RugbyRebels

How on earth have you written off Tom Curry as a proper openside already, and on those performances? Full of turnovers and subtle bits of passing to get things going forwards. Sometimes I wonder if you think 'linking' means the same as all the rest of us do.

jngf wrote:This is truly a thread after my own heart!

On the openside front I would like to see what Ben Evans and Sam Simmonds could bring to the party - i.e. I'm hoping these have the ability to act as true linkmean with the pace and footballing skills of an extra three quarter.

Underhill and T.Curry are both a step forward from Haskell but I'd class both as more defensively focussed from what I've seen of them at test level.

B.Curry has yet to play for England but my assumption based on what I've heard is he might be slightly more of a specialist 7 than his brother- is this a fair comment?

T.Curry, L.Ludlum and Underhill all look like 6.5s

One could say the same for Wood, Harrison and Croft any of whom I'd have ahead of Haskell or Robshaw at 7 but the converse would apply if discussing 6.

Finally Thacker has been mentioned as a sort of Moody 2.0 ( - or another 6.5 in the 'mad dog' mode)

A few questions/observations ...

Ben Evans? Do you mean Will?

For me, both the Currys are 7s all day long. It's possible that Sale may look to convert one of them in to more of a 6.5 in order to play the, together, but as it stands, they're 7s for sure.

I don't think it's possible to make a judgement on whether Ludlam is a 6.5 when he's barely played for Saints. From watching him for the U20s a few years ago, he wore 6 but looked very much like an out-and-out 7.

Are you honestly saying you'd take the 2017 version of Tom Croft ahead of Haskell at 7? A guy who barely plays for Tigers and when he does is a pure 6. This thread is about the long term future of the back row, so it's a moot point, but I really do wonder where this idea came from

Lastly - Thacker as 'Moody 2.0'? WTF If Thacker pit on about 30kg he might be Back 2.0, but he certainly isn't a 6.5 in any way shape or form. When he plays as a flanker, he's a very good 7, but sadly, he's just too small for test rugby.

Sorry if it feels like I'm attacking you. It's not meant in a mean spirited way, but those points on Croft and Thacker are just plain bizarre!

Puja wrote:

Peat wrote:

Puja wrote:
Where is he?! A busy back row thread with lots of posts, but none from him. It's like the Batsignal went up and everyone but Batman showed up.

Puja

It doesn't have openside in the title.

FTFY.

Puja

You are a monster. I would threaten your well-being for doing this but death is too good for you.

Underhill is a 7 in the Warburton mould. Really rate the guy

If Underhill could become a 7 in the Sam Cane mould I'd be bloody ecstatic.

Timbo wrote:If Underhill could become a 7 in the San Cane mould I'd be bloody ecstatic.

Cane has taken a while to come out of Richie's shadow, but looks the biz now. I'd settle for Ardie.

Mikey Brown wrote:How on earth have you written off Tom Curry as a proper openside already, and on those performances? Full of turnovers and subtle bits of passing to get things going forwards. Sometimes I wonder if you think 'linking' means the same as all the rest of us do.

I haven't written him (or Underhill )off as opensides - I've said they're both a sizeable improvement on Haskell - what I've yet to see is either having the gas to run support lines on the shoulder of our three quarters - I'm hoping this is a quality a player like Will Evans,Sam Simmonds or Lewis Ludlum might bring to the party.

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:This is truly a thread after my own heart!

On the openside front I would like to see what Ben Evans and Sam Simmonds could bring to the party - i.e. I'm hoping these have the ability to act as true linkmean with the pace and footballing skills of an extra three quarter.

Underhill and T.Curry are both a step forward from Haskell but I'd class both as more defensively focussed from what I've seen of them at test level.

B.Curry has yet to play for England but my assumption based on what I've heard is he might be slightly more of a specialist 7 than his brother- is this a fair comment?

T.Curry, L.Ludlum and Underhill all look like 6.5s

One could say the same for Wood, Harrison and Croft any of whom I'd have ahead of Haskell or Robshaw at 7 but the converse would apply if discussing 6.

Finally Thacker has been mentioned as a sort of Moody 2.0 ( - or another 6.5 in the 'mad dog' mode)

A few questions/observations ...

Ben Evans? Do you mean Will?

For me, both the Currys are 7s all day long. It's possible that Sale may look to convert one of them in to more of a 6.5 in order to play the, together, but as it stands, they're 7s for sure.

I don't think it's possible to make a judgement on whether Ludlam is a 6.5 when he's barely played for Saints. From watching him for the U20s a few years ago, he wore 6 but looked very much like an out-and-out 7.

Are you honestly saying you'd take the 2017 version of Tom Croft ahead of Haskell at 7? A guy who barely plays for Tigers and when he does is a pure 6. This thread is about the long term future of the back row, so it's a moot point, but I really do wonder where this idea came from

Lastly - Thacker as 'Moody 2.0'? WTF If Thacker pit on about 30kg he might be Back 2.0, but he certainly isn't a 6.5 in any way shape or form. When he plays as a flanker, he's a very good 7, but sadly, he's just too small for test rugby.

Sorry if it feels like I'm attacking you. It's not meant in a mean spirited way, but those points on Croft and Thacker are just plain bizarre!

Yes sorry I did mean Will Evans, and yes if fit I'd have any even of Croft, Wood or Harrison at 7 over Haskell( Though I'd still pick Haskell over Robshaw there;) )

In the land of McCaw, Jones & Kronfeld, Cane is considered a bit of a plodder. Did alright tonight tho.

Lizard wrote:In the land of McCaw, Jones & Kronfeld, Cane is considered a bit of a plodder. Did alright tonight tho.

That's why I said it, its a relative scale.

So for the AI/6N's we have 6 and 8 sorted but the battle for 7 will be fascinating.

twitchy wrote:So for the AI/6N's we have 6 and 8 sorted but the battle for 7 will be fascinating.

looks like Croft is a shoo-in

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:So for the AI/6N's we have 6 and 8 sorted but the battle for 7 will be fascinating.

looks like Croft is a shoo-in

Is Croft the 6 that's sorted then? ('tis a genuine shame how his career tailed off, though Ferris might have liked a similar tailing off so it's all still relative)

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:So for the AI/6N's we have 6 and 8 sorted but the battle for 7 will be fascinating.

looks like Croft is a shoo-in

Is Croft the 6 that's sorted then? ('tis a genuine shame how his career tailed off, though Ferris might have liked a similar tailing off so it's all still relative)

No I was reflecting (not) humourously on Jgnf's comments about 7. Yes, Croft had a decent career, but imo it could have been a great one but for injury and odd deployment.

Croft in his prime was a fantastic player, but to suggest picking him now and at 7 is plain mental.

Scrumhead wrote:Croft in his prime was a fantastic player, but to suggest picking him now and at 7 is plain mental.

really

Really? Or really mental?

Scrumhead wrote:Really? Or really mental?

really and plain and mental

Croft at 12 might be an idea, a turn of pace and better hands than the incumbent.

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:This is truly a thread after my own heart!

On the openside front I would like to see what Ben Evans and Sam Simmonds could bring to the party - i.e. I'm hoping these have the ability to act as true linkmean with the pace and footballing skills of an extra three quarter.

Underhill and T.Curry are both a step forward from Haskell but I'd class both as more defensively focussed from what I've seen of them at test level.

B.Curry has yet to play for England but my assumption based on what I've heard is he might be slightly more of a specialist 7 than his brother- is this a fair comment?

T.Curry, L.Ludlum and Underhill all look like 6.5s

One could say the same for Wood, Harrison and Croft any of whom I'd have ahead of Haskell or Robshaw at 7 but the converse would apply if discussing 6.

Finally Thacker has been mentioned as a sort of Moody 2.0 ( - or another 6.5 in the 'mad dog' mode)

Lastly - Thacker as 'Moody 2.0'? WTF If Thacker pit on about 30kg he might be Back 2.0, but he certainly isn't a 6.5 in any way shape or form. When he plays as a flanker, he's a very good 7, but sadly, he's just too small for test rugby.

Appologies Scrumhead I meant Ben Nutley rather than Harry Thacker - got their names mixed up - the latter indeed not being Test flanker sized.

Nutley is an interesting one. He's not getting much of a look in at Saints and is the type of player I'd like at Quins. Same with Ludlam and Conlon too.

We need another 7 and could offer a pospect MUCH more game time than Saints or Sarries. Any of those would interest me, if I were Kingston.