England backrow for the AIs

First topic message reminder :

So we've speculated about the England back 3 given Foden's unfortunate injury but what about the back row


Johnson, the man with the 6 shirt, is injured, quite badly it seems.
Croft should be back in October but will it be soon enough?
Wood is back but only at 80-85% at his own admission
Robshaw is captain and in form but Wood was first choice before his injury, how does his return affect Robshaw's place?
Morgan is one of Gloucester's most convincing players at the moment but Fearns is looking in form, Vunipola too and so is Guest
Haskell was dropped from the EPS but has made an impact for Wasps. Could Johnson's injury open the way for him again.
Armitage is highly lauded but in France
Waldrum's and Easter are old and unwanted by some but their form at 8 is as good as anyone's
And is Kvesic still England next long term 7? Or is that 8?

Johnson's injury plus the limited playing time and injury of Wood and Croft has made the 6 position (and because Robshaw can cover 6, 7 by extension) very interesting and I'm still not sure Morgan is quite nailed on at 8. What's your back row for Fiji from what we know now?

ChequeredJersey wrote:I don't remember that he was ever that bad for England. More that he was blamed wrongly by a lot of supporters for an entire team that was inadequate and a back row that neither balanced nor in form

Agreed 100% i dont mean to denigrate a player hwo has given great service over the years to England. However towards the end he was carting the ball up for England.....and getting driven backwards.

Now you might argue that he was getting slow ball or whatever but i tell you the power had gone out of his legs.

If he were a speedy croftesque back row forward who got out and made things happen in the wider channels and corner flagged like a sything machine in defence then possibly that's ok depending on how you like your 8s but he isnt that either.

Backrow for Fiji game...

8. B.Morgan
7. C.Robshaw
6. C.Fearns

Bench: J.Haskell

I'd imagine Croft won't be fit for the tests, and Wood has been far from convincing since his return from injury, his battle against Haskell this weekend will make interesting viewing! Harsh on Johnson, who is a good player I just feel Fearns is perfect for international rugby and Haskell offers more as a bench option.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think thats something most of us are pointing out Vedder...

Where is the monstrous powerhouse / nasty guys...Martin Johnson...Simon Shaws...

Lawes could provide a little of that...he's an agressive powerhouse IF we can get the guy injury free.

Geordie, i agree he has the aggression, but i'm not sure he has the carrying ability of that sort of player. Certainly he's a long way from a Thorn, Botha etc...obviously most are.

Hopefully Marler will have gotten up to speed post SA and actually bring his carrying game to the AIs

Triangulation wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:We have the makings but we shouldn't still be seeing guys like Dowson, Botha and Waldrom cluttering up the senior EPS.

Oh yeah and sorry Quins fans but i dont want Easter back either.

This PR campaign to get him back is giving me the sh*ts.

Yes he is playing very well at AP level in a fantastic quins side. It sounds like his leadership is helping too. Good on him but i cant forget seeing him owned by opponents as a ball carrier and being too slow to compensate for that.

Agree 100%

ChequeredJersey wrote:Hopefully Marler will have gotten up to speed post SA and actually bring his carrying game to the AIs

+1

I was disappointed with his carrying in SA, and like you say, hopefully he'll have found his feet come the AIs. His carrying capacity could be a real asset for England right now.

SA was interesting as his scrummaging was actually pretty good but his carrying was weak (partially because every time he pick up the ball, Alberts magically appeared in front of him like a vengeful, very large and rather more solid than usual, spirit. I feared that his work on his scrum technique had affected his carrying game but so far he has looked in good nick at both for us this season. Not the easiest place to be introduced to International rugby, South Africa!

Hood83 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think thats something most of us are pointing out Vedder...

Where is the monstrous powerhouse / nasty guys...Martin Johnson...Simon Shaws...

Lawes could provide a little of that...he's an agressive powerhouse IF we can get the guy injury free.

Geordie, i agree he has the aggression, but i'm not sure he has the carrying ability of that sort of player. Certainly he's a long way from a Thorn, Botha etc...obviously most are.

Agree he isnt a great ball carrier, but he could become a key physical presence in the close exchanges...something we are missing.And his tackling is.immense and his lineout was improving.

Re: Marler: well surely carrying at international level is hearder than carrying in the AP? We clearly need to be able to make enough ground to pull the opposition out of shape and to generate quick ball, but I think we improved as the SA tour went on, and even with a pack with a lot of emphasis on mobility we matched SA in SA in the final test. Compare and contrast with Australia yesterday.

Also the pack needs good line-out options. I think we need a minimum of 3 full options.

What constitutes a full option? Eg Robshaw, I believe, is averaging 2-3 take a game with no lost balls, no Croft but certainly a good enough option

I'm thinking you need a Croft or a Lawes type option at 6. If you can't secure your own ball you are in serious trouble.

How is Lawes at the breakdown?

Lawes is good at the breakdown. Very physical and strong. I wouldn't want to try rucking over with him coming at me.

Lawes could be a very serious option at 6.

I really think we need to preserve those with Second Row talent in the the SR selection race.

I like Lawes at 6 but in a team that's very thin on the ground when it comes to physical Locks, he needs to be at 4 or 5. If you want a super-physical 6 you have to pick Fearns or Haskell there in my opinion.

Wood also played very well over the weekend for Saints.

I wouldn't be surprised or upset to see the below line up in the pack for the AI's.

1. Marler- Strong set piece and very good in the loose
2. Hartley- Probably still just tackling and working on the floor. Also brings Int experience
3. Cole- Like an extra flanker at rucks and massive at scrum time. Again plenty of experience
4. Parling- Wouldn't be my choice but technically sound in the lineouts
5. Palmer- Brings experience and good handling. Experienced option
6. Lawes- Aggressive carrying and tackling plus a third lineout option
7. Robshaw- Ruck work and tackling and a fourth lineout option
8. Morgan- Dynamic ball carrying

I noticed watching the higlights of all the rugby games...Lawes has put on a stone.

I think over the course of the 4 tests we Will probably see 6 different players in the back row.horses for courses.e.g for .SA we will probably need lawes at lock for extra grunt and a backrow of Johnson/haskell,robshaw,waldrom,bench Morgan.against aussies wood/croft at 6 if fit.against.NZ won't matter who we put in,their a good 14pets ahead of everyone .

yappysnap wrote:I wouldn't be surprised or upset to see the below line up in the pack for the AI's.

1. Marler- Strong set piece and very good in the loose
2. Hartley- Probably still just tackling and working on the floor. Also brings Int experience
3. Cole- Like an extra flanker at rucks and massive at scrum time. Again plenty of experience
4. Parling- Wouldn't be my choice but technically sound in the lineouts
5. Palmer- Brings experience and good handling. Experienced option
6. Lawes- Aggressive carrying and tackling plus a third lineout option
7. Robshaw- Ruck work and tackling and a fourth lineout option
8. Morgan- Dynamic ball carrying

I think you're probably not far off Yappy; Parling and Palmer are certain to start at 5 and 4 respectively. My problem with that pack is where are your go-to carriers other than Morgan?

Marler has done extremely well with upping his scrummaging and with another season will be the real deal, but it seems to have been at the expense of his carrying so far. I'm sure that will change, but neither Hartley, Cole, Robshaw nor the locks are particularly good carriers at the top level. At present I feel it's a bit out of balance. Lawes carries, but he's got a touch of the Spanish Galleon about him and he needs to really work on that.

Contrast that with a pack I mooted earlier of:

1. A Corbisiero
2. T Youngs
3. D Cole
4. J Launchbury
5. C Lawes
6. C Fearns
7. C Robshaw
8. B Morgan

I'm not saying this would be the pack i'd put out for Australia, South Africa etc... but it is a configuration i'd be sorely tempted to give a run against Fiji. It lacks something in the lineout would be my only criticism, but Lawes and Robshaw are both effective there as is Launchbury.

[quote="Chjw131"]

yappysnap wrote:
Contrast that with a pack I mooted earlier of:

1. A Corbisiero
2. T Youngs
3. D Cole
4. J Launchbury
5. C Lawes
6. C Fearns
7. C Robshaw
8. B Morgan

I'm not saying this would be the pack i'd put out for Australia, South Africa etc... but it is a configuration i'd be sorely tempted to give a run against Fiji. It lacks something in the lineout would be my only criticism, but Lawes and Robshaw are both effective there as is Launchbury.

It's a line-out catastrophy! Who's calling it for a start? Securing your own ball at the line out, and seriously threatening the oppositions', is far more important than a slight increase in carrying power.

Remember England really need to win at least 2 and probably 3 of the AIs to secure a good WC seeding. This is not the time for experimentation - it makes more sense to experiment in the 6 Nations.

But their work at the breakdown would be excellent and would that not go a long way to fix the possible weakness at the lineout as the breakdown is without a shadow of a doubt the most frequent and important break in play?

Actually, excellent isn't a good enough descriptor- that pack should be exceptional at the breakdown. Who calls Northqmpton's lineout?!

England have been fine at the breakdown recently, I don't think there is any need for a major restructure. But if the line out isn't competent I don't see we have any chance against SA and NZ.

Not sure about Saints - Day maybe, then Wood?

Chequered, the mauling Quins took at the lineout on Sun highlighted how important it is to an attacking game. There were at least three key attacking opportunities in the opposition 22 for Quins and all were ended on our own lineout.

That could be even worse at Int level.

Well, I read today that Tom Croft will not be considered for the AIs due to his injury recovery. Thatreduces our line out capacity immediately, and makes it a bit more likely that someone such as Wood will be starting alongside Robshaw in the backrow. To be honest, I don't mind that at all- I think Wood at 6 and Robshaw at 7, with Morgan at 8 will work well. Lawes was terrific in every facet of the game over the weekend, but was especially good in the line out. Both as a target and stealing.

Sorry, link:

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Leicester-Tigers-Tom-Croft-set-miss-autumn/story-17015714-detail/story.html

DaveM wrote:England have been fine at the breakdown recently, I don't think there is any need for a major restructure. But if the line out isn't competent I don't see we have any chance against SA and NZ.

Not sure about Saints - Day maybe, then Wood?

I agree Dave, which is something I did highlight in my original post. I would like to see it tried out in the Fiji game, but bringing in Palmer for Launchbury would certainly alter the line-out calling issue. Failing that Louis Deacon is another option there. He called England's line-out for the RWC etc..

GeordieFalcon wrote:Lawes could be a very serious option at 6.

I've thought for a while that he could make it as a blind side rather than a lock. He also looks bigger than I remember - has he lost any speed? Doesn't appear to have. I know England aren't short of back row options but I think Lawes looks comfortable there.

Can't see Deacon ever getting a look in again. If Easter the inform 8 has no hope then a currently injured old lock can't be picked either.

We probably have too many back row options and not enough SR's to lose Lawes to the back row. Hes added a stone to his frame...and he is a must for the Second Row spot in some of the AI's.

Hope fully he can stay injury free now and fulfill the promise everyone can see. Maybe alongside Savage or Launchbury...or Garvey for some serious carrying which we will miss if we go for a back row including Wood and Robshaw.

+1 Geordie

yappysnap wrote:Can't see Deacon ever getting a look in again. If Easter the inform 8 has no hope then a currently injured old lock can't be picked either.

I disagree Yappy. Deacon is in the Saxons squad and I think was in pole position to be the starting no.4 when Lancaster took over had he not got injured which led to Botha starting.

By contrast the likes of Easter and Tindall have dropped from both squads. Deacon actually played really well for England during the 2011 6N and RWC and Rowntree sees him as a very useful lock with his lineout calling adding to that value. Further, Easter has been a good solid steady no.8 for England but has never shone on the international stage and I don't think that's something anyone could disagree with. He's playing really well in the Jeff but his international future was in doubt even when MJ took over.

Which of the locks in or around the squad actually do call the lineout for their club teams? Only one I think does so is Parling, and looking backwards Borthwick

Robson calls for Quins. Ventzl/Palmer for Wasps, Parling for Tigers, Borthers for Sarries not sure about the other clubs callers.

So Eng have Robson, Palmer or Parling to pick from. I imagine they'll go for Parling and then we'll need a real lump nest to him. If they go for Palmer then Lawes could be his wingman (like back in 2010/11 when we played some of our best stuff).

It just tells you how poor our resources at lock when Robson are supposedly two of our best locks. Also when old man Palmer is touted as starting England lock still!

I hope Borthwick teaches Kruis to be effective as him in the line out. If he does he might be our solution.

Yappysnap I agree. The line out is a very underrated facet IMO. It's a great attacking platform.

Lawes' conversion to 6 is not good. I hope young Maro Itoje becomes a lock!

I totally agree Beshocked...when you look at our history of producing top class locks....our current cupboard is very poor.

All about balance again but that's very hard.IMO there's no proper rock hard 2nd row enforcers holding their hands up. Equally no line out specialists who I rate.
Instead we get locks who are halfway house - master of neither. The art of the line out mastery needs to be taught IMO. Line out is as important if not more so than scrum. If you destroy opposition line out it can cause havoc.

Plenty of back rowers. Again balance needed.

Yeah...Lawes is like that....caught half way.

But also i expect my Lineout guys to at least have a little bit of physicality about them...not just a beanpole there for the lineout only. AND none of the lineout technicians in the England eyes are rometely impressive in that regard.

12 has been targeted as Englands real problem spot...and i agree...but the Second Row problem is not far behind at all...

Everyone keeps going on about heavy weight second rows, but is a 19 stone second rower going to be a perceptively more effective runner than say an 18 stone second rower?
1. I think you have to accept that Simon Shaw was a freak - huge, athletic, great hands.
2. Is Tom Croft lauded for his running because he runs over people or because he runs good lines/channels.
3. Do you extend the size issue to other positions and then never pick the likes of O'Driscoll, Shane Williams, etc?

New Zealand have just spanked all the other teams in the southern championship and don't have huge, powerful locks. In fact they don't have a particularly huge pack.

I just think the modern game is going towards the 'rugby league' route of 6' 3" 18st players, be they props (Marler, Cole), hookers (Hartley, Du Plessis), second row (Palmer, Parling), back row (Robshaw, Morgan), centres (Roberts, Traille) or wingers (North, Cuthbert). It is just that second rows have been a bit slow to move from the Bayfield, Metcalfe, et al size. With lifting in the lineouts and the joke that we call scrums, do you need 6' 10" or 20st players anymore? I am not saying it is right, but it does fit with the rugby league/basketball style of high scoring rugby that seems to be in favour.

Oh and I meant to say I am a fan of Nick Easter, but is he still going to be at/near his prime come the 2015 World Cup? It makes sense to blood new players now rather than in 2014/2015. Lancaster set out the experience/number of caps that he wanted his 2015 World Cup squad to have and that was only going to be achieved by sacrificing short term success in 2012/13/14. So I think better to have Morgan, Guest or whoever with 30/40 caps come the World Cup, rather than a 36 year old Nick Easter with 90 caps. I accept Waldrom is a slightly less good Easter but 4 years younger - i think he was just a stop gap because Morgan didn't cut the mustard in South Africa and other players were unavailable.

"I just think the modern game is going towards the 'rugby league' route of 6' 3" 18st players"

That makes me very sad...

I don't necessarily think the game is going that way nlp. Some of the brightest stars are more diminutive than that: Christian Wade, Will Genia and Israel Daag to name a few.

I do think it's important to have balance in the team and balance in the pack. yes there is a difference between Tom Croft and Simon Shaw. The main one being that two feet out from a ruck facing a line of defence peppered with forwards fanning out from the ruck and slow ball, who do you want to pass the ball to? Tom Croft or Simon Shaw?

You need those heavyweight close contact carriers to help generate momentum and thus ever quicker ruck ball sending runners such as Tom Croft into ever more disorganised and retreating defences.

Saying New Zealand doesn't have a heavyweight pack isn't quite correct. What they have is excellent balance and ball playing skills. Thus Luke Romano at no.4 - 6ft 7 and 19 stone combines very well with other principle carriers such as Richie McCaw, Kieran Read and Liam Messam. That's without some excellent tight work from Mealamu and Woodcock.

If we stripped everyone back to a standard height and weight in the pack it would make for a damn sight more kicking.

Exactly chjw131. I agree. Balance is also very important.

2nd row is fundamentally the engine room. They are arguably the heart and soul of the pack. Their weight and power and can help the frontrow in their job. They make sure the lineout runs smoothly. Their workrate is also fundamental for their side to function properly both in defence in attack.

It's the unseen stuff which can be more important than the flashy ball carrier.

I believe for example Borthwick is one of the most maligned 2nd rows because he's a poor ball carrier. Also for England he seemed like a pretty lacklustre captain. His workrate is huge and he does a lot of unseen stuff - his tackle count for example is very high. He can also run a lineout very well.

Most rugby fans like the pretty stuff. This means that the unsung heroes get maligned and cast to the dogs.


Ultimately though I think we need these gritty scavengers who do the dirty tough work.

Rugby is a pretty simple game IMO. Just do the basics well. Sometimes I feel the basics are left behind in a fervent effort to get the biggest most exciting ball carriers and runners.

Problem with Borthwick is that despite all his reputation at club level and his efforts at international level as captain and player you have to ask yourself did we miss him when he wasnt picked for England? And the answer is no - not at all.

Borthwick like Easter is a very good club man, but probably not Int class.

And one of Wales best players in the wc was Charteris who's about 7 feet! And then in the 6N's was Lydite who looks pretty short.

Think Lydiate's 6'4!

Na he has to be shorter then that! He looks like a dwarf in photos.


On second thoughts I might be thinking of Tupuric...

Haha, I think it must be Tipuric yappy!

Tipuric is very much in the mould of Martyn Williams- not huge by any means, and off slight build.

Lydiate is 6'4 and a heck of a tank (110kg?)

Easter - good lineout, leading statistics for offloads and carries in the 6N, pack leadership and lots of muscle in the tight. Not much in the way of pace and the least said about his captaincy the better but I dont quite get the not international class thing.