RugbyRebels

Yep. I agree Timbo.

Billy is without doubt a world class asset and if fit, I’d have him at 8 every time. However, I don’t think he’s as individually pivotal as others have described.

Personally, I thought our back row in the 2018 AIs with three flankers was pretty good. I don’t think that unit was significantly improved by Billy’s presence in the Six Nations either.

As I said, he’s an obvious choice if fit. If not, I wouldn’t write off our chances solely on that basis.

Timbo wrote:Replacing Billy (or attempting to) like for like has proved far less successful than going with 3 flankers in the back row. What we lose with his power and attacking ability we gain through additional work rate and breakdown/turnover threat.

A lot of country’s seem to be doing this actually. NZ, SA, Wal etc, all have 1 top class more traditional ball carrying 8, but if they are unavailable will go with 3 mobile flankers in the back row.

Yes, so why not take a leaf out of Exeter's book? Whatever the merits of Hughes, why retain his big lump style for years only to dump him at the last moment? Why not go with Armand and Simmonds/Kvesic in terms of style if not the actual individuals, say 12 months ago? It has been too unimaginative, IMO.

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Jones's selections leave Billy as our most important player by a huge margin.

Almost any selection does that, and actually Jones has actually made Ben Youngs our most important player is an argument you could make by dint of not selecting anyone else, so Jones more than anyone could have predicted has found a (novel) solution to the problem of Billy being the key man

Diggers, I see your point. We all know Jones has been stupid not to have done more to getviable SH back-up (or succession, because Youngs is not that good). As Banquo delights in pointing out, I was a big Hughes advocate a year or two back. Jones appeared to rate him too until the 11th hour. Now, Billy is not just important, he's essentially irreplaceable - to the extent that if he gets injured we are out of contention.

Presumably by "viable SH cover" you're meaning Southern Hemisphere, on which basis I agree entirely.

There are nowhere near enough players in that squad whose only redeeming factor for international rugby is that they've played Super Rugby and are therefore massively superior.

Where's Brendan O'Connor when you need him?

Shields with a foot ligament issue, he's out and Dombrandt is in (for now).

Tom Moore wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:
Almost any selection does that, and actually Jones has actually made Ben Youngs our most important player is an argument you could make by dint of not selecting anyone else, so Jones more than anyone could have predicted has found a (novel) solution to the problem of Billy being the key man

Diggers, I see your point. We all know Jones has been stupid not to have done more to getviable SH back-up (or succession, because Youngs is not that good). As Banquo delights in pointing out, I was a big Hughes advocate a year or two back. Jones appeared to rate him too until the 11th hour. Now, Billy is not just important, he's essentially irreplaceable - to the extent that if he gets injured we are out of contention.

Presumably by "viable SH cover" you're meaning Southern Hemisphere, on which basis I agree entirely.

There are nowhere near enough players in that squad whose only redeeming factor for international rugby is that they've played Super Rugby and are therefore massively superior.

Where's Brendan O'Connor when you need him?

Hehe. I remember BO’C being a certainty for the Eng team before he’d even looked for a house in Rutland.

Raggs wrote:Shields with a foot ligament issue, he's out and Dombrandt is in (for now).

That'd put the cat amongst the pigeons if it's serious. If he were to be out for the RWC, then Robshaw is the obvious person to bring in, for proven international quality, experience and leadership reasons. However, Eddie appears to be committed to ignoring him, which might be a sign that it's only minor and Shields will be fine. More likely that Eddie's just committed to his decision, which would mean one of Dombrandt or Ludlam would go to the RWC and, with the narrow squads, likely see a reasonable amount of game time.

Puja

Indeed. Surely if Robshaw has any chance, he’d have got the call ahead of Dombrandt.

I wouldn’t be disappointed if either Dombrandt or Ludlam goes TBH. It’s a risk, but I think both would step up.

With all of that said, it’s only just under 2mths until the Tonga game. We know Eddie loves Shields so it would need to be a reasonably serious injury to keep him out of contention. In other words, if he misses the warm ups but is likely to be fit, I think Eddie will still pick him.

The only thing I can see changing that is Dombrandt or Ludlam playing against Wales and having such a stormer that Eddie thinks ‘f*ck it’.

I think Dombrandt would have to win at least 100 line outs to displace Shields. Not going to happen.

TBH, the lineout is one of Dombrandt’s weaknesses at the moment. He’s got the height, but Joe Marler was talking about how hard he is to lift.

Focusing on his strengths instead, he was very good in the Barbarians game and if he plays and puts in a similar performance against Wales, he might force Eddie’s hand.

He doesn’t carry in the same way as Billy, but can be relied upon to make yards and if we were to take him as an 8, he could do a good job against Tonga and the US before we unleash Billy against Argentina. IMO, that’s better than using Wilson at 8.

Based on the squads so far, Dombrandt is obviously next in line. Robshaw wont get a call and nor will any of the Exeter back row.
Jones has set his stall out and signalled his pecking order.
Like almost everyone else, I've seen nothing much from Shields that impresses me but I have seen some very encouraging signs that Dombrandt might be a player who could blossom. Camp should be helping his fitness no end and his carrying work is a known proven strength.

Scrumhead wrote:TBH, the lineout is one of Dombrandt’s weaknesses at the moment. He’s got the height, but Joe Marler was talking about how hard he is to lift.

At just under 19 stone he’s heavier than all our locks (bar Launch).

Scrumhead wrote:TBH, the lineout is one of Dombrandt’s weaknesses at the moment. He’s got the height, but Joe Marler was talking about how hard he is to lift.

Focusing on his strengths instead, he was very good in the Barbarians game and if he plays and puts in a similar performance against Wales, he might force Eddie’s hand.

He doesn’t carry in the same way as Billy, but can be relied upon to make yards and if we were to take him as an 8, he could do a good job against Tonga and the US before we unleash Billy against Argentina. IMO, that’s better than using Wilson at 8.

Agreed, I think he's a BillyV replacement or nothing - while playing him and Billy in the same backrow would give us some awesome carrying options, it would place a big burden on the openside in the loose and the lineout. However, it wouldn't really unbalance the squad - if Wilson or Curry is out, then Underhill covers and if BillyV is out, then Dombrandt to 6 and Wilson to 8 (better at the base, before Jngf objects).

Anyone else think Eddie might do something like leave Launchbury behind, and have a six back row/three locks split with Dombrandt/Shields covering second row?

Puja.

Yes. I think Launchbury is definitely vulnerable. I don’t know why, but Eddie’s never really seemed to rate him.

If Shields’ injury is minor and he’s able to make it, I can definitely see the 3 locks/6 back row that you’ve suggested, but I don’t think Dombrandt covers lock well enough for him to do that if Shields isn’t fit.