Page 3 of 5
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 11:40 am
by Nightynight
Mellsblue wrote:Puja wrote:Peat wrote:
Why do you think being the best 6 in the world isn't in his reach also?
I think if he were to choose to specialise at it, it wouldn't necessarily be out of his reach. But his preferred position is lock and that's where his club choose to play him. At the moment, he's a square peg that wants to go in a square hole. We could convert him, but why?
I'm also very wary of deciding young players' positions based on where the national team is currently short. It's not so long ago that people wanted Croft to play lock because that was where England was short. Even less time ago that people questioned my desire for [redacted] to play 8 because there was the insuperable duo of Bill and Ben there. Form dips, young players coming through, injuries - they can all change the picture very quickly.
Puja
Puja
It could be that playing 6 for Eng and lock of Sarries makes him the best forward in the world. There's also a fair few examples of top players playing slightly out of position. Pocock isn't an 8 but he's played a World Cup final in that position, Carter isn't a 12 but he started his international career there, Bergamasco isn't a 9 but he...ah, no, ignore that last one. If you didn't know of him and you watched the way Itoje plays around the park for both Eng and Sarries it would be difficult to know that he is named on the teamsheet as a lock and not a flanker.
nah, he works well at lock and should stay there, the fact he has aspects of his game that are flanker-like (much of the good stuff is making a nuisance at the breakdown ala 7 style from what I've seen) is just an extra bonus.
Rather work on aspects of his game that are under used at the moment, ball carrying in open play, linking & off load passing since he's pretty mobile once he's moving and his height would make him a right pain in the arse to defend against with a flying back on either shoulder
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 12:00 pm
by Stom
I see no reason why Itoje cannot cover 6, and he'd do a better job than Lawes did, but he is a lock.
His best performances have all come at lock, he describes himself as a lock, his club say he's a lock, and Eddie picked him at lock, except when coming off the bench for his debut.
So, I think he's a lock.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 12:08 pm
by Which Tyler
I think his natural attributes suit BSF better than lock.
However, in the real world, he's of more use to his club at lock; and I don't give a damn where he prefers playing (by that metric, Foden is a scrum half and virtually every centre is either a fly half or a wing).
Whilst he's playing at lock; then he's a lock... who can cover injury at BSF.
Equally I think Jack Nowell's attributes are best suited to OC, and then FB; but whilst he's playing on the wing, then he's a wing.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 12:11 pm
by Mellsblue
So, no more talk of Slade playing for Eng at IC. Thank goodness for that.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 12:22 pm
by Beasties
Mellsblue wrote:So, no more talk of Slade playing for Eng at IC. Thank goodness for that.
Is it Banquo's day off?
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 12:38 pm
by Banquo
Beasties wrote:Mellsblue wrote:So, no more talk of Slade playing for Eng at IC. Thank goodness for that.
Is it Banquo's day off?
'wakes up'....what?
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 1:24 pm
by Peat
Which Tyler wrote:I think his natural attributes suit BSF better than lock.
However, in the real world, he's of more use to his club at lock; and I don't give a damn where he prefers playing (by that metric, Foden is a scrum half and virtually every centre is either a fly half or a wing).
Whilst he's playing at lock; then he's a lock... who can cover injury at BSF.
Equally I think Jack Nowell's attributes are best suited to OC, and then FB; but whilst he's playing on the wing, then he's a wing.
*insert over-used James Haskell meme here*
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 1:26 pm
by Mikey Brown
Peat wrote:Which Tyler wrote:I think his natural attributes suit BSF better than lock.
However, in the real world, he's of more use to his club at lock; and I don't give a damn where he prefers playing (by that metric, Foden is a scrum half and virtually every centre is either a fly half or a wing).
Whilst he's playing at lock; then he's a lock... who can cover injury at BSF.
Equally I think Jack Nowell's attributes are best suited to OC, and then FB; but whilst he's playing on the wing, then he's a wing.
*insert over-used James Haskell meme here*
I was of the opinion it gets funnier the more we see of it and the more worn out it gets.
Kind of like Haskell himself.
That's the beauty of it.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 6:32 pm
by Digby
Lizard wrote:Almost always. And I say that as a man who has seen Christian Cullen play at centre.
That's an example of poor selection in setting up a team, whereas Tana moving to centre was a good thing or Jane moving to wing turned out (with a bit of patience) a good thing.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 10:24 pm
by Lizard
Fair points. But the Cullen debacle was the result of trying to get the best players on the field regardless of position. Tana is probably the nearest to an exception to my rule in that he was probably a better winger than centre when he moved. However, it was a permanent change (he was never capped at wing after debuting at centre) rather than a temporary shuffle to accommodate another player. Jane is a bit different. He came in when the All Blacks were moving to their system of having a power wing, a fullback/wing and a fullback (the so-called "bomb-squad" system). That wasn't so much playing him out of position as selecting a player for a newly invented position.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 10:45 pm
by Spiffy
Nightynight wrote:Mellsblue wrote:Puja wrote:
I think if he were to choose to specialise at it, it wouldn't necessarily be out of his reach. But his preferred position is lock and that's where his club choose to play him. At the moment, he's a square peg that wants to go in a square hole. We could convert him, but why?
I'm also very wary of deciding young players' positions based on where the national team is currently short. It's not so long ago that people wanted Croft to play lock because that was where England was short. Even less time ago that people questioned my desire for [redacted] to play 8 because there was the insuperable duo of Bill and Ben there. Form dips, young players coming through, injuries - they can all change the picture very quickly.
Puja
Puja
It could be that playing 6 for Eng and lock of Sarries makes him the best forward in the world. There's also a fair few examples of top players playing slightly out of position. Pocock isn't an 8 but he's played a World Cup final in that position, Carter isn't a 12 but he started his international career there, Bergamasco isn't a 9 but he...ah, no, ignore that last one. If you didn't know of him and you watched the way Itoje plays around the park for both Eng and Sarries it would be difficult to know that he is named on the teamsheet as a lock and not a flanker.
nah, he works well at lock and should stay there, the fact he has aspects of his game that are flanker-like (much of the good stuff is making a nuisance at the breakdown ala 7 style from what I've seen) is just an extra bonus.
Rather work on aspects of his game that are under used at the moment, ball carrying in open play, linking & off load passing since he's pretty mobile once he's moving and his height would make him a right pain in the arse to defend against with a flying back on either shoulder
No better slot than 6 to develop those aspects. With his size, pace, power and hands I'm sure he be an outstanding blindsider. I'd like to see a combo of Kruis/Launchbury (locks) and Itjoe (6) tried out. I feel Itoje has more to him than Robshaw.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 12, 2016 5:04 am
by Nightynight
Spiffy wrote:Nightynight wrote:Mellsblue wrote:
It could be that playing 6 for Eng and lock of Sarries makes him the best forward in the world. There's also a fair few examples of top players playing slightly out of position. Pocock isn't an 8 but he's played a World Cup final in that position, Carter isn't a 12 but he started his international career there, Bergamasco isn't a 9 but he...ah, no, ignore that last one. If you didn't know of him and you watched the way Itoje plays around the park for both Eng and Sarries it would be difficult to know that he is named on the teamsheet as a lock and not a flanker.
nah, he works well at lock and should stay there, the fact he has aspects of his game that are flanker-like (much of the good stuff is making a nuisance at the breakdown ala 7 style from what I've seen) is just an extra bonus.
Rather work on aspects of his game that are under used at the moment, ball carrying in open play, linking & off load passing since he's pretty mobile once he's moving and his height would make him a right pain in the arse to defend against with a flying back on either shoulder
No better slot than 6 to develop those aspects. With his size, pace, power and hands I'm sure he be an outstanding blindsider. I'd like to see a combo of Kruis/Launchbury (locks) and Itjoe (6) tried out. I feel Itoje has more to him than Robshaw.
He works well with Kruis so far and launchbury needs a rest by the looks of it and so does CL so for now I'd keep him at lock anyway.
The Robshaw issue is more about the tactics, is Robshaw there to fulfill a specific role as a 80min tackle machine defender? If so you need players with the skills elsewhere to do the other aspects required to score tries...... like a good enough lock who plays like a attacking flanker around the pitch sometimes.
If we see a change in tactic by EJ on Robshaw and moves to a more mobile attacking 6 then I'd look at it again, but I think the open side replacement ( a 7 or another 6.5) for Haskell would need to be considered as well before a switch for Itoje.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 12, 2016 12:35 pm
by jngf
Nightynight wrote:Spiffy wrote:Nightynight wrote:
The Robshaw issue is more about the tactics, is Robshaw there to fulfill a specific role as a 80min tackle machine defender? If so you need players with the skills elsewhere to do the other aspects required to score tries...... like a good enough lock who plays like a attacking flanker around the pitch sometimes.
.
There seems to be many types of player who could potentially do a job at blindside for England:
-A quick lock like Itoje or Launchberry who give you a '3rd' second row jumper in effect as well
as strong carrying and fetching skills
-A powerful carrier like Haskell or Ewers, the former having especially good fetching skills for a 6 at least
-A maverick like Croft who has that x-factor pace and line out athleticism but needs a whopping big six playing at openside to provide balance and balast and grafting imo.
-out and out defensive grafters like Robshaw or Wood, who provided they are not played together,
do get through a lot of unglamorous work, freeing up the No.8 and Openside to focus more of their efforts on attack.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 4:21 pm
by Rich
Surely Hughes will be the England No8 come this year's AI's ?
Doesn't make Billy V the natural choice for blindside ?
QED: A ball carrying 6 and 8.
Underhill at 7 and that's a pretty good looking back row....and if we can't have Undferhill because of RFU rules, then Armitage if he comes back to England.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 4:36 pm
by Puja
Rich wrote:Surely Hughes will be the England No8 come this year's AI's ?
Doesn't make Billy V the natural choice for blindside ?
QED: A ball carrying 6 and 8.
Underhill at 7 and that's a pretty good looking back row....and if we can't have Undferhill because of RFU rules, then Armitage if he comes back to England.
I don't know Hughes will walk in with Billy in the form he's in and I'm not sure that Billy at 6 works. You'd be asking a hell of a lot of your 7 in that back row.
Puja
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 4:53 pm
by Rich
Puja,
I think Hughes is a certainty to play for England at No8 come the Autumn. Playing two club No8's at test level has been done successfully in the past...Rodber and Richards, Teague and Richards and for the Lions Quinnell and Dallaglio all spring to mind.
Billy has played blindside in recent years too.
Right now we have Billy and Robshaw at 8 and 6 and neither could be said to offer much help at the breakdown -and with Haskell at 7 (surely a temporary expedient) the breakdown is not an area where England excel.
England need a top class openside more than anything - then a winger who can play on the left.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 5:32 pm
by Puja
Rich wrote:Puja,
I think Hughes is a certainty to play for England at No8 come the Autumn. Playing two club No8's at test level has been done successfully in the past...Rodber and Richards, Teague and Richards and for the Lions Quinnell and Dallaglio all spring to mind.
Billy has played blindside in recent years too.
Right now we have Billy and Robshaw at 8 and 6 and neither could be said to offer much help at the breakdown -and with Haskell at 7 (surely a temporary expedient) the breakdown is not an area where England excel.
England need a top class openside more than anything - then a winger who can play on the left.
Using Rodber and Richards as your example is brave - I was going to use them as an example of it not working!
In Hughes and Billy V, you've got two headline carriers who like to pick their moments and attack where the defence is weak and where yards are to be made. What you don't have is a player who likes trucking up bad ball, who will take the ball on 2m and present it neatly to narrow the defence. I mean, you can give bad ball to them and they'd do a passable job, but it's not what they're picked for. So you either have 2 players looking to be the superstar carrier or you force one of them to play a different way to what got him selected. Or you ask your openside to do everything.
Puja
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 5:34 pm
by jngf
Rich wrote:
Billy has played blindside in recent years too.
Does Billy really have sufficient speed endurance and mobility about the park to be a test level 6 ?
I'm also interested in what Nathan Hughes can additionally offer at no.8 that an on form Billy doesn't? Is Hughes a lineout option perhaps?
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 5:52 pm
by Oakboy
jngf wrote:Rich wrote:
Billy has played blindside in recent years too.
Does Billy really have sufficient speed endurance and mobility about the park to be a test level 6 ?
I'm also interested in what Nathan Hughes can additionally offer at no.8 that an on form Billy doesn't? Is Hughes a lineout option perhaps?
Hughes has pace and good hands.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 5:55 pm
by Mellsblue
Puja wrote:Rich wrote:Puja,
I think Hughes is a certainty to play for England at No8 come the Autumn. Playing two club No8's at test level has been done successfully in the past...Rodber and Richards, Teague and Richards and for the Lions Quinnell and Dallaglio all spring to mind.
Billy has played blindside in recent years too.
Right now we have Billy and Robshaw at 8 and 6 and neither could be said to offer much help at the breakdown -and with Haskell at 7 (surely a temporary expedient) the breakdown is not an area where England excel.
England need a top class openside more than anything - then a winger who can play on the left.
Using Rodber and Richards as your example is brave - I was going to use them as an example of it not working!
In Hughes and Billy V, you've got two headline carriers who like to pick their moments and attack where the defence is weak and where yards are to be made. What you don't have is a player who likes trucking up bad ball, who will take the ball on 2m and present it neatly to narrow the defence. I mean, you can give bad ball to them and they'd do a passable job, but it's not what they're picked for. So you either have 2 players looking to be the superstar carrier or you force one of them to play a different way to what got him selected. Or you ask your openside to do everything.
Puja
B Rolipola won't truck up bad ball and is only passable at carrying in to traffic?!?!?!?
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 6:31 pm
by Beasties
jngf wrote:Rich wrote:
Billy has played blindside in recent years too.
Does Billy really have sufficient speed endurance and mobility about the park to be a test level 6 ?
I'm also interested in what Nathan Hughes can additionally offer at no.8 that an on form Billy doesn't? Is Hughes a lineout option perhaps?
Hughes in good nick is a better player who creates more with his pace and offloading, whilst providing a decent lineout option. He's not in good nick right now for some reason, which makes an inform Billy a no-brainer. It won't always be thus. Neither is a 6. It's one or t'other for me. Good problem to have though.
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 7:34 pm
by Puja
Mellsblue wrote:Puja wrote:Rich wrote:Puja,
I think Hughes is a certainty to play for England at No8 come the Autumn. Playing two club No8's at test level has been done successfully in the past...Rodber and Richards, Teague and Richards and for the Lions Quinnell and Dallaglio all spring to mind.
Billy has played blindside in recent years too.
Right now we have Billy and Robshaw at 8 and 6 and neither could be said to offer much help at the breakdown -and with Haskell at 7 (surely a temporary expedient) the breakdown is not an area where England excel.
England need a top class openside more than anything - then a winger who can play on the left.
Using Rodber and Richards as your example is brave - I was going to use them as an example of it not working!
In Hughes and Billy V, you've got two headline carriers who like to pick their moments and attack where the defence is weak and where yards are to be made. What you don't have is a player who likes trucking up bad ball, who will take the ball on 2m and present it neatly to narrow the defence. I mean, you can give bad ball to them and they'd do a passable job, but it's not what they're picked for. So you either have 2 players looking to be the superstar carrier or you force one of them to play a different way to what got him selected. Or you ask your openside to do everything.
Puja
B Rolipola won't truck up bad ball and is only passable at carrying in to traffic?!?!?!?
It's not what you pick him for. Send Billy continually carrying the little reload plays into the tight 5 and doing the hard graft and see how many of the barnstorming runs through loose contact you get from him. That's why we keep Robshaw around.
Puja
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 10:15 pm
by Mikey Brown
Rich wrote:Puja,
I think Hughes is a certainty to play for England at No8 come the Autumn. Playing two club No8's at test level has been done successfully in the past...Rodber and Richards, Teague and Richards and for the Lions Quinnell and Dallaglio all spring to mind.
Billy has played blindside in recent years too.
Right now we have Billy and Robshaw at 8 and 6 and neither could be said to offer much help at the breakdown -and with Haskell at 7 (surely a temporary expedient) the breakdown is not an area where England excel.
England need a top class openside more than anything - then a winger who can play on the left.
Err. Watson???
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 10:47 pm
by Peat
Puja wrote:Mellsblue wrote:Puja wrote:
Using Rodber and Richards as your example is brave - I was going to use them as an example of it not working!
In Hughes and Billy V, you've got two headline carriers who like to pick their moments and attack where the defence is weak and where yards are to be made. What you don't have is a player who likes trucking up bad ball, who will take the ball on 2m and present it neatly to narrow the defence. I mean, you can give bad ball to them and they'd do a passable job, but it's not what they're picked for. So you either have 2 players looking to be the superstar carrier or you force one of them to play a different way to what got him selected. Or you ask your openside to do everything.
Puja
B Rolipola won't truck up bad ball and is only passable at carrying in to traffic?!?!?!?
It's not what you pick him for. Send Billy continually carrying the little reload plays into the tight 5 and doing the hard graft and see how many of the barnstorming runs through loose contact you get from him. That's why we keep Robshaw around.
Puja
I thought it was very much what he was being picked for and really don't remember too much of him getting loose contact. If only in fact.
Even if you are right, you can still pick Billy to do all the Robshaw-esque carries (just better than Robshaw) providing you replace him at 8 with another player capable of barnstorming runs. And I think Nathan Hughes would be quite possibly superior at that.
Also, assuming the player can adapt, what's wrong with asking a player to play a different game to the one he plays at club level?
Re: How important is it really for England to have a carrier at 6?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 10:52 pm
by Puja
Peat wrote:Puja wrote:Mellsblue wrote:
B Rolipola won't truck up bad ball and is only passable at carrying in to traffic?!?!?!?
It's not what you pick him for. Send Billy continually carrying the little reload plays into the tight 5 and doing the hard graft and see how many of the barnstorming runs through loose contact you get from him. That's why we keep Robshaw around.
Puja
I thought it was very much what he was being picked for and really don't remember too much of him getting loose contact. If only in fact.
Even if you are right, you can still pick Billy to do all the Robshaw-esque carries (just better than Robshaw) providing you replace him at 8 with another player capable of barnstorming runs. And I think Nathan Hughes would be quite possibly superior at that.
Also, assuming the player can adapt, what's wrong with asking a player to play a different game to the one he plays at club level?
I think you're massively underestimating what Robshaw brings to the team, but that's par for the course.
Picking a player who has shown very good form for his club playing one way and then asking him to do something entirely different when playing for his country is the story of the latter part of Chris Ashton's career.
Puja