Listen to Karmichael Hunt Mic'd up!

Pass Around The World with Allianz

France convincing winners over England

Wallabies 31-man squad for RWC 2015

Alipate Fatafehi huge hit vs USA Eagles

Brilliant Richie McCaw lineout move try

Levani Botia smashes Tonga to set up try

Super Rugby Hits of the Season 2015

Touching Haka from Under 20's

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Owen Farrell kicks England to victory over Ireland in Dublin

Owen Farrell kicked all of England's points as they went top of the Six Nations table with a 12-6 win over Ireland in wet conditions in Dublin. It was England's first win there in ten years, as they remain the only side now capable of claiming a Grand Slam. 

Farrell held his nerve to kick a brace of penalties in either half of play to help England claim victory in what was a tight and physical battle.

"If you practise enough it's only another kick. I kick thousands of them," Farrell said in his post match interview. "Conditions out there weren't great but we rolled our sleeves up and got stuck in."

Ronan O'Gara, on for injured flyhalf Johnny Sexton, kicked two penalties of his own for Ireland, but it was England's day as they edged ahead despite going a man down when James Haskell was yellow carded for attempting to kick the ball away at the bottom of a ruck.

"I'm chuffed for Owen Farrell but also the maturity of the whole team," coach Stuart Lancaster said.

"The stakes have always been high but they go even higher with France coming to Twickenham next off the back of a defeat (to Wales) yesterday. That game will be massive."

This was the first time England had won in Dublin since 2003, the year that they last won the Grand Slam, and later, the Rugby World Cup.

On a sidenote, congratulations must go to Brian O'Driscoll, who had a frantic morning as he and wife Amy celebrated the birth of their first child, a baby girl, just a few hours before kickoff.

Posted by Rugbydump at 6:45 pm | View Comments (56)

Posted in Six Nations 2013

Viewing 56 comments

Facepalm February 10, 2013 10:52 pm

Right, can someone please explain to me the law regarding stamping? It seems like at one minute it's perfectly acceptable and the next players are getting banned. It would seem pretty out of order that you are allowed to nearly break someone's ankle and get away with it. Some ratification would be great.

· Reply · Report

TechnoMouse February 10, 2013 10:54 pm

Yeah I'm also confused by the ruling. You often see scrum-halves having a mighty stamp trying to get the ball out of a ruck, though I guess they can claim that they're trying to dig out the ball. Healy's, on the other hand, appeared just to be on the player, which perhaps is where the line is drawn. Will be interesting to see if he gets cited or not.

· · Reply · Report

browner February 12, 2013 12:15 am

I'll explain the ruling as clearly as I can ......................... French Ref = Anti English + one eyed.

Haskell YC was miniscule offence compared to the stamp. How blatant does it need to be ?

· Reply · Report

Facepalm February 12, 2013 8:59 pm

Thank you for such an incredible, insightful view into referees.

· Reply · Report

TechnoMouse February 10, 2013 10:52 pm

Gritty and determined performance by England, though neither team played particularly well. Defence dominated yet again, as in Wales vs France. As an England fan, I hope Morgan comes back to play 8 next weekend. I also think Hartley should start as Youngs didn't have a great game today, nor last week. Would also like to see Foden in the mix - especially considering his scoring record against the French!

Next weekend's games will be very interesting, England against a wounded France, resurgent Scotland vs a tough Ireland outfit, and Wales away to a much improved Italy. Should be good.

· Reply · Report

UpTheLowEnd February 10, 2013 11:03 pm

Agreed about Morgan, cuase as good as Wood is, he's that good because he plays his position well... looked a little uncomfortable at 8. Regarding Hartley in for Youngs, Youngs didnt have a particularly bad game today or last week, he also carries a damn site better than Hartley. Also, theres a reason Hartley wasn't starting today and thats cause the chances of Rory Best winding him up enough to snap (again) were pretty high and you can't have that in your first choice hooker. With you regarding Foden though.

· · Reply · Report

TechnoMouse February 10, 2013 11:18 pm

True on Hartley I guess, up until not that long ago I thought he'd sorted his temperament out... alas it turned out to be temporary. I see what you mean on Youngs as well, I guess he hasn't done anything badly... bar a couple of shaky lineouts, but the conditions may well have affected that. Good job I'm not the one picking the team!

· Reply · Report

Tc February 10, 2013 11:06 pm

I wonder if any armchair refs could shed some light on the Kearney incident in the second half. I'm referring to the time he was tackled near touch near his goal line. He then reached out to touch the touchline and kill the play for a line out.

At the time I thought this was quite smart play, but on reflection think it should have been a penalty, possibly a penalty try to England

You can run a ball dead or kick it dead, but can't throw a ball out intentionally. I wouldn't think it would be a penalty except for the fact he had been tackled and a ruck had been formed. He action was secondary to the tackle and therefore intentionally killing play - foul or not?

· Reply · Report

Bodge February 10, 2013 11:58 pm

Nothing wrong with it at all- exactly the same as just walking off the field with the ball or kicking the ball into touch.

Whether or not the ruck had been formed or called by the ref, it's perfectly legal to be in contact / control of the ball and then go into touch. Highly unlikely for a ruck - more likely for a maul to roll out into touch

Had he caught the ball and hoofed it up the pitch nobody would have said a word. He's still effectively sent the ball off the pitch for an opposing throw in, just 5 metres out and not 50 metres out.

As for a Penalty Try, you can't be absolutely sure that that one act prevented a try from being scored even if it had been an offence.

As for Cian Healey's stamp - he needs a big ban. That could have broken a guy's leg!

The difference between stamping and rucking is a tricky one as the Laws state that a ruck is when players are over a ball trying to win or retain possession of the ball with the use of their FEET.

You CANNOT intentionally ruck a player on the floor, but then the offending player needs to apply the laws of common sense and get his backside out of the way of 19 stone blokes with studded boots!

Rucking is usually described as pushing the object (ball / player?) away with the sole of your boot. Stamping is an act where the player is aiming a deliberate strike. They're usually pretty easy to spot the difference. One says "Get the %^&* out the way!", the other says "Take that you B@$t@rd!"

· Reply · Report

RC February 11, 2013 12:19 am

I think that Cian Healey should have a life time ban for what he did, he stamped, then he punched and then strangled a player with his elbow. There was a lot of malicious in what he did.

England played very well considering not being at home. Yes the weather was a massive factor as you have to see tackles coming at you and look for the ball in rain thats pouring down.

I agree with TC that should have been a penalty or penalty try from putting his hand into touch as it was as rightly said you cannot throw a ball out intentionally. I know the law says you can make a ball dead but he was turned and had to release the ball so this was the offence that in my eyes made it a penalty. Ashton had held the player at which he needed to release the ball so Ashton could pick it up.

· Reply · Report

Tc February 11, 2013 12:56 am

I don't think we should lose sense of proportion with Healy. The stamp was blatant and for all to see, but we've all been guilty of the same. The only difference is the game has changed from 10 years ago when it was he player on the floors fault for getting shoed. He will get cited and banned

The worse offence he committed today though was flying into the ruck with the punch

· Reply · Report

stroudos February 11, 2013 10:03 pm

Tc said "The stamp was blatant and for all to see, but we've all been guilty of the same. "

I'd like it on the record that I have never deliberately stamped on the ankle of a bloke lying on the ground.

· · Reply · Report

Tc February 11, 2013 1:09 am

Im not so sure. Once the ruck has formed (ie 1 from either side above the tackler and tackled) you are out of the game as the tackled + no you are not supposed to play the ball once the tackle is complete. He deliberately sought touch after the ruck had formed. It's like a second movement for a try, but in this case more cynical.

If it is killing the ball or deliberately not allowing the defender to play the ball 2 metres out, then there's a very good case for a penalty try

· Reply · Report

cheyanqui February 11, 2013 12:59 am

Kearney was tackled in the field of play. He is then allowed to play the ball in any direction he wants, but he must play or place the ball.

I would argue that reaching with your free hand to make contact with the touch line - after already being held in the tackle would NOT constitute an attempt to "present" or "place" the ball. To me, it should have been an penalty kick.

But in the heat of the moment, I think the referees were surprised that he didn't do something totally egregious, like throw the ball out. I think they're used to more obivously cynical plays, that this one surprised them.

· Reply · Report

cheyanqui February 11, 2013 1:00 am

i.e. -- his movement with his free hand does not appear in any way to promote the placement or presentation of the ball. Thus, he is not trying to play it.

· Reply · Report

Tc February 11, 2013 1:16 am

RD - any chance you could put a clip of this on? its quite an interesting point of law that I've never seen happen before

· · Reply · Report

memberbenefits February 11, 2013 5:34 pm

I haven't seen it since the heat of the moment but could it be argued that Kearney was not allowed to get to his feet and thus it should have been a penalty to Ireland?

· Reply · Report

Patrick February 11, 2013 7:41 pm

There isnt any law that says you have to let a player get to his feet, for some reason a lot of people still play it. Otherwise you could just lie on the floor indefinitely. If a player slipped over when he was carrying the ball, you'd tackle him, the same applies when someone slides to pick it up

· Reply · Report

browner February 12, 2013 12:51 am

LAW 14.1 Players on the ground
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:

•Get up with the ball
•Pass the ball
•Release the ball.

Kearney was on the floor, so he should have released the ball already, hense his hand into touch should have made no difference , if his hand into touch was material, then it's a PK for not releasing beforehand IMO


· Reply · Report

memberbenefits February 12, 2013 5:07 pm

Ok wrong wording but you can't dive on top of him like the England player did.

· Reply · Report

cheyanqui February 11, 2013 1:02 am

When Healy stamped, the ball was at the upper thigh / buttock level of the England player. So by Healy stamping his ankle, he has a rather thin argument about trying to produce the ball.

Healy had a generally c*nty match overall, and should get a few weeks off to ponder his existence.

As for productive rucking, I think we should bring it back. I also think they shouldn't allow offensive players to bridge on the ground, and be off-limits from being counterrucked -- but that doesn't make for an entertaining TV product in the eyes of the IRB.

· · Reply · Report

stroudos February 11, 2013 10:06 pm

Seemed to be acting like a total tw@t all game actually, didn't he? I actually had no idea he was such a dirty bar steward. Massive disappointment, as he is a hell of a player.

· Reply · Report

browner February 12, 2013 12:22 am

Healy & Cole to be Lions 1st test Props......any takers?

Q? does Healy 'over hard' play, get him chastised or welcomed by the lions selectors?

· Reply · Report

cheyanqui February 11, 2013 1:02 am

When Healy stamped, the ball was at the upper thigh / buttock level of the England player. So by Healy stamping his ankle, he has a rather thin argument about trying to produce the ball.

Healy had a generally c*nty match overall, and should get a few weeks off to ponder his existence.

As for productive rucking, I think we should bring it back. I also think they shouldn't allow offensive players to bridge on the ground, and be off-limits from being counterrucked -- but that doesn't make for an entertaining TV product in the eyes of the IRB.

· · Reply · Report

ConorL February 11, 2013 2:25 am

Was at the match, and it was pretty poor fare from both sides to be honest, even taking into account the horrendous weather conditions.

Ireland dominated possession and territory, and looked the better team for most of the match, but they just simply made too many mistakes. They made something like 7 handling errors in the first 25mins!
England are no great shakes either. They used the same tactics that won them the WC a decade ago ie. a big pack, minimize mistakes, and kick penalties. It ain't pretty, it ain't exciting, it ain't entertaining, but it is damn effective!

Nothing wrong with the Kearney incident, it was just smart play on his part.

Healy will probably get cited, but given previous suspensions for similar acts and his clean record he is only looking at a week or two MAX. Might miss the Scotland game, but that's it.

· Reply · Report

ruckinmaul February 11, 2013 5:27 am

I think England played that tactic due to the horrendous weather. They play expansive running rugby they day they win against the All Blacks.

· Reply · Report

ajb February 11, 2013 1:42 pm

It might not be pretty but it certainly is exciting and entertaining. Even for a neutral, the game was nail-biting. I think the IRB have lost sight a little when trying to make the game as open as possible. While scrappy games can be rubbish, they can also be some of the most exciting in rugby. Wales v France and England v Ireland is an example of this divide, the former scrappy to the point of mediocrity, the latter thrilling

Healy certainly deserves to get cited for one of his infringements, the stamp was especially bad. A couple of the Irish players like O'Mahoney and Healy looked to be a little too fired up. It was nice to see Marler having matured a bit. A year or two ago he would have been involved heavily I would think

· Reply · Report

ConorL February 11, 2013 4:36 pm

Thrilling isn't the word I would use to describe it! Lowest scoring match in 6N history, and the first time there hasn't been a try in this fixture since 1984!!

As an Irishman, I never got the sense that they could or would win the match. Even when they pulled it back to 6-6 and England were down to 14, they never looked like going on to win. To England's credit they played the sin bin period excellently and completely shut the game down. Once it got to 12-6, even with 15-20mins left, the game was over.

They could have thrown in a second ball and Ireland still wouldn't have scored a try!

· Reply · Report

DanKnapp February 11, 2013 4:59 pm

Disagree. The conditions were dreadful, but you had two teams who were slugging it out for possession, hitting each other as hard as they could... what wasn't to like? Yes, it wasn't an open contest, but I found it utterly compelling.

I'm normally a really pessimistic fan, but for once at no point did I think that we [England] were going to lose. I think England were just too dominant at the breakdown to give the Irish more than a sniff. It was a shame the bounce didn't favour Tuilagi, because otherwise I thought that was quite a well-worked effort.

· · Reply · Report

stroudos February 11, 2013 10:12 pm

@ConorL, what a dull approach to watching a game you have. Here you had two very evenly-matched sides playing effective defence - by definition that's going to result in fewer tries being scored. Does not make it a boring game! On the contrary it was a fascinating closely-contested match.

· Reply · Report

ConorL February 11, 2013 10:50 pm

@ Stroudos and TechnoMouse, The scoreline was close, but that doesn't mean it was a closely-contested match! As I said (and apparently DanKnapp agrees with me on this) Ireland may have been close on the scoreboard, but were never in with a real chance of winning the match. THAT is what made it a poor game IMO, not the lack of tries.

Obviously you don't need teams scoring 10 tries apiece to make a good game. I like a gruelling physical battle with two teams slugging it out just as much as the next guy, but just as lots of tries do not necessarily mean a good game, neither is two teams being "physical" enough by itself to make for a good game.

The BEST games IMO are the ones that feature strong defense, exciting attacking play, and the game being in the balance right up to the final whistle. eg. The simply awesome Clermont vs Leinster semi-final in last seasons Heineken Cup.

This game had ONE of those three things (the defense), so for me it wasn't a particularly good game.

· Reply · Report

TechnoMouse February 11, 2013 8:01 pm

One of the most exciting and intense games I've watched as a neutral was when Scotland beat Australia 9 - 8 at Murrayfield a few years back (I think that was the score). You don't need a plethora of tries to make a good game. Often 2 units that match each other (a la Ireland vs England yesterday) physically produce the best games.

· Reply · Report

Reality February 11, 2013 11:52 pm

Do you not think though that for a low-scoring game to be exciting, there should be exciting play in it? Ireland just kept dropping the ball. I've never seen a professional team make more mistakes. If one of the two sides can't get past a few phases without knocking it on, I just don't think the game can be considered exciting.

And another exciting low-scoring game was Harlequins vs Leinster in 2009 (5-6). Anyone remember that one?

· Reply · Report

ConorL February 12, 2013 12:22 am

Huzzah, someone else agrees with me!

Ah, Bloodgate. I remember it well! My abiding memory of that match (aside from the aforementioned scandal) was the incredible defensive effort put in by Rocky Elsom. He was simply unstoppable that day.

· Reply · Report

browner February 12, 2013 12:56 am

Replace "exciting" for " tense-compelling-absorbing-fasinating-enjoyable"

I played in a 0-0 match once that was full of commitment,skill but also fantastic determined [& sometimes desperate/last ditch] defence across the whole pitch

· Reply · Report

Icy February 12, 2013 2:20 am

Interesting comments. Agree with others in that it didn't look poor from where I was and didn't think that Ireland looked the better team apart from a few minutes after half time. Easy to be subjective though, so looked at the stats.

Ireland "dominated" possession & territory with 58% and 57% respectively. Must mean Wales "super-dominated" Ireland the week before with 63% and 65%.

Ireland starting tight 5 were heavier than England's, whose whole pack was only 0.04% heavier once you throw in the back row where the weight is less relevant.

Not sure minimizing mistakes or kicking penalties count as tactics particularly, but in WC 2003 England were third behind NZ & Aus in total tries scored after topping the try scoring table in the Six Nations that year.

Entry level ban for stamping is two weeks so that would be minimum if Healy does pick up a ban. He probably will but should be lower end, although it was an idiotic thing to do I hope he does another game in the Six Nations.

Agree with you on Kearney though, clever move from a certain Lions tourist.

· Reply · Report

ConnachtMan February 11, 2013 11:27 am

Heaslip cost Ireland the game, he gave away 3 easy penalties, was a poor Captain on the day, fair play to England though for a solid all round performance, the next round should be interesting for all !

· · Reply · Report

McMurphy February 11, 2013 2:10 pm

Intruiging game. What seemed to me to be the difference was the organisation and decision taking. It seemed to like England did play more rugby than many are crediting them for, but they tended to do this only when it was in the area of the pitch where it wouldn't hurt them if it went wrong. That said, I think on at least a couple of occasions off turnovers they looked to go, but after the Irish shut the door went back to their playin for territory.

Other than that they were happy to defend with their rush defence, not go offside or concede kickable penalties and impose pressure.

The most impressive thing for me was the way England took charge totally during the sin bin. Impressive maturity for what is still a very inexperienced side.

· · Reply · Report

Leadbitter February 11, 2013 5:13 pm

One for the rugby purists / people who play or have played the game.
It always amazes me when lack of tries is percieved as being a bad game - it was utterly compelling from start to end. Chess on steroids.
I expect it was far more physical at the bottom of those rucks than just what the cameras picked up and Cian Healy was no more lucky (although it was far more cowardly and unsporting) not to get a yellow for his stamp than Farrell was for pulling back the attacker after his chip through back fired. This is a very good English side that has just beaten a very good Irish side. I'm looking forward to the next installment.

· · Reply · Report

Moseley269 February 11, 2013 11:05 pm

It is this type of game that is utterly gripping. Ireland had the lions share of possesion, territory yet Englands defence and unwillingness to give away any penalty within their own 10m line was the major positive from and english point of view. For that young squad, remember Ireland had twice the number of caps of the english starting 15, for that squad to goto a wild wet and windy Lansdowne and produce a solid, no frills, go out and do a job performance deserves great credit.

I counted out Ireland had 22 minutes of unrelenting pressure in and around the english 22m and could not force a single mistake from the english. Haskells yellow was inevitable after England typically shut off for that first 10 minutes after half time. It was at that point I thought o no here we go Ireland with their tails up at home this could get ugly quick.

Obviously the major talking point is Healys stamp (unacceptable) and then to charge into a ruck with a low swinging arms towards the head of a player. He had clearly lost it.

A win is a win. Winning is a habit aswell as losing is a habit. If England win ugly for the next 3 games are we going to complain at a Triple crown, 6N title and Grand slam in a Lions year with so many young talented and in form players having that ability to win tight games?


· · Reply · Report

browner February 12, 2013 12:30 am

Robshaw has been criticised for lack of experience previously ............ Was it my imagination, or did he indicate a kick at goal [to legitimately run the clock down] - only for Farrell to override him and kick to touch in the final minute ?

Penalty kick would have run the clock down to zero , a lost lineout & then a Irsih converted try would have mean't castration for Robshaw.

· Reply · Report

Colombes February 12, 2013 12:50 am

i thought exactly the same, Robshaw is an hardworking flanker, but i don't see in him a real england skipper. For frenchies, an england captain has always been a big mouth (Carling, Johnson, Moody). This action and the episodes vs SA and Australia were perfect examples. How is he judged in england?

· Reply · Report

Nick February 12, 2013 8:20 am

I disagree that he was "overruled" by Farrell. It seems to me he asked his flyhalf whether he fancied kicking for goal, to which Farrell responded that he was more confident of making touch. Had Farrell gone for goal, missed, and the ball failed to cross the dead-ball line, Ireland would have a chance to attack from deep. Plus it was a 48-odd metre kick in the pouring rain.

Instead they played the percentage option. Safe kick for touch, short line out and another kick for touch. Obvious which one the right option was really.

· Reply · Report

stroudos February 12, 2013 1:54 pm

@Colombes - Robshaw seems to be derided by almost all the armchair pundits in England. I simply cannot understand why.

Someone posted his playing performance stats here the other day, where in the autumn tests he carried more, tackled more, missed fewer tackles, won more turnover ball, basically did everything you want from your openside better than his Welsh, Irish and Scottish counterparts. (It was a "home nations" comparison, I would like to have seen Dusautoir's stats too, which might have told a slightly different story). In both six nations games so far he's continued that rich vein of form, making tackles, territory, securing clean ball etc, all with the minimum of fuss.

As a captain, his approach embodies the culture that Stuart Lancaster has developed into the England squad. He leads from the front in terms of his commitment and he seems to encourage a positive mindset and team work ethic. OK, he's not autocratic, he consults the other decision-makers in the team. Many people don't seem to like this; they seem to think it shows weakness and indecision. Well it's worth remembering that the quintessential gnarly, hard behemoth of a world-cup-winning "General", Martin Johnson, had Colonels and Majors all over the pitch in people like Dallaglio, Hill, Leonard, Greenwood / Catt.

It's a 15 (or even 22)-man game and I think, when you look more closely at the strong leaders in rugby, actually they demonstrate that fact very clearly.

· · Reply · Report

McG February 15, 2013 1:01 am

As an Irish Person i have to say i like Robshaw i think he would make an outstanding Lions captain if given the opp.. thats a Big if. Cant believe he gets as much grief as he does far superior to our captain on the day

· Reply · Report

Leadbitter February 12, 2013 3:14 pm

Personally, I think he is one of the finest sportsman of his generation and epitomises everything that is rugby. We English are fortunate to have a man like that captaining our national side, let alone a player of his stature. My hunch is that he will become the most successful captain since Johnson. Yes, I rate him.

· · Reply · Report

barizpan February 14, 2013 1:59 am

The most important thing for a captain to do is to lead by example. You have to play consistently well to inspire others. Robshaw seems to be doing that. Heaslip not so much as the moment.

· · Reply · Report

browner February 12, 2013 12:32 am

Is Paddy-Power an Oxymoron ?

· · Reply · Report

Colombes February 12, 2013 12:41 am

I think that many posters are harsh with England
We had a pretty entertaining first round, true, but this WE conditions and pitch didn't allow to build creative actions wherever you were in paris or dublin.

England played with their actual forces: a solid pack and a metronome kicker, i don't see why england should have changed plans not adapted to the situation. I find that Youngs and Farrell controled the game with intelligence, looking for territory. I'm much more reserved on the back 3 (ashton, brown and goode), but that wasn't a game for them, isn't it. Too soon to say if this team will win this 6N, but regarding french lack of form and welsh bipolarity, they seem to be the best prepared side.

Ireland didn't do a bad match as they had more possession in this match.. but too many hand mistakes and some indiscipline cost them (Healy will receive a large ban) . They weren't helped by Sexton, Zebo and BOD injuries, and it won't help them for the next rounds

Whatever the actual difference of form between France and England, the twickenham crunch will be still crunchy.

· Reply · Report

browner February 12, 2013 1:00 am

I'm unconcerned at France at HQ, or Italy in Rome, but Cardiff to win a slam will be a huge ask !

· Reply · Report

McMurphy February 12, 2013 11:11 am

Italy come to Twickenham too.

· Reply · Report

McMurphy February 12, 2013 11:11 am

I'm with you to an extent over the back 3, but for lack of outstanding alternatives, they've all made significant contributions. And I'd argue Goode and Brown were pretty good against Ireland.

Mike Brown seems to havecome of age for me - his taking of the high ball right on the touchline, then spin infield and making metres, all at a crucial time under huge pressure from the Irish chase, typifies the player he has become (I'd always thought he was a not-quite player) and he consistently runs the ball back well. He is also one of the best wings at trying to steal the ball at the breakdown.

And Ashton, for all his defensive fragility, isn't a terrible tackler - he set up Manu's try in France last year with a blitz on an overlap and an absolute thumping of Swarsevski, plus he does run those tracking lines better than anyone else. He has developed an annoying trait of running past the support close to the line and not taking the pass, but I think that can be changed.

Goode I can't say I'm convinced is the long term solution - but he seems a solid, capable smart player, and at this stage, that's ok. He'll be around the squad for years, like Matt Perry, but I would guess Foden is the better option.

I'd love to have a George North type player, but having Tuilagi back will balance the line much better.

· Reply · Report

the case February 12, 2013 6:25 am

if you interpet the law correctly, placing your hand on the touch line is considered the exact same, there is no rule against it.

Owen Farrell has to be the lions 10. he has ice in his veins.

robshaw should be included as well.

· · Reply · Report

barizpan February 14, 2013 1:54 am

Don't think he's the same attacking threat with ball in hand as Sexton though or if he is I havent seen it yet. Unless our plan is to bore Australia into submission Wilkinson style?

· Reply · Report

FatProp February 12, 2013 11:19 pm

Great performance all England need is a winger like Wade. Fast good feet can score tries in average team. Goode is not good enough because his lack of pace many times he runs back with loads of time but then gets chased down because he is slow. Whereas Foden is fast enough to get back and have time, same with Abendanon. The back three England need is Ashton Foden Brown.
Also is Banahan back because he was playing 12 and i thought he looked quite good when he played Turner-Hall

· Reply · Report

Commenting as Guest | Register or Login

All comments are moderated and will be removed immediately if offensive.