RugbyRebels

With Billy out and no specialist Number 8 named in the 6 Nations squad, I thought it was worth getting jngf in to a frenzy with a thread dedicated to talking about Number 8s!

My impression is that the role of the 8 is evolving away from bigger bulkier players and is becoming slightly less specialised.

Looking at Ben Earl and the 8s we’re likely to face in the 6 Nations we have:

England: Ben Earl - 1.86m / 110kg

France: Gregory Aldritt - 1.91m / 115kg

Ireland: Jack Conan - 1.93m / 110kg

Italy: Braam Steyn - 1.94m / 110kg

Scotland: Magnus Bradbury - 1.93m / 115kg

Wales: Taulupe Faletau - 1.87m / 110kg

We can take all of those heights and weights with a bit of a pinch of salt, but they’re all pretty similar. Yes, Earl is marginally the shortest and among the lightest, but not by much and Billy would have been an obvious outlier at 125/130kg. Earl is closer to the norm of the 3rd flanker most other countries are fielding - Faletau and Conan are specialist 8s, but Steyn, Bradbury and Aldritt are not drastically different to Earl. Likewise Moriarty when Faletau wasn’t fit.

Having Billy in the side dictates the way we play at least to some extent and I’d argue that playing with a lighter 8/3rd flanker as we did with Wilson in the 2018 AIs wasn’t as significant a drop off as expected.

Prior to the RWC semi final, we thought the lack of a third taller jumper would be a hindrance, but it didn’t work out that way and Earl is definitely a better lineout forward than Billy.

From a longer term POV, we should also recognise that the 8s we have and those coming through typically aren’t bulldozers. Dombrandt is big enough for that, but it’s not playing to his strengths which are picking good lines to hit space and making offloads. Likewise, Mercer is more of a rangy, Read style 8 and Simmonds is similar to Earl. Tom Willis is another who’s big but not massive. Rus Tuima is the only other big brute but IMO, we’d be far better at developing a more subtle, more modern style that takes us away from the Billy or bust model.

At his best, Billy is a huge (literal and metaphorical) asset, but he’s been a way off his best for a little while now, so I’d say we should focus on the opportunity to develop a credible alternative style rather than lament what we don’t have.

Just throwing this in there because I happened to see it earlier.



Not disagreeing with any of that at all though. That stat could be slightly misleading as England obviously tee Vunipola up to carry so much that he would presumably have a good chance of topping the metres charts.

It's interesting to see them compared. Vermeulen is the only other that springs to mind who fits that mould. But he's a freak in the same vein as Billy in that he's built like a grizzly bear but able to keep up with the modern game.

Billy has been at best okay, else good for quite some time now. Sadly for him his okay is now received as being in bad form

To take it global. Savea is smaller than all of those I’ve listed (1.88m / 95kg) and he does just fine at 8 because he’s explosive and has a great leg drive (as does Simmonds, but hey ho).

Naisarani looks bigger than this but at 1.95m and 110kg he’s apparently the same size as Jack Conan or Gregory Aldritt.

With noting that Kazuki Himeno who was immense for Japan in the RWC is listed as 1.87m and 106kg so roughly the same size as Earl.

Once I’m over the surprise that jngf didn’t start this thread I’ll come back with my considered opinion.

Mellsblue wrote:Once I’m over the surprise that jngf didn’t start this thread I’ll come back with my considered opinion.

Of those in the EPS I think Itoje should play no8.

If you take away size as an essential requrement and start to look at other attributes - speed, handling, experience in the position or whatever - does Simmonds not always lead the field?

Mellsblue wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Once I’m over the surprise that jngf didn’t start this thread I’ll come back with my considered opinion.

Of those in the EPS I think Itoje should play no8.

The bookie's odds must have reduced a bit!

Surely you just play the best players you have available to you in certain positions at the time? We don't play billy at 8 because it's "fashionable".

6. Hill
7. Underhill
8. Curry
?

Oakboy wrote:If you take away size as an essential requrement and start to look at other attributes - speed, handling, experience in the position or whatever - does Simmonds not always lead the field?

Hence why I compared Simmonds with Savea. They’re a similar size with comparable explosive acceleration and a strong leg drive that makes them very hard to put down. They’re also similar that they wear 8, but don’t really play a traditional 8 role. I’ve covered this plenty of times in the past but since Waldrom left, Exeter have set up with a different system where the openside plays at 8 and the 8 plays at 6. England won’t accommodate Simmonds in the same way.

Arguably, it’s not far off with Earl, but for whatever reason it looks as though Simmonds last performance in Cardiff (which wasn’t even that bad) looks like it’s blotted his copy book under Eddie.

twitchy wrote:Surely you just play the best players you have available to you in certain positions at the time? We don't play billy at 8 because it's "fashionable".

Of course. When Billy’s fit, he’s rightly first choice.

My point is that he’s a ‘one of a kind’ which means we need a proper alternative strategy that suits the other 8s at our disposal rather than asking them to adopt a role that doesn’t suit their skill set. I’m not a Hughes fan, but I can sympathise with him to some degree as he was essentially asked to do the same job as Billy which he wasn’t cut out for. That doesn’t excuse his lack of work rate and repeated incidences of running in to contact upright with the ball in one hand.

I wonder if Billy might retire or head off to less attritional leagues.
He’s spoken repeatedly about life after the game, playing too much etc and he’s an emotional bloke. I wonder if another broken arm and the relegation might be the final straws.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:If you take away size as an essential requrement and start to look at other attributes - speed, handling, experience in the position or whatever - does Simmonds not always lead the field?

Hence why I compared Simmonds with Savea. They’re a similar size with comparable explosive acceleration and a strong leg drive that makes them very hard to put down. They’re also similar that they wear 8, but don’t really play a traditional 8 role. I’ve covered this plenty of times in the past but since Waldrom left, Exeter have set up with a different system where the openside plays at 8 and the 8 plays at 6. England won’t accommodate Simmonds in the same way.

Arguably, it’s not far off with Earl, but for whatever reason it looks as though Simmonds last performance in Cardiff (which wasn’t even that bad) looks like it’s blotted his copy book under Eddie.

Yet, in the DT today, Jones is quoted as planning to do 'something different' to cover for Billy's absence with speculation that Lawes or Itoje will provide the ballast at 6 with Curry and Underhill moving across. Is that not similar to Exeter's method? If so, Jones's stubborn resistance to picking Simmonds is starting to sound beyond illogical - more 'irrational', really.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if once EJ has heard a certain amount of media/pundit/fan bleating about player X needing to be in or out, he absolutely will not budge on that position unless he has no option.

I have almost nothing to back up this assertion save a comment a couple of years back implying he was really irritated at people suggesting he should look at a certain player. The situations with Hartley, Youngs, Daly, Lawtoje etc. seem to fit a pattern of (rumoured) absurd stubbornness though.

So Tuilagi to play 8 then.

Tigersman wrote:So Tuilagi to play 8 then.

Have all the rumours about him going to France faded away?

Oakboy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:If you take away size as an essential requrement and start to look at other attributes - speed, handling, experience in the position or whatever - does Simmonds not always lead the field?

Hence why I compared Simmonds with Savea. They’re a similar size with comparable explosive acceleration and a strong leg drive that makes them very hard to put down. They’re also similar that they wear 8, but don’t really play a traditional 8 role. I’ve covered this plenty of times in the past but since Waldrom left, Exeter have set up with a different system where the openside plays at 8 and the 8 plays at 6. England won’t accommodate Simmonds in the same way.

Arguably, it’s not far off with Earl, but for whatever reason it looks as though Simmonds last performance in Cardiff (which wasn’t even that bad) looks like it’s blotted his copy book under Eddie.

Yet, in the DT today, Jones is quoted as planning to do 'something different' to cover for Billy's absence with speculation that Lawes or Itoje will provide the ballast at 6 with Curry and Underhill moving across. Is that not similar to Exeter's method? If so, Jones's stubborn resistance to picking Simmonds is starting to sound beyond illogical - more 'irrational', really.

I don’t disagree with this.

If it’s not Earl at 8 and we’re going to look for more ‘ballast’ at 6, why not just pick Hill? He’s not quite as big as Itoje or Lawes but is almost lock-sized and is an actual blindside who is a better carrier than either of them.

Oakboy wrote:

Tigersman wrote:So Tuilagi to play 8 then.

Have all the rumours about him going to France faded away?

Since he signed a new contract last year yes

Scrumhead wrote:If it’s not Earl at 8 and we’re going to look for more ‘ballast’ at 6, why not just pick Hill? He’s not quite as big as Itoje or Lawes but is almost lock-sized and is an actual blindside who is a better carrier than either of them.

I have to say - that's my preferred option - it also counts as "something different" which neither Lawes nor Itoje at 6 can claim to be.

6. Hill
7. Underhill
8. Curry

20. Ludlum

I'd like to see Earl given a shot to be honest, I think he's quality.

I’d like to see an actual 8...

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Hence why I compared Simmonds with Savea. They’re a similar size with comparable explosive acceleration and a strong leg drive that makes them very hard to put down. They’re also similar that they wear 8, but don’t really play a traditional 8 role. I’ve covered this plenty of times in the past but since Waldrom left, Exeter have set up with a different system where the openside plays at 8 and the 8 plays at 6. England won’t accommodate Simmonds in the same way.

Arguably, it’s not far off with Earl, but for whatever reason it looks as though Simmonds last performance in Cardiff (which wasn’t even that bad) looks like it’s blotted his copy book under Eddie.

Yet, in the DT today, Jones is quoted as planning to do 'something different' to cover for Billy's absence with speculation that Lawes or Itoje will provide the ballast at 6 with Curry and Underhill moving across. Is that not similar to Exeter's method? If so, Jones's stubborn resistance to picking Simmonds is starting to sound beyond illogical - more 'irrational', really.

I don’t disagree with this.

If it’s not Earl at 8 and we’re going to look for more ‘ballast’ at 6, why not just pick Hill? He’s not quite as big as Itoje or Lawes but is almost lock-sized and is an actual blindside who is a better carrier than either of them.

Or indeed Jack Willis? I just can't get my head round this 4/5 at 6 routine, it's never once looked of any use in the countless times Eddie's tried it.

Peej wrote:I'd like to see Earl given a shot to be honest, I think he's quality.

Me too. I’m pretty sure he played 8 for most of his age grade rugby including when he captained the U20s. Even if he’s not wearing 8, he’s at least rotating with Wray at the base of the scrum.