England vs Australia - Sat 3.10pm

[FKAS]

Starting XV: Steward; Roebuck, Freeman, Dingwall, Feyi-Waboso; Ford, Mitchell; Baxter, George, Heyes, Itoje (capt), Chessum, Pepper, Underhill, Earl.
Replacements: Cowan-Dickie, Genge, Stuart, Coles, T Curry, Pollock, Spencer, F Smith.

That's a loaded bench. Going to be using the locks to carry first half it seems, maybe play wider off 10 to tire the Wallabies pack and then second half deploy the forwards carrying game. Bold strategy if so.

[Mikey Brown]

Ugh. Two 6/7/8s on the bench, along with Spencer and Ford/Fin just feels off to me.

Exciting starting team though. For all we’ve said about Freeman getting club level time at 13 I’m looking forward to seeing him there and Roebuck always seems to impress.

[Puja]

Pretty much as predicted by the Telegraph. Looks a decent side, that. Glad to see Coles getting rewarded for his form and I like the idea of being able to bring on Curry and Pollock against a tiring Wallabies side.

Puja

[Captainhaircut]

No real issue with the side. Feels a bit underpowered in the tight carry but not sure what we could have done about that with doubts over CCS’s fitness and Willis situation.

Very worried about this game though. They have been together for nigh on 4 months solid and we are rocking up with a few days training and a lot of players undercooked post lions.

[Puja]

Ugh. Two 6/7/8s on the bench, along with Spencer and Ford/Fin just feels off to me.

I get what you're saying and a 5:3 with Arundell to bring some zip would've been fun, but there is something to be said for using our glut of quality back row.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Leaving aside personal selection preferences, I have concerns about that starting XV. Picking both Underhill and Earl seems unbalanced. Ford and Steward starting might lead to defensive vulnerability and too much kicking.

As Puja pointed out, six Lions on the bench. I suppose it will confuse the Aussies.

[Puja]

Let's just take a moment to rejoice in a midfield where picking Slade was an option and we have not taken it.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Ugh. Two 6/7/8s on the bench, along with Spencer and Ford/Fin just feels off to me.

I get what you're saying and a 5:3 with Arundell to bring some zip would've been fun, but there is something to be said for using our glut of quality back row.

Puja

So, will two of the back row only do 60 minutes like Willis used to?

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah I’d get it if it were a flanker and a heavy carrying 8, but it seems silly to go in the game expecting to take off 2 backrows who all have fantastic engines.

Not including Lawrence or some more back 3 cover for that? I dunno.

I actually do like the balance with Underhill at 7 though. I think that covers a lot of the dog work that Showboat McShowboatface doesn’t really get through at 8, and just lets him focus on carrying.

How is Pepper as a lineout forward? Yes I know he’s tall, but that’s not the same thing.

[Scrumhead]

Leaving aside personal selection preferences, I have concerns about that starting XV. Picking both Underhill and Earl seems unbalanced. Ford and Steward starting might lead to defensive vulnerability and too much kicking.

As Puja pointed out, six Lions on the bench. I suppose it will confuse the Aussies.

Unbalanced in what respect? They’re very different players.

We’re lacking obvious heavy carriers, but with the size of our backs and IFW buzzing around the rucks it may be that they’ll take more of the carrying load.

Also does look like we might be going over them rather than through or round them …

[Oakboy]

Leaving aside personal selection preferences, I have concerns about that starting XV. Picking both Underhill and Earl seems unbalanced. Ford and Steward starting might lead to defensive vulnerability and too much kicking.

As Puja pointed out, six Lions on the bench. I suppose it will confuse the Aussies.

Unbalanced in what respect? They’re very different players.

We’re lacking obvious heavy carriers, but with the size of our backs and IFW buzzing around the rucks it may be that they’ll take more of the carrying load.

Also does look like we might be going over them rather than through or round them …

Different players theoretically but both are similar in stature and play their best rugby at 7. I thought SB would pick Earl at 8 but not with Underhill at 7. Pepper at 7 with CCS at 6 would have made more sense to me (with Earl at 8). Which two do you think will come off or might it be all three?

[FKAS]

Leaving aside personal selection preferences, I have concerns about that starting XV. Picking both Underhill and Earl seems unbalanced. Ford and Steward starting might lead to defensive vulnerability and too much kicking.

As Puja pointed out, six Lions on the bench. I suppose it will confuse the Aussies.

Unbalanced in what respect? They’re very different players.

We’re lacking obvious heavy carriers, but with the size of our backs and IFW buzzing around the rucks it may be that they’ll take more of the carrying load.

Also does look like we might be going over them rather than through or round them …

Different players theoretically but both are similar in stature and play their best rugby at 7. I thought SB would pick Earl at 8 but not with Underhill at 7. Pepper at 7 with CCS at 6 would have made more sense to me (with Earl at 8). Which two do you think will come off or might it be all three?

Is CCS fully fit? Missed the Quins game at the weekend and would have surely worn 19 ahead of Coles if fit for this one (more impact and more versatile).

[Danno]

Unbalanced in what respect? They’re very different players.

We’re lacking obvious heavy carriers, but with the size of our backs and IFW buzzing around the rucks it may be that they’ll take more of the carrying load.

Also does look like we might be going over them rather than through or round them …

Different players theoretically but both are similar in stature and play their best rugby at 7. I thought SB would pick Earl at 8 but not with Underhill at 7. Pepper at 7 with CCS at 6 would have made more sense to me (with Earl at 8). Which two do you think will come off or might it be all three?

Is CCS fully fit? Missed the Quins game at the weekend and would have surely worn 19 ahead of Coles if fit for this one (more impact and more versatile).

Still broken.

[Oakboy]

Different players theoretically but both are similar in stature and play their best rugby at 7. I thought SB would pick Earl at 8 but not with Underhill at 7. Pepper at 7 with CCS at 6 would have made more sense to me (with Earl at 8). Which two do you think will come off or might it be all three?

Is CCS fully fit? Missed the Quins game at the weekend and would have surely worn 19 ahead of Coles if fit for this one (more impact and more versatile).

Still broken.

Thanks. Did not realise.

[pjm1]

Well I don't think we can grumble about that 23 being remotely boring! And as has been mentioned, no Slade is an encouraging sign. So, what might this mean for tactics and approach - and where can we be targeted?

With this amount of aerial capability (11, 13, 14, 15) we're going to see a LOT of contestable kicks being sent up. Ordinarily, you'd use your tight forwards to truck up from the ruck and then switch to back play when you see a defensive line looking a bit creaky. Well, maybe there's an alternative to that - Ford hanging back in the DG pocket and bombing every other pass from Mitchell up in the air. I'm not sure it's ever been used as that much of an softening up tactic before, and probably for good reason - but SB is a bit of a thinker when it comes to tactics. Only downside is it would look utterly horrendous to watch! It would cause a real defensive dilemma for Aus in whether they keep all 13 in the defensive line - sort of the open play equivalent of Italy's ruck shenanigans all those years ago.

I'm not sure who the ref is, but picking 5x 7s in your 23 suggests we might be going for the odd jackal or 20. Valentini needs to be relentless targeted - probably by Underhill chops, with Chess and Itoje mopping up when he's out of the action. Otherwise, on defensive duty I'm pretty comfortable with that team, bar Ford. Freeman may be a bit naive in his new channel, but as long as he doesn't jam in when Dingwall has it covered, he should have the footwork to adjust small errors, otherwise.

Adopting the Bomb Squad approach to front row is interesting... I'm not sure I love it, but I can't complain about trying it as something different. Pace and increased carrying capability in the last 30 will be great to see coming on against a second string (at best) Aus front row.

I worry for our lineout, just in terms of number of options. On our ball we can obviously call shorter and will have George throwing in the first 50 for accuracy. I also remember seeing something somewhere about us running our flankers in backs moves off lineouts?

I actually think we have some tremendously good players, most of whom are playing in really good veins of form. I can't honestly remember the last time we had that, to this extent. So, the marginal calls for me are just that - quibbles about whether F Smith would click better in place of Ford. For the first time in a long time, I don't actually see a player selected and think, "what the f*&@" which is nice.

[Puja]

Ugh. Two 6/7/8s on the bench, along with Spencer and Ford/Fin just feels off to me.

I get what you're saying and a 5:3 with Arundell to bring some zip would've been fun, but there is something to be said for using our glut of quality back row.

Puja

So, will two of the back row only do 60 minutes like Willis used to?

As long as the one who stays on isn't Earl, I'll be happy. I still maintain his consistent late dumb errors in games is because he's knackered. Tell him and Underhill to empty the tank for 60 and then bring Pollock and TCurry on.

Puja

[TheDasher]

Some good things in the side because we have a large number of good players... but I don't love it. Ford is not the man at 10 for me - he played well vs Argentina but I suspect Finn Smith would've done too. I think at international level Ford is a liability in defence personally, Finn Smith is overall a better bet and deserved to keep his shirt.

Dingwall is not the answer at 12 for me in the long term at this level. Despite all the chat about Lawrence being a 13, I think he was starting to play well for England at 12 and I'd say he's more of a presence there than Dingwall.

I think starting Baxter over Genge is an error. I think we need that carrying, dog and aggression in the first 40 mins vs Aus in the 1st autumn international - I'd have thought starting Genge, a leader in the group and one of only real carriers was a necessity... Stuart or Heyes not so crucial.

In the back-row his hands are tied a bit so sympathy for him there - no CCS, no Willis, no Ted Hill - three big powerful units that he couldn't pick... Not ideal. I have to say though that with that in mind, I'd have been tempted with Chessum 6, 7 Underhill, 8 Earl... but no big deal, probably.

I don't look at that side and think, christ, what a formidable side... I have been so enjoying having a big, powerful number 8 it's such a shame T Willis has gone... scraping the barrel here but starting to wonder if we should've called up Cracknell before Wales did. Probably not.

[FKAS]

Some good things in the side because we have a large number of good players... but I don't love it. Ford is not the man at 10 for me - he played well vs Argentina but I suspect Finn Smith would've done too. I think at international level Ford is a liability in defence personally, Finn Smith is overall a better bet and deserved to keep his shirt.

Dingwall is not the answer at 12 for me in the long term at this level. Despite all the chat about Lawrence being a 13, I think he was starting to play well for England at 12 and I'd say he's more of a presence there than Dingwall.

I think starting Baxter over Genge is an error. I think we need that carrying, dog and aggression in the first 40 mins vs Aus in the 1st autumn international - I'd have thought starting Genge, a leader in the group and one of only real carriers was a necessity... Stuart or Heyes not so crucial.

In the back-row his hands are tied a bit so sympathy for him there - no CCS, no Willis, no Ted Hill - three big powerful units that he couldn't pick... Not ideal. I have to say though that with that in mind, I'd have been tempted with Chessum 6, 7 Underhill, 8 Earl... but no big deal, probably.

I don't look at that side and think, christ, what a formidable side... I have been so enjoying having a big, powerful number 8 it's such a shame T Willis has gone... scraping the barrel here but starting to wonder if we should've called up Cracknell before Wales did. Probably not.

Ford is in better form than F Smith currently. There's very little in it but kicking off the tee has gone a bit wrong this season. Nothing wrong with forcing the young player to force his way past Ford. Given the flyhalfs very rarely actually defend in the line from phase play and are mainly in the backfield the chances to target Ford are minimal.

I quite like the Bok style bomb squad bench selection. I'd really like to see Borthwick deploy Genge on 30 mins to attack the fading legs just before halftime and then launch into the second forty still pretty fresh. Baxter is a solid selection and I quite like the fact we've geared up to bring a second half onslaught.

I think Borthwick would have liked to have named a bruising backrow option but TWillis opted for France, Ilione is injured, Ted Hill is injured and CCS is injured. Chessum to 6 just weakens the second row as there's a gulf in quality between Itoje, Chessum and Martin then the other locks available to England right now. We've gone super mobile in the pack to if Blackett is going for a high tempo attack looking to quickly narrow defences before going wide fast (kick passing very much an option) to target the isolated Wallaby back three, then the selections look good.

Love Cracknell but he's a good clubman. He's not an international player and at 31 he's unlikely to develop to become one. For a weak Welsh pack he'll add some physicality and work rate but England aren't really lacking that to the extent he'll make a difference and in a setup as mobile as we've gone with I'm not sure he'd keep up.

[SixAndAHalf]

Happy with that side overall - like others have said we have a lot of good options in certain positions and it seems like we have a clear tactical plan aligned to our strengths based on the Wibble vids.

Lawrence seems a big omission from the 23 to me and I’d have liked to see Pollock start but I accept they are personal preferences.

A few immediate thoughts:

- Are we going with consistency with the Argentina tour for those comfortable with Blackett / Mcguigans methods? Would be sensible given Oz have a lot of cohesiveness
- Generally in favour of the 6/2 split but think it requires at least 2 multi positional backs in the 23 (MSmith, Daly, Freeman, etc)
- In line with the above, are Earl / Pollock covering 13 / wing?
- The props on the bench may be a sign that we are bringing on our sub front row at 40-50 mins to match the Oz approach

[Mikey Brown]

I think I’d honestly rather Lawrence covering 8.

[twitchy]

I want to see m.smith at 9, earl at centre and pollock on the wing vs the aussies.

[Mikey Brown]

At least we could then get that useless lump of shit Steward in to the forwards where he can’t do so much harm.

[twitchy]

Steward/Freeman lock cover.

[Captainhaircut]

Steward/Freeman lock cover.

Going to have to seriously question Borthwick as a coach if he doesn’t try Steward in the lineout to solve our lack of third jumper.

[Stom]

It’s a good team, but it’s very reliant on plan a.

Plan b is obviously Earl at center, but I’d still rather have Marcus in the 23 shirt to cover 15 at least.

And actual center cover would be even better!