RugbyRebels

Ewels is injured isn’t he? Pretty sure he’s not there.

Isiekwe benching is fine. I’m pretty confident Kenningham would be one of those players who instantly looks at home at test level, but he isn’t Tom Curry.

Of course he is, sorry.
In which case, Isiekwe and Kenningham

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 7:04 pm Ewels is injured isn’t he? Pretty sure he’s not there.

Isiekwe benching is fine. I’m pretty confident Kenningham would be one of those players who instantly looks at home at test level, but he isn’t Tom Curry.

Useful in the lineout too. Curry seems to have reached Haskell levels of muscularity where he can barely get his arms above his head.

I feel bad for Isiekwe but I just can’t see ever really being worth a spot. I think he’s a 6 that is unfortunately a bit too tall / not as good as Lawes.

I'd be inclined for minimal changes personally. The Pumas are a dangerous side and having a clean sweep this autumn is exactly the sort of boost we need. Keeps the winning run going, keeps the narrative in the media positive (whereas they've been keen to put the boot in previously).

I wouldn't give caps to anyone unless we think that there's a decent chance they'll be an option in 2 years time.

Same here. Kenningham would be the only uncapped player in consideration and capping him from the bench would be with the intention of preserving Curry.

Looks like Freeman won't be available, and Lawrence facing a late fitness test.

If it's his Achilles, then don't bother with the test, and just sit him out. Either way, if he's out,mId give Ojomoh his shot. I see nothing to be gained by going back to Slade yet again - however good his club form is, he's never transferred that to the international stage.

Lawrence out would be a big blow.

I’m not against Ojomoh getting his chance but I’m not sure he and Dingwall would complement each other well.

Ordinarily, I’d agree re. Slade but I’d probably be tempted to pick him if we’ve lost Lawrence.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 8:32 am Lawrence out would be a big blow.

I’m not against Ojomoh getting his chance but I’m not sure he and Dingwall would complement each other well.

Ordinarily, I’d agree re. Slade but I’d probably be tempted to pick him if we’ve lost Lawrence.

Yes. Sometimes a step back matters little if there's been three forward. Coping with injuries is part of the building process and having a safe option to cover for a single game is the logical choice. Longer-term it is less disruptive. Lawrence or Freeman will wear 13 to start the 6N.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 8:32 am Lawrence out would be a big blow.

I’m not against Ojomoh getting his chance but I’m not sure he and Dingwall would complement each other well.

Ordinarily, I’d agree re. Slade but I’d probably be tempted to pick him if we’ve lost Lawrence.

Ojomoh is that rare centre who goes both ways ( ) - he can play a very distributy-second-10 job, but he's also a good runner in and of himself. I don't think picking him would replicate the "too many playmakers" issue of the Ford/Farrell/Slade midfield, as he'd slot in as a classic 13. Agreed that Lawrence out would be a big loss though, as Ojomoh is still a step off test quality in my mind.

If Lawrence does fail his fitness test, I wonder if Staunch Backpicker might try his oft-mooted plan of Earl at 12. I can actually think of far worse ideas after having watched him intently for the m-b-ms and I wouldn't hate it being given a proper trial.

Puja

IFW to 13. You heard it here first.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 9:26 am Yes. Sometimes a step back matters little if there's been three forward. Coping with injuries is part of the building process and having a safe option to cover for a single game is the logical choice. Longer-term it is less disruptive. Lawrence or Freeman will wear 13 to start the 6N.

How about, after taking 3 steps forward... taking a 4th step forward?
Giving a shot to a young player who has earned it, has a higher ceiling and could be one for a future.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 10:12 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 9:26 am Yes. Sometimes a step back matters little if there's been three forward. Coping with injuries is part of the building process and having a safe option to cover for a single game is the logical choice. Longer-term it is less disruptive. Lawrence or Freeman will wear 13 to start the 6N.

How about, after taking 3 steps forward... taking a 4th step forward?
Giving a shot to a young player who has earned it, has a higher ceiling and could be one for a future.

Does Borthwick think he'll be an option for the world cup in two years time. If the answer is yes then cap him, if not then reshuffle the existing squad. That's how I'd approach all of the potential changes for this weekend.

If the coaches don't really fancy either of Slade or Ojomoh going forward then maybe now is the time to see Earl at 12 and ask Dingwall to cover 13 (which he often does in defence anyway).

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 10:12 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 9:26 am Yes. Sometimes a step back matters little if there's been three forward. Coping with injuries is part of the building process and having a safe option to cover for a single game is the logical choice. Longer-term it is less disruptive. Lawrence or Freeman will wear 13 to start the 6N.

How about, after taking 3 steps forward... taking a 4th step forward?
Giving a shot to a young player who has earned it, has a higher ceiling and could be one for a future.

Because the coaches have access to a hell of a lot more data and insight than we do, and will be making their decision based on many other factors.

Will Ojomah go to the WC barring a catastrophic injury crisis? Probably not.

Anyone think Daly might get a shot there...lol.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 10:12 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 9:26 am Yes. Sometimes a step back matters little if there's been three forward. Coping with injuries is part of the building process and having a safe option to cover for a single game is the logical choice. Longer-term it is less disruptive. Lawrence or Freeman will wear 13 to start the 6N.

How about, after taking 3 steps forward... taking a 4th step forward?
Giving a shot to a young player who has earned it, has a higher ceiling and could be one for a future.

I think beating Argentina is too important to fiddle about to that extent. In any case, I'd see Ojomoh as a Dingwall alternative, probably picking him with Lawrence rather than in place of him at some point. Also, I thought his 'A' performance did not advance his cause.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 9:49 am IFW to 13. You heard it here first.

Presume this is in jest but didn’t he come through as a 13 in academy?

Anyway, with Lawrence having defended (and often attacked) at 12 with Dingwall at 13, this seems perfect time to play Earl centre. We can start CCS at 8.

I’m surprised to be saying this, but Earl at 12 with Dingwall at 13 and CCS in at 8 sounds more interesting than Slade or Ojomoh coming into the centres.

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 11:34 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 9:49 am IFW to 13. You heard it here first.

Presume this is in jest but didn’t he come through as a 13 in academy?

Anyway, with Lawrence having defended (and often attacked) at 12 with Dingwall at 13, this seems perfect time to play Earl centre. We can start CCS at 8.

It was said in jest but I wouldn’t be against given we’re in extremis. If Daly or M. Smith are at 15 then moving IFW to 13 and bringing Arudell on to the wing has quite a rounded look to it. Granted, IFW ain’t going to pass but then neither did Freeman and I’ve been assured his the future at 13. It would also help with the flexibility of a match day 23, assuming Borthwick is wedded to 6:2 split, if IFW can play at 13 if required due in an in-game injury or injuries.

Earl has to play 8 - he was absolutely magnificent vs NZ, reward him by letting him keep the shirt. He's become a world class 8 to be honest, that performance was outstanding and if he was 3 inches taller nobody would ever question him.

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 10:31 amBecause the coaches have access to a hell of a lot more data and insight than we do, and will be making their decision based on many other factors.

Will Ojomah go to the WC barring a catastrophic injury crisis? Probably not.

Anyone think Daly might get a shot there...lol.

1] - well that's one way to make sure a discussion forum can't have any discussion

2] - Define catastrophic - I mean, he's 3rd choice IC, and in the squad for the AIs, and could easily be seen as 3rd choice OC. As such, I'd argue that he's 1 injury to any of SAtkinson, Dingwall or Lawrence from being in a RWC squad.

3] - I didn't even think of that, but if none of our full backs are fit, wouldn't he be needed back there as a higher priority?



As for other comments - I do NOT want us to start a test match with Earl in the centres; I certainly can't see him being a better option there than Ojomoh, and especially if the idea of beating Argentina has any merit to it.
I'd rather Slade than Earl - hell, I'd rather Will Butt than Earl in the centres

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 1:40 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 10:31 amBecause the coaches have access to a hell of a lot more data and insight than we do, and will be making their decision based on many other factors.

Will Ojomah go to the WC barring a catastrophic injury crisis? Probably not.

Anyone think Daly might get a shot there...lol.

1] - well that's one way to make sure a discussion forum can't have any discussion

2] - Define catastrophic - I mean, he's 3rd choice IC, and in the squad for the AIs, and could easily be seen as 3rd choice OC. As such, I'd argue that he's 1 injury to any of SAtkinson, Dingwall or Lawrence from being in a RWC squad.

3] - I didn't even think of that, but if none of our full backs are fit, wouldn't he be needed back there as a higher priority?



As for other comments - I do NOT want us to start a test match with Earl in the centres; I certainly can't see him being a better option there than Ojomoh, and especially if the idea of beating Argentina has any merit to it.
I'd rather Slade than Earl - hell, I'd rather Will Butt than Earl in the centres

I still reckon SB wants to build minutes into a likely 35ish man squad. So if he feels like he can sacrifice a center to get another backrow in...and Earl can cover...he'll want to find that out.

I'm with you on not picking Earl in the backs, mind, but I just feel we're probably looking at squad makeup right now, and I'll be honest in that I'm not watching as much club rugby as I used to...

Will Freeman miss out for sure?

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 2:06 pm Will Freeman miss out for sure?

He's been reported as confirmed out, with Lawrence "facing a late fitness test"

As for the RWC squad - I was going to post something on that after the Argentina game.
We're still 2 years out, so he shouldn't have the whole squad inked in with no room to manoeuvre yet, and still has plenty of time to get the odd match here or there to players who are likely to be first replacement.

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 2:06 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 1:40 pm As for other comments - I do NOT want us to start a test match with Earl in the centres; I certainly can't see him being a better option there than Ojomoh, and especially if the idea of beating Argentina has any merit to it.
I'd rather Slade than Earl - hell, I'd rather Will Butt than Earl in the centres

I still reckon SB wants to build minutes into a likely 35ish man squad. So if he feels like he can sacrifice a center to get another backrow in...and Earl can cover...he'll want to find that out.

I'm with you on not picking Earl in the backs, mind, but I just feel we're probably looking at squad makeup right now, and I'll be honest in that I'm not watching as much club rugby as I used to...

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 1:18 pm Earl has to play 8 - he was absolutely magnificent vs NZ, reward him by letting him keep the shirt. He's become a world class 8 to be honest, that performance was outstanding and if he was 3 inches taller nobody would ever question him.

I'm actually coming around to the view that Earl at 12 is a damned useful option regardless of emergencies. While he was phenomenal at 8 against New Zealand, he wasn't actually used very much as a straightforward 8 in that game - he defended as a third centre, attacked as a third centre for most of the time and, while he did spend more time clearing out rucks on our attack than Dingwall, it wasn't by a large amount. His carries weren't rumbles around the corner, but hard runs off 9 where he beat players with footwork and pace - we have used Lawrence in an awfully similar way in the past (granted, highly ineffectively as that's not Lawrence's strength).

He won't be a second-five-eighth or throw a three-player miss-pass, but he's got decent hands and composure and I've rarely exclaimed in frustration at his passing. There is the question of defensive positioning in midfield, but he stands there for England 90% of the time anyway and seems pretty good at it.

I'd rather have Dingwall or SAtkinson for their creative abilities, but if there is a game where we'd be best suited with a crash ball 12 who can run hard and make dents, show guile and footwork and offloading/pull-back skills at the gainline, and make his tackles, he could definitely do a job.

Put another way, what skill or ability does he lack that makes him unsuitable to play centre? That's a genuine question - I'm a front row, so I'm sure I'm missing something.

Puja

1. We should pick the best team to win. 2. Are Earl's hands really good enough for 80 minutes at 12? 3. At this particular point (allowing for two injured OCs and his development at IC after his best game so far), why would you NOT pick Dingwall at 12?

In the mooted lineup being discussed, Dingwall is shifted one out to 13. A position he’s familiar with.

If Lawrence is out and it’s a choice between Dingwall/Slade, Dingwall/Ojomoh or Earl/Dingwall, I can kind of see merits to all three combinations.

I haven't seen a squad update which usually happens early in the week - even with a Sunday KO I assume that means no new ins or outs.

I wouldn't like to experiment too much in this test - I'd rather do that against Italy and Wales in the Six Nations if needed. Therefore if Lawrence is out then I'd be looking at Slade at 13 - his club form warrants it and he knows the defensive system well.