England 2023 - Post 6N and beyond

First topic message reminder :

Continued......

Furbank seemed to be a bit out of favour under Borthwick. Not sure he'll be featuring much which is probably a good thing. Malins might end up going the same way.

Watson fill be a feature in the 23 which is probably a good thing as we need some experience in the back three and he could cover 15 in an emergency.

I think Malins is a really decent option at fullback but I just don't see him as a winger other than as injury cover from the bench if he were in the 23 shirt. Whilst I don't rate Malins on the wing I'd prefer Malins at wing to Watson at fullback if covering injury for instance. When Watson shifts to fullback you lose a world class wing for an OK fullback. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I mentioned it a lot during the Six Nations but one thing I did like in a largely poor tournament was how England used the trio of Farrell, Steward and Malins to control kick tennis at times. Having three strong kickers allowed them to prevent a weak point from being isolated and targeted as much. Had Daly not been injured I think he'd have been used in Malins place for that on one wing. His early season form for Sarries was absolutely terrific across wing, fullback and 13. Prior to injury he was probably the form back in the league. As we've seen recently that isn't always the best indicator of international quality recently. If he can bring that form to the England game then he's a significant upgrade on Malins that can perform a similar role tactically though.

Brian Moore in the Telegraph praises the performances of Farrell and Ford in their respective semi-finals, and goes on to say how ill-served England has been by the way Lancaster and Jones kept playing them together, rather than selecting one of them, alongside a decent centre partnership, as they enjoy at club level.

I would have liked Lancaster to persevere with starting Ford at 10, alongside Burrell and Joseph for the 2015 World Cup, so I can see where he's coming from.

Still, it's hard to say Ford-Farrell were bad for England, when they were part of the team which won a Grand Slam, set a record unbeaten test winning streak and reached a World Cup final. Of course, we might have won more Grand Slams, set a longer record, and even won the final. We'll never know, but it was wasn't the wilderness years.

Rugby Fan wrote:Brian Moore in the Telegraph praises the performances of Farrell and Ford in their respective semi-finals, and goes on to say how ill-served England has been by the way Lancaster and Jones kept playing them together, rather than selecting one of them, alongside a decent centre partnership, as they enjoy at club level.

I would have liked Lancaster to persevere with starting Ford at 10, alongside Burrell and Joseph for the 2015 World Cup, so I can see where he's coming from.

Still, it's hard to say Ford-Farrell were bad for England, when they were part of the team which won a Grand Slam, set a record unbeaten test winning streak and reached a World Cup final. Of course, we might have won more Grand Slams, set a longer record, and even won the final. We'll never know, but it was wasn't the wilderness years.

All these tactics have a use by date, or in other words the coaches should of recognised when that partnership had run its course.

Odogwu is in the Italy squad.

....and Matt Rogerson is going to be called up by England. Er.

lostinwales wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Brian Moore in the Telegraph praises the performances of Farrell and Ford in their respective semi-finals, and goes on to say how ill-served England has been by the way Lancaster and Jones kept playing them together, rather than selecting one of them, alongside a decent centre partnership, as they enjoy at club level.

I would have liked Lancaster to persevere with starting Ford at 10, alongside Burrell and Joseph for the 2015 World Cup, so I can see where he's coming from.

Still, it's hard to say Ford-Farrell were bad for England, when they were part of the team which won a Grand Slam, set a record unbeaten test winning streak and reached a World Cup final. Of course, we might have won more Grand Slams, set a longer record, and even won the final. We'll never know, but it was wasn't the wilderness years.

All these tactics have a use by date, or in other words the coaches should of recognised when that partnership had run its course.

The results didn't drop immediately after 2019 with that partnership which I find interesting. They won the 2020 Six Nations and Autumn Nation Cup with that combination but very uneven performance. So performance dropping but results remaining good. Then in 2021 results dropped massively with the fitness issues surrounding strict covid bubbles and Sarries being relegated. In R1 the partnership was discarded against Scotland with Lawrence at 12 but they didn't fire a shot. The Ford-Farrell was recalled but the tournament remained dross.

The proper move away from it started so bizarrely in the 2021 AIs. We had Furbank at 10 and Smith on the bench against Tonga. Then Smith-Farrell-Slade and Manu on the wing to start against Australia which morphed into Slade at fullback and Manu at 13. An EJ absurdity that ended in a decent win somehow. Then came the really good win against SA with Smith-Tuilagi-Slade. To this day Smith's best performance I'd say.

The 2022 Six Nations saw Smith at the helm with Ford riding the bench. Smith didn't really grab that chance there though.

Then the most recent Six Nations which is fresher in the memory. We saw Smith-Farrell not work at all then we saw some green shoots from the Farrell-Lawrence-Slade midfield though it flattered to deceive a bit for me. Personally I felt Farrell actually had a decent tournament personally. I've long rated Farrell though whilst others never had. He's a divisive talent in that regard.

Personally I get the feeling that while Smith-Farrell is deader than Mr Praline's Norwegian Blue I think Ford-Farrell could still be seen again with Lawrence or Manu outside it. That's not just me rating both players or thinking SB does either. A couple of tactical reasons. Firstly, in attack it seemed England were building a structure that needs two strong playmakers which I find curious if they aren't going to pick them.

Secondly, the less aggressive line speed in defence seems a system built to spread defensive decision making across the XV rather than 13 being so critical (and difficult) as it is in a blitz. It removes the need for what JJ and Slade were great at in England's more aggressive systems or what Ringrose does incredibly for Ireland where your 13 is a hinge between the blitzing and drifting elements. Where they need to be able to do both roles seamlessly whilst communicating with a player on one side who might be blitzing and the other side who is drifting. This less aggressive system seems to sacrifice some line speed for a setup that relies less on individual defenders being in certain positions. That to me seems a setup more tailored to accommodate such as Manu or Lawrence at 13 than someone such as Slade.

No 7&1/2 wrote:....and Matt Rogerson is going to be called up by England. Er.

A couple of key points here.

Firstly, he's apparently one of 70 players contacted by England to basically say "you might not have the whole summer off". So not called up yet so to speak. That's common practice to give players and clubs the best chance to plan before folk lose it on the sheer numbers there!

Secondly, Rogerson has had another really strong season with LI to be fair.

If called up to the first training squad I just hope he isn't the only LI flanker there as I think Pearson looks a terrific talent.

If Rogerson is being considered it's because his stats look like what Borthwick wants, presumably at 6. Borthwick doesn't generally just pick players out of nowhere he likes his data.

I'm still hoping we see Kelly at 12 in the friendlies. He played really well against Sale in the semi final and threw that beauty of a pass to Potter. Seb Atkinson probably deserves involvement at some point as well though the world cup might be too soon.

Agree Matt Rogerson is a very Borthwick pick. Started life as an 8, so can carry a bit. Mature leadership figure. Makes a lot of tackles has is right near the top in tackle completion. And probably most importantly he's always right at or near the top whenever Opta shows attacking ruck involvements. He hits rucks and wins you clean ball. All that said, even as a LI fan, I wouldn't be particularly inspired if he was starting games for England.

As Carlos mentions, he'll be one of loads of uncapped players getting a heads up. A decent amount of them wont end up being called up event to the widest of pre RWC squads.

Yep, agree with all that, Margin. Do you reckon Pearson has the game to make the jump?

If Rogerson is in the conversation I can't help but think Ackermann (deep breaths Geordie  ) might be in the initial training squads at the very least. Number 8 is a problem position. Ackermann doesn't lack physicality in defence and is very fit both of which were issues in the Six Nations.

Ackermann wouldn't surprise me. Tom Willis too on that front.

Pearson absolutely. Does everything well and has that x factor. Looks absolutely made for test rugby. You never know though. There's no such thing as a sure thing when making the step up and it's such a competitive position. You often only get a few games to press a case when you do.

I'd be happy to see both Mercer and Tillis   in the initial training squad.

king_carlos wrote:Yep, agree with all that, Margin. Do you reckon Pearson has the game to make the jump?

If Rogerson is in the conversation I can't help but think Ackermann (deep breaths Geordie  ) might be in the initial training squads at the very least. Number 8 is a problem position. Ackermann doesn't lack physicality in defence and is very fit both of which were issues in the Six Nations.

Mercer and Willis please...hell id rather Chick than Ackerman....

As to the midfield debate above. Ford is putting the nail in the coffin of Marcus Smiths international career at the moment.

Ford to start at 10 at the world cup....
10 Ford
12 Kelly
13 Lawrence

Farrell to cover 10 and 12.

PS I agree with you...Pearson is some player.

I'd love that midfield to start. Think we need some out and out creativity at 9 and 10 though appreciate the tactics will be to kick it away. Given that VP and Farrell.

9 is a concern....

Can Quirke stay fit. Hopefully yes...and he'll be the 9 going forward.

JVP isnt filling me with confidence...but hes young...so ill hold my judgment.

Aside from them...not a huge amount of hope around in that position.

Mitchell is still playing fabulously.

Actually i forgot about him...he is indeed. He must be a consideration....

Not been impressed by Quirke on his comeback from injury. He came back around the same time as Ford and looks a shadow the player he was last season. Currently Gus Warr is keeping him on the bench with ease. Quirke might need a pre season run to playing again.

JVP looks a little shaken. I think the 6N dented his confidence a bit and he hasn't found his rhythm consistently since. That's a concern.

Mitchell is still the same hit and miss player which is a concern. Probably be the ideal bench option still.

If Ford is going in at 10 then Warr has been great at Sale at playing to a system and getting the most out of those around him.

I think JVP will start...i cant see Quirke pushing in other than a squad place for the moment.

Mitchell must be in the equation...maybe as you say the bench spot.

Warr might come in to the reckoning. If hes playing well with Ford...that could be an added bonus for Borthwick...if hes prepared to drop Farrell for the World Cup.

Farrells performance in the other semi was better than Ford's.

Smith remains better than both. If Borthwick can't get the best out of these players or worse he does just want to play territory he needs to move on sharpish.

I think that Borthwick and co will probably try to take the largest squad they can into the initial camp and whittle it down pretty quickly in most cases, but there'll be some positions and combinations where they'll want to try things out in the warm up games.

Scrum half looks like one of those - and I suspect the choice will come down to how they want to manage the game (how much box kicking will they be wanting to do, and how much in the way of quick taps and breaks from the base) but probably even more importantly which 9 is giving the 10s the service they need. Andy Gomarsall won his place in the 2007 team by going into camp, sitting down with Wilkinson and asking what he needed and then delivering exactly that. England have tried quite a lot of 9/10 combinations in the past 2-3 years, and only a few of them have worked.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Smith remains better than both. If Borthwick can't get the best out of these players or worse he does just want to play territory he needs to move on sharpish.

He's got flaws in his game. Better than Farrell at club level at international level maybe, better than Ford certainly not. Especially when Ford is playing like he did in the semi final.

Well, Ford has always played second fiddle to Farrell.

Smith may (should) get better. The other two won't. I'd be interested in seeing kicking stats as well as Smith may currently be the best of the 3, and probably has the best running game.

I am not saying he's the best option right now - so much depends on the make up of the rest of the team and what the coaches want. It may be that we can't get the best out of him without the right center combo, and it may be that Farrell is the least worst option but as I have said before I don't think we'll win much with Farrell in the side, but we'll do a better job of keeping the losing margins down.

JVP struggles more than he plays well of late....Mitchell has been better in pretty much every aspect and deserves his chance over JVP who has really flattered to deceive.

Ford does what Ford does....just ticks things along and looks in control 99% of the game, he's starting to get in a nice run of form just in time for the WC and will surely be in the thinking for jumping ahead of Smith.

Midfield......Kelly has looked solid if unspectacular, Lawrence great in snippets.....not many else holding their hands up. I wouldn't be massively surprised with Ford/Farrell/Lawrence....Manu in reserve.

lostinwales wrote:Smith may (should) get better. The other two won't. I'd be interested in seeing kicking stats as well as Smith may currently be the best of the 3, and probably has the best running game.

I am not saying he's the best option right now - so much depends on the make up of the rest of the team and what the coaches want. It may be that we can't get the best out of him without the right center combo, and it may be that Farrell is the least worst option but as I have said before I don't think we'll win much with Farrell in the side, but we'll do a better job of keeping the losing margins down.

Ford has been up in the 90% since coming back from injury.

Smith may have the best running game but he's never managed to really show this on the Int stage....

No 7&1/2 wrote:Smith remains better than both. If Borthwick can't get the best out of these players or worse he does just want to play territory he needs to move on sharpish.

Well he's never showed this in an England shirt......

Standby by for.....he doesn't have the right 9, the right 12, the right backline, the right tactics, it was too cold, it was too hot......

Only messing

No 7&1/2 wrote:Farrells performance in the other semi was better than Ford's.

Farrell got an armchair ride up front and Ford did not. Ford controlled the semi final masterfully. He was the difference between victory and defeat for Sale.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well, Ford has always played second fiddle to Farrell.

Or did Farrell always lay second fiddle to Ford? Ford controls the side, that's what he's there for, hence why he often stood in behind Farrell who would play the phase whilst Ford directed troops ready for the phases thereafter. He did a lot of that at the weekend using du Preez as he used to use Farrell.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Smith remains better than both. If Borthwick can't get the best out of these players or worse he does just want to play territory he needs to move on sharpish.

Well he's never showed this in an England shirt......

Standby by for.....he doesn't have the right 9, the right 12, the right backline, the right tactics, it was too cold, it was too hot......

Only messing

The games he's played in, well he could have been better. Top point scorer in the 6Ns was a decent start. The ongoing rubbish from Jones, then continuity coach haven't helped. Saying that he was a step up from Ford and when dropped for Farrell, well frankly Farrell wasn't as good. I do think he'd be better without Farrell and especially without Slade playing 12 though.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Farrells performance in the other semi was better than Ford's.

Farrell got an armchair ride up front and Ford did not. Ford controlled the semi final masterfully. He was the difference between victory and defeat for Sale.

And Sales pack to be fair.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well, Ford has always played second fiddle to Farrell.

Or did Farrell always lay second fiddle to Ford? Ford controls the side, that's what he's there for, hence why he often stood in behind Farrell who would play the phase whilst Ford directed troops ready for the phases thereafter. He did a lot of that at the weekend using du Preez as he used to use Farrell.

I meant that Farrell was consistently seen as the lynch pin. Lancaster and Jones used both to good effect but when they wanted a different option in midfield it was normally Ford who would drop out.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Farrells performance in the other semi was better than Ford's.

Farrell got an armchair ride up front and Ford did not. Ford controlled the semi final masterfully. He was the difference between victory and defeat for Sale.

And Sales pack to be fair.

Not really. The Sale pack didn't get over the gain line all that much. The Curry's disrupted well and McIntyre did an impressive job at scrum time but it was more the variation in attack and the kicking game orchestrated by Ford that made the difference. Tigers pack performed probably as well, in the final quarter maybe better but in the tactical kicking battle they were second best by a distance and the backs barely fired a shot in attack except from first phase moves.

If you wanted a display of a flyhalf general that was it. Nothing flashy just all the bits the team needed to be on top.

I'd like to see Ford have an Indian summer in his career, he has definitely got another world cup in him after France (certainly if he is carefully managed like Sexton) and would my first choice.  I've got a lot of time for Smith though, I think that he could potentially be England's long term ten, but his introduction into playing for England hasn't coincided with the team around him particularly well.  At the moment I see him more as an impact player at international level.

Ah it was just the ex Leicester man who beat Leicester! Got ya!

Cumbrian wrote:I'd like to see Ford have an Indian summer in his career, he has definitely got another world cup in him after France (certainly if he is carefully managed like Sexton) and would my first choice.  I've got a lot of time for Smith though, I think that he could potentially be England's long term ten, but his introduction into playing for England hasn't coincided with the team around him particularly well.  At the moment I see him more as an impact player at international level.

The brilliance of Borthwick's 60 second subs.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah it was just the ex Leicester man who beat Leicester! Got ya!

There's a difference between made the difference and a one man team. Pollard pulling out injured and Gopperth going in at 10 really hurt Tigers. Was a shame because Ford Vs Pollard would have given a clear indication of whether Ford was back on song, more so than his performance did anyway.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah it was just the ex Leicester man who beat Leicester! Got ya!

Ah come on....if you don't know Leicester fans by now! No defeat is ever the fault of a tiger (past and present) and all wins are due to a Tiger (past and present).

Their one eyed bias is why we all love them!

(Please ignore this post KC - you're an anomaly)

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah it was just the ex Leicester man who beat Leicester! Got ya!

There's a difference between made the difference and a one man team. Pollard pulling out injured and Gopperth going in at 10 really hurt Tigers. Was a shame because Ford Vs Pollard would have given a clear indication of whether Ford was back on song, more so than his performance did anyway.

Tongue in cheek! hence the !s. (!)

I do think Pollard missing shifted it more in Sale's favour, Gopperth has been a very good/great player in the prem but he's very much an inside centre. I always thought Sale were going to be too strong though.

The England #10 debate is interesting because there is a contrast between the three players:
Farrell - most solid in defence, solid kicker from hand but rather formulaic in attack. Recent goal kicking form has been well below his norm
Smith - almost the polar opposite. Not noted for defence, and most likely to try something off the cuff in attack
Ford - Pretty much a half way house between the two.

Of course, little of it really matters until we can sort out 8 and 9 to produce some go forward ball.

Think Smith has the best tackle stats from the last set I saw. That was back end of 2022 though. And of course they only tell half a story.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think Smith has the best tackle stats from the last set I saw. That was back end of 2022 though. And of course they only tell half a story.

He definitely had the highest tackle completion percentage the last time I checked - but he's used in a very different way. Opponents send big runners down his channel and he generally gives up yards but hangs on until the player falls over. Tabai Matson has said that he does a lot of extra sessions where Matson and the other coaches run at him for him to tackle. But he's unlikely ever to be a dominant tackler at international level.

Farrell is more often used to come out of the line and close down the 10/12 channel. He misses more, but he stops the attack behind the gainline more often. And while he cuts a very fine line in terms of tackle height, his disciplinary record in the tackle suggests he judges it very well, regardless of how much people want to foam at the mouth about him.

It's a while since we've seen Ford at international level but from memory his tackling is more similar to Smith's than Farrell's.

In terms of running game, Smith has scored 7 tries in 21 appearances (which includes his micro-appearances under Borthwick), makes about 9m per carry and beats a defender every other carry. Farrell has scored 10 in 106, makes about 6m per carry and beats a defender 1 time in 8. Ford doesn't have current metres or db stats on England Rugby, but has 10 tries in 72 appearances. I think it's safe to say Smith is the biggest running threat of the three.

The sensible option for this RWC is probably to go with Ford and Farrell as the primary fly halves; I doubt there is time to build an attacking pattern that would yield higher rewards with Smith than with them. But it's placing a big bet not to invest in Smith M and probably Smith F for the next RWC cycle - Ford could well be playing and playing well in 2027 but equally English clubs do not have the option to reduce his game time and protect him like the Irish have done with Sexton.

Yeah the notion Smith is a bad defender is unfair. He's technically the best of the three there.

The problem I see with Smith is that he lacks a bit of patience in attack. He won't go through the phases or play the tactical kicking game for extended periods. He'll hit the gamble button or throw in the predictable hitch kick and go himself. It's probably a bit of an age thing. With international defences so good he just needs to take a little pressure off himself and move the opposition around probing for a weakness. The way Russell has matured for Scotland is what we need for Smith but alot sooner than it took Russell and Smith certainly has it in his locker to do that.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Yeah the notion Smith is a bad defender is unfair. He's technically the best of the three there.

The problem I see with Smith is that he lacks a bit of patience in attack. He won't go through the phases or play the tactical kicking game for extended periods. He'll hit the gamble button or throw in the predictable hitch kick and go himself. It's probably a bit of an age thing. With international defences so good he just needs to take a little pressure off himself and move the opposition around probing for a weakness. The way Russell has matured for Scotland is what we need for Smith but alot sooner than it took Russell and Smith certainly has it in his locker to do that.

I'd frame it a little differently. He does have a bit of recalibration to do to learn what sort of gap he can run or kick through in international games rather than club ones, but the whole point about his attacking game is that he's not a phase play fly half. That's what Ford does, pulling the defence around to create a gap.

When the Quins attack is working, there are three key features to it:
1) If it's not on, Care puts it downfield - doing a lot more of the tactical kicking than most Prem 9s do.
2) If it is on, Smith has multiple targets committed to good lines and picks the most promising one based on how the defence commits
3) If it doesn't lead to a break, Quins recycle quickly (in the second half of 2021 they were averaging something ridiculous like 1.8s per ruck) and go again.

Eddie was trying to do something similar but I think had overcomplicated it given the lack of stability in the squad. Evans was clearly brought in to try to replicate it with England, but the pack weren't delivering lightning quick ball, and without that it doesn't work. Smith ran down more blind alleys than he should have - but you could see it was usually having scanned the backline and finding no one in a promising position.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah it was just the ex Leicester man who beat Leicester! Got ya!

There's a difference between made the difference and a one man team. Pollard pulling out injured and Gopperth going in at 10 really hurt Tigers. Was a shame because Ford Vs Pollard would have given a clear indication of whether Ford was back on song, more so than his performance did anyway.

Tongue in cheek! hence the !s. (!)

I do think Pollard missing shifted it more in Sale's favour, Gopperth has been a very good/great player in the prem but he's very much an inside centre. I always thought Sale were going to be too strong though.

Agree about Pollard being out.  That took a lot of the juice out of that match.  And gave Alex Sanderson an advantage.  But, I'm commenting more because of Gopperth.  No doubts, he's a centre and would also tell you the same.  Just did double duty.  And that's my point.  He has been a terrific club player and seemingly a great image and fit for the Premiership.  And has been doing and enjoying it for a long time.  I remember him back in Wellington as a kid.  What is it, 20 years now, or almost?  Players don't physically last that long any more.  And to do it at a high level for such a long time deserves a lot of credit and respect.

Gopperth is a great example of a player who can do a job, and just keeps doing whatever is needed for whatever club needs him. Amazing that he's still playing at that level after so long.

Poorfour wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Yeah the notion Smith is a bad defender is unfair. He's technically the best of the three there.

The problem I see with Smith is that he lacks a bit of patience in attack. He won't go through the phases or play the tactical kicking game for extended periods. He'll hit the gamble button or throw in the predictable hitch kick and go himself. It's probably a bit of an age thing. With international defences so good he just needs to take a little pressure off himself and move the opposition around probing for a weakness. The way Russell has matured for Scotland is what we need for Smith but alot sooner than it took Russell and Smith certainly has it in his locker to do that.

I'd frame it a little differently. He does have a bit of recalibration to do to learn what sort of gap he can run or kick through in international games rather than club ones, but the whole point about his attacking game is that he's not a phase play fly half. That's what Ford does, pulling the defence around to create a gap.

When the Quins attack is working, there are three key features to it:
1) If it's not on, Care puts it downfield - doing a lot more of the tactical kicking than most Prem 9s do.
2) If it is on, Smith has multiple targets committed to good lines and picks the most promising one based on how the defence commits
3) If it doesn't lead to a break, Quins recycle quickly (in the second half of 2021 they were averaging something ridiculous like 1.8s per ruck) and go again.

Eddie was trying to do something similar but I think had overcomplicated it given the lack of stability in the squad. Evans was clearly brought in to try to replicate it with England, but the pack weren't delivering lightning quick ball, and without that it doesn't work. Smith ran down more blind alleys than he should have - but you could see it was usually having scanned the backline and finding no one in a promising position.

I like this thread of thought.  As things changed in the England setup it still feels a bit like nothing has changed.  We still don't know if, how, or when Marcus Smith can be used and productive.  Between Borthwick and Jones, we have wasted at least 2 years of development in order to maintain the status quo (and that applies to more than just Marcus Smith).  

To me the direction is fairly clear.  
First give Ford his due run and see if he or Farrell should be 10.  And matched with a proper 12.  Only one of the two in the match day 23.  
Second, give Marcus Smith his time and see exactly what he can and can't do as an impact 10 off the bench.  And should be paired with his usual 9 or Alex Mitchell.  Mitchell might or might not start, or even be in the squad, but those two have to be together (assuming the ship has sailed on his usual 9).  And they come on and chase the game.  I don't see England with many leads against the big boys so this is how I would do it.  

Now I say that to say this:  I have never, never, never, ever, ever been a Ford fan.  But if he does well, he would be my choice as the starting 10 with Marcus Smith on the bench to close the game out.  Farrell as squad backup or maybe carrying the load against Chile.  

And one more thing, seriously, I think it would be a mistake to bring Fin Smith into the England squad unless there is an injury or one of our 10s gets the clap.  He is just a kid and needs a single coaching point of view for a while.  After a couple of seasons getting knocked around at Worcester he had no off-season to adapt to Saints - ahem - different style of play.  He's got it and I see some real glimpses of wicked high upside.  But he has never put one together for a full 80 yet.  Another coaching philosophy and team will not help him progress or develop at this point.  I believe we will see a much better player starting perhaps in the summer 2024 for England than we would ever see if he gets roped into England right now.  

And please don't miss my gracious post about Jimmy Gopperth above (hey, I'm plugging one of my own comments - If I keep this up do I get to be a 21 again?).

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah it was just the ex Leicester man who beat Leicester! Got ya!

There's a difference between made the difference and a one man team. Pollard pulling out injured and Gopperth going in at 10 really hurt Tigers. Was a shame because Ford Vs Pollard would have given a clear indication of whether Ford was back on song, more so than his performance did anyway.

Tongue in cheek! hence the !s. (!)

I do think Pollard missing shifted it more in Sale's favour, Gopperth has been a very good/great player in the prem but he's very much an inside centre. I always thought Sale were going to be too strong though.

I expected Sale to be strong but was pleasantly surprised we matched them physically which we failed miserably at in the other two games against them in the league this season.

Gopperth was a flyhalf for much of his career, the move to 12 came about at Wasps as he got a bit older with Wasps preferring the more mercurial flyhalf he added stability. I'd agree now he's better off at centre as he doesn't quite have the length on his kicks for the tactical kicking game and was never the most fluent ball in hand. He's done a decent job at Tigers in the second half of the season. I'm sure a Championship club will be calling with a player/coach offer before too long.