England Squad for the AIs

[Banquo]

Add Dombrandt. Take out Curry

I like LCD but he's a way off his top form.

Puja says you are wrong. Agree on Dombrandt, I'd also exclude Curry B. Have Ted Hill and Willis T- there's plenty of openside with CurryT EarlB UnderhillS. I'd also be looking at one of the tyro carrying 7's.

Wouldn't disagree greatly on Hill for Curry B

Just seems weird to pick injured players, ones who will never be more than filler, and those who have proven a few times to be short of the standard. Especially when there is an alternative that offers future

totally agree

[Mikey Brown]

Yes, there is a half-decent XV within the 36 but it seems as if a chance has been missed to add new zest to the squad as a whole.

That's a good way of putting it.

Continuity/familiarity is great and all that, but it feels like it lacks that excitment of potential bolters (rather than filler) for the 23. Guys like Hill, Willis, Atkinson, Beard etc. offer a point of difference that could really shake things up if they were able to break in to the side, but clearly they're missing something.

On the flip side Dombrandt and Ben Curry are these sorts of players, but haven't managed to make any impact at all over their last couple of years being involved. I love Dombrandt but I don't really know what Borthwick is wanting/expecting from him at this point. Equally Ben Curry I feel is capable of magic that even Tom can't pull off, but it doesn't feel like he's going to find his groove in this team.

[Banquo]

Yes, there is a half-decent XV within the 36 but it seems as if a chance has been missed to add new zest to the squad as a whole.

That's a good way of putting it.

Continuity/familiarity is great and all that, but it feels like it lacks that excitment of potential bolters (rather than filler) for the 23. Guys like Hill, Willis, Atkinson, Beard etc. offer a point of difference that could really shake things up if they were able to break in to the side, but clearly they're missing something.

On the flip side Dombrandt and Ben Curry are these sorts of players, but haven't managed to make any impact at all over their last couple of years being involved. I love Dombrandt but I don't really know what Borthwick is wanting/expecting from him at this point. Equally Ben Curry I feel is capable of magic that even Tom can't pull off, but it doesn't feel like he's going to find his groove in this team.

yup...though not sure where you get that on Ben Curry from- what's his magic trick?

[Beasties]

It saddens me to see those 6 backrowers. Only two, CCS and Earl, should be picked ahead of Willis, IMO.

The stodginess of the squad selection generally is a real cause for concern. To move on from recent narrow defeats requires spark/edge, not uninspirational grind from same/old. Are we just expecting to improve radically by defensive tweaks?

Yes, there is a half-decent XV within the 36 but it seems as if a chance has been missed to add new zest to the squad as a whole.

Stodginess is indeed the word that sums that squad up perfectly. I thought we’d moved on from ongoing frustrations with average players being selected over and over again.
T Willy missing out is baffling.

[Mikey Brown]

Yes, there is a half-decent XV within the 36 but it seems as if a chance has been missed to add new zest to the squad as a whole.

That's a good way of putting it.

Continuity/familiarity is great and all that, but it feels like it lacks that excitment of potential bolters (rather than filler) for the 23. Guys like Hill, Willis, Atkinson, Beard etc. offer a point of difference that could really shake things up if they were able to break in to the side, but clearly they're missing something.

On the flip side Dombrandt and Ben Curry are these sorts of players, but haven't managed to make any impact at all over their last couple of years being involved. I love Dombrandt but I don't really know what Borthwick is wanting/expecting from him at this point. Equally Ben Curry I feel is capable of magic that even Tom can't pull off, but it doesn't feel like he's going to find his groove in this team.

yup...though not sure where you get that on Ben Curry from- what's his magic trick?

Not a specific magic trick, unless you count his kicking, more that he's got fantastic ball skills to go with the turnovers and eye-catching hits/runs. It doesn't seem like he's ever looked settled enough in his role/basics (for England) for any of that to be a factor though.

[SixAndAHalf]

The big misses for me are Ted Hill and Zack Mercer (I know...) - two players who I think have the talent to be game breakers at international level.

I'd also have gone for someone like Tizard or Tuima (or other?) at lock rather than Ewels and Isiekwe who we know aren't up to it.

Centre there is a big opportunity for Northmore or Lozowski if Slade isn't fit - I'd like to see Lawrence at 13 though.

9 is a big worry without Mitchell as Spencer didn't look up to it on tour - not that there is a multitude of options...

As an aside, these videos are worth a watch for the summary of the universe of options:

[Banquo]

That's a good way of putting it.

Continuity/familiarity is great and all that, but it feels like it lacks that excitment of potential bolters (rather than filler) for the 23. Guys like Hill, Willis, Atkinson, Beard etc. offer a point of difference that could really shake things up if they were able to break in to the side, but clearly they're missing something.

On the flip side Dombrandt and Ben Curry are these sorts of players, but haven't managed to make any impact at all over their last couple of years being involved. I love Dombrandt but I don't really know what Borthwick is wanting/expecting from him at this point. Equally Ben Curry I feel is capable of magic that even Tom can't pull off, but it doesn't feel like he's going to find his groove in this team.

yup...though not sure where you get that on Ben Curry from- what's his magic trick?

Not a specific magic trick, unless you count his kicking, more that he's got fantastic ball skills to go with the turnovers and eye-catching hits/runs. It doesn't seem like he's ever looked settled enough in his role/basics (for England) for any of that to be a factor though.

Must admit in all my watching him I've not spotted those fantastic ball skills and clearly not caught my eye. I may well be doing him a disservice- his bro has got great all round skills, but tbh isn't an eye catcher either, just an unseen work kinda guy like Hill R (which is a good thing)

[Banquo]

The big misses for me are Ted Hill and Zack Mercer (I know...) - two players who I think have the talent to be game breakers at international level.

I'd also have gone for someone like Tizard or Tuima (or other?) at lock rather than Ewels and Isiekwe who we know aren't up to it.

Centre there is a big opportunity for Northmore or Lozowski if Slade isn't fit - I'd like to see Lawrence at 13 though.

9 is a big worry without Mitchell as Spencer didn't look up to it on tour - not that there is a multitude of options...

As an aside, these videos are worth a watch for the summary of the universe of options:

not sure on his conclusions in many cases- but have to bear in mind its form- but a useful long list of names. His final backline looks pretty handy in fairness.

[Banquo]

[TheNomad]

Seb Atkinson not featuring at all?!

[Oakboy]

Why are there four AIs on successive weekends yet we still have gap weeks in the 6N?

[Epaminondas Pules]

I love that they have a Scottish scrum half as an option for our AI squad! RIL really are bellends!

[Which Tyler]

Why are there four AIs on successive weekends yet we still have gap weeks in the 6N?

Because the 6N is a compromise between 6 different nations, whereas the AIs are us inviting teams to come and play against us.
Because 5 is a bigger number than 4.
Because tradition is a thing.
Because nations with smaller playing pools prefer not to over-load their players.
Because coaches like the opportunity to not only rest players for a week here and there, but also to reset tactics, and talk about blocks of matches within the 6N rather than a one-off grind.
Because coaches who want to treat it as a one-off grind can still do so if they so choose with training sessions or full-on probables vs possible in the rest weeks.

I love that they have a Scottish scrum half as an option for our AI squad! RIL really are bellends!

I've always kinda intended to do one of these for myself, but just never get around to it.

[Mellsblue]

Why are there four AIs on successive weekends yet we still have gap weeks in the 6N?

Because the 6N is a compromise between 6 different nations, whereas the AIs are us inviting teams to come and play against us.
Because 5 is a bigger number than 4.
Because tradition is a thing.
Because nations with smaller playing pools prefer not to over-load their players.
Because coaches like the opportunity to not only rest players for a week here and there, but also to reset tactics, and talk about blocks of matches within the 6N rather than a one-off grind.
Because coaches who want to treat it as a one-off grind can still do so if they so choose with training sessions or full-on probables vs possible in the rest weeks.

AI matches aren’t organised in isolation. There’s compromise between over 10 nations with far more differing objectives than the fairly well aligned 6N. Though, I assume this will cease to be a problem with the new World Championship or whatever it’s called*.
Four is a bigger number than 2, 1 and 2, and is also a bigger number than 3 and 2 if one rest weekend were removed.
Tradition shouldn’t be an impediment to improvement (obvs subjective if it would be an improvement but misplaced reverence of tradition has held back rugby for far too long).
The members of the Six Nations with smaller playing pools have more control over their players than the larger nations and so can manage their workload more effectively throughout the season.
Club coaches like having their players for a week longer.
Taking away the ability for coaches to have a 7 week grind if the they wish to do so and limit to 6 can only be a good thing.
Clubs CE/O/FOs would love the 6N blackhole to be one week shorter.
Most importantly, I hate the three weekend run with two fallow weekends.

*What will this look like? Is it four tier one on tier one matches? If so, that is a far bigger worry than removing one 6N rest weekend.

[Captainhaircut]

Really think we need to be using Freeman at 13 from now on in. He just has the all round game that means we need to be increasing his involvement. Particularly when we have reasonable wing depth with Sleightholme and Roebuck waiting.

12 appears to be a case of waiting for BJVR to qualify…

[Puja]

Why are there four AIs on successive weekends yet we still have gap weeks in the 6N?

Because the 6N is a compromise between 6 different nations, whereas the AIs are us inviting teams to come and play against us.
Because 5 is a bigger number than 4.
Because tradition is a thing.
Because nations with smaller playing pools prefer not to over-load their players.
Because coaches like the opportunity to not only rest players for a week here and there, but also to reset tactics, and talk about blocks of matches within the 6N rather than a one-off grind.
Because coaches who want to treat it as a one-off grind can still do so if they so choose with training sessions or full-on probables vs possible in the rest weeks.

AI matches aren’t organised in isolation. There’s compromise between over 10 nations with far more differing objectives than the fairly well aligned 6N. Though, I assume this will cease to be a problem with the new World Championship or whatever it’s called*.
Four is a bigger number than 2, 1 and 2, and is also a bigger number than 3 and 2 if one rest weekend were removed.
Tradition shouldn’t be an impediment to improvement (obvs subjective if it would be an improvement but misplaced reverence of tradition has held back rugby for far too long).
The members of the Six Nations with smaller playing pools have more control over their players than the larger nations and so can manage their workload more effectively throughout the season.
Club coaches like having their players for a week longer.
Taking away the ability for coaches to have a 7 week grind if the they wish to do so and limit to 6 can only be a good thing.
Clubs CE/O/FOs would love the 6N blackhole to be one week shorter.
Most importantly, I hate the three weekend run with two fallow weekends.

*What will this look like? Is it four tier one on tier one matches? If so, that is a far bigger worry than removing one 6N rest weekend.

I am absolutely with you, but the problem is that the current system works very well for the Welsh, Irish, and Scots, so they have absolutely no incentive to change.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Because the 6N is a compromise between 6 different nations, whereas the AIs are us inviting teams to come and play against us.
Because 5 is a bigger number than 4.
Because tradition is a thing.
Because nations with smaller playing pools prefer not to over-load their players.
Because coaches like the opportunity to not only rest players for a week here and there, but also to reset tactics, and talk about blocks of matches within the 6N rather than a one-off grind.
Because coaches who want to treat it as a one-off grind can still do so if they so choose with training sessions or full-on probables vs possible in the rest weeks.

AI matches aren’t organised in isolation. There’s compromise between over 10 nations with far more differing objectives than the fairly well aligned 6N. Though, I assume this will cease to be a problem with the new World Championship or whatever it’s called*.
Four is a bigger number than 2, 1 and 2, and is also a bigger number than 3 and 2 if one rest weekend were removed.
Tradition shouldn’t be an impediment to improvement (obvs subjective if it would be an improvement but misplaced reverence of tradition has held back rugby for far too long).
The members of the Six Nations with smaller playing pools have more control over their players than the larger nations and so can manage their workload more effectively throughout the season.
Club coaches like having their players for a week longer.
Taking away the ability for coaches to have a 7 week grind if the they wish to do so and limit to 6 can only be a good thing.
Clubs CE/O/FOs would love the 6N blackhole to be one week shorter.
Most importantly, I hate the three weekend run with two fallow weekends.

*What will this look like? Is it four tier one on tier one matches? If so, that is a far bigger worry than removing one 6N rest weekend.

I am absolutely with you, but the problem is that the current system works very well for the Welsh, Irish, and Scots, so they have absolutely no incentive to change.

Puja

Why do you say/think the bit in italics?

[Puja]

AI matches aren’t organised in isolation. There’s compromise between over 10 nations with far more differing objectives than the fairly well aligned 6N. Though, I assume this will cease to be a problem with the new World Championship or whatever it’s called*.
Four is a bigger number than 2, 1 and 2, and is also a bigger number than 3 and 2 if one rest weekend were removed.
Tradition shouldn’t be an impediment to improvement (obvs subjective if it would be an improvement but misplaced reverence of tradition has held back rugby for far too long).
The members of the Six Nations with smaller playing pools have more control over their players than the larger nations and so can manage their workload more effectively throughout the season.
Club coaches like having their players for a week longer.
Taking away the ability for coaches to have a 7 week grind if the they wish to do so and limit to 6 can only be a good thing.
Clubs CE/O/FOs would love the 6N blackhole to be one week shorter.
Most importantly, I hate the three weekend run with two fallow weekends.

*What will this look like? Is it four tier one on tier one matches? If so, that is a far bigger worry than removing one 6N rest weekend.

I am absolutely with you, but the problem is that the current system works very well for the Welsh, Irish, and Scots, so they have absolutely no incentive to change.

Puja

Why do you say/think the bit in italics?

In terms of player management and this overall performance only. They have smaller player pools and less depth, so an injury is a bigger deal for them than for England or France. Having the fallow weeks means injuries are less impactful (as a player needing 3 weeks to recover might only kiss 1 game) and fewer injuries in general (due to having more rest).

It is also a different kettle of fish for them than the AIs because they can always schedule their fourth AI (if they even have one) with a T2/3 nation and rotate, which isn't the case with the 6N. From a financial perspective the AIs are different too - while winning one-off games does drive fans and money, it's nowhere near as much as being able to win the 6N and parade around a trophy, so they are far more likely to sign onto something in the AIs that might lower their chances than they are in the 6N.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Really think we need to be using Freeman at 13 from now on in. He just has the all round game that means we need to be increasing his involvement. Particularly when we have reasonable wing depth with Sleightholme and Roebuck waiting.

12 appears to be a case of waiting for BJVR to qualify…

Needs to play there regularly for Northampton before starting there for England, imo . If Saints want to do us all a favour they’ll make 10. Smith 11. Sleighholme 12. Dingers 13. Freeman 14. Hendy 15. Furbank their first choice backline.

[Mellsblue]

I am absolutely with you, but the problem is that the current system works very well for the Welsh, Irish, and Scots, so they have absolutely no incentive to change.

Puja

Why do you say/think the bit in italics?

In terms of player management and this overall performance only. They have smaller player pools and less depth, so an injury is a bigger deal for them than for England or France. Having the fallow weeks means injuries are less impactful (as a player needing 3 weeks to recover might only kiss 1 game) and fewer injuries in general (due to having more rest).

It is also a different kettle of fish for them than the AIs because they can always schedule their fourth AI (if they even have one) with a T2/3 nation and rotate, which isn't the case with the 6N. From a financial perspective the AIs are different too - while winning one-off games does drive fans and money, it's nowhere near as much as being able to win the 6N and parade around a trophy, so they are far more likely to sign onto something in the AIs that might lower their chances than they are in the 6N.

Puja

Puja

Ah, ok. I’d counter with my point in reply to WT that they can better manage their players throughout the season as they have more control than France and England but agree with what you say.

As for your second point, that is true for now but will it be once the new format comes in? I don’t think it will but not 100% sure. The best for player welfare may be going 3 + 2 in the 6N and 3(?) + 1 in the AI.

[Oakboy]

I think it's more about WT's fourth point than anything else. Tradition i.e. amateur thinking.

Of course, as things are, the stadia are sold out. Complacency then leads the various rugby authorities to think everything must be OK. Rugby, as a whole, needs to attract new fans. The 6N gap weeks do little for that quest, IMO.

[Mellsblue]

I think it's more about WT's fourth point than anything else. Tradition i.e. amateur thinking.

Of course, as things are, the stadia are sold out. Complacency then leads the various rugby authorities to think everything must be OK. Rugby, as a whole, needs to attract new fans. The 6N gap weeks do little for that quest, IMO.

I think, for the unions, it’s probably about more time with the players dressed up as player welfare concerns.

[Danno]

Just to add to the LCD discussion. Not a bad stat.

[Banquo]

Really think we need to be using Freeman at 13 from now on in. He just has the all round game that means we need to be increasing his involvement. Particularly when we have reasonable wing depth with Sleightholme and Roebuck waiting.

12 appears to be a case of waiting for BJVR to qualify…

Needs to play there regularly for Northampton before starting there for England, imo . If Saints want to do us all a favour they’ll make 10. Smith 11. Sleighholme 12. Dingers 13. Freeman 14. Hendy 15. Furbank their first choice backline.

Suspect that is what you’ll see when dingers is fit

[FKAS]

Really think we need to be using Freeman at 13 from now on in. He just has the all round game that means we need to be increasing his involvement. Particularly when we have reasonable wing depth with Sleightholme and Roebuck waiting.

12 appears to be a case of waiting for BJVR to qualify…

Needs to play there regularly for Northampton before starting there for England, imo . If Saints want to do us all a favour they’ll make 10. Smith 11. Sleighholme 12. Dingers 13. Freeman 14. Hendy 15. Furbank their first choice backline.

Suspect that is what you’ll see when dingers is fit

Hope so. Saints didn't go down that route for the playoffs last season they preferred Odendaal in at 13 and left Hendy on the bench.

Lawrence and Freeman would bring plenty of pace and power to the England midfield. With Furbank at 15 surely we don't need to worry about having a playmaker or kicking option at 13.

Having said that Simply Ballkick has selected Lozowski so maybe we do.