RugbyRebels

Similar to Youngs at 9 and Farrell at either 10/12, I think half the people selecting Lawes are doing so because Jones looks set on it, so are just trying to theorise how it could work best. Or at the least they're 50/50 on him actually being an ideal 6 v him doing many of the key things Eddie wants.

It feels weird that there are clear compromises with his selection, leaving out a different backrower (of which we have many exciting options) in order to include Jonny Hill (though he seems to be finding his feet now) in the starting XV and seemingly a sub-par lock in the 23. Let's hope we find a way to avoid getting shown up for its limitations.

Lawes no longer actively upsets me at 6, which is a large improvement. That's not to say I don't think there are better options, but I'm not upset when I see him.

I like Lawes at 6 against beefier teams like France & SA, with a bigger thunderbastard like Hill or Launchbury in the second row. I'd move him back to lock for games against more mobile packs like NZ or Scotland, with a combo of Curry/Underhill/Willis on the flanks. RE the potential newbies in the squad being reported, I mentioned Hatherell a few weeks back so would feel very smug if it came to pass. He just ticks too many Eddie boxes to be ignored: abrasive defender, lineout option, circuitous route to the top via the Champo rather than the England age-groups.

SDHoneymonster wrote:I like Lawes at 6 against beefier teams like France & SA, with a bigger thunderbastard like Hill or Launchbury in the second row. I'd move him back to lock for games against more mobile packs like NZ or Scotland, with a combo of Curry/Underhill/Willis on the flanks. RE the potential newbies in the squad being reported, I mentioned Hatherell a few weeks back so would feel very smug if it came to pass. He just ticks too many Eddie boxes to be ignored: abrasive defender, lineout option, circuitous route to the top via the Champo rather than the England age-groups.

I just don't get this thinking...

We're blessed with mobile locks and a mobile backrow. So play to it! We should be looking to make big packs work. Get them blowing by moving the point of attack, not by changing our gameplan to theirs.

Actually, considering Jones' focus on fitness, we should be moving that way naturally anyway! Mobility is key. So that's why I'd love to see Cunderhill with Dombrandt.

Raggs wrote:Lawes no longer actively upsets me at 6, which is a large improvement. That's not to say I don't think there are better options, but I'm not upset when I see him.

Yep, and add in his lineout and destructive tackling and it looks less of a compromise than being stared. Esp in a pack that does need some heft to generate good ball and resist direct physical teams. Still not ideal but not unreasonable

Stom wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:I like Lawes at 6 against beefier teams like France & SA, with a bigger thunderbastard like Hill or Launchbury in the second row. I'd move him back to lock for games against more mobile packs like NZ or Scotland, with a combo of Curry/Underhill/Willis on the flanks. RE the potential newbies in the squad being reported, I mentioned Hatherell a few weeks back so would feel very smug if it came to pass. He just ticks too many Eddie boxes to be ignored: abrasive defender, lineout option, circuitous route to the top via the Champo rather than the England age-groups.

I just don't get this thinking...

We're blessed with mobile locks and a mobile backrow. So play to it! We should be looking to make big packs work. Get them blowing by moving the point of attack, not by changing our gameplan to theirs.

Actually, considering Jones' focus on fitness, we should be moving that way naturally anyway! Mobility is key. So that's why I'd love to see Cunderhill with Dombrandt.

Frankly even accepting that might work we’d need to raise skill levels esp under duress substantially. And I’m not convinced you can win against the best without enough big carriers.

SDHoneymonster wrote:I like Lawes at 6 against beefier teams like France & SA, with a bigger thunderbastard like Hill or Launchbury in the second row. I'd move him back to lock for games against more mobile packs like NZ or Scotland, with a combo of Curry/Underhill/Willis on the flanks. RE the potential newbies in the squad being reported, I mentioned Hatherell a few weeks back so would feel very smug if it came to pass. He just ticks too many Eddie boxes to be ignored: abrasive defender, lineout option, circuitous route to the top via the Champo rather than the England age-groups.

Yep makes sense.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Lawes no longer actively upsets me at 6, which is a large improvement. That's not to say I don't think there are better options, but I'm not upset when I see him.

Yep, and add in his lineout and destructive tackling and it looks less of a compromise than being stared. Esp in a pack that does need some heft to generate good ball and resist direct physical teams. Still not ideal but not unreasonable

When I then think about Du Toit getting mugged by Youngs multiple times when he was first playing on the flank, and wondering why on earth they didn't keep him at lock, and look at him now as a fantastic blindside. I wonder perhaps if Eddie is simply a better coach/selector than me, and see's longer term more capably...

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Lawes no longer actively upsets me at 6, which is a large improvement. That's not to say I don't think there are better options, but I'm not upset when I see him.

Yep, and add in his lineout and destructive tackling and it looks less of a compromise than being stared. Esp in a pack that does need some heft to generate good ball and resist direct physical teams. Still not ideal but not unreasonable

When I then think about Du Toit getting mugged by Youngs multiple times when he was first playing on the flank, and wondering why on earth they didn't keep him at lock, and look at him now as a fantastic blindside. I wonder perhaps if Eddie is simply a better coach/selector than me, and see's longer term more capably...

It’s likely that he is a better coach and selector than most of the posters . His inial go with Lawes at 6 was poor, but he’s played there a lot more for club and country and at least looks the part in all aspects now

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:I like Lawes at 6 against beefier teams like France & SA, with a bigger thunderbastard like Hill or Launchbury in the second row. I'd move him back to lock for games against more mobile packs like NZ or Scotland, with a combo of Curry/Underhill/Willis on the flanks. RE the potential newbies in the squad being reported, I mentioned Hatherell a few weeks back so would feel very smug if it came to pass. He just ticks too many Eddie boxes to be ignored: abrasive defender, lineout option, circuitous route to the top via the Champo rather than the England age-groups.

I just don't get this thinking...

We're blessed with mobile locks and a mobile backrow. So play to it! We should be looking to make big packs work. Get them blowing by moving the point of attack, not by changing our gameplan to theirs.

Actually, considering Jones' focus on fitness, we should be moving that way naturally anyway! Mobility is key. So that's why I'd love to see Cunderhill with Dombrandt.

Frankly even accepting that might work we’d need to raise skill levels esp under duress substantially. And I’m not convinced you can win against the best without enough big carriers.

I agree to an extent, but we’re talking about swapping Jonny hill for dombrandt… I’d say that’s adding carrying!

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
I just don't get this thinking...

We're blessed with mobile locks and a mobile backrow. So play to it! We should be looking to make big packs work. Get them blowing by moving the point of attack, not by changing our gameplan to theirs.

Actually, considering Jones' focus on fitness, we should be moving that way naturally anyway! Mobility is key. So that's why I'd love to see Cunderhill with Dombrandt.

Frankly even accepting that might work we’d need to raise skill levels esp under duress substantially. And I’m not convinced you can win against the best without enough big carriers.

I agree to an extent, but we’re talking about swapping Jonny hill for dombrandt… I’d say that’s adding carrying!

Marginal, esp tight carrying. Adding different carrying would be fair. But we would still be short of carrying imo.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Frankly even accepting that might work we’d need to raise skill levels esp under duress substantially. And I’m not convinced you can win against the best without enough big carriers.

I agree to an extent, but we’re talking about swapping Jonny hill for dombrandt… I’d say that’s adding carrying!

Marginal, esp tight carrying. Adding different carrying would be fair. But we would still be short of carrying imo.

Hill has a fair record of scoring tries from close range battering through traffic (compares well with Itoje and Dombrandt, perhaps???). If he's not doing effective tight carrying elsewhere on the pitch might it have to with how he is being asked to play?

I just don't see the slightly better tight carrying Hill brings as being worth the brainfarts and needless penalties that he also brings...

And would rather get in a more attacking player, therefore.

With a front row of Genge, George, Sinckler, we've got a lot of carrying power already. I'd say that until Launch is back, we should adjust rather than play Hill as Launch and hope for the best. In other words, I just don't think we have the players in the back 5 of the scrum to play a tight game: our best players there are rangy and more suited to the midfield channels, so we should play to that rather than shoehorn in inferior players in order to play a gameplan we're not suited to.

Stom wrote:I just don't see the slightly better tight carrying Hill brings as being worth the brainfarts and needless penalties that he also brings...

And would rather get in a more attacking player, therefore.

With a front row of Genge, George, Sinckler, we've got a lot of carrying power already. I'd say that until Launch is back, we should adjust rather than play Hill as Launch and hope for the best. In other words, I just don't think we have the players in the back 5 of the scrum to play a tight game: our best players there are rangy and more suited to the midfield channels, so we should play to that rather than shoehorn in inferior players in order to play a gameplan we're not suited to.

I think you are talking about mk1 Hill. Mk 2 Hill is a very decent lock, pretty mobile and aggressive enough to be an attacking lock- his brainfart has declined markedly imo.
Genge really doesn't yet carry that well at intl level, George may regain form, and Sink is hanging on come scrum time. I hear what you say about options, but the summary of that is that we will struggle a bit up front, and thus trying to play in the middle to wide of the park would be likely to be off slowish ball if putting eggs in that basket, and as above, I'm not sure we are skilled enough to do it anyway. I'd think Genge, George, Sink, Itoje, Hill, Lawes, Curry, Dombrandt might be worth a look. I've kind have lost what your selection from this squad would be in fairness

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:I just don't see the slightly better tight carrying Hill brings as being worth the brainfarts and needless penalties that he also brings...

And would rather get in a more attacking player, therefore.

With a front row of Genge, George, Sinckler, we've got a lot of carrying power already. I'd say that until Launch is back, we should adjust rather than play Hill as Launch and hope for the best. In other words, I just don't think we have the players in the back 5 of the scrum to play a tight game: our best players there are rangy and more suited to the midfield channels, so we should play to that rather than shoehorn in inferior players in order to play a gameplan we're not suited to.

I think you are talking about mk1 Hill. Mk 2 Hill is a very decent lock, pretty mobile and aggressive enough to be an attacking lock- his brainfart has declined markedly imo.
Genge really doesn't yet carry that well at intl level, George may regain form, and Sink is hanging on come scrum time. I hear what you say about options, but the summary of that is that we will struggle a bit up front, and thus trying to play in the middle to wide of the park would be likely to be off slowish ball if putting eggs in that basket, and as above, I'm not sure we are skilled enough to do it anyway. I'd think Genge, George, Sink, Itoje, Hill, Lawes, Curry, Dombrandt might be worth a look. I've kind have lost what your selection from this squad would be in fairness

Well, I think I'd probably go with that, too, lol. But I'd also like to see Hill benched with Lawes moving forward and Underhill paired with Curry again...but as he's not in this squad, that's moot.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:I just don't see the slightly better tight carrying Hill brings as being worth the brainfarts and needless penalties that he also brings...

And would rather get in a more attacking player, therefore.

With a front row of Genge, George, Sinckler, we've got a lot of carrying power already. I'd say that until Launch is back, we should adjust rather than play Hill as Launch and hope for the best. In other words, I just don't think we have the players in the back 5 of the scrum to play a tight game: our best players there are rangy and more suited to the midfield channels, so we should play to that rather than shoehorn in inferior players in order to play a gameplan we're not suited to.

I think you are talking about mk1 Hill. Mk 2 Hill is a very decent lock, pretty mobile and aggressive enough to be an attacking lock- his brainfart has declined markedly imo.
Genge really doesn't yet carry that well at intl level, George may regain form, and Sink is hanging on come scrum time. I hear what you say about options, but the summary of that is that we will struggle a bit up front, and thus trying to play in the middle to wide of the park would be likely to be off slowish ball if putting eggs in that basket, and as above, I'm not sure we are skilled enough to do it anyway. I'd think Genge, George, Sink, Itoje, Hill, Lawes, Curry, Dombrandt might be worth a look. I've kind have lost what your selection from this squad would be in fairness

Well, I think I'd probably go with that, too, lol. But I'd also like to see Hill benched with Lawes moving forward and Underhill paired with Curry again...but as he's not in this squad, that's moot.

I'd think Hill is probably about to be a better lock than Lawes, in fact probably is already, if one can get past his previous braindeadness and ongoing mullet. TBH whilst I like Cunderhill in principle, in practice it means other trade offs.

I’ve never been been a J. Hill fan but he was markedly improved in the AIs. IMO, he deserves to be first choice next to the Vauxhall Nova.
Can we even consider Lawes for lock? From what I’ve read he’s drop a few kg to play 6 and he wasn’t the biggest lock in the first place.

Mellsblue wrote:I’ve never been been a J. Hill fan but he was markedly improved in the AIs. IMO, he deserves to be first choice next to the Vauxhall Nova.
Can we even consider Lawes for lock? From what I’ve read he’s drop a few kg to play 6 and he wasn’t the biggest lock in the first place.

He hasn't even played there for Saints (much) in the last year, and hasn't started there for England since 2019.

Mellsblue wrote:I’ve never been been a J. Hill fan but he was markedly improved in the AIs. IMO, he deserves to be first choice next to the Vauxhall Nova.
Can we even consider Lawes for lock? From what I’ve read he’s drop a few kg to play 6 and he wasn’t the biggest lock in the first place.

What concerns me is too much fiddling from now to the WC. Itoje and Hill as a settled 2nd row with, hopefully, Launchbury to replace Ewels on the bench needs picking and building. One row in the scrum needs to be fixed at least.

Both front and back rows need developmental work.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’ve never been been a J. Hill fan but he was markedly improved in the AIs. IMO, he deserves to be first choice next to the Vauxhall Nova.
Can we even consider Lawes for lock? From what I’ve read he’s drop a few kg to play 6 and he wasn’t the biggest lock in the first place.

What concerns me is too much fiddling from now to the WC. Itoje and Hill as a settled 2nd row with, hopefully, Launchbury to replace Ewels on the bench needs picking and building. One row in the scrum needs to be fixed at least.

Both front and back rows need developmental work.

twas ever thus, imo every unit in the team needs big improvement to have anything like a shot at the RWC. But you'd always be looking for improvement, even if the players were constant. TBH there's maybe two players now who should be automatic picks come the RWC.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’ve never been been a J. Hill fan but he was markedly improved in the AIs. IMO, he deserves to be first choice next to the Vauxhall Nova.
Can we even consider Lawes for lock? From what I’ve read he’s drop a few kg to play 6 and he wasn’t the biggest lock in the first place.

What concerns me is too much fiddling from now to the WC. Itoje and Hill as a settled 2nd row with, hopefully, Launchbury to replace Ewels on the bench needs picking and building. One row in the scrum needs to be fixed at least.

Both front and back rows need developmental work.

twas ever thus, imo every unit in the team needs big improvement to have anything like a shot at the RWC. But you'd always be looking for improvement, even if the players were constant. TBH there's maybe two players now who should be automatic picks come the RWC.

How do you feel about that at this stage?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
What concerns me is too much fiddling from now to the WC. Itoje and Hill as a settled 2nd row with, hopefully, Launchbury to replace Ewels on the bench needs picking and building. One row in the scrum needs to be fixed at least.

Both front and back rows need developmental work.

twas ever thus, imo every unit in the team needs big improvement to have anything like a shot at the RWC. But you'd always be looking for improvement, even if the players were constant. TBH there's maybe two players now who should be automatic picks come the RWC.

How do you feel about that at this stage?

That we have plenty of good players, but not many that scream world class. IMO its a systemic thang. Institutional mediocrity

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: twas ever thus, imo every unit in the team needs big improvement to have anything like a shot at the RWC. But you'd always be looking for improvement, even if the players were constant. TBH there's maybe two players now who should be automatic picks come the RWC.

How do you feel about that at this stage?

That we have plenty of good players, but not many that scream world class. IMO its a systemic thang. Institutional mediocrity

Can't argue. What fascinates me is how many would subsequently become (or be judged) world class if two or three in crucial positions dropped out of the sky - say 9 and 12, for example. Would that lift others? Going back to 2002, how many were genuinely world class (automatic world xv picks)? Hill, Johnson and JW perhaps? Others, Robinson, Greenwood etc. floated on their boat, perhaps.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
How do you feel about that at this stage?

That we have plenty of good players, but not many that scream world class. IMO its a systemic thang. Institutional mediocrity

Can't argue. What fascinates me is how many would subsequently become (or be judged) world class if two or three in crucial positions dropped out of the sky - say 9 and 12, for example. Would that lift others? Going back to 2002, how many were genuinely world class (automatic world xv picks)? Hill, Johnson and JW perhaps? Others, Robinson, Greenwood etc. floated on their boat, perhaps.

If you're talking World XV in 2002, you'd say Johnson, Hill, Wilkinson, Greenwood, and Robinson as automatic World XV picks - Greenwood was a class above his contemporaries at centre and Robinson was a game-changing weapon. Depending on who was picking the World XV, an argument could have been made for Woodman, Thompson, and Cohen* as well, although they wouldn't've been automatic.

Puja

*Don't laugh - in 2002, he was one of the pre-eminent wings in the world game and scoring tries against all and sundry.

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: That we have plenty of good players, but not many that scream world class. IMO its a systemic thang. Institutional mediocrity

Can't argue. What fascinates me is how many would subsequently become (or be judged) world class if two or three in crucial positions dropped out of the sky - say 9 and 12, for example. Would that lift others? Going back to 2002, how many were genuinely world class (automatic world xv picks)? Hill, Johnson and JW perhaps? Others, Robinson, Greenwood etc. floated on their boat, perhaps.

If you're talking World XV in 2002, you'd say Johnson, Hill, Wilkinson, Greenwood, and Robinson as automatic World XV picks - Greenwood was a class above his contemporaries at centre and Robinson was a game-changing weapon. Depending on who was picking the World XV, an argument could have been made for Woodman, Thompson, and Cohen* as well, although they wouldn't've been automatic.

Puja

*Don't laugh - in 2002, he was one of the pre-eminent wings in the world game and scoring tries against all and sundry.

Fair comment but my point stands - 8 out of 15 at best of a wc winning team with opinion varying from that maximum back to my original 3. Would the 'marginal' 5 have been in a world xv if we were only a qf unit?

As for Cohen, I always saw him as a quality try machine. Many of his tries were through the middle - ahead of his time pethaps when wingers, in the main, had their jockstraps hooked to the touchline.