Brad Barritt injury sad but provides opportunity for experimentation.

Sad to see Barritt injured and although his attacking play is limited England will miss his solidity in defence. They will particularly miss him in his role as effective leader of the defencive effort. However his injury does does give england the opportunity to give Twelvetrees an extended run. I suggest that they should bite the bullet and go with Burns and Twelvetrees as ten and twelve. With Manu, Yarde and Wade it certainly looks a more threatening attacking force but I would worry about defence.

Burns and Twelvetrees looked really threatening in attack yesterday.

To be honest I am bit worried about the 10 and 12 shirts for England.

Burns could be injured.

Farrell didn't have a good game in my opinion. Neither did Twelvetrees.

The other 10s and 12 hardly inspire confidence.

beshocked wrote:
Farrell didn't have a good game in my opinion. Neither did Twelvetrees.

I thought Twelvetrees did play well. Absolutely no attacking platform to work with but looked strong, sharp and tidy.

thomh that's fair enough. That's your opinion.

I suppose the no attacking platform excuse can be used in every game right?

Generally quite hard to get going when you're down to 14 from the 2nd minute though? I think Twelevtrees is in pole position for the 12 shirt with Eastmond slightly behind. Not sure anyone else will get in ahead of them before the AIs.

beshocked wrote:thomh that's fair enough. That's your opinion.

I suppose the no attacking platform excuse can be used in every game right?

Well, when your pack is down a man for 78 minutes when away to the strongest side in the league I think it's fair enough. If he wants to overtake Barritt full time next year then he'll have to start dominating matches for Gloucester, but given the circumstances yesterday I thought it was a decent performance.

I agree no 7 and 1/2 but there's only a limited amount of time that excuse can be used.

Also you have to admit that Sale at home is a little easier than Sarries away.

thomh perhaps I am being harsh on 36. It's just when he's been billed as a great all round attacking 12 I expect more. He did work hard but I didn't see him really threatening the Sarries defence.  He has a good backline on paper to work with but they don't seem to deliver the tries which you would expect. I know the pack is blamed but Gloucester have an excellent backrow for example.

I haven't yet seen anything that 36 does better than Barritt for example.

beshocked wrote:
thomh perhaps I am being harsh on 36. It's just when he's been billed as a great all round attacking 12 I expect more. He did work hard but I didn't see him really threatening the Sarries defence.  He has a good backline on paper to work with but they don't seem to deliver the tries which you would expect. I know the pack is blamed but Gloucester have an excellent backrow.

Well they only had two of them yesterday. Twelvetrees was overhyped in his early days but I do think he's improved a lot now. No major weakness, a big pass, a big boot, a big tackle and pace. The next 3 months are huge for him obviously.

They do have a good back line and granted I've only seen a limited amount of Gloucester they never seem to be completly on top with their forwards. I think Twelvetrees is the best option at the moment from an England persepective offering slightly more than Eastmond in defence and kicking whereas Eastmond is just a livewire with the ball. I'm also not too bothered if they underperform for their clubs but turn up when playing for England. Look at Nonu (barring his shoulder charge) for NZ.

No 7&1/2 wrote: I'm also not too bothered if they underperform for their clubs but turn up when playing for England. Look at Nonu (barring his shoulder charge) for NZ.

Or most of the Welsh team.

beshocked wrote:

I haven't yet seen anything that 36 does better than Barritt for example.

Other than run, pass or kick that is!

To be fair Barritt is clearly the better defender.

Exileinborders if that's the case it's quite strange that 36's team don't score more tries than Barritt's team.

You think it's down to Barritt's classy attacking play beshocked?

So all tries come from the 12?

Its obviously down to 36 and Eastmond. Both will get gametime i think.

Eastmond potentially looks the playmaker that Lancs is looking for so he will get a run out. His size has caused a little debate...is he big enough for an international 12...but the guy is solidly built...and with Tuilagi and Farrell either side of him i dont think there would be a problem.
How is Eastmonds kicking game? I still think he should have been a bloomin 9!

36 will go in a starter however as i think he's more advanced in his development and has a better all round game...passing, kicking and his size etc..

beshocked wrote:Exileinborders if that's the case it's quite strange that 36's team don't score more tries than Barritt's team.

I think this comes down to the pack make ups aswell. At top level rugby its critical to have forwards that make yards and get beyond the gainline continuously...Gloucester dont have loads of those players as opposed to Sarries who have half the pack who are freaks with the ball in hand.
This will always create chances for the backs.

Geordiefalcon you are correct Gloucester have one of the worst backrows in the AP don't they? No ball carriers there.

I would only say the Vunipola bros are freaks with ball in hand. Some of competent like Joubert and George but for example Borthwick and Hargreaves don't really get beyond the gainline.

Saracens are a more technical team than they are given credit for.

I would say that if you had to take one set of forwards and 1 set of backs most people would go for the Sarries forwards and Glous backs though.

Gloucester have a good back row...you are correct. ....i said Gloucester dont "HAVE LOADS OF THOSE PLAYERS" but i believe Sarries have more players like that.

And this is "PART" of the reason that you score more tries....but not the only reason as you are bloody good team!

Nothing to do with Barritt who is a flanker doing a 12's job.

Personally I would just take the entire Saracens backs and forwards.

I still think the Gloucester backline are overrated. There is no position they are better in than Saracens.

My point is when looking at the Gloucester backrow and backline I expect them to perform better and score more tries than they do.

There is no excuse for performing poorly vs Sale.

Well I didn't word it very well but I meant one set from either team! Sarries are a much better team but i think Morgan, Kvesic, Burns, Twelvetrees, May and Simpsons-Daniel may fancy getting a game or 2.

Personally I would just take the entire Saracens backs and forwards.

We all know you would......noone will ever doubt your allegience to your team... 

Perhaps no 7 & 1/2 they are good players you mention but in those positions you have Saracens players who can match them-

Billy vs Morgan
Fraser or Burger vs Ksevic

Farrell or Hodgson vs Burns

Barritt, even Taylor vs Twelvetrees

Ashton and Strettle vs Simpson Daniel and May

I suppose it's personal preference who you would want.

Geordiefalcon it helps that most are current or former internationals.

Yes there are a few close calls granted. I'm happy that they all seem to be English so it gives us a nice problem along with some other rising stars of course.

Billy vs Morgan (Morgan at the moment..but its a close call)
Fraser or Burger vs Ksevic ( Fraser looks the one for me)

Farrell or Hodgson vs Burns (Farrell or Burns...close call)

Barritt, even Taylor vs Twelvetrees (Twelvetrees)

Ashton and Strettle vs Simpson Daniel and May ( AShton & May)

Its a close call. And as 71/2 said its nice they are all English.

Its very much down to preference...so dont jump on people when they criticise a player from your team.

I have been critical of two players in your team...farrel and Barritt...Farrell looks to have moved forward now which im very pleased to see...however Barritt whilst suited to Saracens is a player that doesnt impress me in the slightest as international 12's go.

Geordiefalcon that's your opinion that's fine.

36 has a real opportunity at 12.

Any other 12s who could be dark horses? Perhaps Burrell for Saints?

Who takes Barritt's place in the EPS?

Burrell had a quality game in the monsoon against Quins and again offers a very different set of skills, he carries in to contact well and throws a few good offloads, defensively solid as well. Probably the closest to Barritt size and style wise but still different.

Good to hear about Burrell. What about the Quins centres? JTH and Casson?

Casson maybe in a season or two. Similar to 36 in that he has it all (pace, passing, kicking and good defense) but needs to show it at the top level regularly. He marshalled Burrell well though.

JTH is going to have to work hard just to be first choice at Quins.

Barritt will stay in the squad and thats fair enough - we know what he gives us...dependancy, reliability, defensive marshalling, rucking etc.

I have accepted that he was a vital piece of the team as lancs took England "back to basics"...he was a crucial cog in that one of the first names on the teamsheet probably.
I just feel that he has limitations in his game.

EPS should be Twelvetrees and Barritt...

Third position...possibly Eastmond. But we need to see more of him for bath before thats set in stone. Can he cope with the physicalty of that position and how is his kicking game etc.
Others to watch Burrell as has been mentioned has started the season well...again one to monitor.

If we do go for Barritt (and we have beaten the AB's with him in the team) then i would want to see some serious creativty on one side of him.
Possibly Eastmond at 13 and interchange on attack and defence...or Burns over Farrell etc.

At least it gives us options...

Burrell has shone a very large improvement in his passing game post the Argie tour and his ability to make hard yards, offload out the tackle and close the 12 channel in defence could see him as an AI dark horse.

Eastmond was exceptional vs Argentina, Twelvetrees hasn't shown any real form since last season. Eastmond currently injured and Twelvetrees only solid vs Sarries.

It might come down to who plays 10. Burns was underwhelming but kicked well vs Sarries whilst Farrell shone vs LI but had a stinker vs Glaws. Another dark horse in Ford has had back to back man of the match awards in challenging games. Flood is still injured but Myler has looked reliable but short of international ability.

So combination wise;

Burns/Twelvetrees and Ford/Eastmond play together at club level so you'd imagine that would be preferential to keep combos together. Farrell, however, is more likely to get picked with daddy in charge so who would you rather have alongside him? Burrell is closest to his normal options at Sarries and the injured Barritt, Eastmond would offer the livewire creation that is the glaring omission from Farrell's game and Twelvetrees offers an inbetween option solid defence, a good kicking option (huge but inaccurate boot) and attacking options albeit not the magic of Eastmond.

Is Allen worth a mention? Although I get the feeling that ship has sailed (same for JTH)

GeordieFalcon wrote:Billy vs Morgan (Morgan at the moment..but its a close call)
Fraser or Burger vs Ksevic ( Fraser looks the one for me)

Farrell or Hodgson vs Burns (Farrell or Burns...close call)

Barritt, even Taylor vs Twelvetrees (Twelvetrees)

Ashton and Strettle vs Simpson Daniel and May ( AShton & May)

Its a close call. And as 71/2 said its nice they are all English.

Its very much down to preference...so dont jump on people when they criticise a player from your team.

I have been critical of two players in your team...farrel and Barritt...Farrell looks to have moved forward now which im very pleased to see...however Barritt whilst suited to Saracens is a player that doesnt impress me in the slightest as international 12's go.

Come now GF you know there's no point in trying to get any concessions from Beshocked on any Saracens short-comings.

As far as the Gloucester/Saracens debate goes, Sarries are a far more cohesive and mature team than Glaws. More technical in how they play the game and more pragmatic. They have some good players in the backs, Tomkins is coming through well for example. I don't think that a Sarries backline compares in most people's eyes to the likes of Burns, 36, Trinder, May, JSD and Morgan for example.

What Glaws need is a new front row and to start bringing through some more forwards, the likes of Elliot Stooke for example. They're still a work in progress as a team but moreover as a pack.

I'd actually like to see Burns and 36 in the AIs. Maintaining a pairing can be really beneficial, particularly for the sort of attack emphasis which Lancs has spoken of. Farrell had a fairly poor game against Gloucester but certainly looked to be developing more vision on the Lions tour.

lostinwales wrote:Is Allen worth a mention? Although I get the feeling that ship has sailed (same for JTH)

Allen is certainly worth a mention, he's had some outstanding games for Tigers. He's just high quality in everything he does. Burrell I was not a fan of before reminded me of a superszie JTH. He's really added to his game on the evidence so far though and has also had back to back MOTM performances for Saints so far in very different conditions. If he carries on through October in this vein he'll certainly make the EPS training squad.

Today's match between Glaws and Saints gaveus the chance to see Burrell v 36. Other than two awful kicks Billy T totally outshone Burrell. The truth is that although Burrell has improved his passing somewhat he is not a natural rugby player. He is a great big lump who has learned to pass a bit. Billy can run, pass, kick and more importantly knows when to do which. He is also better in defence than Burrell.

Chjw131 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Billy vs Morgan (Morgan at the moment..but its a close call)
Fraser or Burger vs Ksevic ( Fraser looks the one for me)

Farrell or Hodgson vs Burns (Farrell or Burns...close call)

Barritt, even Taylor vs Twelvetrees (Twelvetrees)

Ashton and Strettle vs Simpson Daniel and May ( AShton & May)

Its a close call. And as 71/2 said its nice they are all English.

Its very much down to preference...so dont jump on people when they criticise a player from your team.

I have been critical of two players in your team...farrel and Barritt...Farrell looks to have moved forward now which im very pleased to see...however Barritt whilst suited to Saracens is a player that doesnt impress me in the slightest as international 12's go.

Come now GF you know there's no point in trying to get any concessions from Beshocked on any Saracens short-comings.

As far as the Gloucester/Saracens debate goes, Sarries are a far more cohesive and mature team than Glaws. More technical in how they play the game and more pragmatic. They have some good players in the backs, Tomkins is coming through well for example. I don't think that a Sarries backline compares in most people's eyes to the likes of Burns, 36, Trinder, May, JSD and Morgan for example.

What Glaws need is a new front row and to start bringing through some more forwards, the likes of Elliot Stooke for example. They're still a work in progress as a team but moreover as a pack.

I'd actually like to see Burns and 36 in the AIs. Maintaining a pairing can be really beneficial, particularly for the sort of attack emphasis which Lancs has spoken of. Farrell had a fairly poor game against Gloucester but certainly looked to be developing more vision on the Lions tour.

If you don't think the Sarries backline is as good as the Gloucester one than frankly you're a fool. Most of the Sarries backs are underrated because they favour substance over style. The Gloucester one has potential but never truly lives up to the hype.

As a backline unit I think Sarries are one of the most underrated in the league. Other sides do have better individual players. I would say Leicester have a better 9 and 13 for example. North and Foden from Saints are better than Strettle and Goode. Care and Brown better than Wigglesworth/De Kock and Goode but when you look at the backline as a whole I think it's one of the best.

Only need to look at the amount of tries the Sarries backs score compare to the Gloucester ones. I am sorry but most of the Gloucester backline are overhyped. When will they deliver on a consistent basis?

The Gloucester lot might be easier on the eye - e.g. are pacier but in terms of overall effectiveness they pale in comparison.

Gloucester just have 4 tries this season (2nd bottom) compared to 13 for Sarries.

Youngs, Farrell, Twelvetrees, Tuilagi, Wade, Foden and Yarde would be my choice for England at the moment.

beshocked wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Billy vs Morgan (Morgan at the moment..but its a close call)
Fraser or Burger vs Ksevic ( Fraser looks the one for me)

Farrell or Hodgson vs Burns (Farrell or Burns...close call)

Barritt, even Taylor vs Twelvetrees (Twelvetrees)

Ashton and Strettle vs Simpson Daniel and May ( AShton & May)

Its a close call. And as 71/2 said its nice they are all English.

Its very much down to preference...so dont jump on people when they criticise a player from your team.

I have been critical of two players in your team...farrel and Barritt...Farrell looks to have moved forward now which im very pleased to see...however Barritt whilst suited to Saracens is a player that doesnt impress me in the slightest as international 12's go.

Come now GF you know there's no point in trying to get any concessions from Beshocked on any Saracens short-comings.

As far as the Gloucester/Saracens debate goes, Sarries are a far more cohesive and mature team than Glaws. More technical in how they play the game and more pragmatic. They have some good players in the backs, Tomkins is coming through well for example. I don't think that a Sarries backline compares in most people's eyes to the likes of Burns, 36, Trinder, May, JSD and Morgan for example.

What Glaws need is a new front row and to start bringing through some more forwards, the likes of Elliot Stooke for example. They're still a work in progress as a team but moreover as a pack.

I'd actually like to see Burns and 36 in the AIs. Maintaining a pairing can be really beneficial, particularly for the sort of attack emphasis which Lancs has spoken of. Farrell had a fairly poor game against Gloucester but certainly looked to be developing more vision on the Lions tour.

If you don't think the Sarries backline is as good as the Gloucester one than frankly you're a fool. Most of the Sarries backs are underrated because they favour substance over style. The Gloucester one has potential but never truly lives up to the hype.

As a backline unit I think Sarries are one of the most underrated in the league. Other sides do have better individual players. I would say Leicester have a better 9 and 13 for example. North and Foden from Saints are better than Strettle and Goode. Care and Brown better than Wigglesworth/De Kock and Goode but when you look at the backline as a whole I think it's one of the best.

Only need to look at the amount of tries the Sarries backs score compare to the Gloucester ones. I am sorry but most of the Gloucester backline are overhyped. When will they deliver on a consistent basis?

The Gloucester lot might be easier on the eye - e.g. are pacier but in terms of overall effectiveness they pale in comparison.

Gloucester just have 4 tries this season (2nd bottom) compared to 13 for Sarries.

I'd say the Glaws backline has more individual talent but Sarries are a more cohesive unit. Is that fair?

Burns and 36 linked up nicely for Sharples' try though.

English reign you are entitled to your opinion. That's fair enough. I don't agree but that's just me.

I suppose it depends what you mean by talent. Most of the Gloucester backs are quicker and can create individual opportunities whilst the Saracens backs are more brutally efficient both in defence and attack.

If talent is based just on attack and speed then yes the Gloucester one is better.

Base it on defence and effectiveness and there is little doubt the Saracens one is far better.

I take reliability and consistency over flair and style any day of the week personally but I can understand why others like the more eye catching gloucester backs.

beshocked wrote:English reign you are entitled to your opinion. That's fair enough. I don't agree but that's just me.

I suppose it depends what you mean by talent. Most of the Gloucester backs are quicker and can create individual opportunities whilst the Saracens backs are more brutally efficient both in defence and attack.

If talent is based just on attack and speed then yes the Gloucester one is better.

Base it on defence and effectiveness and there is little doubt the Saracens one is far better.

I take reliability and consistency over flair and style any day of the week personally but I can understand why others like the more eye catching gloucester backs.

There is also the step between league games and internationals to consider. Some players can be wonderful at league level yet dont quite have a set of skills that will suit internationals, and yet there are others whose strengths and weaknesses suit one off internationals more. A couple of examples would be, say, Goode for Sarries who is a wonderful intelligent full back but I think just doesnt have enough pace to offer as much at international level as the competition. On the other hand you have someone like North who can turn it on but didnt have the best reputation for doing so out of internationals.

If you look at the sarries back line yes they are streetwise and brutally efficient, but they dont all look like top quality internationals.

beshocked wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Billy vs Morgan (Morgan at the moment..but its a close call)
Fraser or Burger vs Ksevic ( Fraser looks the one for me)

Farrell or Hodgson vs Burns (Farrell or Burns...close call)

Barritt, even Taylor vs Twelvetrees (Twelvetrees)

Ashton and Strettle vs Simpson Daniel and May ( AShton & May)

Its a close call. And as 71/2 said its nice they are all English.

Its very much down to preference...so dont jump on people when they criticise a player from your team.

I have been critical of two players in your team...farrel and Barritt...Farrell looks to have moved forward now which im very pleased to see...however Barritt whilst suited to Saracens is a player that doesnt impress me in the slightest as international 12's go.

Come now GF you know there's no point in trying to get any concessions from Beshocked on any Saracens short-comings.

As far as the Gloucester/Saracens debate goes, Sarries are a far more cohesive and mature team than Glaws. More technical in how they play the game and more pragmatic. They have some good players in the backs, Tomkins is coming through well for example. I don't think that a Sarries backline compares in most people's eyes to the likes of Burns, 36, Trinder, May, JSD and Morgan for example.

What Glaws need is a new front row and to start bringing through some more forwards, the likes of Elliot Stooke for example. They're still a work in progress as a team but moreover as a pack.

I'd actually like to see Burns and 36 in the AIs. Maintaining a pairing can be really beneficial, particularly for the sort of attack emphasis which Lancs has spoken of. Farrell had a fairly poor game against Gloucester but certainly looked to be developing more vision on the Lions tour.

If you don't think the Sarries backline is as good as the Gloucester one than frankly you're a fool. Most of the Sarries backs are underrated because they favour substance over style. The Gloucester one has potential but never truly lives up to the hype.

As a backline unit I think Sarries are one of the most underrated in the league. Other sides do have better individual players. I would say Leicester have a better 9 and 13 for example. North and Foden from Saints are better than Strettle and Goode. Care and Brown better than Wigglesworth/De Kock and Goode but when you look at the backline as a whole I think it's one of the best.

Only need to look at the amount of tries the Sarries backs score compare to the Gloucester ones. I am sorry but most of the Gloucester backline are overhyped. When will they deliver on a consistent basis?

The Gloucester lot might be easier on the eye - e.g. are pacier but in terms of overall effectiveness they pale in comparison.

Gloucester just have 4 tries this season (2nd bottom) compared to 13 for Sarries.

Bit early in the season to say, I still reckon our backs line up just as well as yours do, and we will find out on Friday. If anything, Quins have been seen as "greater than the sum of our parts" for awhile by many, hence why everyone wants to drop our England players. If we lose out to Sarries, it is definitely in the pack

Lostinwales good points but I could say the same of the Gloucester backline. I think most are largely unproven at international level.

Chequeredjersey that's your opinion. Fair enough. I feel that only Care and possibly Brown (very close with Goode) would get in the Sarries backline. An in form Evans perhaps but he hasn't been playing well when I have seen him.

Do you genuinely think Casson or JTH is superior to Barritt? Any Quins winger better than Strettle and Ashton for example?

Everyone wants to drop our England players so it's not just you. Goode,Farrell,Ashton and Barritt get a lot of criticism.

I can see why Saracens wouldn't take Casson or Lowe or our wingers, but equally I wouldn't take any of your centres or wingers. Yours fit well into your team and plan and ours into ours. The closest call would be over Barritt but he is unfortunately injured

However, if your second rows were on offer I'd take one

"If you don't think the Sarries backline is as good as the Gloucester one than frankly you're a fool."

Frankly beshocked I don't expect to be referred to in that way by anyone. You have your opinion and I have mine. We can have an informed debate about style, balance and substance if you like but i've no interest in discussing anything with you if you insist on being disrespectful and downright rude.

beshocked wrote:Lostinwales good points but I could say the same of the Gloucester backline. I think most are largely unproven at international level.

Chequeredjersey that's your opinion. Fair enough. I feel that only Care and possibly Brown (very close with Goode) would get in the Sarries backline. An in form Evans perhaps but he hasn't been playing well when I have seen him.

Do you genuinely think Casson or JTH is superior to Barritt? Any Quins winger better than Strettle and Ashton for example?

Everyone wants to drop our England players so it's not just you. Goode,Farrell,Ashton and Barritt get a lot of criticism.

Competition for places at International level. Things don't stay the same

Goode - Was terrific in stormy conditions vs Ireland and had the odd good moment but would easily be behind an on form Foden.

Farrell - was off form in the later stages of the 6N but is looking good. Probably unfairly criticised

Ashton used to score tries for fun when there wasnt much competition. There is serious competition now and he hasnt been scoring as often compared to where he was. There is this 'perception' problem sometimes with good players when they are not doing amazing things all the times that somehow they have lost 'it' (whatever 'it' must be) and are somehow instantly worse than (still) poorer but more consistent players, and that does apply to Ashton. However - the competition in Yarde, Wade and possibly May has caught up.

Barritt is terrific at what he does. There is a good chance 36 can do more. Time will tell

I apologise chj131. You are right. It is rude to refer to you as a fool. I just can't understand the viewpoint. You probably think it's down to bias. It's not. I am happy to admit if a player is performing better/ is better than someone from my side.

E.g. Tuilagi is quite clearly better than Tomkins, Care is quite clearly better than Wigglesworth for example. On last season's form I would have picked Wade over Ashton. Brown and Foden look to be ahead of Goode at the moment.

On the other hand when I look at the Gloucester side I see good players but none I would say are better than the Sarries options. It doesn't help that most of the Gloucester backs haven't had a proper run of form.

Burns and 36 are two of your best backs but both Farrell and Barritt have been more influential and are more experienced.

Morgan and Trinder have never really looked like they will challenge for England honours. JSD is not on the radar either. Sharples got a chance and blew it.

Chequeredjersey that's fair enough.

lostinwales would agree with your assessment. I think some criticise is warranted but some of it was disproportionate. You would think England lost to Wales because of Farrell and Ashton for example.

It's just some players are immune for criticism even when playing badly - no one criticised Cole and Tuilagi against Wales for example.

Theres quite a few here saying Wilson should start the AI's instead of Cole, Beschocked...its not just Sarries players.

Players like Tom Croft is queried due to his lack of muscle at 6...likewise many criticise Tuilagi in the belief he lacks skills and is just a quick prop...and the ludicrous criticism of Robshaw and that he should be dropped for Wallace / Fraser / Kvesic when none of them have put any performance to take it off him....all teams get it.

Ashton on form is a crackin player...but he was off form (for England at least) for quite some time. Now that may be that his game isnt compatible with the way England have played...fair enough. We have been static and poor...Ashton needs players carrying...he runs his lines ...but he wasnt even doing that. Havent seen him this season...if hes back on form then great.

Farrell has had alot of criticism...unfair on such a young lad yet warrented on his choice to go to the boot every time. Now this season he appears to have released the shackles a little..and isnt SO kick orientated. Great.

Barritt ive been a big supporter as a crucial cog in the England machine...however i feel his playmaking / creativity at 12 is not enough to take us foward...again that is only my opinion.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ashton on form is a crackin player...but he was off form (for England at least) for quite some time. Now that may be that his game isnt compatible with the way England have played...fair enough. We have been static and poor...Ashton needs players carrying...he runs his lines ...but he wasnt even doing that. Havent seen him this season...if hes back on form then great.

I've only seen Ashton in the Bath game but he played very well. He was popping up everywhere and not just running good support lines, but also linking play with intelligent passing and putting in some excellent defence/tackling (kick and chase on Biggs and tracking back on a Ford break especially). He seems to be enjoying his rugby again.

Burrell is a player I've not heard too many people mention concerning the place up for grabs, but with Eastmond out, if he can keep up this early season form and continue to build on it I think it really will be between him and Twelvetrees for the 12 shirt. With Twelvetrees in pole position currently.

Is Eastmond out?