Ring fencing is not the way forward, instead the RFU & PRL need to whip out their bundles of cash and start spreading it around fairly to those that need it

We are all aware of the reports that there may be ring fencing of the Premiership, and this has, of course, sparked fierce debate about whether it really is a good idea. I have already weighed in on this with some people via social media, but I've decided to write this blog as it seems to be such a contentious issue.

These reports gave me a sense of deja vu when they surfaced, as they seemed oh so familiar to those surrounding the salary cap in that they appear to hide and mask the bigger problems. With the salary cap debacle, the reports served the purpose of attempting to hide the fact that some clubs, who I shall not name but we already know, were being investigated for abuse of said cap. Now with these new reports, I feel they serve to hide the real issue with English rugby – funding, and in particular the way the RFU and PRL distribute funds to all clubs.

It's obvious to everyone who has an interest in the game that funding is completely unequal and unfair to many clubs, both in the Premiership and the Championship. This is the real issue that needs to be resolved – there is not enough pressure on the RFU and PRL coming from anyone, and there needs to be. Many people have made the argument that ring fencing is a good idea because the lower clubs simply cannot compete at top tier level, and they have no desire to even try. I completely disagree. First, who is anyone to suggest Championship clubs have no desire, or ambition? That is a ridiculous statement, of course they do. And second, why do you think they cannot compete? I'll tell you why – they aren't given enough money.

Exeter are an outstanding club in the Premiership, and have been ever since they were promoted. Yet if we cut off clubs from being able to get promoted, we are ending the chances for this to happen again with a different club. Sure, Exeter did have certain financial backing which allowed them to come up and compete straight away, but this just brings me straight back to the point I was trying to make. Teams can make it happen for themselves if they have the funding which, unless they have an independent financial backer of some sort, they are not receiving. Everyone, even those people who are not Exeter supporters, enjoyed seeing a Championship club prosper. How can you not? It's a great thing to be able to personally witness the rise of a club in front of your very eyes - it serves to remind everyone that any team can flourish under the right circumstances. But those circumstances have to include the right amount of money.

London Welsh are probably the major team that can help me demonstrate my point further. Unfortunately for them this season cannot have gone more terribly, however we are all aware of their intentions to attempt to get equal funding. They made it abundantly clear they view the system as being utterly unfair, considering they get around half the amount of money as a lot of the other clubs in the Premiership do. How do we expect them, as well as teams in the Championship, to even begin to compete when this is the state of affairs? Teams need access to adequate training facilities, as well as the ability to fairly compete for the top players when it comes to adding and expanding their team. Without this, it is essentially a given that a team will get promoted, stay up for one, maybe two, seasons, and then go straight back down again. This isn't how rugby should be – all teams should be given the footing they need to compete with ALL other teams. After all, competition is what rugby is all about. Take the Premiership this year as an example; it is exceptionally close between 2^nd and 7^th, closer than it has possibly ever been. What team wouldn't give anything to be able to take part in such a fierce contest? Those in charge of how the sport is run should be encouraging every team in the country to want to be a part of that, but money is a huge obstacle right now.

Ring fencing is not the way forward. Better funding is. I can guarantee if all teams are given the money they need, we will see fierce competition throughout the whole country in both the Premiership and the Championship. We may also be able to see some fresh faces in the top tier of English rugby whom we can actually expect to stick around for some time. Who doesn't want to see another Exeter-like rise? I know I do.

Ruck on,

Jess.

Consistency can ruin parts the game - it's time for referees and other officials to grow a backbone and judge all incidents, and only do so on their facts

Consistency. It is a word we hear a lot of in rugby and see put into practice during every match. But just how useful is its role in the game? Does it help or hinder?

We see 'consistency' in every aspect of the modern game, from the simple every day offences to those that are more serious. Let's take these every day offences first – referees being consistent when penalising these sorts of occurrences, such as for being offside or for going off your feet, is paramount in rugby. If a player from one team gets in trouble for something then it stands to reason that a player from the opposite team should get the same treatment for the same incident. That way, we keep the game fair and it shows us that the officials are unbiased. I have no problem with this basic element of consistency, because a match just would not work without it for obvious reasons. After all, this is why we have these elementary rules – to ensure no players can willingly break them, and that they are punished in the same way if they do. However, does it play a positive role in more serious rule breaking?

When we come on to the more serious types of incidents I feel that consistency actually ruins aspects of the game. Take the Scotland v Wales Six Nations game from last weekend for example. The first major incident to occur was the Finn Russell and Dan Biggar incident, which saw the Scot yellow-carded. There is no doubt in my mind, this incident was card-worthy (whether that be yellow or red) – Russell, knowing he would be unable to either safely tackle Biggar on the ground or have a shot at catching the ball, turned his back on the player in the air instead of trying to pull out. He clearly created a dangerous situation, and this came to a head when Biggar crashed into him and fell to the floor. But my problem comes with the second incident of this nature when Jonathan Davies was yellow-carded for tackling John Beattie in the air. In this case, there was a genuine competition for the ball, and the winner of the contest, Beattie, happened to fall to the floor. Naturally, the referee called on the television match official to look at the incident and, in the interests of consistency, gave Davies a yellow card. In this case, I do not believe a card of any sort was warranted, as both players were always going for the ball. But because referees have to be 'consistent' in all areas of the game, the player was always going to be sent off. This for me is where the game can be ruined – as a player, if you know you could penalised simply for hitting a player in the air whilst going for the ball, what incentive is there to compete? Competing for the high ball is a genuine part of the game, but you'll find nowadays that one player almost always never bothers competing if they see another player going to do so. Take Leigh Halfpenny for example. He is extremely good under the high ball and catches it pretty much all of the time. But for how many of those instances was he actually challenged? Not many, I can tell you.

So, what needs to change? Well, for some situations consistency needs to take a back seat. I know that does not seem to be in the interests of any sport, but I firmly believe in the types of situation where a player falls from the air whilst competing with another player for the ball, it needs to be assessed on the facts of what actually happened, and the previous incident should not have any bearing. Otherwise, we see players being sent off who in no way attempted to tackle or pull the player down. In the above example Davies was clearly jumping for the ball but, because he missed it and Beattie fell to the ground, the referees immediately decided he had to be sent off as other's had been sidelined before (and not just in this match, but in plenty of others). I don't think this is fair because it's ruining a staple part of what makes rugby the game it is – competition. People seem to forget this is a contact sport; if we are going to scrutinise every single incident of contact that is made the sport will become unrecognisable and there will be no flow to the play. Yes, some people create dangerous situations in the air and for that they should be penalised. But just because the referee has done so with one player, does not mean he has to with a similar incident if the situation was purely accidental with no apparent fault from any player. I am not for one second suggesting we scrap consistency. As I said before, it's the reason that the basic rules are upheld – because the referees penalises both teams for their actions. But when we make the step up into the big incidents of the game, I make the argument that it is much fairer to everyone if the facts of exactly what happened are analysed. I understand some people may say you can either have consistency or not, but I honestly do not believe it is that simple in a sport where there are many dimensions to the laws - sometimes it is important, but at other times it can get in the way.

Let's take a look at the other end of the spectrum where not having consistency is a problem. It is not just during the matches that we need to see some consistency. We need to see it in events such as citings, and sometimes it is sorely lacking. Take the Northampton Saints game versus London Irish from last weekend. Salesi Ma'afu has since been cited and banned for his actions towards Tom Court, which is absolutely correct. However, Court himself was yellow-carded in the match for stamping, but did we see a citing? No, we didn't. Now, I'm not saying he would have been banned for his actions, but both players were yellow-carded and so surely, if one was cited, the other should be as well? Otherwise it seems like certain players are being singled out, or certain card-worthy actions are being deemed acceptable over others, when in reality all incidents of foul play are unacceptable. Sure, some are worse than others and there is no denying that, but if you yellow-card a player during a match for foul play they should be cited, regardless of the severity. Even if there turns out to be no further punishment against the player, at least there can be no accusations that the citing commission condone certain actions over others. Because that is how it looks whether people like it or not. If you are going to investigate one yellow or red card incident, you should really look at them all, even if it does not result in a hearing or ban of any kind. That way any and all inconsistency is removed from citing sanctions.

So there you have it. Consistency does play an important role in sports, but sometimes it does need to either take a back seat or actually be used more if there is to be fairness within the game. It is not right to penalise a player just because another player previously was punished for something similar, particularly if the facts of the events are different. Instead, they should be treated like separate incidents and assessed accordingly. When it comes to incidents of foul play the consequences can be enormous for a player and a team, and so they deserve to be treated in an unbiased manner in relation to what has gone on before them. After all, referees are told to start with a red and work backwards from there, they are not told specifically what they should give. They are to look at the incident independently and penalise a player judged on what happened in the specific case. Not only that, but the citing commissioner(s) need to utilise consistency more to ensure all incidents are thoroughly investigated and some are not picked and chosen over others despite what happened, particularly when two players are given the same card yet only one is looked at further.

Thanks for reading ruckers!

Jess.

England run in 6 tries, but it was not quite the performance we had hoped to see

England 47-17 Italy

Well. Where to start? England did get a big 30 point win, but it was a funny old game and England, particularly in the first half, did not play as well as was hoped. There are many things to work on before the visit to the Aviva Stadium in Ireland in two weeks time, but there were also some huge positives on display after that euphoric win in Wales.

Before getting to my player by player analysis, I want to quickly focus on the injury to Mike Brown and the reshuffling that had to occur. First I just want to say that I hope Brown has a speedy recovery, and it was nice to see him back out and sitting on the bench after a horrific injury saw him taken off on a stretcher. This injury created a problem in the backs, and the solution ended up being this: 12. Twelvetrees, 13. Burrell, 14. Joseph and 15. Watson. A lot of people were worried about this set-up for a couple of reasons, mainly because Cipriani could have been a good full-back choice, and Joseph is not a winger. But I have to say the set-up took nothing away from England's performance – in fact, all of those players adapted to the situation phenomenally. Of course, it will always be better having players in their proper positions, but ultimately there was no reason for the worry today.

Let's start with an England player, and who better to start off with than Jonathan Joseph. Two matches, three tries and countless metres later, Joseph has smashed his way to being first choice for the 13 shirt. He has an unbelievable amount of natural talent, and he put it all to stunning use today. The first try for Joseph came after 27 minutes, and was the result of a seriously good break and run. Watson, a player who was excellent at full-back today, was there with him at all times to ensure the try was scored if Joseph failed to make the it to the line, but Joseph knows how to step around tacklers and he did just that to gift England a much needed 7 points, after the conversion, to put England in the lead by 10 points. Before this point in the match the score had been too close between the teams, and England needed something to give them more of an advantage. Joseph provided just that, but this was not his only moment of brilliance in the match. He made an incredible 123 metres throughout the course of his 80 minutes on the pitch, and this prowess culminated in his second try on 61 minutes after a perfectly timed pass from George Ford allowed him to make a sensational break up the field to touch the ball down over the line. There are simply not enough superlatives to describe Joseph's performance today – he is well on his way to being a world class player, and will be a revelation for England in the World Cup later this year. The Man of the Match award deservedly went to him today, and I can see many more coming his way during his time with England.

For me, Sergio Parisse was Italy's best player today. An absolute monster in defence, he made a multitude of tackles to help keep England from scoring on many occasions. I have watched him play for Italy many times and have never seen him have a bad game. Whilst Italy obviously have a terrible record in the Six Nations, Parisse consistently plays like he belongs in an international match, and he continues to push himself in be in the top end of the stats come the end of the match. Italy were defensively superb last weekend against Ireland and, despite letting in 6 tries today, it could have been a lot more had he not taken the charge and put his body on the line to stop England from running in a ridiculous amount of points. England winning by 30 points actually, in my opinion, demonstrates not only how inaccurate England were on occasion, but also how well Italy defended right up until the end of the match. Considering how well we played in the second half we could have put many more points on the board, and Italy have their captain to thank for stopping that from happening. Sergio also managed to score an excellent try for Italy after just 4 minutes, shining a spot light on his class. In terms of the English defensive effort, Robshaw was head and shoulders above the rest, demonstrating to everyone why Lancaster has confirmed he will be England's captain during the World Cup. One of the contenders for man of the match today, he has silenced all of his critics, including me, who said his form was not good enough to warrant him being on the pitch. He effort was monstrous today, and he was all over the field proving himself to be a nuisance to the Italians. After a difficult first 40 against Wales last weekend, Robshaw stepped up and led England to victory with his excellent captaincy skills and decisions. The same could be said for this week – he did not go out there presuming that we would win by a huge margin, and that was the correct attitude to adopt. Italy put up one hell of a fight in the first half, and Robshaw acknowledged this by making the decision a few times for England to put 3 points on the board when a penalty was awarded. 

It's very common for us fans to hear about the battle of the tens before a match starts, but today there was no contest. George Ford was, in my opinion, miles better than last week and actually kept a cool head for the whole match. Only 2 points were missed when he stepped up to kick between the posts, and his defensive work was actually fairly good today. He made a great tackle on 48 minutes by simply holding on to the players leg and not letting go. This may not be a 'proper' tackle as it were, but it was very effective. Cipriani also came on after 60 minutes, and scored an excellent try a few minutes later after a great break and pass from May, cementing the England fly-halves as the obvious winners today. In terms of the Italian fly-half, Haimona had a shockingly terrible game – he missed every kick that he attempted, and this resulted in a loss of 10+ points for Italy. These kicks would in no way have allowed for Italy to win the game, but they could have given the team some momentum to keep pushing for tries against an England defence that was sometimes easily broken. It was broken in particular by Mourisi, another Italian player to have a really solid game. His two tries came after some great breaks through the English defence and showed us that Italy do have some sparks in attack, although they do not come nearly often enough.

I found myself disappointed with two players in particular today – Ben Youngs and Jonny May. Youngs did show a couple of moments of brilliance, in particular his try after he took a quick penalty on 55 minutes, but on the whole he was much too slow at the breakdown. He was told to use the ball time after time, which really highlights the fact that England need Danny Care back in the squad. Care is so much faster and clinical at the breakdown, something that England are sorely lacking right now. I find it unfathomable that Care has now essentially fallen down to third in the pecking order – it would be nice to see him re-selected for the EPS in the lead up to the Ireland game in two weeks time. May was average today, and it says something when this leaves people disappointed. He was electric in the Autumn Internationals last year, but this just has not manifested itself in the two matches he has played this year. He did made a couple of breaks and a fairly good amount of metres, but this is not good enough for a winger. They should be consistently breaking up the touching line – look at George North for example. Jonny May just has not brought his excellence to the Six Nations yet, and it may be time for Lancaster to consider his options in that part of the squad.

On the whole, it was a good performance from England. They did win by 47 points to 17 after all. But it was a very shaky start, and England did not quite reach that pinnacle of greatness that we know they can achieve. There are still some issues that need to be ironed out in time for the visit to Ireland, because I can assure you that is going to be one tough match, and is likely going to be one that we need to win in order to lift the Six Nations trophy. Saying that, there are some real positives for England this year and Lancaster has actually done a very good job of selecting the best players available for his squad. Thank you for reading!

Carry Them Home,

Jess.

England stun Wales to grab a famous victory in Cardiff as they show us why we should be proud to #WearTheRose

Wales 16-21 England

Last night signalled the start of the 2015 Six Nations, and what a match it was to behold! Bar the first 15 minutes, it was a closely fought battle that pushed all of the players to their physical limits. Wales looked to storm ahead in the first 20 minutes, building up a 10-0 lead, but England chipped away at it and the half-time score was 16-8. The second half, however, was a different story entirely – England came out and absolutely stunned Wales with their intensity and physicality. Wales just could not temper it, and England grabbed what will go down as a famous 16-21 victory! Here is my take on the lessons to be learned from the match as well as on certain players from both of the teams that clashed last night.

First thing's first, the most important lesson that all of us English fans were taught over the course of last night – never underestimate, or doubt, that your team can go out and win. Many people, English fans included, wrote England off before they had even taken to the field, and that is not exactly going to inspire confidence in our national team. People seem to forget that rugby (and sport in general) is an unpredictable beast, anything can happen, and that the underdog tag can actually work in the best interest's of a team. Yes, England were not the favourites, but the team that we put out was always more than capable of coming away with a win, regardless of their injury problems and the fact that we were playing away in Cardiff. All of the team put in epic shifts, with not one of the players putting in a bad performance, and the fact that people honestly thought we were going to get completely done over suggests that England fans need to start believing more. England are the 4^th best team in the world, above Wales who are currently 6^th in the World Rugby Rankings. Yet, only a small minority thought that we could do it. Why? It's time people had more pride in their team, especially when they are as good as they were last night.

One other massively important point that needs to be made is that the new concussion protocols are clearly not working. Everybody that watched the match last night expressed concern over the handling of George North and the clear concussion that he sustained in the second half, where he was out cold before he even hit the ground. But he didn't go off to get checked, like he had earlier on in the match (him coming back on itself was a dubious decision, but at least he was actually assessed). That is a disgrace, plain and simple. It cannot happen in this day and age where we have all of the medical knowledge we need to ensure that players are well looked after. Player welfare is everything in a sport as physical as rugby, where a career-ending or even life-threatening injury can occur at any moment. There have been a lot of calls recently for independent doctors to assess players that leave the field under the concussion protocol, and after last night this seems like a very good idea. North should never have been allowed to come back on after the first incident – he was clearly not fit to play. But after the second incident it was plain to everyone that he was not right; he looked unsteady on his feet, and every time he got the ball he either dropped or fumbled when trying to make metres. The handling of George North's head injuries was utterly wrong, and is not acceptable in any sport. Something has got to change, and now.

Luther Burrell and Jonathan Joseph – not soft. They made an awesome pairing at inside and outside centre, and there was a plethora of talent on show from the both of them throughout the whole match. I have been an advocate of the two of them as a centre partnership for a while now, and they absolutely demonstrated why last night. Burrell was a menace for the Welsh defence, smashing his way into tackle after tackle to put England on the front foot. Joseph was simply superb in every way, and his try was absolutely sublime after he effortlessly side-stepped a George North tackle. It's not every day that you manage to get past George North as easily as JJ did. They took most people by surprise with just how well they played when coming up against two giants in Jamie Roberts and Jonathan Davies, and they came out on top against two very experienced Welsh players. For a newly formed duo, they completely took it in their stride and I can see many more successful performances coming for Luther and Jonathan.

Leigh Halfpenny was Wales' light in the dark last night. He exudes talent in everything he does, and his kicking was predominantly on point as usual (albeit the one miss over the course of the match). Under the high ball he was phenomenal, consistently chasing after them and winning the contest more often than not. As already mentioned, his kicking was another highlight of his performance. It just goes to show how good a player is when people are shocked that they miss just one kick out of all attempts at goal. Madness, but that is how good Leigh was. Speaking of kickers, Dan Biggar had a fairly successful game last night, particularly his drop goal just before half-time to give them an 8 point lead at the break, and his partnership with Rhys Webb is flourishing. They are both clearly in tune with how the other likes to play, and this means that they can effectively execute their game plan. Despite the fact that Wales did not win, in the first half their game plan worked very effectively and it is a sign that, when they are playing their absolute best, they can win any match. Unfortunately, the game plan seemed to fall apart in the second half as England came out very strong and with a lot of intensity – Wales just did not seem to know how to handle this, and England exploited that to their advantage.

George Ford did not, in my personal opinion, put in his best performance last night. I know that he was awarded Man of the Match, but I also know that a lot of people were confused by this decision. He missed five points last night and, whilst we went on to win the match, this is not acceptable at international level. It has been mentioned time and time again that he seems to buckle under intense pressure, and that is what happened. Added to the fact that he was charged down twice as well as being too soft in defence, and George is not quite mentally or physically ready for the intensity that playing for England brings. But again, this is my opinion and I understand that not everyone will share it. I was disappointed that Cipriani was not given any time on the pitch, but I have never and will never see eye to eye with Lancaster on his substitution decisions. It feels to me like Lancaster believes players HAVE to be substituted somewhere between 50 and 60 minutes, whereas in reality you are supposed to base your decisions on how the match is going and not by how much time has passed. His subbing of two of the the front row on 54 minutes screamed premature, and shockingly enough the first scrum with the fresh players collapsed immediately. Why make changes when those already on the pitch are entirely dominant?

Wales' scrum on the other hand did not go well. Gethin Jenkins in particular was under pressure from the very beginning, and this was increasingly evident when England won two penalties against the head. Dan Cole, however, put in a simply stunning performance throughout the match last night, and I am more than happy to admit I was wrong about him – his limited game time previous to last night had me worried in terms of how well he would be able to handle the ferocious encounter that we all expected. However, he absolutely took it in his stride and showed everybody that he was more than ready to be in that squad, and that he thoroughly deserved the spot that Lancaster had given him. We also got to see Kieran Brookes, who did a sterling job considering he was replacing the mighty Cole. He looks to be a great prospect for England coming up to the World Cup, and it is exciting to see what more he can do in the future. Speaking of me being happy to admit I was wrong – Billy Twelvetrees. He was crazy good when he came off the bench last night, demonstrating those sparks of excellence that we rarely get to see. Yes, we were winning when he came on to the field, but I honestly believe that the penalty he won us with his great defence secured us victory by allowing Ford to knock over an extra three points and take all of the impetus away from Wales for the last minutes of the game. It is appearances like that where we finally get to appreciate why Lancaster continues to select him. We need to see this from Billy a lot more, however, as it's okay to do one good thing in one match, but if he slips back in to his shady form for England that we have seen in the past the debate on his inclusion will resurface quickly and fiercely.

There has also been considerable debate surrounding Nick Easter's return to the England squad. I'm not sure that he had a great game yesterday, he didn't bring anything to the team when he came on. However, he was a substitution and it is a slightly unfair expectation for him to come on and change the game, especially when we were playing so well. He did make one mistake though, his crossing, that led to an England try being disallowed. Whilst this ultimately did not matter, it could have, and would have given impetus to those that think he is too old to have had his international career re-ignited. Luke Charteris on the other hand caught my eye very quickly when he was brought on. He threw himself into Wales' defensive effort, and tried very hard to help stop England attacking. On the whole, the substitutions for both teams made no real difference, with the exception of Twelvetrees, as both starting teams played well – Wales in the first half particularly, England in the second.

Dylan Hartley. I refrained from talking about him in my previous post as I know his inclusion is a contentious issue. But I came to the realisation that this is, after all, my blog and I shouldn't feel pushed into not saying what I want to say. So here it is: Hartley absolutely should have been selected. Feel free to disagree if you want, but one comment that I heard on the BBC coverage last night sums up why: statistically, Dyls has the best line-out in the world. That's right – the world. On what planet do you not want essentially the best hooker around playing for your country? I get that some people will never be big fans of his, but you're supporting England as a whole team – no one is asking you to support Hartley alone. Whether you like it or not, Hartley is an amazing player. Yes, he does get a bit 'hot headed' on the field, but he gives it his all and you can see just how much he loves to play rugby. His performance in both the line-out and scrum yesterday was phenomenal, and England need him in the squad if they want to win matches. It really is as simple as that in my mind.

Lastly, I have to mention The Hask. He was my Man of the Match yesterday, and a lot of people concur with that view. He was on fire for England, his defensive work was incredible, and his attacking wasn't too bad either. His 'almost try' will stick in the memory for a long time, mainly because he did run head first into the padding around the goal posts. Either way, his break through the Wales defence was seriously good. Tom Wood's injury allowed Haskell to get a starting position, and he made good use of the opportunity, showing everyone exactly why Wasps have come alive this season and shown glimpses of the trophy winning side we once saw. Simply, he was a menace on the field for the whole match, and was our clear outstanding player amongst a team of men that played superbly to get the win. I do not think anyone will be underestimating, or not believing in, England again!

So there you have it – England won! It was a breathtaking match, and that second half performance from England was the best I have seen them play in a long while. Considering the team was fairly young and new, it was a spectacular effort from England to beat Wales at the Millennium Stadium. I saw on Twitter before the match a little debate going about how many players from each team you would pick if you were to have an XV compromised of players just from Wales and England. Most everyone that got involved said they would pick only a couple, with a lot of people actually saying none. I have to say that would not be the case now; if I had to select England players for an XV based on the teams I would probably pick 6 – Hartley, Cole, Haskell, B Vunipola, Burrell and Joseph. It is testament to the team that they gave England fans something to be really really proud about. Well done to all of the lads, you were all amazing. 

View image | gettyimages.com

Bring on the rest of the 6 Nations!

Jess.

Wales v England - Lancaster's squad gives England a good chance under the Friday night lights

It's been a tense wait for Stuart Lancaster's team announcement, particularly with the knowledge of the long list of injuries to English players and with Warren Gatland announcing his own 23-man squad two days early, but we finally know the two teams that will battle it out in the first match of the 2015 Six Nations. Here they are:

Wales: 
Leigh Halfpenny (15), Alex Cuthbert (14), Jonathan Davies (13), Jamie Roberts (12), George North (11), Dan Biggar (10), Rhys Webb (9); Gethin Jenkins (1), Richard Hibbard (2), Samson Lee (3), Jake Ball (4), Alun Wyn Jones (5), Dan Lydiate (6), Sam Warburton - capt. (7), Taulupe Faletau (8). Replacements: Scott Baldwin (16), Paul James (17), Aaron Jarvis (18), Luke Charteris (19), Justin Tipuric (20), Mike Phillips (21), Rhys Priestland (22), Liam Williams (23).

England:
Mike Brown (15), Anthony Watson (14), Jonathan Joseph (13), Luther Burrell (12), Jonny May (11), George Ford (10), Ben Youngs (9); Joe Marler (1), Dylan Hartley (2), Dan Cole (3), Dave Attwood (4), George Kruis (5), James Haskell (6), Chris Robshaw - capt. (7), Billy Vunipola (8). Replacements: Tom Youngs (16), Mako Vunipola (17), Kieran Brookes (18), Nick Easter (19), Tom Croft (20), Richard Wigglesworth (21), Danny Cipriani (22), Billy Twelvetrees (23).

On the whole these are two very strong teams, with Gatland's squad probably having the edge going in to Friday's match in Cardiff. Despite this, I predict the match will be a closely fought contest, with only small margins determining the winner. So, what so we all think about the England squad? I personally would have picked the exact same starting 15, with maybe a few differences in terms of the bench selections. Let me know what you think about the selection in the comments box below, but first I'll provide an analysis on my own thoughts and opinions.

Starting with the 25-man squad that Lancaster named on Tuesday, there was some initial confusion as to the release of Saints loose-head prop Alex Corbisiero. I find myself inclining to agree with the decision to leave him out - he has not had enough game time to warrant selection after coming back from injury, and it would be too big a risk to throw him into the kind of physical battle we are all expecting on Friday. The same can be said for Dan Cole, who has been named in the starting 15 for Friday. He too has very recently returned to the rugby pitch after injury, and I do not agree with him starting against Wales. Instead I would have liked to see Kieran Brookes given the chance, however I do understand that he does not have experience on his side in terms of international matches. Time will tell whether Cole is ready to take to the field for an international match.

Lancaster also released Stephen Myler back to his club, which I do not think anyone is surprised by. My issue with this is not that he should have been picked (because arguably George Ford and Danny Cipriani are the better prospects for England), but that Lancaster has not treated him fairly. Countless times now Myler has been called in to train with the England practice squad, and then released back to his club at the first available opportunity. This can knock a player's confidence sideways, and it is not right. If Lancaster does not plan on using him, surely it would be much better for him to just pull Myler aside and be honest with him rather than giving Stephen false hope? Reports have emerged today that Myler has sustained a calf injury, and that may be the reason that he was not selected. Nevertheless, I doubt that this injury changed anything in the head coach's mind, it just made it easier to release him - Lancaster was unlikely to ever choose him.

But I think the biggest shock for everyone came when it was announced that Danny Care had been released back to Harlequins. I cannot fathom how this came to occur - yes he may have had a slight dip in form, but he is always excellent for England and his form is in no way bad enough to push out of the team completely. If he was put on the bench I would understand, as he has not been playing his absolute best, but to remove him completely? I think that is madness on Lancaster's part. Ben Youngs and Richard Wigglesworth are more than capable of doing a good job, but they do not bring quite as good a game as Care, who had an abundance of imagination and flair that we see every time he takes to the pitch to play. We'll just have to see what happens on Friday, and whether this will lead to Danny being re-called to the squad and selected in future Six Nations games this year.

One person that has, for some strange reason, kept his place in the squad is Billy Twelvetrees. Whilst he has not been given a starting position, he will be taking a place on the bench and people are starting to find it increasingly more difficult to justify this decision by Lancaster. Many people made the argument that the last time we played Wales we won with him in the squad. But the whole point of international matches is to pick your most on-form players, and that is not and has not been for some time Billy Twelvetrees. He does show some sparks of excellent rugby from time to time and he has so much promise, but he has never managed to capitalise on this and instead we see him makings a lot of basic errors as well as silly tactical decisions whilst he is playing. This could have potentially disastrous consequences for England. Luckily he is not in the first 15 and so any damage he could cause would be minimal one would hope. Either way, if he does do anything wrong on Friday the arguments that he should not in the squad will become loud enough that even Lancaster could not ignore them - at least that is what I would like to think. 

The most exciting selection for me is the pairing of Luther Burrell and Jonathan Joseph in the centre. A lot of people have their doubts about how well the two of them will play together, predominantly because it is a new partnership and, in comparison to Jamie Roberts and Jonathan Davies, they have been portrayed as 'soft'. However this is not the case, and I do not think for one second that the Wales management or team will see it this way either. Burrell is a huge force to be reckoned with on the pitch and can force his through any number of tackles before being brought down, as well as creating superb lines to set up many a player to crash over the try line. Joseph is exceptionally quick on his feet, with his amazing attacking prowess allowing him to break through the toughest of defences, and once that happens no one can catch him. They are not to be underestimated, and were Wales to do so it could be catastrophic for them. Selecting the two of them was absolutely the right decision as their form has been phenomenal so far this season, and that is how you should be choosing your players for your international squads. 

Cipriani is another exciting inclusion in the squad, and he has had serious backing for quite some time now. He was always going to play second fiddle to George Ford, and so his being put on the bench is no surprise. All I can say is that Lancaster absolutely made the right decision and has rewarded his potential and talent with a spot in the team. There have though been some doubts recently about how out starting fly-half, Ford, will be able to handle the pressure. There is no doubt that he is a very talented young man, but occasionally when he has been put in a tough situation whilst playing for Bath he has seemed to completely lose his form and, let's be honest, the plot. This has then led to multiple missed kicks and other errors. The hope is that he will be able to keep his nerves in check against Wales because, if he doesn't, it is something that can easily be exploited.

Dave Attwood and George Kruis are two good selection choices for the lock positions, particularly with the injuries to Launchbury and Lawes. Attwood has more than proved over the past couple of seasons that he is perfectly capable of putting in a solid, reliable performance for England. It should not be underestimated how important it is to have someone reliable - Attwood will show up and do what he does best, and that means that Lancaster can put his faith in him to go out and not screw up any chance England have of winning the match. Kruis is still fairly new to the international game, but he has been on excellent form and Lancaster was right to include him. It will be interesting to see how the both of them hold up under the Friday night lights.

I'll put it out there - I am not 'expecting' England to win this match. Now, before any of you start jumping down my throat, that does not mean I am unpatriotic or that I don't think we can win. Of course we can. With the team we have, England have a damn good chance of coming away with a win if we play the game right, more so than the bookies have given us. But when you take into account the squad that Gatland has put out, as well as the fact that it is taking place at the Millennium Stadium, then you have to admit if we go in expecting England to win we could be disappointed. Instead, we need to want them to win. That way, we can actually get behind the team and really spur them on rather than putting more pressure on them by making them feel that if they do not win they will be a disappointment. Us fans will also be able to enjoy the game more if we come to the realisation that it may not go our way, because there will be some great rugby played by both teams and it would be a shame for this to be overshadowed by people's anger at England not winning, if that is indeed the outcome of the match. It will be hard, very hard, but I have every confidence that England will put in a performance we can be proud of and, if they do not come away with the win, it really is not the end of the world. Just remember - you cannot win them all. Saying that, let's all get behind them as much as we can and let them know that we believe in them! That way, they have the best chance of winning. The fans are the 16th man after all! Swing low, sweet chariot!

Carry them home,
Jess.

European Rugby: Marked Improvement or Abject Failure?

The new European Champions and Challenge Cups have been the source of hot debate over recent weeks as to whether they are an improvement on the previous competitions that seized last season. I should start out straight away by saying that I will be making the argument that the new tournaments are better, and this is for many reasons. So far it has been a great season of European rugby, and the quarter-finals hold a lot of promise for being just as epic. 

There is no doubt that the new Champions Cup is vastly more fair in terms of qualification – all teams now enter the competition based on merit, which was not the case before, particularly in terms of the Pro12 teams. Let's just have a quick recap of how qualification now works: for the Pro12, the seven highest-ranked teams make it through; the six highest-ranked teams of the Top 14 advance through; and in terms of the Aviva Premiership, the six highest-ranked teams also take part in the Champions Cup. The rest of the teams in these three domestic tournaments go into the Challenge Cup. However it is 20 teams that take part in the Champions Cup, and the last place is determined by a play-off between the seventh team from the Top 14 and Aviva Premiership, as well as the eighth team from the Pro12. This allows all teams to be on a level-playing field when it comes to qualifying, and takes away the Pro12's advantage of having all teams involved. Of course, this was England and France's main gripe with the old competition, and so it was expected that the rules of qualification would be changed and improved. With the exception of Treviso, the competition now only includes the absolute best of the best, and this allows for a much more competitive and exciting competition. Therefore, the new qualification procedures are definitely an improvement, and is the main reason for me being pro the new European competition.

After round 5 of this year's Champions Cup only one team was guaranteed a place in the quarter finals, and that was Toulon. Usually by that point of the competition most of, if not all of, the quarter final spots are confirmed, and that goes to show you that this tournament has been much more closely contested than ever before. There must be a link here with the new qualification procedures – only letting teams in on merit means that none of them can really storm ahead in their pools, as they are coming up against other incredibly good teams and not, dare I say it, the Italian teams that never really have a chance of progressing. Of course, there have been some big wins during the pool stages, such as Saracens over Munster and Bath over Toulouse, but this does not take away from the fact that the competition is more fierce than it has ever been. Not having all the quarter finals confirmed until after round 6 had everyone hooked on all of the rugby that took place over the weekend of the final pool matches, and this can only be a positive consequence to come out of the new look competition.

Another positive of this year's competition is that, once a team is out of the Champions Cup, they cannot drop down into the Challenge Cup. I know some of you may be thinking, how exactly is that a positive? It is utterly unfair on the teams in the Challenge Cup, all of whom have worked really hard to come out on top of their pools, to then expect them to potentially play a quarter final against a Champions Cup side, who have done nothing at all to get to that stage of the competition. Take last year for example - Northampton Saints won the Amlin, and of course being a Saints fan I was very proud of the team. But it was completely unfair. They did nothing positive to make their way into the tournament, as it was actually losing games in the higher competition that put them there. It must have been horrible for the Amlin teams that put in hard shifts week in week out during the pool stages, only to be swept aside by a team that joined the competition more than half way through. Luckily this has now stopped with the new competition, and once you are out of the Champions Cup you are finished in terms of European rugby until the next season. This is a much fairer outcome, and gives other teams that aren't quite at the top tier of European rugby to challenge for some good silverware. 

It seems impossible nowadays to discuss anything without the issue of money coming into it. Many people have made the argument that the reason for the Pro12 teams not doing so well this year is because the amount of money they have does not allow them to compete at the same level as the English and French teams. Whilst there may be some truth in this, people are missing one vital point: the teams in the Pro12 now actually have to qualify rather than being given immediate inclusion. Because the Pro12 teams knew that they did not have to qualify in previous tournaments, they could get away with resting big players before the competition started and thus allow them to push hard for silverware whilst being relatively fresh. Now they cannot afford to do this as doing so might risk their chances of making it into the Champions Cup. Is it possible that, rather than money being the issues, in actuality the players are not used to playing such bruising rugby week after week? It will take time for the players to acclimatise themselves to not being able to have a rest, and having to go straight into European matches on the back of any Pro12 matches. 

So there you have it - my take on the new European competitions. I think they are much improved, and it shows in the fact that this year's pool stages have given us some of the best European rugby that has been seen in years. Let's hope that the rest of the competition provides us with such good rugby, and that it continues season upon season! Don't forget to get in touch with your comments about the new tournaments!

Thanks for reading ruckers,

Jess.