RugbyRebels

TheNomad wrote:

Puja wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Mercer certainly isn't a classic 8 either and seems to be playing 6 mainly this season.

Mercer's likely to grow into his shoulders though and could be seen as an investment in the future. I don't want to be saying that Simmonds is too small to play international rugby at no 8... but it does feel like he's too small to be playing international rugby at no 8.

Puja

I don't want to say that either...but we all know he is

Has potential at flanker though. More likely 7 than 6.

Robashaw would have been my first name on the sheet not so long ago but Lawes and Armand have been the best 6s in the league this year - after that, maybe Mercer! I know some just flat out won't accept Lawes as an international 6, but I reckon he'd do well if given a shot

He's had shots at 6 at international level and never looked like doing better than well, to be generous.

Mellsblue wrote:I'd rather Simmonds playing the Billy role than Mercer. What I'd really rather is that we adapt rolls/tactics/personnel and use Simmonds similar to the way he plays for Exeter. If not, we might as well recall Waldrom or Morgan and just accept that we only play one way with our 8 and pick horses for courses.

I will note that Exeter did pick Waldrom over Simmonds when faced with a gnarly big French pack away from home. Not a stunning endorsement.

I am actually coming around to the idea of using Lawes at 6. My major complaint against the matter, that he doesn't actually play there and we should pick square pegs for square holes, has been somewhat damaged by the fact that he is playing there and has for every game, bar the opener, for Saints. There's an argument that he'd now be out of position if you picked him at lock.

I'm not 100% convinced that he's an international quality 6, but there's really only one way to find out.

Puja

Peat wrote:

TheNomad wrote: Robashaw would have been my first name on the sheet not so long ago but Lawes and Armand have been the best 6s in the league this year - after that, maybe Mercer! I know some just flat out won't accept Lawes as an international 6, but I reckon he'd do well if given a shot

He's had shots at 6 at international level and never looked like doing better than well, to be generous.

A cross-post with my one - I'd say the difference this time is that he's playing 6 for Northampton and performing there. All his previous shots have come off of him solely playing lock and being expected to do something different out of the blue.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Peat wrote:

TheNomad wrote: Robashaw would have been my first name on the sheet not so long ago but Lawes and Armand have been the best 6s in the league this year - after that, maybe Mercer! I know some just flat out won't accept Lawes as an international 6, but I reckon he'd do well if given a shot

He's had shots at 6 at international level and never looked like doing better than well, to be generous.

A cross-post with my one - I'd say the difference this time is that he's playing 6 for Northampton and performing there. All his previous shots have come off of him solely playing lock and being expected to do something different out of the blue.

Puja

A fair point but not sufficient to change my opinion. I'm not fond of retrying failed international experiments based off domestic form unless something's clearly changed about his game. I'm going to guess him looking great at 6 is based more off of Courtney Smash than any major refinements to his play.

Any argument that he'd be out of position now at lock is a bit OTT as well. A handful of games doesn't erase eight odd years of excellence.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I'd rather Simmonds playing the Billy role than Mercer. What I'd really rather is that we adapt rolls/tactics/personnel and use Simmonds similar to the way he plays for Exeter. If not, we might as well recall Waldrom or Morgan and just accept that we only play one way with our 8 and pick horses for courses.

I will note that Exeter did pick Waldrom over Simmonds when faced with a gnarly big French pack away from home. Not a stunning endorsement.

I am actually coming around to the idea of using Lawes at 6. My major complaint against the matter, that he doesn't actually play there and we should pick square pegs for square holes, has been somewhat damaged by the fact that he is playing there and has for every game, bar the opener, for Saints. There's an argument that he'd now be out of position if you picked him at lock.

I'm not 100% convinced that he's an international quality 6, but there's really only one way to find out.

Puja

I'm not sure you can use Waldrom over Simmonds v Montpellier South African as any indication. It may just be that Baxter wanted to rest him - he's played all matches when available and has been knocked out. It would also not be unlike Jones to disregard club selection policy, Hartley was repeatedly picked last season whilst Heywood was first choice at Northampton. Collier and Sinkler were pretty much joint first choice at Quins last season but Sinkler was definitively ahead for England.
I'd agree that Lawes can now be seen as a bona fide blindside.

He's also better at playing rugby than he was then.
There's been this wiff of unfulfilled potential about him for a few years - not any more though.

Which Tyler wrote:He's also better at playing rugby than he was then.
There's been this wiff of unfulfilled potential about him for a few years - not any more though.

Lawes was de facto blindside last 6N and didn't look like a top class guy then. I love what he's doing in Jones' England team, but unless his breakdown game has increased dramatically since February, I feel comfortable betting that you'll wish there was an actual flanker at 6.

Peat wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:He's also better at playing rugby than he was then.
There's been this wiff of unfulfilled potential about him for a few years - not any more though.

Lawes was de facto blindside last 6N and didn't look like a top class guy then. I love what he's doing in Jones' England team, but unless his breakdown game has increased dramatically since February, I feel comfortable betting that you'll wish there was an actual flanker at 6.

I've been wishing that for years

Peat wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:He's also better at playing rugby than he was then.
There's been this wiff of unfulfilled potential about him for a few years - not any more though.

Lawes was de facto blindside last 6N and didn't look like a top class guy then. I love what he's doing in Jones' England team, but unless his breakdown game has increased dramatically since February, I feel comfortable betting that you'll wish there was an actual flanker at 6.

I think that's harsh. I'd firstly say that his play (in particular his carrying) has developed since then and secondly, he's been playing a lot more time at 6.

I'd be for it personally. I think he's add more than Robshaw, and with a second row of Itoje and one other, you'd have a good balance anyway

It all depends on balance and what aspects of play we want to focus on. Lawes’ ability in the lineout, work rate and defensive ability are all excellent. His carrying and breakdown work have also improved, so he’s a lot closer to offering a good all-round package.

Robshaw is (as always) underrated. Admittedly he’s not anywhere close to being as good as Lawes in the lineout and is nowhere near as destructive in defence, but I’d say he’s a better carrier, better at the breakdown and more of a link player.

Personally, I think Wilson and Armand have good cases too. Wilson offers basically all of the same qualities as Robshaw but is a more powerful/effective tight carrier. Armand again had his plus points and is good in the lineout so I think we’re pretty well set.

Scrumhead wrote:It all depends on balance and what aspects of play we want to focus on. Lawes’ ability in the lineout, work rate and defensive ability are all excellent. His carrying and breakdown work have also improved, so he’s a lot closer to offering a good all-round package.

Robshaw is (as always) underrated. Admittedly he’s not anywhere close to being as good as Lawes in the lineout and is nowhere near as destructive in defence, but I’d say he’s a better carrier, better at the breakdown and more of a link player.

Personally, I think Wilson and Armand have good cases too. Wilson offers basically all of the same qualities as Robshaw but is a more powerful/effective tight carrier. Armand again had his plus points and is good in the lineout so I think we’re pretty well set.

Agree about Wilson and Armand. Both excellent players

Not sure I'd agree that Robashaw is a better carrier than Lawes though. Yes, he recycles and presents the ball well, but Lawes is a genuinely good carrier these days who can cover distance. Not sure I'd say the same of Robshaw

Hartley cleared - saddens me a little, not because I think he deserves it.

Marler banned for 3 weeks, so he'll miss at least Argentina and maybe Australia. Not the end of the world, tbh.

Puja

Mako and Genge is a pretty potent one, two punch.

Marler cant complain, though i do have a bit of sympathy for players who are being held and react to it.

Mako and Genge are a pretty handy pair to call upon. How about a bolter to force their way in to the squad as 3rd choice LH? Step forward Val Rapava-Ruskin.

Timbo wrote:Mako and Genge is a pretty potent one, two punch.

And there's a fairly good chance they would've been 1 and 17 anyway. Even if one goes down injured, we've still got Mullan, before looking at VRR, Catt, Auterac, etc. We are ridiculously lucky at loosehead at the moment.

Bit worried about our tightheads though. Cole's getting on, Sinckler's a liability, Williams is... okay, I guess. Collier confuses me as to why anyone rates him as a scrummager - every time I see him, he has his feet too far back and drops down so fast it's like the oppo loosehead has a tenner strapped to his boot.

Puja

fivepointer wrote:Marler cant complain, though i do have a bit of sympathy for players who are being held and react to it.

Providing they don't hold players themselves I'd have some sympathy. In this instance however I'll go out on a limb and accuse Marler of holding back players himself

I do genuinely think he was going for Towlands arm, but he's still an idiot and it was dangerous. Must say compared to Louw's actions it seems like nothing though.

Mikey Brown wrote:I do genuinely think he was going for Towlands arm, but he's still an idiot and it was dangerous. Must say compared to Louw's actions it seems like nothing though.

Which arm of Rowlands? The one wrapped behind the back of Marler, or the one that was down by Rowlands side? I think I've perhaps discovered why you're loathe to pass, monocularism must make it tough.

If I was Quins I would pick him for the AW game in a couple of weeks...he’s either banned for 3 weeks or 4, the disciplinary panel can’t have their cake and eat it.

Both arms are taking Marler's knee in an unnatural direction. Not deliberate from Rowlands but you can understand why Marler is panicking.

Raggs wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I do genuinely think he was going for Towlands arm, but he's still an idiot and it was dangerous. Must say compared to Louw's actions it seems like nothing though.

Which arm of Rowlands? The one wrapped behind the back of Marler, or the one that was down by Rowlands side? I think I've perhaps discovered why you're loathe to pass, monocularism must make it tough.

Nope, that's a fair shout. I hadn't seen it from that angle. It looked to me initially like Rowlands could have just been unfortunate in where he stuck his head as Marler tried to get rid of him, but not so much from that view. You win. You're the king of the universe.

Knew my life would amount to something! King of the universe... not bad.

Hughes suspended for 2 weeks, so free to play Monday 6th November.

Puja

Are we sure? Marler's is 3 weeks and apparently doesn't include the LV cup week, would assume the same for Hughes? Though for some reason Hughes had a different disciplinary panel to the other 3, so perhaps they simply gave the 2 weeks, rather than 3 games.

EDIT - Exactly that, his disciplinary panel didn't take into consideration likely games to be played. Good for England.