Post AI Review

[Spiffy]

By the way, Ford is seen as a running threat, but he have any dabs to speak of this autumn? I can't recall any but then I missed plenty over the three games.

Ford's running game was nothing special, and he has played better, especially in Argentina in the summer. I still like him as a FH and would rate him ahead of Farrell in all-round FH skills. But the form English FH is Marcus Smith, who can run, pass, break, kick, tackle and read the game. So what if he's only 18 - he is outplaying other English FHs in the PL. He deserves a run. If he is to be England's FH in the next RWC (and it increasingly looks as though he should be) then the sooner capped the better. Jones should break him in gently off the bench to get things rolling. The AIs were probably a missed opportuinty to do this.

[Mikey Brown]

No.

[Beasties]

My biggest disappointment this series was Jones not using Wilson. He was excellent in Arg in the one game he was given and I'm just not seeing the point of all this lock at 6 malarky. He's the nearest thing we've got to a Robshaw replacement, he's a "glue player". He does the nuts and bolts of being a 6 (and properly) and could stretch to 7 without major issues if needed. He's quite powerful at the breakdown with good decision making. Given that we're looking at a 7 out of the Currys/Underhill/Simmonds lucky bag then surely it would make far more sense to have say Wilson in the squad? There's a lot to admire about Armand at Prem level but for me Wilson looks to have more of the "stuff" that's needed by Eng at this moment in time.

Has anyone been impressed by any of the lock at 6 performances since Eddie started looking at it?

[Scrumhead]

By the way, Ford is seen as a running threat, but he have any dabs to speak of this autumn? I can't recall any but then I missed plenty over the three games.

Ford's running game was nothing special, and he has played better, especially in Argentina in the summer. I still like him as a FH and would rate him ahead of Farrell in all-round FH skills. But the form English FH is Marcus Smith, who can run, pass, break, kick, tackle and read the game. So what if he's only 18 - he is outplaying other English FHs in the PL. He deserves a run. If he is to be England's FH in the next RWC (and it increasingly looks as though he should be) then the sooner capped the better. Jones should break him in gently off the bench to get things rolling. The AIs were probably a missed opportuinty to do this.

Err no ... that is hyperbole of the highest order.

I’m a Quins fan and a huge fan of Smith but the guy has something like 9 games in competitive senior rugby.

If he can continue his development at the same rate, he’s definitely in with a shout of being involved in Japan, but there is almost 0 chance of him being our first choice 10 by then. Nor should there be.

[Puja]

By the way, Ford is seen as a running threat, but he have any dabs to speak of this autumn? I can't recall any but then I missed plenty over the three games.

Ford's running game was nothing special, and he has played better, especially in Argentina in the summer. I still like him as a FH and would rate him ahead of Farrell in all-round FH skills. But the form English FH is Marcus Smith, who can run, pass, break, kick, tackle and read the game. So what if he's only 18 - he is outplaying other English FHs in the PL. He deserves a run. If he is to be England's FH in the next RWC (and it increasingly looks as though he should be) then the sooner capped the better. Jones should break him in gently off the bench to get things rolling. The AIs were probably a missed opportuinty to do this.

No. Waaaaaay too early for Smith. He's shown some impressive things for Quins, but he's also panicked under pressure, made poor decisions, and had basic skills let him down under pressure. Not that this is particularly surprising as he's *18* years old and has played maybe 10 games of professional rugby in his life.

Puja

[Banquo]

By the way, Ford is seen as a running threat, but he have any dabs to speak of this autumn? I can't recall any but then I missed plenty over the three games.

Ford's running game was nothing special, and he has played better, especially in Argentina in the summer. I still like him as a FH and would rate him ahead of Farrell in all-round FH skills. But the form English FH is Marcus Smith, who can run, pass, break, kick, tackle and read the game. So what if he's only 18 - he is outplaying other English FHs in the PL. He deserves a run. If he is to be England's FH in the next RWC (and it increasingly looks as though he should be) then the sooner capped the better. Jones should break him in gently off the bench to get things rolling. The AIs were probably a missed opportuinty to do this.

No. Waaaaaay too early for Smith. He's shown some impressive things for Quins, but he's also panicked under pressure, made poor decisions, and had basic skills let him down under pressure. Not that this is particularly surprising as he's *18* years old and has played maybe 10 games of professional rugby in his life.

Puja

.... playing in a poor team doesnt help him much, in fairness. But I agree, he's got the right stuff but needs more development time; I wouldn't necessarily rule him out for the World Cup though.

[Raggs]

Sorry, was Spiffy being serious? I thought he was just taking the mickey out of the "Ooooh... Shiny!" crowd?

[Stom]

My biggest disappointment this series was Jones not using Wilson. He was excellent in Arg in the one game he was given and I'm just not seeing the point of all this lock at 6 malarky. He's the nearest thing we've got to a Robshaw replacement, he's a "glue player". He does the nuts and bolts of being a 6 (and properly) and could stretch to 7 without major issues if needed. He's quite powerful at the breakdown with good decision making. Given that we're looking at a 7 out of the Currys/Underhill/Simmonds lucky bag then surely it would make far more sense to have say Wilson in the squad? There's a lot to admire about Armand at Prem level but for me Wilson looks to have more of the "stuff" that's needed by Eng at this moment in time.

Has anyone been impressed by any of the lock at 6 performances since Eddie started looking at it?

Maybe, but for me Armand's continuing improvements and excellence are the one thing we should have had a look at. And he's a big carrying threat as well as a good defender.

[fivepointer]

Both Wilson and Armand can count themselves very unlucky to be overlooked.

What should have gone in favour of Wilson was his outstanding performance in the 1st test in Argentina. He has a proven (albeit short) track record of delivering on the international stage. Genuinely feel sorry for him.

Armand is consistently excellent for Exeter and wouldnt be at all out of place in our back row.

[Dasheragain]

Who's better, Armand or Wilson?

I would have said Armand personally, but then I didn't watch the Argie games in the summer. Interested in people's thoughts on this one...

[fivepointer]

Armand is the better carrier and has a very good line out game. Wilson is better around the breakdown. Both are great workhorses, very consistent and reliable.

[Mellsblue]

Armand just has the look of a bloke who wouldn’t make the step up to test level. I’ll offer no evidence for this - it’s just a gut feeling.

[Stom]

Armand just has the look of a bloke who wouldn’t make the step up to test level. I’ll offer no evidence for this - it’s just a gut feeling.

That was what I previously felt, too. But this season I have been converted.

[Puja]

I'd say Wilson - he's got a bit more nous about his play and a better ability to turn up in the right place. Plus he shines playing for Newcastle, which is not always an easy thing to do.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I praised Armand when he first appeared for Exeter. In my opinion, then, he offered everything that Ewers did in terms of carrying and a lot more besides. Since that time, he has improved considerably. I can't offer anything in the Armand v Wilson debate because I've seen so little of Wilson (like what I have seen). Maybe, Armand staying in a (the) top team means he is rated as a consistent, top performer. That may or may not relate to the international scene but I've not seen him found wanting.

[Mikey Brown]

Any chance he just isn’t seen as filling any one role wel enough? He seems equally good across he backrow from what I’ve seen.

[Beasties]

I'm an Armand fan too, have been for a couple of years now. But I'd agree with Mikey to an extent, he's an excellent operator across the backrow but somehow I just can't quite see him stunning anyone at int'l level. Also, standing out in a Newc team week in week out (not just this season but for two or three years) is no mean feat. I just get the feeling that Wilson has another level if surrounded by quality internationals.

Jack Willis is one I'm eager to see develop, this WC's too soon but wow what a season he's having.

[Scrumhead]

I'm an Armand fan too, have been for a couple of years now. But I'd agree with Mikey to an extent, he's an excellent operator across the backrow but somehow I just can't quite see him stunning anyone at int'l level. Also, standing out in a Newc team week in week out (not just this season but for two or three years) is no mean feat. I just get the feeling that Wilson has another level if surrounded by quality internationals.

Jack Willis is one I'm eager to see develop, this WC's too soon but wow what a season he's having.

I’m a massive fan of Wilson. He reminds me of Robshaw but with more physicality and better carrying. He was genuinely excellent in Argentina and I think it is a massive shame he was unfairly overlooked for the AIs.

I also agree on Jack Willis. I’d argue he’s been as impressive this season as the Currys were last season. If he can keep getting game time and keep developing, he’s a real contender for sure.

I may be wrong, but with all of the back row talent we have coming through, I suspect our continuous debates about the back row will be more around selection preferences than worries about balance or certain skills. As I see it, we’ll have Underhill, Simmonds, Ben Curry, Tom Curry, Willis and Mercer all likely to be competing for squad places in the near future. Ben Earl is another one to look out for if he can make more of a breakthrough at Sarries too.

[Digby]

I may be wrong, but with all of the back row talent we have coming through, I suspect our continuous debates about the back row will be more around selection preferences than worries about balance or certain skills.

What's the distinction there?

[Scrumhead]

What I mean is that I’m hoping we’re debating which 6 we play at 6 or which 7 we play at 7 rather than making comprimises like playing locks out of position etc.

[Oakboy]

What I mean is that I’m hoping we’re debating which 6 we play at 6 or which 7 we play at 7 rather than making comprimises like playing locks out of position etc.

The only smidgeon I'd add from the devil's advocacy store is that the likes of Lawes and Itoje have racked up a fair few hours in the top tier of club rugby in the back row - rather more than a few of the young candidates. Lawes was quoted last week as saying he prefers playing at 6. What would he have to do to be categorised (by you or whoever) as a 6? How about if he outplays his opposite number week-in, week-out? If it's just which 6, might he be reasonably described as a 6? Just saying.

[Digby]

And of course even then Lawes might end up being a number 6 who does better at lock for England, he could be the new Tim Rodber

[CunningPunter]

I'm an Armand fan too ... but somehow I just can't quite see him stunning anyone at int'l level....

Just as well, you get a red card for that nowadays.

[Spiffy]

Sorry, was Spiffy being serious? I thought he was just taking the mickey out of the "Ooooh... Shiny!" crowd?

No - not a WUM.
Jonny Wilkinson was capped at 18.
I would say Marcus Smith has a more rounded game than Jonny at the same age. (Runs for cover!!)
Tony O'Reilly was selected for the Lions at 18, became 19 on tour, and went to score a record number of tries.
Plenty of talented players have been capped at a young age.
I have watched a lot of PL games this year. Yes, Smith does make some mistakes - just like everyone else including Ford, Faz, Loz, Burns etc.. (All Faz mistakes are ignored by the media.) But, overall, he has looked about the best FH to me, especially, as Banquo points out above, he is performing in a fairly ordinary team at present. With a dominant pack and front foot ball I'm sure he'd be even more impressive.
He will have two years' extra experience under his belt by the 2019 RWC and I think he will be a serious contender who would certainly benefit with a little run or two off the bench starting right now.

[Scrumhead]

What I mean is that I’m hoping we’re debating which 6 we play at 6 or which 7 we play at 7 rather than making comprimises like playing locks out of position etc.

The only smidgeon I'd add from the devil's advocacy store is that the likes of Lawes and Itoje have racked up a fair few hours in the top tier of club rugby in the back row - rather more than a few of the young candidates. Lawes was quoted last week as saying he prefers playing at 6. What would he have to do to be categorised (by you or whoever) as a 6? How about if he outplays his opposite number week-in, week-out? If it's just which 6, might he be reasonably described as a 6? Just saying.

I probably should have made myself clearer. Realistically, I think we’ll be looking at more of those guys as the post-World Cup future. Underhill, Simmonds and the Currys have a good chance and Mercer has an outside shot, but I don’t think anyone who’s not already firmly on Eddie’s radar is really a contender.

Re. Lawes, I would 100% have him in my 23, quite possibly starting in the second row, but I don’t see him as a better 6 than a specialist blindside like Robshaw, Wilson or Armand. If he plays more at 6 and develops more of a presence at the breakdown, then I will be happy to revise my opinion, but until then, I’d sooner see him as a lock that can cover 6 rather than vice versa.