"England's underpowered pack".....

It has become fashionable in the context of the upcoming Calcutta Cup Test Match to bandy around the expression. "England's underpowered pack".

Is this likely to actually be true? Are we really less powerfull at forward than the Scots?

Now before I get shot down in flames i'm only posing questions here and I know that weight does not equal power but nonetheless I have done a weight breakdown for the starting forwards (based on weight as per SRU and RFU websites) as follows :

Scotland
Front Row: 345kg

England
Front Row : 346kg

England +1kg

Scotland
Second Row: 251kg

England
Second Row: 231kg

Scotland +20kg

Scotland
Back Row: 321kg

England Back Row: 324kg

England +3kg

Scotland total pack weight: 917kg
England total pack weight: 901kg
Scotland + 16kg

Clearly the 20kg advantage in the second rows is the main point out of all this.

Are England REALLY going to be hopelessly outpowered ? How will this manifest itself in the game? At scrum and in driving mauls? Surely technique is every bit as important as size here? The scots will be tough at scrum time I know that but were not mugs.

Finally will the pack weight advantage actually translate into a material advantage or will the more mobile English forwards contribute more to our cause?

(I assume here that Botha and Palmer in particular are more mobile than their Scottish counterparts and that our front row are also more mobile than their scottish opponents)

Can someone shed some light on all this for me please.

All I know is that Grey is big and very mobile - and thats what makes him one of the more interesting players in his position. If I remember right then Hamilton is just big - very big

I assume here that Botha and Palmer in particular are more mobile than their Scottish counterparts and that our front row are also more mobile than their scottish opponents

really - I think you assume wrong. teh only one of the Scots I have not seen play this year is Murray - he is only average moblie for a prop - the rest - you wil see. ford is as fast as most back rows, chunk puts himself about, gray has been seen to outpace backs, Hamilton is Ok and the Scots back row are all quick for big men

Tri,

I think the issues are twofld. Firstly we are conditioned to asuming good England side = dominant phyical pack. Getting beaten up by the Saffers so badly last Autumn was emabressing. Getting shoved around by Georgis was a national disgrace. For all we profess to want an open attacking mobile England the minute someone dares steal our ball the " this never would have happened in 2003" side comes out.

As you say the scrum and maul arent what they once were in the game and its too easy to get carried sway there.

But England have had real problems securing good psoession and disrupting the opposition when they choose to contest rucks. This side doesnt strike as one that has the grunt to do anything about that.
If the referees were following the interpretation they were this time last year then I wouldnt see that as such a problem, getting their first was key. But we have seen a slip back to more sealing off and more slowing down tactics and sides having to bulldoze the ball out.
Scotland strike as a side better set up to do that.

Theres also a preception that England lack someone like Gray or for Ireland Healy & SOB who can rampage round the field with the ball. I think we are doing Palmer a diservice here, and Hartley also used to be able to do that. Robshaw surely has a bing and trundle to him as well.

Perhaps its a lack of standout superstars in the pack, but taken as a whole you are perhaps corretc in pointing out that England arent softies.

England were beaten up by SA in the 2010 AIs and Ireland in the 2011 6Ns. We were largely second best in contact at the WC in most matches.

English club sides have struggled with the physicality of Irish sides in the HC.

We have been so used to having a strong set of forwards, that right now we look distinctly underpowered.


BUT........

Scotland will be quicker to the breakdown and more effective once there - as they are faster and more used to contesting the breakdown as it happens more in the HC

Scotland will also give them a lesson in th scrums and lineouts. Its the backs I worry about

I will be looking for Palmer, Hartley, Robshaw, Dowson (Morgan when he comes on) and Barritt to make the hard yards...with Croft carrying the ball a little further out...

I think the "underpowered" aspect comes from those who have seen the problems English sides have with securing their own ball...

Whether this is due to the AP not allowing teams to contest for the ball on the deck or the lack of a "true" 7 is much of a muchness. The Scottish pack carry much more of a threat in the tight dark spaces than the English and you would think the loss of Lawes and Wood will have a knock on effect for the carrying capacity/mean-ness of the English pack.

I don't think they will get shafted but I severely doubt they will cope with Rosco/Barcs on the floor...

TJ wrote:Scotland will also give them a lesson in lineouts.

I have a feeling the opposite may be true here. Croft, Palmer and Botha will all be looking to steal Scottish throw.

Peter Seabiscuit

Thank you for your insights. I agree that culturally were used to bullying sides at forward. But i fear that while we should not be anyone's patsies those days are gone and we must all adapt.

So basically were losing out in the smashing rucks and smashing through contact stakes. If that is true then we have little option than to minimise the number of rucks in the game. More passing before or out of contact and more running. We have to move the overly powerful scots around and make them chase shadows. Do you agree?

Tom Palmer is the most consistently underrated player England have. He is a fine all court second row.

Jim Hamilton is a big lump but is immobile. The opposite of mobile.

p.s does anyone know our ref and how he likes the game to go at the breakdown and scrum?

Of course the other question is:

How fed up are the scottish forwards gonna get when all their hard work and 90% possesion keeps getting kicked straight back to Foden, Ashton and Strettle....

Geordie Falcon

That's right! Good man!

Possession aint what it used to be....

It's what you do with it that counts.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Of course the other question is:

How fed up are the scottish forwards gonna get when all their hard work and 90% possesion keeps getting kicked straight back to Foden, Ashton and Strettle....

I think the first time Parks gets rucked by this own side when the balls out of play

GeordieFalcon wrote:Of course the other question is:

How fed up are the scottish forwards gonna get when all their hard work and 90% possesion keeps getting kicked straight back to Foden, Ashton and Strettle....

Yup thats the way its going to go

Triangulation, you've only compared teams on the basis of weight. However, power and weight are not necessarily correlated. You'd think that a heavier man is more powerful but not always if the extra weight is just fat! (not saying Scotland are fatter, obviously).

Like you say, technique does come into it. I've seen a number of games at club level where we (Dragons) have had a heavier pack put have been shoved backwards in most scrums. I've also seen England have a lighter pack than Wales in the past, got my hopes up of some scrum parity, only to have my hopes dashed as we get mullered in the scrum! It's not purely about weight, but what you've done to get that weight (power training vs eating pies)!

A few kilos here and there is nothing....Tom Smith proved that..small guy...awesome prop! Andrew Sheridan...Man mountain....poor technique...not my favorite england prop.

Technique is a huge thing...

Triangulation wrote:Peter Seabiscuit

Thank you for your insights. I agree that culturally were used to bullying sides at forward. But i fear that while we should not be anyone's patsies those days are gone and we must all adapt.

So basically were losing out in the smashing rucks and smashing through contact stakes. If that is true then we have little option than to minimise the number of rucks in the game. More passing before or out of contact and more running. We have to move the overly powerful scots around and make them chase shadows. Do you agree?

Tom Palmer is the most consistently underrated player England have. He is a fine all court second row.

Jim Hamilton is a big lump but is immobile. The opposite of mobile.

p.s does anyone know our ref and how he likes the game to go at the breakdown and scrum?

Tri, an update for you on the new, greyhound-like, less-big-than-he-was Big Jim Hamilton: FLBJH.

I don't think Murray or Cole are particularly mobile, whereas For and Hartley both cleraly are. Corbisero is mobile enough, but Chunk is the surprise package, with his nifty (well, nifty for a man shaped like a bag of spuds) sidestep. Gray is easily the most mobile lock on the park, and I wouldn't distinguish too much between the other three, altho Hamilton's 'grunt' is pretty significant when he hits rucks and mauls. In the backrow, I suspect roughly equal mobility, Rennie and Denton marginally quicker than their counterparts, Croft quicker than Stroks.

As you say, it will be interesting to see how it goes.

PS I believe it's G Clancy - I am not a fan

PPS Palmer is underrated and undervalued, mostly by English fans tho, I think - must be all that time he spent in Scottish age-group sides

Triangulation wrote:Peter Seabiscuit

Thank you for your insights. I agree that culturally were used to bullying sides at forward. But i fear that while we should not be anyone's patsies those days are gone and we must all adapt.

So basically were losing out in the smashing rucks and smashing through contact stakes. If that is true then we have little option than to minimise the number of rucks in the game. More passing before or out of contact and more running. We have to move the overly powerful scots around and make them chase shadows. Do you agree?

Tom Palmer is the most consistently underrated player England have. He is a fine all court second row.

Jim Hamilton is a big lump but is immobile. The opposite of mobile.

p.s does anyone know our ref and how he likes the game to go at the breakdown and scrum?

All seems great in theory. Its just is the first wekeend of a torunament in the middle of a snowstorm for a rookie team the best time to be trying that?

England endouvered hard to get their open game going in the world cup but their execution and handling let them down, as well as the lack of quick ball.

If they can get the high tempo and they can execute their skills them they should give Scotland a shoeing onthe scorebaord even if they take a few nasty digs a long the way. Its a long time since England have done that at Murrayfield though, normally they save their most torrid performances for that fixture which plays right into Scotlands hands allowing them to dictate a kicking batlle and scrap in the mud.

TJ wrote:Scotland will be quicker to the breakdown and more effective once there - as they are faster and more used to contesting the breakdown as it happens more in the HC

Yeah, cos Scottish sides have had loads of practice in the HC havent they...

all good points re weight v technique, but I am not sure that Eng even have great technique. Corbs has clearly been less effective than Sheridan when he has replaced him and our (Eng) scrums have suffered. Plus Cole ain't exactly the bees knees here. He has been pushed around a fair bit and is only his club no.2. Hartley is a lightweight hooker so I think England will struggle in the scrums and in getting over the gain line. However, I do think that Botha and Palmer are very adept at playing like back row forwards and in turning ball over and assisiting in counter attacking moves, which puts Eng in the unfamiliar role of having to play a more expansive game. Away at Murryfield it all points to disaster for me. Scotland by more than 7.

Equo Troiano wrote:

TJ wrote:Scotland will be quicker to the breakdown and more effective once there - as they are faster and more used to contesting the breakdown as it happens more in the HC

Yeah, cos Scottish sides have had loads of practice in the HC havent they...

Pool 2 Table Sunday, 22 January 2012 17:07 UK
Team P W D L F A BP PTS
1 Edinburgh 6 5 0 1 156 138 2 22
2 Cardiff Blues 6 5 0 1 145 110 1 21
3 Racing Metro 92 6 1 0 5 160 190 5 9
4 London Irish 6 1 0 5 116 139 5 9

Pool 3 Table Saturday, 21 January 2012 20:23 UK
Team P W D L F A BP PTS
1 Leinster 6 5 1 0 172 88 2 24
2 Glasgow 6 2 1 3 106 133 2 12
3 Bath 6 2 0 4 122 151 3 11
4 Montpellier 6 1 2 3 84 112 2 10

Yeah, because year after year both Glasgow and Edinburgh fly the flag for the Celtic league don't they..

In theory, Scotland should dominate the scrum. However Clancy is hopeless and is of the opinion that Scottish teams can't scrum, pass, kick...etc..etc so if in any doubt penalises us.

Its his default position.

Needless to say I'm delighted to have him as the ref for this match. Clancy and Parks the ultimate combo!!

Year after year after year after year - Equo - why don't you try and move up to the here and now where it matters

Were agreed then: Take Scotland on in an arm wrestle and we'll come off second best just like we did vs Ireland 6N 2010 and vs Saffas in the AI.

SO we have one choice only and that is to play an unfamiliar high tempo passing and running game minimising the numbers of rucks and tackles, with a rookie side, in a snowstorm, at Murrayfield.

Baldrick i have a cunning plan.....

At least we have announced that this is our plan. We've said to the ref " We're coming to play rugby. If our ball is slow, feel free to whistle the scots off the park"

and we'll beat them 3 points and a few quick taps at a time, get them behind on the scoreboard, force Parks to start trying to play rugby, pick of an intercept try or two. Shut the gate.

RubyGuby wrote:Year after year after year after year - Equo - why don't you try and move up to the here and now where it matters

I will, England are reigning 6N champions and Wales have one team in the QF of the HC, having not won anything since 2008..

In all seriousness...i really dont think we're as powder puff as is being made out.

Griff wrote:Triangulation, you've only compared teams on the basis of weight. However, power and weight are not necessarily correlated. You'd think that a heavier man is more powerful but not always if the extra weight is just fat! (not saying Scotland are fatter, obviously).
Like you say, technique does come into it. I've seen a number of games at club level where we (Dragons) have had a heavier pack put have been shoved backwards in most scrums. I've also seen England have a lighter pack than Wales in the past, got my hopes up of some scrum parity, only to have my hopes dashed as we get mullered in the scrum! It's not purely about weight, but what you've done to get that weight (power training vs eating pies)!

There's a certain someone wearing blue and number 1 who backs that up. His advantage, though, is that he's relatively short for a wide base, can get under Cole.

Equo Troiano wrote:

TJ wrote:Scotland will be quicker to the breakdown and more effective once there - as they are faster and more used to contesting the breakdown as it happens more in the HC

Yeah, cos Scottish sides have had loads of practice in the HC havent they...

Hmm, we seem to qualify every year without too much bother!

"Griff wrote:
Triangulation, you've only compared teams on the basis of weight. However, power and weight are not necessarily correlated. You'd think that a heavier man is more powerful but not always if the extra weight is just fat! (not saying Scotland are fatter, obviously).
Like you say, technique does come into it. I've seen a number of games at club level where we (Dragons) have had a heavier pack put have been shoved backwards in most scrums. I've also seen England have a lighter pack than Wales in the past, got my hopes up of some scrum parity, only to have my hopes dashed as we get mullered in the scrum! It's not purely about weight, but what you've done to get that weight (power training vs eating pies)! "

"Now before I get shot down in flames i'm only posing questions here and I know that weight does not equal power but nonetheless I have done a weight breakdown for the starting forwards (based on weight as per SRU and RFU websites) as follows :"

Attention to detail gentlemen. Attention to detail.

It has been decided anyway. I have a plan and it's as hot as my pants!

Were going to run those massively powerful scottish brutes ragged with our crazy zig zag running patterns and harlem globe trotter passing game.

If you don't learn to ruck and counter ruck you won't win much in the future

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Equo Troiano wrote:

TJ wrote:Scotland will be quicker to the breakdown and more effective once there - as they are faster and more used to contesting the breakdown as it happens more in the HC

Yeah, cos Scottish sides have had loads of practice in the HC havent they...

Hmm, we seem to qualify every year without too much bother!

Is the wink because you automatically qualify for the HEC?

I think its more to do with how the Scots lads perform at the breakdown, like when John Barclay was on the top of his game he was one of the best disruptors in the 6N, although Rennie has had a stormer of a season and I'm looking forward to seeing him play. Basically the Scottish pack know how to ruck well and how to slow down ball when they need to, they've got the dark arts of rucking nailed down, whereas I feel Englands forwards can be a bit patchy in that area.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Equo Troiano wrote:

TJ wrote:Scotland will be quicker to the breakdown and more effective once there - as they are faster and more used to contesting the breakdown as it happens more in the HC

Yeah, cos Scottish sides have had loads of practice in the HC havent they...

Hmm, we seem to qualify every year without too much bother!

Is the wink because you automatically qualify for the HEC?

Ah, you've seen strait thru me, Chequered! Interestingly tho, the order is different - our first automatic qualification place goes to the winner of the 1872 Cup, and the second place goes to the highest (or next highest) ranked team in the Rabo

Well what about France? They always lose the weight ratio battles, having probably one of the lightest and smallest packs in world rugby. Does that mean their pack is less powerful? Nope, not even slightly, as France have shown they have a monstrous scrum and back-rowers who are just as fast as any other back (and just as skilful/dynamic). I don't think weight has all that much relevance if I'm honest. It can help yes, but as said previously technique is much more valuable.

You are right about the rucking nellybroon - its just in every other facet of the game that Scotland tend to struggle

TJ wrote:Scotland will be quicker to the breakdown and more effective once there - as they are faster and more used to contesting the breakdown as it happens more in the HC

Scotland will also give them a lesson in th scrums and lineouts. Its the backs I worry about

very confident stuff there TJ, we'll have to see if you'll be eating your hat on Saturday evening!!

I would not refer to Englands pack as being underpowered. They are still very much a powerful pack.

well if it snows the England backs should wear white shoes and then the scots couldn't see where to tackle

lostinwales wrote:You are right about the rucking nellybroon - its just in every other facet of the game that Scotland tend to struggle

I wish I could say I disagree, but sadly I don't

There have been a number of uninformed comments made here. In the modern game there is an ever increasing trade off being taken by coaches to increase mobility (speed) at the expense of strength/size. Hence the days of England's slow rumbling packs is long gone.

"However, power and weight are not necessarily correlated." Wrong - Power and weight are very closely correlated.

"Surely technique is every bit as important as size here?" No - Power is more important than size. (technique is a 'method' and a given, without it you shouldn't be in the side). (Power = Strength X Speed).

A team stacked with speedsters in the pack than can not gain some sort of near parity with a pack stacked with size/strength will usually get blown away when the arm wrestling starts. Just think of an U18 side going up against a full international side. The U18s could easily be quicker but they wouldn't compete in terms of strength.

So any coach has a dilemma. How far does he go when selecting for speed to the detriment of strength? Get it wrong and the pack that is too light will be schooled. They will be bullied at set piece, rucks and mauls. Select a pack that is very strong but too slow and there will also be problems as they will be made to look stodgy.

POWER is the word and generally you need your most Powerful pack. (Power = Strength x Speed)

Has SL got the balance of power right? We shall see.

Some of what you say about power is true, but strength is not measured by size at all. That is why bodybuilders have the biggest size of all, yet they are not as strong as say an olympic lifter, who's entire career is based on power. I use the french pack once again as an example. Very light and mobile, yet they have one of the best scrums out there, and are very rarely knocked off the park in any facet of the game. Size does have some importance, and it does help, but size doesn't equal strength and there must be a fair balance to keep both strong and fast.

I said 'not necessarily correlated', not that they weren't correlated! Just going on weight tells us nothing. I know people who weigh less that me who are more powerful than me. They can either squat or bench the same or more as me more quickly and are thus more powerful. I weigh more because I'm fatter. Shane Williams, 12 stone something, I bet my bottom dollar is more powerful than my mate who doesn't do any training and is 13 stone. Weight does not always mean power.

An easy example to prove that would be getting Shane Williams to do a box jump (a frequently used method of testing one's power base) and Adam Jones to do a box jump. Now, who do you think will jump the highest?

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:Scotland will be quicker to the breakdown and more effective once there - as they are faster and more used to contesting the breakdown as it happens more in the HC

Scotland will also give them a lesson in th scrums and lineouts. Its the backs I worry about

very confident stuff there TJ, we'll have to see if you'll be eating your hat on Saturday evening!!

Yup
Lineouts I am not so confident ( but we do have the tallest guys) about but given decent reffing I see the Scotland pack dominating by being quicker between the ears and over the ground and by being stronger in the scrum. We shall see.

lets put it his way - there is not one of the Engladn forwards i would swap for a Scot - but I'd have a good few of the England backs

I think your man Denton is really going to shine this 6 nations. Might even give Faletau a run for his money! Not Picamoles though, he is a head above the rest right now

"but strength is not measured by size at all"

Sorry this is wrong. Generally speaking pound for pound the bigger man will be stronger assuming both have worked out. But the stronger man won't necessarily be faster.

Not necessarily, but in most cases you are right yes. Size generally helps with strength. Power on the otherhand as you say though, is a measurement of speed x strength. So in terms of power, someone with a lot of size and strength is not going to be more powerful than the smaller guy who has a lot of pace. Take my example of comparing Williams and Jones. One is going to squat more obviously, and the other is going to out-run the other obviously. However, Williams would have a better balance of strength-speed than Jones, and therefore he is probably more powerful than Jones.

Still, I know who I'd rather have push my car if it broke down...

Of course you would want the fella who has brute strength in this case Mr. Jones. But don't mix up both power and strength.