England pack for AIs?

[Mellsblue]

All of a sudden the importance of last weekend's Quins v Leicester match seems a discussion worth having.

[Banquo]

One prospect I find potentially interesting in the absence of Vunipola is using a combo of the Simmons/Armband/Underhill/Clifford type 7/8s who are good on the ball and decent carriers, but not quite the heavyweight carriers of BV/Hughes.

Clifford for example I was really keen to see back at 8 this season, but the more I think about it he is at his best supporting a primary carrier (Luamanu currently, but hopefully Chisholm will come back and develop in to an England contender at some stage) and being able to pick and choose with his linking/carrying play. I could see all of the above players offering something like this if we're persisting with a big, physical openside. I've seen Underhill a couple of times look really threatening carrying the ball for the Ospreys, but we're yet to see if he can do that for Bath.

Basically I think we could spread the load a bit if we were to look at having a more free-roaming, linking 8 like Read.

A further slightly different approach again to the No.8 role, would be to convert one of our top four locks to it, in this case I'm thinking Itoje so that that we picked a back 5 along the lines of:

4. Launchbury 5. Kruis 6. Lawes 7. Underhill/Curry 8.Itoje

This is not my own preferred approach but it's a feasible option (if Robshaw were injured for example ) and gives us 4 quality line out jumpers.

I'm speechless. Which is a result, I know.

[Digby]

You say that, but I've actually got a lot fewer objections to this than I do to shovelling a lock to blindside. 8 and 4 share an awful lot of similar skills and there's less of a loose responsibility for an 8 than for a 6.

Is that saying there's more of a defined responsibility for a #8? In which case we'd agree, I think the 6 in many respects is now the loosest role going

[Digby]

Basically I think we could spread the load a bit if we were to look at having a more free-roaming, linking 8 like Read.

Do we have anyone like a Read before we worry about making a role for them and selecting balancing players elsewhere. Also I'm not sure Read does roam freely

[Timbo]

It would be worth having Lawes and Underhill at 6 and 7 just for the sheer comedy value of watching opposition 10's absolutely shit themselves.

In all honesty, Lawes has to be in the team imo, and I'd not write off his ability to be a quality international 6 now that a)we have a few 'proper' 7's to balance the backrow and b) he's playing there every week for Saints.

[Banquo]

It would be worth having Lawes and Underhill at 6 and 7 just for the sheer comedy value of watching opposition 10's absolutely shit themselves.

In all honesty, Lawes has to be in the team imo, and I'd not write off his ability to be a quality international 6 now that a)we have a few 'proper' 7's to balance the backrow and b) he's playing there every week for Saints.

I'm not necessarily doing that, I was speechless at the whole picture....

[Digby]

I've never yet been struck by the idea that Lawes is a 6 rather than a lock, merely that he can cover there for Saints and shouldn't do for England. I also don't know Lawes has to play for England, he could, but when the other options are Itoje, Kruis and Launch I don't know any of them are nailed on.

[Banquo]

I've never yet been struck by the idea that Lawes is a 6 rather than a lock, merely that he can cover there for Saints and shouldn't do for England. I also don't know Lawes has to play for England, he could, but when the other options are Itoje, Kruis and Launch I don't know any of them are nailed on.

Me either, despite a better showing at saints, and I'd say the same on Itoje. Still 5.5 is the new 6.5, and it appears Puja also favours a 4/8 trade off, which is 6 and just muddies the waters.

[Puja]

I've never yet been struck by the idea that Lawes is a 6 rather than a lock, merely that he can cover there for Saints and shouldn't do for England. I also don't know Lawes has to play for England, he could, but when the other options are Itoje, Kruis and Launch I don't know any of them are nailed on.

My thoughts exactly. I would definitely have Lawes and Itoje in the England team on form, but at 5 and 4, not pissing about with them to fit someone else in. If Launch and Kruis want their shirts back, then they can just get better.

Puja

[Puja]

I've never yet been struck by the idea that Lawes is a 6 rather than a lock, merely that he can cover there for Saints and shouldn't do for England. I also don't know Lawes has to play for England, he could, but when the other options are Itoje, Kruis and Launch I don't know any of them are nailed on.

Me either, despite a better showing at saints, and I'd say the same on Itoje. Still 5.5 is the new 6.5, and it appears Puja also favours a 4/8 trade off, which is 6 and just muddies the waters.

Oi! Fake news! I said I had less problems with a lock playing 8 than one playing 6, not that it's my favoured option. Square pegs for square holes.

Puja

[Digby]

England could now replicate what Saints do at club level at test level, whereas I didn't think we had he physicality a few seasons back to match the work of Tonga'uiha, Mujati, Wilson, Downey and Manoa and achieve comparable results at the highest level. I don't really see why we'd want to aim for being a mid table (largely irrelevant to continue a recent theme) side, but maybe that's the dream

[Banquo]

I've never yet been struck by the idea that Lawes is a 6 rather than a lock, merely that he can cover there for Saints and shouldn't do for England. I also don't know Lawes has to play for England, he could, but when the other options are Itoje, Kruis and Launch I don't know any of them are nailed on.

Me either, despite a better showing at saints, and I'd say the same on Itoje. Still 5.5 is the new 6.5, and it appears Puja also favours a 4/8 trade off, which is 6 and just muddies the waters.

Oi! Fake news! I said I had less problems with a lock playing 8 than one playing 6, not that it's my favoured option. Square pegs for square holes.

Puja

I was jesting......though I have seen a fair few relatively successful lock to 6 and vice versa, but can't recall many, if any, successsful lock to 8 conversions.....so I'm not sure what your thinking is?

[Mikey Brown]

Basically I think we could spread the load a bit if we were to look at having a more free-roaming, linking 8 like Read.

Do we have anyone like a Read before we worry about making a role for them and selecting balancing players elsewhere. Also I'm not sure Read does roam freely

It's not making a role for a Read, it's (perhaps) trying to balance the players we do have that can carry, link, jump etc. which may be more like a Read role than just busting in to brick walls.

I accept I was using that comparison very loosely, but the Read comment was in relation to how we can use our more versatile backrowers to cover 7/8 duties between them, in the abscence of Vunipola. I wasn't suggesting he just runs wild, but he's got a much broader remit than Billy I'd say.

[Banquo]

Basically I think we could spread the load a bit if we were to look at having a more free-roaming, linking 8 like Read.

Do we have anyone like a Read before we worry about making a role for them and selecting balancing players elsewhere. Also I'm not sure Read does roam freely

It's not making a role for a Read, it's (perhaps) trying to balance the players we do have that can carry, link, jump etc. which may be more like a Read role than just busting in to brick walls.

I accept I was using that comparison very loosely, but the Read comment was in relation to how we can use our more versatile backrowers to cover 7/8 duties between them, in the abscence of Vunipola. I wasn't suggesting he just runs wild, but he's got a much broader remit than Billy I'd say.

That'd be Nathan Hughes then....

[Puja]

Me either, despite a better showing at saints, and I'd say the same on Itoje. Still 5.5 is the new 6.5, and it appears Puja also favours a 4/8 trade off, which is 6 and just muddies the waters.

Oi! Fake news! I said I had less problems with a lock playing 8 than one playing 6, not that it's my favoured option. Square pegs for square holes.

Puja

I was jesting......though I have seen a fair few relatively successful lock to 6 and vice versa, but can't recall many, if any, successsful lock to 8 conversions.....so I'm not sure what your thinking is?

Off the top of my head, Easter, Ewels, Beaumont, and Slater have all played AP rugby at both 8 and lock. But you're right in that lock to flank is far more common.

Puja

[Stom]

Oi! Fake news! I said I had less problems with a lock playing 8 than one playing 6, not that it's my favoured option. Square pegs for square holes.

Puja

I was jesting......though I have seen a fair few relatively successful lock to 6 and vice versa, but can't recall many, if any, successsful lock to 8 conversions.....so I'm not sure what your thinking is?

Off the top of my head, Easter, Ewels, Beaumont, and Slater have all played AP rugby at both 8 and lock. But you're right in that lock to flank is far more common.

Puja

Martin Corry...

What about lock, 8 and THE BEST LOOSEHEAD PROP THERE HAS EVER BEEN. The man who gave Al Baxter nightmares for life. The gentle giant. The one, the only Andrew Sheridaaaaaaaaan!

[kk67]

You forgot 'troubadour'.

[Digby]

I was jesting......though I have seen a fair few relatively successful lock to 6 and vice versa, but can't recall many, if any, successsful lock to 8 conversions.....so I'm not sure what your thinking is?

Off the top of my head, Easter, Ewels, Beaumont, and Slater have all played AP rugby at both 8 and lock. But you're right in that lock to flank is far more common.

Puja

Martin Corry...

What about lock, 8 and THE BEST LOOSEHEAD PROP THERE HAS EVER BEEN. The man who gave Al Baxter nightmares for life. The gentle giant. The one, the only Andrew Sheridaaaaaaaaan!

Welcome back Beef

Though I feel compelled to add I've beaten Ted in an arm wrestling match, and I was a 9, so he's not that strong

[Mellsblue]

Off the top of my head, Easter, Ewels, Beaumont, and Slater have all played AP rugby at both 8 and lock. But you're right in that lock to flank is far more common.

Puja

Martin Corry...

What about lock, 8 and THE BEST LOOSEHEAD PROP THERE HAS EVER BEEN. The man who gave Al Baxter nightmares for life. The gentle giant. The one, the only Andrew Sheridaaaaaaaaan!

Welcome back Beef

Though I feel compelled to add I've beaten Ted in an arm wrestling match, and I was a 9, so he's not that strong

But he was only 2, and it was a close run thing. I shouldn't joke, he spent a few Saturday afternoons running straight over me.

[bitts]

One prospect I find potentially interesting in the absence of Vunipola is using a combo of the Simmons/Armband/Underhill/Clifford type 7/8s who are good on the ball and decent carriers, but not quite the heavyweight carriers of BV/Hughes.

Clifford for example I was really keen to see back at 8 this season, but the more I think about it he is at his best supporting a primary carrier (Luamanu currently, but hopefully Chisholm will come back and develop in to an England contender at some stage) and being able to pick and choose with his linking/carrying play. I could see all of the above players offering something like this if we're persisting with a big, physical openside. I've seen Underhill a couple of times look really threatening carrying the ball for the Ospreys, but we're yet to see if he can do that for Bath.

Basically I think we could spread the load a bit if we were to look at having a more free-roaming, linking 8 like Read.

A further slightly different approach again to the No.8 role, would be to convert one of our top four locks to it, in this case I'm thinking Itoje so that that we picked a back 5 along the lines of:

4. Launchbury 5. Kruis 6. Lawes 7. Underhill/Curry 8.Itoje

This is not my own preferred approach but it's a feasible option (if Robshaw were injured for example ) and gives us 4 quality line out jumpers.

There has to be an easier solution than playing four locks!

Perhaps having a couple more carriers in the front five (Genge/Sinclair/Mako/George and LCD if he's ever fit).

Or dropping Hask and replacing him with a genuine carrying option.

BTW, I know it's been mentioned before, but has everyone seen Ben Curry's chip Vs Sarries? Possibly the most skillful bit of play ive seen from a back rower.

[Raggs]

Hughes started at lock I believe, not really since he's been with Wasps though.

[Scrumhead]

Do we have anyone like a Read before we worry about making a role for them and selecting balancing players elsewhere. Also I'm not sure Read does roam freely

It's not making a role for a Read, it's (perhaps) trying to balance the players we do have that can carry, link, jump etc. which may be more like a Read role than just busting in to brick walls.

I accept I was using that comparison very loosely, but the Read comment was in relation to how we can use our more versatile backrowers to cover 7/8 duties between them, in the abscence of Vunipola. I wasn't suggesting he just runs wild, but he's got a much broader remit than Billy I'd say.

That'd be Nathan Hughes then....

Ish ... Hughes is an interesting one. He's basically had to adapt his game to fit a role with England rather than playing in the same way he does at Wasps. It took him a while, but he's become more successful over the past year or so in Billy's absence.

However, I tend to agree more with Mikey Brown in that my preference would have been for us to develop a different game plan at 8 for occasions/periods where Billy is unavailable. As it is, Hughes has made a decent effort, but I'd still prefer to see him play more like he does for Wasps and I think this style would suit our other possible 8s like Clifford or Simmonds as well.

With Billy being out again, the AIs may now give us an opportunity to try it, rather than asking Hughes, Clifford or whoever it is to do their best impression of Billy.

[Digby]

I can't see there's much to gain from having given caps to Hughes in not simply continuing with Hughes, especially given that with Billy out nobody else is much demanding the shirt

And no Mells it wasn't back when Ted was 2, it was in 2005 on the Lions tour. I don't know how old he was then, but it was a few days before the 1st test in Christchurh

[Which Tyler]

There has to be an easier solution than playing four locks!

4. Launchbury 5. Kruis
6. Lawes 7. Ellis 8. Itoje

19. Isiekwe 20. Ewels

[Oakboy]

I can't see there's much to gain from having given caps to Hughes in not simply continuing with Hughes, especially given that with Billy out nobody else is much demanding the shirt .

Exactly!