RugbyRebels

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:He’s in a tricky position, but I think he can only feature as an 8.

I don’t think you can be a test 7 without a strong breakdown game. If Simmonds has that, it’s not something we see from him an Exeter shirt so it’d be a tall order to ask him to play a different way for England.

Something like Hill, Curry and Simmonds could work. Almost no chance of that happening though.

I’ve seen him very strong at the breakdown for Exeter. I will agree he has a different role now for them. Then again we saw all sorts of people who can’t jackal apparently...jackaling. And there is more to being good at the breakdown than jackaling of course- unseen work I believe it’s called

I've seen him win jackal turnovers, but I've seen almost every forward do that. To be strong at it, you sort of expect someone to at least threaten turnovers multiple times on a per game basis.

As i said twice before, he is playing in a different role, as Exeter have gradually shifted their game too. So I think he can be strong at the breakdown, as I have seen him threaten multiple times, but again I agree not recently. Perhaps to put it another way, I wouldn’t write him off because of a perception that he can’t do a job at the breakdown. I’d be more worried about the physicality in the carry that was exposed when he last played internationally- mind then, he was also asked to do work that didn’t suit him.

I think we’re making similar points here ...

I’m totally onboard with Simmonds having the necessary quality for test rugby. However, I think he excels in a role that he’d be unlikely to get with England.

I can’t say I’ve ever seen him compete much at the breakdown so I don’t have much of an insight in to his skill set over the ball. I wouldn’t write him off solely for that reason, but I can see how it would limit his opportunities.

TBH, I think the case for Joe to perform Ford’s role was stronger, but there seems to have been 0 interest.

His work at forcing turnovers, whatever that level, is unlikely to be a bigger factor than making big tackles and protecting our ball and especially our 1st phase ball.

Digby wrote:His work at forcing turnovers, whatever that level, is unlikely to be a bigger factor than making big tackles and protecting our ball and especially our 1st phase ball.

6 months ago I'd have agreed 100% but with the new interpretations it's only 70%. We'd never have gone for those turnovers at the start of the 6 nations but now we're clearly hunting them. I do agree that clearing out first phase ball is the biggest thing for our 7.

Digby wrote:His work at forcing turnovers, whatever that level, is unlikely to be a bigger factor than making big tackles and protecting our ball and especially our 1st phase ball.

as I said, its more than jackaling in terms of strength at the breakdown. See Richard Hill.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:His work at forcing turnovers, whatever that level, is unlikely to be a bigger factor than making big tackles and protecting our ball and especially our 1st phase ball.

6 months ago I'd have agreed 100% but with the new interpretations it's only 70%. We'd never have gone for those turnovers at the start of the 6 nations but now we're clearly hunting them. I do agree that clearing out first phase ball is the biggest thing for our 7.

Interesting that we seemed to be hunting them v Ireland, but not in the previous two games.

Digby wrote:His work at forcing turnovers, whatever that level, is unlikely to be a bigger factor than making big tackles and protecting our ball and especially our 1st phase ball.

Well indeed.

Jones wants us to use defence as an offensive weapon, to hit big and hit often. Considering Simmonds' role at club level, the way Exeter play, and his conditioning for a very specific role (that can have crossovers to international level, for sure), I'm not sure he fits in to the system.

Yep. When I’m referring to the breakdown, I’m not solely talking about the ability to win turnovers. It’s also about being first to support our attacking rucks and protecting the ball (for us to kick away on the second phase ).

Simmonds’ role at Exeter is primarily to carry and link with their backs. Vermeulen, Kirsten and previously, Armand, are there for the heavy carrying/breakdown work. Their tight five also carry a lot.

The closest England could get to mirroring the Exeter system would be to play Billy in the Ewers role at 6, Lawes or Itoje in the Vermeulen role at 7 and Simmonds at 8. Who wants to see that? I can’t see many takers ...

I really like Simmonds as a player and I wouldn’t be disappointed to see him in an England jersey again, but I don’t think he’s good enough to warrant compromises probably needed to bring the best out of him, when that probably means dropping players who have consistently done well at test level.

Scrumhead wrote:Yep. When I’m referring to the breakdown, I’m not solely talking about the ability to win turnovers. It’s also about being first to support our attacking rucks and protecting the ball (for us to kick away on the second phase ).

Simmonds’ role at Exeter is primarily to carry and link with their backs. Vermeulen, Kirsten and previously, Armand, are there for the heavy carrying/breakdown work. Their tight five also carry a lot.

The closest England could get to mirroring the Exeter system would be to play Billy in the Ewers role at 6, Lawes or Itoje in the Vermeulen role at 7 and Simmonds at 8. Who wants to see that? I can’t see many takers ...

I really like Simmonds as a player and I wouldn’t be disappointed to see him in an England jersey again, but I don’t think he’s good enough to warrant compromises probably needed to bring the best out of him, when that probably means dropping players who have consistently done well at test level.

Eddie agrees on the compromises (see T20 comment re Simmonds), but I'm not sure on probably . Eddie was going down the non classic 7 route for a while, but has now found some of the classic 7 skills spread across a couple of players, so has changed tack away from Haskell/Robshaw.

Mental to think that only a few years ago, our options were Robshaw, Haskell and Wood ...

Scrumhead wrote:Mental to think that only a few years ago, our options were Robshaw, Haskell and Wood ...

We did have other choices, but ignored them for being good and/or attacking. Not the right sort of chaps and all that

Scrumhead wrote:Mental to think that only a few years ago, our options were Robshaw, Haskell and Wood ...

I think it's easy to forget that during the Johnson reign of terrible we were all clamouring for Robshaw at 6.

He was a very good 6, who made a fist of trying to be a 7, and then another of having to do a bit of both. You can't blame him for 2 coaches' selection policies leaving us in a situation where there were only 2 English players available with more than 5 caps at 7.

If the 24 year old Robshaw were playing now he'd definitely be in the conversation.

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Yep. When I’m referring to the breakdown, I’m not solely talking about the ability to win turnovers. It’s also about being first to support our attacking rucks and protecting the ball (for us to kick away on the second phase ).

Simmonds’ role at Exeter is primarily to carry and link with their backs. Vermeulen, Kirsten and previously, Armand, are there for the heavy carrying/breakdown work. Their tight five also carry a lot.

The closest England could get to mirroring the Exeter system would be to play Billy in the Ewers role at 6, Lawes or Itoje in the Vermeulen role at 7 and Simmonds at 8. Who wants to see that? I can’t see many takers ...

I really like Simmonds as a player and I wouldn’t be disappointed to see him in an England jersey again, but I don’t think he’s good enough to warrant compromises probably needed to bring the best out of him, when that probably means dropping players who have consistently done well at test level.

Eddie agrees on the compromises (see T20 comment re Simmonds), but I'm not sure on probably . Eddie was going down the non classic 7 route for a while, but has now found some of the classic 7 skills spread across a couple of players, so has changed tack away from Haskell/Robshaw.

Who was the non-classic 7?

Haskell was absolutely perfect for Eddie's vision of a 7. Decent acceleration, good pace (albeit with a weird style), and an absolute beast when it came to clearing rucks and hitting hard tackles. Haskell absolutely neutralised Pocock in the first Aus test, and I'm not talking about the nice tackle, but in the breakdown. Some like to think of a 7 as a linking player etc, but that's not what a 7 needs to be. Assuming you have the 7 as the openside, the only attributes that are key to the man wearing that shirt is good tackling, good clearout, and good acceleration/pace to get them into the position to do the first 2 roles. Anything else can either be done by someone else, or is a bonus.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Yep. When I’m referring to the breakdown, I’m not solely talking about the ability to win turnovers. It’s also about being first to support our attacking rucks and protecting the ball (for us to kick away on the second phase ).

Simmonds’ role at Exeter is primarily to carry and link with their backs. Vermeulen, Kirsten and previously, Armand, are there for the heavy carrying/breakdown work. Their tight five also carry a lot.

The closest England could get to mirroring the Exeter system would be to play Billy in the Ewers role at 6, Lawes or Itoje in the Vermeulen role at 7 and Simmonds at 8. Who wants to see that? I can’t see many takers ...

I really like Simmonds as a player and I wouldn’t be disappointed to see him in an England jersey again, but I don’t think he’s good enough to warrant compromises probably needed to bring the best out of him, when that probably means dropping players who have consistently done well at test level.

Eddie agrees on the compromises (see T20 comment re Simmonds), but I'm not sure on probably . Eddie was going down the non classic 7 route for a while, but has now found some of the classic 7 skills spread across a couple of players, so has changed tack away from Haskell/Robshaw.

Who was the non-classic 7?

Haskell was absolutely perfect for Eddie's vision of a 7. Decent acceleration, good pace (albeit with a weird style), and an absolute beast when it came to clearing rucks. Haskell absolutely neutralised Pocock in the first Aus test, and I'm not talking about the nice tackle, but in the breakdown. We all link to think of a 7 as a linking player etc, but that's not what a 7 needs to be. Assuming you have the 7 as the openside, the only attributes that are key to the man wearing that shirt is good tackling, good clearout, and good acceleration/pace to get them into the position to do the first 2 roles. Anything else can either be done by someone else, or is a bonus.

I was trying to avoid the use of fetcher, so used classic 7 as a metaphor. I agree there are many versions of what people see as how a 7 can get the job done, see my reference to Hill. But thanks for the lesson.

Using Haskell in this way came quite late in his career, most of which was spent as a 6 or an 8, and Robshaw was wearing a 7 quite a bit in his career when playing with the Hask, even under Eddie. Anyhoo, whatever way you look at it, the combo Eddie is now using is a very different style imo.

Banquo wrote: I was trying to avoid the use of fetcher, so used classic 7 as a metaphor. I agree there are many versions of what people see as how a 7 can get the job done, see my reference to Hill. But thanks for the lesson.

Using Haskell in this way came quite late in his career, most of which was spent as a 6 or an 8, and Robshaw was wearing a 7 quite a bit in his career when playing with the Hask, even under Eddie. Anyhoo, whatever way you look at it, the combo Eddie is now using is a very different style imo.

Eddie used Hask at 7 from the start, with Robshaw at 6.

I think what he's using now are different players, but the focus for the openside is still the same. Quick, hard hitting, ruck clearing 7. 6 is more open as he's not constrained by being on the openside of the scrum.

Digby wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Mental to think that only a few years ago, our options were Robshaw, Haskell and Wood ...

We did have other choices, but ignored them for being good and/or attacking. Not the right sort of chaps and all that

We had SArmitage who complained about not being picked while making himself unavailable. I don't remember many other options being ignored.

Puja

Armand and... Jeez I can't remember his name. Has played 7 for Gloucester and Exeter.

Edit: Kvesic

Robshaw, Kvesic, Billy / Armand could have been a decently balanced unit.

Danno wrote:Armand and... Jeez I can't remember his name. Has played 7 for Gloucester and Exeter.

Edit: Kvesic

I think we're thinking of different eras - with the mention of Wood, I was thinking late-Burt, not early-Eddie. Kvesic was around then, but wasn't really hammering on the door to be selected. And the fact that successive coaches have ignored him (including Baxter to an extent) and he's now on the bench for Worcester suggests that a lot of the board/pundits were seeing something that wasn't there.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Mental to think that only a few years ago, our options were Robshaw, Haskell and Wood ...

We did have other choices, but ignored them for being good and/or attacking. Not the right sort of chaps and all that

We had SArmitage who complained about not being picked while making himself unavailable. I don't remember many other options being ignored.

Puja

In fairness to him he made himself available, it was us who decided he was unavailable. Luckily the rugby played whilst not picking wasn't all risible

Wood Robshaw Easter. Shudder.

Oh gawd, that happened at the 2015 WC didn't it.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
We did have other choices, but ignored them for being good and/or attacking. Not the right sort of chaps and all that

We had SArmitage who complained about not being picked while making himself unavailable. I don't remember many other options being ignored.

Puja

In fairness to him he made himself available, it was us who decided he was unavailable. Luckily the rugby played whilst not picking wasn't all risible

Gosh, I remember the days when every thread on this board used to devolve into either "Leicester's decision to defund their academy and stop producing young players is stupid and will get them in trouble sooner or later" or "Steffon should/shouldn't play for England." The first one has had a definitive answer over time, the second, slightly less so.

I still maintain that he knew the rules, knew that playing abroad meant he couldn't play for England, and it was therefore his choice. I also think the rigorous application of that rule back then is the reason why the likes of Itoje isn't currently getting his guts flogged out at Racing 92 and unavailable for training camps/half the Autumn Internationals.

Puja

Armitage went to France for the money. He knew that would rule out playing for England. That was his choice. Thats it, isn't it?

fivepointer wrote:Armitage went to France for the money. He knew that would rule out playing for England. That was his choice. Thats it, isn't it?

He could have been picked before, though. And given a chance. But instead we got an old Moody and some pretty terrible performances.