Squad for Wales

[Puja]

Armitage went to France for the money. He knew that would rule out playing for England. That was his choice. Thats it, isn't it?

He could have been picked before, though. And given a chance. But instead we got an old Moody and some pretty terrible performances.

He wasn't doing anything great before he went off the France though. Played a few times for England, wasn't anything special, wasn't exactly tearing up treest Irish. Then he went off to France and metamorphosed.

Puja

[Stom]

Armitage went to France for the money. He knew that would rule out playing for England. That was his choice. Thats it, isn't it?

He could have been picked before, though. And given a chance. But instead we got an old Moody and some pretty terrible performances.

He wasn't doing anything great before he went off the France though. Played a few times for England, wasn't anything special, wasn't exactly tearing up treest Irish. Then he went off to France and metamorphosed.

Puja

I think you're slightly misremembering. He was good before he left. He wasn't looking like Willis now, but the competition was lower and he was somewhat hung out to dry by a pretty terrible pack ahead of him. Johnson just wasn't a very good coach.

I remember him being probably the second best young flanker in England, behind Robshaw. Those 2 could have been our 6 and 7 for a decade. But it wasn't to be.

[Timbo]

Armitage went to France for the money. He knew that would rule out playing for England. That was his choice. Thats it, isn't it?

He was hardly a star when he left for France, and according to Armitage himself he didn’t get more money on his first contract at Toulon- he was 3rd choice 7 to begin with.

[Puja]

He could have been picked before, though. And given a chance. But instead we got an old Moody and some pretty terrible performances.

He wasn't doing anything great before he went off the France though. Played a few times for England, wasn't anything special, wasn't exactly tearing up treest Irish. Then he went off to France and metamorphosed.

Puja

I think you're slightly misremembering. He was good before he left. He wasn't looking like Willis now, but the competition was lower and he was somewhat hung out to dry by a pretty terrible pack ahead of him. Johnson just wasn't a very good coach.

I remember him being probably the second best young flanker in England, behind Robshaw. Those 2 could have been our 6 and 7 for a decade. But it wasn't to be.

I'm not saying he was terrible and he was in a few "This is who I'd pick for England" teams, but no-one was saying he should be a shoo-in and I think the median reaction to him signing for Toulon was, "Lol, how does he expect to get a game?!"

Puja

[Oakboy]

I never understood why, if Armitage was such an outstanding open-side, he played so much of his rugby in France at 8. Or was that the new way and we are stuck in a time warp with a 20 stoner there. Or, did Armitage just bulk up?

[Digby]

Armitage went to France for the money. He knew that would rule out playing for England. That was his choice. Thats it, isn't it?

He could have been picked before, though. And given a chance. But instead we got an old Moody and some pretty terrible performances.

For sure Steff knew the rules, but they were arbitrary rules we implemented that we didn't need to, mostly we've observed the rules sometimes we haven't. And as an aside I still think our players are missing out by not going abroad for some period

[Peej]

I never understood why, if Armitage was such an outstanding open-side, he played so much of his rugby in France at 8. Or was that the new way and we are stuck in a time warp with a 20 stoner there. Or, did Armitage just bulk up?

It was almost exactly the same reason as Australia playing Pocock at 8, or Exter playing Simmonds at 8.

I would say it's odd that if England have a strategy of hunting turnovers, why they are not so far picking their best tackler/fetcher/general breakdown nuisance.

[jngf]

Yep. When I’m referring to the breakdown, I’m not solely talking about the ability to win turnovers. It’s also about being first to support our attacking rucks and protecting the ball (for us to kick away on the second phase ).

Simmonds’ role at Exeter is primarily to carry and link with their backs. Vermeulen, Kirsten and previously, Armand, are there for the heavy carrying/breakdown work. Their tight five also carry a lot.

The closest England could get to mirroring the Exeter system would be to play Billy in the Ewers role at 6, Lawes or Itoje in the Vermeulen role at 7 and Simmonds at 8. Who wants to see that? I can’t see many takers ...

I really like Simmonds as a player and I wouldn’t be disappointed to see him in an England jersey again, but I don’t think he’s good enough to warrant compromises probably needed to bring the best out of him, when that probably means dropping players who have consistently done well at test level.

Eddie agrees on the compromises (see T20 comment re Simmonds), but I'm not sure on probably . Eddie was going down the non classic 7 route for a while, but has now found some of the classic 7 skills spread across a couple of players, so has changed tack away from Haskell/Robshaw.

Who was the non-classic 7?

Haskell was absolutely perfect for Eddie's vision of a 7. Decent acceleration, good pace (albeit with a weird style), and an absolute beast when it came to clearing rucks and hitting hard tackles. Haskell absolutely neutralised Pocock in the first Aus test, and I'm not talking about the nice tackle, but in the breakdown. Some like to think of a 7 as a linking player etc, but that's not what a 7 needs to be. Assuming you have the 7 as the openside, the only attributes that are key to the man wearing that shirt is good tackling, good clearout, and good acceleration/pace to get them into the position to do the first 2 roles. Anything else can either be done by someone else, or is a bonus.

I appreciate this is a vision of the role of 7 (and through their selection of that role the vision of both Burt and Jones) but I would say it’s tantamount to a de-skilling of the openside role - selecting players like Robshaw and Haskell and now Underhill there convinces me of that (all 3 players might have been better served sticking to 6 6 imo). The two best England opensides Back and Winterbottom always linked with the threequarters even late into their test careers when their respective pace had diminished a bit.

[Banquo]

I was trying to avoid the use of fetcher, so used classic 7 as a metaphor. I agree there are many versions of what people see as how a 7 can get the job done, see my reference to Hill. But thanks for the lesson.

Using Haskell in this way came quite late in his career, most of which was spent as a 6 or an 8, and Robshaw was wearing a 7 quite a bit in his career when playing with the Hask, even under Eddie. Anyhoo, whatever way you look at it, the combo Eddie is now using is a very different style imo.

Eddie used Hask at 7 from the start, with Robshaw at 6.

I think what he's using now are different players, but the focus for the openside is still the same. Quick, hard hitting, ruck clearing 7. 6 is more open as he's not constrained by being on the openside of the scrum.[\quote]

Apologies you are quite right that Eddie swapped the Hask and Robshaw round from Berts days; I’d got confused by remembering how Eddie said Robshaw wasn’t a 7, then used him there a couple of years later.

And I’m not sure Eddie has a preferred model for a 7- albeit that George Smith was a truly great player, he was his go to 7 for a lot of his coaching career, and a different mould to the one you describe imo. I think that is the mould that fitted what he had available when he rocked up here so he adapted. He’s now adapted again, albeit with a mix of the two styles (and judging by last Saturday has swung more towards jackaling again).

Btw I’d also add great decision making into the 7 attributes you mentioned. That’s why Hill was such a terrific 7 when asked to do the job by eg the Lions.

[Banquo]

Eddie agrees on the compromises (see T20 comment re Simmonds), but I'm not sure on probably . Eddie was going down the non classic 7 route for a while, but has now found some of the classic 7 skills spread across a couple of players, so has changed tack away from Haskell/Robshaw.

Who was the non-classic 7?

Haskell was absolutely perfect for Eddie's vision of a 7. Decent acceleration, good pace (albeit with a weird style), and an absolute beast when it came to clearing rucks and hitting hard tackles. Haskell absolutely neutralised Pocock in the first Aus test, and I'm not talking about the nice tackle, but in the breakdown. Some like to think of a 7 as a linking player etc, but that's not what a 7 needs to be. Assuming you have the 7 as the openside, the only attributes that are key to the man wearing that shirt is good tackling, good clearout, and good acceleration/pace to get them into the position to do the first 2 roles. Anything else can either be done by someone else, or is a bonus.

I appreciate this is a vision of the role of 7 (and through their selection of that role the vision of both Burt and Jones) but I would say it’s tantamount to a de-skilling of the openside role - selecting players like Robshaw and Haskell and now Underhill there convinces me of that (all 3 players might have been better served sticking to 6 6 imo). The two best England opensides Back and Winterbottom always linked with the threequarters even late into their test careers when their respective pace had diminished a bit.

I think Hill was a better openside than both those two . And linking was not Winterbottoms strong suit, he was much more the hit em hard 7.

[Timbo]

I never understood why, if Armitage was such an outstanding open-side, he played so much of his rugby in France at 8. Or was that the new way and we are stuck in a time warp with a 20 stoner there. Or, did Armitage just bulk up?

He only played 8 consistently for 1 season I think-2014. That was because Chris Masoe and Van Niekerk missed most of the season injured and Roussow ended up covering in the 2nd row a lot.

[Digby]

I never understood why, if Armitage was such an outstanding open-side, he played so much of his rugby in France at 8. Or was that the new way and we are stuck in a time warp with a 20 stoner there. Or, did Armitage just bulk up?

It was almost exactly the same reason as Australia playing Pocock at 8, or Exter playing Simmonds at 8.

I would say it's odd that if England have a strategy of hunting turnovers, why they are not so far picking their best tackler/fetcher/general breakdown nuisance.

England under Mitchell don't tend to go looking for turnovers, or so a wise man has been contending. We're much more about having players on their feet, we want players on the line to get off the line

[Timbo]

Eddie agrees on the compromises (see T20 comment re Simmonds), but I'm not sure on probably . Eddie was going down the non classic 7 route for a while, but has now found some of the classic 7 skills spread across a couple of players, so has changed tack away from Haskell/Robshaw.

Who was the non-classic 7?

Haskell was absolutely perfect for Eddie's vision of a 7. Decent acceleration, good pace (albeit with a weird style), and an absolute beast when it came to clearing rucks and hitting hard tackles. Haskell absolutely neutralised Pocock in the first Aus test, and I'm not talking about the nice tackle, but in the breakdown. Some like to think of a 7 as a linking player etc, but that's not what a 7 needs to be. Assuming you have the 7 as the openside, the only attributes that are key to the man wearing that shirt is good tackling, good clearout, and good acceleration/pace to get them into the position to do the first 2 roles. Anything else can either be done by someone else, or is a bonus.

I appreciate this is a vision of the role of 7 (and through their selection of that role the vision of both Burt and Jones) but I would say it’s tantamount to a de-skilling of the openside role - selecting players like Robshaw and Haskell and now Underhill there convinces me of that (all 3 players might have been better served sticking to 6 6 imo). The two best England opensides Back and Winterbottom always linked with the threequarters even late into their test careers when their respective pace had diminished a bit.

I think the point is that the bloke wearing the 7 shirt has to have that described skill set as a non-negotiable- “good tackling, good clearout, and good acceleration/pace to get them into the position to do the first 2 roles”- because it’s an absolute requirement in a handful of phases throughout a game. I.e 1st phase off a scrum clearing out/contesting the first ruck, tailgunner at lineout etc.

Outside of those specific situations you just divvy up job roles based on skill set and ability, not numbers on backs.

[Banquo]

Who was the non-classic 7?

Haskell was absolutely perfect for Eddie's vision of a 7. Decent acceleration, good pace (albeit with a weird style), and an absolute beast when it came to clearing rucks and hitting hard tackles. Haskell absolutely neutralised Pocock in the first Aus test, and I'm not talking about the nice tackle, but in the breakdown. Some like to think of a 7 as a linking player etc, but that's not what a 7 needs to be. Assuming you have the 7 as the openside, the only attributes that are key to the man wearing that shirt is good tackling, good clearout, and good acceleration/pace to get them into the position to do the first 2 roles. Anything else can either be done by someone else, or is a bonus.

I appreciate this is a vision of the role of 7 (and through their selection of that role the vision of both Burt and Jones) but I would say it’s tantamount to a de-skilling of the openside role - selecting players like Robshaw and Haskell and now Underhill there convinces me of that (all 3 players might have been better served sticking to 6 6 imo). The two best England opensides Back and Winterbottom always linked with the threequarters even late into their test careers when their respective pace had diminished a bit.

I think the point is that the bloke wearing the 7 shirt has to have that described skill set as a non-negotiable- “good tackling, good clearout, and good acceleration/pace to get them into the position to do the first 2 roles”- because it’s an absolute requirement in a handful of phases throughout a game. I.e 1st phase off a scrum clearing out/contesting the first ruck, tailgunner at lineout etc.

Outside of those specific situations you just divvy up job roles based on skill set and ability, not numbers on backs.

Unless playing for France or South Africa. And add in good decision making

[Banquo]

I never understood why, if Armitage was such an outstanding open-side, he played so much of his rugby in France at 8. Or was that the new way and we are stuck in a time warp with a 20 stoner there. Or, did Armitage just bulk up?

It was almost exactly the same reason as Australia playing Pocock at 8, or Exter playing Simmonds at 8.

I would say it's odd that if England have a strategy of hunting turnovers, why they are not so far picking their best tackler/fetcher/general breakdown nuisance.

England under Mitchell don't tend to go looking for turnovers, or so a wise man has been contending. We're much more about having players on their feet, we want players on the line to get off the line

So Saturday was a mirage? Though it might have been a one off based on how Ireland set their back row up I suppose.

[Stom]

I never understood why, if Armitage was such an outstanding open-side, he played so much of his rugby in France at 8. Or was that the new way and we are stuck in a time warp with a 20 stoner there. Or, did Armitage just bulk up?

It was almost exactly the same reason as Australia playing Pocock at 8, or Exter playing Simmonds at 8.

I would say it's odd that if England have a strategy of hunting turnovers, why they are not so far picking their best tackler/fetcher/general breakdown nuisance.

It feels like England hunt turnovers through their defense rather than through the breakdown per se. so they’re much more likely to get a tackle turnover than other teams. Which does mean that Underhill is a little more valuable than it might appear at first.

Willis will get into that back row soon enough, just give him time.

[Raggs]

I think the point is that the bloke wearing the 7 shirt has to have that described skill set as a non-negotiable- “good tackling, good clearout, and good acceleration/pace to get them into the position to do the first 2 roles”- because it’s an absolute requirement in a handful of phases throughout a game. I.e 1st phase off a scrum clearing out/contesting the first ruck, tailgunner at lineout etc.

Outside of those specific situations you just divvy up job roles based on skill set and ability, not numbers on backs.

Exactly this. There's only limited scenarios that a player has strict requirements on them, and the openside has these on the scrum, and if he's best suited to that position in the scrum the likelyhood is he's also best suited at the tail of the lineout. There's really no need for a 7 to be linking play, if you had 7 other forwards with the best hands in the world, and a 8th who was rapid as hell, and smashed rucks and tackles, but hands like tits, you're not going to say he can't play 7, he doesn't need to have good hands. At the same time, you're never going to put Sinkler at 7, despite his handling ability.

De-skilling is bollocks. We never want to deskill any position. However if they cannot perform their primary role for their shirt number, it doesn't matter what other skills they have. Again, Sinkler is not competing for the 7 shirt just because he has good hands.

[Digby]

It was almost exactly the same reason as Australia playing Pocock at 8, or Exter playing Simmonds at 8.

I would say it's odd that if England have a strategy of hunting turnovers, why they are not so far picking their best tackler/fetcher/general breakdown nuisance.

England under Mitchell don't tend to go looking for turnovers, or so a wise man has been contending. We're much more about having players on their feet, we want players on the line to get off the line

So Saturday was a mirage? Though it might have been a one off based on how Ireland set their back row up I suppose.

The variant surprise, or maybe Curry and Underhill and/or Ireland, or something which will feature more in our game. It was a bit different, and for me at least welcome, because to me the larger part of the point is to contest the ball

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

Ollie Lawrence out.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... ations-cup

[Puja]

Armitage went to France for the money. He knew that would rule out playing for England. That was his choice. Thats it, isn't it?

He could have been picked before, though. And given a chance. But instead we got an old Moody and some pretty terrible performances.

For sure Steff knew the rules, but they were arbitrary rules we implemented that we didn't need to, mostly we've observed the rules sometimes we haven't. And as an aside I still think our players are missing out by not going abroad for some period

I think the fact that all of our players are in the Prem and making the English league a better crucible for the development of future English talent is a pretty good argument that we did need those "arbitrary rules" and they've worked out pretty well. The fact that we haven't had this repetitive conversation since SArmitage stopped being relevant and started assaulting barmaids means that the stonewall decision that no player was good enough to be an exception has worked*.

Whether players would benefit from going abroad is a different conversation. Marchant's sabbatical to NZ, absolutely yes. Playing Pro 14 for a South African team - a solid maybe. Letting the likes of Itoje play 400 attritional games a season for Racing 92 and getting ground into the dirt? Probably less so. And let's face it, a free-for-all would see a far larger number taking the Euro and the yen than those going abroad to improve themselves.

Puja


*I'm confused by the assertion that we haven't observed the rules sometimes. We haven't picked an overseas player since we said we wouldn't, Jonny Wilkinson went to Toulon and people said, "Surely they won't apply it to Wilko" and we did. I mean, a pedant might try to claim Brad Shields, but given he'd signed for Wasps and was imminently arriving, that would be spectacularly pedantic.

[Banquo]

Doh. Well that eases Faz back into 12- which likely would have happened anyway sadly

[Puja]

Ollie Lawrence out.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... ations-cup

Oh thank gods, a discussion point from this decade!

Bloody shame. I was hoping to see Ford/Faz/Lawrence to really see what he can do. With luck, we'll now see Ford/Farrell/Joseph, as the alternatives are the continual sideways movement of FFS or more of the same with Faz/Slade/Joseph (who'll probably be asked to do crash balls).

Puja

[Digby]

Burgess didn't need to have been playing in England either. Nor did he need to remain in England

[Danno]

He could have been picked before, though. And given a chance. But instead we got an old Moody and some pretty terrible performances.

For sure Steff knew the rules, but they were arbitrary rules we implemented that we didn't need to, mostly we've observed the rules sometimes we haven't. And as an aside I still think our players are missing out by not going abroad for some period

I think the fact that all of our players are in the Prem and making the English league a better crucible for the development of future English talent is a pretty good argument that we did need those "arbitrary rules" and they've worked out pretty well. The fact that we haven't had this repetitive conversation since SArmitage stopped being relevant and started assaulting barmaids means that the stonewall decision that no player was good enough to be an exception has worked*.

Whether players would benefit from going abroad is a different conversation. Marchant's sabbatical to NZ, absolutely yes. Playing Pro 14 for a South African team - a solid maybe. Letting the likes of Itoje play 400 attritional games a season for Racing 92 and getting ground into the dirt? Probably less so. And let's face it, a free-for-all would see a far larger number taking the Euro and the yen than those going abroad to improve themselves.

Puja


*I'm confused by the assertion that we haven't observed the rules sometimes. We haven't picked an overseas player since we said we wouldn't, Jonny Wilkinson went to Toulon and people said, "Surely they won't apply it to Wilko" and we did. I mean, a pedant might try to claim Brad Shields, but given he'd signed for Wasps and was imminently arriving, that would be spectacularly pedantic.

This forum doesn't have a like function so I had to quote this. Well said

[Danno]

Ollie Lawrence out.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... ations-cup

Oh thank gods, a discussion point from this decade!

Bloody shame. I was hoping to see Ford/Faz/Lawrence to really see what he can do. With luck, we'll now see Ford/Farrell/Joseph, as the alternatives are the continual sideways movement of FFS or more of the same with Faz/Slade/Joseph (who'll probably be asked to do crash balls).

Puja

Same, but it wouldn't have happened at all unless Ford started, and I have a feeling he'll still be benched this week, since Fazlet is.... playing a lot