England's pack - mobility or power?

Lots of people have criticised the decision yesterday to have Lawes at 6, I was just wondering whether this points to a wider issue with England's pack.

One of the reasons given for its apparent improvement, and a supposed indication of a 'new England' is our pack's size. The front row is mobile and squat but there are no Sheridan type monsters. The locks are standard size but there's no Shaw, Botha, even Ian Evan types. And the back-row has a pretty willowy guy at 6 (Wood). Even more so with Lawes in.

The argument seems to be that this means athleticism, we're quicker to the breakdown and we can out-last our opponents, while not losing too much power. Most people seem to have bought into this (including me) as the way to go - after all, the ABs seem to favour smaller, quicker packs.

Yesterday was the first game I thought may challenge the assumption that quicker is better. Ordinarily we would have had Morgan which I think would have helped, but Picamoles showed what a big ball carrier can bring to a team.

There's probably a part of me that can't get my head around an English pack that isn't huge, but unfortunately we don't seem to produce players who are quick, powerful and very fit. Do people think this sort of pack is the way to go? Do we need more ball carriers and if so who? Garvey, B Vunipola?

Hood83 wrote:Lots of people have criticised the decision yesterday to have Lawes at 6, I was just wondering whether this points to a wider issue with England's pack.

One of the reasons given for its apparent improvement, and a supposed indication of a 'new England' is our pack's size. The front row is mobile and squat but there are no Sheridan type monsters. The locks are standard size but there's no Shaw, Botha, even Ian Evan types. And the back-row has a pretty willowy guy at 6 (Wood). Even more so with Lawes in.

The argument seems to be that this means athleticism, we're quicker to the breakdown and we can out-last our opponents, while not losing too much power. Most people seem to have bought into this (including me) as the way to go - after all, the ABs seem to favour smaller, quicker packs.

Yesterday was the first game I thought may challenge the assumption that quicker is better. Ordinarily we would have had Morgan which I think would have helped, but Picamoles showed what a big ball carrier can bring to a team.

There's probably a part of me that can't get my head around an English pack that isn't huge, but unfortunately we don't seem to produce players who are quick, powerful and very fit. Do people think this sort of pack is the way to go? Do we need more ball carriers and if so who? Garvey, B Vunipola?

I suppose you just have to alter the pack based on the team your playing. Go lighter against the likes of Australia and heavier against the likes of France and south Africa.

nathan wrote:

Hood83 wrote:Lots of people have criticised the decision yesterday to have Lawes at 6, I was just wondering whether this points to a wider issue with England's pack.

One of the reasons given for its apparent improvement, and a supposed indication of a 'new England' is our pack's size. The front row is mobile and squat but there are no Sheridan type monsters. The locks are standard size but there's no Shaw, Botha, even Ian Evan types. And the back-row has a pretty willowy guy at 6 (Wood). Even more so with Lawes in.

The argument seems to be that this means athleticism, we're quicker to the breakdown and we can out-last our opponents, while not losing too much power. Most people seem to have bought into this (including me) as the way to go - after all, the ABs seem to favour smaller, quicker packs.

Yesterday was the first game I thought may challenge the assumption that quicker is better. Ordinarily we would have had Morgan which I think would have helped, but Picamoles showed what a big ball carrier can bring to a team.

There's probably a part of me that can't get my head around an English pack that isn't huge, but unfortunately we don't seem to produce players who are quick, powerful and very fit. Do people think this sort of pack is the way to go? Do we need more ball carriers and if so who? Garvey, B Vunipola?

I suppose you just have to alter the pack based on the team your playing. Go lighter against the likes of Australia and heavier against the likes of France and south Africa.

Do you then have an issue of continuity though?

Im notba fan of changing your team because of the opposition. You pick your best team and stick with it. I found the decision Lawes a bit odd...we have lots of options in the backrow, so why experiment in this manner?

Sheridan was a poor LH...couldnt carry at all for a guy his size...Nick Wood was by FAR a better LH who should have been Englands LH.#

I would far rather have our current SR' than BOtha!

I thought we won yesterday?

GeordieFalcon wrote:We won didnt we?

Sheridan was a poor LH...couldnt carry at all for a guy his size...Nick Wood was by FAR a better LH who should have been Englands LH.#

I would far rather have our current SR' than BOtha!

I thought we won yesterday?

When England win, fans and pundits generally tend to focus on what we didn't do, rather than what we did do.

Yeah thats true Duty..

The AB's tend not to have the biggest pack on show....they tend to do ok.

Size is good but physicality is more important.

Hood83 wrote:

nathan wrote:

Hood83 wrote:Lots of people have criticised the decision yesterday to have Lawes at 6, I was just wondering whether this points to a wider issue with England's pack.

One of the reasons given for its apparent improvement, and a supposed indication of a 'new England' is our pack's size. The front row is mobile and squat but there are no Sheridan type monsters. The locks are standard size but there's no Shaw, Botha, even Ian Evan types. And the back-row has a pretty willowy guy at 6 (Wood). Even more so with Lawes in.

The argument seems to be that this means athleticism, we're quicker to the breakdown and we can out-last our opponents, while not losing too much power. Most people seem to have bought into this (including me) as the way to go - after all, the ABs seem to favour smaller, quicker packs.

Yesterday was the first game I thought may challenge the assumption that quicker is better. Ordinarily we would have had Morgan which I think would have helped, but Picamoles showed what a big ball carrier can bring to a team.

There's probably a part of me that can't get my head around an English pack that isn't huge, but unfortunately we don't seem to produce players who are quick, powerful and very fit. Do people think this sort of pack is the way to go? Do we need more ball carriers and if so who? Garvey, B Vunipola?

I suppose you just have to alter the pack based on the team your playing. Go lighter against the likes of Australia and heavier against the likes of France and south Africa.

Do you then have an issue of continuity though?

not really as Lancaster makes use of his subs every game, so it's not relying on just the 15 players.

I like the ambition to have a very athletic mobile pack. Admitted there are some issues right now but thought we all tended to agree this is still a side in development, not the finished article. I agree the Lawes experiment wasn't convincing but we won never-the-less and have no probs within reason with trying things out. 8 seems to be a problem without Morgan fit. SL looks like he would rather have anyone there than Waldrom. Billy V should be getting bench spot rather than Waldrom especially as they are not going to play Waldrom except in extremis. 2nd row went well again so Lawes is in for a battle to get back in and maybe they wanted to see if he could hack it as a loosy looking for versatility on the bench. Think the pack looks a different proposition with Corbs and Morgan so just need better options in their positions.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Sheridan was a poor LH...couldnt carry at all for a guy his size...Nick Wood was by FAR a better LH who should have been Englands LH.#

I would far rather have our current SR' than BOtha!

I thought we won yesterday?

Ha, fair point, but don't the best teams (which we've obviously not yet) look at ways to improve even when winning, or at least ask questions of 'how can we improve' 'is received wisdom correct?' etc.

Sheridan was never the prop we hoped he'd be, I do believe he was significantly better than Wood however, who was/is a) not as good a scrummager as people make out and b) really genuinely cannot carry. Sheridan was poor for his size, and not consistent enough, but he almost always required two guys to bring him down. He was also used terribly by England who tried to use him to truck up with static ball. His form at Toulon shows what he might have been.

I think Corbs is a better all-round player. Botha was poor I agree, but I don't think anyone would have picked him as a big ball carrier or power-player. Perhaps we just don't have those players as an option.

Duty281 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:We won didnt we?

Sheridan was a poor LH...couldnt carry at all for a guy his size...Nick Wood was by FAR a better LH who should have been Englands LH.#

I would far rather have our current SR' than BOtha!

I thought we won yesterday?

When England win, fans and pundits generally tend to focus on what we didn't do, rather than what we did do.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

aitchw wrote:I like the ambition to have a very athletic mobile pack. Admitted there are some issues right now but thought we all tended to agree this is still a side in development, not the finished article. I agree the Lawes experiment wasn't convincing but we won never-the-less and have no probs within reason with trying things out. 8 seems to be a problem without Morgan fit. SL looks like he would rather have anyone there than Waldrom. Billy V should be getting bench spot rather than Waldrom especially as they are not going to play Waldrom except in extremis. 2nd row went well again so Lawes is in for a battle to get back in and maybe they wanted to see if he could hack it as a loosy looking for versatility on the bench. Think the pack looks a different proposition with Corbs and Morgan so just need better options in their positions.

Agree about Morgan and Corbs making a difference, gutting about Corbs knees. Would also like BV on the bench as well above Waldrom. Could be a helluva impact player.

I think it depends on the style of play you want to play. I mean if you look at South Africa who have a huge pack who love contact and love the close tight gritty work of forwards, they use there forward pack as the battering ram before unleashing the backs.

Compare this to Wales 2005 who had a real lightweight pack who would look to offload in tackles and run around their opposite numbers to link with the backs.

I think overall you need a balance as if you look at New Zealand. They are not famed for having a monster pack like England, SA, Italy etc but their forwards can do the close gritty stuff of forwards to provide quick ball to the backs and also the open free flowing style of play. so Basically it is all about BALANCE!!!

Spot on, welshy, it is about balance but in trying to achieve it you have to know what type of game you want to play. Lancs has decided he wants mobility, a more free running type of game to move away from the gnarly monster packs of Englands past but that can only work if you have great technical ability especially in the front row. It's getting there but there's a lot still to do.

We do have bigger guys who are still mobile than the guys that played yesterday.

Corbs, B Vunipola, Morgan, Hask would all have added a lot to yesterdays pack.

Tom Youngs when he came on added a huge amount of bosh.

Wood needs to be back at 6 for the Wales game or I have a worried feeling that bad things will happen.

yappysnap wrote:We do have bigger guys who are still mobile than the guys that played yesterday.

Corbs, B Vunipola, Morgan, Hask would all have added a lot to yesterdays pack.

Tom Youngs when he came on added a huge amount of bosh.

Wood needs to be back at 6 for the Wales game or I have a worried feeling that bad things will happen.

I think Corbs would be an improvement re carrying but no in the work-rate sense, maybe not far off Marler though.

Problem is then Morgan and Vunipola would never be on the pitch at the same time and Haskell is behind Wood and Robshaw. Perhaps Corbs and one of Morgan/Vunipola would be enough carriers in the pack. I think T Youngs rucking is a must.

I thought BV was in the frame for a bench spot yesterday but read that he'd done his ankle in training? I also think his brother Mako looks a bit of a beast though his propping technique still needs some work. Thats Morgan, BV, MV and Corbs, all missing yesterday, any two of which would have added some much needed ballast and go forward to the pack.

Hopefully SL will realise Lawes is not an international 6 and put that experiment to bed.

The one thing I would say is that maybe we lack the gnarly powerful scrum locks of old such as MJ, Shaw and Grewcock who really do add some grunt and stability to the frontrow.