[2023 Six Nations] England Squad

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Are we calling Willis more of a 6 or Curry or are we wanting two open sides?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Are we calling Willis more of a 6 or Curry or are we wanting two open sides?

Suspect Willis would wear 6 but you could almost look at them as left and right.

Back in the day the open side was often pretty small like Back or Robinson. Not the case now. Willis and Pearson are both 1.90 and 17/18 stone. Currys and Underhill are all pretty solid too if not quite as tall although still over 6'. Open sides can now carry well in heavy traffic and hit hard without really sacrificing their breakdown work. This gives a bit more flexibility without putting all the eggs in one basket. Numbers on shirts do matter, but in the back row at least with our current stock the case for utility players can be made.

 

[Geordie]

Are we calling Willis more of a 6 or Curry or are we wanting two open sides?

You see i dont see Willis as an out and out 7. Hes amazing at the breakdown yes....however hes a strong tackler, his carrying is excellent in the lose and strong in the hard yard area. He's 6'3 so a back stop lineout option also.

 

[will311293]

I like that we are admitting that Jack is the perfect player . God i miss him..

Backrow of B Curry, Willis and Dombrandt feels pretty strong, with Earl off the Bench then Chessum/Ribbans and Itoje in the row (i'd pick chessum or ribbans over hill) feels pretty impressive.

Also interestingly Launchbury confirmed he has spoken to Borthwick already with an intention for World Cup. A proper Big man in the row (6ft 6) but an impressive 19st 10 would add some weight to our scrum. I'd back Genge/VRR and Launchbury combo to be pretty devestating against anyone at world cup (still think VRR will get picked).

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I like that we are admitting that Jack is the perfect player . God i miss him..

Backrow of B Curry, Willis and Dombrandt feels pretty strong, with Earl off the Bench then Chessum/Ribbans and Itoje in the row (i'd pick chessum or ribbans over hill) feels pretty impressive.

Also interestingly Launchbury confirmed he has spoken to Borthwick already with an intention for World Cup. A proper Big man in the row (6ft 6) but an impressive 19st 10 would add some weight to our scrum. I'd back Genge/VRR and Launchbury combo to be pretty devestating against anyone at world cup (still think VRR will get picked).

Yes I saw that on Launchbury. Interesting.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Always been a big fan of Launch, but that feels like a risk fitness wise,
He'll have barely played in a year going into the RWC (Japan's season ends as early as May 5th depending on whether you're in the playoffs) and has only played once for them and won't for a while yet after badly breaking his hand

Maybe he'll get a short term contract in the NH for the tail-end of the season?

 

[Crash Hamster]

If I was playing Devil's Advocate, I guess a counter argument could be the proportion that are 5m where a try is stake against the 140 odd breakdowns where possession is retained in the middle of the pitch to no great effect.

I've been away and wasn't going to spend forever typing on a phone, but I thought I'd reply to this. 5m lineouts aren't generally contested by the defensive team, it's more often about maul defence, so any jumper will do. Bear in mind that London Irish have used van Rensburg as a jumper (a 12) Quins use Dombrandt. It's certainly not the preserve of a third lock playing at flanker.

Also, just because a lock-blindside isn't the one jumping for the ball doesn't mean that they aren't still impacting the lineout. Just them being there means that the opposition has to mark them too, thus making it easier for the 1st/2nd choice jumpers to receive the ball. Also, if 6'8 Chessum is back-lifting another jumper then that jumper is going to go 5 inches higher than if they were being lifted by 6'3 Willis.

There's also the matter of what more a taller option can offer once the ball is caught. Mauls are a huge part of the game now and an effective maul can be the difference between winning and losing. 120kg Chessum is going to offer much more weight and strength to a maul than >110kg Willis. The length of Chessum's body would also offer more protection to the player in the maul with the ball than Willis'.

I'm no advocate for playing locks at blindside. Ted Hill would be my choice for this 6N. And I would also prefer Willis over Chessum at 6. But to say that a lock-blindside only affects the 2-3 lineouts per game in which they're actually the recipient of the ball is massively over-simplifying the matter.

I'm not entirely sure that this argument works quite as well as it first appears. Yes, the defensive side have to mark the third jumper, but they're marking him with their own third jumper, it doesn't make the lives of the two primary jumpers any easier, they're still opposed by the best two jumpers of the other team.

If you have a taller lifter and a shorter lifter, the lift is only going to go as high as the shorter lifter can lift; if the taller lifter is lifting alone, he's not going to be able to get as much upward momentum as a two man lift anyway.

Of course, picking a monster pack which is still extremely strong and tall and agile would be the ideal, but 8 players like that generally aren't available at the same time. When they have been, sides have dominated.

I too would pick Ted Hill; he's also a pretty useful lineout operator...

I'm not saying there's no utility to a third lineout jumper, I just think that any international-standard back row would surely contain a player who could be coached into being good enough to take the occasional ball. It's jumping and catching! Much harder to coach a good lineout operator to carry out the complex roles of a (say) blindside flanker.

I think the argument is pick players based on the main requirements of a position then look at the nice to haves rather than letting the nice to haves override weaknesses in skills central to the position. It's no coincidence that in our triple lock era, we were constantly slow to the breakdown with one lock flanker getting gassed early and then the other also getting gassed for having to compensate.

This is exactly my argument, succinctly put. I felt Eddie Jones was so busy showing how clever he was by picking people to do things that weren't really their job, that he forgot to select the best player in each position. Positions exist for a reason.

I'll see if I can be bothered to analyse some lineouts for England during the 6N; a lot would depend on the coverage being good enough to see who's standing where...

 

[Geordie]

A prime Launchbury and we wouldnt have seen Johnny Hill at lock...sadly big Joe isnt the player he was.

Clearly shows that SB is screaming for a tight head lock who does the nasty nitty gritty stuff...and it doesnt look like Hill.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I'm not entirely sure that this argument works quite as well as it first appears. Yes, the defensive side have to mark the third jumper, but they're marking him with their own third jumper, it doesn't make the lives of the two primary jumpers any easier, they're still opposed by the best two jumpers of the other team.

This isn't a bad point but it's missing some nuance. Just because the opposition is able to mark the 3rd jumper with theirs doesn't mean it isn't more difficult. If there are more jumpers then more communication is required between the defence, more turning to lift, more movement on the floor, quicker reaction times are needed, etc. It's small margins but they can amount to making a big difference.

If you have a taller lifter and a shorter lifter, the lift is only going to go as high as the shorter lifter can lift; if the taller lifter is lifting alone, he's not going to be able to get as much upward momentum as a two man lift anyway.

That's why I specified 'back-lifter'. The front-lifter lifts from significantly lower on the jumper's leg, generally around the knee, whereas the back lifter lifts from around the butt. Because of that, it's the back-lifter that dictates the height of the lift. As your 3rd jumper is generally going to be placed behind your 1st and 2nd in the lineout, that means more often than not he's going to be the one back-lifting and so dictating the height of the lift.

 

[Crash Hamster]

This isn't a bad point but it's missing some nuance. Just because the opposition is able to mark the 3rd jumper with theirs doesn't mean it isn't more difficult. If there are more jumpers then more communication is required between the defence, more turning to lift, more movement on the floor, quicker reaction times are needed, etc. It's small margins but they can amount to making a big difference.

That's why I specified 'back-lifter'. The front-lifter lifts from significantly lower on the jumper's leg, generally around the knee, whereas the back lifter lifts from around the butt. Because of that, it's the back-lifter that dictates the height of the lift. As your 3rd jumper is generally going to be placed behind your 1st and 2nd in the lineout, that means more often than not he's going to be the one back-lifting and so dictating the height of the lift.

We're more or less on the same page here, but you're arguing against my having said that there's no value to a third jumper. If there's movement in the lineout, maybe you need a more agile 6'3 flanker as your defensive third jumper, rather than a lock who turns like the QE2? Your lock may get slightly more height, but not be quick enough into place.

I'm not clear whom your 6'8-lock-at-flanker-as-back-lifter is actually lifting, sorry. The first two jumpers are in front of him, so is he then lifting a 6'3 back rower? Are you using him to lift one of the two locks, in which case you've not got a third jumper at all?

I think my point summarises as:
with 11 or 12 own ball lineouts per game, taking away the throws to 2 and 4, the short ones to a prop at 1, the over-the-top defensive 5m lineouts, the shortened lineouts with only 2 jumpers, the uncontested lineouts 5m out, the ones won by a 6'3 flanker at third jumper, you're left with very, very few balls won by a 6'8 third lock. (I reckon maybe one at most). Against this, there's the sacrifice of missing a turnover, a tackle, an incisive carry... and I just don't think it's worth it. 6 for the blindsides, lock scum out.

 

[Which Tyler]

The trouble with 3rd jumpers - they tend to put the ball to my feet, wasting the advantages of throwing to the back and getting the ball out quickly.

I don't mind a scrappy pat-back when they're challenged and that's all they can do - but if they've got the ball in both hands, then I need it in mine to do something with it.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I'm not clear whom your 6'8-lock-at-flanker-as-back-lifter is actually lifting, sorry. The first two jumpers are in front of him, so is he then lifting a 6'3 back rower? Are you using him to lift one of the two locks, in which case you've not got a third jumper at all?

What? You know that all 3 jumpers don't have to jump at once right? Say you've got a 5-man lineout that goes: 1 4 5 6 3.

4, 5 and 6 are all threats to jump and so the opposition has to mark all of them. In that situation, any of the 5 players can turn and lift. So yes, the blindside would be lifting one of the locks. I'm sorry but that really is fairly simple stuff.

 

[Crash Hamster]

What? You know that all 3 jumpers don't have to jump at once right? Say you've got a 5-man lineout that goes: 1 4 5 6 3.

4, 5 and 6 are all threats to jump and so the opposition has to mark all of them. In that situation, any of the 5 players can turn and lift. So yes, the blindside would be lifting one of the locks. I'm sorry but that really is fairly simple stuff.

It's clearly not simple to explain, though, is it, otherwise you'd be able to do it? Once again, you've not responded to my point. If you read my argument carefully and tried to answer what I've asked, that would be a lot more helpful. To clarify: I don't think being 6'7 as opposed to 6'3 is a good reason to select a blindside flanker. If the best 6 in the country is also 6'7, great. Tell me why you disagree (you haven't)

In your example your lanky-lock-at-6 is being lifted by a prop, so the 6 isn't being helpfully used as a back lifter, as per your previous post. You could argue that your 5 can get higher because he's being lifted by a lanky 6, but he still has to outjump the opposition, who have set up exactly the same way. Nothing in your example demonstrates a huge benefit in having a 6'7 flanker, as opposed to a 6'3 flanker with a good vertical jump, who is also best in the country at flanker things.

You're really making my point for me. Any one of three options can be thrown the ball. Having a particularly tall third option is a very minor factor. Opposition still have to mark the 6'3 flanker. Doesn't matter if they use their 6'7 flanker, he still can't mark 5, 6 and 7. I can even cite examples. Quins/Dombrandt, LI/BJvR, neither are 6'8, yet both have won lineout ball.

Positions have evolved for a reason and it's not clever to change that.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

It's clearly not simple to explain, though, is it, otherwise you'd be able to do it? Once again, you've not responded to my point. If you read my argument carefully and tried to answer what I've asked, that would be a lot more helpful. To clarify: I don't think being 6'7 as opposed to 6'3 is a good reason to select a blindside flanker. If the best 6 in the country is also 6'7, great. Tell me why you disagree (you haven't)

Okie dokie. There's a reason I haven't told you why I disagree that a proper flanker is better than a lock-blindside, which is that I don't disagree. Which I specifically said in my original post when I said that I'd prefer both Hill and Willis to Chessum. What I argued then, and what I have continued to argue, is that a lock-blindside is better for the lineout and that they impact far more aspects of the lineout than just the 2-3 balls that they catch.

In your example your lanky-lock-at-6 is being lifted by a prop, so the 6 isn't being helpfully used as a back lifter, as per your previous post. You could argue that your 5 can get higher because he's being lifted by a lanky 6, but he still has to outjump the opposition, who have set up exactly the same way. Nothing in your example demonstrates a huge benefit in having a 6'7 flanker, as opposed to a 6'3 flanker with a good vertical jump, who is also best in the country at flanker things.

Yes, I could argue that. Which I did. Of course the lock still has to out-jump the opposition; I'm not suggesting that having a lock-blindside is some magical cheat code that ensures possession 100% of the time, but I am arguing that it's easier for a jumper to out-jump their opposition when being lifted by someone who is 6'8 and 120kg than someone who is 6'3 and under 110kg. Also you keep saying lanky. In what universe is Chessum lanky? The man's 19 stone and has a higher BMI than Willis.

You're really making my point for me. Any one of three options can be thrown the ball. Having a particularly tall third option is a very minor factor. Opposition still have to mark the 6'3 flanker. Doesn't matter if they use their 6'7 flanker, he still can't mark 5, 6 and 7. I can even cite examples. Quins/Dombrandt, LI/BJvR, neither are 6'8, yet both have won lineout ball.

So the reason why the 3rd jumper being tall can matter:
Say you have two lineouts opposing each other that go 1 4 5 6 3. The opposition's 5 is 6'7 (which Grant Gilchrist is, and he is the likely 5 we'll face against Scotland). If we throw to our 6'8 6 and Gilchrist jumps in the middle then he has no chance of getting the ball. The ball goes well over his head, and so all 3 of Scotland's jumping options have to be ready to jump and challenge. But, if our back jumper is only 6'3 then the ball has to be thrown lower and so Gilchrist can jump in the middle and still have a reasonable chance of stealing that ball. That way, they only really have to mark our 1st and 2nd choice jumpers as even if we throw to our third jumper, Gilchrist still has that man covered.

Positions have evolved for a reason and it's not clever to change that.

Again, I agree, as I said in my initial post. I never argued that lock-blindsides are overall better than out and out flankers. I specifically said otherwise. But lock-blindsides are better in the lineout.

Regardless, this discussion clearly isn't going to bear any fruit for either of us and it feels like it's starting to get a bit heated so this will be my last contribution to it.

 

[Crash Hamster]

Okie dokie. There's a reason I haven't told you why I disagree that a proper flanker is better than a lock-blindside, which is that I don't disagree. Which I specifically said in my original post when I said that I'd prefer both Hill and Willis to Chessum. What I argued then, and what I have continued to argue, is that a lock-blindside is better for the lineout and that they impact far more aspects of the lineout than just the 2-3 balls that they catch.

Yes, I could argue that. Which I did. Of course the lock still has to out-jump the opposition; I'm not suggesting that having a lock-blindside is some magical cheat code that ensures possession 100% of the time, but I am arguing that it's easier for a jumper to out-jump their opposition when being lifted by someone who is 6'8 and 120kg than someone who is 6'3 and under 110kg. Also you keep saying lanky. In what universe is Chessum lanky? The man's 19 stone and has a higher BMI than Willis.

So the reason why the 3rd jumper being tall can matter:
Say you have two lineouts opposing each other that go 1 4 5 6 3. The opposition's 5 is 6'7 (which Grant Gilchrist is, and he is the likely 5 we'll face against Scotland). If we throw to our 6'8 6 and Gilchrist jumps in the middle then he has no chance of getting the ball. The ball goes well over his head, and so all 3 of Scotland's jumping options have to be ready to jump and challenge. But, if our back jumper is only 6'3 then the ball has to be thrown lower and so Gilchrist can jump in the middle and still have a reasonable chance of stealing that ball. That way, they only really have to mark our 1st and 2nd choice jumpers as even if we throw to our third jumper, Gilchrist still has that man covered.

Again, I agree, as I said in my initial post. I never argued that lock-blindsides are overall better than out and out flankers. I specifically said otherwise. But lock-blindsides are better in the lineout.

Regardless, this discussion clearly isn't going to bear any fruit for either of us and it feels like it's starting to get a bit heated so this will be my last contribution to it.

Yeah, and my argument has been, all along, that lock-blindsides may be marginally better in the lineout, but that benefit doesn't happen very frequently and isn't of a great magnitude.

(Example: if the ball is thrown to 2 or 4 at a 6 or 7 man lineout, it's lock v lock and the lifter at 3 for the defending side doesn't know whether to lift 2 or 4, so the attacking side probably win the ball. If the ball goes to 6 at a 7 man line, the ball is still clearing the defending side's 4 jumper whether the attacking side's 6 jumper has an extra couple of inches or not. It'd be interesting to see how many lineout throws are caught cleanly at full stretch; I'd wager that the extra couple of inches of upper body/arm length of a 6'8 jumper aren't frequently used. Are hookers' darts accurate to 2 or 3 inches at 12m?)

To be fair, the discussion started to get a bit heated when you posted this:

What? You know that all 3 jumpers don't have to jump at once right? Say you've got a 5-man lineout that goes: 1 4 5 6 3.

4, 5 and 6 are all threats to jump and so the opposition has to mark all of them. In that situation, any of the 5 players can turn and lift. So yes, the blindside would be lifting one of the locks. I'm sorry but that really is fairly simple stuff.

Pretty patronising, really, especially when you weren't responding to the point I'd made. You know I'm not actually a toy hamster with a silly hat on, right?

 

[HamJan]

RUCK are reporting that Cockerill is leaving after the six nations, to become head coach at Montpelier. Ian Peel to replace Cockers. Not sure that's a bad thing TBH.

 

[AngloScotsHybrid]

Isnt it correct to say that Ian Peel has already been the England scrum coach at some point in the past?

RUCK are reporting that Cockerill is leaving after the six nations, to become head coach at Montpelier. Ian Peel to replace Cockers. Not sure that's a bad thing TBH.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Isnt it correct to say that Ian Peel has already been the England scrum coach at some point in the past?

I think he may have done a 6N or something around the time Jones took over.

 

[Noonz]

Jamie George returns to England training camp

Jamie George is back in the England training camp ahead of their Guinness Six Nations opener against Scotland next weekend.

www.rugbypass.com

 

[TRF_Olyy]