The England Pack

So England's pack were dominant away to Wales yesterday. But what's more impressive is the strength in depth. Here's another pack that I think would also have dominated.

Corbisero---Webber---Wilson
------Lawes----Launchbury
----Wood----Morgan----Kvesic

And there are enough other players to probably form at least one other pack that would stand up well at international level:

Waller
LCD
Thomas
Kitchener
Slater
Parling
Ewers
Clark
Garvey

And some others who may well play for England in 2016:

Sinckler
Auterac
Itoje
Clifford
Mark Wilson.

II know England are renowned for having strong packs, but surely there's never been this type of depth before?

And thats why I never bought into this weakened English rubbish before the game

We do have 2 good packs, not sure of Kvesic though, he's totally unproven, that engine room is much better than the one we put out last night.

LCD is nowhere near Int rugby, his darts are not good enough.

I think Kvesic has been excellent this season. I'd be happy for him to start for the senior side.

LCD's throwing isn't good enough yet, but that should change, and his game in the loose is sensational so I reckon he'll figure post-world cup.

It's a big step up from the AP though, I'd be more comfortable with Clark starting over Kvesic, he's proved he can cut it at HC level.

bedfordwelsh wrote:And thats why I never bought into this weakened English rubbish before the game

The issue isn't the quality of the players. It's the experience and combinations. Even if that England team played every game in the next year they would still have about 75% Caps of the Wales team have now (based on a normal year and some stats on another thread).

One of the things I like is we seemed to out muscle the bigger pack. Quite often in the past we seemed to be a bit bullied, especially at the ruck.

Hammer, the stats on the telly suggested the Welsh pack was only about 6 kilos heavier in total - not really a bigger pack. Attwood and Haskell add quite a lot of bulk.

That aside, it's probably not an exaggeration to say that England could field at least two full packs that would give any side a hard time. What was really encouraging was that, particularly after half time, this pack - probably the most changed one that Lancaster's fielded - really started to gel.

One big question is now one of whether Lancaster should be considering different packs tailored to different opposition. This pack looks like it would go well against Wales, France or SA, but you might want the mobility of Launchbury, Lawes and Wood against the ABs or Australia.

In the longer run, there are even more options that might be in contention by 2019. Clifford has already been mentioned and my money is on him breaking through sooner rather than later. James Chisholm could join him. But the list goes on and on.

I'd be backing Clifford to make it in this year if it wasn't for the World Cup looming, where we'll need all the caps we can get. He can do pretty much everything. Carry, step, offload, tackle, jackal and jump in the lineout. Also has captaincy experience.

Delighted Haskell played well. I know he's a bit brainless sometimes but I think he's far better than Wood as a 6 or 7 in all areas of the game apart from the lineout. I think Corbs and Launchbury or Lawes would have improved that pack, not sure where else, possibly Morgan on his recent form, possibly Wilson but Cole played well. Maybe Webber? Difficult to say, but I really hope Robshaw and Haskell stay as our flankers.

thomh wrote:I'd be backing Clifford to make it in this year if it wasn't for the World Cup looming, where we'll need all the caps we can get. He can do pretty much everything. Carry, step, offload, tackle, jackal and jump in the lineout. Also has captaincy experience.

Been really impressed with him, but do you think he'll be big enough for int.? I could see him as a slightly smaller 7 who's a bit of an all-rounder, but his breakdown work will need to get better.

Hood83 wrote:

thomh wrote:I'd be backing Clifford to make it in this year if it wasn't for the World Cup looming, where we'll need all the caps we can get. He can do pretty much everything. Carry, step, offload, tackle, jackal and jump in the lineout. Also has captaincy experience.

Been really impressed with him, but do you think he'll be big enough for int.? I could see him as a slightly smaller 7 who's a bit of an all-rounder, but his breakdown work will need to get better.

Clifford's 6'3" and is listed as being 100kg - but he was also listed as 100kg 2 years ago as a 21-year-old. My guess is that he'll bulk up to 104-105kg in the next year or two. He just looks small because of how fast he moves. It's hard for a Quins fan to admit, but he reminds me a bit of Dallaglio circa 1997 - before his knee injury, when he was bloody quick and could play across the back row. Clifford's got that sort of feel about him - but is if anything even quicker. I've seen him step and skin backs in 7s before.

Poorfour, bigger is bigger. Just wanted to get it in there before some talked about England's 'monster' pack.

As for Clifford, been very impressed with him but I'd rather he got time with Quins over England for now. No need to rush him in now. Let him develop with Quins.

HammerofThunor wrote:Poorfour, bigger is bigger. Just wanted to get it in there before some talked about England's 'monster' pack.

As for Clifford, been very impressed with him but I'd rather he got time with Quins over England for now. No need to rush him in now. Let him develop with Quins.

This year, yes. Next year - let's see how he's playing in January 2016. If he's seen as a candidate for 2019 (and I think he should be) then England should be looking to see if he can make the step up and start gaining experience next year.

I think we could have 3 stars in Auterac, Itoje & Clifford.

p.s. 6 kilos across a whole pack is not "bigger". You'd get that difference if one pack took a leak before being weighed and the other didn't. Or if Billy Vunipola forgot to have breakfast.

Which said, accusations of a monster pack are definitely misplaced.

Dominant in some ways yes - but one area they struggled was getting players to the breakdown. Too many times England forwards wer isolated with the support arriving late.

England's pack was impressive at set phases, however their ball carriers weren't and neither their breakdowns.

The recievers were predictable, they easily got isolated and the support play before the contact area and especially securing the ball at the breakdown was poor.

england got turned over 14 times. wales 11 times.

but i think that's for 2 reasons. first england really dont want to concede kickable penalties so they would rather concede possession than points. secondly, england beat 21 defenders gaining 350 metres vs wales beating 14 defenders only and gaining 224 metres. this means that the ball carrier is more likely to be a bit isolated if he makes more metres and beats more defenders than welsh ball carriers hardly making any forward momentum by comparison.

i would rather we turn the ball over occasionally when we are driving forward as it means we are running at gaps and creating spaces, and occasionally players get isolated. at least it means our pack and backs are equally credible threats.

TJ wrote:Dominant in some ways yes - but one area they struggled was getting players to the breakdown.  Too many times England forwards wer isolated with the support arriving late.

In fairness Hartley making two ill advised darts makes it look worse than it actually was.

this means that the ball carrier is more likely to be a bit isolated if he makes more metres and beats more defenders than welsh ball carriers hardly making any forward momentum by comparison.

Dylan Hartley's breakway a case in point. Most likely outcome was penalty against, but there was a small chance of creating a try.

tbh i never understand why a player holds on when he is isolated in attack. let them turn you over, your 14 team mates are behind you and ready to defend, and better that than giving away 3 points or conceding a lineout 30m further upfield.

quinsforever wrote:tbh i never understand why a player holds on when he is isolated in attack. let them turn you over, your 14 team mates are behind you and ready to defend, and better that than giving away 3 points or conceding a lineout 30m further upfield.

Because a lot of tries are scored from turnover ball when the defences aren't in position. And they have more faith in the defence from set piece than broken play.

HammerofThunor wrote:

quinsforever wrote:tbh i never understand why a player holds on when he is isolated in attack. let them turn you over, your 14 team mates are behind you and ready to defend, and better that than giving away 3 points or conceding a lineout 30m further upfield.

Because a lot of tries are scored from turnover ball when the defences aren't in position. And they have more faith in the defence from set piece than broken play.

if defences arent in position, chances are neither are any potential attackers of the other side. perfect case in point hartley's brainfart dash yesterday.

At least when Hartley (and others I think, can't remember) got isolated it was after they had put their head down and ran at pace. Too often for England our forwards have ambled into contact waiting for support and been driven back in the tackle. The lineout one was a poor decision from Hartley as he should have passed out to the backs (although the welsh defense was steaming up) but the other one I felt his other forwards should have been supporting better.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I think we could have 3 stars in Auterac, Itoje & Clifford.

I agree. It'll be interesting to see which position Clifford settles in.

TJ wrote:Dominant in some ways yes - but one area they struggled was getting players to the breakdown.  Too many times England forwards wer isolated with the support arriving late.

That was because of a couple of individual errors - players running away from the support.

quinsforever wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

quinsforever wrote:tbh i never understand why a player holds on when he is isolated in attack. let them turn you over, your 14 team mates are behind you and ready to defend, and better that than giving away 3 points or conceding a lineout 30m further upfield.

Because a lot of tries are scored from turnover ball when the defences aren't in position. And they have more faith in the defence from set piece than broken play.

if defences arent in position, chances are neither are any potential attackers of the other side. perfect case in point hartley's brainfart dash yesterday.

The attackers don't need to be in position, if anything they thrive on a defence that isn't set so a turnover can lead to more than a possible three points for holding on.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

quinsforever wrote:tbh i never understand why a player holds on when he is isolated in attack. let them turn you over, your 14 team mates are behind you and ready to defend, and better that than giving away 3 points or conceding a lineout 30m further upfield.

Because a lot of tries are scored from turnover ball when the defences aren't in position. And they have more faith in the defence from set piece than broken play.

if defences arent in position, chances are neither are any potential attackers of the other side. perfect case in point hartley's brainfart dash yesterday.

The attackers don't need to be in position, if anything they thrive on a defence that isn't set so a turnover can lead to more than a possible three points for holding on.

not from welsh 10 yard line going backwards. because even the players attempting the turnover are not expecting to actually have to get the ball and do something with it. they usually play and appeal for the penalty. hence why they hold onto the ball carrier as often as trying to allegedly free the ball.

It doesn't matter where it is, turnover ball is the most dangerous to a team, a team is always looking for a turnover, you're suggesting it's a bolt out of the blue.

it is a bolt out of the blue when its in your own half and you have no options to spread the ball.

wales in particular with their awesome 1/2P kicking, aim to win penalties. they dont counterattack. at all.

Australia different story.

but yday, better to concede the turnover every time than concede a penalty.

They do from turnovers. Just not from kicks.

no. they dont. wales turned england over 14 times. show me 1 example of them counterattacking following the turnover? ever actually under gatland. the ball gets passed to kicker who hoists it high infield. that is not counterattacking.

Alex_Germany wrote:

this means that the ball carrier is more likely to be a bit isolated if he makes more metres and beats more defenders than welsh ball carriers hardly making any forward momentum by comparison.

Dylan Hartley's breakway a case in point. Most likely outcome was penalty against, but there was a small chance of creating a try.

Hartley's decision was made to look worse than it was because Kruis runs straight past him five metres to the left. Had he actually supported the man as chancing on a kick through then we could have saved three points.