RugbyRebels

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 9:07 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 8:33 am

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 9:07 pm 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.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 8:33 am

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 9:07 pm 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.

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 9:29 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 8:33 am

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 9:07 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 9:43 am

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 9:29 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 8:33 am

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.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 9:14 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 8:33 am

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 9:07 pm 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

twitchy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 09, 2025 5:47 am Watching the fra vs sa game is pretty sobering.