England forward pack as things stand

[jngf]

Been quiet on the board, for obvious reasons, but I thought I'd cast my subjective view of where the England pack stands:

Front row: (Tight Head) We know what Sinckler can do, especially his exciting loose play, interested to see if Stuart or Williams for example can show the merits of an uber big, solid scrummaging tight head.

Hooker - not much to say, seems to be going nicely

(Loose Head) Mako when available is one of our most important carriers, Marler offers a great scrummaging back up but may not be playing at test level for much longer - for me jury's very much still out on Genge and remain to be convinced.

Second row: For me Launchbury and Itoje may be the strongest combo we've got - Launch is the closest lock we've got to Simon Shaw in terms of physical prescence, ballast and mauling ability - by contrast Itoje (who is on the smaller side for locks at 6'5") does provide immense athleticism in line out, as well as some great fetching and defence - do feel that if he could work on his carrying position he could be even better.
Lawes isn't the biggest in terms of scrummaging ballast but his defence and carrying are great, as an impact player. For me Kruis has always come over as a bit stodgy and limited in talent compared to the other three aforementioned - but when coupled with Itoje they do seem to be greater than the sum of their individual parts.
(Would like to see some new giant locks emerge from club/academy to add some ballast but as has been said often there don't seem to be many of any on the horizon)

Back row (hooray! ). - Starting at blindside I actually think Lewis Ludlum should be in prime position, imo he's shown he can do all that Wilson could at 6 but in a faster, more athletic and tbh more exciting package. Willis would be an interesting addition to the squad, in view of the fetching skills he has.
The fact both Willis and Ludlum in particular play open side at their clubs is a strength (in the same way it was for Richard Hill) and enables them to cover the 7 berth if required.

At openside: I think so long as he can fend off injuries Underhill will be Eddie and Lions' first choice pick - primarily for his x-factor defence (he's a kind of millennial Winterbottom ) - that said tbh he's more of a 6.5 than a specialist openside - if England we're to opt for more of a linkman, the conservative choices would be Tom Curry or Ben Earl, the more exciting would be to try Sam Simmonds or carry out the Jack Nowell experiment to see if either flies!

At No.8:Eddie will pick Billy every time he can - my argument is a good opportunity has been lost to try out Dombrandt in the 6 Nations.

[TheNomad]

I'll reply properly at some point, but my first reaction is that I cannot understand how that team implies that Curry shouldn't be starting. He's an absolute shoe in for me.

Nothing particularly controversial about the front row comments, but I do think Genge (moron though he is) will progress and I think (for all his amazing efforts around the field) Mako's scrummaging has always been slightly suspect. I think he could end up more effective in the impact sub role.

Second row, Itoje is obvious, and I have no issues with him being an inch or two shorter than typical. Launch hasn't really been considered a starter for a while, I think he's good though. I could see Isiekwe or Kpoku pushing on the door in the next few years, or the Saints boys (Moon, and more unproven at this stage, Coles). Kruis, as positive an impact as he has on the side, I could see being phased out. My guess is he's unlikely to be there for the next World Cup. Lawes is still bloody useful.

In the back row, at the moment you have to play Underhill and Curry. I can't see Curry going anywhere. His all round game is unbelievable and what he provides at the breakdown is fairly unique in the current squad. I stress current because...I could easily see Willis getting into the side in time. He and Curry would be an absolute menace to play against. The beauty of those two is you could play them in most positions in the back row too. Which allows you to focus on capabilities rather than positions for the last spot.

For me, complementing those two with, first, carrying and second, ideally a second jumper, would be ideal. So take your pick from:
- Billy - great ballast
- Earl - great carrying, less ballast, no line out
- Simmonds - similar to Earl I suppose
- Dombrant - great ballast, could develop in the line out
- Hill - in time I think he could form part of an unbelievable back three, probably at 6 but I think the specific position is less important

[Stom]

I'll reply properly at some point, but my first reaction is that I cannot understand how that team implies that Curry shouldn't be starting. He's an absolute shoe in for me.

Nothing particularly controversial about the front row comments, but I do think Genge (moron though he is) will progress and I think (for all his amazing efforts around the field) Mako's scrummaging has always been slightly suspect. I think he could end up more effective in the impact sub role.

Second row, Itoje is obvious, and I have no issues with him being an inch or two shorter than typical. Launch hasn't really been considered a starter for a while, I think he's good though. I could see Isiekwe or Kpoku pushing on the door in the next few years, or the Saints boys (Moon, and more unproven at this stage, Coles). Kruis, as positive an impact as he has on the side, I could see being phased out. My guess is he's unlikely to be there for the next World Cup. Lawes is still bloody useful.

In the back row, at the moment you have to play Underhill and Curry. I can't see Curry going anywhere. His all round game is unbelievable and what he provides at the breakdown is fairly unique in the current squad. I stress current because...I could easily see Willis getting into the side in time. He and Curry would be an absolute menace to play against. The beauty of those two is you could play them in most positions in the back row too. Which allows you to focus on capabilities rather than positions for the last spot.

For me, complementing those two with, first, carrying and second, ideally a second jumper, would be ideal. So take your pick from:
- Billy - great ballast
- Earl - great carrying, less ballast, no line out
- Simmonds - similar to Earl I suppose
- Dombrant - great ballast, could develop in the line out
- Hill - in time I think he could form part of an unbelievable back three, probably at 6 but I think the specific position is less important

With us watching the 2002 side it just makes you think of the holy trinity plus moody. We could have the same but Billy is a bit more fixed in position than Dayglo.

Curry in the Back role, Underhill as Moody and Willis s as Hill.

On the pack as a whole, it’s pretty damn good, isn’t it?

[TheNomad]

With us watching the 2002 side it just makes you think of the holy trinity plus moody. We could have the same but Billy is a bit more fixed in position than Dayglo.

Curry in the Back role, Underhill as Moody and Willis s as Hill.

On the pack as a whole, it’s pretty damn good, isn’t it?

It is, but the scrum still isn't as consistent as I'd like.

I know SA have a monster front row, but did they take anyone else, in the whole tournament, apart like they did our scrum? There's no way that should have happened and frankly it's been an issue for some time.

Whether that's exclusively the front row, I don't know, but it needs to be addressed

[Puja]

With us watching the 2002 side it just makes you think of the holy trinity plus moody. We could have the same but Billy is a bit more fixed in position than Dayglo.

Curry in the Back role, Underhill as Moody and Willis s as Hill.

On the pack as a whole, it’s pretty damn good, isn’t it?

It is, but the scrum still isn't as consistent as I'd like.

I know SA have a monster front row, but did they take anyone else, in the whole tournament, apart like they did our scrum? There's no way that should have happened and frankly it's been an issue for some time.

Whether that's exclusively the front row, I don't know, but it needs to be addressed

To be fair, the utter destruction in the scrum was partly because, once they got on top and in Garces's head, they could cheat to their heart's content and still get the penalty. They were better than us there, and losing Sinckler early cemented their edge, but once they got on top in the ref's eyes, his arm was never going to point any other direction.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

If we can we can find a couple of tightheads, and I think Stuart is good enough, and a third top quality hooker then our pack, top end and depth, will be the envy of most.
Lock is already a position of huge strength - Launchbury as fourth would be the envy of any nation - whilst backrow is quickly getting there. If Willis, Earl and Hill keep developing as they are we’ll be well stocked. I’d also add Simmonds and Curry MkI in there. If Jones is right and the game is moving towards flanker style players then we really are set.

[Peej]

I think Stuart could leapfrog Sink. He's a terrific carrier, very good in the set piece. Though whether he can pick up those softer touches that Sink has discovered remains to be seen.

2nd row is interesting, as I also think Launch and Itoje is our best combo but it seems to be the one that Eddie likes the least? I can see Launch being phased out in the next couple of years.

Back row is phenomenal, really. I can't think of another era when competition was this fierce? I think Eddie does need to bite the bullet and put people like Willis and Dombrandt in just to see if they can cope at this level, but with the versatility that Earl brings I can see him becoming more important. I know Billy does a lot of good work sucking in defenders to potentially create space further out etc, but I think we need someone with more athleticism, and the ability to break tackles will always make defenders very nervous. Ardie Savea for example, or Facundo Isa, or Gregory Alldrit. Earl and Dombrandt, even Hill, could develop this point of difference. Likewise Willis has shown more than just an ability to pilfer at the breakdown, he has a good carrying game and is difficult to put down.

I actually think - from Premiership performances - Ludlow is the weakest option at 6. But he has shown he can do it at the next level. Let's try out a few more people.

[jngf]

I'll reply properly at some point, but my first reaction is that I cannot understand how that team implies that Curry shouldn't be starting. He's an absolute shoe in for me.

I guess for me Curry isn't a shoe in to start in the back row.

I've bored for England on my view that Curry's nowhere near as good a 6 as Ludlum, Wilson or the yet untried Willis - admittedly I'm a size queen but he really is a bit too small and underpowered as a carrier.

Curry;s's certainly a great linking 7 (but not necessarily any better than Earl or his brother back at Sale? ) - but looking at it from an England perspective Underhill's defensive game gives him an X-factor over Curry (even though Underhill's more in the 6.5 mold than Curry) - and could see Underhill and one of Tipuric or Watson getting the two Lions openside spots ...less confident Curry will get the nod.

I'm not even going to mention the 8 berth ...opps

[morepork]

That's just mad. Curry is easily your best openside.

[TheNomad]

I'll reply properly at some point, but my first reaction is that I cannot understand how that team implies that Curry shouldn't be starting. He's an absolute shoe in for me.

I guess for me Curry isn't a shoe in to start in the back row.

I've bored for England on my view that Curry's nowhere near as good a 6 as Ludlum, Wilson or the yet untried Willis - admittedly I'm a size queen but he really is a bit too small and underpowered as a carrier.

Curry;s's certainly a great linking 7 (but not necessarily any better than Earl or his brother back at Sale? ) - but looking at it from an England perspective Underhill's defensive game gives him an X-factor over Curry (even though Underhill's more in the 6.5 mold than Curry) - and could see Underhill and one of Tipuric or Watson getting the two Lions openside spots ...less confident Curry will get the nod.

I'm not even going to mention the 8 berth ...opps

I'm genuinely surprised by that. I see a totally different player to you. He's a shout for a World XV for me, and one of the first names of the team sheet.

Underhill is a great tackler, but I don't think he's nearly as influential a player as Curry. And a 'linking' player is not how I would describe him at all really.

[jngf]

Underhill is a great tackler, but I don't think he's nearly as influential a player as Curry. And a 'linking' player is not how I would describe him at all really.

do you mean Underhill or Curry being a 'linking' player ? - I was referring to the latter - don't get me wrong, I do think Curry's a very good openside (and far better than Robshaw and Haskell ever were there) - however, I don't think the switch to 6/8 has done him any favours (appreciate that was driven by Jones and Mitchell) - and now I honestly don't see anything Lions class let alone world class about him - especially if one is looking at him at 6/8.

[fivepointer]

Sometimes handy to look at the 3rd in line to assess just where we are.
LHP - Assuming Marler remains available, Genge is 3rd choice, which is very good. Other than Boyce, we dont seem to have any young guys on the move.
Hooker - Tricky one. I'm not sold on Singleton. I like Dunn but are either really quite up to the mark? Longer term I do like the look of Capon and i think Walker played a decent half season. Thacker is a bit small.
THP - Williams is a perfectly decent 3rd option and we do have a couple of very promising younger players in Painter and Heyes. Sink has years in him.
Lock - Currently we have top 5 and then a bit of a punt. If Kruis goes to Japan, then we will need someone to step up. Is Moon the one? Isiekwe tried far too early and discarded could come back. Then there's Hill, maybe Ribbans or Kpoku. An injury or two could leave us exposed here.
Back row - No shortage of good players here but the trick will be getting the right balance. If everyone is fit, Billy will be at 8 and Curry at 7. Now Wilson, Underhill, Willis, Simmonds or Earl could make up the trio but i wonder if Hill could provide the glue. A few good players are going to miss out in the next few years as they all cannot get a game.

[Scrumhead]

Been quiet on the board, for obvious reasons, but I thought I'd cast my subjective view of where the England pack stands:

Front row: (Tight Head) We know what Sinckler can do, especially his exciting loose play, interested to see if Stuart or Williams for example can show the merits of an uber big, solid scrummaging tight head.

Hooker - not much to say, seems to be going nicely

(Loose Head) Mako when available is one of our most important carriers, Marler offers a great scrummaging back up but may not be playing at test level for much longer - for me jury's very much still out on Genge and remain to be convinced.

Second row: For me Launchbury and Itoje may be the strongest combo we've got - Launch is the closest lock we've got to Simon Shaw in terms of physical prescence, ballast and mauling ability - by contrast Itoje (who is on the smaller side for locks at 6'5") does provide immense athleticism in line out, as well as some great fetching and defence - do feel that if he could work on his carrying position he could be even better.
Lawes isn't the biggest in terms of scrummaging ballast but his defence and carrying are great, as an impact player. For me Kruis has always come over as a bit stodgy and limited in talent compared to the other three aforementioned - but when coupled with Itoje they do seem to be greater than the sum of their individual parts.
(Would like to see some new giant locks emerge from club/academy to add some ballast but as has been said often there don't seem to be many of any on the horizon)

Back row (hooray! ). - Starting at blindside I actually think Lewis Ludlum should be in prime position, imo he's shown he can do all that Wilson could at 6 but in a faster, more athletic and tbh more exciting package. Willis would be an interesting addition to the squad, in view of the fetching skills he has.
The fact both Willis and Ludlum in particular play open side at their clubs is a strength (in the same way it was for Richard Hill) and enables them to cover the 7 berth if required.

At openside: I think so long as he can fend off injuries Underhill will be Eddie and Lions' first choice pick - primarily for his x-factor defence (he's a kind of millennial Winterbottom ) - that said tbh he's more of a 6.5 than a specialist openside - if England we're to opt for more of a linkman, the conservative choices would be Tom Curry or Ben Earl, the more exciting would be to try Sam Simmonds or carry out the Jack Nowell experiment to see if either flies!

At No.8:Eddie will pick Billy every time he can - my argument is a good opportunity has been lost to try out Dombrandt in the 6 Nations.

I agree with most of this, but as others have said Tom Curry if fit, should be one of the flankers (preferably at 7). I don’t think anyone here sees him as an 8, but aside from being a bit exposed at the base of the scrum, I thought he we was fine.

Why do you regard Earl as a ‘conservative’ choice? He has very similar qualities to Simmonds. Specifically pace, footwork and a good leg drive in contact.

My biggest question is Ludlam being in ‘pole position’. I think the complete opposite. I like him but I think he’s lacking a point of difference to put him ahead of most of the others. Genuinely the only thing he has over Wilson IMO is age. Curry, Underhill, Willis, Earl, Willis and Hill are all superior options for one reason or another. Ludlam is a good all rounder, but I don’t see anything that makes him stand out above other contenders.

[Gloskarlos]

No idea where this view of Ludlam is generated from. He’s good, but I wouldn’t pick him in our back row personally. The game has moved on from ‘you’re a 6, you’re a 7, and thou mustn't dabble elsewhere’. The majority of the rugby playing world are as sh1t scared of facing Curry and Underhill on the flanks as some of the AB combos we’ve grown to admire so much over the years. Ludlam I’m afraid doesn’t get in ahead of Wilson or Willis or Hill for me. I’ll admit that view is made up of watching as much prem rugby as I can along with every international. JNGF I believe, only sees internationals, and to my mind means only has part of the picture.

[Which Tyler]

And in all of this, I still think Mercer is the most rounded of the lot (possibly bar Willis) but can't get a mention is dispatches.

We've simply hot too many options in the back row, and we'll see some VERY good players struggling not ever get a cap. We'll also run the risk that too much competition means that combinations don't get to play often enough to maximise their potential, and players will be dumped afterca running poor form.
It's one of the weaknesses in so many top clubs IMO, we can't invest the right development into every good player, because we get too many clashes and not enough faith.

Hill, Willis, Underhill, Curry, Mercer, Dombrandt, Vunipola, Earl, Wilson, Simmonds, and Curry2 (potentially Willis2) would all be looking at 60+ caps if they played for any other nation.
Our 4th XV would hammer anyone else's.

[Danno]

That's just mad. Curry is easily your best openside.

This. The only reason there is any debate here is because Eddie has pissed him about for a full year. Would easily be in the conversation for a world 23, if not 15.

[jngf]

JNGF I believe, only sees internationals, and to my mind means only has part of the picture.

Premiership & test rugby - chalk and cheese!

[Gloskarlos]

And yet one leads to the other, and one is a better indicator of current and indeed ongoing form by virtue of the amount of games involved. You would never have seen Ted Hill play had you not seen a prem game for example.

[Scrumhead]

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?

[Scrumhead]

And yet one leads to the other, and one is a better indicator of current and indeed ongoing form by virtue of the amount of games involved. You would never have seen Ted Hill play had you not seen a prem game for example.

100% agree. I’ve had this exact argument with jngf many a time.

[jngf]

And yet one leads to the other, and one is a better indicator of current and indeed ongoing form by virtue of the amount of games involved. You would never have seen Ted Hill play had you not seen a prem game for example.

100% agree. I’ve had this exact argument with jngf many a time.

Ironically I actually enjoyed catching the C5 premiership coverage though more for Durden-Smith & Flats odd couple banter than the quality of rugby served up in the highlights reel. Last live match I went to was Warriors v Wasps and I’m still having withdrawal symptoms (it really was that bad!). The view that that back row players are fluidly interchangeable, suffices for the attritional and dare I say stodgy encounters served up for most weeks of a typical premiership season. It’s just my contention that the step up to test level is (and always has been ) massive in both pace,speed of reaction and skill and further that at test level back row specialisms do count much more (even as they evolve with rule changes etc) .Curry’s efforts at 8 being a case in point.

[Gloskarlos]

I’ll concede 8 is different. 6 and 7 I can’t agree with to the extent you argue. There’s the odd amazing out and out 7 around, but any of the 6’s we’ve mentioned in this thread with pace can more than fill in. Curry or underhill works at 6 for me, or equally at 7. You need to watch playoff games, Euro cup games and clashes involving Exeter and Sarries for example, rather than basing your view on a highlights show.

[Scrumhead]

And yet one leads to the other, and one is a better indicator of current and indeed ongoing form by virtue of the amount of games involved. You would never have seen Ted Hill play had you not seen a prem game for example.

100% agree. I’ve had this exact argument with jngf many a time.

Ironically I actually enjoyed catching the C5 premiership coverage though more for Durden-Smith & Flats odd couple banter than the quality of rugby served up in the highlights reel. Last live match I went to was Warriors v Wasps and I’m still having withdrawal symptoms (it really was that bad!). The view that that back row players are fluidly interchangeable, suffices for the attritional and dare I say stodgy encounters served up for most weeks of a typical premiership season. It’s just my contention that the step up to test level is (and always has been ) massive in both pace,speed of reaction and skill and further that at test level back row specialisms do count much more (even as they evolve with rule changes etc) .Curry’s efforts at 8 being a case in point.

The fact that highlights are your biggest source of information explains a lot.

You can’t judge players (and certainly not forwards) by what you see in the highlights. A lot of the work that differentiates players who are equipped to step up to test level vs. those who aren’t isn’t going to be highlight reel moments. There’s a reason why Eddie places such A high emphasis on ‘bounce time’ and how effective players are at rucks.

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.

[Oakboy]

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.

[Beasties]

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.