France v England - Paris - 01/02/2014

by Chjw131 Thu 23 Jan 2014, 12:54 pm

First topic message reminder :

French XXIII

1. T Domingo 2. B Kayser 3. N Mas
4. A Flanquart 5. P Pape
6. Y Nyanga 7. B Le Roux 8. L Picamoles
9. J-M Doussin 10. J Plisson
12. W Fofana 13. M Basteraud
11. M Medard 15. B Dulin 14. Y Huget

16. D Sarzewski 17. Y Forestier 18. R Slimani 19. Y Maestri 20. A Burban 21. D Chouly 22. M Machenaud 23. G Fickou

England XXIII

1. J Marler
2. D Hartley
3. D Cole
4. J Launchbury
5. C Lawes
6. T Wood
7. C Robshaw
8. B Vunipola
9. D Care
10. O Farrell
11. J May
12. B Twelvetrees
13. L Burrell
14. J Nowell
15. M Brown

16. T Youngs 17. M Vunipola 18. H Thomas 19. D Attwood 20. B Morgan 21. L Dickson 22. B Barritt 23. A Goode

by ChequeredJersey Sun 02 Feb 2014, 6:00 pm

wayne wrote:
Cowshot wrote:I did think that Care was looking a bit tired when he was subbed - he'd been a bit slow to the breakdown a couple of times just before he was subbed, iirc. I think it was, as many have said, that England simply didn't have the experience to close out the game.

Don't like the 60 min substitution habit though. It does seem to take sides off the boil on a regular basis.
Could it be that the powers didn't think much of Care doing the drop goal, when they were hoping for more than 3 points

Probs should have just told him to stop then. Seems like less of a stupid thing to do

by wayne Sun 02 Feb 2014, 6:06 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
wayne wrote:
Cowshot wrote:I did think that Care was looking a bit tired when he was subbed - he'd been a bit slow to the breakdown a couple of times just before he was subbed, iirc. I think it was, as many have said, that England simply didn't have the experience to close out the game.

Don't like the 60 min substitution habit though. It does seem to take sides off the boil on a regular basis.
Could it be that the powers didn't think much of Care doing the drop goal, when they were hoping for more than 3 points

Probs should have just told him to stop then. Seems like less of a stupid thing to do

Nobody had a chance to stop him, the penalty was awarded and he dropped the goal immediately, then he was taken off within 2 minutes

by Hood83 Sun 02 Feb 2014, 10:16 pm

Has anyone got a link to full match highlights, or know where I can get them?

by ChequeredJersey Sun 02 Feb 2014, 10:19 pm

wayne wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
wayne wrote:
Cowshot wrote:I did think that Care was looking a bit tired when he was subbed - he'd been a bit slow to the breakdown a couple of times just before he was subbed, iirc. I think it was, as many have said, that England simply didn't have the experience to close out the game.

Don't like the 60 min substitution habit though. It does seem to take sides off the boil on a regular basis.
Could it be that the powers didn't think much of Care doing the drop goal, when they were hoping for more than 3 points

Probs should have just told him to stop then. Seems like less of a stupid thing to do
Nobody had a chance to stop him, the penalty was awarded and he dropped the goal immediately, then he was taken off within 2 minutes

But if that was why he was taken off, which is what I inferred from what you said, then why would you do that rather than just say "next time, don't do that"? As he was the catalyst to our attack?

by Heaf Sun 02 Feb 2014, 11:28 pm

Normally I'd agree and say you should play on to see what comes rather than take a drop goal, but to be fair England gave up an easy 3 point opportunity at the end of the 1st half through playing on and losing advantage that ultimately would have won them the match if someone had taken that instead.

by The Fourth Lion Mon 03 Feb 2014, 7:31 am

Heaf wrote:Normally I'd agree and say you should play on to see what comes rather than take a drop goal, but to be fair England gave up an easy 3 point opportunity at the end of the 1st half through playing on and losing advantage that ultimately would have won them the match if someone had taken that instead.

England have often been criticised in the past for winning too many games by the boot, rather than playing for tries.

But in rugby, as in life, you should do what you're good at, and traditionally, England are good at keeping possession, using a monstrous forward pack to get penalties close enough to goal to take a kick for 3 points, and then closing out the game by sticking the ball up their shirts until the referee, as well as everybody else gets so bored with it that they all just want to get off the pitch and go home.

It aint pretty, but it sure can be effective.

Of course, it would be nice to run in tries, entertain the crowd and win lots of plaudits for playing "champagne rugby". We'd all like that. But whenever three points are on offer, they should be taken, at least until the game is in the bag and a bit of wild abandon can be indulged in. The most important tactical priority should always be to win the game first.

There are only two problems with that:

1. It lays you wide open to accusations of being one dimensional and boring (usually by opponents who do exactly the same thing when it suits them).

2. If you get too far behind in a match, as England did in the first quarter on Saturday, then sometimes, the "three points at a time" philosophy can be very precarious.

by gregortree Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:17 am

The Fourth Lion wrote:
Heaf wrote:Normally I'd agree and say you should play on to see what comes rather than take a drop goal, but to be fair England gave up an easy 3 point opportunity at the end of the 1st half through playing on and losing advantage that ultimately would have won them the match if someone had taken that instead.

England have often been criticised in the past for winning too many games by the boot, rather than playing for tries.

But in rugby, as in life, you should do what you're good at, and traditionally, England are good at keeping possession, using a monstrous forward pack to get penalties close enough to goal to take a kick for 3 points, and then closing out the game by sticking the ball up their shirts until the referee, as well as everybody else gets so bored with it that they all just want to get off the pitch and go home.

It aint pretty, but it sure can be effective.Of course, it would be nice to run in tries, entertain the crowd and win lots of plaudits for playing "champagne rugby". We'd all like that. But whenever three points are on offer, they should be taken, at least until the game is in the bag and a bit of wild abandon can be indulged in. The most important tactical priority should always be to win the game first.

There are only two problems with that:

1. It lays you wide open to accusations of being one dimensional and boring (usually by opponents who do exactly the same thing when it suits them).

2. If you get too far behind in a match, as England did in the first quarter on Saturday, then sometimes, the "three points at a time" philosophy can be very precarious.

'Boring' England and also the leading try scorers in 6n history.

by kiakahaaotearoa Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:23 am

Ticking the scoreboard over is what matters. Doesn't matter how you do it. NZ took a penalty with only one try against Ireland. That penalty and Sexton's miss proved the difference in the overall context of the game.

More important for England were basic errors rather than accumulating points. They had fought their wAy back into the match but gave up possession at vital times and gave France a sniff when previously they had points momentum on their side. France kicked to England in the dying minutes but another basic error gave undeservedly possession back to France. Both sides looked like they were clueless how to close out the match.

by gregortree Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:29 am

On the substitutions:
Nowell got cramp. Care and Billy V were being monitored and after blistering performances had run down their tanks. The fresh lads brought fresh energy. Well that is the management story, which if logical is unspirational.
I thought Care had enough adrenalin up to keep on going myself. He was in the zone.
Wing injuries to May and Nowell (cramp) were unfortunate as we finished the game with non specialist wings which contributed the French opportunity which they took very well of course.

by beshocked Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:32 am

Kiakahaaotearoa I would say that the bench replacements hurt us badly.

When Hartley came off , the set piece suffered.Tom Youngs was guilty of squandering a nice attacking position from a lineout yet again and the scrum came under pressure too.

Is it time that T.Youngs is dropped?

Burrell was forced to the wing which did not help England's defensive alignment when France scored their final try -

our backline by the end of the match was

Dickson,Farrell,Brown,Twelvetrees,Barritt,Burrell,Goode - 3 players out of position - 2 15s, 3 12s plus a 10 suffering from cramp.

I am sorry but what the hell was Lancaster thinking!?

by No 7&1/2 Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:35 am

Nowell was suffering from cramp as well apparently, the enforced sub early on obviously didn't help either. I really don't like preplanned subs though.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:36 am

"Should T Youngs be dropped"

100% yes.

I've been saying this since the AI, the boy can't throw under pressure. He changes the dynamics of the team as soon as he comes on. Backs look to for quick throws so not to put our line out under pressure.

His is not good enough at his primary job, he must be dropped.

by BamBam Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:37 am

Agreed, Webber deserves a go off the bench

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:39 am

I'd settle for anyone with decent basics tbh. Ward, George etc.

by gregortree Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:47 am

Owen Farrell tool a bump and Freddie Burns is added to the larger squad for next week as a precaution. As a Glos fan I can add that Burns' form has been seriously off compared with last season, probably due to Tigers on his mind.

by kiakahaaotearoa Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:49 am

Morgan and Vunipola proved to be worthy subs. The metres they gained was hurting France and England were finding it easy to get in the right part of the field without having to kick. Deep in French territory and Youngs botches a throw.

I can forgive the Care substitution even though when a player is playing well I don't like taking him off for the sake off king a change. You don't take Robshaw off because he might be tiring so you should have a better excuse than that. Dickinson might be a better fringe defender for example or he has a better kicking game to control the lead (I don't know anything about the player including his name but just looking for more reason than he had fresh legs). The problem with Youngs is that despite his strengths in the loose his failings at the set piece don't justify his position on the bench. Teams can exploit those failings all too easily.

England did all the hard work and then let France back into the game. That's more frustrating in a way than if the score had stayed at 16 3.

by beshocked Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:55 am

Very true kiakahaaotearoa.

It's very frustating - taking off two of England's best performers - Care and Hartley and seeing their replacements being ineffectual.

It's the 2nd game in a row that England have faltered in the last 20. Very much mirroring the NZ game - falling behind by quite a few points before fighting back, to take the lead before losing.

by **Rugby Fan** Mon 03 Feb 2014, 9:58 am

Woodward has this to say about the substitutions:

I was stopped by England fans all day asking the same question. Passengers on the flight back from Paris, dog-walkers near my home and the landlord at my local pub in Cookham wanted to know: why did England make all those changes?

The substitutions cost England the game and that responsibility falls on the management not the players. There were fundamental coaching errors, the players did not deserve it and it is time to wise up.

I questioned the non-selection of a second specialist fly-half before the game. What if Owen Farrell rather than Jonny May had broken his nose in the opening moments? England left themselves exposed to ridicule and the selection of the bench, and use of substitutes, boils down to three key questions.

First of all, why are England finishing games with their weakest team on the field? When the top five teams in the world play each other, there is a 90 per cent chance that with 20 minutes left to play the score will be within five points.

England conceded the final try with substitute Alex Goode at full back, sub Brad Barritt (an inside centre) at outside centre and centre Luther Burrell on the wing.

Joe Marler was having one of his best games; Danny Care was the catalyst for England's comeback; Dylan Hartley was still launching himself into rucks; and Billy Vunipola was providing crucial yards over the gainline. They were all taken off with significant time remaining.

Yes, substitutes Ben Morgan and Tom Youngs had an impact, but when you make changes you can lose your leadership, attacking structure, defensive organisation and composure. Changes should be made for fatigue, injury or tactics.

Secondly, who is making the decisions? I saw a string of coaches running up and down the stairs trying to communicate with players so how do they know who to listen to? There was a lot of chaotic activity and a lot posturing but you don't see Jose Mourinho or Arsene Wenger joined by their support coaches shouting tactics.

I also fear science has become too important. Are England making substitutions based on what GPS data is saying?

Science is there to reinforce and challenge but it should never define what you do. 'He's covered X yards during the week and his heartrate will be Y so bring him off with 20 minutes left.'

If any player cannot last the 80 minutes then they should not be in the squad and my only question for the medical team is: Why are so many players suffering from cramp? To have any chance of a World Cup, England must be the world's fittest and most powerful team.

Thirdly, who is challenging Lancaster? I would like to think the leaders in the group - Tom Wood, Chris Robshaw, Owen Farrell - would see the coaching team this morning and challenge Lancaster to go through the substitutions. It can be respectful but it might also get heated - there is nothing wrong with that in a winning culture. You can be certain Care and Hartley will want explanations.

One man has to make the decisions and he needs to be unequivocal in explaining them. The key word is 'why': why did you do that, coach?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2550613/SIR-CLIVE-WOODWARD-England-looked-great-changes-bench-cost-dear.html

by Barney McGrew did it Mon 03 Feb 2014, 10:47 am

The more I see of SL the less I see him as the long-term English coach. I personally think he adopted a revolution-not-evolution approach when he took over, seemingly starting from scratch, and simply hasn’t left himself enough time to develop a side for the RWC15. A bit unfortunate for him, because if we fail to get out of our group, he’s gone.

He has done a decent job with the English pack - except this pre-occupation with TY, who's an excellent rugby player, but not a test quality hooker (bit of a shame as that's one of the more specialized positions). But he's left developing the backline too late. A year or so to go and we haven’t a clue what our 1st choice is (Manu & Farrell excepted), and an ever changing and confused game-plan. Are we an attacking offloading side, or a defensive up-the-jumper team, for example? Do we want a playmaker 12 (12T - who incidentally can’t play-make) or an excellent defensive but somewhat limited one (Brad)? He doesn’t seem to see that a back 3 need positional and defensive skills but pace should not be optional. Doesn’t help that all our wingers are big girls blouses, mind. And his use of the bench is muddled – are they for impact, injury, holding on to a lead, just there to be used?...

Stewie is the man to take us to being a very competitive NH side. He is not the man to win us any major silverware. No way. No how. Especially with our backline that would take a man with a proven track record and international class (and even then..). Stewie has done a great job in getting England on track and he is here til after the RWC15 but he doesn’t have the tactical nous and vision to win it. After that we need a top proven coach for 2019 (which I now predict we will win Smile

). Sorry Stewie - nice try but no cigar.

by beshocked Mon 03 Feb 2014, 10:58 am

Barney mcgrew did it you have summed up the problems nicely.

To be fair to Lancaster he has been a bit unlucky with injuries.

A backline of Care,Farrell,Yarde,Burrell,Tuilagi,Wade,Brown could be very good.

Certainly losing Tuilagi has been the biggest loss.

Would have been nice to see a Burrell-Tuilagi partnership in this match.

Things could get worse if Farrell Jr gets injured. It's funny to think that he's basically a veteran in the English backs.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 03 Feb 2014, 11:25 am

Tom Youngs should (as Dylan Hartley in his formative days) should not play until his throw-ins are sorted. But injuries and form of my concerns for England - and with my club hat on, the Tigers.

If Manu, Croft and Parling were not all injured, and Cole, the Youngs and Flood were not playing to their best form, both England and Leicester would be better teams this year.

All of them not necessarily starters, but on the bench for England duties.

Twelvetrees was to me, disappointing and Ford should always have been selected for bench duty.

by rosbif Mon 03 Feb 2014, 11:28 am

Why is Burrell the new super 12 apart from the try did he do more than 12T, I think he scored on his debut also ?Lots of negativity here ,facts are two first choice wingers injured + Manu , we narrowly lost a match because of the poor choice of back subs on the bench

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 03 Feb 2014, 11:32 am

Burrell runs better lines and doesn't seem too far behind in distrubution to 36. 36 threw some absolute shockers on Saturday.

Still early days for Burrell but he looked very good even out of position.

by beshocked Mon 03 Feb 2014, 11:36 am

Well said Sgt Pooly.

Didn't Twelvetrees butcher a three man overlap as well?

Scoring a try is quite important!

rosbif wasn't as simple as that.

by kingelderfield Mon 03 Feb 2014, 12:56 pm

Barney McGrew did it wrote:The more I see of SL the less I see him as the long-term English coach. I personally think he adopted a revolution-not-evolution approach when he took over, seemingly starting from scratch, and simply hasn’t left himself enough time to develop a side for the RWC15. A bit unfortunate for him, because if we fail to get out of our group, he’s gone.

He has done a decent job with the English pack - except this pre-occupation with TY, who's an excellent rugby player, but not a test quality hooker (bit of a shame as that's one of the more specialized positions). But he's left developing the backline too late. A year or so to go and we haven’t a clue what our 1st choice is (Manu & Farrell excepted), and an ever changing and confused game-plan. Are we an attacking offloading side, or a defensive up-the-jumper team, for example? Do we want a playmaker 12 (12T - who incidentally can’t play-make) or an excellent defensive but somewhat limited one (Brad)? He doesn’t seem to see that a back 3 need positional and defensive skills but pace should not be optional. Doesn’t help that all our wingers are big girls blouses, mind. And his use of the bench is muddled – are they for impact, injury, holding on to a lead, just there to be used?...

Stewie is the man to take us to being a very competitive NH side. He is not the man to win us any major silverware. No way. No how. Especially with our backline that would take a man with a proven track record and international class (and even then..). Stewie has done a great job in getting England on track and he is here til after the RWC15 but he doesn’t have the tactical nous and vision to win it. After that we need a top proven coach for 2019 (which I now predict we will win ). Sorry Stewie - nice try but no cigar.

This has always been the most obvious outcome. He was an RFU political choice, rfu man. None of the southern hemisphere sides would ever contemplate an untried B team manager/coach to lead the international side into its biggest ever competition.

We have fantastic resources and some great players but with our club/country schism and ridiculous fixture structure, unless you're a coach of the very highest calibre you will not succeed. Bomber was never top draw.

by kingelderfield Mon 03 Feb 2014, 1:03 pm

beshocked wrote:Barney mcgrew did it you have summed up the problems nicely.

To be fair to Lancaster he has been a bit unlucky with injuries.

A backline of Care,Farrell,Yarde,Burrell,Tuilagi,Wade,Brown could be very good.

Certainly losing Tuilagi has been the biggest loss.

Would have been nice to see a Burrell-Tuilagi partnership in this match.

Things could get worse if Farrell Jr gets injured. It's funny to think that he's basically a veteran in the English backs.

There is real talent out there, I could buy that team.

Don't choke now, but if Cipriani continues to improve, then I do think he should be added to the mix. Eggs is eggs, talent is talent.

by mystiroakey Mon 03 Feb 2014, 1:05 pm

I was being laughed at start of the season for talking up Cipriani..

Good to see peops are slowly changing there minds.

The lad seems to have got over his bad boy days and is knuckling down again.. He is talented that is a given.

by quinsforever Mon 03 Feb 2014, 1:08 pm

i rarely enjoy hearing SCW commentate, but i have to agree with much of what he wrote in the piece above.

Lancaster is in my opinion a great manager of mentor of players. i credit him with england's never say die attitude (apart from wales) even after shipping tries early against France and NZ.

But it seems increasingly obvious that his tactical intelligence is not where it needs to be. putting on subs by rote is only something to be done when the result is not in doubt.

such fine margins do these days determine the outcomes of the most important matches, so Lancaster needs to be castigated for this. it's been plenty written about so lets hope he takes it on board.

by wayne Mon 03 Feb 2014, 1:08 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
wayne wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
wayne wrote:
Cowshot wrote:I did think that Care was looking a bit tired when he was subbed - he'd been a bit slow to the breakdown a couple of times just before he was subbed, iirc. I think it was, as many have said, that England simply didn't have the experience to close out the game.

Don't like the 60 min substitution habit though. It does seem to take sides off the boil on a regular basis.[/quote
Could it be that the powers didn't think much of Care doing the drop goal, when they were hoping for more than 3 points

Probs should have just told him to stop then. Seems like less of a stupid thing to do
Nobody had a chance to stop him, the penalty was awarded and he dropped the goal immediately, then he was taken off within 2 minutes

But if that was why he was taken off, which is what I inferred from what you said, then why would you do that rather than just say "next time, don't do that"? As he was the catalyst to our attack?

CJ, I noticed you selected Care in your team of the weekend, I would have as well, he was outstanding IMO, I have seen many players taken off by making a wrong decision, I thought it was an error at the time and wondered if the scenario I outlined had happened.

by gregortree Mon 03 Feb 2014, 1:32 pm

mystiroakey wrote:I was being laughed at start of the season for talking up Cipriani..

Good to see peops are slowly changing there minds.

The lad seems to have got over his bad boy days and is knuckling down again.. He is talented that is a given.

Mr Oakey I would not have laughed, Cips is a distinct possibility.
I'm a Burns fan, but his form for my club has dipped (Cockerill tapping .. grrr !) so Cips not to be rulled out for England squad.
Burns has been called to the squad as cover for the bruised / strained Farrell, but most likely finish up as as bench cover in Edinburgh.
(thank goodness it was not Farrell with the busted nose in Paris).

by ChequeredJersey Mon 03 Feb 2014, 1:37 pm

wayne wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
wayne wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
wayne wrote:
Cowshot wrote:I did think that Care was looking a bit tired when he was subbed - he'd been a bit slow to the breakdown a couple of times just before he was subbed, iirc. I think it was, as many have said, that England simply didn't have the experience to close out the game.

Don't like the 60 min substitution habit though. It does seem to take sides off the boil on a regular basis.
Could it be that the powers didn't think much of Care doing the drop goal, when they were hoping for more than 3 points

Probs should have just told him to stop then. Seems like less of a stupid thing to do
Nobody had a chance to stop him, the penalty was awarded and he dropped the goal immediately, then he was taken off within 2 minutes

But if that was why he was taken off, which is what I inferred from what you said, then why would you do that rather than just say "next time, don't do that"? As he was the catalyst to our attack?
CJ, I noticed you selected Care in your team of the weekend, I would have as well, he was outstanding IMO, I have seen many players taken off by making a wrong decision, I thought it was an error at the time and wondered if the scenario I outlined had happened.

Then in my opinion, that's poor management

by mystiroakey Mon 03 Feb 2014, 1:39 pm

He has x factor..

Not sure how x factor fits in with SL plans.

But either way I rate SL highly.

I trust the man.. He deserves to keep his job and I can see us winning this 6n's

The loss will only make me more money at the bookies

by wayne Mon 03 Feb 2014, 1:54 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
wayne wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
wayne wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
wayne wrote:
Cowshot wrote:I did think that Care was looking a bit tired when he was subbed - he'd been a bit slow to the breakdown a couple of times just before he was subbed, iirc. I think it was, as many have said, that England simply didn't have the experience to close out the game.

Don't like the 60 min substitution habit though. It does seem to take sides off the boil on a regular basis.
Could it be that the powers didn't think much of Care doing the drop goal, when they were hoping for more than 3 points

Probs should have just told him to stop then. Seems like less of a stupid thing to do
Nobody had a chance to stop him, the penalty was awarded and he dropped the goal immediately, then he was taken off within 2 minutes

But if that was why he was taken off, which is what I inferred from what you said, then why would you do that rather than just say "next time, don't do that"? As he was the catalyst to our attack?
CJ, I noticed you selected Care in your team of the weekend, I would have as well, he was outstanding IMO, I have seen many players taken off by making a wrong decision, I thought it was an error at the time and wondered if the scenario I outlined had happened.

Then in my opinion, that's poor management

Yes if that was the reason I agree, that IMO was the worst mistake nearly as bad was the introduction of Youngs, I'm sorry but Youngs is too small to be an International hooker, is only redeeming factor is his speed, a lot of posters on these boards put down the improvement in the 3rd Lions test down to Corbisiero and O'Brien, equally important IMO was Hibbards inclusion instead of Youngs.

by belovedfrosties Mon 03 Feb 2014, 1:56 pm

Interesting stats from the game, despite his poor start Nowell ended up making the most metres and was 2nd in defenders beaten (MOrgan took this) he did however turn over the ball 3 times but made 10 out of his 11 tackles. He has been scapegoated a fair bit but if you take out those turnovers then those are some very good stats for such a young guy. Conversely, Goode who is a more experienced player made ZERO tackles all game (missed one) and got turned over 5 times, we need to get rid of him, he clearly isn't an test standard player.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:00 pm

Yet forgetting the stats Nowell had a nightmare for most of the game.

He consistently tried to offload the ball when it wasn't on and looked poor positionally.

He didn't look like a winger and he didn't look ready for Int rugby imo.

by GunsGerms Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:00 pm

belovedfrosties wrote:Interesting stats from the game, despite his poor start Nowell ended up making the most metres and was 2nd in defenders beaten (MOrgan took this) he did however turn over the ball 3 times but made 10 out of his 11 tackles. He has been scapegoated a fair bit but if you take out those turnovers then those are some very good stats for such a young guy. Conversely, Goode who is a more experienced player made ZERO tackles all game (missed one) and got turned over 5 times, we need to get rid of him, he clearly isn't an test standard player.

Finally someone who agrees with me re Goode!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by ChequeredJersey Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:02 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
belovedfrosties wrote:Interesting stats from the game, despite his poor start Nowell ended up making the most metres and was 2nd in defenders beaten (MOrgan took this) he did however turn over the ball 3 times but made 10 out of his 11 tackles. He has been scapegoated a fair bit but if you take out those turnovers then those are some very good stats for such a young guy. Conversely, Goode who is a more experienced player made ZERO tackles all game (missed one) and got turned over 5 times, we need to get rid of him, he clearly isn't an test standard player.

Finally someone who agrees with me re Goode!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally?

by munkian Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:02 pm

How many more chances is 36 going to get before he's labelled a 'decent club player' ?

by GunsGerms Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:05 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
belovedfrosties wrote:Interesting stats from the game, despite his poor start Nowell ended up making the most metres and was 2nd in defenders beaten (MOrgan took this) he did however turn over the ball 3 times but made 10 out of his 11 tackles. He has been scapegoated a fair bit but if you take out those turnovers then those are some very good stats for such a young guy. Conversely, Goode who is a more experienced player made ZERO tackles all game (missed one) and got turned over 5 times, we need to get rid of him, he clearly isn't an test standard player.

Finally someone who agrees with me re Goode!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally?

Well you definitely dont agree anyway.

by belovedfrosties Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:06 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
belovedfrosties wrote:Interesting stats from the game, despite his poor start Nowell ended up making the most metres and was 2nd in defenders beaten (MOrgan took this) he did however turn over the ball 3 times but made 10 out of his 11 tackles. He has been scapegoated a fair bit but if you take out those turnovers then those are some very good stats for such a young guy. Conversely, Goode who is a more experienced player made ZERO tackles all game (missed one) and got turned over 5 times, we need to get rid of him, he clearly isn't an test standard player.

Finally someone who agrees with me re Goode!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally?

I'm pretty sure that the only person that doesn't agree on this is Beshocked

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:10 pm

Goode played ok but made some massive errors, mainly in defence.

I'm not sure he has the gas to be an Int full back, he gets brushed off too much also.

I'd prefer we had someone like Daly on the bench who can provide back 3 cover and 13. He also has a huge boot if required.

by belovedfrosties Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:13 pm

The 2nd Huget try was awful to watch, had someone with pace or strength been there they would have driven him into touch, or at least tackled him. Instead we get Goode pawing at him and then stumbling behind him trying to keep up.

by Scrumpy Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:13 pm

We've all played the game and I'm sure we've all made mistakes, it was Nowells 1st game so let's cut him some slack as he wasn't that bad and improved as the game went on, IMO Watson would have done better but hey he wasn't selected.

Goode on the other hand made several mistakes and seeing his been around longer really shouldn't be making the number of errors that he did at this level, might as well play Watson or ford to blood some more experience in the squad rather than waste the cap on Goode.

by beshocked Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:18 pm

Munkian he's a decent club player? He's not even been playing well for his club when I have seen him.

belovedfrosties where are you getting those stats? I can't believe Morgan and Nowell beat more defenders than Billy Vunipola.

by BamBam Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:20 pm

I've been arguing the case for Nowell on the thread for the Scotland game, some seem to think he should be dropped. I think he did well, and maintain that any other winger who is available would have been trampled on by Picamoles in the first half and that would have been game over

by beshocked Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:25 pm

Bambam who thinks Nowell should be dropped? Lancaster has made his decision on Nowell so should stick with him. He's not the one who needs dropping - Twelvetrees,T.Youngs and Goode need to go. Replacing them would be Barritt (to start),Webber (on the bench) and Watson (on the bench). Basically the team that Yappysnap recommends except a different bench.

Definitely no Eastmond though.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:44 pm

We need to stick with 36/Burrell until Manu returns, I can't see SL dropping either.

It would be nice to actually build a centre partnership and see how it goes.

I'd be half temped to put Manu on the wing if our stocks there are thin still.

by Chjw131 Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:45 pm

Nowell made a couple of errors in the limelight but by no means played himself out of a shirt a la Charlie Sharples. He will start the next game.

We had highlighted what a terrible backs bench selection we could be looking at prior to the game and sure enough the lack of wing cover cost dear.

Goode had a mixed bag, his positioning and high ball control was very good but he made some poor defensive tackles and didn't offer enough going forward.

General Farrell will be calling for the following back line for Scotland: 9. D Care 10. O Farrell 11. M Brown 12. B Barritt 13. L Burrell 14. C Ashton 15. A Goode - that would be a disaster.

by Chjw131 Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:47 pm

beshocked wrote:Bambam who thinks Nowell should be dropped? Lancaster has made his decision on Nowell so should stick with him. He's not the one who needs dropping - Twelvetrees,T.Youngs and Goode need to go. Replacing them would be Barritt (to start),Webber (on the bench) and Watson (on the bench). Basically the team that Yappysnap recommends except a different bench.

Definitely no Eastmond though.

I agree on the Tom Youngs point. He adds impetus but has had several line-out mishaps now. Webber has been playing superbly for Bath.

It seems he will be benching again though as Webber and Myler have been released back to their clubs.

by rosbif Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:52 pm

On the rugby forum Sunday Jiffy highlighted the defensive errors for the Fickou try and blamed Barrit for lack of organisation of the line and Goode failing to tackle ensuring a try under the post.

by Sponsored content