England v Australia

by Geordie Mon 24 Nov 2014, 9:50 am

First topic message reminder :

England v Australia - Page 3 Englan10

England v Australia
29 November 2014
KO 14:30
Twickenham
Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)

*****
Well 3 down - one to go. And this is a biggy. World Cup group rival....a win would be a nice mental strengthener.

So who do we start.

Have the coaches learned some lessons?...Farrell is not in form and not fit.
Also having a playmaker at 10 opens options up.

Can they issue glue to all the players so they can actually catch the ball...specifically in try scoring situations.

by bluestonevedder Tue 25 Nov 2014, 3:57 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Exactly Eddie.

I want a 10 who can play intelligently and sensibly. But who has the spark to up the game and perform that magic when required. Make that darting break or miss pass to send Manu through the gap etc. Its not asking for a lot.

Well, it is if you're English!

I'm trying to stay grounded about Ford, but I was quietly really impressed with him on Saturday. The vision to see the cross-field kick, let alone the confidence to execute it on your first test start. I just hope he performs well this weekend.

by Geordie Tue 25 Nov 2014, 4:10 pm

Yeah im the same Eddie.

Ive got excited by prospects previously like Burns and Cipriani so ill just wait and see how Ford goes.

In fairness to him, id like to see Farrell get back to full fitness and form. He has his value when he is.

by thomh Tue 25 Nov 2014, 5:32 pm

Journalists all seem to be expecting a Twelvetrees start, and they almost always get it right with the England team. Lancaster an co. seem to be comfortable briefing off the record on selection.

Remaining question in terms of the 23 then I guess is whether Burrell will sneak in ahead of Barritt, whether Lawes will be fit, and which hooker and blindside will start.

by thomh Tue 25 Nov 2014, 5:40 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah im the same Eddie.

Ive got excited by prospects previously like Burns and Cipriani so ill just wait and see how Ford goes.

In fairness to him, id like to see Farrell get back to full fitness and form. He has his value when he is.

I feel like I've kept a lid on my excitement about Ford, but maybe I've just assumed he was going to be amazing for so long that I'm already over it.

I'm also rarely wrong when predicting which players are going to be world class. Apart of course from Youngs, Cipriani, Burns, Flood, Flutey, Tait, Ollie Smith, Stuart Abbot, Ashton, Foden, Abendanon, Haskell, Rees, Narraway, Armitage, Banahan, and Geraghty, to name just a few. I forget where I was going with this.

by beshocked Tue 25 Nov 2014, 5:44 pm

bluestonevedder wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:Just thinking.

If Ford can show some consistency, and a good steady flow of game control and to get a backline moving he really coud make that position his own for years.

People arent particularly looking for fireworks...just some intelligence and the physical ability to make the plays that the situation requires.

But the best thing is that Fordy brings fireworks too! His line break against Samoa was lovely, and every facet of his game bar probably goal kicking was shown to be above Farrell's at the moment.

Bold statement - certainly when it comes to tackling. I would say Farrell is far superior in that area. Agree that Ford beats Farrell Jr in every other area bar goal kicking and defence though.

by thomh Tue 25 Nov 2014, 6:09 pm

Farrell's defence when on form is a completely different level, but he isn't on form and missed an absolutely horrible tackle against Samoa before giving away a penalty trying to rectify it.

Guardian article reckons that this Saturday will decide Twelvetrees' world cup chances. Can't argue with that.

Did anyone catch SCW's analysis of Ford/Farrell after the game? His point boiled down to:

1. 10 has to watch the ball constantly.
2. 12's job to watch the wider play and communicate what's going on/options.
3. Therefore it's great to have a second 10 playing there to do that job.

Seemed like a massive logical fallacy to me. Basically saying that the two positions are entirely different, but concluding that you're better with a 10 than a 12 playing there. Baffling.

by englandglory4ever Tue 25 Nov 2014, 8:36 pm

SCW is a complete failure. His article on selection was a farce and showed why he should never get near England selection again. He really doesn't understand what modern rugby is about. Farrell clearly is off form and suffers brain fades when the opposition heat is on. SL must ignore scw and Farrell at the moment.

by Knackeredknees Tue 25 Nov 2014, 8:54 pm

bluestonevedder wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:Exactly Eddie.

I want a 10 who can play intelligently and sensibly. But who has the spark to up the game and perform that magic when required. Make that darting break or miss pass to send Manu through the gap etc. Its not asking for a lot.

Well, it is if you're English!

I'm trying to stay grounded about Ford, but I was quietly really impressed with him on Saturday. The vision to see the cross-field kick, let alone the confidence to execute it on your first test start. I just hope he performs well this weekend.

Sorry but not his vision that one, he said in the post match interview that he was given the call for the cross fiel kick by Farrell and barrett. so the only thing he can claim is kicking the ball, bloody beauty of a kick mind

by thomh Tue 25 Nov 2014, 9:46 pm

Hearing a call and acting on it are different things though. I'm sure he's not lying in saying that Farrell gave the call, but having the awareness and speed of mind to be able to react to the call, see where Watson is and then execute it is something else.

by nth Tue 25 Nov 2014, 10:30 pm

Hopefully he'll spot it for himself next time. Though he did give equal credit to Barritt, so bases should be covered at the weekend. Wink

"I just went out there and tried to play my own game and I got some really good information from Owen Farrell and Brad Barritt outside me.

"And at least two of the tries came from what they were telling me and all I had to do was execute what they were telling me."

by nobbled Wed 26 Nov 2014, 8:11 am

Ford is just happy to have Farrell at IC.
1. That means Farrell isn't at FH (and as he is undroppable if he wasn't at IC he would be at FH)

2. Everyone is reminded how bad Farrell has been recently.

by **George Carlin** Wed 26 Nov 2014, 8:19 am

thomh wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah im the same Eddie.

Ive got excited by prospects previously like Burns and Cipriani so ill just wait and see how Ford goes.

In fairness to him, id like to see Farrell get back to full fitness and form. He has his value when he is.

I feel like I've kept a lid on my excitement about Ford, but maybe I've just assumed he was going to be amazing for so long that I'm already over it.

I'm also rarely wrong when predicting which players are going to be world class. Apart of course from Youngs, Cipriani, Burns, Flood, Flutey, Tait, Ollie Smith, Stuart Abbot, Ashton, Foden, Abendanon, Haskell, Rees, Narraway, Armitage, Banahan, and Geraghty, to name just a few. I forget where I was going with this.

by maestegmafia Wed 26 Nov 2014, 8:26 am

Looks like Farrell has been dropped vs Oz

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11254562/England-v-Australia-Owen-Farrell-dropped-by-Stuart-Lancaster-and-faces-fight-to-play-in-2015-Rugby-World-Cup.html

by dummy_half Wed 26 Nov 2014, 8:45 am

BBC reporting that England will field the same match day 23, and also that 12trees is likely to start - I think most of us would agree that having a specialist centre in the centre and having Farrell on the bench is a much better use of resources than last week.

Otherwise, I'd expect Wood back for Haskell, who failed to really impose himself last week. Hartley v Webber is really a toss of a coin - both have done well at the set piece, but not shown that strongly otherwise.

by Geordie Wed 26 Nov 2014, 9:03 am

Is Twelvetrees revitalised?

He has pretty much been shown by this selection that Lancaster sees him as the ideal 12 for his team. He needs to start and produce the goods now...consitant quality play. Not fireworks...just steady quality international rugby on a consistant basis but with the ability to make things happen when they're on....very much like Ford at 10 needs to be.

by Bathman_in_London Wed 26 Nov 2014, 9:09 am

If by revitalised you mean in a slightly better run of form then Farrell then yes!

He really does need to seize the chance, as you say Rimmer clearly has him down as the ideal man for the game plan, all 36 needs to do is step up to the plate.

by bluestonevedder Wed 26 Nov 2014, 9:20 am

I thought 36 looked good from the bench. His try-saving tackle was superb. No questions over his defence at all.

He does need to grab this opportunity with both hands though- and that's not a pun about his occasionally poor offloading!

by WELL-PAST-IT Wed 26 Nov 2014, 9:41 am

Barritt stays in over Burrell, so much for past partnerships that performed well. Even if 36 has a blinder, Barritt does not have the pace to exploit it so we are reliant on the wings for pace.

by Barney McGrew did it Wed 26 Nov 2014, 9:44 am

Hmmm, 1 year to go and everyone’s celebrating putting a rookie in arguably the most pivotal position on the pitch, the re-instatement of 12-Underachiever-T, plus an out-of-position Jack-of-all-trades master-of-none Barritt. I’m sure the Aussie’s are quaking in their designer boots.

If we eventually go with Ford, 12T/Eastmond, Burrell, May, Watson – I wonder if that will be the least experienced back line ever to enter the RWC, with less caps in total than most top tier sides have in a single average player. The 2003 team were the granddaddies of world rugby, the 2015 will be the kindergarten side. I hope we all adjust our expectations accordingly.

by funnyExiledScot Wed 26 Nov 2014, 9:52 am

I'm still confused over the dropping of Kyle Eastmond to be honest, and would have stuck with him through the AIs and 6 Nations. Comfortably better at 12 than Farrell, and in my view has shown more promise in the role for Bath and England than Twelvetrees. I think people like the idea of Twelvetrees more than the reality frankly.

Ford, Eastmond and Burrell would have been my choice. No coincidence that those are three form players from the club arena.

by Geordie Wed 26 Nov 2014, 9:53 am

Barney

With regards to May and Watson i have no problem with their inexperience. They are showing more potential and actual results on the pitch than ANY winger has under Lancaster. So keep them in!

Farrell needs to go away and get himself totally fit and firing on the pitch. Ford looks very composed young man with a bit more to his armoury than Farrell. He took some big hits from the Samoans and just brushed himself off and got on with it.
Again no worries if he stays on form...taking us to a WC.

Twelvetrees then becomes the big one. Undoubted potential...hes never fulfilled it for me. Now as i said above he needs to put in the performances that says yes this shirt is mine!

Barritt offers much when you have a young back line and whlilst Manu is injured and Burrell not 100% fit.
He leads the defence, he carries hard and fast in to contact. His passing isnt flashy etc but its effective and he gets the ball out.

I have no problems him being in there whilst we blood Ford, the up and down Twelvetrees and the "kindergarten" as you put it of May and Watson. !

by Bathman_in_London Wed 26 Nov 2014, 10:06 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'm still confused over the dropping of Kyle Eastmond to be honest, and would have stuck with him through the AIs and 6 Nations. Comfortably better at 12 than Farrell, and in my view has shown more promise in the role for Bath and England than Twelvetrees. I think people like the idea of Twelvetrees more than the reality frankly.

Ford, Eastmond and Burrell would have been my choice. No coincidence that those are three form players from the club arena.

That is certainly true. There is an idea that he has the running game of Nonu, the passing of Peter Stringer and the kicking of Morne Steyn. Sadly a poor mans Luke McAllister is probably more accurate.

by beshocked Wed 26 Nov 2014, 10:07 am

Barney is anyone celebrating? It's still not an ideal backline.

I would have Ford in there because Farrell is woefully out of form and has been for some time - it's not ideal to throw Ford in there with so few caps still but there are no other real options.

As for Twelvetrees...never been a fan, he's been okay I guess but I've always thought that his abilities were exaggerated. He's supposedly picked based on form? Really?

As for Barritt - poor guy - shunted out to 13 and having to playing with a woefully out of form Farrell. Should be at 12 or not in the squad at all.

Ford-Barritt-Burrell or Ford-36-Burrell would be far more intelligent.....even Ford-Eastmond-Burrell.

by bluestonevedder Wed 26 Nov 2014, 10:37 am

beshocked wrote:Barney is anyone celebrating? It's still not an ideal backline.

I would have Ford in there because Farrell is woefully out of form and has been for some time - it's not ideal to throw Ford in there with so few caps still but there are no other real options.

As for Twelvetrees...never been a fan, he's been okay I guess but I've always thought that his abilities were exaggerated. He's supposedly picked based on form? Really?

As for Barritt - poor guy - shunted out to 13 and having to playing with a woefully out of form Farrell. Should be at 12 or not in the squad at all.

Ford-Barritt-Burrell or Ford-36-Burrell would be far more intelligent.....even Ford-Eastmond-Burrell.

I wouldn't mind seeing either of those. I think it is a real shame we won't be seeing the 6N partnership working with Ford.

Regarding Eastmond- I thought he looked a little more confident ball in hand against New Zealand, but now that Ford's come into the 10 position I would really worry about that 10/12 channel defensively.

36 has got so much to prove. His AP form hasn't improved. I guess he's riding the fact that he knows the England set up, had a good performance from the bench against Samoa, and no one else is stamping their name on the shirt.

A poor man's Luke McAllister! I like that, and it is pretty much true. At the moment!

by Barney McGrew did it Wed 26 Nov 2014, 10:40 am

I hear ya. I don’t think this side is bad – it’s just not good enough. I think Stewie has sacrificed the 1st 4 years of his tenure, to build a team for the 2nd 4 (assuming he’s here that long). He’s concentrated on England’s strength (the pack) and been too slow to develop our weakness (the backs). We’ve had a decent-to-excellent pack for years, any (non-Aussie) coach could have kept on top of that; we haven’t had even a decent three-quarters for a decade, that’s where SL should be earning his keep. Here’s another buzz-word for you Stu – learn to multi-task!

Mind you, I still think we’ll beat Oz Very Happy

. For me they’re the new France: too much coulda-shoulda-woulda, not enough results.

by Geordie Wed 26 Nov 2014, 11:05 am

Dont underestimate Australia...they'll be a tough side to beat. Plus it would be an insult to an Aussie team to say they dont lift their game when they come to twickenham. Everyone wants to beat the Poms.

My problem with Lancaster is that some key positions are maybe not the players i would have selected...and those selections also have had a bearing on the style of rugby being played.

However it may be by accident that he may have stumbled on the makings of a backline that could be explosive.

Just need to sort the centres out.

by TightHEAD Wed 26 Nov 2014, 11:29 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Just need to sort the centres out.

How many years have we been saying that!

by Geordie Wed 26 Nov 2014, 11:47 am

Too many!!!

by lostinwales Wed 26 Nov 2014, 12:14 pm

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I hear ya. I don’t think this side is bad – it’s just not good enough. I think Stewie has sacrificed the 1st 4 years of his tenure, to build a team for the 2nd 4 (assuming he’s here that long). He’s concentrated on England’s strength (the pack) and been too slow to develop our weakness (the backs). We’ve had a decent-to-excellent pack for years, any (non-Aussie) coach could have kept on top of that; we haven’t had even a decent three-quarters for a decade, that’s where SL should be earning his keep. Here’s another buzz-word for you Stu – learn to multi-task!

Mind you, I still think we’ll beat Oz . For me they’re the new France: too much coulda-shoulda-woulda, not enough results.

I think the two biggest problems in developing the backs has been waiting for the new players to come through (e.g. we could not have realistically picked Watson last year) and injury.

Ford (and Burns) would have had more opportunities if they had not got hurt at the wrong time. Up til last year Farrell has been very robust and that has really helped him cement his place

We do also have a first choice center pick, just the last couple of seasons Manu has also been getting damaged.

by Big Wed 26 Nov 2014, 12:41 pm

Barney McGrew did it wrote:
Mind you, I still think we’ll beat Oz . For me they’re the new France: too much coulda-shoulda-woulda, not enough results.

Couldn't the same be said of England over the last 10 years or so?? I really hope England do win, but after two narrow defeats I expect Aus to be really fired up. I'm very much on the fence for this one and see it as a 50:50 game, and probably a close result for whoever does win it.

by **Pal Joey** Wed 26 Nov 2014, 12:52 pm

Yes, I feel the same way. Both sides are so desperate to win this one.

Quite annoyed with myself for tipping Australia in sportform's thread. Would have been better off tipping England... such is my run of bad luck in that comp recently. That way I know we'll win.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 26 Nov 2014, 1:17 pm

beshocked wrote:As for Twelvetrees...never been a fan, he's been okay I guess but I've always thought that his abilities were exaggerated. He's supposedly picked based on form? Really?

The thing with 36 is that he can kick, run, pass and tackle to a good standard - at club level. To be a successful international I always feel that at least one facet of your game needs to be world class - and 36 is not there. As a 12, Farrell kicks better, Eastmond runs better, Barritt tackles better. 36 may have the best range of passing, but it is so hit and miss that you could argue all the other 3 are more effective.

Of course that he looks like artistic portrayals of Jesus may help his fanbase.

by HammerofThunor Wed 26 Nov 2014, 1:23 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
beshocked wrote:As for Twelvetrees...never been a fan, he's been okay I guess but I've always thought that his abilities were exaggerated. He's supposedly picked based on form? Really?

The thing with 36 is that he can kick, run, pass and tackle to a good standard - at club level. To be a successful international I always feel that at least one facet of your game needs to be world class - and 36 is not there. As a 12, Farrell kicks better, Eastmond runs better, Barritt tackles better. 36 may have the best range of passing, but it is so hit and miss that you could argue all the other 3 are more effective.

Of course that he looks like artistic portrayals of Jesus may help his fanbase.

+1

'Ok' is how I would describe him. And I've seen more terrible passes from him that good ones.

by Geordie Wed 26 Nov 2014, 1:30 pm

Thats why Barritt is the best fit (imo) for the moment when we are trying to blood a young creative 10.

He is right up there in defence and defensive leadership. He'll look out for Ford.
He carries hard and fast in to traffic...
He rucks top class.
His passing may not be showbiz style...but its basic and effective. He gets the ball out.

Other than him...Burrell at 12.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 26 Nov 2014, 1:34 pm

Who knows what may have happened had Burrell not been unfit for first test.

As it was I would rather have seen Barritt 12 and Eastmond 13. England though seem set on having a second playmaker at 12 so tittle to the lot of us.

by funnyExiledScot Wed 26 Nov 2014, 1:51 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Who knows what may have happened had Burrell not been unfit for first test.

As it was I would rather have seen Barritt 12 and Eastmond 13. England though seem set on having a second playmaker at 12 so tittle to the lot of us.

It really is a very English thing (Andy Robinson brought the skill with him to Scotland as well) to completely ignore where a player is playing week in week out when it comes to international team selection.

Bung a 10 to 12 (Farrell), a 12 to 13 (Barrett and the suggestion above re: Eastmond), a 13 to wing (Tuilagi), a 13 to 12 (Tindall and Noon), a 15 to wing (Brown and Foden) and a wing to 15 (Cueto). Utter madness!!

by beshocked Wed 26 Nov 2014, 2:01 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
beshocked wrote:As for Twelvetrees...never been a fan, he's been okay I guess but I've always thought that his abilities were exaggerated. He's supposedly picked based on form? Really?

The thing with 36 is that he can kick, run, pass and tackle to a good standard - at club level. To be a successful international I always feel that at least one facet of your game needs to be world class - and 36 is not there. As a 12, Farrell kicks better, Eastmond runs better, Barritt tackles better. 36 may have the best range of passing, but it is so hit and miss that you could argue all the other 3 are more effective.

Of course that he looks like artistic portrayals of Jesus may help his fanbase.

I think the hype for Twelvetrees comes from the hope that he'll be Will Greenwood mk II and hopefully fix the centre issue once and for all.

Personally I think 36 fluctuates in form more than most players. Doesn't mean he's bad - just generally inconsistent. At Tigers he was supplanted by Allen who to me has more in common with Barritt. Both Barritt and Allen being defensive leaders and leaders in general. Twelvetrees couldn't hold down the 12 shirt at Leicester despite 36-Tuilagi supposedly being a dream combo for England fans. At Gloucester has his form been much better than that of Leicester?

If Twelvetrees was as good as the hype made him out to be I wouldn't have anything against him starting for England. I think he's got the potential to be excellent but hasn't really delivered on a consistent enough basis.

One try assist for England in the 6 nations had his fans sitting up and applauding his playmaking skills - forgetting that even the "one dimensional" Farrell Jr created more.

36 is not a leader, which is why I still find it bizarre he was made Gloucester captain.

In Twelvetrees' defensive despite throwing some utterly bizarre passes he had a pretty solid 6 nations. The problem was it was solid - in my opinion he didn't deliver the so call playmaking and didn't show off his so called repetroire on many occasions bar one admittedly good grubber.

With other players what you see is what you get like Barritt,Farrell,Manu,Burrell,Brown, Nowell - you know what their strengths and limitations are.

Twelvetrees is supposedly meant to be the genuine article - the solution to all England's centre woes yet he's not shown that.

by Geordie Wed 26 Nov 2014, 2:09 pm

With other players what you see is what you get like Barritt,Farrell,Manu,Burrell,Brown, Nowell - you know what their strengths and limitations are.

i think your secretly beginning to like him

by beshocked Wed 26 Nov 2014, 2:13 pm

Geordiefalcon I want him to do well like any England player. I felt Lancaster landed Nowell in the brown stuff vs France...... I want Nowell to prove me wrong - score more tries. Well I should really give him a bit of a support as I have been pretty harsh on the young lad.

Being mismanaged is Lancaster's fault.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 26 Nov 2014, 2:32 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Who knows what may have happened had Burrell not been unfit for first test.

As it was I would rather have seen Barritt 12 and Eastmond 13. England though seem set on having a second playmaker at 12 so tittle to the lot of us.

It really is a very English thing (Andy Robinson brought the skill with him to Scotland as well) to completely ignore where a player is playing week in week out when it comes to international team selection.

Bung a 10 to 12 (Farrell), a 12 to 13 (Barrett and the suggestion above re: Eastmond), a 13 to wing (Tuilagi), a 13 to 12 (Tindall and Noon), a 15 to wing (Brown and Foden) and a wing to 15 (Cueto). Utter madness!!

What i was saying was that if we had to have Eastmond and Barritt in the centres - then they would have worked better the other way round. Barritt/Eastmond imo would have worked better than Eastmond/Barritt did.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 26 Nov 2014, 2:34 pm

beshocked wrote:36 is not a leader, which is why I still find it bizarre he was made Gloucester captain.

How do you know he is not a leader?

by SecretFly Wed 26 Nov 2014, 2:49 pm

Because he's 36. 36 never was a Leader in anything. 1 is your man for leading.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 26 Nov 2014, 4:27 pm

SecretFly wrote:Because he's 36. 36 never was a Leader in anything. 1 is your man for leading.

I bet 36 was the leading statistic on page 3 of the Sun

by SecretFly Wed 26 Nov 2014, 5:08 pm

Well yeah but........................... well yeah............

by beshocked Wed 26 Nov 2014, 5:27 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
beshocked wrote:36 is not a leader, which is why I still find it bizarre he was made Gloucester captain.

How do you know he is not a leader?

Perhaps I should rephrase that - from what I've seen 36 is not a leader.

As you are a Tigers fan I guess you probably have a better idea I guess. Did you see him as a leader at Tigers?

Also it's when I compare 36 to centres like Barritt and Allen who I believe are leaders in the backline. Again you're a Tigers fan - do you believe my view of Allen is correct?

by yappysnap Wed 26 Nov 2014, 10:06 pm

I always thought Eastmond would thrive at 13 with that extra space, or scrum half. Neither ever happened though so what do I know?

by Geordie Wed 26 Nov 2014, 10:35 pm

Here's a question.

If all the locks were fit and in top form what combo would you pick? And why?

by sickofwendy Wed 26 Nov 2014, 11:41 pm

Launchbury and attwood
Lawes to bench
Joe works tirelessly for the team,doesn't lose his rag and is a great defender
Dave for his line out plus he actually carries over the gain line.
Something we haven't seen in a lock since shaw and grewcock

by nth Thu 27 Nov 2014, 2:17 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Who knows what may have happened had Burrell not been unfit for first test.

As it was I would rather have seen Barritt 12 and Eastmond 13. England though seem set on having a second playmaker at 12 so tittle to the lot of us.

It really is a very English thing (Andy Robinson brought the skill with him to Scotland as well) to completely ignore where a player is playing week in week out when it comes to international team selection.

Bung a 10 to 12 (Farrell), a 12 to 13 (Barrett and the suggestion above re: Eastmond), a 13 to wing (Tuilagi), a 13 to 12 (Tindall and Noon), a 15 to wing (Brown and Foden) and a wing to 15 (Cueto). Utter madness!!

Maybe England's coaches are trying to do a rugby variation of Hilbert's Infinite Hotel.

by yappysnap Thu 27 Nov 2014, 6:28 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:Here's a question.

If all the locks were fit and in top form what combo would you pick? And why?

I'd go with Attwood and Lawes still as they offer the best pairing to my mind. We've been unlucky that Lawes came into this series in fine form but then got hurt and has seemed off the pace after that. Attwood's been growing into his role though and has impressed.

I'm still dissapointed we haven't seen either Kitchener or Slater though, obv Slater's injured so we wont see him any time soon but it's these two who've often been the standout locks in the AP over a season and both seem to always have huge games when needed. That big game mindset is something we need in the English set up. Kruis just leaves me a bit meh

by Sponsored content