RugbyRebels

jngf wrote:

► Show Spoiler

Digby wrote:Into the 15th minute and BB have runners ahead of the kicker again at the restart, they also had that from a box kick in open play that saw the offside player force a knock on from Wasps, really poor from the officiating team.

Willis is proving very strong over the ball, might have been harshly pinged once but got away with a not releasing so..., again it's hard to judge his ruck work on attack as Wasps simply don't keep the ball. Launchbury is the class act on the pitch so far.

Really hoping for a Launchbury Renaissance - Eddie Jones, Gatland and Borthwick have imo all miss-prioritised him in favour of Kruis whom I simply don’t think is as good an all round player.

I love Launchbury, but seeing our set piece absolutely dismantled in the final has raised a lot of questions about where the priorities lie for a lock.

There’s been a big shift away from ‘tight’ locks but we were shown up in that area and I’m not sure Launch inspires enough confidence at the set piece, restart especially, to permanently push past the others.

Launch is one of our best locks in the scrum and maul. So if you want to seek a remedy based on where problems arose in the WC final...


Anyway, Willis, not seeing much decision making around contesting at the ruck, not his fault though as Wasps are set on competing really strongly and he's to the fore of that. He's probably not going to get that licence with England, certainly not to begin with, and he probably wouldn't in the first instance be allowed to seek that role so much he'd be asked to work more in the line

Mellsblue wrote:I think ol’ Launchers might be a surprise chop from the EPS.

I was out for a run this morning and found myself on Mellish Road, should Launch now be dropped by England I'll consider such a move to be just that, Mellish!

Mellsblue wrote:I think ol’ Launchers might be a surprise chop from the EPS.

I think you might be right.

Amazing to think he's only 27 though

Peej wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I think ol’ Launchers might be a surprise chop from the EPS.

I think you might be right.

Amazing to think he's only 27 though

I’d be dismayed if he was replaced by yet another blindsidesque lightweight flanker like Ewels...wrong direction to go in imo.

Peej wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I think ol’ Launchers might be a surprise chop from the EPS.

I think you might be right.

Amazing to think he's only 27 though

I’d be dismayed if he was replaced by yet another blindsidesque lightweight flanker like Ewels...wrong direction to go in imo.

Except Ewels is neither particularly ‘lightweight’ or ‘blindsidesque’.

You didn’t answer my question re. how much rugby you actually watch and without being intentionally mean, I can’t understand how you form strong opinions when you’re always asking everyone else about players’ strengths and weaknesses.

Today you’ve decided Ewels is a lightweight lock, which he quite clearly isn’t. He’s not a beast, but he’s definitely bigger and more robust than Lawes for example. Generally, I take published stats on height and weight as inaccurate, but even if you use those, he’s bigger than Itoje and Lawes.

Ewels isn't as athletic as Itoje but he's definitely more physical in the close exchanges

I actually think it might be Ewels who displaces Launch, or perhaps Hill if Eddie is willing to review whatever it was he didn't like about him when he was picked for the SA tour

Scrumhead wrote:Except Ewels is neither particularly ‘lightweight’ or ‘blindsidesque’.

It does seem odd, that when Bath need a lock to play in the backrow, it's Stooke that shifts, not Ewells

Back on the thread theme, my one fear about Willis is his week-to-week physical resilience. Watching him when he is fit and firing, I'd say he is arguably our best flanker. Is he going to be another that is injury-prone though? Underhill is there already so might it be one or the other in the squad on the grounds that having both is too risky. Jones's training regimes tend to break players fairly often.

Oakboy wrote:Back on the thread theme, my one fear about Willis is his week-to-week physical resilience. Watching him when he is fit and firing, I'd say he is arguably our best flanker. Is he going to be another that is injury-prone though? Underhill is there already so might it be one or the other in the squad on the grounds that having both is too risky. Jones's training regimes tend to break players fairly often.

Because Jones has so often shown unwilling to have multiple injured players in his squads?

Oakboy wrote:Back on the thread theme, my one fear about Willis is his week-to-week physical resilience. Watching him when he is fit and firing, I'd say he is arguably our best flanker. Is he going to be another that is injury-prone though? Underhill is there already so might it be one or the other in the squad on the grounds that having both is too risky. Jones's training regimes tend to break players fairly often.

Agreed. Flankers that are destructive tacklers/breakdown operators are always going to be vulnerable though because they’re repeatedly putting their bodies on the line.

As sad as this sounds, I don’t know how regularly we’ll actually be in a position to pick from a fit Curry, Underhill, Willis and Ludlam. That’s part of the reason that the depth we’re developing is so valuable.

Peej wrote:Ewels isn't as athletic as Itoje but he's definitely more physical in the close exchanges

Itoje is hardly a shrinking violet.

Which Tyler wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Back on the thread theme, my one fear about Willis is his week-to-week physical resilience. Watching him when he is fit and firing, I'd say he is arguably our best flanker. Is he going to be another that is injury-prone though? Underhill is there already so might it be one or the other in the squad on the grounds that having both is too risky. Jones's training regimes tend to break players fairly often.

Because Jones has so often shown unwilling to have multiple injured players in his squads?

Good point, based on his wing selections for the WC. I see Coka is another training casualty according to the DT.

The snag seems to be that there will be more instances with Jones's training methods than some others whereby we see the least injury-prone ahead of the best. Good luck is a factor but I have doubts about the full club/international co-operation in the injury avoidance sense. You must have thoughts on that with your medical expertise.

Banquo wrote:

Peej wrote:Ewels isn't as athletic as Itoje but he's definitely more physical in the close exchanges

Itoje is hardly a shrinking violet.

Oh no, of course not. I didn't mean to imply he was. But Ewels is undoubtedly more of the "physical enforcer" type. They'd make a good pair, to be honest

Peej wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Peej wrote:Ewels isn't as athletic as Itoje but he's definitely more physical in the close exchanges

Itoje is hardly a shrinking violet.

Oh no, of course not. I didn't mean to imply he was. But Ewels is undoubtedly more of the "physical enforcer" type. They'd make a good pair, to be honest

Were they together for the U20’s, or a year apart?

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Back on the thread theme, my one fear about Willis is his week-to-week physical resilience. Watching him when he is fit and firing, I'd say he is arguably our best flanker. Is he going to be another that is injury-prone though? Underhill is there already so might it be one or the other in the squad on the grounds that having both is too risky. Jones's training regimes tend to break players fairly often.

Agreed. Flankers that are destructive tacklers/breakdown operators are always going to be vulnerable though because they’re repeatedly putting their bodies on the line.

As sad as this sounds, I don’t know how regularly we’ll actually be in a position to pick from a fit Curry, Underhill, Willis and Ludlam. That’s part of the reason that the depth we’re developing is so valuable.

Ben Curry and Ben Earl look like they belong on that list too.

Interesting that since Underhill spoke about changing his tackling technique and looking after himself he’s looked a lot more durable.

We are completely stacked at flanker, we need number 8's.

Does any one remember what happened to that young 8 at sale that we was welsh and english qualified (I think his dad was a former welsh international)?

I’m still hopeful Hugo Ellis will break through.

Mellsblue wrote:I’m still hopeful Hugo Ellis will break through.

Such thoughts date back to The Doors breaking through to the other side

twitchy wrote:We are completely stacked at flanker, we need number 8's.

Does any one remember what happened to that young 8 at sale that we was welsh and english qualified (I think his dad was a former welsh international)?

Has failed to live up to the hype so far (although has spent some time injured). TWillis is hyped as well, although I've not seen much from him to justify it myself. I like the look of Rus Tuima at Exeter though. And there is always Simmonds, JWillis, and Dombrandt would can play 8.

I would pay good money to see Underhill, Curry, and JWillis as an England back row actually.

Puja

Scrumhead wrote:Except Ewels is neither particularly ‘lightweight’ or ‘blindsidesque’.

You didn’t answer my question re. how much rugby you actually watch and without being intentionally mean, I can’t understand how you form strong opinions when you’re always asking everyone else about players’ strengths and weaknesses.

Today you’ve decided Ewels is a lightweight lock, which he quite clearly isn’t. He’s not a beast, but he’s definitely bigger and more robust than Lawes for example. Generally, I take published stats on height and weight as inaccurate, but even if you use those, he’s bigger than Itoje and Lawes.

Just to address the specific facts of your latter point: Courtney Lawes is listed as 2.01m in height compared to Charle Ewels whose listed as 1.99m , likewise Lawes is listed as 115kg compared to Ewels whose listed as 112kg
- now I do take your point that these stats do have dubious valadity (Tom Curry suddenly growing an inch and 1 and half stones in bodyweight once he started wearing 6 shirt being a case in point) however I think it’s a bit of stretch to claim Ewels is bigger and more robust than Lawes going on their respective contributions at test level. From observing him Ewels looks a bit quiet for an enforcer, big scrummaging ballast role and I hold a similar view about Kruis - imo both players are too much in the image of Borthwick for me to think they are the answer to what imo is a lack of outright size, grunt and physicality amongst our locks - this is why I think dropping Launcbury who does at least offer some decent scrummaging and mauling ballast ( and a helluva lot of skill) would be a real own goal.

Regarding your former point about how much rugby I actually watch - well I try to catch every test the England squad play in. Admittedly I don’t watch that much club rugby - partly because the drop in skill and pace from the International game is and has always been (in the 30 or so years I’ve watched test rugby) imo a vast gulf (supporting Worcester warriors hasn’t exactly helped either ) - as Willis has yet to be capped that was the context in which I felt it was reasonable to ask those more into club rugby (presumably like yourself?) for some pointers.

This always tends to be a guessing game but I thought the acknowledged order was thought to be Kruis, Itoje, Lawes, Launchbury in terms of scrummaging power?

Launch has a fantastic work-rate and skills, but I thought at set piece he was only really considered strong in the maul, in comparison to the other contenders.

Weight is spread very differently among different players. I’d say Ewels puts his about pretty well. He’s not a Botha or Etzebeth but we don’t have any of those and it certainly isn’t Launchbury.

Anyway. Willis...

Launch played tighthead lock over all but kruis in their recent games.

Lawes is the least powerful, I've never seen him are tighthead.