England 2024/25

[AngloScotsHybrid]

In big Courts defence and with my Saints bias he was a very, very good back row player.

His ball carrying was abysmal for a back row player. His posture was too upright.
It always amazed me that someone so good at tackling could be so bad at ball carrying.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

His ball carrying was abysmal for a back row player. His posture was too upright.
It always amazed me that someone so good at tackling could be so bad at ball carrying.

Fair, although he definitely improved that in the latter part of his career.

 

[BPM]

His ball carrying was abysmal for a back row player. His posture was too upright.
It always amazed me that someone so good at tackling could be so bad at ball carrying.

I'd agree it was the weakest part of his game, but abysmal is very harsh. Other parts of his game were world class IMO.

The original post was about locks playing at 6 when actually, Lawes probably should have been considered the other way round. I'm pretty sure he always said he preferred 6. Perhaps if Saints/England had focused him solely on 6 he could have been unquestionably world class rather than extremely good but not quite in the top drawer.

 

[BPM]

For the eye catching ball in hand stuff I'd probably agree, but not really elsewhere. In defence he's probably more of a stopper than a slicer in half, but still pretty effective.

That peak years Sarries trusted him from an early age also speaks volumes. They had some serious, experienced units in their back 5 and weren't prone to carrying passengers. That's club level but he was holding his own with internationals or top level seasoned club players.

Since when have I been one to focus on 'eye catching ball in hand stuff'? When it comes to locks, I don't care about that at all.

For such a huge, athletically gifted man, he just seems to lack a bit of the 'beast mode' he needs to be better than decent. It's entirely possible his heart condition was holding him back and we see him step up a year now that's sorted. I rate him. I just want a bit more before I consider him better than 'fine'.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

There is an argument that being 6'8 is awesome in rugby and being 6'0 - 6'4 is awesome for rugby but being 6'6 isn't big enough for lock and bit big for back row normally.

Although there are always exceptions to the rule and I might be 100% wrong.

 

[AngloScotsHybrid]

There is an argument that being 6'8 is awesome in rugby and being 6'0 - 6'4 is awesome for rugby but being 6'6 isn't big enough for lock and bit big for back row normally.

Although there are always exceptions to the rule and I might be 100% wrong.

6'6" is perfect for a lock. There have been many great locks that height

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

There is an argument that being 6'8 is awesome in rugby and being 6'0 - 6'4 is awesome for rugby but being 6'6 isn't big enough for lock and bit big for back row normally.

Although there are always exceptions to the rule and I might be 100% wrong.

I think that's true only cause teams make it true. That profile should be able to play lock or blindside but teams decide that when a guy is 19 years old and 6'6" they will just slap him in the 19 jersey instead of trying to get them to specialize.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Since when have I been one to focus on 'eye catching ball in hand stuff'? When it comes to locks, I don't care about that at all.

For such a huge, athletically gifted man, he just seems to lack a bit of the 'beast mode' he needs to be better than decent. It's entirely possible his heart condition was holding him back and we see him step up a year now that's sorted. I rate him. I just want a bit more before I consider him better than 'fine'.

Didn't say you were!

Just saying that if there is a weakness in Isiekwe's game it's that. In my book the rest is either good or very good.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

There is an argument that being 6'8 is awesome in rugby and being 6'0 - 6'4 is awesome for rugby but being 6'6 isn't big enough for lock and bit big for back row normally.

Although there are always exceptions to the rule and I might be 100% wrong.

There's a lot of 'it depends' in there.

But for locks I generally subscribe to a good big un beating a good little un. Back in the day RWC winning captains Johnson and Eales were both 6'7". Modern greats Etzebeth, Whitelock and Retallick are all 6'8"+. Hard to think of too many really top locks much smaller - Itoje can have his day, and there's always AWJ ).

Back row depends more on balance, but I'd expect a line out jumper at either 6 or 8. I generally prefer them not to be quite as tall as Lawes or Chessum unless making up for height deficiencies in the row.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

In defence of Eddie Jones – he pushed England to a better place

Australian is a world-class coach – his methods are brutal but ‘sink-or-swim’ approach is designed to make his teams better

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Jones would be smirking away if he could see everyone finally came around to his 3 locks on the field with the more athletic one in the back row tactics.

 

[Reiser99]

In defence of Eddie Jones – he pushed England to a better place

Australian is a world-class coach – his methods are brutal but ‘sink-or-swim’ approach is designed to make his teams better

www.telegraph.co.uk

There's a difference between being tough and being a ****.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Considering Redpath and Hutchinson both came through Prem academies that's not bad going tbf - hopefully puts a pin in the "Clubs don't develop they just buy in" argument (it won't)