England to whitewash Australia
-
<p>What's with Skelton?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If he's not injured, then I would have thought him running it up against Itoje would have kept Itoje quiet and/or knackered.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="585878" data-time="1465450783"><p>Ball carriers will need to be Moore, Sio, and ? Maybe Arnold. I dunno. Haven't seen enough of him.<br> <br>Looks more like a team designed to nullify the Poms at the ruck (no surprises there) and then let the backs have a go, with fast coverage i.e. Hoopah and Pocok.</p></blockquote> <br>Moore and Sio are good ball carriers. Hooper provides a real point of difference against the English, apart from Itoje they don't have that sort of athleticism/ speed effectively making another centre. Scott Fardy concentrates on clearing rucks, which he's good at. Pocock would be in competition witrh Owen Franks for the least effective carrier of the ball. Still think against England you want more height too. Greg Holmes will anchor the scrum well, he's been a rock for the Reds. Dane Haylett-Petty reminds me of a younger Ben from Accounts.
-
<p>I hope it's a dry night at Suncorp. That centre pairing of Kerevi and Kuridrani could be a nightmare for England if Aus can get on the front foot. I still don't see why they keep picking Horne on the wing. Surely they have a more deadly finisher than him running around.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Canes4life" data-cid="585932" data-time="1465461200"><p>
I still don't see why they keep picking Horne on the wing. Surely they have a more deadly finisher than him running around.</p></blockquote>I don't get the love for him either. Solid enough, but he's not going to spark something from nothing and win a game for them (should be a must IMO for a test winger).<br><br><br>
The Wobs version of Caleb Ralph. -
England team announced:<br><br>Brown, Watson, Joseph, Burrell, Yarde, Farrell, Youngs, Vunipola, Hartley, Cole, Itoje, Kris, Robshaw, Vunipola, Haskell<br><br>Bench is<br><br>Cowan-Dlckie, Mullan, Hill, Launchbury, Lawes, Care, Ford, Nowell
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="585942" data-time="1465466151">
<div>
<p>Really? Going for size?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yeah, a bit of a worry for me. No real back row cover at all, just people who "can do a job" and this in an area where Aus have the advantage too. I see the first test slipping away from England unless we can really bully them up front.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Not very inspiring.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="585936" data-time="1465463692">
<div>
<p>England team announced:<br><br>
Brown, Watson, Joseph, Burrell, Yarde, Farrell, Youngs, Vunipola, Hartley, Cole, Itoje, Kris, Robshaw, Vunipola, Haskell<br><br>
Bench is<br><br>
Cowan-Dlckie, Mullan, Hill, Launchbury, Lawes, Care, Ford, Nowell</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Apart from the whole back row issue (although that is significant), not too much to complain about. Could have gone for Slade on the bench rather than Ford. Gives a 10,12 and 13 option. Plus more reliable place kicking.</p> -
Clearly. Itoje would probably move to 6 when both bench locks are on as subs. But does robshaw come off or go to 8 and billy vunipola come off?
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Provincial Stalwart" data-cid="585948" data-time="1465467044">
<div>
<p>Clearly. Itoje would probably move to 6 when both bench locks are on as subs. But does robshaw come off or go to 8 and billy vunipola come off?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Not sure that matters too much. We don't really have a 7 and our cover is really a 4 so I'd suggest we will likely see all three back row play the full 80 unless injuries dictate otherwise.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="585946" data-time="1465466988"><p>
Yeah their lack of back-row dynamism is amazing.<br><br>
...</p></blockquote>
<br>
Do you just accept you can't compete in that area and load up in a completely new direction.<br><br>
Clash of styles. Almost makes me want to watch.
-
<p>I would have had Nowell start and Clifford on the bench instead of one of the second rows.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Robshaw's days are numbered if Pooper shits all over the England backrow (Sorry couldn't resist it)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="585955" data-time="1465469249"><p>Do you just accept you can't compete in that area and load up in a completely new direction.<br><br>
Clash of styles. Almost makes me want to watch. :)</p></blockquote>
Like you and Mariner won't be glued to the TV, frothing at the thought of watching your Queensland mates run around!<br><br>
;)<br><br><br><br>
Actually, after watching the ABs fuck up the Welsh, you'll want something that looks a bit like a rugby contest. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="585949" data-time="1465467184"><p>Not sure that matters too much. We don't really have a 7 and our cover is really a 4 so I'd suggest we will likely see all three back row play the full 80 unless injuries dictate otherwise.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Nah I reckon one lock and a back rower get replaced and both reserve locks come on and Itoje plays 80. <br><br>
I think the England pack will secure enough good ball, my concern is with what happens from 10 out. There are still issues with organisation in attack. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="585966" data-time="1465473184">
<div>
<p>Nah I reckon one lock and a back rower get replaced and both reserve locks come on and Itoje plays 80.<br><br>
I think the England pack will secure enough good ball, my concern is with what happens from 10 out. There are still issues with organisation in attack.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Anything is possible ACTC and add Eddie into the mix and that goes double. However, for me your scenario weakens the back row and the second row.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Agree re our attack. It is still very much a work in progress and it may be a blessing in disguise that Eddie will not be tempted to try and shoehorn Tuilagi in there somewhere. Good player that he is, it would result in a complete shift in emphasis on attack and I'm not sure we are anywhere near ready to be able to make such changes mid game.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="585970" data-time="1465473822">
<div>
<p>Gotta agree with ACTC. Billy V might be an 80 minute player when he's playing Scotland in the middle of a NH winter but I wouldn't rely on him going the whole test against the Wallabies in Brisbane.<br><br>
Shift Itoje to 6 and Robshaw to 8.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Billy V has surprised a lot of people this season (me included) with his ability to last the full 80. I agree that v Aus it is likely to be a faster paced game for a back rower to make an impact at tackle or ruck time, but let's be honest this is not where Billy V shines. He is not the one hitting rucks or jackalling over the ball. Accordingly I reckon he could go the full 80 v Aus. Not saying he will, just that I feel he could. My bigger concern is Robshaw and Haskell. They DO have to hit rucks, make tackles and be a nuisance at the breakdown. As good as their engines may be (Robshaw in particular), they are nowhere near as quick as the Pooper. If one of them needs to be subbed or gets injured where does that leave us? Somewhere up shit creek looking for a non-existent paddle.</p>
