Using Simmonds and Underhill as a flanker pairing?

[jngf]

Looking at a way to develop and improve England’s back row, I certainly think Robshaw deserves to keep the 6 shirt at least till RWC 2019 but I hope Eddie starts trying Simmonds and Underhill together on either flank at some stage, starting with the SA tour. Which of them plays openside/blindside or left/right is another thing up for debate but would I like us the fact they are the fact that Underhill’s defensive qualities and physicality would nicely complement Simmond’s attacking flair and pace in the wider channels (added to that fact that Underhill’s is reasonably quick himself).

Complemented by a power ball carrying No.8 ( and ideally a lineout jumper too) then our backrow starts looking more competitive.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah, as long as there aren't any rucks that backrow should do very well indeed.

[Raggs]

Yeah, as long as there aren't any rucks that backrow should do very well indeed.

Have you done ruck marks on a game that Underhill has been involved in?

[pandion]

You'd need Armand at 8 unless Hughes lineout work is better than I remember.

[Raggs]

You'd need Armand at 8 unless Hughes lineout work is better than I remember.

Hughes isn't amazing, but equally not awful. I think more likely we'd have Robshaw at 6, then one of Simmonds or Underhill at 7.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah, as long as there aren't any rucks that backrow should do very well indeed.

Have you done ruck marks on a game that Underhill has been involved in?

No. No I have not.

I actually quite like the sound of an Underhill/Simmonds pairing in some sense, but I'm not going to let that (or these mythical ruck marks) get in the way of being obtuse.

[Raggs]

Yeah, as long as there aren't any rucks that backrow should do very well indeed.

Have you done ruck marks on a game that Underhill has been involved in?

No. No I have not.

I actually quite like the sound of an Underhill/Simmonds pairing in some sense, but I'm not going to let that (or these mythical ruck marks) get in the way of being obtuse.

Fair enough!

[Digby]

It would create issues in the lineout and in contact. Whether the positives elsewhere would offset the issues created I don't know, I doubt anyone does. In some senses I don't mind the idea of having a look, but I wouldn't take quite that risk if picking the team were my job.

[padprop]

It sounds a bit silly because he's so young, but because of the way he plays I just fear that Underhill is going to be a chronically injured player, whether it be head knocks or other tackling related injuries. If he wants to be around long term, he's going to need to change his game slightly.

[pandion]

You'd need Armand at 8 unless Hughes lineout work is better than I remember.

Hughes isn't amazing, but equally not awful. I think more likely we'd have Robshaw at 6, then one of Simmonds or Underhill at 7.

God I hope not. We really need to move on from one dimensional backrow forwards

[Oakboy]

I see an opportunity to develop a balanced back-row for the first time in years with those available:


6. Robshaw, Armand
7. Simmonds, Underhill, Armand
8. Billy, Armand, Hughes

Eddie has to experiment, manage and perfect. Injuries should not inhibit too much.


Of course, he has to do the same for SH as a priority. A balanced backrow will achieve nothing without better SH quality and consistency than Youngs and Care can provide. I shudder to think of either of those two aimlessly kicking away well-won ruck ball.

[twitchy]

It sounds a bit silly because he's so young, but because of the way he plays I just fear that Underhill is going to be a chronically injured player, whether it be head knocks or other tackling related injuries. If he wants to be around long term, he's going to need to change his game slightly.

He is an incredibly brave guy but his body doesn't back up his play style. He has already been advised to change his tackling technique, but if you take away the big hits you aren't really left with any thing. Which is very sad but you should have this many bad injuries at this stage of your career.

[jngf]

You'd need Armand at 8 unless Hughes lineout work is better than I remember.

On the matter of lineout jumping - assuming Itoje vastly improved his carrying technique - do we think his game could stretch to playing No.8 at club and test level?( With the caveat that I am pretty convinced now he doesn’t have the mobility or running game in the wider channels to be a convincing test flanker - such mobility not such a prequisite for no.8 after all neither Billy or Hughes are exactly the most mobile of back row fowards at getting all over the park).

[Digby]

I am very confident Maro could stretch to playing at 8, I'm also very hesitant that England should want players for what they can do at a stretch.

If Maro is going to play 6 or even 8 he needs to spend 12-18 months getting his body size reduced a little and learning to play in the back row. At this stage given he's already a very good lock and he's already added some weight to play lock I frankly can't see the point

[jngf]

I am very confident Maro could stretch to playing at 8, I'm also very hesitant that England should want players for what they can do at a stretch.

If Maro is going to play 6 or even 8 he needs to spend 12-18 months getting his body size reduced a little and learning to play in the back row. At this stage given he's already a very good lock and he's already added some weight to play lock I frankly can't see the point

I can understand the benefit of him ‘de-bulking’ a little to play 6 but why would he need to necessarily loose any weight to play no.8 (he’s significantly lighter than both Hughes and Billy already)?

[twitchy]

I think if we have learned any thing from this six nations it's round pegs for round holes. At test level just chucking some one in who might be able to "do a job" in a position against world class players isn't going to win any world cups.

[Digby]

I am very confident Maro could stretch to playing at 8, I'm also very hesitant that England should want players for what they can do at a stretch.

If Maro is going to play 6 or even 8 he needs to spend 12-18 months getting his body size reduced a little and learning to play in the back row. At this stage given he's already a very good lock and he's already added some weight to play lock I frankly can't see the point

I can understand the benefit of him ‘de-bulking’ a little to play 6 but why would he need to necessarily loose any weight to play no.8 (he’s significantly lighter than both Hughes and Billy already)?

For me he'd need to lose some weight ad work on speed, agility, breakdown, handling and decision making. If you're going to be that little bit slower you need to carry like Vunipola or Picamoles, and that's just not going to work for Maro.

[Scrumhead]

I think if we have learned any thing from this six nations it's round pegs for round holes. At test level just chucking some one in who might be able to "do a job" in a position against world class players isn't going to win any world cups.

100% agree with the round peg, round hole principle. However, I do think Underhill and Simmonds could develop in to a very handy 6 and 7 respectively.

I know Underhill is branded as a 7 but nothing I have seen from him suggests he has many of the qualities I’d expect from an openside. For me he is a 6 and should focus on developing himself there.

I am convinced that Simmonds can cut it at test level, just less convinced he can do that at 8 unless the rest of our pack is built around him (which won’t happen). While he’s played most of his senior rugby at 8, I believe almost all of his age grade rugby was at 7. I’d like to see him at least tried there for England.

I’m not sure that Underhill and Simmonds are the best pairing but I don’t think they’re square pegs.

[switchskier]

I think if we have learned any thing from this six nations it's round pegs for round holes. At test level just chucking some one in who might be able to "do a job" in a position against world class players isn't going to win any world cups.

100% agree with the round peg, round hole principle. However, I do think Underhill and Simmonds could develop in to a very handy 6 and 7 respectively.

I know Underhill is branded as a 7 but nothing I have seen from him suggests he has many of the qualities I’d expect from an openside. For me he is a 6 and should focus on developing himself there.

I am convinced that Simmonds can cut it at test level, just less convinced he can do that at 8 unless the rest of our pack is built around him (which won’t happen). While he’s played most of his senior rugby at 8, I believe almost all of his age grade rugby was at 7. I’d like to see him at least tried there for England.

I’m not sure that Underhill and Simmonds are the best pairing but I don’t think they’re square pegs.

When Underhill came through at the Ospreys he was viewed as a destructive blindside, albeit one with huge athletic ability. I agree with you that's where he has the most potential if paired along someone who can really jackal over the ball.

[Raggs]

Have we seen much jackalling from Simmonds?

[Mellsblue]

Have we seen much jackalling from Simmonds?

Being devils advocate, is that what Eddie wants?

[Raggs]

Have we seen much jackalling from Simmonds?

Being devils advocate, is that what Eddie wants?

I think Eddie would take one, as long as he does everything else that he needs, but I think it's more the cherry on top rather than the main course...

I fear that Simmonds isn't physical enough, though his pace could easily offset that in a lot of circumstances.

I have to say, I do think Jack Willis has shown pretty much everything that Eddie would want from his 7, but whether or not Jones thinks there's enough time, is another matter.

[Mellsblue]

Have we seen much jackalling from Simmonds?

Being devils advocate, is that what Eddie wants?

I think Eddie would take one, as long as he does everything else that he needs, but I think it's more the cherry on top rather than the main course...

I fear that Simmonds isn't physical enough, though his pace could easily offset that in a lot of circumstances.

I have to say, I do think Jack Willis has shown pretty much everything that Eddie would want from his 7, but whether or not Jones thinks there's enough time, is another matter.

Yep, yep and yep.

In a few other countries Willis would be capped and at least in training camps by now.

[Beasties]

Have we seen much jackalling from Simmonds?

Being devils advocate, is that what Eddie wants?

I think Eddie would take one, as long as he does everything else that he needs, but I think it's more the cherry on top rather than the main course...

I fear that Simmonds isn't physical enough, though his pace could easily offset that in a lot of circumstances.

I have to say, I do think Jack Willis has shown pretty much everything that Eddie would want from his 7, but whether or not Jones thinks there's enough time, is another matter.

Totally agree about Jack Willis. I find myself wondering however if it would be in his long term interests to be elevated to the Eng squad at such an early stage. He's built for this level of rugby undoubtedly but I really don't want Eddie breaking him before he's barely got going. The lad's gonna be a superstar imo but only if he's managed well.

[Mellsblue]

Being devils advocate, is that what Eddie wants?

I think Eddie would take one, as long as he does everything else that he needs, but I think it's more the cherry on top rather than the main course...

I fear that Simmonds isn't physical enough, though his pace could easily offset that in a lot of circumstances.

I have to say, I do think Jack Willis has shown pretty much everything that Eddie would want from his 7, but whether or not Jones thinks there's enough time, is another matter.

Totally agree about Jack Willis. I find myself wondering however if it would be in his long term interests to be elevated to the Eng squad at such an early stage. He's built for this level of rugby undoubtedly but I really don't want Eddie breaking him before he's barely got going. The lad's gonna be a superstar imo but only if he's managed well.

There’s a strong argument not to play him. However, when the backrow bar to clear to get into the EPS is Graham, it’s a suprise he’s not been into camp.