RugbyRebels

You say that but my dream Eng backrow is:
6. Lawes
7. Wilson
8. Itoje

Mikey Brown wrote:Jesus. I can’t believe we’re doing this again, but yes.

If it just so happens your 7 is a good carrier or lineout jumper, while your 8 is fantastic over the ball and your 6 is a great link-man (to use a horribly simplistic breakdown of key back-row skills), it doesn’t really matter that they’re not fitting the archetypes.

None of us on here (I think I can say with near certainty) particularly want to see Wilson at 7. I think that was more just an optics thing as EJ had quite taken to the idea of Curry at 6. But as a pair of flankers they are ticking just about every box, whichever shirts they’re wearing.

It's more Wilson at 7 because he wants to pick Lawes at 6 that's the problem...

This is like Final Destination. Just when you think you've avoided death by circular backrow debate, it gets you another way.

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Jesus. I can’t believe we’re doing this again, but yes.

If it just so happens your 7 is a good carrier or lineout jumper, while your 8 is fantastic over the ball and your 6 is a great link-man (to use a horribly simplistic breakdown of key back-row skills), it doesn’t really matter that they’re not fitting the archetypes.

None of us on here (I think I can say with near certainty) particularly want to see Wilson at 7. I think that was more just an optics thing as EJ had quite taken to the idea of Curry at 6. But as a pair of flankers they are ticking just about every box, whichever shirts they’re wearing.

It's more Wilson at 7 because he wants to pick Lawes at 6 that's the problem...

So effectively a lineout forward and two backrows. Could not a player like Ludlum (or the yet to be capped Ted Hill) jump in the lineout sufficiently well to negate the need for playing locks at 6? Appreciate that Billy and Underhill aren’t jumpers and therefore one back row needs to be, but do they really have to have be lock standard jumpers ( in the way Croft and Wood were for instance)?

Banquo wrote:This is like Final Destination. Just when you think you've avoided death by circular backrow debate, it gets you another way.

But would you pick Itoje at 8?

jngf wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Jesus. I can’t believe we’re doing this again, but yes.

If it just so happens your 7 is a good carrier or lineout jumper, while your 8 is fantastic over the ball and your 6 is a great link-man (to use a horribly simplistic breakdown of key back-row skills), it doesn’t really matter that they’re not fitting the archetypes.

None of us on here (I think I can say with near certainty) particularly want to see Wilson at 7. I think that was more just an optics thing as EJ had quite taken to the idea of Curry at 6. But as a pair of flankers they are ticking just about every box, whichever shirts they’re wearing.

It's more Wilson at 7 because he wants to pick Lawes at 6 that's the problem...

So effectively a lineout forward and two backrows. Could not a player like Ludlum (or the yet to be capped Ted Hill) jump in the lineout sufficiently well to negate the need for playing locks at 6? Appreciate that Billy and Underhill aren’t jumpers and therefore one back row needs to be, but do they really have to have be lock standard jumpers ( in the way Croft and Wood were for instance)?

Ted Hill is capped (albeit only once).

IMO, he is the ideal blindside. As I’ve said elsewhere on this forum, he’s like our own PSDT with a bit of everything. He’s a genuine lineout forward, aggressive defender and very decent carrier. You also don’t captain your club as a 21yr old if you don’t have something about you.

I’d like our future back row to be a combination of Hill, Curry and Dombrandt/Mercer with Underhill or Willis on the bench. I know you love Underhill (as do I) but I’m confident in saying Curry is the better player of the two.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:This is like Final Destination. Just when you think you've avoided death by circular backrow debate, it gets you another way.

But would you pick Itoje at 8?

No - but jngf would. In his mind, Curry became disposable as soon as he wasn’t wearing 7 but Itoje could change from 4 to 8 without a problem.

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:

Stom wrote:
It's more Wilson at 7 because he wants to pick Lawes at 6 that's the problem...

So effectively a lineout forward and two backrows. Could not a player like Ludlum (or the yet to be capped Ted Hill) jump in the lineout sufficiently well to negate the need for playing locks at 6? Appreciate that Billy and Underhill aren’t jumpers and therefore one back row needs to be, but do they really have to have be lock standard jumpers ( in the way Croft and Wood were for instance)?

Ted Hill is capped (albeit only once).

IMO, he is the ideal blindside. As I’ve said elsewhere on this forum, he’s like our own PSDT with a bit of everything. He’s a genuine lineout forward, aggressive defender and very decent carrier. You also don’t captain your club as a 21yr old if you don’t have something about you.

I’d like our future back row to be a combination of Hill, Curry and Dombrandt/Mercer with Underhill or Willis on the bench. I know you love Underhill (as do I) but I’m confident in saying Curry is the better player of the two.

Also not sure what the problem is in using Curry as a jumper, he's good enough not to need to pick Lawes at 6 merely to bolster the lineout. I'd love to see Willis internationally too, as I think he'd take to it really well.

Scrumhead wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:This is like Final Destination. Just when you think you've avoided death by circular backrow debate, it gets you another way.

But would you pick Itoje at 8?

No - but jngf would. In his mind, Curry became disposable as soon as he wasn’t wearing 7 but Itoje could change from 4 to 8 without a problem.

in fairness Itoje has played a lot at 6, albeit his best position is far and away lock. Not that it makes playing 8 any more sensible.

I'm getting dragged into this nonsense again

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:
So effectively a lineout forward and two backrows. Could not a player like Ludlum (or the yet to be capped Ted Hill) jump in the lineout sufficiently well to negate the need for playing locks at 6? Appreciate that Billy and Underhill aren’t jumpers and therefore one back row needs to be, but do they really have to have be lock standard jumpers ( in the way Croft and Wood were for instance)?

Ted Hill is capped (albeit only once).

IMO, he is the ideal blindside. As I’ve said elsewhere on this forum, he’s like our own PSDT with a bit of everything. He’s a genuine lineout forward, aggressive defender and very decent carrier. You also don’t captain your club as a 21yr old if you don’t have something about you.

I’d like our future back row to be a combination of Hill, Curry and Dombrandt/Mercer with Underhill or Willis on the bench. I know you love Underhill (as do I) but I’m confident in saying Curry is the better player of the two.

Also not sure what the problem is in using Curry as a jumper, he's good enough not to need to pick Lawes at 6 merely to bolster the lineout. I'd love to see Willis internationally too, as I think he'd take to it really well.

No problem whatsoever. Curry is a perfectly good lineout jumper. I just think Hill will really aid the balance of our back row in years to come. 100% agree on Willis and I actually think he’ll be even more effective if/when the new laws get applied.

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Ted Hill is capped (albeit only once).

IMO, he is the ideal blindside. As I’ve said elsewhere on this forum, he’s like our own PSDT with a bit of everything. He’s a genuine lineout forward, aggressive defender and very decent carrier. You also don’t captain your club as a 21yr old if you don’t have something about you.

I’d like our future back row to be a combination of Hill, Curry and Dombrandt/Mercer with Underhill or Willis on the bench. I know you love Underhill (as do I) but I’m confident in saying Curry is the better player of the two.

Also not sure what the problem is in using Curry as a jumper, he's good enough not to need to pick Lawes at 6 merely to bolster the lineout. I'd love to see Willis internationally too, as I think he'd take to it really well.

No problem whatsoever. Curry is a perfectly good lineout jumper. I just think Hill will really aid the balance of our back row in years to come. 100% agree on Willis and I actually think he’ll be even more effective if/when the new laws get applied.

I was just adding in that Curry was a decent l/o option as Jgnf seemed unaware.

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote: Also not sure what the problem is in using Curry as a jumper, he's good enough not to need to pick Lawes at 6 merely to bolster the lineout. I'd love to see Willis internationally too, as I think he'd take to it really well.

No problem whatsoever. Curry is a perfectly good lineout jumper. I just think Hill will really aid the balance of our back row in years to come. 100% agree on Willis and I actually think he’ll be even more effective if/when the new laws get applied.

I was just adding in that Curry was a decent l/o option as Jgnf seemed unaware.

Curry's not tall enough. Bah. You need to be 6'6"...

I'm also a big fan of Hill, Curry, Willis, Mercer...

That could be a very effective foursome, tbh. None are small, none are slow. All of them are good over the ball, good at hitting rucks, strong tacklers, and effective in the midfield. They all punch above their weight in the carry.

I think it ticks all the boxes. But having Dombrandt around instead would be an interesting choice as they have a very different option available. I think Hill, Curry, Mercer, with Dombrandt on the bench isn't bad at all. Likewise, Hill, Curry, Dombrandt, with Willis on the bench, and many more combos.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
No problem whatsoever. Curry is a perfectly good lineout jumper. I just think Hill will really aid the balance of our back row in years to come. 100% agree on Willis and I actually think he’ll be even more effective if/when the new laws get applied.

I was just adding in that Curry was a decent l/o option as Jgnf seemed unaware.

Curry's not tall enough. Bah. You need to be 6'6"...

I'm also a big fan of Hill, Curry, Willis, Mercer...

That could be a very effective foursome, tbh. None are small, none are slow. All of them are good over the ball, good at hitting rucks, strong tacklers, and effective in the midfield. They all punch above their weight in the carry.

I think it ticks all the boxes. But having Dombrandt around instead would be an interesting choice as they have a very different option available. I think Hill, Curry, Mercer, with Dombrandt on the bench isn't bad at all. Likewise, Hill, Curry, Dombrandt, with Willis on the bench, and many more combos.

Poor Billy and Underhill

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:This is like Final Destination. Just when you think you've avoided death by circular backrow debate, it gets you another way.

But would you pick Itoje at 8?

If he got some game time there for Saracens and improved his body position when carrying I can see him making a more than decent fist of it. Just doesn’t seem like happening other than if Billy was still injured. To be honest I’m really surprised how many times Saracens have played him at 6 yet have never given this a go (either through rotation or when Billy’s been injured).

“
He has the pace and ball playing skills to play No.8 – although there is hardly a vacancy there with Billy Vunipola playing so well – and the power-game, tackling skills and jackal properties to excel at blindside flanker. Meanwhile his lineout ability at the tail could be frightening.” Brendan Gallagher 2016

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: I was just adding in that Curry was a decent l/o option as Jgnf seemed unaware.

Curry's not tall enough. Bah. You need to be 6'6"...

I'm also a big fan of Hill, Curry, Willis, Mercer...

That could be a very effective foursome, tbh. None are small, none are slow. All of them are good over the ball, good at hitting rucks, strong tacklers, and effective in the midfield. They all punch above their weight in the carry.

I think it ticks all the boxes. But having Dombrandt around instead would be an interesting choice as they have a very different option available. I think Hill, Curry, Mercer, with Dombrandt on the bench isn't bad at all. Likewise, Hill, Curry, Dombrandt, with Willis on the bench, and many more combos.

Poor Billy and Underhill

I'm still of the opinion Billy is going to piss off soon. He might make it to the next WC, but then I think he wants to do other things.

And Underhill...he's good, but he's not as multi-faceted, imo. Yes, we'd have 7 players competing for 4 spots. A wonderful place to be.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Curry's not tall enough. Bah. You need to be 6'6"...

I'm also a big fan of Hill, Curry, Willis, Mercer...

That could be a very effective foursome, tbh. None are small, none are slow. All of them are good over the ball, good at hitting rucks, strong tacklers, and effective in the midfield. They all punch above their weight in the carry.

I think it ticks all the boxes. But having Dombrandt around instead would be an interesting choice as they have a very different option available. I think Hill, Curry, Mercer, with Dombrandt on the bench isn't bad at all. Likewise, Hill, Curry, Dombrandt, with Willis on the bench, and many more combos.

Poor Billy and Underhill

I'm still of the opinion Billy is going to piss off soon. He might make it to the next WC, but then I think he wants to do other things.

And Underhill...he's good, but he's not as multi-faceted, imo. Yes, we'd have 7 players competing for 4 spots. A wonderful place to be.

Indeed, was just pointing two players who are actually proven at test level, vs Hill, Mercer, Willis and Dombrandt, who aren't.

jngf wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:This is like Final Destination. Just when you think you've avoided death by circular backrow debate, it gets you another way.

But would you pick Itoje at 8?

If he got some game time there for Saracens and improved his body position when carrying I can see him making a more than decent fist of it. Just doesn’t seem like happening other than if Billy was still injured. To be honest I’m really surprised how many times Saracens have played him at 6 yet have never given this a go (either through rotation or when Billy’s been injured).

...must....resist......

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Stom wrote:
But would you pick Itoje at 8?

If he got some game time there for Saracens and improved his body position when carrying I can see him making a more than decent fist of it. Just doesn’t seem like happening other than if Billy was still injured. To be honest I’m really surprised how many times Saracens have played him at 6 yet have never given this a go (either through rotation or when Billy’s been injured).

...must....resist......

“ He has the pace and ball playing skills to play No.8 – although there is hardly a vacancy there with Billy Vunipola playing so well – and the power-game, tackling skills and jackal properties to excel at blindside flanker. Meanwhile his lineout ability at the tail could be frightening.” Brendan Gallagher’s words not mine:)

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feature ... aro-itoje/

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:
If he got some game time there for Saracens and improved his body position when carrying I can see him making a more than decent fist of it. Just doesn’t seem like happening other than if Billy was still injured. To be honest I’m really surprised how many times Saracens have played him at 6 yet have never given this a go (either through rotation or when Billy’s been injured).

...must....resist......

“ He has the pace and ball playing skills to play No.8 – although there is hardly a vacancy there with Billy Vunipola playing so well – and the power-game, tackling skills and jackal properties to excel at blindside flanker. Meanwhile his lineout ability at the tail could be frightening.” Brendan Gallagher’s words not mine:)

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feature ... aro-itoje/

That's 4 years old, and the reality of Itoje is that he doesn't have the ball playing skills to play blindside let alone 8 at international level, even if you ignore the specific set piece skills you need at 8. He's a world class lock with scope to improve his ball carrying beyond average.

All he’d have to do (beyond reconditioning) is learn all of the bits that distinguish a number 8 from any other back 5 forward. Controlling the ball at the base and how/when to carry from that position, dropping back for kick returns (negating one of his enormous strengths of disrupting opposition rucks setting up to box kick), the aforementioned “body position in contact” (an easy fix that I guess nobody has previously felt worth the time).

Then hey presto, we can drop one of our truly world class players in Billy Vunipola. Start Lawes/Launch, now that Kruis is gone, and then bring your man Ewels in to the squad as lock cover.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:This is like Final Destination. Just when you think you've avoided death by circular backrow debate, it gets you another way.

But would you pick Itoje at 8?

Who in their right mind wouldn’t?

7 or bust for me

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Jesus. I can’t believe we’re doing this again, but yes.

If it just so happens your 7 is a good carrier or lineout jumper, while your 8 is fantastic over the ball and your 6 is a great link-man (to use a horribly simplistic breakdown of key back-row skills), it doesn’t really matter that they’re not fitting the archetypes.

None of us on here (I think I can say with near certainty) particularly want to see Wilson at 7. I think that was more just an optics thing as EJ had quite taken to the idea of Curry at 6. But as a pair of flankers they are ticking just about every box, whichever shirts they’re wearing.

It's more Wilson at 7 because he wants to pick Lawes at 6 that's the problem...

I think we can simplify the 7 role down to making big tackles that having our defence going forwards and protecting 1st phase on our own ball, anything else seems almost a bonus

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:This is like Final Destination. Just when you think you've avoided death by circular backrow debate, it gets you another way.

But would you pick Itoje at 8?

Who in their right mind wouldn’t?

Me I wouldn't. Whether I'm in my right mind could be debated.

Any coach with a decent half back pairing would have his team playing touchline to touchline. Keep the phases going wide, wide. Make the backrow with two locks run. Keep your moreobile backrow on the wider channels and target the backs. No one wants their backs getting hammered around the ruck whilst the pack runs their legs from under them. Game will be tight for the first 30 minutes then people will start tiring or hurting (if you're the winger in another ruck as the opposition number 8 comes gleefully piling in).

Lawes and Itoje are mobile for locks (very mobile in Itoje's case) but not especially so for backrows. Having both in the backrow alongside a solid workhorse like Wilson doesn't give you much speed. You're going to be playing up your jumper. Wilson a player with a diesel engine would be your big hope but he'd be making a lot of covering tackles instead of contesting the breakdown.

Then you have the other problem of who you have in the second row if you put your two first choice locks in the backrow?

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
But would you pick Itoje at 8?

Who in their right mind wouldn’t?

Me I wouldn't. Whether I'm in my right mind could be debated.

Any coach with a decent half back pairing would have his team playing touchline to touchline. Keep the phases going wide, wide. Make the backrow with two locks run. Keep your moreobile backrow on the wider channels and target the backs. No one wants their backs getting hammered around the ruck whilst the pack runs their legs from under them. Game will be tight for the first 30 minutes then people will start tiring or hurting (if you're the winger in another ruck as the opposition number 8 comes gleefully piling in).

Lawes and Itoje are mobile for locks (very mobile in Itoje's case) but not especially so for backrows. Having both in the backrow alongside a solid workhorse like Wilson doesn't give you much speed. You're going to be playing up your jumper. Wilson a player with a diesel engine would be your big hope but he'd be making a lot of covering tackles instead of contesting the breakdown.

Then you have the other problem of who you have in the second row if you put your two first choice locks in the backrow?

Ah, welcome to our oft repeated back row discussions.

None of us, except jngf, would want Itoje anywhere but lock. you’ll just have to get used to our constant bringing up of the topic in less than obvious ways...