RugbyRebels

I agree - particularly when you consider half of our backs we're playing out of position.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I'm surprised at the lack of enthusiasm for the performance. I thought that was pretty good given it was a side with a lot of moving parts rather than stability. Maybe lucky with a few decisions but plenty of promise on show.

I think we just wanted a better game!

TheNomad wrote:When he was on I thought Underhill looked pretty good personally. Very strong for a start

Still struck me as more of a hard tackling 6 though with a bit of breakdown presence and excellent commitment (haven't I just described Robshaw?) than a natural 7. Good player though

Underhill was talented spotted by Richard Hill who I believe may prefer an openside to be built on Warburton lines (i.e. plays 7 in the tight, understated but physical way Hill did when he was selected in that position) rather than a properly pacy attacking and linking player along the lines of Tipuric. I would be happy with Underhill as a back up 6 to Robshaw but I would like to see our 7 as a player able to keep up with our three quarters in an attack move. Last England forwards capable of this were Croft and Rees.

jngf wrote:

TheNomad wrote:When he was on I thought Underhill looked pretty good personally. Very strong for a start

Still struck me as more of a hard tackling 6 though with a bit of breakdown presence and excellent commitment (haven't I just described Robshaw?) than a natural 7. Good player though

Underhill was talented spotted by Richard Hill who I believe may prefer an openside to be built on Warburton lines (i.e. plays 7 in the tight, understated but physical way Hill did when he was selected in that position) rather than a properly pacy attacking and linking player along the lines of Tipuric. I would be happy with Underhill as a back up 6 to Robshaw but I would like to see our 7 as a player able to keep up with our three quarters in an attack move. Last England forwards capable of this were Croft and Rees.

You think Hill didn't consider himself as an attacking and linking player?

Digby wrote:

jngf wrote:

TheNomad wrote:When he was on I thought Underhill looked pretty good personally. Very strong for a start

Still struck me as more of a hard tackling 6 though with a bit of breakdown presence and excellent commitment (haven't I just described Robshaw?) than a natural 7. Good player though

Underhill was talented spotted by Richard Hill who I believe may prefer an openside to be built on Warburton lines (i.e. plays 7 in the tight, understated but physical way Hill did when he was selected in that position) rather than a properly pacy attacking and linking player along the lines of Tipuric. I would be happy with Underhill as a back up 6 to Robshaw but I would like to see our 7 as a player able to keep up with our three quarters in an attack move. Last England forwards capable of this were Croft and Rees.

You think Hill didn't consider himself as an attacking and linking player?

Cracking player. I always remember reading a BOD interview years back when he talked about playing that very good England side back then. After the game he sought to shakes hands with England's best player on the day and remarked it was always Hill.

Digby wrote:

jngf wrote:

TheNomad wrote:When he was on I thought Underhill looked pretty good personally. Very strong for a start

Still struck me as more of a hard tackling 6 though with a bit of breakdown presence and excellent commitment (haven't I just described Robshaw?) than a natural 7. Good player though

Underhill was talented spotted by Richard Hill who I believe may prefer an openside to be built on Warburton lines (i.e. plays 7 in the tight, understated but physical way Hill did when he was selected in that position) rather than a properly pacy attacking and linking player along the lines of Tipuric. I would be happy with Underhill as a back up 6 to Robshaw but I would like to see our 7 as a player able to keep up with our three quarters in an attack move. Last England forwards capable of this were Croft and Rees.

You think Hill didn't consider himself as an attacking and linking player?

Hill had many, many qualities but being a prolific linking and carrying forward in the loose wasn't one of them.In these aspects Back and Dallagio shined out far, far more out of the holy trinity.

skidger wrote:

Digby wrote:

jngf wrote:
Underhill was talented spotted by Richard Hill who I believe may prefer an openside to be built on Warburton lines (i.e. plays 7 in the tight, understated but physical way Hill did when he was selected in that position) rather than a properly pacy attacking and linking player along the lines of Tipuric. I would be happy with Underhill as a back up 6 to Robshaw but I would like to see our 7 as a player able to keep up with our three quarters in an attack move. Last England forwards capable of this were Croft and Rees.

You think Hill didn't consider himself as an attacking and linking player?

Cracking player. I always remember reading a BOD interview years back when he talked about playing that very good England side back then. After the game he sought to shakes hands with England's best player on the day and remarked it was always Hill.

Donncha O'Callaghan was a big Hill fan too. DOC had a bit of rep for being the class clown, but it was in part looking at Hill which made him commit to being as professional as he is to deliver strong performances week after week after week

jngf wrote:

Digby wrote:

jngf wrote:
Underhill was talented spotted by Richard Hill who I believe may prefer an openside to be built on Warburton lines (i.e. plays 7 in the tight, understated but physical way Hill did when he was selected in that position) rather than a properly pacy attacking and linking player along the lines of Tipuric. I would be happy with Underhill as a back up 6 to Robshaw but I would like to see our 7 as a player able to keep up with our three quarters in an attack move. Last England forwards capable of this were Croft and Rees.

You think Hill didn't consider himself as an attacking and linking player?

Hill had many, many qualities but being a prolific linking and carrying forward in the loose wasn't one of them.In these aspects Back and Dallagio shined out far, far more out of the holy trinity.

It's almost like with Woodman, Thompson and Vickery in the team to carry that Hill served another role to balance out delivery in the pack. However, if given a blank page as a starting point I tend to think Hill would want to the the 7, and that he'd specifically want to support a game looking to have the option to go fast and wide.

Digby wrote:

skidger wrote:

Digby wrote:
You think Hill didn't consider himself as an attacking and linking player?

Cracking player. I always remember reading a BOD interview years back when he talked about playing that very good England side back then. After the game he sought to shakes hands with England's best player on the day and remarked it was always Hill.

Donncha O'Callaghan was a big Hill fan too. DOC had a bit of rep for being the class clown, but it was in part looking at Hill which made him commit to being as professional as he is to deliver strong performances week after week after week

A players player as it were. I think one player once played against Mike Brown 4 years ago and said he was ok.

jngf wrote:

Digby wrote:

jngf wrote:
Underhill was talented spotted by Richard Hill who I believe may prefer an openside to be built on Warburton lines (i.e. plays 7 in the tight, understated but physical way Hill did when he was selected in that position) rather than a properly pacy attacking and linking player along the lines of Tipuric. I would be happy with Underhill as a back up 6 to Robshaw but I would like to see our 7 as a player able to keep up with our three quarters in an attack move. Last England forwards capable of this were Croft and Rees.

You think Hill didn't consider himself as an attacking and linking player?

Hill had many, many qualities but being a prolific linking and carrying forward in the loose wasn't one of them.In these aspects Back and Dallagio shined out far, far more out of the holy trinity.

I could not disagree more. Hill had far better hands than Back and fitted into backs moves better than the other two. Dallaglio had muscle. Back was a brilliant cheat at ruck/maul time. Hill was the best all-round player of the three. He was a better 7 than Back, almost as good an 8 as Dallaglio and the best 6 that's ever played.

Watched Underhill a few weeks ago. Cracking first 40 and then went missing a bit. O's were getting thumped which might have had something to do with him being less noticeable but I wonder if his eagerness to play at 100mph might be better with 10% sheared off and used for other stuff.
That said, it is nice to see someone playing with a big silly grin on his mush.


He was so pissed about having to come off. He was planning murder in the 2nd half.

Oakboy wrote:

jngf wrote:

Digby wrote:
You think Hill didn't consider himself as an attacking and linking player?

Hill had many, many qualities but being a prolific linking and carrying forward in the loose wasn't one of them.In these aspects Back and Dallagio shined out far, far more out of the holy trinity.

I could not disagree more. Hill had far better hands than Back and fitted into backs moves better than the other two. Dallaglio had muscle. Back was a brilliant cheat at ruck/maul time. Hill was the best all-round player of the three. He was a better 7 than Back, almost as good an 8 as Dallaglio and the best 6 that's ever played.

Have to agree to Disagree in turn Hill simply wasn't as good a 7 as Back based on the evidence of their respective England performances in that position, and nowhere near as good a no.8 as Dallagio
and further at the peak of their careers as No.6s all of Teague, Hall, Rodber and Dallagio had a power carrying game at 6 which Hill himself never had. That's not to say he wasn't England's best ever back row all things being equal but he wasn't objectively the best player in every single facet of back row play and I maintain his impact as a carrier and linker was limited.

kk67 wrote:Watched Underhill a few weeks ago. Cracking first 40 and then went missing a bit. O's were getting thumped which might have had something to do with him being less noticeable but I wonder if his eagerness to play at 100mph might be better with 10% sheared off and used for other stuff.
That said, it is nice to see someone playing with a big silly grin on his mush.


He was so pissed about having to come off. He was planning murder in the 2nd half.

I just watched a Youtube recording of the game, including the payer height/weight stats in the team lists at the introduction.

Underhill has certainly come a long way in just a few weeks. He's bulked from 16st 3 lb to 17 st, and grown from 6'1" to 6'3" . He hides it well, mind.

Spiffy wrote:

kk67 wrote:Watched Underhill a few weeks ago. Cracking first 40 and then went missing a bit. O's were getting thumped which might have had something to do with him being less noticeable but I wonder if his eagerness to play at 100mph might be better with 10% sheared off and used for other stuff.
That said, it is nice to see someone playing with a big silly grin on his mush.


He was so pissed about having to come off. He was planning murder in the 2nd half.

I just watched a Youtube recording of the game, including the payer height/weight stats in the team lists at the introduction.

Underhill has certainly come a long way in just a few weeks. He's bulked from 16st 3 lb to 17 st, and grown from 6'1" to 6'3" . He hides it well, mind.

That's what one training camp with Eddie Jones will do for you

Whatever doesn't break you...

Less gravity in Bath. Everyone knows that.

Underhill has certainly come a long way in just a few weeks. He's bulked from 16st 3 lb to 17 st, and grown from 6'1" to 6'3" . He hides it well, mind.

With a growth spurt like that he's seriously in danger of me re-evaluating him from being a 6.5 to an out and out blindside ( joining the illustrious company of Robshaw and Haskell)