RugbyRebels

In the longer term I liked the look of Basham for the U20s...

What about the back row as a unit. Are we any nearer finding the ideal combination?

Billy at 8 is a given, but has Curry nailed down a spot leading into the WC?
Do we stick with Robshaw at 6?
Has Shields done enough to be retained?
Is Wilson worth a proper look at?
Has Hughes played himself out of contention?
What of Simmonds who didnt get a look in in SA?
Of those players not on tour, do Underhill, Clifford, Mercer and even Haskell come into serious contention?

Right now i think this area is the most complicated and volatile in the squad. Getting it down to a core of 5 or 6 players for the WC is not going to be easy.

You're all going to be very disappointed that Hughes continues to be second choice behind Billy for the 8 shirt.

Not massively surprised though.

Raggs wrote:You're all going to be very disappointed that Hughes continues to be second choice behind Billy for the 8 shirt.

Having been a big Hughes advocate, based on that superb Wasps season where he played with Johnson and Haskell, I hesitate to defend him now.

However, there are factors that count. First, he has far better hands than Billy. It is easy to pick out good and bad bits depending on one's favourites. For example, everybody coveniently forgets that in the 2nd Test Billy committed a couple of handling howlers, dropping an easy catch and coughing up the ball in a tackle.

Then, for all the stick for being pushed back by a feisty little 9, despite being isolated, Hughes stayed on his feet and did not cough up the ball or get penalised.

Both Hughes and Billy are playing when they should not be in terms of injury.

There is no argument that Billy is 1st choice. He is an exceptional player. I think his type of carrying is an asset but everything depends on him being fully fit. Slightly off his game, he struggles to be cohesive.

I have no issue with a fully fit Hughes being discarded and replaced by a better alternative as 2nd choice - if there is one.

Why did Simmonds switch from the centre?

Tried backrow and was pretty good at it?

fivepointer wrote:What about the back row as a unit. Are we any nearer finding the ideal combination?

Billy at 8 is a given, but has Curry nailed down a spot leading into the WC?
Do we stick with Robshaw at 6?
Has Shields done enough to be retained?
Is Wilson worth a proper look at?
Has Hughes played himself out of contention?
What of Simmonds who didnt get a look in in SA?
Of those players not on tour, do Underhill, Clifford, Mercer and even Haskell come into serious contention?

Right now i think this area is the most complicated and volatile in the squad. Getting it down to a core of 5 or 6 players for the WC is not going to be easy.

The whole pack has been unbalanced for years. Jones has a different idea on forward play which isn't what the Prem clubs are playing to. He spoke about England going back to our traditional strengths upfront and adding to it but that hasn't happened. The success in 16 when other sides where adjusting post WC lured him into thinking we were better than we were.

Mikey Brown wrote:Tried backrow and was pretty good at it?

He wouldn’t be alone. Skinner played centre at school, as did Pocock. Beaumont was flyhalf, Saull was scrumhalf - which will explain his tackling. Tom Youngs was a centre until his early 20’s. I think the answer is they were better in the new position than their old. I’d assume Simmonds is the same.

The Simmonds brothers at 10/12 would be fun to see.

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Tried backrow and was pretty good at it?

He wouldn’t be alone. Skinner played centre at school, as did Pocock. Beaumont was flyhalf, Saull was scrumhalf - which will explain his tackling. Tom Youngs was a centre until his early 20’s. I think the answer is they were better in the new position than their old. I’d assume Simmonds is the same.

My favourite remains that Bakkies was a schoolboy 9

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Tried backrow and was pretty good at it?

He wouldn’t be alone. Skinner played centre at school, as did Pocock. Beaumont was flyhalf, Saull was scrumhalf - which will explain his tackling. Tom Youngs was a centre until his early 20’s. I think the answer is they were better in the new position than their old. I’d assume Simmonds is the same.

My favourite remains that Bakkies was a schoolboy 9

Ha. I didn’t know this. Can you imagine being the 10 outside asking for the ball. Normally it would something along the lines of: “I want the ball. Now. Give me the ****ing ball, now. BALL NOW. I WANT THE BALL NOW”. When Bakkies Botha is 9: “Bakkies, mate. If it’s ok with you, could I have the ball, please.”

My experience as a 9 is oftentimes 10s were louder when they didn't want the ball, which just adds to their lack of value imo

Digby wrote:My experience as a 9 is oftentimes 10s were louder when they didn't want the ball, which just adds to their lack of value imo

There you are, then. I've been saying that Ford is too put upon and everyone talks about how verbal he is. Now, we know what he's really saying, 'I don't want the fricking thing. Give it to Faz.'

Sorted.

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:My experience as a 9 is oftentimes 10s were louder when they didn't want the ball, which just adds to their lack of value imo

There you are, then. I've been saying that Ford is too put upon and everyone talks about how verbal he is. Now, we know what he's really saying, 'I don't want the fricking thing. Give it to Faz.'

Sorted.

No idea why you'd say that about Ford mind, he's very vocal and very demanding.

Digby wrote:My experience as a 9 is oftentimes 10s were louder when they didn't want the ball, which just adds to their lack of value imo

Given the amount of ball that went through Youngs and Farrell on Saturday, I assume Jones shares your opinion.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:My experience as a 9 is oftentimes 10s were louder when they didn't want the ball, which just adds to their lack of value imo

Given the amount of ball that went through Youngs and Farrell on Saturday, I assume Jones shares your opinion.

You're surely in the wrong, both the Torygraph and Times had Cips with a higher tour rating than Ford, and I'm sure their esteemed staff wouldn't have been pissed up on Eddie's pinotage

How has a thread about Number 8s become another 9 and 10 debate?

Scrumhead wrote:How has a thread about Number 8s become another 9 and 10 debate?

It's a bit like the great IC debate of 2015, ends up everywhere.

....why that has seemingly died off is beyond me.

Still think Hughes is a valuable alternative to Billy, especially by virtue of his extra pace and contribution in the wider channels at any points where games become more open. To be fair Clifford and Simmonds could do this too (and arguably even better) but their comparative lack of size imo is a drawback in terms of what England need from the No.8 role (Unless you use an old skool Saffa type system of two big flankers to compensate - though this comes at the expense of specialist flanker skills).

Agree with many on here who would like to see a rejunvenated Morgan make a comeback - in size terms he’s in the same ballpark as Hughes and again offers more out wide than Billy.

p.s. Would love to see Saracens give Itoje a go at 8 in the new season to see if he takes to it better than blindside - if such an experiment were to prove successfully it might give England another option alongside Billy and Hughes?

I think Hughes needs to contribute more to international games to be considered a valuable alternative. Maybe its role based... but more likely he's just not as good.

Hughes has two real areas to address, his work into contact which is just poor, and for all he's picked simply for being bigger than many you wouldn't know it watching him play, or looking at the outcomes of his plays, and then his presentation is woeful, perhaps that stems from not dominating contact but there's far too much squeeze ball

jngf wrote:Still think Hughes is a valuable alternative to Billy, especially by virtue of his extra pace and contribution in the wider channels at any points where games become more open. To be fair Clifford and Simmonds could do this too (and arguably even better) but their comparative lack of size imo is a drawback in terms of what England need from the No.8 role (Unless you use an old skool Saffa type system of two big flankers to compensate - though this comes at the expense of specialist flanker skills).

Agree with many on here who would like to see a rejunvenated Morgan make a comeback - in size terms he’s in the same ballpark as Hughes and again offers more out wide than Billy.

p.s. Would love to see Saracens give Itoje a go at 8 in the new season to see if he takes to it better than blindside - if such an experiment were to prove successfully it might give England another option alongside Billy and Hughes?

Do it. It will be the death of shouty's international career. He is a lock.

I think we should try Itoje at 10. Might solve the whole Ford v Farrell v Cipriani debacle.

jngf wrote:Still think Hughes is a valuable alternative to Billy, especially by virtue of his extra pace and contribution in the wider channels at any points where games become more open. To be fair Clifford and Simmonds could do this too (and arguably even better) but their comparative lack of size imo is a drawback in terms of what England need from the No.8 role (Unless you use an old skool Saffa type system of two big flankers to compensate - though this comes at the expense of specialist flanker skills).

Agree with many on here who would like to see a rejunvenated Morgan make a comeback - in size terms he’s in the same ballpark as Hughes and again offers more out wide than Billy.

p.s. Would love to see Saracens give Itoje a go at 8 in the new season to see if he takes to it better than blindside - if such an experiment were to prove successfully it might give England another option alongside Billy and Hughes?

Sorry. I know I’m horrendously predictable. But which one of these two things have you actually seen Hughes achieve? Not what his physical attributes suggest he might be good at, but what has he actually been effective at for England?