RugbyRebels

Do we need Barbeary to be playing 6. Two good young 8s pushing each other, allowing for rest etc. Surely improves the chances of one of them being fit at any given time.

He looks like a good 8, let's push him to play 6 isn't necessarily the most helpful for his development at this point.

32nd Man wrote:Do we need Barbeary to be playing 6. Two good young 8s pushing each other, allowing for rest etc. Surely improves the chances of one of them being fit at any given time.

He looks like a good 8, let's push him to play 6 isn't necessarily the most helpful for his development at this point.

Best players on the pitch, whoever has the best control at the base can be there for attacking scrums.

As for not playing 6, what, apart from scrums, is going to be so hugely different from the role he'd play at 8 (again, ignoring scrums... jngf?).

Raggs wrote:

32nd Man wrote:Do we need Barbeary to be playing 6. Two good young 8s pushing each other, allowing for rest etc. Surely improves the chances of one of them being fit at any given time.

He looks like a good 8, let's push him to play 6 isn't necessarily the most helpful for his development at this point.

Best players on the pitch, whoever has the best control at the base can be there for attacking scrums.

As for not playing 6, what, apart from scrums, is going to be so hugely different from the role he'd play at 8 (again, ignoring scrums... jngf?).

But are the best players the best combo when two of them appear to have strengths that favour them to very similar roles?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:

32nd Man wrote:Do we need Barbeary to be playing 6. Two good young 8s pushing each other, allowing for rest etc. Surely improves the chances of one of them being fit at any given time.

He looks like a good 8, let's push him to play 6 isn't necessarily the most helpful for his development at this point.

Best players on the pitch, whoever has the best control at the base can be there for attacking scrums.

As for not playing 6, what, apart from scrums, is going to be so hugely different from the role he'd play at 8 (again, ignoring scrums... jngf?).

But are the best players the best combo when two of them appear to have strengths that favour them to very similar roles?

Puja

That's a fairer point, however I would argue that Tom Willis, much like his brother, is a superb all round player, that simply happens to be particularly eye catching in one aspect.

Barbeary therefore has room to work regardless, since the Willisi (new plural I've decided on) can easily fill any gaps. It's almost then just an argument that you've got too many good carriers, so one of them can't show off enough.

I think the correct plural is "Willies"

But where do you fit Shields into that Wasps backrow, who does so much good for the team? Shields' work rate has allowed Barbeary to shine in games.

Raggs wrote:

32nd Man wrote:Do we need Barbeary to be playing 6. Two good young 8s pushing each other, allowing for rest etc. Surely improves the chances of one of them being fit at any given time.

He looks like a good 8, let's push him to play 6 isn't necessarily the most helpful for his development at this point.

As for not playing 6, what, apart from scrums, is going to be so hugely different from the role he'd play at 8 (again, ignoring scrums... jngf?).

As has been pointed out, he'd need to be picking up a lot of what Shields does at the moment.

Back row needs to be a unit. If Willis is the more flexible in terms of abilities put him at 6, but the question of if that is best suited to get the most out of him is again raised, when he's going to get plenty of time at 8, even if both he and Barbeary both continue to specialise and learn there. Especially if that means they both learn in a functioning back row rather than one that is being forced.

England doesn't have a massive shortage of capable young flankers, so 6 isn't a problem we need to be shoe horning him into.

12 on the other hand...

simples....2. Barbeary 6. Shields 7.J Willis 8. T.Willis.

I know, I know

32nd Man wrote:

Raggs wrote:

32nd Man wrote:Do we need Barbeary to be playing 6. Two good young 8s pushing each other, allowing for rest etc. Surely improves the chances of one of them being fit at any given time.

He looks like a good 8, let's push him to play 6 isn't necessarily the most helpful for his development at this point.

As for not playing 6, what, apart from scrums, is going to be so hugely different from the role he'd play at 8 (again, ignoring scrums... jngf?).

As has been pointed out, he'd need to be picking up a lot of what Shields does at the moment.

Back row needs to be a unit. If Willis is the more flexible in terms of abilities put him at 6, but the question of if that is best suited to get the most out of him is again raised, when he's going to get plenty of time at 8, even if both he and Barbeary both continue to specialise and learn there. Especially if that means they both learn in a functioning back row rather than one that is being forced.

England doesn't have a massive shortage of capable young flankers, so 6 isn't a problem we need to be shoe horning him into.

12 on the other hand...

So we're back to arguing whether the number on their back matters. If T. Willis and A. Barbeary can hit the same number of rucks etc, as B. Shields and One Of Them, then you gain from the equation, as both are significantly better than Shields in carrying (though he has improved). Now maybe his leadership is significant, and his lineout work is good (though both Willisi jump to an OK degree at least).

Shields is a great player, and considering the number of injuries etc that Wasps seem to run with, combined with international intentions, I doubt all 4 will be available at once, and even if they are, that's what a bench spot is for.

Raggs wrote:

32nd Man wrote:

Raggs wrote:
As for not playing 6, what, apart from scrums, is going to be so hugely different from the role he'd play at 8 (again, ignoring scrums... jngf?).

As has been pointed out, he'd need to be picking up a lot of what Shields does at the moment.

Back row needs to be a unit. If Willis is the more flexible in terms of abilities put him at 6, but the question of if that is best suited to get the most out of him is again raised, when he's going to get plenty of time at 8, even if both he and Barbeary both continue to specialise and learn there. Especially if that means they both learn in a functioning back row rather than one that is being forced.

England doesn't have a massive shortage of capable young flankers, so 6 isn't a problem we need to be shoe horning him into.

12 on the other hand...

I doubt all 4 will be available at once, and even if they are, that's what a bench spot is for.

well exactly, and until the prem slims down and intl season is aligned, its not really much of an issue. All the prem sides need depth anywhere they can get it- the quality is the problem for most with the cap.

I just watched the highlights and, jeez, Odogwu compounding a mistake...that was terrible.

Raggs wrote:

32nd Man wrote:

Raggs wrote:
As for not playing 6, what, apart from scrums, is going to be so hugely different from the role he'd play at 8 (again, ignoring scrums... jngf?).

As has been pointed out, he'd need to be picking up a lot of what Shields does at the moment.

Back row needs to be a unit. If Willis is the more flexible in terms of abilities put him at 6, but the question of if that is best suited to get the most out of him is again raised, when he's going to get plenty of time at 8, even if both he and Barbeary both continue to specialise and learn there. Especially if that means they both learn in a functioning back row rather than one that is being forced.

England doesn't have a massive shortage of capable young flankers, so 6 isn't a problem we need to be shoe horning him into.

12 on the other hand...

So we're back to arguing whether the number on their back matters. If T. Willis and A. Barbeary can hit the same number of rucks etc, as B. Shields and One Of Them, then you gain from the equation, as both are significantly better than Shields in carrying (though he has improved). Now maybe his leadership is significant, and his lineout work is good (though both Willisi jump to an OK degree at least).

Shields is a great player, and considering the number of injuries etc that Wasps seem to run with, combined with international intentions, I doubt all 4 will be available at once, and even if they are, that's what a bench spot is for.

That's a reasonable sized "If" there. Not saying Barbeary's not capable of improving to that level, but he's got a long way to go before he can cover even half of Shields's work.

Mind, I was reading an article the other day where Anthony Siebold said that's what they've been working on in England training with him, so hopefully they've pointed him towards Ludlam and Curry and told him, "That's the workrate and efficacy levels we expect of you if you're going to be a back row."

Puja

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:

32nd Man wrote:
As has been pointed out, he'd need to be picking up a lot of what Shields does at the moment.

Back row needs to be a unit. If Willis is the more flexible in terms of abilities put him at 6, but the question of if that is best suited to get the most out of him is again raised, when he's going to get plenty of time at 8, even if both he and Barbeary both continue to specialise and learn there. Especially if that means they both learn in a functioning back row rather than one that is being forced.

England doesn't have a massive shortage of capable young flankers, so 6 isn't a problem we need to be shoe horning him into.

12 on the other hand...

So we're back to arguing whether the number on their back matters. If T. Willis and A. Barbeary can hit the same number of rucks etc, as B. Shields and One Of Them, then you gain from the equation, as both are significantly better than Shields in carrying (though he has improved). Now maybe his leadership is significant, and his lineout work is good (though both Willisi jump to an OK degree at least).

Shields is a great player, and considering the number of injuries etc that Wasps seem to run with, combined with international intentions, I doubt all 4 will be available at once, and even if they are, that's what a bench spot is for.

That's a reasonable sized "If" there. Not saying Barbeary's not capable of improving to that level, but he's got a long way to go before he can cover even half of Shields's work.

Mind, I was reading an article the other day where Anthony Siebold said that's what they've been working on in England training with him, so hopefully they've pointed him towards Ludlam and Curry and told him, "That's the workrate and efficacy levels we expect of you if you're going to be a back row."

Puja

Fair enough. But one could argue - why try to turn Alfie into another Curry or Ludlam. He is a bit of a one off and does have the X factor, so why not just give him a run and let him do what he does, which seems to be quite effective. At least use him off the bench as an impact player. Make use of his talents now and let him evolve within the squad.
So what if he does not have the work rate of Shields. Success at the international level is about much more than work rate. Shields was given a chance and found wanting (though he is a better player now.) He will never have the raw talent, oomph or potential game-changing attributes of Alfie. Of course they are very different players.
There is a popular opinion that Alfie needs a work horse beside him to hold his hand so than he can swan around and play only in brilliant spurts. Not sure I believe this. He looks pretty involved every time I see him play.

English habit. Focus on shortcomings rather than embrace the strengths.

My original point was that Tom Willis is an excellent and very well rounded 8. Barbeary is an excellent carrier and probably better than Willis in that one facet of playing at 8, but currently, it’s only that one IMO and it’s not as though Willis is a bad carrier either.

Barbeary needs to master the other aspects of playing 8 to be a better option than Tom Willis already is. It wasn’t intended to be a criticism of Barbeary or even a focus on the areas he needs to develop - more a defence of Willis. My suggestion of Barbeary focusing on 6 was primarily based upon not moving Willis … that’s it really. I didn’t think it would spark that much debate.

Can T Willis jump in the l/o?

Yes. He’s not Kieran Read but probably better than Dombrandt if I were to make a direct comparison.

Compared to Lol?