Fraser Kay runs the rule over England’s individual performances against France, dishing out some fairly average scores across the board.
15. Alex Goode 7.5
A strong performance from Goode will have cemented his already fairly certain spot in Lancaster’s final 31-man squad. Was alert in all facets of the game and his kick to Jonny May was a lovely piece of creative rugby, and highlighted his all-important versatility.
14. Anthony Watson 8
Star man for England. Both his tries showed off his jaw-dropping athletic ability and if he can maintain his high level of performance come September, he will have opposing defences in fits. He has also improved his defensive positioning, and is tenacious in contact. Very promising.
13. Henry Slade 7
Looked utterly unperturbed by the step up to the international level. Picked up where he left off after an impressive season at Exeter. He was involved in both of Watson’s scores and generally brought energy, ingenuity and a fly-half’s skill set to the midfield. A tad lucky to avoid a sin-binning for tackling Morgan Parra in the air, but Slade has thrust himself into the conversation for selection with this performance.
12. Sam Burgess 7
Played as good a first 35 minutes as England (and England fans) could hope for, before being unfortunately yellow-carded. Carried very strongly and his trademark Slammin’ defence was present from the very first phase. After half-time he seemed to drift into the background slightly, but nonetheless there are some doubters who will have been significantly quietened by what Burgess showed.
11. Jonny May 7
May was another of the players who might have had a question mark next to his name in Stuart Lancaster’s notebook, but after 80 minutes at Twickenham the Gloucester man was a definite plus for England. A well-taken try, an early scamper back to deny Dulin and a good break and pass to free Anthony Watson were the highlights.
10. Owen Farrell 5.5
Farrell was, as ever, reliable in defence and attack. He kicked well throughout and made his presence felt sufficiently often to feel pleased with his game. However, with the precocious Ford waiting in the wings, Farrell needed to deliver slightly more than this solid performance.
9. Richard Wigglesworth 5.5
Very difficult to pick out any real high points for the Saracens scrum-half. Failed to inject the pace that Care and Youngs provide in abundance, but was up to the task defensively and from the boot.
1. Mako Vunipola 5.5
A fairly typical outing for Mako. Provided some great carrying that never fails to bring a smile to your face but was inconsistent come scrum-time. He faces stiff competition at his position, and Lancaster will likely have hoped for more from the elder Vunipola.
2. Rob Webber 6
The Bath hooker ticked all the boxes without excelling. His chemistry with Geoge Kruis at the lineout was evident and while he was spearheading England’s scrum, the results were mainly positive. In the absence of Dylan Hartley, and with (spoilers for below) Luke Cowan-Dickie struggling in his debut, Webber is a clear front-runner to pull on the No2 jersey once the tournament proper gets underway.
3. Kieran Brookes 6.5
Has improved with every cap he has earnt and on Saturday he scrummaged excellently. His value was most obvious after he left the field with what looked like a shoulder injury, and without him the England pack foundered. It will be a great shame if the knock he picked up keeps him out of the tournament.
4. George Kruis 6
Excellent day at the lineout for Kruis, securing English possession and disrupting the French set-piece in equal measure. Around the park, he was hard-working and partnered well with Parling.
5. Geoff Parling 5.5
Business as usual for the soon-to-be Exeter Chief. Carried out a great deal of the unglamorous, unseen work at the breakdown, but didn’t do much to move the needle. Once he was partnered with the replacements though, the England pack were decimated.
6. Tom Wood 6
In a similar way to his regular captain Chris Robshaw, Wood didn’t hesitate to lead from the front hitting every ruck and working from start to finish and touchline to touchline. However, there was a gulf in class between England’s backs and their forwards, with problems stemming from the back-row’s inability to dominate the breakdown. Although Wood can’t take full responsibility for this, it was clear that he lacked the ability to singlehandedly win ball and cause turnovers. He will look much more comfortable with Robshaw by his side.
7. Calum Clark 5
Much of what I said about Wood can be applied to the debutant. Was very unlucky to receive a harsh yellow card, but ultimately failed to make a real positive impact.
8. Ben Morgan 5
The last thing Ben Morgan wants to have is a quiet game, and yet that is exactly what we saw on Saturday evening. He seemed far from his rambunctious best, and the signature bullocking carries were few and far between. Overshadowed by Haskell’s performance once he was substituted.
Replacements 5.5
With wholesale changes being made at 55 and 65 minutes, there seemed ample opportunity for the replacements to impact the game. However only James Haskell provided a real spark, and Luke Cowan-Dickie was unable to replicate the storming debut of his Chiefs counterpart Slade. The hooker missed multiple lineout targets and struggled with his scrummaging, and although fans will point to his mobility around the field, his overall performance indicates that he may not make the final cut. Elsewhere Dave Atwood was a capable replacement for Kruis, but up front neither David Wilson nor Alex Corbisiero wowed with their play. It was however very reassuring to see the remarkable depth England has in the front row. Danny Cipriani, Billy Twelvetrees and Danny Care were all solid but only Care had a chance to make a difference.
By Fraser Kay
Struggle to see how Mako was deemed poor but Webber in the positive column? Thought Webber brought absolutely nothing to the field. Mako was really good round the park, one tackle and jackal stood out in particular.
Burgess was good, as was Slade. Farrell I thought did well too. Whenever a back line fires as well as England did on Saturday; the fly half has a lot to do with it. Doesn’t have Ford’s ability to make breaks but has a skill set that can really bring a lot out of a back line.
Would like to see Burgess get another game next week, but this time in between Ford and JJ. The attention paid to Burgess in attack really did create space; something neither Burrell or Barritt will offer. He was however out of position several times so not perfect by any means.
I thought that other than Mako, the whole pack were poor. Haskell, Robshaw and Vunipola must be far an away the first choice back row. Lawes and Launchbury are also shoe-ins.
Think Cowan-Dickie struggled, but he’ll be back for England before too long. I think he offered a lot more around the park than Webber and I don’t think he was helped by a lack of a calming influence from the senior players.
Other than that, it was what you might expect from a second string pack. If Haskell has usurped Wood, than none of the starting 8 would be in our first choice pack for a pool game against Australia or Wales or indeed a knock-out game.
I thought the half-backs were quietly efficient, and allowed the talents outside them to function. Both good options for the squad and bench, as you could use them to close tight games out.
Centres showed a lot of promise and I honestly think there is room in the squad for both of them. With Barritt and Joseph likely to be starting 12 and 13, I’d have Burgess as back-up and Slade covering 10 as well as centre in a utility back role. We could play this backline against Fiji and Uruguay and save our big hitters for Australia, Wales and the knock-outs (should we get there!) I’d possibly play this whole team against Uruguay (not Clark though, as he wouldn’t make my 31), and maybe that’s what Lancaster was thinking?
Back three looked very lively, and with Brown and Nowell as options it looks like we have good options in these positions.
Just as a matter of interest, I checked out the England stats from Saturday;
Burgess made 12 tackles and missed none.
The rest of the England backline (9 of them including replacements) made 18 tackles and missed 10.
Is this an example of stats only showing half the picture though, I assume that a missed tackle is clocked up when after having been in a position to tackle, you field and the opposition got through you and broke the line, it doesn’t take into account a tackle you should have made if you’d actually been in the right place for which I suspect that Burgess may have been guilty of a couple. I havent rewatched the game since Saturday evening but I think where he was shown up for pace a bit by Dulin early in the first half was one such example.
This is not a criticism of Burgess necessarily as I am overall a fan of the experiment so far, however, I think the stats are creating a larger gulf between the defensive capabilities of one man vs. the rest of the backline than actually existed in the game?
A good point Liono – but even if we ignore the ‘missed’ tackles as being possibly being mis-leading without context, we can’t ignore the ‘made’ tackles. And Burgess made 40% of all backline tackles – whichever way you cut it, that’s a lot of work
Yes of course it doesn’t tell the whole picture, but as Pablito notes, it is a very large percentage of the whole. Interestingly, Farrell made 7 and missed 4, which when added to Burgess means that 10 and 12 were responsible for over half of England’s back line tackles through the game.
Liono, the incident with Dulin, was not a tackle, but a kick through by one of the centres which was chased by Dulin. Burgess had to stop, turn and chase, during which time Dulin flew past him.
Agreed with both of you, the work rate was phenomenal and top tackler certainly is excellent work! Interesting with Farrells stats as well and opens up another angle, i.e. is our defensive approach and line speed with that combination highly effective at breaking down French attacks or were the French focussing too much on the tight channels and not attemtping to take the ball wide? Personally I would say probably the former.
As for the Dulin incident, watched the replay and my impression is that Burgess does appear to get sucked in by the dummy runner rather than keeping to his channel which allows Dulin greater space to put in the grubber (he is hanging back off the gainline so may still have done anyway), but it’s fine margins either way.
There’s an interesting analysis on the Rugby World site of Burgess and Slade
Once noticeable thing is that just before the Dulin incident, Slade can be seen defending the fringes of a ruck along with a plethora of forwards. He wasn’t needed there and should have been getting back to position in the line – which may have made a difference
Interesting stats there Blub – especially as a number of Burgess’ tackles were dominant, catching the ball-carrier behind the gain line and forcing him backwards.
That’s how you stop an attacking team’s momentum and create turnover chances. Nonu does it for NZ, Kuridrani can do it for Aus and Roberts for Wales. Barritt, whilst he rarely misses a tackle, does not hit so hard. Its a point of difference that no one else in the England backs offers and this, allied to the attention defences have to pay to him, makes you realise why SL is persisting with Burgess.
Wood is a concern for me. Watch Victor Vito’s performance on Saturday to see how a blind-side should be playing. Wood, solid as he is, has never offered that kind of strength in attack and defence. Really wish SL had taken a chance on Ewers or even Itoje.
And that’s not even taking into account Wood’s seeming inability to add up…
Good point on Burgess achieving dominant tackles. There was one incident toward the end of the game that didn’t seem to get noticed by the commentary team – Burgess stopped Atonio in his tracks, and as Atonio went down he offloaded (I think to Spedding), whom was then tackled by Burgess as he got back up. Quite brilliant athleticism by Burgess.
Wood is also a concern for me. Haskell fell off his form toward the end of the 6N but he had a very good second half I thought, in all aspects of the game.
I think the rating for Mako is harsh. I thought he had a very good game.
Goode’s creativity drew the plaudits, and rightly so, but as a fullback he wasn’t put under pressure. Wales and Australia will both put our back three under pressure. I’m still not convinced Goode offers the athletic ability an international full-back requires.
I’d be tempted to play Watson at 15 in Paris
I would like to see Watson have a game at 15, as he played a lot there for Bath at the end of the season.
As for Goode, I think his all round game intelligence and ability with or without the ball gets him in. Who would you have instead of him? Foden spends more time injured than playing, and Pennell (although excellent) has played the last season a division below. I guess you could take Watson as a 15 option and bring one of the other wingers back? But would we see Watson put a kick into the corner like Goode did for May’s try? That’s the reason I would have him in the squad.
with regards wigglesworth and morgan.
1 thing that is apparent is that whilst wiggleworth doesn’t speed the ball away from the ruck as fast as care, you never see the ball shoot out and get a turn over when wigglesworth is on the pitch. something that happens all too often with care. it is my biggest dislike of us playing care in that at least twice a match the ball will squirt out of the ruck and he won’t notice.
the same thing however could be said for morgan, whilst his eye catching work is ball carrying if you go back over the last 3 years the one thing you actually notice when he is not on the park is how bad our attacking breakdown work is. I dont know if it is a communication thing or a ruck hitting thing but our attacking breakdowns are infinitely better when morgan is on the park
Can someone explain what Burgess brings which is more than Eastman offers other than he could possible offer cover for the back row.
I think that is basically he’s a bit of a brute…..
Eastmond should never have been dropped from the squad. No one can terrorize defenses the way he does, and his defense, while not as explosive as big Sam’s, is hugely underrated.
The England management needed to have some faith in him, and give him a decent run of games to establish himself, but now we find ourselves arguing about whether we should gamble on Sam or opt for someone less exciting…
I do like Burgess, but I just feel that Eastmond has a far better understanding of union and the kind of footwork that sets him apart from every other centre in England. How could they drop him?! Shocking treatment, and, along with Dave Ewers’ bizarre exclusion, one of my biggest disappointments of this WC squad.
The problem with Eastmond is that you can’t start him at international level with Ford and Joseph. It’s too lightweight. Eastmond’s defence is not bad and he does get his man more often than not, but it’s never going to be a big, dominant tackle from him, stopping the runner dead and even forcing him backwards.
So assuming Ford and Joseph are nailed-on starters, Eastmond shouldn’t be. Which means he would be limited to the bench and whilst I’d like to see him as an impact player, I also believe someone like Slade offers more in terms of positions he can cover.
Of course, if we see SL pick Barritt to start and Farrell /Burrell on the bench as centre cover, I will be tearing my hair out in frustration
Agreed entirely, its unfortunate for Eastmond that his outstanding season so far at inside coincided with Joseph’s resurgence at 13, in another universe, JJ wouldn’t have rediscovered his form and Manu wouldn’t have gotten himself kicked out of the squad and we would be watching Ford, Eastmond, Tuilagi as our 10, 12, 13 combo…
Have to agree with grundy regards Morgan, the England pack simply look a better unit when he is on the park. Thought the backs were first rate and SB work rate was impressive albeit punctuated with a few noddy mistakes; I do however like the way he is constantly talking to his team mates getting them going, a real team player.
Would like to see Watson get a run at 15, as I have concerns about Goode when faced with real class and tactical nouce…Ireland last year for example. Let’s not forget as good as the England backs looked the French were pretty dire out wide, hence the second half tight game that was played.
Thought Slade was excellent.
Would like to see SB get another run in Paris as more game time is ithis biggest need and the atmosphere in Paris would be a good test.
Personal opinion Clarke should be dropped and kevesic bright back in.
Also disappointed that Ewers didn’t make the cut and surprised that Itoje didn’t.
Pretty sure 36 and Cips on their way home pending injuries.
“Webber is a clear front-runner to pull on the No2 jersey”
Surely that would be Tom Youngs? Or is there an injury I’m unaware of?
In addition, I suspect that Jamie George will squeeze ahead of Webber once he’s given the chance. Webber’s perfectly capable, but I think that, barring experience, he doesn’t offer anything George doesn’t have, and George is rather more of a force with the ball in hand.
I think I must have been watching a different player called Webber, as the one I saw failed to hook the ball in the scrums putting us on the back foot several times, and giving away needless penalties! His throwing was ok, but showed nothing around the park that would put him ahead of Youngs or George.
I like Cowan-Dickie’s ability around the park, but a hooker needs to be able to throw straight and hook balls first.
Hopefully next week we’ll get a chance to see George (best line out thrower in the Premiership last season) and Youngs show us what they can do.
Also can’t really understand the low score for Wiggy. He played exactly how England wanted to play. Kicked well and was aggressive in defence. You say he failed to inject the pace that Care and Youngs do, and yet when Care came on more mistakes were made, and the ball to the backs slowed down, and his kicking was poor?!
Personally I would have Youngs starting with Wiggy on the bench. Wiggy can up the pace when the time is right (without getting isolated and turning the ball over like Care), but is much better at providing good consistent ball to his first receiver at the correct height for them to catch it. He’s also the best kicker of the three scrum halves, as he plays for a club that have the best kick chase game in the Premiership.
Some other harsh low scores here but I won’t bore anyone anymore.
Does anyone else agree that after seeing this and how Burgess and Slade perfromed, that 12T and Burrell should be dropped?
I’m sure a few people will say Barritt should go, but when we get to the knockout stages and need to close out tight games, we will need Barritt’s midfield defence. Whereas we will not need 12T’s lack of defence (as shown on Saturday when attempting to tackle Spedding) or Burrell’s ability to butcher a 2 on 1 as in the Six Nations.
Agree that 12T is out. So I think Slade is in as the playmaking centre option. Burrell… we will wait and see. Its a straight shoot out for the ‘physical 12’ slot with Burgess. Lets remember Burgess has had one good (not amazing by any stretch) game. Burrell has had those before. He just isn’t consistently good and has yet to deliver a world class performance – the kind JJ and Tuilagi have had.
By the sounds of things Barritt may miss Saturday because of a slight injury so I would expect Burrell to start with JJ outside like the 6N. Burgess on the bench to get 30 unless Burrell has a stormer and it’s close. That gives everyone a fair chance to stake their claim, and after that Lancaster can make an informed choice.
I am just worried about throwing away some of our minimal international experience and having two novice centres in our squad. JJ is hardly a seasoned international as it is… This is why I am very keen for Barritt to start – even though I back Slade all the way and think he is England’s future 12 – a level head among the exciting, but raw Ford, JJ, May and Watson. Also why Brown and Youngs are so important.
We mustn’t forget that Burgess is an experienced player, just not in Union. He has played in the big stadiums on the big occasions, so we know he can handle the pressure. He is also the closest thing we have to Tuilagi in the attack department.
For me Burrell and 12T alike, offered so much potential, but neither have lit up the pitch. Both have had good performances, (Burrell’s first couple of Six Nations games) but both have had bad (most notably in defence).
Slade has shown glimpses of excellence in several positions for Exeter, and I believe his time is now. He has the ability to play as the playmaker centre option, which is something 12T should’ve been, but is also a good solid defender. He is also a very good place kicker, which as we know is invaluable in a World Cup year. The more kickers on the pitch the better.
I do agree, and I probably would go for Burgess personally. I am more trying to say I understand if Lancaster doesn’t and I won’t be particularly angry if he picks Burrell (I will if he picks 12T over Slade). And yes I get the point about high level experience in the world cup that Burgess has had – I was really impressed with his attitude, always the first to congratulate the pack when they won a scrum for example, generally seems to exude a positive vibes. But lets not get carried away after one game, I would like to see him again in Paris before making any conclusions. He did make the silly yellow card mistake – something he freely admitted he didn’t realise would be a yellow. Big game experience and can deal with the pressure – yes. Still learning all of unions laws – yep. That is why I would be nervous.
A good point there. The fact he didn’t realise it would be a yellow is a bit worrying, but it’s an instinctive thing to do, even if you’re aware it could result in a yellow.
I still think that Burgess’s skill set is better suited to the 12 position for England than Burrell or 12T’s. Both are good ball players, but neither are defence breakers or outstanding defenders, of which Burgess could be both. As an England 12, you need to be either one, or both to make a good partnership great. Barritt or Burgess with JJ or Slade could be great with time, but I don’t see where Burrell or 12T fit in with Lancaster’s plan.
I have to say I thought Slade was lucky not to get a yellow, and Clarke was unlucky to get one, as there didn’t seem to be too much wrong with his clear-out. One hand round the guys shoulder/neck, but hardly a neck-roll as they called it. Also thought the incident with Slade and Picamoles needed closer attention, and I’m surprised we haven’t seen a citing yet. It really looked like Picamoles led with his head once Slade was on the floor.
Think the Slade vs Clarke yellows was a classic case of character affecting the refs decision. Slade looks like an innocent school boy, Clarke a thug who broke someone’s arm and was banned for a year and a half. Marginal calls made by the refs (probably unintentional) preconceptions of a player. See also: Dylan Hartley…
If we lose in Paris how much will it matter??
Thought Mako had a pretty good game, only member of the pack to generate any real go-forward. Couple of dodgy scrums were when we were a man down and >150kg of Atonio was fresh on the field.
I’m no member of the Alex Goode fanclub, but I thought he was excellent, probably the first time for England I’ve seen him join the line and add something. I still worry he’ll be exposed again when he’s the last line of defence against a power runner but he’s certainly put his hand up.
Burgess went much better than I expected. A Ford + Burgess + JJ combination may be our best option. We’ve been picking a 12 that plays more like a flanker so for that particular role actually picking a flanker has some upside! Barritt stops his man, Burgess smashes his man and offers a lot more ball in hand. I’d start with that trio on Sat (Burrell on the bench and 36 cut loose).
Just read on BBC that Croft has been training with England?! Will he be first in if anyone in the back row gets injured?
No. Please not