RugbyRebels

It really was a marked improvement on all the stuff we’ve been screaming for for months: impact from the bench, not falling away in the last 20mins and less stupid penalties. The first led to the second imo plus, perhaps, having the captain on the pitch for the full 80.
That said, it still took France blowing three walk-ins and us getting lucky for Lawrence’s try for us to win by a whisker…

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 1:23 pm It really was a marked improvement on all the stuff we’ve been screaming for for months: impact from the bench, not falling away in the last 20mins and less stupid penalties. The first led to the second imo plus, perhaps, having the captain on the pitch for the full 80.
That said, it still took France blowing three walk-ins and us getting lucky for Lawrence’s try for us to win by a whisker…

But to flip that last part again, it does show how much it means to have been within 5 in so many of these big games in the last year. We’ve been the wrong side of it a lot recently but matches that close often come down to a coin toss.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 1:47 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 1:23 pm It really was a marked improvement on all the stuff we’ve been screaming for for months: impact from the bench, not falling away in the last 20mins and less stupid penalties. The first led to the second imo plus, perhaps, having the captain on the pitch for the full 80.
That said, it still took France blowing three walk-ins and us getting lucky for Lawrence’s try for us to win by a whisker…

But to flip that last part again, it does show how much it means to have been within 5 in so many of these big games in the last year. We’ve been the wrong side of it a lot recently but matches that close often come down to a coin toss.

They certainly do come down to a coin toss until you lose 4/5/6/7/8 in a row and defy the laws of probability….

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 1:47 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 1:23 pm It really was a marked improvement on all the stuff we’ve been screaming for for months: impact from the bench, not falling away in the last 20mins and less stupid penalties. The first led to the second imo plus, perhaps, having the captain on the pitch for the full 80.
That said, it still took France blowing three walk-ins and us getting lucky for Lawrence’s try for us to win by a whisker…

But to flip that last part again, it does show how much it means to have been within 5 in so many of these big games in the last year. We’ve been the wrong side of it a lot recently but matches that close often come down to a coin toss.

Spot on but I suppose the team has to be in good shape to sneak it in any game. That means general composure which we had yesterday but have frequently lacked. That ties up with decision-making and the captain doing 80. Obviously, fifteen on the pitch helps as does a lack of late penalties. Even two bench men unused breeds a type of confidence. Mitchell feeling he was trusted for 80 may have settled him and others. Daly coming on for Slade lifted both Smiths' anxiety probably.

There was some sort of unmeasurable improvement, though. The forwards, as a unit, looked up for it throughout. The backs rarely looked panicked even when stretched. The occasion got to the French but we looked comfortable mentally and together.

How much of it was good management and how much luck, who knows? I believe SB got the management of the application of energy over 80 minutes right (at last/for once or whatever if one is being critical). It was not just a sneaky win. It was a step forward.

Thought we showed some bottle and desire yesterday. Going behind and then coming back to win at the end was impressive.

Now lets back it up.

There's a case for Chessum starting, George may come back and surely we'll go with a 5:3 bench. I'd definitely stick with Fin at 10. I'm not sure Marcus is the answer at FB but he's probably worth another run there.

Good to see the immediate up in intensity against a tough opponent after conceding scores at key moments, as MI alluded to re. fight in the group.
Thought MSmiff at 15 delivered the attacking variety and gave added value as a comfortable receiver and emergency 9. Agree the midfield were quick on FSmiff wavelength, and with his clubbies out wide, the balance looked better.
Now that (on paper) the 2 toughest games are done, not sure if Singular Battleplan will tamper too much with continuity in the pack - Martin v Ches. will always be horses for courses, but you need to secure your own lineouts so either LCD or Martin would expect a step down next outing.
(Sco weren't at the races for much of their Ire game, but recently have had a number on Eng. They'll need a fit Russell & Graham.)

I have to say I'm feeling mildly confident about Scotland. Seeing the Irish comprehensively take them apart at Murrayfield emphasises how good this Ireland side are and makes me reevaluate how promising our performance was in going toe-to-toe with them in Dublin.

Scotland have had the wood on us for a few years, but the evenness of the teams has been closer than the actual series of results suggests (that seems like paraphasing something I've said recently!) and they are a very different team without Tuipulotu and Cummings. Playing at home, we should be expecting a win here. They may not be as mentally fragile as Scots teams of the past, but we should be mentally stronger after the victory too and I'd like to hope we're spending this fortnight forging plans to do them over (and letting TCurry relax in a hot bath).

Win this and it's a good shot at four victories and a LBP (we shouldn't count our chickens for Wales, cause it would be very Welsh to suddenly get good when we come to visit, but on the other hand...), which I think we'd all've taken before the 6N. Lose it however, and the questions start rising again.

Puja

I think you're being overly cautious there to be honest.

That was fucking dreadful from Scotland. Zero depth in some positions, others ravaged by injuries. Leadership really, really struggling. God knows what that game has done to morale. That felt different to other recent Ireland losses. A complete psychological thumping.

It's going to be a long 2 weeks for the Scottish players building up to this one and I imagine a pretty happy and confident England camp. Obviously Scotland wont be written off, with the way this fixture has gone the last few years, but I'd say England have to be heavy favourites following this weekend.

I expected more from Scotland yesterday. They were comprehensively beaten which did surprise me a little.

The results couldnt have worked out better for England. A morale boosting win over a big side, whereas Scotland slumped badly at home.

I always thought this was the pivotal game in the 6N and still do. Its just that we go into it in a far better place thanks to Saturdays efforts.

I think we all expected more of Scotland yesterday.
But
They played about 60 minutes without their most influential player, and a rookie scrum half standing in for a winger.

I mean, they were always likely to lose, but that sort of disruption (especially with a 6:2 bench) absolutely will change the complexion of the match.

DT reports that both Furbank and IFW are nearing fitness/availability. I'd guess that means not quite ready for the Scotland game unfortunately. Fully fit, both walk back in, IMO.

Does anybody know much about IFW in his teenage days. Did he ever play SH?

I am hoping we use one of these 6 Nation matches to give Ted Hill a game at 6. T Curry is making the 6 shirt his own once more but certainly worth some squad rotation?

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:25 am DT reports that both Furbank and IFW are nearing fitness/availability. I'd guess that means not quite ready for the Scotland game unfortunately. Fully fit, both walk back in, IMO.

Does anybody know much about IFW in his teenage days. Did he ever play SH?

IFW primarily played 13 in his junior days….

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:18 am I think we all expected more of Scotland yesterday.
But
They played about 60 minutes without their most influential player, and a rookie scrum half standing in for a winger.

I mean, they were always likely to lose, but that sort of disruption (especially with a 6:2 bench) absolutely will change the complexion of the match.

Very much this. I felt a little bit sorry for them. It’s quite different preparing for a game knowing a player is absent vs. Having to make a major adjustment mid-game against an extremely tough opponent.

There are lots of different ways to spin it from a psychological POV. No doubt Townsend will point to that incident as game changing and will be geeing the Scots up for us considering we’re now ‘arrogant’ again after one win and all that.

From our side, Borthwick needs to double-down on what we’ve been doing in the past couple of weeks. The performances haven’t been stellar, but we’ve fronted-up physically and defensively and we’ve scored 7 tries against very good sides. That is a huge step forward. It shouldn’t need doing, but I’d 100% be reminding them that one win means nothing unless we back it up and we really owe the Scots.

Charlie Morgan on Smith at 15.

https://archive.fo/LwRO2

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:30 am Charlie Morgan on Smith at 15.

https://archive.fo/LwRO2

Good analysis as per usual from Morgan. The highlights include Smith taking a lot of long kicks under no pressure and having time to evaluate the field and attack or kick. Underlines how correct Borthwick got his tactics there, giving England's most skillful attack time and space on the ball. Some errors a couple of which we were lucky France didn't capitalise on but also quite a few positive bits.

The real question is going to be whether Scotland are going to kick long and allow Marcus to play like that or whether they are going to make his life more difficult and start kicking to compete. There's a lot to like about the twin Smith playmaking access but Smith was under little pressure at the back. Do we keep Marcus in reserve and unleash him fresh in the second half or so we drop a forward from the bench and bring in Steward as a kick diffusing safety blanket? Shame we have to wait so long to find out.

Scotland with Finn Russell at 10, and DVDM on the wing, will target Marcus with contestable balls all afternoon; whilst looking to hit grass as often as possible if Steward is at the back.

Do we stick to our guns, and trust Smith to cope? or play it safe with Steward, and accept that we won't create as much for ourselves?

If we're going to use this as an option, we need to give MSmith time to settle into the role rather than yanking him based on the opposition, like we're pretending to be Burt dropping Ford because we're scared of the nasty Welsh centres. Granted, he's not Steward in the air (given the 8 inch height difference!), but I've not seen him be particularly vulnerable under a high ball before, either when he's played 15 or when he's dropped back as part of how we use our 10s. He's always seemed perfectly technically capable, but obviously there is the risk that he gets the yips when faced with being targetted by a barrage of high balls.

If he can't cope, then he can't cope, but it's better to know that now and we can either train him up or abandon the double-Smith experiment and I'll have to admit to Banquo that they were right and I was wrong for a second time in a row. No particular need for Steward though - Daly might not be a rock, but he is a regular full-back and can come on if needs must.

Puja

2 10’s. One starting and one on bench. A fullback at 15.

Radical, but doable

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:49 am If we're going to use this as an option, we need to give MSmith time to settle into the role rather than yanking him based on the opposition, like we're pretending to be Burt dropping Ford because we're scared of the nasty Welsh centres. Granted, he's not Steward in the air (given the 8 inch height difference!), but I've not seen him be particularly vulnerable under a high ball before, either when he's played 15 or when he's dropped back as part of how we use our 10s. He's always seemed perfectly technically capable, but obviously there is the risk that he gets the yips when faced with being targetted by a barrage of high balls.

If he can't cope, then he can't cope, but it's better to know that now and we can either train him up or abandon the double-Smith experiment and I'll have to admit to Banquo that they were right and I was wrong for a second time in a row. No particular need for Steward though - Daly might not be a rock, but he is a regular full-back and can come on if needs must.

Puja

I totally agree that he needs more game time at 15 if he is to be a regular there for England if that helps. I'd rather he learned the job at Quins as opposed to learning on the job in an England shirt. He certainly adds a different attacking dimension, its just a question of- again- what's the trade off.

And its not just high balls, but hitting the line, positional play etc.

p/d wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:56 am 2 10’s. One starting and one on bench. A fullback at 15.

Radical, but doable

p/d wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:56 am 2 10’s. One starting and one on bench. A fullback at 15.

Radical, but doable

If Furbank is still out, do you want Steward picked or Daly? I see neither as top quality 80 minute options.

I'd try Marcus again with a degree of reluctance. Once Furbank is there, SB must bite the bullet and simply choose his best FH.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:52 am

p/d wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:56 am 2 10’s. One starting and one on bench. A fullback at 15.

Radical, but doable

If Furbank is still out, do you want Steward picked or Daly? I see neither as top quality 80 minute options.

I'd try Marcus again with a degree of reluctance. Once Furbank is there, SB must bite the bullet and simply choose his best FH.

I'd caveat that with Furbank needs to show some form for Saints tbh. I'm a fan, but he wasn't in great nick earlier this season.

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:16 am

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:49 am If we're going to use this as an option, we need to give MSmith time to settle into the role rather than yanking him based on the opposition, like we're pretending to be Burt dropping Ford because we're scared of the nasty Welsh centres. Granted, he's not Steward in the air (given the 8 inch height difference!), but I've not seen him be particularly vulnerable under a high ball before, either when he's played 15 or when he's dropped back as part of how we use our 10s. He's always seemed perfectly technically capable, but obviously there is the risk that he gets the yips when faced with being targetted by a barrage of high balls.

If he can't cope, then he can't cope, but it's better to know that now and we can either train him up or abandon the double-Smith experiment and I'll have to admit to Banquo that they were right and I was wrong for a second time in a row. No particular need for Steward though - Daly might not be a rock, but he is a regular full-back and can come on if needs must.

Puja

I totally agree that he needs more game time at 15 if he is to be a regular there for England if that helps. I'd rather he learned the job at Quins as opposed to learning on the job in an England shirt. He certainly adds a different attacking dimension, its just a question of- again- what's the trade off.

And its not just high balls, but hitting the line, positional play etc.

It's a weird one. I agree in principal but England are in a strange place and have become reliant on him sparking something in loose play. Even if Quins were to play him at 15 they're going to be set up so differently.

I don't even really view this as an experiment to see whether he can become England first choice, but whether he's a serious option to be our fulltime 15 cover in the 23, with Steward being such a drastically different option (and Daly not fancied as a 15) to Furbank. Not ideal though, granted.

It was frustrating seeing how many times he would instinctively creep up to the playmaker position and then find himself in no man's land, as his footwork and acceleration could be such a threat used correctly. Him overruning Mitchell's pass after the George/Curry break late on seems to be getting him a lot of flack, when I felt like Mitchell just shouldn't have given it.

I'd give him another couple of games while we have this chance.

I think Saturday re-opened my eyes (I'd forgotten I guess) how useful Daly-type players are to a squad. I personally am a big fan of a 6:2 split if you've got a player like that on the bench with two tens on the field. Would much rather have another back-row to come on than replace a centre for the hell of it who's not even that tired. I'd keep Daly on the bench therefore, with a reserve scrum half. When Malins comes back it gives him a bit of hope too... Part of me still feels that if Marcus can do 15, Malins can do a lot of that stuff too... Anyway, not relevant.

Re the side - George was great when he came on but we can't go backwards. Most were happy to see him replaced in the name of progress and have LCD start, so I think we stick with the same set up, LCD to start, George to come on... let's not chop and change too much.

The pack deserve massive credit for achieving something like parity against that behemoth French pack. Genge is getting low marks in certain places (media, youtube etc) but he did alright, after playing well against Ireland and yet again Stuart did well as did Hayes and Baxter.

Again Martin just isn't top class in my view so I'd start Chessum but Martin was 'ok', got through work and no doubt his muscle helped slow down there beasts at collision time.

Back-row excellent but I'd still go 6 Hill, 7 T Curry, 8 Willis personally.

Agree with Banquo that Marcus clearly has great merit as an attacking option at full back but we have to just hope he can deliver when peppered with high balls, crucial one on one tackle situations etc.

Sleightholme definitely has something about him - rapid, confident, bit of edge... I think he could have a break out game some time soon. That said I still want to try Freeman in centres at some point and I'd like Roebuck to get a go somewhere, he deserves it and looks made for test rugby... But, now's not the time and so many deserve another crack after a wonderful, meaningful result.

So I think I'd go:
Genge
LCD
Stuart
Itoje
Chessum
Hill
T Curry
Willis

Mitchell
F Smith
Sleightholme
Slade
Lawrence
Freeman
M Smith

Baxter
Hayes
George
Martin
B Curry
CCS
Randall/Spencer etc
Daly