Borthwick’s England 2.0
Moderator: Puja
-
- Posts: 1977
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:38 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Suddenly Paris is looking less daunting, whilst Murrayfield looks like more of a worry.
-
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:04 am
- Mellsblue
- Posts: 16100
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
-
- Posts: 20893
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Looks like Manu and Sid straight back in, as well as Martin and LCD.
-
- Posts: 2403
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:01 pm
- Location: Haute-Garonne
- Oakboy
- Posts: 6845
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Agreed but I'd not be surprised if it's Tuilagi and Lawrence v Scotland. The temptation to select bludgeon instead of skill will probably rule.francoisfou wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:14 pmWould’ve thought that Dingwall and Slade deserve another match together instead of shoehorning the probably-far from-match-fit Tuilagi.
-
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:45 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
I would have thought it would be Lawrence and Slade.
Marvellous if Martin is fit.
Marvellous if Martin is fit.
- Puja
- Posts: 18189
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Slade will play. He is the fulcrum of our attack and defence and, while he might not be our best player, he's certainly our most important right now.Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:08 pmAgreed but I'd not be surprised if it's Tuilagi and Lawrence v Scotland. The temptation to select bludgeon instead of skill will probably rule.francoisfou wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:14 pmWould’ve thought that Dingwall and Slade deserve another match together instead of shoehorning the probably-far from-match-fit Tuilagi.
Dingwall's difficult to judge. He's not been perfect, but he's shown definite sparks, and there is a lot to be said for going full Bazball and backing a talent to see if he can shine when shown faith. He could be our Zak Crawley. I think the key to whether there'll be a change will depend on just how fit Lawrence and Manu are. If they can start training from today, then they've got two weeks to learn the defensive system and integrate themselves into the new routines. If they're not really fully fit and only come into contention next week, then I think continuity will be more important.
Puja
Backist Monk
- Oakboy
- Posts: 6845
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am
- Puja
- Posts: 18189
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
I will take a moment to note that a (fully fit) Manu could be an awful lot of fun in the FJones defensive system. Imagining him doing the same kind of charging up in midfield that Dingwall and Slade did well against Wales.
Puja
Puja
Backist Monk
-
- Posts: 20893
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Sorry into squad.francoisfou wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:14 pmWould’ve thought that Dingwall and Slade deserve another match together instead of shoehorning the probably-far from-match-fit Tuilagi.
-
- Posts: 20893
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Dingwall and Lawrence would be my pick. Slade has wasted a lot of ball. Both M Smith and Ford would benefit from Dingwall and Lawrence mixing it up in the midfield, big lad and dextrous unselfish lad could ask some different questions of defences, and take advantage of play close to the tackle line.
- Puja
- Posts: 18189
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
I'm very much not against that pairing in theory, but we're lining up so many of our set plays and attacking moves with Slade standing 10 and Ford drifting behind, so if we dump him, then we've got to find someone else who can do that. Dingwall could maybe, but it's not his forte. Possibly Daly, but I'm loathe to take one of the wingers out being available as an attacking option on a strike play. If we had Furbank, then we could put him there, but Steward's been very good so far at 15 (and no-one wants him to go on the wing).Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:41 pm Dingwall and Lawrence would be my pick. Slade has wasted a lot of ball. Both M Smith and Ford would benefit from Dingwall and Lawrence mixing it up in the midfield, big lad and dextrous unselfish lad could ask some different questions of defences, and take advantage of play close to the tackle line.
Puja
Backist Monk
-
- Posts: 1553
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:31 am
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Tbh, I’m just enjoying not having a certain person permanently selected and bunging everything up. We actually look like we want to try some back moves now.
- Oakboy
- Posts: 6845
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Good point but Tuilagi is a secondary blockage, IMO. He no longer runs through brick walls - just into them.
-
- Posts: 1553
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:31 am
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
-
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:45 pm
-
- Posts: 6496
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:42 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Has Tuilagi played since the WC? Seems ridiculous to talk of him coming into the side on the basis of his lack of match sharpness alone, let alone his very ordinary recent form for England. The days when he could make dents and create havoc with his running are long gone, and his distributing skills are very limited.
I'd have Lawrence back in a heartbeat at the expense of Slade who has been very underwhelming.
Dingwall has shown enough to warrant further selection and In think he could work well with Lawrence.
I'd have Lawrence back in a heartbeat at the expense of Slade who has been very underwhelming.
Dingwall has shown enough to warrant further selection and In think he could work well with Lawrence.
-
- Posts: 12367
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
As others have said the issue with that is how much we’ve built both attack and defence around Slade so far. You couldn’t simply swap Lawrence in and expect him to thrive.
Maybe they’ll switch up the approach in both areas to accommodate Lawrence at 13 but it seems much more like he is on the bench or replacing Dingwall.
Maybe they’ll switch up the approach in both areas to accommodate Lawrence at 13 but it seems much more like he is on the bench or replacing Dingwall.
-
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:45 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Lawrence / Slade
Tuilagi / Slade
Tuilagi / Lawrence
Steward / Lawrence
…. See where I’m going here
Tuilagi / Slade
Tuilagi / Lawrence
Steward / Lawrence
…. See where I’m going here
- Puja
- Posts: 18189
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Frankly, I'd be more interested in Furbank/Lawrence if we're planning on converting a full-back to centre (which I don't think we should do, just to be clear).
Puja
Backist Monk
-
- Posts: 20893
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
sadly I agree, despite it meaning playing Sid out of position (he has started at 12 for England, but rarely at club level, and to me it looks like he needs time and space to thrive).
Its not like Slade at 13 and 10 has magically unlocked something; and extending the logic, what happens when Smith is fit? (a different problem, I accept).
-
- Posts: 12367
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Yeah it has drawbacks, but I can see England compromising to get a bit more firepower (or whatever you want to call it) in there somewhere. Plus Lawrence getting that random game at 12 for Bath (with a 12 at 13) right before the 6 nations had the feel of England meddling to me.Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:01 pmsadly I agree, despite it meaning playing Sid out of position (he has started at 12 for England, but rarely at club level, and to me it looks like he needs time and space to thrive).
Its not like Slade at 13 and 10 has magically unlocked something; and extending the logic, what happens when Smith is fit? (a different problem, I accept).
I don't see England moving away from wanting a functional stand-in first receiver regardless of who is at fly-half.
-
- Posts: 20893
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
yupMikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:16 pmYeah it has drawbacks, but I can see England compromising to get a bit more firepower (or whatever you want to call it) in there somewhere. Plus Lawrence getting that random game at 12 for Bath (with a 12 at 13) right before the 6 nations had the feel of England meddling to me.Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:01 pmsadly I agree, despite it meaning playing Sid out of position (he has started at 12 for England, but rarely at club level, and to me it looks like he needs time and space to thrive).
Its not like Slade at 13 and 10 has magically unlocked something; and extending the logic, what happens when Smith is fit? (a different problem, I accept).
I don't see England moving away from wanting a functional stand-in first receiver regardless of who is at fly-half.
- Oakboy
- Posts: 6845
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am
Re: Borthwick’s England 2.0
Maybe, we simply haven't had a FH good enough to change the pre-conceived ideas - on the back of OF's period of skewed dominance, anyway.Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:16 pm
I don't see England moving away from wanting a functional stand-in first receiver regardless of who is at fly-half.