England v Fiji

[Scrumhead]

Yes.

I would have had Coles, CCS and Pepper on the bench, but if Chessum’s out, I’d bring Pollock onto my bench (CCS now covering lock instead of 6/8).

[Danno]

What's not to like? Cunderhill smashes anything that moves, our ball is secure, Curry can jump, both can carry and Earl has proven himself at 8 when the flanker are as hard working as those two.

[Oakboy]

What's not to like? Cunderhill smashes anything that moves, our ball is secure, Curry can jump, both can carry and Earl has proven himself at 8 when the flanker are as hard working as those two.

I would not have Earl and Underhill starting together. It's a prejudiced view hard to defend, I accept. To me, it is over-emphasising the destructive nature of their games - almost like admitting the opposition is better so we must try to disrupt. I want the emphasis to be on obtaining quick useful ball not smashing opponents. A back five of Itoje, Chessum, Curry, Underhill and Earl seems, to my uneducated mind, to leave attacking intent to the front row. I just see it as a failure to get NZ on the back foot. 'Smash' tackles might get on the highlights reel but do they gain possession against skilful offloaders? The tackler is often out of the game when he should be back on his feet trying to win the ball. It's a collective requirement not an individual pissing-contest.

IMO, Pepper at 6 with Curry at 7 would be more usefully productive.

I'm probably wrong - as usual.

[Puja]

What's not to like? Cunderhill smashes anything that moves, our ball is secure, Curry can jump, both can carry and Earl has proven himself at 8 when the flanker are as hard working as those two.

I would not have Earl and Underhill starting together. It's a prejudiced view hard to defend, I accept. To me, it is over-emphasising the destructive nature of their games - almost like admitting the opposition is better so we must try to disrupt. I want the emphasis to be on obtaining quick useful ball not smashing opponents. A back five of Itoje, Chessum, Curry, Underhill and Earl seems, to my uneducated mind, to leave attacking intent to the front row. I just see it as a failure to get NZ on the back foot. 'Smash' tackles might get on the highlights reel but do they gain possession against skilful offloaders? The tackler is often out of the game when he should be back on his feet trying to win the ball. It's a collective requirement not an individual pissing-contest.

IMO, Pepper at 6 with Curry at 7 would be more usefully productive.

I'm probably wrong - as usual.

I understand Underhill in that argument, but how do you see Earl as a purely tackling and non-attacking selection? Frankly, I see Earl's tackling skills as a weakness that needs working around because we want to get his other abilities.

Puja

[Stom]

What's not to like? Cunderhill smashes anything that moves, our ball is secure, Curry can jump, both can carry and Earl has proven himself at 8 when the flanker are as hard working as those two.

I would not have Earl and Underhill starting together. It's a prejudiced view hard to defend, I accept. To me, it is over-emphasising the destructive nature of their games - almost like admitting the opposition is better so we must try to disrupt. I want the emphasis to be on obtaining quick useful ball not smashing opponents. A back five of Itoje, Chessum, Curry, Underhill and Earl seems, to my uneducated mind, to leave attacking intent to the front row. I just see it as a failure to get NZ on the back foot. 'Smash' tackles might get on the highlights reel but do they gain possession against skilful offloaders? The tackler is often out of the game when he should be back on his feet trying to win the ball. It's a collective requirement not an individual pissing-contest.

IMO, Pepper at 6 with Curry at 7 would be more usefully productive.

I'm probably wrong - as usual.

The backrow is about balance. If you have Earl in there as an attacking option...you need to have someone who can do the hard work. Underhill hits rucks with the best of them, and he gets through some very useful carrying, too.

With CCS in there, you face a similar problem.

You can pick Pepper with Curry, but then you lose Underhill's ability to simply make the right decision and do it consistently.

In my mind, as much as I have a personal bias against Earl, Curry, Underhill, Earl is currently our best backrow combination by a distance. It combines breakdown prowess with defensive ability, disruption of attacking ball (Curry and Earl are both good here), the best tight carrying we can do, because we don't really have much of that going around..., and the best loose carrying we have available.

I don't see what's not to like.

[Oakboy]

What's not to like? Cunderhill smashes anything that moves, our ball is secure, Curry can jump, both can carry and Earl has proven himself at 8 when the flanker are as hard working as those two.

I would not have Earl and Underhill starting together. It's a prejudiced view hard to defend, I accept. To me, it is over-emphasising the destructive nature of their games - almost like admitting the opposition is better so we must try to disrupt. I want the emphasis to be on obtaining quick useful ball not smashing opponents. A back five of Itoje, Chessum, Curry, Underhill and Earl seems, to my uneducated mind, to leave attacking intent to the front row. I just see it as a failure to get NZ on the back foot. 'Smash' tackles might get on the highlights reel but do they gain possession against skilful offloaders? The tackler is often out of the game when he should be back on his feet trying to win the ball. It's a collective requirement not an individual pissing-contest.

IMO, Pepper at 6 with Curry at 7 would be more usefully productive.

I'm probably wrong - as usual.

The backrow is about balance. If you have Earl in there as an attacking option...you need to have someone who can do the hard work. Underhill hits rucks with the best of them, and he gets through some very useful carrying, too.

With CCS in there, you face a similar problem.

You can pick Pepper with Curry, but then you lose Underhill's ability to simply make the right decision and do it consistently.

In my mind, as much as I have a personal bias against Earl, Curry, Underhill, Earl is currently our best backrow combination by a distance. It combines breakdown prowess with defensive ability, disruption of attacking ball (Curry and Earl are both good here), the best tight carrying we can do, because we don't really have much of that going around..., and the best loose carrying we have available.

I don't see what's not to like.

What's not to like, is that we won't get enough good, quick ball against NZ. But, heyho, we'll see. I just hope that there are no claims afterwards that Mitchell had a bad game having struggled with poor ball presentation.

[Stom]

I would not have Earl and Underhill starting together. It's a prejudiced view hard to defend, I accept. To me, it is over-emphasising the destructive nature of their games - almost like admitting the opposition is better so we must try to disrupt. I want the emphasis to be on obtaining quick useful ball not smashing opponents. A back five of Itoje, Chessum, Curry, Underhill and Earl seems, to my uneducated mind, to leave attacking intent to the front row. I just see it as a failure to get NZ on the back foot. 'Smash' tackles might get on the highlights reel but do they gain possession against skilful offloaders? The tackler is often out of the game when he should be back on his feet trying to win the ball. It's a collective requirement not an individual pissing-contest.

IMO, Pepper at 6 with Curry at 7 would be more usefully productive.

I'm probably wrong - as usual.

The backrow is about balance. If you have Earl in there as an attacking option...you need to have someone who can do the hard work. Underhill hits rucks with the best of them, and he gets through some very useful carrying, too.

With CCS in there, you face a similar problem.

You can pick Pepper with Curry, but then you lose Underhill's ability to simply make the right decision and do it consistently.

In my mind, as much as I have a personal bias against Earl, Curry, Underhill, Earl is currently our best backrow combination by a distance. It combines breakdown prowess with defensive ability, disruption of attacking ball (Curry and Earl are both good here), the best tight carrying we can do, because we don't really have much of that going around..., and the best loose carrying we have available.

I don't see what's not to like.

What's not to like, is that we won't get enough good, quick ball against NZ. But, heyho, we'll see. I just hope that there are no claims afterwards that Mitchell had a bad game having struggled with poor ball presentation.

Our locks and props have been doing most of the work on attacking rucks for a while...and, as I said, Underhill is not bad at this at all.

Would love to see the stats to back any of my assumptions up, btw, but I have no idea where to get them anymore.

[Mellsblue]

What's not to like? Cunderhill smashes anything that moves, our ball is secure, Curry can jump, both can carry and Earl has proven himself at 8 when the flanker are as hard working as those two.

I would not have Earl and Underhill starting together. It's a prejudiced view hard to defend, I accept. To me, it is over-emphasising the destructive nature of their games - almost like admitting the opposition is better so we must try to disrupt. I want the emphasis to be on obtaining quick useful ball not smashing opponents. A back five of Itoje, Chessum, Curry, Underhill and Earl seems, to my uneducated mind, to leave attacking intent to the front row. I just see it as a failure to get NZ on the back foot. 'Smash' tackles might get on the highlights reel but do they gain possession against skilful offloaders? The tackler is often out of the game when he should be back on his feet trying to win the ball. It's a collective requirement not an individual pissing-contest.

IMO, Pepper at 6 with Curry at 7 would be more usefully productive.

I'm probably wrong - as usual.

I understand Underhill in that argument, but how do you see Earl as a purely tackling and non-attacking selection? Frankly, I see Earl's tackling skills as a weakness that needs working around because we want to get his other abilities.

Puja

This.
I’d also add that, according to The Times, since his debut in 2017 only three* other backrow forwards have made more turnovers per 80mins than Underhill. And there’s no better ball to attack from than turnover ball (unless Youngs is at 9).

*If you’re interested:
1. McReight
2. Kwagga Smith
3. Ritchie

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah I just don’t get this labelling of a Underhill as a brainless, 1 dimensional orc. He is fantastic at adapting his tackling technique to the situation and underrated as an attacker both at the breakdown and with ball in hand.

Earl is almost *only* an attacker, though winning the odd jackal. He and Pollock are probably the most comparable at the moment. It’s interesting Pollock is only really being used as an 8 so far.

And since when does smashing people in the tackle not help win the ball back? I’m puzzled by basically all of that.

Again I don’t really like Earl at 8, but with Curry/Pepper the workhorses and lineout jumpers at 6 it is at least balanced in a way that can make use of Earl’s talent.

[Scrumhead]

Yeah. 100% agreed on this. Underhill is frequently dismissed as a one dimensional defensive player but his attacking/carrying game is very underrated.

We probably have better all round flankers. However, we’re usually a better team with Underhill in the side.

[Beasties]

Watching the fra vs sa game is pretty sobering.

Just on watching this now.
8 mins in and it’s intense and quality. Awesome stuff. First try just gorgeous from Ramos.

[Beasties]

France getting absolutely moidered in the scrums without Atonio.