RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Wilts Tiger wrote:Which Tyler, I think if you check you will find that Watson has played very few games for Bath as a winger, Full back being his normal position far from it being an "experimental"

Ah, you must be new here.

Watson not being a FB is a running joke on these boards because of the media's focus on international rugby where he's mostly played wing.

And because people used to call for Daly at full-back for England despite him never playing there, while dismissing Watson as an option because he was more of a winger. So we quip about him needing to play full-back regularly for his club before he can be considered over experienced 15s like Nowell or Daly.

Welcome, btw. That's our only running joke so you're through the worst of it.

Puja

we do have several that are static, or at best walking, though.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:
Ah, you must be new here.

Watson not being a FB is a running joke on these boards because of the media's focus on international rugby where he's mostly played wing.

And because people used to call for Daly at full-back for England despite him never playing there, while dismissing Watson as an option because he was more of a winger. So we quip about him needing to play full-back regularly for his club before he can be considered over experienced 15s like Nowell or Daly.

Welcome, btw. That's our only running joke so you're through the worst of it.

Puja

we do have several that are static, or at best walking, though.

Still good enough to make them England's second choice tight head.

For Jngf

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... -together/

Mikey Brown wrote:For Jngf

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... -together/

You don't even get a free article anymore?

I used to use my free article to just read Charlie Morgan...

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:
Ah, you must be new here.

Watson not being a FB is a running joke on these boards because of the media's focus on international rugby where he's mostly played wing.

And because people used to call for Daly at full-back for England despite him never playing there, while dismissing Watson as an option because he was more of a winger. So we quip about him needing to play full-back regularly for his club before he can be considered over experienced 15s like Nowell or Daly.

Welcome, btw. That's our only running joke so you're through the worst of it.

Puja

we do have several that are static, or at best walking, though.

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
And because people used to call for Daly at full-back for England despite him never playing there, while dismissing Watson as an option because he was more of a winger. So we quip about him needing to play full-back regularly for his club before he can be considered over experienced 15s like Nowell or Daly.

Welcome, btw. That's our only running joke so you're through the worst of it.

Puja

we do have several that are static, or at best walking, though.

That'll be the other one.

Where do I find that image, or the gif?

Stom wrote:Where do I find that image, or the gif?

Just grab a copy and put it somewhere.
If you upload it afresh here it'll be in your user files ever after.

There probably is a way through my profile, but I don't know it.

Stom wrote:Where do I find that image, or the gif?

The gif is here: http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... 42&p=11501

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:Welcome, btw. That's our only running joke so you're through the worst of it.

Puja

we do have several that are static, or at best walking, though.

Still good enough to make them England's second choice tight head.

Very good!

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
And because people used to call for Daly at full-back for England despite him never playing there, while dismissing Watson as an option because he was more of a winger. So we quip about him needing to play full-back regularly for his club before he can be considered over experienced 15s like Nowell or Daly.

Welcome, btw. That's our only running joke so you're through the worst of it.

Puja

we do have several that are static, or at best walking, though.

Still good enough to make them England's second choice tight head.

Good point, well made.

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:For Jngf

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... -together/

You don't even get a free article anymore?

I used to use my free article to just read Charlie Morgan...

Well I'm not subscribed so I think you do. Not sure when their week starts and ends though.

I can paste it in here but it might be a mess, and it's very gif-heavy.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:For Jngf

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... -together/

You don't even get a free article anymore?

I used to use my free article to just read Charlie Morgan...

Well I'm not subscribed so I think you do. Not sure when their week starts and ends though.

I can paste it in here but it might be a mess, and it's very gif-heavy.

OK, thanks, I managed to get in with a different browser.

And I also took a nice screengrab of it, so here it is for everyone:

https://imgur.com/a/qAK4rnf

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Stom wrote:
You don't even get a free article anymore?

I used to use my free article to just read Charlie Morgan...

Well I'm not subscribed so I think you do. Not sure when their week starts and ends though.

I can paste it in here but it might be a mess, and it's very gif-heavy.

OK, thanks, I managed to get in with a different browser.

And I also took a nice screengrab of it, so here it is for everyone:

https://imgur.com/a/qAK4rnf

Thank you. Double points for denying the Torygraph some clicks.

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Stom wrote:
You don't even get a free article anymore?

I used to use my free article to just read Charlie Morgan...

Well I'm not subscribed so I think you do. Not sure when their week starts and ends though.

I can paste it in here but it might be a mess, and it's very gif-heavy.

OK, thanks, I managed to get in with a different browser.

And I also took a nice screengrab of it, so here it is for everyone:

https://imgur.com/a/qAK4rnf

Thanks Kindly Stom and Micky Brown for this article!

I'm feeling very happy about the open side options in our cupboard now and the healthy competition

- to think it was only a couple of seasons ago when Eddy was resorting to Robshaw, Haskell and Wood to fill the open side role (and imo of the three only Wood had a modicum of justification to be considered an authentic open side - shame Burt gave him and Robshaw the wrong shirts during his tenure )

Back to happier present situation - I think from his performances in the first two warm ups Ludlum has shown he has what it takes to stand alongside both T Curry and Underhill is a class open side option.

Added to that both the existing capped Matt Kvesic and Sam Simmonds, could imo do a quality job at 7 if called upon (though realistically this would be post RWC )

and then there is a series of uncapped quality open sides such as B Curry, Jack Willis and Will Evans who also have potential to get into the test side at due course

- also like the fact that players like T Curry, Underhill and Ludlum are to an extent interchangeable between 6 and 7 - though I think this might be more effective in warm weather rugby, than a frosty evening in January in Cardiff, and the role of the bigger workrate 6 like Robshaw and Wilson or a converted lock (Lawes - yes Itoje - I hope not!) will still be vital.

My concern at present is the plan B for who plays number 8 if Billy gets injured - many here says that's Wilson, I still remain to be convinced tbh.

jngf wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
Well I'm not subscribed so I think you do. Not sure when their week starts and ends though.

I can paste it in here but it might be a mess, and it's very gif-heavy.

OK, thanks, I managed to get in with a different browser.

And I also took a nice screengrab of it, so here it is for everyone:

https://imgur.com/a/qAK4rnf

Thanks Kindly Stom and Micky Brown for this article!

I'm feeling very happy about the open side options in our cupboard now and the healthy competition

- to think it was only a couple of seasons ago when Eddy was resorting to Robshaw, Haskell and Wood to fill the open side role (and imo of the three only Wood had a modicum of justification to be considered an authentic open side - shame Burt gave him and Robshaw the wrong shirts during his tenure )

Back to happier present situation - I think from his performances in the first two warm ups Ludlum has shown he has what it takes to stand alongside both T Curry and Underhill is a class open side option.

Added to that both the existing capped Matt Kvesic and Sam Simmonds, could imo do a quality job at 7 if called upon (though realistically this would be post RWC )

and then there is a series of uncapped quality open sides such as B Curry, Jack Willis and Will Evans who also have potential to get into the test side at due course

- also like the fact that players like T Curry, Underhill and Ludlum are to an extent interchangeable between 6 and 7 - though I think this might be more effective in warm weather rugby, than a frosty evening in January in Cardiff, and the role of the bigger workrate 6 like Robshaw and Wilson or a converted lock (Lawes - yes Itoje - I hope not!) will still be vital.

My concern at present is the plan B for who plays number 8 if Billy gets injured - many here says that's Wilson, I still remain to be convinced tbh.

I'll probably get crucified by the faithful for saying so, but the more I see of Itoje, the more I think he could do the job at 8. He is athletic, big, has a great engine, is powerful, abrasive, has good enough pace, is a real competitor. He seems to be getting himself under control as he matures too, and developing some real rugby smarts. I am not saying he could plug straight into 8 at present, but with ample game time, why not? He does seem to have all the natural attributes.

jngf wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
Well I'm not subscribed so I think you do. Not sure when their week starts and ends though.

I can paste it in here but it might be a mess, and it's very gif-heavy.

OK, thanks, I managed to get in with a different browser.

And I also took a nice screengrab of it, so here it is for everyone:

https://imgur.com/a/qAK4rnf

Thanks Kindly Stom and Micky Brown for this article!

I'm feeling very happy about the open side options in our cupboard now and the healthy competition

- to think it was only a couple of seasons ago when Eddy was resorting to Robshaw, Haskell and Wood to fill the open side role (and imo of the three only Wood had a modicum of justification to be considered an authentic open side - shame Burt gave him and Robshaw the wrong shirts during his tenure )

Back to happier present situation - I think from his performances in the first two warm ups Ludlum has shown he has what it takes to stand alongside both T Curry and Underhill is a class open side option.

Added to that both the existing capped Matt Kvesic and Sam Simmonds, could imo do a quality job at 7 if called upon (though realistically this would be post RWC )

and then there is a series of uncapped quality open sides such as B Curry, Jack Willis and Will Evans who also have potential to get into the test side at due course

- also like the fact that players like T Curry, Underhill and Ludlum are to an extent interchangeable between 6 and 7 - though I think this might be more effective in warm weather rugby, than a frosty evening in January in Cardiff, and the role of the bigger workrate 6 like Robshaw and Wilson or a converted lock (Lawes - yes Itoje - I hope not!) will still be vital.

My concern at present is the plan B for who plays number 8 if Billy gets injured - many here says that's Wilson, I still remain to be convinced tbh.

The issue is that you keep saying it without really giving a valid reason for why you’re not ‘convinced’. You’ve made some very subjective comments on why you think Wilson is not a suitable option despite actual evidence (such as MoM performances against top opposition) showing that he is perfectly capable at 8 if needed.

Moving Itoje to 8 begs the question why would you? He's a class operator at lock, why would you actively seek to reduce his effectiveness on the pitch? There's a big difference between saying he could "do a job" at 8 and having a player there (Wilson) to cover for Billy in a WC squad situation who has shown against the world's SH teams that he does "more than a job". I don't understand why you would think up a solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist.

After the WC there will be many 8 options we can look at. Eddie refused to look at a couple of options at all before now but that's his perogative. His muddled thinking still has us actively using Lawes at 6. I can cope with that in an emergency but it shouldn't even be on the table if there's a decent run with injuries.

Yep. I can’t wait until the pressure and time constraints of the World Cup are over and we can focus on our long term backrow for the future. 6. Lawes 7. Singleton 8. Itoje.

Spiffy wrote:

jngf wrote: My concern at present is the plan B for who plays number 8 if Billy gets injured - many here says that's Wilson, I still remain to be convinced tbh.

I'll probably get crucified by the faithful for saying so, but the more I see of Itoje, the more I think he could do the job at 8. He is athletic, big, has a great engine, is powerful, abrasive, has good enough pace, is a real competitor. He seems to be getting himself under control as he matures too, and developing some real rugby smarts. I am not saying he could plug straight into 8 at present, but with ample game time, why not? He does seem to have all the natural attributes.

I would put that in the same category as Manu at 7 - yes, he has a lot of the skills for the position and, yes, given time and effort, he could be converted. However, why would you take a world class lock and decide to make him into an okay 8?

Puja

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:

Stom wrote:
OK, thanks, I managed to get in with a different browser.

And I also took a nice screengrab of it, so here it is for everyone:

https://imgur.com/a/qAK4rnf

Thanks Kindly Stom and Micky Brown for this article!

I'm feeling very happy about the open side options in our cupboard now and the healthy competition

- to think it was only a couple of seasons ago when Eddy was resorting to Robshaw, Haskell and Wood to fill the open side role (and imo of the three only Wood had a modicum of justification to be considered an authentic open side - shame Burt gave him and Robshaw the wrong shirts during his tenure )

Back to happier present situation - I think from his performances in the first two warm ups Ludlum has shown he has what it takes to stand alongside both T Curry and Underhill is a class open side option.

Added to that both the existing capped Matt Kvesic and Sam Simmonds, could imo do a quality job at 7 if called upon (though realistically this would be post RWC )

and then there is a series of uncapped quality open sides such as B Curry, Jack Willis and Will Evans who also have potential to get into the test side at due course

- also like the fact that players like T Curry, Underhill and Ludlum are to an extent interchangeable between 6 and 7 - though I think this might be more effective in warm weather rugby, than a frosty evening in January in Cardiff, and the role of the bigger workrate 6 like Robshaw and Wilson or a converted lock (Lawes - yes Itoje - I hope not!) will still be vital.

My concern at present is the plan B for who plays number 8 if Billy gets injured - many here says that's Wilson, I still remain to be convinced tbh.

The issue is that you keep saying it without really giving a valid reason for why you’re not ‘convinced’. You’ve made some very subjective comments on why you think Wilson is not a suitable option despite actual evidence (such as MoM performances against top opposition) showing that he is perfectly capable at 8 if needed.

I’m not yet convinced because in terms of the 8 role:

(i) Wilson is not is explosive off the back of the scrum - lacking the kind of pace Simmonds or Clifford have

(ii) He’s about average size for a 6 but on the (very) small side for a no.8 compared to Morgan, Hughes, Dombrandt ( before we even get to Billy) and not a massive physical ball carrier compared to any of them.

(iii) I believe he’s versitile enough to cover 8 in a pinch in the way Lawes is to cover 6 or Robshaw is to cover 7 but that’s not remotely the same as saying he’s a naturally good fit for it.

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:
Thanks Kindly Stom and Micky Brown for this article!

I'm feeling very happy about the open side options in our cupboard now and the healthy competition

- to think it was only a couple of seasons ago when Eddy was resorting to Robshaw, Haskell and Wood to fill the open side role (and imo of the three only Wood had a modicum of justification to be considered an authentic open side - shame Burt gave him and Robshaw the wrong shirts during his tenure )

Back to happier present situation - I think from his performances in the first two warm ups Ludlum has shown he has what it takes to stand alongside both T Curry and Underhill is a class open side option.

Added to that both the existing capped Matt Kvesic and Sam Simmonds, could imo do a quality job at 7 if called upon (though realistically this would be post RWC )

and then there is a series of uncapped quality open sides such as B Curry, Jack Willis and Will Evans who also have potential to get into the test side at due course

- also like the fact that players like T Curry, Underhill and Ludlum are to an extent interchangeable between 6 and 7 - though I think this might be more effective in warm weather rugby, than a frosty evening in January in Cardiff, and the role of the bigger workrate 6 like Robshaw and Wilson or a converted lock (Lawes - yes Itoje - I hope not!) will still be vital.

My concern at present is the plan B for who plays number 8 if Billy gets injured - many here says that's Wilson, I still remain to be convinced tbh.

The issue is that you keep saying it without really giving a valid reason for why you’re not ‘convinced’. You’ve made some very subjective comments on why you think Wilson is not a suitable option despite actual evidence (such as MoM performances against top opposition) showing that he is perfectly capable at 8 if needed.

I’m not yet convinced because in terms of the 8 role:

(i) Wilson is not is explosive off the back of the scrum - lacking the kind of pace Simmonds or Clifford have

(ii) He’s about average size for a 6 but on the (very) small side for a no.8 compared to Morgan, Hughes, Dombrandt ( before we even get to Billy) and not a massive physical ball carrier compared to any of them.

(iii) I believe he’s versitile enough to cover 8 in a pinch in the way Lawes is to cover 6 or Robshaw is to cover 7 but that’s not remotely the same as saying he’s a naturally good fit for it.

(i) Wilson consistently makes ground off the back of the scrum, which is more important than "explosiveness"

(ii) He's 6'3 and 17st7, which isn't small, and is the same size as Kieran Read. He's not as big of a carrier as BillyV, but you're laughing if you think he's not better than Nathan "castled several times by scrum-halves" Hughes. Size =!= Power.

(iii) He plays 8 regularly for Newcastle. It's not so much covering as it is picking him in one of his club positions.

Puja

Beasties wrote:Moving Itoje to 8 begs the question why would you? He's a class operator at lock, why would you actively seek to reduce his effectiveness on the pitch? There's a big difference between saying he could "do a job" at 8 and having a player there (Wilson) to cover for Billy in a WC squad situation who has shown against the world's SH teams that he does "more than a job". I don't understand why you would think up a solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist.

After the WC there will be many 8 options we can look at. Eddie refused to look at a couple of options at all before now but that's his perogative. His muddled thinking still has us actively using Lawes at 6. I can cope with that in an emergency but it shouldn't even be on the table if there's a decent run with injuries.

Yup. Itoje is on his way to becoming a world class lock. I agree he has the attributes to become a very good #8; and I agree that we have a crowded field at lock. But... It'd take him a full pre-season and season to get used to it at his club - where he'd have to displace Billy, who is already a world class #8 - and then for England, he'd have to displace Billy, who is already a world class #8.
Both Saracens and England would lose out by trialling it; and at best, he'd be as effective there as he is at lock - which means there's no upside... at best.

Now as a hypothetical, it's fair enough - but that swap is about 8 years too late; now it's as useful as suggesting that George Ford could have been a great SH... had he played that at and since at U16 level (I was suggesting it at U20s level, but clarifying that it was already too late - but I do have en enduring fondness for French style SHs who can play a bit at FH)

Given Sinckler and Mako’s deft hands and Sinckler sporadically showing his tactical kicking ability I think they should be our back up 10 & 12. Daly to take kicks at goal, from his position on the wing......

Mellsblue wrote:Given Sinckler and Mako’s deft hands and Sinckler sporadically showing his tactical kicking ability I think they should be our back up 10 & 12. Daly to take kicks at goal, from his position on the wing......

What about Curry at 9? His link play is pretty good, and I'd bet that his box kicks only fail as much as our numero uno #9

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
The issue is that you keep saying it without really giving a valid reason for why you’re not ‘convinced’. You’ve made some very subjective comments on why you think Wilson is not a suitable option despite actual evidence (such as MoM performances against top opposition) showing that he is perfectly capable at 8 if needed.

I’m not yet convinced because in terms of the 8 role:

(i) Wilson is not is explosive off the back of the scrum - lacking the kind of pace Simmonds or Clifford have

(ii) He’s about average size for a 6 but on the (very) small side for a no.8 compared to Morgan, Hughes, Dombrandt ( before we even get to Billy) and not a massive physical ball carrier compared to any of them.

(iii) I believe he’s versitile enough to cover 8 in a pinch in the way Lawes is to cover 6 or Robshaw is to cover 7 but that’s not remotely the same as saying he’s a naturally good fit for it.

(i) Wilson consistently makes ground off the back of the scrum, which is more important than "explosiveness"

(ii) He's 6'3 and 17st7, which isn't small, and is the same size as Kieran Read. He's not as big of a carrier as BillyV, but you're laughing if you think he's not better than Nathan "castled several times by scrum-halves" Hughes. Size =!= Power.

(iii) He plays 8 regularly for Newcastle. It's not so much covering as it is picking him in one of his club positions.

Puja

I admire that you’re willing to keep putting yourself through this, Puja.

One day we’re going to find out that Jngf is a bot that UKH added on here to prompt some conversation, programmed only with some very rigid ideas about what each backrower’s physical attributes should be, and we all got suckered in. Me in particular.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote: (i) Wilson consistently makes ground off the back of the scrum, which is more important than "explosiveness"

(ii) He's 6'3 and 17st7, which isn't small, and is the same size as Kieran Read. He's not as big of a carrier as BillyV, but you're laughing if you think he's not better than Nathan "castled several times by scrum-halves" Hughes. Size =!= Power.

(iii) He plays 8 regularly for Newcastle. It's not so much covering as it is picking him in one of his club positions.

Puja

I admire that you’re willing to keep putting yourself through this, Puja.

One day we’re going to find out that Jngf is a bot that UKH added on here to prompt some conversation, programmed only with some very rigid ideas about what each backrower’s physical attributes should be, and we all got suckered in. Me in particular.

No, really, don't admire it. I'm embarrassed to have done it again.

Puja