Horribly poor 50 from England, Cole and Youngs in particular have been utter shite.
Quote from: paul_e on February 14, 2016, 03:11:55 PMHorribly poor 50 from England, Cole and Youngs in particular have been utter shite.Yet Youngs was man MotM and the pundits were saying how immense Cole was.
Yep positives were the impact of the bench, Itoje in particular and the ability to keep pressing. Negatives were sluggishness and imprecision in first 50 mins, Haskell and for me Farrell at 12 just not working. It's either got to be Ford or Farrell at 10, because at the moment they both appear to be battling for who has ultimate control and it ends up with neither of them having control.
Quote from: nigel on February 14, 2016, 09:50:46 PMQuote from: paul_e on February 14, 2016, 03:11:55 PMHorribly poor 50 from England, Cole and Youngs in particular have been utter shite.Yet Youngs was man MotM and the pundits were saying how immense Cole was.Cole improved after I posted that but he was awful in the scrum and at the breakdown for the first 50, it was only when they started to tire that he took some control (he was also helped by Marler making the other side stable so his constant inward drive looked less illegal). Youngs was utter shite, I don't care what the motm award says, his passing just isn't good enough, neither of the 9s should be anywhere near the squad though so I hope that changes come the summer.The Farrell at 12 experiment is really frustrating.
Was talking about the Farrell experiment at 12 today, we reckon it's a stop gap until Tuilangi is fit, then he'll be back at 10
I think it was Dean Ryan who said at the weekend that Slade is the best young #10 in the world, so that's three fly half's that are potentially world class (emphasis on potential). I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on what the backs line will be in a couple of years time. My simple theory is that one centre should be a 'crash' centre whereas the other should be more fleet of foot (and mind) however I'm unsure what the conversion is with regards to which one is inside centre and which is outside, and how that blend in turn affects the selection of fly half.
Quote from: Dante Lavelli on February 16, 2016, 07:03:26 AMI think it was Dean Ryan who said at the weekend that Slade is the best young #10 in the world, so that's three fly half's that are potentially world class (emphasis on potential). I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on what the backs line will be in a couple of years time. My simple theory is that one centre should be a 'crash' centre whereas the other should be more fleet of foot (and mind) however I'm unsure what the conversion is with regards to which one is inside centre and which is outside, and how that blend in turn affects the selection of fly half.I prefer a crash/breakdown 13 and then someone a bit more creative at 12. That said they don't have to be a big 13, they have to break the line and they need to try to do some 7 style work at the breakdown. JJ is near perfect and should be the safest shirt in the backs. At 12 I want a kicking option, but also a good passer and able to exploit space. Devoto and Slade fit the bill. The best thing is both can cover 10 so 1 in the team the other on the bench along with a 9 and Daly gives us good options.Wade is still a stunning winger who will score tries at any level, I hope he gets his chance but May, Watson and Nowell haven't done anything wrong so it's a bit tough on him. Watson is the class act on the wing though, he showed flashes of brilliance at.the weekend
I don't know where he fits, great ball carrier (probably the best tinth e country) but his passing and offloading is suspect, his discipline is poor, he has no kicking game/game management and he's barely been fit for 2-3 years. I'd love him to really work on his passing and offloading because he could be great competition for the 13 shirt with JJ and Daly. My real issue is that in all the time he's been involved England have been a better team when he's been missing or had less of the ball (even though when he's had lots of ball he's won games on his own) - I consider him, at this point, as a rugby equivalent of Darren Bent as of a few years ago in that his own performances tend to come at the expense of the broader team performances and the net result is a team that isn't quite the sum of it's parts. I put this down to him being called into the England squad as a 18 year old with less than 10 games under his belt and being told he was the best thing ever, it's meant that no one has worked on the clear weaknesses in his game that were fine when he was an 18 year old rookie but now he's 24 he needs to have fixed if he wants to reach the BOD/Nonu/Mauger/etc standard that he had the potential to reach. I think England and Tigers have a lot of responsibility for this.All that said I honestly believe he's better suited to the backrow and I'd love to see him have a go at 6 alongside Armitage and Billy V - that would be the most brutal backrow ever assembled, won't ever happen though.