RugbyRebels

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

Is Wilson so effective as a No.8 though - at least if where talking a hard yards Billy Vunipola style? Whilst he offers more of a carrying alternative to Robshaw at 6, he's of similar build and power to the latter but not the former - and imo he's not explosive from the back of the scrum in the way Morgan or Hughes can be.

Haven't seen enough of Dombrandt yet to comment.

Given his performances in the Autumn Internationals, I'd say a definite yes. Size isn't always the be-all - he might not be as explosive as Morgan or Hughes, but he's a hell of a lot more effective as a BillyV substitute.

Puja

The test No.8 back up role is a bit of a conundrum, as I see it there are several possibilities, going from the more orthodox to the left field:

1. Attempt the nearest thing to a like for like Billy replacement in Hughes or Morgan - I think both have their merits but their style is more expansive (and much quicker than Billy) at the expense of that hard yards power in the heaviest test level traffic that he demonstrates.

2. Use of a converted 6 like Wilson or Shields - I'd actually opt for the latter on this as I think he has the edge on size and power (though I am looking at this based on test level not club level performances). I'd be tempted to lump Mercer in this category too given he's no giant but has a big 6 like engine.

3. Once again trying a much lighter flier - Jack Clifford and Sam Simmonds both have great pace and skills - but it requires a back row rejig to provide the ballast elsewhere (and the latter player especially looks like a better long term bet as an openside at test level imo).

4.Has one of our test locks played 8 - at club or test level? - I'm mainly thinking in terms of Itoje, Lawes or Launch - tbh I've never really been convinced by the former two as makeshift blindsides (they've looked half the players on the flank ) - though playing no.8 arguably requires less mobility (Billy's a case in point) and speed endurance, though more out and out carrying power so maybe this is an experiment worth making to see if there's any merit?

Mellsblue wrote:I think
4. Kruis
5. Launchbury
6. Lawes
7. Itoje
8. Shields
makes the most sense.

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

Is Wilson so effective as a No.8 though - at least if where talking a hard yards Billy Vunipola style? Whilst he offers more of a carrying alternative to Robshaw at 6, he's of similar build and power to the latter but not the former - and imo he's not explosive from the back of the scrum in the way Morgan or Hughes can be.

Haven't seen enough of Dombrandt yet to comment.

Given his performances in the Autumn Internationals, I'd say a definite yes. Size isn't always the be-all - he might not be as explosive as Morgan or Hughes, but he's a hell of a lot more effective as a BillyV substitute.

Puja

The test No.8 back up role is a bit of a conundrum, as I see it there are several possibilities, going from the more orthodox to the left field:

1. Attempt the nearest thing to a like for like Billy replacement in Hughes or Morgan - I think both have their merits but their style is more expansive (and much quicker than Billy) at the expense of that hard yards power in the heaviest test level traffic that he demonstrates.

2. Use of a converted 6 like Wilson or Shields - I'd actually opt for the latter on this as I think he has the edge on size and power (though I am looking at this based on test level not club level performances). I'd be tempted to lump Mercer in this category too given he's no giant but has a big 6 like engine.

3. Once again trying a much lighter flier - Jack Clifford and Sam Simmonds both have great pace and skills - but it requires a back row rejig to provide the ballast elsewhere (and the latter player especially looks like a better long term bet as an openside at test level imo).

4.Has one of our test locks played 8 - at club or test level? - I'm mainly thinking in terms of Itoje, Lawes or Launch - tbh I've never really been convinced by the former two as makeshift blindsides (they've looked half the players on the flank ) - though playing no.8 arguably requires less mobility (Billy's a case in point) and speed endurance, though more out and out carrying power so maybe this is an experiment worth making to see if there's any merit?

morepork wrote:So the whole team is built around Billy V? Sound plan.

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:
Given his performances in the Autumn Internationals, I'd say a definite yes. Size isn't always the be-all - he might not be as explosive as Morgan or Hughes, but he's a hell of a lot more effective as a BillyV substitute.

Puja

The test No.8 back up role is a bit of a conundrum, as I see it there are several possibilities, going from the more orthodox to the left field:

1. Attempt the nearest thing to a like for like Billy replacement in Hughes or Morgan - I think both have their merits but their style is more expansive (and much quicker than Billy) at the expense of that hard yards power in the heaviest test level traffic that he demonstrates.

2. Use of a converted 6 like Wilson or Shields - I'd actually opt for the latter on this as I think he has the edge on size and power (though I am looking at this based on test level not club level performances). I'd be tempted to lump Mercer in this category too given he's no giant but has a big 6 like engine.

3. Once again trying a much lighter flier - Jack Clifford and Sam Simmonds both have great pace and skills - but it requires a back row rejig to provide the ballast elsewhere (and the latter player especially looks like a better long term bet as an openside at test level imo).

4.Has one of our test locks played 8 - at club or test level? - I'm mainly thinking in terms of Itoje, Lawes or Launch - tbh I've never really been convinced by the former two as makeshift blindsides (they've looked half the players on the flank ) - though playing no.8 arguably requires less mobility (Billy's a case in point) and speed endurance, though more out and out carrying power so maybe this is an experiment worth making to see if there's any merit?

Given that Wilson has already done the job successfully, against 3N opposition, why are we even having the discussion? Surely there's no point talking maybes and possiblies when we've got someone who can definitely, 100% do the job, because we've seen him do it?

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

The test No.8 back up role is a bit of a conundrum, as I see it there are several possibilities, going from the more orthodox to the left field:

1. Attempt the nearest thing to a like for like Billy replacement in Hughes or Morgan - I think both have their merits but their style is more expansive (and much quicker than Billy) at the expense of that hard yards power in the heaviest test level traffic that he demonstrates.

2. Use of a converted 6 like Wilson or Shields - I'd actually opt for the latter on this as I think he has the edge on size and power (though I am looking at this based on test level not club level performances). I'd be tempted to lump Mercer in this category too given he's no giant but has a big 6 like engine.

3. Once again trying a much lighter flier - Jack Clifford and Sam Simmonds both have great pace and skills - but it requires a back row rejig to provide the ballast elsewhere (and the latter player especially looks like a better long term bet as an openside at test level imo).

4.Has one of our test locks played 8 - at club or test level? - I'm mainly thinking in terms of Itoje, Lawes or Launch - tbh I've never really been convinced by the former two as makeshift blindsides (they've looked half the players on the flank ) - though playing no.8 arguably requires less mobility (Billy's a case in point) and speed endurance, though more out and out carrying power so maybe this is an experiment worth making to see if there's any merit?

Given that Wilson has already done the job successfully, against 3N opposition, why are we even having the discussion? Surely there's no point talking maybes and possiblies when we've got someone who can definitely, 100% do the job, because we've seen him do it?

Puja

Yeah, I’m baffled by this too. Wilson’s performances at 8 were far better than anyone else has shown since Vunipola took the shirt for good. He’s still a 6 in my mind, but alongside Dombrandt/Morgan could at least do a passable impression of Vunipola’s destructive carrying.

Sticking a lock at 8 while you’ve got 6s that have actually practiced controlling the ball at the back of a scrum would be idiotic.

Scrumhead wrote:NZ have used Ardie Savea at 8 quite a bit.

The idea of using a lock at 8 when we have lots of players better equipped is a ridiculous idea.

Wilson has done well at 8. Better than Hughes ever did and while I’d prefer to see him stay at 6 with Billy at 8 and Curry at 7, it does mean we’ve got an option we could use with Shields or one of the locks (Itoje or Lawes) filling in at 6.

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:NZ have used Ardie Savea at 8 quite a bit.

The idea of using a lock at 8 when we have lots of players better equipped is a ridiculous idea.

Wilson has done well at 8. Better than Hughes ever did and while I’d prefer to see him stay at 6 with Billy at 8 and Curry at 7, it does mean we’ve got an option we could use with Shields or one of the locks (Itoje or Lawes) filling in at 6.

somebody on here once proposed using Simon Shaw as an 8. Yes, really.

morepork wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:NZ have used Ardie Savea at 8 quite a bit.

The idea of using a lock at 8 when we have lots of players better equipped is a ridiculous idea.

Wilson has done well at 8. Better than Hughes ever did and while I’d prefer to see him stay at 6 with Billy at 8 and Curry at 7, it does mean we’ve got an option we could use with Shields or one of the locks (Itoje or Lawes) filling in at 6.

somebody on here once proposed using Simon Shaw as an 8. Yes, really.

That is kind of related to my dig at you basing your game around Billy V at No.8. It seems the only option on the table is getting the biggest fucker available in there to run into the opposition and await some sort of hypothesized trickle down effect to materialise on attack. Hence, Nathan "Play-Doh" Hughes being persisted with. The other two loose forwards on the field don't even seem to be considered as part of a unit at all. The only link play seems to be from a couple of your front rowers, and that isn't by design either it would seem.

Scrumhead wrote:

morepork wrote:

Banquo wrote: somebody on here once proposed using Simon Shaw as an 8. Yes, really.

That is kind of related to my dig at you basing your game around Billy V at No.8. It seems the only option on the table is getting the biggest fucker available in there to run into the opposition and await some sort of hypothesized trickle down effect to materialise on attack. Hence, Nathan "Play-Doh" Hughes being persisted with. The other two loose forwards on the field don't even seem to be considered as part of a unit at all. The only link play seems to be from a couple of your front rowers, and that isn't by design either it would seem.

I don’t think that’s true at all. Mako and Sinckler often stand in at first receiver for their clubs as well for England and that definitely isn’t by chance. Both are good at it too.

Curry has also done a decent amount of link play in recent games and Billy is nowhere near as one dimensional as you’re making out.

morepork wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

morepork wrote:

That is kind of related to my dig at you basing your game around Billy V at No.8. It seems the only option on the table is getting the biggest fucker available in there to run into the opposition and await some sort of hypothesized trickle down effect to materialise on attack. Hence, Nathan "Play-Doh" Hughes being persisted with. The other two loose forwards on the field don't even seem to be considered as part of a unit at all. The only link play seems to be from a couple of your front rowers, and that isn't by design either it would seem.

I don’t think that’s true at all. Mako and Sinckler often stand in at first receiver for their clubs as well for England and that definitely isn’t by chance. Both are good at it too.

Curry has also done a decent amount of link play in recent games and Billy is nowhere near as one dimensional as you’re making out.

But his preferred replacement seems to be.

Raggs wrote:Billy has very good hands.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Billy has very good hands.

he does, and he isn't slow either despite what many say. His workrate is also hugely improved since shedding a few pounds, though it comes with slightly less tight yardage made through bulk- a good trade off.

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Billy has very good hands.

he does, and he isn't slow either despite what many say. His workrate is also hugely improved since shedding a few pounds, though it comes with slightly less tight yardage made through bulk- a good trade off.

Imo he trundles rather than sprints about the pitch and is the least athletic of our 8 options by a long chalk - partly due to having a build more akin to front row than a back row. His tight play compensates for all this though.

Scrumhead wrote:How many number 8s do you see sprinting around the pitch?