Team for France

[Digby]

Truly no idea, which is great. Also nice at this point is I've some hope for how France will try to play, less enjoyable is I do have some sense how England will try to play

I’m hoping that during this 6N that France will play in the way of French teams of old, and I believe they have the players-at least in the backs, to do just that.

In the back row too

Locks aren't the best, and the inexperience in the backs will at times be an issue

[Epaminondas Pules]

So, happy with Lawes at 6 and the scrum half selection? Why not Devoto at 12, be surrounded with masses of experience?

Back bench is an opportunity missed.

I’m ok with Lawes yeah. Ideally we’d play Earl at 8 and curry at 6, but it is what it is and gives us better lineout options. Of those available in the squad I’m good with it. Be interesting to see how Curry gets on. Quite excited to see.

SH is a choice of Heinz and Youngs or Youngs and Heinz so yeah I’m good with that.

Hardly likely to drop his captain and it means Ford is playing, so yeah happy with that.

Be different with Billy and Slade fit, but they’re not sadly.

Definition of madness with Lawes imo. Curry is a viable lineout option.

So you think Youngs and Heinz are the two best options we have at 9?

Your happiness seems to be an odd consequence of the corner painted into by Eddie.....or, put another way, could have been worse?

How would Slade's fitness have made a difference to your happiness at 12?

Well it’s either Earl at 8 and then a conundrum at 6, or Curry at 8 and Lawes at 6, who frankly was likely to play 6 anyway regardless of who played 8 judging by EJs comments. According to everyone it seems to be a nightmare. I’d just say it was sub optimal, but with the choices at hand I’m good with it. What would your back row have been?

Well, for scrum half, when your options are Youngs and Heinz then picking Youngs and Heinz is fine. I’m judging on what’s in the squad, where the other option is an apprentice who isn’t actually played this season, so yeah I’m good with him picking the two scrum halves in the squad. And with Youngs and Heinz being your only options you’d have picked who exactly? Youngs and Heinz or Youngs and Heinz? I’m happy with it. Youngs has the experience and Heinz is arguably the most form SH in the league. Robson and Spencer have been a mixed bag to be kind, and then there’s........erm.......nobody really. Take a punt on Maunder or Randall?

If Slade were fit then we’d have the option of Manu to 12, but he’s not so we don’t do much as EJ doesn’t seem to like Manu and JJ together, but with Farrell (yes you all hate him fucking yawn) then Ford plays and that makes me happy. We could play who is wholly unproven at this level and EJ drop his captain and then again in the real world perhaps not. I’ll take Ford starting as a plus for this game.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Definition of madness with Lawes imo. Curry is a viable lineout option.

So you think Youngs and Heinz are the two best options we have at 9?

Your happiness seems to be an odd consequence of the corner painted into by Eddie.....or, put another way, could have been worse?

How would Slade's fitness have made a difference to your happiness at 12?

Well indeed. It’sa poor selection, trying to nullify the opponents strengths rather than trying to exploit their weaknesses. It’s just so conservative a pick.

I think it’s a reaction to the previous game tbh

If that were the case he’d have more likely dropped Ford and played Manu at 12.

[tigran]

I’m hoping that during this 6N that France will play in the way of French teams of old, and I believe they have the players-at least in the backs, to do just that.

In the back row too

Locks aren't the best, and the inexperience in the backs will at times be an issue

True

[Scrumhead]

I’m reasonably optimistic.

This France side looks very exciting and I think they will have a good tournament, but with so many new players and a new coaching team we may benefit from playing them first.

There are few players in their side with 10 or more caps and Fickou alone has more caps than most of the team put together. Playing a debutant fullback in a settled team (as we are) is one thing, doing it in such a callow side is brave. As is picking a debutant tighthead to start. I’m expecting Ford to rain a few bombs on their 15 for May to chase early on. How he handles it could set the tone for the day ... if he does poorly, he could be in for a long night. You could say the same for Furbank, but he has the benefit of having May alongside him (less so Daly). Similarly, the first scrum could be interesting. Their pack is pretty big, but if I were their tighthead, I’m not sure I’d want to be making my debut opposite Joe Marler.

Ultimately, I think they will have some very good passages of play and I’m expecting them to score a couple of tries, but eventually I think our experience (and our own danger men) will see us through.

[Banquo]

I’m ok with Lawes yeah. Ideally we’d play Earl at 8 and curry at 6, but it is what it is and gives us better lineout options. Of those available in the squad I’m good with it. Be interesting to see how Curry gets on. Quite excited to see.

SH is a choice of Heinz and Youngs or Youngs and Heinz so yeah I’m good with that.

Hardly likely to drop his captain and it means Ford is playing, so yeah happy with that.

Be different with Billy and Slade fit, but they’re not sadly.

Definition of madness with Lawes imo. Curry is a viable lineout option.

So you think Youngs and Heinz are the two best options we have at 9?

Your happiness seems to be an odd consequence of the corner painted into by Eddie.....or, put another way, could have been worse?

How would Slade's fitness have made a difference to your happiness at 12?

Well it’s either Earl at 8 and then a conundrum at 6, or Curry at 8 and Lawes at 6, who frankly was likely to play 6 anyway regardless of who played 8 judging by EJs comments. According to everyone it seems to be a nightmare. I’d just say it was sub optimal, but with the choices at hand I’m good with it. What would your back row have been?

Well, for scrum half, when your options are Youngs and Heinz then picking Youngs and Heinz is fine. I’m judging on what’s in the squad, where the other option is an apprentice who isn’t actually played this season, so yeah I’m good with him picking the two scrum halves in the squad. And with Youngs and Heinz being your only options you’d have picked who exactly? Youngs and Heinz or Youngs and Heinz? I’m happy with it. Youngs has the experience and Heinz is arguably the most form SH in the league. Robson and Spencer have been a mixed bag to be kind, and then there’s........erm.......nobody really. Take a punt on Maunder or Randall?

If Slade were fit then we’d have the option of Manu to 12, but he’s not so we don’t do much as EJ doesn’t seem to like Manu and JJ together, but with Farrell (yes you all hate him fucking yawn) then Ford plays and that makes me happy. We could play who is wholly unproven at this level and EJ drop his captain and then again in the real world perhaps not. I’ll take Ford starting as a plus for this game.

Well a- you are saying it’s both sub optimal but that you are happy, and b- as I said, you are basing some of your happiness on him putting the least bad backs combo out (and that only based on Ford playing); it’s a ridiculous thing to say ‘hate Farrell’ too, but he’s not a very good 12, if a respectable but wooden intl 10. I find it odd that you are happy with the side fielded frankly, because it’s based on expectations given the larger squad selection. I’m unhappy with going back to the Lawes at 6 bit, when it hasn’t worked before (Earl at 8, or Willis at 6 were my thoughts if it’s not purely based on the initial selection- I’d also have had a look at Dombrandt in training); I’m unhappy that both Youngs and Heinz are persisted with- Spencer and/or Robson should be in the mix imo, else we just get more of the same; in midfield, no problem for me in either Devoto or Manu at 12, and I don’t see why Faz HAS to start- self inflicted wound making him skipper.

That said, front five is fine, and back three is the right if brave call; I would have had Thorley benching though.

[Banquo]

Well indeed. It’sa poor selection, trying to nullify the opponents strengths rather than trying to exploit their weaknesses. It’s just so conservative a pick.

I think it’s a reaction to the previous game tbh

If that were the case he’d have more likely dropped Ford and played Manu at 12.

Given that the last game was lost because of being moidered at the scrum and beasted physically in the loose, that would have been a minor thought.

[Puja]

I think it’s a reaction to the previous game tbh

If that were the case he’d have more likely dropped Ford and played Manu at 12.

Given that the last game was lost because of being moidered at the scrum and beasted physically in the loose, that would have been a minor thought.

But would any of us have been surprised if our scrum moidering and loose beasting was blamed on Ford playing 10 instead of the golden boy?

Puja

[Banquo]

If that were the case he’d have more likely dropped Ford and played Manu at 12.

Given that the last game was lost because of being moidered at the scrum and beasted physically in the loose, that would have been a minor thought.

But would any of us have been surprised if our scrum moidering and loose beasting was blamed on Ford playing 10 instead of the golden boy?

Puja

Good point well made.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Given that the last game was lost because of being moidered at the scrum and beasted physically in the loose, that would have been a minor thought.

But would any of us have been surprised if our scrum moidering and loose beasting was blamed on Ford playing 10 instead of the golden boy?

Puja

Good point well made.

Well considering Jones said as such with regards to his selection to the final. He didn’t blame Ford, just said the selection and performance in the semi final had altered his mind.

And pack wise Mako isn’t fit so Marler starts anyway and other than that Ewels into the second row (where Lawes started) and Lawes to 6 Curry to 8. Its hardly like he’s added massive ballast to ensure that the previous scrum beasting doesn’t happen again. And to be fair a large amount came through the tighthead side where hopefully the only major difference is that Sinkler doesn’t go to head knock induced sleep after a couple of minutes.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Definition of madness with Lawes imo. Curry is a viable lineout option.

So you think Youngs and Heinz are the two best options we have at 9?

Your happiness seems to be an odd consequence of the corner painted into by Eddie.....or, put another way, could have been worse?

How would Slade's fitness have made a difference to your happiness at 12?

Well it’s either Earl at 8 and then a conundrum at 6, or Curry at 8 and Lawes at 6, who frankly was likely to play 6 anyway regardless of who played 8 judging by EJs comments. According to everyone it seems to be a nightmare. I’d just say it was sub optimal, but with the choices at hand I’m good with it. What would your back row have been?

Well, for scrum half, when your options are Youngs and Heinz then picking Youngs and Heinz is fine. I’m judging on what’s in the squad, where the other option is an apprentice who isn’t actually played this season, so yeah I’m good with him picking the two scrum halves in the squad. And with Youngs and Heinz being your only options you’d have picked who exactly? Youngs and Heinz or Youngs and Heinz? I’m happy with it. Youngs has the experience and Heinz is arguably the most form SH in the league. Robson and Spencer have been a mixed bag to be kind, and then there’s........erm.......nobody really. Take a punt on Maunder or Randall?

If Slade were fit then we’d have the option of Manu to 12, but he’s not so we don’t do much as EJ doesn’t seem to like Manu and JJ together, but with Farrell (yes you all hate him fucking yawn) then Ford plays and that makes me happy. We could play who is wholly unproven at this level and EJ drop his captain and then again in the real world perhaps not. I’ll take Ford starting as a plus for this game.

Well a- you are saying it’s both sub optimal but that you are happy, and b- as I said, you are basing some of your happiness on him putting the least bad backs combo out (and that only based on Ford playing); it’s a ridiculous thing to say ‘hate Farrell’ too, but he’s not a very good 12, if a respectable but wooden intl 10. I find it odd that you are happy with the side fielded frankly, because it’s based on expectations given the larger squad selection. I’m unhappy with going back to the Lawes at 6 bit, when it hasn’t worked before (Earl at 8, or Willis at 6 were my thoughts if it’s not purely based on the initial selection- I’d also have had a look at Dombrandt in training); I’m unhappy that both Youngs and Heinz are persisted with- Spencer and/or Robson should be in the mix imo, else we just get more of the same; in midfield, no problem for me in either Devoto or Manu at 12, and I don’t see why Faz HAS to start- self inflicted wound making him skipper.

That said, front five is fine, and back three is the right if brave call; I would have had Thorley benching though.

Well yes. It was going to be suboptimal regardless with the loss of Billy. I'm happy with what he's selected. You're not. The middle bit is kind of moot as Willis isn't in the squad and neither are alternative scrum halves or Dombrandt, so in terms of team selection mean little in practice. EJ could have changed the midfield to something untested, or go with what he knows for the first game of the six nations away in Paris. I'm more than happy with the midfield that has worked well in the past. Furbank is a brave call, especially as his high ball hasn't shown to be a major upgrade from Daly. Think I'd have gone with Thorley and retained Daly. but fair fucks to him. Daly should be fine on the right wing.

And yes hate is maybe a strong word, but this board does read like Daily Mail comments whenever the name Farrell is mentioned. Though it is kind of amusing to see adults vent spleens just because some frankly moronic journalist wrote some bollocks about him in a newspaper somewhere. You can almost feel the anger in the key presses.

[jngf]

Well it’s either Earl at 8 and then a conundrum at 6, or Curry at 8 and Lawes at 6, who frankly was likely to play 6 anyway regardless of who played 8 judging by EJs comments. According to everyone it seems to be a nightmare. I’d just say it was sub optimal, but with the choices at hand I’m good with it. What would your back row have been?

Well, for scrum half, when your options are Youngs and Heinz then picking Youngs and Heinz is fine. I’m judging on what’s in the squad, where the other option is an apprentice who isn’t actually played this season, so yeah I’m good with him picking the two scrum halves in the squad. And with Youngs and Heinz being your only options you’d have picked who exactly? Youngs and Heinz or Youngs and Heinz? I’m happy with it. Youngs has the experience and Heinz is arguably the most form SH in the league. Robson and Spencer have been a mixed bag to be kind, and then there’s........erm.......nobody really. Take a punt on Maunder or Randall?

If Slade were fit then we’d have the option of Manu to 12, but he’s not so we don’t do much as EJ doesn’t seem to like Manu and JJ together, but with Farrell (yes you all hate him fucking yawn) then Ford plays and that makes me happy. We could play who is wholly unproven at this level and EJ drop his captain and then again in the real world perhaps not. I’ll take Ford starting as a plus for this game.

Well a- you are saying it’s both sub optimal but that you are happy, and b- as I said, you are basing some of your happiness on him putting the least bad backs combo out (and that only based on Ford playing); it’s a ridiculous thing to say ‘hate Farrell’ too, but he’s not a very good 12, if a respectable but wooden intl 10. I find it odd that you are happy with the side fielded frankly, because it’s based on expectations given the larger squad selection. I’m unhappy with going back to the Lawes at 6 bit, when it hasn’t worked before (Earl at 8, or Willis at 6 were my thoughts if it’s not purely based on the initial selection- I’d also have had a look at Dombrandt in training); I’m unhappy that both Youngs and Heinz are persisted with- Spencer and/or Robson should be in the mix imo, else we just get more of the same; in midfield, no problem for me in either Devoto or Manu at 12, and I don’t see why Faz HAS to start- self inflicted wound making him skipper.

That said, front five is fine, and back three is the right if brave call; I would have had Thorley benching though.

Well yes. It was going to be suboptimal regardless with the loss of Billy. I'm happy with what he's selected. You're not. The middle bit is kind of moot as Willis isn't in the squad and neither are alternative scrum halves or Dombrandt, so in terms of team selection mean little in practice. EJ could have changed the midfield to something untested, or go with what he knows for the first game of the six nations away in Paris. I'm more than happy with the midfield that has worked well in the past. Furbank is a brave call, especially as his high ball hasn't shown to be a major upgrade from Daly. Think I'd have gone with Thorley and retained Daly. but fair fucks to him. Daly should be fine on the right wing.

And yes hate is maybe a strong word, but this board does read like Daily Mail comments whenever the name Farrell is mentioned. Though it is kind of amusing to see adults vent spleens just because some frankly moronic journalist wrote some bollocks about him in a newspaper somewhere. You can almost feel the anger in the key presses.

Anyway what’s wrong with Daily Mail? (Apart from its gone a bit leftie under current editor )

[Stom]

Well it’s either Earl at 8 and then a conundrum at 6, or Curry at 8 and Lawes at 6, who frankly was likely to play 6 anyway regardless of who played 8 judging by EJs comments. According to everyone it seems to be a nightmare. I’d just say it was sub optimal, but with the choices at hand I’m good with it. What would your back row have been?

Well, for scrum half, when your options are Youngs and Heinz then picking Youngs and Heinz is fine. I’m judging on what’s in the squad, where the other option is an apprentice who isn’t actually played this season, so yeah I’m good with him picking the two scrum halves in the squad. And with Youngs and Heinz being your only options you’d have picked who exactly? Youngs and Heinz or Youngs and Heinz? I’m happy with it. Youngs has the experience and Heinz is arguably the most form SH in the league. Robson and Spencer have been a mixed bag to be kind, and then there’s........erm.......nobody really. Take a punt on Maunder or Randall?

If Slade were fit then we’d have the option of Manu to 12, but he’s not so we don’t do much as EJ doesn’t seem to like Manu and JJ together, but with Farrell (yes you all hate him fucking yawn) then Ford plays and that makes me happy. We could play who is wholly unproven at this level and EJ drop his captain and then again in the real world perhaps not. I’ll take Ford starting as a plus for this game.

Well a- you are saying it’s both sub optimal but that you are happy, and b- as I said, you are basing some of your happiness on him putting the least bad backs combo out (and that only based on Ford playing); it’s a ridiculous thing to say ‘hate Farrell’ too, but he’s not a very good 12, if a respectable but wooden intl 10. I find it odd that you are happy with the side fielded frankly, because it’s based on expectations given the larger squad selection. I’m unhappy with going back to the Lawes at 6 bit, when it hasn’t worked before (Earl at 8, or Willis at 6 were my thoughts if it’s not purely based on the initial selection- I’d also have had a look at Dombrandt in training); I’m unhappy that both Youngs and Heinz are persisted with- Spencer and/or Robson should be in the mix imo, else we just get more of the same; in midfield, no problem for me in either Devoto or Manu at 12, and I don’t see why Faz HAS to start- self inflicted wound making him skipper.

That said, front five is fine, and back three is the right if brave call; I would have had Thorley benching though.

Well yes. It was going to be suboptimal regardless with the loss of Billy. I'm happy with what he's selected. You're not. The middle bit is kind of moot as Willis isn't in the squad and neither are alternative scrum halves or Dombrandt, so in terms of team selection mean little in practice. EJ could have changed the midfield to something untested, or go with what he knows for the first game of the six nations away in Paris. I'm more than happy with the midfield that has worked well in the past. Furbank is a brave call, especially as his high ball hasn't shown to be a major upgrade from Daly. Think I'd have gone with Thorley and retained Daly. but fair fucks to him. Daly should be fine on the right wing.

And yes hate is maybe a strong word, but this board does read like Daily Mail comments whenever the name Farrell is mentioned. Though it is kind of amusing to see adults vent spleens just because some frankly moronic journalist wrote some bollocks about him in a newspaper somewhere. You can almost feel the anger in the key presses.

Even Lawes at 6? Something that has failed every time...because while Lawes has a wonderful engine and great workrate for a lock...he doesn't as a flanker.

He's also, while a wonderful tackler, not someone who improves our overall defence.

I would be praising this selection almost entirely (9 aside, where I think we just MUST give others a chance to show they're international class instead of sticking with someone who isn't...just because he's experienced), if it wasn't for Lawes at 6.

But that breaks it completely. It completely negates the benefits of Curry at 8, because we're no longer super mobile. It feels like Lawes is only there because of fear.

Not because of any proactive reason.

[Oakboy]

I don't know how to predict this game because I haven't hot a clue how well France will play. Sean Edwards is bound to have stiffened them defensively so who knows?

If we were playing Ireland or Wales first I'd be pessimistic about our chances in our first outing after the abysmal performance against SA. However, I'd be very surprised if Jones picked this XV against either. That makes me think that something is probably wrong in our mental structure anyway. Are we not good enough to select our best XV and let the opposition worry about us? Under Jones, probably not.

Press comment that 'Jones is highly unlikely to still be around in 2023' still astounds me. Either he should be or he should be gone now. I think that uncertainty plus the hangover from the final leaves us vulnerable. Better on-field leadership might have offset that but no changes have been made there. The Youngs/Ford/Farrell combo simply lacks the skill and consistency that the three players' maturity ought to bring. I still yearn for a quality forward captain. I'll duck from the flak at this point but we badly miss Hartley.

[Banquo]

Well it’s either Earl at 8 and then a conundrum at 6, or Curry at 8 and Lawes at 6, who frankly was likely to play 6 anyway regardless of who played 8 judging by EJs comments. According to everyone it seems to be a nightmare. I’d just say it was sub optimal, but with the choices at hand I’m good with it. What would your back row have been?

Well, for scrum half, when your options are Youngs and Heinz then picking Youngs and Heinz is fine. I’m judging on what’s in the squad, where the other option is an apprentice who isn’t actually played this season, so yeah I’m good with him picking the two scrum halves in the squad. And with Youngs and Heinz being your only options you’d have picked who exactly? Youngs and Heinz or Youngs and Heinz? I’m happy with it. Youngs has the experience and Heinz is arguably the most form SH in the league. Robson and Spencer have been a mixed bag to be kind, and then there’s........erm.......nobody really. Take a punt on Maunder or Randall?

If Slade were fit then we’d have the option of Manu to 12, but he’s not so we don’t do much as EJ doesn’t seem to like Manu and JJ together, but with Farrell (yes you all hate him fucking yawn) then Ford plays and that makes me happy. We could play who is wholly unproven at this level and EJ drop his captain and then again in the real world perhaps not. I’ll take Ford starting as a plus for this game.

Well a- you are saying it’s both sub optimal but that you are happy, and b- as I said, you are basing some of your happiness on him putting the least bad backs combo out (and that only based on Ford playing); it’s a ridiculous thing to say ‘hate Farrell’ too, but he’s not a very good 12, if a respectable but wooden intl 10. I find it odd that you are happy with the side fielded frankly, because it’s based on expectations given the larger squad selection. I’m unhappy with going back to the Lawes at 6 bit, when it hasn’t worked before (Earl at 8, or Willis at 6 were my thoughts if it’s not purely based on the initial selection- I’d also have had a look at Dombrandt in training); I’m unhappy that both Youngs and Heinz are persisted with- Spencer and/or Robson should be in the mix imo, else we just get more of the same; in midfield, no problem for me in either Devoto or Manu at 12, and I don’t see why Faz HAS to start- self inflicted wound making him skipper.

That said, front five is fine, and back three is the right if brave call; I would have had Thorley benching though.

Well yes. It was going to be suboptimal regardless with the loss of Billy. I'm happy with what he's selected. You're not. The middle bit is kind of moot as Willis isn't in the squad and neither are alternative scrum halves or Dombrandt, so in terms of team selection mean little in practice. EJ could have changed the midfield to something untested, or go with what he knows for the first game of the six nations away in Paris. I'm more than happy with the midfield that has worked well in the past. Furbank is a brave call, especially as his high ball hasn't shown to be a major upgrade from Daly. Think I'd have gone with Thorley and retained Daly. but fair fucks to him. Daly should be fine on the right wing.

And yes hate is maybe a strong word, but this board does read like Daily Mail comments whenever the name Farrell is mentioned. Though it is kind of amusing to see adults vent spleens just because some frankly moronic journalist wrote some bollocks about him in a newspaper somewhere. You can almost feel the anger in the key presses.

I’m struggling with the concept that you ask me for alternatives but reject them because Eddie didn’t put them in the initial squad. You are then saying he’s made the best of the selection options he gave himself, and there we disagree. On Faz- meh, he's just a player with some good and some ordinary skills who works hard, over-rated generally, think you are slightly overreacting the other way.

Btw on the midfield indeed he could have risked untested as he has in the back row and back three!

[Banquo]

Well a- you are saying it’s both sub optimal but that you are happy, and b- as I said, you are basing some of your happiness on him putting the least bad backs combo out (and that only based on Ford playing); it’s a ridiculous thing to say ‘hate Farrell’ too, but he’s not a very good 12, if a respectable but wooden intl 10. I find it odd that you are happy with the side fielded frankly, because it’s based on expectations given the larger squad selection. I’m unhappy with going back to the Lawes at 6 bit, when it hasn’t worked before (Earl at 8, or Willis at 6 were my thoughts if it’s not purely based on the initial selection- I’d also have had a look at Dombrandt in training); I’m unhappy that both Youngs and Heinz are persisted with- Spencer and/or Robson should be in the mix imo, else we just get more of the same; in midfield, no problem for me in either Devoto or Manu at 12, and I don’t see why Faz HAS to start- self inflicted wound making him skipper.

That said, front five is fine, and back three is the right if brave call; I would have had Thorley benching though.

Well yes. It was going to be suboptimal regardless with the loss of Billy. I'm happy with what he's selected. You're not. The middle bit is kind of moot as Willis isn't in the squad and neither are alternative scrum halves or Dombrandt, so in terms of team selection mean little in practice. EJ could have changed the midfield to something untested, or go with what he knows for the first game of the six nations away in Paris. I'm more than happy with the midfield that has worked well in the past. Furbank is a brave call, especially as his high ball hasn't shown to be a major upgrade from Daly. Think I'd have gone with Thorley and retained Daly. but fair fucks to him. Daly should be fine on the right wing.

And yes hate is maybe a strong word, but this board does read like Daily Mail comments whenever the name Farrell is mentioned. Though it is kind of amusing to see adults vent spleens just because some frankly moronic journalist wrote some bollocks about him in a newspaper somewhere. You can almost feel the anger in the key presses.

Even Lawes at 6? Something that has failed every time...because while Lawes has a wonderful engine and great workrate for a lock...he doesn't as a flanker.

He's also, while a wonderful tackler, not someone who improves our overall defence.

I would be praising this selection almost entirely (9 aside, where I think we just MUST give others a chance to show they're international class instead of sticking with someone who isn't...just because he's experienced), if it wasn't for Lawes at 6.

But that breaks it completely. It completely negates the benefits of Curry at 8, because we're no longer super mobile. It feels like Lawes is only there because of fear.

Not because of any proactive reason.

Faz at 12? Two centres on the bench?

[Banquo]

But would any of us have been surprised if our scrum moidering and loose beasting was blamed on Ford playing 10 instead of the golden boy?

Puja

Good point well made.

Well considering Jones said as such with regards to his selection to the final. He didn’t blame Ford, just said the selection and performance in the semi final had altered his mind.

And pack wise Mako isn’t fit so Marler starts anyway and other than that Ewels into the second row (where Lawes started) and Lawes to 6 Curry to 8. Its hardly like he’s added massive ballast to ensure that the previous scrum beasting doesn’t happen again. And to be fair a large amount came through the tighthead side where hopefully the only major difference is that Sinkler doesn’t go to head knock induced sleep after a couple of minutes.

Mako is 'rested' I'd read; and Lawes provides major ballast on the flank (where SA had a huge weight advantage both sides) where it counts for the props, plus lineout extras, plus a pseudo PSDT in the loose. I read it as a set piece beef up- plus be interesting to see what Lawes role in the loose is.

[Stom]

Well yes. It was going to be suboptimal regardless with the loss of Billy. I'm happy with what he's selected. You're not. The middle bit is kind of moot as Willis isn't in the squad and neither are alternative scrum halves or Dombrandt, so in terms of team selection mean little in practice. EJ could have changed the midfield to something untested, or go with what he knows for the first game of the six nations away in Paris. I'm more than happy with the midfield that has worked well in the past. Furbank is a brave call, especially as his high ball hasn't shown to be a major upgrade from Daly. Think I'd have gone with Thorley and retained Daly. but fair fucks to him. Daly should be fine on the right wing.

And yes hate is maybe a strong word, but this board does read like Daily Mail comments whenever the name Farrell is mentioned. Though it is kind of amusing to see adults vent spleens just because some frankly moronic journalist wrote some bollocks about him in a newspaper somewhere. You can almost feel the anger in the key presses.

Even Lawes at 6? Something that has failed every time...because while Lawes has a wonderful engine and great workrate for a lock...he doesn't as a flanker.

He's also, while a wonderful tackler, not someone who improves our overall defence.

I would be praising this selection almost entirely (9 aside, where I think we just MUST give others a chance to show they're international class instead of sticking with someone who isn't...just because he's experienced), if it wasn't for Lawes at 6.

But that breaks it completely. It completely negates the benefits of Curry at 8, because we're no longer super mobile. It feels like Lawes is only there because of fear.

Not because of any proactive reason.

Faz at 12? Two centres on the bench?

I did say almost;)

[francoisfou]

France’s chances of a win have been hit following the withdrawal of winger Damien Penaud from the French XV and will be replaced by Vincent Rattez of La Rochelle.

[p/d]

France’s chances of a win have been hit following the withdrawal of winger Damien Penaud from the French XV and will be replaced by Vincent Rattez of La Rochelle.

That is shame,and not just for France. A real talent

[jngf]

I really don’t get using Curry at 8 - whilst he does punch his weight at openside, I’ve just not seen this big carrying game that Mitchell attributes to him. I’d be very pleased to see the evidence with own eyes tomorrow but based on past performances Underhill’s the more powerful and explosive of the pair and whilst its still sub-optimal seems like the better bet to plug the gap at 8? From what I see Curry’s been picked on the strength of playing 8 occasionally at school and an inconclusive outing in the World Cup pool stages. Happy to be proved wrong if he has a blinder there tomorrow but I’m honestly not expecting it... imo Curry’s much more of a linkman than a hard yards ball carrier both by instinct and inclination.

[Mellsblue]

France’s chances of a win have been hit following the withdrawal of winger Damien Penaud from the French XV and will be replaced by Vincent Rattez of La Rochelle.

That is shame,and not just for France. A real talent

Yep. Possibly my favourite player.

[francoisfou]

France’s chances of a win have been hit following the withdrawal of winger Damien Penaud from the French XV and will be replaced by Vincent Rattez of La Rochelle.

That is shame,and not just for France. A real talent

Yep. Possibly my favourite player.

An fine player with exceptional speed off the mark and breaking tackles. Let’s hope he’s fit for next week.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Well a- you are saying it’s both sub optimal but that you are happy, and b- as I said, you are basing some of your happiness on him putting the least bad backs combo out (and that only based on Ford playing); it’s a ridiculous thing to say ‘hate Farrell’ too, but he’s not a very good 12, if a respectable but wooden intl 10. I find it odd that you are happy with the side fielded frankly, because it’s based on expectations given the larger squad selection. I’m unhappy with going back to the Lawes at 6 bit, when it hasn’t worked before (Earl at 8, or Willis at 6 were my thoughts if it’s not purely based on the initial selection- I’d also have had a look at Dombrandt in training); I’m unhappy that both Youngs and Heinz are persisted with- Spencer and/or Robson should be in the mix imo, else we just get more of the same; in midfield, no problem for me in either Devoto or Manu at 12, and I don’t see why Faz HAS to start- self inflicted wound making him skipper.

That said, front five is fine, and back three is the right if brave call; I would have had Thorley benching though.

Well yes. It was going to be suboptimal regardless with the loss of Billy. I'm happy with what he's selected. You're not. The middle bit is kind of moot as Willis isn't in the squad and neither are alternative scrum halves or Dombrandt, so in terms of team selection mean little in practice. EJ could have changed the midfield to something untested, or go with what he knows for the first game of the six nations away in Paris. I'm more than happy with the midfield that has worked well in the past. Furbank is a brave call, especially as his high ball hasn't shown to be a major upgrade from Daly. Think I'd have gone with Thorley and retained Daly. but fair fucks to him. Daly should be fine on the right wing.

And yes hate is maybe a strong word, but this board does read like Daily Mail comments whenever the name Farrell is mentioned. Though it is kind of amusing to see adults vent spleens just because some frankly moronic journalist wrote some bollocks about him in a newspaper somewhere. You can almost feel the anger in the key presses.

Even Lawes at 6? Something that has failed every time...because while Lawes has a wonderful engine and great workrate for a lock...he doesn't as a flanker.

He's also, while a wonderful tackler, not someone who improves our overall defence.

I would be praising this selection almost entirely (9 aside, where I think we just MUST give others a chance to show they're international class instead of sticking with someone who isn't...just because he's experienced), if it wasn't for Lawes at 6.

But that breaks it completely. It completely negates the benefits of Curry at 8, because we're no longer super mobile. It feels like Lawes is only there because of fear.

Not because of any proactive reason.

Yes a single player selected in a position that hasn’t failed every single time breaks the whole thing.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Well a- you are saying it’s both sub optimal but that you are happy, and b- as I said, you are basing some of your happiness on him putting the least bad backs combo out (and that only based on Ford playing); it’s a ridiculous thing to say ‘hate Farrell’ too, but he’s not a very good 12, if a respectable but wooden intl 10. I find it odd that you are happy with the side fielded frankly, because it’s based on expectations given the larger squad selection. I’m unhappy with going back to the Lawes at 6 bit, when it hasn’t worked before (Earl at 8, or Willis at 6 were my thoughts if it’s not purely based on the initial selection- I’d also have had a look at Dombrandt in training); I’m unhappy that both Youngs and Heinz are persisted with- Spencer and/or Robson should be in the mix imo, else we just get more of the same; in midfield, no problem for me in either Devoto or Manu at 12, and I don’t see why Faz HAS to start- self inflicted wound making him skipper.

That said, front five is fine, and back three is the right if brave call; I would have had Thorley benching though.

Well yes. It was going to be suboptimal regardless with the loss of Billy. I'm happy with what he's selected. You're not. The middle bit is kind of moot as Willis isn't in the squad and neither are alternative scrum halves or Dombrandt, so in terms of team selection mean little in practice. EJ could have changed the midfield to something untested, or go with what he knows for the first game of the six nations away in Paris. I'm more than happy with the midfield that has worked well in the past. Furbank is a brave call, especially as his high ball hasn't shown to be a major upgrade from Daly. Think I'd have gone with Thorley and retained Daly. but fair fucks to him. Daly should be fine on the right wing.

And yes hate is maybe a strong word, but this board does read like Daily Mail comments whenever the name Farrell is mentioned. Though it is kind of amusing to see adults vent spleens just because some frankly moronic journalist wrote some bollocks about him in a newspaper somewhere. You can almost feel the anger in the key presses.

I’m struggling with the concept that you ask me for alternatives but reject them because Eddie didn’t put them in the initial squad. You are then saying he’s made the best of the selection options he gave himself, and there we disagree. On Faz- meh, he's just a player with some good and some ordinary skills who works hard, over-rated generally, think you are slightly overreacting the other way.

Btw on the midfield indeed he could have risked untested as he has in the back row and back three!

I’m struggling with the fact that you don’t seem to be able to grasp the restrictions of the squad, judge me on the restrictions of said squad, and base your opinions on a squad that hasn’t been selected, but hey ho.