3 England back row changes?

[Beasties]

If we drop Billy, and I'm a little split on this as he still looks like he should be our most valuable player, we could go for a back row that looks to support more than it looks to carry, but it probably depends on who partners Itoje, if we lose a little carrying at #8 I'd want to add that back in somewhere else. Leaving the carrying to Mako, George and Sincks with some assistance from Itoje is tricky unless we're going to play rather quicker

We at least have the slight compensation of Stuart not being the mahoosive carrying stepdown from Sincks. I'd also agree that Willis is prob the srongest carrier of the flank players being touted with the possible exception of T Hill.

[Digby]

Earl might be one to keep an eye on. 'tis possible much of his carrying looking okay so far has come from being part of an above cap pack. But if that's really his level he might be the strong carrier in the group, though Lawes will have his advocates

[Banquo]

Earl might be one to keep an eye on. 'tis possible much of his carrying looking okay so far has come from being part of an above cap pack. But if that's really his level he might be the strong carrier in the group, though Lawes will have his advocates

I’ve never thought Lawes to be an especially good or strong carrier. Punches below his weight if anything.

[Puja]

Earl might be one to keep an eye on. 'tis possible much of his carrying looking okay so far has come from being part of an above cap pack. But if that's really his level he might be the strong carrier in the group, though Lawes will have his advocates

I’ve never thought Lawes to be an especially good or strong carrier. Punches below his weight if anything.

Seconded. If anything, I'd rate him as the weakest of our second rows at carrying - he still seems to go upright and get stopped on the gainline.

Puja

[Banquo]

Earl might be one to keep an eye on. 'tis possible much of his carrying looking okay so far has come from being part of an above cap pack. But if that's really his level he might be the strong carrier in the group, though Lawes will have his advocates

I’ve never thought Lawes to be an especially good or strong carrier. Punches below his weight if anything.

Seconded. If anything, I'd rate him as the weakest of our second rows at carrying - he still seems to go upright and get stopped on the gainline.

Puja

In fairness Maro has similar issues, but does seem to be improving, choosing better lines of running, and has better hands, albeit hardly silky. Lawes is quite quick, but doesn’t use it well in terms of carrying imo.

[Digby]

Earl might be one to keep an eye on. 'tis possible much of his carrying looking okay so far has come from being part of an above cap pack. But if that's really his level he might be the strong carrier in the group, though Lawes will have his advocates

I’ve never thought Lawes to be an especially good or strong carrier. Punches below his weight if anything.

Seconded. If anything, I'd rate him as the weakest of our second rows at carrying - he still seems to go upright and get stopped on the gainline.

Puja

For sure Lawes will also have his detractors, around mobility, decision making and technical ruck skills and even physically getting down to a ruck height and his carrying. But there are plenty of supporters of Lawes who think he's now an excellent carrying option, even if it's not always a scintillating watch and it's often more about the lines he picks, which tacklers he ties in and the like rather than metres made and looking good on TV

[Mikey Brown]

I remember him making a massive improvement to his carrying game since EJ came in, but can’t recall if he’s kept that going.

[Puja]

I’ve never thought Lawes to be an especially good or strong carrier. Punches below his weight if anything.

Seconded. If anything, I'd rate him as the weakest of our second rows at carrying - he still seems to go upright and get stopped on the gainline.

Puja

For sure Lawes will also have his detractors, around mobility, decision making and technical ruck skills and even physically getting down to a ruck height and his carrying. But there are plenty of supporters of Lawes who think he's now an excellent carrying option, even if it's not always a scintillating watch and it's often more about the lines he picks, which tacklers he ties in and the like rather than metres made and looking good on TV

I'd say in order to be an excellent carrying option, you've got to at minimum either bend the defensive line or commit multiple defenders and offload/recycle quickly. Lawes does neither - his carrying is not strong enough to make consistent ground and, while I'll agree that he usually ties in a couple of defenders, his ball presentation isn't brilliant so it's rarely quick ball.

Puja

[Banquo]

I remember him making a massive improvement to his carrying game since EJ came in, but can’t recall if he’s kept that going.

A massive improvement wasn’t too difficult and he still only got to meh, and definitely not to ‘strong’ by international standards.

[Digby]

Seconded. If anything, I'd rate him as the weakest of our second rows at carrying - he still seems to go upright and get stopped on the gainline.

Puja

For sure Lawes will also have his detractors, around mobility, decision making and technical ruck skills and even physically getting down to a ruck height and his carrying. But there are plenty of supporters of Lawes who think he's now an excellent carrying option, even if it's not always a scintillating watch and it's often more about the lines he picks, which tacklers he ties in and the like rather than metres made and looking good on TV

I'd say in order to be an excellent carrying option, you've got to at minimum either bend the defensive line or commit multiple defenders and offload/recycle quickly. Lawes does neither - his carrying is not strong enough to make consistent ground and, while I'll agree that he usually ties in a couple of defenders, his ball presentation isn't brilliant so it's rarely quick ball.

Puja

It's clearly enough to impress a number of coaches and a number of existing players who have to play with and against him. It eludes me in part, but that might only mean I don't know what I'm looking at rather than Lawes isn't good on the carry

[Puja]

For sure Lawes will also have his detractors, around mobility, decision making and technical ruck skills and even physically getting down to a ruck height and his carrying. But there are plenty of supporters of Lawes who think he's now an excellent carrying option, even if it's not always a scintillating watch and it's often more about the lines he picks, which tacklers he ties in and the like rather than metres made and looking good on TV

I'd say in order to be an excellent carrying option, you've got to at minimum either bend the defensive line or commit multiple defenders and offload/recycle quickly. Lawes does neither - his carrying is not strong enough to make consistent ground and, while I'll agree that he usually ties in a couple of defenders, his ball presentation isn't brilliant so it's rarely quick ball.

Puja

It's clearly enough to impress a number of coaches and a number of existing players who have to play with and against him. It eludes me in part, but that might only mean I don't know what I'm looking at rather than Lawes isn't good on the carry

Lawes is decent in the ruck and scrum, excellent in the lineout, and superb in defence - those are probably the factors that impress coaches and players, rather than the fact that is carrying is a solid okay.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I don't disagree with the board's collective opinion on Lawes BUT, not for the first or last time, we are at odds with Jones. How do we explain his decision to select Lawes when so many back row alternatives are available? Let's face it IF a carrying threat was needed so much in Billy's absence, why does Jones not opt for Dombrandt, Ewers etc.?

Of course, Lawes may be Jones's first choice in the second row now that Kruis has removed himself.

[Which Tyler]

Easy - he's not picking Lawes for his carrying game

[Digby]

I'd say in order to be an excellent carrying option, you've got to at minimum either bend the defensive line or commit multiple defenders and offload/recycle quickly. Lawes does neither - his carrying is not strong enough to make consistent ground and, while I'll agree that he usually ties in a couple of defenders, his ball presentation isn't brilliant so it's rarely quick ball.

Puja

It's clearly enough to impress a number of coaches and a number of existing players who have to play with and against him. It eludes me in part, but that might only mean I don't know what I'm looking at rather than Lawes isn't good on the carry

Lawes is decent in the ruck and scrum, excellent in the lineout, and superb in defence - those are probably the factors that impress coaches and players, rather than the fact that is carrying is a solid okay.

Puja

I'd broadly agree, but I've heard it from coaches and players that he's had an excellent carrying game more than once, for club and country. So either they're mad, or they're seeing something we're not picking up on. In our defence one can fall back on the idea it's really hard to judge a game of rugby from a side on made worse by a zoomed in camera angle

[Scrumhead]

Easy - he's not picking Lawes for his carrying game

Exactly.

Oakboy’s suggested alternatives are odd too. Ewers is a good carrier but lacks the engine and the intelligence to be a test player.

Dombrandt is not a heavy carrier in the same way Billy or Ewers is. When he’s used in that way, he’s not particularly effective. His game is about picking clever lines, using his deceptive pace, good hands and offloading skills. He is absolutely not the guy you want running in to people.

[Banquo]

Easy - he's not picking Lawes for his carrying game

Yep. Destructive tackling and lineout

[Raggs]

For me in terms of carrying

Tier 1 - Mako, Billy, Genge?
Tier 2 - LCD, Sink, Launch, Willis, Hill
Tier 3 - Curry, Lawes, Wilson, Earl
Tier 4 - Underhill, Marler, George, Itoje

I'm putting Sink in 2, because he needs support runners for his carrying to be good, if he can threaten that pop, then he's far more effective, because he has the skills to pull it off. Anyone in tier 1 or 2 is a genuinely useful carrying option in my mind. Willis, Hill and Earl are obviously guesses for international.

Tier 3 for me is good, but not great. Curry runs with such determination he definitely reaches this point, may even earn promotion to 2 combined with his hands. Lawes is situational for me, if he carries a little further out, he's got those long arms and legs that become a real pain to put him down. Wilson is like Curry for me (but potentially without the hands). Earl is a tough one, for me he's similar to Lawes, in the right situations, he's devastating, but he's less suited to the tougher close up stuff.

Tier 4, not bad, but equally not someone I'd expect much from. Underhill can run really hard fast lines, but benefits from clever pops from others, rather than doing his own work. George has the skills to work well on the edges, but not in every situation. Itoje is improving a lot, but certainly isn't a great carrier yet, improving though.

Whilst I'd not want too many tier 4s, I'd still view them as a valid option. Dan Cole for instance would be tier 5 or lower, someone that I just don't want to see get the ball.

[Scrumhead]

Will Stuart is a decent carrier. Probably more of a 3, but someone who will make a dent as a tight carrying option.

[Mikey Brown]

I broadly agree but I think you're underrating the effect of being able to shift the ball smartly. Particularly given how much Youngs loves to lead defenders straight to the carrier.

Sinkler is a very good carrier in his own right but I'd say he and Mako both add so much to everyone else's carrying game by being able to pick the correct options as a distributor or take it forward themselves. I suppose it's just semantics whether you consider that 'carrying', but I'd say picking Sinkler would vastly improve the carrying ability/impact of basically any pack in the world. How could that not be tier 1?

Curry is very good here too, as you say. I think Wilson (for instance) is better in contact but I don't think I'd trade it for Curry's skills and awareness with the ball around the contact area. Underhill too I think is neither flashy or particularly quick, but he runs very clever lines.

Earl/Dombrandt are interesting examples. It's easy to think of carrying as either the tight, nitty gritty stuff, or the Tom Croft luxury-giraffe style lurking out on the wing. Earl and Dombrandt may not tend to bulldoze through people (though I've seen them both do it) but they are often using footwork to get round defenders very close in to the ruck, even in very congested areas. I think if you're getting past/through defenders then it doesn't really matter what the method is?

[Raggs]

To be tier 1, you've got to be a powerful scary carrier in your own right. Sink doesn't tend to do that by himself, when he has one other option next to him, to spread the defense a little, then absolutely, it's why I've put him in 2 and not 1.

When I look at the pack for carrying, my primary focus is congesting that area around the ruck, and getting us a few meters forward, disrupting the wider defence. So the likes of Lawes/Earl, who can be very effective just a little bit wider out, get marked down a bit. Yes, being able to skip down the sideline, or sidestep when you've hit a great line and are clear, are brilliant, but it's not the bread and butter.

Hitting 2 guys and going forwards half a yard, popping a short pass, or pulling a short pass out the back, are all very important. Other skills on top of that (offloads, pace, step etc) are all very good, but for me the big manipulation still comes from those players that draw in multiple players simply to stop them.

[Puja]

To be tier 1, you've got to be a powerful scary carrier in your own right. Sink doesn't tend to do that by himself, when he has one other option next to him, to spread the defense a little, then absolutely, it's why I've put him in 2 and not 1.

When I look at the pack for carrying, my primary focus is congesting that area around the ruck, and getting us a few meters forward, disrupting the wider defence. So the likes of Lawes/Earl, who can be very effective just a little bit wider out, get marked down a bit. Yes, being able to skip down the sideline, or sidestep when you've hit a great line and are clear, are brilliant, but it's not the bread and butter.

Hitting 2 guys and going forwards half a yard, popping a short pass, or pulling a short pass out the back, are all very important. Other skills on top of that (offloads, pace, step etc) are all very good, but for me the big manipulation still comes from those players that draw in multiple players simply to stop them.

I would agree with that. If you had Sinckler with a run-up against a set defence, you wouldn't expect him to bend the defence, whereas the likes of Mako and Billy you would. His skills are incredible, but as a carrier himself, he's T2 on Raggs's system.

I'd actually knock Genge down to T2 as well - he can be *so* powerful, but all too often he goes looking for the sidestep or to go sideways to find space. It's great when it works, but he's not yet got the knack of picking when to do it at the top level and sometimes he tries to be clever when it's not on and loses momentum, and would be better just ploughing in full tilt.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Interesting to reflect on Raggs's Tier 4! Underhill has already been mentioned but the other three made me pause for thought - without disagreeing.

In his early days, Marler looked exceptional on the hoof. I wonder why he's lost that ability. Is it just becoming muscle-bound in the cause of his primary scrummaging function?

George also used to carry more effectively. What is keeping him ahead of LCD now (if he still is)?

Itoje, now ? He's hardly just a set-piece merchant. With his rugby brain, his athleticism and his international standing, why does he not carry more effectively? Or, are we judging just on his comparative bludgeoning power? Can we judge him any differently to Lawes? Both are long and wiry. Both, arguably, are too upright in contact. Might they not be a viable second row pairing as a result?

[Raggs]

Genge was a question mark for me, when he's in baby rhino mode he's clearly tier one, but he can easily not be so effective. Wouldn't argue if people said he was more tier 2.

Launch was also one that potentially could have slipped to tier 3, but he's got fairly soft hands (not like Sink/Mako), but as a straight up grunt runner, he tends to do fairly well.

Itoje just needs practice, Launch wasn't always as good a carrier, he's worked on his body position etc, Itoje will no doubt do the same, it's already possible to see some improvement in his carrying game. I'd rather see Lawes carry at the moment than Itoje, but Itoje I think has the higher ceiling.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Carrying is an odd one as the context of each carry should really be taken into consideration.

That said if you look at club performance this season then our best (of those in contention for England squad) carrying flanker is Ben Earl, who averages over 3 metres per carry. Followed by Hill (2.5m), Tom Curry(2.4m), Willis & Ben Curry(2m), Ludlam (1.8m) and Underhill (1.6m). Earl and Ben Curry being the most prolific distributors, followed by Hill.

Of the props Genge stands out a mile, averaging close to 3 metres a carry. Everyone else is 1.5m at best. Dan Cole (just for a measuring perspetive) being the pick of the bunch, average metres wise. Sinckler, along with Stuart, has the worst carrying stats, by quite some way, but is miles ahead of everyone when it comes to distribution.

Cowan-Dickie is up around the 1.8m mark and George 1.3m, with LCD having just over double the carries of George. Both players distribute the ball half the time.

The second rows are all much of a muchness metres wise. Itoje slightly ahead at about 1.5m per carry, though Lawes distributes more. Oddly, they are all better carriers internationally, than at club level in terms of metres, with every one of them averaging over 2m a carry for the last two years. Lawes is the most heavily used.

That said it all depends on what you want from your carriers, when and where.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Out of interest why are people saying Itoje isn't a good carrier?