Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?

[Oakboy]

Looking at Sam Underhill my impression is he has 6.5 running through him like a stick of rock.
Is this a fair assessment and if so should he be viewed as an alternative 6 option to Robshaw rather than as a specialist 7?

Thinking about Saturday’s game, I remembered this thread and thought it deserved being resurrected.

It’s rare that I agree with jngf, but the opening post on this thread really sums up my thoughts.

Post World Cup, we will need a replacement for Robshaw and on recent evidence, Underhill looks as though he could do a fine job in replacing him at 6. Whether he has the additional elements to his game I expect from our starting 7 now is definitely up for debate though.

It’s a real shame Tom Curry got injured and very frustrating that Ben Curry wasn’t in the squad (for no obvious reason) as I’d like to have seen a comparison. I expect to see Underhill at 7 again for the Australia game but I’d love to see Simmonds get the job against Samoa.

The oft-quoted top value of a traditional openside is turnovers. The DT reports that Underhill had success in that area on Saturday but I don't recall any. Can anybody give the facts on it?

[Puja]

Looking at Sam Underhill my impression is he has 6.5 running through him like a stick of rock.
Is this a fair assessment and if so should he be viewed as an alternative 6 option to Robshaw rather than as a specialist 7?

Thinking about Saturday’s game, I remembered this thread and thought it deserved being resurrected.

It’s rare that I agree with jngf, but the opening post on this thread really sums up my thoughts.

Post World Cup, we will need a replacement for Robshaw and on recent evidence, Underhill looks as though he could do a fine job in replacing him at 6. Whether he has the additional elements to his game I expect from our starting 7 now is definitely up for debate though.

It’s a real shame Tom Curry got injured and very frustrating that Ben Curry wasn’t in the squad (for no obvious reason) as I’d like to have seen a comparison. I expect to see Underhill at 7 again for the Australia game but I’d love to see Simmonds get the job against Samoa.

If Eddie does call up a sub for TCurry, then I suspect it might be BCurry - he's certainly been tearing it up well enough for Sale to show he's learned... whatever it was that Eddie must've claimed he was lacking.

I think Underhill at 7 only really works if we have Robshaw (or Wilson) at 6, someone who can fill in some of the 7ish qualities that he's lacking. It puts the kibosh on any Lawes at 6 ideas for the moment, certainly.

Puja

[Puja]

The oft-quoted top value of a traditional openside is turnovers. The DT reports that Underhill had success in that area on Saturday but I don't recall any. Can anybody give the facts on it?

He knocked a ball loose in a tackle - that counts as a turnover for Opta.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

You wonder if his pen that so annoyed Jones is a consequence of knowing he rarely gets himself in position to affect a turnover. If he does keep his place it’s another reason, not that you really need one, to get Itoje back in to the team.

[Scrumhead]

Looking at Sam Underhill my impression is he has 6.5 running through him like a stick of rock.
Is this a fair assessment and if so should he be viewed as an alternative 6 option to Robshaw rather than as a specialist 7?

Thinking about Saturday’s game, I remembered this thread and thought it deserved being resurrected.

It’s rare that I agree with jngf, but the opening post on this thread really sums up my thoughts.

Post World Cup, we will need a replacement for Robshaw and on recent evidence, Underhill looks as though he could do a fine job in replacing him at 6. Whether he has the additional elements to his game I expect from our starting 7 now is definitely up for debate though.

It’s a real shame Tom Curry got injured and very frustrating that Ben Curry wasn’t in the squad (for no obvious reason) as I’d like to have seen a comparison. I expect to see Underhill at 7 again for the Australia game but I’d love to see Simmonds get the job against Samoa.

If Eddie does call up a sub for TCurry, then I suspect it might be BCurry - he's certainly been tearing it up well enough for Sale to show he's learned... whatever it was that Eddie must've claimed he was lacking.

I think Underhill at 7 only really works if we have Robshaw (or Wilson) at 6, someone who can fill in some of the 7ish qualities that he's lacking. It puts the kibosh on any Lawes at 6 ideas for the moment, certainly.

Puja

I think Ben Curry should have been there in the first place. However, given the lack of carrying power, Wilson or Armand might be a better choice?

[jngf]

I thought Underhill and Robshaw worked well on Saturday and I was really impressed by Underhill’s physical presence - reminded me a lot of Peter Winterbottom. Robshaw and Underhill seemed to be sharing the fetching duties but for me this combo is a massive step up from any of Haskell, Wood or Harrison at 7.

Post RWC 2019 I could see a backrow of 6 Underhill 7 Simmonds 8 Hughes developing into something really world class.

[Banquo]

I thought Underhill and Robshaw worked well on Saturday and I was really impressed by Underhill’s physical presence - reminded me a lot of Peter Winterbottom. Robshaw and Underhill seemed to be sharing the fetching duties but for me this combo is a massive step up from any of Haskell, Wood or Harrison at 7.

Post RWC 2019 I could see a backrow of 6 Underhill 7 Simmonds 8 Hughes developing into something really world class.

Not sure why you are so against the younger Billy V, to be honest, who has been world class when fit,

[Raggs]

I think people just remember that a player has been around for a few seasons, and therefore assume they're older. Marler (ok, he's not as effective as he was) had that a lot a few years ago when Alex Waller started to get regular starts of Saints, fresh new faces etc, without realising that Marler was in fact slightly younger.

[fivepointer]

The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

[Banquo]

The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

[Digby]

The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

Not to be picked until he was ready to offer more. It would seem Farrell has set a trend

[Banquo]

The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

Not to be picked until he was ready to offer more. It would seem Farrell has set a trend

define 'more' then? And even then, that's an expectation on the selectors, not him.

[Oakboy]

The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

It's not criticism of him necessarily, just that he does not (yet?) fulfil the craved-for ground-grubbing open-side requirements perhaps? Maybe, 5P is right that he'll develop in that direction. I think he is worth persevering with now but I have some doubts about playing him in this game against that Aussie back-row. His hardness in the tackle disguises the issue that he is really doing the same job at 7 that Robshaw used to do without the experience, brain or discipline.

[Digby]

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

Not to be picked until he was ready to offer more. It would seem Farrell has set a trend

define 'more' then? And even then, that's an expectation on the selectors, not him.

In simplest terms either to offer more in defence over the ball, or to offer more in attack as a carrier. Ideally to have worked on both. And still more ideally to have done some speed work too. I have some sympathy with his limited gameplan as the game has restricted methods of competing for the ball, it's a significant challenge to all loose forwards and especially to young ones trying to develop their game.

And yes in no small measure his selection without having developed more, and perhaps with an assumption he will develop, is down to the selectors. But it's not like we didn't give grief to Farrell back when he passed like an original Thunderbird puppet and only critiqued the selectors

[Puja]

The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

It's not criticism of him necessarily, just that he does not (yet?) fulfil the craved-for ground-grubbing open-side requirements perhaps? Maybe, 5P is right that he'll develop in that direction. I think he is worth persevering with now but I have some doubts about playing him in this game against that Aussie back-row. His hardness in the tackle disguises the issue that he is really doing the same job at 7 that Robshaw used to do without the experience, brain or discipline.

The difference is that Robshaw had Wood or Lawes backing him up from 6 and so was often ploughing a lone furrow. Underhill has Robshaw.

Puja

[Banquo]

Not to be picked until he was ready to offer more. It would seem Farrell has set a trend

define 'more' then? And even then, that's an expectation on the selectors, not him.

In simplest terms either to offer more in defence over the ball, or to offer more in attack as a carrier. Ideally to have worked on both. And still more ideally to have done some speed work too. I have some sympathy with his limited gameplan as the game has restricted methods of competing for the ball, it's a significant challenge to all loose forwards and especially to young ones trying to develop their game.

And yes in no small measure his selection without having developed more, and perhaps with an assumption he will develop, is down to the selectors. But it's not like we didn't give grief to Farrell back when he passed like an original Thunderbird puppet and only critiqued the selectors

I think we did both, and Faz was demonstrably out of his skills depth, but also temperamentally suspect when he started, and also made poor decisions....you couldn't label Underhill with a lot of that. To my mind, he looked comfortable in the role he was asked to do.

[Digby]

define 'more' then? And even then, that's an expectation on the selectors, not him.

In simplest terms either to offer more in defence over the ball, or to offer more in attack as a carrier. Ideally to have worked on both. And still more ideally to have done some speed work too. I have some sympathy with his limited gameplan as the game has restricted methods of competing for the ball, it's a significant challenge to all loose forwards and especially to young ones trying to develop their game.

And yes in no small measure his selection without having developed more, and perhaps with an assumption he will develop, is down to the selectors. But it's not like we didn't give grief to Farrell back when he passed like an original Thunderbird puppet and only critiqued the selectors

I think we did both, and Faz was demonstrably out of his skills depth, but also temperamentally suspect when he started, and also made poor decisions....you couldn't label Underhill with a lot of that. To my mind, he looked comfortable in the role he was asked to do.

Yes, but even for what Eddie has sought so far in the 7 short it was limited. Though in fairness I did complement Farrell back on his debut, noting it too was limited but he showed good composure for one so young, and it was only when that was all he showed for a while I had more of a pop

We'd also need to overlook Underhill provoked a strong reaction from Eddie which saw Eddie lament a lack of mental acuity on the part of the team in a style reminiscent of Noel Coward

[Banquo]

In simplest terms either to offer more in defence over the ball, or to offer more in attack as a carrier. Ideally to have worked on both. And still more ideally to have done some speed work too. I have some sympathy with his limited gameplan as the game has restricted methods of competing for the ball, it's a significant challenge to all loose forwards and especially to young ones trying to develop their game.

And yes in no small measure his selection without having developed more, and perhaps with an assumption he will develop, is down to the selectors. But it's not like we didn't give grief to Farrell back when he passed like an original Thunderbird puppet and only critiqued the selectors

I think we did both, and Faz was demonstrably out of his skills depth, but also temperamentally suspect when he started, and also made poor decisions....you couldn't label Underhill with a lot of that. To my mind, he looked comfortable in the role he was asked to do.

Yes, but even for what Eddie has sought so far in the 7 short it was limited. Though in fairness I did complement Farrell back on his debut, noting it too was limited but he showed good composure for one so young, and it was only when that was all he showed for a while I had more of a pop

We'd also need to overlook Underhill provoked a strong reaction from Eddie which saw Eddie lament a lack of mental acuity on the part of the team in a style reminiscent of Noel Coward

Faz may have looked composed initially, but his temperament got, and still gets, the better of him too much.

Underhill carried twice, which suggests he is not being asked to carry, but support. I do note Eddie saying how little quick ball we had, so be interested on his remedy there.

[Timbo]

Well if we don’t pick Underhill we can just pick one of those many other complete international 7’s that we have, yeah?

[Banquo]

Well if we don’t pick Underhill we can just pick one of those many other complete international 7’s that we have, yeah?

quite

[Oakboy]

Well if we don’t pick Underhill we can just pick one of those many other complete international 7’s that we have, yeah?

'other'!!!!!

[Digby]

Underhill carried twice, which suggests he is not being asked to carry, but support. I do note Eddie saying how little quick ball we had, so be interested on his remedy there.

I didn't know he got his hands on the ball quite that little. He was however used as a decoy runner on a number of instances, the problem there is the defence viewed him as not much of a threat and simply payed attention t Mako and Hughes anyway. Even if we give him the ball twice in every game he needs to be a better carrier so his runs off the ball count for (something) more

[Stom]

The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

They expected the new Richard Hill. But, just like every other flanker we've had since, he's some way under Hill's quality.

[Digby]

The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

They expected the new Richard Hill. But, just like every other flanker we've had since, he's some way under Hill's quality.

Did anyone expect that? Surely there's a more likely expectation whether on selection/performance between what transpired and one of our best ever players

[Puja]

Before seeing him for England and Bath, my expectation level was at 2001 Lewis Moody levels, whereas we're instead getting 2003 Joe Worsley. Which isn't inherently terrible, but a step down from what was promised.

Puja