RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm not especially a fan of Robshaw or Haskell playing for England, but based on what I've seen so far I wouldn't even entertain the notion of starting Underhill over one of them, Underhill's work just wasn't that special, and there were decent chunks of the game he's resting in (which again doesn't seem unfair at 19, but you can't play for England just 'cause you're 19)

I'm quite sure there's more to Underhill than I've seen, at least I hope there is.

I've really not seen him resting - if anything he seems a very active member of the team. He's strong at the breakdown in the tackle and in the carry. I don't really see a weakness to his game. He's not brilliant, yet. But he's as good a backrow as I've seen at that age.

In the games I've seen he's tended to stand out in the backs a lot, which is fine if the coaches are happy with that role and how and where it enables him to come into the game. But that does mean he's let off a fair amount of lineout and maul work which does rather take it out of the forwards.

I can't imagine he'd be out in the backs otherwise. I know the world of the forwards looks rough and ready to most but they do have plans and calls and stuff!

Oh and it's games plural now is it? Any moment soon you'll have a comprehensive view of him...

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: I've really not seen him resting - if anything he seems a very active member of the team. He's strong at the breakdown in the tackle and in the carry. I don't really see a weakness to his game. He's not brilliant, yet. But he's as good a backrow as I've seen at that age.

In the games I've seen he's tended to stand out in the backs a lot, which is fine if the coaches are happy with that role and how and where it enables him to come into the game. But that does mean he's let off a fair amount of lineout and maul work which does rather take it out of the forwards.

I can't imagine he'd be out in the backs otherwise. I know the world of the forwards looks rough and ready to most but they do have plans and calls and stuff!

Oh and it's games plural now is it? Any moment soon you'll have a comprehensive view of him...

Cleremont and Leinster, and I hope he does have more to his game than I've noted, and I'll happily concede I've not seen enough of him to form a view, but I'd expect to have seen something to even suggest at the hype. And I don't mind how teams resource various areas providing it works for them, and it might be he could do all the extra physical work that comes with mauling anyway, I've just not seen it and it rather precludes one from thinking he's a complete player when there are areas of the game he's not performing.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
In the games I've seen he's tended to stand out in the backs a lot, which is fine if the coaches are happy with that role and how and where it enables him to come into the game. But that does mean he's let off a fair amount of lineout and maul work which does rather take it out of the forwards.

I can't imagine he'd be out in the backs otherwise. I know the world of the forwards looks rough and ready to most but they do have plans and calls and stuff!

Oh and it's games plural now is it? Any moment soon you'll have a comprehensive view of him...

Cleremont and Leinster, and I hope he does have more to his game than I've noted, and I'll happily concede I've not seen enough of him to form a view, but I'd expect to have seen something to even suggest at the hype. And I don't mind how teams resource various areas providing it works for them, and it might be he could do all the extra physical work that comes with mauling anyway, I've just not seen it and it rather precludes one from thinking he's a complete player when there are areas of the game he's not performing.

That's somewhat different from "resting"

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: I can't imagine he'd be out in the backs otherwise. I know the world of the forwards looks rough and ready to most but they do have plans and calls and stuff!

Oh and it's games plural now is it? Any moment soon you'll have a comprehensive view of him...

Cleremont and Leinster, and I hope he does have more to his game than I've noted, and I'll happily concede I've not seen enough of him to form a view, but I'd expect to have seen something to even suggest at the hype. And I don't mind how teams resource various areas providing it works for them, and it might be he could do all the extra physical work that comes with mauling anyway, I've just not seen it and it rather precludes one from thinking he's a complete player when there are areas of the game he's not performing.

That's somewhat different from "resting"

I'd label it resting. Of course everyone has to find a way to get through the game, and reasonably the tight forwards will do more tight work, but stood 2 or 3 out in the backs is in fairness an easy way to physically contest the maul.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
Cleremont and Leinster, and I hope he does have more to his game than I've noted, and I'll happily concede I've not seen enough of him to form a view, but I'd expect to have seen something to even suggest at the hype. And I don't mind how teams resource various areas providing it works for them, and it might be he could do all the extra physical work that comes with mauling anyway, I've just not seen it and it rather precludes one from thinking he's a complete player when there are areas of the game he's not performing.

That's somewhat different from "resting"

I'd label it resting. Of course everyone has to find a way to get through the game, and reasonably the tight forwards will do more tight work, but stood 2 or 3 out in the backs is in fairness an easy way to physically contest the maul.

You'd be wrong then. If a team wants to put one of its ball carriers or the best person at contesting the breakdown out in the backs it is not "resting".

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:That's somewhat different from "resting"

I'd label it resting. Of course everyone has to find a way to get through the game, and reasonably the tight forwards will do more tight work, but stood 2 or 3 out in the backs is in fairness an easy way to physically contest the maul.

You'd be wrong then. If a team wants to put one of its ball carriers or the best person at contesting the breakdown out in the backs it is not "resting".

Each to their own. To me if you've got a forward goofing off, for whatever reason (including being told to), then they're resting and any other view is just a bit soft.

I've seen Underhill defending mauls and contesting breakdowns many times.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:I've seen Underhill defending mauls and contesting breakdowns many times.

Yes but sometimes he wasn't. Clearly just plain lazy. despite the fact you don't want to commit men to every breakdown and if you are calling a short line out there's the small matter of off side. Part timer.

Anyone care to nominate another game of Underhill's worth watching, other than Leinster or Cleremont?

Digby wrote:Anyone care to nominate another game of Underhill's worth watching, other than Leinster or Cleremont?

Any of them. First Leinster game, Munster away, Glasgow, Edinburgh. All good games.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Digby wrote:Anyone care to nominate another game of Underhill's worth watching, other than Leinster or Cleremont?

Any of them. First Leinster game, Munster away, Glasgow, Edinburgh. All good games.

Picked Munster, so far 5 minutes in. He's acted as 9 a couple of time, some normal plays, and now Ospreys win their lineout and Underhill and Ospreys 3 are beaten to the first point of contact after the lineout to concede a penalty. Not as auspicious opening for an openside, surely better to follow.

All the way up to the 12th minute now, and Underhill has put in a good tackle, and even better got back to his feet entered the breakdown as a tackler and forced a pen for holding on.

Sadly for Ospreys from the resulting lineout they loused up the 2nd phase, were forced to kick and had the kick charged down for a try, none of that being down to Underhill. I think there have been 3 lineouts so far, 2 Ospreys and 1 for Munster, and neither team has managed to make it to third phase with some very messy work from the team notionally in possession

Underhill is very much looking to get 2-3 players wide of a breakdown, which I'm not decrying of itself. It was just against the claim he's got an all round game when I've tended to see him go that little bit wide rather than get more stuck in , one would have to think he's doing as told else he'd be dropped, just it's hard to then see the all court game.

Digby wrote:All the way up to the 12th minute now, and Underhill has put in a good tackle, and even better got back to his feet entered the breakdown as a tackler and forced a pen for holding on.

Sadly for Ospreys from the resulting lineout they loused up the 2nd phase, were forced to kick and had the kick charged down for a try, none of that being down to Underhill. I think there have been 3 lineouts so far, 2 Ospreys and 1 for Munster, and neither team has managed to make it to third phase with some very messy work from the team notionally in possession

Underhill is very much looking to get 2-3 players wide of a breakdown, which I'm not decrying of itself. It was just against the claim he's got an all round game when I've tended to see him go that little bit wide rather than get more stuck in , one would have to think he's doing as told else he'd be dropped, just it's hard to then see the all court game.

12 minutes into the game, he's already won a breakdown turnover and you're worried that he hasn't demonstrated everything ther is to show in 7 play. If you're determined to dislike him why bother watching?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: 12 minutes into the game, he's already won a breakdown turnover and you're worried that he hasn't demonstrated everything ther is to show in 7 play. If you're determined to dislike him why bother watching?

Determined to dislike? I'm sticking with what I've actually said being it would seem fine to take him on a Saxons tour given it's there for development, that I hope he is as good as people say but I've not seen it yet (quite possibly through not seeing enough of him) in terms of the hype that seems to surround him, nor seeing any reason he should be in a full England squad, and that in the short glimpses I have seen of him he's not tending to show an all round game (and I only commented that last on that as someone said he had an allround game, or said something I inferred as comparable to such)

I have now seen him take part in a lineout too, so there's that, the ball was thrown to him and okay he didn't win the ball, but he partook and that's not nothing.

I can't honestly think of any young player I've disliked. It'd be excellent if he were to go on and have an outstanding test career, hopefully for England. Just sometimes one is struck a player is going to make it, as with Anthony Watson or Maro Itoje, whereas with Underhill, for now, it's a case of maybe but mainly I can't see what the fuss is about for now, but I'll keep looking.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: 12 minutes into the game, he's already won a breakdown turnover and you're worried that he hasn't demonstrated everything ther is to show in 7 play. If you're determined to dislike him why bother watching?

Determined to dislike? I'm sticking with what I've actually said being it would seem fine to take him on a Saxons tour given it's there for development, that I hope he is as good as people say but I've not seen it yet (quite possibly through not seeing enough of him) in terms of the hype that seems to surround him, nor seeing any reason he should be in a full England squad, and that in the short glimpses I have seen of him he's not tending to show an all round game (and I only commented that last on that as someone said he had an allround game, or said something I inferred as comparable to such)

I have now seen him take part in a lineout too, so there's that, the ball was thrown to him and okay he didn't win the ball, but he partook and that's not nothing.

I can't honestly think of any young player I've disliked. It'd be excellent if he were to go on and have an outstanding test career, hopefully for England. Just sometimes one is struck a player is going to make it, as with Anthony Watson or Maro Itoje, whereas with Underhill, for now, it's a case of maybe but mainly I can't see what the fuss is about for now, but I'll keep looking.

They are a couple of players who always struck me as having the X factor from the first time I saw them play. You can't always put your finger exactly on why some young players make this impression, especially if they don't always have a great game or always play to the very limit of their ability. Having watched Underhill in several games this season, I do have the same feeling about him. I think he has shown more than glimpses of a special talent that Jones should secure at some level in the England setup as soon as possible. He is not that big, but at over 16 st is already bigger than Tipuric ,Dusautoir or Hooper. I would rate him as already very good with the capacity to develop into a great 7, with plenty of time on his side.

Spiffy wrote: They are a couple of players who always struck me as having the X factor from the first time I saw them play. You can't always put your finger exactly on why some young players make this impression, especially if they don't always have a great game or always play to the very limit of their ability. Having watched Underhill in several games this season, I do have the same feeling about him. I think he has shown more than glimpses of a special talent that Jones should secure at some level in the England setup as soon as possible. He is not that big, but at over 16 st is already bigger than Tipuric ,Dusautoir or Hooper. I would rate him as already very good with the capacity to develop into a great 7, with plenty of time on his side.

He's a decent size for a young 7, gets off the line quickly, and gets into the line quickly, he's solid (perhaps better) in the tackle, and he can both snaffle and secure ball. It would seem he's being told to get into the line, and get 2-3 wide which naturally takes him away from the breakdown, and Os don't seem that keen to put numbers into the breakdown either. All of which is fine, and as I've noted before perhaps more than fine given he's just 19, I'm just not seeing that he naturally moves into test rugby. I think EJ would like him if he's looking at a similar role, or developing a role similar to that Haskell had in the 6N, an organised player who follows instructions, one who gets off the line quickly, is strong in the tackle, is big enough they're hard to shift once over the ball, and that given his age there's plenty of time to work on the hands and link/support play.

I'm not saying he's a bad player, only that he looks simply okay, and that right now that seems a ways off the incumbent, and also well behind the level a Fraser or (my preference) Kvesic are playing at. I could be flat out wrong, it'd hardly be a first, and of course England are sadly fond of okay players anyway.

He's going nowhere this summer -

"Ospreys open-side Sam Underhill will not tour Australia with England this summer, says head coach Eddie Jones.

Underhill, 19, has impressed for Ospreys since his debut in September, making 16 appearances this season.

Despite pledging his allegiance to England, Underhill wants to stay with Ospreys and Rugby Football Union rules state Jones cannot select players based outside England.

"Hopefully by November he's going to be eligible for selection," said Jones.

"I had a good chat with him last week and we decided the best thing for him is to have a good pre-season.

"He's a young guy, he's had a fair few injuries this season."

Underhill's unavailability also means he will miss England Saxons' tour of South Africa in June."

fivepointer wrote:He's going nowhere this summer -

"Ospreys open-side Sam Underhill will not tour Australia with England this summer, says head coach Eddie Jones.

Underhill, 19, has impressed for Ospreys since his debut in September, making 16 appearances this season.

Despite pledging his allegiance to England, Underhill wants to stay with Ospreys and Rugby Football Union rules state Jones cannot select players based outside England.

"Hopefully by November he's going to be eligible for selection," said Jones.

"I had a good chat with him last week and we decided the best thing for him is to have a good pre-season.

"He's a young guy, he's had a fair few injuries this season."

Underhill's unavailability also means he will miss England Saxons' tour of South Africa in June."

If England cannot select those playing outside England, but if he is going to be eligible by November, this obviously means he is planning to join an English club for next season. Yet he wants to stay with Ospreys. Which is it?

It could also mean they're planning on changing the rules.

I believe the RFU are happy for this to be an exceptional circumstance but PRL are digging their heels. Perhaps the RFU think PRL can be persuaded by the Autumn with the logic that the reason he moved to Cardiff is because one of their members weren't flexible enough to understand a young player would want to carry on with his education, or perhaps the lorry loads of £100 notes making their way to the PRL clubs next season may soften their stance.

Mellsblue wrote:I believe the RFU are happy for this to be an exceptional circumstance but PRL are digging their heels. Perhaps the RFU think PRL can be persuaded by the Autumn with the logic that the reason he moved to Cardiff is because one of their members weren't flexible enough to understand a young player would want to carry on with his education, or perhaps the lorry loads of £100 notes making their way to the PRL clubs next season may soften their stance.

That's pretty much what Ian Ritchie said earlier in the week.

Mellsblue wrote:I believe the RFU are happy for this to be an exceptional circumstance but PRL are digging their heels. Perhaps the RFU think PRL can be persuaded by the Autumn with the logic that the reason he moved to Cardiff is because one of their members weren't flexible enough to understand a young player would want to carry on with his education, or perhaps the lorry loads of £100 notes making their way to the PRL clubs next season may soften their stance.

Why would this be an exceptional circumstance compared with, say Armitage or Abendanon?

If the RFU are paying off PRL in £100 notes then even PRL should notice there's something askew.

Digby wrote:If the RFU are paying off PRL in £100 notes then even PRL should notice there's something askew.

As if they care where the money comes from as long as it's in a large enough quantity.

Spiffy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I believe the RFU are happy for this to be an exceptional circumstance but PRL are digging their heels. Perhaps the RFU think PRL can be persuaded by the Autumn with the logic that the reason he moved to Cardiff is because one of their members weren't flexible enough to understand a young player would want to carry on with his education, or perhaps the lorry loads of £100 notes making their way to the PRL clubs next season may soften their stance.

Why would this be an exceptional circumstance compared with, say Armitage or Abendanon?

because they made a deliberate career choice that they knew would exclude them from England selection, at a time when they were actually contenders?

Underhill made a life choice at a young age, which is different, to me, at least. (or because they want to make sure Wales don't get him )