RugbyRebels

jngf wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: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.

Puja wrote: 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.

Mikey Brown wrote:
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.

Timbo wrote: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.

Digby wrote: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.

Digby wrote: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 wrote:

Digby wrote: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 wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote: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 wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
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

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
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 wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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?

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
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 wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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!

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:
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

jngf wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: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.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:
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....

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

Digby wrote: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 .