Team for France

[Banquo]

I agree with you that Curry is the more obvious 7 and Underhill the more obvious 6, no question for me either. Only caveat is that I'm not 100% convinced that the number makes too much difference, with these two, we just need them on the flanks, not at number 8! Again though, I'm with you, I would go 7 Curry, 6 Underhill.

Ludlam's a good athlete, he's quick and powerful and I'd have thought with the irritating absence of Dombrandt and Simmonds, he should be at 8 when picking from the existing squad.

Exactly this, far too hung up on 6 v 7 as a number, its the roles they perform in the loose that matters. Jones just likes Underhill to be playing openside from set plays for his more destructive tackling in defence (though he needs to improve his clearing in attack); of course this was all thrown by playing Lawes at 6. Prior to Sunday, in loose play, Curry and Underhill were used to their strengths in the loose.

Actually disagree with your last point especially, since moving to 6 Curry’s linking game (his biggest strength imo) has diminished as the brains trust have tried to convert him into some sort of big carrying 6. I think will just have to accept we are ireconcilable on the importance or not of back row specialisms - Imo it’s not been a case of Curry and Underhill being asked to play their strongest games irrespective of shirt no. Mitchell said as much in Telegraph interview last year about Curry being expected to hold back on his fetching instinct.

au contraire, I am in agreement on needing different and complementary skills in your flankers (call it specialist if you like), and I agree that Curry is what I would have called a natural openside (7) when rugby was not such a multi-phase game, and Underhill a bit more like a blindside (6). I don't give a fck about the numbers- SA play them the other way round, and France often play left and right- I give a fck about having the skills in the right balance. Curry has been linking far more than Underhill, has been more prominent in jackeling and turnovers, and Underhill has emerged as a handy carrier (which was something he was apparently lacking when he first appeared)- at least until Sunday, when all semblance of balance was lost with Lawes playing...and actually Curry was the only one of the back row to make a pass. The stats evidence from the previous games where Curry was nominally 6 and Underhill nominally 7 bears out that Curry was still linking and doing his openside skill set stuff, whereas Underhill was doing more carrying and tackling; I would agree that Curry was doing the close in carrying more than you'd like, but that's because we are struggling for carriers imo. There may have been minor modifications to how they are being asked to play, but neither are playing in the loose as would traditionally have been described by the numbers on their backs imo- though they have been off scrum and lineout.

[Beasties]

For me, the interesting thing about Ewels (and Furbank), is how many people want to talk about him, and dropping him; than for Marler, Sinckler, Itoje, Lawes, Youngs, Farrell, Joseph and Daly - who are all a lot more senior, and are a lot more deserving of being dropped after that performance.

Indeed. I actually don't think that Ewels was as hopeless as seems to be the narrative, more that he was distinctly average to meh. Whereas a large number of other more senior players were somewhere between meh and WTF. The overall effect was of us being totally outplayed. Mistakes were being made all over the pitch, some players went into their shells and others just didn't appear to be interested in what was going on around them (hello Sinckler). I hadn't seen Stuart play since he left Wasps but when I saw him on Sat I couldn't believe how much size he'd put on. He was an impressive carrier at Wasps. Given how Sinckler was playing he should've been swapped much earlier.

We were extremely lucky we got into a position to actually be able to win the thing, the bench defo gave impetus. Quite why Kruis didn't start is a mystery. Furbank hasn't suddenly become a bad player, he was just a bit lost out there among a bunch of apparently useless team mates. I could talk about Youngs' decision making near the French line (amongst other things) but what's the point.

[morepork]

If any other member of that team had as bad a first half as Farrell had, would Eddie have yanked them? He was completely and utterly lost.

[Scrumhead]

I didn’t see the game, but the example that springs to mind when an inexperienced test player has a poor game is Peter-Steph du Toit. Ben Youngs made a complete mug of him not once, but twice (I know that sounds completely unbelievable, but it is true) early on in his career, yet he’s gone on to do OK.

Let’s not judge too soon on the likes of Furbank and Ewels.

[fivepointer]

Oh I think Furbank deserves anther go, and i'm sure he will get one. Ewels too should be in the frame. Neither had games to remember, but several of their team mates fall into that category as well.

[Puja]

Oh I think Furbank deserves anther go, and i'm sure he will get one. Ewels too should be in the frame. Neither had games to remember, but several of their team mates fall into that category as well.

The issue with both of them is that there would be a compelling argument not to select them next week anyway - we need to shift Lawes out of the back row and Kruis made a point off the bench, so we're back to 4 locks into 2 spots, and Watson is likely to be back fit next week.

They could both get dropped without it being a punishment for this game.

Puja

[Spiffy]

I didn’t see the game, but the example that springs to mind when an inexperienced test player has a poor game is Peter-Steph du Toit. Ben Youngs made a complete mug of him not once, but twice (I know that sounds completely unbelievable, but it is true) early on in his career, yet he’s gone on to do OK.

Let’s not judge too soon on the likes of Furbank and Ewels.

Furbank is a talented footballer who just got off to a bad start. But, with Jones in charge, don't be surprised if you never hear of him again.

[morepork]

He has such a fetching little moustache too.

[p/d]

The issue with both of them is that there would be a compelling argument not to select them next week anyway - we need to shift Lawes out of the back row and Kruis made a point off the bench, so we're back to 4 locks into 2 spots, and Watson is likely to be back fit next week.

They could both get dropped without it being a punishment for this game.

Puja

This.

(though I would drop Daly)

[p/d]

He has such a fetching little moustache too.

I believe it an unnecessary addition to his already somewhat dated appearance

[Mellsblue]

There’s an air of WWII fighter pilot about him. I like it.

[Digby]

There’s an air of WWII fighter pilot about him. I like it.

Blimey, if anyone finds out he's Polish he'll be kicked out sharpish in our future of sunlit uplands

[Spiffy]

There’s an air of WWII fighter pilot about him. I like it.

He didn't exactly spitfire in Paris.

(French coach, Galthie, sitting in the stand with his goggles on, did remind me of Biggles.)

[Mellsblue]

There’s an air of WWII fighter pilot about him. I like it.

Blimey, if anyone finds out he's Polish he'll be kicked out sharpish in our future of sunlit uplands

Wrong board.

[Digby]

There’s an air of WWII fighter pilot about him. I like it.

Blimey, if anyone finds out he's Polish he'll be kicked out sharpish in our future of sunlit uplands

Wrong board.

I don't have to put up with those old EU rules anymore, now I'm free to express myself

[morepork]

Classic. You chaps never fail to disappoint.

[Banquo]

Blimey, if anyone finds out he's Polish he'll be kicked out sharpish in our future of sunlit uplands

Wrong board.

I don't have to put up with those old EU rules anymore, now I'm free to express myself

A sovereign board! I demand it be turned a much darker blue immediately!

[WaspInWales]

Dunno if this has been mentioned...can't be arsed to read through the previous 19 pages, but both Moore and O'Connell had little sympathy for Furbank's mistakes on his debut, but both seemed to excuse Farrell (an experienced world class test player, one of the best 10s/12s in the world, great leader, inspirational) when he was unable to catch the ball on a couple of occasions. They said things like he just took his eye off the ball too early as he was trying to do something with the ball.

I mean WTAF!

At least it was refreshing to see Barnes question Farrell's supposed leadership qualities. It may look good for the cameras to have the team in a huddle with Faz barking out pointless platitudes and one-liners, but if it doesn't seem to have an effect (Scotland, SA, France, Wales...etc etc) at some point questions should be asked.

Another thing that boiled my piss was Matt Dawson's appraisal that Ben Youngs had a good game! He was fucking dire. He's actually getting slower at rucks and seems to just stand there for longer before doing anything. Then the one out pop passes to front row fowards standing still and sometimes isolated are just brainless. We were camped on the French line a few times and more often than not, Youngs was a few steps back letting the forwards pick and go for no reward. Then when he did decide to step in, he'd make a poor decision.

And....another thing....

No matter how poorly Farrell plays, he still gets a higher rating that Ford!

Really disappointing game from us. Thought the French defence was immense. Really well drilled.

I don't think there was a rugby hangover from us. Perhaps the Sarries thing is a bit of a distraction, but ultimately, we had nothing to offer except for May.

Yet again, we got what we deserved.

[Puja]

I don't think Youngs was that bad.

Okay, clarification time before I get moidered by the majority - he clearly wasn't great and needs shooting for not taking over decision-making from the forwards when camped on the French line. And the basketball pass into touch was special, although we at least had advantage for that. And there were several occasions where he shied away from a ruck where he could have saved a turnover. Okay, so maybe he was bad.

However, he was contending with some of the worst ball that we've given a scrum half in a while - all of the rucks where we're screaming at him to use it, the ball is pinned under half a dozen hands. You could have put Dupont on our side and he would've struggled with the quality of ball we were providing.

In addition, I'm surprised he's not getting any credit for creating May's first try - spotted there was space on the blind, went himself and drew both defenders before passing to set May free. That was good play of a type I haven't seen from him in years.

Yes, it is generally sad that Youngs is our starting scrum-half, but that wasn't a dire performance from him, IMO.

He's saving that for next week.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Exactly. Why waste your worst material on a game that is already lost?

[fivepointer]

Funnily enough when i first watched the game I thought Youngs was simply mediocre but not disastrously bad.
Having rewatched the game I can now amend that to regard his performance was considerably worse than I thought originally. He was shite. Some of his dithering, delivery and abject decision making - not to mention his non defence which led to 2 tries - were the pits.
Anyone who says there is no one else demanding selection i simply say that performances like this demand his non selection.

[Gloskarlos]

Youngs was culpable for two tries indeed. Nail on head 5P.

[WaspInWales]

I want Youngs to be good...I really do as he showed a lot of promise in his first few caps, but by fuck, he has gone backwards.

I'll concede that it's hard for a 9 to look good with shit ball, but that wasn't always the case against France. The ball was there ready to be picked up and passed, or at least visible for him to dig it out and he was just standing there.

Surely they can't train like that? That cannot be what they tell him to do? Shewerly?!? But, it must be as Jones seems happy to keep selecting Youngs and Youngs pays him back with that shit.

Robson and Spencer must be thinking they'll never get a decent chance...cos if either Youngs or Heinz picks up an injury, Wigglesworth will be first in line.

I fucking despair with England rugby at times. Keep selecting shit and shit keeps happening.

[Banquo]

I don't think Youngs was that bad.

Okay, clarification time before I get moidered by the majority - he clearly wasn't great and needs shooting for not taking over decision-making from the forwards when camped on the French line. And the basketball pass into touch was special, although we at least had advantage for that. And there were several occasions where he shied away from a ruck where he could have saved a turnover. Okay, so maybe he was bad.

However, he was contending with some of the worst ball that we've given a scrum half in a while - all of the rucks where we're screaming at him to use it, the ball is pinned under half a dozen hands. You could have put Dupont on our side and he would've struggled with the quality of ball we were providing.

In addition, I'm surprised he's not getting any credit for creating May's first try - spotted there was space on the blind, went himself and drew both defenders before passing to set May free. That was good play of a type I haven't seen from him in years.

Yes, it is generally sad that Youngs is our starting scrum-half, but that wasn't a dire performance from him, IMO.

He's saving that for next week.

Puja

.....I'm not therefore sure what qualifies as dire any more. Two tries shipped with his missed tackles, couple of tries of our own with any semblance of decent decision making on their line. I'll forgive some sloppiness of pass, and some lack of alacrity at distribution owing to a wet ball and a malfunctioning of clearing from time to time. His kicking wasn't all that either, other than one great clearance under pressure- when he had no time to think, coincidence??

[p/d]

And the basketball pass into touch was special

I want him to do it against Scotland. 3 games on a trot!!!