RugbyRebels

6.5 wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Although - that would be an equally apt description of Wilson too, who I think is a 6.

I'd also say Wilson's probably the best carrier out of Robshaw, Underhill and the Currys which is useful.

7 will be in a state of flux for a while, until one of Underhill, the Currys or maybe an outside bet like Kvesic (less likely) makes the shirt their own but I think Wilson has provided a good solution to what was a problem at 6.

I'd argue that he's an ideal reserve for Robshaw as well as a very useful bench option covering both flanks and potentially 8 (in an emergency).

I can certainly see the merit of Wilson after his showing in Arg and I can also still see the value in Haskell. I guess it depends how the Currys progress and the view on how much rugby they should be playing - in a year or two i think they could be a level above everyone else.

I wouldn't necessarily define Eddies views of a 6 and 7 based on Robshaw and Hask - I think he has been making the best of what he has got, particularly in Hasks case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely,one of his coaching strengths is pragmatism.

Yep. I agree. Definitely when it comes to Haskell anyway. Robshaw is good enough to be in the side either way.

The fact that Haskell has barely played for the Lions probably won't rule him out of the AIs, but if the Currys and Underhill are performing in the Premiership, I'd prefer to see them continue at 7.

Even if we rest all of our Lions, I think the squad we took to Argentina plus a couple of the injured players/absentees is good enough to pick up 3 wins in the AIs. Add in Billy, Youngs, LCD/Taylor and Marchant and we're good to go.

Banquo wrote:

6.5 wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Although - that would be an equally apt description of Wilson too, who I think is a 6.

I'd also say Wilson's probably the best carrier out of Robshaw, Underhill and the Currys which is useful.

7 will be in a state of flux for a while, until one of Underhill, the Currys or maybe an outside bet like Kvesic (less likely) makes the shirt their own but I think Wilson has provided a good solution to what was a problem at 6.

I'd argue that he's an ideal reserve for Robshaw as well as a very useful bench option covering both flanks and potentially 8 (in an emergency).

I can certainly see the merit of Wilson after his showing in Arg and I can also still see the value in Haskell. I guess it depends how the Currys progress and the view on how much rugby they should be playing - in a year or two i think they could be a level above everyone else.

I wouldn't necessarily define Eddies views of a 6 and 7 based on Robshaw and Hask - I think he has been making the best of what he has got, particularly in Hasks case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely,one of his coaching strengths is pragmatism.

I agree but find it strange that he has never started Robshaw at 7. That is odder still when (I think I am right in saying) he was packing down left/right in the 2nd test. IMO, Robshaw remains our best openside. Why is Eddie pragmatic about Haskell at 7 but not so about Robshaw?

Robshaw is slower.

Raggs wrote:Robshaw is slower.

ha! I'd composed some dreary nonsense, but that'll do...

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

6.5 wrote:
I can certainly see the merit of Wilson after his showing in Arg and I can also still see the value in Haskell. I guess it depends how the Currys progress and the view on how much rugby they should be playing - in a year or two i think they could be a level above everyone else.

I wouldn't necessarily define Eddies views of a 6 and 7 based on Robshaw and Hask - I think he has been making the best of what he has got, particularly in Hasks case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely,one of his coaching strengths is pragmatism.

I agree but find it strange that he has never started Robshaw at 7. That is odder still when (I think I am right in saying) he was packing down left/right in the 2nd test. IMO, Robshaw remains our best openside. Why is Eddie pragmatic about Haskell at 7 but not so about Robshaw?

Because he publically and authoritatively said that Robshaw was not a 7 and never could be, during the 2015 RWC. His strength is pragmatism, but is weakness is arrogance and dogmatism. Heavens forfend that he should have been wrong!

Puja

Yeah - I'd go with that.

Eddie is stubborn and doesn't generally back down (publicly anyway).

In fairness to him, he does give players a chance to prove themselves. Rightly or wrongly, he allowed Tom Wood back in to the fold for example.

The only danger of that is a refusal to accept that others might be right ... for example, I can see Hartley hanging on as captain purely because everyone is telling Eddie that George should start.

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Absolutely,one of his coaching strengths is pragmatism.

I agree but find it strange that he has never started Robshaw at 7. That is odder still when (I think I am right in saying) he was packing down left/right in the 2nd test. IMO, Robshaw remains our best openside. Why is Eddie pragmatic about Haskell at 7 but not so about Robshaw?

Because he publically and authoritatively said that Robshaw was not a 7 and never could be, during the 2015 RWC. His strength is pragmatism, but is weakness is arrogance and dogmatism. Heavens forfend that he should have been wrong!

Puja

that makes him heavily conflicted you'd think

I think Robshaw is vastly better than Hask in either position, but allowing him to do what he does well at 6 (tackling, organising defence, picking his moments to carry/pilfer ball rather than wasting himself trying to get on to everything) while you give Hask the simple job of 'bash in to people if you, or they, have the ball' makes sense to me. I hoped it also means that the Hask is the one earmarked to be phased out when a better 7 option comes along.

I really think that using Robshaw correctly has helped Vunipola out too.

Mikey Brown wrote:I think Robshaw is vastly better than Hask in either position, but allowing him to do what he does well at 6 (tackling, organising defence, picking his moments to carry/pilfer ball rather than wasting himself trying to get on to everything) while you give Hask the simple job of 'bash in to people if you, or they, have the ball' makes sense to me. I hoped it also means that the Hask is the one earmarked to be phased out when a better 7 option comes along.

I really think that using Robshaw correctly has helped Vunipola out too.

agreed, so faster mentally, slower physically..ergo, makes sense. Is there a better 6 than Robshaw for us, I don't think so- so that's the logic. Be great to turn up a cerebral, skilful and pacy 7.

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Absolutely,one of his coaching strengths is pragmatism.

I agree but find it strange that he has never started Robshaw at 7. That is odder still when (I think I am right in saying) he was packing down left/right in the 2nd test. IMO, Robshaw remains our best openside. Why is Eddie pragmatic about Haskell at 7 but not so about Robshaw?

Because he publically and authoritatively said that Robshaw was not a 7 and never could be, during the 2015 RWC. His strength is pragmatism, but is weakness is arrogance and dogmatism. Heavens forfend that he should have been wrong!

Puja

Eddie has also publicly said he was wrong to label Robshaw a club player, I don't think he'd have to contort himself much to go from that to lets have a look at Chris again in the 7 shirt. Besides, he can always cite it's improvement within an environment he's presided over, and too Eddie could cite admitting he's been wrong is a strength of his and a strength in a top level coach

Who are we trying to accommodate by putting Robshaw at 6 anyway? Don't tell me it's fucking Hughes?

Mikey Brown wrote:Who are we trying to accommodate by putting Robshaw at 6 anyway? Don't tell me it's fucking Hughes?

?? assume you mean 7...

Worth looking at having both Hughes and Vunipola, we need the carrying options

Digby wrote:Worth looking at having both Hughes and Vunipola, we need the carrying options

Less of an issue if any of George, Mako or Sinckler become starters.

Although we might then have an issue with lack of bench carriers for impact.

Digby wrote:Worth looking at having both Hughes and Vunipola, we need the carrying options

trade offs, but if Launchbury and Itoje were playing, plus an authentic 7....

I'm happy with Robshaw at 6 but I think he is too good at 7 to be dogmatic about which shirt he has. If, Eddie decides that one of the youngsters can do a good job at 6 or if he decides that any one of Itoje, Lawes, Launchbury, Billy V or Hughes can offer what he wants in the 6 shirt, what is the point of NOT moving Robshaw to 7? I know it would be ideal if a super-7 fell from the heavens but, let's face it, nobody looks the part yet. I think it's all a captaincy/Burt/RWC hangover with Robshaw.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Who are we trying to accommodate by putting Robshaw at 6 anyway? Don't tell me it's fucking Hughes?

?? assume you mean 7...

You and your details. Yes. I meant 7.

Shuffling him to accommodate a lock or inferior-Billy would be a backward step to me, as much as I think he's very capable of playing well there, when Underhill looks like he could be superior-Haskell at least. Also the Curry boys still to show more. I'm absolutely certain of that. I really think Curry's linking/distribution around the ruck was outstanding. It would be almost like having a good scrum-half. If he can do that at the top level and hold his own everywhere else we shouldn't dismiss the impact he could make on the effectiveness of the tight carrying game (and the pack in general) even if he himself isn't a barn-storming carrier.

*I keep saying 'he'. I'm not totally sure when I'm referring to the skillset of both Currys or just Tom, but the point still stands. Smart, ball-playing forwards are gold-dust. You need the big carriers, but you need the guys that keep the cogs turning too.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Who are we trying to accommodate by putting Robshaw at 6 anyway? Don't tell me it's fucking Hughes?

?? assume you mean 7...

You and your details. Yes. I meant 7.

Shuffling him to accommodate a lock or inferior-Billy would be a backward step to me, as much as I think he's very capable of playing well there, when Underhill looks like he could be superior-Haskell at least. Also the Curry boys still to show more. I'm absolutely certain of that. I really think Curry's linking/distribution around the ruck was outstanding. It would be almost like having a good scrum-half. If he can do that at the top level and hold his own everywhere else we shouldn't dismiss the impact he could make on the effectiveness of the tight carrying game (and the pack in general) even if he himself isn't a barn-storming carrier.

*I keep saying 'he'. I'm not totally sure when I'm referring to the skillset of both Currys or just Tom, but the point still stands. Smart, ball-playing forwards are gold-dust. You need the big carriers, but you need the guys that keep the cogs turning too.

other issue is that Robshaw will be 33 ish come the next RWC, and has an awful lot of miles under his belt, so needs a succession plan.

Agreed on the smart players, but obviously need to hold their own technically and physically.

Wilson, Jones and others will sporadically get a go, and we don't know if any of the Currys, Underhill, Mercer, Clifford may end up playing a bit more at 6 in the next couple of years. I don't see why needing a backup 6 to Robshaw is a reason to shift him to 7 or am I not understanding you?

Mikey Brown wrote:Wilson, Jones and others will sporadically get a go, and we don't know if any of the Currys, Underhill, Mercer, Clifford may end up playing a bit more at 6 in the next couple of years. I don't see why needing a backup 6 to Robshaw is a reason to shift him to 7 or am I not understanding you?

You are not understanding; just pointing out (hence other issue) that other options need trying, irrespective of 7 issue. All those names (bar Clifford-ish) have very little exposure or experience internationally.

Yep. Fair enough. My preference would be look at 7 first, while Robshaw is playing well and Hughes is finally looking the part, but definitely manage Robshaw's time until RWC. He has been absolutely flogged for for the last few years.

I'd agree on Clifford too. Feels like he's barely played for England despite having 10 caps or so?

Digby wrote:Worth looking at having both Hughes and Vunipola, we need the carrying options

We need two flankers more, I suspect.

Puja

Don't really understand this business of wanting to play Robshaw at 7 again when he was conclusively found to be far too slow and neither an instinctive fetcher nor a linkman (at test level at least). For me he's always been an out and out 6 and in this role has a similar impact to that of Hill.

Moving Hughes to 6 makes as much sense as keeping Itoje there - and on that note if Itoje ever is tried in the back row again I'd be tempted to have a look at him as an 8 (as like Billy and Hughes he doesn't have the mobility or speed endurance around the park to be a test flanker) - I could however see Itoje doing a more powerful version of I guess what it was anticipated Beaumont might have brought to the party in the 8 role. Ready as always to be shot down in flames for this idea;)

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Who are we trying to accommodate by putting Robshaw at 6 anyway? Don't tell me it's fucking Hughes?

?? assume you mean 7...

You and your details. Yes. I meant 7.

Shuffling him to accommodate a lock or inferior-Billy would be a backward step to me, as much as I think he's very capable of playing well there, when Underhill looks like he could be superior-Haskell at least. Also the Curry boys still to show more. I'm absolutely certain of that. I really think Curry's linking/distribution around the ruck was outstanding. It would be almost like having a good scrum-half. If he can do that at the top level and hold his own everywhere else we shouldn't dismiss the impact he could make on the effectiveness of the tight carrying game (and the pack in general) even if he himself isn't a barn-storming carrier.

*I keep saying 'he'. I'm not totally sure when I'm referring to the skillset of both Currys or just Tom, but the point still stands. Smart, ball-playing forwards are gold-dust. You need the big carriers, but you need the guys that keep the cogs turning too.

Absolutely. I'm with you on this. You don't have to be a gainline busting carrier to be effective in attack. A lot of support play from the best 7s is being on the shoulder of the guy making the break, running clever lines or being in the right place to make the pass that keeps a move going.

I'm optimistic that Eddie sees it the same way as he talked about being excited by Underhill's potential as a link player in the build up to the tour.

From what I've seen both Currys are both naturally good rugby players who make good decisions in attack and defence. Underhill may well be the same, I just haven't seen enough of him to make a judgement on this. Will Evans has fallen off the radar through injury, but his link play was the most impressive thing about him in last year's U20 World Cup, while Ben Earl's running lines were a joy to behold this year.

Rob Baxter's also talked about re-kindling the attacking side of Kvesic's game so I think the era of the 6.5 dominating our back row is being phased out.