England 2023 - Post 6N and beyond

First topic message reminder :

Continued......

On the discussion above about 9s I'm not calling for a Youngs recall as that seems to be where things were spiralling. More commenting on the issues with sub par replacements coming through for players from the previous era aging out. I think JvP, Quirke and Mitchell are the 9s to concentrate on both short term and long term. Gus Warr is looking better and better too though to be fair.

Warr's dual qualified with Scotland too ain't he? Said it before but it's these sorts of players who look pretty good and sit in the not sure if they will kick on or not that we should cap. To throw out another example of this and also the question of who was good enough to be included with England take a look at Scotlands SH.

Having seen White and JvP both play from academy, age grade, early club debuts through to international I'd be astonished if White ended up the better player long term. When he departed Tigers to make way for Wigglesworth I honestly thought the latter was still the better player for instance. I'm delighted that White is doing so well but don't think he'd have improved England's Six Nations anymore than JvP and Mitchell. Let alone adding Quirke back in.

Ben White is more a case of a player getting improving service from his pack and being given a simple role within the side. Stephen Varney is a similar such example at Italy.

With 9 specifically there's an element of that just being the position most commonly critiqued at the moment. I've got a developing theory (reaches for tin foil hat...) over the last few years that this happens in cycles revolving around a combination of what area is currently dominating the game and where the best players for opposition are.

We had the period around the Boks excellence with Matfield where the lineout was getting extremely dominant. In this period a huge focus came in on hookers if sides lineouts went wrong. It was solely the hookers fault when usually there's a lot more at play of course.

Then came the fly-halves must get flatter period. Carter was pulling the strings for a brilliant NZ side and could do anything. If other sides couldn't do the same all criticism for a time seemed to hone in on 10s that "didn't play flat enough". Stuart Barnes had that vein in his forehead throbbing making him look like a literal as well as metaphorical bell end. Wilkinson vs Flood debates. It didn't matter that Carter kicked more than any 10 ever had. Other 10s needed to not kick and basically play so flat that they could only receive hospital passes.

Then we had the breakdown dominant period. Pocock, Warburton, Brussow. Struggling sides needed "true opensides" "fetchers" and "jackals". Never mind that one of the best 7s ever for the best side in that period in McCaw actually seemed to target the breakdown less to prioritise not giving away pens over winning them. Fetching was the be all and end all. That's how rugby was won. If you wore 7 and didn't get turnovers like Pocock and Warburton then you were responsible for the ice caps melting.

Currently we are seeing tactical kicking evolving like never before. Previously you kicked to compete or find grass. That was it. Either or. Easy to know when it's gone wrong. Sides have identified that kicking to compete in the air doesn't actually work that well though as it's a lottery and back threes are covering ground better than ever to prevent the ball finding grass. As such teams are engaging in long kick tennis battles to isolate certain players in the back three aiming for net gains. Or they are kicking long off 9, looking to compete at the preceding breakdown and phase afterwards rather than in the air. Using those kicks to control how the kick tennis starts or control how and where your next defensive sets start.

The issue with this being that when it works and teams win using it then it often isn't mentioned as it's not flashy. But if a side loses it's very easy to go "kicks didn't find grass or get recovered in the air, terrible kick" regardless of whether the kicking was actually to blame or not. A bit like the hooker story above. If the lineout works, he's just done his job. If not it's the hooker regardless of whether a dozen other factors actually went to pot. This has also coincided with Dupont being the best player in the game and an absolutely brilliant exponent of this kicking style. 9s that aren't Dupont are getting heat in many nations though. England's 9s have been peppered. Ali Price has rapidly gone from Lion to figure of mirth. The still very good Connor Murray gets consistent criticism in this regard. Tomos Williams for Wales likewise. Even Aaron Smith with NZ has been the focus of blame when the ABs have lost recently, he is a truly sublime player.

It's an interesting cycle that seems to carry on and on. I also think certain rule tweaks, or rather interpretations, have made rucks different by design in recent years too. Namely more focus on tacklers rolling into potential clearers to give jackals time. More focus on attacking ruck clearers coming through the gate and not sealing - this has hammered Exeter's game plan. Defensive ruckers not being able to boot the ball through the ruck - Maro. 9s not being able to milk penalties in the same way by pinning tacklers in so they can't roll away. These have added up to rucks being more a shoving battle dependent on clearing out rather than cynical dark arts. It's also encouraged counter rucking to come back. As such the ball 9s get at the base is messier at the moment.

I accept that's a deep dive and complete diversion that maybe warrants a thread of it's own. But it's just something I find interesting.

Oh I like vP alot and with Quirke should be a great preferred combo for about 5 years at least (hoping then we have a lot more options coming through). Just thinking that there really wasnt the clamour for White. I think you're right in terms of service, though Scotland aren't the greatest pack, but also he gets a run of games and shows what he can do. If White had come into the England team there's every chance he would have needed a run of games but would have been assigned to the not good enough next philosophy.

king_carlos wrote:Having seen White and JvP both play from academy, age grade, early club debuts through to international I'd be astonished if White ended up the better player long term. When he departed Tigers to make way for Wigglesworth I honestly thought the latter was still the better player for instance. I'm delighted that White is doing so well but don't think he'd have improved England's Six Nations anymore than JvP and Mitchell. Let alone adding Quirke back in.

Ben White is more a case of a player getting improving service from his pack and being given a simple role within the side. Stephen Varney is a similar such example at Italy.

I think Ben White works best when he's allowed to play a more instinctive game. Play what is in front of him don't worry too much about the tactical elements. One of his best strengths is running support lines which suits LI and Scotland down to the ground. Were he in the England side he wouldn't be getting the rave reviews he's getting north of the border because that style doesn't really suit how we play.

Fair play to White he's taken his chances, the move to LI has really worked for him as well.

Gus Warr is keeping Quirke out of the Sale team at present so if we're picking on form then Warr might get a look in with England.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Having seen White and JvP both play from academy, age grade, early club debuts through to international I'd be astonished if White ended up the better player long term. When he departed Tigers to make way for Wigglesworth I honestly thought the latter was still the better player for instance. I'm delighted that White is doing so well but don't think he'd have improved England's Six Nations anymore than JvP and Mitchell. Let alone adding Quirke back in.

Ben White is more a case of a player getting improving service from his pack and being given a simple role within the side. Stephen Varney is a similar such example at Italy.

I think Ben White works best when he's allowed to play a more instinctive game. Play what is in front of him don't worry too much about the tactical elements. One of his best strengths is running support lines which suits LI and Scotland down to the ground. Were he in the England side he wouldn't be getting the rave reviews he's getting north of the border because that style doesn't really suit how we play.

Fair play to White he's taken his chances, the move to LI has really worked for him as well.

Gus Warr is keeping Quirke out of the Sale team at present so if we're picking on form then Warr might get a look in with England.

Definitely the case that LI suits White style wise. In anywhere other than the defensive third of the pitch, he's expected to get to the ball quickly and do something with it. Ruck speed is absolute king.

In a more structured Borthwick team, you really wouldn't be playing to his strengths.

We are now seeing players who excel at Prem level look shell shocked against the physicality and fitness of good international sides. Talent isn't an issue but how that talent is being prepared for the step-up is.

This is it for me, choice of player is important but too many players now look so out of depth at Int level!

We're seeing this in Europe too as English clubs really struggle to compete with the top Irish and French sides, and again it's the physicality and experience letting them down over skills (by and large)

No 7&1/2 wrote:Warr's dual qualified with Scotland too ain't he? Said it before but it's these sorts of players who look pretty good and sit in the not sure if they will kick on or not that we should cap. To throw out another example of this and also the question of who was good enough to be included with England take a look at Scotlands SH.

This mindset never sits well with me (not attacking you in this 7.5, it's quite a common thought).

An EQ player that then goes and plays for another country (generally Scotland, Wales and occasionally Ireland predominantly obviously) and then suddenly becomes rather good.....so many factors are behind this. As mentioned, White was miles down the England pecking order and we would never have been able to give him the sort of run or confidence in position that Scotland have.

If we'd have used the train of thought of lets cap him just so he doesn't play for another side....White would have never have had these opportunities and would have went back to Irish with his one 3 minute England cap wondering what might have been. We have a large player pool....some players will not make the cut, let them enjoy their career and the potential of playing on the international stage.

Encompasses my thoughts nicely. Let's not develop players for other countries. Let's give players what they need to succeed at the top level.

We can't develop everybody on the International stage though.....there just isn't enough games to do this. I've never heard White mentioned on these boards in regards to playing for England.....I presumed he was Scottish tbh.

But the point is that there is the view that we look back at the times where Youngs was picked (for too long) as there were no other options which were good enough. I'd contest that a guy like White wasn't even seriously considered by England and deemed not good enough to even be mentioned ahead of the likes of Spencer Robson etc and has gone on to prove he is. I think people were quickly looked at, at times not even in matches and we kept doing the same old leaving us going into a WC with Youngs, Care who was dropped like a stone, a bit of a journeyman and then finally a guy parachuted in. I don't think for a lot of the time you can judge a player in a game, or training, but they need to bed in. With so many players we pick one, they don't perform, we move on; at least thats the case with a lot of players. It's not the best way to develop your side, very few players produce immediately like an Itoje. How many players can you seriously say we have developed at SH over the recent past? We're for the first time in years doing so now with vP (and Mitchell to an extent), previous to that for years it was Youngs and Care, then Youngs and a string of people who if they didn't look like Dupont they were dropped.

Of course the development at scrumhalf (and hooker) by Jones was really quite poor. Robson has 15 caps or so and no starts......how can you judge a player just from the bench?

Still on White, I don't think any mistake has been made there really.

White was down the list of people mentioned certainly. To do my point to death though those 'better' players are now mentioned with certainty as not good enough while White, with trust, has proven he is. And it benefits Scotland.

No 7&1/2 wrote:White was down the list of people mentioned certainly. To do my point to death though those 'better' players are now mentioned with certainty as not good enough while White, with trust, has proven he is. And it benefits Scotland.

Exept that he has not (had the chance to) prove he was good enough for England and with the tactics we employ. He's been good for Scotland with Russell outside him and a more free-wheeling approach to the game, but that doesn't mean he'd have worked with Farrell and the England pack.
Also, was he good enough 2 or 3 years ago, when we should first have been sreiously looking to upgrade from Youngs (and Care was being shuffled aside)? From what's been said here about club form, he's never really stood out above those now in the England squad.

We know he's international standard. The questions around fitting in with other players, tactics etc, well that's more a question now of if our coaching team are of international standard.
Re 2-3 years ago, who knows, Youngs has been on a downward trajectory for some time. I've said occasionally that he was kept there as he was so experienced, if he'd been on 20 caps himself rather than 80, 90 etc I don't think there would have been any reason offered to keep him. For me someone else should have been in the team environment consistently getting a good 20-30 mins and starting some key games. They may have made mistakes, but frankly all players do and it would have benefitted us in the longer term. The WC really summarised why only keeping the focus on 2 men was so stupid when it came to the crunch. We're still seeing that with hooker, LCD is out, ok so whose next up lets blood them in the 6Ns. An injury is often where the door opens.....but we got Walker not getting a chance (don't care what his drawbacks are he was the Borthwick choice). It literally took Youngs coming on vs Scotland and having a meltdown for him to finally bring in Mitchell. Same mistakes being repeated.

Was Willi Heinz international standard? That's who Jones ultimately went for over Care, Robson, Spencer, Wigglesworth etc. He was tidy enough to the extent I can't remember any major blunders. Still, he didn't seem like a cut above the others.

Robson seemed particularly hard done-by. He never got an England start, and one of his caps was closer to 80 seconds than 80 minutes. Contrast that with Heinz, who got starts on his first two caps. It's quite possible Jones was right to prefer Heinz, and, ultimately, the coach has to choose someone he feels he can work with. However, by not giving game time to more scrum halves, Jones had no safety net when Heinz went down at the World Cup.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We know he's international standard. The questions around fitting in with other players, tactics etc, well that's more a question now of if our coaching team are of international standard.
Re 2-3 years ago, who knows, Youngs has been on a downward trajectory for some time. I've said occasionally that he was kept there as he was so experienced, if he'd been on 20 caps himself rather than 80, 90 etc I don't think there would have been any reason offered to keep him. For me someone else should have been in the team environment consistently getting a good 20-30 mins and starting some key games. They may have made mistakes, but frankly all players do and it would have benefitted us in the longer term. The WC really summarised why only keeping the focus on 2 men was so stupid when it came to the crunch. We're still seeing that with hooker, LCD is out, ok so whose next up lets blood them in the 6Ns. An injury is often where the door opens.....but we got Walker not getting a chance (don't care what his drawbacks are he was the Borthwick choice). It literally took Youngs coming on vs Scotland and having a meltdown for him to finally bring in Mitchell. Same mistakes being repeated.

I'm a bit confused....are you suggesting England should have capped White and that he should be playing for us now?

I've said for a good few years the RFU should know all dual qualified players and be capping them asap. In regards to White specifically I wouldn't have had him in the group of SHs I would have wanted to be involved closely with the England camp but he covers the area of being deemed not good enough and also the qualification issue above neatly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I've said for a good few years the RFU should know all dual qualified players and be capping them asap. In regards to White specifically I wouldn't have had him in the group of SHs I would have wanted to be involved closely with the England camp but he covers the area of being deemed not good enough and also the qualification issue above neatly.

I can't even imagine how many players in the Premiership would be dual qualified, but it must be a lot!

Pretty much everyone I know has a Scottish/Irish grandparent.....there could be potentially a 100 players that need a cap to stop them, it's just wouldn't be feasible, or even particularly moral to do such a thing.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I've said for a good few years the RFU should know all dual qualified players and be capping them asap. In regards to White specifically I wouldn't have had him in the group of SHs I would have wanted to be involved closely with the England camp but he covers the area of being deemed not good enough and also the qualification issue above neatly.

I can't even imagine how many players in the Premiership would be dual qualified, but it must be a lot!

Pretty much everyone I know has a Scottish/Irish grandparent.....there could be potentially a 100 players that need a cap to stop them, it's just wouldn't be feasible, or even particularly moral to do such a thing.

Name them. As to moral, well of course it is, no one is forced to play for any international team. Smith is currently the guy I'm looking at nervously, he really needs to be capped quickly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I've said for a good few years the RFU should know all dual qualified players and be capping them asap. In regards to White specifically I wouldn't have had him in the group of SHs I would have wanted to be involved closely with the England camp but he covers the area of being deemed not good enough and also the qualification issue above neatly.

I can't even imagine how many players in the Premiership would be dual qualified, but it must be a lot!

Pretty much everyone I know has a Scottish/Irish grandparent.....there could be potentially a 100 players that need a cap to stop them, it's just wouldn't be feasible, or even particularly moral to do such a thing.

Name them. As to moral, well of course it is, no one is forced to play for any international team. Smith is currently the guy I'm looking at nervously, he really needs to be capped quickly.

Name them! Haha.....I wouldn't know where to start!

But come on...realistically, the chances of an English born player being eligible for another home country is pretty high.

It's just an example. So from the other side of things we've had the chance to field Redpath, tompkins, Williams in the recent path. They should have been, it only strengthens our competitors. We've got the aforementioned Warr and Smith, both good players why not cap them? If they continue to develop and look good we're then well set. At times they doesn't seem a real strategy behind some of choices; more a case of throwing darts at a list of names squad to squad.

If Williams, Tomkins and Redpath were still EQ, would any of them have made an appearance for England? I think at a push...Redpath might have had a cap or two.

Quite possible. And full circle that England are pretty bad at incorporating new players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's just an example. So from the other side of things we've had the chance to field Redpath, tompkins, Williams in the recent path. They should have been, it only strengthens our competitors. We've got the aforementioned Warr and Smith, both good players why not cap them? If they continue to develop and look good we're then well set. At times they doesn't seem a real strategy behind some of choices; more a case of throwing darts at a list of names squad to squad.

I'd argue that Warr and Finn Smith are a bit different than the likes of Redpath and Moriarty who we always expected to jump ship back to their dad's nation of choice. Johnny Williams turns out is similar though he's never fit and Tompkins as you say isn't a loss.

We're all fans of Quirke but he's not getting starts for Sale because of how well Warr has been playing. It would make complete sense to me if Borthwick were to take a look at him in the wider training squad before the world cup. Maybe the Baabaas game if Sale don't make the final. He's got a decent all round game and I think could maybe do a job.

F Smith looks like he could be the real deal and we know that Farrell won't make another world cup after this summer and that Ford looks unlikely to. F Smith is playing regularly at Prem level, drip feeding some experience sooner rather than later would make sense for succession planning.

Redpath and Moriarty would have both taken the cap as would Williams. Redpath was on tour with us afterall. They all could have benefitted us. I don't personally think Warr is in the class of Quirke but worth capping.

Smith, well the rumours are that Scotland are wanting him, nothing stopping him being promised a back up role to Russell in the WC and being in their team despite being in camp for the last 2 sets of games. England just don't play it smartly.

Think this lad George martin has a chance of the World CUp.

https://archive.is/Zc0bZ

Geordie wrote:Think this lad George martin has a chance of the World CUp.

https://archive.is/Zc0bZ

Natural successor to Lawes.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Redpath and Moriarty would have both taken the cap as would Williams. Redpath was on tour with us afterall. They all could have benefitted us. I don't personally think Warr is in the class of Quirke but worth capping.

Smith, well the rumours are that Scotland are wanting him, nothing stopping him being promised a back up role to Russell in the WC and being in their team despite being in camp for the last 2 sets of games. England just don't play it smartly.

They may have taken the cap. Moriarty probably the least likely. Redpath, Tompkins and Williams for all their love of their current nation were very close to playing for England. Redpath toured (whilst to young for international rugby really) and the other two played for England Vs the Baabaas (with Sheedy at 10 iirc).

Scotland have been rumoured to be interested in Smith for ages. Healey has agreed to join Edinburgh, Kinghorn, Russell and Hastings maybe returning to full fitness. If Finn believes any promises of being the understudy he's a fool. If Scotland were really that fussed they'd have made sure he came north of the border when Wuss folded.

Warr is only 23 and currently playing better than Quirke. That's a good enough reason to consider his inclusion for me. Quirke has masses of potential but injuries have very much hampered him.

Think those injuries and Sale playing sensibly with him are the only reason he's being eased back in. When I've seen Sale recently Quirke still looks the class act, didn't see the Glasgow game though. Didn't say that Scotland have promised him the understudy spot but the offer of a world cup is strong reason to turn away from England. We've been burned before is all I'm saying. Ideally our second team could be being used a little better with this; is it now the U20s for everyone (but outside the 6Ns?). Changed before covid but can't remember how.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Redpath and Moriarty would have both taken the cap as would Williams. Redpath was on tour with us afterall. They all could have benefitted us. I don't personally think Warr is in the class of Quirke but worth capping.

Smith, well the rumours are that Scotland are wanting him, nothing stopping him being promised a back up role to Russell in the WC and being in their team despite being in camp for the last 2 sets of games. England just don't play it smartly.

None of them actually seems a real loss apart from maybe Redpath.

We have plenty of good flankers and I don't see where Moriaty has a point of difference. Of the three centers I really rate Redpath, especially as 12 has been our problem position for so long, although his development, like that of Williams, has been slowed by too many injures. Not convinced by Tompkins. Williams has potential but how much of a loss he's been kind of depends on if you see him as a 12 or a 13.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Geordie wrote:Think this lad George martin has a chance of the World CUp.

https://archive.is/Zc0bZ

Natural successor to Lawes.

i see him more powerful than Lawes and maybe not quote as athletic...but hes what we need more than Lawes...if that makes sense.

Geordie wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Geordie wrote:Think this lad George martin has a chance of the World CUp.

https://archive.is/Zc0bZ

Natural successor to Lawes.

i see him more powerful than Lawes and maybe not quote as athletic...but hes what we need more than Lawes...if that makes sense.

He's more mobile than Lawes is now. In terms of athleticism wise he's comparable to Lawes at the same age. He doesn't move like a 6ft6 19 stone bloke (that article suggests it's how much he weighs). I mean obviously you aren't going to call him agile or anything.

What Lawes has that Martin doesn't is the breakdown work and slightly better hands. Lawes has developed past being just a destructive option whereas Martin is still working on bringing those destructive elements into top tier rugby. His tackle technique is brilliant for a bloke his size though, one high tackle in 50 games. I hope that's not a jinx for the weekend mind.

Well Sam, George is 21 and Courtney 34 so George can learn the breakdown skills in time.

I get that people probably think I'm an idiot for my thoughts on the other thread about Itoje etc...but it's players like George coming through which is making me feel that way...

Geordie wrote:Well Sam, George is 21 and Courtney 34 so George can learn the breakdown skills in time.

I get that people probably think I'm an idiot for my thoughts on the other thread about Itoje etc...but it's players like George coming through which is making me feel that way...

He is only 21 and despite his recent form there's some bits he's still going to need to improve on. His recent conversion back to starting lock has been a real success. Friday night will be a great test for him. If he stands up well there it'll stand him in good stead for England selection.

Yeah just don't see Itoje realistically losing his spot to Martin and Chessum after this world cup.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah just don't see Itoje realistically losing his spot to Martin and Chessum after this world cup.

Neither do I but I could easily see Martin taking a squad spot for the world cup or Ribbans vacated space post world cup.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah just don't see Itoje realistically losing his spot to Martin and Chessum after this world cup.

Not just Chessum and Martin...i think Maro will need to really be at the top of his game to keep the shirt.

But anyway lets put that to bed until post World Cup and see what happens.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah just don't see Itoje realistically losing his spot to Martin and Chessum after this world cup.

Neither do I but I could easily see Martin taking a squad spot for the world cup or Ribbans vacated space post world cup.

It's certainly an interesting set of decisions for Borthwick. I still think it's an open net for him to get some changes in ahead of the WC and not just stick with people because of this line in the sand. It's going to be massively tough for us to win the WC with this set of players anyway so make the changes you think need changing and go with it. Either way if he waits or not you'd suspect that Lawes is going to be moved on, Ribbans leaving too: potentially he may still be available depending upon RFU decisions. Hill appears to have been discarded.

It leaves quite a few who could be catapulted up into the squad. Martin and Hill and 2 people who've not really been given a chance yet in the bruising flanker role (still not sure that Martin is going to really get a chance at lock at international level). Isiekwe is going to be interesting, been around forever and 24 now (same age as Hill), needs to start putting some performances in for England I feel.

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah just don't see Itoje realistically losing his spot to Martin and Chessum after this world cup.

Not just Chessum and Martin...i think Maro will need to really be at the top of his game to keep the shirt.

But anyway lets put that to bed until post World Cup and see what happens.

1 last point then to consider is the experience in the lock department. We've gone from probably a set of 4 players who were all experienced and very very good in Itoje, Kruis, Launchbury and Lawes to having Itoje with potentially Chessum, Martin, J Hill/Isiekwe. Another reason I don't think Itoje is going anywhere fast.

Oh i appreciate Experience is absolutely vital. And for years we were blessed with 4/5 top class locks...we were spoilt.

Im not sure Hill will be involved going forward, his time is up. Isiekwe maybe as a squad member who covers lock / 6 but i guess SB will have his thoughts on him.

I really think there will be a few big changes in some positions in the team / squad.

Other positions will be more settled for a while.

Not good to just write people off but Isiekwe has been very anonymous in his recent opportunities. Compare and contrast Chessum...

I guess the main short term issue with Chessum is how well he recovers from that ankle injury.

Itjoe - there was that vague reference to a medical condition which isn't good. He's still a terrific player, and will go down as one of the best locks we have ever had. I guess the worry has always been that because he's on the small side for a top level lock he's always relied on the kind of explosive power and engine that might be more prone to wear and tear with the advancing years.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah just don't see Itoje realistically losing his spot to Martin and Chessum after this world cup.

Neither do I but I could easily see Martin taking a squad spot for the world cup or Ribbans vacated space post world cup.

It's certainly an interesting set of decisions for Borthwick. I still think it's an open net for him to get some changes in ahead of the WC and not just stick with people because of this line in the sand. It's going to be massively tough for us to win the WC with this set of players anyway so make the changes you think need changing and go with it. Either way if he waits or not you'd suspect that Lawes is going to be moved on, Ribbans leaving too: potentially he may still be available depending upon RFU decisions. Hill appears to have been discarded.

It leaves quite a few who could be catapulted up into the squad. Martin and Hill and 2 people who've not really been given a chance yet in the bruising flanker role (still not sure that Martin is going to really get a chance at lock at international level). Isiekwe is going to be interesting, been around forever and 24 now (same age as Hill), needs to start putting some performances in for England I feel.

Why?

Borthwick did start the selection of him at lock this season, putting him into the row Vs LI. He's been in the 4 shirt for five of the last six games for Tigers (and played 34 mins at lock coming off the bench to help turn the game). If he keeps playing this well at lock then I don't see why not.

Borthwick did pick Martin at the end of the 6N for the training squad. He was coming back from injury at the start of the tournament. From Geordie's posted link;

In one of his valedictory press calls as head coach of Leicester, Steve Borthwick was asked about Martin. The praise was effusive, prolonged and coloured by a significant comparison.
“When I arrived here, he was almost straight out of school; 18 or 19 years old,” said Borthwick, who had handed a Premiership debut to Martin in his second match as Tigers head coach and watched the youngster complete 25 tackles.
“In that time, he’s accelerated quickly, been capped by England, had a couple of injuries and then been disappointed not to be picked by England. He’s had highs and lows and he’s grown enormously.
“His greatest strength as a player is that, defensively, there are not many players who hit in the tackle like him. You have some people around the league in that position like Courtney Lawes. George is up there with that kind of player and we’ve seen growth in his game in terms of his ball-carrying.
“I think what’ll happen is that he will have the versatility to be able to play second-row or six. I think he’ll be very good there. He’s 121 kilograms and 6ft 6in. He’s easily big enough to be a second-row at the very top level.”

Because I don't think he's going to overtake Chessum and he's more likely to find an opening when Lawes is moved on. I get he's getting some good press at the mo but I'm not entirely convinced he's a better option than Ted Hill either.

I could see him competing for a spot at lock, especially the bench option which will be up for grabs with Ribbans off to France (not that Ribbans has really nailed that spot either tbh).

I'm not sure if Martin/Itoje would work too well with neither being outstanding in the lineout, but Martin/Chessum has a good balance if Itoje is every out.

What are we classing as outstanding in the lineout?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because I don't think he's going to overtake Chessum and he's more likely to find an opening when Lawes is moved on. I get he's getting some good press at the mo but I'm not entirely convinced he's a better option than Ted Hill either.

I think they're both different styles though. Martin wouldnt overtake Chessum...they play different roles as far as im concerned.

Its all about getting the right balance of skill and brute physicality...which i have said for too long is imbalanced towards skills leaving us exposed physcially...which France proved. Though i acknowledge we improved v Ireland. . And SB really does have a free shot at the WC.

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because I don't think he's going to overtake Chessum and he's more likely to find an opening when Lawes is moved on. I get he's getting some good press at the mo but I'm not entirely convinced he's a better option than Ted Hill either.

I think they're both different styles though. Martin wouldnt overtake Chessum...they play different roles as far as im concerned.

Its all about getting the right balance of skill and brute physicality...which i have said for too long is imbalanced towards skills leaving us exposed physcially...which France proved. Though i acknowledge we improved v Ireland. . And SB really does have a free shot at the WC.

Yeah get they are different sorts of players, just a response on why I don't think his main chance will be lock. Re France you can say that it was physicality but we had the edge in a lot of areas and they blew us away through avoiding rucks through skill and playing space far better than we did. I'd also say on defensive rucks their play to prevent our support players getting to the rucks while staying on the right side of the refs was annoyingly good.

France was a whole host of issues i agree...but we did get blown away.

But ive felt this for a long time as you will be bored of hearing

Much of it will be dependant on how SB builds his back row aswell. Underhill and Curry are key here. Curry should be fit...but i genuinely worry if we'll see Underhill in an England shirt again.