-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
England 2021/22
- Thread starter Scotty
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 100,019,967
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Completely forgot Hill went on the Lions tour, lol
Lock is a bit of a headscratcher atm, with Kruis and Launch unavailable (and both in their early 30s) - can't think of anyone around who looks like a proper long term partner for Itoje
Hoping that Isiekwe can move back to the row and kick on with Saracens, but before then/if that doesn't happen?
Ewells/McNally/Wells looked no more than club level in the summer,
There's hype around Martin but he doesn't look ready for international 2nd row (and isn't playing there for his club/EJ left him out over the summer)
It will inevitably be Hill/Itoje with Ewells in reserve and Lawes viewed as a 6 but covering lock,
Not very inspiring IMO
Lock is a bit of a headscratcher atm, with Kruis and Launch unavailable (and both in their early 30s) - can't think of anyone around who looks like a proper long term partner for Itoje
Hoping that Isiekwe can move back to the row and kick on with Saracens, but before then/if that doesn't happen?
Ewells/McNally/Wells looked no more than club level in the summer,
There's hype around Martin but he doesn't look ready for international 2nd row (and isn't playing there for his club/EJ left him out over the summer)
It will inevitably be Hill/Itoje with Ewells in reserve and Lawes viewed as a 6 but covering lock,
Not very inspiring IMO
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 4,594
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
TBH my only gripe with Hill moving to lock is that he'd probably be an alternative to Itoje rather than a partner.
In terms of pros, there are plenty. He's roughly the same size/weight as Launchbury so was always more of a lock-sized 6. His carrying style and aggression wouldn't necessarily need to change that much and while he'd need to take on more tight carrying, it's not like Worcester solely use him in the wide channels. He is a very good lineout forward who is already used as a regular jumper so I don't think the learning curve is massive and would be more related to where he's jumping and whether he's being asked to call the lineout. Also, we have lots of very good young flankers and very few locks of the same potential. Hill might be one of the best blindside options we have, but I still think he's a way down the pecking order.
From a cons POV, the set piece work would inevitably take away from his capacity in the loose and he'd also need at least a season to adapt to the extent that he's a test contender. I don't see either of those as particularly big issues given that we have plenty of players who can take on wider carrying responsibilities and we also have a bit of time before the lock situation becomes critical.
I thought for a long time that Eddie wanted a PSdT style blindside (hence repeatedly playing Lawes and Itoje at lock) but when he had the option of picking Hill or Martin this summer, he went for Ludlow who is more like a poor man's Tom Curry. That suggests to me that he has reached the conclusion that we play better with two flankers - preferably Curry and Underhill (although Willis will be firmly in the mix if he returns without too much damage done). That also means that Hill and Martin would probably be better served focusing on lock.
In terms of other options, there isn't an obvious tighthead lock coming through. We seem to be good at producing athletic, mobile locks, but they're mostly middleweights rather than heftier, bigger beasts.
In terms of pros, there are plenty. He's roughly the same size/weight as Launchbury so was always more of a lock-sized 6. His carrying style and aggression wouldn't necessarily need to change that much and while he'd need to take on more tight carrying, it's not like Worcester solely use him in the wide channels. He is a very good lineout forward who is already used as a regular jumper so I don't think the learning curve is massive and would be more related to where he's jumping and whether he's being asked to call the lineout. Also, we have lots of very good young flankers and very few locks of the same potential. Hill might be one of the best blindside options we have, but I still think he's a way down the pecking order.
From a cons POV, the set piece work would inevitably take away from his capacity in the loose and he'd also need at least a season to adapt to the extent that he's a test contender. I don't see either of those as particularly big issues given that we have plenty of players who can take on wider carrying responsibilities and we also have a bit of time before the lock situation becomes critical.
I thought for a long time that Eddie wanted a PSdT style blindside (hence repeatedly playing Lawes and Itoje at lock) but when he had the option of picking Hill or Martin this summer, he went for Ludlow who is more like a poor man's Tom Curry. That suggests to me that he has reached the conclusion that we play better with two flankers - preferably Curry and Underhill (although Willis will be firmly in the mix if he returns without too much damage done). That also means that Hill and Martin would probably be better served focusing on lock.
In terms of other options, there isn't an obvious tighthead lock coming through. We seem to be good at producing athletic, mobile locks, but they're mostly middleweights rather than heftier, bigger beasts.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 7,190
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 100,019,967
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Had forgotten about Kpoku, as you said: lot of hype, hopefully he'll be at a stage to start delivering on it this season
I reckon they'll fast track that huge Saffer at Bristol once he's eligible for England - hate project players but he went very well for the u20s so can see them trying to get him locked down (unless he leaves back for SA at the end of this season - only here on a 2yr deal atm)
I reckon they'll fast track that huge Saffer at Bristol once he's eligible for England - hate project players but he went very well for the u20s so can see them trying to get him locked down (unless he leaves back for SA at the end of this season - only here on a 2yr deal atm)
*runs off to vomit*
Honestly after this summer when Ewels had a chance to stake a claim he shouldn't be near the squad. Only thing he did well was give away penalties.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 4,594
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Easy answer to that … I mixed up Itoje and Launchbury's weight.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 4,594
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
On the whole I don't necessarily think it does. Sure it's not a monster pack by any stretch but I'd say we're average to slightly above average in 'grunt/power and size'.
In an ideal world, we'd have an Etzebeth/Whitelock style lock, but we don't right now and there isn't anyone obvious who could be that player any time soon. That means we have to work with the resources we actually have and build a gameplan that suits the personnel at our disposal.
As I said in the previous post, we seem to be good at developing mobile, athletic locks who can also play on the flanks rather than genuine heavyweight locks. I'd like to see us use that mobility more intelligently - if we can't bully the bigger packs, let's play to our strengths by moving them around rather than trying (and failing) to counter their strengths.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 7,474
- Country Flag
Whatever happened to the happy days of Orcs on steroids?
After the first Lions test one of the player ratings gave Itoje a great mark with a comment that he "played like a flanker".
And that in a nutshell is part of the problem. He doesn't play like a conventional lock and is not large by modern lock standards. Some will say he's ahead of his time, others that he unbalances the pack and should be on the flank, take your pick.
I can believe the stats for Hill and Isiekwe, both at 2.01 and 123 / 120kg respectively, while Lawes is a similar height but lighter. But height wise even that's shy of Whitelock, Retallick, Etzebeth and De Jäger. With the exception of Thorn in 2011 every RWC winning lock since 2007 has been 2.01 or more and the ***chiest of that lot was Matfield. Even in 03 Johnson was 2.01 with Kay at 1.98.
Size isn't everything and I wouldn't mention Hill of Isiekwe (yet) in the same breath as those others. But that's what we need to be looking for.
After the first Lions test one of the player ratings gave Itoje a great mark with a comment that he "played like a flanker".
And that in a nutshell is part of the problem. He doesn't play like a conventional lock and is not large by modern lock standards. Some will say he's ahead of his time, others that he unbalances the pack and should be on the flank, take your pick.
I can believe the stats for Hill and Isiekwe, both at 2.01 and 123 / 120kg respectively, while Lawes is a similar height but lighter. But height wise even that's shy of Whitelock, Retallick, Etzebeth and De Jäger. With the exception of Thorn in 2011 every RWC winning lock since 2007 has been 2.01 or more and the ***chiest of that lot was Matfield. Even in 03 Johnson was 2.01 with Kay at 1.98.
Size isn't everything and I wouldn't mention Hill of Isiekwe (yet) in the same breath as those others. But that's what we need to be looking for.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 11,730
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
This. Our lighter locks have shown they can make pretty reasonable ground off a half break that some heavier locks wouldn't. I do wish we could play to our athleticism and work on a more mobile game rather than what we currently do. Hell even if we want to play attrition rugby, let's do it by moving the opposition around a lot and make them react to us rather than us almost constantly having to react to our opponents. Very few times do England actually set the pace of a game, we nearly always allow our opponents to dictate the pace and then we try to deal with it. Issue is too often we can't deal with it and then we don't know how to regain control of the game. If we are going to use lighter locks with flanker-like skillsets then surely we should look to put tons of pressure on breakdowns to constantly slow the opposition. As it is we do the opposite, we fan out and let the opposition lightly man their breakdown and give them time and space to pick running lines for their bigger guys. With lighter players we should be reaching the breakdowns much faster too but often the players don't commit at all. We have this obsession of fanning across the field at all times, both in attack and defence, yet play a game that makes no use of width so what's the point?
I don't think England are that lightweight tbh, we have a habit of comparing ourselves to the best in every category and then somehow thinking we have to match everyone everywhere. Smaller locks are not inherently a problem if we build a gameplan that deals with that. Jones seems to have a gameplan built for a different team to the one he actually selects.
I agree with the above...if we have a lighter back 5 then we need to be adapting to those skills. Speed, athleticism...etc
Stats arent always accurate but heres a rough idea....
England
Itoje - 6'5 - 17st 5
Johnny Hill - 6'7, 17st 6
Charlie Ewells - 6'6, 17st
Courtney Lawes - 6'7, 17st 11
Joe Launchbury - 6'6, 19st 12 -
George Kruis - 6'6, 19st 5
NZ in their pomp
Sam Whitelock - 6'8, 18st 5
Brodie Rettalick - 6'9, 19st 5
SA currently
Eben Etzebeth - 6'8, 18st 6
Franco Mostert - 6'7, 18st
Lood de Jager - 6'9, 19st 10
Plus SA have PSDT on the flank aswell and NZ had Kaino etc...so big lumps there aswell.
Stats arent always accurate but heres a rough idea....
England
Itoje - 6'5 - 17st 5
Johnny Hill - 6'7, 17st 6
Charlie Ewells - 6'6, 17st
Courtney Lawes - 6'7, 17st 11
Joe Launchbury - 6'6, 19st 12 -
George Kruis - 6'6, 19st 5
NZ in their pomp
Sam Whitelock - 6'8, 18st 5
Brodie Rettalick - 6'9, 19st 5
SA currently
Eben Etzebeth - 6'8, 18st 6
Franco Mostert - 6'7, 18st
Lood de Jager - 6'9, 19st 10
Plus SA have PSDT on the flank aswell and NZ had Kaino etc...so big lumps there aswell.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 7,474
- Country Flag
.
As ever the ABs have it about right. Two huge, not unskillful, locks has helped them to play the balanced back row of their choosing. I should think everything's crossed in NZ that those 2 make it to France as there aren't too many obvious successors.
You also need a serious scrummaging front row which we don't really have.
As ever the ABs have it about right. Two huge, not unskillful, locks has helped them to play the balanced back row of their choosing. I should think everything's crossed in NZ that those 2 make it to France as there aren't too many obvious successors.
Mr Burns
Academy Player
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2021
- Messages
- 87
The best the pack has looked has always been with at least one of Kruis or Launchbury in the 2nd row, they're the only two genuine international standard tighthead locks we currently have (the NZ game I think was the exception where the extra mobility of Itoje/Lawes in the 2nd row worked).
In the 6 Nations Hill and Itoje seemed a very unnatural fit, at Exeter Hill has Jonny Gray as the guy to do the dirty work and anchor the scrum and he didn't seem able to switch roles when starting for England.
There doesn't seem to be many guys out there to do that role, Ribbans at Saints might be able to (6'7, 19st) but in the Premiership most of those type of players are either foreign or just solid club players (Calum Green, Matt Symons etc.)
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2011
- Messages
- 11,725
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
England definitely aren't too lightweight to my mind. The extra mobility of your locks also really helped your suffocating power defence when you were at your best.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 26,135
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Ollie Chessum is the Tigers lock I'm most interested in ATM.
Still only 20, 6ft 7 and 18 stone 8 mobile enough to be playing Blindside and 8 though currently.
I feel Martin could potentially stay in the 6 role.
Still only 20, 6ft 7 and 18 stone 8 mobile enough to be playing Blindside and 8 though currently.
I feel Martin could potentially stay in the 6 role.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 7,474
- Country Flag
I think that's my gut reaction too although I haven't really seen enough of him.
For all Undercurry's merits I still think Jones would be tempted by an old school blindside if he felt one was cutting it. As destructive as Underhill but a bit bigger and a legit line out option.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 4,594
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Chessum's physical stats are impressive, but I can't really comment on his promise as I don't think I've seen him play.
My main hope for the short to medium term is David Ribbans. OK, he's not much bigger than those we already have at 6ft 7 and 18 stone 4, but his main assets are carrying and physicality which I think would complement Itoje pretty well.
