The Official English Rugby Thread

[SaintK]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Unfortunately aywalled mate!
How about cut and paste and spoiler it

[inactionman]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Unfortunately aywalled mate!
How about cut and paste and spoiler it

No idea how I've got access, I'm not a subscriber.

May be worth archive ph as there's a few vids in it?

@ASMO can I post archive ph or is that breaking the rules?

[JM2K6]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Charlie Morgan really frustrates me. No question he's got a good eye for the game and his analysis of tactics and execution is usually very grounded, but he approaches his articles as if anything England (coaches or players) does is the correct thing to do and works backwards from there. He's a very good mouth piece

The questions of: what does it say about this England team and the tactical approach that having Marcus's creativity overrides all other considerations, to the point of shoehorning him in at 15? What does it say about Fin Smith? (Autocorrect changed that to 'Fin Sloth' and you can guarantee I will start using that if things go south)

What about what Fin needs from his back line? Why are we wedded to a 6-2 bench when it hamstrings our ability to be flexible in the backline, and essentially guarantees comprises from the start? Why do we need Slade if he's still missing tackles and his creativity extends to a good kick now and then?

Why, when Marcus put Earl through a gap with a peach of a pass, did the resulting ruck see Mitchell butcher a massive opportunity by half heartedly going for a gap? Why are we not seeing Mitchell tracking runners much? Why is Randall in the squad given his kicking is woeful but he's still being asked to do loads of it?

Explaining to the plebs why this is all a good idea actually has worn thin.

[inactionman]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Charlie Morgan really frustrates me. No question he's got a good eye for the game and his analysis of tactics and execution is usually very grounded, but he approaches his articles as if anything England (coaches or players) does is the correct thing to do and works backwards from there. He's a very good mouth piece

The questions of: what does it say about this England team and the tactical approach that having Marcus's creativity overrides all other considerations, to the point of shoehorning him in at 15? What does it say about Fin Smith? (Autocorrect changed that to 'Fin Sloth' and you can guarantee I will start using that if things go south)

What about what Fin needs from his back line? Why are we wedded to a 6-2 bench when it hamstrings our ability to be flexible in the backline, and essentially guarantees comprises from the start? Why do we need Slade if he's still missing tackles and his creativity extends to a good kick now and then?

Why, when Marcus put Earl through a gap with a peach of a pass, did the resulting ruck see Mitchell butcher a massive opportunity by half heartedly going for a gap? Why are we not seeing Mitchell tracking runners much? Why is Randall in the squad given his kicking is woeful but he's still being asked to do loads of it?

Explaining to the plebs why this is all a good idea actually has worn thin.

I'm not sure England are looking at shoehorning Marcus Smith in at 15 for the sake of it, it's also about losing Furbank and our other main candidate* not being particularly dynamic, if I may be diplomatic.

It's Hobson's choice to some extent, but there's some rationale for it.



* that we're not looking at other candidates from the Prem is an issue in and of itself.

[JM2K6]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Charlie Morgan really frustrates me. No question he's got a good eye for the game and his analysis of tactics and execution is usually very grounded, but he approaches his articles as if anything England (coaches or players) does is the correct thing to do and works backwards from there. He's a very good mouth piece

The questions of: what does it say about this England team and the tactical approach that having Marcus's creativity overrides all other considerations, to the point of shoehorning him in at 15? What does it say about Fin Smith? (Autocorrect changed that to 'Fin Sloth' and you can guarantee I will start using that if things go south)

What about what Fin needs from his back line? Why are we wedded to a 6-2 bench when it hamstrings our ability to be flexible in the backline, and essentially guarantees comprises from the start? Why do we need Slade if he's still missing tackles and his creativity extends to a good kick now and then?

Why, when Marcus put Earl through a gap with a peach of a pass, did the resulting ruck see Mitchell butcher a massive opportunity by half heartedly going for a gap? Why are we not seeing Mitchell tracking runners much? Why is Randall in the squad given his kicking is woeful but he's still being asked to do loads of it?

Explaining to the plebs why this is all a good idea actually has worn thin.

I'm not sure England are looking at shoehorning Marcus Smith in at 15 for the sake of it, it's also about losing Furbank and our other main candidate* not being particularly dynamic, if I may be diplomatic.

It's Hobson's choice to some extent, but there's some rationale for it.



* that we're not looking at other candidates from the Prem is an issue in and of itself.

He's been pushed to fullback on many occasions, though. Yes, we're missing Furbank. Why does that mean we have to pick a small 10 at 15 rather than selecting a player who is comfortable playing there and is more suited to it, like Carpenter or Freeman? Or either of the promising Exeter guys who've racked up appearances? The argument being made is that Marcus is one of England's best players and needs to be on the pitch. Why? Because perversely, in a game plan that has been laser focused on the kicking game and defensive pressure, having a player who can break open teams is critical.

Can't question the game plan, mind.

[dpedin]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Charlie Morgan really frustrates me. No question he's got a good eye for the game and his analysis of tactics and execution is usually very grounded, but he approaches his articles as if anything England (coaches or players) does is the correct thing to do and works backwards from there. He's a very good mouth piece

The questions of: what does it say about this England team and the tactical approach that having Marcus's creativity overrides all other considerations, to the point of shoehorning him in at 15? What does it say about Fin Smith? (Autocorrect changed that to 'Fin Sloth' and you can guarantee I will start using that if things go south)

What about what Fin needs from his back line? Why are we wedded to a 6-2 bench when it hamstrings our ability to be flexible in the backline, and essentially guarantees comprises from the start? Why do we need Slade if he's still missing tackles and his creativity extends to a good kick now and then?

Why, when Marcus put Earl through a gap with a peach of a pass, did the resulting ruck see Mitchell butcher a massive opportunity by half heartedly going for a gap? Why are we not seeing Mitchell tracking runners much? Why is Randall in the squad given his kicking is woeful but he's still being asked to do loads of it?

Explaining to the plebs why this is all a good idea actually has worn thin.

I'm not sure England are looking at shoehorning Marcus Smith in at 15 for the sake of it, it's also about losing Furbank and our other main candidate* not being particularly dynamic, if I may be diplomatic.

It's Hobson's choice to some extent, but there's some rationale for it.



* that we're not looking at other candidates from the Prem is an issue in and of itself.

I can understand trying to get your best players on the field together but asking Marcus Smith to start his first international at 15 against the current French team with their kicking expertise and ability to release their speedy back 3 into space out wide is a bit of an ask! It would be a tough game for a battle hardened and experienced 15 at the best of times. I would have thought a couple of games at 15 during AIs might have been a good test run for Smith in advance of this? It is going to be a real ask for Smith at 15 in terms of the high ball, positioning and last man tackles. There is a whiff of desperation and no plan B here and for both Smiths' sake I hope it doesn't end up the disaster it might be!

[Raggs]

I'd trust Smith to get a hand on the French wingers out scrum half if they break through, than I would steward it even Freeman. That hopefully buys enough time for someone else to get in there.

[JM2K6]

Marcus played a big chunk at 15 vs France last year, which is when we thought that experiment was finally dead.

[Paddington Bear]

May as well try F.Smith at 10, clearly we’re not getting results as is and he offers a different style of game management

[inactionman]

Charlie Morgan really frustrates me. No question he's got a good eye for the game and his analysis of tactics and execution is usually very grounded, but he approaches his articles as if anything England (coaches or players) does is the correct thing to do and works backwards from there. He's a very good mouth piece

The questions of: what does it say about this England team and the tactical approach that having Marcus's creativity overrides all other considerations, to the point of shoehorning him in at 15? What does it say about Fin Smith? (Autocorrect changed that to 'Fin Sloth' and you can guarantee I will start using that if things go south)

What about what Fin needs from his back line? Why are we wedded to a 6-2 bench when it hamstrings our ability to be flexible in the backline, and essentially guarantees comprises from the start? Why do we need Slade if he's still missing tackles and his creativity extends to a good kick now and then?

Why, when Marcus put Earl through a gap with a peach of a pass, did the resulting ruck see Mitchell butcher a massive opportunity by half heartedly going for a gap? Why are we not seeing Mitchell tracking runners much? Why is Randall in the squad given his kicking is woeful but he's still being asked to do loads of it?

Explaining to the plebs why this is all a good idea actually has worn thin.

I'm not sure England are looking at shoehorning Marcus Smith in at 15 for the sake of it, it's also about losing Furbank and our other main candidate* not being particularly dynamic, if I may be diplomatic.

It's Hobson's choice to some extent, but there's some rationale for it.



* that we're not looking at other candidates from the Prem is an issue in and of itself.

He's been pushed to fullback on many occasions, though. Yes, we're missing Furbank. Why does that mean we have to pick a small 10 at 15 rather than selecting a player who is comfortable playing there and is more suited to it, like Carpenter or Freeman? Or either of the promising Exeter guys who've racked up appearances? The argument being made is that Marcus is one of England's best players and needs to be on the pitch. Why? Because perversely, in a game plan that has been laser focused on the kicking game and defensive pressure, having a player who can break open teams is critical.

Can't question the game plan, mind.

With Furbank out I thought there was definitely an opening to look at someone like Carpenter. Now we're left with really only Steward, Smith or Daly with Test 15 experience.

Smith has played 15 before, but that seems to be put to bed by Furbank getting an extended run and looking very much the long-term solution. Borthwick's hand has been forced by Furbank's injury.

[JM2K6]

Well, no - Marcus was the 15 cover regardless. It's why he played there for nearly the whole match when Furbank broke, and why he kept getting moved there late in games.

[sockwithaticket]

I remain unconvinced that changing who's wearing 10 will have a meaningful impact on results. It's our approach and structures that are the glaring flaws.

If we want to start picking at particular selections, I'd say Slade in the centres and a determination to run an unbalanced back row are having a broader impact.

In particular with Slade, I fail to see the point of him in general, but if he's not providing the second distributor option from the centre, to the extent that we think M. Smith at fullback to provide that is viable, then why is he there?

[sockwithaticket]

I'm not sure England are looking at shoehorning Marcus Smith in at 15 for the sake of it, it's also about losing Furbank and our other main candidate* not being particularly dynamic, if I may be diplomatic.

It's Hobson's choice to some extent, but there's some rationale for it.



* that we're not looking at other candidates from the Prem is an issue in and of itself.

He's been pushed to fullback on many occasions, though. Yes, we're missing Furbank. Why does that mean we have to pick a small 10 at 15 rather than selecting a player who is comfortable playing there and is more suited to it, like Carpenter or Freeman? Or either of the promising Exeter guys who've racked up appearances? The argument being made is that Marcus is one of England's best players and needs to be on the pitch. Why? Because perversely, in a game plan that has been laser focused on the kicking game and defensive pressure, having a player who can break open teams is critical.

Can't question the game plan, mind.

With Furbank out I thought there was definitely an opening to look at someone like Carpenter. Now we're left with really only Steward, Smith or Daly with Test 15 experience.

Smith has played 15 before, but that seems to be put to bed by Furbank getting an extended run and looking very much the long-term solution. Borthwick's hand has been forced by Furbank's injury.

Malins too, although I can never keep track of whether he's fit or still in England's plans.

[inactionman]

He's been pushed to fullback on many occasions, though. Yes, we're missing Furbank. Why does that mean we have to pick a small 10 at 15 rather than selecting a player who is comfortable playing there and is more suited to it, like Carpenter or Freeman? Or either of the promising Exeter guys who've racked up appearances? The argument being made is that Marcus is one of England's best players and needs to be on the pitch. Why? Because perversely, in a game plan that has been laser focused on the kicking game and defensive pressure, having a player who can break open teams is critical.

Can't question the game plan, mind.

With Furbank out I thought there was definitely an opening to look at someone like Carpenter. Now we're left with really only Steward, Smith or Daly with Test 15 experience.

Smith has played 15 before, but that seems to be put to bed by Furbank getting an extended run and looking very much the long-term solution. Borthwick's hand has been forced by Furbank's injury.

Malins too, although I can never keep track of whether he's fit or still in England's plans.

I had forgotten about him.

Hopefully shrugged off Eddie's vinegary style of man-management.

[duke]

With Furbank out I thought there was definitely an opening to look at someone like Carpenter. Now we're left with really only Steward, Smith or Daly with Test 15 experience.

Smith has played 15 before, but that seems to be put to bed by Furbank getting an extended run and looking very much the long-term solution. Borthwick's hand has been forced by Furbank's injury.

Malins too, although I can never keep track of whether he's fit or still in England's plans.

I had forgotten about him.

Hopefully shrugged off Eddie's vinegary style of man-management.

Malins is crocked - ruptured Achilles - unfortunately, it seems he's made of glass

[duke]

I would like to see Joe Carpenter given the chance to prove his worth - barring Furbank, he strikes me as the nearest we have to a decent quality international fullback with a bit of pace to his game

[SaintK]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

The link is free to me so assume it's not paywalled.

Interesting comments about the nature of France's kicking and from Fraser Dingwall about playing with Smith at 10.

Unfortunately aywalled mate!
How about cut and paste and spoiler it

No idea how I've got access, I'm not a subscriber.

May be worth archive ph as there's a few vids in it?

@ASMO can I post archive ph or is that breaking the rules?

Seen archive ph links here quite afew times
https://archive.ph/G8uhh

[inactionman]

Another Saffer scrum half to Bath
That'll be 3 on the books though I should imagine Schreuder will be his way soon with Carr-Smith breaking through

On Tuesday, the English Premiership club announced the signing of Bernard van der Linde from the Bulls.
The 24-year-old will move to The Rec later this year on a two-year deal.
Educated at Menlopark High School, Van der Linde played rugby at age-group level with the Bulls before signing for the franchise’s senior team where he’s been in the set-up for the last six years, featuring in the Currie Cup, United Rugby Championship, and Champions Cup.

https://rugby365.com/tournaments/prem ... ans-bath/

Yep, I think Schreuder will probably be moving on.

Bath have also confirmed Carreras is moving over from Gloucester. Very tidy player, and good competition for De Glanville as well as extra cover at 10.

https://www.bathrugby.com/content/bath-sign-carreras

Not sure where that leaves Arundell. I did hear quite a few rumours about Le Roux so assume Carreras will put an end to those.

Suspect McConnochie and maybe even Cokanasiga might be on way? Can't keep everyone, sadly

[inactionman]

Unfortunately aywalled mate!
How about cut and paste and spoiler it

No idea how I've got access, I'm not a subscriber.

May be worth archive ph as there's a few vids in it?

@ASMO can I post archive ph or is that breaking the rules?

Seen archive ph links here quite afew times
https://archive.ph/G8uhh

Cool. not sure on how archive ph is viewed, I've had hands slapped on a few forums for posting links!

[Paddington Bear]

Appreciate this thread can often be a howling pit of despair, however what can we *realistically* chalk up as a reasonably successful 6N from where we are?

Starter for 10 being to tear at France regardless of result, beat Scotland any which way and then comfortably beat Italy and Wales to finish

[duke]

Another Saffer scrum half to Bath
That'll be 3 on the books though I should imagine Schreuder will be his way soon with Carr-Smith breaking through

On Tuesday, the English Premiership club announced the signing of Bernard van der Linde from the Bulls.
The 24-year-old will move to The Rec later this year on a two-year deal.
Educated at Menlopark High School, Van der Linde played rugby at age-group level with the Bulls before signing for the franchise’s senior team where he’s been in the set-up for the last six years, featuring in the Currie Cup, United Rugby Championship, and Champions Cup.

https://rugby365.com/tournaments/prem ... ans-bath/

Yep, I think Schreuder will probably be moving on.

Bath have also confirmed Carreras is moving over from Gloucester. Very tidy player, and good competition for De Glanville as well as extra cover at 10.

https://www.bathrugby.com/content/bath-sign-carreras

Not sure where that leaves Arundell. I did hear quite a few rumours about Le Roux so assume Carreras will put an end to those.

Suspect McConnochie and maybe even Cokanasiga might be on way? Can't keep everyone, sadly

I think Arundell is a done deal and expect both McConnochie and Cokanasiga will go. We've got some quality youngsters coming through as well which will help

[Kawazaki]

Can I just point out that Thomas Ramos is 5'10" and 86kgs.

[Kawazaki]

Appreciate this thread can often be a howling pit of despair, however what can we *realistically* chalk up as a reasonably successful 6N from where we are?

Starter for 10 being to tear at France regardless of result, beat Scotland any which way and then comfortably beat Italy and Wales to finish

Beating Scotland is the only real hope I have this season. If we beat Wales and Italy as well then that's nice but it won't get him out of my general malcontent ways.

[sockwithaticket]

Appreciate this thread can often be a howling pit of despair, however what can we *realistically* chalk up as a reasonably successful 6N from where we are?

Starter for 10 being to tear at France regardless of result, beat Scotland any which way and then comfortably beat Italy and Wales to finish

I don't see us beating France, so that means the next 3 have to be wins.

We haven't beaten Scotland at Twickenham since 2017 , that's an absolute disgrace. Overall the last win was in 2020. Scotland are a good side, but there's no reason they should be so dominant over us at this point. In that same time frame we've notched wins against France, Ireland and South Africa as well as a draw against New Zealand. Scotland simply shouldn't be beyond us when we're at home, so that game has to be a win if we're to consider ourselves as having made any progress.

Italy and Wales should be givens. Everyone's very complimentary about Italy's development and they did actually do pretty well last year, but in general they are still comfortably one of the weakest teams in the tournament and maintaining an unbeaten record against them should be expected.

[geordie_6]

Appreciate this thread can often be a howling pit of despair, however what can we *realistically* chalk up as a reasonably successful 6N from where we are?

Starter for 10 being to tear at France regardless of result, beat Scotland any which way and then comfortably beat Italy and Wales to finish

If memory serves, the RFU have told Borthers he needs to win at least 3 games.

[inactionman]

Appreciate this thread can often be a howling pit of despair, however what can we *realistically* chalk up as a reasonably successful 6N from where we are?

Starter for 10 being to tear at France regardless of result, beat Scotland any which way and then comfortably beat Italy and Wales to finish

Not having bloody Van Der Merve the swerve running in tries without any sod making a professional-grade attempt at a tackle.

Ignoring results, I just want to see us cutting out dickheaded errors, not letting teams run through us in midfield in phase play, and being able to close a close games out with sensible, calm, tactically prudent play. And, I agree completely, having a real go at teams when we've got possession and not kicking the ball away.

We might get one of those.

Results-wise, a home win against Scotland would demonstrate some progress.

[Paddington Bear]

Appreciate this thread can often be a howling pit of despair, however what can we *realistically* chalk up as a reasonably successful 6N from where we are?

Starter for 10 being to tear at France regardless of result, beat Scotland any which way and then comfortably beat Italy and Wales to finish

I don't see us beating France, so that means the next 3 have to be wins.

We haven't beaten Scotland at Twickenham since 2017 , that's an absolute disgrace. Overall the last win was in 2020. Scotland are a good side, but there's no reason they should be so dominant over us at this point. In that same time frame we've notched wins against France, Ireland and South Africa as well as a draw against New Zealand. Scotland simply shouldn't be beyond us when we're at home, so that game has to be a win if we're to consider ourselves as having made any progress.

Italy and Wales should be givens. Everyone's very complimentary about Italy's development and they did actually do pretty well last year, but in general they are still comfortably one of the weakest teams in the tournament and maintaining an unbeaten record against them should be expected.

We absolutely should have beaten Scotland 2022 and 23 (I think these years are right - the away game where Ford shat the bed off the bench and we shipped a penalty try, the home game where Duhan broke 1.2 million tackles in a 60 yard run). Winning vs them also knocks away a mental block/talking point from a future stab at the summit.

I think we will beat Italy and Wales regardless for various reasons, doing it in some style as opposed to last year’s come back wins (surely it haunts Italy blowing that 10 point + win? Don’t do that and the ball stays on the tee in France and they’d have been close to winning the comp!)

[Slick]

Appreciate this thread can often be a howling pit of despair, however what can we *realistically* chalk up as a reasonably successful 6N from where we are?

Starter for 10 being to tear at France regardless of result, beat Scotland any which way and then comfortably beat Italy and Wales to finish

I don't see us beating France, so that means the next 3 have to be wins.

We haven't beaten Scotland at Twickenham since 2017 , that's an absolute disgrace. Overall the last win was in 2020. Scotland are a good side, but there's no reason they should be so dominant over us at this point. In that same time frame we've notched wins against France, Ireland and South Africa as well as a draw against New Zealand. Scotland simply shouldn't be beyond us when we're at home, so that game has to be a win if we're to consider ourselves as having made any progress.

Italy and Wales should be givens. Everyone's very complimentary about Italy's development and they did actually do pretty well last year, but in general they are still comfortably one of the weakest teams in the tournament and maintaining an unbeaten record against them should be expected.

We absolutely should have beaten Scotland 2022 and 23 (I think these years are right - the away game where Ford shat the bed off the bench and we shipped a penalty try, the home game where Duhan broke 1.2 million tackles in a 60 yard run). Winning vs them also knocks away a mental block/talking point from a future stab at the summit.

I think we will beat Italy and Wales regardless for various reasons, doing it in some style as opposed to last year’s come back wins (surely it haunts Italy blowing that 10 point + win? Don’t do that and the ball stays on the tee in France and they’d have been close to winning the comp!)

FWIW, I think you will beat us fairly well this year

[Paddington Bear]

I don't see us beating France, so that means the next 3 have to be wins.

We haven't beaten Scotland at Twickenham since 2017 , that's an absolute disgrace. Overall the last win was in 2020. Scotland are a good side, but there's no reason they should be so dominant over us at this point. In that same time frame we've notched wins against France, Ireland and South Africa as well as a draw against New Zealand. Scotland simply shouldn't be beyond us when we're at home, so that game has to be a win if we're to consider ourselves as having made any progress.

Italy and Wales should be givens. Everyone's very complimentary about Italy's development and they did actually do pretty well last year, but in general they are still comfortably one of the weakest teams in the tournament and maintaining an unbeaten record against them should be expected.

We absolutely should have beaten Scotland 2022 and 23 (I think these years are right - the away game where Ford shat the bed off the bench and we shipped a penalty try, the home game where Duhan broke 1.2 million tackles in a 60 yard run). Winning vs them also knocks away a mental block/talking point from a future stab at the summit.

I think we will beat Italy and Wales regardless for various reasons, doing it in some style as opposed to last year’s come back wins (surely it haunts Italy blowing that 10 point + win? Don’t do that and the ball stays on the tee in France and they’d have been close to winning the comp!)

FWIW, I think you will beat us fairly well this year

I wish I shared your confidence!

A lot could change for both teams between now and then - psychologically for both how they go this weekend will have a huge bearing. I wouldn’t fancy being anywhere near the England camp if we get thumped with everything going on at the RFU, going into a break week.

[Mahoney]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

In 2023, when England suffered their record loss at Twickenham, 53-10, [Marcus Smith] started at fly-half with then-captain Owen Farrell dropped to the bench. Farrell came on at half-time, but it was too late to steady the ship.

"it was too late to steady the ship" is a nice euphemism for "made no improvement".

[Paddington Bear]

Telegraph reckons Sleighthome is straight back in at wing

[inactionman]

Another Saffer scrum half to Bath
That'll be 3 on the books though I should imagine Schreuder will be his way soon with Carr-Smith breaking through

https://rugby365.com/tournaments/prem ... ans-bath/

Yep, I think Schreuder will probably be moving on.

Bath have also confirmed Carreras is moving over from Gloucester. Very tidy player, and good competition for De Glanville as well as extra cover at 10.

https://www.bathrugby.com/content/bath-sign-carreras

Not sure where that leaves Arundell. I did hear quite a few rumours about Le Roux so assume Carreras will put an end to those.

Suspect McConnochie and maybe even Cokanasiga might be on way? Can't keep everyone, sadly

I think Arundell is a done deal and expect both McConnochie and Cokanasiga will go. We've got some quality youngsters coming through as well which will help

And very correct you are too.

Bath Rugby is delighted to announce the signing of Henry Arundell from Racing 92.

The 22-year-old will move to The Rec this summer on a three-year deal ahead of the 2025/26 season.

https://www.bathrugby.com/content/bath-sign-arundell

No word on Cokanasiga or McConnochie but I'd agree that they're likely to be moving on. I feel quite sad about big Joe in particular, he's got the physical goods but just couldn't quite work the positioning.

[Paddington Bear]

Appreciate I am perhaps the wrong man to have a view on this, but how are Bath intending to stay within the salary cap?

Great news for English rugby though - he’s a fine player and a side with him and Waboso on the wings is very exciting

[inactionman]

Appreciate I am perhaps the wrong man to have a view on this, but how are Bath intending to stay within the salary cap?

Great news for English rugby though - he’s a fine player and a side with him and Waboso on the wings is very exciting

It is definitely a question everyone on the Bath boards are asking.

Bath didn't recruit that heavily over last seasons - noting Russell is marquee and Pepper is apparently academy - and the likes of Gallacher at fullback weren't replaced (hence Carreras and Arundell). We're expecting a significant number of exits, many assume Cokanasiga but I will admit I thought he was contracted for a few years yet. We're also quite light in a number of positions - lock for example - but have some back rows such as Hill who can step in. The cap also went up, so maybe there's head-room, but I'm scratching head a little.

No idea what Arundell would be on, he's not an established international so might not be that expensive in the grand scheme of things, but Carreras certainly isn't going to come cheap.

[Lobby]

Appreciate I am perhaps the wrong man to have a view on this, but how are Bath intending to stay within the salary cap?

Great news for English rugby though - he’s a fine player and a side with him and Waboso on the wings is very exciting

It is definitely a question everyone on the Bath boards are asking.

Bath didn't recruit that heavily over last seasons - noting Russell is marquee and Pepper is apparently academy - and the likes of Gallacher at fullback weren't replaced (hence Carreras and Arundell). We're expecting a significant number of exits, many assume Cokanasiga but I will admit I thought he was contracted for a few years yet. We're also quite light in a number of positions - lock for example - but have some back rows such as Hill who can step in. The cap also went up, so maybe there's head-room, but I'm scratching head a little.

No idea what Arundell would be on, he's not an established international so might not be that expensive in the grand scheme of things, but Carreras certainly isn't going to come cheap.

Given that Arundell hasn't done that well at Racing 92, is off the international radar and is largely seen as one of Lancaster's failures at Racing along with Farrell, he may well be a bit cheaper now than when he was exciting everyone with his performances for LI. As you say, Carreras is likely to put much more strain on the salary cap than Arundell.

[Hal Jordan]

Appreciate this thread can often be a howling pit of despair, however what can we *realistically* chalk up as a reasonably successful 6N from where we are?

Starter for 10 being to tear at France regardless of result, beat Scotland any which way and then comfortably beat Italy and Wales to finish

If memory serves, the RFU have told Borthers he needs to win at least 3 games.

TANK FOR THE P45!

[ASMO]

Official Team

England starting XV: Marcus Smith; Tommy Freeman, Ollie Lawrence, Henry Slade, Ollie Sleightholme; Fin Smith, Alex Mitchell; Ellis Genge (v-capt), Luke Cowan-Dickie, Will Stuart, Maro Itoje (capt), George Martin, Tom Curry, Ben Earl, Tom Willis.

Replacements: Jamie George (v-capt), Fin Baxter, Joe Heyes, Ollie Chessum, Chandler Cunningham-South, Ben Curry, Harry Randall, Elliot Daly.

[inactionman]

Official Team

England starting XV: Marcus Smith; Tommy Freeman, Ollie Lawrence, Henry Slade, Ollie Sleightholme; Fin Smith, Alex Mitchell; Ellis Genge (v-capt), Luke Cowan-Dickie, Will Stuart, Maro Itoje (capt), George Martin, Tom Curry, Ben Earl, Tom Willis.

Replacements: Jamie George (v-capt), Fin Baxter, Joe Heyes, Ollie Chessum, Chandler Cunningham-South, Ben Curry, Harry Randall, Elliot Daly.

Who's that sneaking onto the end of the bench? Not a bad bet, to be honest, as he covers a whole host of positions.

The rest is pretty much as expected, although with Chessum on bench to provide lock and blindside cover you could maybe go for another back? Wondering how safe and secure Sleightholme's hamstring will prove to be, he'll be doing a lot of sprinting.....

[Kawazaki]

It's a better side than last week's team but it's not the best it could be. Should pick Dingwall at 12 with Lawrence outside, Slade needs to be exited. Is start Chessum at 6 and would have had Hill and Earl on the bench. MS at fullback not convinced at all but he's still miles better than Steward. The England front row X2 will get absolutely minced though unfortunately.

[Yeeb]

An interesting article in the Torygraph about Smith at 15 -they're presenting some reasonable arguments as to why they think it's a good call.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-nations/

In 2023, when England suffered their record loss at Twickenham, 53-10, [Marcus Smith] started at fly-half with then-captain Owen Farrell dropped to the bench. Farrell came on at half-time, but it was too late to steady the ship.

"it was too late to steady the ship" is a nice euphemism for "made no improvement".

“Made no improvement even after opposition had stopped really trying “ perhaps