England forward pack as things stand

[Stom]

Interesting thread. Where we lack full information is in Jones's selection quirks so far. For example, had Dombrandt or Simmonds played at 8 instead of Curry, we would know a lot more.

Somebody in the thread (apologies as I've skimmed and can't remember who) talked about the balance of the whole pack. That is spot-on but it does mean building around certain starters. Who are they?

I'd suggest Sinckler, Itoje and Curry, just one in each row. A year ago, I'd have said Billy V and Jones still might. However, the 'Curry at 8 bit' might herald a departure in that as an absolute because pace in all three back-row positions could be the way forward.

I still can't see beyond Marler always starting, Launchbury getting the second lock shirt and Willis being our best player at ruck time.

We learnt something different. Namely that Curry can cover 8 from the squad, which allows more flexibility in selection. Is he the man I would have chosen to take on that role? No. Do I get a choice? No. Does it really make much difference who the 3rd choice 8 is?

Jones has talked about positional fluidity. It’s something we’ve not seen enough of in rugby yet, imo. So I do agree with that. I think having some players cover many positions, even during the same game, can add an extra level to our play... if their roles are defined and clear.

If there is clarity, this system could be really good but we’ll have to sacrifice some short term results. Abs with the current situation, is there enough time?

[Banquo]

I also don't see why Curry was 'wasted' at 8, although he isn't the answer to a maiden's prayer there. He contributed as strongly in the loose as he normally does, even if some are allergic to the number on the back. I'm more bothered with lawes at 6.

Much as I like Willis, before declaring he's our best player at ruck time, he does need to actually play an international or two.

[Gloskarlos]

[/highlight]

I also don't see why Curry was 'wasted' at 8, although he isn't the answer to a maiden's prayer there. He contributed as strongly in the loose as he normally does, even if some are allergic to the number on the back. I'm more bothered with lawes at 6.

Much as I like Willis, before declaring he's our best player at ruck time, he does need to actually play an international or two.

This.

[Mellsblue]

In the long term, the selection of Curry at 8 might be seen as a very good thing. If Jones is right then we’re ahead of the game at no8 and if Jones is wrong we now have a flanker with an appreciation of all backrow positions at test level. That knowledge could be invaluable. There was no point wasting caps on a sub par stop gap, such as Hughes, and the likes of Simmonds, Mercer (not fit, anyway) and Dombrandt (not fit enough) have plenty of time to accrue experience before the next RWC, which is what international rugby is now all about.

[Puja]

As always, it’s about balance across the pack. Not just in the back row.

Personally I think Mako and Sinckler are our best two props but not necessarily our best combination. Both are better scrummagers than they are given credit for, but I don’t think it’s controversial to say that both do their best work away from the scrum. If we’re playing teams with strong scrums or the conditions are poor, we’re better off mixing it up and not playing them as a pair. Marler massively helps here as long as he stays in the game and we also have Genge and a number of other decent options (like Obano for example). It would be great to develop tightheads of similar quality. Stuart looks to have all the goods and has really come on since making a breakthrough at Wasps (which he’s continued at Bath). Williams doesn’t do it for me though - he’s either been anonymous or poor for England and I think he will get bypassed by the likes of Street, Painter and Heyes.

At lock we’ve really had the benefit of 4 top class operators for years now but Itoje is really the only one with youth on his side. As others have said, there are decent options there, but they’re largely untried and we need to mix it up a bit. I’m not sure Kpoku has really justified the hype for me so far but maybe a year of regular starts in the Championship will be the making of him. I like the look of Moon at Saints. I think he’s got the potential to be a very good option.

The flankers have been discussed at length but I’m with Which on Mercer as arguably the most interesting option at 8. I love Dombrandt but he’s yet to show he can be as consistently influential as Mercer and lacks the lineout prowess (he doesn’t seem to be an athletic jumper). Ideally, I’d like to see both given a run as I don’t really see Billy as the future and Curry is wasted at 8. Long term, I also liked the look of Tom Willis for the U20s. I wonder whether Wasps will start giving him more game time soon?

Pretty much nailed it. I've been impressed by Stuart since he first played for Wasps. He's bulked up since moving to Bath and is a great option to have in combo with Sinck. Stuart is the better scrummager and will improve in this area as time moves on. You highlight how having different abilities in the front row is a huge asset and I couldn't agree more. With Mako/Marler and Sinck/Stuart we've got every base covered. Cole's scrummaging has always been slightly over rated for me, but he has definitely been declining for a while now, as culminated in the WC final. Don't get me wrong, he's been a good servant for Eng (at a time when he had virtually no competition) but I see Stuart as an upgrade in every single area. We've got great options in the front row.

The only thing I'd add to the back row debate is that I see Willis as being possibly the best of the lot. His injury came at the wrong moment, if he'd made the squad he'd been picked for I think Eddie would've played him and we might all be having a slightly different debate. Still, the Curry/Underhill combo hasn't been too shabby.

I worry that Stuart has something of the Peter Short effect about him - that his qualities are exaggerated in the minds of his fans because he's not Steve Borthwick Dan Cole. When I've seen him, he's looked solid enough and definitely worth a go (certainly more than the 6 minutes that his 2 caps have entailed so far), but I haven't yet seen the definite international-ready player that so many others here are happy to see. We had the same with Williams as well, although I think it's universally acknowledged nowadays that he's not actually much good.

Puja

[Scrumhead]

Of course. It’s impossible to judge Stuart as a test player at this point in time, but he’s done very well for Bath this season following his breakthrough with Wasps and has definitely caught the eye more than Williams. I’m not suggesting he’s going to be challenging Sinckler for the starting berth anytime soon, but I’d rather see more of him than picking Williams who I think we have established is not really a test level tighthead. Eddie seems to agree too.

Re. Willis, I agree with Beasties on the poorly timed injury. I think he would have been at the World Cup had that not happened (probably instead of Ludlam). I also agree that he has the potential to be the best of the bunch with a great combination of being an absolute menace at the breakdown, a good carrier and an aggressive defender. BUT as Banquo said, we can’t really make that judgement until he’s picked up a few caps.

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

On the back row, completely feel like Willis could have usurped either Underhill or Curry if his injury hadn't happened when it did. Have to remember how quickly Underry has become seen as being impossible to break up, Willis could have been part of that too...
Do wonder if Billy V is going to find himself the odd one out eventually with the embarrassment of riches, the changing game and his perpetual injuries. I wouldn't necessarily be sad to see that happen to be honest.

[Beasties]

Well I was one who wanted to see Williams in an Eng shirt to have a look because I thought he would make a decent fist of it. Our options weren't great at that point as Sinck was still in the promising bracket. The passage of time has however shown Williams to be very limited and Sinck to have developed beyond what I thought he'd be. I had question marks about his scrummaging and temperament. He's made strides in both to add to his more obv qualities.

It is somewhat stating the bleeding obvious to say we don't know anything about these young guys at test level who have had a smidgeon of seconds from Eddie. Please forgive my enthusiasm returning, it was very jaded for months after the WC final. Lack of rugby has made me realise how much I actually enjoy watching it.

[Beasties]

On the back row, completely feel like Willis could have usurped either Underhill or Curry if his injury hadn't happened when it did. Have to remember how quickly Underry has become seen as being impossible to break up, Willis could have been part of that too...
Do wonder if Billy V is going to find himself the odd one out eventually with the embarrassment of riches, the changing game and his perpetual injuries. I wouldn't necessarily be sad to see that happen to be honest.

And there will be injuries, so agonising over who exactly would be the three to make up the perfect back row isn't really all that useful.

[Banquo]

On the back row, completely feel like Willis could have usurped either Underhill or Curry if his injury hadn't happened when it did. Have to remember how quickly Underry has become seen as being impossible to break up, Willis could have been part of that too...
Do wonder if Billy V is going to find himself the odd one out eventually with the embarrassment of riches, the changing game and his perpetual injuries. I wouldn't necessarily be sad to see that happen to be honest.

Think Willis was probably ahead of them pre-injury, though I might be a bit out on the timing. Hope he gets a shot, he's just such an exciting player, but he has to push past them somehow.
Billy on form and fit is a hell of a player- comfortably ahead of others we have at 8 imo on that basis.

[Banquo]

Well I was one who wanted to see Williams in an Eng shirt to have a look because I thought he would make a decent fist of it. Our options weren't great at that point as Sinck was still in the promising bracket. The passage of time has however shown Williams to be very limited and Sinck to have developed beyond what I thought he'd be. I had question marks about his scrummaging and temperament. He's made strides in both to add to his more obv qualities.

It is somewhat stating the bleeding obvious to say we don't know anything about these young guys at test level who have had a smidgeon of seconds from Eddie. Please forgive my enthusiasm returning, it was very jaded for months after the WC final. Lack of rugby has made me realise how much I actually enjoy watching it.

BTW, I hadn't read your comment on Willis; I was referring to Dors's comment. Willis hasn't even had a look in from Eddie, since he was injured post first call up, but since then his backrows have gone well.

[Digby]

Billy is probably our most important player. And to be on 50 caps aged 27 doesn't scream he's perpetually injured

[Digby]

In the long term, the selection of Curry at 8 might be seen as a very good thing. If Jones is right then we’re ahead of the game at no8 and if Jones is wrong we now have a flanker with an appreciation of all backrow positions at test level. That knowledge could be invaluable. There was no point wasting caps on a sub par stop gap, such as Hughes, and the likes of Simmonds, Mercer (not fit, anyway) and Dombrandt (not fit enough) have plenty of time to accrue experience before the next RWC, which is what international rugby is now all about.

Plenty of time? We might have just 4 games before the next WC

[jngf]

FWIW, I would always favour specialists, but I really don’t think Curry at 8 was the abomination you’re making it out to be. Do I want to see him there on a regular basis? No. Was it a disaster? No.

We’re going to have to agree to differ on this I think

[Banquo]

FWIW, I would always favour specialists, but I really don’t think Curry at 8 was the abomination you’re making it out to be. Do I want to see him there on a regular basis? No. Was it a disaster? No.

We’re going to have to agree to differ on this I think

Aside from the control at the base, can you help us by stating why Curry was an abomination and disaster at 8?

I think he should be playing as a classic openside, but he still brought most of his best playing characteristics.

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

Billy is probably our most important player. And to be on 50 caps aged 27 doesn't scream he's perpetually injured

I would argue Maro, Curry and possibly even Sinckler (on a good day) have all surpassed him in that.
Don't get me wrong, I think Billy was/is immense, and even in the World Cup when people were criticising him for not making the yards he was in the previous couple of years, I completely valued the hard yards he did make, and the thankless task he carried out in wearing out opposition and creating space for others. I just think that playing him locks us in to a certain way of playing, that isn't necessarily our strength anymore.

[TheNomad]

He obviously wasn't an abomination, any more than Pocock was when he played there.

If your only determinant is carrying, then he carried relatively well, but not brilliantly. But all other aspects of his game were impressive.

He made a massive contribution to the team and is a definite starter, at 21 (I think) for one of the best packs we've had in recent times.

[Digby]

Billy is probably our most important player. And to be on 50 caps aged 27 doesn't scream he's perpetually injured

I would argue Maro, Curry and possibly even Sinckler (on a good day) have all surpassed him in that.
Don't get me wrong, I think Billy was/is immense, and even in the World Cup when people were criticising him for not making the yards he was in the previous couple of years, I completely valued the hard yards he did make, and the thankless task he carried out in wearing out opposition and creating space for others. I just think that playing him locks us in to a certain way of playing, that isn't necessarily our strength anymore.

Billy can play tight or wide, has very good hands, is strong over the ball, tackles hard, reads the game well, puts in a big shift..., really the only thing he's not offering is being a lineout jumper. How being a truly world class 8 who's a physical monster besides limits a game plan is something I don't understand, and yet it keeps coming up about Billy.

There are some very good players in the team beyond just Billy, but the only other one we don't have a proven replacement for is Sincks. You could argue we tend to use Billy in the same way, but that's not a limitation of Billy, that's a limitation of our tactical thinking between Eddie, the coaches, the captain and maybe 2-3 other senior players

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

Billy is probably our most important player. And to be on 50 caps aged 27 doesn't scream he's perpetually injured

I would argue Maro, Curry and possibly even Sinckler (on a good day) have all surpassed him in that.
Don't get me wrong, I think Billy was/is immense, and even in the World Cup when people were criticising him for not making the yards he was in the previous couple of years, I completely valued the hard yards he did make, and the thankless task he carried out in wearing out opposition and creating space for others. I just think that playing him locks us in to a certain way of playing, that isn't necessarily our strength anymore.

Billy can play tight or wide, has very good hands, is strong over the ball, tackles hard, reads the game well, puts in a big shift..., really the only thing he's not offering is being a lineout jumper. How being a truly world class 8 who's a physical monster besides limits a game plan is something I don't understand, and yet it keeps coming up about Billy.

There are some very good players in the team beyond just Billy, but the only other one we don't have a proven replacement for is Sincks. You could argue we tend to use Billy in the same way, but that's not a limitation of Billy, that's a limitation of our tactical thinking between Eddie, the coaches, the captain and maybe 2-3 other senior players

Yep, you're absolutely right. I guess part of the problem is expectation. Because we saw him rip up teams singlehandedly for a couple of six nations, we expect him to do it all the time, even when teams base their whole defensive gameplan around stopping him.
The problems have come when he's been out, especially when Simmonds/Hughes were the replacements and seemingly given orders to be like Billy which in Hughes case was well above his talent level and in Simmonds case was a waste of his own skills.
I do wonder though if the game is going to move away from him, not to mention the fact that he might move away from the game!

[Sandydragon]

Your pack is far less fearsome without Billy. Your game plan demands getting over the game line on the front foot and Billy V gives you a lot of positive ball. Maro and Sinkler are both good carriers but they of course have a lot of other roles, and with two good flankers Billy is still your best bet.

[Banquo]

Billy is probably our most important player. And to be on 50 caps aged 27 doesn't scream he's perpetually injured

I would argue Maro, Curry and possibly even Sinckler (on a good day) have all surpassed him in that.
Don't get me wrong, I think Billy was/is immense, and even in the World Cup when people were criticising him for not making the yards he was in the previous couple of years, I completely valued the hard yards he did make, and the thankless task he carried out in wearing out opposition and creating space for others. I just think that playing him locks us in to a certain way of playing, that isn't necessarily our strength anymore.

Billy can play tight or wide, has very good hands, is strong over the ball, tackles hard, reads the game well, puts in a big shift..., really the only thing he's not offering is being a lineout jumper. How being a truly world class 8 who's a physical monster besides limits a game plan is something I don't understand, and yet it keeps coming up about Billy.

There are some very good players in the team beyond just Billy, but the only other one we don't have a proven replacement for is Sincks. You could argue we tend to use Billy in the same way, but that's not a limitation of Billy, that's a limitation of our tactical thinking between Eddie, the coaches, the captain and maybe 2-3 other senior players

This. He's pretty under-rated on this board generally I'd say.....I suggest his opponents are pretty relieved when he's not on the teamsheet.

[Banquo]

Your pack is far less fearsome without Billy. Your game plan demands getting over the game line on the front foot and Billy V gives you a lot of positive ball. Maro and Sinkler are both good carriers but they of course have a lot of other roles, and with two good flankers Billy is still your best bet.

..and this. Wise words Sandy

[Digby]

I would argue Maro, Curry and possibly even Sinckler (on a good day) have all surpassed him in that.
Don't get me wrong, I think Billy was/is immense, and even in the World Cup when people were criticising him for not making the yards he was in the previous couple of years, I completely valued the hard yards he did make, and the thankless task he carried out in wearing out opposition and creating space for others. I just think that playing him locks us in to a certain way of playing, that isn't necessarily our strength anymore.

Billy can play tight or wide, has very good hands, is strong over the ball, tackles hard, reads the game well, puts in a big shift..., really the only thing he's not offering is being a lineout jumper. How being a truly world class 8 who's a physical monster besides limits a game plan is something I don't understand, and yet it keeps coming up about Billy.

There are some very good players in the team beyond just Billy, but the only other one we don't have a proven replacement for is Sincks. You could argue we tend to use Billy in the same way, but that's not a limitation of Billy, that's a limitation of our tactical thinking between Eddie, the coaches, the captain and maybe 2-3 other senior players

This. He's pretty under-rated on this board generally I'd say.....I suggest his opponents are pretty relieved when he's not on the teamsheet.

I don't know if I'd say he was the best number 8 going as there are some fine ones about, but at the most he's different to some of the other leading 8s, and I can't think of one who's clearly superior. Also even if he were pitching in about 95% of the playing standard of whatever our best option is Billy has 50 caps, and the best option would have close to zero, and you can't just bridge that gap in experience. That's not to say Billy must play every game, but unless very sadly his arm breaks are highlighting a problem that will repeat or some other injury strikes or we never see another England game I can't see how he doesn't got into the next WC as a clear first choice

[Sandydragon]

There are number 8s who are more all action around the park (Faletau for instance) but if you want to get over the gainline and get some momentum then Billy does that better than anyone.

[Oakboy]

I think a fully fit Billy V picks himself but an injury-prone one presents issues because nobody else plays like him.

No similar carrier at 8 has been found. So, is a 'lump'-carrier necessary? Exeter, broadly-speaking, pick a carrier at 6, a line-out option at 7 and a speedster at 8. Jones, recently, picked a line-out option/carrier at 6 and two 7's with one wearing 8 on his back. Is the next step, picking three 7's?

Lawes could be left out with Curry reverting to 6 and Simmonds coming in at 8 or Curry could stay at 8 with Wilson, Willis or whoever at 6.

That all adds up to three styles of backrow at least. It's hell of a mix depending on whether Billy is fit or not - unless Dombrandt makes sufficient progress, I suppose.