England v. Ireland

[francoisfou]

I'm with Puja, the French defence looks a mess with Ramos at 10 with the young kid then abandoned our of position at 12 (I think I'm right in saying he's normally a 13) trying to cover for him.

You're talking about young Nicolas Depoortère who won his first cap yesterday, and I think you're right that his preferred position is 13 where he was when France U20 won the World Cup last year, but Galthié will probably pick him again in Lyon against England.

Thomas Ramos' tackling can be like the revolving door and he could be replaced by either Antoine Hastoy (La Rochelle) or Antoine Gibert (Racing, with club scrum half Nolann Le Garrec), or put Ramos back to fullback, which'd be tough on Léo Barré as he had a more than satisfactory first cap.
Personally, I'd love to see Gibert and Le Garrec at half back with Ramos maybe on the bench, but Galthié will probably keep Ramos at 10.

There's been one change in Galthié's squad of 34 and that's the call up of Munster centre Antoine Frisch in the the place of Pierre-Louis Barassi.
It's extraordinary, but Frisch has never played in the Top14, and despite being in the Stade Français development squad he wasn't retained and eventually went to Bristol in 2021/22, where he played 13 matches before heading for Munster.

[Mellsblue]

On the other hand, running Steward at Ramos, off Ford's inside shoulder, could be fun.


Quite honestly, I see FB as a horses-for-courses selection between the two of them. Neither are perfect, both are plenty good enough, and have time to work on their weaknesses. I'm not going to complain about seeing either of them of the team sheet right now (happier with either, than Daly).

Yep, both flawed. It’s akin to the Ford vs Farrell debate, for me. It really depends how you want to play the game as to who you’d prefer to be selected.

???? Does anybody not want us to keep the ball in hand and attack more (than in earlier 'kick and hope' games)?

Not sure how you went from my comment to your question, but the answer is pretty much everybody apart from the Steward family and fkas.

[FKAS]

I'm with Puja, the French defence looks a mess with Ramos at 10 with the young kid then abandoned our of position at 12 (I think I'm right in saying he's normally a 13) trying to cover for him.

You're talking about young Nicolas Depoortère who won his first cap yesterday, and I think you're right that his preferred position is 13 where he was when France U20 won the World Cup last year, but Galthié will probably pick him again in Lyon against England.

That's the one, I remember him for the under 20s and I'm sure he played 13 as Bordeaux ran rampant over Sarries this season as well. He looks like a real talent but was left badly exposed in that defensive structure. Switching him at Fickou would have been a wiser choice and allow Fickou to marshall the defence around him. Hopefully they don't change it for Lyon next time out.

[FKAS]

Yep, both flawed. It’s akin to the Ford vs Farrell debate, for me. It really depends how you want to play the game as to who you’d prefer to be selected.

???? Does anybody not want us to keep the ball in hand and attack more (than in earlier 'kick and hope' games)?

Not sure how you went from my comment to your question, but the answer is pretty much everybody apart from the Steward family and fkas.

Against Wales Steward ran ball in hand more than other player in terms of metres made, came second in number of overall carriers and joint second for number of players beaten (joint highest for England). The idea he's there only for kicking is somewhat unfounded.

He would offer a very different option for England should they need it. A powerful carrier, the option to target the French back three in the air (we got nowhere near contesting attacking kicks the last two weeks) as they start to tire gives a different option we did well with before with Marcus at 10 (Furbank at 15 and Steward at 14 as well on that occasion). A new proposition in attack for France to deal with.

We're only likely to change the centres or wings for Daly in the chance of injury so bringing Steward or Furbank onto the wing and Possibly Freeman into centre isn't a particular concern. Particularly with the back three coming up hard in defence and that suiting Steward as he can commit instead of having to use footwork to cover space.

Impact sub wise it would offer more than the alternatives we have.

[FKAS]

Watching the drop goal again. Just imagining the aneurysms on here if one of our players had given up that 2nd penalty by the posts.

Yeah there was some desperate and pretty cynical defence going on from Ireland at the death there. Was good to see us have them that rattled.

[Mellsblue]

???? Does anybody not want us to keep the ball in hand and attack more (than in earlier 'kick and hope' games)?

Not sure how you went from my comment to your question, but the answer is pretty much everybody apart from the Steward family and fkas.

Against Wales Steward ran ball in hand more than other player in terms of metres made, came second in number of overall carriers and joint second for number of players beaten (joint highest for England). The idea he's there only for kicking is somewhat unfounded.

He would offer a very different option for England should they need it. A powerful carrier, the option to target the French back three in the air (we got nowhere near contesting attacking kicks the last two weeks) as they start to tire gives a different option we did well with before with Marcus at 10 (Furbank at 15 and Steward at 14 as well on that occasion). A new proposition in attack for France to deal with.

We're only likely to change the centres or wings for Daly in the chance of injury so bringing Steward or Furbank onto the wing and Possibly Freeman into centre isn't a particular concern. Particularly with the back three coming up hard in defence and that suiting Steward as he can commit instead of having to use footwork to cover space.

Impact sub wise it would offer more than the alternatives we have.

If you think Steward offers nearly as much in attack as Furbank - regardless of which contextless stats you put forward - then let’s just stop now.
Why put players out of position when you don’t have to.
You’re just trying to make your ‘logic’ fit the end result you want. A poor way of going about things on and off a rugby message board.

[Banquo]

???? Does anybody not want us to keep the ball in hand and attack more (than in earlier 'kick and hope' games)?

Not sure how you went from my comment to your question, but the answer is pretty much everybody apart from the Steward family and fkas.

Impact sub wise it would offer more than the alternatives we have.

But much less flexible in case of injury (wing v France....do me a favour), and Daly is a pretty decent impact sub in fairness.

[Banquo]

Watching the drop goal again. Just imagining the aneurysms on here if one of our players had given up that 2nd penalty by the posts.

Yeah there was some desperate and pretty cynical defence going on from Ireland at the death there. Was good to see us have them that rattled.

lot of sides have perfected the last second twist into the ruck resulting in a foot 'accidentally' landing behind the ball....esp close to the line

[Puja]

I'm with Puja, the French defence looks a mess with Ramos at 10 with the young kid then abandoned our of position at 12 (I think I'm right in saying he's normally a 13) trying to cover for him. With that in mind retaining Furbank to start could help us open up the attack. I'd definitely consider bringing Steward onto the bench for Daly though. The ability to go to the air in the second half if France are starting to turn the screw with those colossal forward replacements could be a bit of a get out of jail card.

On the other hand, running Steward at Ramos, off Ford's inside shoulder, could be fun.


Quite honestly, I see FB as a horses-for-courses selection between the two of them. Neither are perfect, both are plenty good enough, and have time to work on their weaknesses. I'm not going to complain about seeing either of them of the team sheet right now (happier with either, than Daly).

Should also add, I'd be keeping an eye out for DeGlanville and Hodge as potentially confusing the issue.

One thing which I have noticed from the m-b-ms this 6N is that we've been playing Earl as an auxiliary centre and it's been working *great*. A lot of lineouts we keep him out in midfield and he's been running the same lines as a standard 12, with Slade standing at auxiliary 10 and Lawrence playing as a traditional 13. It's also allowed us to run the double-banked option, where both Earl and Lawrence are running hard lines and the defence has to guess which of them Ford is passing to (or indeed to Slade out the back). I would imagine we'll have an eye on running that at the French 10-12 channel given how inept they were against Wales, although I suspect Edwards's week is going to be spent drilling their selected 10-12 to make sure that it never happens again.

Do you really see De Glanville as a future international? Hodge I can absolutely see, but everything I've seen of TdG has suggested just a decent Prem full-back, rather than anything better. I'll acknowledge that you've seen a lot more of him than me.

Puja

[p/d]

I'm with Puja, the French defence looks a mess with Ramos at 10 with the young kid then abandoned our of position at 12 (I think I'm right in saying he's normally a 13) trying to cover for him. With that in mind retaining Furbank to start could help us open up the attack. I'd definitely consider bringing Steward onto the bench for Daly though. The ability to go to the air in the second half if France are starting to turn the screw with those colossal forward replacements could be a bit of a get out of jail card.

On the other hand, running Steward at Ramos, off Ford's inside shoulder, could be fun.


Quite honestly, I see FB as a horses-for-courses selection between the two of them. Neither are perfect, both are plenty good enough, and have time to work on their weaknesses. I'm not going to complain about seeing either of them of the team sheet right now (happier with either, than Daly).

Should also add, I'd be keeping an eye out for DeGlanville and Hodge as potentially confusing the issue.

. It's also allowed us to run the double-banked option, where both Earl and Lawrence are running hard lines and the defence has to guess which of them Ford is passing to (or indeed to Slade out the back). I would imagine we'll have an eye on running that at the French 10-12 channel given how inept they were against Wales, although I suspect Edwards's week is going to be spent drilling their selected 10-12 to make sure that it never happens again.



Puja

I’m pretty sure there was one intended for Lawrence yet the poacher got his mitts on it resulting in Lawrence being penalised when having to clear out.

Mind you I recall another at the end where Lawrence was better placed for getting to the try line

[FKAS]

Watching the drop goal again. Just imagining the aneurysms on here if one of our players had given up that 2nd penalty by the posts.

Yeah there was some desperate and pretty cynical defence going on from Ireland at the death there. Was good to see us have them that rattled.

lot of sides have perfected the last second twist into the ruck resulting in a foot 'accidentally' landing behind the ball....esp close to the line

Ireland are very good at being a menace at the breakdown and Josh van der Flier was excellent at the weekend. I was impressed by how well managed to make a nuisance of ourselves at their breakdown, got on the wrong side a couple of times when going for the ball but Martin and Itoje driving into the Irish defenders and just making life awkward for Gibson-Park was amusing and penalty free.

[FKAS]

Not sure how you went from my comment to your question, but the answer is pretty much everybody apart from the Steward family and fkas.

Against Wales Steward ran ball in hand more than other player in terms of metres made, came second in number of overall carriers and joint second for number of players beaten (joint highest for England). The idea he's there only for kicking is somewhat unfounded.

He would offer a very different option for England should they need it. A powerful carrier, the option to target the French back three in the air (we got nowhere near contesting attacking kicks the last two weeks) as they start to tire gives a different option we did well with before with Marcus at 10 (Furbank at 15 and Steward at 14 as well on that occasion). A new proposition in attack for France to deal with.

We're only likely to change the centres or wings for Daly in the chance of injury so bringing Steward or Furbank onto the wing and Possibly Freeman into centre isn't a particular concern. Particularly with the back three coming up hard in defence and that suiting Steward as he can commit instead of having to use footwork to cover space.

Impact sub wise it would offer more than the alternatives we have.

If you think Steward offers nearly as much in attack as Furbank - regardless of which contextless stats you put forward - then let’s just stop now.
Why put players out of position when you don’t have to.
You’re just trying to make your ‘logic’ fit the end result you want. A poor way of going about things on and off a rugby message board.

You've decided bias and now can't see anything else even when the logic tells you.

Freeman is another playmaker at the back but as seen on Saturday when he hits traffic ball in hand he does tend to get turned over. Steward is the opposite. He won't be acting the playmaker but you want someone coming from deep and breaking tackles then the backrow sized fullback very much offers that.

[Mellsblue]

Against Wales Steward ran ball in hand more than other player in terms of metres made, came second in number of overall carriers and joint second for number of players beaten (joint highest for England). The idea he's there only for kicking is somewhat unfounded.

He would offer a very different option for England should they need it. A powerful carrier, the option to target the French back three in the air (we got nowhere near contesting attacking kicks the last two weeks) as they start to tire gives a different option we did well with before with Marcus at 10 (Furbank at 15 and Steward at 14 as well on that occasion). A new proposition in attack for France to deal with.

We're only likely to change the centres or wings for Daly in the chance of injury so bringing Steward or Furbank onto the wing and Possibly Freeman into centre isn't a particular concern. Particularly with the back three coming up hard in defence and that suiting Steward as he can commit instead of having to use footwork to cover space.

Impact sub wise it would offer more than the alternatives we have.

If you think Steward offers nearly as much in attack as Furbank - regardless of which contextless stats you put forward - then let’s just stop now.
Why put players out of position when you don’t have to.
You’re just trying to make your ‘logic’ fit the end result you want. A poor way of going about things on and off a rugby message board.

You've decided bias and now can't see anything else even when the logic tells you.

Freeman is another playmaker at the back but as seen on Saturday when he hits traffic ball in hand he does tend to get turned over. Steward is the opposite. He won't be acting the playmaker but you want someone coming from deep and breaking tackles then the backrow sized fullback very much offers that.

lol. Mostly to the first sentence/para but also a little bit to the second para. Let’s just stop now.

[Oakboy]

I think Steward may have lost his place in the 23 unless SB reverts to 'kick and hope'. Based on Saturday's result that seems rather unlikely. Steward is a good, solid unit but, IMO, he lacks two attributes: speed off the mark and elusiveness (lack of a step). He excels in kick tennis, he has battering-ram impact but 'twinkle-toes' he ain't.

[Banquo]

I'm with Puja, the French defence looks a mess with Ramos at 10 with the young kid then abandoned our of position at 12 (I think I'm right in saying he's normally a 13) trying to cover for him. With that in mind retaining Furbank to start could help us open up the attack. I'd definitely consider bringing Steward onto the bench for Daly though. The ability to go to the air in the second half if France are starting to turn the screw with those colossal forward replacements could be a bit of a get out of jail card.

On the other hand, running Steward at Ramos, off Ford's inside shoulder, could be fun.


Quite honestly, I see FB as a horses-for-courses selection between the two of them. Neither are perfect, both are plenty good enough, and have time to work on their weaknesses. I'm not going to complain about seeing either of them of the team sheet right now (happier with either, than Daly).

Should also add, I'd be keeping an eye out for DeGlanville and Hodge as potentially confusing the issue.

One thing which I have noticed from the m-b-ms this 6N is that we've been playing Earl as an auxiliary centre and it's been working *great*. A lot of lineouts we keep him out in midfield and he's been running the same lines as a standard 12, with Slade standing at auxiliary 10 and Lawrence playing as a traditional 13. It's also allowed us to run the double-banked option, where both Earl and Lawrence are running hard lines and the defence has to guess which of them Ford is passing to (or indeed to Slade out the back). I would imagine we'll have an eye on running that at the French 10-12 channel given how inept they were against Wales, although I suspect Edwards's week is going to be spent drilling their selected 10-12 to make sure that it never happens again.

Do you really see De Glanville as a future international? Hodge I can absolutely see, but everything I've seen of TdG has suggested just a decent Prem full-back, rather than anything better. I'll acknowledge that you've seen a lot more of him than me.

Puja

yes, that's very smart, as he's also there for support/clearout if we crash up. Sam Simmonds is probably crying a bit.

[FKAS]

Not sure how you went from my comment to your question, but the answer is pretty much everybody apart from the Steward family and fkas.

Impact sub wise it would offer more than the alternatives we have.

But much less flexible in case of injury (wing v France....do me a favour), and Daly is a pretty decent impact sub in fairness.

Daly is pretty mediocre in most positions and does make a decent impact for the opposition. He is versatile but I'm not sure in his current form that he offers much to the side bar that versatility.

If you want insurance against injury go Daly if you want impact from bench then we need to look at someone else be it Manu or Steward.

[Banquo]

Against Wales Steward ran ball in hand more than other player in terms of metres made, came second in number of overall carriers and joint second for number of players beaten (joint highest for England). The idea he's there only for kicking is somewhat unfounded.

He would offer a very different option for England should they need it. A powerful carrier, the option to target the French back three in the air (we got nowhere near contesting attacking kicks the last two weeks) as they start to tire gives a different option we did well with before with Marcus at 10 (Furbank at 15 and Steward at 14 as well on that occasion). A new proposition in attack for France to deal with.

We're only likely to change the centres or wings for Daly in the chance of injury so bringing Steward or Furbank onto the wing and Possibly Freeman into centre isn't a particular concern. Particularly with the back three coming up hard in defence and that suiting Steward as he can commit instead of having to use footwork to cover space.

Impact sub wise it would offer more than the alternatives we have.

If you think Steward offers nearly as much in attack as Furbank - regardless of which contextless stats you put forward - then let’s just stop now.
Why put players out of position when you don’t have to.
You’re just trying to make your ‘logic’ fit the end result you want. A poor way of going about things on and off a rugby message board.

You've decided bias and now can't see anything else even when the logic tells you.

Freeman is another playmaker at the back but as seen on Saturday when he hits traffic ball in hand he does tend to get turned over. Steward is the opposite. He won't be acting the playmaker but you want someone coming from deep and breaking tackles then the backrow sized fullback very much offers that.

Pretty sure you mean Furbank as otherwise that makes zero sense.

They are different attacking options, but Furbank has looked more dangerous in countering and with footwork, and aside from say 10 metres out is going to worry a defence a lot more than Steward tbh; he takes risks on angles of attack as well. The turnovers are just overeagerness (and some average support reactions).....and he does need to calm a little, without taking the energy away.

[Banquo]

Impact sub wise it would offer more than the alternatives we have.

But much less flexible in case of injury (wing v France....do me a favour), and Daly is a pretty decent impact sub in fairness.

Daly is pretty mediocre in most positions and does make a decent impact for the opposition...

If you want insurance against injury go Daly if you want impact from bench then we need to look at someone else be it Manu or Steward.

I don't think that's fair, and bar a couple of poor decisions in defence he's played well in his limited kick chase role on the wing. He is a good impact sub at 13, and ditto at 11- he's quick with good hands still. You are nearly agreeing in any case- your bench has to have more than one eye on injuries, and Daly gives you maximum flexibility. Manu and Steward...don't; I mean they are Tigers family, so obviously that's a factor ....a fit Manu might offer more impact than Daly- but then if any back three go down, what then? And Steward just isn't an impact sub for me, he's a close out sub away to Ireland.

[Banquo]

Yeah there was some desperate and pretty cynical defence going on from Ireland at the death there. Was good to see us have them that rattled.

lot of sides have perfected the last second twist into the ruck resulting in a foot 'accidentally' landing behind the ball....esp close to the line

Ireland are very good at being a menace at the breakdown and Josh van der Flier was excellent at the weekend. I was impressed by how well managed to make a nuisance of ourselves at their breakdown, got on the wrong side a couple of times when going for the ball but Martin and Itoje driving into the Irish defenders and just making life awkward for Gibson-Park was amusing and penalty free.

Ireland have been geniuses for years in making the illegal normal in terms of slowing the ball down. POM isn't usually so stupid, generally manages to unobtrusively drape a limb over the ball and just niggle away; bout time we got some of those smarts, micro details.

[FKAS]

lot of sides have perfected the last second twist into the ruck resulting in a foot 'accidentally' landing behind the ball....esp close to the line

Ireland are very good at being a menace at the breakdown and Josh van der Flier was excellent at the weekend. I was impressed by how well managed to make a nuisance of ourselves at their breakdown, got on the wrong side a couple of times when going for the ball but Martin and Itoje driving into the Irish defenders and just making life awkward for Gibson-Park was amusing and penalty free.

Ireland have been geniuses for years in making the illegal normal in terms of slowing the ball down. POM isn't usually so stupid, generally manages to unobtrusively drape a limb over the ball and just niggle away; bout time we got some of those smarts, micro details.

*Like*

The POM one was really looked like panic stations. I think he knew the defence had broken and England were away so took one for the team. Hoped with a reset defence Ireland would hold out until he got back on.

[FKAS]

If you think Steward offers nearly as much in attack as Furbank - regardless of which contextless stats you put forward - then let’s just stop now.
Why put players out of position when you don’t have to.
You’re just trying to make your ‘logic’ fit the end result you want. A poor way of going about things on and off a rugby message board.

You've decided bias and now can't see anything else even when the logic tells you.

Freeman is another playmaker at the back but as seen on Saturday when he hits traffic ball in hand he does tend to get turned over. Steward is the opposite. He won't be acting the playmaker but you want someone coming from deep and breaking tackles then the backrow sized fullback very much offers that.

Pretty sure you mean Furbank as otherwise that makes zero sense.

I did, good spot on the typo.

[FKAS]

But much less flexible in case of injury (wing v France....do me a favour), and Daly is a pretty decent impact sub in fairness.

Daly is pretty mediocre in most positions and does make a decent impact for the opposition...

If you want insurance against injury go Daly if you want impact from bench then we need to look at someone else be it Manu or Steward.

I don't think that's fair, and bar a couple of poor decisions in defence he's played well in his limited kick chase role on the wing. He is a good impact sub at 13, and ditto at 11- he's quick with good hands still. You are nearly agreeing in any case- your bench has to have more than one eye on injuries, and Daly gives you maximum flexibility. Manu and Steward...don't; I mean they are Tigers family, so obviously that's a factor ....a fit Manu might offer more impact than Daly- but then if any back three go down, what then? And Steward just isn't an impact sub for me, he's a close out sub away to Ireland.

Tigers family have you joined their slightly painful marketing team.

I'm quite happy Manu is an ex-Tiger to be honest, especially as I see the rumours swirling now it's contract renewal time and Sale apparently are wanting to reduce his salary. I just would prefer to er on the side of giving our team some impact or difference off the bench rather than Daly who is just a solid versatility option. We disagree on Steward's impact obviously but I feel he's got more to bring in to the side particularly if the attack is actually working.

[Spiffy]

Did ye see the genge incident? Looks reckless fair play to furlong for bouncing up - maybe minimal head contact?

Saw it live and have picked it out in the m-b-m - looked exceptionally nasty and, if it wasn't a shoulder charge contact to the head, it wasn't for lack of trying. He needs to get himself under control. I think the TMO was having some video feed problems then - he didn't look at that or the high tackle on Genge that England were whinging about and appeared to be stuck on the same three replays of the Furbank knock on for the disallowed try, before the ref gave up and moved on. If so, there could be a citing incoming.

Puja

I thought Furlong propelled himself backwards with abnormal velocity to milk the situation. He shot out of it like a greasy pig. He is around 20 st and there is no way within the laws of physics that Genge could have generated the apparent power in that collision. But it was still worth a TMO look for dangerous play.

[Banquo]

Daly is pretty mediocre in most positions and does make a decent impact for the opposition...

If you want insurance against injury go Daly if you want impact from bench then we need to look at someone else be it Manu or Steward.

I don't think that's fair, and bar a couple of poor decisions in defence he's played well in his limited kick chase role on the wing. He is a good impact sub at 13, and ditto at 11- he's quick with good hands still. You are nearly agreeing in any case- your bench has to have more than one eye on injuries, and Daly gives you maximum flexibility. Manu and Steward...don't; I mean they are Tigers family, so obviously that's a factor ....a fit Manu might offer more impact than Daly- but then if any back three go down, what then? And Steward just isn't an impact sub for me, he's a close out sub away to Ireland.

Tigers family have you joined their slightly painful marketing team.

I'm quite happy Manu is an ex-Tiger to be honest, especially as I see the rumours swirling now it's contract renewal time and Sale apparently are wanting to reduce his salary. I just would prefer to er on the side of giving our team some impact or difference off the bench rather than Daly who is just a solid versatility option. We disagree on Steward's impact obviously but I feel he's got more to bring in to the side particularly if the attack is actually working.

just trying to communicate in cult lingo, don't shoot the messenger...

focusing just on impact rather than balance with injury/impact flex is indeed to er ....err imo. Daly at his best is better than solid, but made slightly funnier by being juxtaposed by the epitome of solid (other than tackling).

btw....one of the key reasons the attack is working...Furbank

[FKAS]

I don't think that's fair, and bar a couple of poor decisions in defence he's played well in his limited kick chase role on the wing. He is a good impact sub at 13, and ditto at 11- he's quick with good hands still. You are nearly agreeing in any case- your bench has to have more than one eye on injuries, and Daly gives you maximum flexibility. Manu and Steward...don't; I mean they are Tigers family, so obviously that's a factor ....a fit Manu might offer more impact than Daly- but then if any back three go down, what then? And Steward just isn't an impact sub for me, he's a close out sub away to Ireland.

Tigers family have you joined their slightly painful marketing team.

I'm quite happy Manu is an ex-Tiger to be honest, especially as I see the rumours swirling now it's contract renewal time and Sale apparently are wanting to reduce his salary. I just would prefer to er on the side of giving our team some impact or difference off the bench rather than Daly who is just a solid versatility option. We disagree on Steward's impact obviously but I feel he's got more to bring in to the side particularly if the attack is actually working.

just trying to communicate in cult lingo, don't shoot the messenger...

focusing just on impact rather than balance with injury/impact flex is indeed to er ....err imo. Daly at his best is better than solid, but made slightly funnier by being juxtaposed by the epitome of solid (other than tackling).

btw....one of the key reasons the attack is working...Furbank

He's added something to the attack but he's not a key reason it's working in my opinion.

The main difference to previous weeks is that passes are going to hand and not being dropped. Mitchell returning to the side is a far bigger reason to that than most. Quick and accurate delivery and his range Vs Ireland was a huge difference. Gave the attack time on the ball, the settled back line looked more cohesive with that time and IFW added as much as Furbank with those darting runs getting us metres when he had no right to.