RugbyRebels

It is possible to seek balance in the locks outside the locks, and it wouldn't have to be Lawes at 6.

Or maybe you wouldn't seek balance, maybe you'd want Launch and Willis added into the pack once (if) they're back. Or maybe you'd want Launch in to add to our breakdown and double up on primary carriers with Dombrandt and Billy.

Digby wrote:It is possible to seek balance in the locks outside the locks, and it wouldn't have to be Lawes at 6.

Or maybe you wouldn't seek balance, maybe you'd want Launch and Willis added into the pack once (if) they're back. Or maybe you'd want Launch in to add to our breakdown and double up on primary carriers with Dombrandt and Billy.

You're right there, can you imagine a back 5 of the scrum with Itoje, Launch, Curry, Willis and Dombrandt... That would be a very good unit both at the breakdown and on the carry. Set piece would be a "to be improved", but damn, open play would be great.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:It is possible to seek balance in the locks outside the locks, and it wouldn't have to be Lawes at 6.

Or maybe you wouldn't seek balance, maybe you'd want Launch and Willis added into the pack once (if) they're back. Or maybe you'd want Launch in to add to our breakdown and double up on primary carriers with Dombrandt and Billy.

You're right there, can you imagine a back 5 of the scrum with Itoje, Launch, Curry, Willis and Dombrandt... That would be a very good unit both at the breakdown and on the carry. Set piece would be a "to be improved", but damn, open play would be great.

Theoretically vulnerable in the lineout, but with a bit of imaginative use of Curry and Willis a la french use of back row in the lineout, can work around that. (mind, I'd think the french flankers would be a tad taller).

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:It is possible to seek balance in the locks outside the locks, and it wouldn't have to be Lawes at 6.

Or maybe you wouldn't seek balance, maybe you'd want Launch and Willis added into the pack once (if) they're back. Or maybe you'd want Launch in to add to our breakdown and double up on primary carriers with Dombrandt and Billy.

You're right there, can you imagine a back 5 of the scrum with Itoje, Launch, Curry, Willis and Dombrandt... That would be a very good unit both at the breakdown and on the carry. Set piece would be a "to be improved", but damn, open play would be great.

Theoretically vulnerable in the lineout, but with a bit of imaginative use of Curry and Willis a la french use of back row in the lineout, can work around that. (mind, I'd think the french flankers would be a tad taller).

Launch is acceptable in the lineout. He's not Lawes or Itoje, but he can go up and secure ball, especially if you keep your calls varied.

I think if you're wanting to play a high paced ruck game, that back 5 could work very well.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
You're right there, can you imagine a back 5 of the scrum with Itoje, Launch, Curry, Willis and Dombrandt... That would be a very good unit both at the breakdown and on the carry. Set piece would be a "to be improved", but damn, open play would be great.

Theoretically vulnerable in the lineout, but with a bit of imaginative use of Curry and Willis a la french use of back row in the lineout, can work around that. (mind, I'd think the french flankers would be a tad taller).

Launch is acceptable in the lineout. He's not Lawes or Itoje, but he can go up and secure ball, especially if you keep your calls varied.

I think if you're wanting to play a high paced ruck game, that back 5 could work very well.

He's acceptable (low bar), but you need three top options tbh....which was the point I was making. Two locks plus two flanker options would be useful in this scenario. If we want to be a better team, you need a top notch lineout, obviously. I'm a big fan of Launchbury before you go all Wasps on me

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:
Theoretically vulnerable in the lineout, but with a bit of imaginative use of Curry and Willis a la french use of back row in the lineout, can work around that. (mind, I'd think the french flankers would be a tad taller).

Launch is acceptable in the lineout. He's not Lawes or Itoje, but he can go up and secure ball, especially if you keep your calls varied.

I think if you're wanting to play a high paced ruck game, that back 5 could work very well.

He's acceptable (low bar), but you need three top options tbh....which was the point I was making. Two locks plus two flanker options would be useful in this scenario. If we want to be a better team, you need a top notch lineout, obviously. I'm a big fan of Launchbury before you go all Wasps on me

3 top options? Why? How many games have we gone into with 3 top options? Sure, if you want to launch a million attacks off lineouts and crush the opponents lineout at source, you want 3, but in general?

I always look at it that you can have perhaps half a dozen to a dozen lineouts if your opponent is careful. You can have 100+ rucks with little difficulty, double that when you include your opponents. I know which I'd rather be able to reliably target!

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Launch is acceptable in the lineout. He's not Lawes or Itoje, but he can go up and secure ball, especially if you keep your calls varied.

I think if you're wanting to play a high paced ruck game, that back 5 could work very well.

He's acceptable (low bar), but you need three top options tbh....which was the point I was making. Two locks plus two flanker options would be useful in this scenario. If we want to be a better team, you need a top notch lineout, obviously. I'm a big fan of Launchbury before you go all Wasps on me

3 top options? Why? How many games have we gone into with 3 top options? Sure, if you want to launch a million attacks off lineouts and crush the opponents lineout at source, you want 3, but in general?

I always look at it that you can have perhaps half a dozen to a dozen lineouts if your opponent is careful. You can have 100+ rucks with little difficulty, double that when you include your opponents. I know which I'd rather be able to reliably target!

Chill- hyperbole doesn't help much. Most sides have three decent or top lineout options. And its not binary- that's the whole point....you need to balance set piece and loose. But I always look at it, backed up by history, if you can't secure primary ball, you tend to struggle. If you are happy to go into a game with two lineout options, good luck; SA and Ireland as examples will give you a tough time. Just gently making the point that with Itoje and Launchbury you'd ideally need to create a third option using Curry and/or Willis (and both are ok in the lineout iirc); not that contentious, given that I agree with you and Stom that its a handy back 5.

NZ for a while now have had the best lineout, or a very close 2nd, they're not quite what they were with Read, Whitelock and Retallick. And they don't exactly back off the ruck. And yes there are less lineouts than rucks, but the emotion of the game swings much more on a lineout steal

Digby wrote:NZ for a while now have had the best lineout, or a very close 2nd, they're not quite what they were with Read, Whitelock and Retallick. And they don't exactly back off the ruck. And yes there are less lineouts than rucks, but the emotion of the game swings much more on a lineout steal

They're good lineout options were also effective in the ruck though. We unfortunately only have that luxury with Itoje out of the current England players I feel. Martin might be OK too, but he's got some learning to do.

We can of course improve it by having backs that can support rucks more effectively too, like Nowell and Odogwu etc.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:NZ for a while now have had the best lineout, or a very close 2nd, they're not quite what they were with Read, Whitelock and Retallick. And they don't exactly back off the ruck. And yes there are less lineouts than rucks, but the emotion of the game swings much more on a lineout steal

They're good lineout options were also effective in the ruck though. We unfortunately only have that luxury with Itoje out of the current England players I feel. Martin might be OK too, but he's got some learning to do.

We can of course improve it by having backs that can support rucks more effectively too, like Nowell and Odogwu etc.

That's exactly my point...Launchbury is pretty effective at the ruck, and so are Curry and Willis obviously. All you then need is to develop a bit more in the lineout to use Curry and Willis more (say); no reason why a lock can't be lifting one of them- the French do this a lot. I really don't understand your pushback.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:NZ for a while now have had the best lineout, or a very close 2nd, they're not quite what they were with Read, Whitelock and Retallick. And they don't exactly back off the ruck. And yes there are less lineouts than rucks, but the emotion of the game swings much more on a lineout steal

They're good lineout options were also effective in the ruck though. We unfortunately only have that luxury with Itoje out of the current England players I feel. Martin might be OK too, but he's got some learning to do.

We can of course improve it by having backs that can support rucks more effectively too, like Nowell and Odogwu etc.

That's exactly my point...Launchbury is pretty effective at the ruck, and so are Curry and Willis obviously. All you then need is to develop a bit more in the lineout to use Curry and Willis more (say); no reason why a lock can't be lifting one of them- the French do this a lot. I really don't understand your pushback.

My issue was you said you need 3 top options. We rarely have the luxury to select 3 top options in my mind, and really don't think it's needed unless you're specifically targeting the lineout. Furthermore, when we have selected lawes at 6, to reach that 3, we've often been ripped apart in the ruck and done very poorly in the game overall.

Wasn't there a game not so long ago against a "tough" lineout opponent where we only had 1 top option? And we did fine? Get a feeling it was Ireland, and we had something like Launch and Itoje, with no one in particular in the backrow? I know we only had 2 against NZ in 2019.

You wouldn't want 1 'real' lineout option more than once in a blue moon, you'd be analysed to death and back. 2 is the minimum, and 3-4 is much harder to target and thus less pressure on the hooker and lifters. It'd be very unusual to have a top team not hitting 90% if frankly not 95% and above on their own ball. And even then an issue with Launch isn't just our ball, we can use people like Curry, Underhill or Willis on our throws, it's how much less pressure we can put on opposition ball if Itoje is the only one who could go up to contest. Being able to mark 2 pods in defence gives you much more security in trying to force throws front or middle, or even long if you think the hooker is a bit Tom Lindsay on the throw.

My gut take is I'd still want to pick Launchbury, but the data might tell me I'm wrong

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:
They're good lineout options were also effective in the ruck though. We unfortunately only have that luxury with Itoje out of the current England players I feel. Martin might be OK too, but he's got some learning to do.

We can of course improve it by having backs that can support rucks more effectively too, like Nowell and Odogwu etc.

That's exactly my point...Launchbury is pretty effective at the ruck, and so are Curry and Willis obviously. All you then need is to develop a bit more in the lineout to use Curry and Willis more (say); no reason why a lock can't be lifting one of them- the French do this a lot. I really don't understand your pushback.

My issue was you said you need 3 top options. We rarely have the luxury to select 3 top options in my mind, and really don't think it's needed unless you're specifically targeting the lineout. Furthermore, when we have selected lawes at 6, to reach that 3, we've often been ripped apart in the ruck and done very poorly in the game overall.

Wasn't there a game not so long ago against a "tough" lineout opponent where we only had 1 top option? And we did fine? Get a feeling it was Ireland, and we had something like Launch and Itoje, with no one in particular in the backrow? I know we only had 2 against NZ in 2019.

My point was that we can create a top third option from the Curry/Willis option, because I was supporting that back 5; I'm NOT advocating Lawes. So I think you've missed my point tbh. And ideally you want three options, especially if your hooker is having a bit of the yips and/or being targeted. My point is that having those options protects you from an aggressive lineout like SA (and sometimes Ireland) and further gives you more flex in attack. Perhaps I should have said 'ideally' need three top options

(Must confess I thought we used Curry in the games you mentioned- and we did lose two l/o v NZ. Could be wrong on the former; I do remember concern being raised a number of times on Cunderhill + Billy because of the lineout, and at the time saying we could and should use Curry more)

Digby wrote:You wouldn't want 1 'real' lineout option more than once in a blue moon, you'd be analysed to death and back. 2 is the minimum, and 3-4 is much harder to target and thus less pressure on the hooker and lifters. It'd be very unusual to have a top team not hitting 90% if frankly not 95% and above on their own ball. And even then an issue with Launch isn't just our ball, we can use people like Curry, Underhill or Willis on our throws, it's how much less pressure we can put on opposition ball if Itoje is the only one who could go up to contest. Being able to mark 2 pods in defence gives you much more security in trying to force throws front or middle, or even long if you think the hooker is a bit Tom Lindsay on the throw.

My gut take is I'd still want to pick Launchbury, but the data might tell me I'm wrong

yup

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:NZ for a while now have had the best lineout, or a very close 2nd, they're not quite what they were with Read, Whitelock and Retallick. And they don't exactly back off the ruck. And yes there are less lineouts than rucks, but the emotion of the game swings much more on a lineout steal

They're good lineout options were also effective in the ruck though. We unfortunately only have that luxury with Itoje out of the current England players I feel. Martin might be OK too, but he's got some learning to do.

We can of course improve it by having backs that can support rucks more effectively too, like Nowell and Odogwu etc.

That's exactly my point...Launchbury is pretty effective at the ruck, and so are Curry and Willis obviously. All you then need is to develop a bit more in the lineout to use Curry and Willis more (say); no reason why a lock can't be lifting one of them- the French do this a lot. I really don't understand your pushback.

And… dombrandt is going up more and more often. I think he could develop into a good option there.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:
They're good lineout options were also effective in the ruck though. We unfortunately only have that luxury with Itoje out of the current England players I feel. Martin might be OK too, but he's got some learning to do.

We can of course improve it by having backs that can support rucks more effectively too, like Nowell and Odogwu etc.

That's exactly my point...Launchbury is pretty effective at the ruck, and so are Curry and Willis obviously. All you then need is to develop a bit more in the lineout to use Curry and Willis more (say); no reason why a lock can't be lifting one of them- the French do this a lot. I really don't understand your pushback.

And… dombrandt is going up more and more often. I think he could develop into a good option there.

Good news, is he shedding a bit of weight? Always helps

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: That's exactly my point...Launchbury is pretty effective at the ruck, and so are Curry and Willis obviously. All you then need is to develop a bit more in the lineout to use Curry and Willis more (say); no reason why a lock can't be lifting one of them- the French do this a lot. I really don't understand your pushback.

And… dombrandt is going up more and more often. I think he could develop into a good option there.

Good news, is he shedding a bit of weight? Always helps

Coincidentally, Harlequins are working on their powerlifting over the summer...

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
And… dombrandt is going up more and more often. I think he could develop into a good option there.

Good news, is he shedding a bit of weight? Always helps

Coincidentally, Harlequins are working on their powerlifting over the summer...

Puja

Anyone else read that Lawes has shed 4kg so he can make the move to 6?

As long as no one turns around and asks him to put it back on (and more even)

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
And… dombrandt is going up more and more often. I think he could develop into a good option there.

Good news, is he shedding a bit of weight? Always helps

Coincidentally, Harlequins are working on their powerlifting over the summer...

Puja

Lol.

He does seem slimmer and fitter in general.

He’s a big lump but he’s no Billy…

Sone US sites reporting Cockerill to join the England set up to oversee lineout and contact work, to be announced in the coming days.

switchskier wrote:Sone US sites reporting Cockerill to join the England set up to oversee lineout and contact work, to be announced in the coming days.

I mean... he did always run a superb driving maul when he was with Leicester. I can see some merit to it, as long as he's kept very tightly in his box. Mind, what's the odds of that happening with the fluidity of coaches joining and leaving this England setup? He'll be head coach in 6 months' time.

Puja

Puja wrote:

switchskier wrote:Sone US sites reporting Cockerill to join the England set up to oversee lineout and contact work, to be announced in the coming days.

I mean... he did always run a superb driving maul when he was with Leicester. I can see some merit to it, as long as he's kept very tightly in his box. Mind, what's the odds of that happening with the fluidity of coaches joining and leaving this England setup? He'll be head coach in 6 months' time.

Puja

I said last night on another site, grab your popcorn this might be a bumpy ride. In 6 months only one of them will still be with England and it might not be Uncle Edward.

Seems legit."Remit set to be expanded" Hmmmm....

Chris Foy
@FoyChris
·
18h
Cockerill to join revamped #England coaching staff with appointment expected to be announced next week. Former Leicester DoR to be in charge of lineout + contact work but remit set to expanded in due course. Story on ⁦
@MailSport
⁩