England's Youngster Coming Through

First topic message reminder :

Definites

Joe Marler - Marler is currently in the England EPS, however I felt he should be included as he hasn't won a cap yet. Corbisiero's impressive form and Stevens versatility on the bench have kept Marler out of the starting squad, but Marler has the potential to be a world class player, impressive in the loose, not finished article in the scrum.

Jamie George - Smit and Britz both rate George extremely highly, and as both are world class hookers that must mean something. His set-piece in the lineout and scrum are impressive, he's got a strong work-rate in defence and is a powerful ball carrier. Big potential.

Matt Garvey - I don't think Garvey is getting as much praise as he deserves, he typify's the enforcer lock role. I was personally surprised of his exclusion from the EPS. He's really offers himself as a ball carrier and always breaks the gain line, he's strong at the breakdown and has a good work-rate.

Luke Wallace - A lot of pressure was piled on Wallace with his early season form outstanding, he is currently the only English openside who really fits the mould of a specialist 7. He's not the complete article, but he has a lot of potential, he has pace, power over the breakdown and real ball stealing ability. Under tutelage from Robshaw and Easter he is destined for international rugby, the case is about when.

Danny Ciprani - Proven goal kicker, strong tactical kicker, devastatingly quick and the ability to get the backline firing. He has always had the potential to be a world class fly half, his chums in Aus including O'Connor, Beale and Cooper all rate him extremely highly - it's about time he put off field controversies behind him, sorted out his defence and set the Super 15 alight for the Rebels.

Jonny May - Electrifying is one word to describe May. Using his pace and footwork he can create something out of nothing, he also does the basics well, I personally rate him more than Sharples and feel he has the spark of a world class player.

Jonathan Joseph - JJ is an elusive runner, and surprisingly solid in defence, the closest thing we've had to Guscott since he retired, Mike Catt certainly rates JJ as potentially better than Guscott. He's powerful, pacy and has good vision, with the ability to play at centre or wing. Could be the perfect foil, for a bruising inside centre.

Wildcards

Tom Homer - Top class goal kicker, very fast, although needs to develop his all round game if he wants to push for international honours.

Freddie Burns - Flair describes Freddie, extremely quick, with a strong kicking game and a good passing game, must work hard on his defence.

Billy Twelvetrees - Behind Turner-Hall in pecking order, but has a stronger all round game and if given game time should push hard for inclusion.

Miles Benjamin - Highly under-rated, powerful in defence and attack and joining a bigger English club to further his international ambitions.

Christian Wade - Proves size isn't everything, electrifying in attack with dazzling footwork, England's answer to Shane Williams?

Rob Miller - England have so many class full backs, Miller has been lethal for Sale this season, rapid with vision and try scoring ability. Pushing Saxons?

Ed Slater - One of the more positive aspects of Leicester's season, big tackler and ball carrier and will only get better with experience.

George Ford - Despite his small size, surprisingly physical, really impressed for Leicester at the weekend and billed to be a top player.

Carl Fearns - Unfortunate to have been injured for most of the season, his potential is undoubted and now back from injury will look to impress.

Matt Kvesic - Needs game time for Worcester at openside, very impressive in age grade internationals, will be pushing hard very soon.

Thoughts?

I don't think we should be talking about Lawes in the past tense, he's been injured recently but he is still one of the first names on the team sheet when fit.

But you are right about the rest of it. The conservative selections and persevering with guys who were either past it or just not good enough has created a lasting legacy. Now whoever is coach long term is going to have to make some tough choices fairly imminently.

Cumbrian,

Im more talking about him in the general "never quite made it" sense. Hes the nearest thing to a senior guy they have, but hasnt ever quite established himslef as the player people thought he was even when fit and on form and not suspended.
Hes very much the one who should be kicking through and demanding the place now ( like Flood and Youngs who were excellent for Tigers behind an utterly dominant pack this weekend).
Lawes is decent and still a prospect, but still has a lot to prove too. Theres plenty of room for more of these kids to come through alongside him over the next couple of years and put guys like Palmer and Deacon out of the equation....unlike 6 where assuming Haskell comes back England have 4 solid mid twenties players 2 of which have a good number of caps already.


As for the backs I think Twelvetrees will get included at some point next season. The guy is special and is driven. Hes served his apprentiship and taken the long route, now he wants to play. Im mad to see him leaving Tigers just when tehys hould be getting the best form the investment in him, but thats the way with these things. He should be pushing for Barrits place.

I don't think a long term view needs to be adopted in a whole sale sense. Botha, Deacon, Parling and Lawes are all at an age that they could continue to the next RWC and there is still Attwood with caps to his name in the AP. Some clever use of this summer's tour to SA could see us give debuts to the likes of Garvey, Robson and Slater (Lawes and Palmer should be left at home to rest this summer anyway, maybe Deacon as well). All of a sudden we've got 8 capped locks to choose from. Nice range of ages and there's still time for the likes of Myall, Kitchener, Launchbury etc to force their way in.

Sam,

I must admit Id forgotten all about Attwood.

Yappy,
(On a VERY biased note )

The 12 your looking for is James Fitzpatrick...the beast...better than JTH...and having actually played on the wing and 13 shows he has pace and ability aswell....

Ill say aswell keep an eye on Mark Wilson our No.8 / back rower and t'other back rower Will Welch...openside or 6.5 type player.

A good season in the championship to toughen up some of the other youngsters and the likes of Joel Hodgson (9/10) and Josh Beaumont (son of Bill) etc might begin to come through...

EDIT - And you wanted a bruising 6...how could i forget Englands own Stephen Ferris coming through....Joe Robinson...indeed the falcons back row could be pretty damn special in a few years time....

I regularly watch May, Burns, Sharples at the 'holm'. And Trinder.
All have great England potential, not that I am partial. If I had to pick just one, then May. Incredible combines dancing, acceleration and flat out speed. Plus is so fast he is happy to roam the park looking for gaps or ball, and pops up catching the defence out, then burns past them.

I must admit Id forgotten all about Attwood.

It would appear you're not the only one.

Saull is really lacking physicality for me. Yes, he is quick and links well, but there was one moment in the Sarries/Saints game at the weekend when he carried into traffic and was absolutely levelled and stripped by James Downey. Ok, Downey is a physical centre, but a centre non-the-less, and he made Saull look like a schoolboy. I understand that his pace has people excited bout him, but he's miles away from international rugby from what I've seen. Needs to get back in the gym!

Adam wrote:Saull is really lacking physicality for me. Yes, he is quick and links well, but there was one moment in the Sarries/Saints game at the weekend when he carried into traffic and was absolutely levelled and stripped by James Downey. Ok, Downey is a physical centre, but a centre non-the-less, and he made Saull look like a schoolboy. I understand that his pace has people excited bout him, but he's miles away from international rugby from what I've seen. Needs to get back in the gym!

On that basis is Lawes a lost cause?

At Bath, fans are really pleased to see Mercer, Ovens, Cook, Heathcote, Williams & Woodburn come through and playing regularly and will be Geech's legacy for the club.

Adam wrote:Saull is really lacking physicality for me. Yes, he is quick and links well, but there was one moment in the Sarries/Saints game at the weekend when he carried into traffic and was absolutely levelled and stripped by James Downey. Ok, Downey is a physical centre, but a centre non-the-less, and he made Saull look like a schoolboy. I understand that his pace has people excited bout him, but he's miles away from international rugby from what I've seen. Needs to get back in the gym!

Couldn't agree more, and based on this alone MILES off international level. I know we don't want to go back to the bad old days of a lumbering, clumsy back-row, but all the fancy link play, support lines and offloads are worth zip for a 7 at the top level if you get hammered every time you go into contact. I know players peak physically at different ages, but i do think our ability to identify talent is pretty poor in this country.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Adam wrote:Saull is really lacking physicality for me. Yes, he is quick and links well, but there was one moment in the Sarries/Saints game at the weekend when he carried into traffic and was absolutely levelled and stripped by James Downey. Ok, Downey is a physical centre, but a centre non-the-less, and he made Saull look like a schoolboy. I understand that his pace has people excited bout him, but he's miles away from international rugby from what I've seen. Needs to get back in the gym!

On that basis is Lawes a lost cause?

In all seriousness - and I have said it before - I feel that Lawes is overrated at the moment and caught between being two different types of player. He's built like a lineout forward, but - at the moment - isn't technical enough to dominate that set piece. Yet he plays more like an enforcer, but his willowy frame means that his carrying at close quarters isn't up to snuff for international level. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and his commitment - and defence especially - isn't in doubt. But if he wants to make an impact at the top level then he needs to either beef-up or become 'the man' in the lineout...

I'd seriously bring in borthwick to pair up with the younger guys, maybe get through a 50 minute shift. Continuity is not always bad in a change of era.

miteyironpaw wrote:I'd seriously bring in borthwick to pair up with the younger guys, maybe get through a 50 minute shift. Continuity is not always bad in a change of era.

But it wouldn't be continuity: he hasn't been around this squad. As far as I'm concerned, Parling has done a decent job as the resident lineout geek and Borthwick would be a backward step. Palmer is a proven international and a more than adequate bench man in Lawes' injury absence IMO.

Agree completely regarding Saull.

He's a good link man, but an international 7 he is most definitely not at this stage! Can you imagine him up against Pocock, Brussow, or O'Brien at the breakdown? He would get physically absolutely dominated. I think the trend now has moved onto shorter, more squat 7s, with incredible overall strength to anchor their breakdown position. Saull seriously needs to work in the gym to even have a chance at competing with them.

Adam wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Adam wrote:Saull is really lacking physicality for me. Yes, he is quick and links well, but there was one moment in the Sarries/Saints game at the weekend when he carried into traffic and was absolutely levelled and stripped by James Downey. Ok, Downey is a physical centre, but a centre non-the-less, and he made Saull look like a schoolboy. I understand that his pace has people excited bout him, but he's miles away from international rugby from what I've seen. Needs to get back in the gym!

On that basis is Lawes a lost cause?

In all seriousness - and I have said it before - I feel that Lawes is overrated at the moment and caught between being two different types of player. He's built like a lineout forward, but - at the moment - isn't technical enough to dominate that set piece. Yet he plays more like an enforcer, but his willowy frame means that his carrying at close quarters isn't up to snuff for international level. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and his commitment - and defence especially - isn't in doubt. But if he wants to make an impact at the top level then he needs to either beef-up or become 'the man' in the lineout...

Adam, for months now i have been trying to get across how i feel about Lawes...and you have just summed it up in a nutshell.....exactly how i feel about the guy...

Most players I'd suggest have been listed. I'd add:

Mako Vuniploa, at TH (England have plenty of options at LH), also Kane Palmer-Newport.

Sam Hill at 12 (the only position where we could still suffer a lack of strength in depth)

Ryan Mills (another possible at 12, or at 10)

Jack Clifford at 8 (or Chris York)

Dom Barrow, a lock/6 who is progressing quickly at Leeds. George Merrick is another giant lock coming through (almost 19 stone at 19 years of age).

Luke Cowan-Dickie at LH and Kyle Sinkler at TH

Haywood and Spurling at Hooker

Will Addison (utility back)

Ben Nutley at 7 (although I've been impressed with Calum Clark there recently)

Tovey (centre/wing) and Watkins (wing)

Jack Nowell at FB.

So quick and skillful backs, and a monster pack on the horizon, with huge strength in depth in almost every position. Top 3 talents? Tricky, but I'd go Ford, Watson, Launchbury.

On another point, going forward I'd seriously consider moving Lawes to 6 and using Parling or another lineout specialist with an enforcer (Launchbury is an obvious longterm option) in the second row. I bet Lawes would be more prominant there than Croft has been recently. Throw in a carrying 8 and you can afford a proper ball winning 7 like Kvesic.

Good to hear some names I don't recognise there, DaveM - future looks bright (although it wouldn't be the first time we've looked great at age-group level....the notion of 'he's this good and he's only 19 - imagine how good he'll be when he's 25' doesn't always work - let's see who kicks-on).

On Lawes, I think it's more a case of staying in the boiler room and focusing on which part of his game he wants to develop: his lineout work; or his carrying and physicality. I'd sway towards the latter purely because the way he tries to play the game fits more in the 'enforcer' mould. I've never been convinced by him at 6, and - with Wood, Clarke and Dowson all options on the blindside - I don't think he warrants gametime in that position for Saints so can't see Mallinder going for it. He needs to specialise, not be shifted around.

By the way, cheers Geordie ....I probably picked-up the idea from you, then, anyway

Im with DaveM on this.


Lawes at 6. The croft experiment hasnt worked and is over.

We need to construct a brutish pack in line with our heritage.

Make it a mobile brutish pack and well soon be in business again as a rugby power.

Triangulation wrote:Im with DaveM on this.


Lawes at 6. The croft experiment hasnt worked and is over.

We need to construct a brutish pack in line with our heritage.

Make it a mobile brutish pack and well soon be in business again as a rugby power.

I know i'm against the popular croft bashing that's on here, but to say a british and irish lion is an experiment.....

nathan wrote:

Triangulation wrote:Im with DaveM on this.


Lawes at 6. The croft experiment hasnt worked and is over.

We need to construct a brutish pack in line with our heritage.

Make it a mobile brutish pack and well soon be in business again as a rugby power.

I know i'm against the popular croft bashing that's on here, but to say a british and irish lion is an experiment.....

I think that Croft has played well (mostly) this 6N and the failed experiment (such as it is, the back-row aren't doing as badly as people are saying. Everybody's whining they haven't been producing fast ball, which they have, haven't slowed down the opposition ball, which they have, and in the Wales game we made the crucial turnovers too. Sure it's not perfect and the other forwards have chipped in as they do in every single International team and we still could do with a real 7, but I think that people are looking for problems that they want to be there. Same in the centres and the Halfbacks. But the wings aren't scoring because they don't get the ball enough, which in the last match was demonstrably untrue. Rant over) is over the balance of our back-row as a whole. Robshaw, Morgan and Croft are talented players. But they are not the best players to compliment each other

nathan wrote:

Triangulation wrote:Im with DaveM on this.


Lawes at 6. The croft experiment hasnt worked and is over.

We need to construct a brutish pack in line with our heritage.

Make it a mobile brutish pack and well soon be in business again as a rugby power.

I know i'm against the popular croft bashing that's on here, but to say a british and irish lion is an experiment.....

Nathan dont get me wrong the guy is an outstandingly good player. I am not bashing him at all. He may be too good for England but work beautifully for the Lions.

He is a square peg and England is a round hole. It is just not working. Not his fault.

The conclusion may be a harsh one but there it is. There is no room for sentiment at this level.

I would love to be proved wrong. I would love for us to use him properly but we seem incapable....

It seems that i have the last word on this. Good.

In the not too distant future.....

1. Marler
2. Gray
3. Cole
4. Attwood
5. Launchbery/Garvey
6. Lawes
7. Kvesic/Gibson/Wallace
8. Morgan

There deal with that!

8.

If we are looking at future packs....

1 Marler / Corbs
2 Lindsay / George
3 Cole (worryingly light on competition)
4 Kitchener
5 Slater / Launchbury
6 Robinson (Falcons)
7 Kvesic
8 Fearns / Morgan

If we decide not to play Croft at 6, could we please play an actual 6 at 6? What the hell is the point of a back-row with a 6 at 7 and a lock at 6?

England, we are not gonna be able to dominate physically. Get a strong, mobile pack

flankertye wrote:England, we are not gonna be able to dominate physically. Get a strong, mobile pack

Flankertye that is precisely what i have proposed with my mighty and mobile pack.

I think i have 7 bona fide ball carriers in my pack and 1 scavenger. That is a nasty mobile wrecking ball of a pack ready in inflict damage. Stick an inform Youngs or Simpson behind it making sniping searing breaks through the space they will inevitably create and you have the beginnings of a lethal team.

Oooh damn were going to be good!

GeordieFalcon wrote:If we are looking at future packs....

1 Marler / Corbs
2 Lindsay / George
3 Cole (worryingly light on competition)
4 Kitchener
5 Slater / Launchbury
6 Robinson (Falcons)
7 Kvesic
8 Fearns / Morgan

I really hope so marra!

Triangulation wrote:

flankertye wrote:England, we are not gonna be able to dominate physically. Get a strong, mobile pack

Flankertye that is precisely what i have proposed with my mighty and mobile pack.

I think i have 7 bona fide ball carriers in my pack and 1 scavenger. That is a nasty mobile wrecking ball of a pack ready in inflict damage. Stick an inform Youngs or Simpson behind it making sniping searing breaks through the space they will inevitably create and you have the beginnings of a lethal team.

Oooh damn were going to be good!

Without meaning to be nasty,you are sounding like Stuart Barnes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Triangulation wrote:

flankertye wrote:England, we are not gonna be able to dominate physically. Get a strong, mobile pack

Flankertye that is precisely what i have proposed with my mighty and mobile pack.

I think i have 7 bona fide ball carriers in my pack and 1 scavenger. That is a nasty mobile wrecking ball of a pack ready in inflict damage. Stick an inform Youngs or Simpson behind it making sniping searing breaks through the space they will inevitably create and you have the beginnings of a lethal team.

Oooh damn were going to be good!

Without meaning to be nasty,you are sounding like Stuart Barnes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tight head is a worry, Dan Cole is far and away our best tight head at the moment, and we’ll be in trouble when / if he gets injured. He is solid in the scrum and is really becoming good at the breakdown.

The medium term backup options seem poor (Matt Stevens), mediocre (Davey Wilson) or unproven (Paul Doran-Jones/ Rupert Harden).

There are a number of lads worth keeping an eye on, but they are mostly very young and raw; Kieran Brookes (Leicester, 21), Henry Thomas (Sale, 20), Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 21), Kane Palmer-Newport (Bath, 21), Shaun Knight (Gloucester, 22) and Kyle Sinkler (Harlequins, 19). Hopefully one or two of those will come good in the near-ish future.

And you missed out Mercer at Northampton. Still learning his trade from Mujati. But who remembers the HC final? He was incredible.

ChequeredJersey wrote:If we decide not to play Croft at 6, could we please play an actual 6 at 6? What the hell is the point of a back-row with a 6 at 7 and a lock at 6?

Lawes has played a lot of his rugby at 6. The first time I heard of him was when he played there for the u20s in the JWC a few years back. I saw an interview where he basically said he loved playing that position. Croft is a good player, but I'd rather have a tackling machine at 6 (who's a decent line-out option), a carrier at 8 and a scavenger at 7.

Cumbrian wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:If we are looking at future packs....

1 Marler / Corbs
2 Lindsay / George
3 Cole (worryingly light on competition)
4 Kitchener
5 Slater / Launchbury
6 Robinson (Falcons)
7 Kvesic
8 Fearns / Morgan

I really hope so marra!

He's a serious one to watch though aint he...we could have quite a pack coming through with the likes of Shiels, Beaumont, Robinson, Wilson, Welch ...and Deano working with them...

Is Richards definitely going to Falcons? It would be a good move - I'd be confident of promotion next season, and frankly the relagation may let you get rid of some deadwood (hopefully Goppeth will decide he doesn't fancy the Championship and move on).

I'll be looking out for Robinson in the u18s.

DaveM wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:If we decide not to play Croft at 6, could we please play an actual 6 at 6? What the hell is the point of a back-row with a 6 at 7 and a lock at 6?

Lawes has played a lot of his rugby at 6. The first time I heard of him was when he played there for the u20s in the JWC a few years back. I saw an interview where he basically said he loved playing that position. Croft is a good player, but I'd rather have a tackling machine at 6 (who's a decent line-out option), a carrier at 8 and a scavenger at 7.

Why? Honest question, why does it matter which part of the scrum a player binds at (other than 8)? I truly don't understand all the 'traditional roles' stuff. The capabilities have to be there somewhere but that's it (for me).

Aye he's a big lad Dave.

Well its looking that way that Deano will come. Im not sure Gopperth would leave

And as Cumbrian will probably agree...young Joel Hodgson is a real talent at 10...but his light stature may seem him move to 9, so we may not have any other 10's until the next one comes off the conveyor belt...Johnny, Flood, Clegg, Miller...not a bad effort from the academy...

HammerofThunor wrote:
Why? Honest question, why does it matter which part of the scrum a player binds at (other than 8)? I truly don't understand all the 'traditional roles' stuff. The capabilities have to be there somewhere but that's it (for me).

Oh, have a scavenger at 6 and a tackling machine at 7 if you want. The point is I want those three skillsets in my backrow, and Croft's strength is in open field and at line-out. Mayve with exceptional athletes in the second row you can accomodate Croft, but otherwise I fear we'll always be slightly unbalanced.

I want Lawes in the starting line-up, but I also want Parling there, and I think by next year I'll probably want Launchbury. For me Croft is the obvious one to drop.

GeordieFalcon wrote:
And as Cumbrian will probably agree...young Joel Hodgson is a real talent at 10...but his light stature may seem him move to 9, so we may not have any other 10's until the next one comes off the conveyor belt...Johnny, Flood, Clegg, Miller...not a bad effort from the academy...

Why not give Catterick a run - he's looked like he's got something about him the couple of times I've seen him?

Or try to get Clegg back - he's wasting away at Quins.

How on earth could i forget about catterick....

Yeah he's another one on the belt....ha ha..

flankertye wrote:And you missed out Mercer at Northampton. Still learning his trade from Mujati. But who remembers the HC final? He was incredible.

Mercer? Do you mean Mercey? I must admit I don't particuarly remember him being that brilliant in that game. I've not seen much of him this season either (not seen many Saint's games in fact) but after a bright start to a career, he has found it very hard to compete (2 starts in 3 seasons) and Saint's scrum generally looks worse when he comes on. He's still youngish, but he needs to start getting to position where he is first choice pick. This might mean a move of club because he appears to be behind Mujati and Paul Doran-Jones at the moment.

Alex Waller on the other side of the scrum looks a good bet to me, he is becoming more solid in the set piece and is very good in the loose.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Aye he's a big lad Dave.

Well its looking that way that Deano will come. Im not sure Gopperth would leave

And as Cumbrian will probably agree...young Joel Hodgson is a real talent at 10...but his light stature may seem him move to 9, so we may not have any other 10's until the next one comes off the conveyor belt...Johnny, Flood, Clegg, Miller...not a bad effort from the academy...

Nailed it, I see him as being like the French tradition of having scrum halfs who are comfortable at both 9 and 10, it should give us more flexibility in the squad. I would really like to see more of Catterick, I do think he is probably going to end up at full back though.

Sorry are we back to the days of " select an england squad by naming 10 players with a few lv cup appearances"

Whats with your constant negativity Peter...we're not picking the flamin team for France on Sunday...we're discussing players who "COULD" make it (or who are worth keeping an eye on).....for a few years down the line...hence the Title!!

If you have nothing positive to say why bother saying anything...

GeordieFalcon wrote:Whats with your constant negativity Peter...we're not picking the flamin team for France on Sunday...we're discussing players who "COULD" make it (or who are worth keeping an eye on).....for a few years down the line...hence the Title!!

If you have nothing positive to say why bother saying anything...

I love you?

I see what PSW's saying. Down the years (in the old 606) there have been loads of these threads. But whilst it's nice to talk about talent coming through, I do feel as if there's almost a culture of forgetting about talent as soon as it breaks into the England team. E.g Croft: a 26 year old bloke who's proven he can mix it with the very best.....now apparently written off. It blows my mind.

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

flankertye wrote:England, we are not gonna be able to dominate physically. Get a strong, mobile pack

Flankertye that is precisely what i have proposed with my mighty and mobile pack.

I think i have 7 bona fide ball carriers in my pack and 1 scavenger. That is a nasty mobile wrecking ball of a pack ready in inflict damage. Stick an inform Youngs or Simpson behind it making sniping searing breaks through the space they will inevitably create and you have the beginnings of a lethal team.

Oooh damn were going to be good!

Without meaning to be nasty,you are sounding like Stuart Barnes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that is being nasty, de facto. You can't call someone Stuart Barnes without insulting them

Not sure who said...

Lets make a brutish pack like we used to.

Lets make this brutish pack mobile then we'll win.

Easy as that eh? You should work with S + C's all over the country, because they never thought of trying that!

I am a firm beleiver of the number in most cases is just a number on your back. There are certain roles you need to fullfill come set peice time etc, but in general a player will play his game. No matter what number Croft has on his back he'll avoid the breakdown and drift out wide, No matter what number Gethin Jenkins plays he will throw himself into every ruck, no matter what number Hamilton plays he'll punch the first thing that moves!

HammerofThunor wrote:

DaveM wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:If we decide not to play Croft at 6, could we please play an actual 6 at 6? What the hell is the point of a back-row with a 6 at 7 and a lock at 6?

Lawes has played a lot of his rugby at 6. The first time I heard of him was when he played there for the u20s in the JWC a few years back. I saw an interview where he basically said he loved playing that position. Croft is a good player, but I'd rather have a tackling machine at 6 (who's a decent line-out option), a carrier at 8 and a scavenger at 7.

Why? Honest question, why does it matter which part of the scrum a player binds at (other than 8)? I truly don't understand all the 'traditional roles' stuff. The capabilities have to be there somewhere but that's it (for me).

Well, it shouldn't matter which side you put a fetcher on (our problem is that neither Croft nor Robshaw fulfill that role, not that Robshaw actually wears the number 7) and it doesn't really matter with regards to breakdown roles/the tight play who plays where. However in defence, because the openside is going to be running at the 10 with momentum on the 7's side most of the time, they need to be quicker to catch the 10 off the scrum and don't need to be such a monster in the tackle because unlike 6 they will not be covering blindside breaks and darts by bar-steward little 9s and big 8s and they have more cover from the backs. The fact that they will be smaller than a 6 because of this requirement of speed over brawn means they are more likely to be the fetcher but don't need to be. In the loose on attack it also doesn't matter that much, and the defensive roles are far less important now that the scrum is becoming a farce

Lancaster, as a flanker, should know all this though so I'm sure he has his reasons for the back row he has