RugbyRebels

I don't mind the selections in the backs - especially given we are down to our 2nd or 3rd choices in a number of positions.

Arundell would have been great to see but he appears to be competing with IFW for a spot - Daly is more suited to the Roebuck role and I wonder if you might see moments in the 22 where Steward moves to the wing to be the wide kick option?

Slade has been in his best form for a while for Exeter and knows the defensive role of a 13 in this system having been there in the summer.

At this stage of the Autumn I'd rather put experienced heads in who know the system than put the likes of Ojomoh or Arundell in cold to a system they aren't accustomed to.

For me, the individual safety-first selections are all understandable, it's just that all combined, whilst still understandable, they're also uninspiring.

I absolutely agree that achieving a clean sweep this Autumn (and setting a new record for holding the Raeburn) is an absolutely valid target. But it feels like a switch from playing to win, to playing to not-lose - if that makes sense.

It also feels that we're giving Argentina more respect than we should / less faith in our own threat than we should.
We beat Argentina twice in Argentina with a severely weakened squad just a few months ago. Yes, they've improved since then, that was the opening rounds of their season etc etc.
With the exception of AOF, all the changes that I wouldn't make feel like he's gone for the lower risk but much lower reward. (And I would have gone with AOF if I hadn't felt I was suggesting enough changes already).

Also, yes, SB has earned some slack, but that doesn't mean we have to automatically agree with him on things. It's not like anyone's calling for his head as a result of this selection, or think it's not good enough to win. It's just... uninspiring, fearful, when we've earned the right to be more adventurous and be feared.

Meh. Very much meh.
Not taking a look at Arundell seems an opportunity lost.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 5:16 am For me, the individual safety-first selections are all understandable, it's just that all combined, whilst still understandable, they're also uninspiring.

I absolutely agree that achieving a clean sweep this Autumn (and setting a new record for holding the Raeburn) is an absolutely valid target. But it feels like a switch from playing to win, to playing to not-lose - if that makes sense.

It also feels that we're giving Argentina more respect than we should / less faith in our own threat than we should.
We beat Argentina twice in Argentina with a severely weakened squad just a few months ago. Yes, they've I proved since then, that was the opening rounds of their season etc etc.
With the exception of AOF and Ford, all the changes that I wouldn't make feel like he's gone for the lower risk but much lower reward. (And I would have gone with AOF if I hadn't felt I was suggesting enough changes already).

Also, yes, SB has earned some slack, but that doesn't mean we have to automatically agree with him on things. It's not like anyone's calling for his head as a result of this selection, or think it's not good enough to win. It's just... uninspiring, fearful, when we've earned the right to be more adventurous and be feared.

Whilst I generally agree I would say two things not quite in defence of selection but worth bearing in mind.

1. Argentina have the tendency to really turn up when the pressure is on but are also unpredictable. Against the Lions in Dublin, awesome. Against a Lions weakened England side in Argentina, nope. The results in the Rugby Championship were up and down as well but still had wins Vs New Zealand and Australia whilst running South Africa very close, plus some blow out losses. If you knew which Argentina side were going to turn up you'd select differently but given it's hard to know what you'll face conservatism isn't the worst idea.

2. We'd all like to see a bit more adventure in selection and some younger players but we haven't seen training. If they aren't demanding selection and making the coaches think they will be integral in a couple of years time then I've no real issue with them not being involved.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 5:16 am For me, the individual safety-first selections are all understandable, it's just that all combined, whilst still understandable, they're also uninspiring.

I absolutely agree that achieving a clean sweep this Autumn (and setting a new record for holding the Raeburn) is an absolutely valid target. But it feels like a switch from playing to win, to playing to not-lose - if that makes sense.

It also feels that we're giving Argentina more respect than we should / less faith in our own threat than we should.
We beat Argentina twice in Argentina with a severely weakened squad just a few months ago. Yes, they've I proved since then, that was the opening rounds of their season etc etc.
With the exception of AOF and Ford, all the changes that I wouldn't make feel like he's gone for the lower risk but much lower reward. (And I would have gone with AOF if I hadn't felt I was suggesting enough changes already).

Also, yes, SB has earned some slack, but that doesn't mean we have to automatically agree with him on things. It's not like anyone's calling for his head as a result of this selection, or think it's not good enough to win. It's just... uninspiring, fearful, when we've earned the right to be more adventurous and be feared.

Nailed it WT.

I see no issue with picking Pollock because his potential is without question. Beyond starting him, though, who has not been selected who has a real convincing ceiling?

Ojomoh is mainly a 12 and he was ordinary at best in the 'A' fixture. Opinion might be that he may one day be better than Slade at 13 but now? No. He's a good club player and he may become a good international. An outstanding one? I doubt it.

To NOT play Dingwall at 12 at this stage in his development and after his performance v NZ would be utter folly, IMO.

Spencer/Mitchell is just a rotation/starting back-up effort. I would not have done it but where's another 9 demanding selection? I'd have started Quirke but can understand his omission.

Steward/Marcus is presumably a tactical choice. I'd discard Steward completely but his solidity (assuming he fully rediscovers it) is useful.

That leaves Daly/Arundell. I'd have picked Arundell but at least Daly is picked in his best position. Based on his form pre-injury, it is not a bad selection. SB has reported outstanding training camp form so that's that. He is good in the air, offers a great kicking option and is very experienced. SB is overdoing the versatility bit, IMO, but Daly does theoretically cover three positions.

I just don't see any further margin for experiment against Argentina if the object is being undefeated going into the 6N. I retain reservations about SB but I see him making real progress as a manager.

I think borthwick sees this game as very losable and is picking everyone to a specific game plan given the constraints through injury. The time for experimenting is when you are full strength and can afford to pepper in some inexperience with top level players around them to try and make it go smoothly.

Remember how unforgiving everyone is. One bad performance and many people say a player "isn't up to test level" or what ever, ignoring the context of them being thrown in to a brand new scratch team alongside people they have maybe only met a few days before and never played with.

p/d wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 9:11 pm Autumn 2025 and a back division featuring Spencer, Ford, Slade and Daly is like opening the wrong bottle of wine. And then, throw in Dingwall, you find the fecker is corked.

That backline makes the baby Jesus cry! It is a very safe selection. I'm guessing the pivot table of insight told Spreadsheet Believer that this was the best option. It is not very inspiring.

He's got credit in the bank, so test a few players and have a go at them. It just feels a bit meh.

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 9:28 am

p/d wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 9:11 pm Autumn 2025 and a back division featuring Spencer, Ford, Slade and Daly is like opening the wrong bottle of wine. And then, throw in Dingwall, you find the fecker is corked.

That backline makes the baby Jesus cry! It is a very safe selection. I'm guessing the pivot table of insight told Spreadsheet Believer that this was the best option. It is not very inspiring.

He's got credit in the bank, so test a few players and have a go at them. It just feels a bit meh.

Exactly.
The biggest risk is not risking anthing

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 10:12 am

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 9:28 am

p/d wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 9:11 pm Autumn 2025 and a back division featuring Spencer, Ford, Slade and Daly is like opening the wrong bottle of wine. And then, throw in Dingwall, you find the fecker is corked.

That backline makes the baby Jesus cry! It is a very safe selection. I'm guessing the pivot table of insight told Spreadsheet Believer that this was the best option. It is not very inspiring.

He's got credit in the bank, so test a few players and have a go at them. It just feels a bit meh.

Exactly.
The biggest risk is not risking anthing

We've got Theo Dan and AOF amongst the starting and bench front row that's a risk. Pollock, F Smith and Dingwall are still establishing themselves at international rugby. It's a dull side but the media will rip him a new one if England lose now. Positivity doesn't sell, he's in a no win situation as the media are desperate to moan about something. Win without mixing the side up and he's boring, mix the side up and win then we were always expected to, lose after mixing the side up and then he wasn't taking the game seriously. We really shouldn't lose with the team selected even if it is a bit dull.

FKAS wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 10:18 am

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 10:12 am

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 9:28 am

That backline makes the baby Jesus cry! It is a very safe selection. I'm guessing the pivot table of insight told Spreadsheet Believer that this was the best option. It is not very inspiring.

He's got credit in the bank, so test a few players and have a go at them. It just feels a bit meh.

Exactly.
The biggest risk is not risking anthing

We've got Theo Dan and AOF amongst the starting and bench front row that's a risk. Pollock, F Smith and Dingwall are still establishing themselves at international rugby. It's a dull side but the media will rip him a new one if England lose now. Positivity doesn't sell, he's in a no win situation as the media are desperate to moan about something. Win without mixing the side up and he's boring, mix the side up and win then we were always expected to, lose after mixing the side up and then he wasn't taking the game seriously. We really shouldn't lose with the team selected even if it is a bit dull.

Fin Smith isn't playing.

I think he's in a win win situation. Already won 3 games this autumn, and ten in a row. Beat the All Blacks last week. In terms of credit in the bank it doesn't get much better. Add in a raft of injuries and it's the perfect chance to say we're going to give a few players the chance against really tough opposition. Nobody is going to tear him apart for that. And it is only one or two players. An Arundell over Daly. Fin Smith over Ford. Give Pollock a start. Not pick Charlie Ewels at all. 5:3 bench. Give Ojomoh a chance off the bench. Can move Dingers out one and test his versatility, or keep Slade on. They'll only learn by playing.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 8:24 am I see no issue with picking Pollock because his potential is without question. Beyond starting him, though, who has not been selected who has a real convincing ceiling?

Ojomoh is mainly a 12 and he was ordinary at best in the 'A' fixture. Opinion might be that he may one day be better than Slade at 13 but now? No. He's a good club player and he may become a good international. An outstanding one? I doubt it.

To NOT play Dingwall at 12 at this stage in his development and after his performance v NZ would be utter folly, IMO.

Spencer/Mitchell is just a rotation/starting back-up effort. I would not have done it but where's another 9 demanding selection? I'd have started Quirke but can understand his omission.

Steward/Marcus is presumably a tactical choice. I'd discard Steward completely but his solidity (assuming he fully rediscovers it) is useful.

That leaves Daly/Arundell. I'd have picked Arundell but at least Daly is picked in his best position. Based on his form pre-injury, it is not a bad selection. SB has reported outstanding training camp form so that's that. He is good in the air, offers a great kicking option and is very experienced. SB is overdoing the versatility bit, IMO, but Daly does theoretically cover three positions.

I just don't see any further margin for experiment against Argentina if the object is being undefeated going into the 6N. I retain reservations about SB but I see him making real progress as a manager.

What happens if we lose Slade, Daly, or IFW to injury?

Steward goes to wing and MSmith to FB?

That means Steward, not exactly known for his blistering pace, and with a propensity to plant his feet and get done 1 on 1, will be playing wing.

Doesn't fill me with joy.

Outside of Spencer at 9, I don't really have a problem with the starting XV, but the bench...literally ANY back injury outside of 9 screws us. And I get it, he's looking at the players who are likely in the squad, and seeing how they perform...but what about the players who could get in? Are we that set in stone that the wingers will be IFW, Freeman, and Roebuck, with Daly as a utility back?

It just feels a bit like the backs are locked in at this point, and I don't like that. Because there is so much potential on the fringes. In people like Arundell. And yes, injuries have all come at the worst times, but that's generally what happens with injuries. So you need to roll with it.

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 10:31 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 10:18 am

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 10:12 am

Exactly.
The biggest risk is not risking anthing

We've got Theo Dan and AOF amongst the starting and bench front row that's a risk. Pollock, F Smith and Dingwall are still establishing themselves at international rugby. It's a dull side but the media will rip him a new one if England lose now. Positivity doesn't sell, he's in a no win situation as the media are desperate to moan about something. Win without mixing the side up and he's boring, mix the side up and win then we were always expected to, lose after mixing the side up and then he wasn't taking the game seriously. We really shouldn't lose with the team selected even if it is a bit dull.

Fin Smith isn't playing.

I think he's in a win win situation. Already won 3 games this autumn, and ten in a row. Beat the All Blacks last week. In terms of credit in the bank it doesn't get much better. Add in a raft of injuries and it's the perfect chance to say we're going to give a few players the chance against really tough opposition. Nobody is going to tear him apart for that. And it is only one or two players. An Arundell over Daly. Fin Smith over Ford. Give Pollock a start. Not pick Charlie Ewels at all. 5:3 bench. Give Ojomoh a chance off the bench. Can move Dingers out one and test his versatility, or keep Slade on. They'll only learn by playing.

None of those suggested changes excite me that much... think it would just be worsening the side overall. It's not necessarily an exciting team but we are starting AOF, Coles, Pepper, Dingers and IFW who are all early in their test careers. I rate Pollock highly but not sure I'd replace Earl for him.

Changes vs my suggested team:
Genge > Baxter - no problem - I just liked the impact that bringing on the entire first choice front row made
AOF > Heyes - no problem
Earl > CCS - this was more to give Earl a break, as one of two lions who've started every match

Ford > FSmith - not a problem, but safety first - I just wanted to continue Fin's development as an international
Slade > Ojomoh - safety first, and done to death - I've given up on Slade as an international player; and feel that some both under-rate Ojomoh, and are self-contradictory with what qualifies someone to play OC (15 for Freeman is more than enough, 21 for Ojomoh isn't enough; seeing Dingwall as an IC-only despite 2/3 of his game time at OC, or Lawrence as an IC without ever playing there)
Daly > Arundell - safety first - which is an odd thing to say when starting a 33 year old centre/FB on the wing for his first game in 5 months

Dan > Blamire - is fair enough - and again, done to death - I've kinda given up on Dan as an international player, SB hasn't
Ewels > Isiekwe/CCS - safety first - no problem with Ewels per se, but it loses us flexibility, and I was liking the idea of asking Itoje and Coles to go 80 and bring on a full backrow if injury/fatigue allowed - still seems harsh to kick CCS out entirely
Mitchel > Quirke - as with Earl, I was wanting to give our lions a break. No particular problem with 20 minutes off the bench being a mini-break though.

It’s not about making changes to excite you. It is about building real depth, challenging newbies at a higher level and dealing with injuries without resorting to the old guard.

The likes of Coles, Spencer, Ewels and Slade are not bringing the next WC home.

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 12:26 pm It’s not about making changes to excite you. It is about building real depth, challenging newbies at a higher level and dealing with injuries without resorting to the old guard.

The likes of Coles, Spencer, Ewels and Slade are not bringing the next WC home.

I agree that none of them would be in a match day 23 unless there were 7 or 8 injuries. Is there any fit player left out who would seriously threaten a first choice 23? All you are disputing is whether there are marginally better fringe players who should be tried out. SB apparently thinks this game is too important for further risks than he has taken. Seems fair enough to me.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 12:51 pm

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 12:26 pm It’s not about making changes to excite you. It is about building real depth, challenging newbies at a higher level and dealing with injuries without resorting to the old guard.

The likes of Coles, Spencer, Ewels and Slade are not bringing the next WC home.

I agree that none of them would be in a match day 23 unless there were 7 or 8 injuries. Is there any fit player left out who would seriously threaten a first choice 23? All you are disputing is whether there are marginally better fringe players who should be tried out. SB apparently thinks this game is too important for further risks than he has taken. Seems fair enough to me.

There is one player who I think could easily challenge for a spot in the first choice 23...and could be given a chance to show his ability chasing kicks, too, and that is Arundell. Freeman is great, and Roebuck has done very well so far...but it's like England cricket a couple of years back...a lot of decent medium fast bowlers, but where's the express pace?

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 12:51 pm Is there any fit player left out who would seriously threaten a first choice 23? All you are disputing is whether there are marginally better fringe players who should be tried out.

If you only invest in the first choice 23, you'll never get far in a RWC.
There's plenty who'd make a claim for the 33 who actually travel there, alone the next 8-10 to be first reserve.

SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 11:39 am

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 10:31 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 10:18 am

We've got Theo Dan and AOF amongst the starting and bench front row that's a risk. Pollock, F Smith and Dingwall are still establishing themselves at international rugby. It's a dull side but the media will rip him a new one if England lose now. Positivity doesn't sell, he's in a no win situation as the media are desperate to moan about something. Win without mixing the side up and he's boring, mix the side up and win then we were always expected to, lose after mixing the side up and then he wasn't taking the game seriously. We really shouldn't lose with the team selected even if it is a bit dull.

Fin Smith isn't playing.

I think he's in a win win situation. Already won 3 games this autumn, and ten in a row. Beat the All Blacks last week. In terms of credit in the bank it doesn't get much better. Add in a raft of injuries and it's the perfect chance to say we're going to give a few players the chance against really tough opposition. Nobody is going to tear him apart for that. And it is only one or two players. An Arundell over Daly. Fin Smith over Ford. Give Pollock a start. Not pick Charlie Ewels at all. 5:3 bench. Give Ojomoh a chance off the bench. Can move Dingers out one and test his versatility, or keep Slade on. They'll only learn by playing.

None of those suggested changes excite me that much... think it would just be worsening the side overall. It's not necessarily an exciting team but we are starting AOF, Coles, Pepper, Dingers and IFW who are all early in their test careers. I rate Pollock highly but not sure I'd replace Earl for him.

You're not excited by Arundell and Ojomoh?

And I didn't say for Earl.

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 10:31 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 10:18 am

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 10:12 am

Exactly.
The biggest risk is not risking anthing

We've got Theo Dan and AOF amongst the starting and bench front row that's a risk. Pollock, F Smith and Dingwall are still establishing themselves at international rugby. It's a dull side but the media will rip him a new one if England lose now. Positivity doesn't sell, he's in a no win situation as the media are desperate to moan about something. Win without mixing the side up and he's boring, mix the side up and win then we were always expected to, lose after mixing the side up and then he wasn't taking the game seriously. We really shouldn't lose with the team selected even if it is a bit dull.

Fin Smith isn't playing.

I think he's in a win win situation. Already won 3 games this autumn, and ten in a row. Beat the All Blacks last week. In terms of credit in the bank it doesn't get much better. Add in a raft of injuries and it's the perfect chance to say we're going to give a few players the chance against really tough opposition. Nobody is going to tear him apart for that. And it is only one or two players. An Arundell over Daly. Fin Smith over Ford. Give Pollock a start. Not pick Charlie Ewels at all. 5:3 bench. Give Ojomoh a chance off the bench. Can move Dingers out one and test his versatility, or keep Slade on. They'll only learn by playing.

Well damnit I could have sworn he was. More sleep and/or caffeine clearly required.

I would have given Fin this one. I'm not particularly bothered about Arundell a fourth choice winger with questionable aerial abilities even if he is absolutely rapid with an outrageous step. Either he impressed in training or he didn't. We've got wingers for days at this point in time with three that look entirely at home in international rugby. Ojomoh again, not that fussed. Seb Atkinson and Dingwall look to be the go to options at 12, had Ojomoh made himself impossible to ignore in training then great otherwise send him back to Bath with work ons and tell him to earn his chance. Not that I'm looking forward to another 5/10 standard Henry Slade offering.

The old ‘work on’ reasoning. Hopefully Slade has worked on not being so piss poor when pulling on an England shirt. Then again I bet he looks great in traing

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 2:33 pm The old ‘work on’ reasoning. Hopefully Slade has worked on not being so piss poor when pulling on an England shirt. Then again I bet he looks great in traing

That's the thing, it's not "Arundell and Ojomoh should be starting" it's "Slade and Daly should not be starting"

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 2:37 pm

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 2:33 pm The old ‘work on’ reasoning. Hopefully Slade has worked on not being so piss poor when pulling on an England shirt. Then again I bet he looks great in traing

That's the thing, it's not "Arundell and Ojomoh should be starting" it's "Slade and Daly should not be starting"

Again you put it perfectly.

Unbelievably, WT and I agree 100% on this one which means we must be right.
At the start of and during this AI there was a lot saying SB was doing a good job of building his squad. A couple of injuries in a handful of position and we’ve gone for the safe 30 something…

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 2:37 pm

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 2:33 pm The old ‘work on’ reasoning. Hopefully Slade has worked on not being so piss poor when pulling on an England shirt. Then again I bet he looks great in traing

That's the thing, it's not "Arundell and Ojomoh should be starting" it's "Slade and Daly should not be starting"

Got to say, pretty harsh to lump Daly in with Slade. Daly was good with England and the Lions pre injury, a real return to form (from somebody who thought he should have been dropped earlier than he was).