The Calcutta Cup Saturday 5 Feb 2022

First topic message reminder :

Scotland vs England

BT Murrayfield, Edinburgh
Saturday 5th of February 2022
Kick Off 4:45pm

What the Coaches are saying

Gregor Townsend - "The players have been in outstanding form for their respective clubs.. and that is outstanding!" *tongue click*

Eddie Jones - "There are some young players getting an opportunity. They just need to make sure they don't get distracted or else they might not do so well."

Scotland Team

1. Sutherland 2. Turner 3. Z Fagerson
4. J Gray 5. Gilchrist
6. Ritchie 7. Watson 8. M Fagerson.
9. Price 10. Russell
12. Johnson 13. Harris
11. Van der Merwe 14. Graham
15. Hogg

Replacements: McInally, Schoeman, Nel, Skinner, M Bradbury, White, Kinghorn, Tuipulotu.

England Team

1. Genge 2. Cowan-Dickie 3. Sinckler
4. Itoje 5. Isiekwe
6. Ludlam 7. Curry (c) 8. Simmonds.
9. Youngs 10. Smith
12. Slade 13. Daly
11. Marchant 14. Malins
15. Steward

Replacements: George, Marler, Stuart, Ewels, Dombrandt, Randall, Ford, Nowell.

Reports say that Ford has been called up.

Calling up Ford makes sense, as there's not much to be gained from relying on Bailey, Slade or Furlong to be back-up squad fly-halves. However, if Smith starts, and Ford goes on the bench for the match day 23, then a 6-2 split becomes a riskier proposition

Hopefully it just means it's abandoned. However if you had Marchant Slade and Ford involved in the match day squad you would cover everything. Throw Malins in there as well and there's 2 people who have played full back for England.

So Farrell a 12 drops out and Ford a lightweight 10 is called up....hhmmm ok.

GeordieFalcon wrote:So Farrell a 12 drops out and Ford a lightweight 10 is called up....hhmmm ok.

Which playmaker 12 who is also an experienced mentor and cover for the first choice 10 should have been called up? Toby Flood?

Hopefully it means a Smith-Slade-Marchant midfield. Ford to the bench and another running threat in the backs, sounds good to me!

Is Ford going to play 12?

There was the option in replacing Farrell with an inside centre instead of a 10 however, you already have 2 guys there in teh squad that Jones probably considers his backup in Atkinson and Slade. Wouldn't be my choices but there's that.

Farrell was clearly his back up 10 though so it would mean relying on Furbank. I'm not his greatest fan tbh while having to rely on Ford coming on sends no shudders down my spine as he's probably the 2nd/3rd best fly half in the prem.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Is Ford going to play 12?

No.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Is Ford going to play 12?

No.

Glad hes replacing a12 then

No 7&1/2 wrote:There was the option in replacing Farrell with an inside centre instead of a 10 however, you already have 2 guys there in teh squad that Jones probably considers his backup in Atkinson and Slade. Wouldn't be my choices but there's that.

Farrell was clearly his back up 10 though so it would mean relying on Furbank. I'm not his greatest fan tbh while having to rely on Ford coming on sends no shudders down my spine as he's probably the 2nd/3rd best fly half in the prem.

Malins is a good 10...surely he can cover. Then you can bring in Kelly or one of the young 12's?

No 7&1/2 wrote:There was the option in replacing Farrell with an inside centre instead of a 10 however, you already have 2 guys there in teh squad that Jones probably considers his backup in Atkinson and Slade. Wouldn't be my choices but there's that.

Farrell was clearly his back up 10 though so it would mean relying on Furbank. I'm not his greatest fan tbh while having to rely on Ford coming on sends no shudders down my spine as he's probably the 2nd/3rd best fly half in the prem.

Who would be your choices? We seem to have a dearth of capable English 12s for nearly 20 years now.

FWIW, I think he may also be looking at Northmore as a 12 option. It’s not his best position, but he’s got the physicality for it and the connection with Smith may be a plus.

Ford being in the squad now does look like a 5/3 split on the bench doesn't it. I was coming round to the idea of bringing on Barbeary and Simmonds with 20 to go and seeing what happens. One or the other with Ford and Atkinson/ Northmore on the bench.

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There was the option in replacing Farrell with an inside centre instead of a 10 however, you already have 2 guys there in teh squad that Jones probably considers his backup in Atkinson and Slade. Wouldn't be my choices but there's that.

Farrell was clearly his back up 10 though so it would mean relying on Furbank. I'm not his greatest fan tbh while having to rely on Ford coming on sends no shudders down my spine as he's probably the 2nd/3rd best fly half in the prem.

Who would be your choices? We seem to have a dearth of capable English 12s for nearly 20 years now.

FWIW, I think he may also be looking at Northmore as a 12 option. It’s not his best position, but he’s got the physicality for it and the connection with Smith may be a plus.

Well I'll just lay the cards down now, in this situation I'd call up Ford as I think a top quality fly half replacement is key. In the initial squad I'd have lad Lawrence and/or Kelly in there.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There was the option in replacing Farrell with an inside centre instead of a 10 however, you already have 2 guys there in teh squad that Jones probably considers his backup in Atkinson and Slade. Wouldn't be my choices but there's that.

Farrell was clearly his back up 10 though so it would mean relying on Furbank. I'm not his greatest fan tbh while having to rely on Ford coming on sends no shudders down my spine as he's probably the 2nd/3rd best fly half in the prem.

Malins is a good 10...surely he can cover. Then you can bring in Kelly or one of the young 12's?

Yeah there's clearly 2 main choices here. Bring in another midfielder who will likely make up the squad or bring in a fly half for the bench. Those are the main outcomes for me. Doesn't mean a midfielder brought in wouldn't be able to make the bench or the team but unlikely to come back in over the guys seemingly there for that role already. RE Malins as fly half cover, said a while back I think that would be his best position for me but he looks to be identified as a winger full back cover. Like it or not it would be Furbank that Jones turned to in this squad should we bring in Kelly and Smith were to get injured.

MichaelT wrote:Ford being in the squad now does look like a 5/3 split on the bench doesn't it. I was coming round to the idea of bringing on Barbeary and Simmonds with 20 to go and seeing what happens. One or the other with Ford and Atkinson/ Northmore on the bench.

Not necessarily. I think Ford is there so that there's a second starting fly half if Smith gets injured. Assuming Smith is fit enough to start, I'd expect Malins to provide fly half cover in the XXIIIs and possibly a 6-2 split with just Quirke and Malins or Marchant.

Ford should have been in squad anyway going on form but assuming story is correct and he's being called up to replace Farrell yet Jones pretty much said Farrell was playing 12. Ford NOT a centre.

Doesn't make sense unless he's bench cover for Smith but as we know Jones likes players to cover several positions.

mountain man wrote:Ford should have been in squad anyway going on form but assuming story is correct and he's being called up to replace Farrell yet Jones pretty much said Farrell was playing 12. Ford NOT a centre.

Doesn't make sense unless he's bench cover for Smith but as we know Jones likes players to cover several positions.

SD on the BBC I'm assuming.

For all the reports on Ford, it's still not been announced as yet. Would be surprised if its not him now but why the delay?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2022/jan/22/jack-nowell-should-be-given-another-chance-to-shine-for-england-at-no-13

Not sure he'd make as good an outside centre as flanker. For me I'd stick with Nowell on the wing and Marchant as a centre. Seems more and more though that positions are interchangeable. And with that in mind maybe we should have Bevan Rodd as fly half cover.

There's a bit of "old man yells at clouds" about people being confused or angered by a 10 being called up to replace Farrell.

He was likely to be starting 12 but would clearly have been the reserve 10 in case of Smith getting injured. Farrell shifts in, a centre (likely Marchant) comes off the bench at 13 and Slade goes to 12. It's not like moving starting players to a different position to cover injury is some newfangled Eddie Jones means of reinventing selection either. It's just what's always happened in rugby as long as I've ever followed it.

By calling up a centre as replacement we'd have one player with (club) experience at 10 and 5 centre options in the squad. By calling up Ford with we 2 players with experience at 10 and 4 centre options. Pretty clear which is more balanced.

Personally I'd be surprised if Malins or Furbank were used as bench 10 cover for a Six Nations game. Even if they were good enough there in open play we'd end up with no decent place kickers in the side. In tight Six Nations games that's not a good position to be.

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There was the option in replacing Farrell with an inside centre instead of a 10 however, you already have 2 guys there in teh squad that Jones probably considers his backup in Atkinson and Slade. Wouldn't be my choices but there's that.

Farrell was clearly his back up 10 though so it would mean relying on Furbank. I'm not his greatest fan tbh while having to rely on Ford coming on sends no shudders down my spine as he's probably the 2nd/3rd best fly half in the prem.

Who would be your choices? We seem to have a dearth of capable English 12s for nearly 20 years now.

FWIW, I think he may also be looking at Northmore as a 12 option. It’s not his best position, but he’s got the physicality for it and the connection with Smith may be a plus.

Mike Tindall is probably kicking his heels at the moment. 

Surely he's maintained the muscle mass by changing all those nappies?

king_carlos wrote:There's a bit of "old man yells at clouds" about people being confused or angered by a 10 being called up to replace Farrell.

He was likely to be starting 12 but would clearly have been the reserve 10 in case of Smith getting injured. Farrell shifts in, a centre (likely Marchant) comes off the bench at 13 and Slade goes to 12. It's not like moving starting players to a different position to cover injury is some newfangled Eddie Jones means of reinventing selection either. It's just what's always happened in rugby as long as I've ever followed it.

By calling up a centre as replacement we'd have one player with (club) experience at 10 and 5 centre options in the squad. By calling up Ford with we 2 players with experience at 10 and 4 centre options. Pretty clear which is more balanced.

Personally I'd be surprised if Malins or Furbank were used as bench 10 cover for a Six Nations game. Even if they were good enough there in open play we'd end up with no decent place kickers in the side. In tight Six Nations games that's not a good position to be.

I hope we don't find out, but suspect Slade would be the next option for place kicking. I know he was pretty poor in that game in the Autumn but I wouldn't be surprised if it is something he's worked on.

Looking at overall stats Malins kicked 21 penalties in 65 games, Furbank 6 in 65 and Slade 72 in 173 games.

king_carlos wrote:There's a bit of "old man yells at clouds" about people being confused or angered by a 10 being called up to replace Farrell.

He was likely to be starting 12 but would clearly have been the reserve 10 in case of Smith getting injured. Farrell shifts in, a centre (likely Marchant) comes off the bench at 13 and Slade goes to 12. It's not like moving starting players to a different position to cover injury is some newfangled Eddie Jones means of reinventing selection either. It's just what's always happened in rugby as long as I've ever followed it.

By calling up a centre as replacement we'd have one player with (club) experience at 10 and 5 centre options in the squad. By calling up Ford with we 2 players with experience at 10 and 4 centre options. Pretty clear which is more balanced.

Personally I'd be surprised if Malins or Furbank were used as bench 10 cover for a Six Nations game. Even if they were good enough there in open play we'd end up with no decent place kickers in the side. In tight Six Nations games that's not a good position to be.

Furbank does not kick much, as Saints have Biggar in the side, but when he does he is very good, probably hasn't the range of a Biggar or Farrell but is very accurate. Certainly better than Slade. He hasn't let England down when he has kicked for them against Tonga and the other times he has dropped into the 10 position.

Has Malins actually played 10 this season? I know Saracens have fielded Farrell, Goode and Vunipola there but has he had a look in? There seems to be a lot of assumption hes a 10 based on what he did at under 20s rather than recent seasons. Furbank actually has an England cap there (ahead of Smith!) at least.

Im struggling to see how Ford being in the squad gets to be controversial. That said Im less convinced hes an auto pick for the bench, just depends how much Jones backs Smith to close the game out. Im fine with the utility backs offering the injury cover , but I dont see any of them being Englands second/third choice fly half.

I know a lot of people hate 7-2 benches but really 9 is the only backs position that genuinely needs injury cover. The value of fresh forwards in the modern game really is underestimated by fans IMO. England are blessed to have so many utility backs (or unfortunate to not have many stand out specialists?) and can easily shift around if needed. It might sound like a contradiction that I see Fords call up as a no brainer but dont see him as an auto pick in the 23, but it isnt.

If the focus is on developing Smiths sushi skills then just let him play 80 minutes. That doesnt mean Fords not adding value by being in camp and on speaking terms with Jones. It also sends out the right messages to chaps like Daly that he can work his way back into the squad by performing (which is what Jones hinted at few days back), the door isn't closed to those who had a dodgy year or so (and aren't Farrell).

To not have called him up once Farrell was ruled out wouldve been a pretty damning slap down a a signal for him to get a contract in France.


Could / should there have been another centre in the squad? Quite possibly yeah. But not in place of a reliable senior option at 10. But then again Jones' comments made it clear he saw Manu as member of the squad when hes fully fit and got games under him, so anyone called up would be very much a fringe consideration.

And picking a young 10 over Ford would've been a real fishing trip, Umagas serving a ban and Vuinpolas hardly played. Your really going quite a way down the list to the next in line, or just to the utility chaps who are already in the squad.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There's a bit of "old man yells at clouds" about people being confused or angered by a 10 being called up to replace Farrell.

He was likely to be starting 12 but would clearly have been the reserve 10 in case of Smith getting injured. Farrell shifts in, a centre (likely Marchant) comes off the bench at 13 and Slade goes to 12. It's not like moving starting players to a different position to cover injury is some newfangled Eddie Jones means of reinventing selection either. It's just what's always happened in rugby as long as I've ever followed it.

By calling up a centre as replacement we'd have one player with (club) experience at 10 and 5 centre options in the squad. By calling up Ford with we 2 players with experience at 10 and 4 centre options. Pretty clear which is more balanced.

Personally I'd be surprised if Malins or Furbank were used as bench 10 cover for a Six Nations game. Even if they were good enough there in open play we'd end up with no decent place kickers in the side. In tight Six Nations games that's not a good position to be.

Furbank does not kick much, as Saints have Biggar in the side, but when he does he is very good, probably hasn't the range of a Biggar or Farrell but is very accurate. Certainly better than Slade. He hasn't let England down when he has kicked for them against Tonga and the other times he has dropped into the 10 position.

Vs Tonga? 2 conversions from Slade out of 5 I think, none by Furbank including pens. Smith slotted 6 from 6.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There's a bit of "old man yells at clouds" about people being confused or angered by a 10 being called up to replace Farrell.

He was likely to be starting 12 but would clearly have been the reserve 10 in case of Smith getting injured. Farrell shifts in, a centre (likely Marchant) comes off the bench at 13 and Slade goes to 12. It's not like moving starting players to a different position to cover injury is some newfangled Eddie Jones means of reinventing selection either. It's just what's always happened in rugby as long as I've ever followed it.

By calling up a centre as replacement we'd have one player with (club) experience at 10 and 5 centre options in the squad. By calling up Ford with we 2 players with experience at 10 and 4 centre options. Pretty clear which is more balanced.

Personally I'd be surprised if Malins or Furbank were used as bench 10 cover for a Six Nations game. Even if they were good enough there in open play we'd end up with no decent place kickers in the side. In tight Six Nations games that's not a good position to be.

Furbank does not kick much, as Saints have Biggar in the side, but when he does he is very good, probably hasn't the range of a Biggar or Farrell but is very accurate. Certainly better than Slade. He hasn't let England down when he has kicked for them against Tonga and the other times he has dropped into the 10 position.

Furbank has never kicked for England, WPI.

From what I can find he's kicked 6 conversions and 6 penalties for Saints in his whole career. Not much of a sample size!

Gooseberry wrote:Has Malins actually played 10 this season? I know Saracens have fielded Farrell, Goode and Vunipola there but has he had a look in? There seems to be a lot of assumption hes a 10 based on what he did at under 20s rather than recent seasons. Furbank actually has an England cap there (ahead of Smith!) at least.

Im struggling to see how Ford being in the squad gets to be controversial. That said Im less convinced hes an auto pick for the bench, just depends how much Jones backs Smith to close the game out. Im fine with the utility  backs offering the injury cover , but I dont see any of them being Englands second/third choice fly half.

I know a lot of people hate 7-2 benches but really 9 is the only backs position that genuinely needs injury cover. The value of fresh forwards in the modern game really is underestimated by fans IMO. England are blessed to have so many utility backs (or unfortunate to not have many stand out specialists?) and can easily shift around if needed. It might sound like a contradiction that I see Fords call up as a no brainer but dont see him as an auto pick in the 23, but it isnt.

If the focus is on developing Smiths sushi skills then just let him play 80 minutes. That doesnt mean Fords not adding value by being in camp and on speaking terms with Jones. It also sends out the right messages to chaps like Daly that he can work his way back into the squad by performing (which is what Jones hinted at few days back), the door isn't closed to those who had a dodgy year or so (and aren't Farrell).

To not have called him up once Farrell was ruled out wouldve been a pretty damning slap down a a signal for him to get a contract in France.


Could / should there have been another centre in the squad? Quite possibly yeah. But not in place of a reliable senior option at 10. But then again Jones' comments made it clear he saw Manu as member of the squad when hes fully fit and got games under him, so anyone called up would be very much a fringe consideration.

And picking a young 10 over Ford would've been a real fishing trip, Umagas serving a ban and Vuinpolas hardly played. Your really going quite a way down the list to the next in line, or just to the utility chaps who are already in the squad.

Hasn't played there since he came back to Saracens, got about4 or 5 appearances there for Bristol. And yes if Ford doesn't come in seems to me it would be Furbank who is the chosen back up.

I don't think there's a huge amount of benefit to be had from England going with a 6-2 split on the bench, unless they get injured Itoje and Curry will play the full 80. The 6-2 only works if you're changing the whole tight five which England do not do.

Gooseberry wrote:Has Malins actually played 10 this season? I know Saracens have fielded Farrell, Goode and Vunipola there but has he had a look in? There seems to be a lot of assumption hes a 10 based on what he did at under 20s rather than recent seasons.

Nope. All his apps this season are at 15 and 11. In '20/21 he made 1 appearance at 10. 4 apps at 10 in '19/20.

If you go back to '18/19 he started 10 games at fly-half for Sarries but 6 of them were in the PRC.

21 starts at 10 in senior rugby his whole career by my count. To put that in perspective Marcus Smith started 22 games at 10 in the Premiership last season.

king_carlos wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There's a bit of "old man yells at clouds" about people being confused or angered by a 10 being called up to replace Farrell.

He was likely to be starting 12 but would clearly have been the reserve 10 in case of Smith getting injured. Farrell shifts in, a centre (likely Marchant) comes off the bench at 13 and Slade goes to 12. It's not like moving starting players to a different position to cover injury is some newfangled Eddie Jones means of reinventing selection either. It's just what's always happened in rugby as long as I've ever followed it.

By calling up a centre as replacement we'd have one player with (club) experience at 10 and 5 centre options in the squad. By calling up Ford with we 2 players with experience at 10 and 4 centre options. Pretty clear which is more balanced.

Personally I'd be surprised if Malins or Furbank were used as bench 10 cover for a Six Nations game. Even if they were good enough there in open play we'd end up with no decent place kickers in the side. In tight Six Nations games that's not a good position to be.

Furbank does not kick much, as Saints have Biggar in the side, but when he does he is very good, probably hasn't the range of a Biggar or Farrell but is very accurate. Certainly better than Slade. He hasn't let England down when he has kicked for them against Tonga and the other times he has dropped into the 10 position.

Furbank has never kicked for England, WPI.

From what I can find he's kicked 6 conversions and 6 penalties for Saints in his whole career. Not much of a sample size!

Is that looking at Premiership Stats? I have seen him kick in quite a few games when Biggar has hurt himself or pre-season games when he was playing at 10. I am not saying he is another Farrell/Biggar, but he is solid and reliable and has certainly not let Saints down when called upon.

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

All except one kick have been taken this season which may skew how you see him.

It maybe, I have not seen him kicking prior to this season, not sure he has been required to. However those stats show 11 kicks and do not include the preseason games when he played about 100 minutes in two games and slotted 5 kicks.So in 7 first class games and 2 warm ups he has slotted 16 kicks. Bearing in mind he would not have been first choice kicker for most of the games, only 2 of them were starting at 10 and 2 warm ups at 10, it is not a bad haul.

As I have said, he is not a Farrell or even a Smith, but is more than adequate as a reserve kicker.

Also, with the emergence of Freeman, he is not playing as much at 15 and seems now to be the second choice 10 behind Biggar ahead of Grayson.

I'm not saying Furbank is Logo Mulipola from the tee. Just that a guy who's kicked 12 pens and conversion in pro rugby really isn't an adequate reserve kicker in the Six Nations.

By comparison Ben Spencer has kicked 168 pens and conversions as a pro player.

lostinwales wrote:

king_carlos wrote:There's a bit of "old man yells at clouds" about people being confused or angered by a 10 being called up to replace Farrell.

He was likely to be starting 12 but would clearly have been the reserve 10 in case of Smith getting injured. Farrell shifts in, a centre (likely Marchant) comes off the bench at 13 and Slade goes to 12. It's not like moving starting players to a different position to cover injury is some newfangled Eddie Jones means of reinventing selection either. It's just what's always happened in rugby as long as I've ever followed it.

By calling up a centre as replacement we'd have one player with (club) experience at 10 and 5 centre options in the squad. By calling up Ford with we 2 players with experience at 10 and 4 centre options. Pretty clear which is more balanced.

Personally I'd be surprised if Malins or Furbank were used as bench 10 cover for a Six Nations game. Even if they were good enough there in open play we'd end up with no decent place kickers in the side. In tight Six Nations games that's not a good position to be.

I hope we don't find out, but suspect Slade would be the next option for place kicking. I know he was pretty poor in that game in the Autumn but I wouldn't be surprised if it is something he's worked on.

Looking at overall stats Malins kicked 21 penalties in 65 games, Furbank 6 in 65 and Slade 72 in 173 games.

Not sure about your Furby-stats, mate.  I've got him with 6 pens and 5 conversions this season alone. and at least one was a testing match winner.  I frankly don't recall him missing a kick this season.  But, in the spirit of full disclosure, I also don't recall what I had for dinner last night.

EDIT:  Didn't read to the end of the thread to see youse guys already had his incredible kicking record....

His only real problem is that pornstar mustache. At least it's not a freakin' mullet.

May is out for England as well as Farrell. Lawes also has a knock. England have called up Ford, Daly and Isiekwe as cover.

May and Lawes on top of Farrell, Tuilagi and Underhill would be big blows indeed.

1.Marler 2.Cowan-Dickie 3.Sinckler 4.Itoje 5.Hill 6.Ludlam 7.Curry 8.Dombrandt
9.Youngs 10.Smith 11.Nowell 12.Atkinson 13.Slade 14.Malins 15.Steward

16.George 17.Genge 18.Stuart 19.Ewels 20.Simmonds 21.Quirke 22.Ford 23.Marchant

If all were unavailable England would likely be looking at something like that. Not weak but far from ideal. Very lacking in pace in the backs.

king_carlos wrote:May is out for England as well as Farrell. Lawes also has a knock. England have called up Ford, Daly and Isiekwe as cover.

May and Lawes on top of Farrell, Tuilagi and Underhill would be big blows indeed.

1.Marler 2.Cowan-Dickie 3.Sinckler 4.Itoje 5.Hill 6.Ludlam 7.Curry 8.Dombrandt
9.Youngs 10.Smith 11.Nowell 12.Atkinson 13.Slade 14.Malins 15.Steward

16.George 17.Genge 18.Stuart 19.Ewels 20.Simmonds 21.Quirke 22.Ford 23.Marchant

If all were unavailable England would likely be looking at something like that. Not weak but far from ideal. Very lacking in pace in the backs.

Lawes would be a big loss for his experience, but I’m not sure I’d regard that side as “far from ideal”. May is faster than Nowell, but Smith, Slade, Malins and Steward are all fast and if you want to inject pace Quirke and Marchant are both very quick.

I'm not overly bothered by Lawes as I think he'd have been played as a blindside and whoever we now pick is better imo. I hope May going out leads to Hassell-Collins being given a chance. He always looms good when I see him for LI.

Looks like England is as confused about its best centre pairings as Gregor Townsend is with his.

George Carlin wrote:Looks like England is as confused about its best centre pairings as Gregor Townsend is with his.

Not sure about that - Johnson-Harris has been his go-to for a while now!

The thing with England is that we have a lot of quality players who offer different things; and as fans we all want something different in general. I would suspect that most on here would probably want to see Slade at 12 and Marchant at 13 against Scotland (that would be mine with the other 2 centres relative newbies).

Eddie can just go:

10 SMith
11 Daly
12 Slade
13 Marchant
14 Malins
15 Steward

He can fit as many playmakers as possible in then.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Eddie can just go:

10 SMith
11 Daly
12 Slade
13 Marchant
14 Malins
15 Steward

He can fit as many playmakers as possible in then.

For all that you're stretching a point, that would be a genuinely impressive backline and probably very close to many fans' preferred option.

Slade/Marchant is a combo of two outside centres. But they are strong defensively and Marchant is properly quick, a kind of upgraded Jamie Joseph.

I'd hope so, Jamie is getting on. There are a few more options in the squad too. Nowell as provided by Monye is left field, but there was a bit of a clamour for (gulp) Daly at 13.

lostinwales wrote:Slade/Marchant is a combo of two outside centres. But they are strong defensively and Marchant is properly quick, a kind of upgraded Jamie Johnathan Joseph.

Lawes - 5,6
Elliott Daly - 13,14,15
Isiekwe - 5,6
Malins - 10, 13,14,15
Farrell - 10,12
Nowell - 14,15

Does the position even matter these days....

As an outside all I can say I would like to see England field Daly at 13 and not field Nowell on the wing against Ireland

geoff999rugby wrote:As an outside all I can say I would like to see England field Daly at 13 and not field Nowell on the wing against Ireland

Fair enough, we can pass this on. As long as we are making requests, can Ireland play Zebo at full-back and Lowe on the wing please

Sadly, for you, Lowe is injured and Zebo not in the squad

I agree with your assessment though, I am happy they are not playing in those positions

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd hope so, Jamie is getting on. There are a few more options in the squad too. Nowell as provided by Monye is left field, but there was a bit of a clamour for (gulp) Daly at 13.

13 is arguably Daly's best position, but I am not sure he's the best English qualified 13. I would have Slade and Marchant ahead of him. Nowell is a bit of a head-scratcher. He's long looked like he could play 13 well, but hasn't got much experience there given that Slade plays for the same club. It only really makes sense if Slade moves to 12 and Nowell has lost enough pace that Marchant makes more sense as a wing. The first is very possible, the second seems a bit unlikely, for all that Marchant is very fast.

I could see Daly making the bench if we start with something like

Youngs Smith
Atkinson Slade
Marchant Steward Malins

Interesting article on Rugbypass today where Lancaster describes Ireland's ability to use familiar combinations as a big advantage compared to his experience with England. That to me suggests that there's a lot of value in having Dombrandt and Marchant in particular in places where Smith is used to working with them.

I wonder if Scotland can capitalise on the unsettled nature of this England set-up. We have home advantage and a well settled side.

1.Schoeman 2.McInally 3.Fagerson 4.Gilchrist 5.Cummings 6.Ritchie 7.Watson 8.Fagerson 9.Price 10.Russell 11.Duhan 12.Johnson 13.Harris 14.Graham 15.Hogg

16.Kebble 17.Brown 18.Sutherland 19.J Gray 20.Bradbury 21.Vellacott 22.Kinghorn 23.Steyn

That would be my side (I'd rather have Hastings on the bench though).