England 2023 - Post 6N and beyond

First topic message reminder :

Continued......

Poorfour wrote:Of course, it’s also very unusual for an international player of that longevity to find their playing career coincides exactly with the player who becomes the record cap holder in their position. It’s not as if Care was perennially the backup to a string of other players; he was perennially the backup to England’s all time most capped male player.  (Oddly enough, a similar thing happened to Kyran Bracken because he happened to play at the same time as Matt Dawson. They were England’s most capped scrum halves before Youngs and Care).

As it happens, given we have a player of Youngs’ reliability, I think Care was in many ways better used as a finisher. His value to England was (and may still be) in being able to come on late in a game and change the story. He saved Englands bacon that way a fair few times.

And Care wasn’t dropped for loss of form or because there was a much better player available. He was part of a winning side and both creating and scoring tries - but he wasn’t playing the Eddie game plan. You only have to consider that his replacement was Willi Heinz - picked for his efficiency and ability to execute rather than any flair of his own.

You might have answered your own question there. Care wasn't trusted to come on and play the system, to see games out. If you needed an injection of attacking intent then great but playing territory and staying in the system not so much. That unpredictability might do for him again this summer. Having said that he's never really changed and Eddie still called him up last summer despite Care proving a liability (sin binned four games on the bounce on the way to breaking the Prem record for yellow cards in a season). Mind you he generally stunk up the place last summer.

I think Mitchell will take on the mantel of scrum half impact player.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Of course, it’s also very unusual for an international player of that longevity to find their playing career coincides exactly with the player who becomes the record cap holder in their position. It’s not as if Care was perennially the backup to a string of other players; he was perennially the backup to England’s all time most capped male player.  (Oddly enough, a similar thing happened to Kyran Bracken because he happened to play at the same time as Matt Dawson. They were England’s most capped scrum halves before Youngs and Care).

As it happens, given we have a player of Youngs’ reliability, I think Care was in many ways better used as a finisher. His value to England was (and may still be) in being able to come on late in a game and change the story. He saved Englands bacon that way a fair few times.

And Care wasn’t dropped for loss of form or because there was a much better player available. He was part of a winning side and both creating and scoring tries - but he wasn’t playing the Eddie game plan. You only have to consider that his replacement was Willi Heinz - picked for his efficiency and ability to execute rather than any flair of his own.

You might have answered your own question there. Care wasn't trusted to come on and play the system, to see games out. If you needed an injection of attacking intent then great but playing territory and staying in the system not so much. That unpredictability might do for him again this summer. Having said that he's never really changed and Eddie still called him up last summer despite Care proving a liability (sin binned four games on the bounce on the way to breaking the Prem record for yellow cards in a season). Mind you he generally stunk up the place last summer.

I think Mitchell will take on the mantel of scrum half impact player.

I mean really? How many games did it take Jones to decide that Care didn't produce what he wanted? Quite a few but it just happened to coincide the exact moment that Care spoke up.

I think it was Care speaking up that kept him out of Eng team for years. We may never know truth until Jones confirms of course.

However, given latest revelations about Eng under Jones - not training scrums, not practising moves once in 22 etc - those things affect most of if not all team so I'd be surprised if senior players, capt etc didn't query it.
Strength in numbers so even if they were concerned about upsetting him if a senior group got together they would be able to address it. Unless team was happy to go along with it of course, can't rule that out.

All this of course guesswork, until actual facts emerge who knows.

mountain man wrote:I think it was Care speaking up that kept him out of Eng team for years. We may never know truth until Jones confirms of course.

However, given latest revelations about Eng under Jones - not training scrums, not practising moves once in 22 etc - those things affect most of if not all team so I'd be surprised if senior players, capt etc didn't query it.
Strength in numbers so even if they were concerned about upsetting him if a senior group got together they would be able to address it. Unless team was happy to go along with it of course, can't rule that out.

All this of course guesswork, until actual facts emerge who knows.

To me whenever we actually type what you just did, it just seems too weird to be right.  Yet, no one from the England squad seems to actually challenge it.

15-10 to Ireland at half time, it has been a good game. Ireland had a strong wind behind them in the first half and may rue their three missed conversions. On the other hand, Theobald-Thomas has thrown three of four squint lineouts (usually in the opposition 22, and England have contrived to mess a couple more. Can't win games with only a quarter of your lineouts, they can't work anything off it because it is really scrappy, even when it is completed.

It is kind of frustrating because England have looked pretty good, they just seem to contrive to mess it up at clutch moments. England's try was a thing of beauty though (one for the front-row union).

What halfwit called the crash play off that last scrum. You're a man up in the backs ffs.

A game that seesawed back and forth. Quite entertaining.

For the points Ireland left on the pitch, I still think England can feel frustrated only to have a draw.  Some of the decision making was really off, it put them under a lot of unnecessary pressure.  

I think the difference between the two team is that Ireland were a lot more clinical,  England let too many chances go begging through inaccuracy or rash decisions.  Ireland looked really cohesive too.  I guess it helps if you have ten of your players playing for the same club team, in that respect.

I reckon if they'd have had as much accuracy at lineout in the first as they did in the second, they would have won.

Saw the result  which suggests it was a pretty decent match. Saw the crusaders win again. 7 times in a row is pretty impressive but like other have said its easier to keep teams winning...

No 7&1/2 wrote:Saw the result  which suggests it was a pretty decent match. Saw the crusaders win again. 7 times in a row is pretty impressive but like other have said its easier to keep teams winning...

Is it? You have a target on your back and as Robertson has found, those players that don't get All Blacks recognition are quickly poached by French and Japanese teams.

doctor_grey wrote:To me whenever we actually type what you just did, it just seems too weird to be right.  Yet, no one from the England squad seems to actually challenge it.

Jones was heavily influenced - maybe even slightly traumatized - by the 2019 World Cup loss. Having unfinished business is the main reason he signed a new England contract to take him to the next tournament. In particular, he noted how Erasmus had fashioned a champion side, in a very short space of time, out of a team in disarray, which is something his mate Michael Cheika nearly did in 2015. He also saw how teams with long-established game plans like NZ, Ireland and Australia came undone against opposition with the preparation time to counter them.

In short, Jones decided right from the off, the best way to win a World Cup is not to show your hand too early, and rely on the pre-tournament training camps to hone key skills and patterns. He used the time in the training camp to great effect with Japan in 2015, and England definitely played more consistent rugby over the 2019 World Cup matches than they had in that year's Six Nations. The Curry-Underhill combination was a very late find, only coming together for the first time in one of the World Cup warm-up games.

Personally, I hate the idea of a strategy which might win a World Cup but places little priority on performance and trophies over the rest of the four year cycle. I don't think the RFU realized, when re-appointing Jones, that he would go about the task that way. Which is just another in a long list of blunders by the RFU. Jones has always been clear about what he wanted to achieve, so it ws hardly a secret.

Everything we've heard since Jones was sacked has confirmed the basic outline of his World Cup strategy. The intriguing question, posed by many above, is why the players were also content to go along with it, as the underachievement, and public dissatisfaction, started to build.

There were probably two main reasons. The first is simple self-preservation. It seemed a safe bet that Jones was going to see out his contract, so few would have wanted to risk getting on his wrong-side. He showed a willingness to drop the Saracens contingent, and stalwarts like Ford, so it would have taken a brave man to put his head above the parapet.

Still, there are some strong characters in the England set-up, particularly Farrell, Lawes and Genge. Lawes had a few injuries, so missed some time with England but Genge was around a lot. If he thought the scrum was under-coached then he doesn't seem like the kind of man to let that pass. Similarly, Farrell is often described as an on-field coach. If he had an issue with the lack of focus on red zone finishing, then he surely would have spoken up.

The only conclusion, then, is that they bought into what Jones was doing, and trusted him. Also, while Owen Farrell might last as long as Sexton, and make another World Cup, this may well be his last chance. It certainly is for Lawes, and that probably played a role too. None of them actively wanted to throw away a chance at a Six Nations but they had as much an eye on the big prize as Jones himself.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Saw the result  which suggests it was a pretty decent match. Saw the crusaders win again. 7 times in a row is pretty impressive but like other have said its easier to keep teams winning...

Is it? You have a target on your back and as Robertson has found, those players that don't get All Blacks recognition are quickly poached by French and Japanese teams.

I think 7 titles in a row is impressive. And no I don't think it's easy keeping that level of success. I always think David Moyes on that note.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Saw the result  which suggests it was a pretty decent match. Saw the crusaders win again. 7 times in a row is pretty impressive but like other have said its easier to keep teams winning...

Is it? You have a target on your back and as Robertson has found, those players that don't get All Blacks recognition are quickly poached by French and Japanese teams.

I think 7 titles in a row is impressive. And no I don't think it's easy keeping that level of success. I always think David Moyes on that note.

When an institution loses one key management figure it's bad enough but to lose both in the same summer is a body blow. Man Utd were simply not equipped to lose Gill and Fergie at the same time. I don't know what the Crusaders have planned but they've got plenty of time to put things in place.

This week's squad:

Forwards
Jamie Blamire (Newcastle Falcons), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Alex Dombrandt (Harlequins), Tom Dunn (Bath Rugby), Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby), Ellis Genge (Bristol Bears), Joe Heyes (Leicester Tigers), Ted Hill (Bath Rugby), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Lewis Ludlam (Northampton Saints), Joe Marler (Harlequins), George Martin (Leicester Tigers), Zach Mercer (Montpellier Hérault Rugby),
Tom Pearson (London Irish), Val Rapava-Ruskin (Gloucester Rugby), David Ribbans (Northampton Saints), Kyle Sinckler (Bristol Bears),
Will Stuart (Bath Rugby), Sam Underhill (Bath Rugby)

Dropping out from last week: Beno Obano
Added from last week: Tom Dunn

Backs
Henry Arundell (London Irish), Danny Care (Harlequins), Joe Cokanasiga (Bath Rugby), Fraser Dingwall (Northampton Saints),
Tommy Freeman (Northampton Saints), Joe Marchant (Harlequins), Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby), Alex Mitchell (Northampton Saints),
Cadan Murley (Harlequins), Guy Porter (Leicester Tigers), Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs), Fin Smith (Northampton Saints), Marcus Smith (Harlequins), Freddie Steward (Leicester Tigers), Jack van Poortvliet (Leicester Tigers), Anthony Watson (Leicester Tigers), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Dropping out from last week: Will Joseph

Ollie Chessum, Luke Cowan-Dickie, Ollie Lawrence and Jack Walker are still rehabilitating. Billy Vunipola underwent a minor surgical procedure on his injured knee on Friday but is aiming to be fit by August.

So, two relatively fringe players drop out, and I initially thought that Tom Dunn had joined the squad but I think he might just have recovered from injury. The big changes will likely be next week - but I'd expect him to initially expand the squad by 8-10 players based on what other teams have done.

Don't mind those changes. Joseph was always likely to drop out, particularly with Dingwall being in there. Really like that Blamire has leapfrogged Dunn and I'm a big Obano fan so hopefully he gets a little look in.

Didn't realise that Vunipola had surgery last week. He's never normally been a guy who arrives back from injury in tip top match condition.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't mind those changes. Joseph was always likely to drop out, particularly with Dingwall being in there. Really like that Blamire has leapfrogged Dunn and I'm a big Obano fan so hopefully he gets a little look in.

Sorry - my bad: I originally had Obano coming in and Dunn dropping out, but it's the other way round. Dunn is still there.

Billy V hopes to be in contention. If he gets properly fit then see how he goes in wider squad. His carrying has been missed.
I've always been a big Dombrandt fan but along with pretty much rest of team he could totally blown away by France.

Shame for Obano, prefer him to Mako who is odds on for the end of the week.

Joseph is probably off to do preseason with QUins...

So, putting it into a squad format that's easier to read:

1.Genge, Marler, VRR
2.Blamire, Dunn
3.Sinckler, Stuart, Cole, Heyes
4.Martin
5.Ribbans, Ewels
6.Lawes, Ludlam, Hill
7.Underhill, Pearson
8.Mercer, Dombrandt

9.JvP, Mitchell, Youngs, Care
10.M Smith, F Smith

11.Murley, May, Cokanasiga
12.Porter, Dingwall
13.Slade, Marchant
14.Watson, Freeman
15.Steward, Arundell

Rehabbing in camp: LCD, Walker, Chessum, Lawrence

Billy and Launchbury have both been mentioned as players injured but in the selection frame. Launchbury still not in the rehabbing in camp group though.

Sarries and Sale players still to be added. I largely like how that squad is looking.

Being light at hooker and lock presumably means plenty of Sarries and Sale players incoming there. Itoje and Isiekwe I'd presume at lock with Hill and Tizard differing levels of outside shots. George will definitely come in but the lack of hookers makes me suspect Theo Dan might be looked at.

Turry, Ford, Farrell, Manu, Daly, Malins

Those are the other additions I'm fairly certain we'll see.

Which leaves the debateable ones:

LH - Mako and Rodd still to come. I doubt 5 LHs will be in even a massive squad so presumably one of those two and the 3 in the current squad will miss out. I really like Rodd but on the one side he was on the bench for the big games at Sale, but then he had a big impact from the bench playing most the second half!

Back row - Already 7 bodies there with Turry certain to be added and Earl about to be available. Then Jillis and Tillis have been playing in the Top 14 until recently. I rate Earl but if it's a case of Earl or Pearson I'd take the new Saints man. Many might replace Ludlam to get Jack Willis in but for me it'd probably be Hill missing out before Ludlam. Keeping Hill in camp but losing a number 8 is an option I'd consider though. Then again I'd replace Dombrandt with Tom Willis, Hill/Ludlam/Turry, Billy when fit, or a balloon with a smiley face drawn on it in Sharpie.

SH - Quirke and Warr will be available next week. Again I doubt they'd have 5 SHs so if one gets the nod, then someone above will be cut. I'd call Quirke up as I think he's got a really high ceiling despite lower form after injury.

The others I really like the look of would be Joe Carpenter and Sam James. I'd consider Schonert as well.

king_carlos wrote:So, putting it into a squad format that's easier to read:

1.Genge, Marler, VRR
2.Blamire, Dunn
3.Sinckler, Stuart, Cole, Heyes
4.Martin
5.Ribbans, Ewels
6.Lawes, Ludlam, Hill
7.Underhill, Pearson
8.Mercer, Dombrandt

9.JvP, Mitchell, Youngs, Care
10.M Smith, F Smith

11.Murley, May, Cokanasiga
12.Porter, Dingwall
13.Slade, Marchant
14.Watson, Freeman
15.Steward, Arundell

Rehabbing in camp: LCD, Walker, Chessum, Lawrence

Billy and Launchbury have both been mentioned as players injured but in the selection frame. Launchbury still not in the rehabbing in camp group though.

Sarries and Sale players still to be added. I largely like how that squad is looking.

Being light at hooker and lock presumably means plenty of Sarries and Sale players incoming there. Itoje and Isiekwe I'd presume at lock with Hill and Tizard differing levels of outside shots. George will definitely come in but the lack of hookers makes me suspect Theo Dan might be looked at.

Turry, Ford, Farrell, Manu, Daly, Malins

Those are the other additions I'm fairly certain we'll see.

Which leaves the debateable ones:

LH - Mako and Rodd still to come. I doubt 5 LHs will be in even a massive squad so presumably one of those two and the 3 in the current squad will miss out. I really like Rodd but on the one side he was on the bench for the big games at Sale, but then he had a big impact from the bench playing most the second half!

Back row - Already 7 bodies there with Turry certain to be added and Earl about to be available. Then Jillis and Tillis have been playing in the Top 14 until recently. I rate Earl but if it's a case of Earl or Pearson I'd take the new Saints man. Many might replace Ludlam to get Jack Willis in but for me it'd probably be Hill missing out before Ludlam. Keeping Hill in camp but losing a number 8 is an option I'd consider though. Then again I'd replace Dombrandt with Tom Willis, Hill/Ludlam/Turry, Billy when fit, or a balloon with a smiley face drawn on it in Sharpie.

SH - Quirke and Warr will be available next week. Again I doubt they'd have 5 SHs so if one gets the nod, then someone above will be cut. I'd call Quirke up as I think he's got a really high ceiling despite lower form after injury.

The others I really like the look of would be Joe Carpenter and Sam James. I'd consider Schonert as well.

dont hold back KC....

PS...I think Joe Carpenter is looking a different style competition now for Steward so may be in the squad. That could be a battle down the years...

In fact Steward, Carpenter, Arundel could be quite the battle...if they push each other on to improve.

The implication being that he'd take the smiley face balloon over an unfit Billy, too...

I can't see Borthwick dropping Ludlam, who's been the most consistent all round flanker in the squad this season (and it would be harsh for him to miss out). And I think given the shape the squad is taking that there won't be much room for bolters and debutants.

Poorfour wrote:The implication being that he'd take the smiley face balloon over an unfit Billy, too...

I can't see Borthwick dropping Ludlam, who's been the most consistent all round flanker in the squad this season (and it would be harsh for him to miss out). And I think given the shape the squad is taking that there won't be much room for bolters and debutants.

I would take the smiley face balloon over an unfit Billy mind..

I agree Ludlum will be in the squad. As you say hes the most rounded back rower...covers everything well. And at 6'3 and around 17.5 stone hes a big unit aswell. And a leader.

Geordie wrote:

Poorfour wrote:The implication being that he'd take the smiley face balloon over an unfit Billy, too...

I can't see Borthwick dropping Ludlam, who's been the most consistent all round flanker in the squad this season (and it would be harsh for him to miss out). And I think given the shape the squad is taking that there won't be much room for bolters and debutants.

I would take the smiley face balloon over an unfit Billy mind..

I agree Ludlum will be in the squad. As you say hes the most rounded back rower...covers everything well. And at 6'3 and around 17.5 stone hes a big unit aswell. And a leader.

Ludlum will be in the squad. He plays at a high level across the back row, is quite good in the lineout, and is a leader. More importantly, he looks like a proper back row: hair kind of wild, jersey just not fitting quite right, always a bruise or maybe a little claret, runs with arms and legs going wild. Hits like a freakin' lorry heading down the M1 at midnight (I heard a rumour one is less likely to get caught in tailbacks at that time - probably not right).

Then Ludlum ruins the image when he starts to talk. He is incisive, well-spoken, and respectful. No wonder Rugby is falling apart.....

Agreed. Ludlam is perfect tourney fodder

England Rugby YouTube channel has its first 2023 World Cup training camp video.

Billy V has undergone minor knee surgery....surely that rules him out now...

Geordie wrote:Billy V has undergone minor knee surgery....surely that rules him out now...

Thing is, no matter what we think, the coaches obviously see something that we don't and deem it worth keeping him around the squad on the off chance he will be fit.

I am not Billy's biggest fan, but if a big battering ram of an 8 is what is needed for a specific game plan, then he's pretty useful. I am just not sure that it's worth spending so much time on him for an off-chance.

I would prefer to see Dombrandt and Mercer push each other into being better instead. We all know what Billy can do, and he's not been effective at International level for some time now. Fit and firing and on form Billy is fantastic. I just think that's a thing of the past.

i wouldnt mind if the big battering ram was still doing that...but hes not even achieving that.

If you need a player to do that...just give Ted HIll or George Martin one instrcution...jjst carry and carry.

Sounds like Vunipola will be given some key tests to pass in the next 2 weeks. He will not play before the squad is picked.

Geordie wrote:i wouldnt mind if the big battering ram was still doing that...but hes not even achieving that.

If you need a player to do that...just give Ted HIll or George Martin one instrcution...jjst carry and carry.

George Martin is still working on his carrying. I've no doubt he'll carry often and hard but not sure we'll see anything close to a prime Billy impact. He's certainly improving but the big ball carrying rampages are still rare at Prem level. He'll certainly add work rate and carry hard enough to inch us forward.

Martin's big up side is that he's a mobile 19 stone lock/blindside that hits like a train in defence. His work rate will certainly help this England pack as well.

If you do select Martin...do you then need a Lawes or such at 6? To esure a strong lineout? Or do you go with 3 from Pearson / Curry / J. Willis / Ludlum Dombrandt / Mercer?

Lawes became a necessity at 6 when you had Billy or Sam Simmonds at 8 and Tom Curry at 7.  Curry is a functional lineout jumper at best and not in the O'Mahony league.  Whilst Dombrandt is no mug at the lineout - he played second row for Wales u20 - because of his bulk he is a better front of the lineout jumper than back of the lineout.  If there is a change at 8 to Mercer who has become a decent lineout option since going to Montpellier, then I think the need to play Lawes at 6 is no longer there.  With question marks over Chessum's participation in the world cup off the back of his injury, a Lawes and Itoje second row looks like the best option.

A lineout of Itoje, Lawes, Mercer and one of Ludlum/Pearson/Willis/George seems to offer plenty of options.

nlpnlp wrote:Lawes became a necessity at 6 when you had Billy or Sam Simmonds at 8 and Tom Curry at 7.  Curry is a functional lineout jumper at best and not in the O'Mahony league.  Whilst Dombrandt is no mug at the lineout - he played second row for Wales u20 - because of his bulk he is a better front of the lineout jumper than back of the lineout.  If there is a change at 8 to Mercer who has become a decent lineout option since going to Montpellier, then I think the need to play Lawes at 6 is no longer there.  With question marks over Chessum's participation in the world cup off the back of his injury, a Lawes and Itoje second row looks like the best option.

A lineout of Itoje, Lawes, Mercer and one of Ludlum/Pearson/Willis/George seems to offer plenty of options.

Not sure Lawes is a necessity at 6 at all. Even from a pure lineout perspective with the players you mentioned. Always though the world cup back row worked pretty well from a set piece pov.

Geordie wrote:
If you do select Martin...do you then need a Lawes or such at 6? To esure a strong lineout? Or do you go with 3 from Pearson / Curry / J. Willis / Ludlum  Dombrandt / Mercer?

Martin is a good lineout jumper. He's very athletic for his size, it's not like we are talking Launchbury can only jump at the front type of lock.

Lawes or a Lawes style 6 is more if we want the additional physicality and the option for three good lineout jumpers. If we are going for a physical pack that dominates at the set piece then that could be the go to at 6. I'm not sure the balance of Lawes and Dombrant in the same backrow would work though, seems to lack a bit of mobility on the kick chase which we know will be part of the tactics.

Im think something like:

4 Martin (or Chessum if he was fit)
5 Itoje
6 Pearson
7 Curry
8 Mercer

Geordie wrote:Im think something like:

4 Martin (or Chessum if he was fit)  
5 Itoje
6 Pearson
7 Curry
8 Mercer

That looks decent. Earl on bench to cover.

Willis in the equation aswell...

Geordie wrote:Im think something like:

4 Martin (or Chessum if he was fit)  
5 Itoje
6 Pearson
7 Curry
8 Mercer

I do like that selection.

4 Ribbans
5 Itoje
6 Lawes
7. Curry
8 Mercer

19 Martin
20 Pearson

Would be a very physical option with bench impact as well.

Openside is going to be very competitive with Curry, Pearson, Underhill, Earl, Willis and Ludlam all fighting for a spot.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Geordie wrote:Im think something like:

4 Martin (or Chessum if he was fit)  
5 Itoje
6 Pearson
7 Curry
8 Mercer

I do like that selection.

4 Ribbans
5 Itoje
6 Lawes
7. Curry
8 Mercer

19 Martin
20 Pearson

Would be a very physical option with bench impact as well.

Openside is going to be very competitive with Curry, Pearson, Underhill, Earl, Willis and Ludlam all fighting for a spot.

Openside will Sam, but many of those could equally play blindside. Im not sure you really lose a huge amount of power having Curry or Pearson or Willis in place of say Lawes. Might be different if he had earmarked George Martin for 6 of course...

Lawes is more powerful than most of the opensides, he might lose a bit in terms of mobility but his tackle technique has always meant he really makes himself known. It will depend on how we are likely to play though.

Where does Lawes show this power? He's a good tackler but wouldn't say that he's particularly driving people back more than any of the guys above. His carrying is decent but I rarely see him really producing what his size suggests he could.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Lawes is more powerful than most of the opensides, he might lose a bit in terms of mobility but his tackle technique has always meant he really makes himself known. It will depend on how we are likely to play though.

Is he more powerful than Curry, Underhill or Willis? I know he gets his tackling right...but much of that is technique. When it comes to actual power i dont see Lawes as real strong guy. Hes the basketball athlete at 6.

Lawes makes his hits, as we know.  Weak, rather mild hits like... these:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou0hjuq01sU

Now that he is older and wiser he is a bit more judicious about making his hits.  But he is also quite good at getting to the breakdown and neutralising whatever evil intents the opposition has in mnd.   This is one of the reasons Gatland rushed him back right before the last Lions tour.  He is a powerful person in a thin wispy (seemingly 9 foot tall) body.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Lawes is more powerful than most of the opensides, he might lose a bit in terms of mobility but his tackle technique has always meant he really makes himself known. It will depend on how we are likely to play though.

His mobility? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZyZegwjO7s

Lawes has always struck me as a player who packs a lot of power in a relatively slender frame. He is one of the few players who really impressed me the first time I saw him live - he had a huge impact in every contact.

F=ma - Lawes doesn't have Billy's mass, but his acceleration into contact offsets= that.

These days I think he has lost a bit of that, or is perhaps picking his moments more to protect his body, but I can't remember him being part of a secind row that felt underpowered and he's probably the only English lock/6 hybrid who's been genuinely competitive at 6 internationally.

doctor_grey wrote:Lawes makes his hits, as we know.  Weak, rather mild hits like... these:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou0hjuq01sU

Now that he is older and wiser he is a bit more judicious about making his hits.  But he is also quite good at getting to the breakdown and neutralising whatever evil intents the opposition has in mnd.   This is one of the reasons Gatland rushed him back right before the last Lions tour.  He is a powerful person in a thin wispy (seemingly 9 foot tall) body.

Was wondering when we'd get the tackles on a series of scrum half's!

doctor_grey wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Lawes is more powerful than most of the opensides, he might lose a bit in terms of mobility but his tackle technique has always meant he really makes himself known. It will depend on how we are likely to play though.

His mobility?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZyZegwjO7s

A) I said a bit not that he's immobile
B) the tackle technique there is what saves the try, textbook low tackle with a big paw coming up to dislodge the ball

He's a leader on the pitch as well which you can never have enough of at world cups.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Lawes makes his hits, as we know.  Weak, rather mild hits like... these:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou0hjuq01sU

Now that he is older and wiser he is a bit more judicious about making his hits.  But he is also quite good at getting to the breakdown and neutralising whatever evil intents the opposition has in mnd.   This is one of the reasons Gatland rushed him back right before the last Lions tour.  He is a powerful person in a thin wispy (seemingly 9 foot tall) body.

Was wondering when we'd get the tackles on a series of scrum half's!

Nowt wrong with putting the fear into the happy buggers.

Oh indeed. It's good to get to the play makers and he should be alluded for that. Don't think it means he's demonstrating a great power game though.

What quickly became apparent to Gleeson was that England’s players were operating without a set attacking structure. This was less of an issue when Saracens dominated the England team. Yet once Jones broke up that hegemony, there was no collective understanding to fall back on.

“The thing with England is that they never had any kind of system or set-up,” Gleeson said. “The team was basically majority Saracens so we could keep going the Sarries way. When it came to open play where a lot of teams play a 1-3-3-1, there was never anything of that sort with England. It was just ‘play rugby’. What struck me through the [2021] autumn and the [2022] Six Nations was that we needed some kind of system for people to know where to be and what to do.

I know people like to criticize Marcus Smith. But reading this and the rest of that interview. It's insane he was parachuted into this team with no experience, and pretty impressive he did as well as he did at times!