RugbyRebels

Yes. We did have a fallow period post 03. Had I any more than a modicum of talent, I could have been the perfect successor to Neil Back, but alas ...

[quote="francoisfou"]Maybe 8 could be Itoje's ideal position, but Sarries may think otherwise![/quote
Ok, I should have written "could have been", as he clearly isn't going to play 8. However, I still think he could have been a very good in that position in age group rugby.

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.)

As did Lawes and, to a lesser, extent Kruis. Didn't Itoje play more at 6 than lock, or at least as much, when he first broke into the Sarries 1stXV. We are lucky to have four top quality, mobile locks who can also punch their weight. We might as well accept at least one will be injured at any given time; so, two to start and one off the bench. Perfect.

More or less. Lock is an attritional position where injuries are common so we're lucky to have four genuinely top class options with Ewels and Isiekwe as decent (and improving) options.

Banquo wrote:

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.

I've seen him rotate in and out of the 6 short, rather than playing 15-20 games in a row building familiarity and experience. Some players are okay with that, but some do better for sticking in one role, and I don't know which Itoje is. Also he has been bulking up most of his senior career, and I'd suppose at this point he's beyond his likely ideal for a 6. On balance I don't know how good a back row he could be, there's in my mind still a gap there for England, but I'm increasingly loathe to invest time moving a player who's already a quality lock, if he was going to be a 6 that call should have been made 1 if not 2 seasons back.

francoisfou wrote: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?

I think that will come with age and reputation as much as anything else. Although he certainly made a big step in that direction vs NZ on the Lions tour.

Puja

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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.

I've seen him rotate in and out of the 6 short, rather than playing 15-20 games in a row building familiarity and experience. Some players are okay with that, but some do better for sticking in one role, and I don't know which Itoje is. Also he has been bulking up most of his senior career, and I'd suppose at this point he's beyond his likely ideal for a 6. On balance I don't know how good a back row he could be, there's in my mind still a gap there for England, but I'm increasingly loathe to invest time moving a player who's already a quality lock, if he was going to be a 6 that call should have been made 1 if not 2 seasons back.

Very rhetorical.

edit- I checked, and he's had a lot less starts at 6 for Sarries, than I'd thought. Very fair comment.

Maro must be a decent way ahead of where Johnson was at a comparable age. Hopefully he's not played so much he doesn't have the same length of career

Mellsblue wrote:

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.)

As did Lawes and, to a lesser, extent Kruis. Didn't Itoje play more at 6 than lock, or at least as much, when he first broke into the Sarries 1stXV. We are lucky to have four top quality, mobile locks who can also punch their weight. We might as well accept at least one will be injured at any given time; so, two to start and one off the bench. Perfect.

This is pretty much my take on it. Lawes/Kruis in particular seem to pick up injuries fairly regularly. I'd like to think Lawes has had his fair share already and can continue this new lease of life he has had in the last couple of seasons.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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.

I've seen him rotate in and out of the 6 short, rather than playing 15-20 games in a row building familiarity and experience. Some players are okay with that, but some do better for sticking in one role, and I don't know which Itoje is. Also he has been bulking up most of his senior career, and I'd suppose at this point he's beyond his likely ideal for a 6. On balance I don't know how good a back row he could be, there's in my mind still a gap there for England, but I'm increasingly loathe to invest time moving a player who's already a quality lock, if he was going to be a 6 that call should have been made 1 if not 2 seasons back.

Very rhetorical.

No doubt a timely and warranted interjection, though if I could digress for but a moment I do tend to find that...

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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.

I've seen him rotate in and out of the 6 short, rather than playing 15-20 games in a row building familiarity and experience. Some players are okay with that, but some do better for sticking in one role, and I don't know which Itoje is. Also he has been bulking up most of his senior career, and I'd suppose at this point he's beyond his likely ideal for a 6. On balance I don't know how good a back row he could be, there's in my mind still a gap there for England, but I'm increasingly loathe to invest time moving a player who's already a quality lock, if he was going to be a 6 that call should have been made 1 if not 2 seasons back.

Now that I can completely agree with.

All I'd add is that if any of Lawes, Itoje or Launchbury were to play at 6 for their clubs consistently over a reasonable period any of them could develop into top class international backrowers. Reservations about choosing them at 6 for England only reasonably centre on them not playing there regularly, IMO. All three belong in our starting XV. They are too good to leave out.

Oakboy wrote:All I'd add is that if any of Lawes, Itoje or Launchbury were to play at 6 for their clubs consistently over a reasonable period any of them could develop into top class international backrowers. Reservations about choosing them at 6 for England only reasonably centre on them not playing there regularly, IMO. All three belong in our starting XV. They are too good to leave out.

3 into 2 doesn't go. So they're too good to leave out doesn't sit well alongside they'd need to play well for their club sides at 6 for a period of time

Let's just be happy we have this problem. Oh to be arguing like this in every position. Just one other would be nice.

Mellsblue wrote:Let's just be happy we have this problem. Oh to be arguing like this in every position. Just one other would be nice.

This.

And, tbh, the only reason we keep having this conversation is we're kinda the opposite at back row. Lawes isn't good enough at the breakdown, Itoje isn't comfortable enough out wide and neither is Launchbury with his amount of beef. What they could have been is irrelevant compared to what they are. I'd happily stick any of them in at 6 as a stop gap at club level - maybe even international - without too many worries, but they've not got it in them to be as good there as they are at lock.

And that's from someone who was burning to see Itoje tried there (and Launch when Launch was younger too). Seen the experiment, didn't quite work, move on.

Mellsblue wrote:Let's just be happy we have this problem. Oh to be arguing like this in every position. Just one other would be nice.

You could argue that we have the same "problem" at FH; just with 2 players for 1 position rather than 4 for 2.
Of course, that one's got an easier solution as there's no-one really challenging for the vacant 12 shirt

I'd actually liken the idea of putting Itoje at 8 to the current situation with Farrell at 12. For me it qualifies as an actual problem.

Unless you're saying the answer is to simply put one of them on the bench.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Let's just be happy we have this problem. Oh to be arguing like this in every position. Just one other would be nice.

You could argue that we have the same "problem" at FH; just with 2 players for 1 position rather than 4 for 2.
Of course, that one's got an easier solution as there's no-one really challenging for the vacant 12 shirt

Teo?

The ideal answer is to put one of them on the bench; the difference is that we also have backrows deserving an international shirt; but we can't really say that about IC (maybe Te'o, jury's out)
I'd also say that Farrell is a proven "acceptable" as an international 12 - a place holder, but not one I constantly fret about. The idea of Itoje at 8 would be as a placeholder too, but one I would worry significantly about every minute he played there until proving my worries unfounded.

ETA
@Banquo You got in whilst I was typing.
The jury's out on Te'o for me, I'm unconvinced on his vision and distribution beyond off-loaded, I like a 12 who can kick competently; and I definitely like inside backs who are integral to the team, rather than playing for themselves. I really don't feel that Ben is a team player

Which Tyler wrote:The ideal answer is to put one of them on the bench; the difference is that we also have backrows deserving an international shirt; but we can't really say that about IC (maybe Te'o, jury's out)
I'd also say that Farrell is a proven "acceptable" as an international 12 - a place holder, but not one I constantly fret about. The idea of Itoje at 8 would be as a placeholder too, but one I would worry significantly about every minute he played there until proving my worries unfounded.

ETA
@Banquo You got in whilst I was typing.
The jury's out on Te'o for me, I'm unconvinced on his vision and distribution beyond off-loaded, I like a 12 who can kick competently; and I definitely like inside backs who are integral to the team, rather than playing for themselves. I really don't feel that Ben is a team player

I don't agree and think hes worth a spin. Not bothered by kicking from 12, though obviously handy. Would bring a different dynamic to the midfield; think Eddie will stick him outside Faz at 13.

...and I really don't agree on Itoje being considered as an 8.

Digby wrote:Maro must be a decent way ahead of where Johnson was at a comparable age. Hopefully he's not played so much he doesn't have the same length of career

I would say Johnson was ahead of Itoje at the same age quite comfortably tbh.

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Digby wrote:Maro must be a decent way ahead of where Johnson was at a comparable age. Hopefully he's not played so much he doesn't have the same length of career

I would say Johnson was ahead of Itoje at the same age quite comfortably tbh.

Itoje is only 22. He is one of the first choices on the Saracens teamsheet, has captained them on multiple occasions, and is only not an automatic choice for England because of three other very special locks. Even with that, he still has 15 caps for England and 3 for the Lions.

Johnson was 22 in 1992. He was a regular for Leicester, but had only broken through the year before. He wouldn't captain them till 1995, wouldn't be involved with England till 1993 and it'd be 1994 till he was a regular.

While Maro's got the major advantage of a) living in a rugby era where youngsters are trusted and b) being a professional, one can't deny that he's currently further ahead in his career than Johnno was at the same age.

Puja

Absolutely. It's always difficult to compare eras, but putting opinion/subjectivity to one side, it's very clear that Itoje has achieved more at 22 than Johnson had at the same age.

The only part of Puja's post I'd question is that Itoje is not an 'automatic choice' for England. I'd say he is. If he's fit, he plays without question.

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Digby wrote:Maro must be a decent way ahead of where Johnson was at a comparable age. Hopefully he's not played so much he doesn't have the same length of career

I would say Johnson was ahead of Itoje at the same age quite comfortably tbh.

Johnson was much more confined to the basics of his role, and actually often wasn't seen outside the lineout. Whether Itoje shows the same development and improvement we've yet to see, but Itoje isn't seen as someone who jumps in the lineout and could do with adding to his game

Digby wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Digby wrote:Maro must be a decent way ahead of where Johnson was at a comparable age. Hopefully he's not played so much he doesn't have the same length of career

I would say Johnson was ahead of Itoje at the same age quite comfortably tbh.

Johnson was much more confined to the basics of his role, and actually often wasn't seen outside the lineout. Whether Itoje shows the same development and improvement we've yet to see, but Itoje isn't seen as someone who jumps in the lineout and could do with adding to his game

Very different eras, so an impossible comparison.

If Itoje has the ability develop and adapt his game in the way that Johnson had, he will be a phenomenal player. Johnson survived and thrived through major changes in the game and what was expected of a lock.