RugbyRebels

Some fun selections: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union ... mxex0e8vvo

Blamire in ahead of Dan, Oghre, and Langdon
No Fazlet! SAtkinson keeps his place, but sadly so does Slade
No Dombrand, Ojomoh or Randall.
Hill retains his place despite not being good enough to start against the USA
Itoje rested ( ), IFW and Stuart nursing minor niggles and not counted, Martin still not fit

Overall, that's a pretty good squad; I don't hate it. I don't mind Ewels in there as a good training partner and pro who sets standards, and having him as our 5th choice lock isn't terrible. Would prefer to have Fasogbon in there learning too, but hoping there's some master plan to motivate him to improve some other part of his game, like Boombaby did by leaving Heyes out.

Puja


ETA. Saw this comment on the BBC story. Made i larf:

Forwards

Ellis Genge (Bristol)
Fin Baxter (Harlequins)
Bevan Rodd (Sale)

Luke Cowan-Dickie (Sale)
Jamie George (Saracens)
Jamie Blamire (Leicester)

Joe Heyes (Leicester)
Asher Opoku-Fordjour (Sale)

Ollie Chessum (Leicester)
Alex Coles (Northampton)
Charlie Ewels (Bath)
Chandler Cunningham-South (Harlequins)

Sam Underhill (Bath)
Ben Curry (Sale)
Henry Pollock (Northampton)
Guy Pepper (Bath)
Ted Hill (Bath)

Tom Willis (Saracens)
Ben Earl (Saracens)


Backs

Alex Mitchell (Northampton)
Jack van Poortvliet (Leicester)
Ben Spencer (Bath)

George Ford (Sale)
Fin Smith (Northampton)
Marcus Smith (Harlequins)

Fraser Dingwall (Northampton)
Seb Atkinson (Gloucester)
Ollie Lawrence (Bath)
Henry Slade (Exeter)
Oscar Beard (Harlequins)

Tommy Freeman (Northampton)
Tom Roebuck (Sale)
Cadan Murley (Harlequins)
Will Muir (Bath)

George Furbank (Northampton)
Freddie Steward (Leicester)

Tough on Carpenter and Northmore. Pleased Atkinson is named. Obviously a major rethink at hooker which i'm not displeased about. Felt Blamire has been a bit hard done by. Not sure what the issue is with Fasogbon. He looks a fantastic prospect and you would hope he is brought into the fold sooner rather than later.

Yeah feels odd we've only got two tightheads in there, particularly with five centres and four wingers (especially when Beard covers both). I'd have liked to have seen Fasogbon in there as well.

Maro Itoje is still on honeymoon so is probably taking an extended bit of time off, which is just common sense at this point.

I suppose with Stuart carrying an injury and the season yet to start there aren't many other THs worth looking at just now. Fasogbon is still a baby in front row terms.

I'd imagine this is a bit of a pre season camp to see who's been eating too many sweeties and visiting too many barbecues in August and therefore needs to shape up a bit, and introducing them to yet another game of coaching musical chairs......

The Hill thing is strange. Not worth giving minutes over Dombrandt in the summer, but retained ahead of him now. I don’t dislike it, it’s just hard to know what Borthwick’s rationale is or what has changed since then. Tom Willis’s complete inability to offer anything past 55 minutes I guess.

CCS officially at lock.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 10:41 pm The Hill thing is strange. Not worth giving minutes over Dombrandt in the summer, but retained ahead of him now. I don’t dislike it, it’s just hard to know what Borthwick’s rationale is or what has changed since then. Tom Willis’s complete inability to offer anything past 55 minutes I guess.

Your comment on Willis is thought-provoking. Has he ever been challenged to do 80? Has SB ever referred to it? Or, is it a planned tactic? Is Dombrandt's absence going to herald a change of policy? Might it change if Earl is at 7? Or not, if Pollock is? Will CCS or Pollock get game time at 8 for club or country?

Willis would be in my first half dozen picks for the team sheet but if he is genuinely only good for 55, I'd dump him from the squad till he is fit.

Beasties wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 7:49 am CCS officially at lock.

Did you hear that somewhere else or what that from my listing of the players by position? Cause if it's from my post, that's me unofficially putting him there.

Frankly, I still stand by my opinion that that's where we should be developing him. He needs time there to learn, but he's got the potential to be excellent there and it'll free up space in our already congested back row.

Puja

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 8:23 am

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 10:41 pm The Hill thing is strange. Not worth giving minutes over Dombrandt in the summer, but retained ahead of him now. I don’t dislike it, it’s just hard to know what Borthwick’s rationale is or what has changed since then. Tom Willis’s complete inability to offer anything past 55 minutes I guess.

Your comment on Willis is thought-provoking. Has he ever been challenged to do 80? Has SB ever referred to it? Or, is it a planned tactic? Is Dombrandt's absence going to herald a change of policy? Might it change if Earl is at 7? Or not, if Pollock is? Will CCS or Pollock get game time at 8 for club or country?

Willis would be in my first half dozen picks for the team sheet but if he is genuinely only good for 55, I'd dump him from the squad till he is fit.

Considering he's the main carrying threat for the pack along with Genge it's a fairly brutal role. Might just be managing his workload and wanting to use fresher players in that role to keep the carrying hard and allow your ball carriers to throw themselves in and not hold anything back for later in the game.

If you look at SA who are the best at using their bench then they often replace the 8, usually bringing on Kwaga Smith to offer a different and more mobile carrying option for the final 30 mins. Something we could recreate with Willis starting and Earl coming off the bench. Earl being able to cover the backrow keeps open the option of 5-3 as well though at international level it seems 6-2 is ever more popular.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:50 am

Beasties wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 7:49 am CCS officially at lock.

Did you hear that somewhere else or what that from my listing of the players by position? Cause if it's from my post, that's me unofficially putting him there.

Frankly, I still stand by my opinion that that's where we should be developing him. He needs time there to learn, but he's got the potential to be excellent there and it'll free up space in our already congested back row.

Puja

Yes, he should get more game time at lock. Not just because Quins second row options are fairly mid and Petti will probably play 6.

Being a utility option would be a major string to CCS's bow though. Much like Corry benching for England in 2003, being able to play lock, 6 and 8 to a passable international level really does open up the bench options and make his selection far more likely. Versatility is useful, having CCS (and Earl) on the bench really would offer England fantastic overage in a 5-3 bench split or in a 6-2 open up a spot for a niche replacement, someone like Underhill who's really only going to cover the one spot in the side.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:50 am

Beasties wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 7:49 am CCS officially at lock.

Did you hear that somewhere else or what that from my listing of the players by position? Cause if it's from my post, that's me unofficially putting him there.

Frankly, I still stand by my opinion that that's where we should be developing him. He needs time there to learn, but he's got the potential to be excellent there and it'll free up space in our already congested back row.

Puja

It’s you and your fake news.

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:54 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 8:23 am

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 10:41 pm The Hill thing is strange. Not worth giving minutes over Dombrandt in the summer, but retained ahead of him now. I don’t dislike it, it’s just hard to know what Borthwick’s rationale is or what has changed since then. Tom Willis’s complete inability to offer anything past 55 minutes I guess.

Your comment on Willis is thought-provoking. Has he ever been challenged to do 80? Has SB ever referred to it? Or, is it a planned tactic? Is Dombrandt's absence going to herald a change of policy? Might it change if Earl is at 7? Or not, if Pollock is? Will CCS or Pollock get game time at 8 for club or country?

Willis would be in my first half dozen picks for the team sheet but if he is genuinely only good for 55, I'd dump him from the squad till he is fit.

Considering he's the main carrying threat for the pack along with Genge it's a fairly brutal role. Might just be managing his workload and wanting to use fresher players in that role to keep the carrying hard and allow your ball carriers to throw themselves in and not hold anything back for later in the game.

If you look at SA who are the best at using their bench then they often replace the 8, usually bringing on Kwaga Smith to offer a different and more mobile carrying option for the final 30 mins. Something we could recreate with Willis starting and Earl coming off the bench. Earl being able to cover the backrow keeps open the option of 5-3 as well though at international level it seems 6-2 is ever more popular.

I’ve found the get Willis off soon in the 2nd half thing weird. When he was at Wasps he would be relentlessly played for 80 mins every week. Some games he was all that was keeping Wasps together in that horrific run of injuries.

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 1:46 pm Some fun selections: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union ... mxex0e8vvo

Blamire in ahead of Dan, Oghre, and Langdon
No Fazlet! SAtkinson keeps his place, but sadly so does Slade
No Dombrand, Ojomoh or Randall.
Hill retains his place despite not being good enough to start against the USA
Itoje rested ( ), IFW and Stuart nursing minor niggles and not counted, Martin still not fit

Overall, that's a pretty good squad; I don't hate it. I don't mind Ewels in there as a good training partner and pro who sets standards, and having him as our 5th choice lock isn't terrible. Would prefer to have Fasogbon in there learning too, but hoping there's some master plan to motivate him to improve some other part of his game, like Boombaby did by leaving Heyes out.

Puja


ETA. Saw this comment on the BBC story. Made i larf:

capture 1.jpg

Ted Hill , Sam Underhill & CCS - fantastic! Would like to see Max Ojomoh included though

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:59 am

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:50 am

Beasties wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 7:49 am CCS officially at lock.

Did you hear that somewhere else or what that from my listing of the players by position? Cause if it's from my post, that's me unofficially putting him there.

Frankly, I still stand by my opinion that that's where we should be developing him. He needs time there to learn, but he's got the potential to be excellent there and it'll free up space in our already congested back row.

Puja

Yes, he should get more game time at lock. Not just because Quins second row options are fairly mid and Petti will probably play 6.

Being a utility option would be a major string to CCS's bow though. Much like Corry benching for England in 2003, being able to play lock, 6 and 8 to a passable international level really does open up the bench options and make his selection far more likely. Versatility is useful, having CCS (and Earl) on the bench really would offer England fantastic overage in a 5-3 bench split or in a 6-2 open up a spot for a niche replacement, someone like Underhill who's really only going to cover the one spot in the side.

Though I know Underhill’s only been capped at openside by England , and for me remains in the first choice there - I’ve no doubts he could certainly cover blindside at test level to a very high standard and has even been used at 8 by Bath on occasion and has the carrying power for that role too if need be as a backup

jngf wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 6:26 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:59 am

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:50 am

Did you hear that somewhere else or what that from my listing of the players by position? Cause if it's from my post, that's me unofficially putting him there.

Frankly, I still stand by my opinion that that's where we should be developing him. He needs time there to learn, but he's got the potential to be excellent there and it'll free up space in our already congested back row.

Puja

Yes, he should get more game time at lock. Not just because Quins second row options are fairly mid and Petti will probably play 6.

Being a utility option would be a major string to CCS's bow though. Much like Corry benching for England in 2003, being able to play lock, 6 and 8 to a passable international level really does open up the bench options and make his selection far more likely. Versatility is useful, having CCS (and Earl) on the bench really would offer England fantastic overage in a 5-3 bench split or in a 6-2 open up a spot for a niche replacement, someone like Underhill who's really only going to cover the one spot in the side.

Though I know Underhill’s only been capped at openside by England , and for me remains in the first choice there - I’ve no doubts he could certainly cover blindside at test level to a very high standard and has even been used at 8 by Bath on occasion and has the carrying power for that role too if need be as a backup

Underhill plays the same role whether at 6 or 7. Lots of big tackles, bit of jackling. Carrying wise he's nothing special at international level, I certainly wouldn't be looking at him as an 8 option other than in an emergency and even then he'd be down the pecking order below the likes of Tom Curry.

Underhill's a cracking player but he is what he is.

FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 8:59 pm

jngf wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 6:26 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:59 am

Yes, he should get more game time at lock. Not just because Quins second row options are fairly mid and Petti will probably play 6.

Being a utility option would be a major string to CCS's bow though. Much like Corry benching for England in 2003, being able to play lock, 6 and 8 to a passable international level really does open up the bench options and make his selection far more likely. Versatility is useful, having CCS (and Earl) on the bench really would offer England fantastic overage in a 5-3 bench split or in a 6-2 open up a spot for a niche replacement, someone like Underhill who's really only going to cover the one spot in the side.

Though I know Underhill’s only been capped at openside by England , and for me remains in the first choice there - I’ve no doubts he could certainly cover blindside at test level to a very high standard and has even been used at 8 by Bath on occasion and has the carrying power for that role too if need be as a backup

Underhill plays the same role whether at 6 or 7. Lots of big tackles, bit of jackling. Carrying wise he's nothing special at international level, I certainly wouldn't be looking at him as an 8 option other than in an emergency and even then he'd be down the pecking order below the likes of Tom Curry.

Underhill's a cracking player but he is what he is.

For me it’s a complete no brainier that Underhill would make a better fist of No.8 than Tom Curry - not that I’m saying either would be natural choices for that role - I certainly think it’s a position you have to play week in week out for your club - which is one of the many reasons I wouldn’t pick Earl or Pollock to start there either.

jngf wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:17 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 8:59 pm

jngf wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 6:26 pm
Though I know Underhill’s only been capped at openside by England , and for me remains in the first choice there - I’ve no doubts he could certainly cover blindside at test level to a very high standard and has even been used at 8 by Bath on occasion and has the carrying power for that role too if need be as a backup

Underhill plays the same role whether at 6 or 7. Lots of big tackles, bit of jackling. Carrying wise he's nothing special at international level, I certainly wouldn't be looking at him as an 8 option other than in an emergency and even then he'd be down the pecking order below the likes of Tom Curry.

Underhill's a cracking player but he is what he is.

For me it’s a complete no brainier that Underhill would make a better fist of No.8 than Tom Curry - not that I’m saying either would be natural choices for that role - I certainly think it’s a position you have to play week in week out for your club - which is one of the many reasons I wouldn’t pick Earl or Pollock to start there either.

Last season Pollock played more at 8 for Saints than he did at 7. Something like 8 starts at 8 vs 6 at openside.

Regular time in a position is useful but some players are versatile and that is also very useful. Numbers on backs can also be misleading, the role of a certain shirt number at club level isn't necessarily the same at international level. Exeter Chiefs idea of an openside is a far cry from what England want from an openside for instance. Similarly sides often tend towards one direct carrying centre and depending on the other options in the squad and the tactics employed these might play 12 or 13.

My senility is creeping on. What's the name of the fat 7 who everyone thought should be in the team? Was it Armitage? He moved to France and played 8 most of the time - successfully - having only ever been a 7/openside here. That brought it home to me that we are dinosaurs in labelling back row functions with shirt numbers.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 5:41 pm My senility is creeping on. What's the name of the fat 7 who everyone thought should be in the team? Was it Armitage? He moved to France and played 8 most of the time - successfully - having only ever been a 7/openside here. That brought it home to me that we are dinosaurs in labelling back row functions with shirt numbers.

Steffon Armitage. He did add a bit of timber on over in France. The longer he was in France the bigger he got and the more he played at 8.

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 5:49 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 5:41 pm My senility is creeping on. What's the name of the fat 7 who everyone thought should be in the team? Was it Armitage? He moved to France and played 8 most of the time - successfully - having only ever been a 7/openside here. That brought it home to me that we are dinosaurs in labelling back row functions with shirt numbers.

Steffon Armitage. He did add a bit of timber on over in France. The longer he was in France the bigger he got and the more he played at 8.

He must have been one of the shortest 8s ever that said I recall Brosseux and Kambamba Floors ( neither over 6’) played eighthman at various times for Free State (Cheetars). That said at test level these players usually get moved to flank - Simmonds and Earl being the notable exceptions - there’s Kwagga too but boks are unlikely to ever start him at 8 (unless Rassie pulled that rabbit out of the hat)

jngf wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 6:41 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 5:49 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 5:41 pm My senility is creeping on. What's the name of the fat 7 who everyone thought should be in the team? Was it Armitage? He moved to France and played 8 most of the time - successfully - having only ever been a 7/openside here. That brought it home to me that we are dinosaurs in labelling back row functions with shirt numbers.

Steffon Armitage. He did add a bit of timber on over in France. The longer he was in France the bigger he got and the more he played at 8.

He must have been one of the shortest 8s ever that said I recall Brosseux and Kambamba Floors ( neither over 6’) played eighthman at various times for Free State (Cheetars). That said at test level these players usually get moved to flank - Simmonds and Earl being the notable exceptions - there’s Kwagga too but boks are unlikely to ever start him at 8 (unless Rassie pulled that rabbit out of the hat)

Armitage was apparently 5ft9, that is pretty short. Is height an advantage at 8? Being shorter would mean a lower centre of gravity and be hard to put down. Finding someone of that height with the frame to carry the required weight and still be able to get around the park is fairly rare though.

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 9:31 pm

jngf wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 6:41 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 5:49 pm

Steffon Armitage. He did add a bit of timber on over in France. The longer he was in France the bigger he got and the more he played at 8.

He must have been one of the shortest 8s ever that said I recall Brosseux and Kambamba Floors ( neither over 6’) played eighthman at various times for Free State (Cheetars). That said at test level these players usually get moved to flank - Simmonds and Earl being the notable exceptions - there’s Kwagga too but boks are unlikely to ever start him at 8 (unless Rassie pulled that rabbit out of the hat)

Armitage was apparently 5ft9, that is pretty short. Is height an advantage at 8? Being shorter would mean a lower centre of gravity and be hard to put down. Finding someone of that height with the frame to carry the required weight and still be able to get around the park is fairly rare though.

I think the height is because, traditionally, the 8 would have jumped. Nowadays there’s a lot more flexibility over roles, and the player who plays 8 should just be the best at picking up from the base, really.

On the subject of Pollock - bit early to say when and if he’ll ever settle into one single position but right now I’d say he’d have most impact coming on at 6 - it’s the least prescriptive back row role and gives him greatest licence to do his running thing. For me his style is a bit like that of early Moody. Also thought he did well for the Lions there alongside Earl and VdF.

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 8:45 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 9:31 pm

jngf wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 6:41 pm

He must have been one of the shortest 8s ever that said I recall Brosseux and Kambamba Floors ( neither over 6’) played eighthman at various times for Free State (Cheetars). That said at test level these players usually get moved to flank - Simmonds and Earl being the notable exceptions - there’s Kwagga too but boks are unlikely to ever start him at 8 (unless Rassie pulled that rabbit out of the hat)

Armitage was apparently 5ft9, that is pretty short. Is height an advantage at 8? Being shorter would mean a lower centre of gravity and be hard to put down. Finding someone of that height with the frame to carry the required weight and still be able to get around the park is fairly rare though.

I think the height is because, traditionally, the 8 would have jumped. Nowadays there’s a lot more flexibility over roles, and the player who plays 8 should just be the best at picking up from the base, really.

Seems more the role of the 6 being the third jumper these days. Ideally you want your best carrier available to run an attacking play off the lineout and not be taking the ball.

Picking up from the base seems to be only done in emergencies these days, being able to control the ball at the base is still a skill mind. Watch Rassie bring back the 8s ability to pick and inter link from the base with a trick play (the Boks will somehow use the winger in this) and then it'll be back in vogue.