RugbyRebels

stevedog1980 wrote:

Raggs wrote:Launch and Marler out (Launch injury, Marler personal reasons). Ewels and Tom West are called up.

I was going to ask about Launchbury, I rate him really highly but don't keep up to date with current events in English rugby. When I saw the squad posted on the SMB I was wondering why he wasn't there and popped in to see what the EMB thought of his omission. If fit, I assume most of you would have wanted to see him start?

Absolutely. He and Itoje. Launch has been in superb form recently, which is saying something for someone who rarely has anything less than a 8/10 game (in my mind).

Raggs wrote:
Absolutely. He and Itoje. Launch has been in superb form recently, which is saying something for someone who rarely has anything less than a 8/10 game (in my mind).

Agree completely, Launchbury is as dependable as they come. Itoje is a clear stand out but Launchbury is this generations Richard Hill!

Edit - I should clarify, I think Launchbury does more work than he gets credit for as he's not particularly eye-catching on the field is where the comparison is being drawn from!

Underhill out Willis in.

Wasps getting low on the ground for players...

Raggs wrote:

stevedog1980 wrote:

Raggs wrote:Launch and Marler out (Launch injury, Marler personal reasons). Ewels and Tom West are called up.

I was going to ask about Launchbury, I rate him really highly but don't keep up to date with current events in English rugby. When I saw the squad posted on the SMB I was wondering why he wasn't there and popped in to see what the EMB thought of his omission. If fit, I assume most of you would have wanted to see him start?

Absolutely. He and Itoje. Launch has been in superb form recently, which is saying something for someone who rarely has anything less than a 8/10 game (in my mind).

Yeah got to feel for Launchbury. I thought he was a little lucky to go to the world cup but since the change at Wasps he's been exceptional and come back to his best. He looked to be forming a good combination with Itoje in the Autumn.

Hopefully we'll see Johnny Hill gets some starts now. On paper he and Itoje should be a really good partnership.

Underhill out is a bit of a blow but could be the break Willis needs if he can show up in training and edge out Earl.

Thought these two defensive efforts were pretty incredible. Didn't see either of them at the time. Curry almost nonchalant in managing to be in the right place and Simmonds just being Simmonds.



It seems crazy that Jones has said all this stuff about "hybrid players', yet is seemingly terrified of a guy like Simmonds who sits slightly outside the current mould of a number 8/backrow. Very interested what the results of Ragg's ruck inspection are. I feel like there must be some glaring hole in his game that I'm missing. I suppose Earl offers a lot of the same qualities plus a real breakdown/openside presence.

FKAS wrote:

Raggs wrote:

stevedog1980 wrote:
I was going to ask about Launchbury, I rate him really highly but don't keep up to date with current events in English rugby. When I saw the squad posted on the SMB I was wondering why he wasn't there and popped in to see what the EMB thought of his omission. If fit, I assume most of you would have wanted to see him start?

Absolutely. He and Itoje. Launch has been in superb form recently, which is saying something for someone who rarely has anything less than a 8/10 game (in my mind).

Yeah got to feel for Launchbury. I thought he was a little lucky to go to the world cup but since the change at Wasps he's been exceptional and come back to his best. He looked to be forming a good combination with Itoje in the Autumn.

Hopefully we'll see Johnny Hill gets some starts now. On paper he and Itoje should be a really good partnership.

Underhill out is a bit of a blow but could be the break Willis needs if he can show up in training and edge out Earl.

Totally agree with that. He seemed to drop off for a while, for whatever reason and got rightly overtaken by Lawes and Kruis and arguably Ewels, but has come back excellently and really stood out in the Autumn.

Would imagine Willis and Earl will both play, just one a sub. Well unless EJ moves Lawes or Itoje to 6 again. Hopefully he doesn't mind.

Shame to lose Underhill but great to have a replacement of Willis’ calibre to replace him.

Curry + any one of Wilson, Earl or Willis works for me.

Willis or Wilson would be my preference with Earl as the bench option for impact.

Hepburn, Ribbans and Ludlam added to the shadow squad.

Raggs wrote:Underhill out Willis in.

Wasps getting low on the ground for players...

Sorry for Underhill but Willis at 6 with Curry at 7 starts to look a lot better balanced than Curry 6 / Underhill 7 combo

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:Underhill out Willis in.

Wasps getting low on the ground for players...

Sorry for Underhill but Willis at 6 with Curry at 7 starts to look a lot better balanced than Curry 6 / Underhill 7 combo

Why? What role does the 6 fill that the 7 doesn't or vice versa, for England? How does Willis (our best breakdown specialist) fit that role more appropriately than Curry?

Mikey Brown wrote:Thought these two defensive efforts were pretty incredible. Didn't see either of them at the time. Curry almost nonchalant in managing to be in the right place and Simmonds just being Simmonds.



It seems crazy that Jones has said all this stuff about "hybrid players', yet is seemingly terrified of a guy like Simmonds who sits slightly outside the current mould of a number 8/backrow. Very interested what the results of Ragg's ruck inspection are. I feel like there must be some glaring hole in his game that I'm missing. I suppose Earl offers a lot of the same qualities plus a real breakdown/openside presence.

Imo Simmonds is and more than capable of jumping ahead of Wilson, Earl, Underhill or T Curry were he to switch to flank. Whilst Jones is still in charge that would appear the only strategy for him to get to play for England again.

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:Underhill out Willis in.

Wasps getting low on the ground for players...

Sorry for Underhill but Willis at 6 with Curry at 7 starts to look a lot better balanced than Curry 6 / Underhill 7 combo

Why? What role does the 6 fill that the 7 doesn't or vice versa, for England? How does Willis (our best breakdown specialist) fit that role more appropriately than Curry?

Better carrier, more powerful, taller lineout target and can bring his fetching expertise from 6 - Curry’s not as good a 6 as he is a 7 and I’m not sure you’re ever going to convince me otherwise

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:
Sorry for Underhill but Willis at 6 with Curry at 7 starts to look a lot better balanced than Curry 6 / Underhill 7 combo

Why? What role does the 6 fill that the 7 doesn't or vice versa, for England? How does Willis (our best breakdown specialist) fit that role more appropriately than Curry?

Better carrier, more powerful, taller lineout target and can bring his fetching expertise from 6 - Curry’s not as good a 6 as he is a 7 and I’m not sure you’re ever going to convince me otherwise

I don't believe Willis is any better than Curry in the lineout. Better carrier perhaps, but considering neither the 6 or the 7 are at the base of the scrum what difference does the number on their back make in open play? The 7 is the one who needs to be at the breakdown from the set piece fastest, and preferably be able to win a turnover if the tackle has been made already (ideally though, he's making it), the 8 could arguably be better placed for the turnover if the 7 has made the tackle. The 6 is rarely going to be making many turnovers from the set piece, and once we're in open play, how does the role of the 6 and 7 vary?

I'd have whoever's fastest breaking off the lineout/scrum with 7 on their back. And then in open play, they can play to their strengths regardless of the number on their back.

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Why? What role does the 6 fill that the 7 doesn't or vice versa, for England? How does Willis (our best breakdown specialist) fit that role more appropriately than Curry?

Better carrier, more powerful, taller lineout target and can bring his fetching expertise from 6 - Curry’s not as good a 6 as he is a 7 and I’m not sure you’re ever going to convince me otherwise

I don't believe Willis is any better than Curry in the lineout. Better carrier perhaps, but considering neither the 6 or the 7 are at the base of the scrum what difference does the number on their back make in open play? The 7 is the one who needs to be at the breakdown from the set piece fastest, and preferably be able to win a turnover if the tackle has been made already (ideally though, he's making it), the 8 could arguably be better placed for the turnover if the 7 has made the tackle. The 6 is rarely going to be making many turnovers from the set piece, and once we're in open play, how does the role of the 6 and 7 vary?

I'd have whoever's fastest breaking off the lineout/scrum with 7 on their back. And then in open play, they can play to their strengths regardless of the number on their back.

Given all that I’d say Curry is the quicker of the pair and better off linking with the backs. It may be an old fashioned view but since Burt both 6 and 7 have been used in a stodgy defensive style and some attacking flair out wide in the backrow has been conspicuous by its absence (again this goes right back to Burt’s tenure in using a slowish flanker at 7) Plus there’s the hard yards carrying (as opposed to carrying out wide) that a 6 should be able to support the 8 with, to an extent, and for me Willis is better equipped of the two for that.

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:Underhill out Willis in.

Wasps getting low on the ground for players...

Sorry for Underhill but Willis at 6 with Curry at 7 starts to look a lot better balanced than Curry 6 / Underhill 7 combo

Why? What role does the 6 fill that the 7 doesn't or vice versa, for England? How does Willis (our best breakdown specialist) fit that role more appropriately than Curry?

Why do you bite?!

Puja

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:
Better carrier, more powerful, taller lineout target and can bring his fetching expertise from 6 - Curry’s not as good a 6 as he is a 7 and I’m not sure you’re ever going to convince me otherwise

I don't believe Willis is any better than Curry in the lineout. Better carrier perhaps, but considering neither the 6 or the 7 are at the base of the scrum what difference does the number on their back make in open play? The 7 is the one who needs to be at the breakdown from the set piece fastest, and preferably be able to win a turnover if the tackle has been made already (ideally though, he's making it), the 8 could arguably be better placed for the turnover if the 7 has made the tackle. The 6 is rarely going to be making many turnovers from the set piece, and once we're in open play, how does the role of the 6 and 7 vary?

I'd have whoever's fastest breaking off the lineout/scrum with 7 on their back. And then in open play, they can play to their strengths regardless of the number on their back.

Given all that I’d say Curry is the quicker of the pair and better off linking with the backs. It may be an old fashioned view but since Burt both 6 and 7 have been used in a stodgy defensive style and some attacking flair out wide in the backrow has been conspicuous by its absence (again this goes right back to Burt’s tenure in using a slowish flanker at 7) Plus there’s the hard yards carrying (as opposed to carrying out wide) that a 6 should be able to support the 8 with, to an extent, and for me Willis is better equipped of the two for that.

Curry is probably quicker than Willis, so I'd agree that he should be at 7, but he's not quicker than Underhill.

When have you seen England flankers hanging out on the wings like Tom Croft used to? It's a waste of a good player in my mind, get them far more involved, not waiting for the ball to come to them. Haskell wasn't slow by the way, very odd running style, but not slow, and the pretty much the best person at clearing rucks I've recorded, some of his clearouts in the Aussie tour were brilliant, his job there was to neutralise Pocock, and he did it.

Get a 13 who's decent at clearing out (O'Driscoll, Manu, Odogwu?) if you want someone to rapidly clear out rucks at the edges, or just have decent wingers if you want someone to do a good job of running down the wing.

EDIT - Puja, I got somewhere this time! Jngf likes his 7 to seagull apparently , why on earth you'd want the best flanker in the world seagulling, rather than getting involved as often as possible, I'm not quite sure, but we're getting there.

I don’t get to watch much Premiership rugby but what I’ve seen of Ted Hill is impressive. Is he so far down the pecking order not to be considered or are the other back row players potential supermen?

Tom Curry was the fastest England forward at the World Cup, so faster than Underhill. He was the only England forward that did his sprint training with the backs.

Also, can’t remember where I saw/read it, but apparently over longer sprint distances Ben Earl was second only to Johnny May during the Autumn England camp.

I knew Earl was fast but that's bloody impressive.

Raggs wrote: When have you seen England flankers hanging out on the wings like Tom Croft used to? It's a waste of a good player in my mind, get them far more involved, not waiting for the ball to come to them.

The idea being you move the ball to them. If you've got a clever and mobile flanker like Croft you are giving your playmaker effectively three centres to work with. Makes it much easier to go wide earlier, if you have your backrow playing narrow you see what we do with England with a lot of play coming off 9. Croft also made a pretty awesome crossfield target as well.

Croft was famous for doing it but you see a lot of good opensides drifting out wide. Thomas Young does it really well for Wasps, defending narrow and then moving out to link with the backs using his pace. Saracens under Venter used to do it as well with Joubert and Burger going wide with Brown staying central. That was as much to do with their kick chase game under Venter as it was to do with attack though.

FKAS wrote:

Raggs wrote: When have you seen England flankers hanging out on the wings like Tom Croft used to? It's a waste of a good player in my mind, get them far more involved, not waiting for the ball to come to them.

The idea being you move the ball to them. If you've got a clever and mobile flanker like Croft you are giving your playmaker effectively three centres to work with. Makes it much easier to go wide earlier, if you have your backrow playing narrow you see what we do with England with a lot of play coming off 9. Croft also made a pretty awesome crossfield target as well.

Croft was famous for doing it but you see a lot of good opensides drifting out wide. Thomas Young does it really well for Wasps, defending narrow and then moving out to link with the backs using his pace. Saracens under Venter used to do it as well with Joubert and Burger going wide with Brown staying central. That was as much to do with their kick chase game under Venter as it was to do with attack though.

Yes, I’m not advocating the 7 seagulls on the wing so much as saying he tracks the shoulder of the 12 or 13 and effectively offers himself as an extra threequarter If need be - plenty of examples of this in previous era Winterbottom linking with Carling for example or Back pre 2000 when he was Uber quick.

Can we agree another one of those embargoes, last enforced in the WC? Specifically, Mr Bump is not allowed to suggest, or impliedly suggest, dropping Tom Curry unless Tom Curry actually, somehow, suddenly, isn't in the top 3 players in an England shirt. Note that the rest of the back row is fair game, so I feel I am being quite accommodating.

Disclaimer: I am a Quins fan, not a Sale fan.

This will become moot when Lawes is named at 6 for the opening 6N match.

jngf wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Raggs wrote: When have you seen England flankers hanging out on the wings like Tom Croft used to? It's a waste of a good player in my mind, get them far more involved, not waiting for the ball to come to them.

The idea being you move the ball to them. If you've got a clever and mobile flanker like Croft you are giving your playmaker effectively three centres to work with. Makes it much easier to go wide earlier, if you have your backrow playing narrow you see what we do with England with a lot of play coming off 9. Croft also made a pretty awesome crossfield target as well.

Croft was famous for doing it but you see a lot of good opensides drifting out wide. Thomas Young does it really well for Wasps, defending narrow and then moving out to link with the backs using his pace. Saracens under Venter used to do it as well with Joubert and Burger going wide with Brown staying central. That was as much to do with their kick chase game under Venter as it was to do with attack though.

Yes, I’m not advocating the 7 seagulls on the wing so much as saying he tracks the shoulder of the 12 or 13 and effectively offers himself as an extra threequarter If need be - plenty of examples of this in previous era Winterbottom linking with Carling for example or Back pre 2000 when he was Uber quick.

Some positive examples there of a decades old system which would be positively murdered by a modern defence. One might as well call for all players to smoke the pipe and to enjoy a good half-time brandy

francoisfou wrote:I don’t get to watch much Premiership rugby but what I’ve seen of Ted Hill is impressive. Is he so far down the pecking order not to be considered or are the other back row players potential supermen?

They've picked a reduced squad. Hill is usually in the squad when it is 32. He's a bloody good player playing in a position where we are blessed with bloody good players.