Squad Depth - What have we learned?

[Mikey Brown]

So… issues at 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12 going in. You could argue some other spots but I think most of them we have options but we’re poor at using them or constantly chopping and changing tactics etc.

Where have we made progress?

Chessum is probably the biggest success. Ribbans looked pretty at home in his first start. Maybe not as lively as some of his bench appearances but that’s understandable.

Lawrence certainly has his issues but he offered a lot of go forward. Hopefully he can learn to take better care of the ball.

Mitchell looked good off the bench but not tested in any further way to say he should be a starter. JVP a mixed bag, but learning I’d hope.

Maybe it was a match/situation specific thing but I thought it was interesting Watson went to 15 rather than Arundell. I wonder if he (or perhaps Daly) are next in line if Steward were to be out.

2 and 3 I’d say we learned nothing at all. Mako is done. Didn’t give Walker any particularly meaningful time. Cole it actually turns out is very, very old.

Dombrandt is possibly the worst player to ever have been capped. Ludlam can sort of play 8?

[Oakboy]

I think SB has given Dombrandt a decent run of games. He still lacks real dog and 80 minute consistency. Any improvement over the 6N is marginal at best. with the 8 shirt, where does SB go from here? At least, there are other options - T Willis, Mercer, Simmonds and Billy V. What he does in the few games remaining will be interesting.

[fivepointer]

1. Genge out and out #1. Mako looks shot. Rodd should have been given a run. Val R-R must come into the squad
2. George flogged, Walker used sparingly so we dont really know if he's a viable option. LCD will come back but outside of that there is McGuigan, Blamire and ??? Theo Dan seems like a possible WC bolter
3. Sinkler hardly uprooting trees, Cole a bit long in the tooth. We need Stuart back and in form and Heyes to really kick on. Outside of that we are going to have to take a punt.
4/5. Actually some development. Itoje is a class operator, Chessum emerged as a genuine international talent and we've seen what Ribbans can offer. A fit Launchbury would be a really useful asset with the WC in mind.
6/7. Willis has looked good, Ludlam was willing, the Curry's are both fine players. We badly missed Lawes and there must be some scope to bring in Hill or Martin. Pearson seems ready for a squad place.
8. Still undecided about Dombrandt. In a better performing team he might be the perfect fit. Right now a grafter like Mercer or T Willis seems a better option.
9. Youngs out so thats some improvement. JVP yet to really nail down the spot. Mitchell looked lively when given a chance. Ideally Quirke comes back into contention fr the WC.
10. Smith didnt really advance his case, Ford unused, Farrell predictably ordinary. Given time to get fit, I'm sure Ford will come into the matchday squad.
12. Lawrence can play there, though he's not really an IC. Kelly's injury was a blow as we could with seeing if he can cut it. Options are desperately thin in this position, hence the form of Atkinson is of great interest.
13. Slade hardly shone. England arent getting the best out of him and i'm not sure whether thats him or the coaches. Marchant is a tidy option and with a proper IC Lawrence could fit in here. Tuilagi is really past it.
11/14. Arundell got a start and showed that he has a lot to do. Thats no bad thing. OHC never quite clicked, Freeman oddly ignored along with Murley, Malins a bit hit and miss, Watson was fine. Daly bound to come back into contention when fit.
15. Steward was reliable and consistent. Did a lot more good than bad.

[Banquo]

1. Genge out and out #1. Mako looks shot. Rodd should have been given a run. Val R-R must come into the squad
2. George flogged, Walker used sparingly so we dont really know if he's a viable option. LCD will come back but outside of that there is McGuigan, Blamire and ??? Theo Dan seems like a possible WC bolter
3. Sinkler hardly uprooting trees, Cole a bit long in the tooth. We need Stuart back and in form and Heyes to really kick on. Outside of that we are going to have to take a punt.
4/5. Actually some development. Itoje is a class operator, Chessum emerged as a genuine international talent and we've seen what Ribbans can offer. A fit Launchbury would be a really useful asset with the WC in mind.
6/7. Willis has looked good, Ludlam was willing, the Curry's are both fine players. We badly missed Lawes and there must be some scope to bring in Hill or Martin. Pearson seems ready for a squad place.
8. Still undecided about Dombrandt. In a better performing team he might be the perfect fit. Right now a grafter like Mercer or T Willis seems a better option.
9. Youngs out so thats some improvement. JVP yet to really nail down the spot. Mitchell looked lively when given a chance. Ideally Quirke comes back into contention fr the WC.
10. Smith didnt really advance his case, Ford unused, Farrell predictably ordinary. Given time to get fit, I'm sure Ford will come into the matchday squad.
12. Lawrence can play there, though he's not really an IC. Kelly's injury was a blow as we could with seeing if he can cut it. Options are desperately thin in this position, hence the form of Atkinson is of great interest.
13. Slade hardly shone. England arent getting the best out of him and i'm not sure whether thats him or the coaches. Marchant is a tidy option and with a proper IC Lawrence could fit in here. Tuilagi is really past it.
11/14. Arundell got a start and showed that he has a lot to do. Thats no bad thing. OHC never quite clicked, Freeman oddly ignored along with Murley, Malins a bit hit and miss, Watson was fine. Daly bound to come back into contention when fit.
15. Steward was reliable and consistent. Did a lot more good than bad.

Aye. Though I'd say Tuilagi still offers summat at 12, he looked ok yesterday; why do you say Lawrence isn't an IC, just because he hasn't played there much? I think he could make an excellent foil there for both Ford and Smith.

[jngf]

So… issues at 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12 going in. You could argue some other spots but I think most of them we have options but we’re poor at using them or constantly chopping and changing tactics etc.

Where have we made progress?

Chessum is probably the biggest success. Ribbans looked pretty at home in his first start. Maybe not as lively as some of his bench appearances but that’s understandable.

Lawrence certainly has his issues but he offered a lot of go forward. Hopefully he can learn to take better care of the ball.

Mitchell looked good off the bench but not tested in any further way to say he should be a starter. JVP a mixed bag, but learning I’d hope.

Maybe it was a match/situation specific thing but I thought it was interesting Watson went to 15 rather than Arundell. I wonder if he (or perhaps Daly) are next in line if Steward were to be out.

2 and 3 I’d say we learned nothing at all. Mako is done. Didn’t give Walker any particularly meaningful time. Cole it actually turns out is very, very old.

Dombrandt is possibly the worst player to ever have been capped. Ludlam can sort of play 8?

Mikey , your’re very harsh on Dombrandt here - I can hear his libel lawyers licking their lips

[jngf]

Ludlam, Willis and Dombrandt can develop into Lions backrow - imo

Lawes is a lock at test level (an alternative/backup for Itoje) for me and would not want him shoehorned back to 6 - Ben Curry needs to find his own style at this level to add a real point of difference rather than trying to fit the kamikazee kid template.

We won’t know what Earl or S Simmonds could do on the flanks or indeed centre without giving them starts there.

Slade a bit slow for 13 imo ( Daly. Cockersigna or Marchant worth looking at there again)


Ribbans and Chessum both look handy and I’d like to see what Martin can do at lock

JvP a bit too much like B Youngs for me at mo

Finally thought Tuillagi worked well at 12 and displayed touches of the power carrying of his halcyon days

[Banquo]

Ludlam, Willis and Dombrandt can develop into Lions backrow - imo

Lawes is a lock at test level (an alternative/backup for Itoje) for me and would not want him shoehorned back to 6 - Ben Curry needs to find his own style at this level to add a real point of difference rather than trying to fit the kamikazee kid template.

We won’t know what Earl or S Simmonds could do on the flanks or indeed centre without giving them starts there.

Slade a bit slow for 13 imo ( Daly. Cockersigna or Marchant worth looking at there again)


Ribbans and Chessum both look handy and I’d like to see what Martin can do at lock

JvP a bit too much like B Youngs for me at mo

Finally thought Tuillagi worked well at 12 and displayed touches of the power carrying of his halcyon days

The back row that were reamed by France and second best, bar maybe Willis, yesterday? I'm watching different players to you, though Ludlam had been excellent until the two extra tough games.

Lawes has shed too much weight to play lock imo, and hasn't started there for about three years now- despite my moaning when Eddie initially shifted him there, when he was a bit rubbish, his mobility and all round skill (including turnovers) has improved such that he is a class 6. That said, age is against him, but he's definitely in the mix at 6 and would have been handy there against both Ireland and France.

[Oakboy]

One certainty, IMO, is that the opposition would much rather face Ludlam at 6 than Lawes.

[MrK]

Ludlam, Willis and Dombrandt can develop into Lions backrow - imo

Assuming the other nations pull out…. Yes

[TheNomad]

Of the back row, Willis is the only one I see staying consistently in the England side, let alone the Lions

[stepsider]

Inconsistency of selection continues (Smith-Farrell-Smith-Farrell...), plus players are still being dumped without getting a reasonable chance (OHC, Ford in and out of squad, etc).

But the main thing we've learnt is that we're going to keep kicking the ball, and again, and again, till everyone falls asleep.

I don't believe that, individually, all our players are hugely inferior to Ireland, France, or Scotland, whilst accepting that we lack 'greats'. But our sum of the parts is inferior. Unless we develop a more varied and coherent attacking strategy, we'll never progress.

[Banquo]

Inconsistency of selection continues (Smith-Farrell-Smith-Farrell...), plus players are still being dumped without getting a reasonable chance (OHC, Ford in and out of squad, etc).

But the main thing we've learnt is that we're going to keep kicking the ball, and again, and again, till everyone falls asleep.

I don't believe that, individually, all our players are hugely inferior to Ireland, France, or Scotland, whilst accepting that we lack 'greats'. But our sum of the parts is inferior. Unless we develop a more varied and coherent attacking strategy, we'll never progress.

Its a bit of a mix for me- France have some players that would have been great in any era, and no weak spot (maybe Ntamack, but even he can be brilliant when not kicking), Ireland have a lot of very very good players and are really well aligned and coached....Scotland are a bit hit and miss, depth being the issue. We are short of quality in a lot of places, but for sure we are miles less than the sum of the parts....and have been for a very long time, bar a couple of years under Jones.

Kicking is the new winning rugby it seems- not new, not interesting, but kicking has its place obviously- but we don't kick well, and our 'attacking kicks' are shyte compared to almost everyone else. Also, kicking the leather off it when down to 14 seems.....mad.

I don't yet blame Slim Boatrace for the selection or coaching. But the launch has been a bit underwhelming; but as noted, he aint spoiled for choice.

[Peej]

I think in some areas we saw that we just dont have the depth, whereas in others it's still potential as they weren't given a proper shot. Thinking Murley, Freeman etc, and 8 too remaining a real question. Dommers isn't good enough, but are any of the others?

[Mikey Brown]

Also where does this leave Sam Simmonds? He clearly can’t have been impressing too much to not feature at all in a 23. I still think persevering with Dombrandt for a number of games was good, but he didn’t properly grab his opportunity at any point really

I have no clue how Borthwick views Willis/Mercer as alternatives or the practicality of bringing them in as complete newbies to the squad. Will they be completely free of French duties by the time training camps start? Will Simmonds and LCD have gone the other way?

It would be nice to think either could come in and be impactful but (relatively) mistake-free for 60+ minutes.

What do we actually do about TH prop? Just hope Stuart comes back fit and in form?

[Peej]

Tom Willis will be at Sarries next season so no problems on release. And there's long training camps and warm up games pre World Cup to assess

[Cameo]

Inconsistency of selection continues (Smith-Farrell-Smith-Farrell...), plus players are still being dumped without getting a reasonable chance (OHC, Ford in and out of squad, etc).

But the main thing we've learnt is that we're going to keep kicking the ball, and again, and again, till everyone falls asleep.

I don't believe that, individually, all our players are hugely inferior to Ireland, France, or Scotland, whilst accepting that we lack 'greats'. But our sum of the parts is inferior. Unless we develop a more varied and coherent attacking strategy, we'll never progress.

Its a bit of a mix for me- France have some players that would have been great in any era, and no weak spot (maybe Ntamack, but even he can be brilliant when not kicking), Ireland have a lot of very very good players and are really well aligned and coached....Scotland are a bit hit and miss, depth being the issue. We are short of quality in a lot of places, but for sure we are miles less than the sum of the parts....and have been for a very long time, bar a couple of years under Jones.

Kicking is the new winning rugby it seems- not new, not interesting, but kicking has its place obviously- but we don't kick well, and our 'attacking kicks' are shyte compared to almost everyone else. Also, kicking the leather off it when down to 14 seems.....mad.

I don't yet blame Slim Boatrace for the selection or coaching. But the launch has been a bit underwhelming; but as noted, he aint spoiled for choice.

I think you are spot on in the comparison with other nations. To me England fans and media and so boom or bust. Either all England's players are great and the World is theirs to conquer or there are no options and there is no point in coming up with a game plan that involves passing the ball as they can't do what other countries' players can do.

In reality, you have a few weak spots but most international coaches would love to have your squad available to them. Scotland looked like a much better team this 6N but realistically:

- we'd take your front row (our replacements are equally bad)
- we'd take your second row
- we wouldn't take your backrow but wouldn't be too unhappy especially once you add options like Mercer
- we wouldn't take your halfbackd but would love your depth there and JVP and Ford or Smith are more than good enough to build an attacking team around.
- we wouldn't take your centres given the way ours are playing though, again, there are options. I'd take Tuilqgi over Aki for example and our star 13 couldn't get a game there over Marchant only last year.
- we wouldn't take your back three (well not once Graham is fit) but I've seen people say you don't have anyone to worry the opposition. Nonsense. Every team will worry about what to do about Steward under a high ball. Arundell is scary. Watson is a class operator. Again, if you compare to Ireland, you don't have a Keenan but their wings, while good, operate on enthusiasm rather than ridiculous physical assets. When they are a bit off like on the weekend, they are a bit average (Lowe was actually very poor I thought).

Anyway, my point is that you have (and always have had) the players to challenge. That's why you get to world cup finals even when not playing well. The South Africa and France games were the first times I've seen teams cruise to victory against you. That is on the coaches and game plan. Borthwick has not had long but you are still favourites to get to the World Cup semis so that gives him a fair few games to pull something together.

[Spiffy]

Inconsistency of selection continues (Smith-Farrell-Smith-Farrell...), plus players are still being dumped without getting a reasonable chance (OHC, Ford in and out of squad, etc).

But the main thing we've learnt is that we're going to keep kicking the ball, and again, and again, till everyone falls asleep.

I don't believe that, individually, all our players are hugely inferior to Ireland, France, or Scotland, whilst accepting that we lack 'greats'. But our sum of the parts is inferior. Unless we develop a more varied and coherent attacking strategy, we'll never progress.

Its a bit of a mix for me- France have some players that would have been great in any era, and no weak spot (maybe Ntamack, but even he can be brilliant when not kicking), Ireland have a lot of very very good players and are really well aligned and coached....Scotland are a bit hit and miss, depth being the issue. We are short of quality in a lot of places, but for sure we are miles less than the sum of the parts....and have been for a very long time, bar a couple of years under Jones.

Kicking is the new winning rugby it seems- not new, not interesting, but kicking has its place obviously- but we don't kick well, and our 'attacking kicks' are shyte compared to almost everyone else. Also, kicking the leather off it when down to 14 seems.....mad.

I don't yet blame Slim Boatrace for the selection or coaching. But the launch has been a bit underwhelming; but as noted, he aint spoiled for choice.

Actually I would blame Sean Bean for the coaching, even though it's early days for him.
It is not that difficult to instruct your team to stop kicking the ball away to the other side.

[rjjb]

I think in some areas we saw that we just dont have the depth, whereas in others it's still potential as they weren't given a proper shot. Thinking Murley, Freeman etc, and 8 too remaining a real question. Dommers isn't good enough, but are any of the others?

How many of the clubs field a first choice number 8 who is actually an EQP? Is it not a minority (in which case depth is self-evidently going to be an issue) & how has such a situation been allowed to develop? The Premiership shouldn't be a finishing school or pension pot for South Africans.

I have no idea what's going to happen on the wing, but Arundell's selection as a starter yesterday was an absolute shocker by Borthwick - what the hell was he playing at? The lad has minimal experience (6 games?) as a starter in senior rugby & absolutely none on the wing - he's basically trying to learn on the job. Why on earth would you start him there in an away match against the top team gunning for a GS?

[FKAS]

Inconsistency of selection continues (Smith-Farrell-Smith-Farrell...), plus players are still being dumped without getting a reasonable chance (OHC, Ford in and out of squad, etc).

Ford isn't close to back to peak form so makes sense not to select him.

OHC was dropped only because he was injured.

The Smith, Farrell, Farrell, Smith, Farrell selection I think was an attempt at horses for courses selection that didn't really work.

[FKAS]

I think in some areas we saw that we just dont have the depth, whereas in others it's still potential as they weren't given a proper shot. Thinking Murley, Freeman etc, and 8 too remaining a real question. Dommers isn't good enough, but are any of the others?

How many of the clubs field a first choice number 8 who is actually an EQP? Is it not a minority (in which case depth is self-evidently going to be an issue) & how has such a situation been allowed to develop? The Premiership shouldn't be a finishing school or pension pot for South Africans.

I have no idea what's going to happen on the wing, but Arundell's selection as a starter yesterday was an absolute shocker by Borthwick - what the hell was he playing at? The lad has minimal experience (6 games?) as a starter in senior rugby & absolutely none on the wing - he's basically trying to learn on the job. Why on earth would you start him there in an away match against the top team gunning for a GS?

Well putting him at fullback isn't going to make it any easier for him is it. This was his third cap and all three have been on the wing. Not a particular stretch.

[Banquo]

I think in some areas we saw that we just dont have the depth, whereas in others it's still potential as they weren't given a proper shot. Thinking Murley, Freeman etc, and 8 too remaining a real question. Dommers isn't good enough, but are any of the others?

How many of the clubs field a first choice number 8 who is actually an EQP? Is it not a minority (in which case depth is self-evidently going to be an issue) & how has such a situation been allowed to develop? The Premiership shouldn't be a finishing school or pension pot for South Africans.

How can that be fixed tho?

[rjjb]

I think in some areas we saw that we just dont have the depth, whereas in others it's still potential as they weren't given a proper shot. Thinking Murley, Freeman etc, and 8 too remaining a real question. Dommers isn't good enough, but are any of the others?

How many of the clubs field a first choice number 8 who is actually an EQP? Is it not a minority (in which case depth is self-evidently going to be an issue) & how has such a situation been allowed to develop? The Premiership shouldn't be a finishing school or pension pot for South Africans.

How can that be fixed tho?

No idea, as the clubs aren't "controlled" by the RFU. My understanding is there are only general constraints on the clubs' use of EQPs & nothing specific to individual positions.

[rjjb]

I think in some areas we saw that we just dont have the depth, whereas in others it's still potential as they weren't given a proper shot. Thinking Murley, Freeman etc, and 8 too remaining a real question. Dommers isn't good enough, but are any of the others?

How many of the clubs field a first choice number 8 who is actually an EQP? Is it not a minority (in which case depth is self-evidently going to be an issue) & how has such a situation been allowed to develop? The Premiership shouldn't be a finishing school or pension pot for South Africans.

I have no idea what's going to happen on the wing, but Arundell's selection as a starter yesterday was an absolute shocker by Borthwick - what the hell was he playing at? The lad has minimal experience (6 games?) as a starter in senior rugby & absolutely none on the wing - he's basically trying to learn on the job. Why on earth would you start him there in an away match against the top team gunning for a GS?

Well putting him at fullback isn't going to make it any easier for him is it. This was his third cap and all three have been on the wing. Not a particular stretch.

Well if he has to start internationals at this stage in his career, then it should be in the position that he's most comfortable in & one most suited to his strengths. But what pressing need was there for him to start the match? He's looked a very good bench option to me - why not leave him there until he's gained a bit more international experience?

[Spiffy]

I think in some areas we saw that we just dont have the depth, whereas in others it's still potential as they weren't given a proper shot. Thinking Murley, Freeman etc, and 8 too remaining a real question. Dommers isn't good enough, but are any of the others?

How many of the clubs field a first choice number 8 who is actually an EQP? Is it not a minority (in which case depth is self-evidently going to be an issue) & how has such a situation been allowed to develop? The Premiership shouldn't be a finishing school or pension pot for South Africans.

How can that be fixed tho?

Is it possible for the ERFU just to come up with a regulation limiting the number of Non England Qualified players per squad? The IRFU did this several seasons ago re. the Irish provincial squads. I think the number of NIQ players per province is 3, or maybe 4. It may not be that simple in England - I don't know how much the Union supports the clubs financially. So it may not have much of a say (if any) in what they do or who they employ.

[Spiffy]

I think in some areas we saw that we just dont have the depth, whereas in others it's still potential as they weren't given a proper shot. Thinking Murley, Freeman etc, and 8 too remaining a real question. Dommers isn't good enough, but are any of the others?

How many of the clubs field a first choice number 8 who is actually an EQP? Is it not a minority (in which case depth is self-evidently going to be an issue) & how has such a situation been allowed to develop? The Premiership shouldn't be a finishing school or pension pot for South Africans.

How can that be fixed tho?

Is it possible for the ERFU just to come up with a regulation limiting the number of Non England Qualified players per squad? The IRFU did this several seasons ago re. the Irish provincial squads. I think the number of NIQ players per province is 3, or maybe 4. It may not be that simple in England - I don't know how much the Union supports the clubs financially. So it may not have much of a say (if any) in what they do or who they employ.