Team for Wales

[jngf]

So...I wasn't being 100% serious saying Earl at 12. But it appears he is the first choice to play centre if there is an injury...

lol.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/ ... ions-rugby

I actually see that a ball carrying type 12 is something well within Earl’s skillset.

[p/d]

The crossover is crazy between 12 or centre and a back-rower. It’s the same position, you just wear a different number and you defend in a slightly different position off a scrum. That’s the only slight technical difference.”

Now there is a thing.

Still doesn’t answer why Ford is on the bench

[Puja]

So...I wasn't being 100% serious saying Earl at 12. But it appears he is the first choice to play centre if there is an injury...

lol.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/ ... ions-rugby

I actually see that a ball carrying type 12 is something well within Earl’s skillset.

It is definitely within his skillset, although I am a touch worried about playing someone at centre who has a) spent 60 minutes burning through his tank by playing back row and b) only trains there for a little bit of the time.

I'm halfway hopeful that this taster might lead to him deciding to move to the backs full-time. If he trained and played there regularly, I think he could become a formidable 12 and sew up the England shirt for the next 4 years, whereas staying a 7/8 could potentially see him overtaken by the 2027 RWC, given the competition there.

Puja

[Puja]

The crossover is crazy between 12 or centre and a back-rower. It’s the same position, you just wear a different number and you defend in a slightly different position off a scrum. That’s the only slight technical difference.”

Now there is a thing.

Still doesn’t answer why Ford is on the bench

Well, p/d, you see, the crossover is crazy between a 10 and a lock forward...

Puja

[p/d]

The crossover is crazy between 12 or centre and a back-rower. It’s the same position, you just wear a different number and you defend in a slightly different position off a scrum. That’s the only slight technical difference.”

Now there is a thing.

Still doesn’t answer why Ford is on the bench

Well, p/d, you see, the crossover is crazy between a 10 and a lock forward...

Puja

The pieces start to fall into place. Though I would counter the 10/lock synergy by raising you the elephant in the room ….. 15 + 14 + 12 + 6(or 4) = Steward

[SixAndAHalf]

I think Pollock and CCS can both get beyond the best of both Currys, Earl, Underhill and Hill. So far, I'd give SB credit for at least allowing for the possibility - all he can do at this point.

Its very subjective but I don't see how you can pick CCS ahead of the others on that list on that basis.

TCurry has the most proven level of world class performance so I would be building the back row around him (if we are confident he can stay fit) and TWillis (who gives the best balance at 8). Then there are arguments for all of those listed to fill the other flanker spot but I would hope Jack Willis is the man for the next world cup.

I rate Earl and see him as perfect for a Kwagga Smith style role where he plays 20-30 mins with an insanely high number of involvements per minute. That would leave a final back row spot in a 6-2 bench and I could see arguments for each of Pollock, CCS, Hill or BCurry (Pepper another one who I think will be on the radar).

On this basis (and our lack of locks) I can see we are developing CCS / Hill / TWillis as lock options - I wouldn't be adverse to seeing either Hill / CCS played as a lock for extended periods on the summer tour. It's also why I like the previous suggestion of developing Barbeary as a hooker / 8 hybrid!

[SixAndAHalf]

The crossover is crazy between 12 or centre and a back-rower. It’s the same position, you just wear a different number and you defend in a slightly different position off a scrum. That’s the only slight technical difference.”

Now there is a thing.

Still doesn’t answer why Ford is on the bench

The only logical reason I could think of for having Ford involved is that he is seen as playing at 10 in the absence of the Smiths in Argentina (similar logic for involving Pollock).

Alternatively, I wonder could there be a trigger in the EEPS contracts requiring all fit players to be involved in one match per campaign?

[Puja]

The crossover is crazy between 12 or centre and a back-rower. It’s the same position, you just wear a different number and you defend in a slightly different position off a scrum. That’s the only slight technical difference.”

Now there is a thing.

Still doesn’t answer why Ford is on the bench

The only logical reason I could think of for having Ford involved is that he is seen as playing at 10 in the absence of the Smiths in Argentina (similar logic for involving Pollock).

Alternatively, I wonder could there be a trigger in the EEPS contracts requiring all fit players to be involved in one match per campaign?

Surely not? That would be madness.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Reports of Ford's efforts/attitude in camp sound like contrived leaks to justify his inclusion in the 23. Maybe, he's being lined up for a coaching role.

[Mellsblue]

Stuart Barnes arguing (well stating, it is Stuart Barnes) that Ford had been picked as an insurance policy due to Borthwick not fully trusting either of the Smiths to run the game in a hostile Prin Stad.

[p/d]

Stuart Barnes arguing (well stating, it is Stuart Barnes) that Ford had been picked as an insurance policy due to Borthwick not fully trusting either of the Smiths to run the game in a hostile Prin Stad.

So Barnes is struggling to understand why he is on the bench

[Oakboy]

Stuart Barnes arguing (well stating, it is Stuart Barnes) that Ford had been picked as an insurance policy due to Borthwick not fully trusting either of the Smiths to run the game in a hostile Prin Stad.

So Barnes is struggling to understand why he is on the bench

As against starting, you mean?

Maybe, he trusts Fin to manage the game for 60 minutes but not the last 20. In a mega-tight game to be decided by our last-ditch kick from the tee (or with a drop-goal), I'd not choose Ford ahead of either Smith. I would not fancy him ahead of either in a try-saving tackle scenario either.

Not trusting Marcus at 10 for the steady stuff (especially in the later stages) somehow seems at odds with Pollock on the bench or no conventional lock cover. It would be intriguing to hear the assistant coaches give their views relative to their own areas of influence.

[p/d]

Stuart Barnes arguing (well stating, it is Stuart Barnes) that Ford had been picked as an insurance policy due to Borthwick not fully trusting either of the Smiths to run the game in a hostile Prin Stad.

So Barnes is struggling to understand why he is on the bench

As against starting, you mean?

Nah. As in Barnes trying to find a reason for Ford being in the 23 by reading the sediment at the bottom of his wine glass.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah it's hard to reach any conclusion that isn't contradicted by a different part of the selection. It feels like it displays a lack of faith in either Fin or Marcus, with zero benefit for positional cover. I think Ford is a great player (and would hope he goes down the coaching route) but I just don't get it.

Am I correct in saying France could narrowly beat Scotland and England are still in it if we win by 30 or so? I know it's unlikely but I wonder if that is something that's been addressed at all. If Wales crumble a bit early on (I'm not expecting they will) it will be interesting to see if we really go for it in attack. Again I'm not sure where Ford would play in to that.

[Oakboy]

Maybe, it's as simple as Ford being there for an emergency with Plan A to leave the Smiths on for 80.

[loudnconfident]

Double post.

[loudnconfident]

[deleted]
Am I correct in saying France could narrowly beat Scotland and England are still in it if we win by 30 or so? I know it's unlikely but I wonder if that is something that's been addressed at all. If Wales crumble a bit early on (I'm not expecting they will) it will be interesting to see if we really go for it in attack. Again I'm not sure where Ford would play in to that.

AFAICS France are +106 and we are +20. If France win by une point we'd have to beat Wales by 88?

[Mikey Brown]

Maybe, it's as simple as Ford being there for an emergency with Plan A to leave the Smiths on for 80.

It’s the same argument as Itoje/Chessum playing 80. You’re not preparing for an emergency if you’re choosing to leave positions uncovered while stacking up on backrows and fly-halves.

[Mikey Brown]

[deleted]
Am I correct in saying France could narrowly beat Scotland and England are still in it if we win by 30 or so? I know it's unlikely but I wonder if that is something that's been addressed at all. If Wales crumble a bit early on (I'm not expecting they will) it will be interesting to see if we really go for it in attack. Again I'm not sure where Ford would play in to that.

AFAICS France are +106 and we are +20. If France win by une point we'd have to beat Wales by 88?

Aha. Slightly less realistic then. Thanks.

[Mellsblue]

AFAICS France are +106 and we are +20. If France win by une point we'd have to beat Wales by 88?

Aha. Slightly less realistic then. Thanks.

Gotta hope our attack is less haphazard than lnc’s posting if we’ve any chance of bridging that points difference.

[Danno]

Stuart Barnes arguing (well stating, it is Stuart Barnes) that Ford had been picked as an insurance policy due to Borthwick not fully trusting either of the Smiths to run the game in a hostile Prin Stad.

So Barnes is struggling to understand why he is on the bench

Not for the last time

[jngf]

What I’m really struggling with is Swansea Bucket’s thought processes regarding Tom Willis. For me some players are natural starters rather than impact players and think this applies to both T Willis and T Curry for example. An impact making no.8 would be someone making explosive interventions and for me this would be where CCS adds value. I really liked the balance of T Curry and B Earl on the flanks, the former looking after the fetching/workrate stuff and the latter giving us an extra attacking force in open play. Definately see that B Curry adds value as a fetcher but pairing the Curry’s together gives us a bit less balance and limits our attack and carrying. A more balanced option might have been to pair Ted Hill with B Curry , but that will have to wait heigh ho….

[Puja]

[deleted]
Am I correct in saying France could narrowly beat Scotland and England are still in it if we win by 30 or so? I know it's unlikely but I wonder if that is something that's been addressed at all. If Wales crumble a bit early on (I'm not expecting they will) it will be interesting to see if we really go for it in attack. Again I'm not sure where Ford would play in to that.

AFAICS France are +106 and we are +20. If France win by une point we'd have to beat Wales by 88?

Aha. Slightly less realistic then. Thanks.

We do need a 4 try win if we're going to pip Ireland though, so I'd like to hope that we are looking to go for it in attack anyway.

Puja

[SixAndAHalf]

The crossover is crazy between 12 or centre and a back-rower. It’s the same position, you just wear a different number and you defend in a slightly different position off a scrum. That’s the only slight technical difference.”

Now there is a thing.

Still doesn’t answer why Ford is on the bench

The only logical reason I could think of for having Ford involved is that he is seen as playing at 10 in the absence of the Smiths in Argentina (similar logic for involving Pollock).

Alternatively, I wonder could there be a trigger in the EEPS contracts requiring all fit players to be involved in one match per campaign?

Surely not? That would be madness.

Puja

Madness is exactly why it feels like something the RFU would do...!

[Doofus]

I think Pollock and CCS can both get beyond the best of both Currys, Earl, Underhill and Hill. So far, I'd give SB credit for at least allowing for the possibility - all he can do at this point.

Its very subjective but I don't see how you can pick CCS ahead of the others on that list on that basis.

TCurry has the most proven level of world class performance so I would be building the back row around him (if we are confident he can stay fit) and TWillis (who gives the best balance at 8). Then there are arguments for all of those listed to fill the other flanker spot but I would hope Jack Willis is the man for the next world cup.

I rate Earl and see him as perfect for a Kwagga Smith style role where he plays 20-30 mins with an insanely high number of involvements per minute. That would leave a final back row spot in a 6-2 bench and I could see arguments for each of Pollock, CCS, Hill or BCurry (Pepper another one who I think will be on the radar).

On this basis (and our lack of locks) I can see we are developing CCS / Hill / TWillis as lock options - I wouldn't be adverse to seeing either Hill / CCS played as a lock for extended periods on the summer tour. It's also why I like the previous suggestion of developing Barbeary as a hooker / 8 hybrid!

I think it comes down to a lack of recent gametime for Coles (what 7 caps and none since summer 2024) and CCS having played at lock previously (albeit not frequently at Quins but was a regular bench cover for both 2nd and back row at LI). CCS is also clearly up to international standard around the park in general at international level. He's a carrier, tackler and L/O jumper already - and is a decent weight, if not excessively tall. Would we be having this debate if he was a lock who occasionally played back row? like Chessum, Itoje, Martin... Kay, Shaw?

I'm not saying I'd rather not have Coles on the bench but just that CCS is decent cover there if you want to make that decision. Being able to swap out a full front and back row definitely makes a statement about how you want to play, especially with CCS, Pearson and Willis being those fresh players coming on.

Ford is another matter!