Jack Willis

Moderator: Puja

User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6374
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Oakboy »

I'd still have Launchbury as the first lock on the teamsheet. What we see now is a player who has been seriously underrated by Jones and Borthwick. I find that strange because I'd say that the lock's ceilings are in the order Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis. With either Itoje or Launchbury as captain, picking them as the starting pairing raises the team's ceiling, IMO. It gives the best game-to-game long-term combination of physicality, pure rugby skill, mental toughness, character, brain and leadership. And, Lawes is the guy to have coming off the bench.
Peej
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:01 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Peej »

I'd still pick and start Launch too, but Eddie and Borthwick don't see it the same way. That's why I think he'll be the lock to make way
Scrumhead
Posts: 5984
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:33 am

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Scrumhead »

Oakboy wrote:I'd still have Launchbury as the first lock on the teamsheet. What we see now is a player who has been seriously underrated by Jones and Borthwick. I find that strange because I'd say that the lock's ceilings are in the order Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis. With either Itoje or Launchbury as captain, picking them as the starting pairing raises the team's ceiling, IMO. It gives the best game-to-game long-term combination of physicality, pure rugby skill, mental toughness, character, brain and leadership. And, Lawes is the guy to have coming off the bench.
I think Launchbury is our second best lock after Itoje, but it’s not just a simple case of picking the two best players.

Part of the problem is that neither of those two is a top lineout caller/manager. This is where Kruis and Lawes have an edge over Launchbury. When you add in the fact that Kruis and Itoje are an established club partnership and Lawes has frequently shown he is a brilliant impact option from the bench, it probably explains why Launchbury is 4th choice.

I don’t see any reason to cut him though. He’s plenty young enough for the next RWC cycle.
User avatar
Stom
Posts: 5840
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Stom »

Mikey Brown wrote:This always tends to be a guessing game but I thought the acknowledged order was thought to be Kruis, Itoje, Lawes, Launchbury in terms of scrummaging power?

Launch has a fantastic work-rate and skills, but I thought at set piece he was only really considered strong in the maul, in comparison to the other contenders.

Weight is spread very differently among different players. I’d say Ewels puts his about pretty well. He’s not a Botha or Etzebeth but we don’t have any of those and it certainly isn’t Launchbury.

Anyway. Willis...
Obviously Willis should be at 7...

With Ewels at 6 and Itoje at 8.
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 14563
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Mellsblue »

Peej wrote:I'd still pick and start Launch too, but Eddie and Borthwick don't see it the same way. That's why I think he'll be the lock to make way
I have Launch as our second best lock but would pick Itoje and Kruis as best pairing with Lawes off the bench.
I think I was the first to suggest Launch May lose his spot but that’s based on Jones’s preferences not mine.
User avatar
jngf
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:57 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by jngf »

Mellsblue wrote:
Peej wrote:I'd still pick and start Launch too, but Eddie and Borthwick don't see it the same way. That's why I think he'll be the lock to make way
I have Launch as our second best lock but would pick Itoje and Kruis as best pairing with Lawes off the bench.
I think I was the first to suggest Launch May lose his spot but that’s based on Jones’s preferences not mine.

I’m already convinced Jones should retire as England coach. Were it to happen, removing Launchbury from the squad when there’s no competing candidate out there making a case for inclusion might convince a few others too. I’d have a lot less problem with the removal of Youngs, Billy or Farrell - all of whom are coasting imo.
Last edited by jngf on Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 14563
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Mellsblue »

User avatar
jngf
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:57 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by jngf »

Mellsblue wrote:
In an enlightened post Jones environment I could see:

Underhill, Wilson, Willis, Earl and Kvesic challenging for the jackal, hard carrying destroyer flank berth

Curry x 2, Ludlum, Sam Simmonds, Will Evans (and possibly Jack Clifford?) challenging for the flier/linkman flank berth.

(openside and blindside beginning to sound antiquated)

With a couple of powerful athletic forwards such as Macbeth(copyright) and Dombrandt starting at 8 - with Billy reserved for impact sub duties.
Banquo
Posts: 19147
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Banquo »

jngf wrote:
Mellsblue wrote:
In an enlightened post Jones environment I could see:

Underhill, Wilson, Willis, Earl and Kvesic challenging for the jackal, hard carrying destroyer flank berth

Curry x 2, Ludlum, Sam Simmonds, Will Evans (and possibly Jack Clifford?) challenging for the flier/linkman flank berth.

(openside and blindside beginning to sound antiquated)

With a couple of powerful athletic forwards such as Macbeth(copyright) and Dombrandt starting at 8 - with Billy reserved for impact sub duties.
I think we can now say Itoje at 8 remains a terrible idea.
Mikey Brown
Posts: 12154
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Mikey Brown »

So is Macbeth Itoje now?!
User avatar
morepork
Posts: 7529
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by morepork »

Where's Brad Shields now?

Eh?
User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6374
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Oakboy »

morepork wrote:Where's Brad Shields now?

Eh?
Sent to Coventry.
Raggs
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:17 am

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Raggs »

morepork wrote:Where's Brad Shields now?

Eh?
Injured.
Banquo
Posts: 19147
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Banquo »

Mikey Brown wrote:So is Macbeth Itoje now?!
who was Macbeth before?
User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6374
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Oakboy »

Banquo wrote:
Mikey Brown wrote:So is Macbeth Itoje now?!
who was Macbeth before?
Looking over your shoulder, Banquo?

I never really enjoyed Shakespeare after my head was messed with at school - mainly by having to play Puck in a pretty feeble effort for O-level English Lit. I did once achieve simultaneous orgasm with a girlfriend in the rear stalls of the Salisbury Playhouse, though. Can't remember the play for the life of me. Apart from the sex, it was infamous for the cast stopping halfway through the first scene and refusing to continue until all the kids stopped talking. Happy days.
p/d
Posts: 3827
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:45 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by p/d »

:shock:
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 14563
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Mellsblue »

Close the board. We won’t top this.
User avatar
jngf
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:57 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by jngf »

Oakboy wrote:
morepork wrote:Where's Brad Shields now?

Eh?
Sent to Coventry.
Tbf That’s a tasty back row Shields and Nutley...
Mikey Brown
Posts: 12154
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Mikey Brown »

Banquo wrote:
Mikey Brown wrote:So is Macbeth Itoje now?!
who was Macbeth before?
Anybody nicknamed Macbeth?

I’m not sure what’s going on here but maybe that’s for the best.
User avatar
Which Tyler
Posts: 9185
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
Location: Tewkesbury
Contact:

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Which Tyler »

Oakboy wrote: Looking over your shoulder, Banquo?
I've no idea why this conversation turned to McBeth, but I do feel that this comment deserves more appreciation
p/d
Posts: 3827
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:45 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by p/d »

Which Tyler wrote:
Oakboy wrote: Looking over your shoulder, Banquo?
I've no idea why this conversation turned to McBeth, but I do feel that this comment deserves more appreciation
but If only he had chosen to finish his post at that point.....
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 14563
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Mellsblue »

p/d wrote:
Which Tyler wrote:
Oakboy wrote: Looking over your shoulder, Banquo?
I've no idea why this conversation turned to McBeth, but I do feel that this comment deserves more appreciation
but If only he had chosen to finish his post at that point.....
This
User avatar
Which Tyler
Posts: 9185
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
Location: Tewkesbury
Contact:

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Which Tyler »

Absolutely fair and valid
User avatar
Puja
Posts: 17694
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Puja »

Mikey Brown wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Mikey Brown wrote:So is Macbeth Itoje now?!
who was Macbeth before?
Anybody nicknamed Macbeth?

I’m not sure what’s going on here but maybe that’s for the best.
I think it's a reference to me banning him from mentioning Itoje at 8 during the RWC, like actors not naming Macbeth as bad luck.

Puja
Backist Monk
Banquo
Posts: 19147
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: Jack Willis

Post by Banquo »

Puja wrote:
Mikey Brown wrote:
Banquo wrote: who was Macbeth before?
Anybody nicknamed Macbeth?

I’m not sure what’s going on here but maybe that’s for the best.
I think it's a reference to me banning him from mentioning Itoje at 8 during the RWC, like actors not naming Macbeth as bad luck.

Puja
didn't think it needed explaining :)
Post Reply