RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:44 am

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 9:34 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 8:40 am

Does Borthwick stick or twist at this point? Would it be a surprise if he picks: Genge, George, Stuart, Itoje, Martin, Chessum, T Curry, Earl, Mitchell, M Smith, Sleightholme, Slade, Lawrence, Freeman, Steward?

Of course, should he do so, what little respect I still have for him would evaporate. If I was in his shoes, I'd rather be condemned for too many changes than not enough at this stage but that presupposes that 7 defeats in the last 10 games is seen as badly under-performing rather than dishing out a string of excuses.

'We beat Ireland and narrowly lost to France' is fact, of course. But, any sort of claim that we are making progress was shattered by three AI defeats. It's not many months ago that posters here (including me) saw Australia as a relatively easy forthcoming fixture.

I suppose one argument is that we have played some decent stuff for part of every game. Maybe Borthwick has accepted that turning up for the whole 80 is an essential starting point. The captaincy change is a step in the right direction. I just hope that he does more than improve his bench selections.

I could be way off here, but I think we might get some surprises.

As much as injuries are annoying and disruptive, they also force change and that could well be for the better.

I’d like to see:

1. Genge
2. Cowan-Dickie
3. Stuart
4. Itoje
5. Martin
6. T. Curry
7. Earl
8. Willis
9. Mitchell
10. M. Smith
11. Freeman
12. Dingwall
13. Lawrence
14. Roebuck
15. Daly

16. Dan 17. Baxter 18. Heyes 19. Chessum 20. Cunningham South 21. Van Poortvliet 22. F. Smith 23. Murley

I doubt Daly will be a popular pick but honestly, I think there is more to be gained by picking him than Steward at this moment in time.

I'd rather have Daly at 15 than Marcus!!

Against Ireland and France, I'm not too happy about Earl and Curry on the flanks. One or the other at 7 with CCS or Chessum at 6 seems more threatening somehow, especially at turning defence into attack.

Dingwall at 12 may function better with Freeman at 13 perhaps? I know criticising Slade is popular. He may be past it now but I'm becoming more convinced that the non-functioning of his pairing with Lawrence is at least as much the latter's fault if not more so. I'd be comfortable with dumping both.

I don't get the "Freeman to 13" desire. He's not played there in nearly a year (and never for England) and, back when he had that brief run for Saints, he was always just fine, rather than anything spectacular. He's an excellent player, and likely would be wherever we play him, but I don't get why you'd clamour him for him specifically at 13.

This goes doubly so, considering the incredible form Beard's in this season. If we had IFW and Sleightholme fit, then there's maybe an argument for trying to fit everyone onto the pitch, but it seems perverse to argue to shift Freeman from the wing where we need him, because we don't want to pick the young form talent at 13.

Puja

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:44 am

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 9:34 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 8:40 am

Does Borthwick stick or twist at this point? Would it be a surprise if he picks: Genge, George, Stuart, Itoje, Martin, Chessum, T Curry, Earl, Mitchell, M Smith, Sleightholme, Slade, Lawrence, Freeman, Steward?

Of course, should he do so, what little respect I still have for him would evaporate. If I was in his shoes, I'd rather be condemned for too many changes than not enough at this stage but that presupposes that 7 defeats in the last 10 games is seen as badly under-performing rather than dishing out a string of excuses.

'We beat Ireland and narrowly lost to France' is fact, of course. But, any sort of claim that we are making progress was shattered by three AI defeats. It's not many months ago that posters here (including me) saw Australia as a relatively easy forthcoming fixture.

I suppose one argument is that we have played some decent stuff for part of every game. Maybe Borthwick has accepted that turning up for the whole 80 is an essential starting point. The captaincy change is a step in the right direction. I just hope that he does more than improve his bench selections.

I could be way off here, but I think we might get some surprises.

As much as injuries are annoying and disruptive, they also force change and that could well be for the better.

I’d like to see:

1. Genge
2. Cowan-Dickie
3. Stuart
4. Itoje
5. Martin
6. T. Curry
7. Earl
8. Willis
9. Mitchell
10. M. Smith
11. Freeman
12. Dingwall
13. Lawrence
14. Roebuck
15. Daly

16. Dan 17. Baxter 18. Heyes 19. Chessum 20. Cunningham South 21. Van Poortvliet 22. F. Smith 23. Murley

I doubt Daly will be a popular pick but honestly, I think there is more to be gained by picking him than Steward at this moment in time.

I'd rather have Daly at 15 than Marcus!!

Against Ireland and France, I'm not too happy about Earl and Curry on the flanks. One or the other at 7 with CCS or Chessum at 6 seems more threatening somehow, especially at turning defence into attack.

Dingwall at 12 may function better with Freeman at 13 perhaps? I know criticising Slade is popular. He may be past it now but I'm becoming more convinced that the non-functioning of his pairing with Lawrence is at least as much the latter's fault if not more so. I'd be comfortable with dumping both.

A decent part of it is playing two 13s and expecting it to magically work.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:53 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:44 am

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 9:34 am

I could be way off here, but I think we might get some surprises.

As much as injuries are annoying and disruptive, they also force change and that could well be for the better.

I’d like to see:

1. Genge
2. Cowan-Dickie
3. Stuart
4. Itoje
5. Martin
6. T. Curry
7. Earl
8. Willis
9. Mitchell
10. M. Smith
11. Freeman
12. Dingwall
13. Lawrence
14. Roebuck
15. Daly

16. Dan 17. Baxter 18. Heyes 19. Chessum 20. Cunningham South 21. Van Poortvliet 22. F. Smith 23. Murley

I doubt Daly will be a popular pick but honestly, I think there is more to be gained by picking him than Steward at this moment in time.

I'd rather have Daly at 15 than Marcus!!

Against Ireland and France, I'm not too happy about Earl and Curry on the flanks. One or the other at 7 with CCS or Chessum at 6 seems more threatening somehow, especially at turning defence into attack.

Dingwall at 12 may function better with Freeman at 13 perhaps? I know criticising Slade is popular. He may be past it now but I'm becoming more convinced that the non-functioning of his pairing with Lawrence is at least as much the latter's fault if not more so. I'd be comfortable with dumping both.

I don't get the "Freeman to 13" desire. He's not played there in nearly a year (and never for England) and, back when he had that brief run for Saints, he was always just fine, rather than anything spectacular. He's an excellent player, and likely would be wherever we play him, but I don't get why you'd clamour him for him specifically at 13.

This goes doubly so, considering the incredible form Beard's in this season. If we had IFW and Sleightholme fit, then there's maybe an argument for trying to fit everyone onto the pitch, but it seems perverse to argue to shift Freeman from the wing where we need him, because we don't want to pick the young form talent at 13.

Puja

To be fair Freeman had a couple of exceptional games at 13. Had Saints persisted with that selection and he'd built up the experience it would have been a no brainer to shift him inside for England but Saints didn't and it would be a significant risk for England to do.

twitchy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:59 am I think the issue is that we recognise that being england manager seems to have this corrosive effect on a person's judgement. We are all waiting for the inevitable slide into "picking steward on the wing" which leads to him getting sacked after the 6N (but then learning from his terrible england experience and leading wales to winning the WC).

I have a lot of time for picking Marcus Smith at 15 but surely you want players at least as fast ( at least in terms of top end speed ) on the wings? and that really isn’t Steward.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:53 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:44 am

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 9:34 am

I could be way off here, but I think we might get some surprises.

As much as injuries are annoying and disruptive, they also force change and that could well be for the better.

I’d like to see:

1. Genge
2. Cowan-Dickie
3. Stuart
4. Itoje
5. Martin
6. T. Curry
7. Earl
8. Willis
9. Mitchell
10. M. Smith
11. Freeman
12. Dingwall
13. Lawrence
14. Roebuck
15. Daly

16. Dan 17. Baxter 18. Heyes 19. Chessum 20. Cunningham South 21. Van Poortvliet 22. F. Smith 23. Murley

I doubt Daly will be a popular pick but honestly, I think there is more to be gained by picking him than Steward at this moment in time.

I'd rather have Daly at 15 than Marcus!!

Against Ireland and France, I'm not too happy about Earl and Curry on the flanks. One or the other at 7 with CCS or Chessum at 6 seems more threatening somehow, especially at turning defence into attack.

Dingwall at 12 may function better with Freeman at 13 perhaps? I know criticising Slade is popular. He may be past it now but I'm becoming more convinced that the non-functioning of his pairing with Lawrence is at least as much the latter's fault if not more so. I'd be comfortable with dumping both.

I don't get the "Freeman to 13" desire. He's not played there in nearly a year (and never for England) and, back when he had that brief run for Saints, he was always just fine, rather than anything spectacular. He's an excellent player, and likely would be wherever we play him, but I don't get why you'd clamour him for him specifically at 13.

This goes doubly so, considering the incredible form Beard's in this season. If we had IFW and Sleightholme fit, then there's maybe an argument for trying to fit everyone onto the pitch, but it seems perverse to argue to shift Freeman from the wing where we need him, because we don't want to pick the young form talent at 13.

Puja

I have doubts about Dingwall so pairing him with Feeman in a partnership that proved potent for Saints seems reasonable. I like Beard but I'd pick him with Slade if I was going to start him.

jngf wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:34 pm

twitchy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:59 am I think the issue is that we recognise that being england manager seems to have this corrosive effect on a person's judgement. We are all waiting for the inevitable slide into "picking steward on the wing" which leads to him getting sacked after the 6N (but then learning from his terrible england experience and leading wales to winning the WC).

I have a lot of time for picking Marcus Smith at 15 but surely you want players at least as fast ( at least in terms of top end speed ) on the wings? and that really isn’t Steward.

Apart from Marcus at 15 in the first place, agreed. If he's playing there you want the wings keeping pace

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:59 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:53 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:44 am

I'd rather have Daly at 15 than Marcus!!

Against Ireland and France, I'm not too happy about Earl and Curry on the flanks. One or the other at 7 with CCS or Chessum at 6 seems more threatening somehow, especially at turning defence into attack.

Dingwall at 12 may function better with Freeman at 13 perhaps? I know criticising Slade is popular. He may be past it now but I'm becoming more convinced that the non-functioning of his pairing with Lawrence is at least as much the latter's fault if not more so. I'd be comfortable with dumping both.

I don't get the "Freeman to 13" desire. He's not played there in nearly a year (and never for England) and, back when he had that brief run for Saints, he was always just fine, rather than anything spectacular. He's an excellent player, and likely would be wherever we play him, but I don't get why you'd clamour him for him specifically at 13.

This goes doubly so, considering the incredible form Beard's in this season. If we had IFW and Sleightholme fit, then there's maybe an argument for trying to fit everyone onto the pitch, but it seems perverse to argue to shift Freeman from the wing where we need him, because we don't want to pick the young form talent at 13.

Puja

I have doubts about Dingwall so pairing him with Feeman in a partnership that proved potent for Saints seems reasonable. I like Beard but I'd pick him with Slade if I was going to start him.

Okay, I can see that logc, although I'm not sure whether there would be a huge amount of useful familiarity from a partnership that has only played together for a few games and not for over a year.

If we were playing Italy first up, then I'd want to see Dingwall/Beard, but I agree with you that'd be terrifying to unleash against Ireland. I think, for me, I'd go for Dingwall/Lawrence, on the basis that Dingwall can run a defence and it'd probably be fair to let Lawrence actually play outside centre for once? You're not wrong that he's a large part of the Lawrence/Slade problem, but it does feel unfair to judge him on not being good at being asked to do all the stuff that he's not good at.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:35 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:59 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:53 am

I don't get the "Freeman to 13" desire. He's not played there in nearly a year (and never for England) and, back when he had that brief run for Saints, he was always just fine, rather than anything spectacular. He's an excellent player, and likely would be wherever we play him, but I don't get why you'd clamour him for him specifically at 13.

This goes doubly so, considering the incredible form Beard's in this season. If we had IFW and Sleightholme fit, then there's maybe an argument for trying to fit everyone onto the pitch, but it seems perverse to argue to shift Freeman from the wing where we need him, because we don't want to pick the young form talent at 13.

Puja

I have doubts about Dingwall so pairing him with Feeman in a partnership that proved potent for Saints seems reasonable. I like Beard but I'd pick him with Slade if I was going to start him.

Okay, I can see that logc, although I'm not sure whether there would be a huge amount of useful familiarity from a partnership that has only played together for a few games and not for over a year.

If we were playing Italy first up, then I'd want to see Dingwall/Beard, but I agree with you that'd be terrifying to unleash against Ireland. I think, for me, I'd go for Dingwall/Lawrence, on the basis that Dingwall can run a defence and it'd probably be fair to let Lawrence actually play outside centre for once? You're not wrong that he's a large part of the Lawrence/Slade problem, but it does feel unfair to judge him on not being good at being asked to do all the stuff that he's not good at.

Puja

Not sure the Irish attack needs the advantage we'd be giving them of allowing Aki to get easy metres off of every first phase carry Vs Dingwall.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:35 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:59 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:53 am

I don't get the "Freeman to 13" desire. He's not played there in nearly a year (and never for England) and, back when he had that brief run for Saints, he was always just fine, rather than anything spectacular. He's an excellent player, and likely would be wherever we play him, but I don't get why you'd clamour him for him specifically at 13.

This goes doubly so, considering the incredible form Beard's in this season. If we had IFW and Sleightholme fit, then there's maybe an argument for trying to fit everyone onto the pitch, but it seems perverse to argue to shift Freeman from the wing where we need him, because we don't want to pick the young form talent at 13.

Puja

I have doubts about Dingwall so pairing him with Feeman in a partnership that proved potent for Saints seems reasonable. I like Beard but I'd pick him with Slade if I was going to start him.

Okay, I can see that logc, although I'm not sure whether there would be a huge amount of useful familiarity from a partnership that has only played together for a few games and not for over a year.

If we were playing Italy first up, then I'd want to see Dingwall/Beard, but I agree with you that'd be terrifying to unleash against Ireland. I think, for me, I'd go for Dingwall/Lawrence, on the basis that Dingwall can run a defence and it'd probably be fair to let Lawrence actually play outside centre for once? You're not wrong that he's a large part of the Lawrence/Slade problem, but it does feel unfair to judge him on not being good at being asked to do all the stuff that he's not good at.

Puja

Exactly my reasoning.

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 2:47 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 2:26 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 2:02 pm …or I guess just stick Steward there.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/ ... ix-nations

That article feels like rage-bait for this board. Some strong conclusions suggested by the text, but the actual quotes attributed to Speak Bashfully are nowhere near as strident as being implied.

Reading just the bits in speechmarks and it doesn't sound like he's "revealed he is strongly considering picking Steward on the wing and Smith at 15," but instead answering a question about can Steward play on the wing with "it's certainly a possibility" and then talking about how flexibility affects his bench options and how MSmith at 15 is good because of his counterattacking play.

He might still do it, of course, but I think panic/derision is unwarranted at this current time.

Puja

If he does, I might not bother with the hassle of watching.

It's so infuriating to see how many players are given a go by...

Ireland
Scotland
Wales
France
South Africa
New Zealand
Australia...

I mean, seriously, every other team slots in new talent a lot easier than England. We're stuck in the idea of "oh, you need experience". Just like the bloody jobs market right now.

It's abysmal, it's frustrating, and it's just argh.

Yes, he might not do it. But the simple fact that he's built a squad like he has, without some of the best up and coming talent around, and then the talent that does make the squad is unlikely to play...it's infuriating.

Except this isn’t really true at all.

Ask most Irish fans and they are concerned at the lack of experimentation in favour of picking the likes of O’Mahoney, Murray etc. Quite a few of their best players are well into their 30s and the replacements haven’t had much game time. Prendergast is getting fast tracked partly on potential and partly because Crowley is no more than good (which probably isn’t good enough for a team aspiring to be no. 1).

A lot of new caps are being given out in desperation stakes. Wales are giving players a go because they have no choice and nothing to lose. Australia had a good Autumn, but they’ve definitely done the same - Su’aali’i was a mega expensive gamble that has paid off.

Scotland will cap pretty much anyone to pad out their player base.

Who is new for NZ other than Sititi?

South Africa are in the same envious position of building experience in the fringe players because they have the luxury of being able to experiment while still winning.

Borthwick has plenty of faults, but he is blooding new talent and not just because he has to.

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:44 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:35 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:59 pm

I have doubts about Dingwall so pairing him with Feeman in a partnership that proved potent for Saints seems reasonable. I like Beard but I'd pick him with Slade if I was going to start him.

Okay, I can see that logc, although I'm not sure whether there would be a huge amount of useful familiarity from a partnership that has only played together for a few games and not for over a year.

If we were playing Italy first up, then I'd want to see Dingwall/Beard, but I agree with you that'd be terrifying to unleash against Ireland. I think, for me, I'd go for Dingwall/Lawrence, on the basis that Dingwall can run a defence and it'd probably be fair to let Lawrence actually play outside centre for once? You're not wrong that he's a large part of the Lawrence/Slade problem, but it does feel unfair to judge him on not being good at being asked to do all the stuff that he's not good at.

Puja

Not sure the Irish attack needs the advantage we'd be giving them of allowing Aki to get easy metres off of every first phase carry Vs Dingwall.

That seems like a pretty harsh assessment. He got infamously bumped in a tackle for England once; I don't think that makes him a turnstile.

Puja

Leicester lenses

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:38 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:44 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:35 pm

Okay, I can see that logc, although I'm not sure whether there would be a huge amount of useful familiarity from a partnership that has only played together for a few games and not for over a year.

If we were playing Italy first up, then I'd want to see Dingwall/Beard, but I agree with you that'd be terrifying to unleash against Ireland. I think, for me, I'd go for Dingwall/Lawrence, on the basis that Dingwall can run a defence and it'd probably be fair to let Lawrence actually play outside centre for once? You're not wrong that he's a large part of the Lawrence/Slade problem, but it does feel unfair to judge him on not being good at being asked to do all the stuff that he's not good at.

Puja

Not sure the Irish attack needs the advantage we'd be giving them of allowing Aki to get easy metres off of every first phase carry Vs Dingwall.

That seems like a pretty harsh assessment. He got infamously bumped in a tackle for England once; I don't think that makes him a turnstile.

Puja

He'll make the tackle, just not on the gainline. He's not a dominant tackler, never has been.

Dingwall has skills to like but not sure the best way to ease him into international rugby is in a new midfield is up against Ireland with Aki who's likely to exacerbate Dingwall's major weakness.

We're probably stuck with Slade/Lawrence for the first two tests. For the later three we could probably chance a change.

Just get Waghorn in. He will dominate Aki senseless.

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:56 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:38 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:44 pm

Not sure the Irish attack needs the advantage we'd be giving them of allowing Aki to get easy metres off of every first phase carry Vs Dingwall.

That seems like a pretty harsh assessment. He got infamously bumped in a tackle for England once; I don't think that makes him a turnstile.

Puja

He'll make the tackle, just not on the gainline. He's not a dominant tackler, never has been.

Dingwall has skills to like but not sure the best way to ease him into international rugby is in a new midfield is up against Ireland with Aki who's likely to exacerbate Dingwall's major weakness.

We're probably stuck with Slade/Lawrence for the first two tests. For the later three we could probably chance a change.

We do get to decide how our defence lines up, you know? If Dingwall is a significant weakness in defence 1-on-1 vs Aki (which I'm not convinced by, especially not compared to Slade), we don't have to stand him there. We can put Lawrence in defence at 12 just like we normally do.

I'd agree that we're doomed to suffer Slade/Lawrence for at least the first two tests, but that's resignation and depression, rather than because I think it's the right thing to do.

Puja

I’d be pretty happy to pick a backline the oppo have to worry about rather than worry about the oppo and then pick a backline.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 8:09 pm I’d be pretty happy to pick a backline the oppo have to worry about rather than worry about the oppo and then pick a backline.

When all options are flawed (as is definitely the case with our centres), then I thoroughly agree.

Puja

With IFW fit and Furbank on top form outside a quality half back pairing in Mitchell and Marcus, we are good enough to attack any team given enough decent ball. Taking out our best winger and a classy FB, though, do we have quality replacements to say the same? And, will SB pick a back row to deliver? I really hope he surprises us.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 7:40 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:56 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:38 pm

That seems like a pretty harsh assessment. He got infamously bumped in a tackle for England once; I don't think that makes him a turnstile.

Puja

He'll make the tackle, just not on the gainline. He's not a dominant tackler, never has been.

Dingwall has skills to like but not sure the best way to ease him into international rugby is in a new midfield is up against Ireland with Aki who's likely to exacerbate Dingwall's major weakness.

We're probably stuck with Slade/Lawrence for the first two tests. For the later three we could probably chance a change.

We do get to decide how our defence lines up, you know? If Dingwall is a significant weakness in defence 1-on-1 vs Aki (which I'm not convinced by, especially not compared to Slade), we don't have to stand him there. We can put Lawrence in defence at 12 just like we normally do.

I'd agree that we're doomed to suffer Slade/Lawrence for at least the first two tests, but that's resignation and depression, rather than because I think it's the right thing to do.

Puja

I just don't have a lot of faith in Dingwall to defend either channel at international level. In attack with Lawrence I think he could do some damage (should we run some plays that allow for our backs to pass the ball), clever player with good hands and all. Defensively I think he'd have a tough time.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 8:09 pm I’d be pretty happy to pick a backline the oppo have to worry about rather than worry about the oppo and then pick a backline.

Steward and Freeman it is then.

Now that is sorted we should move on and focus on how we put pressure on their line out

p/d wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 9:25 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 8:09 pm I’d be pretty happy to pick a backline the oppo have to worry about rather than worry about the oppo and then pick a backline.

Steward and Freeman it is then.

Now that is sorted we should move on and focus on how we put pressure on their line out

You’ve pretty answered your own question.
Steward in the lineout, ball off the top, crash ball to Earl at IC, try. Simply Brilliant.

Clark, Langdon, Pollock, Spencer and Quirke called up to replace Coles, George, Dombrandt, JvP and Mitchell …

Mitchell still with the squad for rehab but that’s a massive blow.

Have to hope his injury isn't serious. Bad enough if he misses the Ireland game but very probably terminal to any chances of more than 2 wins if he's out for the duration.

OTOH pleased for Langdon and Quirke. Willis' chance of at least making the bench have gone up too. Pleased we’ve gone for Clark rather than Ewels too.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 8:09 am Clark, Langdon, Pollock, Spencer and Quirke called up to replace Coles, George, Dombrandt, JvP and Mitchell …

Mitchell still with the squad for rehab but that’s a massive blow.

Have to hope his injury isn't serious. Bad enough if he misses the Ireland game but very probably terminal to any chances of more than 2 wins if he's out for the duration.

OTOH pleased for Langdon and Quirke. Willis' chance of at least making the bench have gone up too. Pleased we’ve gone for Clark rather than Ewels too.

…. Mitchell not too bad I hear.

Not sure how you can have prem games this weekend- Quins v Saints is two pretty weak teams both really needing a win. Masterful planning

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 8:31 amNot sure how you can have prem games this weekend

Mostly because there's only so many weeks in a year, and clashes are still inevitable without shrinking the off-season even further.
Oh, and the clubs want matches this weekend (and the training weekend ahead of the AIs)

I assume that’s Dombrandt injured too then? Not that I’d expected him to be there in the first place.

Obvious concerns about Mitchell but that squad does look a little fresher with those names there.

Arthur Clark is a bold choice but one i like a lot. Langdon deserves a chance. Pollock unlucky to miss out on original selection and its good to see Quirke in the mix.