• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[2024 Six Nations] Scotland vs England - 24/02/24

I do hope Smith and IFW get reasonable time off the bench. I can't understand coaches who put players on the bench they clearly don't trust, it is just handicapping the team and ******* off both the player who got picked and those who didn't. It's such ****-poor man management.
 
I do hope Smith and IFW get reasonable time off the bench. I can't understand coaches who put players on the bench they clearly don't trust, it is just handicapping the team and ******* off both the player who got picked and those who didn't. It's such ****-poor man management.

Yeah I agree. I guess the counter argument is that if the only bench option is evidently inferior then why would you bring them on unless necessary? Obviously you want to avoid that situation in the first place.

Totally delusional, but I want to see subs used based on the match situation and nothing else. If you need to empty the bench to chase the game then do it, but if it's all going swimmingly why fix what's not broken? Arguably pre programmed subs cost us a place in the RWC final.
 
Yeah, I'd have had him on the bench the first 2 rounds gotten him a good 20mins or something in each

He looks a much more mature/settled player than his previous caps (physically and mentally) but can't shake the memory of how lost he looked, and if the atmosphere gets to him then the Russell/Duhan pairing could shred him

That said: I'm anticipating a good performance from him as he's been very good for saints and it's been a couple of years since his last caps now
Tbf DVM must live rent free in many of the Englands backs minds, especially Stewards, he did look good against Wales tbf but they did kick poorly and that's kind of his USP, still think he's fairly limited, even assuming he wasn't and he was genuinely this WC individual he's often made out to be, depth needs building at 15 or does Daly go there in a tight spot. Seeing lots of complaining about FWBs lack of minutes but let's be honest England have squeaked a few victories over the weakest opposition in the comp so probably wasn't the time to go experimental despite what people think, I don't think it unlikely that if England had a descent scoreboard advantage in either game at 60 minutes in either of the games he'd have seen a bit more time, as nice as it would be we do need to be realistic.
 
Yeah I agree. I guess the counter argument is that if the only bench option is evidently inferior then why would you bring them on unless necessary? Obviously you want to avoid that situation in the first place.

Totally delusional, but I want to see subs used based on the match situation and nothing else. If you need to empty the bench to chase the game then do it, but if it's all going swimmingly why fix what's not broken? Arguably pre programmed subs cost us a place in the RWC final.
My big concern with pick young backs who aren't trusted 100% is that your 1 injury away from them playing a large part of the game. If you don't trust them for more than 10 minutes normally, then why would you trust them for 60.

Tbh I get picking IFW and Smith for experience, but the last 2 games England have needed to see out two extremely close games and obviously Borthwick doesn't want to risk the win. If you're making big team changes such as the defensive system that disrupt the team and you don't trust young players unless you're winning comfortably then pick them once the team is performing better.
 
Tbf DVM must live rent free in many of the Englands backs minds, especially Stewards, he did look good against Wales tbf but they did kick poorly and that's kind of his USP, still think he's fairly limited, even assuming he wasn't and he was genuinely this WC individual he's often made out to be, depth needs building at 15 or does Daly go there in a tight spot. Seeing lots of complaining about FWBs lack of minutes but let's be honest England have squeaked a few victories over the weakest opposition in the comp so probably wasn't the time to go experimental despite what people think, I don't think it unlikely that if England had a descent scoreboard advantage in either game at 60 minutes in either of the games he'd have seen a bit more time, as nice as it would be we do need to be realistic.
Well DVM scored the winning tries in 2 out of the last 3 Calcutta cups
 
If Daly goes down in the first 5 minutes we end up with IFW playing basically his first cap in a much harder/ higher pressure game than the first two.

Makes zero sense to have him there and to not give him more minutes because there is very risk you are forced to play him.
 
I reckon England will claw this back somewhat towards the end. Our scrum will be an absolute shambles by then...
 
I feel like both teams will have times when they're on top. However, I can see Scotland out scoring England just because they are more clinical and have more cutting edge in attack. At the moment I just don't see England scoring quickly if they need to.

I want to see better defence out wide if the rush defence fails. More cohesion in defence and us being able to convert breaks and visits into the 22 into regular points.
 
That's a fair assessment. I agree.

I'm hopeful of a win but I would accept a narrow defeat provided we see improvements in the performance.
 
Hardly panic stations old boy. My view is simply that if you select a player then you are saying that you trust them and believe they are ready to play at test level. Given the pace and demands of modern test rugby you should be emptying your bench every game. If you're not; then someone on the field hasn't been pushing hard enough. So if SB isn't getting IFW on then it suggests he doesn't trust him, in which case don't put him on the bench at all, or back your decision, and the player, and get him some decent game time.
From what I've seen if IFW he's pretty electric and with a tiring Scottish side in front him in the last 20, could do some damage.
In that case I agree. It didn't come across that way the first time.
 
Just me, or does Roots- Underhill-Earl sound exceptionally temporary as a back row?

No shade to any of them, except maybe Roots, but Underhill isn't a 7 to me, Roots doesn't sparkle and I hope Earl is just moving through at 8 - although of the three I'm least upset with that.

Underhill-Earl-Pearson. Earl-Curry-Pearson. Martin-Curry-Earl?
 
Last edited:
I would've loved to have seen a Curry/Underhill (mk.2) pairing tried at some point this tournament but seems unlikely now - despite Sale being really up and down Ben's been stand out and his stats are crazy good.

Roots seems like a very Borthwick kind of player - paint by numbers, looks good on a spreadsheet, does the work but doesn't really standout

If T.Curry comes back from injury in any kind of form I imagine he'll come back into the backrow but wouldn't be surprised if it was at the expense of Underhill* rather than Roots. Also the possibility that CCS or Barbeary start putting pressure on the 8 shirt and Earl moves to 7.

*No real logic behind that, mind, just a gut feeling
 
If Daly goes down in the first 5 minutes we end up with IFW playing basically his first cap in a much harder/ higher pressure game than the first two.

Makes zero sense to have him there and to not give him more minutes because there is very risk you are forced to play him.
What do you want complete change and potentially confidence ruined if players fail? Players are being integrated it takes time and patience if England are building steady and we do see improvement I am happy you can't expect a new defensive system to work if you keep flip flopping personal, I realise you dislike Daly and like the looks of IFB but even if he only see a couple more minutes this torment there will be plenty of opportunity going forward, England simply haven't had the luxury of comfortable scoreboard positions to really give him a go. Its a fine balance but given the forced centre experimentation due to OLs injury's and getting a few caps for others is pleasing.
 
Hardly panic stations old boy. My view is simply that if you select a player then you are saying that you trust them and believe they are ready to play at test level. Given the pace and demands of modern test rugby you should be emptying your bench every game. If you're not; then someone on the field hasn't been pushing hard enough. So if SB isn't getting IFW on then it suggests he doesn't trust him, in which case don't put him on the bench at all, or back your decision, and the player, and get him some decent game time.
From what I've seen if IFW he's pretty electric and with a tiring Scottish side in front him in the last 20, could do some damage.
That's a pretty one sided view, you can have trust in experienced proven players in what ever they have displayed, then have trust that someone could come on and do a different job if that's what's required players and games are not always horses for corses, besides which you could have more limited confidence in a bench option but more confidence in them than anyone else outside of your first choice, it would be a bit silly to not cover a position on that bases you'd be a laughing stock when an injury occurred and you hadn't accounted for that in any realistic way.
 
I'm just very worried about this one 😕
Don't be worried about me

English Rugby GIF by Guinness Six Nations
 

Latest posts

Top