England v Scotland 6N Round 5 Saturday 16th March

First topic message reminder :

England v Scotland
6N Round 5
Saturday 16th March
Twickenham Stadium
London

KO 17.00

Well here we are at the final round of matches and three teams can still come out on top following Ireland's demolition of France this afternoon.

England have the advantage of playing last and will know what they have to do, if Wales have not already wrapped it up with a Grand Slam earlier in the afternoon. That actually might be Scotland's best chance of getting anything out of this game if England get distracted about what is going on else where, particularly if they find playing for second spot a distraction, knowing Wales have already wrapped things up.

On paper, this is only going to be an English win, the only question being by how much.

Scotland have had an awful championship, where just about everything that could have gone wrong. They are only playing for pride, but history tells us that sides that are done at this stage in the competition, rarely have anything left in the tank for the final game.

It is not as if Scotland have any form at Twickenham either, we have not won there since 1983 (did I ever mention that I was there!). We had had a crap season and no-one gave us much of a chance that year either if I remember, then the following year we won the GS. Can I see that happening this time though?

Only in my dreams!

So what do both sides hope to get from the game?

England clearly want a BP victory, some revenge for last year and hopefully a championship. They would also like to show the continued emergence of such players as Cockanasiga, who could be pivotal to them doing well in the WC.

Scotland, despite whatever spin they put on the game, might just be happy with a decent performance and continued development of some of our young starlets. We took another pile of injuries this weekend and getting a half decent competitive side onto the pitch is going to be a challenge in itself. Still, this exposure might be the making of young Hastings, Bradbury, Graham, McDowell, Skinner, Ritchie and anyone else who gets to play, down the line.

Test rugby is a hard old place to earn your living and they will likely be finding that out next weekend.



England


Daly, Nowell, Slade, Tuilagi, May; Farrell, Youngs; Moon, George, Sinckler, Launchbury, Kruis, Wilson, Curry, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Cowan-Dickie, Genge, Cole, Shields, Hughes, Spencer, Ford, Te'o



Scotland:

Maitland; Graham, Grigg, Johnson, McGuigan; Russell, Price; Dell, McInally (capt), Nel; Toolis, Gilchrist; Skinner, Watson, Bradbury.

Replacements: Brown, Reid, Berghan, J Gray, Strauss, Laidlaw, Hastings, Harris

BigGee wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

R!skysports wrote:
Farrell should have been a red - but seems to have a charmed life

People making this comment are judging him on past poor tackles.

Never a Red card or a yellow.
The Ref got it correct lets praise that and say well done to him.

I am not complaining and I would not have liked to have seen the game decided on a card, but we have all seen reds given for less than that under the new regulations. It was a shoulder to the head, whether he meant it or not!

I’ve Seen them giving seen them ignored and it’s the referees interpretation that matters. Truth is we weren’t good enough to be able to argue that we deserved the win.

https://twitter.com/RugbyLAD7/status/1107017701497671681

Shoulder to head

Eejit wrote:

BigGee wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

R!skysports wrote:
Farrell should have been a red - but seems to have a charmed life

People making this comment are judging him on past poor tackles.

Never a Red card or a yellow.
The Ref got it correct lets praise that and say well done to him.

I am not complaining and I would not have liked to have seen the game decided on a card, but we have all seen reds given for less than that under the new regulations. It was a shoulder to the head, whether he meant it or not!

I’ve Seen them giving seen them ignored and it’s the referees interpretation that matters. Truth is we weren’t good enough to be able to argue that we deserved the win.

I was happy with the draw, you have got to be when you give a team a 31 point lead.

Farrell was lucky not to get a card though, of either colour

The on field decision was correct.
The TMO agreed, had it been anyone else but Farrell people wouldn't be pointing it out.

On the card.  It was only fractionally late so for me no late challenge so on that the ref was right.  However clear no arms tackle so should be a yellow.  Maybe contyract with ther head - could have been red.

The ref said he ws trying to protect himself which is why he dropped the shoulder  thats utter bilge IMO as thats what makes it a no arms tackle

Once again Farrell is very lucky not to get a card.

TightHEAD wrote:The on field decision was correct.
The TMO agreed, had it been anyone else but Farrell people wouldn't be pointing it out.

If it was not for the fact that Farrell keeps getting away with it we would not be talking about it either!

BigGee wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:The on field decision was correct.
The TMO agreed, had it been anyone else but Farrell people wouldn't be pointing it out.

If it was not for the fact that Farrell keeps getting away with it we would not be talking about it either!

Bribery? Scandal?

No of course not. Coincidence and fine margins.

He didn't get away with it as the penalty was awarded.

People are out to get Faz today.

TightHEAD wrote:He didn't get away with it as the penalty was awarded.

It wasn't I thought.  commentators said it was but the penalty given was the other side of the pitch for a different offense IIRC

TJ wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:He didn't get away with it as the penalty was awarded.

It wasn't I thought.  commentators said it was but the penalty given was the other side of the pitch for a different offense IIRC

It was given for the late tackle, which is why it got taken from where the ball landed, but that was not what the TMO was looking at.

Not the way I remember it.  No penalty at all for the late tackle - the penalty was given for a breakdown offence the other side of the field as I remember

Its from where the ball landed.

TJ wrote:Not the way I remember it.  No penalty at all for the late tackle - the penalty was given for a breakdown offence the other side of the field as I remember

No, that is why Laidlaw was able to kick for goal following the incident. The penalty was from where Graham's kick landed, it gained us 40m and brought it into range. He still missed unfortunately, it was not his best day with the boot.

Ref gave the pen against Farrell initially awarding it from where the 2 players were. He was the reminded by his tmo that Its where the ball lands if that's an advantage.

Ok - I stand corrected

That Laidlaw kick...before he took it, the one he missed. Townsend looked like he wanted to kill someone in the box. Not screaming fury but the look and muttered words....

BigGee wrote:https://twitter.com/RugbyLAD7/status/1107017701497671681

Shoulder to head

Think that kind of sums it up

Even if you take it as the ref said, that he was trying to protect himself, he has a duty of care and intent is not considered. He ended up with a late (that is what the penalty was actually given for) no arms shoulder to the head.

If it did contact the head, there is only one decision and it is red. The law states this emphatically and there is supposed to be no wiggle room. - accident is not considered. and it is not as if the other player ducked.

Not to even get a yellow, is a travesty and if Fax keeps doing this he is seriously going to hurt people

https://twitter.com/MarkPalmerST/status/1107367066405912580?s=19

Here's the Tuilagi incident - he's a very lucky boy that Johnson was falling down and didn't get a shoulder to the head. He looked hell bent on taking his head off!

Looks worse than it was.

Nothing in that.

TightHEAD wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Calm down, it didn't happen.

You see worse at U10 games.

Just a small point. I made an comment on something I had seen during the game. You however decided to attack me personally by telling me to "go make a cup of tea" so if anyone needs to calm down it is you

Calm down fella, since when has suggesting someone to make a cup of tea become a form of personal attack on an online forum?

Don't ever go on Twitter.

...................and I think you will find Manu hasn't been cited, and rightly so.

So you are doubling down on your snide remark. I see.

How good is Hamish Watson? Throughout the first half he noticeably never gave up on a chase or tackle, and was one of the few Scottish players to not drop his head. Excelled in the second half too. Form 7 in the NH for me, and his importance to the Scottish team is self evident. Awesome player.

I haven't said it yet, but congratulations to the Scottish players and supporters on here. It shows unbelievable character to come out and player that like after a terrible first 40.

Snide remark?

Put the kettle on Fella........

Watson is very good indeed and one of the players we really missed

Can I have a cup? Debating the intricacies of World Directives on Reffing can dry the tongue and throat.

TJ wrote:Watson is very good indeed and one of the players we really missed

Got the makings of a very good backrow with Richie and Bradbury too

bluestonevedder wrote:

TJ wrote:Watson is very good indeed and one of the players we really missed

Got the makings of a very good backrow with Richie and Bradbury too

Absolutely. Bradbury's got the brunt Scotland need. Got the option of playing Skinner at 6 for more beef and Ritchie/Watson at 6 for more dynamism and breakdown work. Where Wilson/Strauss etc. fit in, who knows, but those 4 options all look top quality to me.

Not to forget Barclay...

Watson is a 7.  Only a 7.  He is not a 6.

RDW wrote:https://twitter.com/MarkPalmerST/status/1107367066405912580?s=19

Here's the Tuilagi incident - he's a very lucky boy that Johnson was falling down and didn't get a shoulder to the head. He looked hell bent on taking his head off!

Has anyone got a clip of it from a different angle to see if he makes contact? If there's contact with the head it's a red card by the letter of the law, if he misses completely then it's nothing. How fine that line is was always going to cause contentious moments in situations when players are ducking into contact.

It's reckless from Manu. Generally he's lowered his tackle height in recent times as well.

TJ wrote:Watson is a 7.  Only a 7.  He is not a 6.

Having watched Ritchie a lot with Edinburgh I see no reason he can't play blindside. Big tackle count, carries well and offers a third line-out option that Scotland use a lot.

I wouldn't be surprised if Barclay is reinstated as captain for the RWC though.

All I can say having decided to show my head is well done Scotland.

As for Faz I think it proves that once you get under his skin je's a bit of a liability. Needs a different captain. I still think he is the best fly half available. But we need a new captain or some-one to support him (is that what Eddie sees in Brad Shields?)

Ben Youngs also need to think about his options, default seemed to be play 3-4 phases and kick, and whilst in the first 2 and the Italy game his kicking was good against Scotland it was awful in the second half. Scotland's defense may be weak but their attack is razor sharp. The last thing you need to do is when the game has turned against you is kick the ball aimlessly down field and let them attack. Particularly when the mid field defense is doing its best impression of a freely rotating turnstile!!!!!

RDW wrote:Not to forget Barclay...

Ah yeah, completely forgot Barclay! Shocker. Tbh he'd probably add another 6/7 option and could easily start/be captain, but injury has robbed him. If he makes the RWC - and I hope he does, he'll be forever loved at Parc y Scarlets - I wonder how much he'll play on post-Japan? My worry is not very long with Watson and Ritchie behind him...

Of the two, I'd make Ritchie the better blindside, but we've seen Tipuric and Navidi adapt well to the 6 shirt. Tipuric in paticular is an out and out 7, no reason Watson couldn't be used like that for Scotland, although his carrying is his best aspect and you'd want him freed up to do that. Having locks play 6, as has been the recent trend, is more of an effort than moving at 7 to 6, as it's just minor system tweaking in certain situations.

On England captaincy, I said it in the build up and during this 6Ns. Not gloating, just recognised the issues with Farrell, both ability and mentality/leadership - as with last year, I'm amazed they were revealed so quickly and so dramatically, all in one game. He's not RWC-winning captain material. Neither is Hartley, in my opinion, but he looks the best of a bad bunch at the moment. Robshaw's probably better than both but scarred by the past and probably no longer part of the first XV.

Lawes has quietly become England's best lock. I'd also make him one of the most important players for that team alongside Tuilagi and Vunipolas. Launchbury and Kruis can be lethal but they can also look fat, slow, and unskillful if England are on the back foot and the game goes a certain way. Itoje and Lawes to start, but I don't see a captain in either of them just yet.

Not sure if Robshaw has captained England under EJ - either late in a game, or in a B team - but I would have thought the most sensible option would be to maintain him in that role but take him out of the spotlight. Like he did but moving him to 6 with Haskell at 7 - basically, make him a vice-captain. Robshaw and Hartley then become the two 'co-captains' for me in that team, with the leadership team of Farrell, Youngs, possibly Itoje/another lock, Brown if he makes the team all helping out. The issue with that is pretty clear though - neither comes to close to a Rory Best or POM or AWJ. Farrell comes closest, and is obviously a natural leader in many ways, but it's not just that he's not quite good enough, it's also his position. Making the 10 captain is crazy.

miaow wrote:

RDW wrote:Not to forget Barclay...

Ah yeah, completely forgot Barclay! Shocker. Tbh he'd probably add another 6/7 option and could easily start/be captain, but injury has robbed him. If he makes the RWC - and I hope he does, he'll be forever loved at Parc y Scarlets - I wonder how much he'll play on post-Japan? My worry is not very long with Watson and Ritchie behind him...

He is year one into a three year deal with Edinburgh and you could easily see him sliding seamlessly into coaching as that goes on, he has spoken about that being his future career pathway.

Still, I don't think he is quite ready to hang up the boots just yet, he would like to achieve something with Scotland and Edinburgh first. Hope the body is willing.

Robshaw will face a battle to get back. I imagine it'll be willis who starts the world cup at 6. Underhill on the bench. If Jones decides to move away from Farrell it could well be itoje as the next captain. Doubt he'll move from farrell

Ryan Wilson and Danny Care back on the BBC podcast again (from about the 19th minute). Pretty good-natured.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p073xgf4

king_carlos wrote:

RDW wrote:https://twitter.com/MarkPalmerST/status/1107367066405912580?s=19

Here's the Tuilagi incident - he's a very lucky boy that Johnson was falling down and didn't get a shoulder to the head. He looked hell bent on taking his head off!

Has anyone got a clip of it from a different angle to see if he makes contact? If there's contact with the head it's a red card by the letter of the law, if he misses completely then it's nothing. How fine that line is was always going to cause contentious moments in situations when players are ducking into contact.

It's reckless from Manu. Generally he's lowered his tackle height in recent times as well.

That is low.

It looks worse then it is. I'm usually one to berate Manu and Farrell when they do stupid stuff, but on this one Manu is just keen to put in a biiig hit legally on the Scots player, who unluckily falls over at the same time, I honestly don't think Manu does more then graze him as they slide past each other, but if the Scots player had stayed standing it'd have been a perfect legal chest high smash.

It's been a really good thread, and was a cracking game.

Let's not all now ruin it by playing death by slow-mo-rewind "the ref should have done this, they should have been carded" etc.

If any one was naughty they'll be cited.