RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Dasheragain wrote:But where does Eddie want to play big Harry? Do we think he sees him as utility option? He may like Daly because he's a world-class winger but also be happy knowing he can cover 15, 13, 11, 14. Does he like Harry because he can play across the backline?

It may be that because as we know, there are better 10's, better centres and better wingers at this moment than Harry Mallinder.

think he's looking at both Nowell and Mallinder as utility cover.

utilitarian utility cover

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Dasheragain wrote:But where does Eddie want to play big Harry? Do we think he sees him as utility option? He may like Daly because he's a world-class winger but also be happy knowing he can cover 15, 13, 11, 14. Does he like Harry because he can play across the backline?

It may be that because as we know, there are better 10's, better centres and better wingers at this moment than Harry Mallinder.

think he's looking at both Nowell and Mallinder as utility cover.

utilitarian utility cover

I sort of get the need to find one for a smaller RWC squad, but...

If he wants cover then he should look at the likes of Joe Simpson

Digby wrote:If he wants cover then he should look at the likes of Joe Simpson

By the likes of Joe Simpson, do you mean Joe Simpson?

I think T'eo is there ahead of Tuilagi for the obvious reason that it doesn't matter that much if T'eo breaks again. Conversely, Tuilagi needs looking after. He can't have many more recoveries left in him.

Interesting point from Healey this morning that only three players have actually been dropped from the EPS: Wood, Harrison and Yarde i.e. all but three of the new introductions are forced by injury or suspension.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

He's a young lad who looks over promoted to me. Reminds me of someone else, so I'd hope he can develop to be a good senior player, but if courage is the issue, then that's hard to crack.

This nails it for me. I think the fact he’s big and can boot it a mile are clouding the fact that he’s still very raw. He’s also a bit of a pansy which is a huge worry at any level and even more so at test level. He could be a great player but, for me, is a big lad with a big boot with all the basics to be a very good player but he’s not there yet.

As for pace. He may look quick enough at 10/12 and even 15 but, as Nowell will tell you, you will be exposed in the wide channels if you’re not winger fast. Which he isn’t. I doubt he’s even Nowell fast(ish).

I am not a Mallinder fan, but on the issue of pace - he took off like a bat down the left wing in a game 2-3 weeks ago (forget the opponents) with a burst of speed leaving all in his wake. I would certainly rate him as significantly faster than the slowish Nowell.

Spiffy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

He's a young lad who looks over promoted to me. Reminds me of someone else, so I'd hope he can develop to be a good senior player, but if courage is the issue, then that's hard to crack.

This nails it for me. I think the fact he’s big and can boot it a mile are clouding the fact that he’s still very raw. He’s also a bit of a pansy which is a huge worry at any level and even more so at test level. He could be a great player but, for me, is a big lad with a big boot with all the basics to be a very good player but he’s not there yet.

As for pace. He may look quick enough at 10/12 and even 15 but, as Nowell will tell you, you will be exposed in the wide channels if you’re not winger fast. Which he isn’t. I doubt he’s even Nowell fast(ish).

I am not a Mallinder fan, but on the issue of pace - he took off like a bat down the left wing in a game 2-3 weeks ago (forget the opponents) with a burst of speed leaving all in his wake. I would certainly rate him as significantly faster than the slowish Nowell.

its very difficult to judge such things though- the specifics of who he was running against etc. The major 'objection' was more about acceleration originally- I'd agree he's likely to be reasonably quick once going, but I'd bet Nowell's acceleration is better, and he is better balanced for sure.

He also has a big head. A snipers dream

p/d wrote:He also has a big head. A snipers dream

Jesus. Imagine how easy he’d go down.

Bit concerned about No.8 berth - Simmonds certainly has the skills but his build would suggest to me he’s better used as an openside option at this level - Would have thought a test comeback from Ben Morgan would be timely in the circumstances.What’s his form like?

Paradoxically, I Would also have liked to see Armand given a chance to demonstrate a more creative way to play 6 (but only as a back up to option to Robshaw). Feel of all the back row positions blindside is the one that can accommodate the widest variety of styles perhaps because it’s arguably a bit less of a specialist position than openside or no.8 imo.

jngf wrote:Bit concerned about No.8 berth - Simmonds certainly has the skills but his build would suggest to me he’s better used as an openside option at this level - Would have thought a test comeback from Ben Morgan would be timely in the circumstances.What’s his form like?

Little to none. Simmonds tends to make a bigger carrying impact in traffic than men three stone bigger than him, so I'm not too fussed about his build. Technique over pure bulk.

Puja

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:Bit concerned about No.8 berth - Simmonds certainly has the skills but his build would suggest to me he’s better used as an openside option at this level - Would have thought a test comeback from Ben Morgan would be timely in the circumstances.What’s his form like?

Little to none. Simmonds tends to make a bigger carrying impact in traffic than men three stone bigger than him, so I'm not too fussed about his build. Technique over pure bulk.

Puja

That’s reassuring.I remember Tom Rees had incredible ball carrying power, for a comparatively small forward - it’s a crying shame about his injuries as he showed the potential to become England’s England best ever openside imo.

jngf wrote:Bit concerned about No.8 berth - Simmonds certainly has the skills but his build would suggest to me he’s better used as an openside option at this level - Would have thought a test comeback from Ben Morgan would be timely in the circumstances.What’s his form like?

Paradoxically, I Would also have liked to see Armand given a chance to demonstrate a more creative way to play 6 (but only as a back up to option to Robshaw). Feel of all the back row positions blindside is the one that can accommodate the widest variety of styles perhaps because it’s arguably a bit less of a specialist position than openside or no.8 imo.

Most of Simmonds impact has been made carrying, either out wide where his pace shines, or in tight where his footwork gets him over the gainline. I don't want to shift him to a position he's never played for his club, which also doesn't maximise the use of his main skills.

We'll miss Billy, and we could do with more crash carriers in the tight 5, but both Simmonds and Mercer will get us over the gain line, and add points of divergence too.

Tom Moore wrote:

jngf wrote:Bit concerned about No.8 berth - Simmonds certainly has the skills but his build would suggest to me he’s better used as an openside option at this level - Would have thought a test comeback from Ben Morgan would be timely in the circumstances.What’s his form like?

Paradoxically, I Would also have liked to see Armand given a chance to demonstrate a more creative way to play 6 (but only as a back up to option to Robshaw). Feel of all the back row positions blindside is the one that can accommodate the widest variety of styles perhaps because it’s arguably a bit less of a specialist position than openside or no.8 imo.

Most of Simmonds impact has been made carrying, either out wide where his pace shines, or in tight where his footwork gets him over the gainline. I don't want to shift him to a position he's never played for his club, which also doesn't maximise the use of his main skills.

We'll miss Billy, and we could do with more crash carriers in the tight 5, but both Simmonds and Mercer will get us over the gain line, and add points of divergence too.

assume you mean either, as I can't see you'd play them both together if you don't want to shift Simmonds?

Our lack of carrying needs to be addressed through front 5 selection, and possibly in the backs, too.

Mercer's played across the backrow this season, through necessity rather than choice, but he's done it. Mind, I also thought that Simmonds was a flanker until this season - is that wrong?

It's surely got to be Robshaw, Underhill, Simmonds, with Mercer on the bench. It's the only sensible option from those chosen.
Of course, Eddie will probably go with Lawes, Robshaw and Simmonds to mitigate the inexperience, but still, that's far less sensible than the first suggestion - especially against Italy.

Which Tyler wrote:Mercer's played across the backrow this season, through necessity rather than choice, but he's done it. Mind, I also thought that Simmonds was a flanker until this season - is that wrong?

It's surely got to be Robshaw, Underhill, Simmonds, with Mercer on the bench. It's the only sensible option from those chosen.
Of course, Eddie will probably go with Lawes, Robshaw and Simmonds to mitigate the inexperience, but still, that's far less sensible than the first suggestion - especially against Italy.

He certainly played 7 whilst DR last season. Not 100% sure about age grade level but I think that was at 7, too.

Which Tyler wrote:Mercer's played across the backrow this season, through necessity rather than choice, but he's done it. Mind, I also thought that Simmonds was a flanker until this season - is that wrong?

It's surely got to be Robshaw, Underhill, Simmonds, with Mercer on the bench. It's the only sensible option from those chosen.
Of course, Eddie will probably go with Lawes, Robshaw and Simmonds to mitigate the inexperience, but still, that's far less sensible than the first suggestion - especially against Italy.

Not sure I'd want him at 7, and given Robshaw has to be a shoo-in at 6 for experience alone.....and I'm with you on Simmonds. All this though highlights imo the neglect of specialisation in the AP, specifically 7. Not new, but concerning.

Banquo wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:

jngf wrote:Bit concerned about No.8 berth - Simmonds certainly has the skills but his build would suggest to me he’s better used as an openside option at this level - Would have thought a test comeback from Ben Morgan would be timely in the circumstances.What’s his form like?

Paradoxically, I Would also have liked to see Armand given a chance to demonstrate a more creative way to play 6 (but only as a back up to option to Robshaw). Feel of all the back row positions blindside is the one that can accommodate the widest variety of styles perhaps because it’s arguably a bit less of a specialist position than openside or no.8 imo.

Most of Simmonds impact has been made carrying, either out wide where his pace shines, or in tight where his footwork gets him over the gainline. I don't want to shift him to a position he's never played for his club, which also doesn't maximise the use of his main skills.

We'll miss Billy, and we could do with more crash carriers in the tight 5, but both Simmonds and Mercer will get us over the gain line, and add points of divergence too.

assume you mean either, as I can't see you'd play them both together if you don't want to shift Simmonds?

Our lack of carrying needs to be addressed through front 5 selection, and possibly in the backs, too.

Yeah, just badly phrased.

Agree with the lack of backs carrier, but they all seem to be injured or out of form, other than Cokanasiga.

Tom Moore wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:
Most of Simmonds impact has been made carrying, either out wide where his pace shines, or in tight where his footwork gets him over the gainline. I don't want to shift him to a position he's never played for his club, which also doesn't maximise the use of his main skills.

We'll miss Billy, and we could do with more crash carriers in the tight 5, but both Simmonds and Mercer will get us over the gain line, and add points of divergence too.

assume you mean either, as I can't see you'd play them both together if you don't want to shift Simmonds?

Our lack of carrying needs to be addressed through front 5 selection, and possibly in the backs, too.

Yeah, just badly phrased.

Agree with the lack of backs carrier, but they all seem to be injured or out of form, other than Cokanasiga.

I'd like a fit Teo at 12, but neither are likely . I really think a gainline 12 would be great for Ford, JJ and our pack- doesn't even need to be a bosher, just great feet, like Kyle Eastmond-ish

Banquo wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:

Banquo wrote: assume you mean either, as I can't see you'd play them both together if you don't want to shift Simmonds?

Our lack of carrying needs to be addressed through front 5 selection, and possibly in the backs, too.

Yeah, just badly phrased.

Agree with the lack of backs carrier, but they all seem to be injured or out of form, other than Cokanasiga.

I'd like a fit Teo at 12, but neither are likely . I really think a gainline 12 would be great for Ford, JJ and our pack- doesn't even need to be a bosher, just great feet, like Kyle Eastmond-ish

Always liked Eastmond, only option we have at 12 who threatens with both running and passing.

Tom Moore wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:
Yeah, just badly phrased.

Agree with the lack of backs carrier, but they all seem to be injured or out of form, other than Cokanasiga.

I'd like a fit Teo at 12, but neither are likely . I really think a gainline 12 would be great for Ford, JJ and our pack- doesn't even need to be a bosher, just great feet, like Kyle Eastmond-ish

Always liked Eastmond, only option we have at 12 who threatens with both running and passing.

quite, its so important...though Teo imo could do that job.

Tom Moore wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:
Yeah, just badly phrased.

Agree with the lack of backs carrier, but they all seem to be injured or out of form, other than Cokanasiga.

I'd like a fit Teo at 12, but neither are likely . I really think a gainline 12 would be great for Ford, JJ and our pack- doesn't even need to be a bosher, just great feet, like Kyle Eastmond-ish

Always liked Eastmond, only option we have at 12 who threatens with both running and passing.

well, Mallinder and Devoto can also do that (let down by sheer ,cowardice and a lack of stand-out element), I still think Slade could if given a year at IC. Even 36 can do both, albeit it's his own team he's threatening with his running and his passing game.

As for Te'o; I thought this discussion was running AND passing threat, not one or t'other.

Which Tyler wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'd like a fit Teo at 12, but neither are likely . I really think a gainline 12 would be great for Ford, JJ and our pack- doesn't even need to be a bosher, just great feet, like Kyle Eastmond-ish

Always liked Eastmond, only option we have at 12 who threatens with both running and passing.

well, Mallinder and Devoto can also do that (let down by sheer ,cowardice and a lack of stand-out element), I still think Slade could if given a year at IC. Even 36 can do both, albeit it's his own team he's threatening with his running and his passion for.

As for Te'o; I thought this discussion was running AND passing threat, not one or t'other.

Teo is perfectly capable of offloading, though I accept he may not have a long pass- but in any case, he was mentioned as a gainline breaker/carrier by me, Tom introduced the running and passing. So, I'll accept your apology

Your other suggestions have differing elements of straw clutching

But you quoted Tom, so were part of the running AND passing conversation. Whilst Te'o can offload, that's not the same as presenting a threat with his passing game.

As for my suggestions, yup, straws definitely being grasped, not really for the running or passing aspects though (as opposed to Te'o). Though I think Devoto offers enough of both to be a genuine contender once he's back for again and found his form.

The passion of the Twelvetrees?