England vs SA

[FKAS]

Really? That is as uninspired a backs division I've seen outside Smith for a LOOOONG time. And the bench. Jeez.

Slade I'll give you but Lawrence has had a great start to the season. Sleightholme was last season's top try scorer in the Prem. Freeman is as a well rounded winger as England have available and Steward has started the season well. Who else, bar an actual 12 for Slade, should we be parachuting in?

[Banquo]

Really? That is as uninspired a backs division I've seen outside Smith for a LOOOONG time. And the bench. Jeez.

Slade I'll give you but Lawrence has had a great start to the season. Sleightholme was last season's top try scorer in the Prem. Freeman is as a well rounded winger as England have available and Steward has started the season well. Who else, bar an actual 12 for Slade, should we be parachuting in?

quite. But it can still be uninspiring

[Oakboy]

LCD should have started. The bench is sorrowful. How do Furbank and Spencer go from 1st choice to not in the 23? Dombrandt and Ford ahead of Hill and Fin Smith is based on what? Certainly, not the last two matches.

SA will be quietly confident.

[fivepointer]

Dare i say that the changes to the starting XV are perfectly sound. Think most of us would prefer JvP to the other SH's, Furbank hasnt exactly shone and Underhill offers the kind of dog that we're going to need.
OK the bench aint exactly glittering but at least its a sensible split.

[Mellsblue]

Really? That is as uninspired a backs division I've seen outside Smith for a LOOOONG time. And the bench. Jeez.

Slade I'll give you but Lawrence has had a great start to the season. Sleightholme was last season's top try scorer in the Prem. Freeman is as a well rounded winger as England have available and Steward has started the season well. Who else, bar an actual 12 for Slade, should we be parachuting in?

quite. But it can still be uninspiring

It’s screams average but who else is there. Depressing on depressing.
I know I suggested it may be a sensible decision and Steward in may be the correct decision but fark me its depressing. Surely one law tweak shouldn’t mean you abandon one of the bright spots of the 6N and a key plank of your attack. Surely a test quality coaching team can work out how to get an attacking 15 back up to the necessary number of touches. Simply Boring going back to his kick dominated safe ground it would seem. Grim.

[Oakboy]

Dare i say that the changes to the starting XV are perfectly sound. Think most of us would prefer JvP to the other SH's, Furbank hasnt exactly shone and Underhill offers the kind of dog that we're going to need.
OK the bench aint exactly glittering but at least its a sensible split.

5P, that smacks a bit of damning with faint praise.

Thinking about it, I'd have started Roebuck ahead of Sleightholme who was a defensive liability. I'd have kept Furbank in. Underhill and JVP, I've no issue with at this point. (Except that I'd have called up J Willis for the 7 shirt long ago.)

[Oakboy]

Simply Boring going back to his kick dominated safe ground it would seem. Grim.

Is he really trying to win or just limiting damage?

[Which Tyler]

I hope Martin and Underhill are actually properly fit.

Why wouldn't Underhill be?

Martin was thought to be injured, so fair enough - but Underhill played 3 in a row before disappearing with England - It's not like he's just returned with none or a handful of minutes under his belt this season

[Mikey Brown]

Honestly I just assume he's injured unless I specifically know otherwise. I'm surprised you feel much differently. Also felt like he'd become a key Borthwick selection again so was surprised he hasn't featured in the 23 at all.

I'm very happy to see him on the team-sheet, particularly if SA are planning to borrow anything from Aus's approach to forward carriers against us.

[Banquo]

Dare i say that the changes to the starting XV are perfectly sound. Think most of us would prefer JvP to the other SH's, Furbank hasnt exactly shone and Underhill offers the kind of dog that we're going to need.
OK the bench aint exactly glittering but at least its a sensible split.

5P, that smacks a bit of damning with faint praise.

Thinking about it, I'd have started Roebuck ahead of Sleightholme who was a defensive liability. I'd have kept Furbank in. Underhill and JVP, I've no issue with at this point. (Except that I'd have called up J Willis for the 7 shirt long ago.)

Sleightholme has at least proved he can score tries at this level, and the liability looked like the system and communication rather than him. He was left hanging out to dry by the midfield a bit- can't see Roebuck being much of an improvement tbh.

[TheDasher]

Dare i say that the changes to the starting XV are perfectly sound. Think most of us would prefer JvP to the other SH's, Furbank hasnt exactly shone and Underhill offers the kind of dog that we're going to need.
OK the bench aint exactly glittering but at least its a sensible split.

5P, that smacks a bit of damning with faint praise.

Thinking about it, I'd have started Roebuck ahead of Sleightholme who was a defensive liability. I'd have kept Furbank in. Underhill and JVP, I've no issue with at this point. (Except that I'd have called up J Willis for the 7 shirt long ago.)

Sleightholme has at least proved he can score tries at this level, and the liability looked like the system and communication rather than him. He was left hanging out to dry by the midfield a bit- can't see Roebuck being much of an improvement tbh.

Completely agree - generally excited that Sleightholme is involved - provides genuine threat in attack that we've lost with Feyi Waboso out. A good pick I think.

Slade, Isiekwe, Dombrandt and Ford on the other hand...

[Oakboy]

Dare i say that the changes to the starting XV are perfectly sound. Think most of us would prefer JvP to the other SH's, Furbank hasnt exactly shone and Underhill offers the kind of dog that we're going to need.
OK the bench aint exactly glittering but at least its a sensible split.

5P, that smacks a bit of damning with faint praise.

Thinking about it, I'd have started Roebuck ahead of Sleightholme who was a defensive liability. I'd have kept Furbank in. Underhill and JVP, I've no issue with at this point. (Except that I'd have called up J Willis for the 7 shirt long ago.)

Sleightholme has at least proved he can score tries at this level, and the liability looked like the system and communication rather than him. He was left hanging out to dry by the midfield a bit- can't see Roebuck being much of an improvement tbh.

You may well be right but, without knowing him at all as a person, am I not right to question Sleightholme's (rugby?) intelligence? How can an interested squad member be unaware of how to play in a defensive system? Even if he has not been first choice in the line-up for practice routines, he must have been involved as an attacker against it etc. Maybe, rushing up was less natural than drifting to him but is that sufficient excuse?

I'll bow to your superior knowledge of this sort of thing but I find it hard to understand how he could be so out of line with it. Basically, all the time he was on, IFW put his body in the right place. Sleightholme did not. Is he a defensive risk for the next one? I've no issues with his attacking game.

[Banquo]

5P, that smacks a bit of damning with faint praise.

Thinking about it, I'd have started Roebuck ahead of Sleightholme who was a defensive liability. I'd have kept Furbank in. Underhill and JVP, I've no issue with at this point. (Except that I'd have called up J Willis for the 7 shirt long ago.)

Sleightholme has at least proved he can score tries at this level, and the liability looked like the system and communication rather than him. He was left hanging out to dry by the midfield a bit- can't see Roebuck being much of an improvement tbh.

You may well be right but, without knowing him at all as a person, am I not right to question Sleightholme's (rugby?) intelligence? How can an interested squad member be unaware of how to play in a defensive system? Even if he has not been first choice in the line-up for practice routines, he must have been involved as an attacker against it etc. Maybe, rushing up was less natural than drifting to him but is that sufficient excuse?

I'll bow to your superior knowledge of this sort of thing but I find it hard to understand how he could be so out of line with it. Basically, all the time he was on, IFW put his body in the right place. Sleightholme did not. Is he a defensive risk for the next one? I've no issues with his attacking game.

....nothing to do with knowing him as a person, just that with a defence functioning so poorly, pretty ripe to pin it on the guy who was exposed because of what was happening inside him. Cough centres/10 cough- missed 9 tackles between them. TBH IFW is hardly a defensive genius either tbh, and was himself pretty exposed in previous games.
Singling out Sleightholme- presumably as a reaction to some of the other analysis- massively misjudges what was going on.

[Puja]

Honestly I just assume he's injured unless I specifically know otherwise. I'm surprised you feel much differently. Also felt like he'd become a key Borthwick selection again so was surprised he hasn't featured in the 23 at all.

I'm very happy to see him on the team-sheet, particularly if SA are planning to borrow anything from Aus's approach to forward carriers against us.

Erasmus has already starting stirring by commenting in his press conference that he's not sure that England are fit enough to play the blitz defence and that "if we can keep the ball, it will tire them out a little bit."

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Going by that logic, re Sleightholme, and given that last defensive performance, it must be a squad full of dunces.

[Oakboy]

Going by that logic, re Sleightholme, and given that last defensive performance, it must be a squad full of dunces.

Quite. Or coaches so bad that everybody is confused?

Was it so radical for Jones to bring in a new system? Or, can his successor not cope with it?

I don't know the answer to any of it and I've zero experience of coaching rugby. I have coached football, squash and racketball successfully. Presumably, in any sport, a coach gauges reception. Preaching the wrong message must get found out very quickly and, as Goode said, EVERYBODY must buy in 100% for success.

The fact is that defence was a shambles for a good part of the game last Saturday. Hopefully, it will be sorted out this week. Underhill's presence could help.

[Mellsblue]

Going by that logic, re Sleightholme, and given that last defensive performance, it must be a squad full of dunces.

Quite. Or coaches so bad that everybody is confused?

Was it so radical for Jones to bring in a new system? Or, can his successor not cope with it?

I don't know the answer to any of it and I've zero experience of coaching rugby. I have coached football, squash and racketball successfully. Presumably, in any sport, a coach gauges reception. Preaching the wrong message must get found out very quickly and, as Goode said, EVERYBODY must buy in 100% for success.

The fact is that defence was a shambles for a good part of the game last Saturday. Hopefully, it will be sorted out this week. Underhill's presence could help.

New d coach had four weeks with the players prior to the Oz match…

[Epaminondas Pules]

Honestly I just assume he's injured unless I specifically know otherwise. I'm surprised you feel much differently. Also felt like he'd become a key Borthwick selection again so was surprised he hasn't featured in the 23 at all.

I'm very happy to see him on the team-sheet, particularly if SA are planning to borrow anything from Aus's approach to forward carriers against us.

Erasmus has already starting stirring by commenting in his press conference that he's not sure that England are fit enough to play the blitz defence and that "if we can keep the ball, it will tire them out a little bit."

Puja

That’s a beautiful dig at the back room turmoil, most notably Aled going! That’ll get right under the skin of Spreadsheet Basher!

[Mikey Brown]

Going by that logic, re Sleightholme, and given that last defensive performance, it must be a squad full of dunces.

Quite. Or coaches so bad that everybody is confused?

Was it so radical for Jones to bring in a new system? Or, can his successor not cope with it?

I don't know the answer to any of it and I've zero experience of coaching rugby. I have coached football, squash and racketball successfully. Presumably, in any sport, a coach gauges reception. Preaching the wrong message must get found out very quickly and, as Goode said, EVERYBODY must buy in 100% for success.

The fact is that defence was a shambles for a good part of the game last Saturday. Hopefully, it will be sorted out this week. Underhill's presence could help.

New d coach had four weeks with the players prior to the Oz match…

4 weeks too long, says this fan!

[Epaminondas Pules]

Just seen the two sides and comparing them I think just one of our players would make their 23.

[Danno]

LCD should have started. The bench is sorrowful. How do Furbank and Spencer go from 1st choice to not in the 23? Dombrandt and Ford ahead of Hill and Fin Smith is based on what? Certainly, not the last two matches.

SA will be quietly confident.

When are SA quiet about anything

[Banquo]

Just seen the two sides and comparing them I think just one of our players would make their 23.

....Itoje?

[p/d]

Just seen the two sides and comparing them I think just one of our players would make their 23.

....Itoje?

Steward! God knows why we have wasted so many games with Furbank

[Banquo]

Just seen the two sides and comparing them I think just one of our players would make their 23.

....Itoje?

Steward! God knows why we have wasted so many games with Furbank

good one!!