England vs Samoa - Sat 4.45pm

[Puja]

Papers have rumours of team being 10-15 of Ford, May, Farrell, Manu, Marchant, Steward, and that the backrow will be Lawes/Curry/Earl, with BillyV on the bench.

If we *must* have Farrell starting (and apparently, we must), I still regard him as least damaging at 12, and I still don't mind Ford/Farrell as a combo as much as some others on here do - it's not what I would pick, but it has worked before. Not thrilled by Marchant on the wing, mind. His speed's not a liability, but he's not a real winger and it feels like we're neutralising part of our attacking threat so that we can crowbar the ICEMAN into the XV. Mind, we weren't using that attacking threat anyway, so I guess there's that.

The BillyV news is the more important bit to me and fantastic news to hear, if it's true. Good to know that we've recognised that playing two flankers is important.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Papers have rumours of team being 10-15 of Ford, May, Farrell, Manu, Marchant, Steward, and that the backrow will be Lawes/Curry/Earl, with BillyV on the bench.

If we *must* have Farrell starting (and apparently, we must), I still regard him as least damaging at 12, and I still don't mind Ford/Farrell as a combo as much as some others on here do - it's not what I would pick, but it has worked before. Not thrilled by Marchant on the wing, mind. His speed's not a liability, but he's not a real winger and it feels like we're neutralising part of our attacking threat so that we can crowbar the ICEMAN into the XV. Mind, we weren't using that attacking threat anyway, so I guess there's that.

The BillyV news is the more important bit to me and fantastic news to hear, if it's true. Good to know that we've recognised that playing two flankers is important.

Puja

I'd say that the worst part of what you suggest is Vunipola on the bench ahead of better alternatives. Oddly enough, I hope one of the veterans is at 9. Otherwise, Mitchell could get lots of flak for just being part of such a turgid (but expected) back line. Having said that, at least SB seems intent on picking HIS best XV.

[p/d]

BV on bench just goes to highlight the folly of not farming him out on seeing red.

[Mikey Brown]

Papers have rumours of team being 10-15 of Ford, May, Farrell, Manu, Marchant, Steward, and that the backrow will be Lawes/Curry/Earl, with BillyV on the bench.

If we *must* have Farrell starting (and apparently, we must), I still regard him as least damaging at 12, and I still don't mind Ford/Farrell as a combo as much as some others on here do - it's not what I would pick, but it has worked before. Not thrilled by Marchant on the wing, mind. His speed's not a liability, but he's not a real winger and it feels like we're neutralising part of our attacking threat so that we can crowbar the ICEMAN into the XV. Mind, we weren't using that attacking threat anyway, so I guess there's that.

The BillyV news is the more important bit to me and fantastic news to hear, if it's true. Good to know that we've recognised that playing two flankers is important.

Puja

It’s on defence that I find the midfield (and the moving of Marchant) a lot more concerning.

I feel like Tuilagi has grown in to his role as a defender at 12, but doesn’t look nearly light enough on his feet these days to play wider, whilst Farrell introduces all sorts of confusion alongside his famed physicality.

[Puja]

Papers have rumours of team being 10-15 of Ford, May, Farrell, Manu, Marchant, Steward, and that the backrow will be Lawes/Curry/Earl, with BillyV on the bench.

If we *must* have Farrell starting (and apparently, we must), I still regard him as least damaging at 12, and I still don't mind Ford/Farrell as a combo as much as some others on here do - it's not what I would pick, but it has worked before. Not thrilled by Marchant on the wing, mind. His speed's not a liability, but he's not a real winger and it feels like we're neutralising part of our attacking threat so that we can crowbar the ICEMAN into the XV. Mind, we weren't using that attacking threat anyway, so I guess there's that.

The BillyV news is the more important bit to me and fantastic news to hear, if it's true. Good to know that we've recognised that playing two flankers is important.

Puja

It’s on defence that I find the midfield (and the moving of Marchant) a lot more concerning.

I feel like Tuilagi has grown in to his role as a defender at 12, but doesn’t look nearly light enough on his feet these days to play wider, whilst Farrell introduces all sorts of confusion alongside his famed physicality.

I wonder if the idea is to have Ford playing wing on defence so that they can use Marchant's organisational skills at 13 and move the lighter Ford away from traffic - he's an excellent tackler who completes a high percentage successfully, but he is vulnerable to giving up yards by being dragged backwards when big men run at him.

Again, it wouldn't be what I'd do, but it's an explanation for effectively having the midfield labelled as 13 and 14.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Papers have rumours of team being 10-15 of Ford, May, Farrell, Manu, Marchant, Steward, and that the backrow will be Lawes/Curry/Earl, with BillyV on the bench.

If we *must* have Farrell starting (and apparently, we must), I still regard him as least damaging at 12, and I still don't mind Ford/Farrell as a combo as much as some others on here do - it's not what I would pick, but it has worked before. Not thrilled by Marchant on the wing, mind. His speed's not a liability, but he's not a real winger and it feels like we're neutralising part of our attacking threat so that we can crowbar the ICEMAN into the XV. Mind, we weren't using that attacking threat anyway, so I guess there's that.

The BillyV news is the more important bit to me and fantastic news to hear, if it's true. Good to know that we've recognised that playing two flankers is important.

Puja

It’s on defence that I find the midfield (and the moving of Marchant) a lot more concerning.

I feel like Tuilagi has grown in to his role as a defender at 12, but doesn’t look nearly light enough on his feet these days to play wider, whilst Farrell introduces all sorts of confusion alongside his famed physicality.

I wonder if the idea is to have Ford playing wing on defence so that they can use Marchant's organisational skills at 13 and move the lighter Ford away from traffic - he's an excellent tackler who completes a high percentage successfully, but he is vulnerable to giving up yards by being dragged backwards when big men run at him.

Again, it wouldn't be what I'd do, but it's an explanation for effectively having the midfield labelled as 13 and 14.

Puja

Could be, but I never quite understand the logistics of the flyhalf and winger (who might be on the far side) having to swap back and forth between changes of possession.

It hardly seems much more sensible than sticking Steward to the wing for Smith at fullback. Can Ford do a good goose step?

[FKAS]

It’s on defence that I find the midfield (and the moving of Marchant) a lot more concerning.

I feel like Tuilagi has grown in to his role as a defender at 12, but doesn’t look nearly light enough on his feet these days to play wider, whilst Farrell introduces all sorts of confusion alongside his famed physicality.

I wonder if the idea is to have Ford playing wing on defence so that they can use Marchant's organisational skills at 13 and move the lighter Ford away from traffic - he's an excellent tackler who completes a high percentage successfully, but he is vulnerable to giving up yards by being dragged backwards when big men run at him.

Again, it wouldn't be what I'd do, but it's an explanation for effectively having the midfield labelled as 13 and 14.

Puja

Could be, but I never quite understand the logistics of the flyhalf and winger (who might be on the far side) having to swap back and forth between changes of possession.

It hardly seems much more sensible than sticking Steward to the wing for Smith at fullback. Can Ford do a good goose step?

Sinfield doesn't use a traditional pendulum system in defence so moving Ford to the wing doesn't really happen. The wings tend to defend flat in the line with the flyhalf and fullback in the backfield. If the flyhalf gets caught in the line the scrum half drops in. Occasionally a winger drops back to cover for the fullback.

Keeps a kicking presence and then a chaser/aerial option in the backfield.

[Margin_Walker]

Which papers have this as the team?

I'm not believing any leaked team until the Mail or Times leak it.

[p/d]

I hate how resigned to and numb we have become to the hard man of Europe getting the nod at 12.

[Stom]

Papers have rumours of team being 10-15 of Ford, May, Farrell, Manu, Marchant, Steward, and that the backrow will be Lawes/Curry/Earl, with BillyV on the bench.

If we *must* have Farrell starting (and apparently, we must), I still regard him as least damaging at 12, and I still don't mind Ford/Farrell as a combo as much as some others on here do - it's not what I would pick, but it has worked before. Not thrilled by Marchant on the wing, mind. His speed's not a liability, but he's not a real winger and it feels like we're neutralising part of our attacking threat so that we can crowbar the ICEMAN into the XV. Mind, we weren't using that attacking threat anyway, so I guess there's that.

The BillyV news is the more important bit to me and fantastic news to hear, if it's true. Good to know that we've recognised that playing two flankers is important.

Puja

It’s on defence that I find the midfield (and the moving of Marchant) a lot more concerning.

I feel like Tuilagi has grown in to his role as a defender at 12, but doesn’t look nearly light enough on his feet these days to play wider, whilst Farrell introduces all sorts of confusion alongside his famed physicality.

Exactly. Marchant is such a good defender in midfield, and with Tuilagi alongside him, we have a great midfield defence. Take out Marchant, a great defender, and add in Farrell, a liability, and suddenly we're going to concede a shedload of meters through that midfield.

[Oakboy]

I hate how resigned to and numb we have become to the hard man of Europe getting the nod at 12.

Let's face it, all he has to do is fart to get 8/10 from most pundits. Our protests about him just waste breath so it's easier to talk about other selections. He must have broken some sort of record for being so bad that we have stopped whingeing about his selection.

[Mellsblue]

I hate how resigned to and numb we have become to the hard man of Europe getting the nod at 12.

Let's face it, all he has to do is fart to get 8/10 from most pundits. Our protests about him just waste breath so it's easier to talk about other selections. He must have broken some sort of record for being so bad that we have stopped whingeing about his selection.

If the Ice Man farts and doesn’t melt then 8/10 is too low, imo.

[Puja]

Which papers have this as the team?

I'm not believing any leaked team until the Mail or Times leak it.

Guardian and Telegraph - the latter's usually got a fairly good line on leaks from the camp.

Puja

[Banquo]

, I still regard him as least damaging at 12, and I still don't mind Ford/Farrell as a combo as much as some others on here do - it's not what I would pick, but it has worked before.
Puja

Dear god, despite all the evidence....it last 'worked' eons ago when our pack was dominating, and only against poor opposition. Faz is a better 10 than 12, but a mediocre 10.

and fck Marchant on the wing.

Clueless back selection if so. The fact that we even try and make sense out of it shows we have Stockholm syndrome

[rjjb]

Papers have rumours of team being 10-15 of Ford, May, Farrell, Manu, Marchant, Steward, and that the backrow will be Lawes/Curry/Earl, with BillyV on the bench.

If we *must* have Farrell starting (and apparently, we must), I still regard him as least damaging at 12, and I still don't mind Ford/Farrell as a combo as much as some others on here do - it's not what I would pick, but it has worked before. Not thrilled by Marchant on the wing, mind. His speed's not a liability, but he's not a real winger and it feels like we're neutralising part of our attacking threat so that we can crowbar the ICEMAN into the XV. Mind, we weren't using that attacking threat anyway, so I guess there's that.

The BillyV news is the more important bit to me and fantastic news to hear, if it's true. Good to know that we've recognised that playing two flankers is important.

Puja

"Crowbar" pretty much sums it up. Ford is probably compromised by Farrell's presence, Tuilagi isn't an OC these days & Marchant isn't a wing. It also means a relatively pedestrian backline to my eye.

[Spiffy]

England will duly hump Samoa and learn nothing new in the process.

[Puja]

I wonder if the idea is to have Ford playing wing on defence so that they can use Marchant's organisational skills at 13 and move the lighter Ford away from traffic - he's an excellent tackler who completes a high percentage successfully, but he is vulnerable to giving up yards by being dragged backwards when big men run at him.

Again, it wouldn't be what I'd do, but it's an explanation for effectively having the midfield labelled as 13 and 14.

Puja

Could be, but I never quite understand the logistics of the flyhalf and winger (who might be on the far side) having to swap back and forth between changes of possession.

It hardly seems much more sensible than sticking Steward to the wing for Smith at fullback. Can Ford do a good goose step?

Sinfield doesn't use a traditional pendulum system in defence so moving Ford to the wing doesn't really happen. The wings tend to defend flat in the line with the flyhalf and fullback in the backfield. If the flyhalf gets caught in the line the scrum half drops in. Occasionally a winger drops back to cover for the fullback.

Keeps a kicking presence and then a chaser/aerial option in the backfield.

Huh, interesting. I didn't know that was how it worked.

Puja

[Puja]

, I still regard him as least damaging at 12, and I still don't mind Ford/Farrell as a combo as much as some others on here do - it's not what I would pick, but it has worked before.
Puja

Dear god, despite all the evidence....it last 'worked' eons ago when our pack was dominating, and only against poor opposition. Faz is a better 10 than 12, but a mediocre 10.

and fck Marchant on the wing.

Clueless back selection if so. The fact that we even try and make sense out of it shows we have Stockholm syndrome

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am, cause my memory's shithouse), but we haven't actually used Ford/Farrell since 2020, have we? I thought Ford was dumped shortly after we won the Autumn Nations Cup thingy and we've just had loads of attempts to make either Farrell at 10 or Smith/Farrell work.

So, "all the evidence" would include the last time we were actually good at the game.

Puja

[FKAS]

Could be, but I never quite understand the logistics of the flyhalf and winger (who might be on the far side) having to swap back and forth between changes of possession.

It hardly seems much more sensible than sticking Steward to the wing for Smith at fullback. Can Ford do a good goose step?

Sinfield doesn't use a traditional pendulum system in defence so moving Ford to the wing doesn't really happen. The wings tend to defend flat in the line with the flyhalf and fullback in the backfield. If the flyhalf gets caught in the line the scrum half drops in. Occasionally a winger drops back to cover for the fullback.

Keeps a kicking presence and then a chaser/aerial option in the backfield.

Huh, interesting. I didn't know that was how it worked.

Puja

I'm sure someone somewhere has done a more detailed analysis than my observations. Ford is definitely positioned in the backfield with Steward though.

[Banquo]

, I still regard him as least damaging at 12, and I still don't mind Ford/Farrell as a combo as much as some others on here do - it's not what I would pick, but it has worked before.
Puja

Dear god, despite all the evidence....it last 'worked' eons ago when our pack was dominating, and only against poor opposition. Faz is a better 10 than 12, but a mediocre 10.

and fck Marchant on the wing.

Clueless back selection if so. The fact that we even try and make sense out of it shows we have Stockholm syndrome

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am, cause my memory's shithouse), but we haven't actually used Ford/Farrell since 2020, have we? I thought Ford was dumped shortly after we won the Autumn Nations Cup thingy and we've just had loads of attempts to make either Farrell at 10 or Smith/Farrell work.

So, "all the evidence" would include the last time we were actually good at the game.

Puja

nah, its a rubbish combo and Faz is a rubbish 12. There are no other answers

(we weren't actually any good in 2020)....and btw they played together in the 2021 6N....

[Oakboy]

WT's post about the results that should see SB sacked may need amending. Any game lost featuring Ford/Farrell starting at 10/12 does it for me.

[Beasties]

What time do we get to find out what position Farrell is playing?

[p/d]

What time do we get to find out what position Farrell is playing?

do you mean 'who get's to play with Farrell?'

[Mikey Brown]

The Guardian have just announced* the same team as listed above with Marchant shifting to the wing to make space for Muhammed "I'm hard" Bruce Lee at 12.

*Announced in that way they seem to do now - going to great lengths to hit a huge word-count without actually listing a full team or fully committing to what they're saying.

[Doofus]

BBC Announcement
England starting XV to face Samoa: Steward; Marchant, Tuilagi, Farrell (capt), May; Ford, Mitchell; Genge, George, Cole, Itoje, Chessum, Lawes, Curry, Earl.

Replacements: Dan, Marler, Sinckler, Martin, Vunipola, Care, Smith, Lawrence.