RugbyRebels

twitchy wrote:Think of who you would actually want in a crunch six nations match in february in front of a full packed crowd etc.

But that's not we're talking about though. We're talking about the remnants of a past 6N, and a new 8N "tournament". I don't think anyone is considering dropping him forever more (unless the replacement proves even better) and placing him on the blacklist.

As with the RWC warm-ups and group stages, I'm proposing dropping him for a match or two to a] give him a motivational kick up the backside, and b] check out the backup options.

Billy has 50 caps, we won't learn anything new by giving him another 5 before Christmas, but we may (should) get a better performance from him by making him wait, and we'll certainly learn things about the next can off the rank by awarding them their first few caps.

Exactly. I’m looking at it as a kick up the backside for Billy and an opportunity to look at alternatives/reward players who are in great form.

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:It’s not just post restart form though. Billy has been in very average form for a long time now. It looked as though he was pretty much going through the motions at the RWC and since then he’s even publicly said so. If he can’t get motivated for the biggest games of his career, when is he going to?

If the stricter interpretation of the breakdown laws are here to stay, we’d be far better looking at other players who offer more mobility and a better breakdown threat IMO. As good as Billy has been, I wonder whether the era of the big ball-carrying 8 has had it’s day?

Like Which, I’m a big fan of Mercer, but he needs to get back in Eddie’s good books, whereas Earl is already there (and playing very well).

Billy was terrific in the semi final v NZ. He also looked a lot better yesterday I thought; wouldn’t write him off just yet.

Been underwhelmed by Mercer tbh.

Yep and yep. Mercer has it all but isn’t quite in the form of Willis, Earl, Hill or Curry B. He’s good and not in bad form by any stretch but he’s not in the top five flankers, and that’s only for the 6 shirt as there really isn’t a case for him at seven unless you’re blind. At 8 yes he definitely an option and I’d like to see him in the squad just to give him hopefully the kick on he needs, but there is zero chance he’s above Billy. I say that as a fan. He’s just not standing out enough. When you look at Willis there is no way you can ignore him. Mercer is not at that level yet.

I know he’s been cast aside buy Eddie, but think Harrisons been a massive bright spot for a poor performing saints side, even if admittedly Mercer has a higher ceiling.

If I picked 7 back rowers for a squad I’d probably go for Willis, Curry x2, Earl, Vunipola, Underhill and one of Mercer/Harrison/Hill/Dombrant/Simmonds/Wilson/Ludlam

Jeez thats tough. Spare a thought for people like Kvesic, Ellis and Hinkley as well would get alot more interest from other countries

And bringing it together:

6: T Curry, B Curry
7: Earl, Underhill
8: Willis, Vunipola

Just like the idea of Willis at 8, does a great job there for wasps when he’s asked, in the same way Daly used to do a great job on the wing for wasps before Eddie realised that was probably his best position

Jack Willis has very rarely played 8 for Wasps - that's the realm of his brother, Tom. Jack is interchangeable between 6 and 7.

However, one of the unsung heroes of Wasps resurgence and their back row is Brad Shields playing 8.....

Somehow, a decision has to be made on the poundage required, collectively, in the back row. Jones has varied his approach but he has veered towards having Lawes at 6 or bench cover if Billy has been missing.

Would a trio of Willis, Underhill and Curry (or any combination of players of similar weights) cut it at international level? Would the lightweight advantages (pace, mobility etc.) outweigh grunt? Might a lighter, more mobile trio work against some opposing teams but not others? Does a lightweight unit demand a 6:2 bench?

In terms of just picking the players I like most, I'd have Willis, Curry and Simmonds but I accept that none of the three play for their cubs in (totally) lightweight units. Having said that, all three are better carriers in tight situations than their poundage might suggest.

Scrumhead wrote:Not to mention being in fantastic form ...

For some reason jngf has got a real thing about dropping Curry for no logical reason whatsoever.

He also keeps banging on about this mythical back row of 6. Underhill 7. Wilson 8. Curry that I’m pretty certain never took the field.

Scrumhead you really need to check your facts prior to comments like this - I’d never advocate a backrow with Wilson at 7 and Curry at 8! You appear to be confusing me with Eddy Jones

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Not to mention being in fantastic form ...

For some reason jngf has got a real thing about dropping Curry for no logical reason whatsoever.

He also keeps banging on about this mythical back row of 6. Underhill 7. Wilson 8. Curry that I’m pretty certain never took the field.

Scrumhead you really need to check your facts prior to comments like this - I’d never advocate a backrow with Wilson at 7 and Curry at 8! You appear to be confusing me with Eddy Jones

He's saying you rail against a backrow of Underhill/Wilson/Curry that's not ever taken the field, not that you're for it being tried.

Puja

Yes. Exactly. Although he is correct in that I wrote Underhill in place of Lawes.

I’m still pretty sure that combination has never taken the field - at least not with Curry at 8 and Wilson at 7 anyway.

Scrumhead wrote:Yes. Exactly. Although he is correct in that I wrote Underhill in place of Lawes.

I’m still pretty sure that combination has never taken the field - at least not with Curry at 8 and Wilson at 7 anyway.

Lawes, Wilson, Curry played v Wales this year

http://en.espn.co.uk/statsguru/rugby/match/301917.html

If we drop Billy, and I'm a little split on this as he still looks like he should be our most valuable player, we could go for a back row that looks to support more than it looks to carry, but it probably depends on who partners Itoje, if we lose a little carrying at #8 I'd want to add that back in somewhere else. Leaving the carrying to Mako, George and Sincks with some assistance from Itoje is tricky unless we're going to play rather quicker

Digby wrote:If we drop Billy, and I'm a little split on this as he still looks like he should be our most valuable player, we could go for a back row that looks to support more than it looks to carry, but it probably depends on who partners Itoje, if we lose a little carrying at #8 I'd want to add that back in somewhere else. Leaving the carrying to Mako, George and Sincks with some assistance from Itoje is tricky unless we're going to play rather quicker

Obviously, as with all things, it depends on whether he can transfer his club form to the international stage, but Jack Willis is not a lightweight carrier!

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Yes. Exactly. Although he is correct in that I wrote Underhill in place of Lawes.

I’m still pretty sure that combination has never taken the field - at least not with Curry at 8 and Wilson at 7 anyway.

Lawes, Wilson, Curry played v Wales this year

http://en.espn.co.uk/statsguru/rugby/match/301917.html

OK. I stand corrected. jngf was right. I’m fairly certain that combination, with that set-up was a one-off though.

Also if you take away the numbers/where they were packing down, Lawes, Wilson and Curry is a pretty balanced back row that offers a bit of everything. We’ve definitely played with less balanced units.

Peej wrote:Jack Willis has very rarely played 8 for Wasps - that's the realm of his brother, Tom. Jack is interchangeable between 6 and 7.

However, one of the unsung heroes of Wasps resurgence and their back row is Brad Shields playing 8.....

Hence the Daly comparison, who only played wing 3/4 times before being picked there by Eddie.

Just saying that he’s such a natural, talented, physically gifted rugby player that of the versatile backrowers we have the moment, I imagine he’d settle in the 8 very well, also how his performances seem to be almost identical no matter what number is on his back

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:If we drop Billy, and I'm a little split on this as he still looks like he should be our most valuable player, we could go for a back row that looks to support more than it looks to carry, but it probably depends on who partners Itoje, if we lose a little carrying at #8 I'd want to add that back in somewhere else. Leaving the carrying to Mako, George and Sincks with some assistance from Itoje is tricky unless we're going to play rather quicker

Obviously, as with all things, it depends on whether he can transfer his club form to the international stage, but Jack Willis is not a lightweight carrier!

Puja

Perhaps, but there's nothing I've seen so far which makes me think he carries like the denier of basic human rights

When are we allowed to discuss James Haskell's new book "What a Flanker"...

morepork wrote:When are we allowed to discuss James Haskell's new book "What a Flanker"...

Mod!?!?! This is ban worthy.

morepork wrote:When are we allowed to discuss James Haskell's new book "What a Flanker"...

Lol. "Book"

Danno wrote:

morepork wrote:When are we allowed to discuss James Haskell's new book "What a Flanker"...

Lol. "Book"

Hehe

Is it a pop up book?

The Hungee Hungee Catapeeler

RAH!!

https://www.waterstones.com/book/what-a ... 8377042523

Danno wrote:

morepork wrote:When are we allowed to discuss James Haskell's new book "What a Flanker"...

Lol. "Book"

This is James. James likes to run. James likes to run into things. James likes running into tacklers. James likes running into obvious windups by his friend Joe Marler. But most of all, James likes running into rugby posts.

See James run. Run, James, run.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Danno wrote:

morepork wrote:When are we allowed to discuss James Haskell's new book "What a Flanker"...

Lol. "Book"

This is James. James likes to run. James likes to run into things. James likes running into tacklers. James likes running into obvious windups by his friend Joe Marler. But most of all, James likes running into rugby posts.

See James run. Run, James, run.

Puja

I am laughing at this way, way more than I ought to.

James Haskell does not like this post.

Awww. Very funny though.