England Six Nations thread

[Aristodemus]

Sorry to jump on this thread but it's the only 6 nations thread going. Is there any way I can watch these games from New Zealand?

I expect they would be broadcast in NZ as it is a rugby haven. Failing that, you can find decent streams online, or proxy IP on to the BBC Iplayer, or torrent's would be up within 12hr-ish of the game finishing. So, yes.

 

[j'nuh]

Re. Locks carrying: I swear I must be alone in this but it's never been something I've ever thought essential for a lock. Are there even that many good carrying locks? because it's not just a simple as being big: I don't remember Simon Shaw being the go to man for a big cary, despite being almost 20st. I struggle to think of many teams who carry well to the point of standing out. Padlocking driving lineouts and locking up the scrum is a more important function/reason for having a big second row, imo.

Depends. They generally don't make 8-style carries (because they have a high centre of gravity, maybe?). But if you want someone to ride a hit and set up the next phase, there isn't a better player to do it than a physical lock. They generally don't make many meters, but if they take a tight carry, they generally are the hardest player to knock backwards, so they can provide good next-phase ball.

Talking of second rows has anyone seen Elliott Stooke this season? The Guy has carried our pack and has been the standout player for us imo. You would never think he was just 20. He was outstanding against Munster and carried the ball more metres than any other forward. Not bad against a good Munster pack if i was England i would already be looking at him for the Saxons. I reckon he was could even be an outsider for the world cup next year if he keeps progressing like he is. He would be a great impact sub similar type of player to Attwood.

I have the same reviews. Forget young player of the season for Glos, he's my favourite for player of the season at this point. See my original post (start of the thread).

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The thing with lock carries is that they can be a lot easier to take down than a prop or back row because of their long legs.

You watch how people tackle lawes, they get him round the ankles, he goes straight down and there is always someone going over the top. He doesn't hand off or drop his elbow like some others do.

I'm a saints fan and always have been a massive lawes fan btw it's just some observations.

I think the biggest difference it getting over the game line is that he England forwards take the ball standing where as other countries actually use depth and pace!

 

[Patchey]

Re. Locks carrying: I swear I must be alone in this but it's never been something I've ever thought essential for a lock. Are there even that many good carrying locks? because it's not just a simple as being big: I don't remember Simon Shaw being the go to man for a big cary, despite being almost 20st. I struggle to think of many teams who carry well to the point of standing out. Padlocking driving lineouts and locking up the scrum is a more important function/reason for having a big second row, imo.

I've always thought that carrying was essential for a good lock. However to me the role of a lock in carrying isn't the same as the back row, who should be expected to smash the mainline. Instead it is to make those smaller carries, around the fringes that hit the gainline, tire the defense and draw in opposition players. Thats always been my understanding, especially as most locks (although not Lawes and Launchbury) don't have the dynamism to carry in the same way as a good back row.

 

[Maverick1987]

SSN saying tuilagi back playing early-mid February which means he could be back for the last 2 games

 

[TRF_Olyy]

He won't be even slightly match fit.
If he came back early feb he might be ready for the end of, but I doubt we'll see him till the summer.

 

[cyRil]

He's confirmed himself that he won't be considered for the tournament.
"Being realistic I'll probably miss the Six Nations... I want to take my time, get my injury right and get my body right."

^ Taken from The Times.

 

[Maverick1987]

He's confirmed himself that he won't be considered for the tournament.
"Being realistic I'll probably miss the Six Nations... I want to take my time, get my injury right and get my body right."

^ Taken from The Times.

Fair enough didn't see that part . Would be good to have him back firing on all cylinders for the summer tour though

Edit: just reread the SSN article it didn't say that in there that's why I missed it

 

[munstermuffin]

Tuilagi will prob be saving himself for HEC QF

 

[Crapspray]

In the long run it'll probably be better that Tuilagi stays out for the Six Nations. The loss of Corbisiero is a big blow to England, but his absence over the last year and a bit has developed two promising props. Rushing Tuilagi back would leave the problem at outside-centre unsolved.

Not to mention making sure he doesn't re-injure within a few months.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I've always thought that carrying was essential for a good lock. However to me the role of a lock in carrying isn't the same as the back row, who should be expected to smash the mainline. Instead it is to make those smaller carries, around the fringes that hit the gainline, tire the defense and draw in opposition players. Thats always been my understanding, especially as most locks (although not Lawes and Launchbury) don't have the dynamism to carry in the same way as a good back row.

You and Ratsappentice both make very interesting points on this. As you say, locks will rarely(never?) carry as effectively as the Sean O'Briens/Ben Morgans of this world. I guess my point is that if a team is perceived to not have enough ball carriers, adding bigger locks is never going to be the option. And as I said, the locks that we have do manage this alright. I think Launchbury in particular is a perfectly good carrier of the ball. For him, it's more down to technique. Presentation of the ball is generally pretty good when Launchbury is the one going to ground. Lawes maybe gets turned over a bit more.

As regards Tuilagi, I wish we could have him back in time. He could really have made a difference in that Wales game. However I think the others are right and that we'll have to make do with what we have already.

I was thinknig about Sarracens and how its almost comic how every single player we moan about being boring/average is a Sarries player@

9.Wigglesworth
10. Farrell
11. Strettle
12. Baritt
13. Tomkins
14. Ashton
15. Goode

Is this because Sarracens look to recruit players who they believe are moldable and can fit the system, or is it because Sarries completely coach the flair out of players? Probs a bit of both. However, it's kindof unbeliavable that we have an entire back-line of Sarries facepalms.

 

[Big Ewis]

hey Henry I read your last post there.
I don't know about "coaching the flair out of those players" because they aren't exactly athletic demigods with league ability so there isn't much potential flair-wise, but the Saracens sure are efficient and Farrell gets criticized for a number of things all the time, he's sort of the current scapegoat, but he's very solid in many fields ppl overlook. And they're not atop the Prem randomly. Apart from Goode and Ashton which I really find very mediocre, looking at the rest of those guys it's no mystery the Saracens lead the Premiership.
Attacking with flair of course is nice, it's the eternal debate between flair and lackluster efficiency, but the Saracens are first or second in try-scoring in the Heineken Cup I believe.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The problem is that because Saracens are such a successful premiership team, it's very easy to assume that is because they have the best players.
They are the most consistent and efficient team out there.

Let's say that there is a 0-100% scale of rugby intensity - with the AB's capable of near enough 100% and Worcester being 10-20%.

Saracens are uniquely capable of playing at 80% intensity/quality for every minute of every single game of the season.
And because of this they accrue a huge number of league points and rarely lose, because most teams cannot perform with that much consistency.
Most teams' intensity levels go through peaks and troughs. One week Northampton or Clermont might play at 70% intensity and the next they'll only manage 65% - so they occasionally drop a bonus point or lose the odd game - Sarries don't do that they keep cruising at their 80%.
The trouble for Saracens is that come the big European games or the Premiership playoffs their opposition is invariably capable of playing those one off games at 80%+ intensity/quality when they need to.
Sarries do not have the quality to do that - as we saw with Toulouse this season and against Northampton in last season's playoffs.

That's why their players look dominant for most of the premiership but not in Europe or on the international stage.
A lot of people are unable to differentiate between team performances and individual performances - hence why players like Strettle are talked up by so many.
Until they see that when Saracens cannot out-work the other team, their individuals do not have the ability to do anything about it.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Sarries best backs are hodgeson , Bosch and Wyles. Not any of the English lads.

The English lads struggle with the basics like passes etc

 

[Big Ewis]

I know rats, it's the point you made on the Toulouse Saracens thread and I agree again. And surely I'm not saying the Saracens' backs are good because the Saracens are good themselves. But I'm saying they work in a very efficient system and know how to score. They dropped about 65 on Zebre and Toulouse only managed like 35/40 on Zebre just as an example. While I'll agree individually they're not the most capable backs in Europe, but the point is they don't have to be. If English teams were shhit at coaching they'd be in big trouble, but that's not exactly the case.

 

[Peat]

I've always thought that carrying was essential for a good lock. However to me the role of a lock in carrying isn't the same as the back row, who should be expected to smash the mainline. Instead it is to make those smaller carries, around the fringes that hit the gainline, tire the defense and draw in opposition players. Thats always been my understanding, especially as most locks (although not Lawes and Launchbury) don't have the dynamism to carry in the same way as a good back row.

Heresy and blasphemy sir, nonsense and piffle. While I will not denying that ballcarrying is useful, particularly in terms of the balance of things, its possible to be a very good lock simply through set piece excellence - in which I include the maul - reliable tackling and hitting every second ruck like it was your ex-girlfriend's lubed anus. Such a man might go all game barely touching the ball outside of the lineout and yet still be incredibly influential to his team's chances.

That said - the best locks do carry as well - and can carry very effectively. Look at Etzebeth, look at Henderson and Richie Gray, big Joe Tekori - Launchbury and Attwood have both shown themselves to be good carriers, Parling's a lot better than might be expected when running at space as well. And so on.

The issue here is that very often the locks have to take on those tight carries because no one else can. Throw in the fact that locking out a scrum is exhausting work and you can see why a lot of teams don't turn so much to their locks for those big midfield carries. That can be seen in a lot of lock/6s, it's not unusual for them to do less carrying at lock than at blindside. But a very big, very strong man with decent acceleration and a bit of footwork can be very difficult to stop to address Henry's point. There are locks who can carry as well as your Morgans. But the issue is they're usually too busy doing other things on the rugby pitch to do so.

Which reminds me that I'd dearly love to see Launchbury given more time at blindside, I suspect he could be different gravy if you freed him up to simply be an utter nuisance and ball carrier.

 

[Maverick1987]

Tuilagi will prob be saving himself for HEC QF

You forget we don't care about it

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

. But a very big, very strong man with decent acceleration and a bit of footwork can be very difficult to stop to address Henry's point. .

True enough. I suppose my point in the most general terms, is that extra ball carrying power is used as an additional argument for bringing in a bigger lock and whilst in the case of Attwood it might be a bit true, it's not going to have the impact in that area of the game that perhaps people imagine you'd get from having a 'Bob Casey' lock.

 

[j'nuh]

Also, on the topic of Sarries... when you think about the quality players at Sarries, you think nearly exclusively in terms of the pack. Vunipola x2, Burger, Brits, Brown, Joubert, Fraser, Kruis, Johnston etc. The success of Sarries is down mostly to their pack. It's just unfortunate that there are so many Englishmen in the backline to take the kudos of a winning team.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The quality of forwards coaching is clearly very good at Sarries.
You saw how quickly Billy improved when he moved there.

They also seem to have a very good S&C team there, again... look at how quickly Billy got into shape after going there.
I actually think their S&C are possibly their secret weapon - none of their pack seems to be unfit.