Second Segment Selection Speculation

[Puja]

Stick or twist?

I think, to a person, we'd want to see JVP and Ojomoh/Beard replace Spencer and Slade, but it's hard to justify changing the XV after such a good result, when I don't thik anyone did worse than "okay".

However, it could be that Statistics Bolstered has said in the squad that this is a development tour and that there will be some rotation to look at other options in T2. In which case, could be any/all of Rodd, AOF, CCS, Pepper, JVP, Ojomoh, Murley, Carpenter coming in.

I can see an argument for both. We want the best chance of winning 2-0, but I think Argentina will be gunning for us specifically in T2 and I do like the idea of taking this opportunity to learn more about fringe players now that we've hit the minimum standard of 1 win.

Puja


ETA. This post brought to you by glee over some of the gorgeous service that JVP put in when he came on, compared to the stuff Ford spent the first 40 minutes stretching for!

[Which Tyler]

I think Borthwick will stick.

I'd look to bring someone in for Slade - not particularly bothered if that Ojomoh or Beard (beyond club/familiarity preference).

I feel that Spencer and Ford got on the same wavelength in the 2nd half; and that whilst Spencer is still no international level SH, he's also still starter or nothing, and I don't trust current-Quirke on the bench.

No-one else deserves to be in the conversation to be dropped, even if several helped their cases off the bench - they should all get their chances against USA.


I also object to the use of the word "segment" in a painful attempt to alliterate that reminds me of 14-year-old Aidan discovering a thesaurus for the first time.

[fivepointer]

I'd stick and I suspect Borthwick will too.

Only tweak is maybe a back for a back rower on the bench.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Only change I'd make would be a 5:3 bench split. We saw yesterday Murley having to come on at 13 when Atkinson went for his HIA, with Slade coming into 12. It is unneccessary. So, for me, either Dombrandt or Pepper goes to accommodate the extra back on the bench. For me that's Dombrandt.

[Scrumhead]

I think Borthwick will stick.

I'd look to bring someone in for Slade - not particularly bothered if that Ojomoh or Beard (beyond club/familiarity preference).

I feel that Spencer and Ford got on the same wavelength in the 2nd half; and that whilst Spencer is still no international level SH, he's also still starter or nothing, and I don't trust current-Quirke on the bench.

No-one else deserves to be in the conversation to be dropped, even if several helped their cases off the bench - they should all get their chances against USA.


I also object to the use of the word "segment" in a painful attempt to alliterate that reminds me of 14-year-old Aidan discovering a thesaurus for the first time.

Agreed on all points. However, I’m another who would definitely look to swap in Ojomoh or Beard for Slade. Also agree with @EP on dropping Dombrandt for another back.

A 2-0 series win would be a very strong statement and I’d love to see that even if it means the same 23.

The USA game is the time for experimentation.

[Which Tyler]

Sorry, I feel that I've complained about 6:2 benches enough since JvG came to Bath, and I'm seeing them week=in, week-out.
I take it as read that I hate them, and will always prefer a 5:3 bench unless otherwise stated.

That's on me, and it does bear repeating now and then.

[Danno]

I'm a broken record on this but there's no need to sub Willis that I can see, so drop Dombrandt and let CCS cover lock and 8

[FKAS]

I'd expect fairly minimal changes. JvP and Ojomoh in for Spencer and Slade would be good. I thought the tight five went well and wouldn't want to change those, Ewels and Coles were solid rather than particularly good but they got the job done which is essential Vs Argentina because if they get in top at set piece time then you're in trouble fast.

I'd prefer a 5:3 bench split but Dombrandt was fine off the bench so I wouldn't be adverse to another 6:2.

[Oakboy]

I don't understand why you'd take Hill on this tour and then not look at him. I'd start Pepper for Underhill and have Hill on the bench.

[Mikey Brown]

I don't understand why you'd take Hill on this tour and then not look at him. I'd start Pepper for Underhill and have Hill on the bench.

Caught worrying about world rankings I guess?

I totally agree though. For a player like Hill if you’re not going to give them a proper go now, then when?

[Which Tyler]

I agree with giving Hill a go, but ahead of CCS/Dombrandt, not the perpetual "drop Underhill"

[FKAS]

I don't understand why you'd take Hill on this tour and then not look at him. I'd start Pepper for Underhill and have Hill on the bench.

Caught worrying about world rankings I guess?

I totally agree though. For a player like Hill if you’re not going to give them a proper go now, then when?

Unless Hill's not impressing in training or is there for continuous development so the coaching staff can focus him on the work ons they've identified.

There's still the USA game where he might get a look in. Other than on the bench for Dombrandt in a 6:2 split I'm not sure where he fits in.

World Rankings are worth considering as they effect seedings.

[fivepointer]

I'd have started Hill at 6 in the 1st test. Given that team did so well i'm not minded to alter things now. Thats tough on Hill who is due a proper go but that will have to wait for the USA game.

[Oakboy]

I agree with giving Hill a go, but ahead of CCS/Dombrandt, not the perpetual "drop Underhill"

Ah, it's just how we see things. Underhill is the ultimate 'dog of war' or . . . .

I don't think we will get up a notch till we dump him, both Currys and Earl. All four are outstanding club players and competent/effective internationals. We need to think beyond their level and, IMO, players are emerging to justify that thinking.

I accept that you and others don't agree.

[Danno]

Had to triple check the username there.

[Scrumhead]

I agree with giving Hill a go, but ahead of CCS/Dombrandt, not the perpetual "drop Underhill"

Ah, it's just how we see things. Underhill is the ultimate 'dog of war' or . . . .

I don't think we will get up a notch till we dump him, both Currys and Earl. All four are outstanding club players and competent/effective internationals. We need to think beyond their level and, IMO, players are emerging to justify that thinking.

I accept that you and others don't agree.

Is this post a joke? I know you love Pollock to a ridiculous degree but who are the other players who would remotely justify dropping Underhill, both Curry twins and Earl?

[Danno]

Glad it's not just me.

Of all the units that might need tweaking, the back row simply isn't one of them, other than accepting that Dombrandt simply doesn't fit and/or cannot cut it as an international.

[Mikey Brown]

I don't understand why you'd take Hill on this tour and then not look at him. I'd start Pepper for Underhill and have Hill on the bench.

Caught worrying about world rankings I guess?

I totally agree though. For a player like Hill if you’re not going to give them a proper go now, then when?

Unless Hill's not impressing in training or is there for continuous development so the coaching staff can focus him on the work ons they've identified.

There's still the USA game where he might get a look in. Other than on the bench for Dombrandt in a 6:2 split I'm not sure where he fits in.

World Rankings are worth considering as they effect seedings.

I do get that, but how many squads has he been in at this point? He’s 26. He’s in his 8th season being a pro. How many more work-ons are needed?

Was Guy Pepper a crucial element of not dropping important ranking points?* Was Dombrandt?

He got 11 minutes in the 6 nations and then was dropped for the Wales game. He gets a start in the A game vs France and then can’t get on the bench for Argentina.

This isn’t me arguing he’s been unstoppable, but the stop-start nature of his involvement is annoying when his potential seems so clear. It’s a similar frustrating back and forth that we had with Dombrandt before, that’s all. But what do I know? Maybe Tom Willis would have been rubbish if he’d been brought in and given a run sooner.

*Pepper is a great prospect - that’s nothing against him, but if he is already more trusted you start to wonder if it will ever really happen for Hill.

[Mikey Brown]

I agree with giving Hill a go, but ahead of CCS/Dombrandt, not the perpetual "drop Underhill"

Ah, it's just how we see things. Underhill is the ultimate 'dog of war' or . . . .

I don't think we will get up a notch till we dump him, both Currys and Earl. All four are outstanding club players and competent/effective internationals. We need to think beyond their level and, IMO, players are emerging to justify that thinking.

I accept that you and others don't agree.

Is this post a joke? I know you love Pollock to a ridiculous degree but who are the other players who would remotely justify dropping Underhill, both Curry twins and Earl?

Haha. Well this puts some much needed perspective on my Hill rant. Jesus.

[SixAndAHalf]

The only change Id make is Hill for Dombrandt. Not hugely enamoured by Ewels, Spencer or Slade (given our depth of talent we should always chase high ceilings) but in they all played a role in a huge win yesterday.

[Captainhaircut]

Hill did play in the France game so maybe there was something in that game that they felt meant he didn’t warrant selection.

I do like him but he is a fairly unique profile for a back row- he’s no breakdown threat, not a particularly disruptive tackler and doesn’t really care in the tight.

I don’t think you’d find many international back rowers who aren’t very proficient in at least one of those three areas.

[Mikey Brown]

Hill did play in the France game so maybe there was something in that game that they felt meant he didn’t warrant selection.

I do like him but he is a fairly unique profile for a back row- he’s no breakdown threat, not a particularly disruptive tackler and doesn’t really care in the tight.

I don’t think you’d find many international back rowers who aren’t very proficient in at least one of those three areas.

Sure. I don’t massively disagree with those statements, without going back to how a specific coach wants to use him.

I do think he makes some good tight carries and hits in defence, but they’re probably not his bread and butter and I think are part of why it’s a nice pairing he has with Underhill.

From what I’ve seen he’s a real threat around the fringes in terms of charge downs and hassling half-backs, has a good work-rate and is great in the lineout. These all seem like things Borthwick has valued enough to be interested in an extra lock at 6 before, as well as having a really useful turn of pace.

Maybe that’s not what Borthwick wants in a 6 at all anymore though. I wasn’t expecting him to select Ben Curry there either.

[FKAS]

Caught worrying about world rankings I guess?

I totally agree though. For a player like Hill if you’re not going to give them a proper go now, then when?

Unless Hill's not impressing in training or is there for continuous development so the coaching staff can focus him on the work ons they've identified.

There's still the USA game where he might get a look in. Other than on the bench for Dombrandt in a 6:2 split I'm not sure where he fits in.

World Rankings are worth considering as they effect seedings.

I do get that, but how many squads has he been in at this point? He’s 26. He’s in his 8th season being a pro. How many more work-ons are needed?

Was Guy Pepper a crucial element of not dropping important ranking points?* Was Dombrandt?

He got 11 minutes in the 6 nations and then was dropped for the Wales game. He gets a start in the A game vs France and then can’t get on the bench for Argentina.

This isn’t me arguing he’s been unstoppable, but the stop-start nature of his involvement is annoying when his potential seems so clear. It’s a similar frustrating back and forth that we had with Dombrandt before, that’s all. But what do I know? Maybe Tom Willis would have been rubbish if he’d been brought in and given a run sooner.

*Pepper is a great prospect - that’s nothing against him, but if he is already more trusted you start to wonder if it will ever really happen for Hill.

Perhaps that's the point at 26 he's not trusted and when included doesn't fit the game plan as Borthwick would like. His tackle completion stats we know aren't great, he's not a noticeably big hitter, jackle threat. His USP is his pace but we don't really use our flankers in the wide channels all that often. When Borthwick has gone for a bigger 6 who can compete at the lineout it's been Lawes, Chessum, CCS, Roots they are very different options to Hill.

[Stom]

Yeah, I'm going to do one of my rare agreeing with FKAS moments in that I don't really have a problem with Hill missing out if he's seen not to fit the plan.

It's more when players are consistently selected in roles where you just scratch your head. Like Dombrandt or the 2nd flanker now. Yes, I get it, you want cover in case you need to replace the 8, but Dombrandt is a very different type of player to Tom Willis. So why not just pick CCS as the backrow replacement? He can cover both flank and 8, allow you to pick a lock, and allow you another back.

Unless you have a very distinct plan that requires 3 backrowers on the bench...which is just weird.

[Puja]

I think Borthwick will stick.

I'd look to bring someone in for Slade - not particularly bothered if that Ojomoh or Beard (beyond club/familiarity preference).

I feel that Spencer and Ford got on the same wavelength in the 2nd half; and that whilst Spencer is still no international level SH, he's also still starter or nothing, and I don't trust current-Quirke on the bench.

I have good news for you - Quirke is not on tour! Third scrum-half on tour is Randall, who is basically designed to be a bench scrum-half.

Will agree with you that Spencer looked a lot better in the second half and if he can do that again, then I am more in favour. First half was peak England!Spencer though - slow of thought, slow of decision, slow of pass, resulting in a slow kick that just gives the ball back.

JVP blotted his copybook with that indecisiveness that resulted in him disappearing up his own arse and then chucking a hospital pass to Slade, but some of his play in attack where he swooped onto the ball and swept the ball away for a long, flat accurate pass.

I also object to the use of the word "segment" in a painful attempt to alliterate that reminds me of 14-year-old Aidan discovering a thesaurus for the first time.

I could go with "stanza" instead, if that would make it better?

Puaj