Argentina tour

[Oakboy]

Arundell mainly played 15 on the way up right? The majority of his highlights reel videos on Youtube are with him at 15 I think. He scored that cracker vs Toulon and the cracker against Australia from the wing (not sure about the Toulon one actually, was he 14 or 15 that day?). Bearing in mind the strength in depth on the wings currently, I might look at him as a full-back; I think the counter-attacking/kick return element would be extremely exciting as would him joining the line in attack in the oppo 22. He won't be Steward under the high ball and probably won't kick like Mike Brown but I'd give it a go...

I'd be very much in favour, although it would be pivoting to a different kind of full-back, as he's not a "second 10" like Furbank or MSmith. It's possible that Beatboxer now sees Dingwall at being capable at 12 as the second playmaker if the 10 gets buried, which would allow a running full-back, but I am concerned that we're going to see Slade at centre again.

Bit of a kick in the teeth for Steward if we do pivot back to having a running 15, given he's worked so hard on developing his playmaking and standing in at 10 for Leicester. Not that it's not good for his overall development to've worked on that (especially improving his hands under pressure, which were godsawful before), but he'd be entitled to be a bit annoyed with the requirements for selection changing so rapidly.

Puja

Do you think there is a categorical distinction between 'second playmaker' and 'runner' at FB? If the FB catches the ball, beats the first two defenders and offloads, which category best describes him? I'm just wondering what characteristics are most needed.

For example, Furbank did NOT look the part originally but when he bulked up a bit while maintaining (or even raising?) his pace he suddenly looked the part without being a pseudo-10 like Goode or Smith.

Brown used to waltz past the first-up defenders and maybe fell down on distribution.

The FB has to field the high ball well and be a natural defender with pace and bite in the tackle. Steward does most of that (natural defender?). He has been accused of lacking top-end pace.

Smith is a brave tackler but looks vulnerable physically. My reluctance to see him at 15 relates mainly to his size.

Daly, IMO, was never a solid defensive option.

Arundell? If he has the defensive capacity, he has the gas and probably the hands.

If Slade tours, he provides 15 cover, I suppose, but I'd rather look elsewhere.

Carpenter has to be trusted to start with, doesn't he?

[TheDasher]

Arundell mainly played 15 on the way up right? The majority of his highlights reel videos on Youtube are with him at 15 I think. He scored that cracker vs Toulon and the cracker against Australia from the wing (not sure about the Toulon one actually, was he 14 or 15 that day?). Bearing in mind the strength in depth on the wings currently, I might look at him as a full-back; I think the counter-attacking/kick return element would be extremely exciting as would him joining the line in attack in the oppo 22. He won't be Steward under the high ball and probably won't kick like Mike Brown but I'd give it a go...

I'd be very much in favour, although it would be pivoting to a different kind of full-back, as he's not a "second 10" like Furbank or MSmith. It's possible that Beatboxer now sees Dingwall at being capable at 12 as the second playmaker if the 10 gets buried, which would allow a running full-back, but I am concerned that we're going to see Slade at centre again.

Bit of a kick in the teeth for Steward if we do pivot back to having a running 15, given he's worked so hard on developing his playmaking and standing in at 10 for Leicester. Not that it's not good for his overall development to've worked on that (especially improving his hands under pressure, which were godsawful before), but he'd be entitled to be a bit annoyed with the requirements for selection changing so rapidly.

Puja

Do you think there is a categorical distinction between 'second playmaker' and 'runner' at FB? If the FB catches the ball, beats the first two defenders and offloads, which category best describes him? I'm just wondering what characteristics are most needed.

For example, Furbank did NOT look the part originally but when he bulked up a bit while maintaining (or even raising?) his pace he suddenly looked the part without being a pseudo-10 like Goode or Smith.

Brown used to waltz past the first-up defenders and maybe fell down on distribution.

The FB has to field the high ball well and be a natural defender with pace and bite in the tackle. Steward does most of that (natural defender?). He has been accused of lacking top-end pace.

Smith is a brave tackler but looks vulnerable physically. My reluctance to see him at 15 relates mainly to his size.

Daly, IMO, was never a solid defensive option.

Arundell? If he has the defensive capacity, he has the gas and probably the hands.

If Slade tours, he provides 15 cover, I suppose, but I'd rather look elsewhere.

Carpenter has to be trusted to start with, doesn't he?

I know what you mean, I was thinking the same before I got to your post actually.

But, now I've thought about it - there's more than just running fullbacks and 2nd playmaker fullbacks... Steward despite his size (and when at full chat he's not slow, just slow acceleration and poor agility) isn't a running FB like Arundell. Arundell would, like Jason Robinson (perhaps not to the same extent!) regularly beat people and make massive territory and more often than not deliver a satisfactory pass. He might not be as 'creative' as Furbank but he may create just as many attacking scenarios on the field and ultimately might create more territory. Steward though doesn't really do this through clever distribution or pace.

I also think Arundell would become an excellent defender with experience. Cheslin Kolbe makes a break, you'd want Arundell in pursuit over most others. He's also a powerful guy so you can imagine him hammering people into touch by the corner flag as FBs so often have to.

[Puja]

Arundell mainly played 15 on the way up right? The majority of his highlights reel videos on Youtube are with him at 15 I think. He scored that cracker vs Toulon and the cracker against Australia from the wing (not sure about the Toulon one actually, was he 14 or 15 that day?). Bearing in mind the strength in depth on the wings currently, I might look at him as a full-back; I think the counter-attacking/kick return element would be extremely exciting as would him joining the line in attack in the oppo 22. He won't be Steward under the high ball and probably won't kick like Mike Brown but I'd give it a go...

I'd be very much in favour, although it would be pivoting to a different kind of full-back, as he's not a "second 10" like Furbank or MSmith. It's possible that Beatboxer now sees Dingwall at being capable at 12 as the second playmaker if the 10 gets buried, which would allow a running full-back, but I am concerned that we're going to see Slade at centre again.

Bit of a kick in the teeth for Steward if we do pivot back to having a running 15, given he's worked so hard on developing his playmaking and standing in at 10 for Leicester. Not that it's not good for his overall development to've worked on that (especially improving his hands under pressure, which were godsawful before), but he'd be entitled to be a bit annoyed with the requirements for selection changing so rapidly.

Puja

Do you think there is a categorical distinction between 'second playmaker' and 'runner' at FB? If the FB catches the ball, beats the first two defenders and offloads, which category best describes him? I'm just wondering what characteristics are most needed.

For example, Furbank did NOT look the part originally but when he bulked up a bit while maintaining (or even raising?) his pace he suddenly looked the part without being a pseudo-10 like Goode or Smith.

Brown used to waltz past the first-up defenders and maybe fell down on distribution.

The FB has to field the high ball well and be a natural defender with pace and bite in the tackle. Steward does most of that (natural defender?). He has been accused of lacking top-end pace.

Smith is a brave tackler but looks vulnerable physically. My reluctance to see him at 15 relates mainly to his size.

Daly, IMO, was never a solid defensive option.

Arundell? If he has the defensive capacity, he has the gas and probably the hands.

If Slade tours, he provides 15 cover, I suppose, but I'd rather look elsewhere.

Carpenter has to be trusted to start with, doesn't he?

I would say the distinction is about, "If FSmith makes a break and gets buried in a ruck, does X step in at first receiver and direct the next phase of the attack." I'm not saying that Arundell can't create, but England have, since the Scotland 2024 game, looked to use their 15 to play 10 on occasions, whether that's offering a split option down the blindside, stepping in when the real 10's indisposed, or standing at 10 and allowing the actual 10 to float around out the back or go wider.

Furbank can do that, MSmith can do that, Steward is working on being able to do that (very much a work in progress), but I don't know whether Carpenter or Arundell could play that role. That's not as to say that we **have** to use our 15 to do that, but it does mean that, if we don't, we have to push that responsibility onto someone else (or completely rework the way we attack) and I'm worried that leads to Slade's return in the centres.

I'd say Dingwall or SAtkinson could do it myself, but we'll have to see how England want to approach it.

Puja

[FKAS]

Well there were compounding mistakes in there, but 2 ‘incidents’ I thought. Valid concern either way, but I thought the second was more a moment of panic in an exit situation than struggling under the high ball.

I (totally biased) just want to believe his finishing and counter-attacking threat can find a place with England, but there will be no room for compromises with all these options.

I didn't have a problem with him keeping his place post Ireland game which obviously didn't come to pass with his injury. I'd be delighted if he proved me wrong, as a rapid winger is always worth having in the squad and he comes across well in interviews and other areas of the game.

Possibly doesn't help I was at Welford Road for Quins awful aerial display a few weeks back. All the contestable kicks went down the other wing to Murley, to the extent it was clearly part of the game plan and Tigers targeted him in the air with OHC (and his height advantage) regathering ball repeatedly. If he's selected for the Pumas game they will almost certainly target him. Whether England can use Steward to defuse those kicks and then try to supply the ball for Murley to counter attack not sure but that could be one way to deal with it.

Was that the 40-odd to 7 drubbing? I looked for the highlights and saw the full game was up, so I just watched it. Austin Healey and Ben Kay commentating on a Leicester game. Jesus wept.

I didn't see any of what you described above, so possibly wasn't even the right game. I can't beleive I just put myself through that.

It's the one where the Scottish wing/fullback for Quins takes out Steward in the air twice to get red carded. Anderson was it? Poor sod had no chance in the air but that was the tactic selected with nothing contestable going down the other wing. Has he played since? Hope he's not got any long lasting damage from headbutting Steward's knee. I watched it live so perceptions may vary from if I'd seen it televised. Live it felt like Quins got their kicking tactics badly wrong and Tigers were able to dominate aerially.

[Mikey Brown]

I didn't have a problem with him keeping his place post Ireland game which obviously didn't come to pass with his injury. I'd be delighted if he proved me wrong, as a rapid winger is always worth having in the squad and he comes across well in interviews and other areas of the game.

Possibly doesn't help I was at Welford Road for Quins awful aerial display a few weeks back. All the contestable kicks went down the other wing to Murley, to the extent it was clearly part of the game plan and Tigers targeted him in the air with OHC (and his height advantage) regathering ball repeatedly. If he's selected for the Pumas game they will almost certainly target him. Whether England can use Steward to defuse those kicks and then try to supply the ball for Murley to counter attack not sure but that could be one way to deal with it.

Was that the 40-odd to 7 drubbing? I looked for the highlights and saw the full game was up, so I just watched it. Austin Healey and Ben Kay commentating on a Leicester game. Jesus wept.

I didn't see any of what you described above, so possibly wasn't even the right game. I can't beleive I just put myself through that.

It's the one where the Scottish wing/fullback for Quins takes out Steward in the air twice to get red carded. Anderson was it? Poor sod had no chance in the air but that was the tactic selected with nothing contestable going down the other wing. Has he played since? Hope he's not got any long lasting damage from headbutting Steward's knee. I watched it live so perceptions may vary from if I'd seen it televised. Live it felt like Quins got their kicking tactics badly wrong and Tigers were able to dominate aerially.

Oh yeah, I probably wasn't clear there. We were definitely beaten aerially, but none of that happened near Murley, or even OHC really. Whatever else you can say about Steward he really does boss that space.

Murley had 3 clean takes, but not under a huge amount of pressure to be honest. Great turnover on the ground against OHC though. Beard was under a bit more pressure when shifted out to the left wing (with Murley moving across) but doesn't seem to play wing much anymore,.

The Anderson collision was horrible. He hasn't played since, and there was a fairly generic statement that he was "on his feet and okay" shortly after, but nothing else I can find.

[Scrumhead]

I'd be very much in favour, although it would be pivoting to a different kind of full-back, as he's not a "second 10" like Furbank or MSmith. It's possible that Beatboxer now sees Dingwall at being capable at 12 as the second playmaker if the 10 gets buried, which would allow a running full-back, but I am concerned that we're going to see Slade at centre again.

Bit of a kick in the teeth for Steward if we do pivot back to having a running 15, given he's worked so hard on developing his playmaking and standing in at 10 for Leicester. Not that it's not good for his overall development to've worked on that (especially improving his hands under pressure, which were godsawful before), but he'd be entitled to be a bit annoyed with the requirements for selection changing so rapidly.

Puja

Do you think there is a categorical distinction between 'second playmaker' and 'runner' at FB? If the FB catches the ball, beats the first two defenders and offloads, which category best describes him? I'm just wondering what characteristics are most needed.

For example, Furbank did NOT look the part originally but when he bulked up a bit while maintaining (or even raising?) his pace he suddenly looked the part without being a pseudo-10 like Goode or Smith.

Brown used to waltz past the first-up defenders and maybe fell down on distribution.

The FB has to field the high ball well and be a natural defender with pace and bite in the tackle. Steward does most of that (natural defender?). He has been accused of lacking top-end pace.

Smith is a brave tackler but looks vulnerable physically. My reluctance to see him at 15 relates mainly to his size.

Daly, IMO, was never a solid defensive option.

Arundell? If he has the defensive capacity, he has the gas and probably the hands.

If Slade tours, he provides 15 cover, I suppose, but I'd rather look elsewhere.

Carpenter has to be trusted to start with, doesn't he?

I would say the distinction is about, "If FSmith makes a break and gets buried in a ruck, does X step in at first receiver and direct the next phase of the attack." I'm not saying that Arundell can't create, but England have, since the Scotland 2024 game, looked to use their 15 to play 10 on occasions, whether that's offering a split option down the blindside, stepping in when the real 10's indisposed, or standing at 10 and allowing the actual 10 to float around out the back or go wider.

Furbank can do that, MSmith can do that, Steward is working on being able to do that (very much a work in progress), but I don't know whether Carpenter or Arundell could play that role. That's not as to say that we **have** to use our 15 to do that, but it does mean that, if we don't, we have to push that responsibility onto someone else (or completely rework the way we attack) and I'm worried that leads to Slade's return in the centres.

I'd say Dingwall or SAtkinson could do it myself, but we'll have to see how England want to approach it.

Puja

Yes - this is the critical point for me. We really need to move on from Slade so anything that justifies his selection is a hard sell for me.

However, at this point, the squad we’ve seen is for the XV game. I’m 100% fine with Arundell and Carpenter duking it out to start. Whether that does much to influence selection on the tour remains to be seen.

[Captainhaircut]

Can someone reassure me that there is zero chance of Farrell going on this tour please?

[Mikey Brown]

He’ll be busy in the sniper’s box with the Lions.

[Mikey Brown]

Come Autumn though…

Ooh boy. Let’s see Fin Smith ‘bring others in to the game’ with a Farrell/Slade centre pairing.

[Oakboy]

Come Autumn though…

Ooh boy. Let’s see Fin Smith ‘bring others in to the game’ with a Farrell/Slade centre pairing.

When are the Bath/Leicester teams announced? Please, let's discuss something else - anything else . . .

[Which Tyler]

Now

[Beasties]

Come Autumn though…

Ooh boy. Let’s see Fin Smith ‘bring others in to the game’ with a Farrell/Slade centre pairing.

[jngf]

Come Autumn though…

Ooh boy. Let’s see Fin Smith ‘bring others in to the game’ with a Farrell/Slade centre pairing.

When are the Bath/Leicester teams announced? Please, let's discuss something else - anything else . . .

Careful what you wish for Will Underhill v Hill for starting 6 Summer tour berth be the Moody v Worsley 2.0 anyone?

[Danno]

Come Autumn though…

Ooh boy. Let’s see Fin Smith ‘bring others in to the game’ with a Farrell/Slade centre pairing.

Fucking hell Mikey, why would you say that

[Beasties]

Come Autumn though…

Ooh boy. Let’s see Fin Smith ‘bring OTHER in to the game’ with a Farrell/(Slade) centre pairing.

FTFY

[Banquo]

Pepper and Hill should be on their way.

[Captainhaircut]

Pepper should start the first test at 6 for me. Given how we’ve lined up in the 6N to good success, Pepper at 6 offering a third lineout option plus BCurry at 7 is the best continuity. Willis obviously at 8. Would have Ilione on the bench with Underhill and Ted Hill.

I thought TDG was excellent today. Far superior to Steward who looks incredibly limited now his super strength is being negated by people getting to him in the air now.

Heyes had a good game which was nice to see, he’s starting to get near his prime as a prop and would be great to see him kick on like Stuart.

Those championing Radwan probably saw why he won’t be picking as he tried and failed miserably to put down Pepper…

[Banquo]

Pepper should start the first test at 6 for me. Given how we’ve lined up in the 6N to good success, Pepper at 6 offering a third lineout option plus BCurry at 7 is the best continuity. Willis obviously at 8. Would have Ilione on the bench with Underhill and Ted Hill.

I thought TDG was excellent today. Far superior to Steward who looks incredibly limited now his super strength is being negated by people getting to him in the air now.

Heyes had a good game which was nice to see, he’s starting to get near his prime as a prop and would be great to see him kick on like Stuart.

Those championing Radwan probably saw why he won’t be picking as he tried and failed miserably to put down Pepper…

Has Pepper played 6? Genuinely don’t know.

[Which Tyler]

3 times this season
Not enough to be playing international rugby there

[Captainhaircut]

3 times this season
Not enough to be playing international rugby there

I’m not sure there’s much of a difference in how he plays as a 7 versus how Tom Curry played as a 6 for England.

Countless international teams have played players in a different back row position when they play another for their club. Ireland playing POM at 7, Wales with Warburton at 6, Aussies with Pocock at 6/8. It’s about the role you are asking them to do.

I’m not sure what skillset Pepper doesn’t have that leads people to think he couldn’t play 6.

[Which Tyler]

That's fair.
But is very much a case of playing two 7s, and someone has to wear 6 on their back.

Personally though, I think that SB wants a proper lineout, ersatz lock at 6, in which case, I'd rather Chessum's backup was the same sort ofmolayer.
If only we had some sort of luxury giraffe we could try there...

[Banquo]

3 times this season
Not enough to be playing international rugby there

I’m not sure there’s much of a difference in how he plays as a 7 versus how Tom Curry played as a 6 for England.

Countless international teams have played players in a different back row position when they play another for their club. Ireland playing POM at 7, Wales with Warburton at 6, Aussies with Pocock at 6/8. It’s about the role you are asking them to do.

I’m not sure what skillset Pepper doesn’t have that leads people to think he couldn’t play 6.

His primary usp looks like being first to the breakdown, with a hard carrying ability and good lineout. I agree numbers don't matter if that is what you are arguing but matching roles to skill sets is, as you say. Pepper looks like an old skool openside to me though his stats have him being relatively tall for old skool 7. POM at 7 is a terrible example tbh, I've never seen a more obvious blindside flanker or a less obvious openside if that is how he was deployed. Warburton was always more of a 6.5 so no issues there, and Pocock was to accommodate two great opensides.

He looks a different player to Tom Curry from what I've seen, better in the lineout weirdly. He may be a good balance with another player who looks like a 7, Ben C, in fairness, but it might detract from his own game. Maybe worth a punt; I like the cut of both CCS and Hill's jibs at 6 though.

[Captainhaircut]

My thought on this is that we were absolutely at our best under Borthwick this 6N when we deployed two opensides or at best one openside and one 6.5. The time before that we were at our best was at the 2019 World Cup with the same.

We have an absolute abundance of 6.5s/7s and should be tailoring a game plan accordingly. Playing CCS or Hill at 6 is a big departure from that set up. We should not be getting ourselves into a position whereby Tcurry is first choice 6 but the minute he’s injured or needs a rest, we completely change backrow balance. Pepper and Ilione for me both look like serious 6 options behind TCurry (lineout, breakdown, reasonable tight carrying) with BCurry, Earl, Underhill and Pollock at 7.

[Banquo]

My thought on this is that we were absolutely at our best under Borthwick this 6N when we deployed two opensides or at best one openside and one 6.5. The time before that we were at our best was at the 2019 World Cup with the same.

We have an absolute abundance of 6.5s/7s and should be tailoring a game plan accordingly. Playing CCS or Hill at 6 is a big departure from that set up. We should not be getting ourselves into a position whereby Tcurry is first choice 6 but the minute he’s injured or needs a rest, we completely change backrow balance. Pepper and Ilione for me both look like serious 6 options behind TCurry (lineout, breakdown, reasonable tight carrying) with BCurry, Earl, Underhill and Pollock at 7.

If the height of your ambition is looking good in the 6n while finishing second fine. But imo we need more carrying or a point of difference up front. Both Pepper and Ilione have spent most of their time as 7’s as far as I can tell, with a balancing 6 and 8. You may be right they are serious options at 6 sight unseen at intl level but not fond of throwing players into new roles intly and being set up to potly fail, as is our way.

[Captainhaircut]

My thought on this is that we were absolutely at our best under Borthwick this 6N when we deployed two opensides or at best one openside and one 6.5. The time before that we were at our best was at the 2019 World Cup with the same.

We have an absolute abundance of 6.5s/7s and should be tailoring a game plan accordingly. Playing CCS or Hill at 6 is a big departure from that set up. We should not be getting ourselves into a position whereby Tcurry is first choice 6 but the minute he’s injured or needs a rest, we completely change backrow balance. Pepper and Ilione for me both look like serious 6 options behind TCurry (lineout, breakdown, reasonable tight carrying) with BCurry, Earl, Underhill and Pollock at 7.

If the height of your ambition is looking good in the 6n while finishing second fine. But imo we need more carrying or a point of difference up front. Both Pepper and Ilione have spent most of their time as 7’s as far as I can tell, with a balancing 6 and 8.

We don’t have a big carrying 6 outside of CCS who doesn’t do the nuts and bolts of a back rower well enough.

Ted Hill barely carries the ball and certainly doesn’t do so in the tight.

So we make use of what we have. Tcurry 6, pollock 7, Willis 8 looks the way forward for me. I assume that would have enough carrying and point of difference.

We’d still have no-one to back up TCurry at 6 if we limit ourselves to not picking players who play 7 for their clubs.

So we need a look at Pepper and or Ilione to play at 6 if we want a continued dual threat at the breakdown.