Argentina tour

[Stom]

In non-Waboso-news, it's good that BCurry's made it back fit again. Not that we're short on flankers, but he deserves to play and his experience will be really useful against Argentina. Shame about Furbank in terms of these games, but long-term I'm quite glad he's taking the summer off.

Surprised at the Randall-over-Quirke outrage on here. I know Raffi's a board darling, but what exactly has he done in the last 3 years that would deserve international selection? His squad selection this year was around hope of potential, rather than any performance. I'm not particularly thrilled about Randall and Spencer touring, but we're not flush with options and at least those two perform for their clubs.

Puja

Randall has just looked so out of his depth, despite your reasonable point. But i wouldnt mind a bazball type punt or two

I wouldn't disagree with that at all. We've got Mitchell who's a test quality international, JVP who threatens to be on occasions, then a yawning chasm underneath - Spencer's been utterly terrible whenever he's played for England, Randall's box-kicking is so inconsistent that it rules that completely out as a tactical option, Quirke can't get nail down the starting role for Sale, Porter's... fine, I guess, but nothing special.

If we've got to pick a third choice out of those, then I opt for Randall, as he at least brings some zip and fast-paced service off the bench. But it's two bald men fighting over a comb.

Puja

We've not tested Porter at international level, though...he might turn out to be better than Randall and Spencer by simply doing the basics well. I agree he's...meh...but considering the dross Spencer consistently serves up in an England shirt, I'd say the potential of meh is nothing to be sniffed at.

[Banquo]

In non-Waboso-news, it's good that BCurry's made it back fit again. Not that we're short on flankers, but he deserves to play and his experience will be really useful against Argentina. Shame about Furbank in terms of these games, but long-term I'm quite glad he's taking the summer off.

Surprised at the Randall-over-Quirke outrage on here. I know Raffi's a board darling, but what exactly has he done in the last 3 years that would deserve international selection? His squad selection this year was around hope of potential, rather than any performance. I'm not particularly thrilled about Randall and Spencer touring, but we're not flush with options and at least those two perform for their clubs.

Puja

Randall has just looked so out of his depth, despite your reasonable point. But i wouldnt mind a bazball type punt or two

But it's two bald men fighting over a comb.

Puja

You know me well .

[Mikey Brown]

Randall has just looked so out of his depth, despite your reasonable point. But i wouldnt mind a bazball type punt or two

I wouldn't disagree with that at all. We've got Mitchell who's a test quality international, JVP who threatens to be on occasions, then a yawning chasm underneath - Spencer's been utterly terrible whenever he's played for England, Randall's box-kicking is so inconsistent that it rules that completely out as a tactical option, Quirke can't get nail down the starting role for Sale, Porter's... fine, I guess, but nothing special.

If we've got to pick a third choice out of those, then I opt for Randall, as he at least brings some zip and fast-paced service off the bench. But it's two bald men fighting over a comb.

Puja

Including whipping high over Ford's shoulder so he's got no real chance at the drop goal. That one still annoys me.

I think we've got to hold out hope that Sarries develop Bracken into a decent talent and he comes of age next season. I'd have said Friday as well but I don't think we're due to see him much before January.

This reads like you’re hoping Bracken might come of age by the end of the week.

[FKAS]

I wouldn't disagree with that at all. We've got Mitchell who's a test quality international, JVP who threatens to be on occasions, then a yawning chasm underneath - Spencer's been utterly terrible whenever he's played for England, Randall's box-kicking is so inconsistent that it rules that completely out as a tactical option, Quirke can't get nail down the starting role for Sale, Porter's... fine, I guess, but nothing special.

If we've got to pick a third choice out of those, then I opt for Randall, as he at least brings some zip and fast-paced service off the bench. But it's two bald men fighting over a comb.

Puja

Including whipping high over Ford's shoulder so he's got no real chance at the drop goal. That one still annoys me.

I think we've got to hold out hope that Sarries develop Bracken into a decent talent and he comes of age next season. I'd have said Friday as well but I don't think we're due to see him much before January.

This reads like you’re hoping Bracken might come of age by the end of the week.

Anything to avoid Spencer and Randall Vs Argentina.

[Puja]

If we've got to pick a third choice out of those, then I opt for Randall, as he at least brings some zip and fast-paced service off the bench. But it's two bald men fighting over a comb.

Puja

Including whipping high over Ford's shoulder so he's got no real chance at the drop goal. That one still annoys me.

The problem is that I don't have significant faith that Spencer would've had a much higher chance of doing better in the same circumstances (and, tbh, I'm not 100% convinced the odds are significantly greater for JVP!).

I'd say you're right and our only option is to pray for Bracken!

I thought Quirke showed in his minutes against France (out of position) why he should have been in: strength, pace and a rugby brain. Randall only has the second attribute.

I'm not really sure how you could glean his scrum-half capacity from his wing cameo myself given how specialised the position is and how much game-management and decision-making are specific to playing at 9. Still fuming that we couldn't've seen him play 9, but he could also have shown the rugby brain suitable to a 9 in Sale colours and leapfrogged Randall that way (instead of only just scraping ahead of Gus Warr for the last two games). As it is, he's being promoted on the potential of playing well, whereas at least Randall and Spencer have receipts of that for their clubs.

We've not tested Porter at international level, though...he might turn out to be better than Randall and Spencer by simply doing the basics well. I agree he's...meh...but considering the dross Spencer consistently serves up in an England shirt, I'd say the potential of meh is nothing to be sniffed at.

Fair on him not being tested yet, but it's a hell of a punt - "Let's pick a player who's been okay at club level, in the hope that he'll do better than two players who have been very good at club level." I mean, there are some players for whom that works, but it's a big ask!

I'm disappointed Englefield didn't keep going - he looked like a very decent prospect at LIrish and had a great start at Glaws, but he's not getting much gametime with TWilliams in form, nor playing like he ought to.

Puja

[Oakboy]

If we've got to pick a third choice out of those, then I opt for Randall, as he at least brings some zip and fast-paced service off the bench. But it's two bald men fighting over a comb.

Puja

Including whipping high over Ford's shoulder so he's got no real chance at the drop goal. That one still annoys me.

The problem is that I don't have significant faith that Spencer would've had a much higher chance of doing better in the same circumstances (and, tbh, I'm not 100% convinced the odds are significantly greater for JVP!).

I'd say you're right and our only option is to pray for Bracken!

I thought Quirke showed in his minutes against France (out of position) why he should have been in: strength, pace and a rugby brain. Randall only has the second attribute.

I'm not really sure how you could glean his scrum-half capacity from his wing cameo myself given how specialised the position is and how much game-management and decision-making are specific to playing at 9. Still fuming that we couldn't've seen him play 9, but he could also have shown the rugby brain suitable to a 9 in Sale colours and leapfrogged Randall that way (instead of only just scraping ahead of Gus Warr for the last two games). As it is, he's being promoted on the potential of playing well, whereas at least Randall and Spencer have receipts of that for their clubs.

We've not tested Porter at international level, though...he might turn out to be better than Randall and Spencer by simply doing the basics well. I agree he's...meh...but considering the dross Spencer consistently serves up in an England shirt, I'd say the potential of meh is nothing to be sniffed at.

Fair on him not being tested yet, but it's a hell of a punt - "Let's pick a player who's been okay at club level, in the hope that he'll do better than two players who have been very good at club level." I mean, there are some players for whom that works, but it's a big ask!

I'm disappointed Englefield didn't keep going - he looked like a very decent prospect at LIrish and had a great start at Glaws, but he's not getting much gametime with TWilliams in form, nor playing like he ought to.

Puja

Do you take the attacking view of selection and dump the likes of Spencer and Randall on the grounds that they have not looked up to it? (That means risking others who might come good.) Or, do you stay defensive and keep picking them regardless? I'd always argue for the former approach especially on this tour.

[Banquo]

Including whipping high over Ford's shoulder so he's got no real chance at the drop goal. That one still annoys me.

The problem is that I don't have significant faith that Spencer would've had a much higher chance of doing better in the same circumstances (and, tbh, I'm not 100% convinced the odds are significantly greater for JVP!).

I'd say you're right and our only option is to pray for Bracken!

I thought Quirke showed in his minutes against France (out of position) why he should have been in: strength, pace and a rugby brain. Randall only has the second attribute.

I'm not really sure how you could glean his scrum-half capacity from his wing cameo myself given how specialised the position is and how much game-management and decision-making are specific to playing at 9. Still fuming that we couldn't've seen him play 9, but he could also have shown the rugby brain suitable to a 9 in Sale colours and leapfrogged Randall that way (instead of only just scraping ahead of Gus Warr for the last two games). As it is, he's being promoted on the potential of playing well, whereas at least Randall and Spencer have receipts of that for their clubs.

We've not tested Porter at international level, though...he might turn out to be better than Randall and Spencer by simply doing the basics well. I agree he's...meh...but considering the dross Spencer consistently serves up in an England shirt, I'd say the potential of meh is nothing to be sniffed at.

Fair on him not being tested yet, but it's a hell of a punt - "Let's pick a player who's been okay at club level, in the hope that he'll do better than two players who have been very good at club level." I mean, there are some players for whom that works, but it's a big ask!

I'm disappointed Englefield didn't keep going - he looked like a very decent prospect at LIrish and had a great start at Glaws, but he's not getting much gametime with TWilliams in form, nor playing like he ought to.

Puja

Do you take the attacking view of selection and dump the likes of Spencer and Randall on the grounds that they have not looked up to it? (That means risking others who might come good.) Or, do you stay defensive and keep picking them regardless? I'd always argue for the former approach especially on this tour.

In this case.....no-one is really making an alternative case unfortunately.

[Puja]

Including whipping high over Ford's shoulder so he's got no real chance at the drop goal. That one still annoys me.

The problem is that I don't have significant faith that Spencer would've had a much higher chance of doing better in the same circumstances (and, tbh, I'm not 100% convinced the odds are significantly greater for JVP!).

I'd say you're right and our only option is to pray for Bracken!

I thought Quirke showed in his minutes against France (out of position) why he should have been in: strength, pace and a rugby brain. Randall only has the second attribute.

I'm not really sure how you could glean his scrum-half capacity from his wing cameo myself given how specialised the position is and how much game-management and decision-making are specific to playing at 9. Still fuming that we couldn't've seen him play 9, but he could also have shown the rugby brain suitable to a 9 in Sale colours and leapfrogged Randall that way (instead of only just scraping ahead of Gus Warr for the last two games). As it is, he's being promoted on the potential of playing well, whereas at least Randall and Spencer have receipts of that for their clubs.

We've not tested Porter at international level, though...he might turn out to be better than Randall and Spencer by simply doing the basics well. I agree he's...meh...but considering the dross Spencer consistently serves up in an England shirt, I'd say the potential of meh is nothing to be sniffed at.

Fair on him not being tested yet, but it's a hell of a punt - "Let's pick a player who's been okay at club level, in the hope that he'll do better than two players who have been very good at club level." I mean, there are some players for whom that works, but it's a big ask!

I'm disappointed Englefield didn't keep going - he looked like a very decent prospect at LIrish and had a great start at Glaws, but he's not getting much gametime with TWilliams in form, nor playing like he ought to.

Puja

Do you take the attacking view of selection and dump the likes of Spencer and Randall on the grounds that they have not looked up to it? (That means risking others who might come good.) Or, do you stay defensive and keep picking them regardless? I'd always argue for the former approach especially on this tour.

I'd generally agree with you, except for the fact that the definition of "others that might come good" is being stretched to breaking point here. If we had young thrusters to pick, then sure, but right now we have "Guy who has been injured/out of form for the last 3 years", "Guy who is only just ahead of 2025!Care for his club", or, the perennial favourite, "Howling void of nothingness". In that scenario, I'm resigned to taking the least worst option and at least getting as close to functional as is available now.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I mean he’s been ahead for 2 seasons I’d say, and Care made the 23 England team (even if he was gash) didn’t he?

Not that that’s really a drastic improvement on the situation. As you were.

[Oakboy]

I see the Argentina games are on Sky. Anybody know who commentates for them these days? Presumably, Barnes and Morris are retired.

[jngf]

I’m again struck by the shear versatility of CCS - he actually played tighthead lock with Coles,when he came on last Saturday ( having played loosehead when paired with Itoje). I actually think his build and power is such that he could even cover loosehead prop in an emergency! - Lawes had to change shape in shiting between lock and backrow - CCS you can play at 4,5,6 and 8 without him needing to really adjust his playing style at all - I actually think he’s been a little underhyped on the potential impact he can bring to England’s forward armoury whereas the impact of some other newer forwards may have been a bit oversold?

[FKAS]

"On Tuesday evening, it was announced that Gloucester prop Afolabi Fasogbon would be taking Iyogun's place in the 36-player squad."

Saints are dropping like flies this summer for England. Fingers crossed the remainder have more luck. Fasogbon back in camp means AOF is the third choice loosehead for the summer as well.

[Puja]

"On Tuesday evening, it was announced that Gloucester prop Afolabi Fasogbon would be taking Iyogun's place in the 36-player squad."

Saints are dropping like flies this summer for England. Fingers crossed the remainder have more luck. Fasogbon back in camp means AOF is the third choice loosehead for the summer as well.

Seems a bit pointless inviting him along, with Rodd and Baxter having the 1 and 17 jerseys sewn up, and Heyes and AOF having the 3 and 18 (not necessarily in those orders). I can't believe Fasogbon's genuinely behind Davidson - this must be a mind game to make him improve something or other, like Bendbrain did with picking Cole over Heyes for the AIs, but it's the pecking order right now, so that means we need two prop injuries to even need him in a matchday squad.

Hope he gets a "Thanks for holding a tacklebag" cap against the USA.

Plus the idea of AOF playing international rugby at loosehead is a little terrifying rn. Surely we'd be better picking a specialist like Obano?

Puja

[Danno]

No more pointless than IFW

[Mikey Brown]

No more pointless than IFW

No astounding revelations here but just happened to read Borthwick’s comments on this.

Speaking to Rugby Union Weekly, Borthwick explained the decision to include Feyi-Waboso.

He said: “I want players who have that X-factor in an England shirt.

“I want players who want the ball in their hands and will get the crowd on their feet.”

“Manny has worked hard to get back from injury and looks in great condition,” added Borthwick.

“He missed the whole of the Six Nations, and unfortunately now he has been suspended, but I still feel this is an opportunity to work with him for those couple of weeks.”

The other wingers included in the squad are Bath’s Will Muir, Sale’s Tom Roebuck and Harlequins’ Cadan Murley.

I’ve come round on this a fair bit to be honest. Murley, Roebuck and Muir (with Beard able to cover) is an exciting set of options for the tests. As Puja says, IFW can still train and learn about the new setup.

Borthwick can back his man, who has clearly fought so hard to be back in contention. I’m not actually that concerned about the tackle, he just looked rusty and overeager. There’s a beauty of a pickup by him in the latest England video though, not that that counts for anything.

[Danno]

I've come around to the idea a bit after Puja's post earlier, although there's a camp and a bit of a season to get him up to speed before the AIs. I'd still prefer OHC or Radwan to get a call up and a chance of playing over someone that literally cannot play.

[FKAS]

"On Tuesday evening, it was announced that Gloucester prop Afolabi Fasogbon would be taking Iyogun's place in the 36-player squad."

Saints are dropping like flies this summer for England. Fingers crossed the remainder have more luck. Fasogbon back in camp means AOF is the third choice loosehead for the summer as well.

Seems a bit pointless inviting him along, with Rodd and Baxter having the 1 and 17 jerseys sewn up, and Heyes and AOF having the 3 and 18 (not necessarily in those orders). I can't believe Fasogbon's genuinely behind Davidson - this must be a mind game to make him improve something or other, like Bendbrain did with picking Cole over Heyes for the AIs, but it's the pecking order right now, so that means we need two prop injuries to even need him in a matchday squad.

Hope he gets a "Thanks for holding a tacklebag" cap against the USA.

Plus the idea of AOF playing international rugby at loosehead is a little terrifying rn. Surely we'd be better picking a specialist like Obano?

Puja

I'm still worried we'll see Davison amble around the pitch and get munched in the scrum for 30 mins off the bench in both tests.

[fivepointer]

Tough on Iyogun to miss out. Im sure he was set to play against the USA.

Pleased Fasogbon comes in. AOF can move across to LH if required and of course Davison has played there a bit. Think we're pretty well covered at prop.

Still think using up a spot for a player who cant play in the Argentinian tests is a bit of a waste.

[Oakboy]

Still think using up a spot for a player who cant play in the Argentinian tests is a bit of a waste.

Except that there are no hard and fast rules on the squad number, are there? If SB needed another winger there is nothing to stop him taking one, as far as I know. Long-term, working with IFW seems the right call.

He has Murley and Muir ahead of Radwan and OHC. I don't agree with that and it seems weird in the context of his remarks about players with 'X-factor'. If his original plan was IFW 'flair' on one side and 'steady-Eddie big lump' Roebuck on the other, Radwan made the most sense as IFW's replacement. Presumably, he has now changed direction with his plans.

[Stom]

Still think using up a spot for a player who cant play in the Argentinian tests is a bit of a waste.

Except that there are no hard and fast rules on the squad number, are there? If SB needed another winger there is nothing to stop him taking one, as far as I know. Long-term, working with IFW seems the right call.

He has Murley and Muir ahead of Radwan and OHC. I don't agree with that and it seems weird in the context of his remarks about players with 'X-factor'. If his original plan was IFW 'flair' on one side and 'steady-Eddie big lump' Roebuck on the other, Radwan made the most sense as IFW's replacement. Presumably, he has now changed direction with his plans.

I'll admit to not having watched much club rugby the past year, but has Radwan become a flair player? As what I remember from him is a player with out and out pace, but who is a bit of a straight line merchant.

Murley has pace, but is also extremely hard to put down, I'd suggest that we need to see if he panics again. As if he can avoid that, he could be a very good option, imo. And if he does panic again, we know he's not going to be an option going forward.

That's useful.

[FKAS]

Still think using up a spot for a player who cant play in the Argentinian tests is a bit of a waste.

Except that there are no hard and fast rules on the squad number, are there? If SB needed another winger there is nothing to stop him taking one, as far as I know. Long-term, working with IFW seems the right call.

He has Murley and Muir ahead of Radwan and OHC. I don't agree with that and it seems weird in the context of his remarks about players with 'X-factor'. If his original plan was IFW 'flair' on one side and 'steady-Eddie big lump' Roebuck on the other, Radwan made the most sense as IFW's replacement. Presumably, he has now changed direction with his plans.

I'll admit to not having watched much club rugby the past year, but has Radwan become a flair player? As what I remember from him is a player with out and out pace, but who is a bit of a straight line merchant.

He's always had good footwork as well and is strong in contact, he simply had to be at Newcastle. At Tigers with some front foot ball he's shown more of the above. In attack he's very similar to Murley really. Much the same questions on the other side of the ball really and being ragdolled by Pepper for the non-try won't have helped that image. He's got a bit better in the air but needs to work on that area (as does Murley), could do with adding a kicking game (as could virtually every other England winger bar Daly and Freeman).

[Banquo]

Still think using up a spot for a player who cant play in the Argentinian tests is a bit of a waste.

Except that there are no hard and fast rules on the squad number, are there? If SB needed another winger there is nothing to stop him taking one, as far as I know. Long-term, working with IFW seems the right call.

He has Murley and Muir ahead of Radwan and OHC. I don't agree with that and it seems weird in the context of his remarks about players with 'X-factor'. If his original plan was IFW 'flair' on one side and 'steady-Eddie big lump' Roebuck on the other, Radwan made the most sense as IFW's replacement. Presumably, he has now changed direction with his plans.

I'll admit to not having watched much club rugby the past year, but has Radwan become a flair player? As what I remember from him is a player with out and out pace, but who is a bit of a straight line merchant.

Murley has pace, but is also extremely hard to put down, I'd suggest that we need to see if he panics again. As if he can avoid that, he could be a very good option, imo. And if he does panic again, we know he's not going to be an option going forward.

That's useful.

I'd say Radwan is definitely flair, he has excellent footwork. Its the other side of his game that needs a lot of work imo.

[Mikey Brown]

I would assume Borthwick is viewing Muir as the alternative to Roebuck, strong and a massive threat in the air, with Murley and IFW the ‘x factor’ players. If you can’t see that in Murley I’m not sure what to say.

[Banquo]

I would assume Borthwick is viewing Muir as the alternative to Roebuck, strong and a massive threat in the air, with Murley and IFW the ‘x factor’ players. If you can’t see that in Murley I’m not sure what to say.

Muir and Roebuck do play opposite wings generally, though not sure if Muir ever appears on the right. Would require a tactical shift or a positional one. Ditto Murley and IFW as far as I know, tho IFW was shunted to the left and we saw what happened

[Mikey Brown]

I would assume Borthwick is viewing Muir as the alternative to Roebuck, strong and a massive threat in the air, with Murley and IFW the ‘x factor’ players. If you can’t see that in Murley I’m not sure what to say.

Muir and Roebuck do play opposite wings generally, though not sure if Muir ever appears on the right. Would require a tactical shift or a positional one. Ditto Murley and IFW as far as I know, tho IFW was shunted to the left and we saw what happened

I’d say it’s more about balance than who plays which side. If our game-plan is ruined by the scrumhalf box kicking down the left rather than right I’d say we’re in trouble.

Murley and IFW have both played both sides. It certainly appears Muir and Roebuck prefer left and right respectively, but surely this isn’t an insurmountable roadblock.