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:Fairly disappointing squad there. Davison fresh from having a stinker as part of a beaten Saints pack is picked ahead of the form EQ tighthead in Heyes. Dombrandt, Northmore, Ford, Slade all picked despite not being fit.

Elliott Daly?!?

Elliott Daly, the eternal question!  
I think we have kicked his inclusion around more or less since the day he he was initially called up.  At times I have thought his inclusion was spot on, other times it seemed to me that Daly must have dirt on the selection committee.  Still a bit on the fence. I was a big supporter of his inclusion in the 2021 Lions for instance (rightfully or not), but now.....

On the other hand, and to Sam's point about Davision, I have to think he was selected (Davison, not Sam) because he is comfortable and competent propping on either side of the scrum (from an admittingly poor memory, roughly 70/30 or 75/25 as TH?).  He had a sub-standard game against Tigers last weekend, but his baseline over the past year or so has been good, or he would not have been considered for selection.  But he is on the north side of 30 and I want to see England taking a flyer on more younger guys.  To wit, how has Fin Baxter worked out so far?  Yes, I know he may be the exception to the rule, but he is also a LH who can play decently at TH.  

A quickie last point, also mentioned by Sam, (I know if I use the term 'quickie' a few of you are getting excited!), but I think it very rarely makes sense to throw players into the top level - International matches - without playing a proper top level club game and perform well first as a final part of a recovery.  On the other hand, this behaviour maintains the sport's governing bodies well honed modus operandi of continuing their amateur approach to player welfare.

Other than Langdon still being absent, I'd say Pearson and Tom Willis missing out to Ben Curry and Dombrandt respectively are the only selections I'm that disappointed with there. I think Pearson has as higher ceiling than Ben and my views of Dombrandt are well known. I'd sooner play with 14 men than see him in an England shirt again. Just carve a tired face on the front of a pumpkin, write an 8 on the back of it and leave it on the halfway line. The same job will get done.

I understand people not rating Ewels, but, honestly, I don't think there are obvious locks being left out? Coles would definitely be there if not for the injury, he's clearly 4th choice now. I think that Itoje, Chess, Martin and Coles are a really good group of 4. Isiekwe would be my next inline after Coles even though he hasn't really convinced for England yet. After Isiekwe, I'd say Ewels is a reasonable choice. He's been really good for Bath in the last couple of seasons after his injury. I can't think of any obvious locks being ignored. It's too early for the promising guys coming through the U20s. Tizard has stalled after looking so promising at Quins. Freddie Clarke is very consistent for Glaws but I think he'd have as little impact in the loose as Ewels at the top level, whilst being worse at the lineout. I'd maybe go for Chunya Munga at Saints if I was picking someone ahead of Ewels there.

I rate Daly, so usually disagree with folk here on him. It's not like the exciting options have been left out for him though. Freeman and IFW are first choice. Then Sleightholme next in line. All brilliant young wings with very strong attack games. Furbank has shifted into first choice FB too.

Heyes has had 1 very good (Chiefs), 1 good (Bath) and 1 outstanding (Saints) performance. It's been a good start to the season but hardly a body of work that demands recall after about 2 full seasons of regression ('22/23) and stagnation ('23/24) since he was excellent in '21/22.

Centre remains my biggest concern. We lack that significant physical presence that the best sides have. I think Slade makes sense given how good he is defensively. Lozowski could hypothetically offer similar but with more pace in attack. Marchant would be an upgrade on either though. I'd be tempted to invest in Freeman at 13. I think he could be brilliant there. Whilst the likes of IFW and Sleightholme are fantastic wingers who's acceleration and ability to change direction should suit the blitz defence well.

I don't mind Daly in the squad either. Even with the inclusion of Slade, there aren't many caps in the back line. With 27 caps, Ollie Lawrence is now one of the most experienced players but his early matches under Jones were a bit of a false start, and he has only been a first XV regular under Borthwick from the 2024 Six Nations.

If Slade isn't fit, and neither Steward or Daly starts, then most of the starting back line will have played only a handful of Tests, and not many of those together. Given the forwards and backs often train apart, then it might help to have someone like Daly around the camp.

So anyone see the back 5 being anything other than:

4 Itoje
5 Martin
6 Chessum
7 Underhill
8 Earl

Sub
Earl Ewells- Lock
CCS - 6/8

Pretty sure Earl isn't a second row. Assume you mean Ewels.

mountain man wrote:Pretty sure Earl isn't a second row. Assume you mean Ewels.

Corrected....

One "L" in Ewels.

Get the Tipex out again.

Geordie wrote:So anyone see the back 5 being anything other than:

4 Itoje
5 Martin
6 Chessum
7 Underhill
8 Earl

Sub
Earl Ewells- Lock
CCS - 6/8

I think Chessum will be used as lock cover and there'll be a CCS and Curry combo on the bench.

i just think theyre gonig to go for mobile size and Chessum has it and playing very well.

Bring the power on from the bench with CCS, whilst Earl and Underhill hit the breakdown and Earl Chessum and Martin offer the carrying.

I say again ....i wonder how long till we see Chessum and Martin in the engine room...Itoje is class...but hes missed someone like Kruis along side him. Maybe that'll be Martin of course.

Geordie wrote:i just think theyre gonig to go for mobile size and Chessum has it and playing very well.

Bring the power on from the bench with CCS, whilst Earl and Underhill hit the breakdown and Earl Chessum and Martin offer the carrying.

I say again ....i wonder how long till we see Chessum and Martin in the engine room...Itoje is class...but hes missed someone like Kruis along side him. Maybe that'll be Martin of course.

Itoje is too good not to include. He runs the lineout and alongside Chessum and Martin who are mobile, big hitters with large work rates he's freed up from the need to hit rucks and can do more of the competitive stuff that makes him a nightmare.

I think we will bring the power from the bench with CCS but the ability to bring that on plus a fresh openside who can then use those fresh legs to be a menace is more valuable than replacing a lock when all three locks are more than capable of playing the full 80.

20 minute red card being trialled in AIs.

I can see point and worth seeing how it works out.

Ref can still issue straight red for dangerous play etc.

Probably make life tougher for officials and no doubt be usual controversy anyway but worth a go in cases of accidental head clash etc.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/articles/cqxrneew3v1o

Itoje's a definite starter for me. A huge strength of his is playing at the same rate for 80 minutes. He's been right back to near his best over the last year too. His carrying is much more prominent. He's been one of the leaders of the linespeed since England installed their version of the Boks blitz. Whilst the lineout work is strong as ever. His defensive lineout work in particular is brilliant. He's an elite defensive jumper and excellent in maul defence.

The only thing that I think has declined relative to his early eye catching performances is the jackal work. I do think that's a theme across the game though. Particularly for taller jackals. Refs really seemed to clamp down on jackal technique and started giving benefit of the doubt on 50/50 calls to the attacking team. Many defences have adjusted to jackal far less. Especially tight to rucks where players such as Itoje will be defending more often. We've in turn seen a big rise in teams targeting jackals wider out. Wingers and centres contesting rucks aggressively as carriers are more frequently isolated out wide. Ireland and SA's wings do a ton of this. Tuisova was a menace at defensive rucks during the RWC. Fickou and Dupont are also excellent at it for France. They run the defensive line's on the openside (Fickou) and blindside (Dupont) respectively. They will frequently attack breakdowns really hard when teams go wide against them.

1.Genge 2.George 3.Cole 4.Itoje 5.Martin 6.Chessum 7.Underhill 8.Earl
16.Dan 17.Baxter 18.Stuart 19.CCS 20.Curry

That's what I'm expecting if Turry pulls through training OK. I'd lean towards Baxter starting and holding Genge back for impact, but suspect Genge will start.

It's a shame that Coles got injured. I'd have been really curious about trying him at 6 as the third lineout option. Which in turn could allow you to hold back Martin or Chessum and CCS to properly load carriers on the bench for the second half.

With the blitz, I just like the idea of having a very mobile starting pack to keep up with line speed and work rate, then a number of ball carriers who are very physical defensively coming off the bench early in the second half to try to capitalise on the pressure and fatigue that the blitz is designed to cause. Itoje, Chess and Coles would also allow you to kick to touch more, then aim to pressure in lineout defence, plus pressure through the blitz on early phase play. It's a defensive system that should be excellent in those first few phases off a lineout.

1.Baxter 2.George 3.Cole 4.Itoje 5.Chessum 6.Coles 7.Underhill 8.Earl
16.Dan 17.Genge 18.Stuart 19.Martin 20.Curry 21.CCS

That entire bench forward pack could feasibly be stronger carriers than those they replace. Aim to launch your attack more off set-piece in the first half with 3 excellent lineout jumpers. Run phase play off 10 and 15 more, try to attack wider out using Freeman and Earl as powerful midfield runners. Rather than running off 9 as much. Then in the second half, you could completely shift how you attack to running off 9 more. I think it could particularly work brilliant for Marcus Smith as the game opens up.

It might not work. They might simply be short of carriers in the starting pack. I just think it'd be an interesting thing to try though. Especially now they've got multiple playmakers in the backline. It feels like it could suit the forwards we've got available very well as well as really suiting a 10 and 15 combo such as Smith-Furbank.

The idea came from a chat with a South African pal who works in coaching. We were talking about how England have limited carriers who can smash over the gain line off 9. Obviously, you ideally want to stack the starting pack and bench with carriers. Most teams can't do this though! His thoughts were, instead of trying to give the backs 80 minutes of acceptably quick ball, could you target giving them very quick ball for most second half, then adjust your first half tactics accordingly? Could the limits it may place on how you attack in the first half be offset by giving a pair such as Marcus and Furbank, with wingers such as IFW and Sleightholme potentially outside them, better quality ball as the opposition tire? I just thought it was an interesting idea.

king_carlos wrote:
The idea came from a chat with a South African pal who works in coaching. We were talking about how England have limited carriers who can smash over the gain line off 9. Obviously, you ideally want to stack the starting pack and bench with carriers. Most teams can't do this though! His thoughts were, instead of trying to give the backs 80 minutes of acceptably quick ball, could you target giving them very quick ball for most second half, then adjust your first half tactics accordingly? Could the limits it may place on how you attack in the first half be offset by giving a pair such as Marcus and Furbank, with wingers such as IFW and Sleightholme potentially outside them, better quality ball as the opposition tire? I just thought it was an interesting idea.

That's an interesting idea, particularly if George Ford is fit again as you could use him and his game manage for the first 50 mins to pin back the opposition and work them hard then unleash Marcus Smith and the ball carriers from the bench and look for a 30 minute second half blitz.

I remember Borthwick doing something similar with Tigers when he was HC there a few times. The offy board would be outraged he was benching so many normal starters only for them to come off the bench and turn the game on it's head and Tigers win.

I'm not sure in Coles at 6, he looked a bit lost when asked to play that role previously. I'd push him into the row and leave Chessum at 6 as long as it didn't negatively effect the scrum though there's nothing bar fatigue stopping Chessum from scrumming at lock and then taking the flanker role in open play.

Ideally the RFU work with the a Prem team to tempt Junior Kpoku back to English shores cause he could be a long term answer to lock impact from the bench.

Kpoku is making an impact in France already to be fair. He's starting his 4th game on the bounce at lock for Racing this weekend. He had a start at blindside in R1 too. Admittedly Racing are having an odd season that's being overshadowed by Stuart Lancaster's odd decision to promote his son beyond where anyone but dad thinks Dan Lancaster should be. Kpoku is still starting at second row in the Top 14 at only 19-years-old though.

It's early days yet, but Baxter's carrying was also very effective in NZ. He doesn't smash over the gain line, but does tend to slip out of the initial tackle and make a couple of extra yards post contact, which amounts to the same thing. It's also handy because it means he's unlikely to have to trade carrying for scrummaging.

Anyway, England have plenty of options to put out a decent pack, and something approaching a bomb squad on the bench (though Stuart's scrummaging is always a bit vulnerable).

For me the key is that they need to make sure that they maintain their defensive patterns and are sharp enough in attack to close out the game in the last 20. In NZ, they were good at making territory but not clinical enough in the red zone and not tight enough in defence in the last 20.

Baxter had an unreasonably good first test start in the second game against the ABs when you consider he played nearly 70 minutes and the ABs props are pretty darn good now. He's a brilliant talent. I keep saying it, but I'd really like to see him start the AIs. Both to see how good he can be and to use Genge differently. I reckon Baxter could be a dark horse for the Lions. Schoeman and Porter are the standout LHs by a distance. The third touring spot is pretty open though. Sutherland has fallen off drastically. Wales are really struggling at LH (and TH and rugby). Healy is solid but really getting on. There's an opening there if he keeps doing what he did in NZ.

The difference in bench impact was definitely telling in NZ. The ABs bench was extremely good though. So it's not like they were outdone by a standard set of international subs. Beauden from the bench is bordering on indecent. The ABs replacement front row was excellent. Tupou Vaa'i is a real talent. I also think how NZ have used Lienert-Brown as a bench option is interesting since Jordie and Reiko became their starting centre pairing. ALB has different skills and a very good offloading game. I think they switch up their attacking patterns smartly when he comes on. It was a set of replacements that would challenge most sides. England definitely came of second best in that regard though.

England were definitely hurt with some of the injuries to the tight five before the tour to NZ. Having Genge/Obano and Chessum would have definitely added physicality and carrying ability to the pack.

I've liked how we've mixed the props most of the time. Having one more carrying style lock and one more set piece prop. It's given us a nice balance. Stacking the bench with two carrying props could be good if we're in a position to attack but if we're under the pump and need scrum reinforcements it might not go so well. We're also not in the position to sacrifice carrying options from the starters. Our prop stocks are improving nicely but not that much.

Didn't see the Saints game but the reviews say,Freeman was excellent at 13. Is that an option?

Also think England will have some wing options....that Bampoe Brown look some potential...and Ibitoye gets better...

Geordie wrote:Didn't see the Saints game but the reviews say,Freeman was excellent at 13. Is that an option?

Also think England will have some wing options....that Bampoe Brown look some potential...and Ibitoye gets better...

Yeah, Freeman was Man of the Match. So this may well have been Freeman's unofficial 'Am I a 13'?

I've said for a while now that I think Freeman is perfect for 13 long term with how the position is increasingly playing. He's got the pace to attack the wide channels but the bulk to run crash ball when needed. Which England's back line does really need. I genuinely think a 12.Steward 13.Freeman midfield could work brilliantly but it would require both getting experience there at club level first.

Pearson and Pollock really impressed me too. I think we might see Pollock debut for the senior side sooner rather than later. The kid is a gun. He reminds me of Earl but quicker. He's more physical than his frame suggests and he isn't small either, just a ball of muscle. He's looked like a stronger and angrier Sam Simmonds when carrying off the base and into traffic. Given how important Earl has become, I could see them trying to get Pollock into squads sooner rather than later as an understudy.

king_carlos wrote:I've said for a while now that I think Freeman is perfect for 13 long term with how the position is increasingly playing. He's got the pace to attack the wide channels but the bulk to run crash ball when needed. Which England's back line does really need. I genuinely think a 12.Steward 13.Freeman midfield could work brilliantly but it would require both getting experience there at club level first.

Pearson and Pollock really impressed me too. I think we might see Pollock debut for the senior side sooner rather than later. The kid is a gun. He reminds me of Earl but quicker. He's more physical than his frame suggests and he isn't small either, just a ball of muscle. He's looked like a stronger and angrier Sam Simmonds when carrying off the base and into traffic. Given how important Earl has become, I could see them trying to get Pollock into squads sooner rather than later as an understudy.

Agree about Pollock. He played the full 80 and against Sale which is not the easiest pack go up against. I thought he had a very good game. He reads the game very well and has this motor which doesn't seem to ever quit. We saw it all at at U20s, but it's still a bit different against fully grown men. And at least for one game, showed he is not at all out of place at this level.

Regarding Freeman, if he does get time for England at 13, I hope he goes well. I don't think crash ball is what we want him to do all game long. But the threat that he can do it if needed can create space just by itself. And with the speed already in the backs, just a little seam can really open the flood gates.

Freeman has got all the attacking attributes to be a classy 14 at international level, the only questions are around defence. He's a good tackler but leading that England blitz is a big ask, hesitation and you'll be out of position. I'd like to see it given a go with him during this AI, Lozowski as well. Time to give us some options.

Freeman at 13 providing physicality could possibly open up the options at 12. Currently Lawrence is the defacto choice because we need a degree of carrying power and physicality in the midfield. Not a problem at the moment as he's in great form but we are suffering a lack of other options.

I was worried that Pollock was going to be too small to make the impact on senior rugby that he had on age grade rugby, I definitely don't feel like that anymore. The kid looks like he has all of the minerals to be an absolute superstar. Have we ever had this level of back-row depth? There just feels like competitive options across all three positions.

I could expand that across the squad actually, there are so many young players with potential in the 20-25 bracket it. It feels like, if Borthwick gets the planning right, we should have a brilliant amount of competition come the 2027/31 world cups.

Haven't seen anyone talking much about Alfie Barbeary except for that injury he sustained at the weekend.

At one time, he looked like a wrecking ball, and a real England prospect. Is he carrying an injury or is he just not putting in the work?

I think injury has just prevented Barbeary progressing as he could've, sadly. His carrying can be terrific and his jackal work is strong too. At a point when England had very few carriers who could get over the gain line, he looked like a brilliant talent there.

He missed basically all of '22/23 and has played 80 minutes only once since - which suggests Bath have questions over his conditioning since injury too.

It's hard to develop your game if you keep getting interrupted by injuries, having your conditioning setback, then having to reset. A 1 step forward, 1 step back situation. Frustratingly, given he's so talented. Hopefully he can string more gametime together and really kick on at some point.

If they were looking to add another ball carrier to the squad then I'd look at Pearson well ahead of Barbeary at the moment. As said above, I think Pollock will break in soon too.

The issue with a lack of carriers has improved too. It really reared its head with the Vunipola's decline. The forwards look far better in that regard now. CCS, Martin and Earl are excellent there. Chessum is getting very good as well. Genge is still strong. Theo Dan is a live wire. He gets flack, but I think Will Stuart has being improving there too. If (big if at the moment) he gets back to his best, then Tom Curry is excellent at making yards through contact as well.

George Martin interview

Rugby Fan wrote:George Martin interview

A good proportion being about how he doesn't like to give interviews and isn't interested in generating a public persona

On selection issues I think borthwick has sufficient knowledge of his squad and went for better the devil you know. He needs that familiarity to implement the plans he has to try and defeat four very different teams in the autumn. I can see him utilising a faster backrow against new Zealand and then putting in a bigger more physical backrow against south Africa. Chessum to 6 for example and tall ball winning wingers so freeman and roebuck on the wings. If freeman does play 13 I think it will be against Japan only as it's a very difficult position defensively and he could be exposed at international level.

Reading that Henry Slade will be released to play for Exeter at the weekend, which suggests he is being lined up to start against NZ.

Feels like Borthwick would rather play a returning injured player than try someone else. I'd wager the average supporter would prefer more recovery time, and a look at other options.

Rugby Fan wrote:Reading that Henry Slade will be released to play for Exeter at the weekend, which suggests he is being lined up to start against NZ.

Feels like Borthwick would rather play a returning injured player than try someone else. I'd wager the average supporter would prefer more recovery time, and a look at other options.

It shows how parlous our midfield stocks are! Slade brings so much in experience, kicking, passing and defence, especially in the wider channels. Since time began England have not had a genuine 12 and starting someone new, like Lozowski or Northmore, against the ABs, with all their attacking talent brings fear to many of us. I would much prefer they had a few appearances off the bench and some starts against weaker opposition, but maybe he will start one of them and just have Slade on the bench or ask Slade to last 50 minutes before going off. Kind of depends how he goes for Exeter plus how he recovers as he will only have 6 days between matches?

It seems that Lawrence and Slade are the first choice pairing by a distance. To be fair, though I'm sceptical of both, they've largely been OK as a pairing in a period where England have tried to completely change their attacking and defensive structures since the RWC. Slade in particular is so important there when it comes to running the blitz from 13. Which is a very tough job.

They came together for R3 of the Six Nations against Scotland. IIRC, there was the diabolical bit of a poor alignment that sent Shug through for Scotland's first try. That's the only glaring error I remember from them specifically as a pairing though? Obviously there were other points where the team got defensively caught out. Which always happens. I feel that Lawrence and Slade have been pretty good as a pairing though. They were there for the the wins against Ireland and Japan. Then the loss to Scotland, a 2 point loss to France, 1 point loss to NZ and a 7 point loss to NZ. All four of those losses were away as well. I feel the France and NZ ones were largely good performances against very good teams at different stages in their development.

The Scotland loss was obviously the frustrating one. England had plenty of chances to win that game but poor unforced errors as they tried to expand the attack cost them. They ran and passed far more of their ball that the Finn led Scotland did in that game, kicked less as well. They controlled plenty of factors that should've allowed them to win the game. The errors they made were capitalised on ruthlessly by Scotland though. They've got plenty of backs who are lethal on the front foot.

I feel Slade is in that bracket with a plenty of other experienced players who tend to play well straight after returning from injury. Being that assured in your game and preparation means you don't need to string together lots of matches at club level. Lawes became incredible at it. Ford tends to return from injury at exactly the standard he usually is. Similar with Marler. Even Watson, though he's be injured so much, tends to be really good for Tigers when he takes the field. He doesn't do it enough, but, when he plays, you see the quality pretty much immediately. Other can't do that even with experience though. Tuilagi and Billy V always need time to get back to speed for instance. Barbeary is a classic example of a younger player who hasn't learnt that yet. When he returns from layoffs, he looks like a guy who hasn't played in a long while.

I'd really like to see Freeman play 13 against Japan. If Slade proves his fitness at the weekend, then I'm certainly not against him playing ahead of Lozowski against the ABs.

Northmore feels a bit in the Fraser Dingwall, Dan Kelly, Guy Porter bracket to me. Good players. Very good on their day. I just don't quite see the parts of their game that makes them likely to step up though? They aren't going to be go to players to get over the gain line at the top level. They don't have significant playmaking or kicking skills. Not even in the Fickou or Ringrose bracket's there for me. Let alone someone like Jordie Barrett who's played 10. They aren't going to be defensive strengths at the highest level. Kelly can organise a defence well and is good in the jackal. Dingwall is a good defensive leader and rock solid tackler. For the talk of Dingwall's nickname being 'M1' because of his hard shoulder, he looks like Matt Tait when he was still playing 7s. He's not a big guy. Centres who make a telling difference as tacklers at the top level look like back rows - de Allende or Aki. Similar with Kelly. Centres who make a big impact at the ruck are built like Josua Tuisova. I just struggle to see those types of solid all-rounder centres making much impact in international games beyond being solid from time to time.

hugehandoff wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Reading that Henry Slade will be released to play for Exeter at the weekend, which suggests he is being lined up to start against NZ.

Feels like Borthwick would rather play a returning injured player than try someone else. I'd wager the average supporter would prefer more recovery time, and a look at other options.

It shows how parlous our midfield stocks are! Slade brings so much in experience, kicking, passing and defence, especially in the wider channels. Since time began England have not had a genuine 12 and starting someone new, like Lozowski or Northmore, against the ABs, with all their attacking talent brings fear to many of us. I would much prefer they had a few appearances off the bench and some starts against weaker opposition, but maybe he will start one of them and just have Slade on the bench or ask Slade to last 50 minutes before going off. Kind of depends how he goes for Exeter plus how he recovers as he will only have 6 days between matches?

Say what now. I know we've had a barren patch for about a decade but we've had plenty of 12s previously (that Will Greenwood was pretty handy). We've got a plethora coming through now as well.

king_carlos wrote:Dingwall is a good defensive leader and rock solid tackler. For the talk of Dingwall's nickname being 'M1' because of his hard shoulder, he looks like Matt Tait when he was still playing 7s. He's not a big guy.

Cute nickname though it is I don't think I've seen Dingwall make a big dominant tackle even at club level. Technically he's fine and he'll bring players down but he doesn't sent them back from whence they came. I think he could perhaps do the Slade role and be the brains centre organising things from 13 and linking but at 12 he's not close to being physical enough for the international stage.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

hugehandoff wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Reading that Henry Slade will be released to play for Exeter at the weekend, which suggests he is being lined up to start against NZ.

Feels like Borthwick would rather play a returning injured player than try someone else. I'd wager the average supporter would prefer more recovery time, and a look at other options.

It shows how parlous our midfield stocks are! Slade brings so much in experience, kicking, passing and defence, especially in the wider channels. Since time began England have not had a genuine 12 and starting someone new, like Lozowski or Northmore, against the ABs, with all their attacking talent brings fear to many of us. I would much prefer they had a few appearances off the bench and some starts against weaker opposition, but maybe he will start one of them and just have Slade on the bench or ask Slade to last 50 minutes before going off. Kind of depends how he goes for Exeter plus how he recovers as he will only have 6 days between matches?

Say what now. I know we've had a barren patch for about a decade but we've had plenty of 12s previously (that Will Greenwood was pretty handy). We've got a plethora coming through now as well.

My obligatory, "Only if we ignore Farrell's success in the position", post that I make every time someone says we've not had a good 12 since Greenwood. Faz's success in the position was brilliant. 3 Six Nations titles, including a Grand Slam. Record equalling run of consecutive wins. Whitewash in Oz. RWC final. He also started at 12 for the Lions in NZ for T2 (which they won) and T3 (the draw).

That's a loss in the 2019 RWC final to a generational Boks team from being nearly identical accolades to Greenwood as a 12. Greenwood won 2 Six Nations titles, was a test Lion, was part of an excellent tour in the Southern Hemisphere in '03. Plus of course, they got over the line in '03. Getting over the line in the biggest game is obviously huge, shouldn't be discounted. It's still remarkable that Farrell's achievements as a 12 line-up so similarly with the player that 'England have never replaced'.

I've always found it odd that Farrell's wild success at 12 is largely overlooked as he also played FH, lots of folk just never liked him for 'reasons' and it fits the narrative that there's not been a good England 12 since Greenwood retired.

Apparently the RFU have now offered 17 Enhanced Elite Squad Contracts:

Props
Ellis Genge

Hooker
Jamie George
Theo Dan

Lock
Maro Itoje
Ollie Chessum
George Martin

Back Row
Tom Curry
Ben Earl

Scrum Half
Alex Mitchell

Fly Half
George Ford
Marcus Smith
Fin Smith

Centre
Ollie Lawrence
Henry Slade

Back Three
Tommy Freeman
George Furbank
Immanual Feyi-Waboso

RFU Press Release wrote:“I am delighted to be in a position to name the 17 players who are first to receive the enhanced EPS contracts.” said Borthwick. “I am confident that these contracts, and our strong relationship with the Premiership clubs, will play a significant role in England Rugby’s continued development.”

Conor O’Shea, RFU Director of Performance Rugby, added: “One of the aims of the new Men’s Professional Game Partnership is to create world-leading English teams.

“Enhanced EPS contracts will enable Steve and his coaching team to work in partnership with the players and their clubs, on their individual development plans, medical, and strength and conditioning programmes to ensure optimum preparation for England Men’s fixtures.

“We believe this new collaborative approach between club, country and the players can bring greater stability to English rugby, as well as supporting the growth and performance of the England Men’s team.”

That gives a pretty good indication of who Borthwick sees as strategic members of the squad - though clearly he is going to have to add some more props to that. Do we know how long the contracts are for?

Good news with Ollie Chessum coming up for a new contract at the end of the season.

I'm guessing Marler and Cole are a bit long in the tooth and management are hoping they'll be superceded soon.

Stuart, JvP, Baxter and CCS must have been close.

Is there a limit on how many EPS contracts a club can have?

carpet baboon wrote:Is there a limit on how many EPS contracts a club can have?

No, bcause it's between the RFU and the player, not the club and the RFU.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Good news with Ollie Chessum coming up for a new contract at the end of the season.

I'm guessing Marler and Cole are a bit long in the tooth and management are hoping they'll be superceded soon.

Stuart, JvP, Baxter and CCS must have been close.

I am guessing that for CCS and Baxter, Borthwick wants to see how they go in the AIs; England's match schedule is a good crucible to see if they are ready to step up. For JvP, he may be waiting to see if he's fully back from injury and as good as he was before.

No surprise for me that JvP didn't get one. Mitchell is by a distance first choice 9 now.

I'm very surprised that CCS hasn't got one though. He's still raw in the areas but has the ability to do things in contact that England have lacked for a while and any team wants.

That's the only real surprise there though. I'd have probably favoured either a TH (probably Stuart for his flaws) or Baxter over a second hooker in Theo Dan. That's just preference though and Dan is clearly second choice hooker now, so not a big surprise that they gave him a contract in a key position and with George getting on.

Borthwick can issue 25 contracts and has only issued 17 so far. You’d expect that to end up being something close to a match day XXIII with extra cover in a couple of positions.

I imagine he’s holding back some contracts to see how people come through the AIs, but I’d expect a second wave once the matches are completed.

There’s also a question of how to use the contracts strategically. I assume they are annual contracts, but the main benefits they give for England is greater say over the selected players’ match time and development and a big incentive for the player to stay in England.

Given Borthwick only has a limited number of contracts to give, I’d expect him to focus on players who are either absolutely critical to the squad (e.g. the fly halves), where they want to ensure their fitness is managed properly (e.g. Mitchell) or where there is “flight risk”.

Dan may fall into that last category: he’s seen as the successor to George, and they want to incentivise him to stay in England and work on the stuff they want him to work on, while playing second fiddle at club level.

An interesting angle from the Guardian, which I hadn’t seen before:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/oct/25/rugby-union-senior-england-players-concerns-workload-rfu

Best 12 for years was Manu, issue was last several years he was injured 90% of time.
Curry and Slade getting contracts? Hmm.

Poorfour wrote:Borthwick can issue 25 contracts and has only issued 17 so far. You’d expect that to end up being something close to a match day XXIII with extra cover in a couple of positions.

I imagine he’s holding back some contracts to see how people come through the AIs, but I’d expect a second wave once the matches are completed.

There’s also a question of how to use the contracts strategically. I assume they are annual contracts, but the main benefits they give for England is greater say over the selected players’ match time and development and a big incentive for the player to stay in England.

Given Borthwick only has a limited number of contracts to give, I’d expect him to focus on players who are either absolutely critical to the squad (e.g. the fly halves), where they want to ensure their fitness is managed properly (e.g. Mitchell) or where there is “flight risk”.

Dan may fall into that last category: he’s seen as the successor to George, and they want to incentivise him to stay in England and work on the stuff they want him to work on, while playing second fiddle at club level.

Do we know how long the contracts are good for?
Are they annually renewed at one time?
Or are some multi-year contracts and others single-year?

Just wondering where to look for the dirty details....

doctor_grey wrote:Do we know how long the contracts are good for?  
Are they annually renewed at one time?  
Or are some multi-year contracts and others single-year?

Just wondering where to look for the dirty details....

As far as I know doc, it's not been released. These contracts were initially supposed to be in place before the season started. With 25 contracts to be awarded. Then it got delayed (and delayed, and delayed) as the RFU and PRL thrashed out the small print.

We know that the PGP (Professional Game Partnership) has replaced the PGA (Professional Game Agreement). It will run until 2028 in the first 4 year cycle. The P-share clubs (i.e. the Premiership cartel) will get £33m a season for the first 4 years. Profit share will then dictate the next 4 year cycle. The limit for games per season has been reduced from 35 to 30 too. Which is progress. Though it's probably still a guidleline, rather than an uncrossable line.

More details will likely drip out over the coming months through the usual suspects. Charlie Morgan (Torygraph), Chris Foy (Daily Heil), Alex Lowe (Times) all tend to be really good with England rugby matters.

Poorfour wrote:Borthwick can issue 25 contracts and has only issued 17 so far. You’d expect that to end up being something close to a match day XXIII with extra cover in a couple of positions.

I imagine he’s holding back some contracts to see how people come through the AIs, but I’d expect a second wave once the matches are completed.

There’s also a question of how to use the contracts strategically. I assume they are annual contracts, but the main benefits they give for England is greater say over the selected players’ match time and development and a big incentive for the player to stay in England.

Given Borthwick only has a limited number of contracts to give, I’d expect him to focus on players who are either absolutely critical to the squad (e.g. the fly halves), where they want to ensure their fitness is managed properly (e.g. Mitchell) or where there is “flight risk”.

Dan may fall into that last category: he’s seen as the successor to George, and they want to incentivise him to stay in England and work on the stuff they want him to work on, while playing second fiddle at club level.

Some rumours that the RFU would rather all 25 weren't awarded to save money. In fairness, they do need to invest a f**k ton into making Twickenham still the worst stadium in the Six Nations. It will be a terrible stadium with a roof that's less likely to cave in though. Small victories.

These 17 deals aren't a million miles off a looking like what's potentially the full strength starting XV, plus extras in key positions. So the suggestion of matchday 23, plus extras in key positions would make sense down the line. If they award the full 25 deals.

1.Genge 2.George 3. 4.Itoje 5.Martin 6.Chessum 7.Curry 8.Earl
9.Mitchell 10.Ford 11.Freeman 12.Lawrence 13.Slade 14.IFW 15.Furbank

Then, Marcus is second choice 10 and maybe second choice 15 as well if that second playmaker becomes more integral. Dan is the clear reserve hooker - key position. Finn is Ford's back up - key position.

Chessum crocked. Hmm

lostinwales wrote:Chessum crocked. Hmm

Hurt his knee, been for a scan and they are waiting on the results. Hopefully not serious.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Chessum crocked. Hmm

Hurt his knee, been for a scan and they are waiting on the results. Hopefully not serious.

That is bad news. Hopefully not too bad....

king_carlos wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Borthwick can issue 25 contracts and has only issued 17 so far. You’d expect that to end up being something close to a match day XXIII with extra cover in a couple of positions.

I imagine he’s holding back some contracts to see how people come through the AIs, but I’d expect a second wave once the matches are completed.

There’s also a question of how to use the contracts strategically. I assume they are annual contracts, but the main benefits they give for England is greater say over the selected players’ match time and development and a big incentive for the player to stay in England.

Given Borthwick only has a limited number of contracts to give, I’d expect him to focus on players who are either absolutely critical to the squad (e.g. the fly halves), where they want to ensure their fitness is managed properly (e.g. Mitchell) or where there is “flight risk”.

Dan may fall into that last category: he’s seen as the successor to George, and they want to incentivise him to stay in England and work on the stuff they want him to work on, while playing second fiddle at club level.

Some rumours that the RFU would rather all 25 weren't awarded to save money. In fairness, they do need to invest a f**k ton into making Twickenham still the worst stadium in the Six Nations. It will be a terrible stadium with a roof that's less likely to cave in though. Small victories.

These 17 deals aren't a million miles off a looking like what's potentially the full strength starting XV, plus extras in key positions. So the suggestion of matchday 23, plus extras in key positions would make sense down the line. If they award the full 25 deals.

1.Genge 2.George 3. 4.Itoje 5.Martin 6.Chessum 7.Curry 8.Earl
9.Mitchell 10.Ford 11.Freeman 12.Lawrence 13.Slade 14.IFW 15.Furbank

Then, Marcus is second choice 10 and maybe second choice 15 as well if that second playmaker becomes more integral. Dan is the clear reserve hooker - key position. Finn is Ford's back up - key position.

Thanks for sharing, mate. This is just too RFU. They negotiate 25 places but only fill 17. Then they don't publish the rules. What are the players agreeing to? I wonder what is included in the player contracts.

Now perhaps there are good reasons for this, but the track record at the RFU isn't great when it comes to developing or managing the game in England. What do you think?