-
I know it's silly and, if he leaves it doesn't really matter where he goes, but losing him to Sarries would seem an additional blow to just losing him.
If Sarries are prepared to offer him a big chunk more than we can, then can't blame a young player in a very attritional position from taking the money. Let's face it, however well we're playing at the moment, if he moves to Sarries then he'll be with a team who will be regularly competing for the premiership and in Europe, so not like he'd just be prioritising money over honours / success -
-
He'd also be fighting for selection with Itoje, Kpoku, Isiekwe, and Hunter-Hill (assuming Swinson retires again). Not guaranteed he'd be starting.
-
-
He'd also be fighting for selection with Itoje, Kpoku, Isiekwe, and Hunter-Hill (assuming Swinson retires again). Not guaranteed he'd be starting.
The thing is, though, his playing style is very reminiscent of Kruis, whereas Kpoku and Isiekwe are more like Itoje (not seen much of Hunter-Hill). You could see him bringing balance to a Saracens lineout that they wouldn't otherwise have. -
-
Yep. Also worth bearing in mind that Isiekwe plays at least as many games at 6 as he does in the row. Kpoku left for France a few weeks back (Lyon I think?).
-
-
The thing is, though, his playing style is very reminiscent of Kruis, whereas Kpoku and Isiekwe are more like Itoje (not seen much of Hunter-Hill). You could see him bringing balance to a Saracens lineout that they wouldn't otherwise have.
Kpoku might bear some physical resemblence to Itoje but he plays a tighter game - a moot point as I didn't know he's gone to Lyon, though. Bad news for us as it makes the move far more likely.
I know you're wedded to the idea that a 4 and a 5 are essentially totally different positions but they'll pick their best locks regardless like they always do. -
-
Kpoku might bear some physical resemblence to Itoje but he plays a tighter game - a moot point as I didn't know he's gone to Lyon, though. Bad news for us as it makes the move far more likely.
I know you're wedded to the idea that a 4 and a 5 are essentially totally different positions but they'll pick their best locks regardless like they always do.
And hominem much?
They're not totally different positions, but there are key differences. Less different than loosehead and tighthead, certainly, but at least as different as inside centre and outside centre.
If you look at the great lock pairings, they almost all have two players with distinct skill sets - Johnson and Kay, Itoje and Kruis, Matfield and Botha, Retallick and Whitelock. Kohn and Robson, even.
That said, statistically lock is one of the positions with the highest injury rate, so quite often teams do just have to play their best available locks. But they generally go better when they have a setpiece specialist and an enforcer style lock working together rather than two similar players. -
-
Where on earth is the ad hominem???
I'd add that in almost all of those cases (I don't agree that Itoje/Kruis is one of the "great" combos) those were the best two locks full stop. SA just won a world cup with De Jager and Etzebeth, two massive blokes who could play 4 or 5 as they felt like it. No-one in NZ came close to either Whitelock or Retallick; when one was injured, they picked the next best player regardless. Johnson and Kay was very much as you say, but that is going back a long time now and has its roots in the amateur era and the early days of professionalism when that sort of pairing was more common.
Even with England, it's almost always Itoje +1, and the +1 is largely "whoever is fit and in form". Launchbury or Lawes or Hill or Kruis (when he was available) or even Ewels - very different players playing the same role.
(We tried Itoje at 6 for a bit of course)
-
-
Excuse my lack of knowledge of the pack (played as a back) what’s the main difference between 4 & 5? 4 the enforcer & big lump, 5 more dynamic lineout option?
-
-
Excuse my lack of knowledge of the pack (played as a back) what’s the main difference between 4 & 5? 4 the enforcer & big lump, 5 more dynamic lineout option?
That's broadly it. Clearly JG and I disagree about how much teams try to have a balance of the two, but my view is that unless they have locks of the calibre of De Jager and Etzebeth, their first choice pairing will typically have one of each. (Though I agree that the backups will generally be more of a hybrid - makes sense if you only have room for one on the bench, just as how we used to have props who could play both sides) -
-
Not to open up more of a debate, but would it not usually be the opposite of that? I.e. the 5 as the tighthead lock and ‘enforcer’ type and 4 as the more athletic of the two?
-
-
Not to open up more of a debate, but would it not usually be the opposite of that? I.e. the 5 as the tighthead lock and ‘enforcer’ type and 4 as the more athletic of the two?
Johnson, Kohn, Itoje, Symons, Lamb were or are 4s
Kay, Robson, Kruis, Lewies were or are 5s
Itoje's pretty athletic, but he's definitely an enforcer and a lineout disrupter more than a primary caller. That said, I believe he sometimes packs down at 4 because he's a very good scrummaging lock. I wouldn't be surprised if some teams and countries number them the other way around.
-
-
Calling the lineout is independent of which shirt they wear, though.
And I'm not sure how it makes sense to say that Kruis - the big, slow, power forward - was more Ben Kay than Martin Johnson. Kruis was an excellent lineout forward but he was a grunt lock first and foremost. -
-
Calling the lineout is independent of which shirt they wear, though.
And I'm not sure how it makes sense to say that Kruis - the big, slow, power forward - was more Ben Kay than Martin Johnson. Kruis was an excellent lineout forward but he was a grunt lock first and foremost.
It's not independent of their shirt numbers, though. I can remember the uncertainty before both Lawes and Itoje started calling lineouts internationally; neither of them did it regularly for their club and it was seen as a risk for England when they did it. Both of them were successful and it's broadened England's options.
Likewise, I see Kruis as a direct successor to Kay because they were both setpiece specialists. Kay might have been a bit lighter and faster but he wasn't exactly an all court athlete as England learned to their cost in the RWC Final. On the other hand, it was only in the period between Marler and Kruis coming on and the Boks deploying the bomb squad that England had anything approaching an edge in the scrum at the RWC Final. -
-
It's not independent of their shirt numbers, though. I can remember the uncertainty before both Lawes and Itoje started calling lineouts internationally; neither of them did it regularly for their club and it was seen as a risk for England when they did it. Both of them were successful and it's broadened England's options.
I remember the same. The problem here is that lineout calling isn't tied to the shirt number; it's tied to how good they are at understanding lineouts, predicting opposition plays, how strategic they are with their thinking, etc. Sometimes even a flanker (like Tom Wood) can be a lineout caller. It's another piece of the puzzle to juggle.QuoteLikewise, I see Kruis as a direct successor to Kay because they were both setpiece specialists. Kay might have been a bit lighter and faster but he wasn't exactly an all court athlete as England learned to their cost in the RWC Final. On the other hand, it was only in the period between Marler and Kruis coming on and the Boks deploying the bomb squad that England had anything approaching an edge in the scrum at the RWC Final.
I get where you're coming from but Kay was more of an all court player for the time than his drop in the final suggests! Agree about Kruis and Marler coming on in the final, but that's an easy one: Kruis was our biggest scrummaging lock, right? Which suggests he's more of a "4" in your parlance. And he came on for Lawes...
Things were a lot more clearly delineated back in the day. In the Johnson era, it was common to consider your grunt lock the "2" jumper in the lineout - the stronger, less mobile, banker ball if you threw it straight at him - and the other one the "4" jumper who had more lineout ability and mobility. Lineouts were much less sophisticated (players basically stuck to their positions in the lineout) and back rowers nowhere near as good (or as big!) as they are now. These days most sides can rustle up 4 genuine lineout targets and every single one of them is likely to be miles better than the majority of locks of any type from back in the day, so the sharp difference between 4 and 5 doesn't really exist in the same way.
I think it's useful to have archetypes but that only goes so far. Clearly teams can be successful picking monsters at 4 and 5. The old adage of "they're too big to lift" just doesn't seem to matter any more, there's more jumpers available than before, and who you're picking as your lock pairing will depend primarily on a) who your best players are, and b) who makes up the rest of the pack. If you've a massive pack, picking a lineout genius is a no-brainer as you won't lose much; if you've got two superb lineout forwards in the back row, two behemoths gives you a big boost; if you're lacking ball thieves, an Itoje (class aside) or a Beirne is a huge bonus.
Enjoyable convo, appreciated it :) -
Agree x 1
View List
Agree x 1
View List
Agree x 1
View List