RugbyRebels

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:
Whilst he’s be no means an out and out openside imo, I think if he stays fit, Underhill’s defence makes him pretty well undroppable. There’s a precedent for this going back a few decades, in the early 90’s Andy Robinson and the (early version) Neil Back might both have had a fair claim to be to be considered the best out and out opensides in England, but Peter Winterbottom’s defence was such an X factor that meant he was first choice and undroppable.

I think it’s unfair to label Underhill as purely a defensive specialist. His destructive tackling is his stand out skill but in addition to that, he’s very good at securing our attacking ball and not a bad carrier either. I just think Curry is a better all rounder who offers more in attack without a significant drop off in defence.

I would certainly say Curry’s much more of a linkman than Underhill and that Underhill’s the more powerful ball carrier (and hope this aspect of his game can be used more) - this is where I disagree with Mitchell whose described Curry as having the bigger carrying game of the two - and this was used as a justification for Curry rather than Underhill moving to 6. To be fair, Lawes has probably demonstrated the best back row carrying we’ve seen recently (not that I would start him at 6).

I think you under value Curry here. His carrying is very good and his defensive work superb. Underhill is a wonderful tackle and getting better and better at ruck time but I just think Curry is a super player.

And with Ted Hill and his tackling and ruck work, plus his lineout work, you’ve got a combo potentially just as good if not better.

Totally disagree on the carrying. Curry’s carrying is a fair bit better than Underhill IMO. Underhill’s has improved from inconspicuous to decent, but Curry’s has never been less than decent. He punches well above his weight in contact.

If Underhill was on the end of some slightly more lenient refereeing he might have the best try to game ratio of any England player against NZ*. He’s more than just a defensive player.

*this assertion is based on absolutely no research, as per forum bylaws.

Mellsblue wrote:If Underhill was on the end of some slightly more lenient refereeing he might have the best try to game ratio of any England player against NZ*. He’s more than just a defensive player.

*this assertion is based on absolutely no research, as per forum bylaws.

He is more than just a defender, but it's the standout part of his game.

I think he's a very, very good player. But Curry is just better. The only area Underhill outperforms Curry regularly is on attacking rucks. Which is important, but less so if his replacement is also very good at attacking rucks. Like Ted Hill.

Not so sure about partnering Curry and Willis (yet) but damn, that could be an interesting partnership.

I can understand Eddie persistently wanting to use Lawes in the backrow because of the WC squad restrictions, but the question is do we think he might want to explore more backrow options now it's out of the way, ie Hill, Willis, Mercer etc? I'm hoping and praying he does but it's Eddie. We'll prob get Ted Hill at lock and Lawes at 6.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If Underhill was on the end of some slightly more lenient refereeing he might have the best try to game ratio of any England player against NZ*. He’s more than just a defensive player.

*this assertion is based on absolutely no research, as per forum bylaws.

He is more than just a defender, but it's the standout part of his game.

I think he's a very, very good player. But Curry is just better. The only area Underhill outperforms Curry regularly is on attacking rucks. Which is important, but less so if his replacement is also very good at attacking rucks. Like Ted Hill.

Not so sure about partnering Curry and Willis (yet) but damn, that could be an interesting partnership.

Agreed. I think, all fit and on-form, our best back-row, potentially, is Willis, Curry, Billy.

However, if I was Curry's personal manager, I would warn him about one danger - that of developing himself into the perfect bench backrower, the one who could come on in any of the three positions to avoid shuffling. IF, (not saying he should) Curry were to say 'pick me at 7 or not at all', he would the first name on the back-row teamsheet, IMO. He is our best 7.

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If Underhill was on the end of some slightly more lenient refereeing he might have the best try to game ratio of any England player against NZ*. He’s more than just a defensive player.

*this assertion is based on absolutely no research, as per forum bylaws.

He is more than just a defender, but it's the standout part of his game.

I think he's a very, very good player. But Curry is just better. The only area Underhill outperforms Curry regularly is on attacking rucks. Which is important, but less so if his replacement is also very good at attacking rucks. Like Ted Hill.

Not so sure about partnering Curry and Willis (yet) but damn, that could be an interesting partnership.

Agreed. I think, all fit and on-form, our best back-row, potentially, is Willis, Curry, Billy.

However, if I was Curry's personal manager, I would warn him about one danger - that of developing himself into the perfect bench backrower, the one who could come on in any of the three positions to avoid shuffling. IF, (not saying he should) Curry were to say 'pick me at 7 or not at all', he would the first name on the back-row teamsheet, IMO. He is our best 7.

Richard Hill wasn’t benched for playing across the row.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If Underhill was on the end of some slightly more lenient refereeing he might have the best try to game ratio of any England player against NZ*. He’s more than just a defensive player.

*this assertion is based on absolutely no research, as per forum bylaws.

He is more than just a defender, but it's the standout part of his game.

I think he's a very, very good player. But Curry is just better. The only area Underhill outperforms Curry regularly is on attacking rucks. Which is important, but less so if his replacement is also very good at attacking rucks. Like Ted Hill.

Not so sure about partnering Curry and Willis (yet) but damn, that could be an interesting partnership.

I personally am very intrigued about the possibility of a Underhill/Curry/Willis back row (Cunderhillis, if you will). They would be utter demons at ruck time.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If Underhill was on the end of some slightly more lenient refereeing he might have the best try to game ratio of any England player against NZ*. He’s more than just a defensive player.

*this assertion is based on absolutely no research, as per forum bylaws.

He is more than just a defender, but it's the standout part of his game.

I think he's a very, very good player. But Curry is just better. The only area Underhill outperforms Curry regularly is on attacking rucks. Which is important, but less so if his replacement is also very good at attacking rucks. Like Ted Hill.

Not so sure about partnering Curry and Willis (yet) but damn, that could be an interesting partnership.

I personally am very intrigued about the possibility of a Underhill/Curry/Willis back row (Cunderhillis, if you will). They would be utter demons at ruck time.

Puja

They would...but we'd be lacking somewhat in the carrying department... We'd need a carrying lock, but Launch isn't in favour with Eddie.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:
He is more than just a defender, but it's the standout part of his game.

I think he's a very, very good player. But Curry is just better. The only area Underhill outperforms Curry regularly is on attacking rucks. Which is important, but less so if his replacement is also very good at attacking rucks. Like Ted Hill.

Not so sure about partnering Curry and Willis (yet) but damn, that could be an interesting partnership.

I personally am very intrigued about the possibility of a Underhill/Curry/Willis back row (Cunderhillis, if you will). They would be utter demons at ruck time.

Puja

They would...but we'd be lacking somewhat in the carrying department... We'd need a carrying lock, but Launch isn't in favour with Eddie.

I thought we agreed Mikey Brown’s mate is inked in for the enforcer lock role?

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:
I personally am very intrigued about the possibility of a Underhill/Curry/Willis back row (Cunderhillis, if you will). They would be utter demons at ruck time.

Puja

They would...but we'd be lacking somewhat in the carrying department... We'd need a carrying lock, but Launch isn't in favour with Eddie.

I thought we agreed Mikey Brown’s mate is inked in for the enforcer lock role?

They’re a fickle bunch on here.

I notice Ruan Ackermann is staying at Glos and is eligible in two months.

Given Eddie’s appreciation for anything hailing from the Southern Hemisphere, and given some of his attributes - strong carrier, aggressive, physical, potentially additive in the line out, capable at 6 or 8 - I could see him giving him a go.

Not commenting on whether I think it’s right or not (ie eligibility) I’ve always thought he was a pretty good, though possibly not outstanding, player.

Looking ahead, I could see him potentially getting in the way of Ted Hill’s progress, who I think will become the better player

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:
He is more than just a defender, but it's the standout part of his game.

I think he's a very, very good player. But Curry is just better. The only area Underhill outperforms Curry regularly is on attacking rucks. Which is important, but less so if his replacement is also very good at attacking rucks. Like Ted Hill.

Not so sure about partnering Curry and Willis (yet) but damn, that could be an interesting partnership.

I personally am very intrigued about the possibility of a Underhill/Curry/Willis back row (Cunderhillis, if you will). They would be utter demons at ruck time.

Puja

They would...but we'd be lacking somewhat in the carrying department... We'd need a carrying lock, but Launch isn't in favour with Eddie.

I would say Willis's carrying is easily good enough for an international 8. It's one of his strengths.

TheNomad wrote:I notice Ruan Ackermann is staying at Glos and is eligible in two months.

Given Eddie’s appreciation for anything hailing from the Southern Hemisphere, and given some of his attributes - strong carrier, aggressive, physical, potentially additive in the line out, capable at 6 or 8 - I could see him giving him a go.

Not commenting on whether I think it’s right or not (ie eligibility) I’ve always thought he was a pretty good, though possibly not outstanding, player.

Looking ahead, I could see him potentially getting in the way of Ted Hill’s progress, who I think will become the better player

I can absolutely see Eddie picking him ahead of bright English talent, but I've never seen him as a good player. I mean, he's okay, does a job at Prem level, but I've never seen anything outstanding that suggests international quality - he gets turned over a lot, is easy to rile, doesn't appear to offer a massive amount at ruck time. What's the point of him?

I mean, if we wanted okay internationals that occasionally put in a really good carry, we could have stuck with true-born Englishmen like Harrison or Shields.

Puja

TheNomad wrote:I notice Ruan Ackermann is staying at Glos and is eligible in two months

I thought he came AFTER the cut off for 5 years residential qualification?

Jono Ross and Dave Ewers are far better players and they can't get a game for England. Ackerman shouldnt be in the conversation, frankly.

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:
I personally am very intrigued about the possibility of a Underhill/Curry/Willis back row (Cunderhillis, if you will). They would be utter demons at ruck time.

Puja

They would...but we'd be lacking somewhat in the carrying department... We'd need a carrying lock, but Launch isn't in favour with Eddie.

I would say Willis's carrying is easily good enough for an international 8. It's one of his strengths.

TheNomad wrote:I notice Ruan Ackermann is staying at Glos and is eligible in two months.

Given Eddie’s appreciation for anything hailing from the Southern Hemisphere, and given some of his attributes - strong carrier, aggressive, physical, potentially additive in the line out, capable at 6 or 8 - I could see him giving him a go.

Not commenting on whether I think it’s right or not (ie eligibility) I’ve always thought he was a pretty good, though possibly not outstanding, player.

Looking ahead, I could see him potentially getting in the way of Ted Hill’s progress, who I think will become the better player

I can absolutely see Eddie picking him ahead of bright English talent, but I've never seen him as a good player. I mean, he's okay, does a job at Prem level, but I've never seen anything outstanding that suggests international quality - he gets turned over a lot, is easy to rile, doesn't appear to offer a massive amount at ruck time. What's the point of him?

I mean, if we wanted okay internationals that occasionally put in a really good carry, we could have stuck with true-born Englishmen like Harrison or Shields.

Puja

Agreed on all points. Hopefully Ackermann stays South African. Personally I don’t think he’s good enough, but he’d be better setting his sights on fighting Dan du Preez to become Duane Vermeulen’s successor.

Anyone else not slightly worried Willis won’t have it at the top level.

It sounds like he’s fantastic but he keeps being spoken about as if he’s already proven himself?

Of all Ackerman’s traits, easy to rile is not one of them. I’ve never seen him ‘riled’ on the pitch or off it. His demeanour and persona is pretty calm. No idea where you e got that perception from. If you think he’s easily turned over, that’s another misnomer for me, unless that comes across as part of a generic Gloucester habit of late where poor clearing out has allowed latchers on to prosper.

I think he IS good enough to do a job for England (he is eligible in 2 months according to Glos sources) but I agree there are others who should deservedly be above him in the pecking order, and for that reason I can’t see him being in the mix.

Which Tyler wrote:

TheNomad wrote:I notice Ruan Ackermann is staying at Glos and is eligible in two months

I thought he came AFTER the cut off for 5 years residential qualification?

Did he perhaps move after the cut off but with a deal that was agreed prior to the change?

Looks a decent player, but I'd agree there also look a few ahead of him in the queue, the likes of Ludlam, Earls, Willis, Mercer and probably Hill

Gloskarlos wrote:Of all Ackerman’s traits, easy to rile is not one of them. I’ve never seen him ‘riled’ on the pitch or off it. His demeanour and persona is pretty calm. No idea where you e got that perception from. If you think he’s easily turned over, that’s another misnomer for me, unless that comes across as part of a generic Gloucester habit of late where poor clearing out has allowed latchers on to prosper.

I think he IS good enough to do a job for England (he is eligible in 2 months according to Glos sources) but I agree there are others who should deservedly be above him in the pecking order, and for that reason I can’t see him being in the mix.

I will defer to an expert opinion, but he always seems to be the one involved in the pushing and shoving matches, giving it the crazy eyes at opposition. The easily turned over comes from watching the last few highlights programs before lockdown, where he was carrying high and being held up. Could be poor clearing out and highlights are no substitute for watching, so I'll defer to you.

Puja

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

TheNomad wrote:I notice Ruan Ackermann is staying at Glos and is eligible in two months

I thought he came AFTER the cut off for 5 years residential qualification?

Did he perhaps move after the cut off but with a deal that was agreed prior to the change?

Looks a decent player, but I'd agree there also look a few ahead of him in the queue, the likes of Ludlam, Earls, Willis, Mercer and probably Hill

He moved after the change was announced (it was August, he entered the country November IIRC), but the change was announced to start from December, just to allow everyone a last chance to stockpile foreigners.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If Underhill was on the end of some slightly more lenient refereeing he might have the best try to game ratio of any England player against NZ*. He’s more than just a defensive player.

*this assertion is based on absolutely no research, as per forum bylaws.

He is more than just a defender, but it's the standout part of his game.

I think he's a very, very good player. But Curry is just better. The only area Underhill outperforms Curry regularly is on attacking rucks. Which is important, but less so if his replacement is also very good at attacking rucks. Like Ted Hill.

Not so sure about partnering Curry and Willis (yet) but damn, that could be an interesting partnership.

I personally am very intrigued about the possibility of a Underhill/Curry/Willis back row (Cunderhillis, if you will). They would be utter demons at ruck time.

Puja

Hillcurliss also appeals. Or Hillcurpola

I don't think Willis, Underhill and Curry would lack too much carrying. Though you'd want Sinkler and Mako/Genge around too. Maybe Lcd. It's only really B Vunipola that seriously improves it.

I'd love to see what that backrow can do at the breakdown too.

Mikey Brown wrote:Anyone else not slightly worried Willis won’t have it at the top level.

It sounds like he’s fantastic but he keeps being spoken about as if he’s already proven himself?

I'm more worried he won't get the chance to show it. But I had made the point before that he has got to fight his way past some proven talent.

Puja wrote:

Gloskarlos wrote:Of all Ackerman’s traits, easy to rile is not one of them. I’ve never seen him ‘riled’ on the pitch or off it. His demeanour and persona is pretty calm. No idea where you e got that perception from. If you think he’s easily turned over, that’s another misnomer for me, unless that comes across as part of a generic Gloucester habit of late where poor clearing out has allowed latchers on to prosper.

I think he IS good enough to do a job for England (he is eligible in 2 months according to Glos sources) but I agree there are others who should deservedly be above him in the pecking order, and for that reason I can’t see him being in the mix.

I will defer to an expert opinion, but he always seems to be the one involved in the pushing and shoving matches, giving it the crazy eyes at opposition. The easily turned over comes from watching the last few highlights programs before lockdown, where he was carrying high and being held up. Could be poor clearing out and highlights are no substitute for watching, so I'll defer to you.

Puja

I think that’s just his eyes, father and son both have a kind of starey quality naturally.