England side for Saturday - According to the Telegraph

First topic message reminder :

Interesting few changes according to the Telegraph and they are usually pretty accurate with their predictions. Always seen Lawes more as a six but an interesting time to do it. Thought putting an 8 in and moving Wood to 6 would have been the more obvious option. Injury to Billy V probably put paid to that but doesn't show a lot of faith in Waldrom.

Twelvetrees as the only cover for the back 4 also concerns me a bit. If he was that desperate to have him on the bench it probably should have been at the expense of a specialist 10.

Interesting.

England (probable): Goode, Ashton, Tuilagi, Barritt, Brown; Farrell, B Youngs; Marler, Hartley, Cole, Parling, Launchbury, Lawes, Robshaw, Wood. Replacements: T Youngs, M Vunipola, Wilson, Haskell, Waldrom, Care, Flood, Twelvetrees.

Yes i agree, he is like a combo of Moody the rabid ball chaser and Jonny the kamikaze tackler which makes him a dense, rabid kamikaze.

100%beefy wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

nobbled wrote:

george doors wrote:Why oh why no Danny Care to start, by far the best number 9 Eng have!

Youngs has played well - and if we need to shake things up Care can come on and annoy the French with his sniping around the fringes.

Youngs didn't do much wrong last game, and deserves to keep the shirt for now.

Two great 9's - glad they are competing for the shirt!

Care is the sort of player that opposition will detest coming off the bench. He's an awesome player, and at the moment, we seem to be quite spoilt with them both playing so well. Let's not forgot, players like Simpson aren't even getting a look in at the moment!

I stand corrected, maybe Lawes is denser, but all you have to do is look at Lawes and Haskell physically to see that Haskell has filled-out his frame significantly more. I'm not so sure about all the reported weight and height stats- they are hugely exaggerated in a lot of cases.

If anybody wants to know, if Haskell was the same height as Lawes, while maintaining the same weight:height ratio, he would be 117.48kg, so 6kgs heavier than Lawes.

Using the RFU stats, which has Haskell listed as heaier than Lawes anyway?

bluestonevedder wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

nobbled wrote:

george doors wrote:Why oh why no Danny Care to start, by far the best number 9 Eng have!

Youngs has played well - and if we need to shake things up Care can come on and annoy the French with his sniping around the fringes.

Youngs didn't do much wrong last game, and deserves to keep the shirt for now.

Two great 9's - glad they are competing for the shirt!

Care is the sort of player that opposition will detest coming off the bench. He's an awesome player, and at the moment, we seem to be quite spoilt with them both playing so well. Let's not forgot, players like Simpson aren't even getting a look in at the moment!

I stand corrected, maybe Lawes is denser, but all you have to do is look at Lawes and Haskell physically to see that Haskell has filled-out his frame significantly more. I'm not so sure about all the reported weight and height stats- they are hugely exaggerated in a lot of cases.

- Apart from George North - who is actually 12 feet tall and 4 feet wide - doesn't do press-ups - pushes the world down...

Let's hope Lawes doesn't allow a centre to tear the ball off him this time.

nobbled wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

nobbled wrote:

george doors wrote:Why oh why no Danny Care to start, by far the best number 9 Eng have!

Youngs has played well - and if we need to shake things up Care can come on and annoy the French with his sniping around the fringes.

Youngs didn't do much wrong last game, and deserves to keep the shirt for now.

Two great 9's - glad they are competing for the shirt!

Care is the sort of player that opposition will detest coming off the bench. He's an awesome player, and at the moment, we seem to be quite spoilt with them both playing so well. Let's not forgot, players like Simpson aren't even getting a look in at the moment!

I stand corrected, maybe Lawes is denser, but all you have to do is look at Lawes and Haskell physically to see that Haskell has filled-out his frame significantly more. I'm not so sure about all the reported weight and height stats- they are hugely exaggerated in a lot of cases.

- Apart from George North - who is actually 12 feet tall and 4 feet wide - doesn't do press-ups - pushes the world down...

Last copy of Men's Health had a feature on North...he does sets of 3 reps press with 90 Kg per arm...the coach says that he gets a full on work out just spotting North.

Last copy of Men's Health had a feature on North...he does sets of 3 reps press with 90 Kg per arm...the coach says that he gets a full on work out just spotting North.

Doing what exercise?

can't recall, some sort of press, wasn't a curl. Frankly terrifying.

Surely has to be dumbbell press?? Can't be shoulder?

Parra is going to love seeing Lawes again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbDvGF5O6mg

lostinwales wrote:I was watching a couple of Lawes tackles on youtube. Lets just hope the French half backs have been watching them too

How many of those tackles were late?

bluestonevedder wrote:Surely has to be dumbbell press?? Can't be shoulder?

yes that sounds right, but even if it is it's nuts, thats a 13 stone man on each arm. That's a good bench press!

doctor_grey wrote:Parra is going to love seeing Lawes again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbDvGF5O6mg

That's an ouchy!

Genuine question here, is the Lawes switch a gamble by Lancaster is he being a bit to over confident and meddling a bit to much.

I think Lawes is a fantastic 2nd row but has he played back row before?

Isn't it a bit of a kick in the teeth to other blindside?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I was watching a couple of Lawes tackles on youtube. Lets just hope the French half backs have been watching them too

How many of those tackles were late?

Even as an Englishman I found I was slightly disturbed by the vid of Lawes on Parra. Timing was a bit 'marginal' although Lawes was genuinely committed perhaps, but instead of 'wrapping' Parra, Lawes simply Exocetted him into the shoulder. Wowwwwch !

bedfordwelsh wrote:Genuine question here, is the Lawes switch a gamble by Lancaster is he being a bit to over confident and meddling a bit to much.

I think Lawes is a fantastic 2nd row but has he played back row before?

Isn't it a bit of a kick in the teeth to other blindside?

Surely it's about building the squad. See what Lawes and Hartley can offer when starting.

I think it is a clear sign to the French that they intend to bully them up front, also gives England a superb lineout. Subduing the French pack is key to getting their heads to drop and that is the key to beating them. I predict an extremely physical confrontation and don't be surprised if Lawes knocks himself out at kick off

beshocked wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Genuine question here, is the Lawes switch a gamble by Lancaster is he being a bit to over confident and meddling a bit to much.

I think Lawes is a fantastic 2nd row but has he played back row before?

Isn't it a bit of a kick in the teeth to other blindside?

Surely it's about building the squad. See what Lawes and Hartley can offer when starting.

beshocked,

I see your point but wouldn't be better to build the squad with players in their natural position rather than swap one of your best assets or are England pretty threadbare with injuries etc at blindside currently.

Gareth Coco Jenkins tried AWJ there and myself and every other Welsh fan at Twickenham that day knows how that turned out

100%beefy wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Surely has to be dumbbell press?? Can't be shoulder?

yes that sounds right, but even if it is it's nuts, thats a 13 stone man on each arm. That's a good bench press!

Seriously good. Unbelievable considering his age as well. Players nowadays are starting to get ridiculous

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Especially in such a technical and pivotal position as no 8 –

Is it though?

Aside from the scrum..where good feet and a good reading of the game is required...what does an 8 do that a 6 or 7 doesnt...back rowers now must all do the same jobs...
Run with the ball
Catch in the lineout
Tackle tackle tackle
Hit the breakdown
Be a linkman
etc

Infact id go so far as to say that the back row along with the wing three quarters are the one positions in a team that are almost the same now as the game moves on...

I can only assume that you have never played number 8.

Thats correct i havent...

dragonbreath wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Especially in such a technical and pivotal position as no 8 –

Is it though?

Aside from the scrum..where good feet and a good reading of the game is required...what does an 8 do that a 6 or 7 doesnt...back rowers now must all do the same jobs...
Run with the ball
Catch in the lineout
Tackle tackle tackle
Hit the breakdown
Be a linkman
etc

Infact id go so far as to say that the back row along with the wing three quarters are the one positions in a team that are almost the same now as the game moves on...

I can only assume that you have never played number 8.

A touch harsh there dragonbreath. I think what GF is trying to say is that a lot of the specific and distinct roles we might have expected from the No.8 CAN be diffused amongst the back-row. Personally I like a proper conventional No.8 in the mould of Morgan and I think we'll suffer in the long run for not having him there.

If we look at the Ireland game though it is clear that no one back-row player is filling a typical No.8 role. Robshaw was dropping back for the kick-returns, Wood at the base, Haskell attempting to add the dynamism in possession etc..

Frankly it's a shame Billy V got injured again as i'd have liked to have seen him on the field for the last 15mins. Doesn't say much for Waldrom that he came on only as a sub for a sub against Ireland and he wasn't really wanted for this game either.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

beshocked wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Genuine question here, is the Lawes switch a gamble by Lancaster is he being a bit to over confident and meddling a bit to much.

I think Lawes is a fantastic 2nd row but has he played back row before?

Isn't it a bit of a kick in the teeth to other blindside?

Surely it's about building the squad. See what Lawes and Hartley can offer when starting.

beshocked,

I see your point but wouldn't be better to build the squad with players in their natural position rather than swap one of your best assets or are England pretty threadbare with injuries etc at blindside currently.

Gareth Coco Jenkins tried AWJ there and myself and every other Welsh fan at Twickenham that day knows how that turned out

I would tend to agree but from Lancs point of view a) Haskell has had flu and b) I think he's trying to get his best players on the pitch a la Mike Brown. I think at some point it's going to back-fire but Lawes is comfortable enough at BS and it's his preferred position. Lancs doesn't want to drop Launchbury as he doesn't deserve it but does want Lawes' impact on the pitch.

I don't think it's a great proposition with only 3 locks in the EPS and all of them starting but there is back-up in the Saxons. I would've liked to see Kitchener called up to the bench with Hask as back-row cover. It could be some good experience for him and to learn the line-out calls a bit more.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

beshocked wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Genuine question here, is the Lawes switch a gamble by Lancaster is he being a bit to over confident and meddling a bit to much.

I think Lawes is a fantastic 2nd row but has he played back row before?

Isn't it a bit of a kick in the teeth to other blindside?

Surely it's about building the squad. See what Lawes and Hartley can offer when starting.

beshocked,

I see your point but wouldn't be better to build the squad with players in their natural position rather than swap one of your best assets or are England pretty threadbare with injuries etc at blindside currently.

Gareth Coco Jenkins tried AWJ there and myself and every other Welsh fan at Twickenham that day knows how that turned out

bedfordwelsh Lancaster's options in the backrow look a bit lighter with Haskell,B.Vunipola,Morgan and Johnson all missing out -

Maybe he could have started Waldrom at 8 and have Wood at 6 but that's debatable.

England's two most new promising backrowers are Fraser and Ksevic but both are 7s plus relatively inexperienced.

beshocked

If Haskell is fit (healthy) enough to be on the bench, surely he must be well enough to play. I don't like the idea of picking someone for the bench knowing that they only have 20 minutes in them, because what happens if we lose a player to an early injury?

Obviously there's the question of just how much training did he miss last week, and so if he's not up to speed on the game-specific stuff. Presumably Lawes was filling in all week so is familiar with what he needs to do. It is though the only selection that worries me of the three changes - thought Hartley did enough in his half hour v Ireland to get back in front of Youngs (who had a shaky match), while Manu is the best (only?) 13 we have, and the question was whether we went aggressive with 12trees at 12 or solid by retaining Barritt. I think for this game SL has probably gone the right way there.

Chjw131 wrote:

dragonbreath wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Especially in such a technical and pivotal position as no 8 –

Is it though?

Aside from the scrum..where good feet and a good reading of the game is required...what does an 8 do that a 6 or 7 doesnt...back rowers now must all do the same jobs...
Run with the ball
Catch in the lineout
Tackle tackle tackle
Hit the breakdown
Be a linkman
etc

Infact id go so far as to say that the back row along with the wing three quarters are the one positions in a team that are almost the same now as the game moves on...

I can only assume that you have never played number 8.

A touch harsh there dragonbreath. I think what GF is trying to say is that a lot of the specific and distinct roles we might have expected from the No.8 CAN be diffused amongst the back-row. Personally I like a proper conventional No.8 in the mould of Morgan and I think we'll suffer in the long run for not having him there.

If we look at the Ireland game though it is clear that no one back-row player is filling a typical No.8 role. Robshaw was dropping back for the kick-returns, Wood at the base, Haskell attempting to add the dynamism in possession etc..

Frankly it's a shame Billy V got injured again as i'd have liked to have seen him on the field for the last 15mins. Doesn't say much for Waldrom that he came on only as a sub for a sub against Ireland and he wasn't really wanted for this game either.

Seconded, i suppose it's hard to justify him there on the bench given he doesn't cover much. I always think the greatest result for England in terms of development of the game would be a larger bench! Ah well. I really hope he isn't going to be a regularly crocked type, I thought an advantage of someone that naturally big was he looked quite robust and less 'gymified,' to butcher the English language.

beshocked wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

beshocked wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Genuine question here, is the Lawes switch a gamble by Lancaster is he being a bit to over confident and meddling a bit to much.

I think Lawes is a fantastic 2nd row but has he played back row before?

Isn't it a bit of a kick in the teeth to other blindside?

Surely it's about building the squad. See what Lawes and Hartley can offer when starting.

beshocked,

I see your point but wouldn't be better to build the squad with players in their natural position rather than swap one of your best assets or are England pretty threadbare with injuries etc at blindside currently.

Gareth Coco Jenkins tried AWJ there and myself and every other Welsh fan at Twickenham that day knows how that turned out

bedfordwelsh Lancaster's options in the backrow look a bit lighter with Haskell,B.Vunipola,Morgan and Johnson all missing out -

Maybe he could have started Waldrom at 8 and have Wood at 6 but that's debatable.

England's two most new promising backrowers are Fraser and Ksevic but both are 7s plus relatively inexperienced.

Cheers beshocked I guess with them lot missing it seems logical and gives him chance to see how he goes.

With regard to the No 8's positioning, I believe it used to be called "corner flagging"

I always found 8 very different to 6 or 7. Never had the control at the base to play there

Chjw131 wrote:

dragonbreath wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Especially in such a technical and pivotal position as no 8 –

Is it though?

Aside from the scrum..where good feet and a good reading of the game is required...what does an 8 do that a 6 or 7 doesnt...back rowers now must all do the same jobs...
Run with the ball
Catch in the lineout
Tackle tackle tackle
Hit the breakdown
Be a linkman
etc

Infact id go so far as to say that the back row along with the wing three quarters are the one positions in a team that are almost the same now as the game moves on...

I can only assume that you have never played number 8.

A touch harsh there dragonbreath. I think what GF is trying to say is that a lot of the specific and distinct roles we might have expected from the No.8 CAN be diffused amongst the back-row. Personally I like a proper conventional No.8 in the mould of Morgan and I think we'll suffer in the long run for not having him there.

If we look at the Ireland game though it is clear that no one back-row player is filling a typical No.8 role. Robshaw was dropping back for the kick-returns, Wood at the base, Haskell attempting to add the dynamism in possession etc..

Frankly it's a shame Billy V got injured again as i'd have liked to have seen him on the field for the last 15mins. Doesn't say much for Waldrom that he came on only as a sub for a sub against Ireland and he wasn't really wanted for this game either.

Didn't mean to be harsh but the comment did betray a fundamental lack of understanding. With respect to the Ireland game and lets be honest here, England just sat back and let Ireland beat themselves. Personally I feel that 8 along with 9 and 10 are pivital to the potency of a team as an attacking force, especially when you have a strong and often dominant front 5 as England do. To play a make do 8 just to accommodate what you feel are your best players is in fact counterproductive and will aid France's cause. Morgan has his faults but he is a powerful force with a dominant set piece

Which Lawes will we see tho? the athletic fast skilled player or the bull in a china shop one? Onew might win you the game, the otehr might loose it.

This is a team from england with plenty of cards waiting to happen. Can Lancaster instill the needed disipline?

Well lets just put it this way, hes replacing the yellow card machine that is James Haskell. Headless chicken and blowhard he may be, but Lawes has a decent discplinary record.

I thought lawes had had cards as well for punching and so on? If he can direct his efforts well he could be awesome but recently seems to have lost it.

Not that Im aware of. He got a two game ban for a reckless tackle (highly controversial) and has had a few yellow cards for similar borderline incidents.
The bull in a china shop analogy is a good one for him, he tends to run around till he hits something, sometimes not as cleanly as the laws dictate. Not so much a lack of discipline as a lack of style and grace.
Haskell on the other hand picks up a lot of cards for technical infringements at rucks etc (especially when he was playing in the S15) but does tend to be the victim of foul play and big hits rather than the perpetrator.

* edit ...he was involved in the mass brawl at Tigers following Ashtons hair tackle, more a participant than an instigator though. Dont think he was cited though? (CBA to fact check today sorry)

Ta for that. Had a google on it and it appears he has been as bad as I remembered although he has had a few cards

dragonbreath wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

dragonbreath wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Especially in such a technical and pivotal position as no 8 –

Is it though?

Aside from the scrum..where good feet and a good reading of the game is required...what does an 8 do that a 6 or 7 doesnt...back rowers now must all do the same jobs...
Run with the ball
Catch in the lineout
Tackle tackle tackle
Hit the breakdown
Be a linkman
etc

Infact id go so far as to say that the back row along with the wing three quarters are the one positions in a team that are almost the same now as the game moves on...

I can only assume that you have never played number 8.

A touch harsh there dragonbreath. I think what GF is trying to say is that a lot of the specific and distinct roles we might have expected from the No.8 CAN be diffused amongst the back-row. Personally I like a proper conventional No.8 in the mould of Morgan and I think we'll suffer in the long run for not having him there.

If we look at the Ireland game though it is clear that no one back-row player is filling a typical No.8 role. Robshaw was dropping back for the kick-returns, Wood at the base, Haskell attempting to add the dynamism in possession etc..

Frankly it's a shame Billy V got injured again as i'd have liked to have seen him on the field for the last 15mins. Doesn't say much for Waldrom that he came on only as a sub for a sub against Ireland and he wasn't really wanted for this game either.

Didn't mean to be harsh but the comment did betray a fundamental lack of understanding. With respect to the Ireland game and lets be honest here, England just sat back and let Ireland beat themselves. Personally I feel that 8 along with 9 and 10 are pivital to the potency of a team as an attacking force, especially when you have a strong and often dominant front 5 as England do. To play a make do 8 just to accommodate what you feel are your best players is in fact counterproductive and will aid France's cause. Morgan has his faults but he is a powerful force with a dominant set piece

Broadly speaking I agree dragon, but Morgan is injured as is Billy V who would've taken the bench spot from Waldrom. I wouldn't particularly fancy Waldrom there and the only other 8 in the Saxons is Crane, who I really don't rate in terms of dynamism.

Dragon

I wasnt belittling the role of 8, merely pointing out that the roles of the back row are becoming more interchangeable these days... everyone has to do everything.
I accept i dont have the depth of knowledge at 8 as i never played in the back row...just observations. And if those observations are incorrect ill withdraw my opinion.

My post above should read

he has NOT been as bad

Chjw131 wrote:

dragonbreath wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

dragonbreath wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Especially in such a technical and pivotal position as no 8 –

Is it though?

Aside from the scrum..where good feet and a good reading of the game is required...what does an 8 do that a 6 or 7 doesnt...back rowers now must all do the same jobs...
Run with the ball
Catch in the lineout
Tackle tackle tackle
Hit the breakdown
Be a linkman
etc

Infact id go so far as to say that the back row along with the wing three quarters are the one positions in a team that are almost the same now as the game moves on...

I can only assume that you have never played number 8.

A touch harsh there dragonbreath. I think what GF is trying to say is that a lot of the specific and distinct roles we might have expected from the No.8 CAN be diffused amongst the back-row. Personally I like a proper conventional No.8 in the mould of Morgan and I think we'll suffer in the long run for not having him there.

If we look at the Ireland game though it is clear that no one back-row player is filling a typical No.8 role. Robshaw was dropping back for the kick-returns, Wood at the base, Haskell attempting to add the dynamism in possession etc..

Frankly it's a shame Billy V got injured again as i'd have liked to have seen him on the field for the last 15mins. Doesn't say much for Waldrom that he came on only as a sub for a sub against Ireland and he wasn't really wanted for this game either.

Didn't mean to be harsh but the comment did betray a fundamental lack of understanding. With respect to the Ireland game and lets be honest here, England just sat back and let Ireland beat themselves. Personally I feel that 8 along with 9 and 10 are pivital to the potency of a team as an attacking force, especially when you have a strong and often dominant front 5 as England do. To play a make do 8 just to accommodate what you feel are your best players is in fact counterproductive and will aid France's cause. Morgan has his faults but he is a powerful force with a dominant set piece

Broadly speaking I agree dragon, but Morgan is injured as is Billy V who would've taken the bench spot from Waldrom. I wouldn't particularly fancy Waldrom there and the only other 8 in the Saxons is Crane, who I really don't rate in terms of dynamism.

Don't mean to be harsh but that comment betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how good line-speed and a very aggressive defence, while keeping discipline in the right parts of the pitch is not the same as 'sitting back'. Not a vintage game, both teams were pretty poor in dire conditions, but I think your wrong on that.

Agree about an 8 needed to be an attacking force. With get that with Morgan and hopefully Vunipola but no-one else I;d say.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Dragon

I wasnt belittling the role of 8, merely pointing out that the roles of the back row are becoming more interchangeable these days... everyone has to do everything.
I accept i dont have the depth of knowledge at 8 as i never played in the back row...just observations. And if those observations are incorrect ill withdraw my opinion.

No need to do that but I cannot agree that roles are interchangeable and am reasonably confident that would be backed by anyone who plays back row. Players playing out of position have to adapt in order to be effective. Clearly tackling hitting rucks are things everyone has to do. but the requirements of each position amount to more than the hitting of performance indicators in isolation. Lawes at BS may make 20 tackles and miss only one but that one could be the one that an experienced BS would have made because they had read it right. It involves understanding the game and reading it from the perspective of, for example the blind side, which if you are a blind side comes instinctively but if you are not clearly does not. At the top level those fractions of seconds in speed of decision making caused by lack of situational intelligence / experience leads to mistakes.

A balanced back row in my opinion does not mean having the same type of player in all three positions. Haskell is perhaps the living breathing example of what I mean. He is an impressive physical specimen but is moved around the backrow to his detriment. He has become a Jack of all trades master of none. There are many who will disagree but Robshaw will never be a 7 as long as he HAHIHA. He is on the face of it playing well, but how much more effective would England be with a genuine 7. Its a make do, and because the team is doing well the folly of such a policy is papered over. Just because you are good should not mean that you should not look at ways to improve before the deficiencies suddenly and to everyone's astonishment become obvious once exposed by the opposition.

Personally I would have left Wood where he was and played Waldron or Crane. They may not be top level but they will even so be a better option at 8 than a make do.

Lancaster has made some good (perhaps lucky) calls and this has given him confidence in his decision making but playing Wood out of position and a complete international rookie at blind side in Lawes is a huge risk against a top quality and balanced French back row unit.

dragonbreath you make some interesting points. No 8 is a very different position to 6 or 7 and requires a lot of different skills (and field positioning) to them. So I agree with you that you can't just switch a 6 to 8 and expect him to do the job well. Lots of very good backrow players I have played with did not have the skills required to make a good No 8 and demonstrated that when asked toplay out of position (that is how I see it). Of all the backrow positions it is the one that the "physical oddities" such as Dean Richards can excel at because of the No 8 skill set, whereas a fat slow 7 will always be just that.

However, I think in England's case, the No 8 options are very limited, which is why a rookie, unfit, overweight Morgan was rushed into the team and B Vunipola is also being fast tracked in. The No 8s aged 25 updwards available to England have either had injury problems or just aren't good enough. With Morgan injured if you were picking the best No 8 then presumably Easter would get a 'swan song' call.

Lancaster is going down the route of playing what he believes are his 3 best available backrow players - even if they are out of position - rather than go with the best alternative No 8 who at best would only be a short term selection (and who by inference he does not believe is test quality). Whether or not this is the right selection for this match, I am not sure - if Lawes was a proven international backrow player then I would be happier - I think Lawes (a rookie international 6) and Wood (a rookie international 8) is a gamble. With Waldrom on the bench at least if things don't work Lancaster can change it, if he is brave enough to admit his mistake early enough.

damage_13 wrote:Lawes problem is that more leg = more tackle area, these tall blokes need to get those legs pumping IN the tackle and draw more defenders in, there's a chance he could gain more yards and break the tackle.

A huge hand-off wouldn't go amiss, but methinks he is there for the lineout option, being tall in the breakdown is a liability.

Lawes won the most turn overs in the last game, 3 in approximately 20 mins. I have no idea how and don't remember them but apparently he's pretty good there. (I imagine like Croft he works hard to get there first and out with the ball before smaller players get in and under him).

He goes high in the tackle to try to get the little offload going (him and Manoa do that a lot for Saints) obviously it's a risky move but if used effectively can be very handy. Same goes with Robshaw.

My only worry is the lack of bulk and explosion at 8 I don't rate him internationally at all but i'd actually prefer Waldrom to start. Lancaster seems to struggle to make difficult choices between quality players in some positions (or he see's the other positions as non-essential) but both Brown and Wood should potentially be benched or be in their preferred positions, playing them both out of position may not be the best thing to do.

Wood in particular is a liability at 8. Waldrom, Vunipola or Easter would all be better to my mind.