Wasps vs Toulouse

[francoisfou]

brilliant Wasps, Barbeary excellent staying power. Harsh red.

Jones should just go ahead and install Alfie as the England No.8 right now. He's obviously got the right stuff, a mixture of power, skills and smarts, and is a big game player.

Ideally, yes, but he'll surely be on the bench until the 79th minute replacing Henry Slade or something daft like that.

[jngf]

brilliant Wasps, Barbeary excellent staying power. Harsh red.

Jones should just go ahead and install Alfie as the England No.8 right now. He's obviously got the right stuff, a mixture of power, skills and smarts, and is a big game player.

Doesn’t he have similar limitations to Billy i.e. not a jumper meaning we end up playing a lock at 6 ? (plus whilst powerful he’s no bigger than Curry or Underhill) - Having said that?I’d actually pick him as a starting 8 in preference to Curry but would sooner start Dombrandt.

[Puja]

brilliant Wasps, Barbeary excellent staying power. Harsh red.

Jones should just go ahead and install Alfie as the England No.8 right now. He's obviously got the right stuff, a mixture of power, skills and smarts, and is a big game player.

Doesn’t he have similar limitations to Billy i.e. not a jumper meaning we end up playing a lock at 6 ? (plus whilst powerful he’s no bigger than Curry or Underhill) - Having said that?I’d actually pick him as a starting 8 in preference to Curry but would sooner start Dombrandt.

Even apart from "bigger" not being the be-all-and-end-all, he's a stone heavier than TCurry and 2 stone heavier than Underhill so I'm not sure where you've got the idea he's the same size.

He's definitely not a lineout jumper, but we're likely stuck with Lawes at 6 anyway and, even if we weren't, Curry's still very useful as a third option. We don't necessarily *need* a jumping 8.

Puja

[Spiffy]

brilliant Wasps, Barbeary excellent staying power. Harsh red.

Jones should just go ahead and install Alfie as the England No.8 right now. He's obviously got the right stuff, a mixture of power, skills and smarts, and is a big game player.

Doesn’t he have similar limitations to Billy i.e. not a jumper meaning we end up playing a lock at 6 ? (plus whilst powerful he’s no bigger than Curry or Underhill) - Having said that?I’d actually pick him as a starting 8 in preference to Curry but would sooner start Dombrandt.

You could have a back row of Dombrandt (8), Alfie (6) and Curry (7) and Alfie does not need to jump. I think Lawes is a tad overrated at 6 and should not be automatically nailed on. Alfie probably has a more expansive game and is certainly a more powerful carrier. OK - then Underhill loses out (or sits on the bench). They can't all play, and Barbeary is looking too good to leave out. Yes - he is short on experience but he does seem a bit special.
Tom Willis is also looking very useful at 8, has a great 80 min engine, and does not fade in and out of the game the way Dombrandt sometimes does (though, to be fair, less than before.)

[p/d]

Put Ewels at 8. He can jump

[Oakboy]

If I was allowed only one change, I'd have Ribbans in the 23 and dump Ewels.

[Puja]

Jones should just go ahead and install Alfie as the England No.8 right now. He's obviously got the right stuff, a mixture of power, skills and smarts, and is a big game player.

Doesn’t he have similar limitations to Billy i.e. not a jumper meaning we end up playing a lock at 6 ? (plus whilst powerful he’s no bigger than Curry or Underhill) - Having said that?I’d actually pick him as a starting 8 in preference to Curry but would sooner start Dombrandt.

You could have a back row of Dombrandt (8), Alfie (6) and Curry (7) and Alfie does not need to jump. I think Lawes is a tad overrated at 6 and should not be automatically nailed on. Alfie probably has a more expansive game and is certainly a more powerful carrier. OK - then Underhill loses out (or sits on the bench). They can't all play, and Barbeary is looking too good to leave out. Yes - he is short on experience but he does seem a bit special.
Tom Willis is also looking very useful at 8, has a great 80 min engine, and does not fade in and out of the game the way Dombrandt sometimes does (though, to be fair, less than before.)

I still don't think Barbeary is (yet) good enough to play 6. It's notable that, in the two recent games where he's been lauded, most of his impressive interventions have been after TWillis was off the pitch and he was free to take up the role as the primary carrier (and Shields and Young were there to do the donkey work). Putting him and Dombrandt in the same back row would need one of them to take a back seat to the other as they can't both be trying to do the same job.

I'm not 100% sure that Lawes and Barbeary will work in the same back row either. Feels awfully close to the Lawes/BillyV combo that saw us get embarrassed at the breakdown by the likes of Samoa.

Puja

[Spiffy]

Doesn’t he have similar limitations to Billy i.e. not a jumper meaning we end up playing a lock at 6 ? (plus whilst powerful he’s no bigger than Curry or Underhill) - Having said that?I’d actually pick him as a starting 8 in preference to Curry but would sooner start Dombrandt.

You could have a back row of Dombrandt (8), Alfie (6) and Curry (7) and Alfie does not need to jump. I think Lawes is a tad overrated at 6 and should not be automatically nailed on. Alfie probably has a more expansive game and is certainly a more powerful carrier. OK - then Underhill loses out (or sits on the bench). They can't all play, and Barbeary is looking too good to leave out. Yes - he is short on experience but he does seem a bit special.
Tom Willis is also looking very useful at 8, has a great 80 min engine, and does not fade in and out of the game the way Dombrandt sometimes does (though, to be fair, less than before.)

I still don't think Barbeary is (yet) good enough to play 6. It's notable that, in the two recent games where he's been lauded, most of his impressive interventions have been after TWillis was off the pitch and he was free to take up the role as the primary carrier (and Shields and Young were there to do the donkey work). Putting him and Dombrandt in the same back row would need one of them to take a back seat to the other as they can't both be trying to do the same job.

I'm not 100% sure that Lawes and Barbeary will work in the same back row either. Feels awfully close to the Lawes/BillyV combo that saw us get embarrassed at the breakdown by the likes of Samoa.

Puja

I don't think that Alfie and Dombrandt do the same job. Alfie's forte seems to be powerful, close quarters ball carrying, though he can pop up effectively in other spots now and again. Dombrandt seems at his best playing a looser game, further out, where, with a little space he can cut good lines and often act as a link man. These differences are not cut and dried and both seem to perform well enough at the breakdown. I actually think that they would complement each other quite well in a balanced back row with a traditional 7.
It all depends on what kind of game plan Jones wants to implement, and specifically how he wants to use the back row.

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

I don't think that Alfie and Dombrandt do the same job. Alfie's forte seems to be powerful, close quarters ball carrying, though he can pop up effectively in other spots now and again. Dombrandt seems at his best playing a looser game, further out, where, with a little space he can cut good lines and often act as a link man. These differences are not cut and dried and both seem to perform well enough at the breakdown. I actually think that they would complement each other quite well in a balanced back row with a traditional 7.
It all depends on what kind of game plan Jones wants to implement, and specifically how he wants to use the back row.

The idea of Barbeary smashing holes then offloading to Dombrandt in support is certainly enticing, but I think the balance is probably off defensively. You'd be asking a lot of Itoje and Hill to cover tackles and breakdowns (they're not necessarily unable) while Curry is the only backrow workhorse.

[Spiffy]

I don't think that Alfie and Dombrandt do the same job. Alfie's forte seems to be powerful, close quarters ball carrying, though he can pop up effectively in other spots now and again. Dombrandt seems at his best playing a looser game, further out, where, with a little space he can cut good lines and often act as a link man. These differences are not cut and dried and both seem to perform well enough at the breakdown. I actually think that they would complement each other quite well in a balanced back row with a traditional 7.
It all depends on what kind of game plan Jones wants to implement, and specifically how he wants to use the back row.

The idea of Barbeary smashing holes then offloading to Dombrandt in support is certainly enticing, but I think the balance is probably off defensively. You'd be asking a lot of Itoje and Hill to cover tackles and breakdowns (they're not necessarily unable) while Curry is the only backrow workhorse.

Why do you think Barbeary and Dombrandt are not up to tackles and breakdowns? They are a couple of large, powerful but mobile blokes. Dombrandt actually seems to be pinching quite a bit of turnover ball this season. If the pair of them are outplaying other contenders regularly why not give them a run for England? I think they would at least do a decent job, and might be very good.
That said, Jones will probably always go for Lawes at 6 if he's fit, and Curry is nailed on, so we may see only one (or neither) of them.

[jngf]

I don't think that Alfie and Dombrandt do the same job. Alfie's forte seems to be powerful, close quarters ball carrying, though he can pop up effectively in other spots now and again. Dombrandt seems at his best playing a looser game, further out, where, with a little space he can cut good lines and often act as a link man. These differences are not cut and dried and both seem to perform well enough at the breakdown. I actually think that they would complement each other quite well in a balanced back row with a traditional 7.
It all depends on what kind of game plan Jones wants to implement, and specifically how he wants to use the back row.

The idea of Barbeary smashing holes then offloading to Dombrandt in support is certainly enticing, but I think the balance is probably off defensively. You'd be asking a lot of Itoje and Hill to cover tackles and breakdowns (they're not necessarily unable) while Curry is the only backrow workhorse.

Why do you think Barbeary and Dombrandt are not up to tackles and breakdowns? They are a couple of large, powerful but mobile blokes. Dombrandt actually seems to be pinching quite a bit of turnover ball this season. If the pair of them are outplaying other contenders regularly why not give them a run for England? I think they would at least do a decent job, and might be very good.
That said, Jones will probably always go for Lawes at 6 if he's fit, and Curry is nailed on, so we may see only one (or neither) of them.

This is not meant to be a dig at the player but (i) is T Curry necessarily nailed on for 7 ? (ii) Is he is the best 7 in England or even at Sale?

The Hill/Robshaw workrate 6 role is where I now believe T Curry will perform best for England going forwards and I would not be adversed to seeing Simmonds given a run at 7 , especially given that Curry could do the fetching/turnover stuff as effectively at 6 as at 7.Leaving Simmonds to exploit his pace and link up with the backs, providing us a Tom Croftesque option in attack.

For me it’s a problem the Eddy seems set on picking fastish locks at 6 for time being and thereby limiting wider attacking options in the backrow

[Puja]

The idea of Barbeary smashing holes then offloading to Dombrandt in support is certainly enticing, but I think the balance is probably off defensively. You'd be asking a lot of Itoje and Hill to cover tackles and breakdowns (they're not necessarily unable) while Curry is the only backrow workhorse.

Why do you think Barbeary and Dombrandt are not up to tackles and breakdowns? They are a couple of large, powerful but mobile blokes. Dombrandt actually seems to be pinching quite a bit of turnover ball this season. If the pair of them are outplaying other contenders regularly why not give them a run for England? I think they would at least do a decent job, and might be very good.
That said, Jones will probably always go for Lawes at 6 if he's fit, and Curry is nailed on, so we may see only one (or neither) of them.

This is not meant to be a dig at the player but (i) is T Curry necessarily nailed on for 7 ? (ii) Is he is the best 7 in England or even at Sale?

The Hill/Robshaw workrate 6 role is where I now believe T Curry will perform best for England going forwards and I would not be adversed to seeing Simmonds given a run at 7 , especially given that Curry could do the fetching/turnover stuff as effectively at 6 as at 7.Leaving Simmonds to exploit his pace and link up with the backs, providing us a Tom Croftesque option in attack.

For me it’s a problem the Eddy seems set on picking fastish locks at 6 for time being and thereby limiting wider attacking options in the backrow

i) Yes
ii) Yes and Yes
The rest) No.

Puja

[jngf]

Why do you think Barbeary and Dombrandt are not up to tackles and breakdowns? They are a couple of large, powerful but mobile blokes. Dombrandt actually seems to be pinching quite a bit of turnover ball this season. If the pair of them are outplaying other contenders regularly why not give them a run for England? I think they would at least do a decent job, and might be very good.
That said, Jones will probably always go for Lawes at 6 if he's fit, and Curry is nailed on, so we may see only one (or neither) of them.

This is not meant to be a dig at the player but (i) is T Curry necessarily nailed on for 7 ? (ii) Is he is the best 7 in England or even at Sale?

The Hill/Robshaw workrate 6 role is where I now believe T Curry will perform best for England going forwards and I would not be adversed to seeing Simmonds given a run at 7 , especially given that Curry could do the fetching/turnover stuff as effectively at 6 as at 7.Leaving Simmonds to exploit his pace and link up with the backs, providing us a Tom Croftesque option in attack.

For me it’s a problem the Eddy seems set on picking fastish locks at 6 for time being and thereby limiting wider attacking options in the backrow

i) Yes
ii) Yes and Yes
The rest) No.

Puja

On what basis? (i) & (ii)

[Raggs]

The only reason a player has a 6 or 7 on their back in terms of skillset, is their ability to tackle/support off first phase scrum. Everything else is fluid and can be tailored. If Ludlam (for instance) is faster off the scrum, he'll be wearing 7.

[Spiffy]

The idea of Barbeary smashing holes then offloading to Dombrandt in support is certainly enticing, but I think the balance is probably off defensively. You'd be asking a lot of Itoje and Hill to cover tackles and breakdowns (they're not necessarily unable) while Curry is the only backrow workhorse.

Why do you think Barbeary and Dombrandt are not up to tackles and breakdowns? They are a couple of large, powerful but mobile blokes. Dombrandt actually seems to be pinching quite a bit of turnover ball this season. If the pair of them are outplaying other contenders regularly why not give them a run for England? I think they would at least do a decent job, and might be very good.
That said, Jones will probably always go for Lawes at 6 if he's fit, and Curry is nailed on, so we may see only one (or neither) of them.

This is not meant to be a dig at the player but (i) is T Curry necessarily nailed on for 7 ? (ii) Is he is the best 7 in England or even at Sale?

The Hill/Robshaw workrate 6 role is where I now believe T Curry will perform best for England going forwards and I would not be adversed to seeing Simmonds given a run at 7 , especially given that Curry could do the fetching/turnover stuff as effectively at 6 as at 7.Leaving Simmonds to exploit his pace and link up with the backs, providing us a Tom Croftesque option in attack.

For me it’s a problem the Eddy seems set on picking fastish locks at 6 for time being and thereby limiting wider attacking options in the backrow

I have a lot of admiration for Simmonds. But he does not play like a 7 and is not used to that position at club level. It would be one hell of a risk to pitch him in as an openside in test rugby with no experience. He probably has the goods to become a good 7,but would have to play himself into that role with ample game time.

[Puja]

This is not meant to be a dig at the player but (i) is T Curry necessarily nailed on for 7 ? (ii) Is he is the best 7 in England or even at Sale?

The Hill/Robshaw workrate 6 role is where I now believe T Curry will perform best for England going forwards and I would not be adversed to seeing Simmonds given a run at 7 , especially given that Curry could do the fetching/turnover stuff as effectively at 6 as at 7.Leaving Simmonds to exploit his pace and link up with the backs, providing us a Tom Croftesque option in attack.

For me it’s a problem the Eddy seems set on picking fastish locks at 6 for time being and thereby limiting wider attacking options in the backrow

i) Yes
ii) Yes and Yes
The rest) No.

Puja

On what basis? (i) & (ii)

Cf. Every time you have come in with "You know what, I don't think TCurry's actually that good," everyone has responded with, "You're joking, right? He's one of our few top class players!"

Puja

[jngf]

i) Yes
ii) Yes and Yes
The rest) No.

Puja

On what basis? (i) & (ii)

Cf. Every time you have come in with "You know what, I don't think TCurry's actually that good," everyone has responded with, "You're joking, right? He's one of our few top class players!"

Puja

If you read a little more carefully what I actually wrote, you will find I actually think he’s developed into a good 6 NOT that he was not actually that a good player full stop ( though you’re correct in so far as I don’t rate him quite as a highly as the majority on this board appear to). Pre the CurryHill experiment I went to great lengths to say he was developing into a good linking 7 - since bulking up to play 6/8 his ability at 7 has diminished somewhat imo (British Lions Tour confirmed that for me). I think a bigger point of difference between my view and that of many others is that the openside role can be used far more as an extra three quarter in attack rather than focussing just on tackling, fetching and short, close quarter carries/collisions.

[Puja]

On what basis? (i) & (ii)

Cf. Every time you have come in with "You know what, I don't think TCurry's actually that good," everyone has responded with, "You're joking, right? He's one of our few top class players!"

Puja

If you read a little more carefully what I actually wrote, you will find I actually think he’s developed into a good 6 NOT that he was not actually that a good player full stop ( though you’re correct in so far as I don’t rate him quite as a highly as the majority on this board appear to). Pre the CurryHill experiment I went to great lengths to say he was developing into a good linking 7 - since bulking up to play 6/8 his ability at 7 has diminished somewhat imo (British Lions Tour confirmed that for me). I think a bigger point of difference between my view and that of many others is that the openside role can be used far more as an extra three quarter in attack rather than focussing just on tackling, fetching and short, close quarter carries/collisions.

Like the example you used of Tom Croft who famously never played openside.

Puja

[Danno]

/checks thread title.

Relevant.

[Banquo]

Cf. Every time you have come in with "You know what, I don't think TCurry's actually that good," everyone has responded with, "You're joking, right? He's one of our few top class players!"

Puja

If you read a little more carefully what I actually wrote, you will find I actually think he’s developed into a good 6 NOT that he was not actually that a good player full stop ( though you’re correct in so far as I don’t rate him quite as a highly as the majority on this board appear to). Pre the CurryHill experiment I went to great lengths to say he was developing into a good linking 7 - since bulking up to play 6/8 his ability at 7 has diminished somewhat imo (British Lions Tour confirmed that for me). I think a bigger point of difference between my view and that of many others is that the openside role can be used far more as an extra three quarter in attack rather than focussing just on tackling, fetching and short, close quarter carries/collisions.

Like the example you used of Tom Croft who famously never played openside.

Puja

(...he did actually play 7 for Tigers a few times)

I don't know why its so hard for JNGF to understand that the role he describes can be carried out by anyone in the backrow if they have the skills (see above, Tom Croft), irrespective of number on the back, and indeed Simmonds could have an 8 on his back and do that job, as he does for Exeter (apart from sometimes being the guy to score from close range)....the concern is that at intl level that leaves you pretty short in doing the tackling/fetching etc....equally, Curry could be tasked with doing that job, where his running would be less threatening than Simmond's, but his linking likely better and also doing a better job should a nearby 3/4 get into strife.

[Puja]

If you read a little more carefully what I actually wrote, you will find I actually think he’s developed into a good 6 NOT that he was not actually that a good player full stop ( though you’re correct in so far as I don’t rate him quite as a highly as the majority on this board appear to). Pre the CurryHill experiment I went to great lengths to say he was developing into a good linking 7 - since bulking up to play 6/8 his ability at 7 has diminished somewhat imo (British Lions Tour confirmed that for me). I think a bigger point of difference between my view and that of many others is that the openside role can be used far more as an extra three quarter in attack rather than focussing just on tackling, fetching and short, close quarter carries/collisions.

Like the example you used of Tom Croft who famously never played openside.

Puja

(...he did actually play 7 for Tigers a few times)

I don't know why its so hard for JNGF to understand that the role he describes can be carried out by anyone in the backrow if they have the skills (see above, Tom Croft), irrespective of number on the back, and indeed Simmonds could have an 8 on his back and do that job, as he does for Exeter (apart from sometimes being the guy to score from close range)....the concern is that at intl level that leaves you pretty short in doing the tackling/fetching etc....equally, Curry could be tasked with doing that job, where his running would be less threatening than Simmond's, but his linking likely better and also doing a better job should a nearby 3/4 get into strife.

(Only about 4-5 times and it wasn't to any great success as it resulted in a horrendously unbalanced back row. He was about as pure a 6 as one could get.)

Puja

[Banquo]

Like the example you used of Tom Croft who famously never played openside.

Puja

(...he did actually play 7 for Tigers a few times)

I don't know why its so hard for JNGF to understand that the role he describes can be carried out by anyone in the backrow if they have the skills (see above, Tom Croft), irrespective of number on the back, and indeed Simmonds could have an 8 on his back and do that job, as he does for Exeter (apart from sometimes being the guy to score from close range)....the concern is that at intl level that leaves you pretty short in doing the tackling/fetching etc....equally, Curry could be tasked with doing that job, where his running would be less threatening than Simmond's, but his linking likely better and also doing a better job should a nearby 3/4 get into strife.

(Only about 4-5 times and it wasn't to any great success as it resulted in a horrendously unbalanced back row. He was about as pure a 6 as one could get.)

Puja

(Well yes, though granted he was better over the ball than given credit for, at least until he broke his neck ).

[Banquo]

Just got to the red. Don't think that's going to get overturned, I think the ref could have argued it to a yellow if he wanted to, but it's enough to be a red without much argument. That's 5-6 weeks for Umaga.

He got 4 weeks.

Bundee Aki got a warning.

Creevy got 3 weeks for an admitted head butt- though I can't find footage.

[Puja]

Just got to the red. Don't think that's going to get overturned, I think the ref could have argued it to a yellow if he wanted to, but it's enough to be a red without much argument. That's 5-6 weeks for Umaga.

He got 4 weeks.

Bundee Aki got a warning.

Creevy got 3 weeks for an admitted head butt- though I can't find footage.

I think it's safe to assume that every Creevy game has a headbutt in there which you probably didn't see.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

To ask the ref to go the TMO and then later have to admit to head butting someone in that moment, I’m guessing he’s not the brightest.