England World Cup Squad

[TRF_Olyy]

 

[Geordie]

As an Irish fan I'm always happy not to see Underhill on the England teamsheet. Presumably his injury record is behind the decision, but a fully fit Underhill would transform that England backrow.

Wait till we unleash Pearson...

 

[Geordie]

Losing just 2 players is odd from an effective squad of 44 when you consider the rehabbers. But individually those decisions may make sense.

In Rodd's case there are still 3 training LHs plus Mako. 5th choice isn't going to get much of a look in.

Underhill's had a tough time, but his track record suggests that he should have been given all the time possible. You can only conclude that he was so far off the pace that it was evident it wasn't worth continuing to invest the time. If that's the case, then I support the decision, but it is a big call so early.

Pearson may be making this decision a bit easier. He's unproven at this level...but his performances in the Prem suggest he could be hell of a player. And clearly hes absolutely smashing it in the training camps

 

[Geordie]

Losing just 2 players is odd from an effective squad of 44 when you consider the rehabbers. But individually those decisions may make sense.

In Rodd's case there are still 3 training LHs plus Mako. 5th choice isn't going to get much of a look in.

Underhill's had a tough time, but his track record suggests that he should have been given all the time possible. You can only conclude that he was so far off the pace that it was evident it wasn't worth continuing to invest the time. If that's the case, then I support the decision, but it is a big call so early.

Rodd needs to just get his head down and go to scrum school and work with the best. Hes only 22...with his mobility etc...if he can really nail down his scrummaging then he will be quite a player.

Marler was a running LH in the u20's etc and then made the choice to focus on his scrum work etc.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Rodd needs to just get his head down and go to scrum school and work with the best. Hes only 22...with his mobility etc...if he can really nail down his scrummaging then he will be quite a player.

Marler was a running LH in the u20's etc and then made the choice to focus on his scrum work etc.

Great comparison with Marler.

Pearson may be making this decision a bit easier. He's unproven at this level...but his performances in the Prem suggest he could be hell of a player. And clearly hes absolutely smashing it in the training camps

Like what I'm seeing from Pearson a lot and he's a big unit. But right now he's still all potential whereas Underhill's got the T shirt.

I remember seeing a comparison of running lines between, pretty sure, Back and Winterbottom, back in the day. Back was covering a lot more ground but the older Winterbottom was playing smarter, picking his moments and not wasting any energy. Experience matters, but clearly a good level of fitness still has to be there.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

They'd have to qualify first…

 

[Geordie]

Great comparison with Marler.



Like what I'm seeing from Pearson a lot and he's a big unit. But right now he's still all potential whereas Underhill's got the T shirt.

I remember seeing a comparison of running lines between, pretty sure, Back and Winterbottom, back in the day. Back was covering a lot more ground but the older Winterbottom was playing smarter, picking his moments and not wasting any energy. Experience matters, but clearly a good level of fitness still has to be there.

Thats true OH, but you have to give the young potential the chance at some stage. Im a massive Underhill fan...i think he changes our physicality levels on his own...BUT if theres any doubts over his health then take the chance and pick Pearson. Curry will be in pole position which means you can manage when to play Pearson...and you'll still have Jack Willis, Lawes and possibly Ludlum to use aswell. Its a nice position to be in.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I am surprised they let underhill go though. Not at all bothered by Rodd. Marler is the 2nd choice and then VRR can be the impact sub if we need that third choice.

Underhill thought I could have seen him as a potential starter. Borthwick has kept Earl which is odd given how little game time he gave Earl previously. Ludlum played well but was no way near the underhill level of physicality. Maybe Tom Ps carrying as well as physicality got him that squad place.

You can create some tasty back rows from the squad thoigh

Imagine

6 curry
7 Pearson
8 T Willis

Or

6 lawes
7 curry
8 T Willis

Or

6 curry
7 jack W
8 T Willis

Those look great on paper.

 

[Geordie]

4 Itoje
5 Ribbans (Martin getting gametime off the bench)
6 Jack Willis (Tom Pearson getting gametime off the bench)
7 Tom Curry
8 Dombrandt / Tom Willis

I think that has alot to offer if they are drilled and know what their roles are....

Dont forget much of the issue with Dombrandts dropped catches was timing. They'll have had alot of time in camp to just tweak that. Those dropped catches suddenly become catches and he starts getting his Quins lines of runnning working...then it opens up nicely.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I am surprised they let underhill go though. Not at all bothered by Rodd. Marler is the 2nd choice and then VRR can be the impact sub if we need that third choice.

Underhill thought I could have seen him as a potential starter. Borthwick has kept Earl which is odd given how little game time he gave Earl previously. Ludlum played well but was no way near the underhill level of physicality. Maybe Tom Ps carrying as well as physicality got him that squad place.

You can create some tasty back rows from the squad thoigh

Imagine

6 curry
7 Pearson
8 T Willis

Or

6 lawes
7 curry
8 T Willis

Or

6 curry
7 jack W
8 T Willis

Those look great on paper.

Agreed although Lawes is probably a fair way past his best now. Whether he can summon up a last hurrah is open to doubt.

Pearson and T Willis are uncapped. Look for all the world to the manor born, but at this moment in time you're buying no more than potential.

All units need to be gelled with the aim of being more than their components. A well drilled unit used to playing together will take down one of more talented individuals with little game time together (training time is no real substitute). Quite where that leaves the back row, and other units, remains to be seen.

 

[BPM]

Agree with all above sentiments- staggered that Underhill doesn't even make it to the warm ups for an opportunity.

By far and away our best player when fit.

Some very disappointing decisions for me personally this far in. Thought we'd have some sprinkles of excitement in the selection but that has well and truly been banished.

I really rate Underhill, but saying he's 'by far and away our best player when fit' is a massive overstatement IMO.

It's a bit of a surprise he's been left out, but not really considering he's played very little competitive rugby and is an obvious injury risk.

I find it weird that people are always calling for the form picks and are then 'staggered' when a player with no form to speak of is left out.

 

[Jimbo]

I'm personally glad he's not there as I think it's too risky for him personally, with that said he does bring uncompromising physicality which none of the other option bring (at-least no proven at this level) so I can understand people being willing to ignore form but as pointed out people want it both ways or prepared to make some exceptions to the selection policy.

 

[TopTen2003]

I really rate Underhill, but saying he's 'by far and away our best player when fit' is a massive overstatement IMO.

It's a bit of a surprise he's been left out, but not really considering he's played very little competitive rugby and is an obvious injury risk.

I find it weird that people are always calling for the form picks and are then 'staggered' when a player with no form to speak of is left out.

Fair enough- I guess the way I saw it was that we finally have him in camp, presumably injury free, for a whole summer, and yet we don't even get a look at any game time.

Obviously have to trust Borthwick on that view but I tell you something, the back row will have to be special to have anything like the impact he had on the England team next to Tom Curry last cycle around.

What really "staggered" me is to see players like Ludlum ahead of him but I know people see it differently and of course he's utility back row cover I guess.

Opportunity for someone else to make a name and wish them well.

 

[BPM]

Don't get me wrong, I'd have been happy enough to see him there, but I'm not devastated he's not.

Interesting you call out Ludlam. IIRC, he was England's player of the 6 Nations.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I really rate Underhill, but saying he's 'by far and away our best player when fit' is a massive overstatement IMO.

It's a bit of a surprise he's been left out, but not really considering he's played very little competitive rugby and is an obvious injury risk.

I find it weird that people are always calling for the form picks and are then 'staggered' when a player with no form to speak of is left out.

I'm not sure I'd have gone that far but I've said a few times on here that when fit he was my first name on the team sheet. Not because he had the most complete skill set or work rate, although neither are poor, but because he was capable of genuine momentum changing moments at the top level. He could make an impact that others couldn't.

That was then and we haven't seen much of him recently. If he's not right, form or fitness wise, then the decision's OK provided Borthwick's applied sensible criteria.

Obviously there are wider issues around his welfare too.

We all get excited by new talent tearing up the Prem or whatever but the international game is a big step up, and someone who has proven themselves at that level shouldn't be discarded lightly.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

A fit underhill is discarded from the squad yet we still have 5 injured players in the squad. I'm guessing it's not his fitness but maybe he just wasn't cutting it compared to the other players. I guess (and this is a guess) he was in direct competition with Pearson and maybe Pearsons ball carrying as well as other skills won the day.

 

[TopTen2003]

Just having another flick through the back row competition- it is pretty fierce isn't it.

For the final squad, are we 100% confident Lawes is being judged as a 6?

Or is it conceivable he goes in as part of the second row battle with Chessums ongoing race to be fit?

With Dombrandt, Billy V (if fit), and T.Willis as 8s, then J. Willis, Tom Pearson, Tom Curry and Ludlam as options across the back row, does anyone think Borthwick is seeing Lawes as a lock, especially with the ongoing rehabilitation of Chessum and having to plan without him if he doesn't make it?

I know the consensus now is that Lawes best rugby has come at 6 and certainly agree with that in the last 2-3 years, but looking at the squad balance (albeit not factoring in the final trimming down), just got me thinking.

With that in mind- who starts at 6 for you if you had to choose right now?

 

[BPM]

I'm not sure I'd have gone that far but I've said a few times on here that when fit he was my first name on the team sheet. Not because he had the most complete skill set or work rate, although neither are poor, but because he was capable of genuine momentum changing moments at the top level. He could make an impact that others couldn't.

That was then and we haven't seen much of him recently. If he's not right, form or fitness wise, then the decision's OK provided Borthwick's applied sensible criteria.

Obviously there are wider issues around his welfare too.

We all get excited by new talent tearing up the Prem or whatever but the international game is a big step up, and someone who has proven themselves at that level shouldn't be discarded lightly.

I doubt he's been 'discarded lightly'.

Typically England's back row has looked better with Underhill in it and I'd have kept him instead of Earl who so far SB hasn't shown that much interest in. I suspect it is a combination of your second paragraph and the long term concerns around his concussion issues.

 

[BPM]

Just having another flick through the back row competition- it is pretty fierce isn't it.

For the final squad, are we 100% confident Lawes is being judged as a 6?

Or is it conceivable he goes in as part of the second row battle with Chessums ongoing race to be fit?

With Dombrandt, Billy V (if fit), and T.Willis as 8s, then J. Willis, Tom Pearson, Tom Curry and Ludlam as options across the back row, does anyone think Borthwick is seeing Lawes as a lock, especially with the ongoing rehabilitation of Chessum and having to plan without him if he doesn't make it?

I know the consensus now is that Lawes best rugby has come at 6 and certainly agree with that in the last 2-3 years, but looking at the squad balance (albeit not factoring in the final trimming down), just got me thinking.

With that in mind- who starts at 6 for you if you had to choose right now?

For me it's horses for courses. If Lawes is up to it, I'd pair him with Curry for certain games. Otherwise I'd have Curry and Willis.

To answer your other question, I think Lawes is only really seen as a 6 now.