RugbyRebels

Tom Curry is a freak. Forget USP’s, he’s good at everything. If he’s fit and can avoid serious injury he’ll be in the team for a decade.

I’m with Timbo. Curry is definitely not the ‘most vulnerable’. In fact, I’d argue the opposite and not just because jngf said it.

Yeah, you're mad. Just because he wore other shirt numbers didn't stop him being extremely good.

Mellsblue wrote:

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?

Not quite

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'll hold my hands up for that one. In my defence, Hughes had been playing well right up until the time he actually became eligible. He then lost quite a bit of weight (prob due to Eddie having a word) and was being touted as a 6 by Eddie for a while, which he never is in a million years. His form nose-dived as his lighter self wasn't breaking tackles like he had been. No argument that he was mainly gash for Eng but I have sympathy for him. Not surprisingly his form picked up again once he put the weight back on which was concurrent with Eddie dropping him. He's never got back to the form of his first couple of years at Wasps though.

I also championed Harry Williams for an Eng shirt. I'm starting to feel sorry for Willis, I've no doubt he doesn't need me recommending him after his first few games for Wasps.

There’s also the Phil Dowson effect, whereby player plays well at club level then belatedly get capped by which time they’re past they’re best.

We don’t tend to do that too often these days. It’s very rare to see a player making their debut any later than their mid-20s. The current exception is Mark Wilson who probably should have had most of Tom Wood’s caps. Definitely post-2015 anyway.

Yes, but

https://images.app.goo.gl/3ZeowNcD4y4SHc337

True - although I was thinking more specifically about forwards (the thread is about the pack).

Good point well made

Scrumhead wrote:We don’t tend to do that too often these days. It’s very rare to see a player making their debut any later than their mid-20s. The current exception is Mark Wilson who probably should have had most of Tom Wood’s caps. Definitely post-2015 anyway.

Tom Wood was another player who was strongly favoured on not just this board but the UK rugby press in general - just prior to the Burt era he was being labelled as England’s answer to Sam Warburton etc. - think injury and moving (slightly?) out of position to BSF put the mockers on his test career (but worried T Curry could follow suit if not careful! )

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:We don’t tend to do that too often these days. It’s very rare to see a player making their debut any later than their mid-20s. The current exception is Mark Wilson who probably should have had most of Tom Wood’s caps. Definitely post-2015 anyway.

Tom Wood was another player who was strongly favoured on not just this board

Citation needed

jngf wrote:but the UK rugby press in general - just prior to the Burt era he was being labelled as England’s answer to Sam Warburton etc. - think injury and moving (slightly?) out of position to BSF put the mockers on his test career (but worried T Curry could follow suit if not careful! )

Yeah, being played out of position was not Tom Wood's issue. At all. He was favoured by the media because he played their game and actively courted them (and isn't it funny how suddenly there were no more teamsheet leaks, immediately after he was dropped?), but he was never more than a good Prem player and an okay international. Anyone suggesting he was one of the best flankers in the world, as Tom Curry was widely supposed to be after the RWC, would have been committed.

Puja

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:We don’t tend to do that too often these days. It’s very rare to see a player making their debut any later than their mid-20s. The current exception is Mark Wilson who probably should have had most of Tom Wood’s caps. Definitely post-2015 anyway.

Tom Wood was another player who was strongly favoured on not just this board

Citation needed

jngf wrote:but the UK rugby press in general - just prior to the Burt era he was being labelled as England’s answer to Sam Warburton etc. - think injury and moving (slightly?) out of position to BSF put the mockers on his test career (but worried T Curry could follow suit if not careful! )

Yeah, being played out of position was not Tom Wood's issue. At all. He was favoured by the media because he played their game and actively courted them (and isn't it funny how suddenly there were no more teamsheet leaks, immediately after he was dropped?), but he was never more than a good Prem player and an okay international. Anyone suggesting he was one of the best flankers in the world, as Tom Curry was widely supposed to be after the RWC, would have been committed.

Puja

For me I simply don’t see where the Tom Curry being one of the best flankers in the world bit is coming from - good enough (if played at openside) to possibly make a Lions squad - yes. World class - certainly not yet and I would argue Tipuric, Watson and Underhill to name but 3 are all better flankers within the British Isles. Crikey even Sale prefer his brother at openside - that’s not to say T Curry’s not a great openside just not that great...at least not yet.

Puja wrote: he was never more than a good Prem player and an okay international. Anyone suggesting he was one of the best flankers in the world, as Tom Curry was widely supposed to be after the RWC, would have been committed.

Puja

Wood was defined for me by effort. When he was able to sustain an insane level of work he was damn effective, but that is hard to sustain and was harder still after his foot injury problems. Hardly the only player to rely more heavily on some aspect of his physicality than his technical ability or game reading/decision making

Agreed. A good player but not really someone who really warranted being a 50 cap international IMO. That said, before his foot injury he was definitely better.

Whilst not wishing to defend Tom Wood, I don't remember there being a plethora of back row options at the time. A few were tried but the cupboard was bare. Armitage was about the only option that didn't get a decent run at it and found lacking from memory. Very different to where we are today.

I always thought Wood was a low-grade substitute for Croft. Initially, press articles (in my unreliable memory) concentrated on him offering a lineout option. I think he was inferior to Robshaw in most aspects and had carrying flaws similar to Borthwick - in that neither really punched their weight in contact.

I agree.

Beasties’ comment is also fair. Between 2012 and 2016 we really didn’t have too many quality options.

Robshaw, Haskell and Wood pretty much picked themselves. Players like Tom Johnson did OK as bit part players but there weren’t too many that were unfairly overlooked apart from Mark Wilson.

He was playing well enough to be in the Saxons squad back then and in hindsight it’s annoying that Lancaster didn’t invest in his development earlier instead of Johnson or others who were never going to be longer term options.

Scrumhead wrote:I agree.

Beasties’ comment is also fair. Between 2012 and 2016 we really didn’t have too many quality options.

Robshaw, Haskell and Wood pretty much picked themselves. Players like Tom Johnson did OK as bit part players but there weren’t too many that were unfairly overlooked apart from Mark Wilson.

He was playing well enough to be in the Saxons squad back then and in hindsight it’s annoying that Lancaster didn’t invest in his development earlier instead of Johnson or others who were never going to be longer term options.

Possibly Wilson didn’t get more of a look in at that point as he was seen as being too similar in style to Robshaw (I.e a grafter with a high work rate, reliable defence, and good brain but nothing special in more athletic terms such as carrying power and explosiveness, destructive big hit tackling, pace, athleticism in the lineout etc.) ? - a point which still holds now imo.

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I agree.

Beasties’ comment is also fair. Between 2012 and 2016 we really didn’t have too many quality options.

Robshaw, Haskell and Wood pretty much picked themselves. Players like Tom Johnson did OK as bit part players but there weren’t too many that were unfairly overlooked apart from Mark Wilson.

He was playing well enough to be in the Saxons squad back then and in hindsight it’s annoying that Lancaster didn’t invest in his development earlier instead of Johnson or others who were never going to be longer term options.

Possibly Wilson didn’t get more of a look in at that point as he was seen as being too similar in style to Robshaw (I.e a grafter with a high work rate, reliable defence, and good brain but nothing special in more athletic terms such as carrying power and explosiveness, destructive big hit tackling, pace, athleticism in the lineout etc.) ? - a point which still holds now imo.

Yet Wood did?!!!? Wood ticks all those attributes you list.
Wood was a Lancaster favourite. So much so he would’ve been capt had he not be injured for the first game(s) of Lancaster reign.

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I agree.

Beasties’ comment is also fair. Between 2012 and 2016 we really didn’t have too many quality options.

Robshaw, Haskell and Wood pretty much picked themselves. Players like Tom Johnson did OK as bit part players but there weren’t too many that were unfairly overlooked apart from Mark Wilson.

He was playing well enough to be in the Saxons squad back then and in hindsight it’s annoying that Lancaster didn’t invest in his development earlier instead of Johnson or others who were never going to be longer term options.

Possibly Wilson didn’t get more of a look in at that point as he was seen as being too similar in style to Robshaw (I.e a grafter with a high work rate, reliable defence, and good brain but nothing special in more athletic terms such as carrying power and explosiveness, destructive big hit tackling, pace, athleticism in the lineout etc.) ? - a point which still holds now imo.

I think you’re seriously undervaluing Wilson. His performance level for England has been outstanding whenever he’s played and his bit-part roles in the World Cup and 6N were mostly down to injury.

It’s not always about having an obvious ‘USP’ as you often put it. You underestimate the value of someone who is always where you need them to be. Wilson is that kind of player. It’s not flashy, but a flanker whose work rate allows them to consistently be in the right place at the right time to make telling interventions is hugely valuable.

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I agree.

Beasties’ comment is also fair. Between 2012 and 2016 we really didn’t have too many quality options.

Robshaw, Haskell and Wood pretty much picked themselves. Players like Tom Johnson did OK as bit part players but there weren’t too many that were unfairly overlooked apart from Mark Wilson.

He was playing well enough to be in the Saxons squad back then and in hindsight it’s annoying that Lancaster didn’t invest in his development earlier instead of Johnson or others who were never going to be longer term options.

Possibly Wilson didn’t get more of a look in at that point as he was seen as being too similar in style to Robshaw (I.e a grafter with a high work rate, reliable defence, and good brain but nothing special in more athletic terms such as carrying power and explosiveness, destructive big hit tackling, pace, athleticism in the lineout etc.) ? - a point which still holds now imo.

I think you’re seriously undervaluing Wilson. His performance level for England has been outstanding whenever he’s played and his bit-part roles in the World Cup and 6N were mostly down to injury.

It’s not always about having an obvious ‘USP’ as you often put it. You underestimate the value of someone who is always where you need them to be. Wilson is that kind of player. It’s not flashy, but a flanker whose work rate allows them to consistently be in the right place at the right time to make telling interventions is hugely valuable.

In other words the oft cited “unseen work” that places Richard Hill at the top of the pile.

Stom wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:
Possibly Wilson didn’t get more of a look in at that point as he was seen as being too similar in style to Robshaw (I.e a grafter with a high work rate, reliable defence, and good brain but nothing special in more athletic terms such as carrying power and explosiveness, destructive big hit tackling, pace, athleticism in the lineout etc.) ? - a point which still holds now imo.

I think you’re seriously undervaluing Wilson. His performance level for England has been outstanding whenever he’s played and his bit-part roles in the World Cup and 6N were mostly down to injury.

It’s not always about having an obvious ‘USP’ as you often put it. You underestimate the value of someone who is always where you need them to be. Wilson is that kind of player. It’s not flashy, but a flanker whose work rate allows them to consistently be in the right place at the right time to make telling interventions is hugely valuable.

In other words the oft cited “unseen work” that places Richard Hill at the top of the pile.

Add in Greenwood, if you want a comparison in the backs. No USP other than understanding/being able to read the game......which is surely the most important USP.....

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
I think you’re seriously undervaluing Wilson. His performance level for England has been outstanding whenever he’s played and his bit-part roles in the World Cup and 6N were mostly down to injury.

It’s not always about having an obvious ‘USP’ as you often put it. You underestimate the value of someone who is always where you need them to be. Wilson is that kind of player. It’s not flashy, but a flanker whose work rate allows them to consistently be in the right place at the right time to make telling interventions is hugely valuable.

In other words the oft cited “unseen work” that places Richard Hill at the top of the pile.

Add in Greenwood, if you want a comparison in the backs. No USP other than understanding/being able to read the game......which is surely the most important USP.....

With those accredited attributes, you fellows make hell of a case for Launchbury being first choice, IMO!

Stom wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:
Possibly Wilson didn’t get more of a look in at that point as he was seen as being too similar in style to Robshaw (I.e a grafter with a high work rate, reliable defence, and good brain but nothing special in more athletic terms such as carrying power and explosiveness, destructive big hit tackling, pace, athleticism in the lineout etc.) ? - a point which still holds now imo.

I think you’re seriously undervaluing Wilson. His performance level for England has been outstanding whenever he’s played and his bit-part roles in the World Cup and 6N were mostly down to injury.

It’s not always about having an obvious ‘USP’ as you often put it. You underestimate the value of someone who is always where you need them to be. Wilson is that kind of player. It’s not flashy, but a flanker whose work rate allows them to consistently be in the right place at the right time to make telling interventions is hugely valuable.

In other words the oft cited “unseen work” that places Richard Hill at the top of the pile.

I actually do value what a “glue” type flanker can bring to the party and Richard Hill was the archetypal example of that with Robshaw and latterly Wilson following in the tradition. I do think such players are best suited to 6 and complemented by more athletically exciting players at 7 and 8 (imo the complementary skills of Back and Dayglo have been underplayed in relation to Hill in extolling the peerless virtues of the Holy Trinity - both of those at their peak were extremely good athletes and, perhaps bucking the consensus, I’ve never seen Hill as the standout of the three rather an equal complement in what made that triumverate the near perfect backrow). Back to Wilson, it’s now a case of whether he’s a better 6 than other more athletic and quicker options - imo Ludlum is a step up, Curry a step down and Willis and Ted Hill TBD should they get a call up. I’m happy enough with Wilson at 6 but think he’s a bit stodgy when moved to 7 or 8 ( something I think he shares with Robshaw and indeed Richard Hill! )