English 6 Nations

First topic message reminder :

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jan/05/six-nations-rugby-covid-rob-baxter

A potential answer to a potential problem. Baxter has said that if there is a risk of cancellations or playing in front of 1 man and his dog you may as well play all the games in England.

I suppose an interesting suggestion. If they could agree a slice of revenue from whichever grounds would host along with some teams giving up home advantage would people want to see this? It doesn't reduce the risk at all, merely increases it surely, gives England an advantage. It's unlikely the Government will bring in further restrictions as their hands are tied by the back benchers so reduces the risk of last minute changes. Just a big melting pot of cross contamination.


'Rob Baxter, Exeter’s director of rugby, believes that playing this season’s Six Nations in one country has “got to be better than cancelling it”.

The tournament is due to kick off in Dublin and Edinburgh on 5 February but currently finds itself shrouded in uncertainty. Under current Welsh Government restrictions imposed due to the pandemic and, specifically, the omicron variant, Wales would have to play scheduled home games against Scotland, France and Italy behind closed doors. Scotland are in a similar position for games at Murrayfield, while it has been reported that Wales could consider moving their home against Scotland, France and Italy to England.

Financial implications of behind-closed-doors home games for the Welsh Rugby Union would be significant. They faced an identical situation for last season’s tournament, with the shutters being down for matches against Ireland and England. Full crowds were, however, allowed at the Principality Stadium for Wales’ recent Autumn Nations Series before fresh restrictions took effect from Boxing Day.

Capacity crowds are currently allowed in England, provided spectators can prove full vaccination status or provide a negative lateral flow test. Against such a backdrop, playing the whole competition – it takes place across five weekends between early February and mid-March – in one country with permitted crowds has also been mooted in some quarters.

“The whole beauty of the Six Nations has been that change of environment, that change of weather conditions, going to play in Scotland, Wales, Ireland – those are the great challenges,” said Baxter. “That’s what makes the Six Nations such a great competition to win. You’ve seen French teams in that one week they can beat anyone in the world in Paris, and then the next week it doesn’t go quite so well in Cardiff. That’s the beauty of the tournament, that’s what from a rugby perspective I am sure we would all want to see happen.

“That said, we can’t all sit here and pretend the world is in an ideal place at the moment. For the national bodies, their responsibility goes beyond the professional sport, it goes right down to grassroots rugby, so if playing the tournament provides a level of income that cancelling it or no crowds doesn’t create, then we’ve got to look at the next best scenario. If the next best scenario is playing it in one country, where you can have sellout crowds, you can raise some revenue and you can keep that income stream going for all the bodies, then it’s got to be better than cancelling it.


The Breakdown: sign up and get our weekly rugby union email.
“I think with every sporting body, it’s revenue that is the biggest thing that has been damaged, so anything that can keep revenue online has got to be preferable to just binning things for a season,” Baxter added. “We’ve all had to try and find a way to keep going, to try and keep revenue coming in. It’s the same with any business, you’ve got to explore those options.”

Well I actually cant grumble at that squad....

Didn't think Blamire would have made it..

Great to see Ollie Chessum in there. Thought it might have been too soon...but he's earned it with some big performances....

That looks set to see Lawes continue at blindside then with no Underhill. Not greatly enthused that if he doesnt then it looks to be Ludlam (but much better than his nearly namesake). Though they could just have Barbeary start, which would be great.

Glad to see Hassell-Colins even if its for Radwan, and shame that there's no 3rd scrum half. In fact ignore that there's Randall, too quick to type.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

mountain man wrote:Manu still isn't fit as far as I am aware, he's not played for Sale since autumn Int injury(correct if wrong) so can't see how he can be ready. No doubt be included in squad though. When he's fit he's GOT to be in side but as we all know he's rarely fit for long!

Johnny May had a pretty poor autumn series to put it mildly, is he still best option with likes of Radwan, Lynagh(he should be playing for Aus but that's another story), Nowell, Malins all in way better form.

And if a half fit Farrell is picked to play I'll despair...

Born in Italy. Italian mother and Australian father. Lived in England for 16 of the 21 years he's been alive.

Should be playing for Australia...? Anything behind that other than his dads accent?

And that point neatly sums up the issues around any issues on qualification:

'Hetherell qualifies through parentage doesn't he? I.e. he qualified for British citizenship at birth. There's a huge difference between that and residency. If a person qualifies for citizenship at birth it's only reasonable and right for them to qualify to represent that country regardless of where they were born, grew up, played their youth rugby and what accent they might have.'

There's an obvious difference between already pro players who move as adults with no prior connection to a country then qualify through the old three year residency (which I always said needed to be longer) and someone who's grown up in a country since he was five. Surely we can all agree on that?

No 7&1/2 wrote:That looks set to see Lawes continue at blindside then with no Underhill. Not greatly enthused that if he doesnt then it looks to be Ludlam (but much better than his nearly namesake).

Glad to see Hassell-Colins even if its for Radwan, and shame that there's no 3rd scrum half.

3 scrum halves 7.5

And Radwan is so out of form..he looks shot. Too much pressure on him at the falcons to produce constant magic...to cover how woeful we are.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That looks set to see Lawes continue at blindside then with no Underhill. Not greatly enthused that if he doesnt then it looks to be Ludlam (but much better than his nearly namesake).

Glad to see Hassell-Colins even if its for Radwan, and shame that there's no 3rd scrum half.

3 scrum halves 7.5

And Radwan is so out of form..he looks shot. Too much pressure on him at the falcons to produce constant magic...to cover how woeful we are.

Yup, amended above. There's promise there that the newbys can impress enough to force themselves in. Fingers crossed.

Always takes me a little while to digest the squad when it is presented like this, but initial thoughts are that I didn't see a few of those names being called up!

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

mountain man wrote:Manu still isn't fit as far as I am aware, he's not played for Sale since autumn Int injury(correct if wrong) so can't see how he can be ready. No doubt be included in squad though. When he's fit he's GOT to be in side but as we all know he's rarely fit for long!

Johnny May had a pretty poor autumn series to put it mildly, is he still best option with likes of Radwan, Lynagh(he should be playing for Aus but that's another story), Nowell, Malins all in way better form.

And if a half fit Farrell is picked to play I'll despair...

Born in Italy. Italian mother and Australian father. Lived in England for 16 of the 21 years he's been alive.

Should be playing for Australia...? Anything behind that other than his dads accent?

And that point neatly sums up the issues around any issues on qualification:

'Hetherell qualifies through parentage doesn't he? I.e. he qualified for British citizenship at birth. There's a huge difference between that and residency. If a person qualifies for citizenship at birth it's only reasonable and right for them to qualify to represent that country regardless of where they were born, grew up, played their youth rugby and what accent they might have.'

There's an obvious difference between already pro players who move as adults with no prior connection to a country then qualify through the old three year residency (which I always said needed to be longer) and someone who's grown up in a country since he was five. Surely we can all agree on that?

There's always differences we can argue for each of the rules of course. The only issue I've had with qualification is that once you've represented one country I didn't think you shoudl be allowed to rep another (Flutey etc) which is now blown well out the water! And also I'd bring the same rules in for coaches too.

Missed Underhill missing out. I don't have any problems with Ludlam filling in but suspect it is going to be Curry/Lawes/Dombrandt to start in the BR. Who covers from the bench is interesting with all 3 options offering different things.

Overall I really like that squad.

Good to see Barbeary there and I'm happy for Hassell-Collins too in even if I'd have preferred it be for Furbank or Freeman rather than Radwan.

Delighted for Chessum and Heyes. Both have excellent for Tigers this season and have plenty of room to keep improving.

Northmore's a player I rate highly, will be interested to see how he goes. He's very quick but his basics seem solid. He's got a good try scoring record as well it should be noted. Though with centres that can be very dependent on your clubs tactics it does indicate that he runs the support lines that Quins use very well.

No George Ford even though along with Marcus Smith been absolutely on fire this season.

So an unfit, not playing Farrell is kept.

Great.

On plus side Nowell back in.

By team
1 Wasp
1 Falcon
5 Tigers
5 Chiefs
3 Sharks
5 Quins
3 from Bath
4 Sarries
4 Saints
2 Bears
2 from Gloucester
1 from LI

Nobody is every going to be fully happy with these breakdowns but it looks to be a good spread

I would think that Eddie's backline basically writes itself from that selection:

09.Youngs
10. Smith

11. May
12. Farrell
13. Slade
14. Malins
15. Steward

mountain man wrote:No George Ford even though along with Marcus Smith been absolutely on fire this season.

So an unfit, not playing Farrell is kept.

Great.

Farrell is captain, main goalkicker and can play a variety of positions.  I find Orlando Bailey picked over Ford more of a query, although we have seen Ford over many years for England and he has ultimately come up short in the big games.  I don't doubt Ford's club form/abiluty, but at the top level he has never quite been good enough (never been a Lion, so not just Eddie who doesn't quite rate him).

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's always differences we can argue for each of the rules of course. The only issue I've had with qualification is that once you've represented one country I didn't think you shoudl be allowed to rep another (Flutey etc) which is now blown well out the water! And also I'd bring the same rules in for coaches too.

Fairy muff.

On the coach part I just cant agree. Having coaches move around the world has led to massive improvements in the game. That sharing of coaching values, tactics, structures, etc has only made the game better.

A great example in England was how much influence Bob Dwyer joining then had in English rugby. When Dwyer took over as Tigers coach at the start of professionalism Australian rugby was incomparable to English in how professional it actually was. Players like Martin Johnson, Neil Back, Will Greenwood, etc bought into those methods, leading to then England team under SCW adopting them. They then filtered into Premiership rugby through other England stars. A massive improvement was seen in a short space of time culminating in the 2003 RWC.

More recently look at what Shaun Edwards has added with France and this French team could add to rugby.

How much good could Vern Cotter do for Fijian rugby if he's there for two RWCs for instance? Or Ben Ryan with their Sevens of course. Milton Haig with Georgia.

A team of for Scotland

Marler, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Hill, Lawes, Curry, Dombrandt, Youngs, Smith, Malins, Slade, Marchant, May, Steward

Genge, LCD, Stuart, Ewels, Simmonds, Barbeary, Quirke, Nowell

with the following for Italy

Genge, LCD, Stuart, Itoje, Lawes, Curry, Ludlam, Dombrandt, Quirke, Smith, Malins, Farrell, Marchant, Nowell, Steward

Rodd, George, Heyes, Hill, Simmonds, Youngs, Atkinson, Furbank

I like that squad. Hopefully the non-selection of Underhill will mean that we see Curry at 7 rather than 8, and either Dombrandt or Simmonds in their proper position.

I think if fit, Farrell was always going to be back in. I would like to see Barbeary getting a bench start at some point. (Please don't break him!). Nice to see Nowell back again. Hopefully he won't break either...

Sharkey06 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No George Ford even though along with Marcus Smith been absolutely on fire this season.

So an unfit, not playing Farrell is kept.

Great.

Farrell is captain, main goalkicker and can play a variety of positions.  I find Orlando Bailey picked over Ford more of a query, although we have seen Ford over many years for England and he has ultimately come up short in the big games.  I don't doubt Ford's club form/abiluty, but at the top level he has never quite been good enough (never been a Lion, so not just Eddie who doesn't quite rate him).

I said similar last season when Ford wasn't quite up to it but this year he's been fantastic. The mistake Jones made last year was picking players on reputation not form. EG Farrell, Billy, Daley etc.
Ford deserves to be in along with Smith as 10. Both kicking options. Farrell unfit, hasn't played really well for what couple of years? Picking him as capt means no doubt he's in team at expense of a better player. I'm not anti Farrell believe it or not, just anti picking players who don't merit it when better options are available.

Sharkey06 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No George Ford even though along with Marcus Smith been absolutely on fire this season.

So an unfit, not playing Farrell is kept.

Great.

Farrell is captain, main goalkicker and can play a variety of positions.  I find Orlando Bailey picked over Ford more of a query, although we have seen Ford over many years for England and he has ultimately come up short in the big games.  I don't doubt Ford's club form/abiluty, but at the top level he has never quite been good enough (never been a Lion, so not just Eddie who doesn't quite rate him).

Bailey won't play but is there for experience.

The Farrell thing does concern me though, and I agree with the potential backline from Cumbrian and do not think it is the best we can put out.

Well 2 games will be played without anyone yet to be vaccinated. Not sure if the rules are for fully vaccinated or if 1 would do etc, anyone know?

The squad by position below. Overall I like it.

1.Marler, Genge, Rodd
2.LCD, George, Blamire
3.Sinckler, Stuart, Heyes
4.Itoje, Chessum
5.Hill, Ewels
6.Lawes, Barbeary
7.Curry, Ludlam
8.Dombrandt, Simmonds

9.Youngs, Quirke, Randall
10.Smith, Bailey

11.May, Hassell-Collins
12.Farrell, Atkinson
13.Slade, Marchant, Northmore
14.Malins, Nowell, Freeman
15.Steward, Furbank

The forwards I'm actually very happy with. I'd prefer Ribbans over Ewels still. I would also have selected Underhill despite his poorer club form and probably bit the bullet by leaving out Simmonds. It feels there are three 8s shoehorned in. Overall happy with the big lads though.

The backs feel like there's a lot of back three cover, especially when you factor in Marchant being a very good wing. I'd have left one back three player out and selected a ball carrying midfielder. If not Manu then Odogwu or Lawrence.

There's a lot of very good players in that squad though. My only significant worry from it would be Farrell and Slade in the midfield together. It just wastes both their strengths. I'm not a massive fan of Slade at 12 but looking at that squad I'd probably go 12.Slade 13.Marchant with Farrell on the bench against Scotland. Hartley was benched whilst still captain so it isn't without precedent under Jones.

I wonder how its all going to work this year regarding the bubble expectations. Last year we had a smaller squad, limits on replacing players if I remember rightly - Underhill came back during the tournament but he couldn't be picked - and no general interaction within the squad for socialising face-to-face etc.

Hopefully its a more freer camp this time, and the players selected for the squad look to be in form in the most part.

Sharkey06 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No George Ford even though along with Marcus Smith been absolutely on fire this season.

So an unfit, not playing Farrell is kept.

Great.

Farrell is captain, main goalkicker and can play a variety of positions.  I find Orlando Bailey picked over Ford more of a query, although we have seen Ford over many years for England and he has ultimately come up short in the big games.  I don't doubt Ford's club form/abiluty, but at the top level he has never quite been good enough (never been a Lion, so not just Eddie who doesn't quite rate him).

You could say similar of Farrell at international level. He has been a Lion but hardly set the world alight either time and got moved from 10 each tour as it became obvious he can't get a backline moving even with the limitations of Gatland ball.

Ford being left out is ridiculous, two player of the month titles so far this season. A class above Farrell and Bailey. Can't be to disappointed as a Tigers fan though as it works for us and Smith can start for England.

Surprised they haven't gambled on Manu though, he's our real X factor threat in the backline.

1.Marler 2.Cowan-Dickie 3.Sinckler 4.Itoje 5.Hill 6.Lawes 7.Curry 8.Dombrandt
9.Youngs 10.Smith 11.May 12.Slade 13.Marchant 14.Malins 15.Steward

16.George 17.Genge 18.Heyes 19.Ewels 20.Ludlam 21.Barbeary 22.Quirke 23.Farrell

That'd probably be my 23 from the squad selected.

MichaelT wrote:I wonder how its all going to work this year regarding the bubble expectations. Last year we had a smaller squad, limits on replacing players if I remember rightly - Underhill came back during the tournament but he couldn't be picked - and no general interaction within the squad for socialising face-to-face etc.

Hopefully its a more freer camp this time, and the players selected for the squad look to be in form in the most part.

Last year was very strict bubbles for the ANC and 6N, no mixing for players (eating at separate individual tables, then back to their rooms), players couldn't get back to clubs for game time. The strict bubble was the only way to placate PRL as they were understandably worried about players catching covid during internationals, bringing it to clubs, then Prem games getting cancelled. Several clubs were on the brink financially so tensions were fairly high!

It was an abysmal Six Nations but there were caveats I felt due to those circumstances. Picking certain Sarries players with no match fitness (Billy, Mako and Daly especially were a shadow of their best) was infuriating but the potential replacements from Premiership clubs who had been in the bubbles had no club game time either as they'd gone from ANC bubble, back to clubs for a few weeks where lots of games were postponed due to covid, then back to Six Nations bubble.

I did a breakdown of club game time before the Wales game and I think it was Adam Beard who had more club apps than our forwards combined.

Usually I actually like that the Premiership's sole purpose isn't providing England players. It's an important part of their role but not the sole one as the league can stand alone more than the Welsh regions or Edinburgh/Glasgow for instance who are entirely reliant on their respective Unions. The vast majority of the time I like that separation even if it leads to club vs country debates. Last years Six Nations was a time where having domestic setups entirely at the behest of the Union had an advantage in getting players ready for the national side.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sharkey06 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No George Ford even though along with Marcus Smith been absolutely on fire this season.

So an unfit, not playing Farrell is kept.

Great.

Farrell is captain, main goalkicker and can play a variety of positions.  I find Orlando Bailey picked over Ford more of a query, although we have seen Ford over many years for England and he has ultimately come up short in the big games.  I don't doubt Ford's club form/abiluty, but at the top level he has never quite been good enough (never been a Lion, so not just Eddie who doesn't quite rate him).

You could say similar of Farrell at international level. He has been a Lion but hardly set the world alight either time and got moved from 10 each tour as it became obvious he can't get a backline moving even with the limitations of Gatland ball.

Ford being left out is ridiculous, two player of the month titles so far this season. A class above Farrell and Bailey. Can't be to disappointed as a Tigers fan though as it works for us and Smith can start for England.

Surprised they haven't gambled on Manu though, he's our real X factor threat in the backline.

Jones has clearly moved on from Ford and put his eggs in the Smith basket. If he's banking on Smith, I can see the theory of leaving out Ford tbh.....despite him clearly being the next best option at 1o after Smith.

Simmonds and Furbank the obvious two that should be nowhere near the squad, closely followed by Ewels (although the lack of experience at lock is an issue perhaps?)

Why isn't Martin in there? I've just spotted this....surely should be in over Chessum????

Barbeary is clearly X-Factor, similarly to Itoje when he burst through....got to worth a bench spot - Very excited to see him in the squad.

I'd go

Genge George Sinckler
Itoje Lawes
Barbeary Curry Dombrandt
Hassell-Collins
Quirke Smith Slade (yikes but Farrell can't be match fit) Marchant May
Steward

Marler LCD Stuart Hill Ludlam Randall Farrell (still a risk) Malins

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sharkey06 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No George Ford even though along with Marcus Smith been absolutely on fire this season.

So an unfit, not playing Farrell is kept.

Great.

Farrell is captain, main goalkicker and can play a variety of positions.  I find Orlando Bailey picked over Ford more of a query, although we have seen Ford over many years for England and he has ultimately come up short in the big games.  I don't doubt Ford's club form/abiluty, but at the top level he has never quite been good enough (never been a Lion, so not just Eddie who doesn't quite rate him).

You could say similar of Farrell at international level. He has been a Lion but hardly set the world alight either time and got moved from 10 each tour as it became obvious he can't get a backline moving even with the limitations of Gatland ball.

Ford being left out is ridiculous, two player of the month titles so far this season. A class above Farrell and Bailey. Can't be to disappointed as a Tigers fan though as it works for us and Smith can start for England.

Surprised they haven't gambled on Manu though, he's our real X factor threat in the backline.

Jones has clearly moved on from Ford and put his eggs in the Smith basket. If he's banking on Smith, I can see the theory of leaving out Ford tbh.....despite him clearly being the next best option at 1o after Smith.

Simmonds and Furbank the obvious two that should be nowhere near the squad, closely followed by Ewels (although the lack of experience at lock is an issue perhaps?)

Why isn't Martin in there? I've just spotted this....surely should be in over Chessum????

Barbeary is clearly X-Factor, similarly to Itoje when he burst through....got to worth a bench spot - Very excited to see him in the squad.

Martin is injured. Missed the last two games after being subbed Vs Falcons.

His approach to injured players is interesting and mostly correct. Players need to demonstrate their form and fitness with clubs prior to bouncing back into the international arena. We saw how challenging it was last year for the Sarries boys against Scotland. It won't be any easier this time either.

Launchbury, Manu, Underhill & Farrell all need to do this before potentially being drafted in for later rounds. Of course the class of those players, once proven on the club pitch, would demand their inclusion at some point if allowed. So I just hope that Farrell is kept out of the starting team until he has played at least some rugby. I reckon Smith, Slade and Marchant did alright last time and I would be happy to give them another go.

hugehandoff wrote:His approach to injured players is interesting and mostly correct. Players need to demonstrate their form and fitness with clubs prior to bouncing back into the international arena. We saw how challenging it was last year for the Sarries boys against Scotland. It won't be any easier this time either.

Launchbury, Manu, Underhill & Farrell all need to do this before potentially being drafted in for later rounds. Of course the class of those players, once proven on the club pitch, would demand their inclusion at some point if allowed. So I just hope that Farrell is kept out of the starting team until he has played at least some rugby. I reckon Smith, Slade and Marchant did alright last time and I would be happy to give them another go.

I'd be very happy with that. Defensively sound and gives Smith options. It feels like having Farrell back in reduces those options.

Also how great is it to have Nowell back involved. He may not make it into the match day squads or even the final 6N squad but he's always been good value when he plays.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2022/01/17/french-covid-vaccine-becomes-law-what-this-means-for-travel-plans/?sh=7378808734a1

Well, it looks as though a last minute vaccination won't cut it for anyone who hasn't already started the process. Slade still seems a definite, and there are a few others who may be likely. An average performance vs Scotland and then not being able to lay vs Italy may force a few people out.

mountain man wrote:No George Ford even though along with Marcus Smith been absolutely on fire this season.

So an unfit, not playing Farrell is kept.

Great.

On plus side Nowell back in.

Until he breaks.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd go

Genge George Sinckler
Itoje Lawes
Barbeary Curry Dombrandt
Hassell-Collins
Quirke Smith Slade (yikes but Farrell can't be match fit) Marchant May
Steward

Marler LCD Stuart Hill Ludlam Randall Farrell (still a risk) Malins

Curry would need to make so many tackles in that back row that he'd basically not be able to target the breakdown.

Barbeary and Dombrandt aren't weak in the tackle at all but between them will struggle to make near the volume of tackles that two international back rows usually do these days. They are stronger than Underhill and Lawes in the carry but much weaker defensively.

As always balance is needed. I'd have Dombrandt at 8, Barbeary on the bench to begin with.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

mountain man wrote:No George Ford even though along with Marcus Smith been absolutely on fire this season.

So an unfit, not playing Farrell is kept.

Great.

On plus side Nowell back in.

Until he breaks.

When 7.5 asked if you'd never pick players with a few injuries you said something along the lines of, "wanting them to string some games together for their club first".

Nowell's started 12 games for Chiefs this season.

What exactly constitutes a string of games for you GF? Does Nowell need to go back in time, restart his career at 21 and string 6 years together without absence?

king_carlos wrote:
The hilarious thing about most the fans I know who think Louis "should be playing for Australia" through parentage is that when it comes to other most players who qualify for a country through parentage they don't think they should be qualified.

As Michael is tied so indelibly to the Australian shirt his son should only wear the same shirt in some minds regardless of birth, his other parents nationality (I too was shocked to find out he had two parents, one was from a different country to the other and most confusingly hadn't even played international rugby) or his upbringing.

Absolutely startling to me. Louis is a really fascinating case study in why the rules have to be flexible to a degree in the modern world.

We now have a few professional rugby couples who are married to each other like Dave and Abby Ward... just wait til we start to see their offspring coming through.

How, I wonder, do the people who object to Lynagh feel about Manu Tuilagi?

I think it's down to what you want from the balance of the pack king. I've seen too many games where Lawes has played as a flanker where we've been overrun at the breakdown. You may well be correct that Barbeary and Dombrandt will not be able to replicate their performances from club level to international but that would still be the combo I'd go with.

king_carlos wrote:
Curry would need to make so many tackles in that back row that he'd basically not be able to target the breakdown.

Barbeary and Dombrandt aren't weak in the tackle at all but between them will struggle to make near the volume of tackles that two international back rows usually do these days. They are stronger than Underhill and Lawes in the carry but much weaker defensively.

As always balance is needed. I'd have Dombrandt at 8, Barbeary on the bench to begin with.

What are you basing that assertion on? Because looking at their recent club form there's not much to choose between them. Since Barbeary returned from injury (so we get a fair comparison), he has made 9-10 tackes in every game, Dombrandt has made 8-10 tackles per game and Curry has ranged from 5-14. On average, there's not much to choose between them.

Eddie famously and quite publicly told Dombrandt that he had to go away and work on his fitness, workrate and involvement. He's done that, and it shows in his tackle and turnover stats.

I agree that it would be odd to put them both on at the start (and let's face it, from that team selection it looks like Lawes - Curry - Dombrandt is the most likely starting option), but you would not lose much industry.

Poorfour wrote:

king_carlos wrote:
Curry would need to make so many tackles in that back row that he'd basically not be able to target the breakdown.

Barbeary and Dombrandt aren't weak in the tackle at all but between them will struggle to make near the volume of tackles that two international back rows usually do these days. They are stronger than Underhill and Lawes in the carry but much weaker defensively.

As always balance is needed. I'd have Dombrandt at 8, Barbeary on the bench to begin with.

What are you basing that assertion on? Because looking at their recent club form there's not much to choose between them. Since Barbeary returned from injury (so we get a fair comparison), he has made 9-10 tackes in every game, Dombrandt has made 8-10 tackles per game and Curry has ranged from 5-14. On average, there's not much to choose between them.

Eddie famously and quite publicly told Dombrandt that he had to go away and work on his fitness, workrate and involvement. He's done that, and it shows in his tackle and turnover stats.

I agree that it would be odd to put them both on at the start (and let's face it, from that team selection it looks like Lawes - Curry - Dombrandt is the most likely starting option), but you would not lose much industry.

I'd base it on Curry having consistently been one of the best defensive flankers in international rugby for a good few years now whilst Dombrandt and Barbeary aren't the best defenders in their club packs.

Would you realistically expect Dombrandt or Barbeary's defensive output to be near the likes of Curry, Underhill, Lawes, Aldritt, Ollivon, Navidi, Wainwright, Ritchie, Doris, Bierne, etc Poorfour? If we pick two ball carrying 8s in the squad we'll need at least one of them to be able to defend like an international blindside.

I rate Dombrandt and Barbeary very highly and would have both in my matchday squad. I think most of us can reasonably agree that trading Underhill and Lawes for Dombrandt and Barbeary defensively means losing a lot in the tackle though?

I know talking about defence is sometimes viewed as boring but if a modern back row can't make consistent dominant hits, behind the gain line in fringe defence then the opposition have an easy source of quick ball, then the penalty count mounts up and before you know it players picked for their carrying suddenly never have the ball in their own hands.

Just looking at the stats from Autumn on tackles, and yes tackles made is a tiny stat which shouldn't be used in isolation and out of context.

Australia, Lawes didnt make a tackle. Dombrandt made 1. Hill and SMith made 8 each, Sinckler and Curry 5 each.

SA Lawes was impressive, with the 3rd highest with 9 in 73 mins. Dombrandt made 10 in 35 mins and Curry made 14.

The thing Lawes really brings us is the lineout work, not sure his volume of tackles is though. And yes it's partly tongue in cheek that I make these points, dominance, positioning, players avoiding or targeting players along with a load more comes into this. I wouldn't put Dombrandt or Barbeary in a box of players unwilling to put the yards in though.

king_carlos wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

mountain man wrote:No George Ford even though along with Marcus Smith been absolutely on fire this season.

So an unfit, not playing Farrell is kept.

Great.

On plus side Nowell back in.

Until he breaks.

When 7.5 asked if you'd never pick players with a few injuries you said something along the lines of, "wanting them to string some games together for their club first".

Nowell's started 12 games for Chiefs this season.

What exactly constitutes a string of games for you GF? Does Nowell need to go back in time, restart his career at 21 and string 6 years together without absence?

Then i take that back...i wasnt aware he had managed that. In that case fair enough. But i stand by...he'll break soon enough.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just looking at the stats from Autumn on tackles, and yes tackles made is a tiny stat which shouldn't be used in isolation and out of context.

Australia, Lawes didnt make a tackle. Dombrandt made 1. Hill and SMith made 8 each, Sinckler and Curry 5 each.

SA Lawes was impressive, with the 3rd highest with 9 in 73 mins. Dombrandt made 10 in 35 mins and Curry made 14.

The thing Lawes really brings us is the lineout work, not sure his volume of tackles is though. And yes it's partly tongue in cheek that I make these points, dominance, positioning, players avoiding or targeting players along with a load more comes into this. I wouldn't put Dombrandt or Barbeary in a box of players unwilling to put the yards in though.

Good line that which does sum up stats needing to be in perspective.

A bit like yards through contact being a far more revealing stat for forwards in international rugby than just yards carried. Which is often largely game plan reliant with where teams get their players to carry. An 8 dropping back to return kicks for instance will rack up a lot of yards but wont always impact the game. Similarly a forward who carries wider out playing against Scotland's drift defence might make yards but if they don't make breaks against that defence they probably wont impact the match much as Tandy's systems are designed on that growing 'bend don't break' principle for defensive structures.

I don't think Dombrandt and Barbeary shy away from hard yards. I just think both are noticeably less prominent defensively than players England usually pick at flanker. If we went for two carriers in those two it would affect the fringe defence and kick chase that our back rows, for flaws elsewhere, have continued to be superb in even when the team's played poorly.

On Lawes his fringe defence is fantastic. Line speed and ability to chop players down low as well as make his more trademark dominant hits if carriers are in poorer positions. That's a pretty strong package with England defensive system being so aggressive around the ruck. Playing Lawes at 6 does lose a bit at the breakdown but his tackling is superb.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd go

Genge George Sinckler
Itoje Lawes
Barbeary Curry Dombrandt
Hassell-Collins
Quirke Smith Slade (yikes but Farrell can't be match fit) Marchant May
Steward

Marler LCD Stuart Hill Ludlam Randall Farrell (still a risk) Malins

Curry would need to make so many tackles in that back row that he'd basically not be able to target the breakdown.

Barbeary and Dombrandt aren't weak in the tackle at all but between them will struggle to make near the volume of tackles that two international back rows usually do these days. They are stronger than Underhill and Lawes in the carry but much weaker defensively.

As always balance is needed. I'd have Dombrandt at 8, Barbeary on the bench to begin with.

My main concern with that backrow is that Barbeary doesn't look half the player if he's not the primary ball carrier. Case in point Vs Tigers the other week he played 6 and Willis played 8. First half Willis was the one in the more stereotypical carrying role of a number 8 and Barbeary anonymous. Second half and that changed, suddenly Barbeary is everywhere and looks class. Which of the two players is going to accept the donkey work aspect that goes with playing 6 so the other can be the go to ball carrier? Tom Willis seems to be doing this for Wasps now, only caught a tiny bit of their game at the weekend though so could be wrong. Not just Barbeary either, Quins always opt for a big work horse at 6 to allow Dombrandt to do his thing.

I just don't think we can strike the right balance we need in the backrow with Barbeary and Dombrandt. In the same 23 we could make it work, as the game breaks up perhaps we could use both on the same backrow but not the starting XV.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just looking at the stats from Autumn on tackles, and yes tackles made is a tiny stat which shouldn't be used in isolation and out of context.

Australia, Lawes didnt make a tackle. Dombrandt made 1. Hill and SMith made 8 each, Sinckler and Curry 5 each.

SA Lawes was impressive, with the 3rd highest with 9 in 73 mins. Dombrandt made 10 in 35 mins and Curry made 14.

The thing Lawes really brings us is the lineout work, not sure his volume of tackles is though. And yes it's partly tongue in cheek that I make these points, dominance, positioning, players avoiding or targeting players along with a load more comes into this. I wouldn't put Dombrandt or Barbeary in a box of players unwilling to put the yards in though.

Good line that which does sum up stats needing to be in perspective.

A bit like yards through contact being a far more revealing stat for forwards in international rugby than just yards carried. Which is often largely game plan reliant with where teams get their players to carry. An 8 dropping back to return kicks for instance will rack up a lot of yards but wont always impact the game. Similarly a forward who carries wider out playing against Scotland's drift defence might make yards but if they don't make breaks against that defence they probably wont impact the match much as Tandy's systems are designed on that growing 'bend don't break' principle for defensive structures.

I don't think Dombrandt and Barbeary shy away from hard yards. I just think both are noticeably less prominent defensively than players England usually pick at flanker. If we went for two carriers in those two it would affect the fringe defence and kick chase that our back rows, for flaws elsewhere, have continued to be superb in even when the team's played poorly.

On Lawes his fringe defence is fantastic. Line speed and ability to chop players down low as well as make his more trademark dominant hits if carriers are in poorer positions. That's a pretty strong package with England defensive system being so aggressive around the ruck. Playing Lawes at 6 does lose a bit at the breakdown but his tackling is superb.

I'm waiting for Pooly to jump in any time now and say we've been lacking ball carriers in the pack for years. I think our first choice pack is industrious enough to even allow Barbeary to ignore tackling and just carry and jackal (I think he himself makes enough tackles anyway though). I think Dombrandt and Barbeary both enjoy different types of carrying to but can you imagine the 2 linking up and smashing through, deft offloads, Quirke and Smith following up. Could be a thing of beauty.

At least initially Barbeary seems ideal impact replacement material, where he'll probably be competing with Simmonds.

He's not going to realistically replace anyone in the starting back row until he's shown he can be a point of difference at this level.

Always a few surprises.  

On omissions, disappointed with no Radwan (though may be as GF says he has lost form).  I also thought Collier was in with a shout as he seems the best scrummaging English TH and having him and Marler together would be interesting.

Ford is playing very well this season, so strange he is not the backup to Smith (or vice versa).

I know Odogwu has only just returned but it would be nice to see him in an England shirt.

Of the inclusions, I can see the reason for Bailey and I think he is a good player as he is playing for an awful team at the moment.

Of the others Northmore is a bit lucky.  Atkinson, Furback a bit ordinary perhaps but good luck to them all and Freeman very unproven.

cb wrote:Always a few surprises.  


Ford is playing very well this season, so strange he is not the backup to Smith (or vice versa).

Not for the first time fly halves is the controversial bit of the squad. Incredibly ruthless in regard to Ford, yet Farrell gets a spot (albeit as a centre). Smith might've earned a run but theres not really anyone who could step into his shoes to fill the role in the squad, Farrell being a very different option and the random kid off the street presumably just being there as the work experience.

In many ways true to form, Jones has often been short on the half back options in squads, and has been wedded to Farrell since he changed his mind on him. I guess he just doesnt want Ford in the squad unless its as a starter but does feel like a lot of eggs in a very young basket.




Other thing that really struck me is how lightweight the backs look without Tuilagi, crash ball 12 off the menu. But plenty of options to run into brick walls in the forwards, maybe we will see the odd flanker ling up the backs when England have possession.

I am amazed George Ford is not in the squad the way he is leading Leicester tiger at the moment.

Owen Farral may be captain ogf the team but his lack of game time , should surely be a factor as to him making the squad or not.

Just watched Eddies interview on the newbies and he has actually said they see Chessum in the same role of Courtney Lawes.....so athletic lock and 6.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Just watched Eddies interview on the newbies and he has actually said they see Chessum in the same role of Courtney Lawes.....so athletic lock and 6.

He certainly fills that role now. He's been filling out quite nicely and if he continues bulking out like his frame and age suggests he can he'll probably end up more in the row than at 6. He's a better lock than 6 currently. He does carry well and he's physical but he's not got the big impacts in the locker than Lawes has, hopefully being with England will help his development, it did George Martin.

Incidentally I noticed his younger brother is training with the Tigers first team at the minute and isn't what you'd call small. Looks taller than Wells already and the Notts website where he's on loan has him down at 115kg he's only 18. Hopefully he emulates his brother and we see a very ginger lock combination at Tigers.

majesticimperialman wrote:   I am amazed George Ford is not in the squad the way he is leading Leicester tiger at the moment.

Owen Farral may be captain ogf the team but his lack of game time , should surely be a factor as to him making the squad or not.

If Farrell is not in the squad the no.10 back up options are Malins or Furbank. I don't think Bailey will get close this time around, so a lot is riding on Smith's shoulders