England Training Squad Announced

[Puja]

For ease of reading:

Baxter
Genge
Rodd

LCD
George
Dan

Heyes
AOF

Itoje
Chessum
Coles
Isiekwe

Pepper
Pollock
Underhill

Earl
Ilione
CCS


Mitchell
Spencer
Quirke

Ford
FSmith
MSmith

Dingwall
Lawrence
Ojomoh
Slade

IFW
Freeman
Arundell
Roebuck
Murley
Radwan
Steward
Caluori*

[TheDasher]

I've said before, if you look at some of Arundell's highlights videos from the U20s and London Irish, a very large % of them come from games in which he's playing 15... I wouldn't be adverse to Arundell at 15, Freeman at 13 and then picking from IFW, Roebuck, Radwan etc for the wings...

[TheNomad]

Firstly, I'm totally gutted about T Willis. It'll hurt us a lot. To not be able to select two of the best back rows in Europe would impact any side. Such a shame. Leaving any other comments aside, it's just gutting.

On the topic of the backs, it feels like there are a few who either have credit in the bank, or who have started the season really well. Shame about Atkinson, but otherwise (and I'm leaving Caluori out of it for now, despite leaving the StoneX stadium mightily impressed on the weekend), it's really a question of how best accomodate any of the following:

Lawrence
Ojomoh
Freeman
Arundell
IFW
Roebuck
Radwan

...plus a few others

Maybe the right blend is having Arundell at 15, though I sort of suspect his right long term home is left wing. At least we've got some interesting runners now. It's also very possible that having Steward as a rock at the back frees up others. Either way, feels much healthier than it was not so long ago.

As for Barbeary at hooker, honestly, just forget it.

[Stom]

Firstly, I'm totally gutted about T Willis. It'll hurt us a lot. To not be able to select two of the best back rows in Europe would impact any side. Such a shame. Leaving any other comments aside, it's just gutting.

On the topic of the backs, it feels like there are a few who either have credit in the bank, or who have started the season really well. Shame about Atkinson, but otherwise (and I'm leaving Caluori out of it for now, despite leaving the StoneX stadium mightily impressed on the weekend), it's really a question of how best accomodate any of the following:

Lawrence
Ojomoh
Freeman
Arundell
IFW
Roebuck
Radwan

...plus a few others

Maybe the right blend is having Arundell at 15, though I sort of suspect his right long term home is left wing. At least we've got some interesting runners now. It's also very possible that having Steward as a rock at the back frees up others. Either way, feels much healthier than it was not so long ago.

As for Barbeary at hooker, honestly, just forget it.

What, because he can catch a ball? His 1on1 defense isn't good enough, imo. He plants his feet and gets done. Maybe it's just because I lived off a diet of Mike Brown, but I expect more from my FB.

[TheDasher]

Firstly, I'm totally gutted about T Willis. It'll hurt us a lot. To not be able to select two of the best back rows in Europe would impact any side. Such a shame. Leaving any other comments aside, it's just gutting.

On the topic of the backs, it feels like there are a few who either have credit in the bank, or who have started the season really well. Shame about Atkinson, but otherwise (and I'm leaving Caluori out of it for now, despite leaving the StoneX stadium mightily impressed on the weekend), it's really a question of how best accomodate any of the following:

Lawrence
Ojomoh
Freeman
Arundell
IFW
Roebuck
Radwan

...plus a few others

Maybe the right blend is having Arundell at 15, though I sort of suspect his right long term home is left wing. At least we've got some interesting runners now. It's also very possible that having Steward as a rock at the back frees up others. Either way, feels much healthier than it was not so long ago.

As for Barbeary at hooker, honestly, just forget it.

I'm not saying Barbeary should be a hooker, or that I'd pick him as a back up hooker at this moment at all. I do think though a creative manager would look at what might be possible there, whether it eventually happens or not. Fact is, he probably won't play for England as an 8, it's not absolutely certain that those hookers under George and LCD will be what we need them to be (I suspect they could be, I like Blamire, Blake etc etc) and hence in this world of hybrid players, Barbeary may have a point of difference. In a WC squad for instance, in easier games, having someone to cover 2 who can also play 8 might be useful, that's all I'm saying, not giving it more thought than that. Basically a Deon Fourie option.

Really not one to dwell on though!

Re Steward - I agree that he can still be considered as a 'rock' generally. He's been stepped a few times by some of the trickiest backs in the world but no doubt made tackles that other full backs would've been brushed off from.

[Which Tyler]

Barbeary hates playing hooker, hates training, and particularly hates training boring stuff like lineout throwing.
He's not going to play for Englad shy of an injury crisis; he's especially not going to play for England at hooker - or Bath at hooker. At best, he might take the lineout throws if 2&16 are both injured.

[Mr Mwenda]

Barbeary hates playing hooker, hates training, and particularly hates training boring stuff like lineout throwing.
He's not going to play for Englad shy of an injury crisis; he's especially not going to play for England at hooker - or Bath at hooker. At best, he might take the lineout throws if 2&16 are both injured.

Impressive to get so far if all that is the case. One wonders if he might fancy doing something else!

[TheDasher]

PS where's Banquo? Have we lost another RR stalwart?

[Oakboy]

PS where's Banquo? Have we lost another RR stalwart?

He has rested his services in the past till the internationals restart so let's hope that is all it is.

[Oakboy]

It sounds as if few rate Murley's chances of a place in the 23. I thought OHC was a bit unlucky to miss out. Hopefully, the bench split for each game will allow space for a speedster, a real benefit of 5:3.

[Stom]

I think everyone knows my thoughts on Murley. But if Quins continue our wonderful form, not sure anyone deserves a look in. Even though it's really the forwards' fault. And Green, of course.

[fivepointer]

I suspect Murley will end up in the A team with one or two others from this squad.

[jngf]

It’s all been covered really, but yeah what is Dan doing to earn a spot?

Isiekwe is a great athlete bla bla bla

Weird how quickly CCS goes from experimental 4th choice lock to backup ‘real’ 8, assuming Earl slots back in there.

Quirke ahead of Porter, McParland etc is silly.

5 wingers is weird. Will be very interesting to see where Freeman is used. I’d never really taken a return to fullback seriously because Furbank is such a key part of what Saints do, and it appeared that’s the kind of fullback England want also.

I can see Roebuck being able to do a lot of what Freeman offered on the wing and allow us to use him somewhere else though. We really just need to keep getting the ball in his hands.

Why assume that Earl rather than CCS will start at 8 ? Given CCS is as powerful as Tom Willis but more explosive and a bit quicker imo it would make little sense to start a smaller, less powerful player like Earl there. I would be far keener on Earl or Ted Hill being used as one flanker and Sam Underhill being used on the other and indeed think this is England’s strongest suit.

[Danno]

CCS is injured for a start.

[Mikey Brown]

And Borthwick repeatedly selecting Earl at 8…

[FKAS]

CCS isn't nearly as effective a carrier as TWillis. Asking him to try and fulfill the same role will not help CCS in the slightest. We don't have a like for like TWillis replacement. Earl is very likely to play 8, I'd have thought Pepper may well end up playing flanker with Underhill. Pepper to take on a lot more carrying work whilst Underhill will be asked to tackle himself into the floor. Pollock and Ilione to both feature from a 6-2 bench so we have some impact later in the game. Will mean Pepper will also have to be the third lineout option but at 6ft3 that's doable.

If CCS is fit he takes the 19 shirt and covers lock but more likely comes on in the backrow allowing both injury cover and maximum impact.

I'd go with:

Baxter, LCD, Stuart
Itoje, Chessum
Underhill, Earl, Pepper
Mitchell, F Smith
Dingwall, Lawrence
IFW, M Smith, Freeman

George, Genge, Heyes, CCS (it not fit then Coles), Pollock, Ilione, Spencer, Roebuck.

Harsh on Ford but with limited backrow physicality the 6-2 split seems very likely.

Split the best carrying props and then change the entire front row at half time so the front row gives good intensity throughout.

[TheDasher]

CCS isn't as yet as good a carrier as Willis, but who is? Willis is one of the best carrying no8s in world rugby at the moment, like a broken record I'll say again, he should've gone on the Lions tour, he's absolutely world class in my view.

BUT - I remember seeing CCS being interviewed some time ago saying 8 is his preferred position and I'm not surprised, he looks absolutely born to be an 8 for me. He's all about collisions, pace, carrying tight and wide etc - he doesn't have the work-rate or fitness to be a top, top 6 for me (too heavy I think) and no way is he a lock. This is one of those really obvious opps for someone (Willis leaving) to be thrown into a position with a bit of risk with a very large upside... SB probably won't go for it though...

Lovely having Pollock and Earl who can replace CCS at 8 from the bench and who can both fill in there but I just think to win a world cup, to beat the Boks, NZ, Australia, France regularly, you need to have enough physicality to match our obvious mobility and dog... with Willis going I think CCS becomes a bit of a necessity to invest in/try at 8.

[Puja]

CCS isn't nearly as effective a carrier as TWillis. Asking him to try and fulfill the same role will not help CCS in the slightest. We don't have a like for like TWillis replacement. Earl is very likely to play 8, I'd have thought Pepper may well end up playing flanker with Underhill. Pepper to take on a lot more carrying work whilst Underhill will be asked to tackle himself into the floor. Pollock and Ilione to both feature from a 6-2 bench so we have some impact later in the game. Will mean Pepper will also have to be the third lineout option but at 6ft3 that's doable.

If CCS is fit he takes the 19 shirt and covers lock but more likely comes on in the backrow allowing both injury cover and maximum impact.

I'd go with:

Baxter, LCD, Stuart
Itoje, Chessum
Underhill, Earl, Pepper
Mitchell, F Smith
Dingwall, Lawrence
IFW, M Smith, Freeman

George, Genge, Heyes, CCS (it not fit then Coles), Pollock, Ilione, Spencer, Roebuck.

Harsh on Ford but with limited backrow physicality the 6-2 split seems very likely.

Split the best carrying props and then change the entire front row at half time so the front row gives good intensity throughout.

I'd generally be very pleased if we went with that, although I'd much rather have Genge/Heyes starting, as Genge is a massive step up on Baxter and Heyes is in terrific form, while Stuart's only outing so far has been... let's be polite and call it underwhelming. Much better to start with the best props and cement scrum dominance in the ref's mind.

I'd also be against MSmith at 15. I know, I know, I was a partisan, but I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong - it's now been tried and performances on the Lions tour suggest it's not viable as a front-line starting option. I'd have Arundell or Freeman in at 15, with the other on the right wing - feels harsh on Roebuck, but Arundell at his best is just such a weapon that I don't think we can leave him out. Agreed with you on Ford missing out - seems incredible to not have him in the XXIII, but FSmith is the future and you can't have Ford on a 6:2 bench (which I agree we will need with TWillis fucking off).

We are, unfortunately, not going to get that midfield. Slade's return to mild Premiership form is going to doom us to trying to make Slade/Lawrence work, again.

Puja

[jngf]

CCS isn't nearly as effective a carrier as TWillis. Asking him to try and fulfill the same role will not help CCS in the slightest. We don't have a like for like TWillis replacement. Earl is very likely to play 8, I'd have thought Pepper may well end up playing flanker with Underhill. Pepper to take on a lot more carrying work whilst Underhill will be asked to tackle himself into the floor. Pollock and Ilione to both feature from a 6-2 bench so we have some impact later in the game. Will mean Pepper will also have to be the third lineout option but at 6ft3 that's doable.

If CCS is fit he takes the 19 shirt and covers lock but more likely comes on in the backrow allowing both injury cover and maximum impact.


I recall about 15 years ago there was a similar debate over the respective merits of Morgan and Billy in that 8 role. Morgan wasn’t a wrecking ball like Billy but he was a bit quicker and had a wider game whilst still being able to do the hard yards tight carrying effectively. I see CCS as more in the Morgan mode and T Willis a bit more all out wrecking ball but either approach can be affective with proper back row balance. I would not wantt try to see either Earl or Pollock start at a test at 8 and tough it cuts accross the majority view here feel that Dombrandt would be better than the latter too if we’re talking about having less of a wrecking ball but more of a linkman / wider channel runner as a starting 8.

I'd go with:

Baxter, LCD, Stuart
Itoje, Chessum
Underhill, Earl, Pepper
Mitchell, F Smith
Dingwall, Lawrence
IFW, M Smith, Freeman

George, Genge, Heyes, CCS (it not fit then Coles), Pollock, Ilione, Spencer, Roebuck.

Harsh on Ford but with limited backrow physicality the 6-2 split seems very likely.

Split the best carrying props and then change the entire front row at half time so the front row gives good intensity throughout.

CCS compared to T Willis is a bit like the debate 15 years earlier about Morgan compared to Billy imo. CCS may not be the route one wrecking ball to quite the extent of Willis ( though he was the power to play that way ) but he has a bit more pace and a slightly wider running game. I wouldn’t be keen on either Earl or Pollock for that matter starting test matches at 8 and if we were to go for a flair wide channel player cum link man in that berth my preference would be for Dombrandt to start at 8 over those two ( an opinion which no doubt will continue to endear me to some on this board )

[FKAS]

CCS isn't nearly as effective a carrier as TWillis. Asking him to try and fulfill the same role will not help CCS in the slightest. We don't have a like for like TWillis replacement. Earl is very likely to play 8, I'd have thought Pepper may well end up playing flanker with Underhill. Pepper to take on a lot more carrying work whilst Underhill will be asked to tackle himself into the floor. Pollock and Ilione to both feature from a 6-2 bench so we have some impact later in the game. Will mean Pepper will also have to be the third lineout option but at 6ft3 that's doable.

If CCS is fit he takes the 19 shirt and covers lock but more likely comes on in the backrow allowing both injury cover and maximum impact.

I'd go with:

Baxter, LCD, Stuart
Itoje, Chessum
Underhill, Earl, Pepper
Mitchell, F Smith
Dingwall, Lawrence
IFW, M Smith, Freeman

George, Genge, Heyes, CCS (it not fit then Coles), Pollock, Ilione, Spencer, Roebuck.

Harsh on Ford but with limited backrow physicality the 6-2 split seems very likely.

Split the best carrying props and then change the entire front row at half time so the front row gives good intensity throughout.

I'd generally be very pleased if we went with that, although I'd much rather have Genge/Heyes starting, as Genge is a massive step up on Baxter and Heyes is in terrific form, while Stuart's only outing so far has been... let's be polite and call it underwhelming. Much better to start with the best props and cement scrum dominance in the ref's mind.

I'd also be against MSmith at 15. I know, I know, I was a partisan, but I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong - it's now been tried and performances on the Lions tour suggest it's not viable as a front-line starting option. I'd have Arundell or Freeman in at 15, with the other on the right wing - feels harsh on Roebuck, but Arundell at his best is just such a weapon that I don't think we can leave him out. Agreed with you on Ford missing out - seems incredible to not have him in the XXIII, but FSmith is the future and you can't have Ford on a 6:2 bench (which I agree we will need with TWillis fucking off).

We are, unfortunately, not going to get that midfield. Slade's return to mild Premiership form is going to doom us to trying to make Slade/Lawrence work, again.

Puja

With Arundell or Freeman at 15 you lose both the secondary kicker and playmaker. Makes it far more likely that Simply Ballkick then recalls Slade into the midfield as feared. Whilst Marcus isn't great in the air he's a great counter attacking threat ball in hand. If he's not at 15 he doesn't make the 23 for me. He's just not a good enough 10 to be considered only a 10 at international level. Hence his lack of game time at 10 on the Lions Tour, he went as a utility back on that tour for a reason.

Also I see what you are saying with the props but I like the idea of having Genge, George, Itoje and Chessum all on at the end of the game. All are/have been captains at their clubs or international level. Finishing strong and making good decisions late in games has been an issue previously. Plus with my side we'd have quite an inexperienced backrow at the end of the game so helps balance that out.

[FKAS]

CCS isn't nearly as effective a carrier as TWillis. Asking him to try and fulfill the same role will not help CCS in the slightest. We don't have a like for like TWillis replacement. Earl is very likely to play 8, I'd have thought Pepper may well end up playing flanker with Underhill. Pepper to take on a lot more carrying work whilst Underhill will be asked to tackle himself into the floor. Pollock and Ilione to both feature from a 6-2 bench so we have some impact later in the game. Will mean Pepper will also have to be the third lineout option but at 6ft3 that's doable.

If CCS is fit he takes the 19 shirt and covers lock but more likely comes on in the backrow allowing both injury cover and maximum impact.


I recall about 15 years ago there was a similar debate over the respective merits of Morgan and Billy in that 8 role. Morgan wasn’t a wrecking ball like Billy but he was a bit quicker and had a wider game whilst still being able to do the hard yards tight carrying effectively. I see CCS as more in the Morgan mode and T Willis a bit more all out wrecking ball but either approach can be affective with proper back row balance. I would not wantt try to see either Earl or Pollock start at a test at 8 and tough it cuts accross the majority view here feel that Dombrandt would be better than the latter too if we’re talking about having less of a wrecking ball but more of a linkman / wider channel runner as a starting 8.

I'd go with:

Baxter, LCD, Stuart
Itoje, Chessum
Underhill, Earl, Pepper
Mitchell, F Smith
Dingwall, Lawrence
IFW, M Smith, Freeman

George, Genge, Heyes, CCS (it not fit then Coles), Pollock, Ilione, Spencer, Roebuck.

Harsh on Ford but with limited backrow physicality the 6-2 split seems very likely.

Split the best carrying props and then change the entire front row at half time so the front row gives good intensity throughout.

CCS compared to T Willis is a bit like the debate 15 years earlier about Morgan compared to Billy imo. CCS may not be the route one wrecking ball to quite the extent of Willis ( though he was the power to play that way ) but he has a bit more pace and a slightly wider running game. I wouldn’t be keen on either Earl or Pollock for that matter starting test matches at 8 and if we were to go for a flair wide channel player cum link man in that berth my preference would be for Dombrandt to start at 8 over those two ( an opinion which no doubt will continue to endear me to some on this board )

Dombrandt at 8, we might as well play a large teddy bear. He's built like an absolute unit but has all the physicality of Johnny May ans work rate of Keiran Brookes. Shame really as big lads that can move like him and have the skillset are rare.

Earl has already proved he's a competent number 8 at international level. I was suggesting Ilione as the 8 bench cover. Pollock coming off the bench alongside so that between them they can share the carrying load in the backrow. Earl and Underhill off around 55-60mins and on comes Ilione and Pollock.

[Oakboy]

Leaving aside who I would like, I would be very surprised if SB did NOT pick Earl at 8.

[Mikey Brown]

In fairness to CCS, and as others have said, we’ve not really seen him in that primary carrier role for England yet where he’s not trying to do the work of a blindside or lock.

Not to say he’s the same quality of carrier as Willis (judging any kind of club form in this Quins team feels impossible) but he has the physical attributes and aggression to dent defences in a way Earl or Pollock don’t really manage.

Much like Smith I’m worried all this back and forth around his position for England is going to leave him looking kind of average in all of them. I like all of Pepper, Earl, Pollock and Underhill but still think a backrow from that lot misses some heft.

[Puja]

With Arundell or Freeman at 15 you lose both the secondary kicker and playmaker. Makes it far more likely that Simply Ballkick then recalls Slade into the midfield as feared. Whilst Marcus isn't great in the air he's a great counter attacking threat ball in hand. If he's not at 15 he doesn't make the 23 for me. He's just not a good enough 10 to be considered only a 10 at international level. Hence his lack of game time at 10 on the Lions Tour, he went as a utility back on that tour for a reason.

Arundell is a decent enough kicker. Granted, he's no playmaker, but Dingwall's decent there so I don't know how absolutely necessary having one at 15 is. It's very much like the conversation about replacing TWillis like-for-like - if we had a good playmaking 15 available, it'd be great, but as we don't, we're better off adapting our gameplan than trying to keep the same one using an inadequate player.

I think you're being very unfair to MSmith's play at 10 though. He's a terrific player generally and is proven international quality there. More to the point for the current situation he's a fantastic bench option - if Ford/FSmith's more structured approach is struggling to break a stubborn defence, he can change our gameplan by coming on at 10, or provide a second playmaker to provide a wider creative threat from 15. If you put Ford on the bench with FSmith at 10, then you've not got any ability to change the game - all you have is good injury cover.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Absent Furbank and Carpenter, I'd expect to see Daly at 15 - now he's learned to play there.
I'd still prefer to give someone like TdG or even Hendy a shot to see if they can make the step up* - but that's a personal preference thing, and I absolutely get preferring 50+ caps to a newbie.



* I think either could, with TdG a more natural fit for a game plan designed with Furbank at FB**, but both would take time to settle in.
** Yes, I know that's weird to say, given that Hendy and Furbank play for the same club, but I see Hendy (and Daly) as more a 3rd winger style of FB, whilst Furbank and TdG (and Marcus) are 2nd FH types.