RugbyRebels

jngf wrote:

Beasties wrote:But more capable at and around the breakdown, where we've regularly been getting shafted? I've been banging the Mark Wilson drum for ages now, just having him on the pitch makes Eng a better team. He might not be Richard Hill but he's the nearest thing we've got.

Happy to have him involved as a blindside flanker where he has the specialist skill set for the role - however playing Wilson at 8 doesn’t strike me as significantly much better than playing Robshaw there. At premiership level the 6 and 8 roles appear far more interchangeable (hence Wilson and on occasions Robshaw used there by their clubs) imo test rugby requires a heightened emphasis on having a really powerful carrying 8 (whether that power comes largely by shear physical presence e.g. Billy or more from explosive pace e.g. Clifford - Wilson has yet to convince me of having either of these X factors ).

Wilson is a lot more aggressive than Robshaw and therefore a lot better at carrying the ball. He has decent control and has played at least 100 games at 8.

Robshaw has played 8 something like 10 times.

You cannot compare them.

6 is more important than 8 because if we fail to get at least parity at the breakdown, we won't get the ball we need for our 8 to perform.

So I'd always rather a flanker at 8 than an 8 at flank.

Unless the 8 is a rounded player.

We have 3 of those in Clifford, Dombrandt, and Chisholm, while other clubs do have them - Mercer, Simmonds...

Only 1 of these is a POWER player. Like Wales have Moriarty at 8.

Indeed and I’d also add that the comment around other countries playing with a powerhouse number 8 is generally not true.

SA have Vermeulen. Pretty much all of the other Tier 1 Nations have lighter, more mobile 8s such as Read. For example, Aldritt (who is a 6/8 like Wilson) seems to have overtaken Picamoles for France.

Stander, Naisarani and Moriarty are somewhere in between. Moriarty might think he’s a power carrier, but he’s not even on the same planet as Billy or Vermeulen in that regard and is probably better as a 6 than he is at 8. Stander is a much bigger carrier but again, not an out and out power player and will likely be replaced by Conan who is another more athletic 8.

England's previous game plan of creating a weak edge that we can exploit with kicks or pace relies on being able to punch it up the middle

The thing is, if we don't secure our attacking ball, the punching up the middle is just as wasted as if we can't punch it up in the first place

We need balance in the backrow to allow for this… But at the end of the day, I'd rather have additional flankers and put some onus on our front row (and Tuilagi) for punching it up, than having additional carriers in the back row and ending up not securing our own ball.

I'd love to have seen Morgan in the last year or two instead of Hughes, but, we haven't.
And I'd love to have seen a balanced back row with Simmonds involved, but, I'm not sure we've seen that either

So, right now, I'd rather just balance it using Wilson and the flankers we know can still perform!

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:I cannot believe we are still having the discussion as to whether regular Premiership #8, MotM vs South Africa #8, star against NZ and Australia #8, and man who has not yet had a bad game while playing #8 for England, Mark Wilson, is capable of covering 8 for England. I just cannot believe it.

Puja

Perhaps because some of us see him as significantly underpowered compared to the 8s that the boks, France and Oz are likely to field?

But you've literally seen him be hugely effective against two of the best teams in the world and Australia. If this was all a hypothetical discussion, then I'd be sympathetic, but it's actually happened and you've seen it work very well. Regardless of how big his stats are, his carrying made metres - far more than the larger Hughes made against far worse opposition.

Suggests that there may be a technique component to rugby, as well as just physical gifts.

Puja

Scrumhead wrote:Indeed and I’d also add that the comment around other countries playing with a powerhouse number 8 is generally not true.

SA have Vermeulen. Pretty much all of the other Tier 1 Nations have lighter, more mobile 8s such as Read. For example, Aldritt (who is a 6/8 like Wilson) seems to have overtaken Picamoles for France.

Stander, Naisarani and Moriarty are somewhere in between. Moriarty might think he’s a power carrier, but he’s not even on the same planet as Billy or Vermeulen in that regard and is probably better as a 6 than he is at 8. Stander is a much bigger carrier but again, not an out and out power player and will likely be replaced by Conan who is another more athletic 8.

I don't know of anyone claiming he's really any sort of carrier, indeed one of the problems is he doesn't especially carry causing them problems when they only have Rob Evans, and perhaps AWJ who do. It seems possible Moriarty can add to his game in this area, but whilst his defence is very powerful his carrying isn't similarly charged. Part of the shame of Faletau being injured is not seeing how Wales tried to include both, they'd want Moriarty setting the physical standard in their defence, but they'd also want what Faletau offers extra in attack, and they can't roll both players into one

Putting Moriarty to one side, my point was that there are more tier 1 countries that don’t play with a Billy/Vermeulen type of heavy carrier than those that do, so jngf’s concerns are unfounded.

Scrumhead wrote:Putting Moriarty to one side, my point was that there are more tier 1 countries that don’t play with a Billy/Vermeulen type of heavy carrier than those that do, so jngf’s concerns are unfounded.

But every team would select Billy v if they could - they just dont have them and are picking least worst options?

paddy no 11 wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Putting Moriarty to one side, my point was that there are more tier 1 countries that don’t play with a Billy/Vermeulen type of heavy carrier than those that do, so jngf’s concerns are unfounded.

But every team would select Billy v if they could - they just dont have them and are picking least worst options?

True, but beside the point when it comes to our second choice no8. If we have Billy, we pick him. If we don't, we pick our least worst option, which isn't "the next smallest no 8" as some people would have it.

Puja

Exactly. No one is suggesting we don’t pick Billy.

We’re just challenging jngf’s assertion that Wilson is not a good enough option if Billy were to go down injured (let’s hope he doesn’t).

paddy no 11 wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Putting Moriarty to one side, my point was that there are more tier 1 countries that don’t play with a Billy/Vermeulen type of heavy carrier than those that do, so jngf’s concerns are unfounded.

But every team would select Billy v if they could - they just dont have them and are picking least worst options?

Why are you so sure? It depends on what you want your 8 to do and the make-up of the rest of your side. As I said in an earlier post, France are picking Aldritt ahead of Picamoles at the moment which suggests to me that they don’t think their game plan favours greater mobility over a big carrier in their back row.

A lot of the best 8s are not huge carriers - take Read for example.

Scrumhead wrote:Indeed and I’d also add that the comment around other countries playing with a powerhouse number 8 is generally not true.

SA have Vermeulen. Pretty much all of the other Tier 1 Nations have lighter, more mobile 8s such as Read. For example, Aldritt (who is a 6/8 like Wilson) seems to have overtaken Picamoles for France.

Stander, Naisarani and Moriarty are somewhere in between. Moriarty might think he’s a power carrier, but he’s not even on the same planet as Billy or Vermeulen in that regard and is probably better as a 6 than he is at 8. Stander is a much bigger carrier but again, not an out and out power player and will likely be replaced by Conan who is another more athletic 8.

The thing is whilst players like Read arn’t big leviathan no.8s they do a lot to compensate by (I)being pretty athletic and quick out of the blocks/explosive in the carry - haven’t seen this quality in Wilson so far
(II) they’ll field a pretty explosive carrier at 6 and/or 7 - Savea, Hooper and O’brien sprinting to mind. Whilst our flankers are all quick none are massively explosive out of the blocks imo least of all Wilson.

Scrumhead wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Putting Moriarty to one side, my point was that there are more tier 1 countries that don’t play with a Billy/Vermeulen type of heavy carrier than those that do, so jngf’s concerns are unfounded.

But every team would select Billy v if they could - they just dont have them and are picking least worst options?

Why are you so sure? It depends on what you want your 8 to do and the make-up of the rest of your side. As I said in an earlier post, France are picking Aldritt ahead of Picamoles at the moment which suggests to me that they don’t think their game plan favours greater mobility over a big carrier in their back row.

A lot of the best 8s are not huge carriers - take Read for example.

Billy is a far more complete rugby player than Picamoles, imo. His work in the line or at first receiver is good and he's very much a team player. Plus lovely hands for offloads nowadays.

I'm pretty every team would pick him if they could.

On another note, how bored are we all if we're debating this. Lol

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Indeed and I’d also add that the comment around other countries playing with a powerhouse number 8 is generally not true.

SA have Vermeulen. Pretty much all of the other Tier 1 Nations have lighter, more mobile 8s such as Read. For example, Aldritt (who is a 6/8 like Wilson) seems to have overtaken Picamoles for France.

Stander, Naisarani and Moriarty are somewhere in between. Moriarty might think he’s a power carrier, but he’s not even on the same planet as Billy or Vermeulen in that regard and is probably better as a 6 than he is at 8. Stander is a much bigger carrier but again, not an out and out power player and will likely be replaced by Conan who is another more athletic 8.

The thing is whilst players like Read arn’t big leviathan no.8s they do a lot to compensate by (I)being pretty athletic and quick out of the blocks/explosive in the carry - haven’t seen this quality in Wilson so far
(II) they’ll field a pretty explosive carrier at 6 and/or 7 - Savea, Hooper and O’brien sprinting to mind. Whilst our flankers are all quick none are massively explosive out of the blocks imo least of all Wilson.

Exactly - read and parisse were brilliant carriers in their prime as they were serious athletes and almost as effective at carrying as more powerful types like vermuelen and more rounded rugby players. billy is a bit of an outlier he's that good really

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Indeed and I’d also add that the comment around other countries playing with a powerhouse number 8 is generally not true.

SA have Vermeulen. Pretty much all of the other Tier 1 Nations have lighter, more mobile 8s such as Read. For example, Aldritt (who is a 6/8 like Wilson) seems to have overtaken Picamoles for France.

Stander, Naisarani and Moriarty are somewhere in between. Moriarty might think he’s a power carrier, but he’s not even on the same planet as Billy or Vermeulen in that regard and is probably better as a 6 than he is at 8. Stander is a much bigger carrier but again, not an out and out power player and will likely be replaced by Conan who is another more athletic 8.

(I)being pretty athletic and quick out of the blocks/explosive in the carry - haven’t seen this quality in Wilson so far
(II) they’ll field a pretty explosive carrier at 6 and/or 7 - Savea, Hooper and O’brien sprinting to mind. Whilst our flankers are all quick none are massively explosive out of the blocks imo least of all Wilson.

(I) I’d look closer if I were you. His first five yards are good.
(I) I reckon Read has played most of his NZ career with McCaw and Cane neither of whom would be described as massively explosive.

Mellsblue wrote:

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Indeed and I’d also add that the comment around other countries playing with a powerhouse number 8 is generally not true.

SA have Vermeulen. Pretty much all of the other Tier 1 Nations have lighter, more mobile 8s such as Read. For example, Aldritt (who is a 6/8 like Wilson) seems to have overtaken Picamoles for France.

Stander, Naisarani and Moriarty are somewhere in between. Moriarty might think he’s a power carrier, but he’s not even on the same planet as Billy or Vermeulen in that regard and is probably better as a 6 than he is at 8. Stander is a much bigger carrier but again, not an out and out power player and will likely be replaced by Conan who is another more athletic 8.

(I)being pretty athletic and quick out of the blocks/explosive in the carry - haven’t seen this quality in Wilson so far
(II) they’ll field a pretty explosive carrier at 6 and/or 7 - Savea, Hooper and O’brien sprinting to mind. Whilst our flankers are all quick none are massively explosive out of the blocks imo least of all Wilson.

(I) I’d look closer if I were you. His first five yards are good.
(I) I reckon Read has played most of his NZ career with McCaw and Cane neither of whom would be described as massively explosive.

cough Kaino cough

Ludlam is confirmed as not being involved this week as he did not get his mandated number of weeks of summer rest. Presumably when he was involved in training for Barbarians and then the summer camp, it was with the expectation that he had no chance of actually featuring in the RWC squad and thus would have plenty of time to recuperate.

Puja

Lawes 6 Singleton 7 Wilson 8 on the horizon

Probably better than Itoje at 8

Actually, it would be quite nice to see...

Marler
Singleton
Sinckler
Itoje
Kruis
Curry
Underhill
Wilson
Youngs
Ford
May
Farrell
Tuilagi
Coka
Watson

George, Mako, Cole, Lawes, Billy, Heinz, Francis, Daly

Assuming that side will play conventional openside and blindside flanker roles not left and right, why have Jones and Mitchell plumped for Curry at 6 not 7 ? - I read that they think Curry has a bigger carrying game yet Curry has increasingly shown some nice link play with the backs and Underhill back in 2018 had started to develop a strong carrying game

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

jngf wrote:
(I)being pretty athletic and quick out of the blocks/explosive in the carry - haven’t seen this quality in Wilson so far
(II) they’ll field a pretty explosive carrier at 6 and/or 7 - Savea, Hooper and O’brien sprinting to mind. Whilst our flankers are all quick none are massively explosive out of the blocks imo least of all Wilson.

(I) I’d look closer if I were you. His first five yards are good.
(I) I reckon Read has played most of his NZ career with McCaw and Cane neither of whom would be described as massively explosive.

cough Kaino cough

Ha. Fair enough. Read the names and assumed only 7. Anyway, enough with the blue on blue

jngf wrote:Assuming that side will play conventional openside and blindside flanker roles not left and right, why have Jones and Mitchell plumped for Curry at 6 not 7 ? - I read that they think Curry has a bigger carrying game yet Curry has increasingly shown some nice link play with the backs and Underhill back in 2018 had started to develop a strong carrying game

Maybe as much about who's quicker off the side of the scrum. It's largely irrelevant who wears which shirt beyond that, as they'll play how they'll play in the loose.

Puja

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:Assuming that side will play conventional openside and blindside flanker roles not left and right, why have Jones and Mitchell plumped for Curry at 6 not 7 ? - I read that they think Curry has a bigger carrying game yet Curry has increasingly shown some nice link play with the backs and Underhill back in 2018 had started to develop a strong carrying game

Maybe as much about who's quicker off the side of the scrum. It's largely irrelevant who wears which shirt beyond that, as they'll play how they'll play in the loose.

Puja

Having said that I also read that Mitchell thought Curry might have to tone down his fetching instincts and play a more patient game if moved to 6 - my thoughts are that he’s more of a fetcher than Underhill so it seems strange that the formers being looked at as a 6 rather than the latter - if ever there was a case for left and right this seems like an opportune moment ?

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:Assuming that side will play conventional openside and blindside flanker roles not left and right, why have Jones and Mitchell plumped for Curry at 6 not 7 ? - I read that they think Curry has a bigger carrying game yet Curry has increasingly shown some nice link play with the backs and Underhill back in 2018 had started to develop a strong carrying game

Maybe as much about who's quicker off the side of the scrum. It's largely irrelevant who wears which shirt beyond that, as they'll play how they'll play in the loose.

Puja

Having said that I also read that Mitchell thought Curry might have to tone down his fetching instincts and play a more patient game if moved to 6 - my thoughts are that he’s more of a fetcher than Underhill so it seems strange that the formers being looked at as a 6 rather than the latter - if ever there was a case for left and right this seems like an opportune moment ?

In which case, that's just weird as sh*t. The only reason TCurry should be asked to play a traditional 6 role is if BCurry is at 7. Any other dual 7 matchup - Underhill, Willis, Simmonds - I'd ask the other player to take on 6 duties before TCurry.

Puja

Interesting backrow discussion. I think Underhill is a tad overrated. He is a powerful tackler but does not have a lot more to his game than that at present, though he is young enough to develop. Sad to see that Simmonds is out of the picture. I still think he is something special with his speed and power running and has the X factor. If not a starter, the perfect impact backrower off the bench, and a potential game changer. He has had bad luck with injuries, otherwise he could well have been in the squad. Re. current squad members, Curry is the find of the past couple of seasons. When all fit, he (at 7) and Billy should be nailed on starters, so England just need a 6. Wilson has played well and would not let the side down (and can play 8) , Ludlam could do the job too and also cover other backrow positions.
Backrowers for the match day 23 - Billy, Curry, Wilson, Ludlam. No converted locks needed.