England World Cup Squad

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Anyone think Tom Pearson gets in or is he another "inexperience" casualty?

I quite like the idea of him having the Underhill role for 2023, but not sure that's the way Borthwick has been looking at the squad?

I struggle to see how he gets in. The way I see it there are 4 flanker spots at most; potentially only 3. Lawes and Curry are both bolted on in 2 of those slots which means Pearson would have to leapfrog Willis and/or Ludlam in a very short space of time.

Think he's going to be one for Post-RWC. That said, Ludlam usurped Shields in 2019 with only 1 warm-up game under his belt so it's not impossible.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

one enigma in the sense that his talent says he should be a far more central figure than he currently is

Does it, though?
Fair play he's scored some banging broken field tries, but so have all our other options (plus our unpicked options)
He's faster than most but they're all better rugby players
But then can they squat as much as him? Gotta think of the social media views

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Does it, though?
Fair play he's scored some banging broken field tries, but so have all our other options (plus our unpicked options)
He's faster than most but they're all better rugby players
But then can they squat as much as him? Gotta think of the social media views

Do we have enigma confusion? I was talking about Smith…..Arundell's my buying potential.

 

[Which Tyler]

Was Olyy not?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Do we have enigma confusion? I was talking about Smith…..Arundell's my buying potential.

Yeah, I definitely got them switched up haha

As you were...

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I struggle to see how he gets in. The way I see it there are 4 flanker spots at most; potentially only 3. Lawes and Curry are both bolted on in 2 of those slots which means Pearson would have to leapfrog Willis and/or Ludlam in a very short space of time.

Think he's going to be one for Post-RWC. That said, Ludlam usurped Shields in 2019 with only 1 warm-up game under his belt so it's not impossible.

I suspect you're right but I'd like to see either Pearson or Earl in as a dynamic ball playing bench option.

I know he's not played there in a while, but I do think there's an outside chance Lawes may lock or at least be considered as lock cover which maybe might free up another back row space.

 

[BPM]

I think 'would definitely' is stretching it.

One previously discarded veteran, one ingenu where you're just buying potential (whose selection I support) and one enigma in the sense that his talent says he should be a far more central figure than he currently is. None of whom is coming off a vintage club season.

I get what you mean in that all are attack minded, bring tricks and enjoy playing at pace. But I'd hope they might be able to change things, not expect.

Can't argue with you there.

I struggle to see how he gets in. The way I see it there are 4 flanker spots at most; potentially only 3. Lawes and Curry are both bolted on in 2 of those slots which means Pearson would have to leapfrog Willis and/or Ludlam in a very short space of time.

Think he's going to be one for Post-RWC. That said, Ludlam usurped Shields in 2019 with only 1 warm-up game under his belt so it's not impossible.

I agree. I think Jack Willis is (rightly) highly rated and Ludlam has a lot of credit in the bank. It's not impossible for Pearson to get in, but I think he and Earl are definitely up against it.

Of the uncapped players Tom Willis and Theo Dan have a better chance IMO.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I know he's not played there in a while, but I do think there's an outside chance Lawes may lock or at least be considered as lock cover which maybe might free up another back row space.

Not an impossibility and perhaps that's the way you fit in all of the best individual players, but to only take 3 specialist locks for the sake of fitting in a 5th flanker (and 7th back rower) would be really foolish IMO.

 

[Geordie]

I think Pearson will make it. His carrying might be the point of difference.

Lawes, Curry, Pearson, J.Willis...

Ludlum, probably the pick of an average back row bunch for the 6n is an alrounder but doesn't have a stand out attribute. That might go against him this time...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I'm not sure if Pearson's carrying is enough to set him apart - by the stats he's worse than Curry, Ludlam and Earl there,
Slightly higher than Ludlam on tackles and turnovers (one extra tackle per 80, 0.3 extra turnovers per 80) but quite a bit behind Curry and Earl

I think Curry and Willis are nailed on, Ludlam likely penciled in so it's Pearson vs Earl - a tough decision as they both play very different types of game

Maybe Borthwick wants the speed/dynamism of Earl off the bench? He didn't in the 6N tbf, so who knows

Thinking about it he probably takes neither, there's only limited spots:

2019 had:
4 second rows (inc Lawes)
5 backrowers

So if we had similar makeup this time maybe
Itoje, Martin, Ribbans (Lawes)
Curry, J.Willis, Ludlam, T.Willis, Dombrandt

 

[BPM]

Agreed. The key thing for me is that Ludlam has already proved he can perform at test level. Even if Pearson starts vs. Wales next weekend and plays a blinder, I just don't think he has enough time to stake his claim. Earl hasn't really taken his opportunities.

 

[Geordie]

Agreed. The key thing for me is that Ludlam has already proved he can perform at test level. Even if Pearson starts vs. Wales next weekend and plays a blinder, I just don't think he has enough time to stake his claim. Earl hasn't really taken his opportunities.

Hes shown he can play at test level but how good was his level of performance?

 

[BPM]

IMO, Ludlam has never been less than good for England and has had some very good games.

Sure he's not flashy, but he's consistently good for England. I believe Pearson will ultimately be a better player than Ludlam, but in a competitive squad, I think there's a strong argument to go with the guys you know can do it rather than those you think can do it.

Ludlam leapfrogged Shields who hadn't really shown his ability with England. Pearson is trying to leapfrog Ludlam who has.

 

[Geordie]

IMO, Ludlam has never been less than good for England and has had some very good games.

Sure he's not flashy, but he's consistently good for England. I believe Pearson will ultimately be a better player than Ludlam, but in a competitive squad, I think there's a strong argument to go with the guys you know can do it rather than those you think can do it.

Ludlam leapfrogged Shields who hadn't really shown his ability with England. Pearson is trying to leapfrog Ludlam who has.

Ah im not someone whos impress solely by flashy...i like substance, so i appreciate players like Ludlum...one of the falcons recent best was Mark Wilson a similar type.

I know Ludlum was the pick of the bunch in the 6n...but im not sure how high that bar was. I dont think Earl will travel anyway...hes on the outside.

I guess its down to as you say:
Go with what is proven and you know what you get, but has a limited max ceiling...
or
Take a risk and go with what you think has a much higher ceiling but is completely unproven at this level.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

IMO, Ludlam has never been less than good for England and has had some very good games.

Sure he's not flashy, but he's consistently good for England. I believe Pearson will ultimately be a better player than Ludlam, but in a competitive squad, I think there's a strong argument to go with the guys you know can do it rather than those you think can do it.

Ludlam leapfrogged Shields who hadn't really shown his ability with England. Pearson is trying to leapfrog Ludlam who has.

I largely agree with this, however in terms of balance of squad, it might not be quite so easy.

Curry and Lawes presumably start as flankers all things being equal. Then you also have J Willis who can play in either shirt and Ludlam, both good players, but are they ones who who you would want to bring off the bench if you were seeking a bit of inspiration in a tight match?

Willis possibly for a key turnover, but really you're thinking more of ball in hand which is more Earl or Pearson. Unproven maybe but a lot more substance to their games than the open field stuff.

Ludlam is a safe option who won't let us down, but if everyone's fit he's not a first choice either. And a squad does need a couple of wild cards, players not too familiar to opponents who might just be able to provide a moment of inspiration. Arundell in the backs.

Maybe it's one of J Willis and Ludlam and one of Earl and Pearson. Tough decisions coming up, but the 5% inspiration needs to be there with the 95% perspiration.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Ludlam was also my pick of the bunch in Aus despite mainly being a bench player.
Every time he came on he added impact immediately.

Like I don't even think he's reached his ceiling. I just feel people have short memories.

I feel Ludlam is just as flashy as Pearson, just at Irish Pearson could do some more flashier things since Rogerson was ever present as the Mark Wilson type, whereas Ludlam was like the only Saints player outside of Ribbans (Lawes being mostly injured) to do more grunt work.

A good example would be to watch him when he was playing with Harrison at Saints who picked up just as much of the grunt work

(Same age as Pearson now)

Dude was just as if not more explosive than Pearson is currently.

Reality is if Ludlam didn't have the Tom Curry (Who may go down as England's best ever openside), Ludlam prob would be sitting on at least double the caps and we prob wouldn't be having this talk.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Ludlam was also my pick of the bunch in Aus despite mainly being a bench player.
Every time he came on he added impact immediately.

Like I don't even think he's reached his ceiling. I just feel people have short memories.

I feel Ludlam is just as flashy as Pearson, just at Irish Pearson could do some more flashier things since Rogerson was ever present as the Mark Wilson type, whereas Ludlam was like the only Saints player outside of Ribbans (Lawes being mostly injured) to do more grunt work.

A good example would be to watch him when he was playing with Harrison at Saints who picked up just as much of the grunt work

(Same age as Pearson now)

Dude was just as if not more explosive than Pearson is currently.

Reality is if Ludlam didn't have the Tom Curry (Who may go down as England's best ever openside), Ludlam prob would be sitting on at least double the caps and we prob wouldn't be having this talk.

100% agree with all of this. So many people seem to think of Ludlam as this quite boring, almost Robshaw-esque player who just goes about his business being reliable but unremarkable. In reality he is extremely physical both in attack and defence, and makes plenty of impact off the bench (as Tigs said, the Aus series proved just how much). I'd argue he actually seems to do better off the bench than as a starter. Means he can just spend 20-30 minutes using up all of his energy on being a rabid dog of a player.

 

[Makeshift10]

Does Borthwick go with care, smith and dombrandt on the bech,

This is my hope and suspicion. I just wonder if the approach for the tournament could be a very direct, typically BorthBall, pragmatic starting XV. With a razzmatazz, Quins core, dynamic bench.

Given the lack of matches and the certain limitations of the squad, I have to admit I quite like the idea.

If Youngs, Faz, Manu etc is working (which albeit unpopular, sometimes does), then early backs replacements aren't really necessary and you stick with it. If it isn't working, bringing on (for example), Sinckler, Dan, Marler, Lawes, Dombrandt, Care, Smith & Arundell could genuinely change the dynamic of a game and properly light it up. Whereas we've traditionally plumped for more of the same with our bench selections. (or not trusted the more maverick ones).

 

[Makeshift10]

Ludlam was also my pick of the bunch in Aus despite mainly being a bench player.
Every time he came on he added impact immediately.

Like I don't even think he's reached his ceiling. I just feel people have short memories.

I feel Ludlam is just as flashy as Pearson, just at Irish Pearson could do some more flashier things since Rogerson was ever present as the Mark Wilson type, whereas Ludlam was like the only Saints player outside of Ribbans (Lawes being mostly injured) to do more grunt work.

A good example would be to watch him when he was playing with Harrison at Saints who picked up just as much of the grunt work

(Same age as Pearson now)

Dude was just as if not more explosive than Pearson is currently.

Reality is if Ludlam didn't have the Tom Curry (Who may go down as England's best ever openside), Ludlam prob would be sitting on at least double the caps and we prob wouldn't be having this talk.

I didn't fully appreciate Ludlam until seeing him live. He's ferociously physical. Massively underrated player.

 

[Geordie]

I didn't fully appreciate Ludlam until seeing him live. He's ferociously physical. Massively underrated player.

Maybe im doing him a disservice...many really didnt rate Mark Wilson but watching him first hand week in week out, he was the same..ferocious and brutal.