[2015 Six Nations] England vs Italy (Round 2)

[iINDOMINUSxx]

England vs Italy

Date: Saturday, 14 February 2015 - 14:30 GMT (UTC+0)
Location: Twickenham Stadium, London, England
Referee: John Lacey (Ireland)

Team Line-ups:​
[TABLE="width: 500, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]England
[/TD]
[TD]vs[/TD]
[TD]Italy[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mike Brown[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]Luke McLean[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Anthony Watson[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]Leonardo Sarto[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jonathan Joseph[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]Luca Morisi[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Luther Burrell[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]Andrea Masi[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jonny May[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]Giovambattista Venditti[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]George Ford[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]Kelly Haimona[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ben Youngs[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]Edoardo Gori[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Billy Vunipola[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Sergio Parisse[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Chris Robshaw[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]Francesco Minto[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]James Haskell[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Mauro Bergamasco[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]George Kruis[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]Marco Bortolami[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Dave Attwood[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]George Biagi[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Dan Cole[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Martin Castrogiovanni[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Dylan Hartley[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Leonardi Ghiraldini[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Joe Marler[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Alberto De Marchi[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Replacements[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tom Youngs[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]Andrea Manici[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Mako Vunipola[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]Matias Aguero[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Kieran Brookes[/TD]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]Dario Chistolini[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Nick Easter [/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]Joshua Furno[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tom Croft[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]Samuela Vunisa[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Richard Wigglesworth[/TD]
[TD]21[/TD]
[TD]Guglielmo Palazzani[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Danny Cipriani[/TD]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]Tommaso Allan[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Billy Twelvetrees[/TD]
[TD]23[/TD]
[TD]Giulio Bisegni[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

​

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Italy looked very stubborn in defense until they got the yellow then Ireland took them apart. Pretty deadly when going through the forwards too. I think England will need to look at playing an expansive game against Italy as those forwards don't look like they will be going backwards any time soon. It's in games like this I'd prefer to see the likes of Eastmond at 12 and I'm glad we have Joseph rather than Tuilagi. I think the Italians could deal with Tuilagi all day.

England will need to really put numbers in at the breakdown and slow any Italian ball to ensure they can't get momentum with their forwards. If we can do that I think they will go the same way as Wales and struggle to find a plan B.

 

[Peat]

Hmm, I think the Italians could deal with Tuilagi all day as well, after all they did so well with him last year...

Oh wait.

Ireland got nowhere because they didn't have enough icebreaker ball carriers and lost too many collisions going forwards. That's an argument for getting your icebreakers - like Tuilagi - into the team if available, not against it. After all, they weren't exactly mega successful trying to move it wade against a set Italian line either.

Not saying a fit Tuilagi should start ahead of Joseph. But to claim the Italians could handle him and we're better off without him on such grounds is just risible.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I agree, Tuilagi was definitely not dealt with by them last year.

To be fair though, we cut them apart playing a wide game before he got on the pitch, so either Ireland's wide game was pretty poor yesterday, or they have improved their defence since last year.

 

[Peat]

Ireland's wide game was suffocated in the cot by an attacking game founded on one-off runners of no amazing quality running headlong into a waiting line of blue shirts on not particularly fast ball. They got some joy when they started spreading it towards the end but nothing they could convert.

 

[McTallshort]

Italy's defense is always good problem is its all they have and good sides like Ireland will always work out a way to get round them in the end. I would be happy to start with the same team as Friday but would like Manu at 12 to smash a few holes in midfield.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Ireland's wide game was suffocated in the cot by an attacking game founded on one-off runners of no amazing quality running headlong into a waiting line of blue shirts on not particularly fast ball. They got some joy when they started spreading it towards the end but nothing they could convert.

Whatever Italy was doing, Ireland didn't find it the fairly comfortable try fest we did when Manu came out and ran through them.
Just pointing out the games were very different.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

The Italians in the first game in Rome are always pumped and have one of their better performances. If yesterday was a week 3 game I reckon 14 points could easily be added to Ireland's score. Add that to the fact that we had a 10 who stuck strictly to the kick chase gameplan and showed very little with ball in hand and had a 13 playing 12 and a fullback playing 13 it's easy to see why we failed to score more.

The England side that played on Friday should put at least 40 points on this side and the addition of Tuilagi wouldn't do a lot in changing that for better or worse because either way May and Watson are going to get into space out wide and cause a lot of trouble, which Ireland showed, far too infrequently, is the place where the Italians were weak defensively.

 

[Tony Manx]

Tuilangi has not played a lot of rugby since then and surely is not going to be about for next week! It is like saying Greenwood is the ideal player to break Italy down!!! They ain't going to play!!

I am not sure why we are talking about Italy anyway as being any kind of attacking or defensive unit!! They offered nothing in attack and their defence was made to look good by a poor Irish team! The only things going for them was willingness, keenness and a spluttering Parrisse!!

If England cannot put 50 on them I would be surprised with their strength in the front five, and the back row, and the flair in the backs!

Barritt (if fit) for Burrell would be the only change to consider as we move toward a settled 23 for the RWC!!

 

[Crapspray]

The Italians in the first game in Rome are always pumped and have one of their better performances. If yesterday was a week 3 game I reckon 14 points could easily be added to Ireland's score.

I have to agree. Having Italy last is always easier, and they looked knackered after 50 minutes last year. Not to mention that the Stadio Olympico looks to have a really narrow pitch. And Schmidt was probably keeping his powder dry for France and England.

So with that all said, I'd say England's aim should be 40 points. Caveats to avoid the obligatory arrogance accusation, but if they play well there's no reason why they can't. I don't think many personnel changes are needed either; Parling or Kitchener to replace Croft on the bench and that's it. Make sure Eastmond, Barritt, Wood, and Wilson are all fit for selection against Ireland.

I just hope we get to see May and Watson in space. Watson in particular looked really sharp against Wales.

Barritt (if fit) for Burrell would be the only change to consider as we move toward a settled 23 for the RWC!!

I don't think Burrell actually made many, if any, defensive errors against Wales. If his positioning gets sorted, then he's so much better than Barritt in attack it's a no-brainer.

I also don't think Lancaster's squad ever will, and perhaps ever should, be settled. Launchbury, Wilson, Morgan, and Lawes will certainly return to the 23 by the RWC. Corbisiero, Parling, Eastmond, and Wood will all be pushing very hard for a spot too. So long as the spine of the team stays the same, I think rotation based on form, opposition, and injury isn't too bad a deal.

Look at Wales for the alternative: a settled side, with barely any room to adapt their game plan. Not to mention five injuries could crush them competitively. (No slight on Wales, but they're the best example in my view.)

 

[Tony Manx]

Sorry was not saying this is THE 23 for the RWC and I was not clear about that.

Of course there a number of injured players who have to come back but the opportunities now for experimenting are very few and England should be playing a settled way into which present and the injured players returning should fit.

The current and injured players should provide 90/95% of the total squad to be announced in August!

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Hmm, I think the Italians could deal with Tuilagi all day as well, after all they did so well with him last year...

Oh wait.

Ireland got nowhere because they didn't have enough icebreaker ball carriers and lost too many collisions going forwards. That's an argument for getting your icebreakers - like Tuilagi - into the team if available, not against it. After all, they weren't exactly mega successful trying to move it wade against a set Italian line either.

Not saying a fit Tuilagi should start ahead of Joseph. But to claim the Italians could handle him and we're better off without him on such grounds is just risible.

Last year Ireland walked all over the Italians. If we used Tuilagi to simply run straight at the Italians, I don't think he would be effective as the Irish were nullified doing that, they worked better when they started to move the ball rather than play bosh ball.

 

[Goodey]

Last year Ireland walked all over the Italians. If we used Tuilagi to simply run straight at the Italians, I don't think he would be effective as the Irish were nullified doing that, they worked better when they started to move the ball rather than play bosh ball.

Last year Manu walked all over the Italians, almost literally.

Maybe instead of basing England tactics on what did or didn't work well for the Irish, it'd be more pertinent to look at what did or didn't work for England?

It's moot because Tuilagi probably isn't fit and Joseph deserves an extended run, but this is some weird posting from you

 

[goodNumber10]

Numbers in the breakdown is NOT the way to beat Italy.

You let them have the ball at the breakdown and get your tackle line up and in the Midfields faces - their core skills are poor and you pressure them into making mistakes behind the gain line then play off their turnovers - it's low phase rugby against Italy.

on your own ball you isolate their 13/15 channel then run the phases from there.

- - - Updated - - -

Whatever Italy was doing, Ireland didn't find it the fairly comfortable try fest we did when Manu came out and ran through them.
Just pointing out the games were very different.

We attacked their 13 channel, ireland don't have apowerful carrier in that channel like we did last year in Burrell and Tuilagi. It was all about flooding that 13 channel and using LB & MT to dominate the collision.

Ireland have Jared Payne who just isn't a carrier in the same way as LB/MT.

 

[yaboyjj]

Ireland looked pretty toothless in attack up until the final quarter, at which point the Italians were out on their feet having defended all game (and having spent 10 min's of it with 14 men). The reason Ireland looked ineffectual imo was because of their lack of ball carriers in the pack- it says something when O'mahony is a go-to-man (they are really hurting without O'brien, Heaslip. Healey). Let's not forget they had a big man in the centres (Henshaw).

Despite popular opinion I think England need to play some big ball carriers in the pack and get fast, front foot ball using the big men up the middle, rinse, repeat, then throw it wide to the fast men in the back-line. If you looks at the locks and back-row Ireland had yesterday: POC, Toner, O'Mahony, Murphy, O'Donnell- that is pretty lightweight, and it showed. Use Attwood, Marler, Hask, Robshaw, Vunipola and bully them at the breakdown, creating quick ball (this is how we need to play against Ireland too)
England need to rack up the points this weekend (no disrespect to Italians), but we saw how important this might be, last year.

 

[msf]

Well, I shouldn't but I can't resist, good no. 10. Your points are either wrong or are truisms. The thing about the 13/15 channel is true for all teams, that's why McGeechan talks about getting outside the 3rd defender. A case in point is England's defence against Italy last year, when their 13 had a great game at the expense of Burrell (your suggested option at 13?) And the point about letting Italy have the ball till they make a mistake is only a good one if you play a backline with some creativity/penetration. Otherwise the Italians will keep the ball for long periods, and we won't score enough when we do have the ball to win comfortably.

 

[goodNumber10]

Well, I shouldn't but I can't resist, good no. 10. Your points are either wrong or are truisms. The thing about the 13/15 channel is true for all teams, that's why McGeechan talks about getting outside the 3rd defender. A case in point is England's defence against Italy last year, when their 13 had a great game at the expense of Burrell (your suggested option at 13?) And the point about letting Italy have the ball till they make a mistake is only a good one if you play a backline with some creativity/penetration. Otherwise the Italians will keep the ball for long periods, and we won't score enough when we do have the ball to win comfortably.

Both Wrong and a Truism?

Brilliant.

Are you saying burrell wasn't the 13 last year and that we didn't specifically attack their 13 channel with a large powerful ball carrier?

Are you going to sniff every post i make now all because you're a bit put out about getting the other stuff wrong?

 

[msf]

Do you understand the word 'or?' The first point is a truism, the second one is potentially wrong (under the conditions I described). Burrell had a good game in attack last year, but I'm pretty sure that he didn't make most of his metres in the 13 channel, as he he doesn't have an outside break to speak of. Whereas Campagnaro does have one, and used this to great effect against Burrell, who isn't used to defending at 13. So basically your advice would be perfect for Italy if England played the 13 you seem to be suggesting we play. Oh, and to avoid any misunderstandings, when I talk about the 13 channel I mean the space outside the defending outside centre.

 

[goodNumber10]

Do you understand the word 'or?'

Yep, and do you udnerstand the word 'and' connecting two words or phrases?

Doesn't seem like you do.

The first point is a truism, the second one is potentially wrong (under the conditions I described). Burrell had a good game in attack last year, but I'm pretty sure that he didn't make most of his metres in the 13 channel, as he he doesn't have an outside break to speak of. Whereas Campagnaro does have one, and used this to great effect against Burrell, who isn't used to defending at 13. So basically your advice would be perfect for Italy if England played the 13 you seem to be suggesting we play. Oh, and to avoid any misunderstandings, when I talk about the 13 channel I mean the space outside the defending outside centre.

Where am i saying play Burrell at 13? I've been one of the loudest advocates of him playing 12.

The point is we did dominate that channel and we didn't flood the breakdowns - truism or not they are true and the opposite of rageranchers point which is what i was repsonding to.

The Italians rucking is good, there is no point throwing numbers into a phsyical breakdown battle when their backs are poor under pressure and you get more reward by getting up and either making them make mistakes or stopping them behind the gain line and then getting turnovers.

Think its time to block you, you're clearly out for a fight.

 

[msf]

Just for fun, can you identify someone in the current England team who does have an outside break? Hint: it's not Dan Cole.

- - - Updated - - -

So dominate that channel like Burrell did last year (he didn't) by playing him at 12? You're making perfect sense as usual...

- - - Updated - - -

Haha, baby