England second row?

[Mikey Brown]

Hard to tell at the moment with Sale but would he even be first choice when all fit?

[Timbo]

Itoje has called the lineout for England I believe, and who does it for Sarries now? I know Kruis used to take priority over him, but I don't think he's incapable.

Itoje has regularly called line outs for England, pretty much whenever Kruis isn’t in the team. He also called them for the Lions in the 2 tests he started.

[Banquo]

At present I see that one England second row berf is pretty well spoken for namely Itoje as an athletic front jumper, who whilst not the biggest of locks , does have some x factor qualities, particularly poaching - Lawes would be a pretty good backup starting lock option and has developed has carrying game to the extent that he is one of the best carrying forwards in the current team (that doesn't justify him starting in backrow though!)

The other lock spot fascinates me, I've always been a bit underwhelmed by Kruis (let alone Ewels whose Kruis lite imo) however I'm hoping a rejuvenated Launchbury can make this spot his own once more, and become our mauling expert,having a similar talismanic effect to Simon Shaw did for the post RWC2003 Team.

I recall in the Burt era, Launchbury was the nearest thing we had to a fetching openside flanker in loose play (though Dan Cole played his part on this ) - now he's in later part of his career and less mobile but he has developed into a big physical prescence,providing decent ballast, something which Eddy's second row choices have conspicously lacked (and relying on Billy to make up the shortfall).

Will be interesting to see how the lock selection plays out and whether any up and coming players like Johny Hill, Moon or Kpoku can stake a claim?

Itoje, arguably the best lock in the world has “some X factor”, beyond that point everything else is likely bollocks. And Simon Shaw a talisman? Fuck me!!

Anyway, Itoje and Lawes and then everyone else. Likely Launchbirg and Ewels with Isiekwe, Hill, Ribbans, Cole, Stooke et al not far behind.

Simon Shaw! Fucking hell! And I thought Beefeater had departed this earth!

Simon Shaw was a very good lock In fairness.

[Epaminondas Pules]

We’ve lots of very good locks. Being very good when the alternatives are not is one thing. Excellence is what we need.

[Banquo]

We’ve lots of very good locks. Being very good when the alternatives are not is one thing. Excellence is what we need.

All right, Shaw was an excellent lock of his time. And actually would not look out of place in today’s game, though possibly limiting lineout flexibility. But mobile, pretty skilled and an excellent mauler. Only Jonno stopped him getting even more than a respectable 71 plus Lions appearances.

[Timbo]

The name that hasn’t been mentioned- as far as I can see- is Ted Hill. Yes, he looks to be primarily a 6 at club level, but Eddie’s history of selectIon points to the fact that he’s mainly after certain characteristics he deems fundamental to being a good test player before worrying about their exact position. He certainly has the size and physicality of a test 2nd row, and evidence suggests Jones likes him. He’s a talent right out of the top drawer and with our over abundance of backrowers...

[Tom Moore]

The name that hasn’t been mentioned- as far as I can see- is Ted Hill. Yes, he looks to be primarily a 6 at club level, but Eddie’s history of selectIon points to the fact that he’s mainly after certain characteristics he deems fundamental to being a good test player before worrying about their exact position. He certainly has the size and physicality of a test 2nd row, and evidence suggests Jones likes him. He’s a talent right out of the top drawer and with our over abundance of backrowers...

I'd love to see that, think it would a brilliant move if it worked.

My only worry would be whether having to scrummage in the second row would drain his energy to do everything he does round the pitch, which would defeat the object (caveat- I've no idea whether this is a live risk, never having got any nearer to a scrum than occasionally putting into one).

[Puja]

The name that hasn’t been mentioned- as far as I can see- is Ted Hill. Yes, he looks to be primarily a 6 at club level, but Eddie’s history of selectIon points to the fact that he’s mainly after certain characteristics he deems fundamental to being a good test player before worrying about their exact position. He certainly has the size and physicality of a test 2nd row, and evidence suggests Jones likes him. He’s a talent right out of the top drawer and with our over abundance of backrowers...

I'd love to see that, think it would a brilliant move if it worked.

My only worry would be whether having to scrummage in the second row would drain his energy to do everything he does round the pitch, which would defeat the object (caveat- I've no idea whether this is a live risk, never having got any nearer to a scrum than occasionally putting into one).

It's definitely a risk - playing lock takes a lot more out of your legs and also puts you in different positions with different responsibilities. Cf. Every time someone had the idea that you could play Tom Croft at lock and get all his blindside workrate plus another blindside.

Puja

[Banquo]

The name that hasn’t been mentioned- as far as I can see- is Ted Hill. Yes, he looks to be primarily a 6 at club level, but Eddie’s history of selectIon points to the fact that he’s mainly after certain characteristics he deems fundamental to being a good test player before worrying about their exact position. He certainly has the size and physicality of a test 2nd row, and evidence suggests Jones likes him. He’s a talent right out of the top drawer and with our over abundance of backrowers...

I'd love to see that, think it would a brilliant move if it worked.

My only worry would be whether having to scrummage in the second row would drain his energy to do everything he does round the pitch, which would defeat the object (caveat- I've no idea whether this is a live risk, never having got any nearer to a scrum than occasionally putting into one).

It's definitely a risk - playing lock takes a lot more out of your legs and also puts you in different positions with different responsibilities. Cf. Every time someone had the idea that you could play Tom Croft at lock and get all his blindside workrate plus another blindside.

Puja

exactly my thoughts

[Scrumhead]

Agreed. Nice idea, but I don’t really see it happening. I’d rather Hill focuses on being our version of a PSdT blindside. I guess he could drop in to the second row in emergencies but not by design.

[Banquo]

Agreed. Nice idea, but I don’t really see it happening. I’d rather Hill focuses on being our version of a PSdT blindside. I guess he could drop in to the second row in emergencies but not by design.

PTSD is what Eddie has post RWC final.

[Stom]

And what Kolisi thinks Farrell had pre final

[jngf]

Agreed. Nice idea, but I don’t really see it happening. I’d rather Hill focuses on being our version of a PSdT blindside. I guess he could drop in to the second row in emergencies but not by design.

It’s a bit telling of Eddy and Mitchell’s reactive rather than anticipatory approach to forward selection that it takes losing a match against a side with more than 2 6’5”+ forwards to get them to try out a similar approach themselves.

If their idea is to develop a PSdT blindside then trying out Hill in this way may be a marked improvement on starting Lawes at 6 whom I think of as a second row first and foremost but with the versility to play at 6 as an impact player.

The alternative strategy is to ask who would make the best blindside flanker full stop - everyone has their preferences but I can see that Wilson and Ludlum have the strongest claims within the squad with Willis as a very strong option outside it. As all know by now for me the Curry brothers and Earl should stick to trying to oust the openside berth from Underhill and I’m tempted to say good luck with that one as injury notwithstanding imo Underhill will own that Lions Test openside berth!

[Mikey Brown]

I'd say Wilson may have been the best blindside flanker available for the last couple of seasons, but there's not currently much evidence to say he's the form choice. Ludlam offers some great energy and a lineout option but probably plays blindside even less than Tom Curry, and hasn't performed with even close to the same consistency.

It seems very odd to suggest Eddie hadn't tried "more than 2 6'5" + forwards" before the day we got pumped in the front row against SA. Not sure it's either true orrelevant.