Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
Moderator: Puja
- jngf
- Posts: 1570
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:57 pm
Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
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?
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?
-
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:19 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
I happen to agree! He's still good though
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
ah, a new twist on the theme
still only seen him a few times, a reasonable tackler and carrier for his age. yet to see anything which would make me think he's knocking on the door, though he's played a lot more games I haven't seen.
still only seen him a few times, a reasonable tackler and carrier for his age. yet to see anything which would make me think he's knocking on the door, though he's played a lot more games I haven't seen.
-
- Posts: 5983
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:33 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
From what I have seen, I can see your angle on him being more of a 6.5 but I'm reserving judgement until I've seen him play a few games in the AP.
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:18 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
With our dearth of good opensides - he'd better be a 7.
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9152
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
That dearth of good opensides has 2 Curries on their way; whilst behind Robshaw, we have a dearth of blindsides too (Itoje/Lawes aren't blindsides without spending a pre-season losing mass and gaining flexibilty, and a full season training as a flanker).Rich wrote:With our dearth of good opensides - he'd better be a 7.
We could conceivably have Robshaw, Underhill, Curry, Curry, Vunipola, Hughes, Mercer in place in time for the RWC19; giving us 3 options for each backrow spot.
-
- Posts: 19130
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
backrow is indeed not great in the short term. As we saw.Which Tyler wrote:That dearth of good opensides has 2 Curries on their way; whilst behind Robshaw, we have a dearth of blindsides too (Itoje/Lawes aren't blindsides without spending a pre-season losing mass and gaining flexibilty, and a full season training as a flanker).Rich wrote:With our dearth of good opensides - he'd better be a 7.
We could conceivably have Robshaw, Underhill, Curry, Curry, Vunipola, Hughes, Mercer in place in time for the RWC19; giving us 3 options for each backrow spot.
-
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:19 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
It's really unfortunate that Jones is injured - think he could be a great 6
-
- Posts: 19130
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
Eddie sees Underhill as a 7. At present!
- Oakboy
- Posts: 6369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
Looking at it from the 'just backrowers' viewpoint, I believe, until it's proven otherwise, that the best three are Billy, Robshaw and Hughes. It's almost a year away until the best back-row is chosen (assuming Eddie's AIs rest occurs). For the opening 6N match next year I'd pick that trio unless someone else does something to justify not doing so. I know that will bring on palpitations for many posters but it's a reasonable challenge to lay down, albeit that Robshaw at 7, Billy at 6 offends many preconceptions.
- Eugene Wrayburn
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:32 pm
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
Is not a question of offending preconceptions, it just looks like bad judgement based on repeated viewing of the players.Oakboy wrote:Looking at it from the 'just backrowers' viewpoint, I believe, until it's proven otherwise, that the best three are Billy, Robshaw and Hughes. It's almost a year away until the best back-row is chosen (assuming Eddie's AIs rest occurs). For the opening 6N match next year I'd pick that trio unless someone else does something to justify not doing so. I know that will bring on palpitations for many posters but it's a reasonable challenge to lay down, albeit that Robshaw at 7, Billy at 6 offends many preconceptions.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
NS. Gone but not forgotten.
NS. Gone but not forgotten.
- Puja
- Posts: 17685
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
As above. Does the fact that Hughes has so far turned in performances of a Tom Wood standard for England count as someone doing something to justify not picking that trio?Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Is not a question of offending preconceptions, it just looks like bad judgement based on repeated viewing of the players.Oakboy wrote:Looking at it from the 'just backrowers' viewpoint, I believe, until it's proven otherwise, that the best three are Billy, Robshaw and Hughes. It's almost a year away until the best back-row is chosen (assuming Eddie's AIs rest occurs). For the opening 6N match next year I'd pick that trio unless someone else does something to justify not doing so. I know that will bring on palpitations for many posters but it's a reasonable challenge to lay down, albeit that Robshaw at 7, Billy at 6 offends many preconceptions.
Puja
Backist Monk
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:19 pm
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Is not a question of offending preconceptions, it just looks like bad judgement based on repeated viewing of the players.Oakboy wrote:Looking at it from the 'just backrowers' viewpoint, I believe, until it's proven otherwise, that the best three are Billy, Robshaw and Hughes. It's almost a year away until the best back-row is chosen (assuming Eddie's AIs rest occurs). For the opening 6N match next year I'd pick that trio unless someone else does something to justify not doing so. I know that will bring on palpitations for many posters but it's a reasonable challenge to lay down, albeit that Robshaw at 7, Billy at 6 offends many preconceptions.
Looks to me like a drinking problem come to life. Why the fuck anyone would move Billy from 8 baffles me considerably.
-
- Posts: 12140
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
I think the criticism of Wood if he had turned in those performances would have been absolutely relentless to be honest. I absolutely believe that Hughes can be the better player than Wood/Haskell but that's quite an enormous leap from Hughes being the best option at 8 "until proven otherwise".Puja wrote:As above. Does the fact that Hughes has so far turned in performances of a Tom Wood standard for England count as someone doing something to justify not picking that trio?Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Is not a question of offending preconceptions, it just looks like bad judgement based on repeated viewing of the players.Oakboy wrote:Looking at it from the 'just backrowers' viewpoint, I believe, until it's proven otherwise, that the best three are Billy, Robshaw and Hughes. It's almost a year away until the best back-row is chosen (assuming Eddie's AIs rest occurs). For the opening 6N match next year I'd pick that trio unless someone else does something to justify not doing so. I know that will bring on palpitations for many posters but it's a reasonable challenge to lay down, albeit that Robshaw at 7, Billy at 6 offends many preconceptions.
Puja
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:18 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
Which Tyler wrote:That dearth of good opensides has 2 Curries on their way; whilst behind Robshaw, we have a dearth of blindsides too (Itoje/Lawes aren't blindsides without spending a pre-season losing mass and gaining flexibilty, and a full season training as a flanker).Rich wrote:With our dearth of good opensides - he'd better be a 7.
We could conceivably have Robshaw, Underhill, Curry, Curry, Vunipola, Hughes, Mercer in place in time for the RWC19; giving us 3 options for each backrow spot.
The Curry brothers are as yet unproven but could easily add to England's options at open side
I don't see an issue at blindside just yet:
Nathan Hughes
Robshaw
Haskell
.
.
.
Then Ewers, Ben Morgan, Mike Williams
All will be options until the 2019 RWC.
Note: I've not mentioned Tom Wood or Tom Croft.
-
- Posts: 5983
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:33 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
I watched Underhill with interest playing for Ospreys vs Ulster the other day.
He started at 6 and was fairly anonymous. Didn't do anything eyecatchingly good, but nothing bad either. He carried OK and tackled well (including a big hit that lead to Olding going off injured), but was fairly anonymous at the breakdown. He just seemed to fan out and leave it to others, so it could have been tactical, but all in all, I didn't see anything to particularly excite me.
Given his age, he looked decent enough at 6, but on that showing, I'd have either Curry ahead of him by some distance as a 7.
He started at 6 and was fairly anonymous. Didn't do anything eyecatchingly good, but nothing bad either. He carried OK and tackled well (including a big hit that lead to Olding going off injured), but was fairly anonymous at the breakdown. He just seemed to fan out and leave it to others, so it could have been tactical, but all in all, I didn't see anything to particularly excite me.
Given his age, he looked decent enough at 6, but on that showing, I'd have either Curry ahead of him by some distance as a 7.
-
- Posts: 12140
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
Playing next to Tipuric?Scrumhead wrote:I watched Underhill with interest playing for Ospreys vs Ulster the other day.
He started at 6 and was fairly anonymous. Didn't do anything eyecatchingly good, but nothing bad either. He carried OK and tackled well (including a big hit that lead to Olding going off injured), but was fairly anonymous at the breakdown. He just seemed to fan out and leave it to others, so it could have been tactical, but all in all, I didn't see anything to particularly excite me.
Given his age, he looked decent enough at 6, but on that showing, I'd have either Curry ahead of him by some distance as a 7.
-
- Posts: 5983
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:33 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
Yes. Tipuric was at 7.
-
- Posts: 2259
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:05 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
That echoes almost exactly what I've seen from him too. Not quite the physical whirlwind I expected.Scrumhead wrote:I watched Underhill with interest playing for Ospreys vs Ulster the other day.
He started at 6 and was fairly anonymous. Didn't do anything eyecatchingly good, but nothing bad either. He carried OK and tackled well (including a big hit that lead to Olding going off injured), but was fairly anonymous at the breakdown. He just seemed to fan out and leave it to others, so it could have been tactical, but all in all, I didn't see anything to particularly excite me.
Given his age, he looked decent enough at 6, but on that showing, I'd have either Curry ahead of him by some distance as a 7.
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
I was on this bandwagon before the band arrived, so agreed, but you're not going to impress people like Richard Hill if you're not doing something right so it's quite possible I'm missing the obvious (or just not seen him enough)Timbo wrote:That echoes almost exactly what I've seen from him too. Not quite the physical whirlwind I expected.Scrumhead wrote:I watched Underhill with interest playing for Ospreys vs Ulster the other day.
He started at 6 and was fairly anonymous. Didn't do anything eyecatchingly good, but nothing bad either. He carried OK and tackled well (including a big hit that lead to Olding going off injured), but was fairly anonymous at the breakdown. He just seemed to fan out and leave it to others, so it could have been tactical, but all in all, I didn't see anything to particularly excite me.
Given his age, he looked decent enough at 6, but on that showing, I'd have either Curry ahead of him by some distance as a 7.
-
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:19 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
Yup - the Curry's make me sit up and notice them, though I'm not sure which one I'm noticing.
Underhill I remain unconvinced but very open minded. He's still very young after all
Underhill I remain unconvinced but very open minded. He's still very young after all
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 12:16 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
I've not seen Sam Underhill yet but even if Underhill is a failure during the summer tour. I suspect Eddie will continue to invest in him just like Harrison.
Underhill also has the benefits from learning from Francois Louw which in no doubt will help him, Just as George Smith helped improve James Haskell.
Underhill also has the benefits from learning from Francois Louw which in no doubt will help him, Just as George Smith helped improve James Haskell.
- jngf
- Posts: 1570
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:57 pm
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
But even the great George Smith couldn't turn Haskell into anything remotely ressembling a specialist opensidePeasant wrote: Just as George Smith helped improve James Haskell.

-
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 6:27 pm
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
I watched The Ospreys v Scarlets last Friday and for the first 40 mins Underhill was very impressive. Sadly the Scarlets were on a mission and the O's kinda fell apart in the 2nd half.
He's a quality player. It'll be interesting to see how he fares next season.
He's a quality player. It'll be interesting to see how he fares next season.
-
- Posts: 5983
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:33 am
Re: Sam Underhill: best position 6 or 7?
Thinking about Saturday’s game, I remembered this thread and thought it deserved being resurrected.jngf wrote: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?
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.