Re: EPS Watch / Player Form Thread
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:18 am
Simmonds, Underhill, Vunipola?
Can't see Robshaw being dropped. I'd also argue Wilson and Curry's performances in Arg, plus good starts to their respective seasons, will count for a lot. Having said that, I can see Underhill going straight in to the starting lineup with the Hask missing out. Jones as been very effusive about him since the moment in land at Heathrow. I doubt Simmonds will shift Hughes from the bench, unfortunately.Raggs wrote:Simmonds, Underhill, Vunipola?
Underhill was very good for Bath last night. I think short term is Robshaw, Underhill, BillyV. Simmonds is looking very good, but I'd need to pay a bit more attention to his ruck work to judge whether he'd be a good bet for England.Mellsblue wrote:Can't see Robshaw being dropped. I'd also argue Wilson and Curry's performances in Arg, plus good starts to their respective seasons, will count for a lot. Having said that, I can see Underhill going straight in to the starting lineup with the Hask missing out. Jones as been very effusive about him since the moment in land at Heathrow. I doubt Simmonds will shift Hughes from the bench, unfortunately.Raggs wrote:Simmonds, Underhill, Vunipola?
Jack Clifford mk 2 . though Clifford claims to be bigger. What is key with these guys is that they work on the technical/skills side, and get the decisions right. NSS I supposeSpiffy wrote:Simmonds is an interesting player. He seemed to come out of nowhere at the end of last season and has played a series of stormers for Exeter. He looks really powerful for a man who is relatively small by today's standards (6'0"; 16 st 2 lb if the stats are accurate) and is an explosive carrier who can play across the back row. If he holds current form Jones will be taking a serious look at him, at least as a dynamic bencher if not a starter.Timbo wrote:Sam Simmonds scored another try tonight and apparently having an absolute stormer. Underhill is a beast on the defensive side of the ball.
Potentially 2 really exciting additions to Englands backrow stocks.
Personally I think Clifford has been 'written off' too early. We need more carriers, and of the sort you mention, but it doesn't have to come from 8; look at the NZ 6's, for example. My point though, is that these aspirants need to make sure that their games are rounded, and they aren't "just" 'carriers'/'powerful hitters'.....they need all of that stuff.Scrumhead wrote:Clifford has actually been pretty decent this season. He's playing 7 tomorrow, but is a lot better at 8 IMO.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the trouble for Clifford and Simmonds is that their style of play doesn't really suit Eddie's game plan. Billy and Hughes take responsibility for most of the heavy carrying in our pack and Clifford and Simmonds aren't suited to that task. I would have liked to have seen us develop an alternative way of playing that would allow us to better utilise a looser, Read style of 8, either as a different tactical option or off the bench but without the personnel to support that elsewhere, I don't really think it has legs right now.
Our first choice back row for me includes Robshaw and Billy at 6 and 8, but if we fancy an experiment against Samoa in the AIs, we could go nuts and try Hughes at 6 with Simmonds at 8.
The key point being that Eddie at that point didn't believe he had the options to do the above; one thing he doesn't do,generally, is ask players to do something they can't do (...could argue that there is a coaching 'opportunity' there...); even when playing Lawtoje at 6 he tried to use their strengths (and imo failed w Itoje). Pragmatism again; clearly he then tried options in Argentina.Mellsblue wrote:I said it when Billy was injured and Hughes was struggling. We need another option/style of carrier when Billy isn't available or has a loss of form. A pacier carrier further out would seem the obvious option, and we have the players to suit. Whether they can step it up to test level is another matter. I'd love to see Clifford and Simmons (I thought Beaumont would suit this too before he had a rubbish season and was then moved to lock) big seasons and get a run out over the summer.
It would also give Jones the size out wide that he wants without needing to pick a bigger back just for the sake of needing a big back.
Ideally we will find a 6 that will provide Robshaws skills and add in some pace.
He's certainly improved as a lock, which is his best position.TheNomad wrote:Personally think the Itoje and Launch with Lawes at 6 is something we could persevere with.
Lawes has improved massively, no doubt
You could make similar argument re: point of difference with Hughes as well, who's good over the ball and in the line out - carrying goes without saying
As above.Banquo wrote:He's certainly improved as a lock, which is his best position.TheNomad wrote:Personally think the Itoje and Launch with Lawes at 6 is something we could persevere with.
Lawes has improved massively, no doubt
You could make similar argument re: point of difference with Hughes as well, who's good over the ball and in the line out - carrying goes without saying
Former lock in talking up the effectiveness of locks shocker.Puja wrote:As above.Banquo wrote:He's certainly improved as a lock, which is his best position.TheNomad wrote:Personally think the Itoje and Launch with Lawes at 6 is something we could persevere with.
Lawes has improved massively, no doubt
You could make similar argument re: point of difference with Hughes as well, who's good over the ball and in the line out - carrying goes without saying
I don't get this insistence that the new law variations have ruined any chances of turnovers and tipped the balance toward the attack. The only two things that have changed with competing with your hands are that a) the tackler can't stand up and compete from the wrong side and b) that a ruck is formed when one person is there. The former was rare anyway and the latter seems irrelevant to jackalling as, if there was a member of the attacking team at the breakdown first, then any member of the defending team would make it a ruck anyway. So what exactly has changed to make poaching obsolete and make it worthwhile picking locks everywhere?
Puja
Lineout has alway been important. No reason that you can't use smaller back rows effectively there though; Robshaw himself is used that way.Raggs wrote:The former wasn't that rare for ruck specialist 7s, it was very common, and a lot of other backrow would give it a go too. Though actual turnovers may have been a bit rarer, it had a serious slowing effect on the ball. Now blitz turnovers (such as Leicester have been gaining) are probably a more solid option in terms of semi-reliable turnover/slowing. Refs also used to frequently allow the first defender to go for the ball, even if an attackers was already there, not every ref, but a good number didn't mind a lot.
I think it will change, but I don't think Robshaw was every a serious turnover machine anyway, and he wasn't in the 6 shirt for those reasons. I do agree that the lineout is becoming more important though, so that may mean we look elsewhere.
In essence it seems Ben is turning to Sandra Bullock for his punditry. One thing he seems to have skirted around, and it's especially odd for someone who loves a good latch, is it's not just players who can win the lineout but also set and drive a good maul.Mellsblue wrote: The quarterback in the NFL has always been the highest earner in the team but, since 2004, teams have recognised that it is critical to have a left tackle who can protect his blind side and suddenly that unglamorous role became the second highest-paid position in the league.
Going to go out on a limb and suggest he's actually read the book that film is based on, by Michael Lewis. The economics aspect of it is quite interesting.Digby wrote:In essence it seems Ben is turning to Sandra Bullock for his punditry. One thing he seems to have skirted around, and it's especially odd for someone who loves a good latch, is it's not just players who can win the lineout but also set and drive a good maul.Mellsblue wrote: The quarterback in the NFL has always been the highest earner in the team but, since 2004, teams have recognised that it is critical to have a left tackle who can protect his blind side and suddenly that unglamorous role became the second highest-paid position in the league.
As was Moneyball. What both should advise more perhaps is just how much things change, and so what's 'right' now mayn't hold true by the time of the WCbitts wrote:Going to go out on a limb and suggest he's actually read the book that film is based on, by Michael Lewis. The economics aspect of it is quite interesting.Digby wrote:In essence it seems Ben is turning to Sandra Bullock for his punditry. One thing he seems to have skirted around, and it's especially odd for someone who loves a good latch, is it's not just players who can win the lineout but also set and drive a good maul.Mellsblue wrote: The quarterback in the NFL has always been the highest earner in the team but, since 2004, teams have recognised that it is critical to have a left tackle who can protect his blind side and suddenly that unglamorous role became the second highest-paid position in the league.
Im struggling to think of a situation where turning to Miss Bullock isn't a good idea.Digby wrote:In essence it seems Ben is turning to Sandra Bullock for his punditry.Mellsblue wrote: The quarterback in the NFL has always been the highest earner in the team but, since 2004, teams have recognised that it is critical to have a left tackle who can protect his blind side and suddenly that unglamorous role became the second highest-paid position in the league.
What makes it odder is that Robshaw does have a point of differentiation - his work rate and stamina. It's not as glamorous as silky lineout skills, but it's behind a reasonable chunk of our success so far.Banquo wrote:Lineout has alway been important. No reason that you can't use smaller back rows effectively there though; Robshaw himself is used that way.Raggs wrote:The former wasn't that rare for ruck specialist 7s, it was very common, and a lot of other backrow would give it a go too. Though actual turnovers may have been a bit rarer, it had a serious slowing effect on the ball. Now blitz turnovers (such as Leicester have been gaining) are probably a more solid option in terms of semi-reliable turnover/slowing. Refs also used to frequently allow the first defender to go for the ball, even if an attackers was already there, not every ref, but a good number didn't mind a lot.
I think it will change, but I don't think Robshaw was every a serious turnover machine anyway, and he wasn't in the 6 shirt for those reasons. I do agree that the lineout is becoming more important though, so that may mean we look elsewhere.
If you are going down the blitz route, or authentic rucking as it used to be known (where bound forwards drove over the ball), you could argue for shorter, more powerful locks, who can also lift agile back rows (French have done it for years).....more than one way to skin a cat. Kay's argument and solution smacks of confirmation bias, built to suit accomodating three/four of our strongest assets (currently). MInd, I wouldn't say no to Fifita!
His point of differentiation is interesting- see Tom Croft- but great basic skills and an x-factor is what makes world class, so it's hardly an insightful commentary.
..whilst that is true, should be a given. The fact that it differentiates him, says somethingPuja wrote:What makes it odder is that Robshaw does have a point of differentiation - his work rate and stamina. It's not as glamorous as silky lineout skills, but it's behind a reasonable chunk of our success so far.Banquo wrote:Lineout has alway been important. No reason that you can't use smaller back rows effectively there though; Robshaw himself is used that way.Raggs wrote:The former wasn't that rare for ruck specialist 7s, it was very common, and a lot of other backrow would give it a go too. Though actual turnovers may have been a bit rarer, it had a serious slowing effect on the ball. Now blitz turnovers (such as Leicester have been gaining) are probably a more solid option in terms of semi-reliable turnover/slowing. Refs also used to frequently allow the first defender to go for the ball, even if an attackers was already there, not every ref, but a good number didn't mind a lot.
I think it will change, but I don't think Robshaw was every a serious turnover machine anyway, and he wasn't in the 6 shirt for those reasons. I do agree that the lineout is becoming more important though, so that may mean we look elsewhere.
If you are going down the blitz route, or authentic rucking as it used to be known (where bound forwards drove over the ball), you could argue for shorter, more powerful locks, who can also lift agile back rows (French have done it for years).....more than one way to skin a cat. Kay's argument and solution smacks of confirmation bias, built to suit accomodating three/four of our strongest assets (currently). MInd, I wouldn't say no to Fifita!
His point of differentiation is interesting- see Tom Croft- but great basic skills and an x-factor is what makes world class, so it's hardly an insightful commentary.
Puja
? she looks like Michael Jackson in his alabaster period these days....15 years ago, of course its a good ideaMellsblue wrote:Im struggling to think of a situation where turning to Miss Bullock isn't a good idea.Digby wrote:In essence it seems Ben is turning to Sandra Bullock for his punditry.Mellsblue wrote: The quarterback in the NFL has always been the highest earner in the team but, since 2004, teams have recognised that it is critical to have a left tackle who can protect his blind side and suddenly that unglamorous role became the second highest-paid position in the league.