England vs Tonga (Teams)

[Banquo]

Sorry for cutting your post - no offence meant and I did actually read to the end of it. I don’t see it as being an issue of shirt numbers rather an issue of playing a specialist player in another position which imo negates his strengths somewhat.

In what way will his strengths be negated? Outside the scrum (which is usually a tiny proportion of the phases of play), what do you think he will be doing? Think you need to look at the mix of skills between Curry and Underhill, and (i) see that between them they provide balance; Curry will still be able to carry, link and support in multiphase play in attack, and jackal in defence (say)....and so on.

I'm with jngf on Curry at 6 - if you believe the talk coming out of the camp (if), then Curry is being asked to temper his natural jackalling game and do the 6 work, which I'm not sure suits him. It's not just the shirt numbers; they are being asked to perform classical open/blind responsibilities. Curry was poor against Italy, although that could just have been a one-off game, but I'd still rather have him at 7.

Puja

Fair comment, let’s see what happens; I’d previously asked (as I didn’t see it) what difference to Curry’s game it had made. But you are stating as fact that Curry is being asked to change his game. Which is different to the positional inference. Be good to reflect after the event- and if you are correct, it reflects badly on selection imo. The net of what you are saying is Curry or Underhill not both? The point I’m trying to make is that their respective skill sets are complementary.

[Oakboy]

If I'd been asked to choose, I'd have played Underhill in the normal blindside role and Curry in the openside role.

[Puja]

In what way will his strengths be negated? Outside the scrum (which is usually a tiny proportion of the phases of play), what do you think he will be doing? Think you need to look at the mix of skills between Curry and Underhill, and (i) see that between them they provide balance; Curry will still be able to carry, link and support in multiphase play in attack, and jackal in defence (say)....and so on.

I'm with jngf on Curry at 6 - if you believe the talk coming out of the camp (if), then Curry is being asked to temper his natural jackalling game and do the 6 work, which I'm not sure suits him. It's not just the shirt numbers; they are being asked to perform classical open/blind responsibilities. Curry was poor against Italy, although that could just have been a one-off game, but I'd still rather have him at 7.

Puja

Fair comment, let’s see what happens; I’d previously asked (as I didn’t see it) what difference to Curry’s game it had made. But you are stating as fact that Curry is being asked to change his game. Which is different to the positional inference. Be good to reflect after the event- and if you are correct, it reflects badly on selection imo. The net of what you are saying is Curry or Underhill not both? The point I’m trying to make is that their respective skill sets are complementary.

It's hard to say, as there's not enough data yet. It worked against Ireland, but they were crap. Curry at 6 didn't work against Italy, but maybe that was pairing with Wilson at 7. I think my first choice would still be Wilson 6 and Curry 7, but I don't know enough to know that Curry/Underhill is doomed to failure.

Puja

[Banquo]

I'm with jngf on Curry at 6 - if you believe the talk coming out of the camp (if), then Curry is being asked to temper his natural jackalling game and do the 6 work, which I'm not sure suits him. It's not just the shirt numbers; they are being asked to perform classical open/blind responsibilities. Curry was poor against Italy, although that could just have been a one-off game, but I'd still rather have him at 7.

Puja

Fair comment, let’s see what happens; I’d previously asked (as I didn’t see it) what difference to Curry’s game it had made. But you are stating as fact that Curry is being asked to change his game. Which is different to the positional inference. Be good to reflect after the event- and if you are correct, it reflects badly on selection imo. The net of what you are saying is Curry or Underhill not both? The point I’m trying to make is that their respective skill sets are complementary.

It's hard to say, as there's not enough data yet. It worked against Ireland, but they were crap. Curry at 6 didn't work against Italy, but maybe that was pairing with Wilson at 7. I think my first choice would still be Wilson 6 and Curry 7, but I don't know enough to know that Curry/Underhill is doomed to failure.

Puja

Perhaps a better way of posing the question, and indeed what I was saying, is are Curry and Underhill a complementary pairing or not?

[Banquo]

If I'd been asked to choose, I'd have played Underhill in the normal blindside role and Curry in the openside role.

As I said though, outside first phase, are you asking them to do roles that don’t suit them or constrain their strengths. I’ve asked this question three times on this thread and once on another, and no one answers?

[Spiffy]

If I'd been asked to choose, I'd have played Underhill in the normal blindside role and Curry in the openside role.

I think this one is suffering from hyperanalysis. Both players seem to have the wherewithall to play 6 or 7. The numbers don't matter much. You can call them a pair of 7s, or a pair of 6s or a pair of 6.5s. Who cares. The bottom line is that they look a very effective and dynamic duo who can multitask, seem to complement each other very well and are full of zip and enthusiasm. These are young lads and the partnership can only get better. No critique of Wilson, who was superb in his last game and should be in any match day 23 on current form. Hard to see past Billy/Curry/Underhill/Wilson for the back row in any game squad. Ludlam is a handy bloke to have around too and will push very hard. He should get a run or two against the minnows. The competition for a spot will be great to bring out the best in these players.

[Puja]

If I'd been asked to choose, I'd have played Underhill in the normal blindside role and Curry in the openside role.

As I said though, outside first phase, are you asking them to do roles that don't suit them and constrain their strengths. I’ve asked this question three times on this thread and once on another, and no one answers?

I answered! Yes, you are asking Curry to do roles that don’t suit him and constrains his strengths. If you're playing Curry as a traditional 6 (which is allegedly what is being asked of him), then you're asking him to use a lot more of his energy on tight carrying and to focus on making himself available for that, rather than getting involved in rucks (and on defence, asking him to concentrate on being in the line to tackle rather than sniping for the ball).

Perhaps a better way of posing the question, and indeed what I was saying, is are Curry and Underhill a complementary pairing or not?

I don't know - not enough evidence. Given my druthers, I'd agree with Oakboy and ask Underhill to do the 6 work and let Curry loose to do the 7 work, but there's only been one game of Curry 6, Underhill 7 and it did go quite well, so I will reserve judgement.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

In a pack with George, Sink, Lawes, Billy I don’t think you need to demand that much carrying from your 6.

Like others have said, tick off the list of flanker roles that Underhill and Curry fulfil between them and it looks alright. Not much focus on lineout or carrying in traffic but very, very strong on some areas.

I could see more of an argument for starting Ludlum just to keep one of the 7s safe.

[Mellsblue]

With players such as Mako (when fit), George, Sinckler, Itoje and Lawes all of whom can, to differing standards, carry out wide and can link play as well has doing the usual roles for their position - carry and defend in tight - do we really need traditional 6s and 7s. I’d say that the front five, Marler aside, picked for the Tonga match could, outside the set piece, pretty much wear any number 1 - 8 and do the job traditionally associated to that jersey. In short, is Curry really tasked with with the job traditionally associated with the blindside.

Looks like Mikey Brown beat me to it but I’ve spent so long typing I’m bloody posting.

[jngf]

Looking at how the All Blacks have come back into their game against the boks by thinking on their feet - I’m pretty convinced England simply don’t have any players with the on pitch leadership or brains to beat them, regardless of the quality of our ball carriers.

[twitchy]

Looking at how the All Blacks have come back into their game against the boks by thinking on their feet - I’m pretty convinced England simply don’t have any players with the on pitch leadership or brains to beat them, regardless of the quality of our ball carriers.

Well...yeah. This isn't really news though is it.

[Mr Mwenda]

Boks aren't very coadaptive really.

[jngf]

The problem for me is that the key decision makers such as Billy at 8, Youngs at 9 and Farrell as captain do not strike me as remotely intelligent players in a tactical sense.

[jngf]

Just read that Tongan no.7 weighs in at 20 and a half stone (a selection Jack Rowell or the early Eddie Jones tenure would be proud of )

[Timbo]

Looking at how the All Blacks have come back into their game against the boks by thinking on their feet - I’m pretty convinced England simply don’t have any players with the on pitch leadership or brains to beat them, regardless of the quality of our ball carriers.

So what specifically do you think NZ changed to get themselves back into that game then?

Personally I thought both teams were pretty steadfast tactically. NZ were a bit overwhelmed physically and from an intensity standpoint in the opening 20 minutes, but their shape and tactics seemed consistent throughout to me. Only from one viewing, but the biggest difference, and ultimately the winning of the game, came in the last 15/20 mins of the first half when SA kicking game went to shit. Too many aimless punts and ‘uncontenstables’ inviting the NZ back 3 into the game.

[Mikey Brown]

WLR biffing that try-scoring pass was a big moment too.

[Oakboy]

If we are to rival NZ we need to kick as well as them, concede as few penalties as them and take chances as ruthlessly as them. I would have thought we would find it relatively easy to improve in the first two categories but show little sign of doing so. We have the players to match them at chance-taking but probably not the coaching quality to enable it to happen.

[Banquo]

If I'd been asked to choose, I'd have played Underhill in the normal blindside role and Curry in the openside role.

I think this one is suffering from hyperanalysis. Both players seem to have the wherewithall to play 6 or 7. The numbers don't matter much. You can call them a pair of 7s, or a pair of 6s or a pair of 6.5s. Who cares. The bottom line is that they look a very effective and dynamic duo who can multitask, seem to complement each other very well and are full of zip and enthusiasm. These are young lads and the partnership can only get better. No critique of Wilson, who was superb in his last game and should be in any match day 23 on current form. Hard to see past Billy/Curry/Underhill/Wilson for the back row in any game squad. Ludlam is a handy bloke to have around too and will push very hard. He should get a run or two against the minnows. The competition for a spot will be great to bring out the best in these players.

Good stuff

[WaspInWales]

This gonna be the match fred?

[Mikey Brown]

No.