England - The Next Episode: Part Deux: Phoenix from the Ashes

First topic message reminder :

Net up...Summer Tour to NZ...and a game v Japan

formerly known as Sam wrote:
To be fair KC did say frame. Short and broad looseheads who are technically very good have been making massive tightheads look silly for years. Marcos Ayerza. Cyril Baille following in that particular French tradition, who was that square shaped scrummaging loosehead they have in the 00s, was it Marconnet?

Tom Smith. The poster child-eater of small props punching far above their weight.

In some ways, it's a bit like the old "ultra fast winger" syndrome - a lot of the very fastest wingers fall short of their potential because they've been able to rely on their speed to cover for other deficiencies... until they come up against someone who has worked on the basics and has enough speed to exploit their errors. It usually happens at international level.

Big props are often the same. They've grown up dominating scrums and not worked on technique, and do well until they come up against a real technician who just takes them to pieces. And it's rare for them to be able to relearn. Andrew Sheridan got away with it to the very highest level, but that was in the days when the hit could cover a multitude of sins.

What I really like about the new generation coming through is that they seem to have been coached to have great technique and not allowed out until they've taken it on board. The number of newish names in this discussion is very encouraging - we just need a handful of them to make the step up.

Poorfour wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:
To be fair KC did say frame. Short and broad looseheads who are technically very good have been making massive tightheads look silly for years. Marcos Ayerza. Cyril Baille following in that particular French tradition, who was that square shaped scrummaging loosehead they have in the 00s, was it Marconnet?

Tom Smith. The poster child-eater of small props punching far above their weight.

In some ways, it's a bit like the old "ultra fast winger" syndrome - a lot of the very fastest wingers fall short of their potential because they've been able to rely on their speed to cover for other deficiencies... until they come up against someone who has worked on the basics and has enough speed to exploit their errors. It usually happens at international level.

Big props are often the same. They've grown up dominating scrums and not worked on technique, and do well until they come up against a real technician who just takes them to pieces. And it's rare for them to be able to relearn. Andrew Sheridan got away with it to the very highest level, but that was in the days when the hit could cover a multitude of sins.

What I really like about the new generation coming through is that they seem to have been coached to have great technique and not allowed out until they've taken it on board. The number of newish names in this discussion is very encouraging - we just need a handful of them to make the step up.

To your point, mate, most of the younger props I have seen are better ball players than in the past. I know that is a generalisation, but the younger ones seem to get around the pitch better, have ball skills, and and are more fundamentally sound than their predecessors.

Its going to be a very interesting to see how each Tight Head develops.

Hayes (24) : 6'3, 19st 4.
Fasogabon (19) : 6'4, 20st
Sela (19) : 6'4, 18.5 st
Fordjour (19) : 5'11, 18st 2
Harper (23) : 6'3, 18st 2

doctor_grey wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:
To be fair KC did say frame. Short and broad looseheads who are technically very good have been making massive tightheads look silly for years. Marcos Ayerza. Cyril Baille following in that particular French tradition, who was that square shaped scrummaging loosehead they have in the 00s, was it Marconnet?

Tom Smith. The poster child-eater of small props punching far above their weight.

In some ways, it's a bit like the old "ultra fast winger" syndrome - a lot of the very fastest wingers fall short of their potential because they've been able to rely on their speed to cover for other deficiencies... until they come up against someone who has worked on the basics and has enough speed to exploit their errors. It usually happens at international level.

Big props are often the same. They've grown up dominating scrums and not worked on technique, and do well until they come up against a real technician who just takes them to pieces. And it's rare for them to be able to relearn. Andrew Sheridan got away with it to the very highest level, but that was in the days when the hit could cover a multitude of sins.

What I really like about the new generation coming through is that they seem to have been coached to have great technique and not allowed out until they've taken it on board. The number of newish names in this discussion is very encouraging - we just need a handful of them to make the step up.

To your point, mate, most of the younger props I have seen are better ball players than in the past.  I know that is a generalisation, but the younger ones seem to get around the pitch better, have ball skills, and and are more fundamentally sound than their predecessors.  

It was interesting to hear Dan Cole talk on his podcast about hat advice he gives to young props. It was make sure you are working on all your fundamentals. Be good at clearing rucks, making your tackles, carrying, passing and not just the scrum. You will always need all your skills.

Interesting coming from a man who goes games at a time without making a carry and just hitting rucks in attack but he's right and I think we're increasingly seeing young players come through with more rounded skill sets.

I'm hoping for a lot of continuity with the squads for the summer. As things currently stand, availability could be decent as well. Only really Tom Curry I can think of who's crocked from a full strength squad. Which is a great place to be. Cohesion should be the key to the blitz defence and attacking patterns improving from the base they now have. We'll have injuries before the season is done of course. That massive break means that availability is largely decent though.

1.Genge, Marler, Baxter
2.George, Dan, Langdon
3.Cole, Stuart, Heyes
4.Itoje, Martin
5.Chessum, Coles
6.Curry, Underhill, Roots
7.Earl, Pearson
8.CCS, Barbeary

9.Mitchell, JvP, Quirke
10.Ford, M Smith, F Smith

11.Freeman, Roebuck
12.Lawrence, Dingwall
13.Slade, Daly
14.IFW, Sleightholme
15.Furbank, Steward

Of the newer players there, I'd say Baxter (for Obano), Langdon (for LCD) and Barbeary (for Dombrandt) are the ones I'm keener on. A mixture of performance and simply thinking those players should suit the tactics and international game better.

I'm certainly hoping to see CCS at 8 and Barbeary off the bench against Japan. For the NZ games, I'd likely stick to CCS as a bench option though and Earl at 8. CCS is one of England's most exciting talents for a long time but his conditioning is still to come on and NZ tend to highlight that ruthlessly through a high pace of play and keeping ball on the park through their battery of excellent kickers being so accurate and often able to kick with less pressure as there's about 5 of them to mark. I'd consider Chessum at 6 again too. Due to that I'd maybe consider Isiekwe ahead of Roots as more of a lock/blindside as well. That's a much of a muchness call for me though.

The fringe backs I'm very agnostic on currently. I'm not as sold on Hartley or Atkinson yet as others are at 12. Talented but I'd leave them with their clubs for the time beind. It's probably between Dingwall and Ojomoh for the second spot after Lawrence. I'm on the fence about both. Dingwall is excellent for Saints but I'm not sure he has near the physicality of an international 12. It will be interesting to see how Ojomoh does alongside Lawrence but without Russell at 10. At the moment, I'd ere towards consistency with Dingwall.

Similar with the wingers. Muir is another with the rounded game of Roebuck. Hendy is another exciting outside back talent from Saints. I'm a fan of Murley but he has been a bit off his best this season. Multiple players who I would be happy to see picked but hardly aghast if they weren't.

Typical Southern Bias....cant believe you havent included any falcons....

Geordie wrote:Typical Southern Bias....cant believe you havent included any falcons....

...but how many ex-Falcons?

I considered Chick in particular ahead of Roots for the blindside spot. I really rate him. I wouldn't consider him at 8 but he's got the engine to play 6 and is good carrying in traffic. He often seems to make yards after contact with his leg drive.

Guy Pepper is a bright talent but there's opensides ahead of him.

Poorfour wrote:

Geordie wrote:Typical Southern Bias....cant believe you havent included any falcons....

...but how many ex-Falcons?

None...

king_carlos wrote:I considered Chick in particular ahead of Roots for the blindside spot. I really rate him. I wouldn't consider him at 8 but he's got the engine to play 6 and is good carrying in traffic. He often seems to make yards after contact with his leg drive.

Guy Pepper is a bright talent but there's opensides ahead of him.

All tongue in cheek KC...there's not one fit to wear the rose at the moment. Even Chick...edit no not Chick...he's class just he's in a really bad side.

And Blamire shouldn't be near the squad again either he's gonna struggle with Diamond if he can't hit his darts.
As Sam says Seb Blake looks one to watch...

Doubt Guy Pepper will play for us again....no point..I'd rather play Tiffin..who's another quality 7 In the making.

I'd take Ted Hill over Pearson and have Underhill and Earl as the opensides. Ted Hill is playing well and exactly the type of blindside Borthwick normally likes. Only question will be can he bring that physicality to international rugby.

Otherwise I largely agree with KC though wouldn't be surprised if Manu is given a swansong in NZ just because there's not much physicality in the centres otherwise and NZ will have plenty.

formerly known as Sam wrote:I'd take Ted Hill over Pearson and have Underhill and Earl as the opensides. Ted Hill is playing well and exactly the type of blindside Borthwick normally likes. Only question will be can he bring that physicality to international rugby.

Otherwise I largely agree with KC though wouldn't be surprised if Manu is given a swansong in NZ just because there's not much physicality in the centres otherwise and NZ will have plenty.

Yes and he looks to be dominant in the lineout more rhan I've seen him in the past...
But his point of difference is the physicality so is rhat nullified at the top level or will he succeed...and he's Rapid for a big guy. He needs to he trialled .
Barbeary simply has to go ...just please stay fit.

Where does Will Evans come in to the picture? He's a top 7...

Geordie wrote:Where does Will Evans come in to the picture? He's a top 7...

His basic problem is that he has a bad case of Neil Back syndrome. Not only is is seen as too small for international rugby, but he’s nowhere near as evil as Backy.

If Bristol make the semi-finals, or even go further, that could help put some Bristol players back in the England reckoning.

Haskell put the question to Genge, who prefaced his answer by saying Bristol's style of play suits warmer weather. He thinks it's unlikely you'd weight selection towards a few weeks at the end of season, when players in teams with different styles are delivering consistently across several months.

Still, he name-checked Gabriel Ibitoye (wing), Gabriel Oghre (hooker), and Noah Heward (full back/wing). He also said Harry Randall is a very good on tours, which might be a useful attribute in a squad when you are not first-choice. In the same conversation, Jonny May chimed in to say Max Malins is playing well again.

Ibitoye is certainly a revived player isnt he. Power, and pace galore. But thats one spot we have huge competition...and Waboso for me is a nailed on starter...

Oghre...just a lot of meh. No thanks.
Randall certainly needs to be in the equation. I do him a disservice as i just think he looks too lightweight even for a 9 ...but hes a talented lad

Malins...no thanks, poor mans Daly and even he seems to be Marmite these days amongst fans.

From KCs squad above i think the only real change would be Roots out, Ted Hill in. Pearson....i guess we need to see what he can do at this level...

I think Randall needs to be in squad, quick and elusive. If England want to play with pace get him in as back up to Mitchell.

Geordie wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:I'd take Ted Hill over Pearson and have Underhill and Earl as the opensides. Ted Hill is playing well and exactly the type of blindside Borthwick normally likes. Only question will be can he bring that physicality to international rugby.

Otherwise I largely agree with KC though wouldn't be surprised if Manu is given a swansong in NZ just because there's not much physicality in the centres otherwise and NZ will have plenty.

Yes and he looks to be dominant in the lineout more rhan I've seen him in the past...
But his point of difference is the physicality so is rhat nullified at the top level or will he succeed...and he's Rapid for a big guy.  He needs to he trialled   .
Barbeary simply has to go ...just please stay fit.

If you bring in Hill in place of Pearson, who else other than Earl, who probably the starting 8 covers 7, the only one would be Underhill and he is a hybrid these days.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Geordie wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:I'd take Ted Hill over Pearson and have Underhill and Earl as the opensides. Ted Hill is playing well and exactly the type of blindside Borthwick normally likes. Only question will be can he bring that physicality to international rugby.

Otherwise I largely agree with KC though wouldn't be surprised if Manu is given a swansong in NZ just because there's not much physicality in the centres otherwise and NZ will have plenty.

Yes and he looks to be dominant in the lineout more rhan I've seen him in the past...
But his point of difference is the physicality so is rhat nullified at the top level or will he succeed...and he's Rapid for a big guy.  He needs to he trialled   .
Barbeary simply has to go ...just please stay fit.

If you bring in Hill in place of Pearson, who else other than Earl, who probably the starting 8 covers 7, the only one would be Underhill and he is a hybrid these days.

Nah I got that wrong....Hill replaces Roots.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Geordie wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:I'd take Ted Hill over Pearson and have Underhill and Earl as the opensides. Ted Hill is playing well and exactly the type of blindside Borthwick normally likes. Only question will be can he bring that physicality to international rugby.

Otherwise I largely agree with KC though wouldn't be surprised if Manu is given a swansong in NZ just because there's not much physicality in the centres otherwise and NZ will have plenty.

Yes and he looks to be dominant in the lineout more rhan I've seen him in the past...
But his point of difference is the physicality so is rhat nullified at the top level or will he succeed...and he's Rapid for a big guy.  He needs to he trialled   .
Barbeary simply has to go ...just please stay fit.

If you bring in Hill in place of Pearson, who else other than Earl, who probably the starting 8 covers 7, the only one would be Underhill and he is a hybrid these days.

Earl and Underhill cover openside. Earl played openside when Underhill went off in the 6N. If we're taking 8s to look at then the reliance on Earl is less and I don't see Pearson making the 23 in any case.

It feels like Evan’s has come through at the wrong time, I think he’d have been in the conversation a lot more if he’d been around and in current form5-10 years ago. We just have a glut of open sides right now. It is a shame because I really like him and what he brings.

If Earl is at 7, then you have a rookie in CCS or Barbeary at 8 from minute 1, Underhill is very injury prone and very much a defensive player, I am not sure he is suited to the game we are starting to play. Pearson is quicker better inn the lineout and at making the hard yards although Underhill is a better tackling machine. Pearson though is far more suited to the fast pace attacking game.

For the moment the 8 shirt is Earl's and cover is needed at 7, just Underhill on his own is insufficient.

With Chessum, Coles, Roots and CCS we have plenty of 5/6 hybrids that can cover 6, we don't need another at the expense of a specialist 7. Swap Hill for Roots maybe, but Hill has not exactly shone on the appearances he has made, in fact the opposite.

I wonder if it would be worth taking Ludlum, even though he won't be available after the tour, he is comfortable across the back row and would give Borthwick a chance to bed in one of the new boys with cover.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:If Earl is at 7, then you have a rookie in CCS or Barbeary at 8 from minute 1, Underhill is very injury prone and very much a defensive player, I am not sure he is suited to the game we are starting to play. Pearson is quicker better inn the lineout and at making the hard yards although Underhill is a better tackling machine. Pearson though is far more suited to the fast pace attacking game.

For the moment the 8 shirt is Earl's and cover is needed at 7, just Underhill on his own is insufficient.

With Chessum, Coles, Roots and CCS we have plenty of 5/6 hybrids that can cover 6, we don't need another at the expense of a specialist 7. Swap Hill for Roots maybe, but Hill has not exactly shone on the appearances he has made, in fact the opposite.

I wonder if it would be worth taking Ludlum, even though he won't be available after the tour, he is comfortable across the back row and would give Borthwick a chance to bed in one of the new boys with cover.

First game:
4. Itoje
5. Martin
6 Hill / Chessum / Coles
7 Underhill
8 Earl

Then you have Pearson, CCS, Barbeary to bring in to whats becoming a settled side thats starting to pick up the tactics....Pearson to 7, CCS at 8 or 6, Barbeary at 8 move Earl to 7 etc etc

Pearson is similar to CCS and Barbeary in that I think his conditioning just needs to come along, then we'll be able to fully judge. I'm a massive Pearson fan, was banging on about him getting into the 23 for the RWC. Then he played in that warmup where his work rate dropped off a cliff late in the first. Dynamic for a while, then it just disappeared. On the upside he was making an impact with his power early on. So there was certainly promise despite the fitness issue. Unlike someone such as Dombrandt, whose even impact has been pretty negligible even earlier in games (i.e. in the 7 minutes before he looks more tired than Dan Cole and starts slowly walking about seeming a bit confused, like a pensioner trying to find the remote).

I was delighted to see Pearson in the training squads but could completely understand him not making the RWC squad or Six Nations 23s yet given his fitness is still getting up to scratch. Once CCS was in the 23 that was even more the case in the Six Nations. I think CCS has more point of difference to the other back rows as he's even more powerful, so that impact sub role for the back row was already filled.

As mentioned before I actually wouldn't mind a 6-2 split tried to get a couple of CCS, Pearson and Barbeary in the 23 whilst mitigating those concerns over conditioning.

I've gone from thinking Hill could offer what CCS showed during the Six Nations when he first broke through to being pretty on the fence with him. He's such an athlete but just tends to drift in and out of games a bit IMO. Big impacts, then a whole lot of not much, then he'll make another big tackle and I'll think, "Wow, Ted Hill's still on the pitch?!" I wouldn't think it's a poor call if he's in the squad, but certainly wouldn't be upset if he isn't either. I've gone full circle from not shutting up about him early doors to being take it or leave it now that others are enamoured!

A few years back now one of the prominent stats guys online posted a list of all the major stats for back row play and all the England prospects performances in them. Tackles, dominant tackles and missed tackles. Total carries and yards after contact. Ruck involvements. It was around the time a lot of people didn't "get" Ludlam as a selection. I just remember Hill being bottom or nearly bottom of every metric. Whilst Ludlam was about top 3 in all of them. Just did a lot of things to a high standard, very often. Whereas Hill just didn't have the involvements.

Back row is such a high work rate position at international level now. Fitness levels are off the charts. Kolisi sums it up really. Guys like PSdT, Vermuelen, Wiese, Kwagga and van Staden can all have bigger impacts than him. Kolisi is involved freakishly often though. A great example is the breakdown of how many roles Kolisi covers on lineout defence to allow SA to use the blitz when starting much further back. He starts covering the tail, pushes rapidly into the midfield so de Allende can cover wider, then drops behind and sweeps so that the wingers can stay high to be connected with the midfield. Underhill performing similar roles during the Six Nations.

king_carlos wrote:...
Back row is such a high work rate position at international level now. Fitness levels are off the charts. Kolisi sums it up really. Guys like PSdT, Vermuelen, Wiese, Kwagga and van Staden can all have bigger impacts than him. Kolisi is involved freakishly often though. A great example is the breakdown of how many roles Kolisi covers on lineout defence to allow SA to use the blitz when starting much further back. He starts covering the tail, pushes rapidly into the midfield so de Allende can cover wider, then drops behind and sweeps so that the wingers can stay high to be connected with the midfield. Underhill performing similar roles during the Six Nations.

So you are saying Kolisi is the South African Robshaw?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:If Earl is at 7, then you have a rookie in CCS or Barbeary at 8 from minute 1, Underhill is very injury prone and very much a defensive player, I am not sure he is suited to the game we are starting to play. Pearson is quicker better inn the lineout and at making the hard yards although Underhill is a better tackling machine. Pearson though is far more suited to the fast pace attacking game.

For the moment the 8 shirt is Earl's and cover is needed at 7, just Underhill on his own is insufficient.

With Chessum, Coles, Roots and CCS we have plenty of 5/6 hybrids that can cover 6, we don't need another at the expense of a specialist 7. Swap Hill for Roots maybe, but Hill has not exactly shone on the appearances he has made, in fact the opposite.

I wonder if it would be worth taking Ludlum, even though he won't be available after the tour, he is comfortable across the back row and would give Borthwick a chance to bed in one of the new boys with cover.

I will crowbar a Saints backrow into the side, I will crowbar a Saints backrow into the side... I jest, well slightly.

Isn't Pearson also injured have missed the last three weeks. He's a good player but as KC says increasing his physicality is a must as he looked underpowered at international level last summer.

Two opensides is fine, unless another one finishes the season on top form and forces their way in. Mobile physicality and work rate is key to what Borthwick is doing.

I like Barbeary as he brings the physicality and work rate plus he gets stuck into the breakdown.

lostinwales wrote:
So you are saying Kolisi is the South African Robshaw?

Sounds like it… but then Robshaw was merely the successor to Richard Hill.

There’s huge value in any back row, but especially in an international one, in having one guy with a huge work rate and a low error count, because it then allows the other back rowers to play to their strengths.

He’s having a horrible run of injuries at the moment, but if Jack Kenningham can get back to full fitness I have high hopes for him in that role for both Quins and England. He does everything well, and lots of it. Word from the Quins camp is that he probably won’t be back playing til next season but is in full training again and has added some bulk to improve his carrying.

mountain man wrote:I think Randall needs to be in squad, quick and elusive. If England want to play with pace get him in as back up to Mitchell.

So someone dislikes my opinion of Randall which of course is absolutely fine but I'd rather have an explanation of why whoever it was thinks he shouldn't be included for England instead of the anonymous response. If I want that I'll post on BBC HYS....

Personally I think Harry Randall would suit "new" England well, pace, attacking and would bring best out of players around him.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:If Earl is at 7, then you have a rookie in CCS or Barbeary at 8 from minute 1, Underhill is very injury prone and very much a defensive player, I am not sure he is suited to the game we are starting to play. Pearson is quicker better inn the lineout and at making the hard yards although Underhill is a better tackling machine. Pearson though is far more suited to the fast pace attacking game.

For the moment the 8 shirt is Earl's and cover is needed at 7, just Underhill on his own is insufficient.

With Chessum, Coles, Roots and CCS we have plenty of 5/6 hybrids that can cover 6, we don't need another at the expense of a specialist 7. Swap Hill for Roots maybe, but Hill has not exactly shone on the appearances he has made, in fact the opposite.

I wonder if it would be worth taking Ludlum, even though he won't be available after the tour, he is comfortable across the back row and would give Borthwick a chance to bed in one of the new boys with cover.

I will crowbar a Saints backrow into the side, I will crowbar a Saints backrow into the side... I jest, well slightly.

Isn't Pearson also injured have missed the last three weeks. He's a good player but as KC says increasing his physicality is a must as he looked underpowered at international level last summer.

Two opensides is fine, unless another one finishes the season on top form and forces their way in. Mobile physicality and work rate is key to what Borthwick is doing.

I like Barbeary as he brings the physicality and work rate plus he gets stuck into the breakdown.

FKaS, Pearson has not played for England for a while, I think you would be surprised at his fitness before his injury. Saints play a similar sort to game to what Borthwick has been trying in the 6N, all their players have done a lot of fitness and conditioning work to enable them to play at that pace for 80 minutes (front row excepted). I would not have any issues with Pearson's fitness.  From recent games Underhill seems to be the one lacking in durability, he is the one being dragged off at around 60 minutes.

Earl is by far and away our best 8 at the moment, CCS has had a couple of cameos for 10-15 minutes against tired opposition, mainly at 6. He is yet to be tested for a full 80 to see how the pace of international rugby affects him and how good he looks against fresh opposition. To assume that he can play 8 at this level and put Earl in at 7 is a big risk, the same with Barbeary, looking great in the prem is very different from looking great against NZ. CCS can't even claim the 8 spot at Quins and Dombrandt is a player who struggles to impress at International level. If CCS is going to start, it needs to be at 6 where I would have him above any of the hybrid locks. Then later in the game depending on how it is going bring on Barbeary at 8 and move Earl to 7.

Earl, starting at 7 is too much of a risk with novice 6 and 8s.  It might be a bit small. but a starting backrow of Underhill, Pearson and Earl would not displease me. Then when Underhill has emptied his tank, CCS (6) or Barbeary (8) to come on, Pearson to 6.

Sorry Augustus is not English or a back row of Lawes , Augustus, Ludlam would not be a backrow to sniff at.

CC-S has all the attributes to be a top class Int 8. Whether he can go for 80 there is unknown as not been given chance.
Earl is a 7 not an 8 although has been outstanding there for England but maybe because it's question of who else. Dombrandt I'm still not convinced on having required physicallity, really good player though he is.

Maybe for Japan game could start CCS at 8 as that will be a fast game, less physical than other teams so could suit his play well. Earl 7 and Underhill 6 although I do worry about his long term health. Chessum 6 gives another lineout option.
I also wouldn't rule out Barbeary at 8 for Eng, definitely has the power.

Poorfour wrote:

lostinwales wrote:
So you are saying Kolisi is the South African Robshaw?

Sounds like it… but then Robshaw was merely the successor to Richard Hill.

There’s huge value in any back row, but especially in an international one, in having one guy with a huge work rate and a low error count, because it then allows the other back rowers to play to their strengths.

He’s having a horrible run of injuries at the moment, but if Jack Kenningham can get back to full fitness I have high hopes for him in that role for both Quins and England. He does everything well, and lots of it. Word from the Quins camp is that he probably won’t be back playing til next season but is in full training again and has added some bulk to improve his carrying.

I think there's definitely parallels between Kolisi and Robshaw. Kolisi is significantly more explosive though I think, so slightly better at just about everything. Not a slight on Robshaw, just that difference between being a very good international player and flirting with world class (which I generally think of as top 3 in your position worldwide). Robshaw was locked on for England when they won back to back Six Nations and matched the record run win after all.

The other great thing about all-rounders is that they usually have an impact regardless of the opposition tactics. Someone who's worth is stacked in jackalling for instance can be brilliant, but teams can also nullify them entirely by forcing them to tackle instead of jackal or just man marking them. Steward is seeing that happen now, as teams are simply kicking to contest on him less. There's value in that in a way. If a team has to change their ruck retention strategies or kicking game to counter a player, then their greatest skill has effected the game. It is also possible to take them out the game though. Which you can't do as much with a rounded player.

I'm hoping for CCS at 8 against Japan as well. I think it's likely we will see that too.

I also think that Chessum at 6 is very possible. Especially with Curry unavailable. Having Itoje, Martin and Chessum in the same pack adds a lot of physicality on both sides of the ball.

For Japan, I'd love to see something like:

1.Genge 2.Dan 3.Cole 4.Itoje 5.Martin 6.Chessum 7.Earl 8.CCS
9.Mitchell 10.F/M Smith 11.Freeman 12.Lawrence 13.Slade 14.IFW 15.Furbank

16.George 17.Marler 18.Stuart 19.Pearson 20.Barbeary 21.JvP 22.M/F Smith 23.Steward

Lots of continuity from the Six Nations but a few players getting chances around that continuity. Dan and CCS starting in a strong pack. Pearson and Barbeary potentially replacing Earl and CCS like for like. Finn or Marcus starting - I'd be happy either way there, though I really like a fresh Marcus at 15 later in a game with that bit more space as the secondary playmaker, which slightly edges me towards Fin starting.

Borthwick has mentioned that he is planning for a lot of consistency in the squad selection. Which makes sense to me. The few players who missed out during the Six Nations were generally injury or ban related. JvP, Barbeary, Langdon.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:If Earl is at 7, then you have a rookie in CCS or Barbeary at 8 from minute 1, Underhill is very injury prone and very much a defensive player, I am not sure he is suited to the game we are starting to play. Pearson is quicker better inn the lineout and at making the hard yards although Underhill is a better tackling machine. Pearson though is far more suited to the fast pace attacking game.

For the moment the 8 shirt is Earl's and cover is needed at 7, just Underhill on his own is insufficient.

With Chessum, Coles, Roots and CCS we have plenty of 5/6 hybrids that can cover 6, we don't need another at the expense of a specialist 7. Swap Hill for Roots maybe, but Hill has not exactly shone on the appearances he has made, in fact the opposite.

I wonder if it would be worth taking Ludlum, even though he won't be available after the tour, he is comfortable across the back row and would give Borthwick a chance to bed in one of the new boys with cover.

I will crowbar a Saints backrow into the side, I will crowbar a Saints backrow into the side... I jest, well slightly.

Isn't Pearson also injured have missed the last three weeks. He's a good player but as KC says increasing his physicality is a must as he looked underpowered at international level last summer.

Two opensides is fine, unless another one finishes the season on top form and forces their way in. Mobile physicality and work rate is key to what Borthwick is doing.

I like Barbeary as he brings the physicality and work rate plus he gets stuck into the breakdown.

FKaS, Pearson has not played for England for a while, I think you would be surprised at his fitness before his injury. Saints play a similar sort to game to what Borthwick has been trying in the 6N, all their players have done a lot of fitness and conditioning work to enable them to play at that pace for 80 minutes (front row excepted). I would not have any issues with Pearson's fitness.  From recent games Underhill seems to be the one lacking in durability, he is the one being dragged off at around 60 minutes.

Earl is by far and away our best 8 at the moment, CCS has had a couple of cameos for 10-15 minutes against tired opposition, mainly at 6. He is yet to be tested for a full 80 to see how the pace of international rugby affects him and how good he looks against fresh opposition. To assume that he can play 8 at this level and put Earl in at 7 is a big risk, the same with Barbeary, looking great in the prem is very different from looking great against NZ. CCS can't even claim the 8 spot at Quins and Dombrandt is a player who struggles to impress at International level. If CCS is going to start, it needs to be at 6 where I would have him above any of the hybrid locks. Then later in the game depending on how it is going bring on Barbeary at 8 and move Earl to 7.

Earl, starting at 7 is too much of a risk with novice 6 and 8s.  It might be a bit small. but a starting backrow of Underhill, Pearson and Earl would not displease me. Then when Underhill has emptied his tank, CCS (6) or Barbeary (8) to come on, Pearson to 6.

Sorry Augustus is not English or a back row of Lawes , Augustus, Ludlam would not be a backrow to sniff at.

Why would we have a novice at 6? We can slot in Roots who's played in three different leagues around the world and will do a solid job or 23 cap Ollie Chessum who's played in big games both domestically or internationally. If experience is a concern we slot one in at 6.

Pearson has less than 50 Prem games and a solitary England cap. He's a rookie and not an answer to the lack of experience on the backrow.

A starting backrow of Underhill, Pearson and Earl looks seriously under sized, particularly against some of the physical monsters that NZ are likely to deploy. I'm not particularly fussed by Pearson's fitness levels though neither is it remarkable. It's his physicality I have doubts over.

king_carlos wrote:The fringe backs I'm very agnostic on currently. I'm not as sold on Hartley or Atkinson yet as others are at 12. Talented but I'd leave them with their clubs for the time being. It's probably between Dingwall and Ojomoh for the second spot after Lawrence. I'm on the fence about both. Dingwall is excellent for Saints but I'm not sure he has near the physicality of an international 12. It will be interesting to see how Ojomoh does alongside Lawrence but without Russell at 10. At the moment, I'd ere towards consistency with Dingwall.

Hartley is out for the season with a knee injury anyway.

king_carlos wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

lostinwales wrote:
So you are saying Kolisi is the South African Robshaw?

Sounds like it… but then Robshaw was merely the successor to Richard Hill.

There’s huge value in any back row, but especially in an international one, in having one guy with a huge work rate and a low error count, because it then allows the other back rowers to play to their strengths.

He’s having a horrible run of injuries at the moment, but if Jack Kenningham can get back to full fitness I have high hopes for him in that role for both Quins and England. He does everything well, and lots of it. Word from the Quins camp is that he probably won’t be back playing til next season but is in full training again and has added some bulk to improve his carrying.

I think there's definitely parallels between Kolisi and Robshaw. Kolisi is significantly more explosive though I think, so slightly better at just about everything. Not a slight on Robshaw, just that difference between being a very good international player and flirting with world class (which I generally think of as top 3 in your position worldwide). Robshaw was locked on for England when they won back to back Six Nations and matched the record run win after all.

The other great thing about all-rounders is that they usually have an impact regardless of the opposition tactics. Someone who's worth is stacked in jackalling for instance can be brilliant, but teams can also nullify them entirely by forcing them to tackle instead of jackal or just man marking them. Steward is seeing that happen now, as teams are simply kicking to contest on him less. There's value in that in a way. If a team has to change their ruck retention strategies or kicking game to counter a player, then their greatest skill has effected the game. It is also possible to take them out the game though. Which you can't do as much with a rounded player.

Yes. Robshaw wasn't explosive at all so not hard to beat him on those stats. Hill was one of the all time greats and Robshaw wasn't in that class. Interetsing comment on jackling as I think the jackling kind of 7 either ends up looking like the best player on the pitch or is anonymous. Going back to Robshaw one of his real strengths seemed to be shutting down that kind of 7.

Rugby Analyst weighs in on the England backrow debate

lostinwales wrote:

Yes. Robshaw wasn't explosive at all so not hard to beat him on those stats. Hill was one of the all time greats and Robshaw wasn't in that class. Interetsing comment on jackling as I think the jackling kind of 7 either ends up looking like the best player on the pitch or is anonymous. Going back to Robshaw one of his real strengths seemed to be shutting down that kind of 7.

Hill would be a contender for an all-time XV at 6 (and maybe at 7, if it weren't for Richie McCaw), so the comparison is a bit harsh for anyone.

What Robshaw did do well was just do the right thing for the team over and over. Slowing down the breakdown (which opponents said he was a real pain at) was one, and he had a knack for making crucial tackles and coming up with turnovers when they were really important (a favourite memory is of him ending the 2012 Prem Final with a turnover against Leicester, who were 7 points down and camped near the Quins 5m). His carrying was never focused on big yards (and he always looked slightly baffled making a break), but he would consistently tie up a couple of tackles and lay the ball back cleanly to turn slow ball into quicker ball. And he'd do all of that for 80 minutes at the work rate of a sub in their 20 minutes.

Will Evans has spoken about how the big shift in his game has been to make better choices about when to go for turnovers - with the result that his turnover to penalty count has improved, and he tops the Prem turnover stats in a team that has two other players in the top 10.

Well Dombrandt today showed what he offers..I wonder if Borthwick is hoping he can draw out this level of performance for England...and he really showed the physicality today that many have questioned ..

But can he do it in a different set up that he's used to at Quins...I'm just not sure.

Geordie wrote:Well Dombrandt today showed what he offers..I wonder if Borthwick is hoping he can draw out this level of performance for England...and he really showed the physicality today that many have questioned ..

But can he do it in a different set up that he's used to at Quins...I'm just not sure.

Dombrandt is never going to play a conventional No 8 role. It's just not who or what he is. The question is whether Borthwick thinks it's worth having a system and selection that plays to his strengths.

Brian Ashton thought that was the case with his Quins predecessor and Mk I version Nick Easter, Lancaster didn't. The indications so far are that Borthwick thinks it's worth trying, but we haven't really seen him able to pick a post-RWC squad free of injury, so we won't know until at least the summer.

Poorfour wrote:

Geordie wrote:Well Dombrandt today showed what he offers..I wonder if Borthwick is hoping he can draw out this level of performance for England...and he really showed the physicality today that many have questioned ..

But can he do it in a different set up that he's used to at Quins...I'm just not sure.

Dombrandt is never going to play a conventional No 8 role. It's just not who or what he is. The question is whether Borthwick thinks it's worth having a system and selection that plays to his strengths.

Brian Ashton thought that was the case with his Quins predecessor and Mk I version Nick Easter, Lancaster didn't. The indications so far are that Borthwick thinks it's worth trying, but we haven't really seen him able to pick a post-RWC squad free of injury, so we won't know until at least the summer.

I'm not sure that's accurate. Borthwick selected Dombrant at the end of the 6N and off the bench he was fine from memory. Neither good nor bad. The game Earl plays in theory Dombrant could replicate at 8 for England. Earl didn't run into brick walls, he made a lot of carries but on lines off of other ball carriers or in the second pod out. Much more in Dombrant's wheelhouse.

The issue is that Dombrant needs to bring more on the defensive side of the ball. Same with Mercer, though by a degree more for Mercer. Dombrant was very good in attack today but no starting forward from either side made fewer tackles than he did (per ESPN). Last week was better but he was a way behind his flankers, CCS made 50% more tackles.

What Borthwick wants is big work rate and physicality from his pack on both sides of the ball. It's going to be a non-negotiable so it's up players to either deliver or or not get selected. Earl was regularly towards (if not at) the top for metres and tackles made.

Earl also has the kind of acceleration which makes small breaks into bigger ones. I guess part of the issue with Dombrandt is that he looks like an old school heavy carrying 8 even if he doesn't play like one, so expectations are always a bit skewed

Yes but if you have enough work rate innthe pack and a player who's different that can take your gameplan on to a different level then you look at it . Dombrandt can give you a different attacking option and is very good at the breakdown etc.

Only SB and his team know what they want really. But they also have potentially CCS and Barbeary who offer very different styles to Dombrandt and more of the "basic essentials " SB usually looks for

Geordie wrote:Yes but if you have enough work rate innthe pack and a player who's different that can take your gameplan on to a different level then you look at it . Dombrandt can give you a different attacking option and is very good at the breakdown etc.

Only SB and his team know what they want really. But they also have potentially CCS and Barbeary who offer very different styles to Dombrandt and more of the "basic essentials " SB usually looks for

Dombrant has never shown any game changing ability at international level in what? 16 caps. Ardie Savea he ain't.

He's a big strong bloke. Upping the physicality and work rate in defence shouldn't be a massive change for him. It's perfectly within scope.

Why should the England pack carry anybody when our choices at backrow are plentiful. Much like Mercer and the other young 8s, it's an arms race. Develop your work ons and tool up, if you get left behind you'll not make the squad.

Ardie Savea is just a poor man's Ben Earl.

Dombrandt is currently in the quality club player, not quite an international at the moment..like Malins. But whereas Malins was ejected quite quickly, Dombrandt has veeb kept in. That suggests (as I said above) this coaching team likes what Dombrandt could potentially bring.

This NZ tour selection could tell alot. Barbeary has been on fire and CCS back who was doing well on the impact sub role prior to injury. I have a funny feeling Dombrandt might make the NZ tour...

CCS might be helped by the fact he spent all the time to young adulthood in New Zealand, and his parents are still there. Feeling less like a fish out of water can help make a player a more effective tourist. It wouldn't be enough to give him preference over a superior back row option but it might tip the balance of it came to a tight call.

Rugby Fan wrote:CCS might be helped by the fact he spent all the time to young adulthood in New Zealand, and his parents are still there. Feeling less like a fish out of water can help make a player a more effective tourist. It wouldn't be enough to give him preference over a superior back row option but it might tip the balance of it came to a tight call.

I think CCS showed yesterday where he’s currently at. He has huge potential, but he’s got a lot to learn. He ran hard, but his lines were too telegraphed and Saints shut him down fairly easily. He threw some ropey passes. His fitness is at 60 minute level in an (admittedly fast) club game.

Same with Barbeary, who admits he’s got to work on his fitness.

Geordie wrote:Ardie Savea is just a poor man's Ben Earl.

Dombrandt is currently in the quality club player,  not quite an international at the moment..like Malins.  But whereas Malins was ejected quite quickly, Dombrandt has veeb kept in. That suggests (as I said above) this coaching team likes what Dombrandt could potentially bring.  

This NZ tour selection could tell alot.  Barbeary has been on fire and CCS back who was doing well on the impact sub role prior to injury.  I have a funny feeling Dombrandt might make the NZ tour...

I'd agree Borthwick probably won't give up on Dombrant yet because realistically how many 6ft4 and nearly 19 stone numbers 8s do we have with his level of mobility and skill? Dombrant's work ons aren't massively difficult to fix and he appears a well liked and coachable player. He just needs to make his mark internationally soon as CCS is already the preferred bench option and the likes of Barbeary and Fisilau are catching him up.

CCS might need to tune up his game fitness but Borthwick will be confident that in Aled he's got the answer for that.

At least for the moment SB has Earl performing exceptionally well at 8 as a makeshift cover...meaning all potential 8s (Dombrandt, Barbeary, CCS) can address what they need to.

Dombrandt is currently in the quality club player, not quite an international at the moment..like Malins. But whereas Malins was ejected quite quickly, Dombrandt has veeb kept in.

Regarding Malins, there was an article in Times yesterday about how he is now playing in his preferred position of FB and wants Borthwick to give him chance there for England.

mountain man wrote:

Dombrandt is currently in the quality club player, not quite an international at the moment..like Malins. But whereas Malins was ejected quite quickly, Dombrandt has veeb kept in.

Regarding Malins, there was an article in Times yesterday about how he is now playing in his preferred position of FB and wants Borthwick to give him chance there for England.

He may want the chance but he's going to have to earn it. I was at the Tigers Vs Bristol game yesterday and can't recall Malins actually doing anything. Steward moved the ball more effectively in attack and kicked better.

Fullbacks are piling up behind Furbank and Steward. We know Steward is a rock at international level and that Furbank can bring a different dimension to the attack. For another fullback to push their way in they are going to have to offer a well rounded game and some serious form.

Carpenter, Hodge, Malins, de Glanville (when not broken) and Parton. There's a few.