England - the build-up and winning the World Cup at a canter

First topic message reminder :

Here we go again.....

Not overly sad JVP missing out from a fan point of view (horrible for the lad though).....Mitchell arguably our best scrum half and at least capable of making things happen. I could see him forcing himself to start after being 4th choice.

Can't see him starting though under Borthwick can you?
Best we can hope for is he's on bench and gets on once Youngs been hooked.

Feel sorry for JVP as when he went off I thought "Oh this does not look good", especially when he reappeared on crutches.

Good news for Mitchell but I rather fear we will just get Youngs, Youngs and more Youngs... Mind you, with the blunted attack we possess, he's unlikely to stand out as a poor player.

Think Care is still very much able to lift the tempo, but yes surely Youngs starts.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We're counting the red card that wasn't then?

He did get a red card. We all saw it, and he left the pitch
So a red card he did indeed get

carpet baboon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We're counting the red card that wasn't then?

He did get a red card. We all saw it, and he left the pitch
So a red card he did indeed get

Incorrect red card then.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We're counting the red card that wasn't then?

He did get a red card. We all saw it, and he left the pitch
So a red card he did indeed get

Incorrect red card then.

A yellow probably would have been fine. But Mr Steward needs to learn not to put himself in these positions.
Moving to 12 would help him and England a lot for this world cup

Not sure dropping a player into a new position at international level is a great idea. Even worse as he learns how to teleport at the same time.

Well at the moment who are your 12s?

Farrell? Not a twelve or available for a few weeks.

Manu? A great 13 who has lost a bit of his pace because of injuries and is played at 12 but he isn't one.

Lawrence? Is a 13 who again is being shunted to 12 as he's a bit of a unit.

Move Steward to 12 and let the 13s play as 13s

Currently Lawrence or Tuilagi, both of whom have played there for their clubs and England. So let our 12/13s play 13 and play our 15 at 12 instead. Looking at the raw ingredients he looks like he could make a good inside centre but he's got sod all experience there in senior rugby and England isn't the time to try him. He wouldn't even get to play 12 for his club either.

Well I'm Irish so not that bothered who plays where for England.

But I think steward at 15 will cause more issues going forward

And Manu and Lawrence are excellent 13s but average 12s

Who was the last Proper 12 England have had?

Mike Tindall.

Proper 12 as in has only ever played in that 1 position? Can't think. Even Greenwood moved around, so did Catt, So did Twelvetrees. Thinking it through probably Barritt.

mountain man wrote:Mike Tindall.

Outside centre mainly?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Mike Tindall.

Outside centre mainly?

Can't remember to be honest, I thought he was 12 to Greenwoods 13 but it was 20 years ago and I haven't been bothered to google it.

Barrit never got the praise he deserved.
And I will stick my neck out here and say Hape was a lot better than people remember

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Mike Tindall.

Outside centre mainly?

Can't remember to be honest, I thought he was 12 to Greenwoods 13 but it was 20 years ago and I haven't been bothered to google it.

You're not entirely wrong. Greenwood liked to wear the 13 rather than 12 shirt but played inside centre.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Willis sat on the bench?

Aye, the one who looked a bit like Earl

carpet baboon wrote:Barrit never got the praise he deserved.
And I will stick my neck out here and say Hape was a lot better than people remember

Always down to balance for me, Barritt was partnered with a lot of combos that never saw the best of him. And Hape..... no! Flutey, oh yes.

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Mike Tindall.

Outside centre mainly?

Can't remember to be honest, I thought he was 12 to Greenwoods 13 but it was 20 years ago and I haven't been bothered to google it.

Good memory that they used to wear the numbers that way round, but it was a superstious thing.

RiscaGame wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Willis sat on the bench?

Aye, the one who looked a bit like Earl

Well, he was still on the bench at that point. It was Farrell who slipped and injured Lake.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Mike Tindall.

Outside centre mainly?

Can't remember to be honest, I thought he was 12 to Greenwoods 13 but it was 20 years ago and I haven't been bothered to google it.

Good memory that they used to wear the numbers that way round, but it was a superstious thing.

Bath never used to have a number 13 shirt because it was bad luck. Tindall being a Bath player at the time took the superstition to the England team with him so Greenwood would wear 13 but play 12.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Barrit never got the praise he deserved.
And I will stick my neck out here and say Hape was a lot better than people remember

Always down to balance for me, Barritt was partnered with a lot of combos that never saw the best of him. And Hape..... no! Flutey, oh yes.

We only got a couple of seasons (was it only one?) out of Flutey but yes for that short time he was really good.

Surprised nobody mentioned Farrell Snr or Burgess

mountain man wrote:

Geordie wrote:Shame for JVP...but Mitchell deserves the shot.

9 Mitchell
10 Ford
12 Manu
13 Lawrence / Marchant

Like it and Lawrence goes to 12 once Manu heads off injured.

Ahh, so Lawrence on after warm-ups?

I would be surprised Mitchell gets the start against Ireland, but could see him off the bench. I think how the team plays against Ireland will impact whether Mitchell starts against Fiji. The head coach should want his primary combinations to have as much game time together as possible, especially if things continue to misfire without JvP (which would not be a surprise).

Whoever comes in as 4th choice SH ought to get at least a bit of game time the next two weeks, even if off the bench. And that's not just to integrate them. With JvP definitely and Farrell probably out of action for Argentina, Borthwick might want to think about wrapping his preferred choice of remaining half backs in cotton wool for the next couple of weeks.

Big wrote:Whoever comes in as 4th choice SH ought to get at least a bit of game time the next two weeks, even if off the bench.  And that's not just to integrate them.  With JvP definitely and Farrell probably out of action for Argentina, Borthwick might want to think about wrapping his preferred choice of remaining half backs in cotton wool for the next couple of weeks.

I knew someone would have a contrasting pov which made sense. I was only thinking Mitchell off the bench in Dublin because he hasn't been in camp for a while and might need some training reps to give his best shot against Ireland.

The question about what we do with the 10s is a good one - depends on how long Farrell is out. And how much, or whether, Borthwick really has any confidence in his other choices. I would assume Ford but maybe not as much at this level as compared to Premiership. Who knows?

Regarding Farrell, I wouldn't think his ban would be equivalent to his last one if only because this is his next incident and thinking they become more severe with each incident? Do they take into account the one-time freebie given if one attends the tackle clinic? If so, his last ban would have been 4 matches, not 3. So this new ban could be 4 matches or likely more? And if, say 6 matches, then does Borthwick send Farrell home? All of this is before the politics of Farrell enter the fray...

Steward’s card was a yellow by the letter of the framework because Adams didn’t go past horizontal and didn’t land on his head, neck or upper back. Any ref who evaluates it on outcome rather than process is going to find themselves slipping down the pecking order - the whole point of the framework is to establish some consistency. I must admit, I quite like the idea of Steward at 12. Now teams have worked out how to do it, they are going to do whatever they can to exploit his lack of agility and acceleration. He’s good when play is outside the 22, but close to his own tryline he has weaknesses that are exploitable by a good team and hard for him to fix in the short term.

I’d be very surprised if Farrell gets less than 4 weeks, but given recent precedent he’s unlikely to get more than 6. 4 is probably manageable for England. 6 and it would be a very bold call to keep him in the squad.

Not sure who else England got available but I always thought Watson was a good full-back. Nice to have some high quality utility players available though, like Daly and possibly Steward.

Mitchell confirmed as injury replacement for JvP

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66501141

Slade for Farrell?

I guess depends on length ban Farrell gets whether a replacement bought in.

So if faz is banned for six games he will miss the remaining friendlies and the pool fixtures but be free for any knockout games (if we get out of the pool). Borthers will definitely take him. If it is an 8 match ban then there's no point in taking him, unless we use him like Ireland use Johnny sexton and put him in the refs changing room to modify any thought process that will benefit us.

Who comes into the squad to replace him? Bring the next 10 in line, assuming it's finn Smith or does he go for more experience with a player who can cover multiple positions?

Yoda wrote:So if faz is banned for six games he will miss the remaining friendlies and the pool fixtures but be free for any knockout games (if we get out of the pool). Borthers will definitely take him. If it is an 8 match ban then there's no point in taking him, unless we use him like Ireland use Johnny sexton and put him in the refs changing room to modify any thought process that will benefit us.

Who comes into the squad to replace him? Bring the next 10 in line, assuming it's finn Smith or does he go for more experience with a player who can cover multiple positions?

Knockout games. Are these the games where Farrell goes to see how many people he can concuss?

Chris Ashton thinks Farrell is prone to upright/illegal tackles when the game is getting away from his team, and he tries to change the momentum. It's not so much a red mist, as misplaced aggression, though I doubt it makes a difference when you're on the receiving end.

BBC Chris Jones thinks Twitter pundits misunderstand Farrell's possible mitigation. He can get mitigation by pleading guilty, and acting contrite, irrespective of his record. Consequently, Jones thinks Farrell wiĺl get 6 weeks, mitigated to four. No idea if that's a fair assessment.

Rugby Fan wrote:BBC Chris Jones thinks Twitter pundits misunderstand Farrell's possible mitigation. He can get mitigation by pleading guilty, and acting contrite, irrespective of his record. Consequently, Jones thinks Farrell wiĺl get 6 weeks, mitigated to four. No idea if that's a fair assessment.

This seems in line with previous bans which have had mitigation for contrition, pleading guilty and positive references in the past (good family man, strong religious character etc).

Yoda wrote:So if faz is banned for six games he will miss the remaining friendlies and the pool fixtures but be free for any knockout games (if we get out of the pool). Borthers will definitely take him. If it is an 8 match ban then there's no point in taking him, unless we use him like Ireland use Johnny sexton and put him in the refs changing room to modify any thought process that will benefit us.

Who comes into the squad to replace him? Bring the next 10 in line, assuming it's finn Smith or does he go for more experience with a player who can cover multiple positions?

Look at this way: England have 3 specialist fly halves in the squad. They have played two games. They have lost the use of one of them.

Now, imagine that Ford picks up a minor knock in training - say a back spasm or a tight hamstring. The sort of thing that will clear up in a couple of weeks but where you don’t want him to play because he’s not 100%.

What do you do?
1) Put him on the bench and hope you don’t have to use him?
2) Start without a reserve fly half (and signal to your opposition that if they target Smith they can leave you without a fly half at all)?
3) Send him home permanently and bring someone else into the squad - who won’t have trained with them for 2 months?

Borthwick has - rightly - made it very clear that he wants 3 players in each specialist position. This was sensible even in the last RWC cycle, but with the increase in red cards it’s even more essential.

England have 2 warm up games left, and then their two hardest pool games - the first of which is also likely to be very physical - up first.

If Farrell gets 4 weeks, Borthwick might decide to wing it. If he can get through Ireland, Fiji and Argentina with Ford and Smith intact then it’s likely that they will survive Japan as well. It’s a risk, but it might be worth taking. But the more games he misses the more like it will be like having a squad of 32 instead of 33. Even for a player of Farrell’s importance to the squad, at the RWC that’s a huge gamble.

My feeling is that the panel won't accept admittance etc when there is now recent previous though. I reckon it's a borderline low to mid level, probably mid so 6 games. We've seen that Borthwick wants experience on the pitch so don't know that he'll go with Fin Smith either. I reckon it'll be slade. Malins will cover fly half vs Fiji

Based on Farrell getting six mitigated to four early in the year I'd expect the same again but there will be no tackle school to reduce it further.

Could Furbank come back in? Covers 15 and 10 which are areas within the squad that would need cover should Farrell drop out. Slade hasn't played 10 with any regularity in years so he's not really much of an option there. Fin Smith would at least be a specialist though you'd have to get him in pre Fiji if he was coming in so as to get him a first cap and game time before the tournament.

If anyone it'll be Slade, he can cover 10 at a push. Knows tactics etc (such as they are) so if Farrrell gets a long ban then my virtual tenner on him.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Based on Farrell getting six mitigated to four early in the year I'd expect the same again but there will be no tackle school to reduce it further.

Could Furbank come back in? Covers 15 and 10 which are areas within the squad that would need cover should Farrell drop out. Slade hasn't played 10 with any regularity in years so he's not really much of an option there. Fin Smith would at least be a specialist though you'd have to get him in pre Fiji if he was coming in so as to get him a first cap and game time before the tournament.

Forgot about Furbank as an option. Could come and immediately be back up for 10 and 15.

Furbank worse option than Slade, maybe not as a speciifc 10 just as a player overall.

mountain man wrote:Furbank worse option than Slade, maybe not as a speciifc 10 just as a player overall.

Slade is a better overall player but in the last five years he's started one game at 10 and none at 15. Do we really need another centre?

I'm not particularly a Furbank fan but he'd be a handy back up in case of further injuries or suspensions.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mountain man wrote:Furbank worse option than Slade, maybe not as a speciifc 10 just as a player overall.

Slade is a better overall player but in the last five years he's started one game at 10 and none at 15. Do we really need another centre?

I'm not particularly a Furbank fan but he'd be a handy back up in case of further injuries or suspensions.

Was initially thinking that it doesn't really matter for Fiji and then we're into the tournament anyway. Just reckon he won't take Smith due to little experience. We saw from the 6 nations and against Wales in the warm.up that the lack of caps at hooker is leading to Borthwick being forced to play George for 80 mins regularly.

I would love to see a Mitchell / Smith (Marcus) partnership. Mitchell is the nearest thing we have to the Danny Care if old, blistering pace, eye for the gap, now he has a good long pass as well as being able to see the short pop pass is on. His box kick is not the longest but it is accurate and you don't want it too long anyway, we don't have Jonny May anymore to make too long kicks look good.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mountain man wrote:Furbank worse option than Slade, maybe not as a speciifc 10 just as a player overall.

Slade is a better overall player but in the last five years he's started one game at 10 and none at 15. Do we really need another centre?

I'm not particularly a Furbank fan but he'd be a handy back up in case of further injuries or suspensions.

Furbank similar to Hill in that really good for club but doesn't produce in Eng shirt. I can off hand recall only one game when Furbank was good, I think was 2022 against Ireland(?).

Anyway, I doubt very much in Borthwick thinking but who knows.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Based on Farrell getting six mitigated to four early in the year I'd expect the same again but there will be no tackle school to reduce it further.

Sam, I can't help feeling that this assessment takes a rather Boris Johnson view of the act of apologising. In short it's not alright to behave badly, apologise and then do exactly the same thing. And repeat ad nauseam.

As all grown ups know...for an apology to be meaningful it must; admit fault, recognise the damage done and include an assurance that you will never do that again.
If you say you're sorry, but take no responsibility for the damage you have caused and then repeat the offence are you truly sorry?
The entry point for this offence is 6. They can reduce it by one for Tackle School but that won't happen because Farrell has been there so often he has a Prefect's Badge.
They can reduce it if the offender has a previous good record. Farrell has an appalling record for dangerous tackles.
As you rightly said they can reduce it for contrition. In the immediate aftermath of the tackle Farrell squared up to Dan Biggar and then sulked and pouted on the naughty step. These can hardly be construed as the actions of a contrite peace loving individual.

I'll be surprised if it's any less than 6.

jimbopip wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Based on Farrell getting six mitigated to four early in the year I'd expect the same again but there will be no tackle school to reduce it further.

Sam, I can't help feeling that this assessment takes a rather Boris Johnson view of the act of apologising. In short it's not alright to behave badly, apologise and then do exactly the same thing. And repeat ad nauseam.

As all grown ups know...for an apology to be meaningful it must; admit fault, recognise the damage done and include an assurance that you will never do that again.
If you say you're sorry, but take no responsibility for the damage you have caused and then repeat the offence are you truly sorry?
The entry point for this offence is 6. They can reduce it by one for Tackle School but that won't happen because Farrell has been there so often he has a Prefect's Badge.
They can reduce it if the offender has a previous good record. Farrell has an appalling record for dangerous tackles.
As you rightly said they can reduce it for contrition. In the immediate aftermath of the tackle Farrell squared up to Dan Biggar and then sulked and pouted on the naughty step. These can hardly be construed as the actions of a contrite peace loving individual.

I'll be surprised if it's any less than 6.

To be fair Biggar is an absolute toss pot...and i guarantee he'd be stirring the pot. Him and his pal the other toss pot Liam Williams,.

I say this jokingly before anyone gets upset, but if England are really struggling at SH we do in fact already have a possible 3rd choice (watch from about 5 mins in) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=139jwXXhEYA

On Farrell - we shall see. You have to consider that when he got the ban earlier this year, he was already denied the full 50% reduction for being a repeat offender - that's why it was reduced from 6 to 4, rather than 6 to 3. Now that he is a repeat repeat offender the panel could well decide not only to not give mitigation at all, but to consider the repeat offending an aggravating factor and increase above 6 weeks (that is allowed in the regs, and not unheard of). I wouldn't be at all surprised If they upped it to an 8 or even 10 week ban. If there is some clever camera angle we didn't see that shows it was chest to head he might wrangle a better outcome, but otherwise I think he's in a spot of bother.

Poorfour wrote:Steward’s card was a yellow by the letter of the framework because Adams didn’t go past horizontal and didn’t land on his head, neck or upper back. Any ref who evaluates it on outcome rather than process is going to find themselves slipping down the pecking order - the whole point of the framework is to establish some consistency. I must admit, I quite like the idea of Steward at 12. Now teams have worked out how to do it, they are going to do whatever they can to exploit his lack of agility and acceleration. He’s good when play is outside the 22, but close to his own tryline he has weaknesses that are exploitable by a good team and hard for him to fix in the short term.

I’d be very surprised if Farrell gets less than 4 weeks, but given recent precedent he’s unlikely to get more than 6. 4 is probably manageable for England. 6 and it would be a very bold call to keep him in the squad.

At last. Another "Steward to 12" Acolyte.
I shall send you the uniform and badges