[2021 Six Nations] England Squad

[Scotty]

The team I'd like to see (within reason of what I can actually see EJ picking):
1. Genge
2. George
3. Stuart
4. Hill
5. Itoje
6. Curry
7. Earl
8. Vunipola (would rather see Wilson but Billy's bolted on)
9. Youngs (Would rather see... anyone, but Youngs is bolted on)
10. Ford
11. May
12. Farrell
13. Lawrence
14. Watson
15. Daly (Tempted to go with Malins but EJ definitely won't start him over Daly and I'm not convinced he's quite ready yet anyway)

16. LCD
17. Obano
18. Williams
19. Lawes
20. Willis (I'm a big fan of Wilson but I think we already know exactly what he offers at international level; in a bench spot I'd rather we experimented a bit and tested what Willis can really offer at this level)
21. Randall
22. Malins
23. Slade

Id be happy that tbh.

Agreed. If we see some more entertaining rugby, I'd even forgive Lawes or Itoje at 6.

There is zero reason for a lock to start at 6 with the options we have, truely unforgivable

 

[BPM]

That was intended to be tongue in cheek. To be clear, I absolutely don't want to see a lock at 6. Neither do I want to see us kick on virtually every play.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

That was intended to be tongue in cheek. To be clear, I absolutely don't want to see a lock at 6. Neither do I want to see us kick on virtually every play.

I don't particularly want to see a lock at 6 but I do want to see Wilson there.

Curryhill can work spectacularly (RWC semi) but less so when posed different questions (RWC final). While all versatile with differing strengths they and Earl and Willis are fundamentally all open sides. They're all exceptional players but you do lose a bit of balance if picking any 2 of them. That's fine in many cases but we shouldn't be blind to it either. I do understand why Jones is sometimes drawn to the big man at 6.

 

[ncurd]

I don't particularly want to see a lock at 6 but I do want to see Wilson there.

Curryhill can work spectacularly (RWC semi) but less so when posed different questions (RWC final). While all versatile with differing strengths they and Earl and Willis are fundamentally all open sides. They're all exceptional players but you do lose a bit of balance if picking any 2 of them. That's fine in many cases but we shouldn't be blind to it either. I do understand why Jones is sometimes drawn to the big man at 6.

Curryhill was perfectly fine in the RWC final, the two big issues were ball handling and scrum neither of which I don't out flankers contributed to the issues at.

Just imagine a world cup final where we could of strung more than 3 passes together.....

 

[higgik]

Wilson is a like for like replacement of Underhill, in that he is more of a tackler than Willis.
Still not getting the feeling Billy is right.
Dropping him would be a good move.

The pack is not the problem though, it is the lack of power in the backs

 

[Reiser99]

Wilson is a like for like replacement of Underhill, in that he is more of a tackler than Willis.
Still not getting the feeling Billy is right.
Dropping him would be a good move.

The pack is not the problem though, it is the lack of power in the backs

Power in the backs is irrelevant if the ball is never passed to them.

 

[higgik]

Power in the backs is irrelevant if the ball is never passed to them.

True, sort of what I meant there is no ambition with the backs

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Curryhill was perfectly fine in the RWC final, the two big issues were ball handling and scrum neither of which I don't out flankers contributed to the issues at.

Disagree a bit with this. I agree CurryHill was far from our biggest issue in the RWC final, but our lack of go forward ball was definitely a problem. Remember how long we were camped on their 5 metre line and one point and just couldn't gain any forward momentum? A big, ball carrying blindside would definitely have assisted in that situation. Only having one carrier in your back row is always going to be a potential weakness in your side.

I'm by no means advocating a lock at 6 though.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Only having one carrier in your back row is always going to be a potential weakness in your side.

This is as silly a statement as when people were saying we had no lineout options in the backrow.

Also, if we're not breaking through brick walls 5m out that's more on the tight 5 and (supposed bulldozing) 8 than it is on the flankers.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

This is as silly a statement as when people were saying we had no lineout options in the backrow.

How so? I'm not saying that CurryHill isn't a good flanker combo; I think that it's the best combo that we have available to us, but that doesn't mean you can just ignore that having a back row with two opensides in it is going to be lacking in other aspects of play.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

They're both very good carriers - dismissing them as opensides does them a disservice considering they're both big, strong and very powerful.
I don't think we miss anything by having a Cunderhill backrow that we'd gain by having a more traditional 6.

Point is moot anyway because we're going to have someone else there (my guess is Earl starting at 7 - so another double openside...)

It's 100% No.8 where our issues lie - Binny is a passenger atm, and it impacts the rest of the pack.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Power in the backs is irrelevant if the ball is never passed to them.

Power in the backs (and frankly any other attribute) is irrelevant if they just unthinkingly bloody kick it all the time......

Totally agree with Olly that Binny is the big problem in back row / pack that needs solving.

Do also agree with TBT on his flanker comments.

Ref RWC, Curryhill weren't our biggest issue in the final, but they also were also nowhere near the dominant force they were in the semi. A more physical and bigger team largely negated them and the rest of the pack.

The game changes but there's probably a reason why the back rows that pass into folklore have 3 very contrasting parts - Hill, Back and Dallaglio and Kaino, McCaw and Read.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The one game that that pairing hasn't dominated, also a game where the entire pack was completely outplayed, is not reason to split them up.
It's literally the best flanker pairing in the sport at the moment, club or international.


Like I said, this is as silly as the speculation about lineout options before the world cup.
Too much time to speculate/worry with the postponed games

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Disagree a bit with this. I agree CurryHill was far from our biggest issue in the RWC final, but our lack of go forward ball was definitely a problem. Remember how long we were camped on their 5 metre line and one point and just couldn't gain any forward momentum? A big, ball carrying blindside would definitely have assisted in that situation. Only having one carrier in your back row is always going to be a potential weakness in your side.

I'm by no means advocating a lock at 6 though.

I don't think we lack power in the pack, I think we lack guile. Billy V looks for contact, he doesn't look for space and there are plenty times where he is facing up against someone and will simply collide with them rather than looking to make a half break or set up an offload. This may be how Jones has told him to play but that way of playing just slows the ball down. Wales did this all the time with Roberts, it worked until people learned to double team him. It's all very well saying that that creates space but it really doesn't as the rucks after a double team are usually slower than the normal rucks and definitely slower than a ruck after a half break.

The biggest problem in the final was butterfingers. Remember SA didn't score a point that had not come from a scrum penalty until way into the 2nd half and most of those knock ons were not even under pressure. The failure at the WC final lies more with the props and the complete lack of imagination from our "playmakers", constantly doing 1 out passes to players looking for contact. We could have had the biggest 6 available to play for England and it wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever.

That and the tendency for the England defence to just completely switch off for no apparent reason, which we also saw against Scotland. We had SA contained as well as they had us contained for a large chunk of the game until we began to panic late on and just started being stupid. More than anything England need to tackle the leadership issues and get rid of the headless chicken / bottling it mentality. We bottle it more than any other major team.

 

[BiggusLaddus]

Billy doesn't even look for contact the way he used to. That last minute little step he's doing just takes away all forward momentum.

Maybe it's the injuries playing on his mind? If so it would be completely understandable.

 

[BPM]

TBH, the back row is hard to predict. It could well be more of a horses for courses situation.

I think we're pretty much unanimously agreed that a lock at 6 is a no-no, but other than that, I'm happy enough with Curry + any one of Wilson, Willis or Earl on the flanks. IMO, Wilson and Curry is probably the most balanced, but Curry and Willis gives us real menace at the breakdown and Earl gives us the option of playing a slightly looser game or pace/impact off the bench.

Billy is not deserving of his place right now and hasn't been for a while, but I just can't see Eddie not picking him.

 

[Scotty]

TBH, the back row is hard to predict. It could well be more of a horses for courses situation.

I think we're pretty much unanimously agreed that a lock at 6 is a no-no, but other than that, I'm happy enough with Curry + any one of Wilson, Willis or Earl on the flanks. IMO, Wilson and Curry is probably the most balanced, but Curry and Willis gives us real menace at the breakdown and Earl gives us the option of playing a slightly looser game or pace/impact off the bench.

Billy is not deserving of his place right now and hasn't been for a while, but I just can't see Eddie not picking him.

Could Wilson have been picked to start the first game because Billy isnt up to match fitness? I know EJ uses games to get Billy fitness but there has to be a limit given hes played 1 game. Willis Curry Wilson, Earl sounds pretty tasty.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Could Wilson have been picked to start the first game because Billy isnt up to match fitness? I know EJ uses games to get Billy fitness but there has to be a limit given hes played 1 game. Willis Curry Wilson, Earl sounds pretty tasty.

It's possible. IIRC there has been talk about playing rugby being the only thing that gets Billy match fit, so there's every chance he's not at the moment.

 

[Geordie]

Obviously im a Wilson fan (captain of my club) but i might be inclined to say ...go for it...

6 Curry
7 Willis
8 Earl

Thats a cracking back row that has the lot.
Besides i dont want to see Mark Wilson and Gary Graham colliding... there might be an earthquake!

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

With boredom at an all time high, I decided (following yesterday's discussion about whether England lose anything in terms of ball carrying by playing two traditional opensides on their flanks) to do a bit of analysis of Curry and Underhill's recent carrying ability at international level. In order to get an idea of how effective the Curry-Underhill pairing is as a ball-carrying duo, I'm going to first compare them individually to the ten players that were fielded by England in the back row in 2020 (Billy Vunipola, Courtney Lawes, Ben Earl, Maro Itoje, Lewis Ludlam, Mark Wilson, Jack Willis and Charlie Ewels) and then compare them as a pairing to the flanker duos of the other national teams that took part in Tier 1 international competitions in 2020 (Argentina, Australia, Fiji, France, Georgia, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales). To do this, I will be looking at the stats: Carries per 80 Minutes (Cp80M), MpC (Metres per Carry) and Defenders Beaten per Carry (DBpC). These stats will give an indication of how often these back row players carry the ball, as well as how useful their carries are in gaining forward momentum and drawing in defenders.

In 2020, Tom Curry and Sam Underhill averaged a Cp80M of 8 and 5, respectively. It is worth noting that while Underhill achieved an average Cp80M of 5 in both the Six Nations and in the Autumn Nations Cup, Curry's Cp80M lowered from 10 in the Six Nations to 6 in the Autumn Nations Cup. This is almost certainly a result of Curry having started 4 of his 5 Six Nations matches at Number 8, therefore taking on far more ball carrying responsibility. As a result of this, it is safe to say that Curry's Cp80M when playing on the flank is far closer to 6 than it is to 8, although he has proven to be capable of taking on more of a carrying load. It is unsurprising that Billy Vunipola had the highest Cp80M of England's ten back row players with a massive 17 – a whole 7 carries more than Curry averaged during his time at Number 8. What does come as a surprise though is that, despite his reputation as a breakdown merchant, Jack Willis managed a huge 15 Cp80M while appearing solely as a flanker – nearly three times both Underhill and Curry's Cp80Ms while playing on the flank. While this statistic isn't entirely reliable as Willis only managed to put together 66 minutes of international game time in 2020, the majority of this game time was spent opposing Georgia, against whom England had 56% of possession. The fact that this is not an especially high amount of possession means that Willis' average of 15 Cp80M is very impressive. Following Willis, Courtney Lawes (9 Cp80M) also managed to average more carries than Curry, while Earl (6 Cp80m) was able to average higher than Underhill. Maro Itoje, Lewis Ludlam, Mark Wilson and Charlie Ewels averaged Cp80m of 4, 3, 3 and 0 respectively while playing in the back row. In terms of quantity of carries then, Curry and Underhill both achieve respectable but not exceptional statistics.

In terms of the quality of their carries, Curry and Underhill achieved similarly respectable statistics when compared to their fellow England back rowers. Somewhat surprisingly, Underhill managed to average a higher MpC and DBpC than the heavier and faster Curry, with an average 5.8 MpC and 0.11 DBpC as opposed to Curry's 4.8 MpC and 0.09 DBpC. Despite initially thinking that this could be explained away as being a result of Curry's time spent at Number 8 (when he would likely have been asked to carry the ball in more congested areas of the pitch, thus averaging a lower MpC and DBpC), his MpC was actually higher during the Six Nations than it was during the Autumn Nations Cup (5.0 and 4.3, respectively), while his DBpC was almost identical across both competitions (0.09 and 0.10). In contrast to this, Underhill's MpC and DBpC both rose drastically from during the Six Nations (5.2 and 0.06, respectively) to the Autumn Nations Cup (6.6 and 0.18). As a result, it has to be determined that during 2020, Underhill was the marginally more dominant ball carrier of the two flankers at international level. Beyond Curry and Underhill, Jack Willis again proved to be massively impressive with ball in hand, averaging a DBpC of 0.17 (tied with Billy Vunipola for the highest of the back row players), proving that not only did he carry incredibly often during his international appearances, but that these carries were also highly effective. Following Vunipola, Willis, Underhill and Curry (listed in descending order of DBpC) were Ben Earl and Courtney Lawes with DBpC of 0.08 and 0.04 respectively, while Charlie Ewels, Lewis Ludlam, Mark Wilson and Maro Itoje all failed to beat any defenders. In terms of MpC, Earl and Ludlam were both able to average higher than Underhill and Curry with 8.5 and 6.0 respectively. Vunipola managed to equal Curry with 4.8 while Willis (4.5), Wilson (4.0), Lawes (3.8), Itoje (3.3) and Ewels (0.0) all averaged lower DBpC than both Underhill and Curry while playing in the back row.

In summary, statistics suggest that as individual ball carriers Curry and Underhill are outclassed by Vunipola and Willis, both in terms of the quantity and the quality of their carries. However, this is still massively respectable as Vunipola is hardly a comparable style of player to the two flankers and consistently performs worse than them in just about every other aspect of back row play. Moreover, while Willis' statistics are very impressive, they are ultimately a result of an incredibly busy 47 minutes against Georgia and do not provide evidence that he would be able to consistently perform to that standard at international level. Unsurprisingly, the back-row/lock hybrids (Lawes, Itoje and Ewels) were comfortably the least effective ball carriers, although Lawes did average a reasonably high Cp80M. In contrast, Ben Earl was a very effective ball carrier, averaging a MpC of nearly double that of Curry's, but did not carry the ball very often. Mark Wilson's statistics were overall unimpressive but given that he only played 76 minutes of international rugby in 2020, this is not truly indicative of the standard of his ball carrying at international level.

(1/2)