RugbyRebels

The Scots are sounding a bit bullish, which makes me nervous as always before the 6 Nations. I'm concerned the Sarries players will be off the pace. I really feel England should be looking to hand out a paving since after the last two results there's a risk of self-belief emerging within this group of Scottish players and that can't lead anywhere good.

Mr Mwenda wrote:The Scots are sounding a bit bullish, which makes me nervous as always before the 6 Nations. I'm concerned the Sarries players will be off the pace. I really feel England should be looking to hand out a paving since after the last two results there's a risk of self-belief emerging within this group of Scottish players and that can't lead anywhere good.

It's not just the Sarries players - every player in the EPS won't have played for over a month by the time the Scotland game rolls around (and some even longer than that if their last game was COVIDed). Plus, most of the coaching staff is out - we're currently being managed solely by Mitchell and Robinson Jnr.

We'll either be exceptionally fresh or incredibly rusty.

Puja

Easter reckons we look vulnerable.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/why-nick ... t-england/

Mr Mwenda wrote:The Scots are sounding a bit bullish, which makes me nervous as always before the 6 Nations. I'm concerned the Sarries players will be off the pace. I really feel England should be looking to hand out a paving since after the last two results there's a risk of self-belief emerging within this group of Scottish players and that can't lead anywhere good.

They’re always bullish before the 6N and most of the time, they go on to finish in the bottom half of the table.

They have a decent squad and on their day, they can be very good, but I’m not sure how good they really are?

In recent times, they’ve beaten a poor Welsh team and a French team that would probably have won but for a dumb red card. They also beat Italy, which is almost a given, but only by 17 points.

I’m not dismissing them as a threat. Watson, Russell and Hogg are on song, they can be very dangerous and van der Merwe is a great addition, despite not being in the least bit Scottish.

That said, their midfield is weak and for this 6N, they are missing their first and second choice hookers, which will inevitably affect the quality of their set piece.

I’m definitely not complacent about it, but I would be disappointed if we were to lose.

We will be undercooked and that may rebound on us. Scotland are no mugs, but realistically we will start as strong favourites.
You can lose any game of course and our recent form isnt exactly world beating, but losing would be a surprise.

Thought Eddie was out of isolation on Friday (or close to?).

I'm concerned for how undercooked we may be, especially with all the players we're missing, but I'm still going to back us. With Ford, and yes, Farrell, at 10 and 12, if nothing else we can run a game with a high degree of control.

What does scare me is the possibility of Lawes at 6, if that happens, I'm terrified for our breakdown. Wilson or Willis at 6/7, with Curry at 6/7 please.

Or if we're really trying something, Willis, Curry and Wilson, and we'll have a go at their breakdown.

I think we stand a noticeably higher likelihood of losing this game than I can think was the case in pretty much any other recent year

They're a good team
We'll be affected by a mix of injuries, rustiness and some odd decisions over team selection and strategy

On balance (60:40) I think we're more likely to win, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if we lost...

Does that make me an arrogant Englishman?

Raggs wrote:Thought Eddie was out of isolation on Friday (or close to?).

I'm concerned for how undercooked we may be, especially with all the players we're missing, but I'm still going to back us. With Ford, and yes, Farrell, at 10 and 12, if nothing else we can run a game with a high degree of control.

What does scare me is the possibility of Lawes at 6, if that happens, I'm terrified for our breakdown. Wilson or Willis at 6/7, with Curry at 6/7 please.

Or if we're really trying something, Willis, Curry and Wilson, and we'll have a go at their breakdown.

With the exception of the Saracens players, the Scots aren’t that much more ‘cooked’ than we are, if at all. Glasgow last played on the 16th and Edinburgh on the 23rd. The Pro14 season has been very stop start, so it’s not as though their players had much better opportunity to build up any real form. Hogg, Gray and the other Scots playing in the Premiership had a game on the weekend, but those will have been their first for at least 2 weeks.

The general consensus is that a ‘battle hardened’ team is best, but I think Japan kind of disproved that. An intense training environment can be just as beneficial IMO.

I agree on the back row though. Watson and Ritchie are a good pairing and have the potential to be very disruptive unless we deal with them properly. Deploying two proper flankers will be important IMO, although I’m fairly ambivalent about which two, provided one of them is Curry (I can’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be).

Scotland’s lineout will be affected by having to pick their 3rd/4th choice hookers too, so there isn’t even really a justification for picking Lawes for the set piece.

Raggs wrote:What does scare me is the possibility of Lawes at 6, if that happens, I'm terrified for our breakdown. Wilson or Willis at 6/7, with Curry at 6/7 please.

Or if we're really trying something, Willis, Curry and Wilson, and we'll have a go at their breakdown.

You're right - that is absolutely key. Pick any of our back row players and I'll be happy. Pick a lock there and we may as well just hand every ruck to Watson and Ritchie. I'm really scared that he's gonna do it though.

Puja

Has it been mooted somewhere that Lawes will play 6? There seems to be ample back row resources in the squad.

Scrumhead wrote:

Raggs wrote:Thought Eddie was out of isolation on Friday (or close to?).

I'm concerned for how undercooked we may be, especially with all the players we're missing, but I'm still going to back us. With Ford, and yes, Farrell, at 10 and 12, if nothing else we can run a game with a high degree of control.

What does scare me is the possibility of Lawes at 6, if that happens, I'm terrified for our breakdown. Wilson or Willis at 6/7, with Curry at 6/7 please.

Or if we're really trying something, Willis, Curry and Wilson, and we'll have a go at their breakdown.

With the exception of the Saracens players, the Scots aren’t that much more ‘cooked’ than we are, if at all. Glasgow last played on the 16th and Edinburgh on the 23rd. The Pro14 season has been very stop start, so it’s not as though their players had much better opportunity to build up any real form. Hogg, Gray and the other Scots playing in the Premiership had a game on the weekend, but those will have been their first for at least 2 weeks.

The general consensus is that a ‘battle hardened’ team is best, but I think Japan kind of disproved that. An intense training environment can be just as beneficial IMO.

I agree on the back row though. Watson and Ritchie are a good pairing and have the potential to be very disruptive unless we deal with them properly. Deploying two proper flankers will be important IMO, although I’m fairly ambivalent about which two, provided one of them is Curry (I can’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be).

Scotland’s lineout will be affected by having to pick their 3rd/4th choice hookers too, so there isn’t even really a justification for picking Lawes for the set piece.

The exception of the Sarries players is the issue. We're talking potentially 2, 5, 8, 12, 15. And with the 10/12 interchangeability, that's very much the spine of the team.

I'm as confused as ever as to what constitutes "bullish" or Scotland being over-confident. It seems like every year Hogg or someone says we're actually going to try and win some games and everyone sees that as an outlandish statement. Maybe I've missed something.

I think most of it has been covered in the thread so far. Brown/McInally being out is a lot of quality and experience that's missing. Both have their issues with consistency/discipline, and Turner is a very capable replacement, but that's the two primary pack leaders out which might make a huge difference. The lineout has been garbage for a while so probably not much change there. I can see why Jones would consider picking a pack to bully Scotland, but I'm just as unexcited about Lawes at 6 as everyone else.

I wonder if Jones will be any more adventurous than FFS in midfield. There are usually some holes to attack. Harris is limited but grown into a solid defender/carrier, but I'd guess will be paired with 0 cap Redpath or Duncan Taylor - who has played about 5 games in the last 5 years. Huw Jones always seems to turn it on against England but is struggling to make the team.

Fair point, Mike Brown. What else are the players going to say I guess? My choice of words always reflects the fear that this year will be the time they win in England in my lifetime and I really don't want that. I'm unconvinced the Scots are much better than previous but some of the chat on the Scottish board gives me pause. I'm most concerned about the Sarries players not being at their best - but have been reassured by some of the words above.

What are we expecting from Scotland?

1. Sutherland
2. Turner
3. Fargerson
4. J Gray
5. Cummings
6. Ritchie
7. Watson
8. Graham
9. Price
10. Russell
11. VDM
12. Redpath
13. Harris
14. Maitland
15. Hogg

If it's that then you'd expect a pretty good tight game, war at the breakdown and a good midfield defence that could click and be competent in attack. Conversely the attack might not click and therefore be a bit limited as it beds in. As have been said the lineout might be a bit hit and miss and if J Hill starts you'd expect England to have parity minimum at scrum time.

England forwards defence should shackle that Scottish packs carrying game but Watson is good at finding a gap when there isn't one. Russell can be a magician if he turns up well.

Should be a good game.

Redpath is nailed on to score.

We've got better players, and I don't know if Townsend knows what he wants to try and do. We should be winning this by 12-15, but on any given day...

Mr Mwenda wrote:Has it been mooted somewhere that Lawes will play 6? There seems to be ample back row resources in the squad.

One part "Eddie f*cking Jones has done it before and might do it again" and one part all-purpose nihilistic dread that of course we'll pick three locks when we're the most oversubscribed with back row talent that we've ever been.

Puja

Lawes at 6 is interesting, IMO, for several reasons. I think he's far better in the shirt than most give him credit for and he is quoted as saying that is his preferred position.

Normally, I don't mind his selection for the extra lineout option it supplies but Hill for Launchbury maybe negates the need. Curry, Hill and Itoje works as a lineout trio.

Does Jones tend towards Lawes for carrying with Mako and Sinkler out? Then again, with Launchbury out, does Lawes give an important boost to the maul?

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 the latter.

From the squad, I'd pick Willis, Curry and Billy but I can see a 6:2 bench split if that trio starts with all three of Ewels, Lawes and Wilson. I prefer Simmonds to Earl (and Billy V for that matter) but Jones does not. Maybe Earl will start ahead of Willis. If that happens, Willis might not even get in the 23.

I think I'd prefer Lawes starting at 6 if it means avoiding the 6:2 split. Lawes, Curry, Billy with Wilson or Earl on the bench is OK.

I'd rather not see Lawes at 6. If Scotland are going to go for Ritchie, Watson, Graham as a backrow that is a very mobile and abrasive backrow. I'm not sure Lawes will be able to bully them physically and he won't be able to match them around the park. Scotland's tight five is man for man not as good as England's so we should be looking to match them in the backrow. If we were playing France I could possibly see the reasoning for a lock at 6 but not against the likely Scotland lineup.

With Stuart and Genge into the front row we aren't really losing out on ball carriers. Obano off the bench should have some impact as well. We should not be desperate for another player to carry into contact. I'm hoping Earl starts as he's very good at linking with the backline and any forward that makes a half break. With our stuttering attack he might help.

I'm expecting the 6:2 bench with Lawes, Wilson and Willis offering the back five of the scrum reinforcement.

Lawes definitely helps the lineout at 6, and he may prefer the shirt, because he's not much help in the scrum, but where there's maybe a couple of dozen lineouts (at which he'll go up maybe half the time), there's generally well over a hundred rucks, and this is the problem using Lawes at 6. Of course, if we're happy to have a repeat of 2018, then sure, let's do it.

Oakboy wrote:Lawes at 6 is interesting, IMO, for several reasons. I think he's far better in the shirt than most give him credit for and he is quoted as saying that is his preferred position.

Normally, I don't mind his selection for the extra lineout option it supplies but Hill for Launchbury maybe negates the need. Curry, Hill and Itoje works as a lineout trio.

Does Jones tend towards Lawes for carrying with Mako and Sinkler out? Then again, with Launchbury out, does Lawes give an important boost to the maul?

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 the latter.

From the squad, I'd pick Willis, Curry and Billy but I can see a 6:2 bench split if that trio starts with all three of Ewels, Lawes and Wilson. I prefer Simmonds to Earl (and Billy V for that matter) but Jones does not. Maybe Earl will start ahead of Willis. If that happens, Willis might not even get in the 23.

I think I'd prefer Lawes starting at 6 if it means avoiding the 6:2 split. Lawes, Curry, Billy with Wilson or Earl on the bench is OK.

I’m going to surprise you here Oakboy ... I agree with most of your post there and actually, I think quite a few of us are dubious about whether Billy should be the automatic pick he was a few years back.

Given the quality of our back row resources, I don’t see any real justification for Lawes at 6. His defence and work rate are good enough for it and his carrying has definitely improved, but speed to the breakdown is going to be important against Watson and Ritchie and I think picking Lawes would be a mistake. Similarly, while I’m never disappointed to see Wilson in an England shirt (as he’s usually at least good and often excellent), I’d favour Curry with either Willis or Earl for this particular game.

FKAS wrote:I'd rather not see Lawes at 6. If Scotland are going to go for Ritchie, Watson, Graham as a backrow that is a very mobile and abrasive backrow. I'm not sure Lawes will be able to bully them physically and he won't be able to match them around the park. Scotland's tight five is man for man not as good as England's so we should be looking to match them in the backrow. If we were playing France I could possibly see the reasoning for a lock at 6 but not against the likely Scotland lineup.

With Stuart and Genge into the front row we aren't really losing out on ball carriers. Obano off the bench should have some impact as well. We should not be desperate for another player to carry into contact. I'm hoping Earl starts as he's very good at linking with the backline and any forward that makes a half break. With our stuttering attack he might help.

I'm expecting the 6:2 bench with Lawes, Wilson and Willis offering the back five of the scrum reinforcement.

Yep. I must have been writing my last post at the same time. Totally agree.

Stuart and Genge looked good as a combination in the ANC and I’m pleased to see Obano getting his chance.

Mako and Sinckler are both good carriers, but ironically for two props, I think it’s actually their playmaking ability, tip-ons etc. that we’ll miss rather than the ball carrying itself.

Our win rate with Lawes at 6 is 62.5%, our win rate without him at 6 is 83.7%

Those losses with him at 6, have mostly come against sides that target the breakdown well.

Scrumhead wrote:I’m going to surprise you here Oakboy ... I agree with most of your post there and actually, I think quite a few of us are dubious about whether Billy should be the automatic pick he was a few years back.

Given the quality of our back row resources, I don’t see any real justification for Lawes at 6. His defence and work rate are good enough for it and his carrying has definitely improved, but speed to the breakdown is going to be important against Watson and Ritchie and I think picking Lawes would be a mistake. Similarly, while I’m never disappointed to see Wilson in an England shirt (as he’s usually at least good and often excellent), I’d favour Curry with either Willis or Earl for this particular game.

This, although I think I'd have Curry, Willis and Wilson starting, with Earl on the bench.
There's absolutely no need for England to be picking a lock in the backrow, and with our backrow resources, you can't really pick a bad, or even unbalanced unit (except by picking a lock back there).

Which Tyler wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I’m going to surprise you here Oakboy ... I agree with most of your post there and actually, I think quite a few of us are dubious about whether Billy should be the automatic pick he was a few years back.

Given the quality of our back row resources, I don’t see any real justification for Lawes at 6. His defence and work rate are good enough for it and his carrying has definitely improved, but speed to the breakdown is going to be important against Watson and Ritchie and I think picking Lawes would be a mistake. Similarly, while I’m never disappointed to see Wilson in an England shirt (as he’s usually at least good and often excellent), I’d favour Curry with either Willis or Earl for this particular game.

This, although I think I'd have Curry, Willis and Wilson starting, with Earl on the bench.
There's absolutely no need for England to be picking a lock in the backrow, and with our backrow resources, you can't really pick a bad, or even unbalanced unit (except by picking a lock back there).

Wholeheartedly agree. I'd add that I would like to see Billy dropped in the longer ish term (he clearly isn't going away in the 6n) so that some thought has* to be given to a non smash 8 gameplan.

*might be