England Post-WC discussion

[Duck a l'Orange]

I would rather we didn't fall into the Kvesic trap with Itojie and not give him any game time @ international level.

Kvesic could of had at least 10 or so caps by now, if management had trusted youngsters who have been performing at club level.

Age shouldn't be an issue, he has played in the champions cup @ 6 and lock, so I expect Eddie jones to look at him at both and decide where he might fit for England.

I've said this before, but anyway: Matt Kvesic played against Sam Cane in the JWC final- Cane now has 31 caps. Even if Sam Cane is a better player (hard to tell but probably), he was competing against Richie McCaw.

Whether the fault lies with the mentality in England or on Stuart Lancaster's selection, I hope Jones rectifies it.
I'm of the opinion that we need to be introducing players far earlier than we need to at the moment. I'd even be in favour of U20s players moving straight into the extended squad. Yes some players may not be ready, but their development can continue (albeit perhaps more slowly than it would at club) with England- if they can have game time against Italy and Scotland, great.

So yes, I'd back Itoje for England. I'd rather he played at 6 than lock, as we've got a surfeit of international class second rows, whereas at blindside the options are pretty average, even with several experienced players.

 

[RedruthRFC]

He does those things as a lock though.

If a lock combo of him and Launchbury can run a strong scrum and lineout, then him in the second row adds more to the team than at 6.

If he does them well as a lock, think how much better he would do them as a 6 though. For the most part, I agree with what you say about the set piece as a lock with his skill set and work rate is not to be sneezed at. Much may depend on the chosen back row - with a legitimate tail option, there's every chance the set piece will function with him and Launchberry, making the case strong to play him in the second row.

 

[McTallshort]

Apples and oranges. Sarries don't play international rugby. They have enough power elsewhere in the pack for it not to matter as they're not up against an opposition pack of super-freaks week in, week out like you are in international rugby.

So how do we pick players for international duty if we don't look at club form? As rats has pointed out he is bigger than lawes and parking but is this still not big enough? Reminds me of the way people saw Neil Back a few years ago

 

[Tony Manx]

Personally, I do not care who is playing as it's ultimately down to Jones and his boyos!! They have the responsibility and the power so what we think or want is irrelevant!

The first requirement for me is that they win, the second is they win, the third is they win and the fourth is they try to win in an entertaining manner!

Once they have got a history of winning, it will be far easier to incorporate new talent into the team than, such as at present, one that is low in confidence and without any real success.......

So as few changes as possible and then only those that are about improving the team and not just picking players for the future, to give them experience, or, even worse, to bring them back from injury too soon!!

Time is there for that and that will make it easier by enabling those new/returning players to fit into a more confident team....

International rugby is not and should not be wholly about the RWC!!

 

[Peat]

International rugby is not and should not be wholly about the RWC!!

Even if it was, there's 4 years to the next World Cup, which means there's plenty of time to introduce players.

It's better, as you say, to bring in new players when you've got a team that's winning.

But I do think there is a very strong argument that our best hope of winning tomorrow involves a lot of new players anyway.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Really hope this U23 thing goes ahead

Could have potentially a cracking team.

1) Auterac
2) Cowan-Dickie
3) Hill
4) Barrow
5) Ewels
6) Clifford
7) Harrison
8) Beaumont
9) Spencer
10) Lozowski
11) Earle
12) Devoto
13) Stephenson
14) Morris
15) Haley

16) Walker
17) Harrison
18) Sinckler
19) Stooke
20) Chisholm
21) Braley
22) Bell
23) James

If players are not picked by senior squad.

Would love to see a team like that against a NZ/Aus/SA U23

 

[Maverick1987]

Courtney Lawes is about 110kg, giver or take 1-2kg, and has openly stated that he struggles to maintain his size.
These are the different weights he's listed as on various sites: ENG: 111kg, PRL: 109kg, EPC: 113kg, Saints: 115kg.

Parling is probably 115kg max, and he isn't exactly the leanest/most muscular guy about.
ENG: 117kg, PRL: 117kg, EPC: 115kg, Chiefs: 114kg

Maro is listed as 116kg on both the Sarries and Premiership websites and 110kg on the EPC website - the former looking more accurate to me.
He's a junior level shot-putter and clearly doesn't lack for power or strength, and is visibly leaner than both Lawes and Parling.
I think it's ridiculous to try and insinuate that either Lawes or Parling have a "size" advantage, particularly given the relevance of the size in this context.
We refer to size as a general guide for any given player's strength or potential power - clearly, Itoje is the most powerful of the three, you just need to watch them play to observe this.
Given that he's (IMO) heavier (at worst, he's the same weight as Lawes), and slightly shorter, he's got an advantage in every area of the game, barring the lineout.

From what I can make out, Maro is a tall 6'5", he's literally 2cm shorter than Parling - look at 2cm on a ruler now, and tell me that he is significantly shorter than Geoff.

Does Itoje's supposed lack of height impede his lineout ability? Not from what I've seen.
Lawes will have a reach advantage in defensive mauls, but that's about it, and Maro doesn't do badly in that situation, does he?

I prefer my locks to be as short as possible - or, only as tall as they need to be... given the inherent disadvantage of being longer-limbed in most scenarios.
Whilst watching Maro, I haven't at any point thought to myself that he's deficient in the lineout.

I'm not going to lie that's the best reply to any question ever ......

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Hopefully Kitchener will have a good run of games between now and the summer so his name will be in the mix come summer tour.

 

[j'nuh]

Even if it was, there's 4 years to the next World Cup, which means there's plenty of time to introduce players.

There's plenty of time to introduce players, but not much time at all to give our players the experience needed to win a WC. We don't want to be in a position of resisting playing our best prospects until a year or two out, and them walking into the WC with ~10 caps.

Retiring players from other countries will help us close some of the experience gap, but the gap still exists. And unlike us, most other teams know exactly which players they are taking forward, so won't be wasting many caps at all in the next 4 years. So I don't think we have much time to waste at all.

 

[Peat]

There's plenty of time to introduce players, but not much time at all to give our players the experience needed to win a WC. We don't want to be in a position of resisting playing our best prospects until a year or two out, and them walking into the WC with ~10 caps.

Retiring players from other countries will help us close some of the experience gap, but the gap still exists. And unlike us, most other teams know exactly which players they are taking forward, so won't be wasting many caps at all in the next 4 years. So I don't think we have much time to waste at all.

If they're our best prospects, they'll make the team on merit before then, unless they're someone like Jack Walker who's still only 19.

I see your point, but we'll have to rely on the experience built up in a hard core of guys already in situ and add talent to it as it comes ready. If we don't win the World Cup, we don't win the World Cup - rushing will only create another mess to be fixed.

 

[RedruthRFC]

So how do we pick players for international duty if we don't look at club form? As rats has pointed out he is bigger than lawes and parking but is this still not big enough? Reminds me of the way people saw Neil Back a few years ago

Obviously club form is important, which is why I have been advocating England throwing their weight around and telling a number of players what position they want to see them playing in and in some cases, what aspects of their game they want to see them working on. Obviously this depends on the player's ambitions and their club's willingness to work with the RFU.

Re: Lawes and Parling, as I've said before, on current form against current opposition, I wouldn't call either a good international second row.

Re: Back, I follow your logic - if either is big enough to do the job very well in their position, where's the problem? Back certainly was. It remains to be seen if this is the case with Itoje, although I've conceded that it may well be. Also, Back was an out and out 7, there was no possibility of him being more effective elsewhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Does Itoje's supposed lack of height impede his lineout ability? Not from what I've seen.

As Maverick says, this is a good question. Speaking generally, I think a lack of height may be a slight impediment at 2, although being explosive will negate this. It may also be an impediment as a defensive jumper.

Maybe I'm guilty of being a sheep, but following the World Cup, it appears to me that there is a blue print for current world class second rows - bigger and taller than Itoje but still freakishly athletic (for the size).

 

[Peat]

Re: Lawes and Parling, as I've said before, on current form against current opposition, I wouldn't call either a good international second row.

Their current form has nothing to do with whether they should be called good international locks in this context. The question is, can a player of roughly that size be a good international lock, and Lawes and Parling have been good international locks. Whether they still are is utterly irrelevant (although your point is highly contentious on those grounds). The answer is clearly yes. Yes, you can be a good international lock at about that size.

Paul O'Connell is 1.98m and 110kg. Brad Thorn is listed as the exact same dimensions on wiki. It's super-doable. Itoje is not too small to be an international lock. The question is absurd and makes my head hurt.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

If they're our best prospects, they'll make the team on merit before then, unless they're someone like Jack Walker who's still only 19.

I see your point, but we'll have to rely on the experience built up in a hard core of guys already in situ and add talent to it as it comes ready. If we don't win the World Cup, we don't win the World Cup - rushing will only create another mess to be fixed.

I disagree, take someone like Kvesic, realistically what more could he have done to get into the team? There is an argument for continuity but not continuity with mediocrity. Lancaster had the right idea of building a team and then giving them plenty of experience, the problem is he completely messed up right at the start by selecting the wrong players to give all those caps to. He then changed to some of the right players but too late. You should allow plenty of competition early on for position and stick with a player after they have earned the spot. Few players under Lancaster truely earned the positions they then kept for ages. We have people we know aren't international stars keeping out players who potentially could be. We don't have the luxury of an already sorted team we can feed new players into like New Zealand precisely because of our attitude to giving caps to young players, or not. Our 1st team isn't settled, we don't have a truely experienced core of players who are the best in their position and we don't have a set up line of succession. Therefore I see very little reason to retain anyone who cannot prove they can perform right now.

I'd rather take the hit of making mistakes with an overly inexperienced side now, when we should be doing it, as opposed to in 4 years time again.

 

[Peat]

If you thought my post was an argument for continuity, you're sorely mistaken. It's an argument for pick the best team now.

As for Kvesic - he could have been the player Lancaster wanted. He wasn't, he didn't. Lancaster (and every coach) has picked the players they thought were the best prospects. Disagreeing with him over who they were doesn't change that's how it happens.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

To be fair I was going to say "Since when have England picked young guys they thought were ready?" but then seeing Peats post I agree with that.
Lancaster gave Watson, Nowell, Marler, Vunipola x 2, their shots.

 

[j'nuh]

Very little to add to what rage said.

I don't mean to play players before they are ready. Just that if the challenger is good enough for the international game, not much worse than the incumbent but has a much higher skill ceiling, pick the challenger. And no using "a lack of experience" as an excuse not to pick someone. We're in the best position we could possibly be in to fix that.

If you thought my post was an argument for continuity, you're sorely mistaken. It's an argument for pick the best team now.

As for Kvesic - he could have been the player Lancaster wanted. He wasn't, he didn't. Lancaster (and every coach) has picked the players they thought were the best prospects. Disagreeing with him over who they were doesn't change that's how it happens.

I'm more inclined to believe that Lancaster wrongly underestimated Kvesic rather than not wanting him for tactical reasons.

 

[Peat]

To be fair I was going to say "Since when have England picked young guys they thought were ready?" but then seeing Peats post I agree with that.
Lancaster gave Watson, Nowell, Marler, Vunipola x 2, their shots.

+ Thomas, Brookes, Launchbury, Farrell, Ford, May, Yarde, Slade, Joseph...

We are a hooker, a lock, a blindside and a scrum-half away from an entire capped team aged 24 or under - no, cancel that, LCD is capped, so a lock, a blindside and a scrum-half... and I think it's fair to say that no lock, blindside, or scrum-half of that age were putting their hands up 18 months ago.

 

[j'nuh]

I don't think you can give someone credit for eventually bringing in the right people. One of England's main problems in 2015 was a lack of experience and part of this was how slow Lancaster was to react to bringing players in.

It ran right from the start. He was playing Dowson at 8 before giving Morgan a chance. He had Botha and Deacon in before Launchbury. Hodgson before Ford. Ashton before Roko and Watson. Foden/Brown-on-the-wing before May. And it continued right until the end, with Kvesic, Ewers and Slade left out or brought in too late to make a difference.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I don't think you can give someone credit for eventually bringing in the right people. One of England's main problems in 2015 was a lack of experience and part of this was how slow Lancaster was to react to bringing players in.

It ran right from the start. He was playing Dowson at 8 before giving Morgan a chance. He had Botha and Deacon in before Launchbury. Hodgson before Ford. Ashton before Roko and Watson. Foden/Brown-on-the-wing before May. And it continued right until the end, with Kvesic, Ewers and Slade left out or brought in too late to make a difference.

It was also the reluctance to play in form players ahead others. So even when Tom wood had experience, he was still starting when we should have dropped him and tried another player.

It's a win win situation, a younger player gets experience and the more experience should be spurned on by being dropped, if not they don't have the right competitive edge for international rugby.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Generally agree with the principles, but the whole Kvesic situation was complicated by the Robshaw/ captain / home RWC / non specialist 7 thing. And let's not forget MK is operating at a whole different level than he was 2 years ago.

All this is compounded by the size of our player base. Take no8. Soon we'll have Morgan, Binny, Hughes and Beaumont fighting for the shirt, all very different types of player. Can anyone see one of these emerging and nailing the spot for the next 6 years as Read has done in NZ? Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Hughes at lock, although I doubt Wasps would ever play him there. In a couple of years, how about:

Auterac
George
Brookes
Launch
Hughes
Itoje
Kvesic
Beaumont

Pretty inexperienced, but would otherwise seem to be a very good blend. I'm sure Vunipolas, Clifford etc will have something to say about that though.