Spring Tour: South Africa v England -2nd Test. (16/06/2012 15:00GMT)

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Well if Flood helps him box kick better, or speed us his inaccurate slow passes then yes playing with flood will help. In reality i doubt it will. He is in such poor form at the moment its rather annoying to see him on the pitch.

I do assume that care would have been on the bench if not for having to play 80. Yougs did look unfit, maybe he's been hanging around with morgan and waldrum?

 

[SpanishBob]

Team selection seems predictable, i thought Farrell be in danger from Flood. Its upto Flood to prove he is the best 10.
Disappointing we still have youngs again i think he is starting to be a liability and he looks a bit chubby to me and runs out of steam in the 2nd half.

That will be easy. Farrell is the worst non italian 10 playing at test level right now.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Morne Steyn was worse last Saturday

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

That will be easy. Farrell is the worst non italian 10 playing at test level right now.

He's not as bad as that, but not the best either. The way he's been taken in so quickly and easily by everyone though is surely a reflection of how the vacuous rugby watching english public (by this I mean the type who only get excited by a world cup) just wanted someone else to replace johnny wilkinson as the player they idealise.

 

[Patchey]

Seconded.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Team selection seems predictable, i thought Farrell be in danger from Flood. Its upto Flood to prove he is the best 10.
Disappointing we still have youngs again i think he is starting to be a liability and he looks a bit chubby to me and runs out of steam in the 2nd half.

didn't seem that predictable to me. I expected JJ to be shoved on a wing with Farrell at 12, so I'm very thankful that hasn't happened. I don't mind Youngs as much as some people because he's being rejoined by flood with whom he's unfamiliar. I do think people are exaggerating how catastrophic Youngs has been. His basics such as passing and box kicking have been bad for sure, and service slow. But he gave us that occasional spark in the first test. I for once don't have a complaint about strettle as his chasing and defensive game will be highly valuable against South Africa.

Other than that, Isuppose the pack was predictable but then England coaches tend to make as few changes between weeks as possible, oen can't help but notice

 

[Peat]

He's not as bad as that, but not the best either. The way he's been taken in so quickly and easily by everyone though is surely a reflection of how the vacuous rugby watching english public (by this I mean the type who only get excited by a world cup) just wanted someone else to replace johnny wilkinson as the player they idealise.

Name a worse?

Anyway, I'm well happy about that team. I'm so happy I'm even willing to be happy about Strettle. I don't think it's going to win, but it's a step forwards.

 

[Nobblynick]

I think a lot of the way Care has been treated is linked (still) to the fall out from the World Cup. Under normal circumstances he would have been rightly dropped from the EPS for the 6 Nations and given a strong message about future off field behavior. However the RFU/England management clearly want to show players and the public what will happen is players get involved in serious off-pitch incidents. Therefore not only was Care dropped but he is now having to battle his way back into the starting XV despite being the form English scum half both domestically and internationally.

There is of course also the issue that he had to play a full 80mins yesterday, perhaps if that hadn't happened Lancaster would have put him on the bench this weekend.

I hope it's just the latter; the fact he had to play 80mins.

Why waste a space on tour if Lancaster still feels the need to prove a point. If Care is still not 100% forgiven for his off-pitch behaviour then don't take him on tour. You've either served your sentence or you haven't. A halfway house seems counter-productive.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Name a worse?

Anyway, I'm well happy about that team. I'm so happy I'm even willing to be happy about Strettle. I don't think it's going to win, but it's a step forwards.

Name a worse fly-half, or name a worse 'international' fly-half? I presume you don't mean any fly half as thats easy.

Internationally, lets just say I'd rather have Farrell above Laidlaw, Parks, biggar, priestland, O Gara, in fact most fly halves apart from the first choices of the top 6(ish) I really don't think he's a bad player considering hsi all round game(tackling, tactical kicking as well as attacking play), Its just that I think we can still do better

 

[Peat]

Name a worse fly-half, or name a worse 'international' fly-half? I presume you don't mean any fly half as thats easy.

Internationally, lets just say I'd rather have Farrell above Laidlaw, Parks, biggar, priestland, O Gara, in fact most fly halves apart from the first choices of the top 6(ish) I really don't think he's a bad player considering hsi all round game(tackling, tactical kicking as well as attacking play), Its just that I think we can still do better

International, aye. And you clearly rate him a lot higher than me - I'd definitely have Laidlaw ahead of him (without thinking) and would have to think long and hard about the others. Yes, even Parks and the OAP version of ROG.

 

[psychic duck]

International, aye. And you clearly rate him a lot higher than me - I'd definitely have Laidlaw ahead of him (without thinking) and would have to think long and hard about the others. Yes, even Parks and the OAP version of ROG.

so you obviously don't think a fly half tackling skills are too important judging by that

 

[Peat]

so you obviously don't think a fly half tackling skills are too important judging by that

Not as important as the ability to get the backline moving and use the ball wisely, no.

 

[psychic duck]

Not as important as the ability to get the backline moving and use the ball wisely, no.

... and how many of Laidlaw, Parks and OAP ROG do that?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Not as important as the ability to get the backline moving and use the ball wisely, no.

Ok but Peat look at it is way: Charlie Hodgson has far superior distribution and ability to get a backline going than Owen Farrell, but traditionally far weaker defence ( I know this has changed abit now but not entirely) With Hodgson at 10 England have consistently shipped more points and now done enough in attack to compensate it. On the other hand, our defence has always been top notch with Farrell at 10, and despite his attacking weaknesses, we have still done enough to threaten teams and win games with good tries. To sum up, we've just been better with Farrel than with Hodgson at 10 and those two guys completely represent two opposing game-styles.

In general I'm really pleased with the team selection and am surprised not more people are. I know Tuilagi doesn't suggest himself as a natural 12, but lets look at the facts:

At the moment Tuilagi is the end of all our attacking phase-play. He's effectively no threat because even if he barges De Villiers or F. Steyn out of the way, his momentum is reduced and he's inevitably brought down. End of phase. The moment the ball is passed from Farrell or Barritt the South African backs can completely forget about those two, who were never a threat to begin with and even less so with tuilagi taking it up If Tuilagi at 12 even so much as thinks about passing or offloading he's going to worry defences more. They will actually have to think about two centres at once, because JJ has great feet and can really keep ball alive. In short we have to make people worry about more than one back at the same time, and this is the choice way to do it.

Having Farrell or Flood at 12 would not do much better distribution yes, but also more predictable and not much of an attacking threat. Meh. That's what I think. Still won't win mind, but I'm looking forward to the game now.

Oh and I'm so grateful for Lancasters blooding young players early. Marler, Johnson, JJ, it's great stuff. Under Johnson, JJ would not have had a look in for at least another couple of years.

 

[Peat]

Ok but Peat look at it is way: Charlie Hodgson has far superior distribution and ability to get a backline going than Owen Farrell, but traditionally far weaker defence ( I know this has changed abit now but not entirely) With Hodgson at 10 England have consistently shipped more points and now done enough in attack to compensate it. On the other hand, our defence has always been top notch with Farrell at 10, and despite his attacking weaknesses, we have still done enough to threaten teams and win games with good tries. To sum up, we've just been better with Farrel than with Hodgson at 10 and those two guys completely represent two opposing game-styles.

A lot actually. Hodgson has a better tackles completed percentage in both the 6N and AP than Owen Farrell. Hodgson hasn't really been given a fair go with England for a long time and I am convinced that he is just flat out better 10 at any level than Farrell.

I also don't think we've been top notch in defence with Farrell at 10, and the games we've won with him there have been won by scrum dominance and breakaway tries. Any improvement in England's game has come from the pack and 9, not 10, where frankly we've been choking the life out of the attack more or less since Lancaster's taken over.

I agree with everything you've said until

Oh and I'm so grateful for Lancasters blooding young players early. Marler, Johnson, JJ, it's great stuff. Under Johnson, JJ would not have had a look in for at least another couple of years.

Tuilagi, Youngs, Cole, Corbs - amongst others - all made it very early. No reason to think he wouldn't have looked at Joseph. And Tom Johnson is 29!

edit:

... and how many of Laidlaw, Parks and OAP ROG do that?

Laidlaw - Gods yes.

Parks - Eh, probably not. Or at least not enough.

OAP Rog - Hard to tell how much he's lost form and how much his pack has, undoubtedly at form he's a far more intelligent and skilled general than Farrell, not sure if that's still the case.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

A lot actually. Hodgson has a better tackles completed percentage in both the 6N and AP than Owen Farrell. Hodgson hasn't really been given a fair go with England for a long time and I am convinced that he is just flat out better 10 at any level than Farrell.

I also don't think we've been top notch in defence with Farrell at 10, and the games we've won with him there have been won by scrum dominance and breakaway tries. Any improvement in England's game has come from the pack and 9, not 10, where frankly we've been choking the life out of the attack more or less since Lancaster's taken over.

I agree with everything you've said until



Tuilagi, Youngs, Cole, Corbs - amongst others - all made it very early. No reason to think he wouldn't have looked at Joseph. And Tom Johnson is 29!

Youre' right, I was going to mention Cole Corbs and that lot. But then look at Foden and how long it took him to get a run-in despite clearly being the form (and best) 15 in England. I don't mean to say that Johnson was incapable of cappig young talent but he was definitely more tardy when he did

 

[Saintjay]

I hope it's just the latter; the fact he had to play 80mins.

Why waste a space on tour if Lancaster still feels the need to prove a point. If Care is still not 100% forgiven for his off-pitch behaviour then don't take him on tour. You've either served your sentence or you haven't. A halfway house seems counter-productive.

Care will never be 100% forgiven. You could use the arguement of what's the point in taking a number of players if they are not in the first squad or used during the tour.

Also with Care's selection every decent tour needs a judge for the kangaroo courts, Care has probably the most up to date legal knowledge to be most suited in that role

 

[coonor]

I actually disagree with Floods selection... having said that, I haven't seen much of Flood this season. The only reason I disagree with the selection is that I think Farrell has played well for England in all games except Saturday. I would have backed him and given him another chance, seen how much he's learned. By picking Flood there's a big danger he could have a bad game on Saturday and then who do you pick? A confidence knocked Farrell or an undeserving Flood? The situation all becomes very Sexton v O'Gara or Flood V Wilkinson.

 

[Saintjay]

"The challenge is not to let Manu demand the ball every three seconds and try to run over the top of somebody," Toby Flood hits the nail on the head.

 

[big ginger 8]

Why do people always say how good Farrell's tactical kicking is? It's not great and not as good as any of the top nations 10's tactical kicking.