Eddie's selection for the Oz game

[welsh wasp]

Australia have very large centres who might have tried to run over Ford? Not forgetting Pocock & Harper.
Slade seems a brave call after so little rugby. Why not Joseph?

In the meantime, & assuming Wales beat France, I’m wondering whether I’d want us to play Japan or South Africa in the semi.

[Brandnewtorugby]

Being a touch parochial, but in no way wishing him not to feature. If he doesn't play in knock out games does he still require a rest period before playing for Wasps.

[westwaleswasp]

Australia have very large centres who might have tried to run over Ford? Not forgetting Pocock & Harper.
Slade seems a brave call after so little rugby. Why not Joseph?

In the meantime, & assuming Wales beat France, I’m wondering whether I’d want us to play Japan or South Africa in the semi.

Japan's run will come to an end, and if I were Wales I would hope to play them- and pretty much most of the chat here has people preferring Japan over SA.
SA will be tricky for Wales, not as tricky as NZ would be for Eng in the other- if Eng win, that is.
 

[westwaleswasp]

On another note, I would ask that if England win vs Australia, NZ and Wales/SA/Japan and are world champions we don't automatically say "Eddie was right all along in his 4 year masterplan" and the exact reverse if we lose to Australia we don't then say "the last four/two years have been a waste and all for nothing".

The fact is we are in knockout rugby, Eddie's results over two years have been patchy to poor with some good wins and but some real lows and no trophies, whilst over four he has trophies and a better ledger, and we don't know what A.N. other coach would have done, we don't know what a team with Cipriani, Goode etc. As a man I can't stand him, sure

It will always be stupid to say "judge me on the world cup" as if the previous years suddenly lose all meaning- when SCW said judge me on the world cup he was batting away a poor early result or two, and pointing out that it takes time to turn things around and make a difference. He was not laying a blue print where 4 years is summed up solely on the basis of a subsequent WC.
 
Considering the history of England in 2007, and France 2011, I would suggest that coaches are perhaps not quite as important as we sometimes think.
 

[backdoc]

"Considering the history of England in 2007, and France 2011, I would suggest that coaches are perhaps not quite as important as we sometimes think."

Yes, I agree with this, providing there is enough leadership on the field.
I think my France bet at 33/1 is burned regardless!

[St Bruno]

If the forwards are held or are on the back foot, Youngs will revert to panic kicking or slow wobbly passes with which Farrell can do nothing. If the forwards get front-foot ball, we stand a good chance. Otherwise, otherwise.

PS Why is Slade in the side?

[Westy68]

I actually rate Slade but hasn't played must rugby recently but saying that i should think the last 2 weeks training would have been very hard.

I don't understand why you play Ford then when it gets to the business end of competition you change it, even though i prefer Manu at 12.

I just don't get Daly at 15 and Watson on the wing, this good be the reason we lose, as someone as already said the last 35 mins against Scotland was horrendous. Australia I believe we be much better than Scotland.

I don't like Eddie at all but I want England to do well, if they don't then I'm definitely jumping on the bandwagon and giving him hell

[Raggs]

Slade has looked very very good in his recent international appearances, he's a class player who, when coaches aren't trying to shoehorn him at 10 or 12, is very effective. Slade is also a much better 13 in defence than Manu, and the Aussies will want to get it wide.

Daly looked far far better recently under the high ball, including competitive high balls (which was where he seemed to lack confidence). You want him at 15 for turnover ball. Virtually every time England get a turnover it goes straight to Daly to make a decision on what to do. Watson is a better strike runner, but Daly is a better decision maker. For the most part during the games, Daly also seems good positionally, and especially good at getting his aerially more accomplished wingers in position to take most high balls.

I did notice Lawes starting in place of Kruis, but that doesn't change the Kruis vs Launch debate (and by god do I love Launch). Lawes offers us more pace, and with Mako, Sink and Billy, there's a better balance to having another carrier who's more effective on the fringes of the ruck defence, than another heavy carrier like Launch.

I'd expect to see Lawes and George hanging out closer to the wings in attack, with Mako, Sink and Billy doing the heavy lifting (but also all 3 have wonderful hands for tip ons and pull back passes). Curry and Underhill smashing Pocock and Hooper all day.

Main disappointment is Farrell over Ford, but the game shouldn't be won or lost there to be honest, even if I think Ford would help us far more.

[westwaleswasp]

Agree with pretty most of that from Raggs, although I think it is Daly's impression of a turnstile rather than just high balls that were the issues.....
Ford could be a big call, it will be painted as such by our media friends.........

[Raggs]

Agree with pretty most of that from Raggs, although I think it is Daly's impression of a turnstile rather than just high balls that were the issues.....
Ford could be a big call, it will be painted as such by our media friends.........

Don't think Watson is any better of a defender at 15 to be honest. And if either of them are having to make tackles there's been a breakdown elsewhere already. I agree though, he's not the most reassuring man to have as the last line of defence, but then the main option for defence would be Brown, which would be a regressive step I feel.

[Shugs]

As a back three Watson, Daly and May is very suspect defensively. I'm a bit worried about Vunipola M's fitness as well. Perm any 2 from 4 for me in the second row - not sure Itoje is miles ahead of any of the other three. But for me this game will be won and lost around Pocock and Hooper v Underhill and Curry. If they get too much ball and put us on the back foot - especially from turnovers I think we could be porous defensively.

[westwaleswasp]

Agree with pretty most of that from Raggs, although I think it is Daly's impression of a turnstile rather than just high balls that were the issues.....
Ford could be a big call, it will be painted as such by our media friends.........

Don't think Watson is any better of a defender at 15 to be honest. And if either of them are having to make tackles there's been a breakdown elsewhere already. I agree though, he's not the most reassuring man to have as the last line of defence, but then the main option for defence would be Brown, which would be a regressive step I feel.

Absolutely, Brown being around was one of the black marks against Eddie. I think Watson is slightly better positionally at fifteen, but you are spot on in that neither gives confidence. I guess that the situation would have been better had Brown gone earlier and someone, preferably an actual fifteen- been told- "you have 18 months at fifteen." I personally like Goode, but I feel his personality might have counted against him as much as Brown's counted for him. Just not an Eddie type.

[westwaleswasp]

As a back three Watson, Daly and May is very suspect defensively. I'm a bit worried about Vunipola M's fitness as well. Perm any 2 from 4 for me in the second row - not sure Itoje is miles ahead of any of the other three. But for me this game will be won and lost around Pocock and Hooper v Underhill and Curry. If they get too much ball and put us on the back foot - especially from turnovers I think we could be porous defensively.

Might also be lost in the top two inches. Could England withstand an Aus come back a la Wales? History says no, we can't turn it around when the opposition surge and we get a lead. Otoh, if the gameplan works and we keep executing we will do fine.

[Raggs]

Can't argue with that.

[InBetweenWasp]

Selection definitely vindicated. England played intelligently, made good decision on when to play loose and when to play pressure/territory.

A few mistakes, but didn’t crumble under the resulting pressure or when Australia got back to within a point with that scintillating Kerevi try.

Ford came on and England looked sharp. I doubt many (if any of us) would have predicted a 24 point winning margin.

Personally, I thought we’d edge it in a tight game where we were likely to have to come from behind at one point and was nervous we’d end up with a card or two. We never looked like making rash decisions.