RugbyRebels

Surely Graham is behind Robshaw, Haskell, Wilson, Ewers, Armand, Curry, Curry, Underhill, Simmonds, Clifford and possibly Chisholm to play flanker for England. IMO he was most likely brought into the England training camp due to a combination of injuries, not having worked with Eddie (as opposed to everyone else on that list) and a couple of fingers up to Scotland after their announcement that they want to station scouts in England specifically to poach our age-grade talent.
I've not seen that much of him, but nothing at all to put him ahead of any of that list, surely he needs to play better than Wilson for Newcastle before he can be considered ahead of Wilson for England (results being 3 years younger).

I'd be surprised if Graham isnt in the squad tomorrow. If Billy and Hughes were fit, he might not be, but with injuries limiting options i think its a safe bet he'll be in.
Up until the recent Exeter game i hadnt really noticed him, but he had a very fine 30 minutes before going off injured. Strong, direct running, very good hands, a bit quicker than i thought and very industrious. I'd like to see more and wouldnt consider his selection to be completely off the wall.

Digby wrote:I don't think Robshaw has ever had a good match at 7 for England, there have been matches he's done well in for periods, but with his decision making and technical skills not being Hill like he has to lift the physical effort to a level even he can't sustain.

Agreed Robshaw’s athletic limitations are really exposed at openside compared to his natural 6 berth.

jngf wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't think Robshaw has ever had a good match at 7 for England, there have been matches he's done well in for periods, but with his decision making and technical skills not being Hill like he has to lift the physical effort to a level even he can't sustain.

Agreed Robshaw’s athletic limitations are really exposed at openside compared to his natural 6 berth.

I saw an article by Barnes claiming that Eddie had converted Robshaw from 7 to 6. Dunderhead.

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't think Robshaw has ever had a good match at 7 for England, there have been matches he's done well in for periods, but with his decision making and technical skills not being Hill like he has to lift the physical effort to a level even he can't sustain.

Agreed Robshaw’s athletic limitations are really exposed at openside compared to his natural 6 berth.

I saw an article by Barnes claiming that Eddie had converted Robshaw from 7 to 6. Dunderhead.

I read the same. Though, I’ll admit to thinking of a four letter word rather than dunderhead.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:
Agreed Robshaw’s athletic limitations are really exposed at openside compared to his natural 6 berth.

I saw an article by Barnes claiming that Eddie had converted Robshaw from 7 to 6. Dunderhead.

I read the same. Though, I’ll admit to thinking of a four letter word rather than dunderhead.

I've replaced the words Underdog from the eponymous cartoon theme with Dunderhead. When in this world the headlines read of those whose hearts are filled with greed... Dunderhead, Dunderhead. I've not even started drinking yet either, though this will change in the near future

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: I saw an article by Barnes claiming that Eddie had converted Robshaw from 7 to 6. Dunderhead.

I read the same. Though, I’ll admit to thinking of a four letter word rather than dunderhead.

I've replaced the words Underdog from the eponymous cartoon theme with Dunderhead. When in this world the headlines read of those whose hearts are filled with greed... Dunderhead, Dunderhead. I've not even started drinking yet either, though this will change in the near future

I’m not sure you’ve sobered up from last night.

Obviously no use for the 6N, but how would people feel (Poachy McPoachface arguments aside) about Shields or Rhodes at 6 and Robshaw at 7?

On the basis that the 6 would give carrying, big hits on D, serious annoyance factor at the worst at breakdowns and a lineout option. Basically Hask plus. Robshaw at 7 is basically just Robshaw at 6 with a different number, and that combination worked fine first 12 months.

Also, the extra carrying defrays the loss of Billy, and makes it easier to accommodate Simmonds or Mercer at 8 without a full on front 5 rejig almost solely based on carrying.

Can’t Armand do all that? Or is he just as much not an English pick?

Tom Moore wrote:Obviously no use for the 6N, but how would people feel (Poachy McPoachface arguments aside) about Shields or Rhodes at 6 and Robshaw at 7?

On the basis that the 6 would give carrying, big hits on D, serious annoyance factor at the worst at breakdowns and a lineout option. Basically Hask plus. Robshaw at 7 is basically just Robshaw at 6 with a different number, and that combination worked fine first 12 months.

Also, the extra carrying defrays the loss of Billy, and makes it easier to accommodate Simmonds or Mercer at 8 without a full on front 5 rejig almost solely based on carrying.

I don't think Robshaw and Haskell were fine for 12 months. They worked really hard (especially in defence) and contributed largely to a lot of wins, but there were plenty of problems with the pairing.

Digby wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:Obviously no use for the 6N, but how would people feel (Poachy McPoachface arguments aside) about Shields or Rhodes at 6 and Robshaw at 7?

On the basis that the 6 would give carrying, big hits on D, serious annoyance factor at the worst at breakdowns and a lineout option. Basically Hask plus. Robshaw at 7 is basically just Robshaw at 6 with a different number, and that combination worked fine first 12 months.

Also, the extra carrying defrays the loss of Billy, and makes it easier to accommodate Simmonds or Mercer at 8 without a full on front 5 rejig almost solely based on carrying.

I don't think Robshaw and Haskell were fine for 12 months. They worked really hard (especially in defence) and contributed largely to a lot of wins, but there were plenty of problems with the pairing.

skills bar for our backrow seems painfully low.

Vicious circle. The more you cap them even though they're limited, the more you cap them because they have experience.

pandion wrote:Vicious circle. The more you cap them even though they're limited, the more you cap them because they have experience.

fraid so

Shields parents are English. Less poach than the other two.

Willis please

Raggs wrote:Shields parents are English. Less poach than the other two.

Willis please

aye

Tom Moore wrote:Obviously no use for the 6N, but how would people feel (Poachy McPoachface arguments aside) about Shields or Rhodes at 6 and Robshaw at 7?

On the basis that the 6 would give carrying, big hits on D, serious annoyance factor at the worst at breakdowns and a lineout option. Basically Hask plus. Robshaw at 7 is basically just Robshaw at 6 with a different number, and that combination worked fine first 12 months.

Also, the extra carrying defrays the loss of Billy, and makes it easier to accommodate Simmonds or Mercer at 8 without a full on front 5 rejig almost solely based on carrying.

Robshaw really is too slow to play 7, especially from an attacking perspective. Imo he’s only half the player when out of his natural 6 position just like Itoje’s only half the player when playing at 6. I don’t believe reprising either of these positional experiments will do England any favours if it truly aspires to reach a World Cup final.

jngf wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:Obviously no use for the 6N, but how would people feel (Poachy McPoachface arguments aside) about Shields or Rhodes at 6 and Robshaw at 7?

On the basis that the 6 would give carrying, big hits on D, serious annoyance factor at the worst at breakdowns and a lineout option. Basically Hask plus. Robshaw at 7 is basically just Robshaw at 6 with a different number, and that combination worked fine first 12 months.

Also, the extra carrying defrays the loss of Billy, and makes it easier to accommodate Simmonds or Mercer at 8 without a full on front 5 rejig almost solely based on carrying.

Robshaw really is too slow to play 7, especially from an attacking perspective. Imo he’s only half the player when out of his natural 6 position just like Itoje’s only half the player when playing at 6. I don’t believe reprising either of these positional experiments will do England any favours if it truly aspires to reach a World Cup final.

I want him to do what he does, and Rhodes or Shields to do what Haskell did.

Tom Moore wrote:

jngf wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:Obviously no use for the 6N, but how would people feel (Poachy McPoachface arguments aside) about Shields or Rhodes at 6 and Robshaw at 7?

On the basis that the 6 would give carrying, big hits on D, serious annoyance factor at the worst at breakdowns and a lineout option. Basically Hask plus. Robshaw at 7 is basically just Robshaw at 6 with a different number, and that combination worked fine first 12 months.

Also, the extra carrying defrays the loss of Billy, and makes it easier to accommodate Simmonds or Mercer at 8 without a full on front 5 rejig almost solely based on carrying.

Robshaw really is too slow to play 7, especially from an attacking perspective. Imo he’s only half the player when out of his natural 6 position just like Itoje’s only half the player when playing at 6. I don’t believe reprising either of these positional experiments will do England any favours if it truly aspires to reach a World Cup final.

I want him to do what he does, and Rhodes or Shields to do what Haskell did.

so two 6's and Billy/Nathan/Sam? Hmmm

Not seen enough of Shields, Rhodes looks too limited for test rugby but that mayn't worry Eddie with what he wants

Digby wrote:Not seen enough of Shields, Rhodes looks too limited for test rugby but that mayn't worry Eddie with what he wants

Well if we aspire to the heady heights of Haskell then on that evaluation Rhodes looks ideal

Digby wrote:Not seen enough of Shields, Rhodes looks too limited for test rugby but that mayn't worry Eddie with what he wants

Shields is pretty limited imo as well; mind the AB's had called him up, so he must be quite useful. I'd assumed he was out of the AB frame, hence declaring for us, but not so.

p/d wrote:

Digby wrote:Not seen enough of Shields, Rhodes looks too limited for test rugby but that mayn't worry Eddie with what he wants

Well if we aspire to the heady heights of Haskell then on that evaluation Rhodes looks ideal

yonks ago, I thought Haskell was going to be fantastic. However....and its not like he's not travelled widely to try and improve.

Banquo wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:

jngf wrote:
Robshaw really is too slow to play 7, especially from an attacking perspective. Imo he’s only half the player when out of his natural 6 position just like Itoje’s only half the player when playing at 6. I don’t believe reprising either of these positional experiments will do England any favours if it truly aspires to reach a World Cup final.

I want him to do what he does, and Rhodes or Shields to do what Haskell did.

so two 6's and Billy/Nathan/Sam? Hmmm

Worked well enough to beat every team it played in 2016. Not entirely tripping over world class sevens either.

Tom Moore wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:
I want him to do what he does, and Rhodes or Shields to do what Haskell did.

so two 6's and Billy/Nathan/Sam? Hmmm

Worked well enough to beat every team it played in 2016. Not entirely tripping over world class sevens either.

Not exactly selecting 7's who might get there, either.

I'm talking about beating the best sides consistently, not the post world cup sides excluding NZ. Are you happy sticking with Ford and Farrell, to gain another perspective.

Banquo wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:

Banquo wrote: so two 6's and Billy/Nathan/Sam? Hmmm

Worked well enough to beat every team it played in 2016. Not entirely tripping over world class sevens either.

Not exactly selecting 7's who might get there, either.

I'm talking about beating the best sides consistently, not the post world cup sides excluding NZ. Are you happy sticking with Ford and Farrell, to gain another perspective.

Broadly, in the absence of an outstanding candidate at 12, yes.