England 2023 - Post 6N and beyond

First topic message reminder :

Continued......

So much of rugby is interpretation - pretty much every scrum penalty could go either way. As an England fan I thought the Steward red card was wrong. I think the Sam Warburton red card against France in the 2011 World Cup semi final was a clear red - most Welsh fans would disagree.

I don't think anyone is saying Peyper was in anyway biased, we just do not agree with the decision he made - BUT he was perfectly entitled to take that view, as are those on here who thought it was a red card.

Maybe it is a consequence of a run of bad games. There is the old line about making your own luck but it does seem that England is somewhat unlucky at the moment.

I'm not kidding about this and simultaneously am trying to educate myself as I don't watch full Jeff games very often. Is there really no English club centre combination that is good enough in aggregate to be dropped straight into the national side?

Borthwick could do a lot worse than trade off that existing relationship. Is there really no existing combo that England fans could get behind?

George Carlin wrote:I'm not kidding about this and simultaneously am trying to educate myself as I don't watch full Jeff games very often. Is there really no English club centre combination that is good enough in aggregate to be dropped straight into the national side?

Borthwick could do a lot worse than trade off that existing relationship. Is there really no existing combo that England fans could get behind?

We've discussed this on the other thread...and the answer is no...but hopes are very much optimistic that we're nearly there.

Ollie Lawrence finally took his chance...but we want to see him in his actual positon of 13 not 12 where he was playing.

So move him across and hopefully 21 year old Tigers 12 Dan Kelly will be inury free to take his spot at 12. He would have played this 6n but for injury...and that pairing is a pretty strong, talented midfield.

George Carlin wrote:I'm not kidding about this and simultaneously am trying to educate myself as I don't watch full Jeff games very often. Is there really no English club centre combination that is good enough in aggregate to be dropped straight into the national side?

Borthwick could do a lot worse than trade off that existing relationship. Is there really no existing combo that England fans could get behind?

Well not really. The preferred centre combinations in the Prem are;

Orlando and Moroni at Falcons - both non-EQ
Manu and Rob du Preez at Sale - one non-EQ though if you suited Sam James in...
Kelly and Porter at Tigers - currently the best bet though getting both fit at the same time has been an issue recently
Dingwall and Hutchinson at Saints - one non-EQ
Atkinson and Harris at Glaws - one non-EQ
Redpath and Lawrence at Bath - one non-EQ
Williams and Radradra at Bristol - one non-EQ
Whitten and Slade at Chiefs - one non-EQ
Tompkins and Lozowski at Sarries - one non-EQ
Van Rensburg and Joseph at LI - one non-EQ
Andre and Marchant at Quins - one non-EQ

That said, there are quite a few potential players likely to break through in the next cycle. Quins are losing Marchant but have Northmore, Anyanwu (whose stats are actually very similar to Andre's on a per minute played basis), plus Hyde and Beard in the wings. Not ready for international rugby yet, but should get there before too long.

Poorfour wrote:That said, there are quite a few potential players likely to break through in the next cycle. Quins are losing Marchant but have Northmore, Anyanwu (whose stats are actually very similar to Andre's on a per minute played basis), plus Hyde and Beard in the wings. Not ready for international rugby yet, but should get there before too long.

I didn't realise Andre knocked it on that much.

Anyanwu looks to have all the physical attributes but doesn't look sharp enough for Prem level yet. Could just be an experience thing and he'll grow into the role though. Northmore will slot straight in at 13 for Quins that won't be a concern for them. He could get another call up for England if he refinds his best form.

As Geordie said previously Hartley, Ojomoh and Atkinson are all young guys coming through who could take on bigger roles for their sides next season. Dan Kelly when fit is likely to be straight back in.

Ma'asi White will be an interesting one up at Sale. If Manu goes he could be a like for like replacement but his distribution game has also come on a lot so he could still fulfill their 13 role. He's definitely one to watch out for. Jenkins at Bristol is highly rated, as is Woodward at Tigers though he's only 19 so might need to give that a couple of years at least.

We've got plenty of prospects coming through but not many in the general peak year category of 24-30. Certainly none playing as a combination we could drop into the side as a unit.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I think North plays mostly at 13 Doc....can't say I've seen him play 12 from memory??

Maybe I'm losing it, mate. I am at least 99% almost sure I think I saw him at 12. The mind is the second thing to go...

doctor_grey wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I think North plays mostly at 13 Doc....can't say I've seen him play 12 from memory??

Maybe I'm losing it, mate.  I am at least 99% almost sure I think I saw him at 12.   The mind is the second thing to go...

Sorry, doesn't look like it.

https://all.rugby/player/george-north

Interesting comments from McCall in the Guardian

'Central contracts for England internationals should be at the “top of the agenda” in negotiations over the future of the domestic game, according to the Saracens director of rugby Mark McCall.

After England slumped to a Six Nations campaign featuring just two victories for the third year in a row, and in a season in which two clubs have gone bust, there is appetite for change from both the Rugby Football Union and the Premiership in the next Professional Game Agreement that begins in 2024.

The RFU chief executive, Bill Sweeney, raised the idea of central contracts in October and it has has repeatedly surfaced since the union failed to introduce them when the game went professional in 1995. Traditionally it has been met with staunch resistance but with the financial outlook for the Premiership bleak it has arisen again with clubs finding it increasingly difficult to pay the going salaries for internationals they lose to England duty for around 50% of the season.

McCall, who lost Owen Farrell, Jamie George, Mako Vunipola, Maro Itoje, Nick Isiekwe, Max Malins and Ben Earl to England during the Six Nations, believes a model where the RFU contributes to players’ salaries could be the way forward. He said: “It should be top of the agenda, central contracts. If there is an opportunity to do something a bit differently and for club and country to work very closely together over a particular player. Maybe share his salary? We all know the top international players will be unavailable for half your programme anyway.

“Probably down the years it has been unfair on the club to pay that player his full salary if that’s the case. You need to understand as well that as soon as the RFU start to contribute towards someone’s salary then you lose a bit of control over that player, but I think that’s the right thing to do.”

Chief executive of the RFU, Bill Sweeney
Chief executive of the RFU, Bill Sweeney, raised the prospect of central contracts in October. Photograph: Alex Davidson/The RFU Collection/Getty Images

After England’s disappointing Six Nations campaign, the head coach Steve Borthwick conceded that he had “no control” over his players until they joined back up in the summer to begin World Cup preparations. That is in stark contrast to champions Ireland, who employ central contracts with autonomy over the players, whose workloads are carefully managed.

McCall added: “It is a potential solution when you see how well the Irish system works. Central contracts work very well for both provinces and Ireland. It is a bit different here. There are more clubs, but I am sure a sensible, reasonable solution to it can be arrived at if there’s will on both sides to allow that to happen.”'


The RFU know that there is more scrutiny on them following what many feel was dithering on Jones. It's piling up after their choice of replacement didn't see a bounce in results and the thrashing vs France. Seems like we could see a fundamental switch in the near future on how clubs and international work together.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I'm not kidding about this and simultaneously am trying to educate myself as I don't watch full Jeff games very often. Is there really no English club centre combination that is good enough in aggregate to be dropped straight into the national side?

Borthwick could do a lot worse than trade off that existing relationship. Is there really no existing combo that England fans could get behind?

Well not really. The preferred centre combinations in the Prem are;

Orlando and Moroni at Falcons - both non-EQ
Manu and Rob du Preez at Sale - one non-EQ though if you suited Sam James in...
Kelly and Porter at Tigers - currently the best bet though getting both fit at the same time has been an issue recently
Dingwall and Hutchinson at Saints - one non-EQ
Atkinson and Harris at Glaws - one non-EQ
Redpath and Lawrence at Bath - one non-EQ
Williams and Radradra at Bristol - one non-EQ
Whitten and Slade at Chiefs - one non-EQ
Tompkins and Lozowski at Sarries - one non-EQ
Van Rensburg and Joseph at LI - one non-EQ
Andre and Marchant at Quins - one non-EQ

Great reply - thank you.

I think McCall is also looking after Saracens interests though. Why should club pay for players when not there.

Undoubtedly Ireland benefit from central contracts though with player welfare and rest time plus more time in camp as a team.

No question Ireland been a far better side over last couple years but this greatly aided by set up.

Which is fair enough as it's 2 partners negotiating a resolution, bound to be some give and take. Doors a little more ajar now than it was a few years ago though.

Watson apparently having discussion in moving abroad too. Really can't see the current situation not altering.

I'd heard that Watson was most likely returning to London Irish effectively replacing OHCs place in their squad with OHC all but confirmed to Tigers. So somewhat surprised to see him linked to a Top 14 move again.

A couple more thoughts / discussion points. Shoot me down if I am talking nonsense :-)

1) England players all playing in England usually for all their careers leads to a narrow range of experience and a narrow orthodoxy of thought. Scotland having players in England and France as well as Scotland exposes them to a wider mix of ideas and tactics as does the URC
An example from a good few years ago is when the laws around steals at the breakdown were changed. In England the consensus became " jackaling is no longer possible" and they stopped going for it. Others looked for ways to jackal. It took english players a season or two to catch up again

2) the greater number of players means sometimes there is too much choice. Again compare to Scotland. We rarely have significant selection dilemmas ( apart from Townsend weirdness) to the same extent as there just is not the range of players to choose from. Selection is easier from a smaller pool. We only have 4 ish props that are international standard. so they go on the team sheet. No dilemma at 10. Russell plays etc etc

Just some thoughts for discussion

TJ wrote:A couple more thoughts / discussion points.  Shoot me down if I am talking nonsense :-)

1) England players all playing in England usually for all their careers leads to a narrow range of experience and a narrow orthodoxy of thought.  Scotland having players in England and France as well as Scotland exposes them to a wider mix of ideas and tactics as does the URC
An example from a good few years ago is when the laws around steals at the breakdown were changed.  In England the consensus became " jackaling is no longer possible" and they stopped going for it.  Others looked for ways to jackal. It took english players a season or two to catch up again

2) the greater number of players means sometimes there is too much choice.  Again compare to Scotland. We rarely have significant selection dilemmas ( apart from Townsend weirdness) to the same extent as there just is not the range of players to choose from.  Selection is easier from a smaller pool.  We only have 4 ish props that are international standard. so they go on the team sheet.  No dilemma at 10.  Russell plays etc etc

Just some thoughts for discussion

My thoughts.
1.
Yes ive said it myself i WANT players abroad learning different cultures and skills etc. However to say it will automatically improve players im not sure. Theres plenty of examples where it has...and plenty where it hasnt.

2.
This is a big one and ive seen it.... A 21 year old comes through...doesnt perform in a few games so the England fan base are shouting for him to be replaced and for the the 20 year old next cab off the rank to be in.

The young lads dont get the time to develop.

The countries with lower player pools have no choice but to be patient, give them time and develop them.

I do think Eddie Jones was pretty good with this though...and whilst we bemoaned his selections sometimes, he game the players he believe in lots of time...and those he didnt think had it...no time.

I think it's good for people to get a taste of new cultures. That's not purely in a rugby sense, just think that new perspective can actually improve people/players as much as the actual rugby environment. Though clearly if you've got better coaches wherever you move it's always a good thing. I think there's a wide range of approaches within England but in general there's still a good chunk of players who stay at 1 club until the club decides the time to move on. An example of a player moving within England and benefitting in terms of tactics and ideas was Billy Vunipola. That sort of thing is normally tempered by wage caps (didn't matter for Saracens), or the limitation of England caps, so if that were relaxed you may well see more movement internally and to other leagues: potentially how that hinders clubs development may be a question.

Jackling, not sure. When do you mean?

Yes, a lot of the time you need to hit the round running or it'll be onto the next. An example of that recently is Lawrence.

Well by staying in England and playing against a lot of best players in world is good though. Not sure life experiences off pitch help much when toughing it out with 14 players etc.

Seeing as a lot of Scottish, Welsh, SA etc players play for English clubs any English player is competing against some of the best.

Could argue going to France could be good to play there but otherwise English Prem good enough.

Jackling, not sure. When do you mean?

It was just an example of when the english clubs have an orthodoxy that all agree with but is not accepted in other leagues. So it makes no odds in the English league league - but when they come to european cup games or internationals suddenly they find that the one and only way they believe is right and most English league teams play is not observed by other nations

the laws around jackaling were changed a good few years ago that the tackler could not just stand up and take the ball but had to get back onside first. In England most folk decided ( and I remember the discussions on here) that jackaling had become too likely to get a penalty so they stopped attempting turnovers. Other nations teams instead found a way to work with the law change

mountain man wrote:Well by staying in England and playing against a lot of best players in world is good though. Not sure life experiences off pitch help much when toughing it out with 14 players etc.

Seeing as a lot of Scottish, Welsh, SA etc players play for English clubs any English player is competing against some of the best.

Could argue going to France could be good to play there but otherwise English Prem good enough.

'Not sure life experiences off pitch help much when toughing it out with 14 players etc.' - you say this but how many times through a range of sports have you seen something happening in someones private life impact massively their performances for either good or bad on the pitch. It's the same for us all.

TJ wrote:

Jackling, not sure. When do you mean?

It was just an example of when the english clubs have an orthodoxy that all agree with but is not accepted in other leagues.  So it makes no odds in the English league league - but when they come to european cup games or internationals suddenly they find that the one and only way they believe is right and most English  league teams play is not observed by other nations

the laws around jackaling were changed a good few years ago that the tackler could not just stand up and take the ball but had to get back onside first.  In England most folk decided ( and I remember the discussions on here) that jackaling had become too likely to get a penalty so they stopped attempting turnovers.  Other nations teams instead found a way to work with the law change

Oh. Well some teams as above will have tactics for not competing as it's too risky etc so there will never be 1 way of approaching that in the prem, or I would suggest any league. In terms of league to league, or even ref to ref there will always be different things they look for. After watching the 6Ns and a good bulk of he u20s some refs let so many people not support their weight i.e. hands or fore arms on the floor; that should be a pen (if they affect the speed/game). I don't think you will ever get rid of that which is why I like the approach of Barnes, Adamson, Pearce wo tend to talk alot; you know what they're seeing so seems easier for players to adapt their behaviour.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Well by staying in England and playing against a lot of best players in world is good though. Not sure life experiences off pitch help much when toughing it out with 14 players etc.

Seeing as a lot of Scottish, Welsh, SA etc players play for English clubs any English player is competing against some of the best.

Could argue going to France could be good to play there but otherwise English Prem good enough.

'Not sure life experiences off pitch help much when toughing it out with 14 players etc.' - you say this but how many times through a range of sports have you seen something happening in someones private life impact massively their performances for either good or bad on the pitch. It's the same for us all.

Yeah but by far most important thing is quality of rugby played. Everything else a distant second. My point is English players are getting enough varied experience against a wide range of Int players.
I mean that's been a bug bear for some time, too many imports playing in Prem keeping home players out of sides. Hence lack of quality English centres getting enough time on pitch and less chances for young players to develop.

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Well by staying in England and playing against a lot of best players in world is good though. Not sure life experiences off pitch help much when toughing it out with 14 players etc.

Seeing as a lot of Scottish, Welsh, SA etc players play for English clubs any English player is competing against some of the best.

Could argue going to France could be good to play there but otherwise English Prem good enough.

'Not sure life experiences off pitch help much when toughing it out with 14 players etc.' - you say this but how many times through a range of sports have you seen something happening in someones private life impact massively their performances for either good or bad on the pitch. It's the same for us all.

Yeah but by far most important thing is quality of rugby played. Everything else a distant second. My point is English players are getting enough varied experience against a wide range of Int players.
I mean that's been a bug bear for some time, too many imports playing in Prem keeping home players out of sides. Hence lack of quality English centres getting enough time on pitch and less chances for young players to develop.

In my post earlier I highlighted the current preferred starting centres for each side. There was still 11 EQ centres to choose from and that didn't include Sam James, Luke Northmore, Piers O'Connor, Mark Atkinson, Jonathan Joseph, Max Ojomoh and a few other development options. Max Llewellyn joins Glaws next year and is dual qualified so (probably to his father's despair) could opt to play for England.

The issue isn't options or particularly good quality ones. The issue Borthwick is finding is that very few of them have any international experience and the ones that do are no necessarily the ones in form. Furthermore he was somewhat limited by the EPS agreement and whilst he could have got around that it's understandable that he'd want to try and use the squad in place in hope of their being some connectivity.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Well by staying in England and playing against a lot of best players in world is good though. Not sure life experiences off pitch help much when toughing it out with 14 players etc.

Seeing as a lot of Scottish, Welsh, SA etc players play for English clubs any English player is competing against some of the best.

Could argue going to France could be good to play there but otherwise English Prem good enough.

'Not sure life experiences off pitch help much when toughing it out with 14 players etc.' - you say this but how many times through a range of sports have you seen something happening in someones private life impact massively their performances for either good or bad on the pitch. It's the same for us all.

Yeah but by far most important thing is quality of rugby played. Everything else a distant second. My point is English players are getting enough varied experience against a wide range of Int players.
I mean that's been a bug bear for some time, too many imports playing in Prem keeping home players out of sides. Hence lack of quality English centres getting enough time on pitch and less chances for young players to develop.

In my post earlier I highlighted the current preferred starting centres for each side. There was still 11 EQ centres to choose from and that didn't include Sam James, Luke Northmore, Piers O'Connor, Mark Atkinson, Jonathan Joseph, Max Ojomoh and a few other development options. Max Llewellyn joins Glaws next year and is dual qualified so (probably to his father's despair) could opt to play for England.

The issue isn't options or particularly good quality ones. The issue Borthwick is finding is that very few of them have any international experience and the ones that do are no necessarily the ones in form. Furthermore he was somewhat limited by the EPS agreement and whilst he could have got around that it's understandable that he'd want to try and use the squad in place in hope of their being some connectivity.

And there's certainly some logic behind saying that if there was more English talent concentrated in 1 team that benefits the national team due to familiarity.

Yes but how many of those named could you say are Int quality? I'm sure it hasn't passed Borthwick by the lack of quality England have had over last few years in centre. It's been an on going issue for years, a fit and firing Manu aside England not had a 12.

OK Kelly would have been in if not injured but otherwise who would he pick? Maybe for RWC with EPS ruling not applying we'll see some change.

As for not having Int experience well it's a catch 22 thing. Can't get experience without playing but can't play if not experienced.

mountain man wrote:Yes but how many of those named could you say are Int quality? I'm sure it hasn't passed Borthwick by the lack of quality England have had over last few years in centre. It's been an on going issue for years, a fit and firing Manu aside England not had a 12.

OK Kelly would have been in if not injured but otherwise who would he pick? Maybe for RWC with EPS ruling not applying we'll see some change.

As for not having Int experience well it's a catch 22 thing. Can't get experience without playing but can't play if not experienced.  

That circles back to the original question. Lawrence wasn't international standard when first picked apparently. Was that true? If there were fewer choices would he have been persevered with for longer and now have 20 odd caps? That's a double edged sword of course as greater choice means that you don't have to persevere with someone like Joel Tomkins.

I think Lawrence was but he had a game where he touched ball twice or something then Jones didn't pick him again.

It's hard to tell who will make it as true Int quality, some look superb for club but don't quite cut it in Int shirt. This has been levelled at a certain M Smith.

mountain man wrote:Yes but how many of those named could you say are Int quality? I'm sure it hasn't passed Borthwick by the lack of quality England have had over last few years in centre. It's been an on going issue for years, a fit and firing Manu aside England not had a 12.

OK Kelly would have been in if not injured but otherwise who would he pick? Maybe for RWC with EPS ruling not applying we'll see some change.

As for not having Int experience well it's a catch 22 thing. Can't get experience without playing but can't play if not experienced.  

There's times where you can get away with experimentation and times you can't. The Six Nations isn't a time you can generally get away with it. You might be able to blood or bed in one or two inexperienced guys but selecting a green midfield (as Wales found out) doesn't really work.

Kelly would have started had he not been injured but Borthwick already knew him from Tigers and had confidence that he'd do exactly the job Borthwick would ask of the 12. He should come back in during the summer.

Before the world cup there's some friendlies, I wouldn't be shocked if another gets added on and in those I'd expect us to have a look at some uncapped options. Seb Atkinson is younger but has played to the manor born in the Prem, including an outstanding display Vs Quins who tried to target him with one of the best 12s going to no avail. Dingwall at Saints, very skillful centre, some question marks over his defending but would offer that rugby intelligence in midfield without sacrificing carrying ability. Northmore and Porter might both come back into the reckoning at 13 offering mobility and physicality.

Very quickly we've added five centres to the mix with less than five caps between them. All will have had plenty of Prem game time, the least by a distance being Seb Atkinson but he's still got 18 top flight games and that will increase before the summer.

Not all five will make the squad but you add in a couple of them (four of the five can play 12) and you've got options.

Yep there are options I agree but if they were genuine contenders my point is surely England coaches such as Jones and Borthwick would have tried them.
I'm not suggesting these players aren't good enough just questioning if that is the case why haven't they been picked.

Northmore is one who was in squad under Jones but never got to play(I think).

mountain man wrote:Yep there are options I agree but if they were genuine contenders my point is surely England coaches such as Jones and Borthwick would have tried them.
I'm not suggesting these players aren't good enough just questioning if that is the case why haven't they been picked.

Northmore is one who was in squad under Jones but never got to play(I think).

Eddie capped Kelly and Porter. Northmore and Dingwall were in squads. Seb Atkinson has really emerged from prospect to candidate since his move to Glaws (incidentally a partnership of him and Llewellyn next season could be awesome).

Kelly was injured, Porter injured at the start of the campaign and not really match fit enough to play. Atkinson and Northmore presumably outside of the EPS. Dingwall was in the squads but not played.

As I said, hard to experiment in the 6N. Summer friendlies might be very different.

But it's not just 6Ns. Jones didnt pick anyone else for autumn games and England desperately needed a decent centre pairing.

My point is if those players you named are good enough and I'm not saying they aren't why haven't they been in side.
With all due respect, Jones and Borthwick better placed to judge players than anyone here.

It is widely believed that Steve Borthwick is refusing to pick Joe Marler on disciplinary grounds and Billy V after a personal falling out.  England are definitely weaker without Marler who I believe is our best LH scrummager.  Billy V is more of a question mark, but would have done a better job than Dombrandt who seems to have the same stamina issues as Billy, but without the power for 50 minutes that Billy offers.  Is Borthwick showing that he is a strong coach by taking these actions, or is he just demonstrating that he is ‘weak’ being unable to work with players to fix issues and allowing personal preferences to determine selection?

Sharkey06 wrote:It is widely believed that Steve Borthwick is refusing to pick Joe Marler on disciplinary grounds and Billy V after a personal falling out.  England are definitely weaker without Marler who I believe is our best LH scrummager.  Billy V is more of a question mark, but would have done a better job than Dombrandt who seems to have the same stamina issues as Billy, but without the power for 50 minutes that Billy offers.  Is Borthwick showing that he is a strong coach by taking these actions, or is he just demonstrating that he is ‘weak’ being unable to work with players to fix issues and allowing personal preferences to determine selection?

Ah im actually bored hearing that Marler is the saviour of the England front row.

Genge is a very good LH...our scrum was the besat in the 6n. Then we have the likes of Tom West, Beno Obano who need to be looked at again properly plus others coming through.

Billy V is in there for his power but we have others who can add power and improve the collision aspect of the pack.

mountain man wrote:But it's not just 6Ns. Jones didnt pick anyone else for autumn games and England desperately needed a decent centre pairing.

My point is if those players you named are good enough and I'm not saying they aren't why haven't they been in side.
With all due respect, Jones and Borthwick better placed to judge players than anyone here.

But Jones frustrated so many with his decision not to blood others. Scrum half, Hooker are clear examples.

But as to 12 the kids are really only coming through now bar Kelly and Ojomoh who needs work. SO cant blame Jones for not picking kids who were in the academies still but no as Sam mentioned Seb Atkinson thriving at Gloucester etc.

Oh I agree, he was maddening with his selections/non selections at times.
However, if there were oven ready 12/13s in England why have we suffered with Farrell there and an unfit Manu for seemingly years.

I'm in agreement with most here but I'm not convinced England have a wealth of much better talent that's not been picked. Same argument for back and second rows.

I mean, he chose Youngs, so I think that puts to bed he always knew best.

Indeed and also likes of Billy and Farrell when they were bang out of form.

However, my point on centres stand. If they were glaring examples of much better players not being picked I've not seen them.
Of course a player who hasn't been picked might well excell in an England shrt but because he hasn't been selected we can't judge, tricky one.
It's also a truism that some players seem to increase their reputation by not been picked.

It's not necessarily selecting obvious options you have to try and build up a player base, which is were Eddie fell foul after the world cup. He had promising players in squads but never really developed them through so now we have Farrell, Manu and Slade as experienced options and then Marchant on 17 caps, Lawrence 11 caps. Porter, Kelly and Dingwall less than 10 caps between them. So of the three experienced centres we have one that's never fit, one that's not really a centre and Slade.

Compare that to Ireland who are going into the world cup with Aki, Henshaw and Ringrose who are great whichever combination you go with and who have some 150 caps between them and the McCloskey on 12 caps and Luke Marshall on 11. Five viable options whilst we have three and a half.

We needed either to back Marchant for a greater run or start developing some more options. We stuck at Farrell and Slade for to long.

We have a larger selection pool than most countries and we need to make more of it. Use summer tours to expand our options not keep selecting much the same as the squad before.

Sharkey06 wrote:It is widely believed that Steve Borthwick is refusing to pick Joe Marler on disciplinary grounds and Billy V after a personal falling out.  England are definitely weaker without Marler who I believe is our best LH scrummager.  Billy V is more of a question mark, but would have done a better job than Dombrandt who seems to have the same stamina issues as Billy, but without the power for 50 minutes that Billy offers.  Is Borthwick showing that he is a strong coach by taking these actions, or is he just demonstrating that he is ‘weak’ being unable to work with players to fix issues and allowing personal preferences to determine selection?

The comments about Billy's stamina I've always found so odd. Very few forwards play 80 minutes as often as Billy does when he's fit. He undoubtedly had absurd fitness issues during 2020/21 when Sarries were in the Championship and covid hit with the ensuing problems from strict bubbles. That was soon after another arm break too. He shouldn't have been playing at all with his conditioning where it was there.

That aberration aside I really think one of Billy's biggest strengths is consistency across 80 minutes though. He has limitations but what he does well he does for the duration by and large. His carrying has got less impactful against international defences though. Largely due to fringe defences just being so strong now.

Making yards off 9 is now rare unless playing with very quick ball. When Billy came in the trend was using carriers of 9 to create momentum then playing off 10. Billy was one of the very best at that. We now often see the opposite with carriers of 10 more regularly used to get momentum in early phases play against set defences. Then runners off 9 used once there's already quick ball to hit a retreating defences as quickly as possible before they can restructure.

I agree that Marler would improve the squad though worth pointing out the scrum was actually very good over the Six Nations. Likewise I think even the more recent less effective Billy would've surpassed Dombrandt's performance. We now know that about Dombrandt though which is important in itself. It's just extremely frustrating that the Prem being where it is means that has to be discovered in the Six Nations.

So apparently they'll be no relaxing of the rules next season when selecting overseas based players.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:So apparently they'll be no relaxing of the rules next season when selecting overseas based players.

Good. A change in that would have opened the floodgates wider than they are already.

George Martin with yet another very good performance at lock again today. He's made that shift from 6 back to lock impressively.

We are in a fine mess now with the RWC looming and no idea as to our best 23. I blame Eddie for wasting so much time post 2019 and for playing players in their wrong positions so often ("I wouldn't even have numbers on the shirts mate, that's old fashioned thinking, you just want your best players on the pitch"), but we are where we are. Going forward we can adopt one of 2 approaches; 1. accept we are currently rubbish and not going to win the Webb Ellis so take a younger squad and build for 2027 a bit like France did in 2019 or 2. Take the squad now which has the best chance of success and see how far we can go with our favourable draw.

Option 1 would see a side with an attack built around Smith and as that is not going to happen we will obviously be more like option 2. But I fear Borthers will end up having us caught between these 2 options leaving us in nomansland and an early exit.

RWCs are won by experienced sides with settled combinations. The newer players ideally having 20-25 caps. Whilst there is always room for 1 bolter you need a team and combinations that has been tested in home and away test matches for at least 2 years. Ideally 4 years and more. So through no fault of their own that leaves many of our players in a far from ideal situation. Arundell, Quirke, Freeman, Rodd etc just don't have enough experience to really deliver come a RWC semi-final against the likes of SA, NZ etc.

RWCs are also won by teams with the best defence. So whilst our attack has been nowhere to be seen for years can we at least offer a mean defence? Shipping 50 at home V France might not suggest it, but I think with the right players we can at least give it a decent bash....but not with inexperienced players.

Therefore I would be thinking of something like:

Genge
George
Sinckler
Launchbury
Itoje
Lawes
T Curry at 8 (don't like playing anyone not in their best position, but all our 8s have been useless and this at least allows Earl and Curry to come in with Courtney)
Earl
Mitchell (clutching at straws here as he does not have the experience/caps but JVP and Youngs have not impressed. Maybe Quirke could be our bolter so all to play for in the remainder of this season)
Farrell (build the attack around Smith post RWC, but I just don't think Borthers will set up a team/attack that will suit Marcus so better to just have Farrell)
Manu (showed against Ireland he is not a spent force. Lawrence as a very able deputy)
Slade (he did not impress in the 6Ns, but counting on his defensive qualities in the wider channels and his kicking game to come good)
Watson
Daly (controversial I know but he was in top form prior to injury and no one else has nailed this spot down. If any winger displays good form then they are in with a very good shout so Arundell/Nowell/Malins/May/OHC etc all can stick their hand up
Steward

Bench

Marler (Mako as no.3 but Joe is world class especially in the scrum and against the bomb squad we will need him)
Cowan-Dickie
Stuart
Chessum
Willis/Ludlam
JVP
Ford (Smith my no.3 fly half and Ford better able to dove tail with Farrell if needed as long as he displays sufficient form to warrant this)
Malins

I'd go with a more long term approach. Who is going to be the longer term choice with anyone remotely close in ability.
Launchbury after not playing a high level I'd question. As I would Curry after his pretty awful displays at 8. Warl I'm not sure why you'd want someone who hasn't yet impressed Iver someone like Willis who has

Daly not sure he's ever forced himself in through performances to be above others in a short term approach.

If I'm guessing at Borthwick's preferred 23 with all fit a lot of it I actually think falls into place a bit.

1.Genge 2.LCD 3.Sinckler 4.Itoje 5.Chessum 6.Lawes 7.Curry 8.???
9.JvP 10.Ford 11.Arundell 12.Farrell 13.Lawrence 14.Watson 15.Steward

16.George 17.??? 18.Stuart 19.??? 20.Underhill 21.Mitchell 22.Tuilagi 23.Daly

The game plan glaringly needs more physicality in the forwards hence the likes of LCD, Lawes, Curry and Underhill could stroll back in if they get a proper RWC build up and training camps under their belts. The scrum and lineout going well is a fillip for the tight five but depth is obviously needed for competition and bench impact. Hence Stuart nailed on to return if fit, openings at LH (maybe Marler) and second row (Martin or Ribbans).

In the backs I find a couple of things really interestingly. Firstly, building an attacking structure that seemingly requires two playmakers then using Slade as that second playmaker when he's not really ideal for that role. Secondly, Ford coming straight back into camp despite not being match fit for the tournament. From that I'd guess that whilst Smith-Farrell was abandoned for good after R1 that we may not have seen that last of Ford-Farrell come the RWC.

Number 8 is the spot I can't see an obvious selection in even with all fit. Dombrandt looked way off. Maybe Mercer if he makes the training squad and goes well in the warm-ups.

Ted Hill, George Martin, Underhill...and the world cups in the bag

Surely Chandler Cunningham South will be in the equation at 8 even at this early stage?

And Pearson will be in the mix

Oh and....Elliott Obatoyinbo

So few starts will likely be holding CCC back. He's actually clocked really decent minutes for a back row that's just turned 20 a week ago. Almost all from the bench. He looks a massive talent though.

I'd guess Goode and Brown have about as much chance as Obatoyinbo.  

I've said it a few times but I reckon Daly might have played on the wing and role that Malins had in the Six Nations if not for injury. He was recalled immediately in the initial training squad and was terrific for Sarries this season.

I'd rather Daly on the wing as the playmaker than Malins.