RugbyRebels

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:17 pm**

Northmore huh? Least likely pick for me, but infinitely more capped than the other options, I guess...

But, yeah.

And if that's the only change... What god do we need to sacrifice to, to protect Ford?
If I were an Argentine lock / backrow, I'd absolutely accept a red (especially a 20-minute one) to take the opponent's only FH out of the game nice and early

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:34 pm**

Northmore is an underwhelming pick.

Risky going in without FH cover and i'm not a fan of the bench composition.

Still, it all worked out fine last time, so here's hoping for a repeat.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:43 pm**

If Ford goes down then is it Steward, Spencer or JvP at 10? Presumably one of the 9s as we have no fullback cover in the squad either.

Why pick Charlie Atkinson in the squad if we don't trust him to do the job? We could have taken Donoghue and have had someone in form who's bench impact and can cover 10/15 probably do a job on the wing in an emergency. Plus it would have annoyed the Irish.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:49 pm**

No 10 cover is pretty shocking, especially with Dommers continuing to steal a living there

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:03 pm**

Danno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:49 pm No 10 cover is pretty shocking, especially with Dommers continuing to steal a living there

He was passable off the bench last time out to be fair to him. One decent carry and a turnover iirc. Goes back to the issue of Borthwick not trusting Charlie Atkinson.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:11 pm**

How is success measured on this tour? 2-0 v Argentina is not to be sneezed at but should some developmental targets have been set? If so, what are the signs beyond Atkinson at 12? Most of it is consolidation of what we already knew isn't it?

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:20 pm**

A] Playing without our lions is experimenting anyway
B] We've got the USA match for further experimentation
C] World cup seedings are based on rankings at the end of this year - so winning's kinda important right now.

We also now know that Roebuck, Muir, Spencer can look comfortable at international level. We've gained (but not learned) that several others with not many caps now have more caps and are more experienced at international level. The players will have learned more about what an international environment looks like and requires; and will be familiar with Borthwicks gameplan and intentions going forwards. Steve Borthwick will gapphave had a closer look at all of these players, learning something about almost all of them (basically everyone except.
Ford, George, Underhill or Steward)

It's almost like you can experiment and learn things without naming 23 new caps

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:32 pm**

@Oakboy - What development targets would you have expected?

As far as I see it, a squad shorn of circa 15 players is developmental by definition in the first instance. You might not see it this way, but to have second choice players starting and gaining experience in Tier 1 tests is valuable IMO. Developing a winning mentality is also important.

After last week I’d have been disappointed if we practically threw the game by picking an experimental side. I imagine that is what the USA game is for.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:38 pm**

Northmore is a big surprise, but underwhelming seems harsh. The potential of him running off Ford/Atkinson is glorious. Wouldn’t be surprised to see him making multiple clean breaks.

I did think he might be considered too much of a one-trick pony though. He’s worked super hard on his defence and his pace, but has rarely put the games together long enough to be considered the outright form option for England.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:49 pm**

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:32 pm @Oakboy - What development targets would you have expected?

As far as I see it, a squad shorn of circa 15 players is developmental by definition in the first instance. You might not see it this way, but to have second choice players starting and gaining experience in Tier 1 tests is valuable IMO. Developing a winning mentality is also important.

After last week I’d have been disappointed if we practically threw the game by picking an experimental side. I imagine that is what the USA game is for.

Exactly. Having 30 odd players for a few weeks and testing them in a challenging environment is gold.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:56 pm**

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:20 pm Playing without our lions is experimenting anyway
B] We've got the USA match for further experimentation
C] World cup seedings are based on rankings at the end of this year - so winning's kinda important right now.

We also now know that Roebuck, Muir, Spencer can look comfortable at international level. We've gained (but not learned) that several others with not many caps now have more caps and are more experienced at international level. The players will have learned more about what an international environment looks like and requires; and will be familiar with Borthwicks gameplan and intentions going forwards. Steve Borthwick will gapphave had a closer look at all of these players, learning something about almost all of them (basically everyone except.
Ford, George, Underhill or Steward)

It's almost like you can experiment and learn things without naming 23 new caps

Good response that! Might there be benefit from different assistant coaches too?

It would be good to see a second row prospect, I suppose. There must be some concern over the FH situation. There is also the negative in terms of decisions for the future. Are Hill and Atkinson no-hopers now, for example. That might sound harsh but it merely transfers attention elsewhere presumably - a developmental gain of sorts.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 6:04 pm**

Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:56 pm [Might there be benefit from different assistant coaches too?

More variety is always beneficial. A different person saying the same thing slightly differently can unlock all sorts of understandings.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:56 pmThere is also the negative in terms of decisions for the future. Are Hill and Atkinson no-hopers now, for example. That might sound harsh but it merely transfers attention elsewhere presumably - a developmental gain of sorts.

If that's the case (and I wouldn't rule it until the USA match is done) then any learning is good, and learning that someone isn't going to make it (even if you already suspected it) is a good learning experience.

The only failure is a failure to learn.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 7:18 pm**

Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:56 pm
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:20 pm Playing without our lions is experimenting anyway
B] We've got the USA match for further experimentation
C] World cup seedings are based on rankings at the end of this year - so winning's kinda important right now.

We also now know that Roebuck, Muir, Spencer can look comfortable at international level. We've gained (but not learned) that several others with not many caps now have more caps and are more experienced at international level. The players will have learned more about what an international environment looks like and requires; and will be familiar with Borthwicks gameplan and intentions going forwards. Steve Borthwick will gapphave had a closer look at all of these players, learning something about almost all of them (basically everyone except.
Ford, George, Underhill or Steward)

It's almost like you can experiment and learn things without naming 23 new caps
Good response that! Might there be benefit from different assistant coaches too?

It would be good to see a second row prospect, I suppose. There must be some concern over the FH situation. There is also the negative in terms of decisions for the future. Are Hill and Atkinson no-hopers now, for example. That might sound harsh but it merely transfers attention elsewhere presumably - a developmental gain of sorts.

What's the FH situation? We have 3 FHs who would walk into most international squads. We then have a gulf. But I don't think that's a problem in the slightest.

It would be good for a second row, but there are a few youngsters coming through. We also have 2 with the Lions and 1 injured. I'd say that's not terrible.

I doubt any player who does not play could be considered a no-hoper. They may not fit what SB is looking to do right now, either because they haven't shown the ability he wants yet, or because they haven't shown enough improvement in work-ons to merit a test match place. That's not to say that any of them can't go away and work on their game, come back in a year, 2, 3 years time, and get into the team.

Nick Easter didn't become a regular England player until late in his career, as an example.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 9:34 pm**

Caveating that this is only half way through, I would say Willis, Roebuck, Atkinson and Heyes are all big development benefits from the tour. Muir and Cole’s have also shown themselves to be decent deputies and Steward has had a chance to come back in.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:30 pm**

I still want to know what the ‘development targets’ should have been?

‘The FH situation’ (if there is one) is solely caused by Lions call ups. Let’s be honest, Charlie Atkinson is probably touring so we can run meaningful 15 on 15 training sessions. He may get a token cap vs. the Yanks but I think he’ll definitely benefit from spending time with Ford and seeing the standard he needs to aspire to. Besides, what were the alternatives? Call up Farrell or not take another 10?

Sure, if Ford gets taken out on Saturday, we’re in trouble, but that would likely mean losing a test match, it’s not like it’s an ongoing problem.

With Benson and Donoghue coming through and Bailey likely to get more game time at Tigers, we could be in a situation where we’ve got 3 top tier 10s + 3 promising prospects in the not too distant future. Really not a concern for me.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2025 10:12 am**

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:30 pm I still want to know what the ‘development targets’ should have been?

Me, too. I suppose I would have expected progress at hooker. Is Dan ever going to be up to starting? If not, why is he on the bench when 20 minutes game time could go to another? It seems that any marginal questions are being allocated to the fringe matches only. Fair enough, perhaps.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2025 10:35 am**

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 10:12 am
Scrumhead wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:30 pm I still want to know what the ‘development targets’ should have been?

Me, too. I suppose I would have expected progress at hooker. Is Dan ever going to be up to starting? If not, why is he on the bench when 20 minutes game time could go to another? It seems that any marginal questions are being allocated to the fringe matches only. Fair enough, perhaps.

We're doing something developmenty in pretty much every position but 2, 7, 10, and 15 with our selections. Getting challenging test minutes into Baxter, Heyes, BCurry, TWillis, who are all still very green in their international careers, seeing whether Ewels can be rehabilitated to be trusted to be a useful 4th lock, exploring whether Coles can cut it, giving Spencer another couple of tests starting at 9 to see if he can bring any kind of domestic form, really trying out Muir/SAtkinson/Northmore/Roebuck to see if they are international class against a decent opposition. Hells, even Steward's being given a chance to get his confidence back and see if his work-ons that he's improved hold up at the higher level.

I wouldn't be averse to us pushing the boat our further by starting Dan and Pepper to see if they're international class as well, but I do understand why we've not, given that there's a certain threshold of experimental selection where you start to lose all value in the results because the spine collapses.

Puja

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2025 11:41 am**

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 10:35 am
Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 10:12 am
Scrumhead wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:30 pm I still want to know what the ‘development targets’ should have been?

Me, too. I suppose I would have expected progress at hooker. Is Dan ever going to be up to starting? If not, why is he on the bench when 20 minutes game time could go to another? It seems that any marginal questions are being allocated to the fringe matches only. Fair enough, perhaps.
We're doing something developmenty in pretty much every position but 2, 7, 10, and 15 with our selections. Getting challenging test minutes into Baxter, Heyes, BCurry, TWillis, who are all still very green in their international careers, seeing whether Ewels can be rehabilitated to be trusted to be a useful 4th lock, exploring whether Coles can cut it, giving Spencer another couple of tests starting at 9 to see if he can bring any kind of domestic form, really trying out Muir/SAtkinson/Northmore/Roebuck to see if they are international class against a decent opposition. Hells, even Steward's being given a chance to get his confidence back and see if his work-ons that he's improved hold up at the higher level.

I wouldn't be averse to us pushing the boat our further by starting Dan and Pepper to see if they're international class as well, but I do understand why we've not, given that there's a certain threshold of experimental selection where you start to lose all value in the results because the spine collapses.

Puja

This. He's got it spot on; Argentina are no mugs, and winning is a great way to develop players

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2025 11:50 am**

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 11:41 am
Puja wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 10:35 am
Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 10:12 am

Me, too. I suppose I would have expected progress at hooker. Is Dan ever going to be up to starting? If not, why is he on the bench when 20 minutes game time could go to another? It seems that any marginal questions are being allocated to the fringe matches only. Fair enough, perhaps.
We're doing something developmenty in pretty much every position but 2, 7, 10, and 15 with our selections. Getting challenging test minutes into Baxter, Heyes, BCurry, TWillis, who are all still very green in their international careers, seeing whether Ewels can be rehabilitated to be trusted to be a useful 4th lock, exploring whether Coles can cut it, giving Spencer another couple of tests starting at 9 to see if he can bring any kind of domestic form, really trying out Muir/SAtkinson/Northmore/Roebuck to see if they are international class against a decent opposition. Hells, even Steward's being given a chance to get his confidence back and see if his work-ons that he's improved hold up at the higher level.

I wouldn't be averse to us pushing the boat our further by starting Dan and Pepper to see if they're international class as well, but I do understand why we've not, given that there's a certain threshold of experimental selection where you start to lose all value in the results because the spine collapses.

Puja
This. He's got it spot on; Argentina are no mugs, and winning is a great way to develop players

Fair enough. Are there still doubts about Roebuck, though?

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2025 12:36 pm**

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 11:50 am
Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 11:41 am
Puja wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 10:35 am

We're doing something developmenty in pretty much every position but 2, 7, 10, and 15 with our selections. Getting challenging test minutes into Baxter, Heyes, BCurry, TWillis, who are all still very green in their international careers, seeing whether Ewels can be rehabilitated to be trusted to be a useful 4th lock, exploring whether Coles can cut it, giving Spencer another couple of tests starting at 9 to see if he can bring any kind of domestic form, really trying out Muir/SAtkinson/Northmore/Roebuck to see if they are international class against a decent opposition. Hells, even Steward's being given a chance to get his confidence back and see if his work-ons that he's improved hold up at the higher level.

I wouldn't be averse to us pushing the boat our further by starting Dan and Pepper to see if they're international class as well, but I do understand why we've not, given that there's a certain threshold of experimental selection where you start to lose all value in the results because the spine collapses.

Puja
This. He's got it spot on; Argentina are no mugs, and winning is a great way to develop players
Fair enough. Are there still doubts about Roebuck, though?

Before this tour, he had 4 caps, but only one of those were in a serious match, and that was only 10 minutes against South Africa (the other three being 2x Japan and a shit Wales, so not top-tier opposition). This tour is a major step up and so far he's still looking very comfortable, but I wouldn't say he's a **proven** quantity at international level yet.

Puja

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:01 pm**

Immediate thoughts are - please pick Ted Hill more SB, he's going to get fed up and piss off to France if we're not careful, how's he not in the 23 again I don't know.

Outside Ford, it's a big, physical backline. I'm not saying that's good or bad btw, just a big back 3, and two physically pretty robust centres.

Separately, SB is building nicely now, he has overall a hell of a lot of talent at his disposal...

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:07 pm**

TheDasher wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:01 pm Immediate thoughts are - please pick Ted Hill more SB, he's going to get fed up and piss off to France if we're not careful, how's he not in the 23 again I don't know.

Outside Ford, it's a big, physical backline. I'm not saying that's good or bad btw, just a big back 3, and two physically pretty robust centres.

Separately, SB is building nicely now, he has overall a hell of a lot of talent at his disposal...

Notwithstanding the 20’s poor effort, there’s a hell of a lot more in the pipeline

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:27 pm**

Looking back at the France XV game and the 23 we picked for tests, Hill is the main loser. On the one hand, it looks as though Borthwick is favouring a dual openside set up which obviously counts against him. OTOH, it was a clear chance to put himself into contention as a starter or at least sub and he didn’t really take it. One nice run down the wing clearly didn’t make up for an overall lack of impact. I accept a lot of that was what he was being asked to do tactically. However, there’s no getting around the fact that his stats were very unimpressive for a 6.

I rate him and I think there’s a place for him with England, but I wouldn’t bet against Carnduff and Kpoku (when eligible) breathing down his neck for that hybrid lock/flanker role.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:43 pm**

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:07 pm
TheDasher wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:01 pm Immediate thoughts are - please pick Ted Hill more SB, he's going to get fed up and piss off to France if we're not careful, how's he not in the 23 again I don't know.

Outside Ford, it's a big, physical backline. I'm not saying that's good or bad btw, just a big back 3, and two physically pretty robust centres.

Separately, SB is building nicely now, he has overall a hell of a lot of talent at his disposal...
Notwithstanding the 20’s poor effort, there’s a hell of a lot more in the pipeline

There is absolutely. There are a handful of positions that need more star quality still... he has a world class no8 who should be starting the 1st Lions test vs Aus, world class locks (well, two of them anyway, Coles is a great back up), genuinely formidable props, flankers wingers etc. We're not far away...

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2025 3:17 pm**

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 10:12 am
Scrumhead wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 10:30 pm I still want to know what the ‘development targets’ should have been?

Me, too. I suppose I would have expected progress at hooker. Is Dan ever going to be up to starting? If not, why is he on the bench when 20 minutes game time could go to another? It seems that any marginal questions are being allocated to the fringe matches only. Fair enough, perhaps.

You were the one who proposed them!

I do agree that progress at hooker is needed but I think we’ve already seen the value of George’s experience on this tour. I would have liked to have seen Langdon on the bench ahead of Dan.

RugbyRebels

Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation

Re: Second Segment Selection Speculation