How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?

[Oakboy]

I just don't get the Itoje at 6 idea. It's like the Launchbury at 6 one that came before it - why shift your best player out of position to accomodate someone who's not as good?

It seems especially barking considering it's being suggested to get Launchbury onto the pitch. Why not put him at 6 if you're fixated on playing a lock in the back row and leave our best functioning unit as it is?

Puja

The point is that our three best forwards are Itoje, Launchbury and Kruis (in that order, IMO). If Itoje was just a lock (as Johnson or Kay were, say) there is no further debate but he is a superb blindside flanker in every aspect. I'd argue that allowing for his size, shape, pace, hands and rugby brain he is the most effective backrow carrier available. I'd go further and suggest that he is capable of being a better 6 than lock eventually, certainly if you value the effect he can have on a game. I see him as a future captain at 6.

You see him as a lock long-term. Fair enough. I can understand your argument that he might be (or become) our best lock. I'd argue, though, that he could be our best blindside by a far greater margin.

[Digby]

The point is that our three best forwards after Billy are Itoje, Launchbury and Kruis

Fixed.

[Oakboy]

The point is that our three best forwards after Billy are Itoje, Launchbury and Kruis

Fixed.

You do like your little joke!

[Digby]

The point is that our three best forwards after Billy are Itoje, Launchbury and Kruis

Fixed.

You do like your little joke!

I think it's between Billy V and Ford as to who is England's best player, and as Billy is having a more consistent positive affect then perhaps no matter Ford is more talented it's Billy who's quite simply our best player.

[Peat]

I just don't get the Itoje at 6 idea. It's like the Launchbury at 6 one that came before it - why shift your best player out of position to accomodate someone who's not as good?

Why not shift your best player if it makes the team better? The question is more whether Launch, Kruis and Itoje would trump Itoje, Kruis and Robshaw. Similar perhaps most people would want Folau in the Aussie back three (or now even at 13) but they'd have different ideas on what'd suit him best, I like him on the wing though that does drop his involvements more than I'd ideally like. Or for an English reference maybe as we saw with Hill and Back, don't pick one, pick both and change the team.

Digby has summed it up perfectly.

I still very much suspect that if fit and firing, Launchbury + Itoje trumps Itoje + Robshaw.

[Spiffy]

Fixed.

You do like your little joke!

I think it's between Billy V and Ford as to who is England's best player, and as Billy is having a more consistent positive affect then perhaps no matter Ford is more talented it's Billy who's quite simply our best player.

Ford was not that great in the 6N. In any case, players have such different roles in the team that I don't think anyone should be called England's best player. You may argue that Ford is more talented. But I would say that Billy is more talented............................................. at playing No.8.

[Digby]

Digby has summed it up perfectly.

I still very much suspect that if fit and firing, Launchbury + Itoje trumps Itoje + Robshaw.

And then we get into even if not one of the best individual players does Robshaw simply make it easier for others to function by being a better team player, and then too Itoje isn't the only alternative to Robshaw. No easy answers for EJ, nor should there be, but he does need to progress the side

[Banquo]

Digby has summed it up perfectly.

I still very much suspect that if fit and firing, Launchbury + Itoje trumps Itoje + Robshaw.

And then we get into even if not one of the best individual players does Robshaw simply make it easier for others to function by being a better team player, and then too Itoje isn't the only alternative to Robshaw. No easy answers for EJ, nor should there be, but he does need to progress the side

yep- all Eddie need do is find a front row, back row, half backs, a midfield and a back three

[Digby]

You do like your little joke!

I think it's between Billy V and Ford as to who is England's best player, and as Billy is having a more consistent positive affect then perhaps no matter Ford is more talented it's Billy who's quite simply our best player.

Ford was not that great in the 6N. In any case, players have such different roles in the team that I don't think anyone should be called England's best player. You may argue that Ford is more talented. But I would say that Billy is more talented............................................. at playing No.8.

I thought Ford had a rather decent 6N, not perfect (nor really close to) but certainly a good tournament. Some of his decision making was a bit off, but no one has ever always made the right/best choice, his movement is good, where he was putting in work was good. That he didn't look that stellar I'd put at the doors of our flankers, 9 and 12 to no small degree - and our intent to win scrum penalties

And it's certainly no exact science pontificating on who the 'best' is, the roles are as noted above very different, and some roles give a much greater chance to look a bigger influence, back row and 10 being to the fore. But for all that pondering the best remains a great pub conversation and Ford certainly looks up there on ability and potential.

[Digby]

Digby has summed it up perfectly.

I still very much suspect that if fit and firing, Launchbury + Itoje trumps Itoje + Robshaw.

And then we get into even if not one of the best individual players does Robshaw simply make it easier for others to function by being a better team player, and then too Itoje isn't the only alternative to Robshaw. No easy answers for EJ, nor should there be, but he does need to progress the side

yep- all Eddie need do is find a front row, back row, half backs, a midfield and a back three

Could be worse, he's got a 4, 5, 8, 10, 13 and 11, and some of the remaining 10 look good enough to stay in whilst steps are taken.

[Banquo]

I think it's between Billy V and Ford as to who is England's best player, and as Billy is having a more consistent positive affect then perhaps no matter Ford is more talented it's Billy who's quite simply our best player.

Ford was not that great in the 6N. In any case, players have such different roles in the team that I don't think anyone should be called England's best player. You may argue that Ford is more talented. But I would say that Billy is more talented............................................. at playing No.8.

I thought Ford had a rather decent 6N, not perfect (nor really close to) but certainly a good tournament. Some of his decision making was a bit off, but no one has ever always made the right/best choice, his movement is good, where he was putting in work was good. That he didn't look that stellar I'd put at the doors of our flankers, 9 and 12 to no small degree - and our intent to win scrum penalties

And it's certainly no exact science pontificating on who the 'best' is, the roles are as noted above very different, and some roles give a much greater chance to look a bigger influence, back row and 10 being to the fore. But for all that pondering the best remains a great pub conversation and Ford certainly looks up there on ability and potential.

Agreed on Ford, not sure why he was getting so much stick during the 6N, especially given 9 and 12 (not really a dig at Faz, not his fault entirely).

[Banquo]

And then we get into even if not one of the best individual players does Robshaw simply make it easier for others to function by being a better team player, and then too Itoje isn't the only alternative to Robshaw. No easy answers for EJ, nor should there be, but he does need to progress the side

yep- all Eddie need do is find a front row, back row, half backs, a midfield and a back three

Could be worse, he's got a 4, 5, 8, 10, 13 and 11, and some of the remaining 10 look good enough to stay in whilst steps are taken.

I was being somewhat facetious, but could be worse is where I'd be too.

[Oakboy]

The 'pub' debate has nowhere to go till Eddie finds a SH. The fact that some pundits are picking Wigglesworth in their 'team of the season' says it all!

[Peat]

Digby has summed it up perfectly.

I still very much suspect that if fit and firing, Launchbury + Itoje trumps Itoje + Robshaw.

And then we get into even if not one of the best individual players does Robshaw simply make it easier for others to function by being a better team player, and then too Itoje isn't the only alternative to Robshaw. No easy answers for EJ, nor should there be, but he does need to progress the side

Indeed. There's also the issue that we have two flankers who aren't hitting the desired performance levels for world domination. Is it wise to drop both in a short period of time? If you only replace one, which?

Maybe we should have a poll over which of Robshaw and Haskell will be binned first to sate jngf's endless thirst for back row discussion.

[padprop]

The 'pub' debate has nowhere to go till Eddie finds a SH. The fact that some pundits are picking Wigglesworth in their 'team of the season' says it all!

Robson is the most complete scrum half by a country mile. If Jones doesn't pick him in the EPS then I literally cannot see what angle he is coming from. Unbelievable supporting lines, bullet of a pass, kicking game on par with Youngs and Wigglesworth and quicker service.

[Spiffy]

Digby has summed it up perfectly.

I still very much suspect that if fit and firing, Launchbury + Itoje trumps Itoje + Robshaw.

And then we get into even if not one of the best individual players does Robshaw simply make it easier for others to function by being a better team player, and then too Itoje isn't the only alternative to Robshaw. No easy answers for EJ, nor should there be, but he does need to progress the side

Indeed. There's also the issue that we have two flankers who aren't hitting the desired performance levels for world domination. Is it wise to drop both in a short period of time? If you only replace one, which?

Maybe we should have a poll over which of Robshaw and Haskell will be binned first to sate jngf's endless thirst for back row discussion.

Yes. If there are better flankers than either of them out there (which I believe) then drop both. Same rationale applies to any position on the team. Obviously Eddie Jones does not agree with this, since he keeps picking both, as well as Hartley and Youngs.

[morepork]

Your loose forward/halfback issues are very intertwined. Have fast ball without coherent strategy at the breakdown can you not.

giphy-9.gif

[Puja]

I just don't get the Itoje at 6 idea. It's like the Launchbury at 6 one that came before it - why shift your best player out of position to accomodate someone who's not as good?

It seems especially barking considering it's being suggested to get Launchbury onto the pitch. Why not put him at 6 if you're fixated on playing a lock in the back row and leave our best functioning unit as it is?

Puja

The point is that our three best forwards are Itoje, Launchbury and Kruis (in that order, IMO). If Itoje was just a lock (as Johnson or Kay were, say) there is no further debate but he is a superb blindside flanker in every aspect. I'd argue that allowing for his size, shape, pace, hands and rugby brain he is the most effective backrow carrier available. I'd go further and suggest that he is capable of being a better 6 than lock eventually, certainly if you value the effect he can have on a game. I see him as a future captain at 6.

You see him as a lock long-term. Fair enough. I can understand your argument that he might be (or become) our best lock. I'd argue, though, that he could be our best blindside by a far greater margin.

Then that's where we part ways on this issue - I see him as a lock that can play flanker and am far more interested in developing him in his best position than trying to shift him around the team to patch holes elsewhere. We do have three very talented locks at the moment, but there's injuries, changes in form, and just the general pleasure of having people having to fight and excel for their place.

It's possible that he's better internationally at 6 than Robshaw (although on current form, not a guarantee). I'm more interested in trying to make him the best 4 in the world, which I think is within his reach.

Puja

[Lizard]

You should almost always play a man in his best position, even if he is better than the next best alternative in another position.

It's sort of a Ricardian Law of Comparative Advantage for rugby.

[Peat]

Then that's where we part ways on this issue - I see him as a lock that can play flanker and am far more interested in developing him in his best position than trying to shift him around the team to patch holes elsewhere. We do have three very talented locks at the moment, but there's injuries, changes in form, and just the general pleasure of having people having to fight and excel for their place.

It's possible that he's better internationally at 6 than Robshaw (although on current form, not a guarantee). I'm more interested in trying to make him the best 4 in the world, which I think is within his reach.

Puja

Why do you think being the best 6 in the world isn't in his reach also?

[Digby]

You should almost always play a man in his best position, even if he is better than the next best alternative in another position.

It's sort of a Ricardian Law of Comparative Advantage for rugby.

The opportunity cost of playing someone not in their optimum position being greater than the opportunity cost of picking a lesser talent in their optimum position? Seems it could vary to me

[Lizard]

Almost always. And I say that as a man who has seen Christian Cullen play at centre.

[Puja]

Then that's where we part ways on this issue - I see him as a lock that can play flanker and am far more interested in developing him in his best position than trying to shift him around the team to patch holes elsewhere. We do have three very talented locks at the moment, but there's injuries, changes in form, and just the general pleasure of having people having to fight and excel for their place.

It's possible that he's better internationally at 6 than Robshaw (although on current form, not a guarantee). I'm more interested in trying to make him the best 4 in the world, which I think is within his reach.

Puja

Why do you think being the best 6 in the world isn't in his reach also?

I think if he were to choose to specialise at it, it wouldn't necessarily be out of his reach. But his preferred position is lock and that's where his club choose to play him. At the moment, he's a square peg that wants to go in a square hole. We could convert him, but why?

I'm also very wary of deciding young players' positions based on where the national team is currently short. It's not so long ago that people wanted Croft to play lock because that was where England was short. Even less time ago that people questioned my desire for [redacted] to play 8 because there was the insuperable duo of Bill and Ben there. Form dips, young players coming through, injuries - they can all change the picture very quickly.

Puja

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Then that's where we part ways on this issue - I see him as a lock that can play flanker and am far more interested in developing him in his best position than trying to shift him around the team to patch holes elsewhere. We do have three very talented locks at the moment, but there's injuries, changes in form, and just the general pleasure of having people having to fight and excel for their place.

It's possible that he's better internationally at 6 than Robshaw (although on current form, not a guarantee). I'm more interested in trying to make him the best 4 in the world, which I think is within his reach.

Puja

Why do you think being the best 6 in the world isn't in his reach also?

I think if he were to choose to specialise at it, it wouldn't necessarily be out of his reach. But his preferred position is lock and that's where his club choose to play him. At the moment, he's a square peg that wants to go in a square hole. We could convert him, but why?

I'm also very wary of deciding young players' positions based on where the national team is currently short. It's not so long ago that people wanted Croft to play lock because that was where England was short. Even less time ago that people questioned my desire for [redacted] to play 8 because there was the insuperable duo of Bill and Ben there. Form dips, young players coming through, injuries - they can all change the picture very quickly.

Puja

Puja

Do we know for sure that Sarries see him as a lock? I've no idea either way but they are far better stocked in the backrow than at lock, especially with Hargreaves being injured for so much of the season. It could be Sarries are playing him out of his preferred position due to circumstances.

Even if Sarries see him as a lock it could be that playing 6 for Eng and lock of Sarries makes him the best forward in the world. There's also a fair few examples of top players playing slightly out of position. Pocock isn't an 8 but he's played a World Cup final in that position, Carter isn't a 12 but he started his international career there, Bergamasco isn't a 9 but he...ah, no, ignore that last one. If you didn't know of him and you watched the way Itoje plays around the park for both Eng and Sarries it would be difficult to know that he is named on the teamsheet as a lock and not a flanker.

[Mikey Brown]

Then that's where we part ways on this issue - I see him as a lock that can play flanker and am far more interested in developing him in his best position than trying to shift him around the team to patch holes elsewhere. We do have three very talented locks at the moment, but there's injuries, changes in form, and just the general pleasure of having people having to fight and excel for their place.

It's possible that he's better internationally at 6 than Robshaw (although on current form, not a guarantee). I'm more interested in trying to make him the best 4 in the world, which I think is within his reach.

Puja

Why do you think being the best 6 in the world isn't in his reach also?

I think if he were to choose to specialise at it, it wouldn't necessarily be out of his reach. But his preferred position is lock and that's where his club choose to play him. At the moment, he's a square peg that wants to go in a square hole. We could convert him, but why?

I'm also very wary of deciding young players' positions based on where the national team is currently short. It's not so long ago that people wanted Croft to play lock because that was where England was short. Even less time ago that people questioned my desire for [redacted] to play 8 because there was the insuperable duo of Bill and Ben there. Form dips, young players coming through, injuries - they can all change the picture very quickly.

Puja

Puja

That's all fair. Some of us just can't help. I mean I've completely flip-flopped on Daly being a centre after wanting him there for a couple of years.