Englands Locks - The dilema

There are a few areas in the team that we are struggling with...but one position we have ridiculous strength in depth is Second Row...and after Attwoods fine AI's, Kruis's introduction and good performances the competition for the starting spots is really on. Even further down the line we have players like Stooke and Barrow who are cracking young prospects.

Simple question - Who is your first choice combo and why?

Lawes
Launchbury
Attwood
Parling
Slater
Kitchener
Stooke
Barrow
Anyone else?

Parling is in the mix too.

Added

Launchbury/Lawes without question, they have a bit of everything.

Attwood had a decen AI and proved he can step in when required but he's not in the same class as the other two.

Smith - he'll fix your Locks.

I think Launchbury and Lawes with Attwood pushing them close, but having to be on the bench for now. If injuries occur it depends to whom in order to select the next lock. If it is Lawes (i.e. athletic lock) then happy for Parling to come in. If Attwood (enforcer) then I would prefer Slater or another big lump. Launchbury is between enforcer and athletic lock so picking his replacement is more difficult.....then you just need to go with who the opposition would least like to see coming off the bench.

Its interesting on another forum, they are pushing the idea of

4 Attwood
5 Lawes
6 Launchbury

Is that another disastrous idea?

To be honest I like the idea of;

4. Launchbury
5. Attwood

19. Lawes

But I suppose that should only reflect on how the rest of the pack is balanced

Im caught in two minds between the three main contenders at the moment.

Launchbury is probably the best alrounder.
Attwood did very well this season in the physical stuff like the mauls etc and the scrums.
Lawes did excellent in the lineout and his cover tackling against the Aussies was just out of this world.

The only thing I feel though is that the other two can cover what lawes does.
Ie Attwood has looked impressive in the lineout aswell, and launchbury is brilliant at making those covering tackles.

But those two offer more individual around the pitch than Lawes.

Id probably be going:
4 Attwood
5 Launchbury

This for me is an area of the team where it's not necessarily about individuals, but more how they work as a pair. To that end it's a no brainer in my view, Launchbury and Lawes. they have shown that they work as a unit, and are both fine players in their own right. Behind them I would have Attwood, with Kitchener as the 4th lock in the World Cup squad.

L and L. Attwood has shown he is good enough and we dont loose much with him coming in. It would have been great to see what Slater and Kitchener have to offer but unless we hit a big injury crisis that isnt going to happen pre WC and its only likely that another injury crisis or loss of form will make that happen post WC.

Launchbury and Lawes for me, Attwood on the bench.

I really like the workrate from Launchbury and he assists the back row hugely around the breakdown. Lawes is the lineout man with the massive tackling capability, and both he and Launchbury have good athleticism and handling skills.

Attwood is a good man off the bench, to bring some bulk and tough stuff.

This is a real position of strength for England, and a far cry from the days of Borthwick and Deacon.

So pretty much unanimous people think it should be
Lawes and Launchbury

Interesting. Will that combo ever get over powered?

I do think the A'sI showed Kruis isn't quite ready to step up to this level yet, he needs to add a bit of physicality to his game as he was thrown around way too easily.

GeordieFalcon wrote:So pretty much unanimous people think it should be
Lawes and Launchbury

Interesting. Will that combo ever get over powered?

I wouldn't get too hung up on power. "Weight" does not always equate to power. Jim Hamilton is a unit and a very "powerful" lock, but isn't fit to stoop and clean Joe Launchbury's boots.

That's why I said will they get overpowered not are they too lightweight

I must be missing something because I really didn't see the 'tough stuff' that Attwood brought. He was 'ok' and that was about it IMO. He didn't tackle hard, I don't remember him carrying much (in tight), I don't remember him clearing out rucks particularly well. We mauled well, but we mauled well before anyway. We scrummed well but we scrummed well before anyway. He didn't seem to add any physicality to what we had with Lawes and Launchbury who are considered underpowered (and offer a hell of lot more). And he was down as having an extra 20lb on Lawes on the Sky info.

So for me he's good enough to maintain the general pack physicallity but you lose elsewhere. Lawes and Launchbury with no question whatsoever. I'd have given Slater a shot over Attwood as he does actually seem to use his bulk (although not tested at international level), but he was injured. I think Kitchener offers a lot as well but no idea if he's up to it. I felt the same about Kruis as I did Attwood. Ok. Can be used as a back up, but not fighting for a starting place.

Hammer...I really don't think that we did maul well before. It has been years since England scored off a rolling maul and in recent years we seemed to have lost this art. But we at least appeared to have rediscovered some of this ability, which is most welcome. Maybe Attwood helped in this regard as the rest of the pack was the same as previous years?

I didn't think Attwood did that much in the AIs, he was OK but not outstanding in any area, he mauled well, but so did the rest of the team. One man cannot run a maul. A lot of credit should go to Youngs for getting the right people in the right place to keep the maul going forward.

Lawes is also very good at disrupting the oppositions maul, he gets those long arms of his around the ball carrier and somehow manages to get his hands around the ball on more occasions than he should be able to.

Add that to his tackling and lineout play and he stands out way above Attwood.

Add in Launchbury with his tackle count and work around the field and I think that you have one of the best combinations in the world, even if as of yet they are not individually that good yet.

what do I know considering I played in the backs? But to me the judgement of a 2nd row requires evaluating all the unseen stuff....how hard he scrums and mauls and what he does on the gain line? Not just the visible flashy covering tackles and big hits (which are most welcome but not the main priority for a lock). I like Lawes and Launchbury, but I do think Attwood deserves to be our no.3.

But does Attwood do any of that more than anyone else?

Actually, just read your last point. Attwood is our number 3, no-one else has stood out yet. Agree with that totally. But in the same way Twelvetrees was our 12 after the 6 nations. Ok, not bad enough to drop, not good enough to nail the shirt. But in this case Attwood didn't do well enough to disrupt L or L.

Edit: and the flashy stuff isn't key (and I wouldn't call covering tackles flashing, I call them vital with our seemingly poor front line defende) but if you have that on top of the other stuff you're better than the guy who is just adequate at the core role.

Another name is Jack Whetton as he is EQ dont know if he will be good enough but got the pedigree

HammerofThunor wrote:We mauled well, but we mauled well before anyway. We scrummed well but we scrummed well before anyway.

I don't know about the rest but this part just isn't true. Up until this AI's our maul has been almost non existant as a force. Our scrum has also been pretty average.

I have no idea if Attwood has helped with this or not but it's def got better

Hammer has made some very good arguments.

Lawes defence against Oz was truly top class as was his lineout.

I do like a bit more bulk in that th lock spot but as mentioned the scrum wasn't bad before and maybe contrary to what I said above L & L do work better in the team as Lancaster wants.

I just think it's difficult to really judge what an individual can bring with regards to that extra bit strength etc.

Wholeheartedly agree with the comments about Attwood. He is good in the set piece but goes missing in the loose. Parling is way out the best No3 lock behind Lawes and Lauchbury at this time assuming all are fit. Attwood needs to do a lot more before being considered above others for the23 man squad.

yappysnap wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:We mauled well, but we mauled well before anyway. We scrummed well but we scrummed well before anyway.

I don't know about the rest but this part just isn't true. Up until this AI's our maul has been almost non existant as a force. Our scrum has also been pretty average.

I have no idea if Attwood has helped with this or not but it's def got better

Totally agree with yappysnap.......England have not had a decent maul for years, but it appeared to return against Australia. I also have no idea why and if Attwood was a factor here? If he was a factor then he is our no.3 lock until someone else makes a compelling case. Parling is too lightweight and ineffective against the top sides. Parling is superb in making covering tackles, but I would much rather have someone able to maul and scrum well.

whiule I feel that Parling's time with England should now be up, the England management do like him. Should he prove his fitness this month I fully expect him to return to the England squad - and quite possibly pinch the bench spot from Attwood.

L&L will be the starting locks, and I have no problems with that. Personally I rate Kitch higher than Kruis - but I see him play more often.

hugehandoff wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:We mauled well, but we mauled well before anyway. We scrummed well but we scrummed well before anyway.

I don't know about the rest but this part just isn't true. Up until this AI's our maul has been almost non existant as a force. Our scrum has also been pretty average.

I have no idea if Attwood has helped with this or not but it's def got better

Totally agree with yappysnap.......England have not had a decent maul for years, but it appeared to return against Australia. I also have no idea why and if Attwood was a factor here? If he was a factor then he is our no.3 lock until someone else makes a compelling case. Parling is too lightweight and ineffective against the top sides. Parling is superb in making covering tackles, but I would much rather have someone able to maul and scrum well.

It was very good against NZ (we won a fair few penalties from it in the first half IIRC) and our first two tries vs SA came from it too, so harsh to say it only returned against Aus

Having said that, I agree that in general England's maul hasn't been great prior to this autumn, where it seemed much better. Ditto the scrum. Is Attwood a part of that? Possibly. How much? These things are very hard to judge for outsiders.

Having said that, England in general missed Launchbury's workrate this autumn, particularly at the breakdown (except maybe vs Aus where Robshaw put in a bigger shift there), so it's not an easy call.

I'd be tempted to stick with the tried and tested LL, with Attwood on the bench.

Well judging by the news from Wasps, Joe Launchburys injury may well keep him out of the 6 nations.

Lawes/Attwood it is then

That's a real blow especially with Wales first up. gives Attwood and Kruis a big chance to impress though.

It does...not sure I was massively convinced by Kruis in his few brief cameos but he's only young.

Id rather Slater or Kitchener. But Kruis tends to follow the template...mobility, athletic guy who can play 6 and lock.

I'd have liked to have seen Slater. Not been massively impressed by Kitchener to be honest, but I know a lot like the look of him. Kruis had one big mistake vs NZ (was it?) but looked good around that. had a good game at the weekend. Think Launchbury is younger than him as well although still young for a lock.

How did Parling go on Saturday? I didn't see much of their game.

Lancaster is a big fan of his.

Lawes & Attwood starting with Parling next in line...or do you think Kruis has overtaken him now?

Launchbury was looking pretty knackered. He's had a fair few caps now and I can't see the systems changing that much by the World Cup. I think it'll stay as Lawes and Attwood with Kruis on the bench. With Kitchener/Slater in the squad? Or Parling brought back as a 'temporary' replacement until Launchbury comes back?

Good news is that controversial card aside, Matthews at Quins finally seems to be getting near his potential

I think Lawes and Launchbury is the best pairing. Lawes is the best lineout operator. Is a terrific defender, a decent runner, and has an endless motor. Launchbury is very good at the breakdown, a good defender, and a good straight ahead runner. Also good in the lineout. Needs to be in shape, however, so we might not really see him until the pre-RWC matches. I wonder how Parling is getting on? I always thought he was under-rated. But probably Attwood is the backup to L&L.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Good news is that controversial card aside, Matthews at Quins finally seems to be getting near his potential

Is that potential enough to force his way into the selectors thoughts?

doctor_grey wrote:I think Lawes and Launchbury is the best pairing.  Lawes is the best lineout operator.  Is a terrific defender, a decent runner, and has an endless motor.  Launchbury is very good at the breakdown, a good defender, and a good straight ahead runner.  Also good in the lineout.  Needs to be in shape, however, so we might not really see him until the pre-RWC matches.  I wonder how Parling is getting on?  I always thought he was under-rated.  But probably Attwood is the backup to L&L.  

But if Launchbury isn't available which is looking increasingly likely....then its most likely going to be Lawes and Attwood.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I think Lawes and Launchbury is the best pairing.  Lawes is the best lineout operator.  Is a terrific defender, a decent runner, and has an endless motor.  Launchbury is very good at the breakdown, a good defender, and a good straight ahead runner.  Also good in the lineout.  Needs to be in shape, however, so we might not really see him until the pre-RWC matches.  I wonder how Parling is getting on?  I always thought he was under-rated.  But probably Attwood is the backup to L&L.  

But if Launchbury isn't available which is looking increasingly likely....then its most likely going to be Lawes and Attwood.

Agree.  
So who do we feel are the next two locks on the list? Injury is always a possibility, so if either Lawes or Attwood get hurt, who starts with Lawes/Attwood and who is the third lock on the bench?  Kruis?  Parling?

Lawes/Launchbury/Attwood/Kruis

Any of them, with those that are match fit (3-4 club games) given priority.

Well it would seem Kruis is Lancasters type. And its not like hes at a bad club either. He will improve all the time.

Id like to have seen Slater have a good run out aswell though. HE has a lot to offer.

Where would see Dom Barrow?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well it would seem Kruis is Lancasters type. And its not like hes at a bad club either. He will improve all the time.

Id like to have seen Slater have a good run out aswell though. HE has a lot to offer.

Mind you, Lancaster had Slater ahead of Kruis when he was fit.

Yes that's true...I would have Slater ahead of Kruis and if he'd been fit we may well have seen him come off the bench instead. Slater gives you that power and carrying many of us are looking for ....but without losing that work rate that Lancaster desires.

Between now and the RWC the selection is only going to come out of the usual suspects (L+L, Attwood, Parling, Kruis, Slater and possibly Kitchener). Actual selections will be injury dependent, and at this stage Kitchener will only get in if there are a lot of injuries.

Post RWC things may change, but the new guys are going to find it tough to break the L+L combo.

The only other time in my memory we have had comparable competition in the 2nd row was when some guy called Johnson was keeping Shaw out of the team. We have had some good 2nd rows in the last few years, and those two were exceptional by any standards, but I dont think we have ever had as much depth as now.

LIW

I have no problems with our usual suspects in the second rows. We are lucky to have a depth of real quality.

When you have cracking young monsters like Matthews, Barrow, Stooke etc not even getting close its safe to say we're in good shape in the lock department.

I worry that Barrow won't get a look in, unless he moves to a more fashionable club. I am biased I know but I'd rate him as the best lock in that young inexperienced pack that seems to be developing (Elliott Stooke, Charlie Matthews, Will Spencer etc) I would even suggest he is on par with George Kruis. He has a great mix of power and athleticism and can call the lineouts.

Cumbrian

Im biased too and would agree....he also has a lot of aggression and really puts himself about on the pitch.
But you may be right...he may need to move to get further recognition.

But as mentioned above...none of those young lads will get a look in until after the WC.

I agree, they probably won't get a look in until after the World Cup. Mind you, I would have said the same thing about Kruis this time last year... so you never know!

Is Slater out of the question for the world cup with his injury? Looks unlikely that he will have enough games to get up to speed with the type of injury it is