Team for Italy

[FKAS]

Putative bench backs are somewhat one-dimensional though.

Not sure I see that. Smith somewhat contrasting with Farrell. Arundel an explosive impact. Mitchell tidier than JVP.

Tidier? Maybe not sure that's how I'd describe Mitchell. If he's on it then he's probably a better scrum half particularly if we want to play attacking rugby. If he's not on it then he'll be anonymous or error strewn. At least he's sorted out his discipline from last season (four yellow cards). I'm 50/50 on whether he'll make it at international level. His 13 minutes so far in white won't have told us anything.

[Oakboy]

Putative bench backs are somewhat one-dimensional though.

Not sure I see that. Smith somewhat contrasting with Farrell. Arundel an explosive impact. Mitchell tidier than JVP.

They're all attacking players though. If England have a lead going into the last 10/15/20 minutes, but Italy are coming back at them, are that trio likely to shore up the defensive line?

Ah, I see what you mean. Oddly, I've never thought of picking bench backs to go negative. I assume any pro player to be fit enough to do 80 minutes so I'd always pick bench backs to add attacking elements. It seems more logical to look to score points when behind rather than to eke out the existing score when ahead.

[Mellsblue]

Putative bench backs are somewhat one-dimensional though.

Not sure I see that. Smith somewhat contrasting with Farrell. Arundel an explosive impact. Mitchell tidier than JVP.

They're all attacking players though. If England have a lead going into the last 10/15/20 minutes, but Italy are coming back at them, are that trio likely to shore up the defensive line?

What happens if we’re down by ten and spluttering? You can’t cover all eventualities with eight players.

[rjjb]

Not sure I see that. Smith somewhat contrasting with Farrell. Arundel an explosive impact. Mitchell tidier than JVP.

They're all attacking players though. If England have a lead going into the last 10/15/20 minutes, but Italy are coming back at them, are that trio likely to shore up the defensive line?

What happens if we’re down by ten and spluttering? You can’t cover all eventualities with eight players.

Indeed you can't, but I'd rather give my most potent attacking weapons as much opportunity as possible to impact the match, rather than assume they'll have the chance to do something at the fag end of the game.

[p/d]

Putative bench backs are somewhat one-dimensional though.

Not sure I see that. Smith somewhat contrasting with Farrell. Arundel an explosive impact. Mitchell tidier than JVP.

how is Mitchell tidier than JVP out of interest? I'd say the other way round if anything. Mitchell is a bit more impulsive for me.

Regimentally has his socks held at 25mm below kneecap. JVP appears less focused on this requirement

[twitchy]

Chris Jones on radio 4 this morning saying he expects Farrell to be selected at 10 with Marcus Smith on the bench.

[Banquo]

Not sure I see that. Smith somewhat contrasting with Farrell. Arundel an explosive impact. Mitchell tidier than JVP.

how is Mitchell tidier than JVP out of interest? I'd say the other way round if anything. Mitchell is a bit more impulsive for me.

I would not argue the point. I meant it as in 'less ambitious' really. Mitchell might be more impulsive at club level but he seems more restricted for England. It depends who he is with at FH perhaps.

Mitchell has only had one brief appearance off the bench for England- he's a very ambitious 9, to the point of being overly so. JVP is a much more orthodox 9 for me.

[Banquo]

Not sure I see that. Smith somewhat contrasting with Farrell. Arundel an explosive impact. Mitchell tidier than JVP.

They're all attacking players though. If England have a lead going into the last 10/15/20 minutes, but Italy are coming back at them, are that trio likely to shore up the defensive line?

Ah, I see what you mean. Oddly, I've never thought of picking bench backs to go negative. I assume any pro player to be fit enough to do 80 minutes so I'd always pick bench backs to add attacking elements. It seems more logical to look to score points when behind rather than to eke out the existing score when ahead.

Faz is an ideal bench player. Preferably for Wales.

(he is the sort of guy you'd want coming on with an 8 point lead- brings the control from 10 and a load of energy (if poorly directed sometimes))

[Puja]

They're all attacking players though. If England have a lead going into the last 10/15/20 minutes, but Italy are coming back at them, are that trio likely to shore up the defensive line?

What happens if we’re down by ten and spluttering? You can’t cover all eventualities with eight players.

Indeed you can't, but I'd rather give my most potent attacking weapons as much opportunity as possible to impact the match, rather than assume they'll have the chance to do something at the fag end of the game.

If those most potent attacking weapons are inexperienced and prone to the odd mistake though? I'd rather have Mitchell off the bench so we can bring him on if we need a boost and limit his involvement if it's tight and needs control. Arundell's in a similarish boat given his inexperience, although he does seem to've taken to the big stage like a duck to water.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

They're all attacking players though. If England have a lead going into the last 10/15/20 minutes, but Italy are coming back at them, are that trio likely to shore up the defensive line?

What happens if we’re down by ten and spluttering? You can’t cover all eventualities with eight players.

Indeed you can't, but I'd rather give my most potent attacking weapons as much opportunity as possible to impact the match, rather than assume they'll have the chance to do something at the fag end of the game.

Agreed, and said just as much earlier on the start of my fall in to a Bortho induced depression.

[Mellsblue]

They're all attacking players though. If England have a lead going into the last 10/15/20 minutes, but Italy are coming back at them, are that trio likely to shore up the defensive line?

Ah, I see what you mean. Oddly, I've never thought of picking bench backs to go negative. I assume any pro player to be fit enough to do 80 minutes so I'd always pick bench backs to add attacking elements. It seems more logical to look to score points when behind rather than to eke out the existing score when ahead.

Faz is an ideal bench player. Preferably for Wales.

(he is the sort of guy you'd want coming on with an 8 point lead- brings the control from 10 and a load of energy (if poorly directed sometimes))

I agree on principle but does 10/15 mins give him enough time to miss two pens and then iceman over the third to win us the match?

[Banquo]

Ah, I see what you mean. Oddly, I've never thought of picking bench backs to go negative. I assume any pro player to be fit enough to do 80 minutes so I'd always pick bench backs to add attacking elements. It seems more logical to look to score points when behind rather than to eke out the existing score when ahead.

Faz is an ideal bench player. Preferably for Wales.

(he is the sort of guy you'd want coming on with an 8 point lead- brings the control from 10 and a load of energy (if poorly directed sometimes))

I agree on principle but does 10/15 mins give him enough time to miss two pens and then iceman over the third to win us the match?

obviously I want him nowhere near the team
Currently foolishly on a twitter row re faz- trying to say he's crap when so many players and coaches rave over him is a tough fight

[Puja]

Faz is an ideal bench player. Preferably for Wales.

(he is the sort of guy you'd want coming on with an 8 point lead- brings the control from 10 and a load of energy (if poorly directed sometimes))

I agree on principle but does 10/15 mins give him enough time to miss two pens and then iceman over the third to win us the match?

obviously I want him nowhere near the team
Currently foolishly on a twitter row re faz- trying to say he's crap when so many players and coaches rave over him is a tough fight

Link to my minute-by-minute - should be taken as a definitive source.

Puja

[rjjb]

What happens if we’re down by ten and spluttering? You can’t cover all eventualities with eight players.

Indeed you can't, but I'd rather give my most potent attacking weapons as much opportunity as possible to impact the match, rather than assume they'll have the chance to do something at the fag end of the game.

If those most potent attacking weapons are inexperienced and prone to the odd mistake though? I'd rather have Mitchell off the bench so we can bring him on if we need a boost and limit his involvement if it's tight and needs control. Arundell's in a similarish boat given his inexperience, although he does seem to've taken to the big stage like a duck to water.

Puja

The longer you're on the pitch, the more time you have to redeem yourself for any mistakes.

[Mellsblue]

Indeed you can't, but I'd rather give my most potent attacking weapons as much opportunity as possible to impact the match, rather than assume they'll have the chance to do something at the fag end of the game.

If those most potent attacking weapons are inexperienced and prone to the odd mistake though? I'd rather have Mitchell off the bench so we can bring him on if we need a boost and limit his involvement if it's tight and needs control. Arundell's in a similarish boat given his inexperience, although he does seem to've taken to the big stage like a duck to water.

Puja

The longer you're on the pitch, the more time you have to redeem yourself for any mistakes.

Not if Puja has a tally running.

[Puja]

Indeed you can't, but I'd rather give my most potent attacking weapons as much opportunity as possible to impact the match, rather than assume they'll have the chance to do something at the fag end of the game.

If those most potent attacking weapons are inexperienced and prone to the odd mistake though? I'd rather have Mitchell off the bench so we can bring him on if we need a boost and limit his involvement if it's tight and needs control. Arundell's in a similarish boat given his inexperience, although he does seem to've taken to the big stage like a duck to water.

Puja

The longer you're on the pitch, the more time you have to redeem yourself for any mistakes.

But also the more mistakes you can make. I'm going to talk just about Mitchell and JVP here, as Smith is better than Farrell and Arundell vs OHC/Malins has many complicating factors. Mitchell is probably a more exciting attacker than JVP, however he's not as good a player overall. I'd rather have my best player on the pitch to have as much opportunity to impact the match, with an attacking option on the bench to spice things up.

If my best player *is* my most exciting player, then result (cf. MSmith (while Ford's still returning from injury))! But "most potent attacking weapon" often comes with some fairly hefty drawbacks and we can't just pick a team of nothing but and hope the combination makes magic.

Puja

[stepsider]

Ruck.co.uk (yes I know) confidently predicting Farrell at 10, no start for Arundell but Willis at 7

[stepsider]

just confirmed by DT, Smith on bench.

[Mikey Brown]

Has Slade ever played 12 with Farrell or only filled in there in Faz’s absence? Will be very interesting to see how he is used.

A few guys like VRR, Murley, Freeman that I feel for but fairly happy with how this side is looking.

I’d be even happier if Farrell doing 80 is actually dependent on his performance in some way, but let’s not get carried away.

[Puja]

just confirmed by DT, Smith on bench.

I will note that the team announcement isn't until 3pm, so while it's very likely to be the case considering the amount of leaks, "confirmed" is a pretty strong word.

Puja

[morepork]

just confirmed by DT, Smith on bench.

Italy by 14 then.

[paddy no 11]

Scotland by 3

[twitchy]

England XV 15. Freddie Steward; 14. Max Malins 13. Henry Slade 12. Ollie Lawrence 11. Ollie Hassell-Collins; 10. Owen Farrell (Captain) 9. Jack van Poortvliet; 1. Ellis Genge 2. Jamie George 3. Kyle Sinckler 4. Maro Itoje 5. Ollie Chessum 6. Lewis Ludlam 7. Jack Willis 8. Alex Dombrandt.

Replacements 16. Jack Walker 17. Mako Vunipola 18. Dan Cole 19. Nick Isiekwe 20. Ben Earl 21. Alex Mitchell 22. Marcus Smith 23. Henry Arundell.

[Mikey Brown]

I hope we're in a position to give Walker, Isiekwe and Mitchell enough time that we can really judge them, and that centre pairing as many minutes as possible. Interesting it wasn't Slade at 12 after all.

[FKAS]

Decent side. There was some good stuff last weekend but the midfield was a serious issue. Jack Willis finally getting another start (just his second?) looking forward to seeing what he can do.

Isiekwe is a lucky boy to still be making the bench, as is Mako.