RugbyRebels

I've been really impressed with Robshaw's play at blindside and think by doing all the unglamorous work and at an industrious level due to his big engine he is an essential ingredient enabling the more attack focussed ball carrying duties to be looked after by the No.8 and to some extent the openside (given our current openside options of Haskell, Kvesic and Clifford can all carry well).

With this in mind is it really necessary for us to have more of a carrier at blindside? (After all our current second rows are good carriers too). I also don't recall Richard Hill being a particularly prolific ball carrier (unlike Mike Teague or Dayglo when he played 6 in mid-late 90s) yet is widely regarded as our best ever 6.

jngf wrote:I've been really impressed with Robshaw's play at blindside and think by doing all the unglamorous work and at an industrious level due to his big engine he is an essential ingredient enabling the more attack focussed ball carrying duties to be looked after by the No.8 and to some extent the openside (given our current openside options of Haskell, Kvesic and Clifford can all carry well).

With this in mind is it really necessary for us to have more of a carrier at blindside? (After all our current second rows are good carriers too). I also don't recall Richard Hill being a particularly prolific ball carrier (unlike Mike Teague or Dayglo when he played 6 in mid-late 90s) yet is widely regarded as our best ever 6.

Depends on the make up of the rest of the team for me. At the moment, with no power carrier in the backline i'd say yes.

Woodwards teams generally featured minimum 1 carrying wing (Cohen, and latterly Lewsey as well. [I always thought we looked more fluent with Healey, or JSD in the 2002 AI's giving us a winger who could go to 1st receiver, but that's a different conversation]), and usually a carrying centre too. I also think that the way the game has evolved puts more of a premium on big powerful carriers.

At the moment, with no back line carrier, i'd want big carriers at 6 and 8, which is why i'm keen to see Billy V and Hughes tried together in the autumn. To be honest, if it works, I think it's my preference even if we end up with a big carrying 12.

Hill ended up doing really well with a front row that had the likes of Greening, Thompson, Woodman and Vickery, our current front row has one carrier and that only if Vunipola plays. As with Tom I think it depends on the balance of the rest of the pack and team, and right now things would look a lot simpler if there were more carriers anywhere.

As always, it is about balance. There has to be at least one significant lineout option in the back-row. If Billy is at 8, that lineout option more or less has to come from the 6. I'd pick Itoje there with Harrison at 7.

What everyone else said.

Robshaw is in great form but I would love to see how ewers would get on at 6. Some teams really focus on billy and having some one like dave would keep them honest and allow billy extra room.

Oakboy wrote:As always, it is about balance. There has to be at least one significant lineout option in the back-row. If Billy is at 8, that lineout option more or less has to come from the 6. I'd pick Itoje there with Harrison at 7.

Imo Robshaw seems to be a competent enough lineout jumper if not quite in the Croft,Itoje or Wood league.

twitchy wrote:Robshaw is in great form but I would love to see how ewers would get on at 6. Some teams really focus on billy and having some one like dave would keep them honest and allow billy extra room.

How is Ewers on doing the tighter unseen work that Robshaw excels?

I'm a bit torn now. BillyV was the only carrying option during the 6N, so it would be good to get another one in there. But should it be a big carrier, or a nippier one?

EJ won't want to put in an entirely new flanker combination, so I expect we'll see one of Robshaw or Haskell keep their place, while the other slot will be taken by one of Clifford or Ewers, likely.

Personally, though, I would like to see Harrison. I've been a big fan since he first arrived, and he does offer a carrying threat - albeit less than Ewers - from 7. With Tuilagi at 12, then picking him with Robshaw could well work, and would be more balanced. Alternatively, pick him with Clifford. That could be a good option, though Clifford still isn't quite as effective as Robshaw in every facet except carrying.

So, I would want 3 of Robshaw, Clifford, Ewers and Harrison. Doesn't matter which way, except that Robshaw starts or nothing.

jngf wrote:

twitchy wrote:Robshaw is in great form but I would love to see how ewers would get on at 6. Some teams really focus on billy and having some one like dave would keep them honest and allow billy extra room.

How is Ewers on doing the tighter unseen work that Robshaw excels?

How can we know, if it's unseen? What, specifically do you mean?

Ewers contributes every where and he is now just coming back into the form he was in earlier in the season.

twitchy wrote:Ewers contributes every where and he is now just coming back into the form he was in earlier in the season.

I could see Ewers being an excellent physical specimen at 6 but only if the balance was achieved by having both a 7 and 8 with real pace and handling skills. I doubt that we have such candidates currently.

Itoje remains the best potential prospect at 6, IMO, though I can understand the preference for keeping him at lock. The snag is that Launchbury, once he is fully fit and on-form, is one or our few truly world-class players. If Kruis can maintain the standard he showed in the 6N, the three of them are arguably our best forwards and it makes no sense to leave one of them on the bench when there are other good second rows who can do that job.

Oakboy wrote:

twitchy wrote:Ewers contributes every where and he is now just coming back into the form he was in earlier in the season.

I could see Ewers being an excellent physical specimen at 6 but only if the balance was achieved by having both a 7 and 8 with real pace and handling skills. I doubt that we have such candidates currently.

Itoje remains the best potential prospect at 6, IMO, though I can understand the preference for keeping him at lock. The snag is that Launchbury, once he is fully fit and on-form, is one or our few truly world-class players. If Kruis can maintain the standard he showed in the 6N, the three of them are arguably our best forwards and it makes no sense to leave one of them on the bench when there are other good second rows who can do that job.

I've been in the 'Itoje at lock' camp the whole time really, but it's hard to argue there is another that offers the same combination of carrying, breakdown, line-out all together. It's odd to think moving a lock to the backrow should bolster your breakdown, but if it brings Launchbury back in too it's hard to argue against it.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

twitchy wrote:Ewers contributes every where and he is now just coming back into the form he was in earlier in the season.

I could see Ewers being an excellent physical specimen at 6 but only if the balance was achieved by having both a 7 and 8 with real pace and handling skills. I doubt that we have such candidates currently.

Itoje remains the best potential prospect at 6, IMO, though I can understand the preference for keeping him at lock. The snag is that Launchbury, once he is fully fit and on-form, is one or our few truly world-class players. If Kruis can maintain the standard he showed in the 6N, the three of them are arguably our best forwards and it makes no sense to leave one of them on the bench when there are other good second rows who can do that job.

I've been in the 'Itoje at lock' camp the whole time really, but it's hard to argue there is another that offers the same combination of carrying, breakdown, line-out all together. It's odd to think moving a lock to the backrow should bolster your breakdown, but if it brings Launchbury back in too it's hard to argue against it.

Wonder if we'll see Itoje play openside? Perhaps a bit too left field a selection.

Err.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Mikey Brown wrote:Err.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

..think his skills could also work well at 12.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Err.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

..think his skills could also work well at 12.

He gets by as a lock but are you sure he's bulky enough to play 12?

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Err.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

..think his skills could also work well at 12.

He gets by as a lock but are you sure he's bulky enough to play 12?

Tru enough, need to see how much he bench presses.

Yeah I think we should keep the sarries lock combo.

I just don't get the Itoje at 6 idea. It's like the Launchbury at 6 one that came before it - why shift your best player out of position to accomodate someone who's not as good?

It seems especially barking considering it's being suggested to get Launchbury onto the pitch. Why not put him at 6 if you're fixated on playing a lock in the back row and leave our best functioning unit as it is?

Puja

Puja wrote:I just don't get the Itoje at 6 idea. It's like the Launchbury at 6 one that came before it - why shift your best player out of position to accomodate someone who's not as good?

It seems especially barking considering it's being suggested to get Launchbury onto the pitch. Why not put him at 6 if you're fixated on playing a lock in the back row and leave our best functioning unit as it is?

Puja

I think its because Itoje has actually been seen successfully operating for Sarries at 6, albeit not much this season. And although I agree that I'd let him develop into what I think will be a truly world class lock, IF you are shoehorning Launchbury in (and I think he needs to wrest the shirt off one of the two now, no matter how good he has been), it would make more sense putting Itoje at 6 to me. Not that I'm advocating it. As always its not an isolated decision, but about style and balance in that style.

6. Launchbury
7. Itoje
8. Slater

???

Mikey Brown wrote:6. Launchbury
7. Itoje
8. Slater

???

I think I hear Beef applauding, cheered on by Dors.

Jngf should get the plaudits really.

Though I'm not sure if he realises that Itoje is substantially taller than 5'10"?

Puja wrote:I just don't get the Itoje at 6 idea. It's like the Launchbury at 6 one that came before it - why shift your best player out of position to accomodate someone who's not as good?

Why not shift your best player if it makes the team better? The question is more whether Launch, Kruis and Itoje would trump Itoje, Kruis and Robshaw. Similar perhaps most people would want Folau in the Aussie back three (or now even at 13) but they'd have different ideas on what'd suit him best, I like him on the wing though that does drop his involvements more than I'd ideally like. Or for an English reference maybe as we saw with Hill and Back, don't pick one, pick both and change the team.