England - The Next Episode

First topic message reminder :

The next stage of development....progression or failure....who can tell.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Ringrose is 29, Henshaw is 30 both will likely make the RWC. Ciaran Frawley can play centre, Osbourne at Leinster is class as is Frisch at munster and Hugh Gavin for the under 20s might be better than all of them. Not worried by centre much at all.

Didn't he accept a call up by France?

Yes but he has also been involved in Ireland squads, not capped by either side yet. He is also eligable for England I think.

Collapse2005 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Ringrose is 29, Henshaw is 30 both will likely make the RWC. Ciaran Frawley can play centre, Osbourne at Leinster is class as is Frisch at munster and Hugh Gavin for the under 20s might be better than all of them. Not worried by centre much at all.

Didn't he accept a call up by France?

Yes but he has also been involved in Ireland squads, not capped by either side yet. He is also eligable for England I think.

Yeah he's EQ but I don't think we showed an interest whilst he was at Bristol. England have a number of promising centres what we need are some in their prime years with 30+ caps.

Sort of the opposite position to Ireland who will start to look to blood through the next generation over the next 12 to 24 months.

Centres for England easy to solve.

Lawrence stays at 12 and Freeman moves to 13. His pace and power ideal for there and then England can play 2 wings with proper express pace which Freeman doesn't quite have.

In the end a surprisingly OK English campaign given the somewhat flaky start, and after a pretty flaky few years. Earl was mostly great – helped win us the Ireland game, but ultimately lost us the France game with his no-arms penalty in the last 2min; although Dan’s brainfart overthrow that cost us 7 points really didn’t help. Lawrence still needs individual coaching in the catching and holding onto the ball part of the game, but looked like he was improving elsewhere. Ford showed his class. And even Daley was OK. I'll give England 6.5/10.

mountain man wrote:Centres for England easy to solve.

Lawrence stays at 12 and Freeman moves to 13. His pace and power ideal for there and then England can play 2 wings with proper express pace which Freeman doesn't quite have.

But then you dont have a kicker...especially if Waboso is at 14. So you need Daly and Furbank in there at 11 and 15...

Be interesting what SB does...
I dont think therell be too many changes for the NZ tour...more focus on everyone continuing to familiarize with the tactics. NZ away is probably not the place to blood too many more kids...

Maybe, Manu, Danny care replaced.

Freeman has a decent kick.

Is it cultured though?

He recites Shakespeare whilst kicking.

mountain man wrote:Centres for England easy to solve.

Lawrence stays at 12 and Freeman moves to 13. His pace and power ideal for there and then England can play 2 wings with proper express pace which Freeman doesn't quite have.

Would be good in terms of carrying ability but we then do lose a playmaker in the midfield which actually worked really well Vs France having been largely ineffective before that point in the tournament.

If Marchant is returning from France early then there is the possibility he could come back in and he could have the skillset to offer both more running threat and good enough hands to take on the secondary playmaker role.

If Freeman did move to 13 it frees up a wing spot and I'm not sure Freeman has the express pace that is required for wings these days. He got out paced against France quite noticably.
I think there are enough options at 13, especially if Marchant gets back in squad.

Issue though is 12, still. Great that Lawrence is playing well there but if he gets a knock then who? Manu surely time up now, Dingwall didn't convince so it's who's next. Ojomoh I guess but next chances for Eng are summer tour to Japan and NZ. A rookie 12 against NZ be a challenge.

Dingwall didnt take his chance i dont think...despite not really doing anything wrong really. A few missed tackles probably the most noticeable.

Ojomoh looks to have a great skillset and some power...hope he develops

Cant see anything other than a midfield v NZ...
10 - Ford / Smith,
12 - Lawrence,
13 - Slade / Marchant (if hes back in time.)

Agree on your midfield but my concern is if Lawrence goes off in first 5 mins who is in then?

Back to groundhog day with England centres.

Yeah, 12 is the problem...but im sure SB is addressing it. You never know Ojomoh might get the call. Not sure another 12 is ready...

mountain man wrote:Agree on your midfield but my concern is if Lawrence goes off in first 5  mins who is in then?

Back to groundhog day with England centres.

You move Slade to 12 and Freeman to 13. Seems likely we'll have a winger on the bench to then take Freeman's spot.

We don't really have a like for like in terms of size and power. Dingwall did ok and could come in again if Lawrence were to be out injured. Seb Atkinson, Ojomoh, Kelly, Hartley etc we have a selection of young talent coming through. Hopefully one sticks their hand up in a serious way before the summer.

England for way too long searched and failed to find a replacement for Manu. Lawrence doing a great job there but he's really a 13.
This cannot go on again for literally another 10 years which its been with Manu.

I'm sure coaches know this(!) so I guess we see what they do and who they bring in. Summer and autumn games have to be the games to do this and try players in other positions, be it front row, centres and wings. Another of course is FB, with Steward seemingly out of favour who will Borthwick look at aside from Furbank.

mountain man wrote:England for way too long searched and failed to find a replacement for Manu. Lawrence doing a great job there but he's really a 13.
This cannot go on again for literally another 10 years which its been with Manu.

I'm sure coaches know this(!) so I guess we see what they do and who they bring in. Summer and autumn games have to be the games to do this and try players in other positions, be it front row, centres and wings. Another of course is FB, with Steward seemingly out of favour who will Borthwick look at aside from Furbank.

Lawrence played brilliantly the last two games at 12. I think the difference for him is that he's not running those 12 lines at the gain line with multiple playmakers and other runners. Not running him into a brick wall and moving the defence around so he has some space ball in hand as well. He looks entirely at home in that set up for me. His tackle count and success rate Vs Ireland was incredible.

Steward is a weapon still and frankly one we could have used Vs France when they started targeting us in the air and when we struggled to get out of our half for a brief spell. He'll get sent away with some work ons, it'll be interesting to see how he develops with those. Furbank added something to our attack but he was error prone so no doubt he'll get given some work ons as well. Competition for the shirt should push both of them on which will set the bar higher for those outside the squad that want to have a crack at the 15 shirt.

mountain man wrote:England for way too long searched and failed to find a replacement for Manu. Lawrence doing a great job there but he's really a 13.
This cannot go on again for literally another 10 years which its been with Manu.

I'm sure coaches know this(!) so I guess we see what they do and who they bring in. Summer and autumn games have to be the games to do this and try players in other positions, be it front row, centres and wings. Another of course is FB, with Steward seemingly out of favour who will Borthwick look at aside from Furbank.

England litterally have about 4 young kids coming through at 12...all different sizes and skill sets.

i think it could end up between Olly Hartley and Max Ojomoh...

Will they make the grade is question, there has always been players coming through though but never made it. Now that might be down to likes of Jones putting all his eggs in Manu's basket but my point is that cannot happen again.

I was away hiking over the weekend, saw the games in a pub but missed any chat on here.

I thought it was a really promising performance. A big issue throughout the championship is that transition from defence to attack and vice versa. Early in the campaign there was huge error counts when trying to snap into an attacking structure. Against France, we leaked two tries when trying to scramble from attacking patterns to defensive ones. I think that's understandable when they were bedding in a new defensive systems and new patterns in attack.

The pack was lacking physicality off the bench compared to France though. The win against Ireland was built around winning collisions. They just stopped doing that later in the second half. Once Chessum and Underhill went off for Root and Dombrandt, the dominant hits dropped and line speed fell away. CCS was a big miss in that regard.

Overall, I think there's a lot to be positive about across the campaign though.

The new defensive system should be absolute weapon in time. It really does suit the forwards in particular well. There are lots of players in the second row and back row that thrive on the quick line speed.

The kicking strategies allowed the team to control the territory in all but the France game. Mitchell and Ford both kicked really well on the whole. The chase has been regaining a lot of ball. France countered the strategies well though. England's rabbit, usually a winger, has been going wide to bypass the blocking shield and slap the ball back. The French shield setup slightly further from the balls landing point than usual and waited for that tap back. It gave the England chasers more scope to get up and compete, but made it less of a mess in the air and allowed France to regather. It's an interesting shift from them that others will now adopt, forcing England to adapt their strategies again. Thus is how the game develops!

The attack was really helped with the extra playmaker being added. First Furbank and then Smith. He wasn't perfect at FB, but I really liked the Ford-Smith axis of two playmakers. Real Mo'unga-Beauden shape to it.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Steward is a weapon still and frankly one we could have used Vs France when they started targeting us in the air and when we struggled to get out of our half for a brief spell. He'll get sent away with some work ons, it'll be interesting to see how he develops with those. Furbank added something to our attack but he was error prone so no doubt he'll get given some work ons as well. Competition for the shirt should push both of them on which will set the bar higher for those outside the squad that want to have a crack at the 15 shirt.

Having the tactical difference between Furbank and Steward is great but it's currently difficult to get both in the 23.

Were Furbank to be comfortable covering wing (he has the pace) and Steward covering centre (he has the bulk), then that wouldn't be as difficult though. I think getting both in the 23 is best as you can then shift tactics significantly as you need or want to. Similar to how Ford and Smith attack in very different ways, it gives a different picture for the opposition to deal with.

I do like Smith as a fullback option longer term as well though. I know others wont. He looks excellent in that secondary playmaker role. Playing slightly deeper than Ford in the 'boot' when they have a decent openside to attack or on his own down a short side. He's got the pace to cover a ton of ground in the back field and be a counterattacking option. Plus he's an excellent tactical kicker. There was a bedding in period for Barrett shifting there with NZ but it's worked really well for them longer term.

Three OptaAnalyst observations for England:

England trailed at half-time in each of their five matches in this year’s Guinness Men’s Six Nations, the first time they’ve trailed at the break in every match of a campaign since the 1974 Five Nations.

Ollie Lawrence has scored a brace of first tries for the first time in what is his 24th Test cap for England – Lawrence has scored more tries in his last two matches for England (3) than he did across his first 22 combined (2).

England’s Ben Earl beat four defenders against France, bringing his total to 24 for the 2024 Guinness Men’s Six Nations – compatriot Billy Vunipola is the only forward to have beaten more in an edition of the Championship (25 in 2016).

https://theanalyst.com/eu/2024/03/six-nations-2024-stats-round-5/

king_carlos wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Steward is a weapon still and frankly one we could have used Vs France when they started targeting us in the air and when we struggled to get out of our half for a brief spell. He'll get sent away with some work ons, it'll be interesting to see how he develops with those. Furbank added something to our attack but he was error prone so no doubt he'll get given some work ons as well. Competition for the shirt should push both of them on which will set the bar higher for those outside the squad that want to have a crack at the 15 shirt.

Having the tactical difference between Furbank and Steward is great but it's currently difficult to get both in the 23.

Were Furbank to be comfortable covering wing (he has the pace) and Steward covering centre (he has the bulk), then that wouldn't be as difficult though. I think getting both in the 23 is best as you can then shift tactics significantly as you need or want to. Similar to how Ford and Smith attack in very different ways, it gives a different picture for the opposition to deal with.

I do like Smith as a fullback option longer term as well though. I know others wont. He looks excellent in that secondary playmaker role. Playing slightly deeper than Ford in the 'boot' when they have a decent openside to attack or on his own down a short side. He's got the pace to cover a ton of ground in the back field and be a counterattacking option. Plus he's an excellent tactical kicker. There was a bedding in period for Barrett shifting there with NZ but it's worked really well for them longer term.

Borthwick has done a great job in this campaign with selections and finding the right place for his best players in the squad. His selections of Furbank ahead of Steward, Ford at 10 and Smith on the bench have been very clever. He is an under rated coach.

Ford in my view is by far the best 10 England have and have had for some time. I think Borthwick knew this from the start. He is brilliant at getting the best from his outside backs and its no surprise that England have scored some of their best tries in the last 10 years with him at 10 this year and have looked quite cohesive in the backs in the last three games. Felix Jones probably helped here too.

Steward is a very clunky one dimensional player and typifies the old England clumsy back play that is very laboured and predictable in attack. Furbank offers so much more in attack.

Smith while he might be a good rugby player he is not a good 10 at all. As a player he is overly emotional and too helter skelter to run the backs, he doesnt read the game particularly well and lacks composure. Whereas Eddie Jones didnt really have a clue how best to use him I think Borthwick has realised he is best used as an attacking threat in the final quarter and most effective from full back.

Lawrence and Feyi-Waboso have been really good too.

Collapse2005 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Steward is a weapon still and frankly one we could have used Vs France when they started targeting us in the air and when we struggled to get out of our half for a brief spell. He'll get sent away with some work ons, it'll be interesting to see how he develops with those. Furbank added something to our attack but he was error prone so no doubt he'll get given some work ons as well. Competition for the shirt should push both of them on which will set the bar higher for those outside the squad that want to have a crack at the 15 shirt.

Having the tactical difference between Furbank and Steward is great but it's currently difficult to get both in the 23.

Were Furbank to be comfortable covering wing (he has the pace) and Steward covering centre (he has the bulk), then that wouldn't be as difficult though. I think getting both in the 23 is best as you can then shift tactics significantly as you need or want to. Similar to how Ford and Smith attack in very different ways, it gives a different picture for the opposition to deal with.

I do like Smith as a fullback option longer term as well though. I know others wont. He looks excellent in that secondary playmaker role. Playing slightly deeper than Ford in the 'boot' when they have a decent openside to attack or on his own down a short side. He's got the pace to cover a ton of ground in the back field and be a counterattacking option. Plus he's an excellent tactical kicker. There was a bedding in period for Barrett shifting there with NZ but it's worked really well for them longer term.

Borthwick has done a great job in this campaign with selections and finding the right place for his best players in the squad. His selections of Furbank ahead of Steward, Ford at 10 and Smith on the bench have been very clever. He is an under rated coach.

Ford in my view is by far the best 10 England have and have had for some time. I think Borthwick knew this from the start. He is brilliant at getting the best from his outside backs and its no surprise that England have scored some of their best tries in the last 10 years with him at 10 this year and have looked quite cohesive in the backs in the last three games. Felix Jones probably helped here too.

Steward is a very clunky one dimensional player and typifies the old England clumsy back play that is very laboured and predictable in attack. Furbank offers so much more in attack.

Smith while he might be a good rugby player he is not a good 10 at all. As a player he is overly emotional and too helter skelter to run the backs, he doesnt read the game particularly well and lacks composure. Whereas Eddie Jones didnt really have a clue how best to use him I think Borthwick has realised he is best used as an attacking threat in the final quarter and most effective from full back.

Lawrence and Feyi-Waboso have been really good too.

Maybe Fin Smith is seen as the successor to Ford...and SB is just having him shadow him in training etc. Surprised he hasnt had more gametime this 6n though...

Geordie wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Steward is a weapon still and frankly one we could have used Vs France when they started targeting us in the air and when we struggled to get out of our half for a brief spell. He'll get sent away with some work ons, it'll be interesting to see how he develops with those. Furbank added something to our attack but he was error prone so no doubt he'll get given some work ons as well. Competition for the shirt should push both of them on which will set the bar higher for those outside the squad that want to have a crack at the 15 shirt.

Having the tactical difference between Furbank and Steward is great but it's currently difficult to get both in the 23.

Were Furbank to be comfortable covering wing (he has the pace) and Steward covering centre (he has the bulk), then that wouldn't be as difficult though. I think getting both in the 23 is best as you can then shift tactics significantly as you need or want to. Similar to how Ford and Smith attack in very different ways, it gives a different picture for the opposition to deal with.

I do like Smith as a fullback option longer term as well though. I know others wont. He looks excellent in that secondary playmaker role. Playing slightly deeper than Ford in the 'boot' when they have a decent openside to attack or on his own down a short side. He's got the pace to cover a ton of ground in the back field and be a counterattacking option. Plus he's an excellent tactical kicker. There was a bedding in period for Barrett shifting there with NZ but it's worked really well for them longer term.

Borthwick has done a great job in this campaign with selections and finding the right place for his best players in the squad. His selections of Furbank ahead of Steward, Ford at 10 and Smith on the bench have been very clever. He is an under rated coach.

Ford in my view is by far the best 10 England have and have had for some time. I think Borthwick knew this from the start. He is brilliant at getting the best from his outside backs and its no surprise that England have scored some of their best tries in the last 10 years with him at 10 this year and have looked quite cohesive in the backs in the last three games. Felix Jones probably helped here too.

Steward is a very clunky one dimensional player and typifies the old England clumsy back play that is very laboured and predictable in attack. Furbank offers so much more in attack.

Smith while he might be a good rugby player he is not a good 10 at all. As a player he is overly emotional and too helter skelter to run the backs, he doesnt read the game particularly well and lacks composure. Whereas Eddie Jones didnt really have a clue how best to use him I think Borthwick has realised he is best used as an attacking threat in the final quarter and most effective from full back.

Lawrence and Feyi-Waboso have been really good too.

Maybe Fin Smith is seen as the successor to Ford...and SB is just having him shadow him in training etc. Surprised he hasnt had more gametime this 6n though...

More than likely. Quality prospect too.

I think Fin got injured during training half way through the championship, I haven't heard anything about his recovery, which is a bit worrying for Saints

I think part of the Marcus Smith dilemma (for some) is that he doesn't fit any easy or simple model. He is clearly an impact player and a game changer, and has physical skills which are extremely rare in any sport. I think it would be a huge miss to not find a way to incorporate his gifts into the squad - be it as either starting or an impact sub.

But I also do see the point about him as a 10. He really doesn't come off as a traditional 10, at least in the usual context. For me, however, I like him on the pitch more rather than less. And the job of a coach is to maximise what he can get out of his player pool. So, more to follow in the summer and the autumn. And more good Rugby talk to help pour fuel on the fire....

Marcus never quite nailed it in 10 shirt for England. Whether that's down to tactics from coach etc we don't know but he wasn't quite on it.
Now with a new coaching team, far more attacking intent and finally picking players to play to win games rather than playing not to lose it might be a different story.
I agree, it's hard to leave out a player of his game changing ability.

Manu confirmed to Bayonne. At least we can now move on from the "Tuilagi Effect" where a big centre was picked purely on 4 year old form, regardless of whether he was fit or not.

I loved watching a fit and firing Manu as a player, because he was supremely destructive and the mere threat of him put doubt in the opposition. However, as with any player, form drops and injuries cause almost as much havoc as his running through defences.

When Eddie Jones started, he had no Manu. Yet England were one of the best I've seen with Joseph.

With a bit of luck we can now move on from the "keeping the shirt warm til Tuilagi is back" situation.

Thank you Manu for being awesome. And thanks for the memories.

mountain man wrote:Marcus never quite nailed it in 10 shirt for England. Whether that's down to tactics from coach etc we don't know but he wasn't quite on it.
Now with a new coaching team, far more attacking intent and finally picking players to play to win games rather than playing not to lose it might be a different story.
I agree, it's hard to leave out a player of his game changing ability.

Smith hasn't yet started a game for England in a system that plays to his strengths.

He has played most of his minutes in a period when Eddie was asking the entire team to change up its attacking strategy in a fairly major way - and most of them were struggling to get with the programme. At times he looked like he was the only player who knew how it was supposed to work. On the couple of occasions where it worked, we got a sense of what he can do.

Under Borthwick, he's been mostly a sub until now. Reports were that he was due to start in the 6N until his calf injury, and the emerging gameplan certainly plays a lot more to his strengths. From the analysis I've seen, it's based a lot on Nick Evans' "landmark" approach of getting the players to recognise the situation on the pitch and respond appropriately, which Smith is both familiar with and the 10 best able to take advantage of because of his late decision making. Ironically - but usefully for England - his injury led to Ford starting and playing much closer to the line, which has resulted in some of his best games in a long time.

We'll have to see if Smith is trusted to start over the summer and autumn, but I still think that's the long term plan. He still needs to recalibrate his sense of what's on and what's not for the interenational arena - he still tries too much stuff that works at club level but gets shut down by international teams, especially when he's a late sub. More experience starting is likely to make the difference.

Yep which is what I said, he was made to play in a system which didn't suit his strengths. Now in a team who have far greater attacking intent and players picked for it.
Should he start at 10 hopefully we'll see him play as we know he can.

Mr Bounce wrote:Manu confirmed to Bayonne. At least we can now move on from the "Tuilagi Effect" where a big centre was picked purely on 4 year old form, regardless of whether he was fit or not.

I loved watching a fit and firing Manu as a player, because he was supremely destructive and the mere threat of him put doubt in the opposition. However,  as with any player, form drops and injuries cause almost as much havoc as his running through defences.

When Eddie Jones started, he had no Manu. Yet England were one of the best I've seen with Joseph.

With a bit of luck we can now move on from the "keeping the shirt warm til Tuilagi is back" situation.

Thank you Manu for being awesome. And thanks for the memories.

Well as Sam suggested before, Lawrence has been very impressive at 12...and used in a more subtle way than just a battering ram. So maybe the problem is being solved slowly...

Mind you it's funny how things turn out. When a couple of us pre 6N said about Lawrence playing 12 we were shouted down with cries of "no he's a 13!".

What England need is back up players. We all know now or should do he is excellent in either position in centre, what we need is more players bought in and given a chance so there is strength in depth.

mountain man wrote:Mind you it's funny how things turn out. When a couple of us pre 6N said about Lawrence playing 12 we were shouted down with cries of "no he's a 13!".

What England need is back up players. We all know now or should do he is excellent in either position in centre, what we need is more players bought in and given a chance so there is strength in depth.

i was one of them...but two games have shown i could be wrong....i guess its called using players intelligently...to their skill sets rather than based on a positional stereotype.

But its early days so we'll see how they move on for the NZ tour....

Dingwall fully deserved his call up off the back of consistent club form over the last couple of years. He didn't stand out in the 2 games he got, but wasn't awful either. Just 2 games particularly in a team which was struggling to find its identity doesn't seem a fair opportunity. It will be interesting to see if he gets to go on the summer tour, or whether Borthwick has made up his mind and moves onto the next 'cab on the rank'.

Dingwall got a bit exposed in defence but that may well have been getting used to new defence system under F Jones (although of course he hadn't played previously under Borthwick/Jones E).
He wasn't only one against Italy. Daly and Slade all over the shop but team really improved by Ire and Fra games but he wasn't involved.
Is he answer to 12 woes? I'd like to see Ojomoh given a go.

Lawrence looks better suited to 12 at international level to me. 13 is a tough position defensively at any time currently. Widely considered the most taxing position in defence. With the blitz that is even more pronounced. It could be a weapon. Already in this tournament we've seen that at times for England. Obviously, the Boks have been brutal with it at times. It does necessitate an Am, Kriel or Slade level defender. England under Gustard had JJ there, he was superb in that regard.

Slade had a really good Six Nations considering the new system being bedded in. On top of marshalling the defence, I also thought his left footed kicking option was very valuable at times and he showed some good touches as a distributor. If he can keep that level, then I really wouldn't have qualms with him continuing for the time being.

Marchant coming back would be ideal. He was rock solid defensively in the RWC, he's quicker than Slade in attack and can be a menace on kick chase. He'd suit the direction in attack and defence, whilst we know from the RWC that he was an asset in the kick chase strategies.

I think Marchant is far and away our best 13, especially given his RWC performances. He would be a very useful addition to our attack as he's a lot quicker than Slade, who also played well. What's the situation on Marchant moving back to England? Is it confirmed or just rumours?

I would like to see Ojomoh have a chance in the summer. I think he too is a classy player. Ojomoh and Marchant could work well.

Hang on people...dont be having positive discussions about options coming through in the midfield....we Englanders dont do that...

You're right.

Borthwick out!

Geordie wrote:Hang on people...dont be having positive discussions about options coming through in the midfield....we Englanders dont do that...

Mr Bounce wrote:I think Marchant is far and away our best 13, especially given his RWC performances. He would be a very useful addition to our attack as he's a lot quicker than Slade, who also played well. What's the situation on Marchant moving back to England? Is it confirmed or just rumours?

I would like to see Ojomoh have a chance in the summer. I think he too is a classy player. Ojomoh and Marchant could work well.

Just rumour at the moment. It was from the Daily Heil though, who are usually pretty good with English rugby stuff to be fair. So, it's not like it came from Ruck just posting absolute s***e. There are other really bad ones in rugby outside of them though. TRP used to be a bit better but recently posted a half page retraction of a Nick Cain piece about the RFU's finances where he just made figures up. It's boggling that no editor picked that up before printing it on the front page. Walesonline post some proper w**k too. The Heil and Torygraph are probably the two best sources for English rugby stuff. Probably says something about the demographic rugby most commonly thrives in over here...

I'm not sure about Ojomoh and Marchant together though. That'd be one of the least physical partnerships in the international game.

12.de Allende 13.Am/Kriel
12.Jordie 13.Ioane
12.Aki 13.Ringrose
12.Danty 13.Fickou
12.Tuipulotu 13.Shug

Generally we're seeing the best teams select midfields with some serious heft just now. Even with Lawrence there, I think England are on the smaller side of that balance. He's a dynamic player, but realistically there isn't a player in the current England back line that looks reliable for getting over the gain line on slower ball. That's an invaluable skill in the toughest games. If you can stack the forwards with players who can do that, then it isn't an absolute necessity. God it can make life that bit easier in tough situations though.

Aki constantly taking crash ball off 9 to set up an easy exit when Ireland have scrums and lineouts in their 22 feels a perfect example. When France are at their best, Danty does the same for them. If there's slow ball, he'll run crash ball off 9, it frees up their best chasing forwards to get set and buys Dupont/Ntamack/Ramos that split second longer to pick their spot. Peak France were brilliant at kicking on their terms like that. Generally hanging kicks when Penaud or Fickou can lead the chase, supported by two of Ollivon, Aldritt or Woki. The accuracy of their kickers combined with multiple tall and fast blokes bearing down on you is brutal.

The problem KC is at the moment...we dont have a Manu, Danty or Aki coming through....Lawrence is probably the biggest / hardest carrier (that i can think of anyway) so we need to think about doing things slightly differently.

Edit
Or Move Steward to 12...sorry ill get my coat

Nah Earl to 12 innit.

mountain man wrote:Nah Earl to 12 innit.

No Its Sam Simmonds....

Pah that's old news, Earl is now the heir to the Steward throne at 12. Come autumn tests it'll be CC-S. Or someone. Pollack?

With Manu heading off to France, a few pundits have brought up the old debate about whether an over-reliance on him hampered the development of England centre partnerships.

This always seems a bit baffling, not least because the same pundits recognize that he often wasn't available, so coaches made other choices. The main factor affecting the composition of England's midfield since Jones took over was the decision to pair Ford and Farrell.

It worked well with Jonathan Joseph at outside centre. Billy Vunipola made so much ground, we didn't miss a natural linebreaker at 12 or 13. Vunipola still holds the Six Nations record for metres made by an England forward across a tournament (2016). At the same time, Lawes says Jones got him to focus more on his carrying.

The success of Ford/Farrell/Joseph meant Daly never got a run at his preferred outside centre. Before Gatland started him there in a Lions Test in 2021, Daly had only ever had one start for England in that position. It was five years earlier, in a 2016 victory over South Africa.

As Jones favoured Ford/Farrell, it meant he often looked at other hybrid fly-half centre players like Slade, Lozowski and Piers Francis, which perhaps meant other outright centres missed out on selection opportunities. That wasn't the result of a fixation on Tuilagi, though.

Geordie wrote:The problem KC is at the moment...we dont have a Manu, Danty or Aki coming through...:

Ma'asi-White? Bit raw at the minute but could develop into that style of centre.

With Manu heading off to France, a few pundits have brought up the old debate about whether an over-reliance on him hampered the development of England centre partnerships.

I think that has definitely been a problem. Team was always hinging on whether Manu be fit and available. Eddie in particular seem to do that.
Anyone else picked there was only in because Manu wasn't available and as soon as he was he was straight back in team.
I'm not sure if there is actual documented proof of this, we probably won't know for sure until players and coaches involved retire but it certainly seemed that way from the outside and don't think the narrative from media was ever denied by England camp.

Ma'asi-White?

I was really impressed with him when he played in U20s, he looked like a natural successor to Manu. Pace and power.
As I've said before, I hope he develops and he could well be a prospect for future. I think he was at 13 but plays 12 as well.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Geordie wrote:The problem KC is at the moment...we dont have a Manu, Danty or Aki coming through...:

Ma'asi-White? Bit raw at the minute but could develop into that style of centre.

Do we need to copy the other teams....why dont we be leaders for a change and develop a different style?

MW certainly has the handling skills to be an England centre...