15. Mike Brown: 6.5
Took a superb high ball early on, just metres from his line, but was beaten hands down by Huget for the France try. Redeemed himself with some gorgeously soft hands to send Joseph in for his late try.
14. Jack Nowell: 7
Porbably England’s best performer in the starting line-up, but that isn’t saying a great deal. He was one of the few England players not to have a bad game, showing sparks of the attacking threat we know he offers to finish with 10 defenders beaten.
13. Jonathan Joseph: 6
Finished his try well late on, but was quiet other than that. Looked a bit rusty and his performance paled in comparison to the free-running, quick-stepping phenomenon we saw in the Six Nations.
12. Luther Burrell: 5.5
Burrell’s worth in the Six Nations came in his direct running, which kept defences honest. It was not entirely his fault, of course, but too often on Saturday the English backs were guilty of running far too laterally and Burrell, as inside centre, was at the heart of that.
11. Jonny May: 5
Was clearly targeted by France’s kicking game, and it was a strategy that paid off as May really struggled under the high ball. We saw last weekend how good he can be going forwards, but this weekend we saw how shaky he can be going backwards. Might have played his way out of a starting jersey.
10. George Ford: 4.5
Ford’s performance markedly improved in the last 20 minutes when Danny Cipriani came on to help him with the playmaking duties. The thing is, your first choice fly-half shouldn’t need a helping hand like that. Previously he rarely threatened the line as we know he can, and his kicking from hand was either conservative or just inaccurate. The one positive was his place kicking.
9. Ben Youngs: 5.5
Not a terrible performance, but not a good one either. Ford’s performance probably wasn’t helped by the fact that Youngs didn’t run with the ball once during his 48 minutes on the pitch, meaning the defence could simply drift onto the fly-half.
1. Joe Marler: 5
England comprehensively lost the scrum battle, but to be fair to the props it must have been difficult to operate on turf that provided as solid a footing as a rug on hardwood floor. That said, Marler was disrupted and bettered by the less experienced Rabah Slimani.
2. Tom Youngs: 5
The line-out demons that dogged Youngs’ early performances at hooker seem to have reappeared, which is a real worry this close to the World Cup. The only reason his mark isn’t lower is the insatiable work rate he showed once again, completing a whopping 16 tackles in just 48 minutes – more than anyone else made in 80.
3. Dan Cole: 5.5
The scrummaging issues didn’t seem to concern his side of the scrum too often. There was an early penalty against him at the breakdown, but he made up for that by forcing an England penalty later on. Other than that, he didn’t have his usual impact around the tackle area.
4. Joe Launchbury: 6
Solid, if unspectacular, fare from Launchbury. He made his tackles without missing any and was generally industrious, but failed to make the usual impact at the breakdown.
5. Courtney Lawes: 5.5
As the lineout caller, he must take a portion of the blame for what was a shocking set-piece showing from England. He was, however, one of England’s few positive carriers, more often than not making metres when he received the ball.
6. James Haskell: 5.5
Despite the garish red scrum-cap it was a fairly anonymous performance from Haskell. England were outgunned at the breakdown and Haskell had little impact there.
7. Chris Robshaw: 6
All graft (as always) but little obvious impact on the game. It would be easy to pin England’s breakdown struggles on him but that wouldn’t be fair; as a unit, the England pack was simply outmuscled by their French counterparts.
8. Billy Vunipola: 5
One huge smash early on in the second half aside, this was a poor outing for Vunipola who wasn’t as rampaging with ball in hand as we have become used to. Also gave away four penalties, more than any other England player.
Replacements: 8
The most encouraging part of Saturday’s performance was the impact of the bench. Danny Cipriani was most obviously the catalyst for the improvement in England, making breaks and distributing well before darting over for a well-taken try. Was it enough to play his way into the World Cup squad? Possibly not.
Elsewhere the set-piece improved after the introduction of the front row replacements, while both Dave Attwood and Nick Easter seemed hungry for work – although both could still miss out, like Cipriani. Billy Twelvetrees was the only replacement not to have a positive impact, and his World Cup ship as surely finally sailed.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
As you know by now, we are hilarious, and you should be following us on Facebook and Twitter. 
Wouldn’t mark Brown down for the Huget try. Defending a one on one with the much space is much like a goalkeeper trying to save a penalty in football – the attacker has to make an error for you to stop it.
Thought Nowell was excellent; just confirmed my belief that Watson and Nowell should be our first choice wingers.
Wouldn’t take Attwood; but I would take Easter over him as another lock.
Drop Ford. Even with Cips on and the pack on top, he was poor. He took the ball into contact late on when there was a clear overlap – inexcusable. Farrell may excite less but he can get a back line ticking and it far better at managing a game.
“Ford’s performance markedly improved in the last 20 minutes when Danny Cipriani came on to help him with the playmaking duties. The thing is, your first choice fly-half shouldn’t need a helping hand like that. Previously he rarely threatened the line as we know he can”
Nothing to do with the fact that England actually had the ball in the last twenty minutes then? I’d be interested to hear what Ford was supposed to create or how he could threaten the line when his pack was getting smashed.
It’s not about that though. No one has suggested he should be able to make breaks and fling wide passes when the pack is going backwards.
However; he made things worse. He tried intricate moves that were not on. Went into contact alone, was indecisive with ball in hand and kicked poorly.
Farrell the week before was also behind a pack going backwards; and he showed exactly how you run a game when that is happening.
I always feel sorry for half backs when their pack is in reverse; however the best at least help the situation by playing sensible efficient rugby. Ford made poor and naive decisions to make things worse.
Agree that Ford was poor even behind a beaten pack
The intricate moves though I felt must have been a coaching decision. Whereas the week before it was all more straight forward, this week felt like the backs had been told to run through their book of attacking patterns – esp with that bloody silly one where they all line up behind the scrum – has anyone actually seen that work?
I’m sure the coaches did ask the backs to try a few set piece moves; but surely a sensible fly half would realise that they did not have the platform to do it? can’t blame the coaches for that really.
I’m sure if he’d kept things sensible the coaches could have preferred that.
Ford needed to make good decision on the pitch; not try intricate moves behind the gain line with crap ball up against a rush defense.
Surely robshaw as captain should take some of the blame. He seems completely ineffectual when the game is goign against him.
Also why did he let Ford try a kick from the half way line. Ford has no where near that range.
As I was typing I thought to make a note of this too but forgot!
Never been convinced by Robshaw at all, and Saturday worried me. As soon as Ford lined that up we all knew he didn’t have it in him/ Robshaw should also have had a word with Ford and told him to stop trying such daft plays and get the basics right. If he didn’t then we have a serious problem come big knock out games. If he did; Ford needs to be dropped.
I’m also looking around the team wondering where the leaders are. There is supposed to be a leadership group that dictate these things. Haskell? Lawes? Marler? Surely someone else, not just Robshaw, could have identified the game management issues early on and sorted it?
Completely agree here. This game showed the gulf in experience and composure between Ford and Farrell. Farrell may not be an all out attacking fly half who can run rings round defences, but he can make good sensible decisions under pressure. He was helped by Wiggy at 9 and Slade at 13. But he made the decisions and executed them. He is also a lot more vocal on the pitch than Ford.
I’m not saying Ford should be dropped, but he definitely needs some support from others in the back line. It will be interesting to see who starts at 10/12/13 in the Ireland game. I guess it will depend if Barritt is fit. If he is fit, and playing with JJ, there is definitely a case for Goode/Cips to start at 15.
Definitely think we will see Barritt and JJ together against Ireland; which I find hard to disagree with.
However, whilst I want an extra playmaker, do we really want to drop Brown? Goode is a better full back than Cips for me. Positionally Cips would get caught out, and also under the high ball I have no idea what he is like?
Mentioned this elsewhere but with JJ and Brown in the side; I struggle to see how we get an extra play maker in the side without playing Ford and Farrell together. Would like to see that for at least half hour against Ireland.
I see what you’re saying but I’m not sure Brown is back to his best fitness levels yet. He was out for quite a while with his concussion problems. The dropped ball in the set move, and some dodgy positioning on a kick return from France make me wonder if he’s completely ready.
I would start with Barritt, JJ and Goode, but have Brown on the bench.
Unfairness again here I feel. The pass that Brown dropped was appalling and it was no surprise that he dropped it
Other than that, given its been a while since he last played he loooked pretty decent, Took a couple of good high ball catches, inc one on the line that would otherwise have been a try, he was the most effective kicker in the first half and he grew into the game offensively, setting Joseph up nicely for his try
He looked to me that he would only improve if given another 60 mins or so
As for Goode, I don’t see what he offers that Cipriani doesn’t given that (imo) Goode’s defence at fb is sometimes flaky and he’s good but not great in the air
but his positioning at fullback is near enough the best around. you never see a ball hit the floor with goode at fullback because he is always where the ball will land (never-ish)
Yes he did look good for most of the game, and the pass was not great, but when he’s at his best he would’ve caught it. I’m sure he’ll be fully fit and ready come the opening game, but not quite there at the minute.
When you talk about Goode’s defence are you talking about impossible one on ones like the Huget/Brown one? If so it’s never fair to blame that on the FB. One on ones are only defendable if the attacker messes up, or they’re the slowest player on the pitch.
To say he’s not great in the air is a bit harsh I think. I’ve seen him take some incredibly difficult catches before when under serious pressure. And as Grundy has pointed out his positioning is as good as you’re going to get.
I’m not saying I would start with Goode over Brown if Brown was fully fit, but I can understand why Lancaster would have him on the bench. He is in extra attacking weapon, but of a very different kind.
I would take Cips but not in place of Goode. I would take him instead of 12T. He is a better option at 10 or centre, and he’s proved he can cover 15 if needs be.
Cips over 12T? I didn’t even know we were still considering 12T?
So you’re thinking of taking three 10’s and 3 centre’s? As opposed to two 10’s and 4 centres? If so; which centres do you go for?
Interesting idea that does squeeze Cips in.
IMO Goode is too slow and too easily bumped off in the tackle (am not referring to nigh-on impossible one on one tackles)
I don;t see much in him from an attacking point of view either. Again, too slow and his little stuttering runs that work in the premiership don’t at international level. Far too often his attempts to run the ball end in turnovers.
I would take Brown catching aerial balls over Goode every day of the week – Goode isn’t bad but Brown is better
I don’t see what Goode adds to the team that couldn’t be covered and bettered by Cipriani. Also consider that both Watson and Nowell are capable of covering full back
Totally agree with Steve here. The catalyst for both Ford and England’s improvement was the pack finally keeping the ball and going forward – thanks mainly to Attwood and Easter
Cipriani did well, but he did well behind a pack that had managed to get their act together – he wasn’t the catalyst for the improvement, but instead he capitalised upon it.
Agree with Jacob about Brown – not sure how anyone expected him to make that tackle without a huge amount of luck or an error from Huget. International wings should score in that situation 99 times out of 100
Disagree with Jacob on Attwood. He and Easter showed what the pack was missing – some grunt and power. Hate to say it, as I like him as a player, but I’d be dropping Launchbury to the bench and starting Attwood and Lawes. Easter would be fourth lock with Parling missing out
Think the scores are unfair on Burrell as well. I thought he had a decent game and ran straight more often than across. I’ll watch the highlights again tonight and see if I was wrong
I think Attwood looked good; but largely because he came on when France had already gone home for the day. Which is the same reason I’m taking Cipriani’s performance with a pinch of salt.
I wouldn’t even take Attwood. Parling is needed; our line out is a mess and he is the most intelligent line out forward we have. Launchbury was quiet on Saturday but he has proved his class, and he needs minutes after injury. Lawes we know about; and I too want Easter as a 4th lock option. That means for me, Attwood doesn’t go.
The funny thing about this loss is that none of the issues players had is surprising. They have all had them before: Marler in Wales, May last 6N, Youngs throwing. Ford hasn’t been quite as exposed before now but anyone who saw his early days at Leicester could see the writing on the wall – it’s the reason Leicester always started Flood for the big games and Ford went to Bath.
I’m guessing Ben Youngs was told not to run to allow those outside him the opportunity to show their abilities. That said the most concerning thing is that when England were on the back foot nobody thought to change the plan! But then Robshaw struggles to change things on the hoof when England aren’t in control. Though that doesn’t excuse the coaching staff not getting the word on either.
I’m not so sure about the ‘seen these issues before’ – yes Tom Youngs and his throwing, but Marler is a totally different player to the one chewed up and spat out by Adam Jones in Cardiff. His scrummaging has improved dramatically and he has had the better of some world class tight heads recently. So I want to chalk that down to a rust/bad day at the office. I expect a much better performance next time.
Not sure if anyone else noticed this but after the game, in the England huddle, the cameras stayed on them for some considerable time.
What I noticed in particular was that after some words from Captain Robshaw, Nick Easter spoke at some considerable length before Lancaster took over and the TV found somewhere else to go.
I would be fascinated to hear what Easter (clearly on of the squad “fringe” players) had to say.
“Come on boys don’t bugger it up like we did in 2011″?
:-) Quite possibly Pablito.
In fairness to him, it may well have been an elongated version of something along those lines.
I’m not missing out on my bonus this time boys?
Apparently T Youngs is amazing in training, never misses a mark, so will no doubt be picked regardless of what he does on the pitch. Sorry, but the tackles should not excuse the abject failure of his day job – throwing and hooking. No more than a 3 for me, and would seriously consider starting George against Ireland.
I’d also give Robshaw no more than a 5 – abject captaincy IMO.
Does anyone remember when Marler used to be a handful in the loose, with really good hands for a fwd? What happened to that guy. Certainly his scrummaging has improved, but not that much that he has become so anonymous on the pitch.
How about marks for the coaches – can we give negative marks? Bench selection a joke (for the backs) and why weren’t the changes made earlier? George on at half time and the rest on no later than 50 mins, but no we have to wait to 65 mintues as usual. How often have we seen other coaches sub their props when they’ve got on the worng side of the ref (sometimes unfairly penalised), only to get decsion go the other way (also usually randomly). I just feel that Lancaster has no instinct or feel for the match sometimes. An earlier fight back might have paid dividends.
I had this debate regarding subs on Saturday and there was some mixed feelings here.
Whilst I see merit in the argument that Marler/Cole should all have been hauled off at half time, would that really benefit England? In that game it almost certainly would have, but with all three looking quite clearly rusty; surely the most game time the better? The France result is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things surely?
On Youngs I agree though; only because I’m not convinced he should be a guaranteed starter, whereas the other two are. He can’t throw, therefore he can not play with a number 2 on his back. If he wants to run round tackling then put a 6/7 on his back (not that he’d have the height to be a line out jumper).
The only change I’d have made to the 23 would be to have not had 12T’s in there; I wanted to see Burgess with Ford and JJ really. I think he got that very wrong considering 12T is pretty useless. I think it was made off the back of him getting no ball the week before, which is a mistake.
Agree, would have had either Burgess or Slade (or both on the bench).
I do wonder whether tom youngs should just suck it up and go to flanker you know
I found this in the comments section of the Telegrapgh, for those (like me) who think the problems SL has are entirely of his own making:
“SL repeatedly ignored hartley’s behavioural shortcomings until it was too late. now we have no time to groom a successor. tom youngs cannot throw straight just as ashton cannot tackle, robshaw struggles at 7, robshaw and wood fail to balance each other, b youngs and care are unreliable, barritt is too one dimensional and goode is too slow. all of these problems have been known about for several seasons yet (with the belated exception of ashton) ignored”
Interesting on Hartley. I think SL made a huge mistake not just picking him regardless of his ban. Brilliant hooker and will only miss the Fiji game.
B Youngs however is a brilliant 9. He would have even more caps had SL not picked Lee Dickson one AI series.
Already mentioned I’m not a fan of Robshaw really, or Barritt if I’m honest. The reason I’d defend SL is that whilst I don’t really think they are great; I would still pick them both based on a lack of alternative options. Which is where I get the stigma of loving SL so much!
Who else is a viable 7 option? No one answer saying Armitage because he is not an option! There isn’t really anyone else. Clarke is probably one of the better 7s in the prem, but not great. Kvesic isn’t great. Can’t even think of any other genuinely good options? Top Prem 7s are Burger, Louw, Salvi…
Same goes for the 12 shirt. Again to defend SL, he has given pretty much everyone a go! Slade he hasn’t; but every other option from Barritt to Eastmond has had at least a few goes. All have looked pretty abject. At least with Barritt we won’t have any Eastmond/12T’s esc nightmares. Slade’s lack of opportunity came because of JJ’s form; and personally don’t think they’d be a heavy enough pairing.
To be fair on Eastmond – did he really have a nightmare? NZ 3rd test was a collective failiure, one test match too many after a long season IMO. He didn’t do a lot wrong in the autumn, and was dropped purely (it seemed) to retain Farrell in the starting 15, who was then replaced by 12t of all people!!
With Slade, I think every now and then a player comes along who looks to the manor born. Slade is one and I would have had no issue with him taking 12t’s place in the AI and this year’s 6n. Mature beyond his years, much like Wilko almost 20 year ago. In the scheme of things 5 extra caps would be massive at this stage.
On the 7 front, I’m generally a supporter of Robshaw, but his decsion making does worry me at times, but we are where we are. Call me Mr Gambler, but I wonder whether post world cup we do a Carling and just make Iotje Captain at the start of a new era!
Eastmond to be fair I was never that keen on. I don’t think he is a 12. He is almost Giteau esc in his style, but without the kicking game. He doesn’t offer a great level of game management, kicking and his distribution is ok without being great.
I am well aware of your adoration for Slade! However, not sure I am quite as sold yet. I am a massive fan of his but he still does make quite a few errors, even in the France game a couple poor kicks when we had plenty of space to go wide stands out. He is very good, but not Wilko quality. Hope I’m proven wrong, as I’ve never been a massive Ford fan either so the future England 10 shirt is by no means sown up.
I would definitely not be against giving Itoje the captaincy. Now he does look like the real deal to me. I wonder is Launchbury or Lawes might be of that ilk? Hard to know without being on the inside; but they are both top class players assured of their place.
Adoration is a bit much (though probably applies to how SL feels toward Goode and Barritt ) but I just don’t see why SL is looking a gift horse in the mouth.
In the problem position of centre a player comes along a year ahead of the world cup who is strong defensively, has a massive boot (can pop them in from his own half), has great vision and hands and a decent turn of pace. And all Stu is concerned with is how many one paced giants he can cram into his squad. 3 enough or shall we drop Joseph too!! WTF!!
He even covers 4 positions. IF Burgess plays it will likely be from the bench, with Farrell at 10 and a utility player covering 10 on the bench. In that scenario would rather that be Slade than Goode. Slade acquitted himself well against an experienced Baa Baas team last summer and should have toured at least and have been in the AI squad at least and in the 23 for the 6n. By now we’d know more about him and it would not be so much a gamble.
Okay, so a slightly random suggestion, given that SL will play Barritt or Burrell at 12, why not play Slade at 13 and JJ at 14? JJ’s try was a winger’s try and IMHO Slade is a bigger plus than Nowell or May (Watson deserves his place at 11 for now). Separately Morgan should start at 8 and Easter should be on the bench to cover lock and back row and most importantly add some leadership and nous that was so sorely lacking on Saturday.
I think that whilst Slade does have some fantastic quality, JJ’s emergence has probably stunted his chances of involvement. I assume that SL doesn’t think a Ford, Slade, JJ midfield is large enough to continually get over the gainline at test level. To be honest I agree with him.
If JJ had never have turned up I would however have the same opinion as you on Slade’s involvement.
Ok I am going to attempt to clarify on the Tom Youngs situation, as former (pretty rubbish) line out jumper myself – I am not completely absolving him from blame BUT England’s repeated line out failings are not entirely his fault. This is not just the hooker’s problem. Basically by sacrificing Wood for Haskell we have lost a line-out jumper as neither Haskell or Robshaw are really primary jumpers (Robshaw had the role of the third). This leaves Launchbury and Lawes as the two, which makes it very easy to guess where the ball is going. France had 3 primary and a fourth potential. Lawes, as the man running the line out, needs to mix things up and keep the opposition guessing. What he did was keep getting poor old Tom to throw it to the middle where the whacking great mountain that is Pape was chilling waiting to pick it off. Youngs didn’t fail because ‘it was not straight’, his throwing was really just off in terms of the vertical axis (it was coming in about 6 inches too low), but it was an obvious call which was all too easy to guess and compete for the French. You saw at the end of the match after they got George to throw to Robshaw a couple of times it changed the dynamic and meant the French were not certain where it was going to go.
This is an issue for me. Either they need to get smarter with the line out – keep it mixed up and use Robshaw at the back (actually an easier throw if your issue is not the straightness as there is less likely to be competition jumpers), or they need to bring in another line out forward. Unfortunately I am not a Wood fan, so can’t offer a solution there (why I liked Itoje). Easter is pretty good in the lineout…
Speaking as an optimist, I would imagine that they choose to use a very limited number of calls during these games in order that they don’t give the Welsh and Aussie analysts too much to work with.
It was very clear that France found it relatively simple to get into a challenging position at the line, which suggests that England were relatively easy to read – irrespective of the throwing quality.
Perhaps England just chose to use the same calls this week as last?
The one that was pinger as not straight, I thought was a little unlucky, as it looked like the jumper (was it Robshaw?) was thrown into the gap, rather than straight up, which exaggerated the line of the throw.
I largely agree with your justification for the failings at the lineout and with only 2 jumpers you need very accurate throwing and to get clever with the call, mixing up the lift zone with movement.
Where I disagree is with regards to Woods value over Haskell’s. Wood is better in the rucks and maul and Haskell is better ball in hand and both defend well which leaves them tied however Haskell doesn’t jump so Wood should start
Whilst I agree to a certain extent – I don’t think it is completely true.
Last AI’s there was a fixture that Hartley hit every single one of his line outs (in the double figures I believe), with the exact same jumpers on offer.
Not sure thats true – didn’t Wood start every AI last year? Haskell didn’t come in until the 6N when Wood was injured
Henry after 2 months in camp it is beyond my ken why the lineout isn’t a smoothly operating function.One can only assume insufficient preparation and practice.Ditto kick offs made so easy for the French.Basic basic stuff!
Losing Hartley has really caused a problem I think, I wonder whether SL isn’t thinking very hard about giving him a call. I personally would bring him back in and take him, Youngs and George. the back row is another area of real concern, there was a serious lack of carrying ability and breakdown nous on Saturday that cannot be allowed to be repeated. I do think SL has caused a problem for himself here through his selections – for me Itoje being cut was a serious error.
you don’t get back in after being a dick just because other people in your position aren’t good enough
itoje totally agree.Exactly the kind of athletic dynamism missing from the whole of the backrow.
Apart from Brown who would score 6 the rest score no more than 1 with Coles being a minus score -6, for all the needless penalties and getting destroyed in the set piece.
Ford had a bad game behind a pack going backwards. We had less than 10 % possession in the first half, to expect him to do anything with that is ridiculous. The game was lost with the forwards, can’t believe the amount of people calling for his head after one game after years of moaning about the performances of Farrell
not sure how robshaw got a higher mark than haskell. in the first half haskell was the only guy who showed any sign of standing up to the french pack physically. I said this would happen a couple of years ago when ireland beat new zealand up for 60 minutes. at some point this light and mobile pack is going to get the crap kicked out of them by a big pack and that has happened now for 120 minutes. there has to be a balance
Isn’t a warm up game the opportune time for Ford to practice a long range kick under test match pressure conditions?
I’m not trying to justify England’s failings…but the lad has one bad outing in an England Jersey and people are calling for his head?
Yes, Farrell is more experienced, but you only get experience by playing more, making mistakes, and learning from them.
Yes EC you’re quite right. He had a poor first half. He improved in the second half considerably, and whilst we would like our players to play well for the full 80, sometimes it doesn’t happen. If this is out of his system now, 4 weeks before it really matters, then I don’t care so much.
It is very important to note that he had the mental strength to pull himself together.
Also, I would suggest that his touchline conversion, against the clock, two minutes from time, showed enormous mental strength.
Can’t believe Lancaster is waiting until Thursday to name his squad? What is the point of that? There is no more game time to see players in.
Shows a serious lack of decisiveness IMO.
If he ends up picking Cowan-Dickie based on him hitting his darts in training over the next day or two then I may well join Benjit and the SL is a muppet brigade…
After just reading Jacob’s post I have come up with a list of people I do not want to see in SL’s squad. To be honest it’s not very long, but I think these people have either played themselves out of contention or are just surplus to requirements.
12T!!!!!!!!!!!
Cowan-Dickie
Clarke
I would be quite happy with any of the other options in any of these players positions.
Burell, JJ Barritt, Burgess, Slade? I would be happy seeing any of these names in the centres and I would even throw Cips’ name in there as a utility option. But please, please, please do not take 12T!!!!!!!!!!!
Cowan Dickie is a good player, but needs to do the basic requirement of a hooker right first!
Clarke is again a good player, but I believe all the other options are better than him.
After watching the two games aginst France, none of the hookers in the squad seem able to throw a lineout or scrummage
Welcome to the brigade Jacob ????. Although I wouldnt take him I think Clark was unlucky to have that game as his debut, I think he could be a good option for England but unfortunately hasn’t had enough of an opportunity to showcase his ability.
Haha I’ve not quite joined yet; but the delay in announcing the squad seems unnecessary. Surely the players must be frustrated at sitting around a few extra days, seemingly being able to do nothing more, whilst the coaches debate them?
Just feels like there is some indecision there.
Ignore the ? Marks, it was supposed to be a smiley face but I guess they don’t work!