Father born in Derby so no residence required.
Because there are 6 locks and only 5 back rowers. And none of those back rowers, bar Hill, are particularly large either, which is why I think EJ will want to up the weight by adding in an extra lock. Hill could be that big man on the blindside but seeing as Earl is the guy I'd have thought is most likely to play 8 it'd be pretty crazy to cap 2 new back rowers at the same time.
While i dont mind him in the EPS as his form is good(unlike ben youngs......) but yes not at 6...if they want a lock to play 6 then bring in isiekwe but i dont want any lock at 6 i want a back rower at 6. And a dombrandt at 8. And a youngs in the bin(wheely)
I agree that keeping Curryhill is a priority but I don't think that it matters whether or not they're on the flanks. I'd go for Curry at 8 for a number of reasons. 1) At 185cm and 110kg he's a good build for it. That's pretty much the same as Faletau (187cm & 111kg) and noticeably heavier than Doris, Deegan, Navidi, Moriarty and Du Preez. 2) Curry played there a few times at the RWC. 3) Curry's shown himself to be a mature and intelligent player, despite his age, which is why I think he'd handle the transition well. 4) Hill is a very good player but he's only played 8 a couple of times and for the U20s. Introducing him to international rugby out of position would be a very tall order for him. 5) The alternative option of Earl at 8 with Curryhill on the flanks is far too small of a back row IMO.
Fair but what about Ludlam... wiki's can be wrong but they have him at 6'3 (& the same weight)?
He's listed by Saints as 192cm and 104kg. So yes he's quite tall but he's still on the small side weight-wise. He also doesn't carry particularly well IMO, whereas, if anything, Curry punches above his weight with ball in hand.
