jngf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:15 pm
The lack of hard yards carrying threat in the pack is quite a concern, only Martin, Underhill and Itoje ( on a good day ) are really capable of making dents in traffic at test level imo.
Also only 2 lineout targets.
A rare occurrence that I agree with you...
However, the way that Martin and Itoje are used means that if we expect them to pick up carrying duties, too, they're not going to be able to fully fulfill their other roles...it's too much work.
Earl is seen as a primary carrier, he consistently gets the ball. He just only makes yards in broken field or out wider. Which is fine if there is someone to pick up the slack, but there isn't...
I will die on the hill that Ben Earl is not a test match backrow.
fivepointer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:49 pm
Its a very lazy shortsighted selection to my mind. I thought he'd freshen up the team and stand down a few players but this is just a retread of what we've had over the last 3 weeks.
Chance missed to look at some alternatives and a worrying lack of faith in the wider squad. You do wonder why certain players were picked in the first place.
AOF is one positive and its good to see Fin Smith in the 23.
For 'lazy' read 'shit-scared' perhaps?
He's convinced that this IS his best team and that he has to win. I think he is wrong about the first part of that sentence but there it is.
I'm pretty sure now that it was a mistake to appoint him but I haven't reached the stage where I hope we lose to hasten his departure.
In a way, by picking his 'tried and trusted' he has made this a must-win game. His judgement is on the line. Had he swapped in half a dozen 'experiments' would he have an excuse should we lose? That would have been the worst scenario.
Conversely, I suppose, winning convincingly with this lot proves little because it is 'only Japan' - but it keeps him in a job.
I accept much of that but it is "only Japan" and frankly we should be able to get the job done with a side showing some changes and with at least one eye to the future.
Agreed - 'we' should but I don't think Borthwick is anywhere remotely close to getting the best out of available playing resources. Everything is wrong. Any sort of win is so important to him now. His next two matches are Ireland and France in the 6N. Assuming we win on Sunday we are stuck with him and the bulk of this 23.
I'm not defending him just trying to rationalise where he is at. I don't think he can do the job but I don't blame him for taking what he sees as the best course to win this match, that's all I am saying.
jngf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:15 pm
The lack of hard yards carrying threat in the pack is quite a concern, only Martin, Underhill and Itoje ( on a good day ) are really capable of making dents in traffic at test level imo.
Also only 2 lineout targets.
Tom Curry is a perfectly respectable lineout option and tbh I can’t see Japan threatening us aerially; our carrying has been poor for a while, and Underhill isn’t a great carrier in any case, he can hit good lines but in traffic no more than average at this level. We’ve obviously gone for more mobility for this game, but I wouldn’t want this team against France or SA.
jngf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:15 pm
The lack of hard yards carrying threat in the pack is quite a concern, only Martin, Underhill and Itoje ( on a good day ) are really capable of making dents in traffic at test level imo.
Also only 2 lineout targets.
A rare occurrence that I agree with you...
However, the way that Martin and Itoje are used means that if we expect them to pick up carrying duties, too, they're not going to be able to fully fulfill their other roles...it's too much work.
Earl is seen as a primary carrier, he consistently gets the ball. He just only makes yards in broken field or out wider. Which is fine if there is someone to pick up the slack, but there isn't...
I will die on the hill that Ben Earl is not a test match backrow.
He's a great test match backrow bench option, superb for that.
jngf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:15 pm
The lack of hard yards carrying threat in the pack is quite a concern, only Martin, Underhill and Itoje ( on a good day ) are really capable of making dents in traffic at test level imo.
Also only 2 lineout targets.
Tom Curry is a perfectly respectable lineout option and tbh I can’t see Japan threatening us aerially; our carrying has been poor for a while, and Underhill isn’t a great carrier in any case, he can hit good lines but in traffic no more than average at this level. We’ve obviously gone for more mobility for this game, but I wouldn’t want this team against France or SA.
Do you think Curry at 6 is the right option to impose our game on Japan? Taking that a step further, is CCS the right bench option? I still think Borthwick has the back row wrong apart from (till now) CCS at 6.
jngf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:15 pm
The lack of hard yards carrying threat in the pack is quite a concern, only Martin, Underhill and Itoje ( on a good day ) are really capable of making dents in traffic at test level imo.
Also only 2 lineout targets.
Tom Curry is a perfectly respectable lineout option and tbh I can’t see Japan threatening us aerially; our carrying has been poor for a while, and Underhill isn’t a great carrier in any case, he can hit good lines but in traffic no more than average at this level. We’ve obviously gone for more mobility for this game, but I wouldn’t want this team against France or SA.
Do you think Curry at 6 is the right option to impose our game on Japan? Taking that a step further, is CCS the right bench option? I still think Borthwick has the back row wrong apart from (till now) CCS at 6.
No, no, maybe.
Curry remains a class act, but the kamikaze twins is 5 years on and no carrying unit between them this time. I'd like to see Ted Hill in action against good opposition ditto Tom Willis, and in due course Pollock (he's had very little top class senior rugby but what a talent at 19) and maybe Pearson if he can get more consistent at club level.
Last edited by Banquo on Fri Nov 22, 2024 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jngf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:15 pm
The lack of hard yards carrying threat in the pack is quite a concern, only Martin, Underhill and Itoje ( on a good day ) are really capable of making dents in traffic at test level imo.
Also only 2 lineout targets.
A rare occurrence that I agree with you...
However, the way that Martin and Itoje are used means that if we expect them to pick up carrying duties, too, they're not going to be able to fully fulfill their other roles...it's too much work.
Earl is seen as a primary carrier, he consistently gets the ball. He just only makes yards in broken field or out wider. Which is fine if there is someone to pick up the slack, but there isn't...
I will die on the hill that Ben Earl is not a test match backrow.
He's a great test match backrow bench option, superb for that.
Why? What does he offer to cover, say, the loss of a carrier or the loss of a ruck disrupter?
However, the way that Martin and Itoje are used means that if we expect them to pick up carrying duties, too, they're not going to be able to fully fulfill their other roles...it's too much work.
Earl is seen as a primary carrier, he consistently gets the ball. He just only makes yards in broken field or out wider. Which is fine if there is someone to pick up the slack, but there isn't...
I will die on the hill that Ben Earl is not a test match backrow.
He's a great test match backrow bench option, superb for that.
Why? What does he offer to cover, say, the loss of a carrier or the loss of a ruck disrupter?
I’m with you Stom. Great club player, but…….mind you he is in good company in this squad.
As an aside if there was a game for Dombrandt then can’t help thinking this would have been the one of the four
However, the way that Martin and Itoje are used means that if we expect them to pick up carrying duties, too, they're not going to be able to fully fulfill their other roles...it's too much work.
Earl is seen as a primary carrier, he consistently gets the ball. He just only makes yards in broken field or out wider. Which is fine if there is someone to pick up the slack, but there isn't...
I will die on the hill that Ben Earl is not a test match backrow.
He's a great test match backrow bench option, superb for that.
Why? What does he offer to cover, say, the loss of a carrier or the loss of a ruck disrupter?
Proper gas and oft good attack lines (but he's been J Arthur on this in the AI's heading back into traffic and dying with it), he's did actually play very well in a defined role most of last season for us. But he's a bit of a passenger in this current team.
jngf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:15 pm
The lack of hard yards carrying threat in the pack is quite a concern, only Martin, Underhill and Itoje ( on a good day ) are really capable of making dents in traffic at test level imo.
Also only 2 lineout targets.
Tom Curry is a perfectly respectable lineout option and tbh I can’t see Japan threatening us aerially; our carrying has been poor for a while, and Underhill isn’t a great carrier in any case, he can hit good lines but in traffic no more than average at this level. We’ve obviously gone for more mobility for this game, but I wouldn’t want this team against France or SA.
Do you think Curry at 6 is the right option to impose our game on Japan? Taking that a step further, is CCS the right bench option? I still think Borthwick has the back row wrong apart from (till now) CCS at 6.
You do get a bee in your bonnet about certain players sometimes . Curry is far from a liability. Other than Itoje he's been one of our most consistent performers in the last 5 or 6 years when available and not being pissed about by being forced to play No. 8
He probably shouldn't be playing this weekend after being sparked out like that, but that's a narrower point
To be honest, I think the whole squad badly needs a win. So perhaps it makes sense to give the designated first team another go. A bit of confidence could go a long way with this lot I think.
Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:32 pm
Tom Curry is a perfectly respectable lineout option and tbh I can’t see Japan threatening us aerially; our carrying has been poor for a while, and Underhill isn’t a great carrier in any case, he can hit good lines but in traffic no more than average at this level. We’ve obviously gone for more mobility for this game, but I wouldn’t want this team against France or SA.
Do you think Curry at 6 is the right option to impose our game on Japan? Taking that a step further, is CCS the right bench option? I still think Borthwick has the back row wrong apart from (till now) CCS at 6.
You do get a bee in your bonnet about certain players sometimes . Curry is far from a liability. Other than Itoje he's been one of our most consistent performers in the last 5 or 6 years when available and not being pissed about by being forced to play No. 8
He probably shouldn't be playing this weekend after being sparked out like that, but that's a narrower point
Totally agree about Curry at his best, pre-(major)injury. I'm not convinced by him now at current levels of form and fitness. He has been called up too soon on his recovery journey, that's all. I hope it does no long-term damage.
p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:23 pm
Ah!!! So this is the game that the centre pairing is going to rip up trees.
Yes. Missed a good chance to try something other than Lawrence/Slade who have looked stodgy. I have not seen the Japan team announcement, but their current 13, Riley, is an outstanding centre, (size, gas, footwork) who may give them a hard time.
He's a great test match backrow bench option, superb for that.
Why? What does he offer to cover, say, the loss of a carrier or the loss of a ruck disrupter?
Proper gas and oft good attack lines (but he's been J Arthur on this in the AI's heading back into traffic and dying with it), he's did actually play very well in a defined role most of last season for us. But he's a bit of a passenger in this current team.
Great, but then you need to build a pack that isn't all about hitting tackling and ruck numbers...because without hard carriers around him, he's nothing but a luxury hyena.
Why? What does he offer to cover, say, the loss of a carrier or the loss of a ruck disrupter?
Proper gas and oft good attack lines (but he's been J Arthur on this in the AI's heading back into traffic and dying with it), he's did actually play very well in a defined role most of last season for us. But he's a bit of a passenger in this current team.
Great, but then you need to build a pack that isn't all about hitting tackling and ruck numbers...because without hard carriers around him, he's nothing but a luxury hyena.
....hence saying he's a bit of a passenger in this team
I'm not a fan to be clear, but doesn't blind me to what he can do.
Surely this is our last chance for ages to inject some vitality in to this team, even if that's just giving Dan/Hill/Smith a start or mixing up the centres a bit.
Tom Curry playing just doesn't feel right. If he gets another concussion/KO Borthwick should resign on the spot.
I feel there's a healthy balance of experiementation to be done against lower ranked sides, without looking arrogant, but not projecting this feeling of desperation for a win at any cost. Maybe AOF in on the bench is as much as we could hope for there.
p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:23 pm
Ah!!! So this is the game that the centre pairing is going to rip up trees.
Yes. Missed a good chance to try something other than Lawrence/Slade who have looked stodgy. I have not seen the Japan team announcement, but their current 13, Riley, is an outstanding centre, (size, gas, footwork) who may give them a hard time.
Indeed. Big fan of Slade but he hit his ceiling a few years back.
I find back row selection confusing. Didn’t we win a World Cup with a rangy workhorse 6, a link man workhorse 7 and a big carrying 8? Didn’t SA just win 2 world cups like that? Why would anyone move away from that?
We have endless options to make that work too. Earl should go play centre where he belongs.
Do you think Curry at 6 is the right option to impose our game on Japan? Taking that a step further, is CCS the right bench option? I still think Borthwick has the back row wrong apart from (till now) CCS at 6.
You do get a bee in your bonnet about certain players sometimes . Curry is far from a liability. Other than Itoje he's been one of our most consistent performers in the last 5 or 6 years when available and not being pissed about by being forced to play No. 8
He probably shouldn't be playing this weekend after being sparked out like that, but that's a narrower point
Totally agree about Curry at his best, pre-(major)injury. I'm not convinced by him now at current levels of form and fitness. He has been called up too soon on his recovery journey, that's all. I hope it does no long-term damage.
p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:23 pm
Ah!!! So this is the game that the centre pairing is going to rip up trees.
Yes. Missed a good chance to try something other than Lawrence/Slade who have looked stodgy. I have not seen the Japan team announcement, but their current 13, Riley, is an outstanding centre, (size, gas, footwork) who may give them a hard time.
Indeed. Big fan of Slade but he hit his ceiling a few years back.
must have hit it hard, as he's played like a concussed dummy for a while.
You do get a bee in your bonnet about certain players sometimes . Curry is far from a liability. Other than Itoje he's been one of our most consistent performers in the last 5 or 6 years when available and not being pissed about by being forced to play No. 8
He probably shouldn't be playing this weekend after being sparked out like that, but that's a narrower point
Totally agree about Curry at his best, pre-(major)injury. I'm not convinced by him now at current levels of form and fitness. He has been called up too soon on his recovery journey, that's all. I hope it does no long-term damage.
Aye fair enough
Danno!! Read between the lines. Oakboy is calling him a journeyman.
Spiffy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 5:10 pm
Yes. Missed a good chance to try something other than Lawrence/Slade who have looked stodgy. I have not seen the Japan team announcement, but their current 13, Riley, is an outstanding centre, (size, gas, footwork) who may give them a hard time.
Indeed. Big fan of Slade but he hit his ceiling a few years back.
must have hit it hard, as he's played like a concussed dummy for a while.
Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 5:37 pm
I find back row selection confusing. Didn’t we win a World Cup with a rangy workhorse 6, a link man workhorse 7 and a big carrying 8? Didn’t SA just win 2 world cups like that? Why would anyone move away from that?
We have endless options to make that work too. Earl should go play centre where he belongs.
....21 years ago, yes- game has moved on a tad.. Though not sure Hill was exactly 'rangy' at 6ft 1, and hardly a PSDT lookalike; ditto Kolisi was no Neil Back, more a ruck smasher workhorse than luxury linker. Other than that...
I do agree backrow selection is confused; though you have omitted CCS who has a bit of x factor imo- still quite green, and think Pearson currently spends most games at 7.
Totally agree about Curry at his best, pre-(major)injury. I'm not convinced by him now at current levels of form and fitness. He has been called up too soon on his recovery journey, that's all. I hope it does no long-term damage.
Aye fair enough
Danno!! Read between the lines. Oakboy is calling him a journeyman.
. Curry is far from a liability. Other than Itoje he's been one of our most consistent performers in the last 5 or 6 years when available and not being pissed about by being forced to play No. 8
