Exeter v Leinster Sat 5.30pm

[Oakboy]

I think Underhill is a bit underrated when it comes to the breakdown, but the big thing for me is his tackling makes everyone else’s jobs there a huge amount easier. Consistently putting opposition carriers on the back foot is like gold dust. It’s not like it’s just his head on tackling that stands out either. He’s made some outstanding cover tackles and just seems to know where to be.

What do you actually view as a weakness in him? What does ‘in the round’ cover? He’s no lineout jumper for sure, but I’m not sure why he’s considered a one trick pony by so many.

He's not an especially good carrier (cf Curry or Willis), he's not often seen linking with the backs (he's not alone there), he's not especially brilliant over the ball (cf Willis), not even sure he's a great decision maker at the breakdown (cf Wilson). He's a destructive tackler off first phase which is why he wears 7 for set piece purpose, and as you say a good tracker and cover tackler. All of Willis, Wilson and Curry are smarter players though. I don't think anyone is saying he has a weakness per se. I like him as a player, and he's definitely improving, but his USP is his tackling.

Can't disagree with any of that. I think one snag in the perception/observation of the loose in general is that the back row automatically gets blamed for everything. It's odd how that does not happen so much when Launchbury is in the second row - a definition of the dreaded 'unseen work' bollix if ever there was one. I think statistics rarely give an accurate account of back-rowers work, especially in the carrying figures. Maybe none of us can be dispassionate - seeing what we want to see etc. For example, Lawes at 6 has had several MoMs yet he is still condemned for being selected out of position.

Personally, I do prefer Willis to Underhill but if Billy V is at 8, there is no doubt that, so far, in terms of 80 minute effectiveness, the best back-row balance has been achieved with Curry/Underhill at 6/7. Give Jones credit for that (I rarely do, I confess ).

As with all selectorial debates (especially the last 18 months or so), how do you choose the back row trio without defining objectives? Must there be a lineout option? Is poundage significant? Or, is pure pace to the ball more important? Etc. Etc.

The one constant is Curry.

[Digby]

Without doubt Cunderhill has achieved more and been a better balance than anything featuring Willis, but we've not really seen Willis or Hill or the other Curry or... as a comparator

For now Underhill's best showing was the semi-final against NZ, which was a game where we didn't want the ball. And I'd quite like us to want to ball and be able to do something with it. Underhill might still play sometimes, especially if there were no Curry, but it does in advance seem like the best possible balance to protecting our own ball.

The dominant tackles are useful, but to get from that into gaining possession and transitioning quickly into attack isn't something we've seen, caveat there in that if Underhill was doing useful stuff in the past (and he sometimes did) we mostly looked to kick away anyway.

[Scrumhead]

My point wasn’t that there aren’t some very good alternatives to Underhill - I was taking issue with the description suggesting that he is purely a tackling machine which is doing him a disservice. The other thing I would say is that he has the brilliant quality of consistently being in the right place at the right time (or in the case of his rightly famous tackle on Scott Williams - making a superhuman effort to get there).

On the other hand, I’m also a massive fan of Willis and as long as he can come back with no obvious lasting damage, he could well overhaul Underhill. I agree he is the more rounded player of the two, offering more in attack without losing much, if at all in defence (he might not be as dominant a defender, but he’s more likely to make a crucial turnover).

[FKAS]

Martin can be the new Underhill, the just what am I supposed to be looking at player. Underhill has of course proven quite a lot by now, though I still don't know he'd be in my XXIII

Martin is definitely not the new Underhill. Might be more of the Lawes replacement. Against Newcastle at the weekend he was the top tackler (around the 20 mark) and carried something like 8 times for 9 metres with 7 gain line successes. That's not what Underhill does but is the gritty tight stuff we might need in the England pack going forward to free up Underhill and Curry to go be nightmares to the opposition.

Underhhill in the sense of what does he actually do, not that the style is reminiscent

So for instance we see Underhil tackles well, but does that offer enough in the highest level to warrant selection? In a game where tackling is required he's going to look good one can assume, in games where other things are more to the fore does he still advance enough of a case.

And with Martin we're not even at the level of he tackles well, he's played so little he has no rep for anything.

He's got a reputation at Tigers, Eddie's obviously noticed it. Making 20 tackles a start, being good at the lineout and carrying hard in the tight all day. All things appreciated in a big forward.

You are right though he's got to play more games for more people to notice what he does and the reputation to spread.

I'm not an Underhill fan but when people say he just tackles I always remember that disallowed try Vs NZ.



He's obviously got more to his game but the game plan for club and country don't often require it.

[Digby]

Meh, I've seen Luther Burrell make good passes, doesn't mean I think passing was/is a big part of his game

[Scrumhead]

If you watched a Sam Underhill highlight reel, it would probably be filled with big tackles. However, to me a good carry isn’t necessarily about how many metres you make. Often Underhill hits a line that might only make 3-5m, but most importantly breaks the defence and means that it’s less organised and less well equipped to cope with the next attack. That is an important quality.

[Mikey Brown]

If you watched a Sam Underhill highlight reel, it would probably be filled with big tackles. However, to me a good carry isn’t necessarily about how many metres you make. Often Underhill hits a line that might only make 3-5m, but most importantly breaks the defence and means that it’s less organised and less well equipped to cope with the next attack. That is an important quality.

He does it quite a lot. I find it a strange idea this isn’t considered a strength.

[Scrumhead]

Exactly. If he’d done it once or twice, then fair enough, but he does it regularly enough to convince me that it’s a good part of his skill set that is often underrated.

[Oakboy]

If you watched a Sam Underhill highlight reel, it would probably be filled with big tackles. However, to me a good carry isn’t necessarily about how many metres you make. Often Underhill hits a line that might only make 3-5m, but most importantly breaks the defence and means that it’s less organised and less well equipped to cope with the next attack. That is an important quality.

There are so many different types of 'good carry', aren't there? Billy V trundling 3 or 4 yards but taking three defenders to be stopped; Simmonds doing 40 yards through a gap as if he was a centre; Faletau doing a single yard but getting his shoulder free to offload etc. Where I think some priority might be given is in where the carrying takes place and how it interacts with team-mates. Billy V not retaining the ball; Simmonds getting isolated, Faletau missing his team-mate - can be unproductive but statistically complimentary. Billy V dragging in tacklers AND offloading; Simmonds timing a run to get in a position to give a pass; Faletau getting an accurate ball away - all can seriously affect the game.

[Puja]

If you watched a Sam Underhill highlight reel, it would probably be filled with big tackles. However, to me a good carry isn’t necessarily about how many metres you make. Often Underhill hits a line that might only make 3-5m, but most importantly breaks the defence and means that it’s less organised and less well equipped to cope with the next attack. That is an important quality.

There are so many different types of 'good carry', aren't there? Billy V trundling 3 or 4 yards but taking three defenders to be stopped; Simmonds doing 40 yards through a gap as if he was a centre; Faletau doing a single yard but getting his shoulder free to offload etc. Where I think some priority might be given is in where the carrying takes place and how it interacts with team-mates. Billy V not retaining the ball; Simmonds getting isolated, Faletau missing his team-mate - can be unproductive but statistically complimentary. Billy V dragging in tacklers AND offloading; Simmonds timing a run to get in a position to give a pass; Faletau getting an accurate ball away - all can seriously affect the game.

Especially with England, the worst correlation statistically good and actually good is the carry where BillyV trundles 3 or 4 yards and takes four defenders, but then doesn't present the ball well and we end up with an achingly alow ruck.

Puja

[Scrumhead]

If you watched a Sam Underhill highlight reel, it would probably be filled with big tackles. However, to me a good carry isn’t necessarily about how many metres you make. Often Underhill hits a line that might only make 3-5m, but most importantly breaks the defence and means that it’s less organised and less well equipped to cope with the next attack. That is an important quality.

There are so many different types of 'good carry', aren't there? Billy V trundling 3 or 4 yards but taking three defenders to be stopped; Simmonds doing 40 yards through a gap as if he was a centre; Faletau doing a single yard but getting his shoulder free to offload etc. Where I think some priority might be given is in where the carrying takes place and how it interacts with team-mates. Billy V not retaining the ball; Simmonds getting isolated, Faletau missing his team-mate - can be unproductive but statistically complimentary. Billy V dragging in tacklers AND offloading; Simmonds timing a run to get in a position to give a pass; Faletau getting an accurate ball away - all can seriously affect the game.

Indeed. His is one of the ‘Collectors’ Item’ occasions where we are in total agreement.

The reason I mentioned it is that the subtleties are often lost when people talk about a ‘good carrying game’. Underhill breaking the line on a 3-5m carry but retaining the ball is infinitely better than someone making double the distance but losing it ...

[FKAS]

If you watched a Sam Underhill highlight reel, it would probably be filled with big tackles. However, to me a good carry isn’t necessarily about how many metres you make. Often Underhill hits a line that might only make 3-5m, but most importantly breaks the defence and means that it’s less organised and less well equipped to cope with the next attack. That is an important quality.

He does it quite a lot. I find it a strange idea this isn’t considered a strength.

Something that's normally appreciated most by the people who play with him and particularly the half backs. The ability to earn a metre over the gain line under pressure and generate fast ball for the attack is a very handy thing to be able to do. Defence are all stepping back whilst your 9 is whipping the ball away.

[Banquo]

If you watched a Sam Underhill highlight reel, it would probably be filled with big tackles. However, to me a good carry isn’t necessarily about how many metres you make. Often Underhill hits a line that might only make 3-5m, but most importantly breaks the defence and means that it’s less organised and less well equipped to cope with the next attack. That is an important quality.

There are so many different types of 'good carry', aren't there? Billy V trundling 3 or 4 yards but taking three defenders to be stopped; Simmonds doing 40 yards through a gap as if he was a centre; Faletau doing a single yard but getting his shoulder free to offload etc. Where I think some priority might be given is in where the carrying takes place and how it interacts with team-mates. Billy V not retaining the ball; Simmonds getting isolated, Faletau missing his team-mate - can be unproductive but statistically complimentary. Billy V dragging in tacklers AND offloading; Simmonds timing a run to get in a position to give a pass; Faletau getting an accurate ball away - all can seriously affect the game.

Especially with England, the worst correlation statistically good and actually good is the carry where BillyV trundles 3 or 4 yards and takes four defenders, but then doesn't present the ball well and we end up with an achingly alow ruck.

Puja

I'd be interested in seeing that correlation, where did you find it? I've always thought Billy to be far from the worst at presenting the ball- he's quite dextrous and normally get a good placement- I'd think the bigger problem would be the clearout.

[Banquo]

If you watched a Sam Underhill highlight reel, it would probably be filled with big tackles. However, to me a good carry isn’t necessarily about how many metres you make. Often Underhill hits a line that might only make 3-5m, but most importantly breaks the defence and means that it’s less organised and less well equipped to cope with the next attack. That is an important quality.

Not sure why you are getting excited about this; I don't think most on this board need to be told how important a couple of metres of go forward is, and why. I'd expect most international forwards to be able to do this, however, if not all of them. The fact that England don't do it so well is probably why (say) you are giving Underhill praise for it- and indeed I think I said its part of his improvement. He has worked well in tandem with Curry on this from time to time, and they both can hit decent lines. I'd see it as a pretty standard fare for a back row, rather than something special, but happy to acknowledge its existence

[Banquo]

If you watched a Sam Underhill highlight reel, it would probably be filled with big tackles. However, to me a good carry isn’t necessarily about how many metres you make. Often Underhill hits a line that might only make 3-5m, but most importantly breaks the defence and means that it’s less organised and less well equipped to cope with the next attack. That is an important quality.

He does it quite a lot. I find it a strange idea this isn’t considered a strength.

Something that's normally appreciated most by the people who play with him and particularly the half backs. The ability to earn a metre over the gain line under pressure and generate fast ball for the attack is a very handy thing to be able to do. Defence are all stepping back whilst your 9 is whipping the ball away.

well yes, obviously.

[Scrumhead]

If you watched a Sam Underhill highlight reel, it would probably be filled with big tackles. However, to me a good carry isn’t necessarily about how many metres you make. Often Underhill hits a line that might only make 3-5m, but most importantly breaks the defence and means that it’s less organised and less well equipped to cope with the next attack. That is an important quality.

Not sure why you are getting excited about this; I don't think most on this board need to be told how important a couple of metres of go forward is, and why. I'd expect most international forwards to be able to do this, however, if not all of them. The fact that England don't do it so well is probably why (say) you are giving Underhill praise for it- and indeed I think I said its part of his improvement. He has worked well in tandem with Curry on this from time to time, and they both can hit decent lines. I'd see it as a pretty standard fare for a back row, rather than something special, but happy to acknowledge its existence

Since when has making a reasonable point equated to ‘getting excited’?

This goes back to Underhill being dismissed as just a tackler a page or so ago. I was simply reinforcing the point that he is more than that.

[Banquo]

If you watched a Sam Underhill highlight reel, it would probably be filled with big tackles. However, to me a good carry isn’t necessarily about how many metres you make. Often Underhill hits a line that might only make 3-5m, but most importantly breaks the defence and means that it’s less organised and less well equipped to cope with the next attack. That is an important quality.

Not sure why you are getting excited about this; I don't think most on this board need to be told how important a couple of metres of go forward is, and why. I'd expect most international forwards to be able to do this, however, if not all of them. The fact that England don't do it so well is probably why (say) you are giving Underhill praise for it- and indeed I think I said its part of his improvement. He has worked well in tandem with Curry on this from time to time, and they both can hit decent lines. I'd see it as a pretty standard fare for a back row, rather than something special, but happy to acknowledge its existence

Since when has making a reasonable point equated to ‘getting excited’?

This goes back to Underhill being dismissed as just a tackler a page or so ago. I was simply reinforcing the point that he is more than that.

well you've made a few posts saying the same thing, having a pop at Diggers initially- he didn't dismiss him as just a tackler as I read it, just that it was his strongest suit, and if not a necessity, what are his other big strengths at intl level. Its like Oakboy revisited with its 'tenacity'

[Scrumhead]

Blimey ... I’ll not mention it again then.

[Banquo]

Blimey ... I’ll not mention it again then.

only joking.

[Puja]

There are so many different types of 'good carry', aren't there? Billy V trundling 3 or 4 yards but taking three defenders to be stopped; Simmonds doing 40 yards through a gap as if he was a centre; Faletau doing a single yard but getting his shoulder free to offload etc. Where I think some priority might be given is in where the carrying takes place and how it interacts with team-mates. Billy V not retaining the ball; Simmonds getting isolated, Faletau missing his team-mate - can be unproductive but statistically complimentary. Billy V dragging in tacklers AND offloading; Simmonds timing a run to get in a position to give a pass; Faletau getting an accurate ball away - all can seriously affect the game.

Especially with England, the worst correlation statistically good and actually good is the carry where BillyV trundles 3 or 4 yards and takes four defenders, but then doesn't present the ball well and we end up with an achingly alow ruck.

Puja

I'd be interested in seeing that correlation, where did you find it? I've always thought Billy to be far from the worst at presenting the ball- he's quite dextrous and normally get a good placement- I'd think the bigger problem would be the clearout.

As with all points made on this board, it was found in the yawning gap between my ears. I picked BillyV cause he was mentioned in the post before rather than him being the sole offender, but Lawes is another offender - lauded in the commentary for making metres when sometimes he takes an age to get to ground and slows everything down.

Puja

[Banquo]

Especially with England, the worst correlation statistically good and actually good is the carry where BillyV trundles 3 or 4 yards and takes four defenders, but then doesn't present the ball well and we end up with an achingly alow ruck.

Puja

I'd be interested in seeing that correlation, where did you find it? I've always thought Billy to be far from the worst at presenting the ball- he's quite dextrous and normally get a good placement- I'd think the bigger problem would be the clearout.

As with all points made on this board, it was found in the yawning gap between my ears. I picked BillyV cause he was mentioned in the post before rather than him being the sole offender, but Lawes is another offender - lauded in the commentary for making metres when sometimes he takes an age to get to ground and slows everything down.

Puja

ah sorry, it sounded kind of an evidence based thing . Personally I thought Billy generated a lot of quick ball when he was being used to return kicks etc, and generally he's half decent at getting to floor and trying to present cleanly- if anything, he tries a bit too hard to get the ball back quickly and that can lead to a fumble forward. Any glacial ball from BV I'd think would be more one of the 2 or 3 tacklers not being cleared/not rolling away.

[Scrumhead]

Blimey ... I’ll not mention it again then.

only joking.

You fired the nuke straight away!

[Banquo]

Blimey ... I’ll not mention it again then.

only joking.

You fired the nuke straight away!

No patience, me

[Oakboy]

only joking.

You fired the nuke straight away!

No patience, me

Ah, bliss. What it is to be appreciated!

[Banquo]

You fired the nuke straight away!

No patience, me

Ah, bliss. What it is to be appreciated!

had to be done