I think if Hooper did magically become English and had, for the sake of argument, come through the ranks of Quins or Glos, he'd be in the same boat as Kvesic. A really good, young seven in the more traditional mould who hasn't got the chance to prove himself properly internationally. He'd certainly be in the EPS and touring but short of injury I can't see, going on what Lancaster has done with back row selection before, any reason for him to be more successful at breaking through than Kvesic. As you say, going on what the coaches say they want then he'd be selected but they spent two years talking about a playmaker in the centres before picking one!
Completely agree about the bulking up thing. And of course Kvesic came back looking a lot bigger at the start of this season for Glos. I haven't seen any photos of him from pre-season this summer but I wouldn't be surprised if he is looking bigger again.
If Hooper or Kvesic had come through at Quins they would be at England starters. Quins is an incredible cradle of rugby at the moment and has a particular specialty in ball-handling forwards. They promote their players young and put them on the big stage to shine in strong teams. It is no accident that Quins probably have produced more young Saxons/Senior forwards than any other club in England at the moment - Marler, Buchanan, Collier, Sinckler, Matthews, Wallace.
If Hooper or Kvesic had come through at Glaws than they would probably be in the same position as they are now. I don't think Glaws are any stronger than Wuss as producers of forwards at the moment and last season they offered zero platform to make a case for England selection. I agree with Saffycen that if Kvesic had been at Sarries last season he'd be in the England 23 at least.
In short, there's nothing like being at a top club to make your case for an England shirt. Kvesic has yet to have that luxury.
We may have slightly differing opinions about why they'd want him to be bigger though.
I see it as a reflection of their lust for a broad skillset rather than a fetishisation of size.
They'd want him bigger so he could ruck more explosively.
Conversely they'd want someone like Fearns to stay lighter in order to increase his workrate/pace.
Your reasoning for why they want it might be sound, but I believe it would still be a mistake. Leaving aside the worry that some players get too big too quickly and end up with more injuries than necessary, I would rather have a quicker and more agile Hooper over a slower one with more strength. I might end up feeling the same way about Kvesic. Obviously it's a balancing act to get as good a player as possible, and the bigger a skillset the better, but I feel its possible to take a fantastic specialist and make him a mediocre generalist by trying to get him to do too many things. I think its possible they'd have done that with Hooper.
The way we win the ball back is through making the other team cough up the ball. We have our flankers tackle and hit rucks, then eventually the other team either knocks on or kicks away, the only player who poaches the ball is Launchbury (our lock). If you had a fetcher they wouldn't hit every ruck and make as many tackles, i'm not saying that the system is right or wrong but it has worked most of the time.
Not entirely true for my money. Cole poaches when he plays, Robshaw goes through hot bursts, Wood gets over the ball from time to time, so does Youngs, you'll often see Tuilagi go for it. Yes, we currently have no specialist, and yes, the emphasis on forcing turnovers in other ways and avoiding cheap penalties means its not a vital part of the plan, but it is still there - and even if we don't poach the ball, we'll still have someone in there slowing it up.
More to the point, this is the system that Lancaster has come up with from the parts available, which doesn't include a World Class fetcher. Would he change the system if he had one?
Was the last true 7 England had Neil Back?
Tom Rees. Was made of glass alas.
