Frankly, you are right in everything you say.Scrumhead wrote: ↑Thu Feb 05, 2026 2:41 pmI’d much prefer both were available, but as an England supporter, I dislike how they’ve taken themselves out of contention seemingly for money and lifestyle.
If we’re prepared to criticise South Africans etc. for being mercenary, we should be equally prepared to do so for our own.
Is Jack better than Underhill at test level? Highly debatable.
Is Tom better than Earl? Again - debatable IMO. They’re very different players, but I think it’s factually accurate to say that Earl has had a big impact for most of his England career. I don’t know why you’re consistently dismissing him? Could Tom have had an even bigger impact? Very possibly, but he chose not to fight for it.
Ultimately, I see it as an honour to play for England and if a player isn’t prepared to fight for their place, I’d prefer to pick someone who is. Particularly when the drop off in ability isn’t clear cut.
My opinion, just my opinion, is that a back row unit including both Willises could have achieved a higher standard than will be achieved by a back row with Underhill and Earl in it.
The Wasps debacle did for both brothers. England did not give Jack a regular slot and wasted many caps on Dombrandt ahead of Tom. Both are now off the scene, voluntary victims of the rules laid down by the RFU.
Nothing will stop me groaning with frustration every time I watch Russell play for either Bath or Scotland. Under different rules, he can play for both without appearing to be disloyal or mercenary.
I will support England through thick and thin but the 6:2 business whereby we apparently need five backrowers to do the job of four is not the sign of strength that others claim, IMO. Rather, it is leaving us open to weakness overall in its lack of balance. I hope SB does not stick with the policy. Unfortunately, I suspect he will.
