RugbyRebels

I think yesterday's selection and tactics were largely spot on, with just a bit of failure in the execution. Some of that failure in execution can be laid at the door of "first time together" and putting the new Wiggy-Blackett-Borthwick attack plans into action. Some of the failure is also because Freeman hasn't played 13 much.

If we want to dissect the selections based on the actual game, then I think there are two key positions where we can (and should) do better:
Ford - I totally understand and agreed with why he was picked, based on Prem form and Arg games. But he didn't quite deliver for me - he didn't have a bad game, except at the tee - and I felt his connection with Dingwall wasn't quite there (milliseconds off, perhaps). I'd much rather see F Smith here, and hopefully improve that telepathic connection with Dingwall.
Steward - was picked for aerial perfection and he didn't quite deliver. Again, he wasn't bad, but he fluffed a couple that we'd expect him to get, normally. His tip downs to other England players largely worked well, even if not clean takes by him - and I suspect that was tactical. The issue we have at 15 is the lack of experienced alternatives, so it feels like we're sticking with Steward and just have to hope he gets back to his best. I actually thought some of his attacking runs were ok though, so definitely not in the "bad" category all-round.

The bomb squad worked exceptionally well, especially when combined with how much we must have tired the Aussies out in that first 20, where we didn't score - we were pretty relentless. Very surprised Schmidt didn't use his bench earlier and more fully - it was a mistake, as there were too many tired legs in their pack when we refreshed ours.

I'd swap Underhill out for Tom Curry if Curry can go 60 next time. Underhill was good, but Curry is just too world class to leave on the bench, for me. Maybe Underhill goes to the bench?

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 12:09 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 11:59 am 6:2 yesterday gave us two 7s to replace two 7s. It denied us, say, Arundell for Steward. Whichever three (out of Pollock, Curry, Earl and Underhill) are selected at 7, 8, 20, surely one can do an effective 80.

Strange to watch that game and think that what we needed was to leave out one of Curry or Pollock for Arundell.

Why strange? To be clear, I'd have started Curry and Pollock and had Earl on the bench. Curry and Pollock would both have been good for 80. Let's face it, Steward was there to catch the high ball and was unexceptional at his primary skill. Arundell would probably have done just as well and would have been somewhat more threatening with ball in hand. Any of the other wingers with gas would have been equally useful on the bench. I also think that Earl could do a variety of jobs off the bench in the last 20. Of the 5 backrowers in the 23, Underhill is the most job-specific, IMO, and has lost pace. He did not play badly but could be the most vulnerable if SB continues a quest for versatility. Curry just looked a better player.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 1:11 pm

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 12:09 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 11:59 am 6:2 yesterday gave us two 7s to replace two 7s. It denied us, say, Arundell for Steward. Whichever three (out of Pollock, Curry, Earl and Underhill) are selected at 7, 8, 20, surely one can do an effective 80.

Strange to watch that game and think that what we needed was to leave out one of Curry or Pollock for Arundell.

Why strange? To be clear, I'd have started Curry and Pollock and had Earl on the bench. Curry and Pollock would both have been good for 80. Let's face it, Steward was there to catch the high ball and was unexceptional at his primary skill. Arundell would probably have done just as well and would have been somewhat more threatening with ball in hand. Any of the other wingers with gas would have been equally useful on the bench. I also think that Earl could do a variety of jobs off the bench in the last 20. Of the 5 backrowers in the 23, Underhill is the most job-specific, IMO, and has lost pace. He did not play badly but could be the most vulnerable if SB continues a quest for versatility. Curry just looked a better player.

Because at no point whilst our replacements forwards smashed them in the last 20 minutes was I thinking “god, I wish we’d picked another outside back on the bench”.

Firmly of the believe that 6-2 is the way to go nowadays given the physical requirements of being a forward.

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 4:54 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 1:11 pm

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 12:09 pm

Strange to watch that game and think that what we needed was to leave out one of Curry or Pollock for Arundell.

Why strange? To be clear, I'd have started Curry and Pollock and had Earl on the bench. Curry and Pollock would both have been good for 80. Let's face it, Steward was there to catch the high ball and was unexceptional at his primary skill. Arundell would probably have done just as well and would have been somewhat more threatening with ball in hand. Any of the other wingers with gas would have been equally useful on the bench. I also think that Earl could do a variety of jobs off the bench in the last 20. Of the 5 backrowers in the 23, Underhill is the most job-specific, IMO, and has lost pace. He did not play badly but could be the most vulnerable if SB continues a quest for versatility. Curry just looked a better player.

Because at no point whilst our replacements forwards smashed them in the last 20 minutes was I thinking “god, I wish we’d picked another outside back on the bench”.

Firmly of the believe that 6-2 is the way to go nowadays given the physical requirements of being a forward.

There is no doubt that there was significant impact but how much of it was that the players that came on were simply better than the ones they replaced? You may be right about 6:2 in the long term but I think it is easy to overlook having only 30 minutes of the better players compared with 50 had they started. I think three impactful front rowers may be justified off the bench but I just don't see it with back rowers like Curry and Pollock who could do their stuff for 80.

Obano and Lockett in
Ojomoh and Callouri out

Oakboy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 5:36 pm

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 4:54 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 1:11 pm

Why strange? To be clear, I'd have started Curry and Pollock and had Earl on the bench. Curry and Pollock would both have been good for 80. Let's face it, Steward was there to catch the high ball and was unexceptional at his primary skill. Arundell would probably have done just as well and would have been somewhat more threatening with ball in hand. Any of the other wingers with gas would have been equally useful on the bench. I also think that Earl could do a variety of jobs off the bench in the last 20. Of the 5 backrowers in the 23, Underhill is the most job-specific, IMO, and has lost pace. He did not play badly but could be the most vulnerable if SB continues a quest for versatility. Curry just looked a better player.

Because at no point whilst our replacements forwards smashed them in the last 20 minutes was I thinking “god, I wish we’d picked another outside back on the bench”.

Firmly of the believe that 6-2 is the way to go nowadays given the physical requirements of being a forward.

There is no doubt that there was significant impact but how much of it was that the players that came on were simply better than the ones they replaced? You may be right about 6:2 in the long term but I think it is easy to overlook having only 30 minutes of the better players compared with 50 had they started. I think three impactful front rowers may be justified off the bench but I just don't see it with back rowers like Curry and Pollock who could do their stuff for 80.

Do you remember the days where we had BillyV and Ben Morgan and whichever of them came off the bench looked like an absolute superstar and we'd be clamouring that that one had to start, only for the same to happen again when the positions were reversed? You can make a lot more impact when you know you've only got 30 minutes to spread your energy across and you can just go full bore without any need to ration, plus it goes further when you're running against tired legs in the opposition.

Puja

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 6:22 pm Obano and Lockett in
Ojomoh and Callouri out

Who the fuck is Lockett?

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 4:16 am

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 6:22 pm Obano and Lockett in
Ojomoh and Callouri out

Who the fuck is Lockett?

Saints lock 23yo, got motm in an England A game Vs Ireland last year if I recall correctly.

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 7:40 am

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 4:16 am

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 6:22 pm Obano and Lockett in
Ojomoh and Callouri out

Who the fuck is Lockett?

Saints lock 23yo, got motm in an England A game Vs Ireland last year if I recall correctly.

Ah! I think I've already said he's appropriately named

I see Furbank lasted 34 minutes in his northampton return yesterday before leaving for an HIA which he then failed.
One day.......

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... nd-autumn/
https://archive.ph/tVFOb

Charlie Morgan does a deep dive on why he's generally in favour of Marcus at 15. Worth a look.

Puja

Lucas Friday and Ben Waghorn make successful returns for Quinton a friendly against Scarlets

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 8:50 am Lucas Friday and Ben Waghorn make successful returns for Quinton a friendly against Scarlets

"Friendly" my eye

So where are we after the AIs, in terms of an 'ideal' 23?

Some positions are looking really rather solid/strong now, as well as their bench equivalents. Some question marks still for me.

Props looking strong.

Best 3 locks looking good, but a bit of a drop after that

Back row looking very deep - I'd have liked to see CCS vs. Arg, best 3 still up for discussion

We're very reliant on Mitchell

10 is fine, Ford currently (rightly) #1

Ojomoh has really put himself in the mix at 12 and Dingwall did a good job

13 and wing looking good

15 still a concern for me

I don't thin we're even trying to build an "ideal 23" so much as an "ideal 33" with the ability to slot different players in with no/minimal loss of quality, just a different approach. TBH I think he'd like to go further than 33 and have 3 valid options for each position, but as a 33:

LHP: Genge and Baxter are fine - want a better 3rd option than Obano/Rodd
HK: George and LCD are fine - but will they be in 2 years time? even as is, we need a better option then Dan. It feels like we're essentially skipping a generation and waiting for Jibulu and Tuipulotu to be ready
THP: Stuart and Heures are fine, AOF coming along nicely.
LK: Itoje and Chessum are fine, Coles might be there after his AI showing, Martin could be if he can stop breaking
FL: Tonnes of options and some very good players won't get close to the number of caps they "deserve"
N8: Needs a bit of a rethink with TW retiring from internationals, but Earl is doing a decent job.
19

SH: Mitchel is fine, but the cupboard is a bit bare behind him - England have a real problem with producing SHs, as age-grade coaches seem to see it as the place for someone who's not good enough to play FH, not fast enough to play back3 and not bug enough to play centre, so SH it is.
FH: Ford and Fin are fine - but Marcus hasn't earned the right to be trusted here.
CE: If he can let go of the Slade security blanket, then Atkinson, Ojomoh, Dingwall & Lawrence is a potentially very strong group, but all of them need game time investing in them.
Back3: IFW, Freeman & Furbank are fine. I still question Roebuck's pace for a winger, but it's not hugely problematic. Steward is trusted more by the coaches than by posters. Smith doubles up here, but isn't trusted to start (yet)
14

Charlie Morgan does an assessment of Guy Pepper's unseen work, comparing him to Richard Hill: https://archive.ph/eLbFs

Puja

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 8:31 am I don't thin we're even trying to build an "ideal 23" so much as an "ideal 33" with the ability to slot different players in with no/minimal loss of quality, just a different approach. TBH I think he'd like to go further than 33 and have 3 valid options for each position, but as a 33:

LHP: Genge and Baxter are fine - want a better 3rd option than Obano/Rodd
HK: George and LCD are fine - but will they be in 2 years time? even as is, we need a better option then Dan. It feels like we're essentially skipping a generation and waiting for Jibulu and Tuipulotu to be ready
THP: Stuart and Heures are fine, AOF coming along nicely.
LK: Itoje and Chessum are fine, Coles might be there after his AI showing, Martin could be if he can stop breaking
FL: Tonnes of options and some very good players won't get close to the number of caps they "deserve"
N8: Needs a bit of a rethink with TW retiring from internationals, but Earl is doing a decent job.
19

SH: Mitchel is fine, but the cupboard is a bit bare behind him - England have a real problem with producing SHs, as age-grade coaches seem to see it as the place for someone who's not good enough to play FH, not fast enough to play back3 and not bug enough to play centre, so SH it is.
FH: Ford and Fin are fine - but Marcus hasn't earned the right to be trusted here.
CE: If he can let go of the Slade security blanket, then Atkinson, Ojomoh, Dingwall & Lawrence is a potentially very strong group, but all of them need game time investing in them.
Back3: IFW, Freeman & Furbank are fine. I still question Roebuck's pace for a winger, but it's not hugely problematic. Steward is trusted more by the coaches than by posters. Smith doubles up here, but isn't trusted to start (yet)
14

I think this is a pretty harsh assessment TBH.

To me the word ‘fine’ implies those options are just OK when I’d say they’re good or even very good. I’m not sure 8 needs that much of a re-think. Earl is doing more than a ‘decent job’ and CCS’ start vs. Fiji was encouraging. Pollock, Dombrandt and Fisilau are not a bad group either.

I don’t think Borthwick is holding onto the ‘Slade security blanket’. But for the injuries to Lawrence and Dingwall, I’m not even sure we’d have seen him at all. Had Atkinson not been injured, there’s a reasonable chance he may not have made the squad.

Hooker and 9 are the obvious areas for improvement.

I think you're reading more into ""fine" and "decent" than I intend.
They're fine, they don't need further work, they're of the required standard, we don't need to find a better alternative.

As for Slade - he was named before Dingwall was ruled out. He being held onto in terms of being considered one of the primary centres. If we accept my 4, then it's currently a group of 5 centres, not 4 - which is more than you need for a RWC squad of 33.
I know some people think that Borthwick is held hostage to a longer-term central contract for Slade - but I think that's verging on conspiracy theory - he keeps selecting Slade because he wants him there.

Yes, hooker and 9 are the obvious areas where we're not fine. Also LHP where we really want a better 3rd choice

Interesting stats on Heyes's autumn from BBC's Opta article:

Joe Heyes has quietly put in a great shift this autumn, including at the scrum.

While he may not be the most destructive scrummager in the world he is incredibly solid - he had 23 scrum involvements this autumn, in both attack and defence, and didn't concede a single penalty.

No other prop was involved in as many scrums without conceding at least one.

His work-rate has been impressive too, averaging a combined 55 carries, tackles and rucks per 80 minutes, the most of any tight-head prop.

Just watching him play, I had thought he'd really stepped up a gear, especially in defence, but those are some fairly impressive stats.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:58 pm Interesting stats on Heyes's autumn from BBC's Opta article:

Joe Heyes has quietly put in a great shift this autumn, including at the scrum.

While he may not be the most destructive scrummager in the world he is incredibly solid - he had 23 scrum involvements this autumn, in both attack and defence, and didn't concede a single penalty.

No other prop was involved in as many scrums without conceding at least one.

His work-rate has been impressive too, averaging a combined 55 carries, tackles and rucks per 80 minutes, the most of any tight-head prop.

Just watching him play, I had thought he'd really stepped up a gear, especially in defence, but those are some fairly impressive stats.

Puja

He's a really good prop IMO. Like you say, hyper reliable. He was up against the first choice NZ props and frankly held his own. He, alonside Baxter, really laid the platform the last 30.

When you consider the players coming through, we've got some really good depth at THP now. LHP less so, but not bad.

The term 'quietly' has been over/mis used into oblivion in sports journalism. They need to just stop now.

twitchy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 1:37 pm The term 'quietly' has been over/mis used into oblivion in sports journalism. They need to just stop now.

Yeah I wouldn't want Heyes thundering into me with a 10m run up. Pretty sure I'd turn to dust.

twitchy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 1:37 pm The term 'quietly' has been over/mis used into oblivion in sports journalism. They need to just stop now.

Personally I think it’s a good description. Heyes is flying under the radar but has developed into a very good tighthead who has more than held his own against some good opposition.

I’d say the word ‘quietly’ is being used to reference that he’s doing a good job but is rarely talked about.

Danno wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 2:58 pm

twitchy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 1:37 pm The term 'quietly' has been over/mis used into oblivion in sports journalism. They need to just stop now.

Yeah I wouldn't want Heyes thundering into me with a 10m run up. Pretty sure I'd turn to dust.

You and me both. He ain't a small bloke.

Not the most exciting player but sets the foundation for the exciting ones to do their thing. At 26 we should years of him yet as well.

Heyes was my player of the series. Baxter ran him pretty close. Great that these two have really stepped up and that AOF put in a couple of notable efforts.