Future English Backrow?

First topic message reminder :

No rugby at the moment but worth speculating about the future England backrow which is under transition and which has several promising young players.  This comes after years when it seem rather moribund.

Under Jones there seems more flexibility in where players can play, so more a question of picking any three that balance.

Open-sides seem rather like London buses at the moment - wait a long time and then several come together.

At present: - Curry(s), Underhill, Earl, and Ludlam all seen to have a chance though Jones may not see all of these as open-sides. In my view Curry (Tom) seems our best open-side for years and should play there.


On the Blind-side Hill and Willis show promise and Jones has made use of converted locks - Lawes having recently covered this position.  Isiekwe has being doing something similar for Saracens. Jones has also played Ewels there from time to time.


At number 8, a fit Vunipola would be a tremendous asset.  In his absence, Dombrandt has shown glimses and Zach Mercer promise.  Hughes is a good player if in certain style.  Simmonds perhaps has missed his chance.  Wilson whether at 6 or 8 may have run out of time, certainly for the next world cup but rarely plays badly.


Most of the above could do a good job, and I am sure there are names missed out.

No-one can second guess Jones but choosing a future back row. I have been impressed by Hill, so my future backrow would include Curry and Hill but harder to choose the third.  For power Dombrandt or Vunipola at 8, but Underhill is difficult to leave out.

A backrow of Curry, Underhill and Hill(8) would be all action.  A backrow of Curry, Hill and Dombrandt would have more power, but do either of these combinations need more line-out capability?

Please discuss?

CB

GeordieFalcon wrote:Le_Chat

Ill not respond to all that...but i think your wrong about Simmonds. To say that hes too lightweight but then mention if he carried like Hamish Watson?? You lost me there.

Pretty simple. Hamish Watson is a freak of nature and an anomaly. I can't think of anyone in the last 20 years who carries as effectively as him when giving up the sort of size differences he does to his opponents. He's surely the best 'pound for pound' ball carrier in to contact in the NH at least.

What I'm saying is Simmonds who have to be a similar sort of anomaly. He's not. Thus, he - like everyone else apart from Watson - suffers due to his lack of size and strength for an 8.

lostinwales wrote:

le_chat wrote:What do you mean 'balance'? Is a backrow like baking bread, all about getting the right quantities of 'ingredients'? You show your misunderstanding of rugby with that comment. Why have 1 or 2 strong ball carriers when you can demand to have 3 in each position? If Simmonds is carrying from the base of the scrum, it doesn't matter if one of his flankers is also a good carrier when he fails to get over the gainline. You should take note of Eddie Jones's coaching.

Which Willis? Tom Willis of Wasps?

p.s. it's good form to differentiate between people with the same surname, particularly when one of those mentioned is being discussed. Just a tip for the future. Definitely not something to use as a stick to beat people with. Poor written form from you.

Baking bread isn't at all about the right quantities of ingredients. Its all about understanding the ingredients, about time and temperature and most of all about biology,  managing the short life of that most valuable of servants, yeast.

True. But test match rugby isn't all about mucking around trying to make your first sourdough loaf during a global lockdown, ending up with Jonny May on the flank as a last resort. You need results, time after time, with reliability and quality. Something like Co-Op's finest would do the job well. Expensive, yes, but sturdy, reliable, no nonsense - the South African back row of breads.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Bubble and squeak, with a healthy content of Lea and Perrins, LOVELY!

Going simple ourselves, home made Beef and Pork burger with plenty of onion and a touch of garlic with a Mediterranean salad.

I made Welsh Rarebit a few days ago from Fergus Henderson's Nose to Tail cookbook. A classic recipe and a brilliant use of Worcestershire sauce. Such a fantastic condiment.

Sounds fantastic WPI!

What kind of bread did you use?

Have to agree on Simmonds, hasn't quite got that bit of quality (in whatever aspect) for international level and can't see him ever having it tbh. He's one of those players that looks good against the lesser nation, but makes little to no impact against the better sides.

Big fan of Hamish Watson though, he just doesn't look like he should be able to carry like he does, he's like a pinball.

You have always liked your big lumps as forwards sarge.

https://www.ruck.co.uk/revealed-stuart-lancaster-tells-all-about-sam-burgess-selection/

Talking about back rows; the one who got away. Never watched him that closely in league and was a bit non plussed until bath switched him to 6. What a player he could have been in union. Just not at centre.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You have always liked your big lumps as forwards sarge.

I like at least 3 big carriers in the pack to give some go forward at least. Simmonds doesn't really offer this for me and his main asset (his speed) isn't utilised or is ineffective against the better opposition. I've seen enough to want to look elsewhere and we have bags of young lads coming through that may make the grade. I don't see the point wasting time on Simmonds, who clearly doesn't.

Hes a very effective carrier. Clearly not in the mold of vunipola but theres perhaps a handful in world rugby who are.

Simmonds was good when he got the chance, but it was always going to be tough filling the huge boots of Vunipola when there was less in the way of heavy duty carriers. He has a ferocious work rate too. I don't know enough to be able to say if he's a better or worse player than, say, Earls or Ludlam.

Im not sure how people can judge him badly..when he plays 8 for one of the top two teams in England, got 6 mins in his debut v Argentina and scored 2 tries in his following game v Italy in the 6n, topped the tackles with 23 and made the most metres on the pitch.

He's a very similar player to Earl who i rate very highly also.

If he hadnt have suffered the ACL i think he would have had a bigger involvment in the squad. But with so many options now...you get an injury and you miss out.

Earl is another I miss off the earlier list as a potential 8 tbf. Saracens go to to cover vunipola a lot of the time.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Earl is another I miss off the earlier list as a potential 8 tbf. Saracens go to to cover vunipola a lot of the time.

Splitting hairs but Earl has moved onto being Sarries first choice 7 with Burger retiring. Jackson Wray is usually covering Billy in his standard impression of a man who never gets injured, never makes a mistake, yet never really seems to be playing.

Earl can cover 8 though and has good control at the base. Which realistically is the only specialist skill there these days as long as you have balance across the forwards. Defences are so good now that carrying from the base seems to have become less of a weapon unless you're on top in a 5m scrum. Particularly with the offside line being pushed back to make scrums better attacking platforms for the backs.

I'm of the opinion that core skills and fitness levels have improved so much in forwards that the back row positions are becoming more interchangeable. Gone at the top level are the days when blindside concentrates on tackling, openside on rucks and number 8 on carrying. All back rows now are expected to be excellent in defence and at the breakdown as a prerequisite.

Dan Lydiate (effectively a professional tackler rather than rugby player) sliding out of Wales contention in favour of more rounded flanks is a good example of that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hes a very effective carrier. Clearly not in the mold of vunipola but theres perhaps a handful in world rugby who are.

I don't think he is, not in heavy traffic/limited space kind of way that we use our no8 for at Int level. At Exeter he has big lumps throughout the pack that do this work (Ewers, Armand, Dennis etc).

I just see Simmonds as more of a luxury type player that we can't afford at the top level. Earl is pretty much Simmonds but with the extra physicality and that bit more required to make an impact at Int level imo.

I know rugby heights/weights are usually quite off, but Simmonds look rather exaggerated. He's listed at 6ft and 16st (roughly).

I remember seeing him up at Falcons and he was a fair bit shorter than I am (at 182cm) and recall thinking to myself how is this guy an 8. Earl on the otherhand looked considerably bigger (height and weight), not that automatically makes him more physical I know.

With the exception of BV all our back row options seem to be in the 1.85m - 105-106kg mark, Ludlam, Curry, Underhill, all come into that category, Mark Wilson is a bit bigger. Funnily enough, the one that looks the heavier and more powerful is the smallest Ben Earl at 102kg. Are we seeing the dawn of EJs complete and multi tasking hybrid player. They all have good core skills, are all quick can keep going all game and also mostly smart.

Most centres are about the same weight these days 16.5 stone (in UK terminology) or there abouts.

I dont think Simmonds is a carrier like Billy. He's a different type. He's fast, but still very powerful.

Just to contradict everything ive said mind...ive always said i wish Simmonds had been a 12. Imagine his impact in that position.

Haha...I think he'd much better at centre GF!

GeordieFalcon wrote:I dont think Simmonds is a carrier like Billy. He's a different type. He's fast, but still very powerful.

Just to contradict everything ive said mind...ive always said i wish Simmonds had been a 12. Imagine his impact in that position.

Yes - looks like he'd make a great centre.

There are a few players who seem to have ended up in the wrong position. Eastmond could have eventually made an interesting scrum half. Alex Goode might have made a better fly half at international level than full back.

He is excelling in the best team in england though to be fair!

In all honesty...when every one is fit and firing does anyone see massive changes from a back row of:

6 Lawes
7 Underhill
8 Curry

or

6 Curry
7 Underhill
8 Billy

Horses for courses...

I dont.

Depends on what jones and Proudfoot have asked for. Personally I still see the best option having 2 debutants there. I'd rather never see lawes itoje or isiekwe for that matter at blindside again.

GeordieFalcon wrote:In all honesty...when every one is fit and firing does anyone see massive changes from a back row of:

6 Lawes
7 Underhill
8 Curry

or

6 Curry
7 Underhill
8 Billy

Horses for courses...

I dont.

And Wilson GF!

I think we may see one new boy come into the set-up over the next season, possibly Willis.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:In all honesty...when every one is fit and firing does anyone see massive changes from a back row of:

6 Lawes
7 Underhill
8 Curry

or

6 Curry
7 Underhill
8 Billy

Horses for courses...

I dont.

And Wilson GF!

I think we may see one new boy come into the set-up over the next season, possibly Willis.

Without the option of Kruis, I can see Lawes sticking to the second row. I know a few on here prefer Launchbury, but Lawes has, under every England coach been preferred to him, so I don't see that changing. Unless of course one of the younger guys makes an impression, Kpoku maybe.

That would leave a hole for one of the bigger newbies to come in a 6 if EJ wants to play a game that way, or Wilson of course, everyone's forgotten man. I don't understand why because he is stand out for me.

lostinwales wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I dont think Simmonds is a carrier like Billy. He's a different type. He's fast, but still very powerful.

Just to contradict everything ive said mind...ive always said i wish Simmonds had been a 12. Imagine his impact in that position.

Yes - looks like he'd make a great centre.

There are a few players who seem to have ended up in the wrong position. Eastmond could have eventually made an interesting scrum half.  Alex Goode might have made a better fly half at international level than full back.

His first season in the Sarries team was only ever at FB to allow game time and learn. The following year they moved him to 10, but he struggled and half way through the season they reverted to Glenn Jackson (and iirc Derick Hougaard). the following seasonthen saw the advent of Faz Jr.

I think I agree about Simmonds being too small. Given the fact that England were comprehensively overpowered in the World Cup final by South Africa and then by France for 40 minutes in Paris, I just can't see Eddie picking smaller players. I know Ben Earl is in his plans, and various sites say their stats are roughly similar, but Earl just seems to have a bigger frame.

Interestingly, the Premiership rugby profiles have Earl as nearly two stone heavier, which seems likelier to me (even given how notoriously dodgy rugby stats are).

Simmonds:
https://www.premiershiprugby.com/player/?PlayGuid=SS343221&TeamId=48

Earl:
https://www.premiershiprugby.com/player/?PlayGuid=BE558129&TeamId=11

It is also worth noting that Earl has only just turned 22 and will probably put on a bit more bulk and power, whilst at 25/26 Simmonds is probably as big as he is going to get.

You have to think that the result in Japan and the manner of the defeat looms large in Jones’ psyche, and I have been trying to convince myself that it is the reason that we saw Charlie Ewels in the back-row at one point during the Six Nations.

Can we reject lawes on that basis then? Noticable difference when he left the field to our scrum

No 7&1/2 wrote:Can we reject lawes on that basis then? Noticable difference when he left the field to our scrum

To be fair, Lawes has played superbly for England in 80 caps and performs a different sort of role, I think the comparison with Simmonds trying to come in to play 8 for England doesn't really scan.

Saying that though, I do think Lawes and Itoje together was too lightweight as a boiler room against the power of the Boks.

Do people realise that Lawes is about 4 kg heavier than Itoje, although 2" taller and a couple of kg heavier than Kruis according to the match stats for the RWC final.

It is not just the power of the lock that effects the scrum, it is how good the prop is at scrummaging, the position the prop gets into to allow the force to be transmitted forwards, the amount of shove coming from the flankers and the No. 8. Also SA changed their locks which could have reflected in the change in how the pack performs

Neither does curry playing 8 if comparing to the vunipola role. Goes back to the balance of the pack overall and of course the style of play wanted. Given the switch to a forward focused bench which seem s a want from Proudfoot I am surprised that Dombrandt and hill havent had more focus.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Can we reject lawes on that basis then? Noticable difference when he left the field to our scrum

Kruis is a better scrummager than Lawes but safe to say the bigger change was Marler for Mako. The later looked short of full fitness in the knockouts and scrummaging is his weakest facet anyway.

Losing our starting tighthead in the first 2 minutes against a side with two world class looseheads is a tough break as well.

I rate Lawes extremely highly. His lineout work, defence and carrying are all top international class these days. Carrying in particular has improved out of sight under Jones.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Neither does curry playing 8 if comparing to the vunipola role. Goes back to the balance of the pack overall and of course the style of play wanted. Given the switch to a forward focused bench which seem s a want from Proudfoot I am surprised that Dombrandt and hill havent had more focus.

I agree and I find it a slightly puzzling anomaly. I suppose it is about degrees of difference, Curry obviously isn't as powerful in the tight as Vunipola, but I don't think he as far off as Simmonds is. I agree about the balance though, and against some teams Simmonds might look a better player than Vunipola (e.g. Italy and Argentina where there are more open gaps/ and there are gaps for him to exploit rather than create). However, for whatever reason (and it may be for other than the ones I believe) Jones doesn't seem to want what Simmonds offers. I

Putting players against shirt numbers or positions (not that EJ thinks like this), and looking to the future.

Open-sides: Curry and Underhill
Blind-sides: Hill and Willis
No 8's: Vunipola and Dombrandt

But no use of locks in the backrow (can the above provide enough lineout capability?).

Also Earl (like many) can play in several positions.

At a pinch could probably field four goodish backrows.

Most sides have three class line out operators these days, some 4, I am not sure that anyone apart from maybe Curry would give us three, never mind 4. Are Hill or Willis specialist line out operators?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Do people realise that Lawes is about 4 kg heavier than Itoje, although 2" taller and a couple of kg heavier than Kruis according to the match stats for the RWC final.

It is not just the power of the lock that effects the scrum, it is how good the prop is at scrummaging, the position the prop gets into to allow the force to be transmitted forwards, the amount of shove coming from the flankers and the No. 8. Also SA changed their locks which could have reflected in the change in how the pack performs

Itoje is a freak though. When Itoje was at 6 with Lawes at lock they were switching over in the scrums because by Lawes' own admission Itoje was a lot stronger there. That may be down to Lawes' various injuries though.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Do people realise that Lawes is about 4 kg heavier than Itoje, although 2" taller and a couple of kg heavier than Kruis according to the match stats for the RWC final.

It is not just the power of the lock that effects the scrum, it is how good the prop is at scrummaging, the position the prop gets into to allow the force to be transmitted forwards, the amount of shove coming from the flankers and the No. 8. Also SA changed their locks which could have reflected in the change in how the pack performs

A lot is made of the impact Kruis made on the scrum but Marler is a hugely superior scrummager to Mako both in terms of raw power and technique. He has a level of stability on his feet built upon a strong core, I rarely see him end up on his stomach something that happens reasonably regularly to Mako. I can't remember the exact details but there was instance in the 6 nations when the opposition tight head tried pulling him down but he stayed upright and drove through instead.

Kruis is undoubtedly a better option than Lawes come scrum time though.

Lawes is the weakest scrummager. And I'm including ewels. I dont think that's controversial.

The point on Mako is a given. He was the point of difference and one of if not the best open games props in the world for years. Hes never been a strong international scrummager but given how we started the world cup and the emergence of sinckler and Genge vunipolas pluses are being negated for me.

7.5, your letting your bias show. I would say it is highly controversial; anyone that weak in the scrummaging department should not be playing lock at international level, yet successive England coaches plus Gatland have picked him on a regular basis, you don't get 80 England caps by being that weak a scrummager.

It's not bias as such but from watching. Lawes has his good points but out of our (semi) regular locks scrummaging isnt one of them in comparison.
But fair enough I now know that vunipola isnt a weak international scrummager.

Ps I would have him on the bench covering lock and no where near the 6 shirt.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lawes is the weakest scrummager.

Where is your proof that he is weak in the scrum?

Think it's fair to say that Lawes isn't a weak scrummager but is the weakest of the 4 when compared to Kruis, Itoje and Launchbury.

I'd start him anyway against most sides, it's only really South Africa who have dominated us there and that was more to do with losing Sinckler

BamBam wrote:Think it's fair to say that Lawes isn't a weak scrummager but is the weakest of the 4 when compared to Kruis, Itoje and Launchbury.

I'd start him anyway against most sides, it's only really South Africa who have dominated us there and that was more to do with losing Sinckler

I'd say that Kruis seems to be the lock that makes the most impact to our scrum. Launchbury it's hard to tell, when I remember him being a regular starter we had Corbisiero and Cole in their peak so we generally went well at scrum time. Given the state of the Wasps scrum I wouldn't have thought it was a particular strength, he is by far the weakest lineout option. Lawes and Itoje have always seemed solid but unless someone like Cole does and interview passes his verdict we are only going on performances where there's been variables.

If Kruis does head towards Japan once Covid calms down instead of signing for another AP team it's going to be a significant blow for England. Our best set piece lock gone and the next one possibly ready to go Kpoku down in the Championship for a season.

Lawes work as a player around the park is excellent though...which is why so many coaches pick him.

And surely we have a better lock than Ewells coming through. Is Kpoku not ready to take his spot.

Hills size and physicality is the one that will really come through in the back row i think. As will Jack Willis

The back row options for England for me are

Underhill
Curry
Billy
Earls
Willis
Hill, i really see him as the 8 of the future


Wilson likely to be let loose for the kids now
The other curry is class so may may come though

No others will be in the equation. Including Dombrandt and Mercer.

Next years pack v Italy in the 6n

1 Genge
2 George
3 Sinkler
4 Lawes (Kpoku off the bench)
5 Itoje
6 Curry
7 Underhill
8 Hill

Earl or Willis the back row sub

Has Hill ever played 8? He was a lock in the age grades and I've only ever seen him at 6. Would appear to have the skillset but the back of the scrum control is massive!

I think also that another reason our scrum took a battering in the RWC final was the SA locks. They had 4 outstanding players, 2 utter beasts starting in De Jager and Etzebeth who are both 6ft 8, 120+kg and super-strong scrummagers and the ridiculously over-sized Snyman plus Mostert who isn't exactly a lightweight. Add to that probably the 2 best LHPs in the world at the time as well as Malherbe and you're looking at an engine room to rival anyone. Given that Mako's scrummaging shortcomings are well known and Cole was not used to being much more than a support role on the TH side by then, it was hardly a surprise that the SA scrum took us to the cleaners. They had gelled well and were at their peak.

I don't think that I am the only one who thinks that Billy V is a bit of a one-trick pony. I've always seen him as a powerhouse who is fairly limited. He's not the quickest, and whilst he's extremely strong, he no longer seems to have the ability to swat opponents aside on a run as he used to. Players are getting far more physical, and when Billy was stopped dead in his tracks by the Tongan flanker I started thinking to myself "who have we got who can do a better job?". I am a big fan of Dombrandt, but Eddie clearly thinks there's other players who can "fit in there", as shown by his constant selection of Curry at 8. I am not entirely convinced by his "back row is one position regardless of where you pack down" - each position of course does have its little differences. Maybe it's the traditionalist in me, but I prefer the idea of 2 fast flankers, one a tackling machine, one a ruck menace, with a big brute at 8 (always loved watching Ben Morgan on a rampage). I just think that Billy has peaked, and with now his 4th broken arm injury, I am worried that his continued selection and being asked to play the way he's always done could result in him being forced to retire. At least this time round he'll be getting enough time to let it heal properly I suppose.

There are some pretty decent 8s around, and whilst Morgan is as likely now to get a cap as I am, Mercer and Dombrandt are probably the front runners from our point of view. However, this is Eddie, and anything goes with him. So expect to see a Back Row of Cowan-Dickie at 6, George Ford at 7 and the recalled Danny Care at 8...

We have already got two flankers we know EJ thinks highly of, May and Nowell, just need an 8, Manu possibly or maybe big Joe.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:We have already got two flankers we know EJ thinks highly of, May and Nowell, just need an 8, Manu possibly or maybe big Joe.

Dallaglio switched from flanker to 8 when he lost his pace (post knee injury). Maybe this is just future planning for when May slows down to 'very rapid' and may need to change position.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:We have already got two flankers we know EJ thinks highly of, May and Nowell, just need an 8, Manu possibly or maybe big Joe.

Well, Big Joe has packed down at 8 in an attacking scrum before. Can't remember the game but I think it was a decoy anyway as we didn't gain anything from it. Daly packed down in the back row in a defensive scrum towards the end of the last game of the final Australia test back in 2016. I am guessing that he knew a bit more about his binding than May did