Team v Scotland - Announced!

[SDHoneymonster]

Does Chessum pack down as tight head lock for Tigers when he's not playing 6?

I'm pretty certain I've seen him pack down both sides. I wouldn't be hanging my hat in him being the second row scrumming powerhouse some may want, his work rate around the park and physicality with that mobility seems to be a theme for the pack. It's more mobile than we've seen since maybe the 2019 world cup when Lawes was at lock with Itoje and Billy was still effective.

Going to be very interesting to see how Borthwick gets these guys to play because the Eddie style forward power game isn't going to work. Three playmakers in the backline suggests the possibility of a more open attack but also it's a team you'd expect to be very competent in the kick chase, especially targeting that turnover directly after or in the first phase.

Well, Scotland is probably the team to play that way against.

Not like the power game has really worked against Scotland since we thumped them in 2017, anyway. Get the feeling there was always a bit of 'oh it's Scotland, we'll just beat them up front like we always do' in some of the recent games against them and they never quite grasped that Townsend and co had worked it out.

[Banquo]

That three quarter line could well work, but I just can't get over it looking all wrong. Does it feel like now we've gone back to Farrell at 12 (after everyone talking about him as a 10 again) we're likely going to see another 5 years of it?

I like the pack on the whole though. Has Chessum got the footwork for tight-head lock?

What is the deal with the leaks? Do they care? Is it intentional/un-prevented? Just seems weird to wait so long for team announcements if so.

I'd imagine Borthwick's pissed about it - he was very keen on controlling information as Leicester coach and to have the exact lineup released two days in advance is the opposite of his usual MO. There didn't seem to be any leaks under Eddie, despite the camp being a sieve under Burt (causing speculation that it was Tom Wood who had a hotline to the journos), so I wonder what's changed.

Chessum has played 5 for England and Leicester before, so it's within his skillset.

On Farrell at 12 - I know I have less of a problem with it than others, but it occurred to me that it may depend how Evans is lining it up. Under Jones/Gleeson, Farrell may've worn 12 but played 10 most of the time, with Smith being a wildcard that dipped in and out, which often had the downside of Smith looking lost, Farrell at 10, and us effectively playing with 6 backs. Given Evans has been big on clarity and simplicity and players knowing what they're doing, we might end up with Smith both wearing and playing at 10 and Farrell playing an orthodox 12, which might be better.

Yes, yes, I know, straws, clutching, etc.

Puja

Has he packed down on the tighthead side though? That said, I'd have thought Itoje would be the right build to do the job, so I wonder why he hasn't/doesn't.

Can't be ar5ed on Faz- its always the same circular debate where we are trying to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

[Puja]

That three quarter line could well work, but I just can't get over it looking all wrong. Does it feel like now we've gone back to Farrell at 12 (after everyone talking about him as a 10 again) we're likely going to see another 5 years of it?

I like the pack on the whole though. Has Chessum got the footwork for tight-head lock?

What is the deal with the leaks? Do they care? Is it intentional/un-prevented? Just seems weird to wait so long for team announcements if so.

I'd imagine Borthwick's pissed about it - he was very keen on controlling information as Leicester coach and to have the exact lineup released two days in advance is the opposite of his usual MO. There didn't seem to be any leaks under Eddie, despite the camp being a sieve under Burt (causing speculation that it was Tom Wood who had a hotline to the journos), so I wonder what's changed.

Chessum has played 5 for England and Leicester before, so it's within his skillset.

On Farrell at 12 - I know I have less of a problem with it than others, but it occurred to me that it may depend how Evans is lining it up. Under Jones/Gleeson, Farrell may've worn 12 but played 10 most of the time, with Smith being a wildcard that dipped in and out, which often had the downside of Smith looking lost, Farrell at 10, and us effectively playing with 6 backs. Given Evans has been big on clarity and simplicity and players knowing what they're doing, we might end up with Smith both wearing and playing at 10 and Farrell playing an orthodox 12, which might be better.

Yes, yes, I know, straws, clutching, etc.

Puja

Has he packed down on the tighthead side though? That said, I'd have thought Itoje would be the right build to do the job, so I wonder why he hasn't/doesn't.

Can't be ar5ed on Faz- its always the same circular debate where we are trying to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Ah, when I said 5, I meant packing behind the tighthead. He's done both for both Leicester and England.

Fair enough take on Faz - like the Yorkshireman giving directions, first off, I wouldn't start from here...

Puja

[fivepointer]

Very pleased to see OHC starting.
Curry back in is good news and seeing Lawrence on the bench is cause for a small cheer as is Walker getting a chance.
Less good is Farrell at 12, but that is hopefully just a short term fill in. Dont see Isiekwe as a better option than Ribbans and Malins on the wing seems a bit of a punt.
Cant wait to see 'em play.

[Spiffy]

As before, the 10/12 axis just doesn't look a good fit on paper (and hasn't in reality), and its a pretty lightweight back division- Freeman not being there at all is disappointing. Up front it's pretty mobile, to the point of maybe underpowered-ish-- assume Ludlam will be jumping?

There are four new units as far as I can tell, so that will take a while to gel.....but it looks like a very different style, run round rather than through, so will be fascinating, and at least we should be able to resource width in attack.

On the lightness of the backs, would you not say that OHC and Steward are of pretty solid physicality? I don't think I've ever seen Steward overpowered and OHC carries through traffic as well as anyone around. Marchant is sometimes perceived as a featherweight which I've never understood (ditto Slade).

Its not just literal weight . Steward is a unit, and OHC carries well at club level. But the rest aren't that physical, except for Farrell's rubbish tackling.

Looking forward to the Faz-Tuipulotu head to head (but not literally). The latter is in good form, a powerful runner with more to his game than just traditional bosh. Faz runs the risk of being an even less effective defender then usual if he is pussyfooting around in an attempt to keep his technique legal. He must be feeling that refs will have a tight eye on him now.

[Oakboy]

That three quarter line could well work, but I just can't get over it looking all wrong. Does it feel like now we've gone back to Farrell at 12 (after everyone talking about him as a 10 again) we're likely going to see another 5 years of it?

I like the pack on the whole though. Has Chessum got the footwork for tight-head lock?

What is the deal with the leaks? Do they care? Is it intentional/un-prevented? Just seems weird to wait so long for team announcements if so.

I'd imagine Borthwick's pissed about it - he was very keen on controlling information as Leicester coach and to have the exact lineup released two days in advance is the opposite of his usual MO. There didn't seem to be any leaks under Eddie, despite the camp being a sieve under Burt (causing speculation that it was Tom Wood who had a hotline to the journos), so I wonder what's changed.

Chessum has played 5 for England and Leicester before, so it's within his skillset.

On Farrell at 12 - I know I have less of a problem with it than others, but it occurred to me that it may depend how Evans is lining it up. Under Jones/Gleeson, Farrell may've worn 12 but played 10 most of the time, with Smith being a wildcard that dipped in and out, which often had the downside of Smith looking lost, Farrell at 10, and us effectively playing with 6 backs. Given Evans has been big on clarity and simplicity and players knowing what they're doing, we might end up with Smith both wearing and playing at 10 and Farrell playing an orthodox 12, which might be better.

Yes, yes, I know, straws, clutching, etc.

Puja

Clutch away, Puja! Of course, it may simply be that SB's intention was only to play Farrell at 12 if he was the last man standing. Injuries have taken the squad pretty close to that, certainly to the extent that he could not justify Lawrence in the shirt having not selected him originally. (It also assumes that Tuilagi's performance in training has not impressed.)

The current situation may be good in one respect. Either Evans will get something constructive from Smith/Farrell (proving that decent coaching is needed to achieve it) or he won't and the idea can be permanently dumped. That could be described as progress either way, arguably.

[Banquo]

Very pleased to see OHC starting.
Curry back in is good news and seeing Lawrence on the bench is cause for a small cheer as is Walker getting a chance.
Less good is Farrell at 12, but that is hopefully just a short term fill in. Dont see Isiekwe as a better option than Ribbans and Malins on the wing seems a bit of a punt.
Cant wait to see 'em play.

Who is he filling in for? Dan Kelly I suppose, but if Kelly was going to play then Faz would be at 10; Faz/Kelly is a vastly different prospect to Smith/Faz you'd think, so the fill in has a consequence.

[Oakboy]

Very pleased to see OHC starting.
Curry back in is good news and seeing Lawrence on the bench is cause for a small cheer as is Walker getting a chance.
Less good is Farrell at 12, but that is hopefully just a short term fill in. Dont see Isiekwe as a better option than Ribbans and Malins on the wing seems a bit of a punt.
Cant wait to see 'em play.

Who is he filling in for? Dan Kelly I suppose, but if Kelly was going to play then Faz would be at 10; Faz/Kelly is a vastly different prospect to Smith/Faz you'd think, so the fill in has a consequence.

Per BBC:

'Farrell was expected to start at fly-half before Slade's injury meant he had to step out to 12 and make way for Smith.'

It could be bollix of course but with the press knowing most of what was going on apparently, it makes you wonder.

[Banquo]

Very pleased to see OHC starting.
Curry back in is good news and seeing Lawrence on the bench is cause for a small cheer as is Walker getting a chance.
Less good is Farrell at 12, but that is hopefully just a short term fill in. Dont see Isiekwe as a better option than Ribbans and Malins on the wing seems a bit of a punt.
Cant wait to see 'em play.

Who is he filling in for? Dan Kelly I suppose, but if Kelly was going to play then Faz would be at 10; Faz/Kelly is a vastly different prospect to Smith/Faz you'd think, so the fill in has a consequence.

Per BBC:

'Farrell was expected to start at fly-half before Slade's injury meant he had to step out to 12 and make way for Smith.'

It could be bollix of course but with the press knowing most of what was going on apparently, it makes you wonder.

Slade at 12 and Faz at 10. Well....

[Oakboy]

Who is he filling in for? Dan Kelly I suppose, but if Kelly was going to play then Faz would be at 10; Faz/Kelly is a vastly different prospect to Smith/Faz you'd think, so the fill in has a consequence.

Per BBC:

'Farrell was expected to start at fly-half before Slade's injury meant he had to step out to 12 and make way for Smith.'

It could be bollix of course but with the press knowing most of what was going on apparently, it makes you wonder.

Slade at 12 and Faz at 10. Well....

Or, Kelly/Slade at 12/13 with Marchant not trusted to mentor the youngster?

[Banquo]

Per BBC:

'Farrell was expected to start at fly-half before Slade's injury meant he had to step out to 12 and make way for Smith.'

It could be bollix of course but with the press knowing most of what was going on apparently, it makes you wonder.

Slade at 12 and Faz at 10. Well....

Or, Kelly/Slade at 12/13 with Marchant not trusted to mentor the youngster?

That's quite an elaborate explanation ! But possible given how little common sense has applied to backs selection for ages.

[Scrumhead]

That three quarter line could well work, but I just can't get over it looking all wrong. Does it feel like now we've gone back to Farrell at 12 (after everyone talking about him as a 10 again) we're likely going to see another 5 years of it?

I like the pack on the whole though. Has Chessum got the footwork for tight-head lock?

What is the deal with the leaks? Do they care? Is it intentional/un-prevented? Just seems weird to wait so long for team announcements if so.

I'd imagine Borthwick's pissed about it - he was very keen on controlling information as Leicester coach and to have the exact lineup released two days in advance is the opposite of his usual MO. There didn't seem to be any leaks under Eddie, despite the camp being a sieve under Burt (causing speculation that it was Tom Wood who had a hotline to the journos), so I wonder what's changed.

Chessum has played 5 for England and Leicester before, so it's within his skillset.

On Farrell at 12 - I know I have less of a problem with it than others, but it occurred to me that it may depend how Evans is lining it up. Under Jones/Gleeson, Farrell may've worn 12 but played 10 most of the time, with Smith being a wildcard that dipped in and out, which often had the downside of Smith looking lost, Farrell at 10, and us effectively playing with 6 backs. Given Evans has been big on clarity and simplicity and players knowing what they're doing, we might end up with Smith both wearing and playing at 10 and Farrell playing an orthodox 12, which might be better.

Yes, yes, I know, straws, clutching, etc.

Puja

Clutch away, Puja! Of course, it may simply be that SB's intention was only to play Farrell at 12 if he was the last man standing. Injuries have taken the squad pretty close to that, certainly to the extent that he could not justify Lawrence in the shirt having not selected him originally. (It also assumes that Tuilagi's performance in training has not impressed.)

The current situation may be good in one respect. Either Evans will get something constructive from Smith/Farrell (proving that decent coaching is needed to achieve it) or he won't and the idea can be permanently dumped. That could be described as progress either way, arguably.

Yep. That’s more or less what I was getting at on the other thread.

Evans knows Marcus Smith’s game inside out and will presumably want to play to his strengths. I’d hope that maximises his role and flips the dynamic on it’s head. I’d like to see how it works with Smith leading and Farrell playing second fiddle as it doesn’t really work the other way around.

That said, I’m happy to reserve judgement considering the only evidence we have of them playing in tandem is under Eddie/Gleeson’s gameplan. I’d like to think it will be different under Borthwick/Evans.

[Scrumhead]

As an aside, I’m still somewhat uncomfortable with the ‘new normal’ of agreeing with Oakboy

The world really has tilted on its axis …

[p/d]

I think Farrell, Kelly & Slade were bang on to start. Losing the cheese and relish of that particular ploughman's left SB little choice but to opt for the prawns and Marie rose to link up with the limp lettuce.

[p/d]

As an aside, I’m still somewhat uncomfortable with the ‘new normal’ of agreeing with Oakboy

The world really has tilted on its axis …

I was starting to think that in your haste to reply you kept hitting the 'thumb up' by mistake.

[Oakboy]

As an aside, I’m still somewhat uncomfortable with the ‘new normal’ of agreeing with Oakboy

The world really has tilted on its axis …

Ah, seriously, just for once - our fundamental disagreement involved Jones. He has now gone. Whatever our differences then, our interest in 'everything rugby' now involves a new England coaching regime. Let's just start afresh. It is a joy to be optimistic whatever turns out to be the case.

(Even if it seems strange . . . . )

[Mikey Brown]

I think Farrell, Kelly & Slade were bang on to start. Losing the cheese and relish of that particular ploughman's left SB little choice but to opt for the prawns and Marie rose to link up with the limp lettuce.

What a disturbing read that was.

[Scrumhead]

As an aside, I’m still somewhat uncomfortable with the ‘new normal’ of agreeing with Oakboy

The world really has tilted on its axis …

Ah, seriously, just for once - our fundamental disagreement involved Jones. He has now gone. Whatever our differences then, our interest in 'everything rugby' now involves a new England coaching regime. Let's just start afresh. It is a joy to be optimistic whatever turns out to be the case.

(Even if it seems strange . . . . )

I know. Hence the wink!

[Mellsblue]

I think Farrell, Kelly & Slade were bang on to start. Losing the cheese and relish of that particular ploughman's left SB little choice but to opt for the prawns and Marie rose to link up with the limp lettuce.

What a disturbing read that was.

p/d Wodehouse

[Scrumhead]

I enjoyed reading this: https://www.rugbypass.com/news/steve-bo ... gland-axe/

The quotes re. Marchant and Lawrence are exactly what I want to hear.

[Beasties]

Couple of minor quibbles with that. Malins on wing the obv one, and a minor skirmish over whether Ribbans or Chessum should be starting. I’m just glad both are in the squad to start with, that’s a step forward in itself. Can’t be arsed to mention Farrell of course…..

Main achievement is the relief at looking at an Eng team sheet and not thinking WTAF??

[p/d]

The one name I’m pleased not to see in the squad is Finishers…… he has been pants over the last few years.

[Galfon]

Very pleased to see OHC starting.
Curry back in is good news and seeing Lawrence on the bench is cause for a small cheer as is Walker getting a chance.
Less good is Farrell at 12, but that is hopefully just a short term fill in. Dont see Isiekwe as a better option than Ribbans and Malins on the wing seems a bit of a punt.
Cant wait to see 'em play.

Agree with this - hope Lawrence gets a pass or 2 in this fixture if he gets on ( last time must have been soul destroying..).
Hope Eng play the NZ ref team intelligently.
The Curry listed is 'B' version (not before time!).

[jngf]

Like the balance of our back row - this being the Calcutta cup and for those who remember rugby in the 80s ,Ben Curry succeeding Tom reminds me of Finlay Calder succeeding Jim Calder.

[Banquo]

Like the balance of our back row - this being the Calcutta cup and for those who remember rugby in the 80s ,Ben Curry succeeding Tom reminds me of Finlay Calder succeeding Jim Calder.

Not sure that's quite what happened- Jim was a 6 replaced by Jeffrey, and Finlay a 7 replacing David Leslie iirc. It was odd that they never played together for Scotland and they were indeed twins.