England vs Australia

[Puja]

Has Ben Curry overtaken his brother now? ( Reminds me a lot of the Calder twins succession 40 years ago )

As I said before, I'm not an Underhill fan, but I'd rank him above both Curry twins currently. Neither convinced against NZ. In fact, the only back-rower to do that was CCS, who would not have started had Chessum been fit, reportedly. An area of strength declined to an area of weakness, arguably.

I thought TCurry did a phenomenal job, quite frankly. NZ are one of the world's best teams at attacking rucks, they took ours apart quite solidly in the summer, and TCurry made it so that there was no a single English ruck turnover while he was on the pitch. Lost count of how many times he was the first person to the ruck, securing our attacking ball, and I'm fairly certain he put in a decent number of tackles in defence as well.

CCS put in some highlights reel tackles, but TCurry was our best back row.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

As I said before, I'm not an Underhill fan, but I'd rank him above both Curry twins currently. Neither convinced against NZ. In fact, the only back-rower to do that was CCS, who would not have started had Chessum been fit, reportedly. An area of strength declined to an area of weakness, arguably.

A fresh CCS running on at the 50th minute mark against a tired opposition would have been brilliant for us and given some much needed impact.

Willis, Fisilau, Pearson or Pollock could supply similar energy. Even Roots would have added grunt. Or Hill. It's not far off time for a re-think, IMO.

Sorry, but what is it Roots would have done to make any difference in that closing 15-20 minutes? What would 'grunt' have given us? One-out carries and solid defence around the fringes weren't the issue, surely? I like all those other players, and maybe Pearson would have conjured a linebreak or something, but our strength in the backrow is mostly hypothetical at this point and wasn't really much to do with why we lost the game.

We were essentially playing League in that closing quarter. A handful of phases before kicking it away, then barely contesting the scrums.

Either way, I hope Chessum is back soon. Is there any word on that?

[TheDasher]

I think Roots is a good player and hasn't done a lot wrong frankly - I think on a very wet, muddy pitch, arm-wrestle type of game he'd be quite useful but generally he's well down on some of our other options.

At 7 I keep leaning towards Pearson. I think he gives you a lot of the 'dog' of the Currys and Underhill but also has that pace and carrying potential that I think we sometimes lack. Agree with Puja though, Tom Curry played well.

[Oakboy]

Has Ben Curry overtaken his brother now? ( Reminds me a lot of the Calder twins succession 40 years ago )

As I said before, I'm not an Underhill fan, but I'd rank him above both Curry twins currently. Neither convinced against NZ. In fact, the only back-rower to do that was CCS, who would not have started had Chessum been fit, reportedly. An area of strength declined to an area of weakness, arguably.

I thought TCurry did a phenomenal job, quite frankly. NZ are one of the world's best teams at attacking rucks, they took ours apart quite solidly in the summer, and TCurry made it so that there was no a single English ruck turnover while he was on the pitch. Lost count of how many times he was the first person to the ruck, securing our attacking ball, and I'm fairly certain he put in a decent number of tackles in defence as well.

CCS put in some highlights reel tackles, but TCurry was our best back row.

Puja

For me, that means that TC was adequate at spoiling i.e. he was OK defensively. Did Itoje get our only turnover? Is setting out just to stop conceding turnovers not a bit of an inferiority complex?

I was a huge T Curry fan but I just don't think he's back much over 80% of his former self. Others are better than him at his current level, IMO.

[Stom]

I just fail to see an England squad where the answer isn't Ted Hill. Surely he ticks every box...

And...I know he was really good briefly, and he "puts up good numbers", but I still think Earl is a poor international 8. He lost ground most carries at the weekend and sucked all momentum out of the game. Plus those 2 braindead penalties.

I like

6.Hill
7.Curry
8.Dombrandt

20.CCS

But I'm happy to hear depositions for any of 3-4 players for that 8 shirt, none of them are standout. If we need the tight carrying, then WIllis is probably a better bet. But Hill can get through some of that work.

[Stom]

As I said before, I'm not an Underhill fan, but I'd rank him above both Curry twins currently. Neither convinced against NZ. In fact, the only back-rower to do that was CCS, who would not have started had Chessum been fit, reportedly. An area of strength declined to an area of weakness, arguably.

I thought TCurry did a phenomenal job, quite frankly. NZ are one of the world's best teams at attacking rucks, they took ours apart quite solidly in the summer, and TCurry made it so that there was no a single English ruck turnover while he was on the pitch. Lost count of how many times he was the first person to the ruck, securing our attacking ball, and I'm fairly certain he put in a decent number of tackles in defence as well.

CCS put in some highlights reel tackles, but TCurry was our best back row.

Puja

For me, that means that TC was adequate at spoiling i.e. he was OK defensively. Did Itoje get our only turnover? Is setting out just to stop conceding turnovers not a bit of an inferiority complex?

I was a huge T Curry fan but I just don't think he's back much over 80% of his former self. Others are better than him at his current level, IMO.

No, it's not inferiority. It's necessary. And it's a role thing. For too long, England fans have looked at the 7 shirt and pictured Back. And that's skewed our perception of what's needed. We've picked Earl at 8 and a lock in Itoje who is excellent over the ball. So leaving Curry to do something he excels at, which takes him away from another activity he excels at...seems like a perfectly adequate choice considering no-one else in that pack were remotely on Curry's level at defensive rucks.

Well, George is, but he's hardly mobile enough to be first man very often nowadays.

[FKAS]

As I said before, I'm not an Underhill fan, but I'd rank him above both Curry twins currently. Neither convinced against NZ. In fact, the only back-rower to do that was CCS, who would not have started had Chessum been fit, reportedly. An area of strength declined to an area of weakness, arguably.

A fresh CCS running on at the 50th minute mark against a tired opposition would have been brilliant for us and given some much needed impact.

Willis, Fisilau, Pearson or Pollock could supply similar energy. Even Roots would have added grunt. Or Hill. It's not far off time for a re-think, IMO.

A bit early for Pollock and maybe Fisilau. Pollock looks like he's got a massive future but I think it's also important to remember he's only 19 still and he needs his game time managing still.

TWillis or Pearson were ones I'd have liked to have seen being given another go.

[Puja]

As I said before, I'm not an Underhill fan, but I'd rank him above both Curry twins currently. Neither convinced against NZ. In fact, the only back-rower to do that was CCS, who would not have started had Chessum been fit, reportedly. An area of strength declined to an area of weakness, arguably.

I thought TCurry did a phenomenal job, quite frankly. NZ are one of the world's best teams at attacking rucks, they took ours apart quite solidly in the summer, and TCurry made it so that there was no a single English ruck turnover while he was on the pitch. Lost count of how many times he was the first person to the ruck, securing our attacking ball, and I'm fairly certain he put in a decent number of tackles in defence as well.

CCS put in some highlights reel tackles, but TCurry was our best back row.

Puja

For me, that means that TC was adequate at spoiling i.e. he was OK defensively. Did Itoje get our only turnover? Is setting out just to stop conceding turnovers not a bit of an inferiority complex?

I was a huge T Curry fan but I just don't think he's back much over 80% of his former self. Others are better than him at his current level, IMO.

Entirely denying New Zealand turnovers is not a small achievement! Why shouldn't we celebrate entirely neutralising one of our opponents' biggest strengths? Especially when our defensive system is set up to gain turnovers from forcing opposition handling errors so jackalling isn't as important.

And...I know he was really good briefly, and he "puts up good numbers", but I still think Earl is a poor international 8. He lost ground most carries at the weekend and sucked all momentum out of the game. Plus those 2 braindead penalties.

This is angle that I am starting to come around to. He was superb in the 6N, but has looked utterly worked out by New Zealand in the last three games. I don't necessarily know that I'm yet asking the question that starting Dombrandt would be the answer to, but I am certainly much more in favour of looking at an alternative no8 than I was before this game (and TWillis's ridiculously good form does not help my confidence in Earl).

He's probably got enough credit in the bank to play vs Australia, and they're poor enough that he'll probably do well, but if he can't back that up against SA, then it's time to look at another option.

Puja

[Banquo]

I think Roots is a good player and hasn't done a lot wrong frankly - I think on a very wet, muddy pitch, arm-wrestle type of game he'd be quite useful but generally he's well down on some of our other options.

At 7 I keep leaning towards Pearson. I think he gives you a lot of the 'dog' of the Currys and Underhill but also has that pace and carrying potential that I think we sometimes lack. Agree with Puja though, Tom Curry played well.

Roots is bang average, else NZ wouldn't have let him go. Decent club player.

Pearson isn't yet ready imo, he's only just 1st choice at Saints, and needs to work on his ball retention. His carrying would be handy.

We really need to work on turnovers at the ruck- we can't seem to get the ball back from sides who want to keep it!

[SixAndAHalf]

Does anyone know why Hill is ignored (e.g. I remember for Mitchell it was his fitness)? Feels like he would have been the natural replacement for Chessum enabling the impact of CCS off the bench as planned.

I also think as a pure bench impact player (which is where we are struggling) we should really be looking at Zach Mercer - the ship may have sailed in reality and I understand not picking him to start if he doesn't do the kick chase, etc we need but hes a genuine game breaker. CCS and Mercer off the bench would provide real impact.

A big scrummaging 19 would also be handy if we are trying to replicate the "bomb squad" style - eventually that should be Kpoku but is it worth giving Tuima a shot now?

[Stom]

Does anyone know why Hill is ignored (e.g. I remember for Mitchell it was his fitness)? Feels like he would have been the natural replacement for Chessum enabling the impact of CCS off the bench as planned.

I also think as a pure bench impact player (which is where we are struggling) we should really be looking at Zach Mercer - the ship may have sailed in reality and I understand not picking him to start if he doesn't do the kick chase, etc we need but hes a genuine game breaker. CCS and Mercer off the bench would provide real impact.

A big scrummaging 19 would also be handy if we are trying to replicate the "bomb squad" style - eventually that should be Kpoku but is it worth giving Tuima a shot now?

I don't think there's much, if any, difference between Dombrandt and Mercer. I used to think Mercer was brilliant, but since France, he's been meh, and his public utterances aren't very good. At least Dombrandt shut up and got on with it when he was dumped by England. And then got back into the squad.

[Banquo]

Has Ben Curry overtaken his brother now? ( Reminds me a lot of the Calder twins succession 40 years ago )

Not unless you mean running in training?

[Puja]

Does anyone know why Hill is ignored (e.g. I remember for Mitchell it was his fitness)? Feels like he would have been the natural replacement for Chessum enabling the impact of CCS off the bench as planned.

I also think as a pure bench impact player (which is where we are struggling) we should really be looking at Zach Mercer - the ship may have sailed in reality and I understand not picking him to start if he doesn't do the kick chase, etc we need but hes a genuine game breaker. CCS and Mercer off the bench would provide real impact.

A big scrummaging 19 would also be handy if we are trying to replicate the "bomb squad" style - eventually that should be Kpoku but is it worth giving Tuima a shot now?

I think there is a tendency from both fans and pundits, when we are seeking alternative options after a disappointment, to focus on players with a particular x-factor or USP that far exceeds that of the incumbent, yet ignore that they've got holes in their basic boring game. Tuima may be a big bulky scrummaging second row, but he's not always first choice for Exeter because his handling, workrate, and efficacy in the carry aren't good enough yet - he might have the characteristic that we're looking for but the rest of his game isn't international standard. Same for Mercer - he looks great in an open game, or where he's in a pack that can compensate for his deficiencies, but you can't carry a player in any respect at international level, no matter how good their other talents are.

It may not be interesting or exciting to stick with the same players who might not have the flash of Ibitoye or the offloading of Mercer or the youth of Pollock/AOF/Fasogbon/whomever, but people would be howling if we picked them and their weaknesses were brutally exposed or their strengths turned out to be easily neutered at international level.

On Ted Hill though (and TWillis for that matter), I've got no idea what he's lacking. Hopefully Sleek Backchanneling has communicated what he needs from them to them.

Puja

[p/d]

Hill, Willis, Pepper and Pollock. Class.

How Sheer Bodysuit balances the riches moving forward will make for frustrating watching

[Mellsblue]

Hill, Willis, Pepper and Pollock. Class.

How Sheer Bodysuit balances the riches moving forward will make for frustrating watching

A four man backrow! Eddie would approve.

[p/d]

Hill, Willis, Pepper and Pollock. Class.

How Sheer Bodysuit balances the riches moving forward will make for frustrating watching

A four man backrow! Eddie would approve.

One on the bench silly

[SixAndAHalf]

Does anyone know why Hill is ignored (e.g. I remember for Mitchell it was his fitness)? Feels like he would have been the natural replacement for Chessum enabling the impact of CCS off the bench as planned.

I also think as a pure bench impact player (which is where we are struggling) we should really be looking at Zach Mercer - the ship may have sailed in reality and I understand not picking him to start if he doesn't do the kick chase, etc we need but hes a genuine game breaker. CCS and Mercer off the bench would provide real impact.

A big scrummaging 19 would also be handy if we are trying to replicate the "bomb squad" style - eventually that should be Kpoku but is it worth giving Tuima a shot now?

I think there is a tendency from both fans and pundits, when we are seeking alternative options after a disappointment, to focus on players with a particular x-factor or USP that far exceeds that of the incumbent, yet ignore that they've got holes in their basic boring game. Tuima may be a big bulky scrummaging second row, but he's not always first choice for Exeter because his handling, workrate, and efficacy in the carry aren't good enough yet - he might have the characteristic that we're looking for but the rest of his game isn't international standard. Same for Mercer - he looks great in an open game, or where he's in a pack that can compensate for his deficiencies, but you can't carry a player in any respect at international level, no matter how good their other talents are.

It may not be interesting or exciting to stick with the same players who might not have the flash of Ibitoye or the offloading of Mercer or the youth of Pollock/AOF/Fasogbon/whomever, but people would be howling if we picked them and their weaknesses were brutally exposed or their strengths turned out to be easily neutered at international level.

On Ted Hill though (and TWillis for that matter), I've got no idea what he's lacking. Hopefully Sleek Backchanneling has communicated what he needs from them to them.

Puja

I wouldn't necessarily badge Tuima and Mercer together - Tuima was a suggestion as the best potential fit for a position / skillset we are lacking but I certainly see his deficiencies.

With Mercer his biggest deficiency appears to be his overall workrate and I can see the logic for not starting him for that reason. However, he has a number of elite attributes and I believe would have made a significant positive impact in the last 20 mins of a game like Saturday.

[Mellsblue]

Hill, Willis, Pepper and Pollock. Class.

How Sheer Bodysuit balances the riches moving forward will make for frustrating watching

A four man backrow! Eddie would approve.

One on the bench silly

Eddie is now questioning your upbringing.

[Puja]

Team is apparently being announced in 15 minutes.

Puja

[Puja]

15. George Furbank (Northampton Saints, 12 caps)
14. Immanuel Feyi-Waboso (Exeter Chiefs, 7 caps)
13. Ollie Lawrence (Bath Rugby, 28 caps)
12. Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 66 caps)
11. Tommy Freeman (Northampton Saints, 12 caps)
10. Marcus Smith (Harlequins, 36 caps)
9. Ben Spencer (Bath Rugby, 7 caps)
1. Ellis Genge (Bristol Bears, 63 caps) – vice-captain
2. Jamie George (Saracens, 94 caps) – captain
3. Will Stuart (Bath Rugby, 42 caps)
4. Maro Itoje (Saracens, 85 caps) – vice-captain
5. George Martin (Leicester Tigers, 16 caps)
6. Chandler Cunningham-South (Harlequins, 8 caps)
7. Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, 54 caps)
8. Ben Earl (Saracens, 34 caps) – vice-captain

Replacements:

16. Luke Cowan-Dickie (Sale Sharks, 41 caps)
17. Fin Baxter (Harlequins, 3 caps)
18. Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 116 caps)
19. Nick Isiekwe (Saracens, 12 caps)
20. Alex Dombrandt (Harlequins, 18 caps)
21. Harry Randall (Bristol Bears, 8 caps)
22. George Ford (Sale Sharks, 97 caps) – vice captain
23. Ollie Sleightholme (Northampton Saints, 2 caps)

[SixAndAHalf]

Lawrence and Slade switching shirts - will it actually play out that way?! Would like to see Lawrence at 13 but to be fair they are pretty interchangeable anyway!

[Puja]

Same XV, with the only changes being LCD for Dan and Sleightholme for BCurry on the bench. Can't say I disagree too much with that - absolutely no point in chopping and changing, especially with Australia being a weaker side so a good performance by a rotated player wouldn't prove a huge amount. Better to try and build cohesion before South Africa.

I think that both Dan and BCurry are unlucky to be given the chop, although the former might be injury as he did go off at the end of the NZ game.

Puja

[Puja]

Lawrence and Slade switching shirts - will it actually play out that way?! Would like to see Lawrence at 13 but to be fair they are pretty interchangeable anyway!

Huh. Had not actually spotted that one. Interesting.

Puja

[Danno]

I like this a fair bit more.

Think Dan had a suspected broken hand?

[Banquo]

I like this a fair bit more.

Think Dan had a suspected broken hand?

Frankly whilst happier by miles with a 5:3 bench, the forwards subs are just meh. Slade and Lawrence is interesting, unless its just a cock up