Digby wrote:I don't know if Kruis does walk back into the side. He is a very good player, but so are Lawes and Launchbury. If anything one might argue L&L are better players, but equally one might argue Kruis forms a better partnership with Itoje and adds some power in the tight five grunt work which we lack with some of our more mobile selections.
Yes, agreed. I can accept that Kruis is arguably the strongest scrummaging lock (how to prove this?) and that him and Itoje together bring a force that is greater than the sum of its parts - however outside the tight he's not got the carrying ability of Launchbury and Lawes and I don't see any evidence that he intimidates opponents (and strikes fear in them) to anywhere near the extent Lawes and Itoje do. I rather suspect he's viewed by opponents at test level as an honest workrate, grafter type of lock a bit like Ewels to be honest....in the image of dare I say it Borthers.
I think those days are gone TBH. I’d be disappointed if any of our players are intimidated by the opposition locks. Etzebeth is really the only one I can think of with the ‘enforcer’ type of reputation and he’s a pussycat compared to Bakkies Botha etc.
Scrumhead wrote:I think those days are gone TBH. I’d be disappointed if any of our players are intimidated by the opposition locks. Etzebeth is really the only one I can think of with the ‘enforcer’ type of reputation and he’s a pussycat compared to Bakkies Botha etc.
I'm not meaning illegal violence of that type, more that of being a real nuisance getting in the face of oppo e.g. Itoje or being a tenacious tackler like Lawes. I certainly agree that the days of teamS with multiple enforcers e.g. the France forward pack for most of the 70s, have to an extent disappeared as a I suspect a consequence of both professionalism and increased use of cameras as part of officiating. To be honest if you looked at the forward packs of Carling's England and Sole's Scotland of the same era, they contained a lot of hard as nails individuals but all would be physically lighter than their counterparts today. Now the emphasis is less outright machismo and more about athleticism and power (with the odd throwback to old skool hardness the exception rather than the rule). Looking at England side now I suspect Underhill is the player most typifying that 'hard as nails' presence - not so much by a hard man attitude as such but by shear pound for pound dynamic physical power.
Mikey Brown wrote:Oh god this really is pointless isn't it.
It's never pointless because you can see who is able to keep up the professional mindset and intensity even when the game is in no doubt. Those who can do it under no pressure will do it in a caldron atmosphere.
Mikey Brown wrote:Oh god this really is pointless isn't it.
It's never pointless because you can see who is able to keep up the professional mindset and intensity even when the game is in no doubt. Those who can do it under no pressure will do it in a caldron atmosphere.
Well yes, fair enough. I'm still watching after all, just wish there was a bit more competition as a spectator.
Ludlow might have just made this all a bit more interesting though.
Smith is playing like his haircut, some stylish moments, but mostly it's overdoing it and getting in the way
That said giving away pens, and all that territory isn't on him and it's he's then pushing too quickly to recover momentum. The really weird thing is getting pinged with a dominant scrum again, just seems no need, one supposes that's about team culture for when we play competitive sides
Dombrandt still goes missing for periods and doesn’t do enough for me to be challenging Billy.
Genge and Underhill going well.
Smith is a player I like but he doesn’t quite seem on it. Not sure if that is tiredness after a long season, or the speed of international play, or if he is missing Care or if Eddie has coached something out of him.
Worth putting up with listening to Ashton to be able to get Marlers analysis.