Stom wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:58 pm
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.
I think Borthwick wants CCS to become a utility forward ala Corry or Roussow in the past. Opens up options for him in terms of bench selection. CCS being able to play lock/6/8 is just very useful, particularly if you think ahead to world cup squad selection where numbers are limited.
It's worth noting that Dombrandt might not be asked to play like Willis. Coming into the game late on when bodies are tired and the game more naturally opens up should suit Dombrandt more. Chances for turnovers and a bit more space for him to attack and offload from. Less need for him to batter his way over the gain line and do that tough stuff in the tight he's not good at (at international level).
Stom wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:58 pm
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.
Oh, quite! So, why take him on tour? Has he somehow changed from the player selected? Either the coaching has been sub-standard (failed in his case) or the initial selection was wrong. Surely, SB and his coaches did their research and had a basic plan in mind for Argentina before picking the tour party.
Stom wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:58 pm
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.
I think Borthwick wants CCS to become a utility forward ala Corry or Roussow in the past. Opens up options for him in terms of bench selection. CCS being able to play lock/6/8 is just very useful, particularly if you think ahead to world cup squad selection where numbers are limited.
It's worth noting that Dombrandt might not be asked to play like Willis. Coming into the game late on when bodies are tired and the game more naturally opens up should suit Dombrandt more. Chances for turnovers and a bit more space for him to attack and offload from. Less need for him to batter his way over the gain line and do that tough stuff in the tight he's not good at (at international level).
Fair point on Dombrandt but would the same not apply to Hill who is much quicker? It would mean Willis staying on at 8 but so what? Or, CCS coming on at 8.
Stom wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:58 pm
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.
Oh, quite! So, why take him on tour? Has he somehow changed from the player selected? Either the coaching has been sub-standard (failed in his case) or the initial selection was wrong. Surely, SB and his coaches did their research and had a basic plan in mind for Argentina before picking the tour party.
He's taken everyone available (and good enough) tbf and someone has to be there for training and cover for injury
Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:59 pm
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.
D'OH! Of course it's Randall - though I don't trust him either, but he's a much better option than Quirke. So either Spencer with JvP again, or JvP with Randall on the bench.
If I was confident that Spencer would play like his 2nd half - then that would be the preference - but I'm not. First half was the worst he's played for England, 2nd half was the best he's played...
JvP was also a mixed bag - I wouldn't say he's forced his way ahead of Spencer, but may well be ahead by default.
Will add that, if the fracture was suffered in that early collision when Atkinson threw the hospital pass - I need to cut Slade some slack for the rest of his game.
Will add that, if the fracture was suffered in that early collision when Atkinson threw the hospital pass - I need to cut Slade some slack for the rest of his game.
Ooft, poor sod - that means he was definitely injured when JVP threw him under the bus and he got ragdolled again. He worked bloody hard, even without having broken a hand - my not wanting him to play Test 2 was more about his previous games and him blocking us seeing a better option, rather than necessarily his play in Test 1.
Hope he recovers soon and well, and we take an opportunity to look at Atkinson/Ojomoh who go on to be stars.
fivepointer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 1:55 pm
Thats tough on Slade. He'll have to be replaced both as OC and the back up FH. Presuably Beard or Ojomoh come in and Atkinson is on the bench.
Not ideal.
We can play a XXIII without a 10 on the bench - it's not like we're ever going to sub Ford off if we have any kind of choice and, if he gets injured, we're gonna be just as screwed to have CAtkinson come on as if we were to shove Ojomoh in there. So we may as well travel hopefully and pick the side based on the hope Ford doesn't get injured.
If we do pick CAtkinson, I hope to gods it's a 5:3 bench. I don't actually mind a 6:2 when you have enough flexibility available that you can have a 9 and a pace merchant on the bench, but I'm not a fan of a 9 and a 10.
What even happened with the subs? I’m sure Murley was on at the same time as Muir briefly, I guess for Slade, but then was out on the wing towards the end. Did Slade go off and come back?
Agreed it’s tough to criticise him if he played through that, but equally this felt like a good time to look at others in the first place.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 8:26 pm
What even happened with the subs? I’m sure Murley was on at the same time as Muir briefly, I guess for Slade, but then was out on the wing towards the end. Did Slade go off and come back?
Agreed it’s tough to criticise him if he played through that, but equally this felt like a good time to look at others in the first place.
I think Atkinson went off for an HIA so Slade moved to 12 with Murley at 13.
I wasn’t keen on Slade starting but when Atkinson and Northmore are out most experienced centres with 1 cap each, it’s definitely not ideal.
Hopefully Ojomoh or Beard can come in and look as at home as Atkinson did.
fivepointer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 1:55 pmHe'll have to be replaced both as OC and the back up FH.
I never thought I'd say this, but thank gods Andy Farrell took his family to Aus with him!
Especially when you think he could have called up Ford.
Or an actual centre as that's where he said he felt a bit short, at 12. Imagine being Osborne or Jordan and being able to cover most the backline, including 12 and then seeing Farrell select his son instead.
I never thought I'd say this, but thank gods Andy Farrell took his family to Aus with him!
Especially when you think he could have called up Ford.
Or an actual centre as that's where he said he felt a bit short, at 12. Imagine being Osborne or Jordan and being able to cover most the backline, including 12 and then seeing Farrell select his son instead.
Its just so bizarre, and more so that someone didn't say no, ie the manager.
On another topic how did Ben Curry go at 6? though still think Hill should by playing there - for me he’s Tom Croft with a bit more power and would balance very nicely with Underhill. Hill would also add a bit of flair and pace into the mix alongside all the things Underhill and T Willis bring to the party.
jngf wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 9:04 am
On another topic how did Ben Curry go at 6? though still think Hill should by playing there - for me he’s Tom Croft with a bit more power and would balance very nicely with Underhill. Hill would also add a bit of flair and pace into the mix alongside all the things Underhill and T Willis bring to the party.
Thought he was solid. Took 4 lineouts which was very good to see. I think if TCurry, Pollock and Willis is your back row (which to me seems to way to go) then we need to think about how we maintain that balance and profile if someone misses out.
I think that means Earl as Pollock alternative, BCurry/Underhill/Pepper as TCurry alternative and needing to find a genuine big carrying 8 as alternative to Willis (disappointed Barbeary hasn’t toured for this, CCS could also be option here). Ilione a bit of a wildcard as a 6 or possible 8 option.
jngf wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 9:04 am
On another topic how did Ben Curry go at 6? though still think Hill should by playing there - for me he’s Tom Croft with a bit more power and would balance very nicely with Underhill. Hill would also add a bit of flair and pace into the mix alongside all the things Underhill and T Willis bring to the party.
He's a heavier Tom Croft but seemingly less aggression and physicality. Croft was accused of being a show pony at a time when Cockers an old school psychopath was his head coach and wouldn't accept a forward not able to mix it. Hill's tackle completion stats aren't good and he drifts in and out of games too easily. I suspect he's in the squad so Borthwick can work on him.
