed, I won't argue that, I just think there's better 7s and better 6s, but if he makes the balance right, then I'd pick him ahead of some of those other options.

Watson? You're insane.

Watson isn't close to Hooper.

And I'm saying that as someone who's also not a big fan of Hooper.

Hooper is just a typical Aussie. He is a nuisance, he's everywhere, he gives his absolute all, and he bends the rules like feck.

And when the going gets tough, he moans and needles and gets his team in trouble. Hence him not being captain anymore.

If he gets on the wrong side of the ref, he will be carded, no doubt.

Watson is miles off Hooper and Hooper isn’t even that good. Wow.