RugbyRebels

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:31 pm What we learn from a trip to Argentina is that we get battered there taking half our first team and the media subsequently get all over Borthwick for it.

Agreed the odd player may benefit from it but that hardly helps us build a head of steam or takes any pressure of the coaching team. We’ll probably start with South Africa in the autumn just to keep that pressure right on…

We won't get battered. The exact same thing happened in 2017, we were told we'd get absolutely clumped against an Argentina side that'd recently beat South Africa home and away, and we ended up winning both tests while testing Genge, TCurry, Underhill, Wilson, Slade, the latter four of whom were important parts of the 2019 RWC run.

Our strength in depth is such that our 3rd XV is not a huge distance off our 1st XV - the problem always tends to be getting a 1sts that're great rather than just okay-good.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:56 pm

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:31 pm What we learn from a trip to Argentina is that we get battered there taking half our first team and the media subsequently get all over Borthwick for it.

Agreed the odd player may benefit from it but that hardly helps us build a head of steam or takes any pressure of the coaching team. We’ll probably start with South Africa in the autumn just to keep that pressure right on…

We won't get battered. The exact same thing happened in 2017, we were told we'd get absolutely clumped against an Argentina side that'd recently beat South Africa home and away, and we ended up winning both tests while testing Genge, TCurry, Underhill, Wilson, Slade, the latter four of whom were important parts of the 2019 RWC run.

Our strength in depth is such that our 3rd XV is not a huge distance off our 1st XV - the problem always tends to be getting a 1sts that're great rather than just okay-good.

Puja

Yep. We have lots of good players but few outstanding ones.

A squad containing Baxter, Rodd, Dan, Langdon, Heyes, Fasogbon, AOF, Ewels, Coles, Batley, Clark, Hill, CCS, B Curry, Pearson, Willis, Fisilau, Randall, JvP, Smith, Ford, Atkinson, Ojomoh, Lawrence, Dingwall, Roebuck, Murley, Sleightholme, Steward and Furbank doesnt look too shabby at all.

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:56 pm

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:31 pm What we learn from a trip to Argentina is that we get battered there taking half our first team and the media subsequently get all over Borthwick for it.

Agreed the odd player may benefit from it but that hardly helps us build a head of steam or takes any pressure of the coaching team. We’ll probably start with South Africa in the autumn just to keep that pressure right on…

We won't get battered. The exact same thing happened in 2017, we were told we'd get absolutely clumped against an Argentina side that'd recently beat South Africa home and away, and we ended up winning both tests while testing Genge, TCurry, Underhill, Wilson, Slade, the latter four of whom were important parts of the 2019 RWC run.

Our strength in depth is such that our 3rd XV is not a huge distance off our 1st XV - the problem always tends to be getting a 1sts that're great rather than just okay-good.

Puja

Was it not more a case of "hey, let's remove the comfort blanket of Farrell, et al., and suddenly England can play rugby...

Happened against NZ before, too, when Freddie Burns had that game.

Truth is, England coaches seem to get stuck in a rut and pick the "same old" in positions where they feel the alternatives "are not up to it", when those incumbents are holding us back.

The only issue is that Slade an Lawrence are highly unlikely to go with the Lions, so we'll likely be stuck with them...and they're the ones we need to jettison.

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:31 pm What we learn from a trip to Argentina is that we get battered there taking half our first team and the media subsequently get all over Borthwick for it.

Agreed the odd player may benefit from it but that hardly helps us build a head of steam or takes any pressure of the coaching team. We’ll probably start with South Africa in the autumn just to keep that pressure right on…

I’m not sure what your angle is here? Are you saying we should only play teams we expect to comfortably beat in order to ‘build up a head of steam’ or take ‘pressure off the coaching team’? I mean it’s a nice idea, but given the test calendar is booked a year (or more) in advance, you’d have to line up a list of no-hopers to be sure they wouldn’t have enough of an uptick in form to be dangerously competitive. In any case, a successful team doesn’t avoid competitive matches for fear of being beaten.

As always, context is key here too. There’s the small matter of the 6 Nations first.

If we have a poor tournament, touring Argentina without some key players feels like a daunting prospect. However, a poor 6N probably also equals fewer Lions absentees and gives Borthwick the justification for a hard reset. I suspect two poor losses in that scenario would be the end of Borthwick (fairly IMO).

OTOH, if we have a good 6 Nations and the mood around the squad is good, I wouldn’t rule out us going there and getting 2 wins, even without Lions absentees.

In reality, I think it’ll probably somewhere in between - an acceptable 6N followed by a decent tour with the spoils shared.

I don’t think there is anything to suggest we go there and get ‘battered’. They rarely beat us and while I’d expect hem to be favourites at home and can see them winning both, I doubt there will be much in it.

TLDR:

1. We won’t get battered
2. A lot depends on how we do in the 6N
3. We have no idea how many we’ll be missing to the Lions (it might only be a handful)
4. Even two losses might be acceptable if the likes of Fin Smith, Tom Willis and new centres (my preference would be Atkinson and Beard) do well.

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 7:37 am

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:56 pm

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:31 pm What we learn from a trip to Argentina is that we get battered there taking half our first team and the media subsequently get all over Borthwick for it.

Agreed the odd player may benefit from it but that hardly helps us build a head of steam or takes any pressure of the coaching team. We’ll probably start with South Africa in the autumn just to keep that pressure right on…

We won't get battered. The exact same thing happened in 2017, we were told we'd get absolutely clumped against an Argentina side that'd recently beat South Africa home and away, and we ended up winning both tests while testing Genge, TCurry, Underhill, Wilson, Slade, the latter four of whom were important parts of the 2019 RWC run.

Our strength in depth is such that our 3rd XV is not a huge distance off our 1st XV - the problem always tends to be getting a 1sts that're great rather than just okay-good.

Puja

Was it not more a case of "hey, let's remove the comfort blanket of Farrell, et al., and suddenly England can play rugby...

Happened against NZ before, too, when Freddie Burns had that game.

Truth is, England coaches seem to get stuck in a rut and pick the "same old" in positions where they feel the alternatives "are not up to it", when those incumbents are holding us back.

The only issue is that Slade an Lawrence are highly unlikely to go with the Lions, so we'll likely be stuck with them...and they're the ones we need to jettison.

True. However, if we don’t have a good 6N, I’d argue that combination will be among the first on the chopping block.

Who knows how the 6N will pan out for our players but it's not hard to imagine Marcus going with the Lions but not getting on the pitch or somehow diminishing his rep. Meanwhile, Fin excels against Argentina resulting in increased clamour for him to get the 10 shirt in the AIs.

Fair enough? Arguably.

Alternatively, if the Lions did not happen and we toured Australia? It's all about what's best for England, IMO.

The fewer we lose to the Lions the better.

I just don’t really see the problem. I don’t think Borthwick is so thin-skinned as to be bothered by criticism of a depleted team away in Argentina. You’d expect a lot of the fair weather supporters would be following the Lions instead, anyway.

It seems like a good fit to be honest.

We need to establish some strength in depth in the front 5 and halfbacks anyway. We’ve got great options in the backrow and back three. Shame Lawrence and Slade likely won’t be bothering selectors, as you say, but I don’t really see the problem beyond that.

Marcus Smith might diminish his reputation by not getting in the test team? I just don’t understand this point.

Losing Mitchell again would be annoying, but we still need more than 1 decent option at 9.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:08 am

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 7:37 am

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:56 pm

We won't get battered. The exact same thing happened in 2017, we were told we'd get absolutely clumped against an Argentina side that'd recently beat South Africa home and away, and we ended up winning both tests while testing Genge, TCurry, Underhill, Wilson, Slade, the latter four of whom were important parts of the 2019 RWC run.

Our strength in depth is such that our 3rd XV is not a huge distance off our 1st XV - the problem always tends to be getting a 1sts that're great rather than just okay-good.

Puja

Was it not more a case of "hey, let's remove the comfort blanket of Farrell, et al., and suddenly England can play rugby...

Happened against NZ before, too, when Freddie Burns had that game.

Truth is, England coaches seem to get stuck in a rut and pick the "same old" in positions where they feel the alternatives "are not up to it", when those incumbents are holding us back.

The only issue is that Slade an Lawrence are highly unlikely to go with the Lions, so we'll likely be stuck with them...and they're the ones we need to jettison.

True. However, if we don’t have a good 6N, I’d argue that combination will be among the first on the chopping block.

I’m not sure.

Laurence has had so many chances and consistently shown that he has neither the handling nor the awareness to be an international center.

Slade, despite his experience, still makes the mistakes of a 22 year old. And has done for all but 1 year of the past 4.

But they still both get picked. Why?

Because they’re “safe”. Laurence makes mistakes in attack, not defense, and who cares about that, right? And Slade can kick the ball, we always need that, right?

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 7:37 am

The only issue is that Slade an Lawrence are highly unlikely to go with the Lions, so we'll likely be stuck with them...and they're the ones we need to jettison.

Assuming that the two competitive competitions (6N and RWC) must involve 'our best XV today', how can a new combo get game time the way we do things? SB failed to experiment in the AIs. If he does not experiment with summer tours, that just leaves the odd 'A' fixture, doesn't it?

I've always stuck up for Slade but with zero progress in developing a cente pairing even with the departure of Farrell from the reckoning, I'd argue that neither he nor Lawrence should go to Argentina regardless of Lions absentees.

As ever, with bringing in new players, there has to be scope (game time) for failure - X couldn't do it, try Y etc.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:49 am

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 7:37 am

The only issue is that Slade an Lawrence are highly unlikely to go with the Lions, so we'll likely be stuck with them...and they're the ones we need to jettison.

Assuming that the two competitive competitions (6N and RWC) must involve 'our best XV today', how can a new combo get game time the way we do things? SB failed to experiment in the AIs. If he does not experiment with summer tours, that just leaves the odd 'A' fixture, doesn't it?

I've always stuck up for Slade but with zero progress in developing a cente pairing even with the departure of Farrell from the reckoning, I'd argue that neither he nor Lawrence should go to Argentina regardless of Lions absentees.

As ever, with bringing in new players, there has to be scope (game time) for failure - X couldn't do it, try Y etc.

My biggest problem.

I may be taking an extreme view, but I really do believe that "anything but Lawrence" is the right answer. I just don't get it from watching him. His vision and handling are just poor, he doesn't make big metres after contact, his ball presentation is crap...I just don't see an upside.

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 9:30 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:49 am

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 7:37 am

The only issue is that Slade an Lawrence are highly unlikely to go with the Lions, so we'll likely be stuck with them...and they're the ones we need to jettison.

Assuming that the two competitive competitions (6N and RWC) must involve 'our best XV today', how can a new combo get game time the way we do things? SB failed to experiment in the AIs. If he does not experiment with summer tours, that just leaves the odd 'A' fixture, doesn't it?

I've always stuck up for Slade but with zero progress in developing a cente pairing even with the departure of Farrell from the reckoning, I'd argue that neither he nor Lawrence should go to Argentina regardless of Lions absentees.

As ever, with bringing in new players, there has to be scope (game time) for failure - X couldn't do it, try Y etc.

My biggest problem.

I may be taking an extreme view, but I really do believe that "anything but Lawrence" is the right answer. I just don't get it from watching him. His vision and handling are just poor, he doesn't make big metres after contact, his ball presentation is crap...I just don't see an upside.

Quite. I don't think it was any sort of mistake to pick him or persevere with him - up to a point. Despite what has sometimes been said, it is not just about him playing out of position. Neither is it Slade's fault. No player has been more pissed about than him in terms of accommodating others. I suspect that had he been given the 12 shirt instead of Farrell he would have owned it. It's too late now and both of them should be dumped.

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 9:30 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:49 am

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 7:37 am

The only issue is that Slade an Lawrence are highly unlikely to go with the Lions, so we'll likely be stuck with them...and they're the ones we need to jettison.

Assuming that the two competitive competitions (6N and RWC) must involve 'our best XV today', how can a new combo get game time the way we do things? SB failed to experiment in the AIs. If he does not experiment with summer tours, that just leaves the odd 'A' fixture, doesn't it?

I've always stuck up for Slade but with zero progress in developing a cente pairing even with the departure of Farrell from the reckoning, I'd argue that neither he nor Lawrence should go to Argentina regardless of Lions absentees.

As ever, with bringing in new players, there has to be scope (game time) for failure - X couldn't do it, try Y etc.

My biggest problem.

I may be taking an extreme view, but I really do believe that "anything but Lawrence" is the right answer. I just don't get it from watching him. His vision and handling are just poor, he doesn't make big metres after contact, his ball presentation is crap...I just don't see an upside.

Well at least he’s not Slade?

On a more serious point I suspect we won’t unearth a decent Centre test partnership until RFU pick a head coach/selector who was a back in his playing days rather than a forward. I know SCW is a marmite character on here but he did, by and large, get the England forward and back selections right and was prepared to think outside the box.

IOut of interest, anyone know when the A squad is announced?

jngf wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:44 am

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 9:30 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:49 am

Assuming that the two competitive competitions (6N and RWC) must involve 'our best XV today', how can a new combo get game time the way we do things? SB failed to experiment in the AIs. If he does not experiment with summer tours, that just leaves the odd 'A' fixture, doesn't it?

I've always stuck up for Slade but with zero progress in developing a cente pairing even with the departure of Farrell from the reckoning, I'd argue that neither he nor Lawrence should go to Argentina regardless of Lions absentees.

As ever, with bringing in new players, there has to be scope (game time) for failure - X couldn't do it, try Y etc.

My biggest problem.

I may be taking an extreme view, but I really do believe that "anything but Lawrence" is the right answer. I just don't get it from watching him. His vision and handling are just poor, he doesn't make big metres after contact, his ball presentation is crap...I just don't see an upside.

Well at least he’s not Slade?

I dunno. If I had to ditch one of them, and only one, it'd be Lawrence.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:37 am

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 9:30 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:49 am

Assuming that the two competitive competitions (6N and RWC) must involve 'our best XV today', how can a new combo get game time the way we do things? SB failed to experiment in the AIs. If he does not experiment with summer tours, that just leaves the odd 'A' fixture, doesn't it?

I've always stuck up for Slade but with zero progress in developing a cente pairing even with the departure of Farrell from the reckoning, I'd argue that neither he nor Lawrence should go to Argentina regardless of Lions absentees.

As ever, with bringing in new players, there has to be scope (game time) for failure - X couldn't do it, try Y etc.

My biggest problem.

I may be taking an extreme view, but I really do believe that "anything but Lawrence" is the right answer. I just don't get it from watching him. His vision and handling are just poor, he doesn't make big metres after contact, his ball presentation is crap...I just don't see an upside.

Quite. I don't think it was any sort of mistake to pick him or persevere with him - up to a point. Despite what has sometimes been said, it is not just about him playing out of position. Neither is it Slade's fault. No player has been more pissed about than him in terms of accommodating others. I suspect that had he been given the 12 shirt instead of Farrell he would have owned it. It's too late now and both of them should be dumped.

It’s harsh, but I’m kind of inclined to agree.

I genuinely don’t remember either having an unequivocally good game but I do also think there’s an element of them being victims of England not using their centres in attack.

I’d be surprised to see it change for the 6N but I’d be fully supportive of it.

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 11:59 am

jngf wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:44 am

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 9:30 am

My biggest problem.

I may be taking an extreme view, but I really do believe that "anything but Lawrence" is the right answer. I just don't get it from watching him. His vision and handling are just poor, he doesn't make big metres after contact, his ball presentation is crap...I just don't see an upside.

Well at least he’s not Slade?

I dunno. If I had to ditch one of them, and only one, it'd be Lawrence.

Agreed.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 12:24 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:37 am

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 9:30 am

My biggest problem.

I may be taking an extreme view, but I really do believe that "anything but Lawrence" is the right answer. I just don't get it from watching him. His vision and handling are just poor, he doesn't make big metres after contact, his ball presentation is crap...I just don't see an upside.

Quite. I don't think it was any sort of mistake to pick him or persevere with him - up to a point. Despite what has sometimes been said, it is not just about him playing out of position. Neither is it Slade's fault. No player has been more pissed about than him in terms of accommodating others. I suspect that had he been given the 12 shirt instead of Farrell he would have owned it. It's too late now and both of them should be dumped.

It’s harsh, but I’m kind of inclined to agree.

I genuinely don’t remember either having an unequivocally good game but I do also think there’s an element of them being victims of England not using their centres in attack.

I’d be surprised to see it change for the 6N but I’d be fully supportive of it.

Any way you look at it, our current centre situation is down to successive head coaches. But, we are where we are and SB probably can't avoid having one eye on today and the other on the future. If he were to pick Slade and Lawrence for the first three 6N matches it would be consistent and understandable. I don't agree that it is the best way forward but am resigned to it happening.

It has the same ring of short-sightedness as a back row of Chessum, Curry and Earl, IMO. 'Tried and tested' or negative? Safe option or defensive? Perhaps, even defeatist?

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:31 pm What we learn from a trip to Argentina is that we get battered there taking half our first team and the media subsequently get all over Borthwick for it.

Agreed the odd player may benefit from it but that hardly helps us build a head of steam or takes any pressure of the coaching team. We’ll probably start with South Africa in the autumn just to keep that pressure right on…

Its been the making of many aspiring players over the years; this is a better than average Argentina side, but we've got easily enough depth to be competitive and frankly Borthwick needs to be stretched.

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 2:04 pm

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:31 pm What we learn from a trip to Argentina is that we get battered there taking half our first team and the media subsequently get all over Borthwick for it.

Agreed the odd player may benefit from it but that hardly helps us build a head of steam or takes any pressure of the coaching team. We’ll probably start with South Africa in the autumn just to keep that pressure right on…

Its been the making of many aspiring players over the years; this is a better than average Argentina side, but we've got easily enough depth to be competitive and frankly Borthwick needs to be stretched.

I’d argue he’s tall enough.

Pollock has been dropped and Alex Mitchell has joined up

And predicting Curry at 8 while rusty starts at 6 with shouty at 7

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 2:23 pm Pollock has been dropped and Alex Mitchell has joined up

So, Quirke remains for JVP?

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 2:42 pm

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 2:23 pm Pollock has been dropped and Alex Mitchell has joined up

So, Quirke remains for JVP?

Iirc JvP is broken

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 2:47 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 2:42 pm

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 2:23 pm Pollock has been dropped and Alex Mitchell has joined up

So, Quirke remains for JVP?

Iirc JvP is broken

But didn’t old man Ben get called up?