Italy vs England and 6N permutations

[Timbo]

I think distribution is a part of Eddie’s reasoning for his fb selection, but I also think kicking is a huge factor. Not only does he want a big, accurate boot but also an ability to kick late on the line with either foot. Daly does this really well in particular.

I mentioned on here a couple of weeks ago watching Watson for Bath against Sarries and Exeter on consecutive weekends. He was incredibly sharp and carried a massive threat running the ball back, but both games hinged on Daly and Hogg pinning Bath back in their own half with a series of great kicks in the last 20/30 minutes. Conversely I don’t think Watson kicked once. You’d have to say that Watson was the least effective of the three over the 2 games.

Clearly Daly is an athletic strike runner too, and Malins and Furbank have been at club level. I think Watson is now seen a ‘break glass in case of emergency’ option for Jones at 15.

[Scrumhead]

Bit late to the party today, but overall I’m pretty happy with that team.

As much as I’d like to have seen Lawrence tried at 12, Slade would be a better answer to a long term problem if he can make it work.

I’m amazed Furbank is included and I would have much preferred to see Malins or Watson, but this could be the kind of game for him to shine.

Pleased to see Hill starting and Lawrence and Thorley on the bench. Shame Willis didn’t make it this week, but Earl could be an excellent impact sub, so I’m happy enough.

[Epaminondas Pules]

As I said, needs must sometimes. But I think Barrett is wasted at 15 tbh- that looks like a shoehorn even if he has a lot of previous at 15. My point is that for me a 15 as distributor would almost be last on the list.

Not sure I get your point on Hogg as a playmaker, he’s a strike runner in my book. I may have misunderstood.

As an opposition coach I'd be delighted with him at 15. I get that they want to fit both Mo'unga and him on the pitch, but you want them both at 10.

Absolutely.

Which in turn allows you to play Mackenzie at 15 or Barrett J, though I'd be tempted to see if he could slot into 12 as Goodhue is sub standard (All Black standard). Their midfield just doesn't look right. Though it is good to see Laumape back fit.

They do seem to just be trying to get their best players onto the backfield, but without really getting the balance sorted. They're good enough to get away with it, but also not good enough to not get found out at times.

[Puja]

In what way are Itoje and Launchbury similar? Genuine q. I think they are quite different tbh and complementary- my problem with pairing them would be more to do with then having a less than stellar lineout with our backrow - and that’s because lineout is a weak point relatively for Launch.

They both prefer playing 4 and locking behind the tight-head, they both prefer to front jump, they both prefer to have front pod on restarts and, while lineout is very far from a weakness for Itoje, I'd still want to pair him with a decent jumper at 5, especially with the back row we're fielding.

To my mind, Launchbury is the Itoje backup, not someone who can play alongside him.

Puja

They play utterly differently though- I take your point on what they are asked to do on set plays, but in the loose an excellent and complementary pair. Itoje is certainly better in the lineout and receiving, but Launchbury is terrific in the maul, Itoje on the floor and the tackle.

Launchbury is terrific in the maul, but one of the reasons for that is that it's a speciality of the number 4 and front jumper - the 4 can attack the maul while the 5 tries to defend it. Itoje is terrific in the maul as well - his destruction of the Kiwi maul in the RWC semi was a highlight - and you're getting two players who specialise in the same thing at set piece, which means you're going to have to ask the other one not to do something they're good at.

I agree with you that they would be complementary players in the loose, but the fact is that they play the same position. It's like playing Marchant and Joseph together - both great players, but one of them is going to have to step across to a role that they're not used to and give up the things that they're good at and take on responsibilities that they're not as good at.

May, Thorley and Watson gets me a little moist I must say. Not only does it scream pace and stroking ability

Excellent typo in the context of your moistness.

Puja

[Banquo]

I think distribution is a part of Eddie’s reasoning for his fb selection, but I also think kicking is a huge factor. Not only does he want a big, accurate boot but also an ability to kick late on the line with either foot. Daly does this really well in particular.

I mentioned on here a couple of weeks ago watching Watson for Bath against Sarries and Exeter on consecutive weekends. He was incredibly sharp and carried a massive threat running the ball back, but both games hinged on Daly and Hogg pinning Bath back in their own half with a series of great kicks in the last 20/30 minutes. Conversely I don’t think Watson kicked once. You’d have to say that Watson was the least effective of the three over the 2 games.

Clearly Daly is an athletic strike runner too, and Malins and Furbank have been at club level. I think Watson is now seen a ‘break glass in case of emergency’ option for Jones at 15.

Daly theoretically has the lot, but still his positional play at 15 looks weak; but those skills in a winger are very handy.
Tend to agree re Watsons kicking game, but with Slade in the team you could make it work...doubly so if Daly was playing

[Banquo]

As an opposition coach I'd be delighted with him at 15. I get that they want to fit both Mo'unga and him on the pitch, but you want them both at 10.

Absolutely.

Which in turn allows you to play Mackenzie at 15 or Barrett J, though I'd be tempted to see if he could slot into 12 as Goodhue is sub standard (All Black standard). Their midfield just doesn't look right. Though it is good to see Laumape back fit.

They do seem to just be trying to get their best players onto the backfield, but without really getting the balance sorted. They're good enough to get away with it, but also not good enough to not get found out at times.

Mackenzie is a player who can do both roles too at 15 as a split field option; kiwis also don’t value kicking as much in their centres as this board does

[Banquo]

They both prefer playing 4 and locking behind the tight-head, they both prefer to front jump, they both prefer to have front pod on restarts and, while lineout is very far from a weakness for Itoje, I'd still want to pair him with a decent jumper at 5, especially with the back row we're fielding.

To my mind, Launchbury is the Itoje backup, not someone who can play alongside him.

Puja

They play utterly differently though- I take your point on what they are asked to do on set plays, but in the loose an excellent and complementary pair. Itoje is certainly better in the lineout and receiving, but Launchbury is terrific in the maul, Itoje on the floor and the tackle.

Launchbury is terrific in the maul, but one of the reasons for that is that it's a speciality of the number 4 and front jumper - the 4 can attack the maul while the 5 tries to defend it. Itoje is terrific in the maul as well - his destruction of the Kiwi maul in the RWC semi was a highlight - and you're getting two players who specialise in the same thing at set piece, which means you're going to have to ask the other one not to do something they're good at.

I agree with you that they would be complementary players in the loose, but the fact is that they play the same position. It's like playing Marchant and Joseph together - both great players, but one of them is going to have to step across to a role that they're not used to and give up the things that they're good at and take on responsibilities that they're not as good at.

May, Thorley and Watson gets me a little moist I must say. Not only does it scream pace and stroking ability

Excellent typo in the context of your moistness.

Puja

The analogy with JJ and Marchant is pretty weak tbh. Their skill sets and athletic abilities are similar: Itojes and Launchburys are not imo. I understand the speciality in the set play as I said before, but they are not similar players, which was to your original point.

[Mikey Brown]

They both prefer playing 4 and locking behind the tight-head, they both prefer to front jump, they both prefer to have front pod on restarts and, while lineout is very far from a weakness for Itoje, I'd still want to pair him with a decent jumper at 5, especially with the back row we're fielding.

To my mind, Launchbury is the Itoje backup, not someone who can play alongside him.

Puja

They play utterly differently though- I take your point on what they are asked to do on set plays, but in the loose an excellent and complementary pair. Itoje is certainly better in the lineout and receiving, but Launchbury is terrific in the maul, Itoje on the floor and the tackle.

Launchbury is terrific in the maul, but one of the reasons for that is that it's a speciality of the number 4 and front jumper - the 4 can attack the maul while the 5 tries to defend it. Itoje is terrific in the maul as well - his destruction of the Kiwi maul in the RWC semi was a highlight - and you're getting two players who specialise in the same thing at set piece, which means you're going to have to ask the other one not to do something they're good at.

I agree with you that they would be complementary players in the loose, but the fact is that they play the same position. It's like playing Marchant and Joseph together - both great players, but one of them is going to have to step across to a role that they're not used to and give up the things that they're good at and take on responsibilities that they're not as good at.

Puja

I feel like the 4 and 5 roles have changed a bit in the last few years and Launch is almost of the previous generation where you could have a big lump that hits rucks and mauls and doesn't bother too much with the lineout. Now you have a lot of 5s who do all the tight-head/set-piece work (Kruis, Whitelock, AWJ) and allow the number 4 to play more like a backrow.

I sort of agree it leaves a bit of a hole in lineout expertise where Kruis/Ewels could easily fit, but Itoje is fantastic at basically everything so I'm not too worried. It will be interesting to see who is where in the scrum. I imagine Launch will be filling the tight-head role. Maybe at the restarts just get him to lift someone who can catch as well.

[Banquo]

They play utterly differently though- I take your point on what they are asked to do on set plays, but in the loose an excellent and complementary pair. Itoje is certainly better in the lineout and receiving, but Launchbury is terrific in the maul, Itoje on the floor and the tackle.

Launchbury is terrific in the maul, but one of the reasons for that is that it's a speciality of the number 4 and front jumper - the 4 can attack the maul while the 5 tries to defend it. Itoje is terrific in the maul as well - his destruction of the Kiwi maul in the RWC semi was a highlight - and you're getting two players who specialise in the same thing at set piece, which means you're going to have to ask the other one not to do something they're good at.

I agree with you that they would be complementary players in the loose, but the fact is that they play the same position. It's like playing Marchant and Joseph together - both great players, but one of them is going to have to step across to a role that they're not used to and give up the things that they're good at and take on responsibilities that they're not as good at.

Puja

I feel like the 4 and 5 roles have changed a bit in the last few years and Launch is almost of the previous generation where you could have a big lump that hits rucks and mauls and doesn't bother too much with the lineout. Now you have a lot of 5s who do all the tight-head/set-piece work (Kruis, Whitelock, AWJ) and allow the number 4 to play more like a backrow.

I sort of agree it leaves a bit of a hole in lineout expertise where Kruis/Ewels could easily fit, but Itoje is fantastic at basically everything so I'm not too worried. It will be interesting to see who is where in the scrum. I imagine Launch will be filling the tight-head role. Maybe at the restarts just get him to lift someone who can catch as well.

Itoje has the restarts covered, world class there and at the lineout.

[Timbo]

I genuinely think you could pair Itoje with anyone. He can do everything, so just fill in the gaps depending on who his partner is. Agree with Banquo that without a top class back row jumper you could be undermanned at the lineout pairing him with Launch, but probably not against Italy.

[Puja]

They play utterly differently though- I take your point on what they are asked to do on set plays, but in the loose an excellent and complementary pair. Itoje is certainly better in the lineout and receiving, but Launchbury is terrific in the maul, Itoje on the floor and the tackle.

Launchbury is terrific in the maul, but one of the reasons for that is that it's a speciality of the number 4 and front jumper - the 4 can attack the maul while the 5 tries to defend it. Itoje is terrific in the maul as well - his destruction of the Kiwi maul in the RWC semi was a highlight - and you're getting two players who specialise in the same thing at set piece, which means you're going to have to ask the other one not to do something they're good at.

I agree with you that they would be complementary players in the loose, but the fact is that they play the same position. It's like playing Marchant and Joseph together - both great players, but one of them is going to have to step across to a role that they're not used to and give up the things that they're good at and take on responsibilities that they're not as good at.

May, Thorley and Watson gets me a little moist I must say. Not only does it scream pace and stroking ability

Excellent typo in the context of your moistness.

Puja

The analogy with JJ and Marchant is pretty weak tbh. Their skill sets and athletic abilities are similar: Itojes and Launchburys are not imo. I understand the speciality in the set play as I said before, but they are not similar players, which was to your original point.

They *are* similar players though! You're picking one aspect of play - the loose - while ignoring everything else that a lock does. They do the same job in the scrum, the same job in the lineout (Itoje better), the same job in the maul (Launch slightly better), the same job at kickoffs (Itoje better by a distance), they operate in the same pods in attacking plays. Yes, they have different skillsets and athletic abilities, but they use those to play the same role slightly differently.

I agree that JJ and Marchant analogy is pretty weak, but I couldn't think of a more contrasting pair of outside centres, as a lot of centres can play both sides. It's like playing Charlie Hodgson and Jonny Wilkinson together or like the claims you could have BillyV and Nathan Hughes in the same team.
Are they capable of playing together? Sure! But you will be asking one of them to stop doing a lot of the things that you selected them for.

Puja

[Puja]

Itoje has the restarts covered, world class there and at the lineout.

All we'd have to do is make sure that the opposition always kick to our known strength in Itoje and don't single out the known weakness of Launchbury.

Puja

[Banquo]

I genuinely think you could pair Itoje with anyone. He can do everything, so just fill in the gaps depending on who his partner is. Agree with Banquo that without a top class back row jumper you could be undermanned at the lineout. But probably not against Italy.

Yep, better put than me!

[Banquo]

Itoje has the restarts covered, world class there and at the lineout.

All we'd have to do is make sure that the opposition always kick to our known strength in Itoje and don't single out the known weakness of Launchbury.

Puja

Or do something else. Itoje seems to manage ok as a known strength.

[Banquo]

Launchbury is terrific in the maul, but one of the reasons for that is that it's a speciality of the number 4 and front jumper - the 4 can attack the maul while the 5 tries to defend it. Itoje is terrific in the maul as well - his destruction of the Kiwi maul in the RWC semi was a highlight - and you're getting two players who specialise in the same thing at set piece, which means you're going to have to ask the other one not to do something they're good at.

I agree with you that they would be complementary players in the loose, but the fact is that they play the same position. It's like playing Marchant and Joseph together - both great players, but one of them is going to have to step across to a role that they're not used to and give up the things that they're good at and take on responsibilities that they're not as good at.



Excellent typo in the context of your moistness.

Puja

The analogy with JJ and Marchant is pretty weak tbh. Their skill sets and athletic abilities are similar: Itojes and Launchburys are not imo. I understand the speciality in the set play as I said before, but they are not similar players, which was to your original point.

They *are* similar players though! You're picking one aspect of play - the loose - while ignoring everything else that a lock does. They do the same job in the scrum, the same job in the lineout (Itoje better), the same job in the maul (Launch slightly better), the same job at kickoffs (Itoje better by a distance), they operate in the same pods in attacking plays. Yes, they have different skillsets and athletic abilities, but they use those to play the same role slightly differently.

I agree that JJ and Marchant analogy is pretty weak, but I couldn't think of a more contrasting pair of outside centres, as a lot of centres can play both sides. It's like playing Charlie Hodgson and Jonny Wilkinson together or like the claims you could have BillyV and Nathan Hughes in the same team.
Are they capable of playing together? Sure! But you will be asking one of them to stop doing a lot of the things that you selected them for.

Puja

So they have different skill sets and athletic abilities yet they are similar players, apart from in the loose which is a huge part of the game. They don’t play the same role in the loose slightly differently, there’s a chasm there.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah, I get Puja’s point but frankly if it was that rigid a system you’d only ever be able to replace one specific lock from the bench without everything descending into chaos.

[Puja]

The analogy with JJ and Marchant is pretty weak tbh. Their skill sets and athletic abilities are similar: Itojes and Launchburys are not imo. I understand the speciality in the set play as I said before, but they are not similar players, which was to your original point.

They *are* similar players though! You're picking one aspect of play - the loose - while ignoring everything else that a lock does. They do the same job in the scrum, the same job in the lineout (Itoje better), the same job in the maul (Launch slightly better), the same job at kickoffs (Itoje better by a distance), they operate in the same pods in attacking plays. Yes, they have different skillsets and athletic abilities, but they use those to play the same role slightly differently.

I agree that JJ and Marchant analogy is pretty weak, but I couldn't think of a more contrasting pair of outside centres, as a lot of centres can play both sides. It's like playing Charlie Hodgson and Jonny Wilkinson together or like the claims you could have BillyV and Nathan Hughes in the same team.
Are they capable of playing together? Sure! But you will be asking one of them to stop doing a lot of the things that you selected them for.

Puja

So they have different skill sets and athletic abilities yet they are similar players, apart from in the loose which is a huge part of the game. They don’t play the same role in the loose slightly differently, there’s a chasm there.

The loose is a huge part of the game. It's not bigger than scrums, mauls, lineouts, restarts, and set pod plays together.

Yeah, I get Puja’s point but frankly if it was that rigid a system you’d only ever be able to replace one specific lock from the bench without everything descending into chaos.

It's not rigid and immovable, but if we have a choice it's better to play a 4 and a 5 than it is to have someone who's only ever played 4 and someone who's only ever played 4 and try to get one of them to play 5. Thinking about it, possibly explains why Eddie so rarely puts Launchbury on the bench and why we tend to have a 5 on the bench (or at least someone who plays both sides like Ewels) as Itoje is least likely to be tactically subbed off.

Puja

[Banquo]

They *are* similar players though! You're picking one aspect of play - the loose - while ignoring everything else that a lock does. They do the same job in the scrum, the same job in the lineout (Itoje better), the same job in the maul (Launch slightly better), the same job at kickoffs (Itoje better by a distance), they operate in the same pods in attacking plays. Yes, they have different skillsets and athletic abilities, but they use those to play the same role slightly differently.

I agree that JJ and Marchant analogy is pretty weak, but I couldn't think of a more contrasting pair of outside centres, as a lot of centres can play both sides. It's like playing Charlie Hodgson and Jonny Wilkinson together or like the claims you could have BillyV and Nathan Hughes in the same team.
Are they capable of playing together? Sure! But you will be asking one of them to stop doing a lot of the things that you selected them for.

Puja

So they have different skill sets and athletic abilities yet they are similar players, apart from in the loose which is a huge part of the game. They don’t play the same role in the loose slightly differently, there’s a chasm there.

The loose is a huge part of the game. It's not bigger than scrums, mauls, lineouts, restarts, and set pod plays together.

Yeah, I get Puja’s point but frankly if it was that rigid a system you’d only ever be able to replace one specific lock from the bench without everything descending into chaos.

It's not rigid and immovable, but if we have a choice it's better to play a 4 and a 5 than it is to have someone who's only ever played 4 and someone who's only ever played 4 and try to get one of them to play 5. Thinking about it, possibly explains why Eddie so rarely puts Launchbury on the bench and why we tend to have a 5 on the bench (or at least someone who plays both sides like Ewels) as Itoje is least likely to be tactically subbed off.

Puja

No, but it’s still big and a big part of their dissimilarity as players; we seem to be going round in circles. But to your bench point, surely Itoje (if in some world he wasn’t starting) would be ideal because he has a much broader skill set to Launchbury? Sorry but I just don’t get how they are similar players by dint of being in the same position and having certain core duties; you could extend to Ford/Farrell, Tuilagi/JJ. They execute in very different ways- maybe I’ve steered down a dodgy path by suggesting they are complementary and by inference a good pairing- if they were competing for one spot, there would imo be no choice because Itoje has much more to offer in more areas (no idea about relative scrum abilities). But imo they definitely would be a formidable pairing. Think we need to agree to differ.

[Puja]

So they have different skill sets and athletic abilities yet they are similar players, apart from in the loose which is a huge part of the game. They don’t play the same role in the loose slightly differently, there’s a chasm there.

The loose is a huge part of the game. It's not bigger than scrums, mauls, lineouts, restarts, and set pod plays together.

Yeah, I get Puja’s point but frankly if it was that rigid a system you’d only ever be able to replace one specific lock from the bench without everything descending into chaos.

It's not rigid and immovable, but if we have a choice it's better to play a 4 and a 5 than it is to have someone who's only ever played 4 and someone who's only ever played 4 and try to get one of them to play 5. Thinking about it, possibly explains why Eddie so rarely puts Launchbury on the bench and why we tend to have a 5 on the bench (or at least someone who plays both sides like Ewels) as Itoje is least likely to be tactically subbed off.

Puja

No, but it’s still big and a big part of their dissimilarity as players; we seem to be going round in circles. But to your bench point, surely Itoje (if in some world he wasn’t starting) would be ideal because he has a much broader skill set to Launchbury? Sorry but I just don’t get how they are similar players by dint of being in the same position and having certain core duties; you could extend to Ford/Farrell, Tuilagi/JJ. They execute in very different ways- maybe I’ve steered down a dodgy path by suggesting they are complementary and by inference a good pairing- if they were competing for one spot, there would imo be no choice because Itoje has much more to offer in more areas (no idea about relative scrum abilities). But imo they definitely would be a formidable pairing. Think we need to agree to differ.

Thinking of it, I think my comparison of the short-lived Wilkinson and Hodgson experiment is apt. Wilkinson could play 12 because his skillset was so broad, but it would have been madness to shift him away from his position where he was best in the world, to be merely a good centre. Hodgson was a 10 first and foremost, but an attempt was made to shoehorn him in at 12, because he was such a good 10 and they wanted to have them both on the pitch without losing Wilkinson at 10. They were different players that executed in very different ways, but it didn't make them a formidable pairing. They were both good at being a 10 in different ways - Hodgson just wasn't good at being a 12 and it wasn't worth moving Wilkinson to accomodate him.

Itoje could theoretically play 5. We don't want him to because he's the best 4 on the planet. Launchbury is a pure 4 who we'd be shoe-horning in at 5 - if we had no-one else, then it might be worth looking into and seeing whether he could adapt, but we do have some good 5s so it's a bit of a moot point.

I agree that we've put our relative points about as clearly as we possibly can without convincing the other, so probably best to leave it there!

Puja

[Banquo]

The loose is a huge part of the game. It's not bigger than scrums, mauls, lineouts, restarts, and set pod plays together.



It's not rigid and immovable, but if we have a choice it's better to play a 4 and a 5 than it is to have someone who's only ever played 4 and someone who's only ever played 4 and try to get one of them to play 5. Thinking about it, possibly explains why Eddie so rarely puts Launchbury on the bench and why we tend to have a 5 on the bench (or at least someone who plays both sides like Ewels) as Itoje is least likely to be tactically subbed off.

Puja

No, but it’s still big and a big part of their dissimilarity as players; we seem to be going round in circles. But to your bench point, surely Itoje (if in some world he wasn’t starting) would be ideal because he has a much broader skill set to Launchbury? Sorry but I just don’t get how they are similar players by dint of being in the same position and having certain core duties; you could extend to Ford/Farrell, Tuilagi/JJ. They execute in very different ways- maybe I’ve steered down a dodgy path by suggesting they are complementary and by inference a good pairing- if they were competing for one spot, there would imo be no choice because Itoje has much more to offer in more areas (no idea about relative scrum abilities). But imo they definitely would be a formidable pairing. Think we need to agree to differ.

Thinking of it, I think my comparison of the short-lived Wilkinson and Hodgson experiment is apt. Wilkinson could play 12 because his skillset was so broad, but it would have been madness to shift him away from his position where he was best in the world, to be merely a good centre. Hodgson was a 10 first and foremost, but an attempt was made to shoehorn him in at 12, because he was such a good 10 and they wanted to have them both on the pitch without losing Wilkinson at 10. They were different players that executed in very different ways, but it didn't make them a formidable pairing. They were both good at being a 10 in different ways - Hodgson just wasn't good at being a 12 and it wasn't worth moving Wilkinson to accomodate him.

Itoje could theoretically play 5. We don't want him to because he's the best 4 on the planet. Launchbury is a pure 4 who we'd be shoe-horning in at 5 - if we had no-one else, then it might be worth looking into and seeing whether he could adapt, but we do have some good 5s so it's a bit of a moot point.

I agree that we've put our relative points about as clearly as we possibly can without convincing the other, so probably best to leave it there!

Puja

As I said pairing the players is a distraction from my key point; they are very dissimilar in terms of execution as were Wilko and Charlie, as are Farrell and Ford, as are Manu and JJ.

[Digby]

So can Curry and Underhill play together, or are they too similar, and can you have two non passing halfbacks?

[Mr Mwenda]

I think distribution is a part of Eddie’s reasoning for his fb selection, but I also think kicking is a huge factor. Not only does he want a big, accurate boot but also an ability to kick late on the line with either foot. Daly does this really well in particular.

I mentioned on here a couple of weeks ago watching Watson for Bath against Sarries and Exeter on consecutive weekends. He was incredibly sharp and carried a massive threat running the ball back, but both games hinged on Daly and Hogg pinning Bath back in their own half with a series of great kicks in the last 20/30 minutes. Conversely I don’t think Watson kicked once. You’d have to say that Watson was the least effective of the three over the 2 games.

Clearly Daly is an athletic strike runner too, and Malins and Furbank have been at club level. I think Watson is now seen a ‘break glass in case of emergency’ option for Jones at 15.

Hardly surprising, Watson has no experience at full back and was hung out to try by maverick selectors.

[Puja]

No, but it’s still big and a big part of their dissimilarity as players; we seem to be going round in circles. But to your bench point, surely Itoje (if in some world he wasn’t starting) would be ideal because he has a much broader skill set to Launchbury? Sorry but I just don’t get how they are similar players by dint of being in the same position and having certain core duties; you could extend to Ford/Farrell, Tuilagi/JJ. They execute in very different ways- maybe I’ve steered down a dodgy path by suggesting they are complementary and by inference a good pairing- if they were competing for one spot, there would imo be no choice because Itoje has much more to offer in more areas (no idea about relative scrum abilities). But imo they definitely would be a formidable pairing. Think we need to agree to differ.

Thinking of it, I think my comparison of the short-lived Wilkinson and Hodgson experiment is apt. Wilkinson could play 12 because his skillset was so broad, but it would have been madness to shift him away from his position where he was best in the world, to be merely a good centre. Hodgson was a 10 first and foremost, but an attempt was made to shoehorn him in at 12, because he was such a good 10 and they wanted to have them both on the pitch without losing Wilkinson at 10. They were different players that executed in very different ways, but it didn't make them a formidable pairing. They were both good at being a 10 in different ways - Hodgson just wasn't good at being a 12 and it wasn't worth moving Wilkinson to accomodate him.

Itoje could theoretically play 5. We don't want him to because he's the best 4 on the planet. Launchbury is a pure 4 who we'd be shoe-horning in at 5 - if we had no-one else, then it might be worth looking into and seeing whether he could adapt, but we do have some good 5s so it's a bit of a moot point.

I agree that we've put our relative points about as clearly as we possibly can without convincing the other, so probably best to leave it there!

Puja

As I said pairing the players is a distraction from my key point; they are very dissimilar in terms of execution as were Wilko and Charlie, as are Farrell and Ford, as are Manu and JJ.

...I'm confused. My original point was that Itoje and Launch were similar players, in that they couldn't be played together because they're both trying to fill the same role in a team. I'm not sure if you're arguing that they would be a good pairing or not.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I think he’s just refuting that they’re similar?

I still don’t think it’s as simple as them both wearing 4 meaning they’re incompatible. Put simply I’d say I’m happy with Launch in there doing the heavy lifting in the tight, wearing 5, he just doesn’t have the lineout game but to be top class in that role.

Itoje as an all action forward at 4 is fortunately very good in the lineout anyway, and has run the lineout for England previously, no?

Where’s the weak point other than that? I don’t feel like placement in the pods is enough.

[Banquo]

Thinking of it, I think my comparison of the short-lived Wilkinson and Hodgson experiment is apt. Wilkinson could play 12 because his skillset was so broad, but it would have been madness to shift him away from his position where he was best in the world, to be merely a good centre. Hodgson was a 10 first and foremost, but an attempt was made to shoehorn him in at 12, because he was such a good 10 and they wanted to have them both on the pitch without losing Wilkinson at 10. They were different players that executed in very different ways, but it didn't make them a formidable pairing. They were both good at being a 10 in different ways - Hodgson just wasn't good at being a 12 and it wasn't worth moving Wilkinson to accomodate him.

Itoje could theoretically play 5. We don't want him to because he's the best 4 on the planet. Launchbury is a pure 4 who we'd be shoe-horning in at 5 - if we had no-one else, then it might be worth looking into and seeing whether he could adapt, but we do have some good 5s so it's a bit of a moot point.

I agree that we've put our relative points about as clearly as we possibly can without convincing the other, so probably best to leave it there!

Puja

As I said pairing the players is a distraction from my key point; they are very dissimilar in terms of execution as were Wilko and Charlie, as are Farrell and Ford, as are Manu and JJ.

...I'm confused. My original point was that Itoje and Launch were similar players, in that they couldn't be played together because they're both trying to fill the same role in a team. I'm not sure if you're arguing that they would be a good pairing or not.

Puja

Two separate points though they converge. I don’t agree they are similar players, and I do think they’d be a decent partnership. Just highlighting players who are very dissimilar despite playing the same position and having similar core duties, but executing in a different way.