Sajerj wrote:Maybe its the plan they used to beat a full strength Wales at Twickenham last year 29 to 18, and outscoring them by two tries to zero ?
With Farell at 10 and Burrell at 13 that day.
I doubt whether there was a plan in place. It certainly didn't look like it. Like any England win over the last few years, it has been down to the players (Fazlet not included) and/or luck.
Burrell is at least a back. Putting a forward who has barely played the game at all at 13 is a different story.
Well England certainly have a plan, whether it is the right plan, time will tell.
Personally I would have picked Slade at 13 and not brought Burgess into the starting line up. He has played effectively in a few cameo roles recently and he must have trained fantastically well also, for all the England coaches to pick him to start in such a massive game. But it is a risk IMO.
A much lesser risk was bringing in Farrell for Ford. Farrell has earned the shirt with some excellent displays for Saracens towards the end of last season and for England recently. He also must have trained well. His defence is superior to Ford's, as is both the accuracy and length of his goal kicking, which could be crucial in a tight game. Fair call IMO.
The biggest surprise to me is Goode on the bench not Slade.
Goode can play 10 or 15. But we have cover at 10 and 15 in Ford and Watson. Slade can play 10,12 or 13 and can really make a difference off the bench. If a centre gets injured it looks like the only option is to move Farrell to 12 and Ford to 10. I really don't get this selection at all.
I'm going to this game and just hope that the England plan works!!
People keep saying Farrells goal kicking could be crucial as its probably going to be a close game. If Lancaster had picked the correct team, a more attacking one, in my opinion, the game wouldn't be as close as people are making out. Wales are under strength with the injuries they have. An attacking England side with the right plan could beat Wales by 20+ points.
I think one of the main problems with England under Lancaster is consistency and game experience with team mates. For example, he has played 14 centre combinations in 4 years. It appears like he hasn't got a clue what the best team is. It appears to me that a successful team needs to play together for a long period of time to get to know each other in games (not training). Maybe that is the reason they look like talented headless chickens. Maybe it is not the lack of planning. Planning is obviously great, but if the players cannot carry out the plan, for whatever reason, it is pointless.
ellis9 wrote:People keep saying Farrells goal kicking could be crucial as its probably going to be a close game. If Lancaster had picked the correct team, a more attacking one, in my opinion, the game wouldn't be as close as people are making out. Wales are under strength with the injuries they have. An attacking England side with the right plan could beat Wales by 20+ points.
Maybe Lancaster is looking at the Welsh scrum and thinking it looks a bit under powered and inexperienced. From this there could be a decent amount of scrum penalties and Owen could take advantage of this better than Ford. Ford hasn't got the range and is more prone to off days with the boot.
Where the Welsh will be most dangerous, especially with their back row, is quick turnover ball. We've got strong guys around the park who should be able to secure ball.
I think England have more concerns at the scrum than the Welsh, I would have liked to see Vunipola come in for Marler, the scrum was creaking against the Fijians and struggled during the warm up games. The Welsh are putting out a massive pack and I can’t see England reeling off many pens from the set piece. I think England do need to play an attacking expansive game to beat the Welsh. In a way the Welsh have nothing to lose with the injury list they have. The England midfield looks awfully sluggish and big tackles will not win the game. Farrell kicks goals but Ford offers the expansive kicking game which we need. From looking at Lancaster in interviews recently he looks like a man under pressure and not overly comfortable. I still think he is being dictated too behind the scenes and the influence of Andy Farrell is not helping.
Soggypitch wrote:
The biggest surprise to me is Goode on the bench not Slade.
Goode can play 10 or 15. But we have cover at 10 and 15 in Ford and Watson. Slade can play 10,12 or 13 and can really make a difference off the bench. If a centre gets injured it looks like the only option is to move Farrell to 12 and Ford to 10. I really don't get this selection at all.
I am more surprised not to see Nowell there, given that Farrell offers cover at 12 (with Ford coming on), and Nowell covers wing, 13 and even fullback (though Watson can cover there).
We lose a winger, and it's Brown on the wing and Goode at fullback.
Some may recall the backline selection that got badly exposed for pace against Wales a few years back when we got pumped by 30-3.
Swap out Tuilagi for Burgess and Ashton for either of May/Watson and you've got the backline that will be playing against Wales this weekend if we lose a wing to injury.
Will S wrote:
Maybe Lancaster is looking at the Welsh scrum and thinking it looks a bit under powered and inexperienced. From this there could be a decent amount of scrum penalties and Owen could take advantage of this better than Ford.
Sorry, is this the same 'underpowered and inexperienced' Welsh scrum which has a 60kg weight advantage and an 80-cap experience advantage in the tight five over England...?
Their front row doesn't look as strong as it normally does. Jenkins has been a bit off form and the other two have got very few caps between them. Their back up front row doesn't look too great either.
We just need to play to how we want to play, not look at, for example, the scrum and say we may get beaten there so let's pick a team that if it does play out that way, we may be able to deal with it. Let's pick our strongest, most attacking side and go out and win the :censored: match!
ellis9 wrote:We just need to play to how we want to play, not look at, for example, the scrum and say we may get beaten there so let's pick a team that if it does play out that way, we may be able to deal with it. Let's pick our strongest, most attacking side and go out and win the :censored: match!
But Slancaster el al haven't done that? We actually have nowhere near that in the backs...strongest maybe in terms of physical strength that's about it..in terms of most attacking it is probably the worst 10,12,13 ever picked
We are cooking on gas here 
