Scotland v England Sat 24 Feb 4.45pm

[TheDasher]

I’m still waiting for the tongue in cheek emoji.
You could play like that in the dry but then you’d get dry humped by the top teams.

Haha, I know what you mean, but you know what I mean too. There are ways of keeping things tight, limited, and 'arm wrestle(y)' that suit England at the moment more than playing as we did vs Scotland - where we suddenly burst into life, passing the ball along our three fly halves, throwing it into each others' faces and then watching the other team nab it and score. It was fcking ludicrous let's be honest. I truly believe that with the same game plan we employed vs SA, we'd have beaten Scotland.

So when do we unveil the new attack plan. Our run of games from here until the end of the year is brutal. I’d rather we lost to Scotland on our way to being a rounded team than concentrated on winning in the short term. I’ll temper that with the fact that unless we upgrade on Wigglesworth having an attack is futile effort, unless he learns bloody quickly on the job. Hes been dropped in the deep end way too early, imo, but it’ll stand him in good stead when he moves to Ireland in 2027…

Haha. I don't blame Wiggley to be honest - just Borthers, he's the gaffer. We've been trying to be a rounded team for too long - win first, improve it later. OR of course, intro a load of kids and start from scratch, I'd be ok with that - but don't try and claim you're in transition when you're using Cole, George, Marler, Itoje, Care, Ford, Lawrence, Slade, Daly etc - madness.

[TheDasher]

No offence meant. That was intended more at poor Joe C’s expense than yours. I don’t doubt he has the pace, power and step in his locker, but we seem to have either a collective mental block or persistent coaching issues where we just can’t translate the talent of our enormous player pool in to consistently being a top 5 team.

I get what you’re saying about the South Africa game. I absolutely loved it. George Martin’s performance gave me such a boost in terms of belief that England can find the (cliched as it is) “traditional strengths” again.

Trouble is I think that game suffers from the same problems as wanting our exciting backs to run loose. England seem to be able to go in to full war mode for a World Cup knock out game, or facing Ireland with 14 men, but where is it the rest of the time? It must a mental thing, whether that’s coming directly from the players or the wrong kind of focus/motivation from the coaches.

A forward focused game is obviously less reliant on handling skills and fancy backs moves, but I don’t think that means it’s necessarily an easier option to consistently dominate the likes of Ireland, France and South Africa in the physical battle. I’m not sure we’ve really even had the players for it since Kruis and Vunipola were in their prime. Guys like Martin and CCS give me hope though.

No offence taken - I know Joe C is nothing on Duhan VDM - I just think Duhan's hattrick is being lauded as magnificent and I didn't think it was. I think he generally is a great player, I'd have him in my Lions team for sure.

Re your other points - the SA game was wonderful, watching that regularly would get the Twickenham turnstiles spinning so to speak. I agree on the 'war mode' point too, I posted that here at the time - why the fck does it take some adversity for us to get into that mode, it shouldn't. The win over Argentina with 14 men was also absolutely wonderful for purists in my view - what a performance, what winning rugby that was. But then we try and go all Fiji sevens vs Scotland and can't pass and catch.

I'd go full England vs SA mode and pick strike runners and defenders in the backs that can punish teams on the scraps when things open up. It's why having players that can genuinely beat their man is so important, it creates gaps and holes when you don't have creative players to do it.

When you mention Kruis and Vunipola - Kruis was a great player but never the most physical, he was just bloody good. Vunipola was good but only physical in the carry and was a bit lazy otherwise - I'm with you, Martin and CCS give me great hope, as by the way do: Earl, Pearson, Barbeary, Pepper, Tuima, Clarke, Painter, Dan/Blamire, Tom Willis, Iosefa-Scott, Fisilau, Olly Hartley, Lawrence (at 13), Freeman, Steward, Roebuck/OHC/Coka, Marcus Smith, Bamber, Clarke, Roots.

I suspect if Rassie Erasmus had taken over after the WC, we might go into next year's (2025) feeling pretty good about winning four games in the 6ns, it's that kind of level. With SB currently, god knows, I can't tell you where we'll go from here, no idea.

Frankly, I think Duhan is actually somewhat overhyped, though he has scored some great tries, and is generally good going forward....but defensively he's often all over the shop, see previous Lions tour tbh.
Some of the names on your exciting list baffle me quite a lot tbh!
What strike runners in the backs are you talking about btw?

Which names baffle you as prospects?

Also fair to say that listing players that may or may not be good now or in future is a minefield - we're not going to talk through each individual - my overall point which I standby is that if SB plays in the way I'm saying he should - i.e. in the way that almost beat the world champions when we outplayed them fairly recently, (and beat the Argies with 14 men for 70mins), the talent pool in the prem is starting to look like it might provide some decent probables, possibles and future hopes that could fit with that. I don't think that is too contentious frankly.

Strike runners - as I've said before, I think the treatment of Cokanasiga is mad - pick him, drop him, pick him etc, same with OHC, didn't get the ball for three games, suddenly he's terrible, drop him again... I think Feyi-Waboso is a strike runner, I think when fit Watson is class, I think even the likes of Murley, Roebuck etc are more dangerous ball in hand than Daly currently.

There are some talented running threats in the premiership - bearing in mind with Steward, Lawrence/Freeman in the side we're only looking for a handful more for a match day 22. I don't think SB has the excuse, there's some interesting options in what is a large player pool.

[Banquo]

I thought our pack showed that we could be on top of Scotland's, I think it was on top of SA's (hammered in the scrum crucially!) in play, on top of the Welsh, above the Argies... You say three good options in the second row - these are the people he's picked, Martin, Chessum and Itoje - I think he has an increasing number of interesting options there in the prem. Up front Marler and Cole are strong scrummagers no doubt, Stuart has played quite well and is a big unit, Genge we know about, we have some young interesting options coming through and SB has to manage that. In terms of the back row - I'm genuinely excited about Earl and his future, CCS, Tom Willis (have been for years), Barbeary, Pepper, Roots looks a player to me and a few others - I think the stocks are growing in the Prem for SB - I just don't think he'll make the most of it. Second row, Martin, Chessum, Itoje, Hill, Tuima, Coles, Moon etc - and some good young talent coming underneath that. I'm not saying they're all going to become Tadhg Beirne (what a player) - but there's some promise amongst all of that lot in my view. The problems come when we try and play the ball wide beyond ten...

Nope, unconvinced at front row still (Marler and Cole are just not up to it in the loose with any pace in the game, Genge still hit and miss, Stuart had the ball reamed like he was an u12 and is...average. No mention of hooker . Earl is doing ok, only ball in hand (better than nothing), Roots wouldn't be in many top 5 side squads...etc...you've chucked Jonny Hill and Alex Moon in there so, um... So tbh, for your all beating pack hypothesis, looks like you are coming up short on readiness to go toe to toe today- which seemed to be your start point.

Again, I think we overestimate the quality of our players at our own peril. We have one forward who would be in most teams, and a couple who'd be on the fringe, imo.

"looks like you are coming up short on readiness to go toe to toe today - which seemed to be your start point" - Not at all, I started by saying I think are pack already goes toe to toe. More than to be honest (I concede on scrummaging vs SA) - I think the pack has improved since the last six nations, we win more collisions, we go forward more in what is a game of territory when all's said and done. We fck it up when we try and to anything more than the basics. That's my start point. My secondary point is that there are more promising forwards coming through in the prem than we thought there were perhaps a year ago, which I think you agree with too.

I dont agree with the former, and not convinced on the latter.

[FKAS]

Working but flawed- we’ve disagreed over this numerous times so let’s not go over it again.
Only in error in the short term if F Jones is the man he wants to run his d in the long term. This also assumes F Jones was happy to take up either position. It may have been defence or bust, for all we know.

Ys the defence wasn't perfect but it was functional.

Felix Jones coached both attack and defence for the Boks in different world cup cycles. Given Sinfield is finishing at the end of the summer tour it could have been just a short term thing.

I know he did. I’ve worked in surveying on both modern and historic buildings but now work on historic buildings and wouldn’t ever go back to working on modern buildings..
Short term thin(g)king. Seems alot of upheaval and wasted time not embedding Jones’s defence before taking on NZ.

You'd use Sinfield's defence in the summer hoping that Jones attack would give you a well rounded game. Then look at Jones defence for the Autumn by which time we might have acquired a new attack coach like say Mike Catt who comes out of contract at the same time. South African defence with Irish attack, hah we can but dream.

Yeah, know what you mean about being happy in your work.

[TheDasher]

By the way - with the approach I'm proposing, I'm certainly not saying we'll become better than Ireland, they're phenomenal - one of the most complete sides I've seen. But with our current approach they're going to absolutely pump us and, crucially we're not improving. We could take the pumping if our trajectory was generally up, but it's not, well, not enough. I think Borthwick has enough at his disposal in the Prem to pick and hone a pack that could cause Ireland some real problems. They won't be as complete players as Ireland's and our backs are miles off, but you can trouble sides with a great pack and the right game plan.

Frankly, as above, I don't see that great pack; big holes in front and back row for me, certainly compared with the Irish and French.

Yes. It's not really just about size any more. Gone are the days when England could pick a pack bigger than anyone else's, and blatter them into submission. The others have caught up physically. Most packs weigh in at around 900Kg give or take a few Kg. and are well conditioned.
Last week the French pack was reported as 966 Kg (I suspect even heavier with their massive subs on), an almost 100 Kg advantage over Italy, who, nonetheless, outplayed them in the second half and finished on top.
You need significant skills to play international rugby. Even the might Boks, the World's greatest blatterers, can play some nifty rugby when they need to.
What England needs is not more beef, but skills and brains and better coaching..

I'm with you, I don't think it's about size, it's about lot's of things - the thing I'm referring to is impetus, thrust, winning physically - which is what I'm saying is our only current hope. I think over the last however many games, there has been some evidence of England overcoming the opposition up front physically in open play, in the pack only - winning more collisions etc. I make this point as 18 months ago, I don't think we did that at all, not even for 2 minutes. Against Scotland, the game started and we went forward, continually - repeatedly over the gainline. They couldn't stop it. Then, we kept trying to pass the ball cohesively and couldn't. So what do you do about that? You keep it tight, you pin people back in their half and you keep pushing forward up front.

For me it's not about necessarily about the size of the players (funnily enough I often think it is in the backs these days rather than the forwards) - I'd pick Theo Dan to start, I'd pick Ben Early at 8 whilst Tom Willis is out. The only positive I have seen from England over the last few games, since the Argie game (1st one) in the WC is that our pack seem to have the go forward we previously lacked. If I was SB, I'd cling on to that and milk it. I wouldn't have Ford passing to Slade, then passing to Daly, behind the gainline, going sideways - and then doing it again. You don't want a FH at 13. You want threatening runners at 13 - Lawrence, Freeman, Steward running an arc in that channel etc.

England vs SA was the blueprint SB should cling to at this moment - otherwise, we'll lose the next two games by massive margins. With a team of many 50+ cappers. No evolution there whatsoever.

[FKAS]

Haha, I know what you mean, but you know what I mean too. There are ways of keeping things tight, limited, and 'arm wrestle(y)' that suit England at the moment more than playing as we did vs Scotland - where we suddenly burst into life, passing the ball along our three fly halves, throwing it into each others' faces and then watching the other team nab it and score. It was fcking ludicrous let's be honest. I truly believe that with the same game plan we employed vs SA, we'd have beaten Scotland.

So when do we unveil the new attack plan. Our run of games from here until the end of the year is brutal. I’d rather we lost to Scotland on our way to being a rounded team than concentrated on winning in the short term. I’ll temper that with the fact that unless we upgrade on Wigglesworth having an attack is futile effort, unless he learns bloody quickly on the job. Hes been dropped in the deep end way too early, imo, but it’ll stand him in good stead when he moves to Ireland in 2027…

Haha. I don't blame Wiggley to be honest - just Borthers, he's the gaffer. We've been trying to be a rounded team for too long - win first, improve it later. OR of course, intro a load of kids and start from scratch, I'd be ok with that - but don't try and claim you're in transition when you're using Cole, George, Marler, Itoje, Care, Ford, Lawrence, Slade, Daly etc - madness.

Ollie Lawrence being 24 and having 22 caps doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the list.

Borthwick is somewhat suffering from Jones not really advancing much from the 2019 squad, which was admittedly a young side to reach a world cup final. Needing a short term result at the world cup and now needing to both perform and bring through another generation of players he's having to leave on a few senior guys to help anchor in the younger options.

Care is only there because Mitchell and JvP are injured. Ford is in because Marcus Smith is injured. It's not like he's against fielding younger players more that he's trying to find the right blend. Probably hasn't quite got it right yet but the injuries are definitely not helping.

[TheDasher]

So when do we unveil the new attack plan. Our run of games from here until the end of the year is brutal. I’d rather we lost to Scotland on our way to being a rounded team than concentrated on winning in the short term. I’ll temper that with the fact that unless we upgrade on Wigglesworth having an attack is futile effort, unless he learns bloody quickly on the job. Hes been dropped in the deep end way too early, imo, but it’ll stand him in good stead when he moves to Ireland in 2027…

Haha. I don't blame Wiggley to be honest - just Borthers, he's the gaffer. We've been trying to be a rounded team for too long - win first, improve it later. OR of course, intro a load of kids and start from scratch, I'd be ok with that - but don't try and claim you're in transition when you're using Cole, George, Marler, Itoje, Care, Ford, Lawrence, Slade, Daly etc - madness.

Ollie Lawrence being 24 and having 22 caps doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the list.

Borthwick is somewhat suffering from Jones not really advancing much from the 2019 squad, which was admittedly a young side to reach a world cup final. Needing a short term result at the world cup and now needing to both perform and bring through another generation of players he's having to leave on a few senior guys to help anchor in the younger options.

Care is only there because Mitchell and JvP are injured. Ford is in because Marcus Smith is injured. It's not like he's against fielding younger players more that he's trying to find the right blend. Probably hasn't quite got it right yet but the injuries are definitely not helping.

"Ollie Lawrence being 24 and having 22 caps doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the list." - Right but you get the point. And anyway, he's hardly a newby.

In terms of your point about 2019 - I think that's fair absolutely. But he'd better off explaining what he's going to do - is he trying to just win now? In which case, just say so and don't then say we're a young team in transition. Or, pick a young team, scrap all the old, and then justifiably say we're in transition.

In terms of your points on Care, Ford etc - I'm not criticising him for those picks, just saying that the 'transition' thing isn't valid.

He doesn't know if he trusts Care yet. He didn't know who he really wanted at fly half, he doesn't know who he really wants at FB etc - he's not 100% sure what his plan is in my view.

[Mellsblue]

Ys the defence wasn't perfect but it was functional.

Felix Jones coached both attack and defence for the Boks in different world cup cycles. Given Sinfield is finishing at the end of the summer tour it could have been just a short term thing.

I know he did. I’ve worked in surveying on both modern and historic buildings but now work on historic buildings and wouldn’t ever go back to working on modern buildings..
Short term thin(g)king. Seems alot of upheaval and wasted time not embedding Jones’s defence before taking on NZ.

You'd use Sinfield's defence in the summer hoping that Jones attack would give you a well rounded game. Then look at Jones defence for the Autumn by which time we might have acquired a new attack coach like say Mike Catt who comes out of contract at the same time. South African defence with Irish attack, hah we can but dream.

Yeah, know what you mean about being happy in your work.

Sounds overly complicated, confusing for players and a waste of six months.

[FKAS]

I know he did. I’ve worked in surveying on both modern and historic buildings but now work on historic buildings and wouldn’t ever go back to working on modern buildings..
Short term thin(g)king. Seems alot of upheaval and wasted time not embedding Jones’s defence before taking on NZ.

You'd use Sinfield's defence in the summer hoping that Jones attack would give you a well rounded game. Then look at Jones defence for the Autumn by which time we might have acquired a new attack coach like say Mike Catt who comes out of contract at the same time. South African defence with Irish attack, hah we can but dream.

Yeah, know what you mean about being happy in your work.

Sounds overly complicated, confusing for players and a waste of six months.

Would have potentially given us some momentum and platform to build off. We've gone back to the drawing board on attack and defence and whilst there's some signs of hopefully becoming good in the future it's a tough watch at the minute.

[FKAS]

Haha. I don't blame Wiggley to be honest - just Borthers, he's the gaffer. We've been trying to be a rounded team for too long - win first, improve it later. OR of course, intro a load of kids and start from scratch, I'd be ok with that - but don't try and claim you're in transition when you're using Cole, George, Marler, Itoje, Care, Ford, Lawrence, Slade, Daly etc - madness.

Ollie Lawrence being 24 and having 22 caps doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the list.

Borthwick is somewhat suffering from Jones not really advancing much from the 2019 squad, which was admittedly a young side to reach a world cup final. Needing a short term result at the world cup and now needing to both perform and bring through another generation of players he's having to leave on a few senior guys to help anchor in the younger options.

Care is only there because Mitchell and JvP are injured. Ford is in because Marcus Smith is injured. It's not like he's against fielding younger players more that he's trying to find the right blend. Probably hasn't quite got it right yet but the injuries are definitely not helping.

"Ollie Lawrence being 24 and having 22 caps doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the list." - Right but you get the point. And anyway, he's hardly a newby.

In terms of your point about 2019 - I think that's fair absolutely. But he'd better off explaining what he's going to do - is he trying to just win now? In which case, just say so and don't then say we're a young team in transition. Or, pick a young team, scrap all the old, and then justifiably say we're in transition.

In terms of your points on Care, Ford etc - I'm not criticising him for those picks, just saying that the 'transition' thing isn't valid.

He doesn't know if he trusts Care yet. He didn't know who he really wanted at fly half, he doesn't know who he really wants at FB etc - he's not 100% sure what his plan is in my view.

No England coach will be allowed by the media to be in transition. Never going to happen. You're expected to both win and entertain otherwise the ex pros and coaches in the media are out for blood.

Borthwick doesn't tend to be one for picking a 15 and that's his 15. It changes depending on the opposition and the tactics. He made a lot of on paper, odd looking selections as Tigers head coach. Freddie Burns starting games at 15 instead of Steward or the first choice props on the bench and coming on for the second half. Happened so often the Tigers fans stopped questioning it.

He knows he trusts Care to do a job he'd just prefer that he didn't have to. Similar with Ford albeit Ford isn't completely over the hill.

[Cameo]

I love this idea that your issue is trying to play like Fiji! You did one good backs move, dropped a few simple passes and spent most of the match trying to make ground with one out runners.

The SA game is a massive red herring. It was pissing it down, SA were nervy and crap, and you lost. If you want to know what playing like that in the dry looks like, see the last 20 mins of the game last week. Didn't look too troubling.

[TheDasher]

I love this idea that your issue is trying to play like Fiji! You did one good backs move, dropped a few simple passes and spent most of the match trying to make ground with one out runners.

The SA game is a massive red herring. It was pissing it down, SA were nervy and crap, and you lost. If you want to know what playing like that in the dry looks like, see the last 20 mins of the game last week. Didn't look too troubling.

The Fiji sevens comment was tongue in cheek...

On the rest of your point, I disagree - there was a period last year prior to the world cup during which we were terrible but we started to have some decent go forward in open play in the pack. I think that continued in the WC - it did against Argentina with 14 men and it did against SA, during which we didn't let them do their thing - we had the same 'vibe' we had in the NZ game in 2019. Over the past three games, in my opinion, England have looked like they have a pack that take a lot of stopping when going forward in open play. It didn't look too troubling last week because overall we were shite, we made endless mistakes, kicked badly etc.

South Africa dispatched Scotland during the world cup with ease. England pushed SA to just a point - there's not much in it. Scotland have a magnificent 10, plenty of time together, are settled and are cohesive - England at the moment have none of the above but hope Marcus Smith (or Finn) might help change things. Until that time, I propose we stick it up the jumper.

[TheDasher]

Ollie Lawrence being 24 and having 22 caps doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the list.

Borthwick is somewhat suffering from Jones not really advancing much from the 2019 squad, which was admittedly a young side to reach a world cup final. Needing a short term result at the world cup and now needing to both perform and bring through another generation of players he's having to leave on a few senior guys to help anchor in the younger options.

Care is only there because Mitchell and JvP are injured. Ford is in because Marcus Smith is injured. It's not like he's against fielding younger players more that he's trying to find the right blend. Probably hasn't quite got it right yet but the injuries are definitely not helping.

"Ollie Lawrence being 24 and having 22 caps doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the list." - Right but you get the point. And anyway, he's hardly a newby.

In terms of your point about 2019 - I think that's fair absolutely. But he'd better off explaining what he's going to do - is he trying to just win now? In which case, just say so and don't then say we're a young team in transition. Or, pick a young team, scrap all the old, and then justifiably say we're in transition.

In terms of your points on Care, Ford etc - I'm not criticising him for those picks, just saying that the 'transition' thing isn't valid.

He doesn't know if he trusts Care yet. He didn't know who he really wanted at fly half, he doesn't know who he really wants at FB etc - he's not 100% sure what his plan is in my view.

No England coach will be allowed by the media to be in transition. Never going to happen. You're expected to both win and entertain otherwise the ex pros and coaches in the media are out for blood.

Borthwick doesn't tend to be one for picking a 15 and that's his 15. It changes depending on the opposition and the tactics. He made a lot of on paper, odd looking selections as Tigers head coach. Freddie Burns starting games at 15 instead of Steward or the first choice props on the bench and coming on for the second half. Happened so often the Tigers fans stopped questioning it.

He knows he trusts Care to do a job he'd just prefer that he didn't have to. Similar with Ford albeit Ford isn't completely over the hill.

I've been saying that "being in transition" isn't acceptable - but to be fair when you're saying - the media are "out for blood" - that's partly because he comes across as a stiff, dull, uninspiring plank of a man who the media won't rally around. If he said with great dynamism, class and authority - "this is the plan, we're going to be in transition for x period of time, it is on this basis that I've taken the job and we will win handsomely by x date" - then it might work... but of course he isn't up to any of that.

[Banquo]

No offence taken - I know Joe C is nothing on Duhan VDM - I just think Duhan's hattrick is being lauded as magnificent and I didn't think it was. I think he generally is a great player, I'd have him in my Lions team for sure.

Re your other points - the SA game was wonderful, watching that regularly would get the Twickenham turnstiles spinning so to speak. I agree on the 'war mode' point too, I posted that here at the time - why the fck does it take some adversity for us to get into that mode, it shouldn't. The win over Argentina with 14 men was also absolutely wonderful for purists in my view - what a performance, what winning rugby that was. But then we try and go all Fiji sevens vs Scotland and can't pass and catch.

I'd go full England vs SA mode and pick strike runners and defenders in the backs that can punish teams on the scraps when things open up. It's why having players that can genuinely beat their man is so important, it creates gaps and holes when you don't have creative players to do it.

When you mention Kruis and Vunipola - Kruis was a great player but never the most physical, he was just bloody good. Vunipola was good but only physical in the carry and was a bit lazy otherwise - I'm with you, Martin and CCS give me great hope, as by the way do: Earl, Pearson, Barbeary, Pepper, Tuima, Clarke, Painter, Dan/Blamire, Tom Willis, Iosefa-Scott, Fisilau, Olly Hartle
y, Lawrence (at 13), Freeman, Steward, Roebuck/OHC/Coka, Marcus Smith, Bamber, Clarke, Roots.
I suspect if Rassie Erasmus had taken over after the WC, we might go into next year's (2025) feeling pretty good about winning four games in the 6ns, it's that kind of level. With SB currently, god knows, I can't tell you where we'll go from here, no idea.

Frankly, I think Duhan is actually somewhat overhyped, though he has scored some great tries, and is generally good going forward....but defensively he's often all over the shop, see previous Lions tour tbh.
Some of the names on your exciting list baffle me quite a lot tbh!
What strike runners in the backs are you talking about btw?

Which names baffle you as prospects?

Also fair to say that listing players that may or may not be good now or in future is a minefield - we're not going to talk through each individual - my overall point which I standby is that if SB plays in the way I'm saying he should - i.e. in the way that almost beat the world champions when we outplayed them fairly recently, (and beat the Argies with 14 men for 70mins), the talent pool in the prem is starting to look like it might provide some decent probables, possibles and future hopes that could fit with that. I don't think that is too contentious frankly.

Strike runners - as I've said before, I think the treatment of Cokanasiga is mad - pick him, drop him, pick him etc, same with OHC, didn't get the ball for three games, suddenly he's terrible, drop him again... I think Feyi-Waboso is a strike runner, I think when fit Watson is class, I think even the likes of Murley, Roebuck etc are more dangerous ball in hand than Daly currently.

There are some talented running threats in the premiership - bearing in mind with Steward, Lawrence/Freeman in the side we're only looking for a handful more for a match day 22. I don't think SB has the excuse, there's some interesting options in what is a large player pool.

OHC, Coka, Hill, Moon, even Roots arent worrying anyone, and Steward as strike runner?
Watsons time has gone, and saying Murley/Roebuck are more dangerous than Daly- who is a tad underrated- at this level seems premature.

There is some potential in some players, -Dan,CCs- but others as above are just good prem players.

[TheDasher]

Frankly, I think Duhan is actually somewhat overhyped, though he has scored some great tries, and is generally good going forward....but defensively he's often all over the shop, see previous Lions tour tbh.
Some of the names on your exciting list baffle me quite a lot tbh!
What strike runners in the backs are you talking about btw?

Which names baffle you as prospects?

Also fair to say that listing players that may or may not be good now or in future is a minefield - we're not going to talk through each individual - my overall point which I standby is that if SB plays in the way I'm saying he should - i.e. in the way that almost beat the world champions when we outplayed them fairly recently, (and beat the Argies with 14 men for 70mins), the talent pool in the prem is starting to look like it might provide some decent probables, possibles and future hopes that could fit with that. I don't think that is too contentious frankly.

Strike runners - as I've said before, I think the treatment of Cokanasiga is mad - pick him, drop him, pick him etc, same with OHC, didn't get the ball for three games, suddenly he's terrible, drop him again... I think Feyi-Waboso is a strike runner, I think when fit Watson is class, I think even the likes of Murley, Roebuck etc are more dangerous ball in hand than Daly currently.

There are some talented running threats in the premiership - bearing in mind with Steward, Lawrence/Freeman in the side we're only looking for a handful more for a match day 22. I don't think SB has the excuse, there's some interesting options in what is a large player pool.

OHC, Coka, Hill, Moon, even Roots arent worrying anyone, and Steward as strike runner?
Watsons time has gone, and saying Murley/Roebuck are more dangerous than Daly- who is a tad underrated- at this level seems premature.

There is some potential in some players, -Dan,CCs- but others as above are just good prem players.

Did you think Dan and CCs had great potential over and above others before SB picked them? Or do you rate them now as you've seen them properly for England... perhaps if some of the others were picked you might rate them too. Let's be honest CCS has played for England for a few minutes, but looked big and quick against Italy and the media love him, and then so do fans. Pearson was dumped against Wales in a WC warm up and millions around the country thought he was rubbish. I think there's great potential amongst many of these players, as Richard Hill clearly did with Ethan Roots, right?

Daly isn't underrated - he has a large number of caps and experience but ultimately not the ability (he did in the past) to really do what we'd like him to do. He has 64 caps so can't blame a lack of experience but ultimately he's no great threat as a runner... at international level, that's not ideal for a winger. I wouldn't say he's underrated. OHC and Coka would I suspect worry their opposition defender with a bit of time and space. And yes, Steward as a strike runner - in the oppo 22 at pace on the right line - I'd say he's a threat.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah, sadly I think the SA and Arg games are anomalies rather than the norm. Any team could pick their best performance and say “that should be the new minimum standard” but it just doesn’t work that way. If Borthwick could get that performance from the team every time I’m sure he would.

I also think it’s oversimplifying to say things only go wrong when we spin it wide and try to get expansive. We’ve spent an enormous amount of time in the last year or so attempting to play zero rugby and still fucking it up.

Van der Merwe is a funny one. Totally hopeless in several key areas, but just a monster when he’s in it. Tuipulotu said of him recently he’s an absolutely awful rugby player, he just happens to be such a good athlete that he makes up for it. Quite a statement from a team mate.

[p/d]

Ooh, ooh!!! Steward a strike runner. Dare I go left field and suggest the 12 berth.

[Danno]

Van der Merwe is a funny one. Totally hopeless in several key areas, but just a monster when he’s in it. Tuipulotu said of him recently he’s an absolutely awful rugby player, he just happens to be such a good athlete that he makes up for it. Quite a statement from a team mate.

100% fair though. Huge and fast and yet his only real talent seems to be making English International players and their coaches look even chumpier. I daresay if he had any actual ball skills he'd be at 12

[TheDasher]

Yeah, sadly I think the SA and Arg games are anomalies rather than the norm. Any team could pick their best performance and say “that should be the new minimum standard” but it just doesn’t work that way. If Borthwick could get that performance from the team every time I’m sure he would.

I also think it’s oversimplifying to say things only go wrong when we spin it wide and try to get expansive. We’ve spent an enormous amount of time in the last year or so attempting to play zero rugby and still fucking it up.

Van der Merwe is a funny one. Totally hopeless in several key areas, but just a monster when he’s in it. Tuipulotu said of him recently he’s an absolutely awful rugby player, he just happens to be such a good athlete that he makes up for it. Quite a statement from a team mate.

No but we're talking about two performances there amongst the last what, 10? So 20%. I take the point though - not easy to replicate. Don't forget though - we're obviously trying to "show fans how we want to play" as Jamie George has said... I'm just saying don't - just do whatever is necessary to win, no matter how ugly. In doing so, if that takes you closer to Ireland, SA etc - it's something to build on - rather than getting hammered.

On VDM - I don't watch him enough to be honest so bow to your knowledge/view. These things are always relatively subjective - the same things were said of Pierre Spies, Wendall Sailor and others. Frankly even Jason Robinson at the beginning who couldn't kick, had dodgy defensive and positional issues, and had various weaknesses but could attack. Before I'm slammed for being literal - obviously VDM is no Robinson who is surely one of the greatest to ever do it. Thinking about it Elliot Daly who is mentioned on this page in other posts is a good counter - is he a better rugby player than VDM according to Tuipulotu? I'd rather mark Daly personally.

[Mikey Brown]

It was just a funny off-hand comment I was reminded of to be honest.

He’s certainly not the complete player (Daly certainly has flaws but is a solid 6-7/10 in most areas) but it’s about knowing how to use them. Even though she’s shite under the high ball Gatland was quite up front about picking him because the opposition don’t tend to catch it cleanly if he’s running at you.

It all comes round to the same thing. I think we’re all largely agreeing, we just want to see players actually used for their strengths.

[p/d]

It was just a funny off-hand comment I was reminded of to be honest.

He’s certainly not the complete player (Daly certainly has flaws but is a solid 6-7/10 in most areas) but it’s about knowing how to use them. Even though she’s shite under the high ball Gatland was quite up front about picking him because the opposition don’t tend to catch it cleanly if he’s running at you.

It all comes round to the same thing. I think we’re all largely agreeing, we just want to see players actually used for their strengths.

Poor VDM.

[Cameo]

I love this idea that your issue is trying to play like Fiji! You did one good backs move, dropped a few simple passes and spent most of the match trying to make ground with one out runners.

The SA game is a massive red herring. It was pissing it down, SA were nervy and crap, and you lost. If you want to know what playing like that in the dry looks like, see the last 20 mins of the game last week. Didn't look too troubling.

The Fiji sevens comment was tongue in cheek...

On the rest of your point, I disagree - there was a period last year prior to the world cup during which we were terrible but we started to have some decent go forward in open play in the pack. I think that continued in the WC - it did against Argentina with 14 men and it did against SA, during which we didn't let them do their thing - we had the same 'vibe' we had in the NZ game in 2019. Over the past three games, in my opinion, England have looked like they have a pack that take a lot of stopping when going forward in open play. It didn't look too troubling last week because overall we were shite, we made endless mistakes, kicked badly etc.

South Africa dispatched Scotland during the world cup with ease. England pushed SA to just a point - there's not much in it. Scotland have a magnificent 10, plenty of time together, are settled and are cohesive - England at the moment have none of the above but hope Marcus Smith (or Finn) might help change things. Until that time, I propose we stick it up the jumper.

I think you are forgetting about the rain in the England SA game at the World Cup. That game plus the inevitable tightening up at semi final stage suited to a T the type of rugby you are proposing.

MB also makes a fair point - you have had match after match of very limited ambition and didnt look good in 75% of them.

You also all keep pointing to the limitations of your players. That is a fair point but it's not like they are hopeless. You don't need to wait for Marcus Smith to play semi attacking rugby when you have George Ford. He's one of the most intelligent 10s in the game, except when he is playing for England. I'm not advocating goimg crazy and running everything, I would just slightly despair if I was an England fan at the idea that the problem with this team is that it is too expansive.

[Oakboy]

Banquo, you are mostly right (of course) but it does not alter the frustration for we fans of the RFU not appointing a head coach who could get the best out of what we've got - yet again! What is worse, IMO, is that even if we get rid of the mediocrity that has been holding us back, those players that follow do not enter an inspirational environment. The public image of the coaching crew may not be accurate but to my eyes it is funereal.

Its possible to hold both concepts simultaneously; we ARE way behind, but we should still perform better than we do. I agree on the environment, but I would as its confirmation bias.

That the point. No one seriously expects us to sweep all before us. We know were' well behind Ireland and France, and Scotland have proved to be a step up too.

But we should be putting out better performances than what we've managed so far in this 6Ns.

Lose while playing well and showing signs of development might be a bitter pill but its one most of us would swallow. Lose while playing badly and showing limited ambition and skill is very hard to take.

This, a hundred times THIS! So far this 6N, no single player has played to the best of his ability. Nor has any unit within the team. Nor has the XV itself.

Yes, our players are reasonably described as 'good club standard only'. So what? If all of them played to the best of their club ability and were moulded into a good unit, all tuned to the same sense of purpose, why would they not beat Italy, Wales and Scotland convincingly? After all, those three teams only have 'good club standard players' too. How many Italian, Welsh or Scottish players would make the Irish XV? Arguably, one - Russell. How many English players? Possibly one - Itoje.

Sad Bugger needs time, yes. But how long before a decision is taken on whether he's up to the job?

[TheDasher]

I love this idea that your issue is trying to play like Fiji! You did one good backs move, dropped a few simple passes and spent most of the match trying to make ground with one out runners.

The SA game is a massive red herring. It was pissing it down, SA were nervy and crap, and you lost. If you want to know what playing like that in the dry looks like, see the last 20 mins of the game last week. Didn't look too troubling.

The Fiji sevens comment was tongue in cheek...

On the rest of your point, I disagree - there was a period last year prior to the world cup during which we were terrible but we started to have some decent go forward in open play in the pack. I think that continued in the WC - it did against Argentina with 14 men and it did against SA, during which we didn't let them do their thing - we had the same 'vibe' we had in the NZ game in 2019. Over the past three games, in my opinion, England have looked like they have a pack that take a lot of stopping when going forward in open play. It didn't look too troubling last week because overall we were shite, we made endless mistakes, kicked badly etc.

South Africa dispatched Scotland during the world cup with ease. England pushed SA to just a point - there's not much in it. Scotland have a magnificent 10, plenty of time together, are settled and are cohesive - England at the moment have none of the above but hope Marcus Smith (or Finn) might help change things. Until that time, I propose we stick it up the jumper.

I think you are forgetting about the rain in the England SA game at the World Cup. That game plus the inevitable tightening up at semi final stage suited to a T the type of rugby you are proposing.

MB also makes a fair point - you have had match after match of very limited ambition and didnt look good in 75% of them.

You also all keep pointing to the limitations of your players. That is a fair point but it's not like they are hopeless. You don't need to wait for Marcus Smith to play semi attacking rugby when you have George Ford. He's one of the most intelligent 10s in the game, except when he is playing for England. I'm not advocating goimg crazy and running everything, I would just slightly despair if I was an England fan at the idea that the problem with this team is that it is too expansive.

Cameo - you write logically, you say it well - I'm not really arguing with the sense you speak. Sometimes on RR one makes a point and then has to defend it like General Custer as the rounds start flying in. I totally agree, I absolutely love Marcus Smith - it's painful that SB might not pick him - I'd have picked him for every game of the WC, and would pick him now, I think he can be as good as Russell absolutely, if he isn't already. George Ford has ability although unfortunately isn't consistent enough, I think he's always been capable of a MOM performance just before a shocker - I'd be picking Finn Smith now I think.

I don't want us not to play expansively - I'm in the camp that believes we have a lot of talent coming through in the prem. My point which I stand by is more moderate than perhaps it's seemed in the last few posts - with the current plan we are likely to get absolutely royally spanked by the Irish and even the French - to avoid that, I'd keep it super tight, fire up forwards so that they're frothing at the bit and try and make the next two games uncomfortable, niggly and aim to keep our opponents deep in their halves at all costs. That'd be my plan. Longer term, absolutely, we have to develop and play some rugby.

[monkey]

Y’all just need a proper attack coach. I honestly think it’s that simple.