RugbyRebels

He does occasionally contribute in wider channels - I seem to remember his one and only England try (Argentina in last year’s AIs I think?) was in the right corner. However, when I think of Hughes for England, I typically think of him ambling down the middle of the pitch in to contact, often with the ball in one hand, or going through the middle of the ruck on a pick and go. He doesn’t do a lot else.

What I find bizarre is that Eddie allegedly decided that Morgan was a no based upon his work rate but I don’t recall Hughes putting in any massive shifts. A lot of the time he seems downright lazy.

This is potentially somewhat rose-tinted, but I generally think of Morgan as having been good for England. He wasn’t always good, but I’d say his poorer performances were no worse than Hughes’ and his best performances were considerably better than anything Hughes has delivered. Some players can’t replicate club form at test level, whereas Morgan was the rare kind who typically played better for England than he did for his club. Ironically his best games for Gloucester have probably come at the time when he’s been ignored by Eddie.

In short, I’d much prefer him to Hughes.

I'd say that both Hughes and Morgan are unfulfilled talents. One factor is that Billy gets better with every game's absence. Good as he is, he is limited by his style of play whereas the other two could over more rounded contributions if only they could find form. All non-English friends rate Billy much lower than we do, largely writing him off as just a battering ram. I just wish he could stay fit.

Mellsblue wrote:I think we should try Itoje at 10. Might solve the whole Ford v Farrell v Cipriani debacle.

Indeed

And Special K adverts have really lost their way.

Oakboy wrote:I'd say that both Hughes and Morgan are unfulfilled talents. One factor is that Billy gets better with every game's absence. Good as he is, he is limited by his style of play whereas the other two could over more rounded contributions if only they could find form. All non-English friends rate Billy much lower than we do, largely writing him off as just a battering ram. I just wish he could stay fit.

Billy was getting to a point where he was much more than a battering ram. His passing and breakdown work were massively improved before he got injured.

Clifford looked the absolute business at the under 20s world cup at number 8, probably the best ive ever seen an english player perform at that level. Not only injuries, but also being put in different positions has stagnated his career, alot like it did to Hook.

Clifford’s is primarily injury though.

When he does play for Quins, it’s usually at 8. That’s not to say he doesn’t move to 7 quite regularly but I don’t think anyone is in any doubt that he’s best at 8.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I'd say that both Hughes and Morgan are unfulfilled talents. One factor is that Billy gets better with every game's absence. Good as he is, he is limited by his style of play whereas the other two could over more rounded contributions if only they could find form. All non-English friends rate Billy much lower than we do, largely writing him off as just a battering ram. I just wish he could stay fit.

Billy was getting to a point where he was much more than a battering ram. His passing and breakdown work were massively improved before he got injured.

Agreed. If only we could keep him on the pitch.

Just on the general debate, one Scottish mate who loves his rugby suggested that in world ranking terms Billy would be no higher at 8 than Robshaw was at 6. I scoffed but had to accept that there are quite a few I'd take ahead of Billy: Vermeulen, Faletau, Reid, Pocock, Parisse (on skill and/or the ability to stay fit). That's all subjective and unimportant until one considers that Billy is our best back row player by some distance. To find a truly competitive back row unit is not going to be easy for some years, I'd guess.

Yeah, Reid/Faletau can play any sort of game and are absolute class, Vermeulen is a fair match for Billy actually, great going forward and very handy over the ball. But Pocock is not an 8 and Parisse is massively overrated.

Given the way England use Billy and our options at flanker and lock, I’d be tempted to take Billy over all of them.

Mikey Brown wrote:Yeah, Reid/Faletau can play any sort of game and are absolute class, Vermeulen is a fair match for Billy actually, great going forward and very handy over the ball. But Pocock is not an 8 and Parisse is massively overrated.

I actually think Vermeulen was made to look good by us. I think Billy is better.

Read and Faletau are two of the best I've seen, so that's a high bar. I don't feel Billy is miles behind and he's got time to improve if he can stay fit.

There's currently a LOT of talent globally at 8 - though I wouldn't consider Parisse in the bracket anymore - great though he has been, he's been living off reputation (and lack of Italian competition) for a couple of years now.

Billy deserves to be in the conversation with Vermuelen, Faletau, Read and Pocock; depending on what you want from an 8.

As for the younger English 8s; I'm absolutely delighted to have Mercer learning from Faletau; as they are both very similar physically and the way they look to play the game - the perfect role model; I just wish there was an extra year or two between them, so they'd slot in with Taulupe fading as Zach blossoms.