RugbyRebels

Scrumhead wrote:

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?

Thinking about Saturday’s game, I remembered this thread and thought it deserved being resurrected.

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.

Scrumhead wrote:

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?

Thinking about Saturday’s game, I remembered this thread and thought it deserved being resurrected.

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.

Oakboy wrote: The oft-quoted top value of a traditional openside is turnovers. The DT reports that Underhill had success in that area on Saturday but I don't recall any. Can anybody give the facts on it?

Puja wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

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?

Thinking about Saturday’s game, I remembered this thread and thought it deserved being resurrected.

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.

If Eddie does call up a sub for TCurry, then I suspect it might be BCurry - he's certainly been tearing it up well enough for Sale to show he's learned... whatever it was that Eddie must've claimed he was lacking.

I think Underhill at 7 only really works if we have Robshaw (or Wilson) at 6, someone who can fill in some of the 7ish qualities that he's lacking. It puts the kibosh on any Lawes at 6 ideas for the moment, certainly.

Puja

jngf wrote:I thought Underhill and Robshaw worked well on Saturday and I was really impressed by Underhill’s physical presence - reminded me a lot of Peter Winterbottom. Robshaw and Underhill seemed to be sharing the fetching duties but for me this combo is a massive step up from any of Haskell, Wood or Harrison at 7.

Post RWC 2019 I could see a backrow of 6 Underhill 7 Simmonds 8 Hughes developing into something really world class.

fivepointer wrote:The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

Not to be picked until he was ready to offer more. It would seem Farrell has set a trend

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

Not to be picked until he was ready to offer more. It would seem Farrell has set a trend

define 'more' then? And even then, that's an expectation on the selectors, not him.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

It's not criticism of him necessarily, just that he does not (yet?) fulfil the craved-for ground-grubbing open-side requirements perhaps? Maybe, 5P is right that he'll develop in that direction. I think he is worth persevering with now but I have some doubts about playing him in this game against that Aussie back-row. His hardness in the tackle disguises the issue that he is really doing the same job at 7 that Robshaw used to do without the experience, brain or discipline.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Not to be picked until he was ready to offer more. It would seem Farrell has set a trend

define 'more' then? And even then, that's an expectation on the selectors, not him.

In simplest terms either to offer more in defence over the ball, or to offer more in attack as a carrier. Ideally to have worked on both. And still more ideally to have done some speed work too. I have some sympathy with his limited gameplan as the game has restricted methods of competing for the ball, it's a significant challenge to all loose forwards and especially to young ones trying to develop their game.

And yes in no small measure his selection without having developed more, and perhaps with an assumption he will develop, is down to the selectors. But it's not like we didn't give grief to Farrell back when he passed like an original Thunderbird puppet and only critiqued the selectors

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: define 'more' then? And even then, that's an expectation on the selectors, not him.

In simplest terms either to offer more in defence over the ball, or to offer more in attack as a carrier. Ideally to have worked on both. And still more ideally to have done some speed work too. I have some sympathy with his limited gameplan as the game has restricted methods of competing for the ball, it's a significant challenge to all loose forwards and especially to young ones trying to develop their game.

And yes in no small measure his selection without having developed more, and perhaps with an assumption he will develop, is down to the selectors. But it's not like we didn't give grief to Farrell back when he passed like an original Thunderbird puppet and only critiqued the selectors

I think we did both, and Faz was demonstrably out of his skills depth, but also temperamentally suspect when he started, and also made poor decisions....you couldn't label Underhill with a lot of that. To my mind, he looked comfortable in the role he was asked to do.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
In simplest terms either to offer more in defence over the ball, or to offer more in attack as a carrier. Ideally to have worked on both. And still more ideally to have done some speed work too. I have some sympathy with his limited gameplan as the game has restricted methods of competing for the ball, it's a significant challenge to all loose forwards and especially to young ones trying to develop their game.

And yes in no small measure his selection without having developed more, and perhaps with an assumption he will develop, is down to the selectors. But it's not like we didn't give grief to Farrell back when he passed like an original Thunderbird puppet and only critiqued the selectors

I think we did both, and Faz was demonstrably out of his skills depth, but also temperamentally suspect when he started, and also made poor decisions....you couldn't label Underhill with a lot of that. To my mind, he looked comfortable in the role he was asked to do.

Yes, but even for what Eddie has sought so far in the 7 short it was limited. Though in fairness I did complement Farrell back on his debut, noting it too was limited but he showed good composure for one so young, and it was only when that was all he showed for a while I had more of a pop

We'd also need to overlook Underhill provoked a strong reaction from Eddie which saw Eddie lament a lack of mental acuity on the part of the team in a style reminiscent of Noel Coward

Timbo wrote:Well if we don’t pick Underhill we can just pick one of those many other complete international 7’s that we have, yeah?

Timbo wrote:Well if we don’t pick Underhill we can just pick one of those many other complete international 7’s that we have, yeah?

Banquo wrote:
Underhill carried twice, which suggests he is not being asked to carry, but support. I do note Eddie saying how little quick ball we had, so be interested on his remedy there.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

They expected the new Richard Hill. But, just like every other flanker we've had since, he's some way under Hill's quality.