RugbyRebels

I'd be inclined to pick Itoje at 6 for each of the November games. So who should be picked in the 2nd row from Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis (is he fit?) to ensure line out possession, endless work rate and grunt? Who else is there in contention? My model 2nd row is NZ's Retallick and Whitelock who are the core of the Black pack. If England can emulate them then I'd back them to be unbeaten in November and the 6N!

francoisfou wrote:I'd be inclined to pick Itoje at 6 for each of the November games. So who should be picked in the 2nd row from Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis (is he fit?) to ensure line out possession, endless work rate and grunt? Who else is there in contention? My model 2nd row is NZ's Retallick and Whitelock who are the core of the Black pack. If England can emulate them then I'd back them to be unbeaten in November and the 6N!

If Itoje is pushing in the scrum, which he would be over Lawes, then just give him the lock position. If I had any real interest in Saints, I'd love to do Lawes' ruck scores in his recent Saints games at 6. The only one I've done with him was against Italy in the 6N, where his score was really disappointing for someone not having to shove in the scrum. Any Saints fans fancy giving it a go?

francoisfou wrote:I'd be inclined to pick Itoje at 6 for each of the November games. So who should be picked in the 2nd row from Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis (is he fit?) to ensure line out possession, endless work rate and grunt? Who else is there in contention? My model 2nd row is NZ's Retallick and Whitelock who are the core of the Black pack. If England can emulate them then I'd back them to be unbeaten in November and the 6N!

For me Itoje's key strength is his tight, close quarters work and for that reason 8 might be a better fit in his particular case than 6. Whilst he's very athletic in the line out and over the ball, he's not the type of player with the mobility to get all over the field in loose play which is why I don't see him as particularly effective at flanker.

Raggs wrote:

francoisfou wrote:I'd be inclined to pick Itoje at 6 for each of the November games. So who should be picked in the 2nd row from Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis (is he fit?) to ensure line out possession, endless work rate and grunt? Who else is there in contention? My model 2nd row is NZ's Retallick and Whitelock who are the core of the Black pack. If England can emulate them then I'd back them to be unbeaten in November and the 6N!

If Itoje is pushing in the scrum, which he would be over Lawes, then just give him the lock position. If I had any real interest in Saints, I'd love to do Lawes' ruck scores in his recent Saints games at 6. The only one I've done with him was against Italy in the 6N, where his score was really disappointing for someone not having to shove in the scrum. Any Saints fans fancy giving it a go?

Just remind me what you actually do there, not that I'm going to go to all that effort, mark numbers of rucks hit by how passive/effective they are?

Maybe 8 could be Itoje's ideal position, but Sarries may think otherwise!

Mikey Brown wrote:

Raggs wrote:

francoisfou wrote:I'd be inclined to pick Itoje at 6 for each of the November games. So who should be picked in the 2nd row from Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis (is he fit?) to ensure line out possession, endless work rate and grunt? Who else is there in contention? My model 2nd row is NZ's Retallick and Whitelock who are the core of the Black pack. If England can emulate them then I'd back them to be unbeaten in November and the 6N!

If Itoje is pushing in the scrum, which he would be over Lawes, then just give him the lock position. If I had any real interest in Saints, I'd love to do Lawes' ruck scores in his recent Saints games at 6. The only one I've done with him was against Italy in the 6N, where his score was really disappointing for someone not having to shove in the scrum. Any Saints fans fancy giving it a go?

Just remind me what you actually do there, not that I'm going to go to all that effort, mark numbers of rucks hit by how passive/effective they are?

https://dementedmole.com/2013/10/30/ruck-marks/

I usually just do the pack.

Aha, great stuff.

Though I'm retaining my right to dismiss it all at a seconds notice based on my existing like/dislike of certain players.

Raggs wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Raggs wrote:
If Itoje is pushing in the scrum, which he would be over Lawes, then just give him the lock position. If I had any real interest in Saints, I'd love to do Lawes' ruck scores in his recent Saints games at 6. The only one I've done with him was against Italy in the 6N, where his score was really disappointing for someone not having to shove in the scrum. Any Saints fans fancy giving it a go?

Just remind me what you actually do there, not that I'm going to go to all that effort, mark numbers of rucks hit by how passive/effective they are?

https://dementedmole.com/2013/10/30/ruck-marks/

I usually just do the pack.

We'd need to know what his role is. If he's allowed to float and go halfback hunting he might be doing exactly what Mallinder wants.

I suppose you could start to set benchmarks for what rucks hit should look like in total and as a % of total, and too what number of times you'd expect to see a flanker given a looser role get off the line hard in defence, tackles made, and where he works to in attack to start to round out the workload

francoisfou wrote:Maybe 8 could be Itoje's ideal position, but Sarries may think otherwise!

or...just maybe....its lock. After all, that's where he has been world class. I'm not understanding JNGF's analysis of a number 8's role, which seems to be based on a perception of Dean Richards.

Mikey Brown wrote:Aha, great stuff.

Though I'm retaining my right to dismiss it all at a seconds notice based on my existing like/dislike of certain players.

It certainly opened my eyes with regards to Hartley. I mean I knew he must be doing some work, but I wasn't expecting so much off ball activity.

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
Just remind me what you actually do there, not that I'm going to go to all that effort, mark numbers of rucks hit by how passive/effective they are?

https://dementedmole.com/2013/10/30/ruck-marks/

I usually just do the pack.

We'd need to know what his role is. If he's allowed to float and go halfback hunting he might be doing exactly what Mallinder wants.

I suppose you could start to set benchmarks for what rucks hit should look like in total and as a % of total, and too what number of times you'd expect to see a flanker given a looser role get off the line hard in defence, tackles made, and where he works to in attack to start to round out the workload

You'd definitely need to consider all contributions, but it should be straight forward enough to total up runs, tackles and rucks hit for each player, and get an idea of their workrate, lineouts would need to be considered as well. Obviously you'd rarely expect the carrier or tackler to be in the ruck, so if he's doing these things, a lower ruck mark would be expected, especially in comparison to those with a role specifically revolving around rucks.

Raggs wrote:

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:Picks his moments in attack, whilst simultaneously being top 10 for carries? Hollywood stuff tackles whilst still being in the top 10 tacklers in the league? If he can make more tackles than most, whilst still hanging back and going for the big tackles, then that's fine by me! 2nd highest passer in the forwards too. You'd also expect your top carrier to struggle to simultaneously prevent himself being turned over, or binding onto himself to drive himself on.

You'll recall my ruck marks too, and whilst Hughes wasn't matching our flankers (Itoje and Hask), he was far from absent, and he's only improving.

Yeah - carries, tackles, hitting undefended rucks, turnovers - glory work. I'm not saying it's bad that he does that, as he does it very well. I'm saying the inglorious work that I referenced in my post is what he doesn't do.

Puja

And do you have actual evidence of that? Ruck marks on games etc? Or is it just a feeling or a sense?

I would proffer the thread which showed him failing to follow a break for England a year or so back, but that's a little old and anecdote is not the singular of data.

I cannot provide you statistics of the unglamorous work no, although I'll note that being first in carries probably says something for how much securing of his own ball he does, and having a high metres per carry says something for how much regeneration carrying he does.

And again, it's not that any of that is a bad thing - he's an excellent player and very good at carrying in the loose and defending wider. England can use someone with those talents!

Puja

Sorry to jump in with a random question. But which features, if any, do the squad miss prior to the Autumn internationals?

Banquo wrote:

francoisfou wrote:Maybe 8 could be Itoje's ideal position, but Sarries may think otherwise!

or...just maybe....its lock. After all, that's where he has been world class. I'm not understanding JNGF's analysis of a number 8's role, which seems to be based on a perception of Dean Richards.

This. He's been tried at blindside and it didn't look quite right. I don't think putting him at 8 makes things any better. He thinks the game like a lock and all his attributes line up as a lock.

But he's fast and has good hands so couldn't possibly just be a boring old lock (who is fast and has good hands).

Mikey Brown wrote:But he's fast and has good hands so couldn't possibly just be a boring old lock (who is fast and has good hands).

Hah! Aye. He certainly looks like he should be able to play back row to a really high level. But it doesn't happen.

He's never played for a long period in the back row and built his training around that aim. Whether he can play back row doesn't look like it can be reasonably answered. Also whether Sarries, Itoje and England want to really invest time into trying to move him seems somewhat relevant at this point

Digby wrote:He's never played for a long period in the back row and built his training around that aim. Whether he can play back row doesn't look like it can be reasonably answered. Also whether Sarries, Itoje and England want to really invest time into trying to move him seems somewhat relevant at this point

He's spent a good deal of time for Sarries at 6. so their jury may be out. Frankly, I think he'd have to more than appropriate conditioning to be as good a back row as he is a lock at intl level though.

Mikey Brown wrote:But he's fast and has good hands so couldn't possibly just be a boring old lock (who is fast and has good hands).

And could have a lengthy career. They should just stick with Launch and Maro and everyone else moves over.
CGS already knows it. 'HULK play 6'.

Mikey Brown wrote:But he's fast and has good hands so couldn't possibly just be a boring old lock (who is fast and has good hands).

I'd prefer he stayed at lock - albeit more in the Retallick vein. He's a lock who can play 6 not vice versa and I'd prefer to have players in their best positions - even if it does mean some tough selection-calls.

Scrumhead wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:But he's fast and has good hands so couldn't possibly just be a boring old lock (who is fast and has good hands).

I'd prefer he stayed at lock - albeit more in the Retallick vein. He's a lock who can play 6 not vice versa and I'd prefer to have players in their best positions - even if it does mean some tough selection-calls.

Quite, it’s not rocket science

Scrumhead wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:But he's fast and has good hands so couldn't possibly just be a boring old lock (who is fast and has good hands).

I'd prefer he stayed at lock - albeit more in the Retallick vein. He's a lock who can play 6 not vice versa and I'd prefer to have players in their best positions - even if it does mean some tough selection-calls.

Yeah, square pegs in round holes is rarely a long term solution. We also have time before the world cup to find some more genuinely class back rowers. I'd prefer we focused on this rather than move from stopgap to stopgap.

Disagree if you wish, but I think that the one aspect of Itoje's play in the 2nd row that is lacking is his ability to dominate the opposition -like Martin Johnson. I know he likes winding up his opponents verbally but has he got that fear factor that Johnson had in buckets?

Funny that we all forgot that Launchbury played a large chunk of his junior rugby at 6. In my eyes he has a bigger claim to the 6 shirt as Itoje (Not that I am advocating either.)

Also the idea of Itoje at 8 is mildly hilarious. It is a kin to putting a prop at hooker. Number 8 is a hugely specialist position, with foot control at the base of the scrum and dropping back with the back three for kicks. The idea of putting a guy there that has never played their in his entire career doesn't sound like a recipe for success.

Are we playing DOMINATE bingo?

On a serious note, I really like what Itoje brings to the team in terms of his all-round work. At lock. It's just a question of Lawes or Launch next to him. For me, at least. Kruis is a good player, but he's not really a standout one.

In the backrow, it's good we've now got a few kids coming through. It's what I said many times before: we have a vacuum of players of a certain age. We had a load of good players to choose from in the previous generation - Johnson, Hill, etc. - and we've got a load of good players in the current batch - 2011 u20s onwards - but that inbetween is not there.

We have Robshaw, Care and Brown. Hartley, Cole. Haskell. And that's about it from before 2011.

We had a missed generation, in my eyes. The players who would have been 17-22 in 2003. And that goes part of the way to explaining the terrible results 2005-2012: the player pool was smaller.

But the players who were 6-12 in 2003 are coming through/have come through now. And we're looking stronger.

padprop wrote:Funny that we all forgot that Launchbury played a large chunk of his junior rugby at 6. In my eyes he has a bigger claim to the 6 shirt as Itoje (Not that I am advocating either.)

Also the idea of Itoje at 8 is mildly hilarious. It is a kin to putting a prop at hooker. Number 8 is a hugely specialist position, with foot control at the base of the scrum and dropping back with the back three for kicks. The idea of putting a guy there that has never played their in his entire career doesn't sound like a recipe for success.

This; I was being kind on the 8 suggestion.