England still winning the RWC at a canter - The RWC phase

First topic message reminder :

Assuming and currently it is quite a big assumption England get through group I can't see them winning QF against whoever they face. Bloody hopeless

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:i dont take anything from the Chile game....bar the fact there is an attacking game there. It will need to be developed v the big teams though. And that will take time.

And bravery.

Im pretty sure they have that.

Borthwick hasn't demonstrated that as yet. If we do progress and we're playing rugby from our own half, not immediately kicking it away after 1 or 2 phases then great. No bravery re tactics as yet, again can we really count Chile?

Its nothing to do with bravery.

Ah actually im not doing this again. You win...Borthwick is a shambles, time he was sacked and Robertson can come in and play Fijian 7s rugby, lose every game but hey it'll be fun to watch.

Geordie wrote:i dont take anything from the Chile game....bar the fact there is an attacking game there. It will need to be developed v the big teams though. And that will take time.

I think it's the feel good factor for players and coaches which will be big thing, and for supporters. Don't forget they got booed against Japan as game so poor and Ford kept kicking away possession when in Japan half so a big win albeit against very limited opposition will help confidence and ease pressure. They could have won as expected but it been a grim and dour affair which we have seen plenty of from England over last few years so running in a ton of tries and nilling opposition will do them some good.

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:i dont take anything from the Chile game....bar the fact there is an attacking game there. It will need to be developed v the big teams though. And that will take time.

And bravery.

Im pretty sure they have that.

Borthwick hasn't demonstrated that as yet. If we do progress and we're playing rugby from our own half, not immediately kicking it away after 1 or 2 phases then great. No bravery re tactics as yet, again can we really count Chile?

Its nothing to do with bravery.

Ah actually im not doing this again. You win...Borthwick is a shambles, time he was sacked and Robertson can come in and play Fijian 7s rugby, lose every game but hey it'll be fun to watch.

Unfortunately Robertson now has a job. And we can soon see whether nz play like a 7s team or end up winning everything again. And yes the way Bortwhick sets up his team to avoid losing rather than trying to win is to do with bravery.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

mountain man wrote:Best thing is England score 11 tries, concede zero points but lots of moaning.

Need Smith on pitch but question is what position. He's never quite cracked it at 10, his cameos at 15 so far been positive but whether he'd be good enough against better teams never know until it's tried. I was sceptical of it to be honest but I really do want to see more from England in attack and this is one way of achieving it.

Smith hasn't really had many chances playing 10 in a decent England side, though. Even then, there were times that it clocked and we saw what he could do - those 10 minutes against the ABs for instance.

Ah come on PF.......Smith has had stacks of chances to nail the shirt but has never looked comfortable at Int level. I'm a huge fan of his for Quins but he's struggled. We've even tried bringing in his team mates and coach but he's still not produced.

Disagree with that. He's played the tactics pretty well. Ended up top point scorer in last years 6ns didn't he? I think Smith struggles more in comparison to Ford and farrell as the expectation is that he will shred defences. Its just not what England want so he plays within himself. Stillmplays well though in terms of implementation.

He also had to contend with:

Youngs for most of his caps
A team that did not understand how to run off him and give the defence too many options
For a number of his caps, 10 minute cameos where the match was dead and he was the last hope of something happening (which it often did).

Fair points......none of Smith's poor performances are his fault, it's everybody and everything else.

We were never getting Robertson....ever.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Fair points......none of Smith's poor performances are his fault, it's everybody and everything else.

But that's not the point at all, is it? The point is that in that period England as a whole have been poor, and very few players have played consistently well.

The players who are most consistently lauded are generally the ones like Ford and Mercer who haven't played during that period.

You come across as marking a player down for not having been able to.single handedly turn around a failing team, and comparing him to players who have a long time as part of a fairly successful team before descending into the mire.

Anyway, the matter is settled. Stephen Jones has apparently dumped all over Smith's performance, which by the immutable law of rugby journalism that says that anything that Stephen Jones writes is wrong, his performance must therefore have been brilliant.

Poorfour wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Fair points......none of Smith's poor performances are his fault, it's everybody and everything else.

But that's not the point at all, is it? The point is that in that period England as a whole have been poor, and very few players have played consistently well.

The players who are most consistently lauded are generally the ones like Ford and Mercer who haven't played during that period.

You come across as marking a player down for not having been able to.single handedly turn around a failing team, and comparing him to players who have a long time as part of a fairly successful team before descending into the mire.

Anyway, the matter is settled. Stephen Jones has apparently dumped all over Smith's performance, which by the immutable law of rugby journalism that says that anything that Stephen Jones writes is wrong, his performance must therefore have been brilliant.

We haven't been poor for his whole 29 caps PF, that's just not true. All I wanted from Smith is to have 1 game against decent opposition were he shines (ala Quins) and show he's the real deal moving forward at this level....it's never happened.

I'm a Smith fan and I was a big advocate of giving him time and building the team round him somewhat. This hasn't worked and he's ultimately failed to produce at the higher level.......I can accept this. Maybe he needs to go away and come back in a year or two when his game has matured.

I still can't believe people are still banging on about everything being at fault except Smith......

Shines as he does with Harlequins would mean the team playing with different tactics. That's not down to him or any player.

He ended a 6 nations as top scorer.

So the wins against Australia and - particularly - South Africa in 2021 don’t count then? The South Africa game in particular was without Farrell or Ford, and playing a Bok side who were still very much the 2019 RWC squad with an England XXIII that had (at a quick glance) around 11 players who were on 10 caps or fewer.

Poorfour wrote:So the wins against Australia and - particularly - South Africa in 2021 don’t count then?  The South Africa game in particular was without Farrell or Ford, and playing a Bok side who were still very much the 2019 RWC squad with an England XXIII that had (at a quick glance) around 11 players who were on 10 caps or fewer.

Do you know what, I'll give you SA....he was good in that match. Ok.....we have 1 game, 2 years ago.......28 more caps of averageness.

So what's he need to do to improve at this level then?

I'm with Sgt on this, Smith although really good player has never quite nailed it in an England shirt at 10. Might be tactics from coaches, might be team mates and or combination of both but whatever it is he's never made me think "yep that shirt is his now". I'll add this is not first time I've said this either. I'd have to check but if I remember rightly his first couple games at 10 he was good but never pushed on.

As for what he needs to do, be given licence to play and backing of team and coaches to do it. Maybe he already has but it's not quite worked.
Am I writing him off as England 10? Absolutely not but for whatever reason so far he hasn't convinced. His time at 15 shows what he can do albeit with caveat of opposition and state of match at time so maybe if picked at 10 now he would produce.
I doubt from what we've seen so far though that Borthwick is considering anyone other than Ford or Farrell unless injury causes it.
I'll add that England as a whole during Smiths time at 10 were pretty awful so maybe we're expecting too much from one player to suddenly change that. Maybe if England go on a bit of a run in RWC and then push on next 6N etc we'd see a different team and one in which Smith at 10 would thrive.

It is though a very good position for England, Ford, Farrrell and Smith all fit and available. Maybe we should be happy with that for now.

Its all Borthwicks fault.

Jones was underachieving. BorthwickBall just took it to a new level!

How many of the 29 caps were 10 minute cameos?

I seem to remember that in most of the cameos he showed a lot more game intelligence and vision than anyone else, scored a few tries, made a few. If he had been on the field for 80 minutes, who knows. For Smith to perform he needs players with him that will play his type of game, if nobody is running the lines he needs, of course he will not look good, he is like the Ford of old, take it flat and pass to the player with the best chance of gaining ground at the very last second. Even Ford had to stop doing it when Farrell started at 12.

Going back to Saturday, the Standard has George Martin in their team of the week, ahead of Ribbans and every other lock. Am I missing something, he took zilch lineout ball, in fact it looked like Dan didn't trust him, everything went to Ribbans, he made one surge through the line, and tackled reasonably well. Completely disappeared when he went to 6.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Jones was underachieving. BorthwickBall just took it to a new level!

I believe all the knockers were stating that England would be out in the group stages. maybe just lucky enough to make the quarters as runners up. But now SB is taking rubbish to a new level by looking like winning the group at a canter as the thread title states. There is no pleasing some people, if England won the RWC, there would still be knockers that didn't like the way we played, we were lucky as Peyper was so pro English, making up for lost time.

Worth noting that Ollie Lawrence looked pretty rubbish when he first got a couple of caps, but then nobody passed to him and he had almost nothing to do. A couple of years on and he's looking pretty handy.

We do need a future beyond Ford and Farrell, and Smith M is the obvious solution.I am hoping that spending some time at 15 will improve what he can do at 10. I would also say that there is a strong tendency to measure some players by different standards to others, especially when they can be exciting.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Jones was underachieving. BorthwickBall just took it to a new level!

I believe all the knockers were stating that England would be out in the group stages. maybe just lucky enough to make the quarters as runners up. But now SB is taking rubbish to a new level by looking like winning the group at a canter as the thread title states.  There is no pleasing some people, if England won the RWC, there would still be knockers that didn't like the way we played, we were lucky as Peyper was so pro English, making up for lost time.

I'm clearly one of his biggest knockers (snigger) here, and I've always said it would be semis and out. And to be fair my response to king before the WC was that reach the semis and strange things can happen ie red cards, things like NZ absolutely bottling the game to France come to mind.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:How many of the 29 caps were 10 minute cameos?

I seem to remember that in most of the cameos he showed a lot more game intelligence and vision than anyone else, scored a few tries, made a few. If he had been on the field for 80 minutes, who knows. For Smith to perform he needs players with him that will play his type of game, if nobody is running the lines he needs, of course he will not look good, he is like the Ford of old, take it flat and pass to the player with the best chance of gaining ground at the very last second. Even Ford had to stop doing it when Farrell started at 12.

Going back to Saturday, the Standard has George Martin in their team of the week, ahead of Ribbans and every other lock. Am I missing something, he took zilch lineout ball, in fact it looked like Dan didn't trust him, everything went to Ribbans, he made one surge through the line, and tackled reasonably well. Completely disappeared when he went to 6.

Having a look at the stats......not many. He has approximately 5 games with around 10mins or less, 3 of which have been been in the WC build-up and WC. I have him starting 21 of the 29 which puts to bed this theory he's not had ample opportunity.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:How many of the 29 caps were 10 minute cameos?

I seem to remember that in most of the cameos he showed a lot more game intelligence and vision than anyone else, scored a few tries, made a few. If he had been on the field for 80 minutes, who knows. For Smith to perform he needs players with him that will play his type of game, if nobody is running the lines he needs, of course he will not look good, he is like the Ford of old, take it flat and pass to the player with the best chance of gaining ground at the very last second. Even Ford had to stop doing it when Farrell started at 12.

Going back to Saturday, the Standard has George Martin in their team of the week, ahead of Ribbans and every other lock. Am I missing something, he took zilch lineout ball, in fact it looked like Dan didn't trust him, everything went to Ribbans, he made one surge through the line, and tackled reasonably well. Completely disappeared when he went to 6.

Only 7 bench apps in there. 6 of which have been under Borthwick which probably gave that impression as they're more recent. He made 16 starts in 17 apps under Jones. It's a lot of chances with some very mixed performances.

I've said a couple of things a lot of times now. Firstly, I absolutely think Smith has the ability to be a fantastic international 10. Secondly, when people talk about a player needing 'teammates on their wavelength', 'club teammates', 'a team built around them' or 'tactics designed for them' it's a massive red flag to me. One of the biggest skills needed at international level is being able to adapt to the personnel and tactics around you. Carter turning himself from a running 10 that often played 12 to a FH that kicked more than any in rugby being a great example. At club level coaches can just make a new signing if required for the tactics. At international level you adapt with what you have. That's why successful internationals change so much over their career. As their coaches, teammates, the laws and hence tactics shift they roll with it. That's what makes an international player. I think the previous and lingering suggestions he needed the likes of Dombrandt, Care and Marchant alongside to be on his wavelength are actually a disservice to his quality not an argument in favour of him.

On the lineout, Chile didn't really compete so England just kept putting the same jumper up. IIRC Martin actually called the lineout when he was partnered with Ribbans against Wales in the warmups. Presumably he would've done so again. Dan won't have been calling the throws, just executing what the lineout leader called. So don't think there's anything in players distrusting each other.

It seems Martin is there to get over the gain line and hit things hard in defence. Both of which he's doing well. The stats (9 carries, 2 defenders beaten and 10 tackles to 8, 7 and 1 respectively for Ribbans) suggest they had very similar games in the loose. ESPN does have Ribbans down as conceding a couple of penalties though. I thought both had decent games without standing out much given the opposition. I certainly don't think either did anything to disrupt the Itoje and Chessum partnership that I think is looking strong now.

Itoje and Chessum are so good together. Really nice partnership.

He made 16 starts in 17 apps under Jones. It's a lot of chances with some very mixed performances.

I've said a couple of things a lot of times now. Firstly, I absolutely think Smith has the ability to be a fantastic international 10. Secondly, when people talk about a player needing 'teammates on their wavelength', 'club teammates', 'a team built around them' or 'tactics designed for them' it's a massive red flag to me. One of the biggest skills needed at international level is being able to adapt to the personnel and tactics around you.

With respect you are somewhat contradicting yourself there. You say he's had enough chances with very mixed performances then it's not the tactics or the players around him but he has ability to be a fantastic Int 10.

So if that's the case why hasn't he worked so far?

As for Martin, I am far from convinced on what I've seen so far he's anything other than a decent club player. He's similar in that respect as J Hill, great for club not so much for England. Obviously Martin had less chances so far though.
For me Ribbans looks far better, certainly as far as 2nd row goes.

RugbyPass Player Ratings

These are somewhat hyperbolic if you only look at the numbers - but some interesting points in there around how the pecking order of players in various positions has shifted over the course of the tournament.

Poorfour wrote:RugbyPass Player Ratings

These are somewhat hyperbolic if you only look at the numbers - but some interesting points in there around how the pecking order of players in various positions has shifted over the course of the tournament.

Totally skewed though by Chile game. Farrell I thought was good, he only gets a 5. Arundell 10. Ribbans 5 who was better than that.

Not sure I'll read a lot into those.

From where we were in the 6Ns and warm up games*, with the relatively soft draw, semi final was a realistic 'good achievement' objective; failing to get out of the group would have been at the level of disaster and losing QF disappointing. Anything beyond the semi, given our 4 potential opponents at that point were and still are the 4 favourites to win the tournament, is over-achieving.

Obviously, as fans we want the England team to be better, and to be a serious challenger for the best in the world, plus to play with a style that provides entertainment. A year ago, at the end of Jones's tenure we had the opposite - poor team playing poor and dull rugby; Borthwick has at least improved us to mediocre team playing mediocre and dull rugby .

We hope there's more development, and there were signs at the end of the Japan game and in the Chile game that there could be some improved fluency; I want to see us take the same sort of approach against Samoa and play a bit more what's in front of us rather than rigidly following a game plan (also, even if the gam plan is mainly to kick for position, execute it better)

*Caveat - we know now that the squad was still in serious fitness work at that point, so using the games for fitness and tactical development rather than necessarily targetting wins.

I want to see us take the same sort of approach against Samoa and play a bit more what's in front of us rather than rigidly following a game plan (also, even if the gam plan is mainly to kick for position, execute it better)

Agree. The one big positive about Chile match apart from BP win was the intent. Obviously so much easier against lesser opposition but it's old cliche of playing team in front of you. More of same against Samoa.
I said previously there was a definite feel good factor about it, which can only be good all around for team and fans after being booed in warm ups and against Japan. At highest level the physcological element can be defining factor between evenly matched teams. (I don't think Samoa are on same level as Eng that's for sure but point holds I believe for all evenly matched teams).
Imagine how Australia felt after Wales match for contrast.

mountain man wrote:

He made 16 starts in 17 apps under Jones. It's a lot of chances with some very mixed performances.

I've said a couple of things a lot of times now. Firstly, I absolutely think Smith has the ability to be a fantastic international 10. Secondly, when people talk about a player needing 'teammates on their wavelength', 'club teammates', 'a team built around them' or 'tactics designed for them' it's a massive red flag to me. One of the biggest skills needed at international level is being able to adapt to the personnel and tactics around you.

With respect you are somewhat contradicting yourself there. You say he's had enough chances with very mixed performances then it's not the tactics or the players around him but he has ability to be a fantastic Int 10.

So if that's the case why hasn't he worked so far?

I said a 'lot of chances' rather than 'enough'. Which might seem pedantic but enough would suggest he's had his chance and requires discarding which I don't think.

I think early on he was very poor at varying the depth he played at. He'd either play far too flat, where stronger international defences swamped him. Or he'd set very deep when looking to go wider. It telegraphed what he might do far too easily. 

I also felt he showed naivety in running the ball himself. International defences will 'show runners space' in the hope the run down an alley and get isolated. Early on Smith would take options that might result in a break against most of the Premierships poor defensive quality but just resulted in losing all momentum against international defences.

As I've argued a lot of times recently, I think the gulf between a lot of defensive work in the Premiership and the international game is almost comical currently. In many early performances I felt that Smith was playing like he would against a Prem side who have sent a rotated XV to The Stoop. Smith's talents allowed these things against an XV half made up of players that should probably be in the Championship if the system functioned. Against international defences it was slightly different.

His tactical kicking has largely been good with a couple of blips. Quins actually kick a lot and usually very well, with most of it going through Smith, so that's not surprising really.

mountain man wrote:

He made 16 starts in 17 apps under Jones. It's a lot of chances with some very mixed performances.

I've said a couple of things a lot of times now. Firstly, I absolutely think Smith has the ability to be a fantastic international 10. Secondly, when people talk about a player needing 'teammates on their wavelength', 'club teammates', 'a team built around them' or 'tactics designed for them' it's a massive red flag to me. One of the biggest skills needed at international level is being able to adapt to the personnel and tactics around you.

With respect you are somewhat contradicting yourself there. You say he's had enough chances with very mixed performances then it's not the tactics or the players around him but he has ability to be a fantastic Int 10.

So if that's the case why hasn't he worked so far?

I said a 'lot of chances' rather than 'enough'. Which might seem pedantic but enough would suggest he's had his chance and requires discarding which I don't think.

I think early on he was very poor at varying the depth he played at. He'd either play far too flat, where stronger international defences swamped him. Or he'd set very deep when looking to go wider. It telegraphed what he might do far too easily. 

I also felt he showed naivety in running the ball himself. International defences will 'show runners space' in the hope the run down an alley and get isolated. Early on Smith would take options that might result in a break against most of the Premierships poor defensive quality but just resulted in losing all momentum against international defences.

As I've argued a lot of times recently, I think the gulf between a lot of defensive work in the Premiership and the international game is almost comical currently. In many early performances I felt that Smith was playing like he would against a Prem side who have sent a rotated XV to The Stoop. Smith's talents allowed these things against an XV half made up of players that should probably be in the Championship if the system functioned. Against international defences it was slightly different.

His tactical kicking has largely been good with a couple of blips. Quins actually kick a lot and usually very well, with most of it going through Smith, so that's not surprising really.

Its all Borthwicks fault...

So, where does Borthwick go from here?
3 guys still haven't really stepped up for me - Billy V, Malins and May haven't been great when they had a chance.
Smith with his versatility and in the dying stages of a game can open up - I think will be a bench option.
Cole hasn't played since Argentina game (I think). Is Sinkler or Stuart the backup TH?
Curry needs gametime - he's only had a few mins!

My feeling is that a side like this will be rolled out for Samoa -

Genge
George
Cole
Itoje
Chessum
Lawes
Curry
Earl
Mitchell
Ford
Daly
Farrell
Tuilagi
Arundel
Steward

Marler, Walker, Sinkler, Martin, Ludlam (whole back-row), Care, Smith (covers 10,15), Marchant (covers 11-14)

Hard on Willis and Ollie Lawrence.
Theo Dan could easily leapfrog Walker.

I think Cole was used as a matchup against Thomas Gallo with Sinckler injured in the Argentina game. Sinckler seems to be first choice TH and Stuart ahead of Cole as a bench option.

I reckon Dan is ahead of Walker now as well.

Otherwise, I'd guess the same 23 for Samoa, david.

Which of Tuilagi and Marchant starts might be a tight call. Marchant has been really good but Manu offers physicality. I think I'd start Marchant with Manu on the bench but could see it going either way. Both have put in stronger performances recently. So it's at least a better place to be with centre selection.

Care and Youngs could go either way for the opposite reason. Both have been pish. In the warmups and RWC outings so far plus their previous international outings before that. In the Calcutta Cup for Youngs and the Oz tour for Care. I really wish Quirke had been in the training squads.

In a point on the midfield, surely if we pick Tuilagi we need to give the ball more than 3 times in a match? When that's considered both Marchant and Lawrence are streets ahead in defence, as is Farrell.

I'm Irish but if your not starting ludlam and Marchant your making a mistake.
A bigger mistake is starting Farrell at 12. Play him at 10 or nowhere.
Ludlam has been consistently your best back row for the last 12 months, play him, he tackles well, he carries hard and he has an engine for the full 80

No 7&1/2 wrote:In a point on the midfield, surely if we pick Tuilagi we need to give the ball more than 3 times in a match? When that's considered both Marchant and Lawrence are streets ahead in defence, as is Farrell.

Unfortunately for England Manu today is no longer Manu from years ago.
Defensively not good enough at international level, and no longer has the same impact in attack.
He can have the odd game where he looks good, but no longer a consistent performer

I'm a fan of Tuilagi. But he's still a string runner him and Lawrence are pretty close. I just don't see the need for him if he's going to be given the ball that amount of times.

The last time I remember England having a captain who was apparently amazing in training, had great insight into the game, great work ethic, respected by all, etc, etc, but fans outside questioned whether or not said player was actually the best in their position and good enough to be in the starting team - it was Borthwick. So I think he'll be picking Farrell until the cows come home.

Manu was good against Argentina, almost back to old self. However, unfortunately those games be few and far between these days.
Samoa will be a physical challenge so he'll be asset then. Lawrence is a good enough replacement at 12.
I think though we'll see Ford 10 Farrell 12 and Manu 13.

Big wrote:The last time I remember England having a captain who was apparently amazing in training, had great insight into the game, great work ethic, respected by all, etc, etc, but fans outside questioned whether or not said player was actually the best in their position and good enough to be in the starting team - it was Borthwick.  So I think he'll be picking Farrell until the cows come home.

There's been a few who's place in the starting XV was queried. Moody's body was fairly broken by the time he replaced Borthwick as skipper. Robshaw was constantly questioned - I think Geordie will still go to war over Mark Wilson being a better blindside. Even Hartley when Jamie George started tearing it up and became a Lions starter whilst England's second choice. That's all of them since Borthwick, in fact. Maybe a lot of England fans just love a whinge...?

I've long been of the view that the importance of captaincy is very overstated in the modern game anyway. I think it has very little impact now. Since the debacle to finish the 2017 Lions tour where Warburton skilfully got in Poite's ear to assist him making an abject decision we've seen officials work more as a team. Rather than two captains talking at a ref you've got two touch judges and a TMO working with him. All system can result in mistakes. Overall I think it's improved things and massively reduced the impact captains can have when talking to refs. Which I feel is a great thing.

Most decent sides have now moved towards leadership groups rather than reliance on captains.

king_carlos wrote:

Big wrote:The last time I remember England having a captain who was apparently amazing in training, had great insight into the game, great work ethic, respected by all, etc, etc, but fans outside questioned whether or not said player was actually the best in their position and good enough to be in the starting team - it was Borthwick.  So I think he'll be picking Farrell until the cows come home.

There's been a few who's place in the starting XV was queried. Moody's body was fairly broken by the time he replaced Borthwick as skipper. Robshaw was constantly questioned - I think Geordie will still go to war over Mark Wilson being a better blindside. Even Hartley when Jamie George started tearing it up and became a Lions starter whilst England's second choice. That's all of them since Borthwick, in fact. Maybe a lot of England fans just love a whinge...?

I've long been of the view that the importance of captaincy is very overstated in the modern game anyway. I think it has very little impact now. Since the debacle to finish the 2017 Lions tour where Warburton skilfully got in Poite's ear to assist him making an abject decision we've seen officials work more as a team. Rather than two captains talking at a ref you've got two touch judges and a TMO working with him. All system can result in mistakes. Overall I think it's improved things and massively reduced the impact captains can have when talking to refs. Which I feel is a great thing.

Most decent sides have now moved towards leadership groups rather than reliance on captains.

we need a "rolling the sleeves up for battle" smiliey....

King_Carlos -
I was thinking Marchants versatility allows him to cover more from the bench than say Manu.
Defensively he is really solid too.

I don't want to see a midfield of Ford-Farrell- Marchant, especially with Daly also there on a wing. All decent enough players in their own right, but it lacks any power to get us over the gain line and onto the front foot in early phases (especially now that Billy V doesn't do that effectively either). Might work if we also had a winger like van der Merwe who could come in and punch holes, but we don't have that.

Have to have one of Manu or Lawrence somewhere in there - my preference is at 12 with Marchant or Daly at 13, but I suspect Borthwick will want to keep his two main playmakers on, and so it would have to be a bigger centre at 13.

dummy_half wrote:I don't want to see a midfield of Ford-Farrell- Marchant, especially with Daly also there on a wing. All decent enough players in their own right, but it lacks any power to get us over the gain line and onto the front foot in early phases (especially now that Billy V doesn't do that effectively either). Might work if we also had a winger like van der Merwe who could come in and punch holes, but we don't have that.

Have to have one of Manu or Lawrence somewhere in there - my preference is at 12 with Marchant or Daly at 13, but I suspect Borthwick will want to keep his two main playmakers on, and so it would have to be a bigger centre at 13.

Lets hope Ollie Hartley at Saracens can be both in one body....

Big wrote:The last time I remember England having a captain who was apparently amazing in training, had great insight into the game, great work ethic, respected by all, etc, etc, but fans outside questioned whether or not said player was actually the best in their position and good enough to be in the starting team - it was Borthwick.  So I think he'll be picking Farrell until the cows come home.

You're forgetting that there were calls (granted mainly by a Saracens fan) that Hartley was undeserving of his place. God I miss him, I'd have prime Hartley back in this team like a shot.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Big wrote:The last time I remember England having a captain who was apparently amazing in training, had great insight into the game, great work ethic, respected by all, etc, etc, but fans outside questioned whether or not said player was actually the best in their position and good enough to be in the starting team - it was Borthwick.  So I think he'll be picking Farrell until the cows come home.

You're forgetting that there were calls (granted mainly by a Saracens fan) that Hartley was undeserving of his place. God I miss him, I'd have prime Hartley back in this team like a shot.

I think most England fans agreed come a point. The Lions coaches certainly did in 2017 when Hartley didn't make the squad but George started all 3 tests.

Not that I am necessarily recommending this, but one option would be to try

Mitchell Ford
Farrell Tuilagi
Marchant Steward Arundell

with Smith on the bench. That has cover for every position beyond 9, with options to change the style of the game. Might be worth a try for Samoa, with a view to carrying it into the QF

Wasn't 2017 the year that Hartley was picked and then was controversially suspended for trying to feed a hungry Irishman his fingers

Or was it the other way around a considerate Irishman fed a hungry Harley his fingers

king_carlos wrote:

Big wrote:The last time I remember England having a captain who was apparently amazing in training, had great insight into the game, great work ethic, respected by all, etc, etc, but fans outside questioned whether or not said player was actually the best in their position and good enough to be in the starting team - it was Borthwick.  So I think he'll be picking Farrell until the cows come home.

There's been a few who's place in the starting XV was queried. Moody's body was fairly broken by the time he replaced Borthwick as skipper. Robshaw was constantly questioned - I think Geordie will still go to war over Mark Wilson being a better blindside. Even Hartley when Jamie George started tearing it up and became a Lions starter whilst England's second choice. That's all of them since Borthwick, in fact. Maybe a lot of England fans just love a whinge...?

I've long been of the view that the importance of captaincy is very overstated in the modern game anyway. I think it has very little impact now. Since the debacle to finish the 2017 Lions tour where Warburton skilfully got in Poite's ear to assist him making an abject decision we've seen officials work more as a team. Rather than two captains talking at a ref you've got two touch judges and a TMO working with him. All system can result in mistakes. Overall I think it's improved things and massively reduced the impact captains can have when talking to refs. Which I feel is a great thing.

Most decent sides have now moved towards leadership groups rather than reliance on captains.

Really good captains will always make a difference, but they are not common.Bad captains will also make a difference but shouldn't normally last long in their position. Most probably won't

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Or was it the other way around a considerate Irishman fed a hungry Harley his fingers

It was indeed. Stephen Ferris, if memory serves. I was very disappointed that the disciplinary committee didn't conclude that if you bait the hook you shouldn't be surprised if the fish bites.

It was 2013 that Hartley made the squad then got a ban. Which allowed Rory Best to be added to the squad after many felt it was controversial not to pick him originally. Gatland bore the brunt of that as HC, then when the behind the scenes DVD came out it was clear from the selection meeting that Gats wanted Best but Rowntree wanted Hibbard, Youngs and Hartley. Similar with Ryan Grant missing out after a stellar season. Corbisiero was viewed a controversial selection after so many injuries. Gats pushed Grant as first reserve behind Mako, Healy and Jenkins in that meeting but Wig insisted on Corbs. To be fair to Wig, Corbs proved him correct.

Back on topic. In 2017 Hartley just wasn't picked. He was one of players many felt should have been called up when the 'geography six' infamously joined the squad.