RugbyRebels

TheNomad wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:England: Daly; Watson, Slade, Lawrence, May; Farrell (capt), Youngs; Genge, George, Stuart, Itoje, Hill, Wilson, Curry, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Cowan-Dickie, Obano, Williams, Lawes, Earl, Robson, Ford, Malins.

Solid selection, really. Given everything else going on, you can see the merit in continuity.

- Long term I slightly feel Malins will over take Daly, but for now it makes sense
- I think Wilson over Willis is wrong, but while Wilson won't win man of the match, he won't let you down
- I'd have preferred Ford at 10, but I recognise that won't happen
- I like that Lawrence is at 12: I think he's the one to take a bet on there, and I think we could really bring something else to the side in that position
- Bench looks good too

So generally I don't think we can grumble much about that

I would have gone for Willis too, but I wouldn’t rule Wilson out of winning MoM. In a game where the breakdown battle could be key, he’s not a bad man to have in a scrap.

jimKRFC wrote:

Galfon wrote: Hope he gets some ball to use.

To me it's a side picked to contain Scotland and with a view that they can win with defence rather than looking to make Scotland think about Englands attacking running play.

If we’re picking a side to contain a midfield featuring a debutant (albeit a very good one) and Chris Harris, we have our priorities wrong.

Pleased with that forward pack especially Wilson and Curry starting in their best positions. Back row has a nicer balance than has been the case recently imo.

Oakboy wrote: If only (dreaming again) we could look forward to, say, a 50 minute change with Robson, Ford and Earl coming on for Youngs, Farrell and Billy V i.e. pace and open rugby to take full advantage of the tired opposition.

I like the dream but we all know it'll be Ford for Lawrence and Farrell to 12, with the ball going up from 12 instead of 10 unless Farrells out of position.

You may have guessed I'm a little pessimistic about this one...

Oakboy wrote:
I'm probably not going to get many agree with my concerns about Billy V but I think his battering-ram carrying and one-dimensional playing style are not the big advantage that they were 4 or 5 years back. Some balance is lost with Underhill's absence - speed to contact and aggressive tackling. Lawes certainly supplies OK.

I’ve long thought the problem with England no.8 berth was that England selectors expected a Billy battering-ram style regardless of whether or not Billy was available!

Other options like Hughes and Simmonds offered a far more expansive game but weren’t allowed to play to their strengths at test level. I feel it’s a fair criticism to level at England selectors that they’ve not brought on a convincing 8 option for when Billy is unavailable ( and this issue actually predates Jones being in post). Maybe more thought should have been put into sharing more of the heavy duty carrying with the 6 and Itoje for example?

jngf wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I'm probably not going to get many agree with my concerns about Billy V but I think his battering-ram carrying and one-dimensional playing style are not the big advantage that they were 4 or 5 years back. Some balance is lost with Underhill's absence - speed to contact and aggressive tackling. Lawes certainly supplies OK.

I’ve long thought the problem with England no.8 berth was that England selectors expected a Billy battering-ram style regardless of whether or not Billy was available!

Other options like Hughes and Simmonds offered a far more expansive game but weren’t allowed to play to their strengths at test level. I feel it’s a fair criticism to level at England selectors that they’ve not brought on a convincing 8 option for when Billy is unavailable ( and this issue actually predates Jones being in post). Maybe more thought should have been put into sharing more of the heavy duty carrying with the 6 and Itoje for example?

Because Itoje has shown such a large reportoire of heavy carrying ability...

And the guy who I'd actually now come close to arguing is our 2nd best heavy carrier, is the guy you've insisted is no good at 6, and should be played at 7...

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I'm probably not going to get many agree with my concerns about Billy V but I think his battering-ram carrying and one-dimensional playing style are not the big advantage that they were 4 or 5 years back. Some balance is lost with Underhill's absence - speed to contact and aggressive tackling. Lawes certainly supplies OK.

I’ve long thought the problem with England no.8 berth was that England selectors expected a Billy battering-ram style regardless of whether or not Billy was available!

Other options like Hughes and Simmonds offered a far more expansive game but weren’t allowed to play to their strengths at test level. I feel it’s a fair criticism to level at England selectors that they’ve not brought on a convincing 8 option for when Billy is unavailable ( and this issue actually predates Jones being in post). Maybe more thought should have been put into sharing more of the heavy duty carrying with the 6 and Itoje for example?

Because Itoje has shown such a large reportoire of heavy carrying ability...

And the guy who I'd actually now come close to arguing is our 2nd best heavy carrier, is the guy you've insisted is no good at 6, and should be played at 7...

You’ve captured my opinion well - if Curry really was our 2nd best heavy carrier we’d be in trouble , don’t think it’s the case though fortunately.

I actually can't remember the last time Vunipola properly bulldozered someone, whereas Curry has done it a few times recently.

Mikey Brown wrote:I actually can't remember the last time Vunipola properly bulldozered someone, whereas Curry has done it a few times recently.

I'll happily agree that I've not seen Billy bash anyone recently, but he still goes forward, and the opposition still clearly try to not give him an inch, so it works out OK. I have to say though, depending on what he produces in this series, I'll become more and more convinced that Curry/Willis at 8, with the other at 6, and Underhill at 7, is a backrow dream, with Earl on the bench to cover every shirt and blitz the last 20-30 minutes.

I quite like that team/squad. A shame we've got a fantasist Covid denier in there, but whatever. A shame Ford is dropped, but whatever

I'd have picked Wilson over Willis if the target is this game given the lack of experience in the tight 5. If we had Mako, Sincks and Joe starting I'd have been inclined to go with Willis.

Lawrence v Redpath is going to be interesting not just in the head to head but in terms of the speed and quality of ball from Youngs/Farrell v Price/Russell. Of course, neither 12 may see much of the ball if it is nearly always consigned to the sky.

TBF, it's a good team. A very good team to be perfectly honest. It will be very one dimensional, though. Eddie's tactics coupled with Farrell at 10 means we won't play anything that isn't off a set play or opposition mistake.

I don't believe we'll have huge troubles at the breakdown, tbh. Wilson is a very, very good operator there. He's not a turnover merchant but he's excellent at clearing out. And Curry is, too. I think we'll have a bit much power for them, tbh, as apart from Gray, they're all a bit lightweight, aren't they?

And outside of 10 and 15, their backs aren't exactly world class, so if we struggle in any way against them, we'll have done something wrong.

Agreed. Wilson also has a great combination of an insane engine and great instincts for being in the right place at the right time.

Willis is an exceptional talent and I have no doubt he’ll break in to the team soon enough, but Wilson’s performance level for England has rarely dipped below excellent.

Stom wrote:TBF, it's a good team. A very good team to be perfectly honest. It will be very one dimensional, though. Eddie's tactics coupled with Farrell at 10 means we won't play anything that isn't off a set play or opposition mistake.

I don't believe we'll have huge troubles at the breakdown, tbh. Wilson is a very, very good operator there. He's not a turnover merchant but he's excellent at clearing out. And Curry is, too. I think we'll have a bit much power for them, tbh, as apart from Gray, they're all a bit lightweight, aren't they?

And outside of 10 and 15, their backs aren't exactly world class, so if we struggle in any way against them, we'll have done something wrong.

Depends what you mean by lightweight? Attack, defence, set piece? Sutherland, Cummings and both Fagersons throw their weight around pretty well. Whether Scotland can act as a cohesive unit is a very different question though. There’s still a habit of looking shocked whenever a carrier actually makes ground.

England have the edge on power up front but it’s far from the most one-sided looking match up I’ve seen (on paper) in this fixture.

That seems an oddly simplistic view on the backs. It’s a more balanced back division than I’ve seen for a long time, but lacking experience/cohesion in midfield. I’ll be pleased if England are only paying attention to Russell/Hogg. Assuming we actually see anything you’d call back play, from either side.

In theory Farrell at 10 might be quite good with a hard runner on his shoulder and Slade behind. I’d love to know why Jones opts for that now after having Slade and Lawrence paired the other way round in the autumn.

Mikey Brown wrote:In theory Farrell at 10 might be quite good with a hard runner on his shoulder and Slade behind. I’d love to know why Jones opts for that now after having Slade and Lawrence paired the other way round in the autumn.

MB, I don't think Jones's all-round rugby knowledge and tactical nous are quite on the level portrayed. Apart from stubbornness in some areas, he is pretty fickle. Maybe, he simply doesn't know the best way to go and is trying different options/hoping for the best. Or, I suppose you could say he is clinging to 'beef' at 12 as he did so often with Tuilagi even though it neutered the guy's effectiveness so often. I doubt any of it will matter because the ball will rarely go down the line. Today's coaches, Jones included, appear to see no chance of conventional penetration in the midfield. Let's face it, taking some of the thoughts from the F v F thread, if we were going to play, Ford would be at 10. The 12/13 shirt occupiers are there to defend in the main.

How many nailed-on centre combinations exist in current world rugby? Honestly, I can’t think of any right now. Even NZ can’t decide on their first choice partnership.

Sticking with the 6N, Scotland are giving a debut to Redpath after testing Lang, Taylor and Horne at 12 in recent games. Ireland seem unsure on the best combination of Henshaw, Aki, Ringrose and (Chris) Farrell. After Parkes moved on, the Welsh went from crowing about Tompkins to ditching him, then brought in Williams and then tried North at 13. France vary between a few with Fickou swapping between centre and wing.

Obviously some of this is injury related, but my point is that there isn’t a nailed-on, obvious centre combination. The days of D’Arcy/O’Driscoll or Roberts/Davies are long gone.

I don’t always like Eddie Jones’ picks but let’s not question his ‘all-round rugby knowledge and tactical nous’ for playing with the centre combination.

Interesting point. I can’t think of any either. Maybe teams are struggling with what a pair of centres are actually for in an age where nobody wants the ball.

I mean Fickou and Vakatawa is a great combo but the French are fucking idiots for sticking Fickou (their defensive leader) out on the wing, so that one is slightly different. Henshaw and Ringrose just seem incredibly injury prone but you’d think they would be nailed on otherwise.

Decent enough team. Let's have a good performance and give the Scotch a good kickin'! (please)

The fucking fawning has started, ffs.

Is that when roebuck watch Highlander?

Digby wrote:Is that when roebuck watch Highlander?

Hoho

Be interesting to see who would fill in at 8 were Billy to have to come off early. Think there might be a case for Earl to slot in there in terms of a bit of explosiveness off the back of the scrum?

Wilson. Next.

Interesting stats on farrell at 10 from Kitson in the Guardian:

England have won just four Six Nations games since 2015 (two of them against Italy) with Farrell wearing the No 10 jersey. The titles won under Jones in 2016, 2017 and 2020 have been achieved, coincidentally or not, with Farrell at 12 and Ford starting 14 of the 15 games. On the two occasions Jones has named Farrell at 10 at the outset of a Six Nations campaign, England have finished fifth and second respectively.

The stats also show that Farrell, who has amassed 88 caps for England, has started on 38 occasions for his country at centre and 39 times at fly-half. At 12 his record reads: W31 D1 L6; wearing 10 his return is: W24 D1 L14

Danno wrote:Wilson. Next.

You say that, but I think if the situation came up, Eddie would pick Curry. I don't necessarily know I'd disagree with him either - while his first few games showed striking inexperience in the role, his performances last year as one of England's big carriers has started to convince me that Eddie might've had a point.

Puja

jimKRFC wrote:Interesting stats on farrell at 10 from Kitson in the Guardian:

England have won just four Six Nations games since 2015 (two of them against Italy) with Farrell wearing the No 10 jersey. The titles won under Jones in 2016, 2017 and 2020 have been achieved, coincidentally or not, with Farrell at 12 and Ford starting 14 of the 15 games. On the two occasions Jones has named Farrell at 10 at the outset of a Six Nations campaign, England have finished fifth and second respectively.

The stats also show that Farrell, who has amassed 88 caps for England, has started on 38 occasions for his country at centre and 39 times at fly-half. At 12 his record reads: W31 D1 L6; wearing 10 his return is: W24 D1 L14

Farrell has only been named by Eddie at 10 from the outset of a 6 Nations once, in 2019. In 2018 when we finished 5th Ford started at 10 for the first 4 games with Farrell starting there only for the last game vs Ireland.