Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 13, 2025 5:25 pm
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!
I’m guessing you meant Pollock? In the fickle world of test rugby Pearson’s become a bit retro
I don’t really get much of that CCS argument at all, to be honest.
Maybe he had a handful of sub appearances at London Irish there. Can’t say I ever remember seeing it. I’m not sure that compares to Itoje, Chessum or Martin who all came through as lock/blindsides before settling, and actually played games there for their club.
Did Kay or Shaw ever play 6 at any level? I certainly can’t imagine that being a crowd pleaser.
He’s physically suited to international rugby in the sense he can make big physical impacts, but it’s his graft and consistency that is more in question - though I think it’s a bit overstated. With the starting backrow we have it would be nice to have his tight carrying on the field, I guess.
It’s more the bench composition as a whole that feels so wrong than the idea of him being an emergency lock option. The backrow is an area of strength where we seem sort of reluctant to swap players out, let alone the whole back row, but it would be fun to see if it does happen.
Mikey, he is the nuts. Born for test rugby. The lad is young and big but carries the weight of the impact he made firmly on his shoulders. Starting or bench I don’t care, he should be in the 23.
Ben Curry looks set to be a fixture, likewise Willis. I love the arrival of Pollock but not in a side with 3 7’s and no genuine back up lock. Expecting CCS to carry out that role, a role that might be 79 minutes is rank. Only surpassed by naming 3 tens
I would like to see Willis come on at 8 after about 45. Fresh carrying, Earl to 7 and whichever Curry has emptied his tank the most coming off. At 65, Pollock to replace one of the starting flankers - probably last Curry as we may need Earl for 12 cover. New LH and 2 on at 50-55. Stuart stays on till his stats fall off.
It won’t happen but it would use our bench the most effectively in changing the game up. Just plays dice with injuries I guess…
pjm1 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 15, 2025 8:17 am
I would like to see Willis come on at 8 after about 45. Fresh carrying, Earl to 7 and whichever Curry has emptied his tank the most coming off. At 65, Pollock to replace one of the starting flankers - probably last Curry as we may need Earl for 12 cover. New LH and 2 on at 50-55. Stuart stays on till his stats fall off.
It won’t happen but it would use our bench the most effectively in changing the game up. Just plays dice with injuries I guess…
All reasonable but you've ducked the big one. What would you do with Ford?
p/d wrote: ↑Fri Mar 14, 2025 11:08 pm
Mikey, he is the nuts. Born for test rugby. The lad is young and big but carries the weight of the impact he made firmly on his shoulders. Starting or bench I don’t care, he should be in the 23.
Ben Curry looks set to be a fixture, likewise Willis. I love the arrival of Pollock but not in a side with 3 7’s and no genuine back up lock. Expecting CCS to carry out that role, a role that might be 79 minutes is rank. Only surpassed by naming 3 tens
I’d say we’re agreeing but I can’t tell if you think so.
Agree on most of those subs PJM except Earl having to stay on the pitch for 80 in case he has to move to 12 is just painful. If anything you’d like him to have a bit of a rest on the bench before having to do that.
Can a player who has been tactically removed only come back on (for an injury to Dingwall in this case) if the entirety of the bench has already been emptied?
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sat Mar 15, 2025 9:19 amCan a player who has been tactically removed only come back on (for an injury to Dingwall in this case) if the entirety of the bench has already been emptied?
A player who's been replaced, can only come back on to cover a blood bin or HIA period - except front rows, who are needed to prevent uncontested scrums.
Both blood and HIA removals can have a lot of shithousery played around them (see the debacle around Hill's on-off-on last week)
Yeah the Hill thing was weird. Feels like if they were being pedantic he should technically have been subbed off for CCS and not able to come back on when Earl moved to centre.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sat Mar 15, 2025 9:19 am
I’d say we’re agreeing but I can’t tell if you think so.
Full agreement MB. Seems a lot of criticism aimed CCS direction , which I just don’t get.
I do wonder if sometimes it is just because some critics (over?)rate Hill. Whatever any of us think, CCS must rank higher in SB's thinking.
We all have opinions. My idea of a balanced backrow would only have one out of Earl, Curry, Curry and Underhill in the XV at at any time - at 7. I still want a genuine 8 and line-out expertise at 6. SB does not agree, obviously, but 6:2 does give him wriggle room. I wonder if he'd still pick Lawes if he could.
pjm1 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 15, 2025 8:17 am
I would like to see Willis come on at 8 after about 45. Fresh carrying, Earl to 7 and whichever Curry has emptied his tank the most coming off. At 65, Pollock to replace one of the starting flankers - probably last Curry as we may need Earl for 12 cover. New LH and 2 on at 50-55. Stuart stays on till his stats fall off.
It won’t happen but it would use our bench the most effectively in changing the game up. Just plays dice with injuries I guess…
All reasonable but you've ducked the big one. What would you do with Ford?
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Mar 15, 2025 5:11 pm
Sorry for Ollie, but Borthwick fully deserves an early lock injury
Big loss Chessum, his work at the lineout and defence had been excellent early doors. Hurt his shoulder hitting the ball in a tackle where he was leading the lock chase. Not sure CCS can replicate. Borthwick gambled and it's not paid off.
We've also got to tighten up. A loose game suits Wales it doesn't suit us.
What would you do with Ford?
