England 2023 - Post 6N and beyond - Prep for WC

First topic message reminder :

Continued.....

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's both for me. Even with Argentina beating us last game you'd expect us to win more than we lose. The rest of the group should be beaten. Likely Wales....who are brave enough to go with youth. If we go out to them then Borthwick really has got things drastically wrong. Then lose to France.

They haven't got much choice. Their most experienced guys are all retiring instead of going.

Against Scotland the kicking game definitely worked but the defence had woeful lapses.

Only in part. Scotland scored two tries countering off kicks or by manipulating the defense by kicking. England gained teritory off kicks yes but Scotland won the tactical battle by disorganising the england back 3

TJ wrote:

Against Scotland the kicking game definitely worked but the defence had woeful lapses.

Only in part.  Scotland scored two tries countering off kicks or by manipulating the defense by kicking.  England gained teritory off kicks yes but Scotland won the tactical battle by disorganising the england back 3

Duhan's first was from a reasonable clearance kick but an astonishingly poor defensive read in the midfield. So the chase rather than kicking.

Presumably the other you mean the penalty leading to the first try where OHC took it into contact unsupported? If so then, yes, that's an example of manipulating the back three to find a weaker member. It's also an example of the importance of a winger such as Watson who is able to cover so much ground and has a decent, if not standout, kicking game. Hence they improved once Watson came in. Which is the role I presume May is being trialled for in case Watson is injured.

I think England kicked better on the whole in the Calcutta Cup hence the good territory and possession stats. The defensive alignment in the backs was very poor though and Scotland took full advantage through strong attacking play and an all time finish from Homelander.

Yes - thats what I mean. Duhans try was both - there was a huge hole in midfield and players out of position in the back field IIRC the chase and defensive alignment is all a part of the kicking game no?

Squidge had some good stuff on it. IMO England won the territiorial battle, Scotland won the tactical battle of the kicking

Duhan's comes from a clearance after a turnover from a good hit on Russell by Farrell. So not kick tennis which is what I'm discussing re England restructuring the back field using the half backs as kicking options. I don't think the clearance is poor there. Exiting from well behind your 22m line to between the half way line and the opposition 10m line is standard. The chase is poor though. Too big a gap between Farrell and Marchant then Turner runs a clever line to get in Farrell's way. Duhan does the rest.

Absolutely chase and defensive alignment are part of the kicking game and England need to improve them along with several other things. I think how they rearranged their back field using the half backs to control kick tennis better than previously was smart and largely worked well. Hence, I'd rather marry that to a better chase, defence, physicality, number 8s that can jog a 5k without a having a cardiac arrest, etc etc instead of throwing the bits that did show promise.

I'd argue territorial game and kicking are inextricably linked these days. On balance I think England were better there in the Calcutta Cup. That's not to say they were the better side of course. Scotland were superior in attack and defence, were good value for the win.

As poor a tournament as it was there were areas England did improve though. Scrum and lineout definitely compared to the end of EJs tenure. I thought the kick tennis was another. Consolidate around the good and improve the bad is generally my view with a team that have so much to improve.

Hence I raised it when discussing why I don't think May is suddenly nailed on to start but why I think he might still be in the training squad. As a back up to the role Watson filled when those tactics showed promise. Having one winger that can cover a lot of ground which allowed them to manipulate Steward into positions where he was most likely to take the high ball and a kicker (halfbacks or Malins in the Six Nations) to a place best suited to return a kick that creates pressure.

That's not to say it's without fault either. Against France IIRC, Steward and JvP tried to switch far too late to get Steward under a potential kick and Dupont characteristically saw it and took advantage whilst they were out of place. As a whole I thought it was an interesting tactical shift that worked well though.

I do concede that analysing small shifts in the nuances of how the back three in an average side organises itself is a lot more boring than, "Being alive but knowing life's finite is sh*t anyway so why doesn't he start Radwan and Cokanasiga on the wings with Arundell at fullback?"

king_carlos wrote:

That's not to say it's without fault either. Against France IIRC, Steward and JvP tried to switch far too late to get Steward under a potential kick and Dupont characteristically saw it and took advantage whilst they were out of place. As a whole I thought it was an interesting tactical shift that worked well though.

France have a kicking coach an I'd put money on the fact he had picked up on the analysis that Steward is regularly switching position to take the contestable kicks. As good as Dupont is, to see something that small and react so fast is outrageously quick thinking. I think it was something they'd spotted and were looking for to see if they could use. Dupont did it in style obviously.

Makes you wonder if England will have to change that plan slightly as opposition coaches are going to come with ways of moving the massive England fullback into positions where the ball isn't going to be kicked. How many dummy box kicks, pass it out to the 10 to kick do we think we'll see to pull Steward away from where the kick is going?

Aye - both France and Scotland had tactics in place to counter Englands kicking game. As above - squidge has good analysis of this.

IIRC englands kickers were chasing their own kicks - this means that by kicking to the right places a few times in a round of kick tennis then englands back 3 get pulled out of position.

England did make good ground against scotland with the kicking but at the expense of leaving the back 3 disorganised which then leads to chances

TJ wrote:Aye - both France and Scotland had tactics in place to counter Englands kicking game.   As above - squidge has good analysis of this.

England's kicking game against Scotland was about the only thing that kept us in the game. We had good territory on the back of it. Scotland's use of the ball was clever and range of kicking caused problems. Defence particularly at the breakdown well ahead of England.

Was fitness also an issue against both France and Scotland?

TJ wrote:Was fitness also an issue against both France and Scotland?

I don't think so although seem to.

Against Scotland some very poor decision making especially in Scottish 22 cost England, they were also beaten by a wonder try by VDM.

France just blew them away, too much pace, power and skill left England floundering. France were magnificent and problably would have beaten any team that day they were so on it.
England looked under powered in forwards and backs were scrambling to recover situations.

So who would YOU take...

8 - T. Willis v Dombrandt v Billy V

And

Flankers - Pearson v Earl v Ludlum v Curry v Lawes v J. Willis

To the world cup out of the guys in the current squad?

Not seen enough of Willis at 8 to judge him. Depends if Billy fit and firing. Dombrandt got badly found out v France but then so did pretty much rest of team bar Steward as I recall.
What I definitely DON'T want is Tom Curry at 8.

Flankers, tricky one. Pearson untried at Int level, Curry I don't think has been anywhere his best for about 2 years, Lawes injury issues.
Ludlam impressed in 6N, Earl hasn't had chances he should have.

I'd be tempted to try Billy, Pearson and Earl. Power with Billy and Pearson plus speed and mobility with Earl.

But to be honest, dunno!

No 7&1/2 wrote:To the world cup out of the guys in the current squad?

Yes

Geordie wrote:So who would YOU take...

8 - T. Willis v Dombrandt v Billy V

And

Flankers - Pearson v Earl v Ludlum v Curry v Lawes v J. Willis

Anyway, which are YOUR choices?

Not properly worked out the exact squad I'd choose so it may not work out with all the permutations but I'd take curry, dombrandt, Pearson and Willis x2.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not properly worked out the exact squad I'd choose so it may not work out with all the permutations but I'd take curry, dombrandt, Pearson and Willis x2.

Tom Willis and Pearson have never played a game at international level. Dombrant has done very little at international level so far. Jack Willis is yet to convince me completely as well.

Whilst I'm not averse to taking such an inexperienced backrow they'd really have to light up the friendlies and training in order to make it. Especially when you consider how very few caps the second row has outside of Itoje.

Im actually totally unsure who id take...

I make my decision then the next day it would change.

It also might depend on Chessums fitness or not.

TJ wrote:Was fitness also an issue against both France and Scotland?

I think it was an issue throughout. Others disagree but I simply think the Prem having too many weak games since ringfencing and the salary cap reduction means it isn't consistently physical enough anymore. Meaning that players who step-up can look lost with the physicality and speed of the international game.

The chasm between performances from the England back row vs the France back row in the massacre got laughable for instance. For instance, watching Dombrandt walk in defence then start belatedly jogging like he was wearing a wet suit once a winger was already gone had shades of someone hungover at an end of season 7s tournament the day after a teammates stag do.

Dombrandt has plenty of skills and stands out in the Prem as well. I just don't think what the Premiership now is as a whole has consistently pushed him to keep improving though. Hence, trying to keep up with Aldritt is akin to playing a new sport.

The highest level Premiership games are still extremely physical. The Saracens vs Sale final was as physical as I've seen the Prem for instance. Between them there are far too many dud games though. Yet, selection discussion is often based on highlights from the dud games as much as the few good ones.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not properly worked out the exact squad I'd choose so it may not work out with all the permutations but I'd take curry, dombrandt, Pearson and Willis x2.

Tom Willis and Pearson have never played a game at international level. Dombrant has done very little at international level so far. Jack Willis is yet to convince me completely as well.

Whilst I'm not averse to taking such an inexperienced backrow they'd really have to light up the friendlies and training in order to make it. Especially when you consider how very few caps the second row has outside of Itoje.

There is only 1 friendly before the squad is announced. Who would you take at the mo Sam?

If were picking today I'm not selecting the only other 8 there who is less than a week from an op. Jack Willis is the best flanker along with Curry by a distance. Pearson is just the next best experience or not. Should be said I'd be looking to take Martin and lawes in the 2nd row stocks.

Billy had an op weeks ago not this week 7.5

Ludlum will be there i would imagine

Geordie wrote:Billy had an op weeks ago not this week 7.5

Ludlum will be there i would imagine

Billy had an op last Friday geordie...another 1. Its no my prediction, just what I'd want. From the guys there.

He had a second op? Last Friday ...i didnt know that

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not properly worked out the exact squad I'd choose so it may not work out with all the permutations but I'd take curry, dombrandt, Pearson and Willis x2.

Tom Willis and Pearson have never played a game at international level. Dombrant has done very little at international level so far. Jack Willis is yet to convince me completely as well.

Whilst I'm not averse to taking such an inexperienced backrow they'd really have to light up the friendlies and training in order to make it. Especially when you consider how very few caps the second row has outside of Itoje.

There is only 1 friendly before the squad is announced. Who would you take at the mo Sam?

If were picking today I'm not selecting the only other 8 there who is less than a week from an op. Jack Willis is the best flanker along with Curry by a distance. Pearson is just the next best experience or not. Should be said I'd  be looking to take Martin and lawes in the 2nd row stocks.

Lawes is emergency cover at second row. Primarily a backrow.

It's hard to pick at the minute and a shame if there is only one friendly before the squad is announced.

For me Curry will be in. Lawes if he's proved his fitness to. They are both experienced and leaders.

I'd probably be lining up for that friendly with;

4. Martin
5. Hill
6. Ludlam
7. Pearson
8. Willis

19. Ribbans
20. Dombrant

The guys on the bench are probably going but the guys starting are fighting for position. If neither 8 really impresses you take Billy V in there somewhere as you know what you're going to get. If Chessum is fit then he goes if not then lock selection is easier. Jack Willis isn't in there to stake a claim but we know what he can do and with his decision to stay in France I'm really quite ok with him getting bumped out the squad if others are performing well. If not he's in.

It's tough to pick at the minute as we haven't seen training and what form players are in.

I'd hope to see us experiment with the back division as well.

9. Care
10. Smith
11. May
12. Porter
13. Marchant
14. Cokanasiga
15. Arundell

JVP, Ford, Manu on the bench. I've probably missed someone but those starting backs probably have the most to prove and then there's some questions over form on the bench.

It still boggles my mind anyone not picking j Willis.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:Billy had an op weeks ago not this week 7.5

Ludlum will be there i would imagine

Billy had an op last Friday geordie...another 1. Its no my prediction, just what I'd want. From the guys there.

The operation was on Friday 23rd June....

No 7&1/2 wrote:It still boggles my mind anyone not picking j Willis.

He's been great at club level but not really made the step up to international level. I'd assume he was pencilled in for the squad but it's an area with a lot of competition and he doesn't have versatility on his side like some of the competition.

4.Itoje, Martin
5.Ribbans, Chessum
6.Lawes, J Willis
7.Curry, Pearson

Those are the locks and flankers I'd have in the 33-man squad from what's currently in the training camp.

From the number 8s I'd look at Billy and T Willis. I wouldn't be upset to see one number 8 in the final squad to fit in an extra flanker (Ludlam or Earl for me) though. Depending on how Pearson's carrying transfers to the higher level it might not be a bad balance to consider a versatile flanker at 8.

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:Billy had an op weeks ago not this week 7.5

Ludlum will be there i would imagine

Billy had an op last Friday geordie...another 1. Its no my prediction, just what I'd want. From the guys there.

The operation was on Friday 23rd June....

Honest. I don't make these things up!

https://twitter.com/chrisjonespress/status/1684111315562815490?t=l3FIgXg_6bl97_8Q38WQEg&s=19

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It still boggles my mind anyone not picking j Willis.

He's been great at club level but not really made the step up to international level. I'd assume he was pencilled in for the squad but it's an area with a lot of competition and he doesn't have versatility on his side like some of the competition.

Bar he plays both 6 and 7 and has played 8 for Wasps. Unless you're mean the lock flanker options.

Chris Jones has got it wrong.

Google it...you'll see the operation was June not July.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It still boggles my mind anyone not picking j Willis.

He's been great at club level but not really made the step up to international level. I'd assume he was pencilled in for the squad but it's an area with a lot of competition and he doesn't have versatility on his side like some of the competition.

Bar he plays both 6 and 7 and has played 8 for Wasps. Unless you're mean the lock flanker options.

Could he realistically play 8 for England? Is he likely to play 6 given we seem to like a lineout jumper there under Borthwick. I mean at a push he could play 6 but he's really a straight out 7 at international level as opposed to Curry or Ludlam that are more versatile. Pearson might find a similar issue.

king_carlos wrote:4.Itoje, Martin
5.Ribbans, Chessum
6.Lawes, J Willis
7.Curry, Pearson

Those are the locks and flankers I'd have in the 33-man squad from what's currently in the training camp.

From the number 8s I'd look at Billy and T Willis. I wouldn't be upset to see one number 8 in the final squad to fit in an extra flanker (Ludlam or Earl for me) though. Depending on how Pearson's carrying transfers to the higher level it might not be a bad balance to consider a versatile flanker at 8.

While positional flexibility is important at an RWC, the list of players who've been more than a stopgap at international level outside of their preferred position is quite short.

7s can often play 6, some 6s have enough power to play 8 but very few players can play across the back row and excel in all the positions. Ludlam is the closest of the current crop but it's more that he's solid across all the positions rather than a new Richard Hill. Curry at 8 was not a success and neither was Itoje at 6. Lawes is a rare exception because he has (or at least had) an unusual combination of power and speed that allowed him to play lock and 6 to a very high level.

I would want to see at least 2 players who are regularly 8s for their club in the squad, though if one of them can also play 6 it would help. Although it's not quite the same thing - I still shudder at 2015 when Lancaster persisted with Billy and Morgan both clearly carrying injuries rather than playing Easter (who was both fit and in form).

It would be a nightmare scenario if, say, Borthwick named Billy as the only 8 but his knee wasn't fully recovered by the Argentina game. Then you have the unenviable choice between playing him below par, playing someone who doesn't specialise there against the best pack England will face in the pool stages or permanently replacing him with someone else.

Pearson is a talented player and one for the future but asking him to play his first caps out of position at an RWC does not strike me as a recipe for success.

Geordie wrote:Chris Jones has got it wrong.

Google it...you'll see the operation was June not July.

It's another op Geordie. He already had one.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It still boggles my mind anyone not picking j Willis.

He's been great at club level but not really made the step up to international level. I'd assume he was pencilled in for the squad but it's an area with a lot of competition and he doesn't have versatility on his side like some of the competition.

Bar he plays both 6 and 7 and has played 8 for Wasps. Unless you're mean the lock flanker options.

Could he realistically play 8 for England? Is he likely to play 6 given we seem to like a lineout jumper there under Borthwick. I mean at a push he could play 6 but he's really a straight out 7 at international level as opposed to Curry or Ludlam that are more versatile. Pearson might find a similar issue.

I wouldn't want any non specialist starting but as cover I'd be comfortable with it.

Poorfour wrote:Pearson is a talented player and one for the future but asking him to play his first caps out of position at an RWC does not strike me as a recipe for success.

I wouldn't pick Pearson at 8. If he's getting fast tracked for a RWC it needs to be at 7. I wouldn't be opposed to Ludlam there though for instance was what I meant.

I could see Curry and Pearson being a very good flanker pairing.

I do hope he goes with 3 specialists for props and sh. Was never a fan of Jones' risk taking there.

With the 31-man squad all sides were taking a risk somewhere. Hence the increase to 33-man which I think is absolutely correct.

Looking back at the 2019 squads most teams were carrying 5 props so short on one side unless they had someone who could genuinely cover LH and TH - which is rare these days. After that squads generally picked between only 2 hookers or only 2 SHs.

It's also worth noting that the group stages are more spread out now too. Which again is correct IMO. The compacted group stages so often resulted in tier 2 and 3 nations getting hammered by short turnarounds that they don't have the depth to deal with.

For example. England's schedule in 2023:

9th Sep - Argentina
17th Sep - Japan
23rd Sep - Chile
7th Oct - Samoa

Compared to 2019:

22nd Sep - Tonga
26th Sep - USA
5th Oct - Argentina
12 Oct - France (cancelled)

So there isn't a need to deal with a short turnaround to a midweek game.

It's a better structured tournament this time around IMO.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:Chris Jones has got it wrong.

Google it...you'll see the operation was June not July.

It's another op Geordie. He already had one.

Chris Jones' tweet in July quotes Vunipola saying “The medical team are positive about my prospects". That's from after his June operation. Maybe Jones knows about a subsequent operation, and misattributed the quotation, or else the dates have been mixed up, and Vunipola was last operated on in June.

Regarding the reasons for poor performances by England - excluding how well the other teams played - was the top 10%. To me, one reason of many, but likely the most important.

Like Geordie, my opinions change somewhat about whom I would take, but that really means I am not convinced by quite a few players. One thing for sure, I will never trust Billy V. again. Even if he is lights out in the practise games, I just can't trust. Unfortunately, the cupboard is pretty bare at the back of the scrum. I like Dombrandt's game but he lacks the ultimate physicality of vintage 8s.

Are we too wedded to a certain style of no.8?

As for the flankers Ludlam has to go. He may not start the biggest games but he's the most versatile back row we have.

doctor_grey wrote:Regarding the reasons for poor performances by England - excluding how well the other teams played - was the top 10%.  To me, one reason of many, but likely the most important.

Like Geordie, my opinions change somewhat about whom I would take, but that really means I am not convinced by quite a few players.  One thing for sure, I will never trust Billy V. again.  Even if he is lights out in the practise games, I just can't trust.  Unfortunately, the cupboard is pretty bare at the back of the scrum.  I like Dombrandt's game but he lacks the ultimate physicality of vintage 8s.  

Unless I missed it you didn't say what that reason was? Unless you mean top 10% as in head? Thougt that was usually referred to as the top 2% or something?

Anyway, regards number 8 if Billy not involved then left with Dombrandt who is an excellent player but definitely lacks physicality and got badly blown away against France. Otherwise it's a make shift 8 seeing as Mercer not included. Curry at 8 definitely not an option I would use.

So, it's just 8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 that need sorting. Hmm and maybe 2nd row partner for Itoje.

Other than that team totally ready....

mountain man wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Regarding the reasons for poor performances by England - excluding how well the other teams played - was the top 10%.  To me, one reason of many, but likely the most important.

Like Geordie, my opinions change somewhat about whom I would take, but that really means I am not convinced by quite a few players.  One thing for sure, I will never trust Billy V. again.  Even if he is lights out in the practise games, I just can't trust.  Unfortunately, the cupboard is pretty bare at the back of the scrum.  I like Dombrandt's game but he lacks the ultimate physicality of vintage 8s.  

Unless I missed it you didn't say what that reason was? Unless you mean top 10% as in head? Thougt that was usually referred to as the top 2% or something?

Anyway, regards number 8 if Billy not involved then left with Dombrandt who is an excellent player but definitely lacks physicality and got badly blown away against France. Otherwise it's a make shift 8 seeing as Mercer not included. Curry at 8 definitely not an option I would use.

So, it's just 8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 that need sorting. Hmm and maybe 2nd row partner for Itoje.

Other than that team totally ready....

Tom Willis...
Edit
Just checking...he's listed as 6'4 and just shy of 19st. Would that be right?

No Int experience though.

So what? Hes got to start somewhere...and if you have Lawes and Curry at 6 and 7 then he got alot of experience around him

You know sometimes you have to go with players without experience...and give them a chance.

Indeed, can't get experience without playing.
Just not sure he's answer to number 8.
Guess we'll see

Well hes a big direct player with aggression...so probably more inline with what SB wants over Dombrandt really.

4. Itoje
5. Martin
6. Lawes
7. Curry
8 T. WIllis

I wouldnt be unhappy seeing that run out...

You also need to consider Itoje's wobbly form...

I think you're being a bit harsh on Dombrandt. The entire pack got blown away by France. He's not as powerful as a fully fit Billy - but then very few players in world rugby are, including not-quite-fit Billy. But equally, he was making good yards and breaking tackles carrying the ball off the kick off throughout the tournament.

The issue with him at the moment is that for whatever reason he's not on the same wavelength as the players passing to him and too many balls are going down. But he's been picking the right lines and on the occasions it has gone to hand he has made breaks that would put England in the same position as Billy smashing through the line. He's also capable of playing a variety of different roles - Eddie used him as a fetcher in serveral games.

We won't know until the warm up games whether the coaches have settled on a gameplan that works to his strengths, or whether the timing issue has improved in camp.

I'm still very much in the camp of reserving judgement on both players and tactics until we see the warm up games.

mountain man wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Regarding the reasons for poor performances by England - excluding how well the other teams played - was the top 10%.  To me, one reason of many, but likely the most important.

Like Geordie, my opinions change somewhat about whom I would take, but that really means I am not convinced by quite a few players.  One thing for sure, I will never trust Billy V. again.  Even if he is lights out in the practise games, I just can't trust.  Unfortunately, the cupboard is pretty bare at the back of the scrum.  I like Dombrandt's game but he lacks the ultimate physicality of vintage 8s.  

Unless I missed it you didn't say what that reason was? Unless you mean top 10% as in head? Thougt that was usually referred to as the top 2% or something?

Anyway, regards number 8 if Billy not involved then left with Dombrandt who is an excellent player but definitely lacks physicality and got badly blown away against France. Otherwise it's a make shift 8 seeing as Mercer not included. Curry at 8 definitely not an option I would use.

So, it's just 8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 that need sorting. Hmm and maybe 2nd row partner for Itoje.

Other than that team totally ready....

Top 10% or top 2%, we mean the same - unless one of knows not-so-smart people who are actually 8% smarter than the other? Translating my somewhat obtuse comment for the rest of the proletariat, I am referring to the mental aspect, which has seemed to go missing with so many games.....

Poorfour wrote:I think you're being a bit harsh on Dombrandt. The entire pack got blown away by France.

Yes which is exactly what I've said many times, entire team had mare pretty much with only exception Steward as I recall.
However, his strengths are runnng and offloading rather than making hard yards like a top form Billy. I'll add I've always championed Dombrandt but if Borthwick blueprint is a attritional, forward based game then not sure he's that type of player.

Concern is if Billy not fit/in form/picked then have Dombrandt and T Willis as 8s which leaves Eng vunerable.

Anyway, as said many times there are a LOT of key positions still to be nailed down which for me is a big issue this close to RWC.