• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[2015 RWC] Pool A: England vs. Wales (26/09/2015)

Jesus Christ.

If that selection is true, it is basically insane on every conceivable level.

1) We have two 13s in the squad. One, the focal point of our attack, is injured. The other is not going to be selected even in the 23, instead we are taking our worst attacking 12, in fact our worst attacking player by a country mile, and moving him to 13 because of his "experience"
2) BARRITT IS NOT EVEN ANY MORE EXPERIENCED THAN SLADE AT 13! They have both player there internationally once, and Slade has played much more there domestically.
3) Plus, Slade is good and Barrit is bad, we can all see that!
4) Let's say, for the sake of argument, we accept the need to play Burgess-Barritt in the centres. Let's pretend Slade and Jack Nowell are also injured, so Burgess has to make his first international start - why the hell would you drop the flyhalf with whom he has played probably 95% of his rugby at inside centre?! Who has generally been very good for England with a couple of exceptions and did very little wrong last week.
5) Now let's pretend that Ford is also injured and these three are literally the only backs left in those three positions. You have the slowest, least creative midfield you can possibly imagine ... so, what would you do with your pack? Go with essentially the same one that played against Fiji, the "mobile" one (if you're being kind) / "lightweight" one (if you're not)? Or change 2 or 3 players to shore it up and suit the slow, inexpansive game plan implied by the cackline selection? This is essentially the decision Lancaster has forced upon himself when he had absolutely no need to - make several, disruptive changes to the pack, or combine a slow, trundle-it-up back line with a lightweight pack.
6) There are probably many more things about this that are utterly mental; I just can't think of them right now. I'm too angry to think straight.

Wales are suffering injuries right left and centre and it's killing them, unfortunate for them. We've had one injury, and Lancaster has gone into meltdown. Honestly, it's like watching a Merit Table team work the 9 forwards and 6 backs who did turn up into a serviceable 15 to make up for the four best players who were last seen in the Walkabout at 4am and now aren't answering their phones. Has he tried asking if any of the squad have a mate who played at school who they can ring?!

I understand your anger. I'm trying desperately to hold it in myself until I see the actual team sheet tomorrow but finding it extremely hard.

Our areas of concerns following last week's performance were:

1) Breakdown
2) Scrum
3) Line out (lesser extent)

If the BBC reporting is correct none of the changes made are going to have any impact on these areas because they'll all backs!

I'd never wish an injury on anyone but wouldn't mind Barritt oversleeping on Saturday so he misses the team bus!
 
Okay I'm getting to stage of wanting answers out of the England camp.

Yesterday Farrell Sr. reported it was a minor injury and he'd probably make the game, now he's out for three weeks?

Added into our complete change of backline because it and it just doesn't add up.
 
So we've gone from JJ not playing 13 to now sacking the whole coaching team.. lmao
 
So we've gone from JJ not playing 13 to now sacking the whole coaching team.. lmao
TBF if the level of changes happening are true and we loose to a depleted Wales side then Australia I can't think of a single reason not to.

Moving Slade or even Burgess in to 13 I think everyone can handle with a level of sense and if we lost shruggy shoulders. Dropping Ford and bringing Goode in just smacks of panic. Lancaster is basically laying his cards on the table saying with radical changes for one injury he either knows what he's doing or doesn't have a bloody clue.
 
TBF if the level of changes happening are true and we loose to a depleted Wales side then Australia I can't think of a single reason not to.

Moving Slade or even Burgess in to 13 I think everyone can handle with a level of sense and if we lost shruggy shoulders. Dropping Ford and bringing Goode in just smacks of panic. Lancaster is basically laying his cards on the table saying with radical changes for one injury he either knows what he's doing or doesn't have a bloody clue.

You can sort of make sense of his selections, like when someone says they've went to a tea leaf reader to see their future for the crack, and then he goes and shoves Goode in.
 
What if it works and we beat Wales then go and beat Aus? Will we be praising SL? By the sounds of a lot of people he should still be out, whether he wins the WC or not?
 
You can sort of make sense of his selections, like when someone says they've went to a tea leaf reader to see their future for the crack, and then he goes and shoves Goode in.

Whoah, waitaminute - Goode too?
 
If this (Farrell/Burgess/Barritt axis) was a one off plan for Wales only then the news above will mean we now can look forward to this midfield against Australia too (if we manage to scrap past Wales that is).

But you never know it could all be one big ruse to lure Gatland into a false sense of English security. I truly hope so.

Not sure they're looking that far out of the box (i.e., Goode). Hope so, and TBH i'd rather of had Farrell in for this game and the Aussie game. Sadly i think you're right about this being our midfield combo till we're either out or JJ is back. Slade is in the squad for injuries it seems. Who knows, it might work!
 
Last edited:
What if it works and we beat Wales then go and beat Aus? Will we be praising SL? By the sounds of a lot of people he should still be out, whether he wins the WC or not?
If he does that he deserves credit for making the right selections I can't argue with that philosophy. I still say (like I have been all year) he needs to make it to semi-finals regardless of what happens to keep his job.

I think most people are panicking because before we thought we'd win this game not easially but couldn't legitimately see us loosing unless Wales played out their skins trying to contain the backline. Now that no longer feels like the case same with Aus.

Plus here are 3 facts
1) Nobody likes Goode
2) Most would drop Barritt for Bugess or Slade
3) The majority prefer Ford at 10 than Farrell

Those are from the T. Youngs are points of contention for every England team selected. Now one injury to our most talented backline player (except possibly Brown) and Lancaster looks like he's lost the plot by going against the grain on all three of those decisions. England fans are rightly questioning what could he be thinking as very few agree.

Like I said though if we do win both games he should be cut some slack but regardless of who he picks he should be chopped if we fail to make the semi's.
 
What if it works and we beat Wales then go and beat Aus? Will we be praising SL? By the sounds of a lot of people he should still be out, whether he wins the WC or not?

I'll certainly praise SL and all the coaching staff for winning. But I can't see us going on to win the World Cup with this backline.

If I am wrong I'll be so happy I won't care!
 
So we're not using Slade as a centre, and they're bigging up Goode's "ability" to play 10......remind me why Cipriani wasn't selected, again?

Even if we, somehow, did win the world cup I'd still want a change in coaching for England.
 
What if it works and we beat Wales then go and beat Aus? Will we be praising SL? By the sounds of a lot of people he should still be out, whether he wins the WC or not?

If we beat Wales it'll be so what big woop unless we beat them well, they're dealing with an implausibly large amount of injuries to key players and backups to those players and we're at home, we damn well should beat them even with one injury. Unless it's a thrashing it won't prove anything.

If we beat Australia with Farell-Burgess-Barritt I will hold my hands up and say fair play to the coaching team, they saw something I didn't and called it right.

- - - Updated - - -

Slade is in the squad for injuries it seems.

No he isn't - the only other 13 just got injured and apparently he isn't playing ... he's in to hold tacklebags and play against Uruguay by the look of things
 
So we're not using Slade as a centre, and they're bigging up Goode's "ability" to play 10......remind me why Cipriani wasn't selected, again?

Even if we, somehow, did win the world cup I'd still want a change in coaching for England.

I respect you opinion but can you imagine any sport where the head coach is sacked after winning a world ***le?
 
So if England had won the 2007 world cup should Ashton have been kept?

IF England won the world cup i would happily eat my humble pie with a sorry cream over it (That sounds wrong).

But I doubt it will happen anyway.
 
We did keep Ashton, then he got stiched up after the 6 nations and we ended up with Martin Johnson.
 
Top