RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

p/d wrote:Jones:
"Jack Singleton has barely played and I thought his performance was outstanding.”

If he views people barely playing as being outstanding it would go more than a small way to explaining Hartley's ongoing selection

And Taylor's exclusion

Regarding back row, Beaumont didn't look like a power carrier, Underhill was tough and rugged (like a latter day Winterbottom) though not sure if attaching is his thing - Tom Curry looked a bit less physical than Underhill but was very mobile with some good link play. Will be keen to compare his style with that of his brother. Tbh both 7s were a significant improvement from Haskell imo and Wasps are right to keep him at 6 - England take note. Incidentally Nathan Hughes had a cracking game for Wasps and if he could bring that type of game to his play for England we'd have a nice selection dilemma once Billy comes back from injury.

One might or might not want Haskell, but many of his best games (and certainly for England) come at 7. And if England are to make a change then either the style of play needs to change in what Eddie wants at 7, or someone has to deliver more Haskell than Haskell, and whilst Underhill and Curry looked okay in a weak game they didn't suggest they were ready to offer a Haskell+ game

Digby wrote: and whilst Underhill and Curry looked okay in a weak game they didn't suggest they were ready to offer a Haskell+ game

Oh I don't know, one could argue Underhill did .....20 mins of something 60 mins of nothing.

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Is 7 his best position?

Oh good god Mikey, what have you done? There's going to be a new jngf backrow thread any second now that you've summoned him with the magic words!

Puja

This sort of behaviour needs banning. Sort it out Puja.

Scrumhead wrote: I've got a lot of time for Simmonds but I'm not sure we can afford another rookie in the back row for this tour. If Underhill is out, perhaps but if not, I'd be more inclined to go with Wilson or another experienced player like Armand or Thompson.

We've already potentially lost two rookie opensides, don't seen the harm in replacing like with like.

So if Hughes can keep at that level, do we still think a Hughes/BV 6/8 combo is a realistic possibility?

Raggs wrote:So if Hughes can keep at that level, do we still think a Hughes/BV 6/8 combo is a realistic possibility?

Do we think hughes has actually improved or that he was just incredibly pumped up for the final?

twitchy wrote:

Raggs wrote:So if Hughes can keep at that level, do we still think a Hughes/BV 6/8 combo is a realistic possibility?

Do we think hughes has actually improved or that he was just incredibly pumped up for the final?

He was obviously pumped, but he was pretty persistent against Tigers too from memory, big workrate. He's not as destructive as BV when carrying, but he's probably better than any other England flanker option, his tackle stats were very good, and they involved some big hits too.

Raggs wrote:So if Hughes can keep at that level, do we still think a Hughes/BV 6/8 combo is a realistic possibility?

Did we ever think it a possibility?

To be honest I would prefer a player with the abrasive work rate of an Armand at 6 rather than an 8 playing out of position. Also not sure if the BV/Hughes combo would get the best out of both. Mind you would be better than putting a lock in the 6 shirt.

Peat wrote:We've already potentially lost two rookie opensides, don't seen the harm in replacing like with like.

If Underhill or Ben Curry are out then I'd be happy enough with calling up Simmonds, but I was actually thinking about the replacements for Haskell and Wood.

In a squad already short of experience, losing 120+ caps from the back row is not insignificant. With the exception of Morgan, there aren't really any back-rowers with significant test experience and as it's flankers we'll really need, so I think overall experience is the closest we're going to get. Wilson has put himself in the frame after yesterday and I would have thought Armand's season must at least warrant him being in contention.

Hopefully not Timmy Harrison

Yeah I think it's a bit pointless playing people out of position when we finally seem to have natural options in every slot across the back row. I know that's premature at 7 but I'm just being positive.

Raggs wrote:So if Hughes can keep at that level, do we still think a Hughes/BV 6/8 combo is a realistic possibility?

Yes.

Scrumhead wrote:

Peat wrote:We've already potentially lost two rookie opensides, don't seen the harm in replacing like with like.

I would have thought Armand's season must at least warrant him being in contention.

I haven't seen the quote but I believe Jones ruled him out when a reporter mentioned him as a possibility.

Not sure I like the Hughes - Vunipola idea. Having two test quality 8's battle for the one shirt does sound appealing. However, Hughes will need to replicate that performance through Arg, early season and the AI's before I think him test quality.

Mellsblue wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Peat wrote:We've already potentially lost two rookie opensides, don't seen the harm in replacing like with like.

I would have thought Armand's season must at least warrant him being in contention.

I haven't seen the quote but I believe Jones ruled him out when a reporter mentioned him as a possibility.

The mullet make him homesick?

Mellsblue wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Peat wrote:We've already potentially lost two rookie opensides, don't seen the harm in replacing like with like.

I would have thought Armand's season must at least warrant him being in contention.

I haven't seen the quote but I believe Jones ruled him out when a reporter mentioned him as a possibility.

Eddie's earned my trust, but at times I do wonder what I'm missing with certain players. I would have thought Armand would be right up his street.

I'm hoping Haskell/Wood being absent opens up the door for Wilson. He's never likely to be first choice, but as an ultra-dependable back up to Robshaw, I think he should be in/around the squad. Certainly ahead of Wood and Harrison anyway.

I haven't seen the game. Who do you think looks likely to be an England player, and who may fall by the wayside?

On the backrow debate, I'd love to see both Curry's and Underhill in the mix, along with Robshaw and BillyV.

Who knows, after the Lions we could end up with more carrying options elsewhere, which would help. Imagine:

Mako
George
Cole
Itoje
Kruis
Robshaw
B/T Curry/Underhill
BillyV

LCD, Genge, Sinckler, Lawes, B/T Curry/Underhill

First 20 mins was good fun. England did well to manage the onslaught.
Never seen Collier or Isiekwe before.....both looked very busy in the loose. Hard to say how they did in the tight. Brace lost his way at the scrum.

Stom wrote:I haven't seen the game. Who do you think looks likely to be an England player, and who may fall by the wayside?

On the backrow debate, I'd love to see both Curry's and Underhill in the mix, along with Robshaw and BillyV.

Who knows, after the Lions we could end up with more carrying options elsewhere, which would help. Imagine:

Mako
George
Cole
Itoje
Kruis
Robshaw
B/T Curry/Underhill
BillyV

LCD, Genge, Sinckler, Lawes, B/T Curry/Underhill

We do look to be getting a great amount of depth at loosehead, all good carriers too.

Am I the only one who thinks that the best second row pairing on current form is Lawes and Launchberry? I know Borthwick doesn't agree..

bitts wrote:

Stom wrote:I haven't seen the game. Who do you think looks likely to be an England player, and who may fall by the wayside?

On the backrow debate, I'd love to see both Curry's and Underhill in the mix, along with Robshaw and BillyV.

Who knows, after the Lions we could end up with more carrying options elsewhere, which would help. Imagine:

Mako
George
Cole
Itoje
Kruis
Robshaw
B/T Curry/Underhill
BillyV

LCD, Genge, Sinckler, Lawes, B/T Curry/Underhill

We do look to be getting a great amount of depth at loosehead, all good carriers too.

Am I the only one who thinks that the best second row pairing on current form is Lawes and Launchberry? I know Borthwick doesn't agree..

At set piece, Kruis is a cut above. That would be the reason behind that pairing.

Stom wrote:I haven't seen the game. Who do you think looks likely to be an England player, and who may fall by the wayside?

On the backrow debate, I'd love to see both Curry's and Underhill in the mix, along with Robshaw and BillyV.

Who knows, after the Lions we could end up with more carrying options elsewhere, which would help. Imagine:

Mako
George
Cole
Itoje
Kruis
Robshaw
B/T Curry/Underhill
BillyV

LCD, Genge, Sinckler, Lawes, B/T Curry/Underhill

To be fair, everyone looked decent enough. The only one who looked poor/out of his depth was Singleton. It's understandable enough - he is very green and was only there due to about 7 other options ahead of him being unavailable or injured. He has no chance of progressing in to the EPS in the short-to-medium term with at least George, LCD and Taylor all likely to be in the frame for years to come.

I also didn't think Beaumont was great - not noticeably bad, but pretty anonymous and definitely overshadowed by Mark Wilson.

Hard to judge Lozowski on a few minutes when we were on the back foot, but I thought James and Haley did well enough out of position.

Earle is raw, but showed glimpses of good potential in attack and defence.

Underhill and Tom Curry both had good moments as did Isiekwe and the two props.

Ewels was excellent and would have been my MoM. He did everything well, has a great work rate and showed some good hands in the build up to Isiekwe and Care's tries. I noticed the commentators kept thinking he was Beaumont on account of them being roughly the same size in black headgear. It was Ewels more or less every time they mentioned 'Beaumont' which probably underlines how much work he got through in comparison.

Didn't think much of Isiekwe, though appears to have the annoying Itoje habit of shouting/screaming every time the pack one a penalty/free kick.

Beaumont looked powder puff.

Isiekwe is 19 and only has started what 1 game for sarries? That he looked perfectly competent vs seasoned pros in the second row is damn impressive in my opinion.

Beaumont does lack physicality which will rule him out of going further. If he had an outstanding work rate and was a brilliant link player it might compensate but he looks short of test class. I liked what I saw of Isiekwe. He is just 19 but wasn't daunted at all. Singleton got lucky as about a dozen other hookers weren't available.
Havent commented on James but he is a smart player who I like a lot. His ball to set up Earle was the kind of thing he's really good at.