Good article in the guardian on England having the option of a plan A and plan B, unlike Wales. I'd Like Lancaster to give himself these options though rather than pick identical options in the 1st team and on the bench.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...nations-wales-warren-gatland-stuart-lancaster
From what is available here we go…
You'll notice Owen Farrell's absence. Never a bench option. Too inflexible. Everybody bangs on about striking a winning penalty but what if it is a drop goal or if we're further behind? I've never seen a fly half worse at drop goals than Owen Farrell.
FR - Corbs – no destructive form as yet on return from injury and refs are hotter now on LH going round the side. Scrum was VG in AIs. DH on lineout stats (more importantly better on big moment throws), but also TY better suited to raising speed and intensity from the bench.
SR – Attwood grunt, carrying, Parling game intelligence, work rate and line out (Launchbury and Lawes though walk back in when fit)
BR – Robshaw is a brilliant 6 (never, ever going to happen), BV obvious, JH (genuine physical intensity at breakdown) – has even learnt to offload a bit as well and is a better support runner than Wood. Robshaw a good enough lineout option (not a genuine 7 but until they ask Armitage back) (They'll go with TW though as BV is a complete non-option in the lineout (Haskell is good – see Dai Young in the Guardian but not as good as TW) – I'm happy enough with TW although not my preference)
BY – better kicking game, still offers a running threat
GF – obvious
JM – been excellent in all facets recently
LB – GF played very well with Burgess e.g. a big runner fixing defenders – gives England a get out clause if fluency and momentum, quick ball is lacking in backline
JJ – even developing a bit of a kicking game. Running threat obvious and has learnt how to pass.
Christian Wade – Jason Robinson was small but offered something different - nobody doubted his ability. AW based on the squad available
AW – would prefer AW at FB to MB – Brown is too one dimensional a threat and not in form of last year – CW on the wing would cause a different type of problem but Lancaster won't take the risk. MB also never works with his wings/passes, or volunteers himself as a wider kicking option from set plays in his own 22
Bench – impact and a plan B i.e. an increase in game pace, all good breakdown forwards, offloading threat and two receivers in backline. GK can also cover 4,5, and 6. All forwards mobile and increased carrying threat with TY and MK. Both the DCs can increase the pace and provide a different type of threat in attack (see the NZ tests) - Cips can also play a tactical field position based game if required (see Sale - they are nto the Harlem Globe Trotters!). No need for specialist wing and FB cover (Cips can cover FB and/or Watson/May) JJ can cover wing. Eastmond really is a tactic changer - a tiring Roberts wouldn't fancy that challenge.
Finally, imagine if Steffon Armitage was an impact sub – what a change of pace that could bring….here's dreaming
JM DH DW
GP DA
CR BV JH
BY
GF
LB
JJ
JM AW (CW)
MB (AW)
BENCH: MV, TY (RW), KB (Dan C if fit), GK, TW, Danny C *2, KE
the potential we have is really high and I can't help but think in large parts it's being wasted ..,
