Borthwick’s England 2.0

[Oakboy]

Ewels should have been in ahead of Isiekwe from the outset. A far better player and one who is in form.

It's rare that I disagree with you. Ewels is not international standard, IMO. Isiekwe still might be eventually.

[Margin_Walker]

Isiekwe's 26 in a few months. He's never really looked anything other than military medium for me. I've never seen a game he's played and though he'd really dominated or produced a man of the match performance. He may well be a later bloomer internationally, but I'm not counting on it

Ewels is underwhelming, but at least he's a pure lock and not likely to show up at 6 in the 6N

[fivepointer]

Isiekwe's 26 in a few months. He's never really looked anything other than military medium for me. I've never seen a game he's played and though he'd really dominated or produced a man of the match performance. He may well be a later bloomer internationally, but I'm not counting on it

Ewels is underwhelming, but at least he's a pure lock and not likely to show up at 6 in the 6N

Thats pretty much how i see it.

[Oakboy]

Isiekwe's 26 in a few months. He's never really looked anything other than military medium for me. I've never seen a game he's played and though he'd really dominated or produced a man of the match performance. He may well be a later bloomer internationally, but I'm not counting on it

Ewels is underwhelming, but at least he's a pure lock and not likely to show up at 6 in the 6N

Thats pretty much how i see it.

I think that view is drifting out of date. Was Lawes a lock converted to a 6 or a 6 that only got pressured into playing in the second row originally because he was tall? I suspect that after the 'kick and hope' phase is done with, the game will move on - with greater versatility essential. One way or another, every back row will need a a tall line-out operator. Every lock will need good hands and pace. Pure size will be inadequate. Our best two currently are from Itoje/Chessum/Martin. All are capable of playing 6 - as was Launchbury earlier in his career.

[Margin_Walker]

I think that view is drifting out of date. Was Lawes a lock converted to a 6 or a 6 that only got pressured into playing in the second row originally because he was tall? I suspect that after the 'kick and hope' phase is done with, the game will move on - with greater versatility essential. One way or another, every back row will need a a tall line-out operator. Every lock will need good hands and pace. Pure size will be inadequate. Our best two currently are from Itoje/Chessum/Martin. All are capable of playing 6 - as was Launchbury earlier in his career.

Lawes was a lock converted to a 6, but crucially he was superbly suited to it and hugely influential in the back row. He's light on his feet and a real threat over the ball. There's absolutely a place for a tall hybrid type player at six, but you need to be quicker and have more to you game outside of the tight than I think Iseikwe has.

Who knows though. He may prove me wrong

Edit - FWIW I think the three players you list are all better options at 6 than Iseikwe if you are going down that route

[Mikey Brown]

Also I would point to Peter O’Mahoney in that you can be a pretty dominant line-out forward at a piddly little 6’3”.

[FKAS]

Also I would point to Peter O’Mahoney in that you can be a pretty dominant line-out forward at a piddly little 6’3”.

I'm hoping the inclusion of CCS is with a view to developing him into the long term option at 6.

[Banquo]

Isiekwe's 26 in a few months. He's never really looked anything other than military medium for me. I've never seen a game he's played and though he'd really dominated or produced a man of the match performance. He may well be a later bloomer internationally, but I'm not counting on it

Ewels is underwhelming, but at least he's a pure lock and not likely to show up at 6 in the 6N

Thats pretty much how i see it.

yup

[Puja]

Isiekwe's 26 in a few months. He's never really looked anything other than military medium for me. I've never seen a game he's played and though he'd really dominated or produced a man of the match performance. He may well be a later bloomer internationally, but I'm not counting on it

Ewels is underwhelming, but at least he's a pure lock and not likely to show up at 6 in the 6N

Thats pretty much how i see it.

I think that view is drifting out of date. Was Lawes a lock converted to a 6 or a 6 that only got pressured into playing in the second row originally because he was tall? I suspect that after the 'kick and hope' phase is done with, the game will move on - with greater versatility essential. One way or another, every back row will need a a tall line-out operator. Every lock will need good hands and pace. Pure size will be inadequate. Our best two currently are from Itoje/Chessum/Martin. All are capable of playing 6 - as was Launchbury earlier in his career.

Still disagree. Positions and specialisations matter. If you're putting a lock in at 6, even if he's "capable", then you are compromising something else in the back row, usually the breakdown. Someone who is primarily a lock has different training regimens, weight-carrying requirements, and different instincts because they're used to standing in a particular place and delivering a particular role and responsibilities.

Lawes became a decent international 6 because he played there week in, week out, for his club. Putting in a lock who is "capable of playing 6" is not good enough at international level, unless the available back row are such a significant drop in quality of player as to make up for it, which is very definitely not the case for England.

Cf. Previous arguments about "Tom Croft is capable of playing lock, so let's play him there and have four back rows!"

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Also I would point to Peter O’Mahoney in that you can be a pretty dominant line-out forward at a piddly little 6’3”.

I'm hoping the inclusion of CCS is with a view to developing him into the long term option at 6.

Yep. Can’t say I’ve noticed him on the kick chase much.

[FKAS]

Also I would point to Peter O’Mahoney in that you can be a pretty dominant line-out forward at a piddly little 6’3”.

I'm hoping the inclusion of CCS is with a view to developing him into the long term option at 6.

Yep. Can’t say I’ve noticed him on the kick chase much.

He's young and mobile he can be taught those skills.

[Banquo]

Also I would point to Peter O’Mahoney in that you can be a pretty dominant line-out forward at a piddly little 6’3”.

I'm hoping the inclusion of CCS is with a view to developing him into the long term option at 6.

Yep. Can’t say I’ve noticed him on the kick chase much.

lol

[Timbo]

Isiekwe's 26 in a few months. He's never really looked anything other than military medium for me. I've never seen a game he's played and though he'd really dominated or produced a man of the match performance. He may well be a later bloomer internationally, but I'm not counting on it

Fair enough & I suspect your opinion is shared by the majority. But that’s also why I said I think he’s very under rated and maybe there’s a lingering perception from where his game was a few years ago.

His performances over the last year have, imo, gone an a big upwards trajectory with the Prem semi and final the centrepieces. He was the most influential forward on the pitch in both games and absolutely destroyed Sales lineout in the final.

[Oakboy]

Thats pretty much how i see it.

I think that view is drifting out of date. Was Lawes a lock converted to a 6 or a 6 that only got pressured into playing in the second row originally because he was tall? I suspect that after the 'kick and hope' phase is done with, the game will move on - with greater versatility essential. One way or another, every back row will need a a tall line-out operator. Every lock will need good hands and pace. Pure size will be inadequate. Our best two currently are from Itoje/Chessum/Martin. All are capable of playing 6 - as was Launchbury earlier in his career.

Still disagree. Positions and specialisations matter. If you're putting a lock in at 6, even if he's "capable", then you are compromising something else in the back row, usually the breakdown. Someone who is primarily a lock has different training regimens, weight-carrying requirements, and different instincts because they're used to standing in a particular place and delivering a particular role and responsibilities.

Lawes became a decent international 6 because he played there week in, week out, for his club. Putting in a lock who is "capable of playing 6" is not good enough at international level, unless the available back row are such a significant drop in quality of player as to make up for it, which is very definitely not the case for England.

Cf. Previous arguments about "Tom Croft is capable of playing lock, so let's play him there and have four back rows!"

Puja

Just one small aside, when Lawes and Launchbury played together in the 2nd row they ranked as one of the all-time best lock pairings at the breakdown, IMO. We matched most teams in that area then - almost regardless of the back-row selection. Specialist categorisation of 4,5,6 is not as important as individual skills. I'd go further and suggest that much more criticism over the last decade or so should have been aimed at the selection and playing methods of our 7 and 8, especially the latter - speed to the breakdown needs more attention.

[16th man]

Isiekwe's 26 in a few months. He's never really looked anything other than military medium for me. I've never seen a game he's played and though he'd really dominated or produced a man of the match performance. He may well be a later bloomer internationally, but I'm not counting on it

Fair enough & I suspect your opinion is shared by the majority. But that’s also why I said I think he’s very under rated and maybe there’s a lingering perception from where his game was a few years ago.

His performances over the last year have, imo, gone an a big upwards trajectory with the Prem semi and final the centrepieces. He was the most influential forward on the pitch in both games and absolutely destroyed Sales lineout in the final.

TBF Sale's lineout didn't need much pushing to fall over.

[Mellsblue]

Warburton advocating:
6. Pearson
7. Earl
8. Dombrandt

Dallaglio:
1. Marler
2. George
3. Cole
4. Itoje
5. Chessum
6. Pearson
7. Underhill (J Willy)
8. Earl
9. Mitchell
10. F Smith
11. Daly
12. Dingwall (suggestions Freeman!)
13. Slade
14. Freeman
15. Steward

[p/d]

I like Sam, but feck me that would a long afternoon for those 3

[Mellsblue]

I think both look at the game in a diametrically opposed way to me, ie they’re wrong

[Oakboy]

Interesting that both advocate Pearson at 6. Theoretically, he suits the shirt but I wonder if he is up to it. I'd like him to be and if he impresses in training camp he might get a start against Italy. I fear that he could be exposed by mistakes and, reluctant as many will be to accept him, I suspect that Roots will take to international rugby more comfortably. CSS might just be a better all-round compromise if it is not too early.

[p/d]

I just want SB to pick his first choice side…and if M Smith isn’t the starting 10 then, against my long held view, I will have to come to terms that a bobble hat is an acceptable choice of attire for a middle aged man

[Mellsblue]

I just want SB to pick his first choice side…and if M Smith isn’t the starting 10 then, against my long held view, I will have to come to terms that a bobble hat is an acceptable choice of attire for a middle aged man

How dare you. I have a wide and varied collection of bobble hats. It is bloody cold in N. Yorks, though.

[p/d]

I just want SB to pick his first choice side…and if M Smith isn’t the starting 10 then, against my long held view, I will have to come to terms that a bobble hat is an acceptable choice of attire for a middle aged man

How dare you. I have a wide and varied collection of bobble hats. It is bloody cold in N. Yorks, though.

lol!!! I knew you would have

Anyhoo is Roots Oakboys new Armand?

[Oakboy]

I just want SB to pick his first choice side…and if M Smith isn’t the starting 10 then, against my long held view, I will have to come to terms that a bobble hat is an acceptable choice of attire for a middle aged man

How dare you. I have a wide and varied collection of bobble hats. It is bloody cold in N. Yorks, though.

lol!!! I knew you would have

Anyhoo is Roots Oakboys new Armand?

No, I could not give a monkey's testicle whether he is picked in the squad or not. My comments were based on SB's squad. I think Fisilau is a far superior prospect. I'd pick him at 8 if he was in the squad. CSS, Earl and Fisilau could be the future at some stage, though I still think both Willises have a lot to offer.

[p/d]

Dors, very tongue on cheek.

I actually like Pearson and more than happy if he gets the nod. Roots, not sure I’m convinced yet

[Mikey Brown]

I saw a thing with “Hask and Tins’ XV” that had 10. Ford 12. Freeman 13. Daly 15. Smith for Italy. Beat that.