Next up, Ireland

[jngf]

► Show Spoiler

The issue is that you keep saying it without really giving a valid reason for why you’re not ‘convinced’. You’ve made some very subjective comments on why you think Wilson is not a suitable option despite actual evidence (such as MoM performances against top opposition) showing that he is perfectly capable at 8 if needed.

I’m not yet convinced because in terms of the 8 role:

(i) Wilson is not is explosive off the back of the scrum - lacking the kind of pace Simmonds or Clifford have

(ii) He’s about average size for a 6 but on the (very) small side for a no.8 compared to Morgan, Hughes, Dombrandt ( before we even get to Billy) and not a massive physical ball carrier compared to any of them.

(iii) I believe he’s versitile enough to cover 8 in a pinch in the way Lawes is to cover 6 or Robshaw is to cover 7 but that’s not remotely the same as saying he’s a naturally good fit for it.

(i) Wilson consistently makes ground off the back of the scrum, which is more important than "explosiveness"

(ii) He's 6'3 and 17st7, which isn't small, and is the same size as Kieran Read. He's not as big of a carrier as BillyV, but you're laughing if you think he's not better than Nathan "castled several times by scrum-halves" Hughes. Size =!= Power



(iii) He plays 8 regularly for Newcastle. It's not so much covering as it is picking him in one of his club positions.

Puja

Re (i) Let’s see how that works in heavy traffic?

(ii) I’ve seen his stats listed as 6’2” and around 17stone - pretty much same size as Robshaw

(iii) Given how diluted back row specialisms are at club level compared to test rugby (e.g clubs being consistently prepared to pick non specialist openside players like Haskell or Robshaw at 7) I think it’s possible to get by as an 8 at that level without being particularly special at the role, and this is my key point I guess, namely that Wilson doesn’t appear to bring any sort of superior X factor to playing no.8 to me it’s rather like Easter and Dowson all over again.

[Puja]

I’m not yet convinced because in terms of the 8 role:

(i) Wilson is not is explosive off the back of the scrum - lacking the kind of pace Simmonds or Clifford have

(ii) He’s about average size for a 6 but on the (very) small side for a no.8 compared to Morgan, Hughes, Dombrandt ( before we even get to Billy) and not a massive physical ball carrier compared to any of them.

(iii) I believe he’s versitile enough to cover 8 in a pinch in the way Lawes is to cover 6 or Robshaw is to cover 7 but that’s not remotely the same as saying he’s a naturally good fit for it.

(i) Wilson consistently makes ground off the back of the scrum, which is more important than "explosiveness"

(ii) He's 6'3 and 17st7, which isn't small, and is the same size as Kieran Read. He's not as big of a carrier as BillyV, but you're laughing if you think he's not better than Nathan "castled several times by scrum-halves" Hughes. Size =!= Power



(iii) He plays 8 regularly for Newcastle. It's not so much covering as it is picking him in one of his club positions.

Puja

Re (i) Let’s see how that works in heavy traffic?

(ii) I’ve seen his stats listed as 6’2” and around 17stone - pretty much same size as Robshaw

(iii) Given how diluted back row specialisms are at club level compared to test rugby (e.g a any club prepared to pick a players like Haskell or Robshaw at 7) I think it’s possible to get by as an 8 at that level without being particularly special at the role, and this is my key point I guess, namely that Wilson doesn’t appear to bring any sort of superior X factor to playing no.8 to me it’s rather like Easter and Dowson all over again.

New Zealand and South Africa are considered to be light traffic, of course. Minnows, all.

Puja

[Renniks]

(i) Lots of heavy traffic off the back of the scrum…

[Mikey Brown]

Worth a watch if only for the reverse angles of the Underhill and Manu hits from about 8:20.



Underhill really does beast him and that's a tighthead. Danny Care said on that podcast that (paraphrasing) 'he's the best tackler he's ever seen. Lawes hits insanely hard and Robshaw is technically perfect, but Underhill somehow does both.'

Even Ferris on the rugby pod was saying he couldn't believe how big and physical the England players are looking at the moment.

[Beasties]

Yup. I remained to be convinced about Underhill before Sat, considering him a largely one trick pony. But after Sat I'm like yeah but what a trick.

Worsley has always been held up as a tackling machine but he rarely munched when tackling, preferring technique and always bringing the man down without fail. Underhill is bringing another dimension to all this. He's a beast.

[Raggs]

Thing is, he's far more than that. He's decent at clearing out, he's got a good turn of pace, and if you tell him where to run, he'll hit a line as hard as he'll hit a tackle. Overall, he just strikes me as a ridiculously physical player. I hope he can keep going without getting too broken.

[Mikey Brown]

Yep. This idea he isn’t contributing elsewhere on the field is mad.

[jngf]

Yup. I remained to be convinced about Underhill before Sat, considering him a largely one trick pony. But after Sat I'm like yeah but what a trick.

Worsley has always been held up as a tackling machine but he rarely munched when tackling, preferring technique and always bringing the man down without fail. Underhill is bringing another dimension to all this. He's a beast.

Underhill’s like a 21st century Winterbottom!

[jngf]

OK, thanks, I managed to get in with a different browser.

And I also took a nice screengrab of it, so here it is for everyone:

https://imgur.com/a/qAK4rnf

Thanks Kindly Stom and Micky Brown for this article!

I'm feeling very happy about the open side options in our cupboard now and the healthy competition

- to think it was only a couple of seasons ago when Eddy was resorting to Robshaw, Haskell and Wood to fill the open side role (and imo of the three only Wood had a modicum of justification to be considered an authentic open side - shame Burt gave him and Robshaw the wrong shirts during his tenure )

Back to happier present situation - I think from his performances in the first two warm ups Ludlum has shown he has what it takes to stand alongside both T Curry and Underhill is a class open side option.

Added to that both the existing capped Matt Kvesic and Sam Simmonds, could imo do a quality job at 7 if called upon (though realistically this would be post RWC )

and then there is a series of uncapped quality open sides such as B Curry, Jack Willis and Will Evans who also have potential to get into the test side at due course

- also like the fact that players like T Curry, Underhill and Ludlum are to an extent interchangeable between 6 and 7 - though I think this might be more effective in warm weather rugby, than a frosty evening in January in Cardiff, and the role of the bigger workrate 6 like Robshaw and Wilson or a converted lock (Lawes - yes Itoje - I hope not!) will still be vital.

My concern at present is the plan B for who plays number 8 if Billy gets injured - many here says that's Wilson, I still remain to be convinced tbh.

I'll probably get crucified by the faithful for saying so, but the more I see of Itoje, the more I think he could do the job at 8. He is athletic, big, has a great engine, is powerful, abrasive, has good enough pace, is a real competitor. He seems to be getting himself under control as he matures too, and developing some real rugby smarts. I am not saying he could plug straight into 8 at present, but with ample game time, why not? He does seem to have all the natural attributes.

Agreed (unsurprisingly ) - the prospect of Itoje playing at no.8 gives me a frisson of excitement that I’m afraid Mark ‘steady as she goes’ Wilson is never going to manage !

[jngf]

I’m not yet convinced because in terms of the 8 role:

(i) Wilson is not is explosive off the back of the scrum - lacking the kind of pace Simmonds or Clifford have

(ii) He’s about average size for a 6 but on the (very) small side for a no.8 compared to Morgan, Hughes, Dombrandt ( before we even get to Billy) and not a massive physical ball carrier compared to any of them.

(iii) I believe he’s versitile enough to cover 8 in a pinch in the way Lawes is to cover 6 or Robshaw is to cover 7 but that’s not remotely the same as saying he’s a naturally good fit for it.

(i) Wilson consistently makes ground off the back of the scrum, which is more important than "explosiveness"

(ii) He's 6'3 and 17st7, which isn't small, and is the same size as Kieran Read. He's not as big of a carrier as BillyV, but you're laughing if you think he's not better than Nathan "castled several times by scrum-halves" Hughes. Size =!= Power.

(iii) He plays 8 regularly for Newcastle. It's not so much covering as it is picking him in one of his club positions.

Puja

I admire that you’re willing to keep putting yourself through this, Puja.

One day we’re going to find out that Jngf is a bot that UKH added on here to prompt some conversation, programmed only with some very rigid ideas about what each backrower’s physical attributes should be, and we all got suckered in. Me in particular.

Oi, don’t be AI ist - I’ll have you know we bots have feelings too!

[Puja]

(i) Wilson consistently makes ground off the back of the scrum, which is more important than "explosiveness"

(ii) He's 6'3 and 17st7, which isn't small, and is the same size as Kieran Read. He's not as big of a carrier as BillyV, but you're laughing if you think he's not better than Nathan "castled several times by scrum-halves" Hughes. Size =!= Power.

(iii) He plays 8 regularly for Newcastle. It's not so much covering as it is picking him in one of his club positions.

Puja

I admire that you’re willing to keep putting yourself through this, Puja.

One day we’re going to find out that Jngf is a bot that UKH added on here to prompt some conversation, programmed only with some very rigid ideas about what each backrower’s physical attributes should be, and we all got suckered in. Me in particular.

Oi, don’t be AI ist - I’ll have you know we bots have feelings too!

True, but they're only feelings about putting locks into the back row.

Puja

[Banquo]

NZ appear to have Ardie Savea as covering 8, but hey, what do they know.

I'm also less than convinced Itoje could ever be a quality 8; whilst he looks the part physically (even then arguably a little too tall alongside being broad to control the ball at the base of the scrum and distribute from there), his handling is somewhat clumsy and he has quite a large turning circle; that said, he is excellent over the ball and his carrying is improving. As WT points out, even if he did have the attributes, you'd have to spend a fair time converting him (from being a world class lock, imo he is already. Certainly his restart abiity, lineout ability and workrate are right up there), which is dead time for everyone.

[Spiffy]

I admire that you’re willing to keep putting yourself through this, Puja.

One day we’re going to find out that Jngf is a bot that UKH added on here to prompt some conversation, programmed only with some very rigid ideas about what each backrower’s physical attributes should be, and we all got suckered in. Me in particular.

Oi, don’t be AI ist - I’ll have you know we bots have feelings too!

True, but they're only feelings about putting locks into the back row.

Puja

I originally floated the notion of Itoje as a possible 8 (after an appropriate learning curve, of course) for one major reason - there is no current 8 in the England setup who comes close to Billy, and you want to get as good a backup as is possible. I am not suggesting that Itoje should replace Billy, just making the point that from what I see of him, I think he would have the makings of a pretty good 8 to step in if needed. Can't help feeling it would not take him long to become a more dominant 8 that Wilson. Since England are strong at lock, this could also enable the team to get some of the best forwards on the pitch at the same time. E.g. - Billy picks up an injury, move Itoje to 8 and bring on Kruis, Launch, Lawes etc.. You have seen enough of Itoje to know he has the versatility to do it (again - after appropriate game time in the slot). You call him a lock. I call him a very good rugby player, who a times against Ireland last week actually looked and played like an 8.

Flame away ......

[Raggs]

I think Wilson carries better than Itoje, and if it's Billy you're looking to replace then that's pretty much it.

[Mikey Brown]

Yep. Itoje’s improvements in carrying seem like a nice bonus in addition to everything else he does, like Lawes.

If we end up with Launch, Kruis, Itoje, Curry and Underhill on the field for some reason then sure stick him at 8, don’t see much more point to it than that.

[Puja]

I originally floated the notion of Itoje as a possible 8 (after an appropriate learning curve, of course) for one major reason - there is no current 8 in the England setup who comes close to Billy, and you want to get as good a backup as is possible. I am not suggesting that Itoje should replace Billy, just making the point that from what I see of him, I think he would have the makings of a pretty good 8 to step in if needed. Can't help feeling it would not take him long to become a more dominant 8 that Wilson. Since England are strong at lock, this could also enable the team to get some of the best forwards on the pitch at the same time. E.g. - Billy picks up an injury, move Itoje to 8 and bring on Kruis, Launch, Lawes etc.. You have seen enough of Itoje to know he has the versatility to do it (again - after appropriate game time in the slot). You call him a lock. I call him a very good rugby player, who a times against Ireland last week actually looked and played like an 8.

Flame away ......

I do take your points about us being strong at lock, but it's the same argument for moving one of them to blindside and that's not worked out every time it's tried at international level. I don't see why moving one of our locks to 8 would have a better result than moving one of them to 6 and, frankly, I'd rather have 5 excellent locks pushing each other to get better and fighting for 3 spaces in the XXIII (not to mention covering for each other's injuries) than make some of them into average back rows.

Plus, we've got a plethora of young back rows coming through (Underhill, TCurry, Ludlam, BCurry, Dombrandt, Earl, JWillis, TWillis, Tuima, et al), so there seems no real value in trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Puja

[Stom]

I originally floated the notion of Itoje as a possible 8 (after an appropriate learning curve, of course) for one major reason - there is no current 8 in the England setup who comes close to Billy, and you want to get as good a backup as is possible. I am not suggesting that Itoje should replace Billy, just making the point that from what I see of him, I think he would have the makings of a pretty good 8 to step in if needed. Can't help feeling it would not take him long to become a more dominant 8 that Wilson. Since England are strong at lock, this could also enable the team to get some of the best forwards on the pitch at the same time. E.g. - Billy picks up an injury, move Itoje to 8 and bring on Kruis, Launch, Lawes etc.. You have seen enough of Itoje to know he has the versatility to do it (again - after appropriate game time in the slot). You call him a lock. I call him a very good rugby player, who a times against Ireland last week actually looked and played like an 8.

Flame away ......

I do take your points about us being strong at lock, but it's the same argument for moving one of them to blindside and that's not worked out every time it's tried at international level. I don't see why moving one of our locks to 8 would have a better result than moving one of them to 6 and, frankly, I'd rather have 5 excellent locks pushing each other to get better and fighting for 3 spaces in the XXIII (not to mention covering for each other's injuries) than make some of them into average back rows.

Plus, we've got a plethora of young back rows coming through (Underhill, TCurry, Ludlam, BCurry, Dombrandt, Earl, JWillis, TWillis, Tuima, et al), so there seems no real value in trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Puja

Indeed. After years of crap at flank, we have an incredible crop coming through!

[Digby]

NZ appear to have Ardie Savea as covering 8, but hey, what do they know.

I'm also less than convinced Itoje could ever be a quality 8; whilst he looks the part physically (even then arguably a little too tall alongside being broad to control the ball at the base of the scrum and distribute from there), his handling is somewhat clumsy and he has quite a large turning circle; that said, he is excellent over the ball and his carrying is improving. As WT points out, even if he did have the attributes, you'd have to spend a fair time converting him (from being a world class lock, imo he is already. Certainly his restart abiity, lineout ability and workrate are right up there), which is dead time for everyone.

His handling has improved hugely, credit to Sarries for actually taking the time to work on skills (Leicester take note), and Itoje has a horrible running style for a 9 to face were he coming off the base. But at this point I can't see the point in even trying it.

[Beasties]

Seems absolutely crazy in hindsight that NZ don't have Retallick at 8. Or Whitelock........

[Digby]

NZ do have problems with a lack of carriers. I suspect that's why having lost McKenzie they didn't revert Smith at 15 and instead have shoe horned Mo'unga in at 10. They might have considered Fifita at 8 depending on other options but after looking so good he rather faded from consideration, they'd certainly have picked him at 6, and you could easily claim he's a lock, 'cause he is

[Banquo]

NZ appear to have Ardie Savea as covering 8, but hey, what do they know.

I'm also less than convinced Itoje could ever be a quality 8; whilst he looks the part physically (even then arguably a little too tall alongside being broad to control the ball at the base of the scrum and distribute from there), his handling is somewhat clumsy and he has quite a large turning circle; that said, he is excellent over the ball and his carrying is improving. As WT points out, even if he did have the attributes, you'd have to spend a fair time converting him (from being a world class lock, imo he is already. Certainly his restart abiity, lineout ability and workrate are right up there), which is dead time for everyone.

His handling has improved hugely, credit to Sarries for actually taking the time to work on skills (Leicester take note), and Itoje has a horrible running style for a 9 to face were he coming off the base. But at this point I can't see the point in even trying it.

His carrying has, and if his handling has, it must have been pretty average before, certainly for what I'd look for in a back row- though granted better than the other half of Lawtoje.

[Digby]

NZ appear to have Ardie Savea as covering 8, but hey, what do they know.

I'm also less than convinced Itoje could ever be a quality 8; whilst he looks the part physically (even then arguably a little too tall alongside being broad to control the ball at the base of the scrum and distribute from there), his handling is somewhat clumsy and he has quite a large turning circle; that said, he is excellent over the ball and his carrying is improving. As WT points out, even if he did have the attributes, you'd have to spend a fair time converting him (from being a world class lock, imo he is already. Certainly his restart abiity, lineout ability and workrate are right up there), which is dead time for everyone.

His handling has improved hugely, credit to Sarries for actually taking the time to work on skills (Leicester take note), and Itoje has a horrible running style for a 9 to face were he coming off the base. But at this point I can't see the point in even trying it.

His carrying has, and if his handling has, it must have been pretty average before, certainly for what I'd look for in a back row- though granted better than the other half of Lawtoje.

This last season he's started passing and offloading much more, I think he's made big strides, and it's nice to see. He's not exactly Mako yet, for Sarries or England, but they can and will stick him at the front of the 3 man pod if you didn't have Sinckler or Mako to hand, and he doesn't alway run into contact if there's a pass or offload. On the one hand it's not much, but on top of the carrying strengths and other handlers in the pack it's adding up to something rather impressive, and rather un English

Far too many English players do get told to work on skills, but then never get given time in training to actually make progress It's not great news for Launch I suppose as Maro improving in this area makes it easier to pick Kruis.

[Banquo]

His handling has improved hugely, credit to Sarries for actually taking the time to work on skills (Leicester take note), and Itoje has a horrible running style for a 9 to face were he coming off the base. But at this point I can't see the point in even trying it.

His carrying has, and if his handling has, it must have been pretty average before, certainly for what I'd look for in a back row- though granted better than the other half of Lawtoje.

This last season he's started passing and offloading much more, I think he's made big strides, and it's nice to see. He's not exactly Mako yet, for Sarries or England, but they can and will stick him at the front of the 3 man pod if you didn't have Sinckler or Mako to hand, and he doesn't alway run into contact if there's a pass or offload. On the one hand it's not much, but on top of the carrying strengths and other handlers in the pack it's adding up to something rather impressive, and rather un English

Far too many English players do get told to work on skills, but then never get given time in training to actually make progress It's not great news for Launch I suppose as Maro improving in this area makes it easier to pick Kruis.

Fair enoughski taking you at your word, but still doesn't incline me to think he has the wherewithal to even think about him at 8, irrespective of conversion time pointlessness and his value as a lock.

[Oakboy]

Does anybody know what debate there has been, if any, at IRB level about squad size? Presumably, squads went from 30 to 31 with the requirement for three front rowers on the bench. I'd suggest that the extra caution thrown rightly into the concussion protocols ought to be accompanied by pushing up the squad size to 35.

What is the counter-argument? Any thoughts about smaller unions struggling to find that number cannot make sense. If a union can't find 35 it should not be at the RWC.

[Puja]

Does anybody know what debate there has been, if any, at IRB level about squad size? Presumably, squads went from 30 to 31 with the requirement for three front rowers on the bench. I'd suggest that the extra caution thrown rightly into the concussion protocols ought to be accompanied by pushing up the squad size to 35.

What is the counter-argument? Any thoughts about smaller unions struggling to find that number cannot make sense. If a union can't find 35 it should not be at the RWC.

They can probably find that number but the quality may drop off faster than for larger nations. Also, money is an issue and considering some of the smaller nations plead poverty on training camps, transporting, housing, feeding, etc for 31, the cost would be higher still for 35.

I quite like the tight squad limits. It puts an extra pressure on and also means that getting into a RWC squad *means* something and also reduces the risk of players going and not playing.

Puja