RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Peej wrote:The issue with Simmonds is that he's proven a Prem, European and international level that in a tight physical game he's not that useful. So he would have been lethal in the first 20 minutes last week, but pretty much useless after that. And the Boks are never going to give us that much time and space again.

Fair point! Can you ever justify picking a forward who is verging on the small side against SA?

Neil Back did ok; even SA have toyed with what we call opensides.

Also, it’s not like this South African team are bigger or more powerful than us. For the long parts of the game they dominated last week they weren’t running over the top of us with sheer grunt, they were beating us round the field and looking quicker (physically and mentally) and fitter (altitude?). Primarily beating us across the ground to the breakdowns, and everything tailspinned from there.

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Fair point! Can you ever justify picking a forward who is verging on the small side against SA?

Neil Back did ok; even SA have toyed with what we call opensides.

Also, it’s not like this South African team are bigger or more powerful than us. For the long parts of the game they dominated last week they weren’t running over the top of us with sheer grunt, they were beating us round the field and looking quicker (physically and mentally) and fitter (altitude?). Primarily beating us across the ground to the breakdowns, and everything tailspinned from there.

..... there was a fair amount of big lads knocking other big lads backwards though; its a big side, bar Faf and the hooker, across the park; they made hay down the ten channel this way- we did badly not to react to this facet.

Banquo wrote:

Peat wrote:

Puja wrote:
Simmonds is an inch shorter and a pound heavier than Tom Curry.

Puja

Does he have Curry's breakdown technique?

He's been very good over the ball for Chiefs when the occasion has demanded it.....but their approach to the breakdown doesn't look for jackelling skills, hence surprising they signed Kvesic (tho they did play Salvi a lot) and then not playing him.

I can live without a jackal if they clear out well.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:NZ have a no8 who does his best work in the wider, open spaces and they seem to be doing ok. As always, is about the balance of the entire pack. If we have George, Williams/Sinckler and Shields replacing Hartley, Cole and Robshaw we already have some more tight carriers. If Billy is injured then we could use Simmonds in a different fashion to Billy, rather than just going to Billy-lite.
In the shorter term, I’d love to see him in the bench this weekend.

NZ have one of the best 8's of all time in Read. They also have a pack who have superb basics and excellent breakdown technique and decision making. They can afford a luxury Okapi- who can do the tight physical work if needed, pretty big unit.

Agree with all of that. My point is more that deciding Simmonds is too small for no8 isn’t really looking at the issue as a whole. If the best in the world play with a no8 whose best work is done in less traffic then why are we obsessing over the need for a massive no8.

Peat wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Peat wrote:
Does he have Curry's breakdown technique?

He's been very good over the ball for Chiefs when the occasion has demanded it.....but their approach to the breakdown doesn't look for jackelling skills, hence surprising they signed Kvesic (tho they did play Salvi a lot) and then not playing him.

I can live without a jackal if they clear out well.

I'm making no comment either way. Except to say we have been out jackeled for a while now. What you can't do is force the issue and shoe horn a player into a style of play- see inside centre for many years.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:NZ have a no8 who does his best work in the wider, open spaces and they seem to be doing ok. As always, is about the balance of the entire pack. If we have George, Williams/Sinckler and Shields replacing Hartley, Cole and Robshaw we already have some more tight carriers. If Billy is injured then we could use Simmonds in a different fashion to Billy, rather than just going to Billy-lite.
In the shorter term, I’d love to see him in the bench this weekend.

NZ have one of the best 8's of all time in Read. They also have a pack who have superb basics and excellent breakdown technique and decision making. They can afford a luxury Okapi- who can do the tight physical work if needed, pretty big unit.

Agree with all of that. My point is more that deciding Simmonds is too small for no8 isn’t really looking at the issue as a whole. If the best in the world play with a no8 whose best work is done in less traffic then why are we obsessing over the need for a massive no8.

Maybe because the issue as a whole looks like we need a number 8 who plays tighter because we haven't got a pack that allows for the likes of Simmonds. This is in danger of being circular; I'd agree to not writing Simmonds off simply because his style isnt easily supported by what's currently available round him; I do actually see great merit in him becoming a 7 also.

Read can do the tight stuff when it's needed though.

Raggs wrote:Read can do the tight stuff when it's needed though.

exactly what I said

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: NZ have one of the best 8's of all time in Read. They also have a pack who have superb basics and excellent breakdown technique and decision making. They can afford a luxury Okapi- who can do the tight physical work if needed, pretty big unit.

Agree with all of that. My point is more that deciding Simmonds is too small for no8 isn’t really looking at the issue as a whole. If the best in the world play with a no8 whose best work is done in less traffic then why are we obsessing over the need for a massive no8.

Maybe because the issue as a whole looks like we need a number 8 who plays tighter because we haven't got a pack that allows for the likes of Simmonds. This is in danger of being circular; I'd agree to not writing Simmonds off simply because his style isnt easily supported by what's currently available round him; I do actually see great merit in him becoming a 7 also.

I think we could provide a pack that would enable Simmonds to do his thing. I wouldn’t see it much different from my first choice pack with or without Billy/Simmonds.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Agree with all of that. My point is more that deciding Simmonds is too small for no8 isn’t really looking at the issue as a whole. If the best in the world play with a no8 whose best work is done in less traffic then why are we obsessing over the need for a massive no8.

Maybe because the issue as a whole looks like we need a number 8 who plays tighter because we haven't got a pack that allows for the likes of Simmonds. This is in danger of being circular; I'd agree to not writing Simmonds off simply because his style isnt easily supported by what's currently available round him; I do actually see great merit in him becoming a 7 also.

I think we could provide a pack that would enable Simmonds to do his thing. I wouldn’t see it much different from my first choice pack with or without Billy/Simmonds.

Really? Go on then

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Read can do the tight stuff when it's needed though.

exactly what I said

and I agreed. Still doesn’t detract from the fact that he mostly stationed in positions you’d look to put Simmonds. We don’t have Read and we don’t have a clone of Billy. We therefore need to chose between trying to replicate Billy, when he’s not available, or pick our next best 8, which I think is Simmonds, and adapt to that.
My point is that Simmonds is too light/small and therefore not an international no8 argument is flawed.

I'm not sure Simmonds is good enough to build a pack around him to play 8…
However, would the pack that we need / want for Simmonds to play 8 be just a better pack in general?

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:
Maybe because the issue as a whole looks like we need a number 8 who plays tighter because we haven't got a pack that allows for the likes of Simmonds. This is in danger of being circular; I'd agree to not writing Simmonds off simply because his style isnt easily supported by what's currently available round him; I do actually see great merit in him becoming a 7 also.

I think we could provide a pack that would enable Simmonds to do his thing. I wouldn’t see it much different from my first choice pack with or without Billy/Simmonds.

Really? Go on then

Just pick the biggest EQP player 1 through 7, obvs.

Maybe something like 4. Lees 5. Philips 6. Lawes/Itoje 7. Ewers to allow Simmonds at 8?

Renniks wrote:I'm not sure Simmonds is good enough to build a pack around him to play 8…
However, would the pack that we need / want for Simmonds to play 8 be just a better pack in general?

That’s kinda my point. It’s all moot if Billy’s fit. I’m just trying to avoid a position where everything is based around Billy and if he’s injured we play Hughes who isn’t good enough (cos he plays for Wasps) and if he’s injured we set up Simmonds to fail by asking to play a game that doesn’t suit him.
Basically, let’s not write off Simmonds because he doesn’t meet a certain weight limit and has to play in a team set-up for him to fail.

Mikey Brown wrote:Maybe something like 4. Lees 5. Philips 6. Lawes/Itoje 7. Ewers to allow Simmonds at 8?

Exactly. To save time naming 7 names, I’ll just say think of the team Stephen Jones would pick.

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote: Neil Back did ok; even SA have toyed with what we call opensides.

Also, it’s not like this South African team are bigger or more powerful than us. For the long parts of the game they dominated last week they weren’t running over the top of us with sheer grunt, they were beating us round the field and looking quicker (physically and mentally) and fitter (altitude?). Primarily beating us across the ground to the breakdowns, and everything tailspinned from there.

..... there was a fair amount of big lads knocking other big lads backwards though; its a big side, bar Faf and the hooker, across the park; they made hay down the ten channel this way- we did badly not to react to this facet.

Ah, was talking exclusively about the packs. We do have a small backline. When we were able to control pace of ball at the ruck in first 20 minutes we were knocking them back a good amount on both sides of the ball too.

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Maybe something like 4. Lees 5. Philips 6. Lawes/Itoje 7. Ewers to allow Simmonds at 8?

Exactly. To save time naming 7 names, I’ll just say think of the team Stephen Jones would pick.

I was struggling with a front row. It's a shame Lewis-Roberts and Francis are Welsh. They would have been a solid pick, with perhaps an unfit Tom Lindsay or Rob Webber at 2.

I think Simmonds has a lot to offer but against a side packed with big forwards who all relish smashing the opposition he's best suited to a bench spot provided that one of the three locks (assuming one on the bench) can cover back row. With Jones opting not to have a lock on the bench I can understand Simmonds's non-involvement. It's an ass-about-face way of doing it, IMO, but it is Jones we are talking about.

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:
Also, it’s not like this South African team are bigger or more powerful than us. For the long parts of the game they dominated last week they weren’t running over the top of us with sheer grunt, they were beating us round the field and looking quicker (physically and mentally) and fitter (altitude?). Primarily beating us across the ground to the breakdowns, and everything tailspinned from there.

..... there was a fair amount of big lads knocking other big lads backwards though; its a big side, bar Faf and the hooker, across the park; they made hay down the ten channel this way- we did badly not to react to this facet.

Ah, was talking exclusively about the packs. We do have a small backline. When we were able to control pace of ball at the ruck in first 20 minutes we were knocking them back a good amount on both sides of the ball too.

True, both sides made hay with the ball, us through simply exploiting their poor defensive alignment, them through a lot of missed tackles and flooding the blindside and pressuring our decision making. I just thought they were more physical and intense as a collective, but that might be confirmation bias as that was what I'd expected to happen

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I think we could provide a pack that would enable Simmonds to do his thing. I wouldn’t see it much different from my first choice pack with or without Billy/Simmonds.

Really? Go on then

Just pick the biggest EQP player 1 through 7, obvs.

See, although you and Mikey are being flippant, its not about size to enable a lighter more nimble speedy 8.......its about technique and decision making; NZ do not have a monster pack (well bar Retallica), but they all know their jobs and do it well. It is as simple as we need a better pack, to allow other players, like Simmonds, to pick and choose- which would be his strength. Again, I rate Simmonds, and am not saying he's too light etc....but the specific jobs he was tasked to do, because of a lack of carriers and other failings, he's not built to do. But that's not to say he shouldn't be part of the mix, he should be.

Personally, I think we do have most of the players around to create a top intl all court pack- but it will need some intensive coaching and a collective will between Jones and club to sustain it. All of Mako, George, Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes, Billy, Simmonds, Curry for example are talented enough to be much better as a collective by adapting to some great coaching.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Maybe something like 4. Lees 5. Philips 6. Lawes/Itoje 7. Ewers to allow Simmonds at 8?

Exactly. To save time naming 7 names, I’ll just say think of the team Stephen Jones would pick.

I was struggling with a front row. It's a shame Lewis-Roberts and Francis are Welsh. They would have been a solid pick, with perhaps an unfit Tom Lindsay or Rob Webber at 2.

Webber is a shoe-in at 2. Jake Cooper-Woolley at 3. It’s a shame Biyi Alo moved to France and ruled himself out of contention.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Really? Go on then

Just pick the biggest EQP player 1 through 7, obvs.

See, although you and Mikey are being flippant, its not about size to enable a lighter more nimble speedy 8.......its about technique and decision making; NZ do not have a monster pack (well bar Retallica), but they all know their jobs and do it well. It is as simple as we need a better pack, to allow other players, like Simmonds, to pick and choose- which would be his strength. Again, I rate Simmonds, and am not saying he's too light etc....but the specific jobs he was tasked to do, because of a lack of carriers and other failings, he's not built to do. But that's not to say he shouldn't be part of the mix, he should be.

Personally, I think we do have most of the players around to create a top intl all court pack- but it will need some intensive coaching and a collective will between Jones and club to sustain it. All of Mako, George, Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes, Billy, Simmonds, Curry for example are talented enough to be much better as a collective by adapting to some great coaching.

I’m glad we agree.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Just pick the biggest EQP player 1 through 7, obvs.

See, although you and Mikey are being flippant, its not about size to enable a lighter more nimble speedy 8.......its about technique and decision making; NZ do not have a monster pack (well bar Retallica), but they all know their jobs and do it well. It is as simple as we need a better pack, to allow other players, like Simmonds, to pick and choose- which would be his strength. Again, I rate Simmonds, and am not saying he's too light etc....but the specific jobs he was tasked to do, because of a lack of carriers and other failings, he's not built to do. But that's not to say he shouldn't be part of the mix, he should be.

Personally, I think we do have most of the players around to create a top intl all court pack- but it will need some intensive coaching and a collective will between Jones and club to sustain it. All of Mako, George, Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes, Billy, Simmonds, Curry for example are talented enough to be much better as a collective by adapting to some great coaching.

I’m glad we agree.

Pfft.

The senior players have taken responsibility and all will be ok.