What do you mean by "beasts"? I said further up the thread that ideally you want two beasts (not sure if that's the term I used, but it's a synonym of what I meant), but failing that a balanced pairing. What I meant is that if you have a couple of big lumps who get stuck in and also post frightening stats in open play (it's hard not to mention the young South African pairing at this point), great, play them and reap the rewards. However I can't think of one English lock who could tick all of these boxes, which is why I still see the merit in a big, hard lump and a more athletic player to play a looser role - something that gives England options.
If you simply mean sticking the two biggest lumps available in the second row (within reason) even if their work rate is poor, the only way that I can see this working is if the rest of the pack performs their role exceptionally well and has a great work rate. If you look at it in the terms of what you require out of your pack in terms of carries, tackles, turnovers, etc over the course of a match, selecting two second rows who are going to post poor numbers in these categories means that either you miss out on something, or the rest of the pack must pick up this slack.
