Mikey Brown wrote:Anyone else not slightly worried Willis won’t have it at the top level.
It sounds like he’s fantastic but he keeps being spoken about as if he’s already proven himself?
I'm more worried he won't get the chance to show it. But I had made the point before that he has got to fight his way past some proven talent.
Yeah - that’s my concern too.
He’s perhaps unfortunate that he offers something a bit too similar to Curry and Underhill who are (rightly) heading the queue, in comparison to players like Hill or Earl who are bringing something different.
That said, I think he’s more deserving of a spot than Ludlam and I’d see him as an ideal successor to Wilson.
Mikey Brown wrote:Anyone else not slightly worried Willis won’t have it at the top level.
It sounds like he’s fantastic but he keeps being spoken about as if he’s already proven himself?
I'm more worried he won't get the chance to show it. But I had made the point before that he has got to fight his way past some proven talent.
Yeah - that’s my concern too.
He’s perhaps unfortunate that he offers something a bit too similar to Curry and Underhill who are (rightly) heading the queue, in comparison to players like Hill or Earl who are bringing something different.
That said, I think he’s more deserving of a spot than Ludlam and I’d see him as an ideal successor to Wilson.
Well, I don't think Curry and Underhill are that similar, and think he offers something different to either, but we won't know if he can cut it internationally until he gets the chance. I don't see him as similar to Wilson, but that's maybe not what you were saying , I think he's got a few USP's tbh.
I’m not saying they’re similar players exactly, more that they would occupy similar roles.
I see Curry, Underhill, Ludlam, Willis and Wilson as flankers who can cover 6 and 7 (or 6 and 8 in Wilson’s case). Their skill sets are different but all offer (to a greater or less degree), a mix of breakdown work, carrying, link play and solid defence. They can all jump in the lineout too without being specialists. Willis is basically competing in a congested spot.
I see Earl (and potentially Simmonds and Clifford) as slightly different case + i.e. 7/8s who are pacier, more attack oriented alternatives. Hill is the only specialist blindside in the traditional sense.
Scrumhead wrote:I’m not saying they’re similar players exactly, more that they would occupy similar roles.
I see Curry, Underhill, Ludlam, Willis and Wilson as flankers who can cover 6 and 7 (or 6 and 8 in Wilson’s case). Their skill sets are different but all offer (to a greater or less degree), a mix of breakdown work, carrying, link play and solid defence. They can all jump in the lineout too without being specialists. Willis is basically competing in a congested spot.
I see Earl (and potentially Simmonds and Clifford) as slightly different case + i.e. 7/8s who are pacier, more attack oriented alternatives. Hill is the only specialist blindside in the traditional sense.
That makes more sense; I see Willis as having a quite different style to Curry and Underhill and Wilson (all of whom differ in their own strengths), so I think he is differentiated. The only thing I'm not sure about Willis is pace or otherwise. The point is about how you mix and match, as always with a back row.
Raggs wrote:He finished off a 45 yard intercept quite well against Gloucester i think.
Ta, suspected he had a bit of gas but couldn't remember why!
You're probably not reading enough into the caveat it was against Glaws, a side denuded of pace and reduced to rolling in the mud since Woodman signed for Sale
Raggs wrote:He finished off a 45 yard intercept quite well against Gloucester i think.
Ta, suspected he had a bit of gas but couldn't remember why!
You're probably not reading enough into the caveat it was against Glaws, a side denuded of pace and reduced to rolling in the mud since Woodman signed for Sale
Scrumhead wrote:I’m not saying they’re similar players exactly, more that they would occupy similar roles.
I see Curry, Underhill, Ludlam, Willis and Wilson as flankers who can cover 6 and 7 (or 6 and 8 in Wilson’s case). Their skill sets are different but all offer (to a greater or less degree), a mix of breakdown work, carrying, link play and solid defence. They can all jump in the lineout too without being specialists. Willis is basically competing in a congested spot.
I see Earl (and potentially Simmonds and Clifford) as slightly different case + i.e. 7/8s who are pacier, more attack oriented alternatives. Hill is the only specialist blindside in the traditional sense.
That makes more sense; I see Willis as having a quite different style to Curry and Underhill and Wilson (all of whom differ in their own strengths), so I think he is differentiated. The only thing I'm not sure about Willis is pace or otherwise. The point is about how you mix and match, as always with a back row.
Balance is always going to be the issue with all these back row options.
I'm constantly trying to think of a way of shoe horning Simmonds into the side, but it's so difficult, despite the fact he is such a brilliant player and brings something genuinely unique. Trouble is the system at Exeter vs the the system England play are so far apart + Undercurry with Billy is proven to work.
It's just as difficult to be so ridiculously stacked in a position as it is to be barren! If only we had these issues at 9!
Scrumhead wrote:I’m not saying they’re similar players exactly, more that they would occupy similar roles.
I see Curry, Underhill, Ludlam, Willis and Wilson as flankers who can cover 6 and 7 (or 6 and 8 in Wilson’s case). Their skill sets are different but all offer (to a greater or less degree), a mix of breakdown work, carrying, link play and solid defence. They can all jump in the lineout too without being specialists. Willis is basically competing in a congested spot.
I see Earl (and potentially Simmonds and Clifford) as slightly different case + i.e. 7/8s who are pacier, more attack oriented alternatives. Hill is the only specialist blindside in the traditional sense.
That makes more sense; I see Willis as having a quite different style to Curry and Underhill and Wilson (all of whom differ in their own strengths), so I think he is differentiated. The only thing I'm not sure about Willis is pace or otherwise. The point is about how you mix and match, as always with a back row.
Balance is always going to be the issue with all these back row options.
I'm constantly trying to think of a way of shoe horning Simmonds into the side, but it's so difficult, despite the fact he is such a brilliant player and brings something genuinely unique. Trouble is the system at Exeter vs the the system England play are so far apart + Undercurry with Billy is proven to work.
It's just as difficult to be so ridiculously stacked in a position as it is to be barren! If only we had these issues at 9!
Issue with Simmonds is likely both the Exeter piece and that Eddie has already had a good look at him, and turned away for whatever reason.
Banquo wrote:
That makes more sense; I see Willis as having a quite different style to Curry and Underhill and Wilson (all of whom differ in their own strengths), so I think he is differentiated. The only thing I'm not sure about Willis is pace or otherwise. The point is about how you mix and match, as always with a back row.
Balance is always going to be the issue with all these back row options.
I'm constantly trying to think of a way of shoe horning Simmonds into the side, but it's so difficult, despite the fact he is such a brilliant player and brings something genuinely unique. Trouble is the system at Exeter vs the the system England play are so far apart + Undercurry with Billy is proven to work.
It's just as difficult to be so ridiculously stacked in a position as it is to be barren! If only we had these issues at 9!
Issue with Simmonds is likely both the Exeter piece and that Eddie has already had a good look at him, and turned away for whatever reason.
Simmonds wasn't exactly turned away - he had a 6N as first choice IIRC, then got a very long term injury, so England went to other options. It'svery disappointing that he wasn't called up again once fit (especially last 6N!), but I'd characterise it as he hasn't been recalled after injury, rather than being dropped due to Eddie not liking him.
Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:
Balance is always going to be the issue with all these back row options.
I'm constantly trying to think of a way of shoe horning Simmonds into the side, but it's so difficult, despite the fact he is such a brilliant player and brings something genuinely unique. Trouble is the system at Exeter vs the the system England play are so far apart + Undercurry with Billy is proven to work.
It's just as difficult to be so ridiculously stacked in a position as it is to be barren! If only we had these issues at 9!
Issue with Simmonds is likely both the Exeter piece and that Eddie has already had a good look at him, and turned away for whatever reason.
Simmonds wasn't exactly turned away - he had a 6N as first choice IIRC, then got a very long term injury, so England went to other options. It'svery disappointing that he wasn't called up again once fit (especially last 6N!), but I'd characterise it as he hasn't been recalled after injury, rather than being dropped due to Eddie not liking him.
Puja
I said/meant Eddie turned away from him. Which is what he did. He was available, he didn't pick him.
(started the 2018 6N as first choice v Italy then Wales, missed Scotland game, benched in the loss v France, then started in loss v Ireland. Then injured I think, and not seen since, despite having no regular 8 in the squad a few times.)
Given he had Curry playing no8 despite Simmonds playing very, very well for Exe, I think we can safely say that Eddie doesn’t think he has the goods.
Also, iirc, his short run in the team was based on the lack of other options rather than him forcing his way to the front of the queue. Probs wrong, mind.
It will be interesting to see how Jones manages his back row options in due course. He understandably has his favourites. At least he has dumped Shields. That was the lowest point of his selection quirks.
Oakboy wrote:It will be interesting to see how Jones manages his back row options in due course. He understandably has his favourites. At least he has dumped Shields. That was the lowest point of his selection quirks.
Whereas with Burt you'd easily get into an argument about the worst of his choices, Botha, Tomkins, Burgess... Eddie has once again simplified English rugby
Banquo wrote:
Issue with Simmonds is likely both the Exeter piece and that Eddie has already had a good look at him, and turned away for whatever reason.
Simmonds wasn't exactly turned away - he had a 6N as first choice IIRC, then got a very long term injury, so England went to other options. It'svery disappointing that he wasn't called up again once fit (especially last 6N!), but I'd characterise it as he hasn't been recalled after injury, rather than being dropped due to Eddie not liking him.
Puja
I said/meant Eddie turned away from him. Which is what he did. He was available, he didn't pick him.
(started the 2018 6N as first choice v Italy then Wales, missed Scotland game, benched in the loss v France, then started in loss v Ireland. Then injured I think, and not seen since, despite having no regular 8 in the squad a few times.)
Simmonds was fit and available for the summer tour to SA in ‘18 but overlooked. That was despite a fair few injuries in the backrow pre tour- Haskell and Underhill come to mind- and no call up even after Billy went down in the 2nd test. He was definitely assessed and found wanting in Jones’ mind at test level. The question is whether he can make up the difference in his work-ons and force his way back. He has said that he spent his rehab period putting on the best part of a stone and now has a playing weight of close to 17 stone. That’ll help where Eddie is concerned.
Personally I think he’ll continue to just miss out. Incredibly unlucky cos he’s a quality player.
Puja wrote:
Simmonds wasn't exactly turned away - he had a 6N as first choice IIRC, then got a very long term injury, so England went to other options. It'svery disappointing that he wasn't called up again once fit (especially last 6N!), but I'd characterise it as he hasn't been recalled after injury, rather than being dropped due to Eddie not liking him.
Puja
I said/meant Eddie turned away from him. Which is what he did. He was available, he didn't pick him.
(started the 2018 6N as first choice v Italy then Wales, missed Scotland game, benched in the loss v France, then started in loss v Ireland. Then injured I think, and not seen since, despite having no regular 8 in the squad a few times.)
Simmonds was fit and available for the summer tour to SA in ‘18 but overlooked. That was despite a fair few injuries in the backrow pre tour- Haskell and Underhill come to mind- and no call up even after Billy went down in the 2nd test. He was definitely assessed and found wanting in Jones’ mind at test level. The question is whether he can make up the difference in his work-ons and force his way back. He has said that he spent his rehab period putting on the best part of a stone and now has a playing weight of close to 17 stone. That’ll help where Eddie is concerned.
Personally I think he’ll continue to just miss out. Incredibly unlucky cos he’s a quality player.
Yep, for some reason I'd thought he was injured before the SA tour, but now I remember he'd had an average 6N - he wasn't alone- being knocked back in contact too often. I like him, but as we have said, Eddie has gone off him for now.
Oakboy wrote:It will be interesting to see how Jones manages his back row options in due course. He understandably has his favourites. At least he has dumped Shields. That was the lowest point of his selection quirks.
For me it was Mike Williams earmarked to play no.7 a few seasons back
From a quick search there only seems to have been one poster that was excited at the prospect of Hughes in the squad. Everyone else was nonplussed at best. And then there's Mells.
Danno wrote:From a quick search there only seems to have been one poster that was excited at the prospect of Hughes in the squad. Everyone else was nonplussed at best. And then there's Mells.
I have a memory like jngf’s. Did I tip him for world player of the year?
Mellsblue wrote:If Underhill was on the end of some slightly more lenient refereeing he might have the best try to game ratio of any England player against NZ*. He’s more than just a defensive player.
*this assertion is based on absolutely no research, as per forum bylaws.
He is more than just a defender, but it's the standout part of his game.
I think he's a very, very good player. But Curry is just better. The only area Underhill outperforms Curry regularly is on attacking rucks. Which is important, but less so if his replacement is also very good at attacking rucks. Like Ted Hill.
Not so sure about partnering Curry and Willis (yet) but damn, that could be an interesting partnership.
Agreed. I think, all fit and on-form, our best back-row, potentially, is Willis, Curry, Billy.
However, if I was Curry's personal manager, I would warn him about one danger - that of developing himself into the perfect bench backrower, the one who could come on in any of the three positions to avoid shuffling. IF, (not saying he should) Curry were to say 'pick me at 7 or not at all', he would the first name on the back-row teamsheet, IMO. He is our best 7.
I do think that Curry is the most vulnerable out of himself, Underhill and Billy for being leapfrogged into Eddie’s ideal test back row (assuming all fit) by Willis/Ludlum/Earl etc. we’re that to happen. My reason being that Underhill has USP of defence and Billy has USP of tight carrying whereas for all his good all round talents the only USP Curry has shown in bits is a nice linking game - being made to play out of position at 6 or 8 I would argue has made him look a less effective player and tbh every other premiership 6 and certainly premiership 8 has a valid claim to merit selection in those roles at test level ahead of T Curry - at 7 however he has a stronger case to be one of the best at the position we’ve seen since the days of Tom Rees, Steffler and (2007-2008 version ) Moody.
Last edited by jngf on Tue May 19, 2020 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Puja wrote:
Simmonds wasn't exactly turned away - he had a 6N as first choice IIRC, then got a very long term injury, so England went to other options. It'svery disappointing that he wasn't called up again once fit (especially last 6N!), but I'd characterise it as he hasn't been recalled after injury, rather than being dropped due to Eddie not liking him.
Puja
I said/meant Eddie turned away from him. Which is what he did. He was available, he didn't pick him.
(started the 2018 6N as first choice v Italy then Wales, missed Scotland game, benched in the loss v France, then started in loss v Ireland. Then injured I think, and not seen since, despite having no regular 8 in the squad a few times.)
Simmonds was fit and available for the summer tour to SA in ‘18 but overlooked. That was despite a fair few injuries in the backrow pre tour- Haskell and Underhill come to mind- and no call up even after Billy went down in the 2nd test. He was definitely assessed and found wanting in Jones’ mind at test level. The question is whether he can make up the difference in his work-ons and force his way back. He has said that he spent his rehab period putting on the best part of a stone and now has a playing weight of close to 17 stone. That’ll help where Eddie is concerned.
Personally I think he’ll continue to just miss out. Incredibly unlucky cos he’s a quality player.
Imo if Simmonds is going to get picked for England again he needs to get Exeter to give him a shirt with a number 7 sewn/printed on the back. Personally I’d de delighted to see that happen
, I think he's got a few USP's tbh.
