England's "monster" pack!

First topic message reminder :

Whether you read this forum, the paper, or talk to a simpleton in the pub, everyone is talking about England's "monster" pack.I find this unfathomable, their pack is more or less the same weight as Ireland's.
Front row
Healy(116kg) is heavier than Marler(113kg)
Best(107kg) is lighter than Heartly(110kg)
Ross(127kg) is heavier than Cole/Wilson(112kg)
Locks
Launchbury(117kg) is heavier than POC(112kg)
Toner(124kg) is heavier than Lawes(117kg)
Back row
Wood(113kg) is heavier than POM(107kg)
Robshaw(112kg) heavier than Henry(107kg)
Vunipola(124kg) heavier than Heaslip(109kg)

Overall, Ireland's front row as a whole is heavier,Ireland's second rows as a whole are heavier, and England's back row are heavier.Where is this monster pack talk coming from?

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm entitled to an opinion surely. I don't think its a coincidence that England were undone in the first and last twenty minutes two games in a row. And when it's happening the next time, remember I pointed it out.

I would respectfully refer you to the advice above. It is the nature of your continual focus on, and derision of, England and English rugby which many find so perplexing.

fa0019 wrote:Although in last 2 games the last 20 mins also coincided with Tom Youngs entering the fray. I know which I think was the biggest cause of performance reduction.

I admit to being quite pro "Bowling Ball" as Tom Youngs is also known... Tigers fan don't you know  

Tom is consistantly playing well for Tiggers and hits the line out 99% of the time. We lost a couple of line outs against Glaws at the weekend but that was more to do with them interfering or getting infront of our jumpers than Youngs throw ins.

So I don't understand why he gets a case of the yips when playing for England. I'm Inclined to think there may be more to it... perhaps it is unfamiliarity with the calls or can't get used to the England system? Maybe it is the pressure of expectation... Perhaps he is just a puppy and gets so excited at being let out he forgets to do his business.

I'm living in England, the six nations is on, England are playing the unbeaten Irish this weekend - do you suggest a better topic? I feel I comment on many teams, perhaps the fans of other nations aren't quite such sensitive souls.

Metal Tiger wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Although in last 2 games the last 20 mins also coincided with Tom Youngs entering the fray. I know which I think was the biggest cause of performance reduction.

I admit to being quite pro "Bowling Ball" as Tom Youngs is also known... Tigers fan don't you know  

Tom is consistantly playing well for Tiggers and hits the line out 99% of the time. We lost a couple of line outs against Glaws at the weekend but that was more to do with them interfering or getting infront of our jumpers than Youngs throw ins.

So I don't understand why he gets a case of the yips when playing for England. I'm Inclined to think there may be more to it... perhaps it is unfamiliarity with the calls or can't get used to the England system? Maybe it is the pressure of expectation... Perhaps he is just a puppy and gets so excited at being let out he forgets to do his business.

Lancaster tends to empty the bench, perhaps rotation at lock is the lineout issue and not the hooker?

fa0019 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm entitled to an opinion surely. I don't think its a coincidence that England were undone in the first and last twenty minutes two games in a row. And when it's happening the next time, remember I pointed it out.

Although in last 2 games the last 20 mins also coincided with Tom Youngs entering the fray. I know which I think was the biggest cause of performance reduction.

Totally agree with this. When Youngs comes on, the focus totally changes. The backs look for the quick throw even if putting us under pressure (I'm guessing this is to prevent having Youngs throw in) and when we do get an attacking throw we lose it.

He's not an International hooker.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Although in last 2 games the last 20 mins also coincided with Tom Youngs entering the fray. I know which I think was the biggest cause of performance reduction.

I admit to being quite pro "Bowling Ball" as Tom Youngs is also known... Tigers fan don't you know  

Tom is consistantly playing well for Tiggers and hits the line out 99% of the time. We lost a couple of line outs against Glaws at the weekend but that was more to do with them interfering or getting infront of our jumpers than Youngs throw ins.

So I don't understand why he gets a case of the yips when playing for England. I'm Inclined to think there may be more to it... perhaps it is unfamiliarity with the calls or can't get used to the England system? Maybe it is the pressure of expectation... Perhaps he is just a puppy and gets so excited at being let out he forgets to do his business.

Lancaster tends to empty the bench, perhaps rotation at lock is the lineout issue and not the hooker?

Its the diff between club rugby and test rugby. Charlie Hodgson is one the best rugby players I've ever seen in club colours....

test rugby is what it is... a test.

You're up against not just 3 or 4 world class players but 15 world class players. Guys are taller, heavier, stronger, faster, more game sharp and have better technique.

I wouldn't say its the yips... yips would suggest he once had it.... it's followed him his entire career because he's only had 3-4 years in the position... compared to 15+ of all the rest.

No point saying he has to build into test rugby... by then his career will be over. There are better alternatives (i.e. anyone who can throw a ball and isn't a mighty mouse in the scrum (no offence meant)) and England are losing games because he's on the pitch... it's that simple.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm living in England, the six nations is on, England are playing the unbeaten Irish this weekend - do you suggest a better topic? I feel I comment on many teams, perhaps the fans of other nations aren't quite such sensitive souls.

 

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Although in last 2 games the last 20 mins also coincided with Tom Youngs entering the fray. I know which I think was the biggest cause of performance reduction.

I admit to being quite pro "Bowling Ball" as Tom Youngs is also known... Tigers fan don't you know  

Tom is consistantly playing well for Tiggers and hits the line out 99% of the time. We lost a couple of line outs against Glaws at the weekend but that was more to do with them interfering or getting infront of our jumpers than Youngs throw ins.

So I don't understand why he gets a case of the yips when playing for England. I'm Inclined to think there may be more to it... perhaps it is unfamiliarity with the calls or can't get used to the England system? Maybe it is the pressure of expectation... Perhaps he is just a puppy and gets so excited at being let out he forgets to do his business.

Lancaster tends to empty the bench, perhaps rotation at lock is the lineout issue and not the hooker?

There has been much criticism of SL use of the bench. Everyone does forget from time to time that hookers don't throw to the catcher... they train to throw to the target space where the catcher will eventually be... this is particularly true of a 4 or 6 ball for example. If the jumper gets it wrong it looks like the hooker has overthrown!

Doesn't Lawes tend to go off around the same time youngs comes on, for example?

Chjw131 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm entitled to an opinion surely. I don't think its a coincidence that England were undone in the first and last twenty minutes two games in a row. And when it's happening the next time, remember I pointed it out.

I would respectfully refer you to the advice above. It is the nature of your continual focus on, and derision of, England and English rugby which many find so perplexing.

I agree with GE here. The Guardian released an article after the France game showing that England, over the last 12 months and discarding (whether rightly or wrongly) the Argentina Tour where both sides had b teams out, have scored most of our points in the 3rd quarter and are awful at the start and end of matches:


http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/feb/06/england-stuart-lancaster-six-nations

"In nine matches in the last year – excluding the summer tour to Argentina when both countries were below strength – England's statistics show that they are at their most effective in the third quarter of a match and at their most vulnerable in the final 20 minutes.

Breaking the matches down into quarters, England have scored 50 points in the opening 20 minutes and conceded 59, the latter figure inflated by their poor starts in their last two outings against France and New Zealand; the second quarter is 50-29 in their favour and the third a stark 59-25, but in the final 20 minutes they have scored 29 points and conceded 43.

They lost three of the nine matches, to Wales, New Zealand and France, and the tally in the final quarter shows England scored three points compared with the 33 of their opponents, Alex Goode's penalty in Paris last weekend, and conceded one try each time.

England's two tries in the final quarter in the nine matches came when victory had been assured, against Scotland and Argentina. They were both scored in the final minutes by replacements, Care and Ben Morgan, and in four of the games, France at home last year, Italy, Australia and Argentina, they did not concede a point in the last 20 minutes and held Ireland to three.

Wales are at their strongest at the end of a match. Again excluding their summer tour, to Japan, in their 10 matches from February last year, they concede fewest points in the final quarter: their aggregates are 70-55 in the first, 52-39 in the second, 69-40 in the third and 52-14 in the fourth. No one scored a point against them after the 60th minute in the 2012 Six Nations, although Italy did so last Saturday with an interception try.

Gatland uses his replacements more sparingly than Lancaster. At Twickenham two years ago, he made two changes, one of them enforced at half-time because Jamie Roberts had suffered a knee injury. In Dublin in the opening round that year, he brought on three replacements and again one of them was because of injury.

Wales won at Twickenham with a try in the final quarter, scored by the player who replaced Roberts, Scott Williams, having triumphed in Dublin with a late penalty. Gatland tends to empty his bench only when victory is assured, as he did in the Lions' final Test against Australia last July, something Wales had done in his absence against England in the final round of the Six Nations when six players were brought on in the final seven minutes.

Gatland leaves his scrum-half on for longer than Lancaster with the change, on average, around the 70-minute mark. While he has not had a strong challenger to Mike Phillips in the position in the last few seasons, he tends to make the switch some 10 minutes from time when Wales play a second-tier nation and Phillips is rested.

England's decline in the final quarter of matches may have nothing to do with the replacements they make but is it more likely to do with conditioning given the attention lavished on that area by all professional sides?

The Wales captain Sam Warburton said this week that he found it hard coming off the bench in a Test match because a replacement had to quickly adapt to the tempo and mood of a game. What England gained in fresh legs in Paris, they lost in momentum. Seven players in a team have to go the distance because there are only eight replacements so why not more?"


and before then:

"Lancaster said on Monday that he did not predetermine his replacements, nor did he rely on scientific data: he uses his instinct and intuition. He pointed out that Care, one of England's catalysts in Paris, had played only 49 minutes in January, starting Harlequins' Heineken Cup defeat to Clermont Auvergne, and he felt the scrum-half had reached his limit in a game where the ball was in play for some 20% longer than it had been against New Zealand in November.

Looking at England's matches in the last year, Lancaster tends to replace his scrum-half at around the same time: twice on 57 minutes in last year's Six Nations, once on 58 and once on 64; the time in the summer Tests in Argentina was 53 and 55 and in the three November internationals it was 52, 54 and 65.

There was one exception: when England beat Ireland in Dublin last February, Lancaster kept both his half-backs, then Ben Youngs and Owen Farrell, on the field throughout. He said that, given the difficult conditions caused by the wind and rain, he was concerned that changing players in such pivotal positions would have been a risk in a tight match. And so he didn't and England won."


Both of these are clear points of weakness- our starting some matches softly and finishing with little to offer in attack which may have something to do with the obvious substitution policy...

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm living in England, the six nations is on, England are playing the unbeaten Irish this weekend - do you suggest a better topic? I feel I comment on many teams, perhaps the fans of other nations aren't quite such sensitive souls.

It's not what you comment on it's the way you comment. You don't comment in your nasty, snide way about other nations (or at least not as often or as consistently). Finding you an unpleasant presence on this forum isn't being sensitive it's just derived from the constant irritation. Please give it a rest and let us enjoy the 6 Nations at least  

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm entitled to an opinion surely. I don't think its a coincidence that England were undone in the first and last twenty minutes two games in a row. And when it's happening the next time, remember I pointed it out.

I would respectfully refer you to the advice above. It is the nature of your continual focus on, and derision of, England and English rugby which many find so perplexing.

I agree with GE here. The Guardian released an article after the France game showing that England, over the last 12 months and discarding (whether rightly or wrongly) the Argentina Tour where both sides had b teams out, have scored most of our points in the 3rd quarter and are awful at the start and end of matches:


http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/feb/06/england-stuart-lancaster-six-nations

"In nine matches in the last year – excluding the summer tour to Argentina when both countries were below strength – England's statistics show that they are at their most effective in the third quarter of a match and at their most vulnerable in the final 20 minutes.

Breaking the matches down into quarters, England have scored 50 points in the opening 20 minutes and conceded 59, the latter figure inflated by their poor starts in their last two outings against France and New Zealand; the second quarter is 50-29 in their favour and the third a stark 59-25, but in the final 20 minutes they have scored 29 points and conceded 43.

They lost three of the nine matches, to Wales, New Zealand and France, and the tally in the final quarter shows England scored three points compared with the 33 of their opponents, Alex Goode's penalty in Paris last weekend, and conceded one try each time.

England's two tries in the final quarter in the nine matches came when victory had been assured, against Scotland and Argentina. They were both scored in the final minutes by replacements, Care and Ben Morgan, and in four of the games, France at home last year, Italy, Australia and Argentina, they did not concede a point in the last 20 minutes and held Ireland to three.

Wales are at their strongest at the end of a match. Again excluding their summer tour, to Japan, in their 10 matches from February last year, they concede fewest points in the final quarter: their aggregates are 70-55 in the first, 52-39 in the second, 69-40 in the third and 52-14 in the fourth. No one scored a point against them after the 60th minute in the 2012 Six Nations, although Italy did so last Saturday with an interception try.

Gatland uses his replacements more sparingly than Lancaster. At Twickenham two years ago, he made two changes, one of them enforced at half-time because Jamie Roberts had suffered a knee injury. In Dublin in the opening round that year, he brought on three replacements and again one of them was because of injury.

Wales won at Twickenham with a try in the final quarter, scored by the player who replaced Roberts, Scott Williams, having triumphed in Dublin with a late penalty. Gatland tends to empty his bench only when victory is assured, as he did in the Lions' final Test against Australia last July, something Wales had done in his absence against England in the final round of the Six Nations when six players were brought on in the final seven minutes.

Gatland leaves his scrum-half on for longer than Lancaster with the change, on average, around the 70-minute mark. While he has not had a strong challenger to Mike Phillips in the position in the last few seasons, he tends to make the switch some 10 minutes from time when Wales play a second-tier nation and Phillips is rested.

England's decline in the final quarter of matches may have nothing to do with the replacements they make but is it more likely to do with conditioning given the attention lavished on that area by all professional sides?

The Wales captain Sam Warburton said this week that he found it hard coming off the bench in a Test match because a replacement had to quickly adapt to the tempo and mood of a game. What England gained in fresh legs in Paris, they lost in momentum. Seven players in a team have to go the distance because there are only eight replacements so why not more?"


and before then:

"Lancaster said on Monday that he did not predetermine his replacements, nor did he rely on scientific data: he uses his instinct and intuition. He pointed out that Care, one of England's catalysts in Paris, had played only 49 minutes in January, starting Harlequins' Heineken Cup defeat to Clermont Auvergne, and he felt the scrum-half had reached his limit in a game where the ball was in play for some 20% longer than it had been against New Zealand in November.

Looking at England's matches in the last year, Lancaster tends to replace his scrum-half at around the same time: twice on 57 minutes in last year's Six Nations, once on 58 and once on 64; the time in the summer Tests in Argentina was 53 and 55 and in the three November internationals it was 52, 54 and 65.

There was one exception: when England beat Ireland in Dublin last February, Lancaster kept both his half-backs, then Ben Youngs and Owen Farrell, on the field throughout. He said that, given the difficult conditions caused by the wind and rain, he was concerned that changing players in such pivotal positions would have been a risk in a tight match. And so he didn't and England won."


Both of these are clear points of weakness- our starting some matches softly and finishing with little to offer in attack which may have something to do with the obvious substitution policy...

Top man, CJ.

Cyril wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm living in England, the six nations is on, England are playing the unbeaten Irish this weekend - do you suggest a better topic? I feel I comment on many teams, perhaps the fans of other nations aren't quite such sensitive souls.

It's not what you comment on it's the way you comment. You don't comment in your nasty, snide way about other nations (or at least not as often or as consistently). Finding you an unpleasant presence on this forum isn't being sensitive it's just derived from the constant irritation. Please give it a rest and let us enjoy the 6 Nations at least  

I apologise the Cyril. It's not my intention to be snide. Intend to be direct and maybe lace language to drive my point home, perhaps it's unnecessarily aggressive. Occupational hazard. I'll try and be less abrasive.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm living in England, the six nations is on, England are playing the unbeaten Irish this weekend - do you suggest a better topic? I feel I comment on many teams, perhaps the fans of other nations aren't quite such sensitive souls.

It's not what you comment on it's the way you comment. You don't comment in your nasty, snide way about other nations (or at least not as often or as consistently). Finding you an unpleasant presence on this forum isn't being sensitive it's just derived from the constant irritation. Please give it a rest and let us enjoy the 6 Nations at least  

I apologise the Cyril. It's not my intention to be snide. Intend to be direct and maybe lace language to drive my point home, perhaps it's unnecessarily aggressive. Occupational hazard. I'll try and be less abrasive.

Nice to hear. Thanks

Gatland uses his replacements more sparingly than Lancaster. At Twickenham two years ago, he made two changes, one of them enforced at half-time because Jamie Roberts had suffered a knee injury. In Dublin in the opening round that year, he brought on three replacements and again one of them was because of injury.

Wales won at Twickenham with a try in the final quarter, scored by the player who replaced Roberts, Scott Williams, having triumphed in Dublin with a late penalty. Gatland tends to empty his bench only when victory is assured, as he did in the Lions' final Test against Australia last July, something Wales had done in his absence against England in the final round of the Six Nations when six players were brought on in the final seven minutes.

Gatland leaves his scrum-half on for longer than Lancaster with the change, on average, around the 70-minute mark. While he has not had a strong challenger to Mike Phillips in the position in the last few seasons, he tends to make the switch some 10 minutes from time when Wales play a second-tier nation and Phillips is rested.

Gatland may be disliked by many but I do think he has this right. If Stu Lancaster takes nothing else from this 6N's I hope he's finally learnt that preplanned 60min wholesale changes just do not work.

This is a key reason we've lost games in the past and can't afford to have it impact us in the future.

kingelderfield wrote:

Big Mac Michael wrote:Whether you read this forum, the paper, or talk to a simpleton in the pub, everyone is talking about England's "monster" pack.I find this unfathomable, their pack is more or less the same weight as Ireland's.
Front row
Healy(116kg) is heavier than Marler(113kg)
Best(107kg) is lighter than Heartly(110kg)
Ross(127kg) is heavier than Cole/Wilson(112kg) Cole is 117 kgs & Wilson 125 kgs, however neither are fit though Wilson is playingLocks
Launchbury(117kg) is heavier than POC(112kg)
Toner(124kg) is heavier than Lawes(117kg)
Back row
Wood(113kg) is heavier than POM(107kg)
Robshaw(112kg) heavier than Henry(107kg)
Vunipola(124kg) heavier than Heaslip(109kg)

Overall, Ireland's front row as a whole is heavier,Ireland's second rows as a whole are heavier, and England's back row are heavier.Where is this monster pack talk coming from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Wilson_(rugby_union)

Not sure Wiki is your best source for that kind of info...

I looked up a French player (Buttin) earlier and it said he had only played in like 6 games for ASM even though that is clearly untrue and he now has caps for France (2012 I think)

yappysnap wrote:

Gatland uses his replacements more sparingly than Lancaster. At Twickenham two years ago, he made two changes, one of them enforced at half-time because Jamie Roberts had suffered a knee injury. In Dublin in the opening round that year, he brought on three replacements and again one of them was because of injury.

Wales won at Twickenham with a try in the final quarter, scored by the player who replaced Roberts, Scott Williams, having triumphed in Dublin with a late penalty. Gatland tends to empty his bench only when victory is assured, as he did in the Lions' final Test against Australia last July, something Wales had done in his absence against England in the final round of the Six Nations when six players were brought on in the final seven minutes.

Gatland leaves his scrum-half on for longer than Lancaster with the change, on average, around the 70-minute mark. While he has not had a strong challenger to Mike Phillips in the position in the last few seasons, he tends to make the switch some 10 minutes from time when Wales play a second-tier nation and Phillips is rested.

Gatland may be disliked by many but I do think he has this right. If  Stu Lancaster takes nothing else from this 6N's I hope he's finally learnt that preplanned 60min wholesale changes just do not work.

This is a key reason we've lost games in the past and can't afford to have it impact us in the future.

In my own meager, humble and fallible opinion I believe (possibly wrongly) that Changes should bring variability, unpredictability and impact. Morgan is all very bulky and a good carrier but he is like vunipola without the ball skills. Id switch them around, start with Morgan to carry early and bring on vunipola at 35 (sorry my own personal belief is that Morgan can't hack more than 30 odd minutes). Just before the break is a good time for impact.

I'd also look at a genuine attacking running threat at 10 as a switch up. Try ford or someone with ten to go, not regressing further with a deep kicking ten - if the game needs to be closed out then leave Farell on, assuming he isn't cramping up.

Id also try (sigh) Nowell as a last 20 guy. I don't think he has the composure for starting yet.

GE, you're right about Morgan having endurance issues but he has excellent handling skills.

I genuinely and honestly breathed a sigh of relief with Lancaster emptied the bench against the All Blacks, I got out from behind the hospitality bar and opened a can of beer and confidently asserted NZ would win. The bench is just lightweight and dull (in the most respectful way)

At least Ford is on it now...

ChequeredJersey wrote:At least Ford is on it now...

Lightweight but not dull.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Not sure Wiki is your best source for that kind of info...

http://www.rfu.com/squadsandplayers/englandelite/davidwilson
snob

That one's probably better!

PredictorofTeams wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Not sure Wiki is your best source for that kind of info...

http://www.rfu.com/squadsandplayers/englandelite/davidwilson
snob

RFU probably get their stats from Wikipedia

Scrum quotes 277 lbs which equates to 125 kgs (which is where I took my figure from)

http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/player/15940.html

Baths website quotes 122 kgs

http://www.bathrugby.com/team/first-fifteen-squad/david-wilson

'Pays your money and takes your choice'

GloriousEmpire wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

Gatland uses his replacements more sparingly than Lancaster. At Twickenham two years ago, he made two changes, one of them enforced at half-time because Jamie Roberts had suffered a knee injury. In Dublin in the opening round that year, he brought on three replacements and again one of them was because of injury.

Wales won at Twickenham with a try in the final quarter, scored by the player who replaced Roberts, Scott Williams, having triumphed in Dublin with a late penalty. Gatland tends to empty his bench only when victory is assured, as he did in the Lions' final Test against Australia last July, something Wales had done in his absence against England in the final round of the Six Nations when six players were brought on in the final seven minutes.

Gatland leaves his scrum-half on for longer than Lancaster with the change, on average, around the 70-minute mark. While he has not had a strong challenger to Mike Phillips in the position in the last few seasons, he tends to make the switch some 10 minutes from time when Wales play a second-tier nation and Phillips is rested.

Gatland may be disliked by many but I do think he has this right. If  Stu Lancaster takes nothing else from this 6N's I hope he's finally learnt that preplanned 60min wholesale changes just do not work.

This is a key reason we've lost games in the past and can't afford to have it impact us in the future.

In my own meager, humble and fallible opinion I believe (possibly wrongly) that Changes should bring variability, unpredictability and impact. Morgan is all very bulky and a good carrier but he is like vunipola without the ball skills. Id switch them around, start with Morgan to carry early and bring on vunipola at 35 (sorry my own personal belief is that Morgan can't hack more than 30 odd minutes). Just before the break is a good time for impact.

I'd also look at a genuine attacking running threat at 10 as a switch up. Try ford or someone with ten to go, not regressing further with a deep kicking ten - if the game needs to be closed out then leave Farell on, assuming he isn't cramping up.

Id also try (sigh) Nowell as a last 20 guy. I don't think he has the composure for starting yet.

GE... don't do the apologetic approach... makes you sound insincere. But your points are valid nonetheless.

Personally I think Morgan is a better 8 than Vunipola. He is a cleverer footballer and has some great skill but unfortunately he's having a bit of a rotten season playing behind possibly the worst pack in the aviva. It's hard to look good spending 80 minutes desperatly scrambling to steady Glaws pack.

I agree we should start Morgan and then bring on Billy as impact sub.

While I do think Farrell is improving I think he is still standing too deep to offer a serious threat to open up a defence. This is why we miss Manu so much... Farrell could stand behind the posts and Manu would still break the gain line and make a hole! My main worry about Farrell is that he is very similar in playing style to Sexton so this game could end up being 80 minutes of toe pokes, bombs & touch finders and I worry that is playing into Irelands hands.

Morgan has always had fitness issues prior to signing for scarlets he wa up around 24 stone. But he has been playing behind a thoroughly beaten pack hence I think why Burns hasn't been great also.

But GE do you really believe Morgan has poor skills? I'm afraid I disagree.

I do think the subs policy is a huge issue though.

rodders wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:There were a few posts regarding England pack being large and the Irish having to fight above their weight. Back at the beginning of the previous thread I think. But not much was made of it.

I've said it previously and believe it to be so, although am more confident now Cole is out.

I mean you can read out stats about players weights and whatever but England have a well earned reputation for having a powerful pack based on dominant display up front in recent times.

By contrast Ireland have struggled in recent years - there might have been a noticeable improvement in the last few games but this will be a real acid test for Ireland and Plumtree.

I think we have some pretty good technical forwards, Healy is a beast in the loose and O'Connell has a bit of an aura but wouldn't say we have an imposing or feared pack - especially minus O'Brien and Ferris.

Really? I think the conversation between English supporters in recent years has been on the absolute opposite. When Wales battered us most had said beforehand that the back-row looked unbalanced but also underpowered. When the Boks marmalised our pack the conversation was do we have ANYONE powerful enough to stop Alberts, Etzebeth and Bismark?

In recent years our front row was questioned for being too small (T Youngs) and failing to carry well at int. level (Marler and to a lesser extent Cole.) Our SR was thought too willowy (lawes) or callow (the rest) - lots of people, including myself, questioned where the enforcer/20yr old Simon Shaw was coming from etc etc. Ditto Dowson at 8, Wood and Robshaw lack a flanker as a carrier etc etc.

There was a transition from our generally big pack in recent years to more mobile, but not hugely powerful players, which left us looking a bit light-weight. We seem to be getting a bit more of a balance now with Morgan and BV, but I find it hard to believe you think our pack has had a RECENT reputation as being powerful.

On an aside, such a shame that Ferris hasn't had more game-time. Healy, POC, O'Brien, Ferris...now that is a scary cornerstone of a pack.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

Gatland uses his replacements more sparingly than Lancaster. At Twickenham two years ago, he made two changes, one of them enforced at half-time because Jamie Roberts had suffered a knee injury. In Dublin in the opening round that year, he brought on three replacements and again one of them was because of injury.

Wales won at Twickenham with a try in the final quarter, scored by the player who replaced Roberts, Scott Williams, having triumphed in Dublin with a late penalty. Gatland tends to empty his bench only when victory is assured, as he did in the Lions' final Test against Australia last July, something Wales had done in his absence against England in the final round of the Six Nations when six players were brought on in the final seven minutes.

Gatland leaves his scrum-half on for longer than Lancaster with the change, on average, around the 70-minute mark. While he has not had a strong challenger to Mike Phillips in the position in the last few seasons, he tends to make the switch some 10 minutes from time when Wales play a second-tier nation and Phillips is rested.

Gatland may be disliked by many but I do think he has this right. If  Stu Lancaster takes nothing else from this 6N's I hope he's finally learnt that preplanned 60min wholesale changes just do not work.

This is a key reason we've lost games in the past and can't afford to have it impact us in the future.

In my own meager, humble and fallible opinion I believe (possibly wrongly) that Changes should bring variability, unpredictability and impact. Morgan is all very bulky and a good carrier but he is like vunipola without the ball skills. Id switch them around, start with Morgan to carry early and bring on vunipola at 35 (sorry my own personal belief is that Morgan can't hack more than 30 odd minutes). Just before the break is a good time for impact.

I'd also look at a genuine attacking running threat at 10 as a switch up. Try ford or someone with ten to go, not regressing further with a deep kicking ten - if the game needs to be closed out then leave Farell on, assuming he isn't cramping up.

Id also try (sigh) Nowell as a last 20 guy. I don't think he has the composure for starting yet.

I agree with your point on subs, but it's obviously more than that. Your previous post about us flooding the breakdown and getting knackered then outnumbered wide I think was also correct. The latter suggests a decent number of subs may be a vital part of keeping a high tempo. Perhaps a more judicious approach to the breakdown combined with less subs, and only those that add variability etc. but I think the course Lancaster is steering is unlikely to adapt. Which may be a problem.

Totally disagree with you on Morgan's skills however. You were pretty scathing of BV's skills until the off-load against France showed you he doesn't JUST stick it up the jumper (he mainly does). BV can, sometimes, offload very well. Morgan however, can actually pass, probably better than a number of backs.

Sunny skies forecast for Saturday, suits the Irish!

GloriousEmpire wrote:I genuinely and honestly breathed a sigh of relief with Lancaster emptied the bench against the All Blacks, I got out from behind the hospitality bar and opened a can of beer and confidently asserted NZ would win. The bench is just lightweight and dull (in the most respectful way)

Mullan (inexperienced 4th choice), Goode and perhaps Parling may fit that, but pretty much everyone else on that bench offered some kind of alternative attacking threat to the starters. Youngs, Wilson and Morgan can all carry well, and Youngs and Flood are more natural attacking players than Dickson and Farrell.

It wasn't a world class bench and Youngs elder in particular didn't help the situation when he came on, but I wouldn't call it lightweight and dull.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I genuinely and honestly breathed a sigh of relief with Lancaster emptied the bench against the All Blacks, I got out from behind the hospitality bar and opened a can of beer and confidently asserted NZ would win. The bench is just lightweight and dull (in the most respectful way)

Lightweight and dull yes, but it did add variability...in throwing accuracy.

thomh wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I genuinely and honestly breathed a sigh of relief with Lancaster emptied the bench against the All Blacks, I got out from behind the hospitality bar and opened a can of beer and confidently asserted NZ would win. The bench is just lightweight and dull (in the most respectful way)

Mullan (inexperienced 4th choice), Goode and perhaps Parling may fit that, but pretty much everyone else on that bench offered some kind of alternative attacking threat to the starters. Youngs, Wilson and Morgan can all carry well, and Youngs and Flood are more natural attacking players than Dickson and Farrell.

It wasn't a world class bench and Youngs elder in particular didn't help the situation when he came on, but I wouldn't call it lightweight and dull.

Thomh who cares if Flood is supposedly a more naturally attacking fly half when he's been ineffectual in that role in recent months. Like Burns, he's a fly half short on confidence.

Farrell's attacking game is still a work in progress but with two line breaks and 4 offloads in his last two matches he's moving in the right direction.

Youngs might be more naturally attacking than Dickson but if he's short on confidence to make his runs then he becomes ineffectual.

So - given that Youngs is out for the moment and we dont have confidence in Dickson, who is next in line?

Wigglesworth is next in line I suppose but I don't have too much faith in him at the moment. Even less faith in Simpson who is probably behind him in the pecking order.

Perhaps Robson deserves a look at. I thought he was good vs Leicester on the weekend.

beshocked wrote:Wigglesworth is next in line I suppose but I don't have too much faith in him at the moment. Even less faith in Simpson who is probably behind him in the pecking order.

Perhaps Robson deserves a look at. I thought he was good vs Leicester on the weekend.

Yep, Robson is the coming force at SH. Finally keeping Jimmy Cowan out and being a former FH his kicking and game awareness are excellent.

Robson is the future England 9 without doubt, has a bit of everything.

Simpson is barely AP class imo, his basics are dreadful

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Robson is the future England 9 without doubt, has a bit of everything.

Simpson is barely AP class imo, his basics are dreadful

Agree Simpson has never had the full pack.

He's bloody fast though

Sgt_Pooly wrote:He's bloody fast though

Reminded me of a Whippet.

A whippet probably has a better pass

Sgt_Pooly wrote:A whippet probably has a better pass

Would he 'whippet' out from the ruck quickly...   

Dont forget wigglesworth.

whocares wrote:Small (props) is beautiful   

Not sure which seeming contradiction I find funnier:

Small Props is beautiful - small props?
Small Props is beautiful - beautiful props?

doctor_grey wrote:

whocares wrote:Small (props) is beautiful   

Not sure which seeming contradiction I find funnier:

Small Props is beautiful - small props?
Small Props is beautiful - beautiful props?

Kylie Minogue - small and beautiful but not sure about her propping.

gregortree wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

whocares wrote:Small (props) is beautiful   

Not sure which seeming contradiction I find funnier:

Small Props is beautiful - small props?
Small Props is beautiful - beautiful props?

Kylie Minogue - small and beautiful but not sure about her propping.

She's an Aussie too which will count against her propping.

Cyril wrote:

gregortree wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

whocares wrote:Small (props) is beautiful   

Not sure which seeming contradiction I find funnier:

Small Props is beautiful - small props?
Small Props is beautiful - beautiful props?

Kylie Minogue - small and beautiful but not sure about her propping.

She's an Aussie too which will count against her propping.

  Might be no worse than the incumbents then.