England World Cup Squad

[TRF_Olyy]

Is that enough at international level though? Im not totally sure.

Why do you think it's not?
I guess from a stealing point of view we'd only have one genuine threat, but then don't most teams? Even if they have multiple guys that theoretically could it's usually only one guy who's the disruptor

 

[Geordie]

Why do you think it's not?
I guess from a stealing point of view we'd only have one genuine threat, but then don't most teams? Even if they have multiple guys that theoretically could it's usually only one guy who's the disruptor

I just think you need to have two very good jumpers in a pack at this level. Itoje is clearly top level as is Chessum, but i think we'd be targeted if we go with Itoje or Chessum and 4 other options that are...ok.
Martin is a work in progress in that department.

i would certainly its required for France and Ireland...the others maybe you go horses for Courses...

 

[LIONSxv]

At the moment the only issue is...if you go for Martins physicality (which i would) is that you need another jumper. Martin is a good prem lineout option and working on it...but hes not an elite International level jumper / option yet and may never be.

So it leaves Itoje and either a jumping 6 or 8. I wouldnt even be surprised to see Chessum at 6 for the odd game...as Borthwick may go horses for courses and have shorted lineouts etc.

Mercer was calling the line out for Montpellier, he is genuine line out option. If he starts at 8 , you could play Martin at TH lock and then Itoje/Chessum as the main jumper
We could then play flankers on the flanks and not have a slow lock filling in at 6. The two best NH teams play with this sort of setup without resorting to playing a lock at 6.

 

[Everyday EggChaser]

Curry is 6'1 Underhill is 6'0 and Earl is about 6'1 which even on a lifting point doesn't really add much. So yeah a 3rd decent lineout option is really a must at test level. I know you can beat teams on the floor before you jump but its not hard to mark two jumpers and get a 3rd guy just to jump in front of and block the eyeline of one of the other options if theyre under like 6'3. Just look at the other teams around.

NZ have retallick 6'8 whitelock 6'8(barrett 6'6) frizell 6'5 (2015 had kaino 6'5 and read 6'4)

SA have eben 6'8 mostert 6'6(RG snyman 6'9) PSDT 6'7 and even vermeulen was 6'4

France have flament 6'8 woki 6'5(willemse 6'7) Olivon 6'6 and an assortment of back row who sit between 6'3-6'5

Ireland have beirne 6'6 henderson 6'6(ryan 6'8) POM 6'3 and doris 6'4. they even played baird at 6 and hes 6'6

Eng 2003 had johnson 6'7 kay 6'6 and dallaglio 6'4. i know hill took a lot of lineouts at 6'2 but he had loz/jonno/vickery (who was 6'3) lifting him.

You do need 3 but not necessarily 3 locks. Its the options that keep the oppo guessing and prevents them from man marking your two jumpers out the game.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Mercer was calling the line out for Montpellier, he is genuine line out option. If he starts at 8 , you could play Martin at TH lock and then Itoje/Chessum as the main jumper
We could then play flankers on the flanks and not have a slow lock filling in at 6. The two best NH teams play with this sort of setup without resorting to playing a lock at 6.

Presuming you mean France, the French didn't have a back rower at the World Cup shorter than 6'4. Ollivon is 6'7. Sure they're not locks but they're a lot taller than any of our genuine flanker options.

To be clear, I wouldn't be going for any of the lock/flank hybrids any time soon. Curry would be my choice. But the French do play with absolutely giant back rowers.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Much of this talk about lineout jumpers but has the lineout really been that much of a point of weakness for us? It sounds like we are prioritising picking players with the physical characteristics to fix a problem that isn't really a problem rather than fixing the problems that are problems (scrum and rucks). I recall we had a game against NZ I think it was where the fact we only had 2 jumpers and NZ had 4 meant we may as well give up the lineout, we then went on to win every one of our lineouts and even stole some.

As long as we have a 2 who can throw well and 2 or 3 good lineouts options, I think we are ok. Sure, if we can get taller players in then great but I'd rather we'd do that because they improve our game elsewhere and not selected for lineout ability first and foremost.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Much of this talk about lineout jumpers but has the lineout really been that much of a point of weakness for us?

Well no because it's had Itoje, Chessum and Lawes in it. That's the point.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Well no because it's had Itoje, Chessum and Lawes in it. That's the point.

I meant in general. We haven't had giant locks in an absolute age and yet it's never really stood out as one of our weak points. I think a 2 who can throw well matters much more than 6'10 locks.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I knows it's what Wikipedia says but I find it hard to believe Curry is 6ft1/the same height as Ben Earl

Jono Ross and Nick Schonert are both 6ft3:


Curry's been one of England (and Sale)' s lineout targets for the past 5 years

 

[Which Tyler]

Anyone taking published stats of rugby players as remotely reflecting the real world is... not paying attention.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I knows it's what Wikipedia says but I find it hard to believe Curry is 6ft1/the same height as Ben Earl

Jono Ross and Nick Schonert are both 6ft3:


Curry's been one of England (and Sale)' s lineout targets for the past 5 years

Why've they put one of the mascots inbetween Schonert and JLDP?

 

[BPM]

I meant in general. We haven't had giant locks in an absolute age and yet it's never really stood out as one of our weak points. I think a 2 who can throw well matters much more than 6'10 locks.

kind of. Having a good lineout is a mixture of interconnected elements.

For example, a hooker can have excellent darts, but that benefit is only maximised with perfect timing with the jumper and lifting pod. I'd argue that a very well drilled lineout with slightly shorter jumpers will almost always outperform one that is mostly reliant on height.

 

[Crash Hamster]

I've said this before, but of the dozen or so lineouts each team gets per match, how many are taken by a 6'8 jumper at the top of his lift and at full stretch?

(Also, how many are to 1, over the back, not contested or to a shortened lineout?)

A high jumping, well lifted 6'2 jumper can certainly compete just as well as a 6'8 jumper not at full stretch. If Sniff Bostik is as good a lineout coach as everyone says, it's really not a hugely important consideration in selection. Pick the best players for the majority of their job spec.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

kind of. Having a good lineout is a mixture of interconnected elements.

For example, a hooker can have excellent darts, but that benefit is only maximised with perfect timing with the jumper and lifting pod. I'd argue that a very well drilled lineout with slightly shorter jumpers will almost always outperform one that is mostly reliant on height.

This is what I'm getting at. Our lineout has functioned just fine without 6'10 monsters so I don't see that that should be a priority for our selection of players, as the lack of it has not really been a hindrance. It's a nice to have but is not something that we actually need to prioritise. I'd rather we had players on the smaller side who were bossing every other aspect of their game and were fine in the lineout other than selecting a player with an extra 2 or 3 inches who is worse at everything else.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

kind of. Having a good lineout is a mixture of interconnected elements.

For example, a hooker can have excellent darts, but that benefit is only maximised with perfect timing with the jumper and lifting pod. I'd argue that a very well drilled lineout with slightly shorter jumpers will almost always outperform one that is mostly reliant on height.

Yes agreed, although ceding height and reach gives less room for error and probably means you're less likely to disrupt opposition ball. A good big un will usually beat a good little un.

Lawes was an exceptional big un who took the pressure off our locks and was also an excellent attacking weapon.

Even though there are zillions more breakdowns in a game, time and again we see how disproportionately badly a malfunctioning set piece effects a team.

 

[Everyday EggChaser]

Always take listed height with a massive lump of salt



both here have been listed as 6'1/2 at some point...

 

[Geordie]

Its not necessarily about height...its about having at least 2 QUALITY jumpers, one or two other decent options, and a well organized lineout lifters etc.
(Although a back 5 with mostly 6'1-6'2 players v 6'4-6'9 players is going to struggle)
The back 5 set up is going to be so interesting...

I bet they will be hammering George Martin on his line out work. Could be Kruis replacement finally.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Always take listed height with a massive lump of salt

View attachment 18373

both here have been listed as 6'1/2 at some point...

I think they took Earl's height from his tinder profile, there's no way he's over 6ft, he always looks tiny compared to the other forwards

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Is Martin's lineout that bad?
I think people assume that just because they are not the first choice at club doesn't mean they are poor.

I just feel Borthwick is too conservative in trusting young players than anything else.

 

[Saintjay]

I think people also forget Lewis Ludlam was one of the top lineout jumpers last six nations. The boy can leap like a salmon.

In order the atrack, defence, scrum, lineout would be on my England things to fix list. Lineout isn't a real concern.