Team for Italy

[Beasties]

Those Italian centres are quite something.

[p/d]

Those Italian centres are quite something.

They are, but missed quite a few tackles. Unlike Negri (who I thought superb)

[FKAS]

I thought our defence this tournament has been pretty good - we've been the only side to stop France's power runners dead in their tracks.

Weird old game. Brace was absolutely convinced that everyone had bought tickets to come see him and his shiny new whistle, but then again, we kept giving him reasons to blow up rather than adapting to him. We looked like we were thinking about the points difference before we started and didn't cope with the Italian blitz at all - feeding Daly into it with long wide floaty passes twice in a row was painful.

Thought Mitchell and FSmith were poor. Both Currys were exceptional and I'd have them both starting, either side of TWillis, against Wales.

Puja

Agreed. As much as Ben Key kept insisting how much better the attack looked with ‘Northampton shape’ etc. and the media are fawning over Fin for kicking his goals (very well I might add), I wasn’t overly impressed.

The Italian defence deserves credit for some good reads in midfield, but all the bollocks about Fin ‘bringing people into the game etc.’ looks very much like the Emperor’s new clothes I suspected it might be. Considering how much better the platform from the set piece has been, Mitchell has also underwhelmed. I was excited for him to come back, but he’s not been great.

100% agree on the Currys. I’m really pleased for Ben Curry but it also makes me a little frustrated to think such a quality asset was ignored for a good 5-6yrs.

Agreed about the Northampton shape. There was at least on kadab from FSmith that was as bad any by other tens. Still, the disruption by injury hardly helped.

What did people make of Dingwall? I must say he seemed anonymous to me bar one succulent pass in one try build up. That could mean he was being quietly efficient against good opponents.

Not sure there was any Northampton shape to be honest.

FSmith looked isolated at times, he seemed to be looking for runners that just weren't there. Possibly not helped by Lawrence and Willis going off early as they were clearly supposed to be key carriers for us. The wings staying out there, MSmith was atrocious first half but came alive in the second half and was much better and certainly helped as an outlet but it was an undersized backline that lacked direct threat with the wingers staying out wide.

Dingwall had a decent game. Threw himself into things defensively, nice hands but he needs to be paired with a direct running threat. He just doesn't work as a midfield partner for Daly and Slade. Daly also had a decent game but he's not a direct running threat and needs to be paired with a running threat.

[Banquo]

Agreed. As much as Ben Key kept insisting how much better the attack looked with ‘Northampton shape’ etc. and the media are fawning over Fin for kicking his goals (very well I might add), I wasn’t overly impressed.

The Italian defence deserves credit for some good reads in midfield, but all the bollocks about Fin ‘bringing people into the game etc.’ looks very much like the Emperor’s new clothes I suspected it might be. Considering how much better the platform from the set piece has been, Mitchell has also underwhelmed. I was excited for him to come back, but he’s not been great.

100% agree on the Currys. I’m really pleased for Ben Curry but it also makes me a little frustrated to think such a quality asset was ignored for a good 5-6yrs.

Agreed about the Northampton shape. There was at least on kadab from FSmith that was as bad any by other tens. Still, the disruption by injury hardly helped.

What did people make of Dingwall? I must say he seemed anonymous to me bar one succulent pass in one try build up. That could mean he was being quietly efficient against good opponents.

Not sure there was any Northampton shape to be honest.

FSmith looked isolated at times, he seemed to be looking for runners that just weren't there. Possibly not helped by Lawrence and Willis going off early as they were clearly supposed to be key carriers for us. The wings staying out there, MSmith was atrocious first half but came alive in the second half and was much better and certainly helped as an outlet but it was an undersized backline that lacked direct threat with the wingers staying out wide.

Dingwall had a decent game. Threw himself into things defensively, nice hands but he needs to be paired with a direct running threat. He just doesn't work as a midfield partner for Daly and Slade. Daly also had a decent game but he's not a direct running threat and needs to be paired with a running threat.

Agreed on all that....there was no real attacking shape after a couple of phases frankly. And agreed that both the D-squad played pretty well in midfield I thought as individuals (but not an ideal pairing for how we set up to play), Daly having made a good start at 15 as well. But tricky to adjust when you only have one carrier in the backline, though Dingers can get over the tackle line with nice angles. Be interested to see how quickly or otherwise ball was being generated after a couple of phases.

As said before, and before this thread, Dingwall is an enabling midfield player, and most good things we did involved some deft and accurate passing from him. Not flashy, but it works. Kind of the unseen work

Saw a comment on Sleightholme being clumsy earlier- he was much improved from last time out, I thought competed better on kick chase, did one outrageous offload out the back when near touch and gained an excellent turnover on a jackal...and his second try was a top notch finish. Went well, as did Freeman.

Odd game, and for all that someone said our defence was ok, we missed a sh8t load of tackles and got shredded again on a counter attack.

[p/d]

I really am missing something about Sleightholme.

[Mikey Brown]

I really am missing something about Sleightholme.

He’s certainly got the component parts to be lethal in attack, but it’s hard to know if his lack of significant attacking touches are down to him or his surroundings.

Nice for him to get a couple of tries, neat finish for the second, but hasn’t really broken free. It would be interesting to know if we’d have seen the same from Murley or any of the other strike runner style wing options at 11. I suspect we would.

Daly or Roebuck do make more sense if we’re not that focused on getting the ball in their hands.

Dingwall is hard to judge. I’ve already come to hate the term ‘glue player’ but trying to make that work within 2 games at the end of a tournament, with 2 different centre partners, is a big ask.

[Banquo]

I really am missing something about Sleightholme.

its the hair.

He's quick, excellent finisher.

[Banquo]

I really am missing something about Sleightholme.

He’s certainly got the component parts to be lethal in attack, but it’s hard to know if his lack of significant attacking touches are down to him or his surroundings.

Nice for him to get a couple of tries, neat finish for the second, but hasn’t really broken free. It would be interesting to know if we’d have seen the same from Murley or any of the other strike runner style wing options at 11. I suspect we would.

Daly or Roebuck do make more sense if we’re not that focused on getting the ball in their hands.

Dingwall is hard to judge. I’ve already come to hate the term ‘glue player’ but trying to make that work within 2 games at the end of a tournament, with 2 different centre partners, is a big ask.

Weird how we all say our attacking coaching is a bit pants, yet moan about x,y,z back not doing anything in attack. Yet the wingers touched the ball a lot, Freeman 25 times, which is huge.

[loudnconfident]

Watched it on catch-up. I thought our first try was excellent by any standards - and what all the pundits were asking for?

Poor Lawrence. Hope its not another Tulilagi. If he hadn't had to stop I think we could have scored from the move - an extra heavy back would have assisted Freeman near the tryline.

Italy weren't terrible, and we won well.

[fivepointer]

Watched it live and again this morning.
There was a lot to like and i'm not at all dismayed by the performance or result.
We scored some excellent tries. The Willis and Smith scores were particularly good. We offloaded more in this game than we've done in any game this season. We showed some ambition and willingness to keep the ball alive. Our forwards were tremendous. The work at the set piece and in open play was very impressive.
Sure we made errors but mostly when we were actually trying to play. We should be concerned by the Italy tries but did defend very well at times.
We adapted to losing Lawrence - a big loss as he started very brightly and meant we lost a carrier in the centre. Not sure how we replace him next week.
Overall i think this was a positive more forward.

Oh and Brace is a terrible referee.

[p/d]

I really am missing something about Sleightholme.

its the hair.

He's quick, excellent finisher.

I certainly cannot forgive the hair and accompanying ‘tache. Even more so when he has handbags with the Italian forwards.

I get he is a good finisher, just he seems a bit average otherwise …… I recall one opportunity when he could have pinned his ears back and gone for it on the outside but looked so hesitant that he didn’t back himself.

Or it could be that I just prefer Roebuck as a player

[Banquo]

I really am missing something about Sleightholme.

its the hair.

He's quick, excellent finisher.

I certainly cannot forgive the hair and accompanying ‘tache. Even more so when he has handbags with the Italian forwards.

I get he is a good finisher, just he seems a bit average otherwise …… I recall one opportunity when he could have pinned his ears back and gone for it on the outside but looked so hesitant that he didn’t back himself.

Or it could be that I just prefer Roebuck as a player

he's very quick. Don't think Roebuck is.

[Banquo]

Watched it live and again this morning.
There was a lot to like and i'm not at all dismayed by the performance or result.
We scored some excellent tries. The Willis and Smith scores were particularly good. We offloaded more in this game than we've done in any game this season. We showed some ambition and willingness to keep the ball alive. Our forwards were tremendous. The work at the set piece and in open play was very impressive.
Sure we made errors but mostly when we were actually trying to play. We should be concerned by the Italy tries but did defend very well at times.
We adapted to losing Lawrence - a big loss as he started very brightly and meant we lost a carrier in the centre. Not sure how we replace him next week.
Overall i think this was a positive more forward.

Oh and Brace is a terrible referee.

I'm still bothered by slowness of ruck ball on occasion and our tackling (and defence). Work in progress, but heavily disrupted early on its true- attacking shape was a tad weird even off first phase as well as the game wore on, very predictable.

[francoisfou]

I really am missing something about Sleightholme.

its the hair.

Exactly! He should make an appointment with Marler's hairdresser!

[TheDasher]

Sleightholme's hair is atrocious, needs to sort that out... doesn't say much for him and his judgement.

That aside - for an extended period he was absolutely tearing things up for Northampton, not just showing the pace and finishing Banquo mentions but also great strength in contact, frequently bouncing off bigger defenders, breaking tackles etc. He had that lovely outside break against NZ in NZ and since then hasn't shown much because he hasn't had the ball and then one starts to question "is he any good? he's a bit small, has shit hair and I think we should put someone else in" - then at some stage before he has chance to impress he gets dropped and the cycle starts with someone else. Roebuck would be picked, miss a tackle against someone fast and everyone would say, "he's too slow for international rugby" even without having any actual data on how fast he is.

I think the skill with selection is working out who has the class and then having the balls to persevere with them until the class shines through even if it doesn't immediately... just managing that process basically. So many calls for Will Stuart to go before and now look at him. I was initially dubious about Chessum, now look at him etc etc.

I would say that with the way rugby has gone over the last five years or so I can see that Roebuck might make a more sensible pick overall/all round, rain or shine, playing either the Boks or Japan than Sleightholme who might end up being more of a highlights player. Either way though he's shown over the past few years that he's a hell of talent.

[Which Tyler]

Sleightholme's hair is atrocious, needs to sort that out... doesn't say much for him and his judgement.

That aside - for an extended period he was absolutely tearing things up for Northampton, not just showing the pace and finishing Banquo mentions but also great strength in contact, frequently bouncing off bigger defenders, breaking tackles etc. He had that lovely outside break against NZ in NZ and since then hasn't shown much because he hasn't had the ball and then one starts to question "is he any good? he's a bit small, has shit hair and I think we should put someone else in" - then at some stage before he has chance to impress he gets dropped and the cycle starts with someone else. Roebuck would be picked, miss a tackle against someone fast and everyone would say, "he's too slow for international rugby" even without having any actual data on how fast he is.

I think the skill with selection is working out who has the class and then having the balls to persevere with them until the class shines through even if it doesn't immediately... just managing that process basically. So many calls for Will Stuart to go before and now look at him. I was initially dubious about Chessum, now look at him etc etc.

I would say that with the way rugby has gone over the last five years or so I can see that Roebuck might make a more sensible pick overall/all round, rain or shine, playing either the Boks or Japan than Sleightholme who might end up being more of a highlights player. Either way though he's shown over the past few years that he's a hell of talent.

[Puja]

I really am missing something about Sleightholme.

its the hair.

He's quick, excellent finisher.

I certainly cannot forgive the hair and accompanying ‘tache. Even more so when he has handbags with the Italian forwards.

I get he is a good finisher, just he seems a bit average otherwise …… I recall one opportunity when he could have pinned his ears back and gone for it on the outside but looked so hesitant that he didn’t back himself.

Or it could be that I just prefer Roebuck as a player

The thing I like about Sleightholme is his power into contact - he's got the pinball effect of accelerating into tacklers and using his bosh and fast feet to bounce off and keep going. Scored a ridiculous try for Saints (last year?) where he cut inside and bounced about four tacklers on his way to the line. Add that to his excellent jackalling and he's like a quick Jack Nowell.

This 6N has emphasised however that he's not quite up to speed with attacking positioning at international rugby yet - he's not finding himself in the right position to take a pass when he goes looking for work and is just half a step off where he needs to be. He's got a lot to like about him in his pace, finishing instincts, and strength, but he's got a bit to learn (which isn't unreasonable from a 24 year old in his first year of international rugby). If he can develop the brains and nous of Nowell, he'll be formidable indeed. Right now, he's just keeping IFW's seat warm and only just ahead of Roebuck and Murley, but even with that, he has got 6 tries in 7 caps, which is not to be sniffed at.

Plus Italy definitely had a game-plan to target him with kicks, which worked for the most part.

Agreed. As much as Ben Key kept insisting how much better the attack looked with ‘Northampton shape’ etc. and the media are fawning over Fin for kicking his goals (very well I might add), I wasn’t overly impressed.

The Italian defence deserves credit for some good reads in midfield, but all the bollocks about Fin ‘bringing people into the game etc.’ looks very much like the Emperor’s new clothes I suspected it might be. Considering how much better the platform from the set piece has been, Mitchell has also underwhelmed. I was excited for him to come back, but he’s not been great.

100% agree on the Currys. I’m really pleased for Ben Curry but it also makes me a little frustrated to think such a quality asset was ignored for a good 5-6yrs.

Yeah, there were more than a few occasions where FSmith appeared completely out of synch with the rest of the team - taking it to the line and looking off his shoulder for a player that wasn't there at all. I'm not going to, because I don't have brain or spons, but I was tempted to do a m-b-m just to see what was happening there and see if it was Fin mistakes or if he was let down by the team.

Agreed on the frustration over BCurry. I think the thing that has made me happiest about his performances this 6N is the change in the way he carries himself on the pitch. For years, he's been portrayed as "Tom's less good brother". The whole "get Ben to Japan" campaign thing in 2019 to get him tickets for the RWC final was weird as shit, the public treating him almost as a non-playing family member rather than an excellent player who should probably have been in the squad by that point.

And it did become true at one point, partly because Eddie had poured years of international experience and training and confidence into Tom, while utterly ignoring Ben (except to suggest that maybe he should move to scrum-half or picking him on the bench for the second string against the USA behind Ludlow - I'll swear it was like Eddie saw identical twins in the same position with similar quality and skills and decided to run a science experiment to see what happened if he lauded one and denigrated the other, and Ben was just unlucky to get that injury to knock him out of the Argentina tour meaning Tom became the chosen one).

But partly because you can't have years and years of being treated like the lesser brother without it seeping into your head. When he got his first proper cap in 2023 under Borthwick, it was in the press as "Tom is injured, so maybe the off-brand version might be an okay substitute? But we'd be happier with Earl and his highlights reel." And Ben played like that - a decent club player who was overpromoted to internationals out of hope that he could be like his brother, rather than the person who'd been continually excelling for Sale and earned it on his own merits. Borthwick's shown faith and confidence in keeping him involved in training squads and XXIIIs and has been rewarded by him blossoming into a fine option for England. He now looks like he believes he belongs there and that's really pleasing.

Agreed about the Northampton shape. There was at least on kadab from FSmith that was as bad any by other tens. Still, the disruption by injury hardly helped.

What did people make of Dingwall? I must say he seemed anonymous to me bar one succulent pass in one try build up. That could mean he was being quietly efficient against good opponents.

Not sure there was any Northampton shape to be honest.

FSmith looked isolated at times, he seemed to be looking for runners that just weren't there. Possibly not helped by Lawrence and Willis going off early as they were clearly supposed to be key carriers for us. The wings staying out there, MSmith was atrocious first half but came alive in the second half and was much better and certainly helped as an outlet but it was an undersized backline that lacked direct threat with the wingers staying out wide.

Dingwall had a decent game. Threw himself into things defensively, nice hands but he needs to be paired with a direct running threat. He just doesn't work as a midfield partner for Daly and Slade. Daly also had a decent game but he's not a direct running threat and needs to be paired with a running threat.

Thought MSmith looked like he'd been promised 20 minutes at fly-half, had been training all week for that, and then forgot everything he ever knew about playing 15 when he came on. Looked completely lost in both attack and defence in that first half but, as you said, was noticeably better after having had half-time to reset and refocus. Daly was similar - I forgot he was supposed to be playing 13 for large swathes of the first half, because he was just barely there.

I can't really blame England for dysfunction though - I'd imagine not a huge amount of time has been dedicated to training a backline without Lawrence in it, simply because he was never going to be tactically subbed no matter what happened, so it wasn't worth using too much precious training time on it. It might be that Dingwall/Daly is a functional centre partnership if they train together for a bit beforehand.

But I doubt it.

Puja

[Captainhaircut]

Sleightholme has the same problem Freeman had on the left wing. We don’t pass the ball to the left for whatever reason.

[jngf]

Re Ben Curry I think the balance of him would work better with an attack oriented player like Ted Hill on other flank rather than his brother, in the same way that the balance of Tom Curry and Ben Earl together works well imo.

[p/d]

I will wait for Sleightholme to prove me wrong. And I’m sure he will, but at the moment rabbit in the headlights.

[FKAS]

Not sure there was any Northampton shape to be honest.

FSmith looked isolated at times, he seemed to be looking for runners that just weren't there. Possibly not helped by Lawrence and Willis going off early as they were clearly supposed to be key carriers for us. The wings staying out there, MSmith was atrocious first half but came alive in the second half and was much better and certainly helped as an outlet but it was an undersized backline that lacked direct threat with the wingers staying out wide.

Dingwall had a decent game. Threw himself into things defensively, nice hands but he needs to be paired with a direct running threat. He just doesn't work as a midfield partner for Daly and Slade. Daly also had a decent game but he's not a direct running threat and needs to be paired with a running threat.

Thought MSmith looked like he'd been promised 20 minutes at fly-half, had been training all week for that, and then forgot everything he ever knew about playing 15 when he came on. Looked completely lost in both attack and defence in that first half but, as you said, was noticeably better after having had half-time to reset and refocus. Daly was similar - I forgot he was supposed to be playing 13 for large swathes of the first half, because he was just barely there.

I can't really blame England for dysfunction though - I'd imagine not a huge amount of time has been dedicated to training a backline without Lawrence in it, simply because he was never going to be tactically subbed no matter what happened, so it wasn't worth using too much precious training time on it. It might be that Dingwall/Daly is a functional centre partnership if they train together for a bit beforehand.

But I doubt it.

Puja

Yeah, we needed that halftime reset in the backs. I was wondering whether we'd have to hide Marcus on the wing in the second half because he was all over the place in the first. Thankfully he found his feet.

Dingwall and Daly was and could be functional but that's the extension of it. Would be an idea to bring back Steward if we're sticking with that midfield so we've got a a direct running threat that can come into the line.

Failing that a Saints midfield of Dingwall and Freeman with Roebuck on the wing and then take your pick of fullback would also work.

[TheDasher]

I will wait for Sleightholme to prove me wrong. And I’m sure he will, but at the moment rabbit in the headlights.

I'm with you on Roebuck, if I was selecting, I'm go for him too - I think he looks a test player for sure.

[p/d]

FKAS!!! Sort out ya posting

[FKAS]

FKAS!!! Sort out ya posting

Yes mum

[twitchy]

Max Ojomoh has been called up according to rugbypass.