England forward pack as things stand

[jngf]

Any chance of a big lock, mobile or otherwise?

My mate Gary is 6'10" and horrendously overweight. He's 45, never played rugby and I don't think he even likes it but he's English qualified. Worth a shot? His fitness and hand-eye co-ordination are pretty poor but 6'10" - 22 stone 7lb looks good on a team-sheet, right?

If it’s between him, Ewels & Kruis he’s in

[Banquo]

Any chance of a big lock, mobile or otherwise?

My mate Gary is 6'10" and horrendously overweight. He's 45, never played rugby and I don't think he even likes it but he's English qualified. Worth a shot? His fitness and hand-eye co-ordination are pretty poor but 6'10" - 22 stone 7lb looks good on a team-sheet, right?

If it’s between him, Ewels & Kruis he’s in

[Timbo]

Looking around the international game, I can’t see what’s ‘limited’ about this England teams style. Who are you looking at as a barometer of where we’d want to be, and what specifically do you want to see?

[loudnconfident]

Any chance of a big lock, mobile or otherwise?

My mate Gary is 6'10" and horrendously overweight. He's 45, never played rugby and I don't think he even likes it but he's English qualified. Worth a shot? His fitness and hand-eye co-ordination are pretty poor but 6'10" - 22 stone 7lb looks good on a team-sheet, right?

He needs a stone or two - but that's easily fixable. How does he come across in interviews? We need a "regional" accent but not too specific - i.e. northern, but too "north" . Is he telegenic? Any family links to the US or Asia would be great; we need to sell the game there!

[Digby]

Also what tournaments would we play that a fast approach would work in? A big key to not just having a successful opening round but still going strong in round 5 is conserving energy.

If England are to truly speed up play then (a) the domestic games they play in need to be much faster to temper the decision making and execution of technical skills and (b) you're not going to want England players to make more than 10-15 appearances outside their England duties each year

yep. Didn't want to light the blue touch paper on playing styles in the Prem, but indeed.

Would a faster game-style in the England camp not automatically get transferred to the club game after a short period - cause and effect? Club HCs don't want a slower game as a principle do they? They want whatever wins them matches and slicker skills (mental and physical) would help their cause. I think Jones (or any national HC) automatically brings about the Pygmalion bit. Jones thinks England players can only play in a limited way so they (and the rest of the club game) end up believing him. Maybe, Cipriani didn't but he soon got ejected.

Nope. There is scope imo for clubs to focus more on skills and decision making, but not to dramatically up the pace absent of a massive reduction in the number of games they play

[Oakboy]

Looking around the international game, I can’t see what’s ‘limited’ about this England teams style. Who are you looking at as a barometer of where we’d want to be, and what specifically do you want to see?

I'm not sure I can answer your questions beyond having the conviction that a quicker style involving more incisive handling and less kicking would improve OUR game. Effectively, keeping the ball for longer and denying the opposition possession ought to see us reach more destructive levels IF our players have the skill. I think they do.

[Mr Mwenda]

I was chatting to someone the other day who wanted to go back to having the speed of game under Clive, and wasn't having that was not just us doing well but also being up against people like Colin Charvis who trained in a pub lifting beers and silk cut, and we just don't have that comparative advantage anymore, we might at times enjoy a slight advantage depending on the athleticism of the various squads, but Wales and Ireland especially are now basically on a par with us.

I suppose if we want to play at pace there is some option to rotate 5-7 players in with each new lineup but that's going to come with problems of its own

Watching the highlights of the 2003 6 Nations campaign it's striking how many changes there are across the side. As far as I could see the only consistent unit was the second row. It's clear that EJ places a lot of weight on established combos. Has the game changed in some regard that I'm not aware of or perhaps the 2003 Premiership was some how closer to the England set up in attributes so people could slot in more easily?

[Stom]

I was chatting to someone the other day who wanted to go back to having the speed of game under Clive, and wasn't having that was not just us doing well but also being up against people like Colin Charvis who trained in a pub lifting beers and silk cut, and we just don't have that comparative advantage anymore, we might at times enjoy a slight advantage depending on the athleticism of the various squads, but Wales and Ireland especially are now basically on a par with us.

I suppose if we want to play at pace there is some option to rotate 5-7 players in with each new lineup but that's going to come with problems of its own

Watching the highlights of the 2003 6 Nations campaign it's striking how many changes there are across the side. As far as I could see the only consistent unit was the second row. It's clear that EJ places a lot of weight on established combos. Has the game changed in some regard that I'm not aware of or perhaps the 2003 Premiership was some how closer to the England set up in attributes so people could slot in more easily?

Clive had an established group. There were 4 backrowers who could be played as any combination, there were 4 props who could play as any combination. And then he could sub in youngsters to see how they performed.

It was, pretty much, the perfect situation in terms of experience vs youth. A core of very experienced and adaptable players. That backrow had a shed load of caps and Back apart played every position.

Healey was there and could slot in anywhere in the backline pretty much.

Cohen was static, but the winger and FB rotated and new blood was often subbed in.

We could have a lot of that. I think Eddie does want to get there. Curry, Underhill and another, plus Billy is pretty similar to the Holy Trinity plus Moody.

[jngf]

Interested to see the relative pecking order between Ludlum, Earl and Wilson.

Personally, I think Ludlum reminds me a lot of Moody and could switch between 7 and 6 with ease (but whose best position at test level is 6?) - Earl could give T Curry a real run for his money (though shirt number is a moot point:) ) - I guess Wilson is the efficient, high work rate pick put perhaps in the same unexciting bracket as Kruis (in the sense of highly competent team player but if one was being mean a bit on the stodgy side?)

[Danno]

Wilson is excellent, and far from unexciting or stodgy. Does pretty well at 8, too. The only thing going against him for 2023 is his age.

Ludlam is fine and I really liked his enthusiasm to get stuck in during the group stages at the WC, but he isn't displacing Wilson, Curry or Underhill in my book, Earl edges him out, and Willis is fast approaching on the horizon.

[Scrumhead]

Interested to see the relative pecking order between Ludlum, Earl and Wilson.

Personally, I think Ludlum reminds me a lot of Moody and could switch between 7 and 6 with ease (but whose best position at test level is 6?) - Earl could give T Curry a real run for his money (though shirt number is a moot point:) ) - I guess Wilson is the efficient, high work rate pick put perhaps in the same unexciting bracket as Kruis (in the sense of highly competent team player but if one was being mean a bit on the stodgy side?)

Genuine question - what is it you love so much about Ludlam? I think he’s a good player but I see nothing so outstanding to warrant you having him pegged as such a favourite.

I’m even more confused given that you admit to watching little rugby outside of test matches. Have Ludlam’s cameos really got you that excited?

[jngf]

Interested to see the relative pecking order between Ludlum, Earl and Wilson.

Personally, I think Ludlum reminds me a lot of Moody and could switch between 7 and 6 with ease (but whose best position at test level is 6?) - Earl could give T Curry a real run for his money (though shirt number is a moot point:) ) - I guess Wilson is the efficient, high work rate pick put perhaps in the same unexciting bracket as Kruis (in the sense of highly competent team player but if one was being mean a bit on the stodgy side?)

Genuine question - what is it you love so much about Ludlam? I think he’s a good player but I see nothing so outstanding to warrant you having him pegged as such a favourite.

I’m even more confused given that you admit to watching little rugby outside of test matches. Have Ludlam’s cameos really got you that excited?

Think you may have taken my throw away comment about watching only test match rugby a bit too seriously
- but to answer question, I like Ludlum’s pace across the park, his lineout ability and doggedness in fetching and defence- that’s why I see him as a contemporary/updated version of Lewis Moody. I think we’ve only seen a inkling of how he can play at this level but I already think he’s a step up from Wilson in most aspects bar number of caps, is imo at least a much more exciting player to watch than Wilson (who to be fair was an incremental improvement on the latter stage Robshaw in turn) and a more convincing long term bet than T Curry at 6. (For me T Curry a 7 only at this level ). I could however see a great duel between Ludlum and Willis for the 6 berth, once lockdown over.

[Scrumhead]

Ludlam is tenacious but honestly, I don’t think he’s a patch on Wilson or Willis.

I can’t say I’ve ever really noticed his lineout work as being particularly noteworthy and based upon his stats over the past couple of seasons, his breakdown work is nothing particularly special either.

To reiterate, I do like him, but I think he was enormously lucky to keep his place in the squad when we have so many options, most of whom were in better form and have a more obvious ‘point of difference’. For example, Willis is a turnover machine or (Ted) Hill’s lineout work and physicality.

[Banquo]

Interested to see the relative pecking order between Ludlum, Earl and Wilson.

Personally, I think Ludlum reminds me a lot of Moody and could switch between 7 and 6 with ease (but whose best position at test level is 6?) - Earl could give T Curry a real run for his money (though shirt number is a moot point:) ) - I guess Wilson is the efficient, high work rate pick put perhaps in the same unexciting bracket as Kruis (in the sense of highly competent team player but if one was being mean a bit on the stodgy side?)

Genuine question - what is it you love so much about Ludlam? I think he’s a good player but I see nothing so outstanding to warrant you having him pegged as such a favourite.

I’m even more confused given that you admit to watching little rugby outside of test matches. Have Ludlam’s cameos really got you that excited?

puppy dog enthusiasm and physical skills compared to actual rugby brains and top decision making. Moody/Ludlam v Hill/Wilson.

[Oakboy]

Ludlam is tenacious but honestly, I don’t think he’s a patch on Wilson or Willis.

I can’t say I’ve ever really noticed his lineout work as being particularly noteworthy and based upon his stats over the past couple of seasons, his breakdown work is nothing particularly special either.

To reiterate, I do like him, but I think he was enormously lucky to keep his place in the squad when we have so many options, most of whom were in better form and have a more obvious ‘point of difference’. For example, Willis is a turnover machine or (Ted) Hill’s lineout work and physicality.

This.

I've made it clear I am no Jones fan but his back-row selections overall have worked with mistakes along the way. Take your pick. He surprised a lot of us with Ludlum in the first place. He picked Graham ahead of Wilson originally. He's achieved effective performances from Lawes at 6. He's ignored Willis and Simmonds at different times - as well as Armand. He persevered with Hughes, never gof the best out of him, IMO, and then dumped him. He's played Curry at 6 when Underhill looked a better switch. He's achieved adequate 8 cover with Curry. Dombrandt's face is yet to fit. Etc..

[Banquo]

Ludlam is tenacious but honestly, I don’t think he’s a patch on Wilson or Willis.

I can’t say I’ve ever really noticed his lineout work as being particularly noteworthy and based upon his stats over the past couple of seasons, his breakdown work is nothing particularly special either.

To reiterate, I do like him, but I think he was enormously lucky to keep his place in the squad when we have so many options, most of whom were in better form and have a more obvious ‘point of difference’. For example, Willis is a turnover machine or (Ted) Hill’s lineout work and physicality.

This.

I've made it clear I am no Jones fan but his back-row selections overall have worked with mistakes along the way. Take your pick. He surprised a lot of us with Ludlum in the first place. He picked Graham ahead of Wilson originally. He's achieved effective performances from Lawes at 6. He's ignored Willis and Simmonds at different times - as well as Armand. He persevered with Hughes, never gof the best out of him, IMO, and then dumped him. He's played Curry at 6 when Underhill looked a better switch. He's achieved adequate 8 cover with Curry. Dombrandt's face is yet to fit. Etc..

He picked Willis, who then crocked his knee. He picked Simmonds for a fair few games, but he was a bit exposed. He had Armand in camp, and played him a couple of times, but his style didn't fit. He played Underhill at 7 in set piece so he could attack the 10 (plus Curry was jumping), but when they played as flankers together, their roles didn't change much outside the set piece (which does influence what happens next in fairness).

To counter all that, Lawes at 6.

[Scrumhead]

Lawes is there primarily to give extra lineout presence.

That’s why I’m keen on developing players like Hill (who could become our own version of du Toit) and Mercer (at 8) who are genuine lineout athletes as well as being specialist back row players.

I’d put Lawes back at lock. He and Itoje are a good pairing and with this lay-off, he could probably make it through to 2023. He’s an ultra fit (and pretty durable) guy anyway so a bit of down time could be the difference between him being up to it in 2023 or not.

[Digby]

We've got 3 phases to play in, so the 7 has to secure phase 1 or we're giving up even a hope to score points

[Banquo]

Lawes is there primarily to give extra lineout presence.

That’s why I’m keen on developing players like Hill (who could become our own version of du Toit) and Mercer (at 8) who are genuine lineout athletes as well as being specialist back row players.

I’d put Lawes back at lock. He and Itoje are a good pairing and with this lay-off, he could probably make it through to 2023. He’s an ultra fit (and pretty durable) guy anyway so a bit of down time could be the difference between him being up to it in 2023 or not.

No sh*t .

He's a very good lock.

[Scrumhead]

Yep. Basically what I’m saying is that balance is important and I want Lawes at lock whilst looking at flankers who are more natural lineout options.

Personally, I’d be looking at a rotation depending on who we’re playing.

Originally I thought partnering Curry and Underhill might be a mistake but, barring the RWC final they were excellent and I’d have no issue going back to that. Willis or Ludlam are well suited to deputise for this kind of back row with Dombrandt as an alternative to Billy.

If we want an extra jumper, I’d like to see Hill or Mercer brought in, with one of Curry or Underhill at 7.

Earl is an interesting option as he offers something a little bit different as more of a Hooper style 7 or lighter, quicker 8. I’d see him as a great impact player off the bench.

The biggest issue is how to fit in lots of great players in to four shirts (one on the bench) which is a good problem to have.

[Banquo]

Yep. Basically what I’m saying is that balance is important and I want Lawes at lock whilst looking at flankers who are more natural lineout options.

Personally, I’d be looking at a rotation depending on who we’re playing.

Originally I thought partnering Curry and Underhill might be a mistake but, barring the RWC final they were excellent and I’d have no issue going back to that. Willis or Ludlam are well suited to deputise for this kind of back row with Dombrandt as an alternative to Billy.

If we want an extra jumper, I’d like to see Hill or Mercer brought in, with one of Curry or Underhill at 7.

Earl is an interesting option as he offers something a little bit different as more of a Hooper style 7 or lighter, quicker 8. I’d see him as a great impact player off the bench.

The biggest issue is how to fit in lots of great players in to four shirts (one on the bench) which is a good problem to have.

....actually need to find another top lock for 2023. Can't see Lawes being around then.

[Scrumhead]

I agree. Although I wouldn’t rule him out of contention.

We’ve definitely been guilty of persevering with players who are past it at times, but sometimes we can jettison players too arbitrarily based on age alone. As long as Lawes is still performing at the same standard, I’m happy for him to stay. There have been plenty of older locks performing well in World Cups and Lawes is fitter and more of a natural athlete than most.

A better situation would be to have an obvious successor and maybe someone like Joel Kpoku will come to the fore or Isiekwe will kick on in the next couple of years.

[Banquo]

I agree. Although I wouldn’t rule him out of contention.

We’ve definitely been guilty of persevering with players who are past it at times, but sometimes we can jettison players too arbitrarily based on age alone. As long as Lawes is still performing at the same standard, I’m happy for him to stay. There have been plenty of older locks performing well in World Cups and Lawes is fitter and more of a natural athlete than most.

A better situation would be to have an obvious successor and maybe someone like Joel Kpoku will come to the fore or Isiekwe will kick on in the next couple of years.

Oh yes, shouldn't jettison on age alone, nor only look at the RWC cycle. But I'd think 34/5 for a player like Lawes would see him struggling to maintain his USP's and stay injury free.

[Scrumhead]

Agreed. Although depending upon how long COVID-19 disrupts rugby as we know it, I can see it potentially prolonging some careers. Particularly if contact is somehow limited when it returns.

I don’t think there’s any realistic chance of this season being finished and I’m also sceptical about next season starting in September. If players get a full 6mths lay-off that’s almost like a full season out which then might allow them to play on for an extra season they wouldn’t have otherwise played.

[Beasties]

I'm genuinely curious about Earl. I admit I've hardly seen him play outside of his Eng caps. He came on in those and sort of was on the pitch but I don't recall seeing anything noteworthy from him at all. He's been similar in the short time I've seen him turn out for Sarries too, I'm worried that just being in the Sarries team is making him look better than he is. A lot of you seem to be accepting his place in the Eng squad, so he must have something, I just can't see what. Happy to be corrected though.