RugbyRebels

Curry had a good game at 8, but should he be retained against Ireland? Their 8, CJ Stander must be about the same size as Curry, although with significantly more international experience. Thoughts?

francoisfou wrote:Curry had a good game at 8, but should he be retained against Ireland? Their 8, CJ Stander must be about the same size as Curry, although with significantly more international experience. Thoughts?

Curry did have a good game but imo that was more by virtue of the weather conditions dictating that the back row concentrated on breakdown work. On the one or two carries he attempted he did not cross the gain line as far as I could make out. Stander is a much larger forward and I would move Curry back to 7 and Underhill across to 6 - with 8 left to Earl or Ludlum.

jngf wrote:

francoisfou wrote:Curry had a good game at 8, but should he be retained against Ireland? Their 8, CJ Stander must be about the same size as Curry, although with significantly more international experience. Thoughts?

Curry did have a good game but imo that was more by virtue of the weather conditions dictating that the back row concentrated on breakdown work. On the one or two carries he attempted he did not cross the gain line as far as I could make out. Stander is a much larger forward and I would move Curry back to 7 and Underhill across to 6 - with 8 left to Earl or Ludlum.

Wot! Not Itoje!

francoisfou wrote:

jngf wrote:

francoisfou wrote:Curry had a good game at 8, but should he be retained against Ireland? Their 8, CJ Stander must be about the same size as Curry, although with significantly more international experience. Thoughts?

Curry did have a good game but imo that was more by virtue of the weather conditions dictating that the back row concentrated on breakdown work. On the one or two carries he attempted he did not cross the gain line as far as I could make out. Stander is a much larger forward and I would move Curry back to 7 and Underhill across to 6 - with 8 left to Earl or Ludlum.

Wot! Not Itoje!

Not under Eddie I expect!

francoisfou wrote:Curry had a good game at 8, but should he be retained against Ireland? Their 8, CJ Stander must be about the same size as Curry, although with significantly more international experience. Thoughts?

I'd think Stander is about a stone heavier and less agile. Curry still looked uncomfortable at the base of the scrum, unsurprisingly, as its quite a skill to master; it'd be comedic to see Itoje try and do it.

In a way, you can make a case for Curry at 8. It keeps him, Underhill, Ludlum, Earl and Hill in the mix with as many of the gifted group of backrowers in the 23 as Jones can manage. Then, the bloody idiot brings on Lawes at 6 again so that case is blown apart.

Of course, he could just bring Wilson back or, horror of horrors, pick Simmonds or Hughes.

Then, we look at short term/long term and say we'll concentrate on the under-25s for 4 years time. Except that, the fricking blazers have only given Jones till 2021. So, Jones is bent only on winning a game at a time. That really should help our chances in 2023.

The whole thing is a mucking fuddle.

Banquo wrote:

francoisfou wrote:Curry had a good game at 8, but should he be retained against Ireland? Their 8, CJ Stander must be about the same size as Curry, although with significantly more international experience. Thoughts?

I'd think Stander is about a stone heavier and less agile. Curry still looked uncomfortable at the base of the scrum, unsurprisingly, as its quite a skill to master; it'd be comedic to see Itoje try and do it.

There was one occasion in the first half, where the ball was stuck at his knees in a moving scrum and Price was all over Heinz. A real 8 would have picked and gone and helped out his 9, but Curry couldn't/wouldn't do it and eventually Heinz had to shrug off Price and go in for it himself. It will cost us not having a specialist 8 at some point (and Ludlam doesn't have the specialist skills any more than Curry does).

I can sort of see the point of it and can see a future where he's a good 8 in the Hooper mould, but that is a good distance in the future.

Puja

jngf wrote:

francoisfou wrote:Curry had a good game at 8, but should he be retained against Ireland? Their 8, CJ Stander must be about the same size as Curry, although with significantly more international experience. Thoughts?

Curry did have a good game but imo that was more by virtue of the weather conditions dictating that the back row concentrated on breakdown work. On the one or two carries he attempted he did not cross the gain line as far as I could make out. Stander is a much larger forward and I would move Curry back to 7 and Underhill across to 6 - with 8 left to Earl or Ludlum.

Curry did have a couple of relatively successful carries. He got across the gainline and sucked in defenders.

But, yes, usually the next carry he was stopped dead or pushed backward. He's not the guy you want carrying in the tight.

In a normal game is having Mako/Genge, George/LCD, Sinckler, Itoje and Kruis enough to carry in the tight? Can Curry not carry that bit wider regardless of his shirt number and whether Billy is available? Come to that does Billy have to carry so tight given the likely tight five?

Digby wrote:In a normal game is having Mako/Genge, George/LCD, Sinckler, Itoje and Kruis enough to carry in the tight? Can Curry not carry that bit wider regardless of his shirt number and whether Billy is available? Come to that does Billy have to carry so tight given the likely tight five?

Well, indeed...

Digby wrote:In a normal game is having Mako/Genge, George/LCD, Sinckler, Itoje and Kruis enough to carry in the tight? Can Curry not carry that bit wider regardless of his shirt number and whether Billy is available? Come to that does Billy have to carry so tight given the likely tight five?

I tend to feel 3 is the magic number for big carriers. Don't think itoje/Kruis are there yet to rank amongst the 3, Launch perhaps is, but I'd rather Billy. Mako, LCD and Sink?

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:In a normal game is having Mako/Genge, George/LCD, Sinckler, Itoje and Kruis enough to carry in the tight? Can Curry not carry that bit wider regardless of his shirt number and whether Billy is available? Come to that does Billy have to carry so tight given the likely tight five?

I tend to feel 3 is the magic number for big carriers. Don't think itoje/Kruis are there yet to rank amongst the 3, Launch perhaps is, but I'd rather Billy. Mako, LCD and Sink?

For sure three is the magic number, that's just common sense at this point. But if you're going with that 3 (Mako, LCD and Sink), then whoever the 8 is can go wider, especially if the 9 is putting pace on the game

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:In a normal game is having Mako/Genge, George/LCD, Sinckler, Itoje and Kruis enough to carry in the tight? Can Curry not carry that bit wider regardless of his shirt number and whether Billy is available? Come to that does Billy have to carry so tight given the likely tight five?

I tend to feel 3 is the magic number for big carriers. Don't think itoje/Kruis are there yet to rank amongst the 3, Launch perhaps is, but I'd rather Billy. Mako, LCD and Sink?

For sure three is the magic number, that's just common sense at this point. But if you're going with that 3 (Mako, LCD and Sink), then whoever the 8 is can go wider, especially if the 9 is putting pace on the game

Lol

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

francoisfou wrote:Curry had a good game at 8, but should he be retained against Ireland? Their 8, CJ Stander must be about the same size as Curry, although with significantly more international experience. Thoughts?

I'd think Stander is about a stone heavier and less agile. Curry still looked uncomfortable at the base of the scrum, unsurprisingly, as its quite a skill to master; it'd be comedic to see Itoje try and do it.

There was one occasion in the first half, where the ball was stuck at his knees in a moving scrum and Price was all over Heinz. A real 8 would have picked and gone and helped out his 9, but Curry couldn't/wouldn't do it and eventually Heinz had to shrug off Price and go in for it himself. It will cost us not having a specialist 8 at some point (and Ludlam doesn't have the specialist skills any more than Curry does).

I can sort of see the point of it and can see a future where he's a good 8 in the Hooper mould, but that is a good distance in the future.

Puja

Does Hooper play 8? I've seen Pocock there. Are you thinking of Savea?

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'd think Stander is about a stone heavier and less agile. Curry still looked uncomfortable at the base of the scrum, unsurprisingly, as its quite a skill to master; it'd be comedic to see Itoje try and do it.

There was one occasion in the first half, where the ball was stuck at his knees in a moving scrum and Price was all over Heinz. A real 8 would have picked and gone and helped out his 9, but Curry couldn't/wouldn't do it and eventually Heinz had to shrug off Price and go in for it himself. It will cost us not having a specialist 8 at some point (and Ludlam doesn't have the specialist skills any more than Curry does).

I can sort of see the point of it and can see a future where he's a good 8 in the Hooper mould, but that is a good distance in the future.

Puja

Does Hooper play 8? I've seen Pocock there. Are you thinking of Savea?

Yeah, brain wasn't working - I was thinking of Pocock.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'd think Stander is about a stone heavier and less agile. Curry still looked uncomfortable at the base of the scrum, unsurprisingly, as its quite a skill to master; it'd be comedic to see Itoje try and do it.

There was one occasion in the first half, where the ball was stuck at his knees in a moving scrum and Price was all over Heinz. A real 8 would have picked and gone and helped out his 9, but Curry couldn't/wouldn't do it and eventually Heinz had to shrug off Price and go in for it himself. It will cost us not having a specialist 8 at some point (and Ludlam doesn't have the specialist skills any more than Curry does).

I can sort of see the point of it and can see a future where he's a good 8 in the Hooper mould, but that is a good distance in the future.

Puja

Does Hooper play 8? I've seen Pocock there. Are you thinking of Savea?

Hooper plays exclusively at 7 but is a helluva carrier for an open side in fact he’s probably been best 7 since McCaw’s retirement imo.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
There was one occasion in the first half, where the ball was stuck at his knees in a moving scrum and Price was all over Heinz. A real 8 would have picked and gone and helped out his 9, but Curry couldn't/wouldn't do it and eventually Heinz had to shrug off Price and go in for it himself. It will cost us not having a specialist 8 at some point (and Ludlam doesn't have the specialist skills any more than Curry does).

I can sort of see the point of it and can see a future where he's a good 8 in the Hooper mould, but that is a good distance in the future.

Puja

Does Hooper play 8? I've seen Pocock there. Are you thinking of Savea?

Yeah, brain wasn't working - I was thinking of Pocock.

Puja

Curry will be much more what Jones saw in Rodney So'oialo and hoped for in Jack Clifford, at least such is my assumption

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: Does Hooper play 8? I've seen Pocock there. Are you thinking of Savea?

Yeah, brain wasn't working - I was thinking of Pocock.

Puja

Curry will be much more what Jones saw in Rodney So'oialo and hoped for in Jack Clifford, at least such is my assumption

When did Jones coach Rodders?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
Yeah, brain wasn't working - I was thinking of Pocock.

Puja

Curry will be much more what Jones saw in Rodney So'oialo and hoped for in Jack Clifford, at least such is my assumption

When did Jones coach Rodders?

When did Jones coach?.....

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
Yeah, brain wasn't working - I was thinking of Pocock.

Puja

Curry will be much more what Jones saw in Rodney So'oialo and hoped for in Jack Clifford, at least such is my assumption

When did Jones coach Rodders?

I don't know that he did, but that was his stated role model for Clifford, unless one files it under stuff Eddie says it's perhaps of interest

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Curry will be much more what Jones saw in Rodney So'oialo and hoped for in Jack Clifford, at least such is my assumption

When did Jones coach Rodders?

When did Jones coach?.....

You might not like what England do, but they don't look like they're not coached. Loads of structure and detail around our game that repeats, and that can't possibly be an accident

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Curry will be much more what Jones saw in Rodney So'oialo and hoped for in Jack Clifford, at least such is my assumption

When did Jones coach Rodders?

When did Jones coach?.....

Digby wrote:

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote: When did Jones coach Rodders?

When did Jones coach?.....

You might not like what England do, but they don't look like they're not coached. Loads of structure and detail around our game that repeats, and that can't possibly be an accident

Yes, very much a detail coach.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Wilson back in the squad for the home games against Ireland and Wales, but I can’t see Eddie abandoning the Curry at 8 experiment just yet.

I’d be perfectly happy to see Wilson back but I’d also say Earl looked immediately lively when he came on.

Scrumhead wrote:I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Wilson back in the squad for the home games against Ireland and Wales, but I can’t see Eddie abandoning the Curry at 8 experiment just yet.

I’d be perfectly happy to see Wilson back but I’d also say Earl looked immediately lively when he came on.

yep, the upside would be that Wilson has looked at home at the base of the scrum, something that you couldn't say about Curry (and no shame in that). Wilson has looked our most intelligent back row player in the last couple of seasons too.