RugbyRebels

Personally, I am disappointed becasue I think Polledri will prove to be one that got away.

We bemoan the lack of carriers in our pack and with Polledri, we could have had an aggressive, robust (and quick) 7 who could have offered more of an attacking threat than any of the other candidates appear to.

Ben Curry looks good in attack, but more in terms of support lines than breaking tackles.

Simmonds and Mercer are 8s and Armand’s barely on the radar.

Attacking threat or just carrying threat?

6 weeks for Marler.

He's a lucky boy

Digby wrote:Attacking threat or just carrying threat?

With the way we play, I’d argue a carrying threat is what we need to complement Billy although from what I’ve seen Polledri’s link play is good as well as his carrying.

Re. the other names mentioned, Ben Curry runs excellent support lines and seems to be a very instinctive player but I wouldn’t have said carrying was an obvious strength. I don’t currently see us playing in a way that would bring the best out of him, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see him get a shot. Same goes for Tom although Ben looks the better of the two based upon both last season and this season.

Underhill seems to be almost exclusively a defensive player.

I’ve said plenty of times I’d like to see Simmonds tried at 7, particularly if Billy’s fit but I don’t see that happening and it bothers me asking him to do so at test level when he’s played 90% or more of his games this season at 8.

Mercer seems to have a good attacking game. He can carry, runs good lines, can pass(!!) and makes good decisions, but I would only regard him as an 8 or a 6.

Digby wrote:He's a lucky boy

Maybe so, but not sure how Cian Healy gets 2 weeks plus 1 extra for a crap disciplinary record, and Marler gets 5 weeks plus 1 extra for a crap disciplinary record...for the exact same offence (albeit Healy’s was slightly worse in my view).

As for Polledri, it seems to me that everything about his career to date (and family history of course) suggests that he actually wants to represent Italy and not England.

Timbo wrote:

Digby wrote:He's a lucky boy

Maybe so, but not sure how Cian Healy gets 2 weeks plus 1 extra for a crap disciplinary record, and Marler gets 5 weeks plus 1 extra for a crap disciplinary record...for the exact same offence (albeit Healy’s was slightly worse in my view).

Striking a player in a more vulnerable position I assume, seeing as he did

Digby wrote:He's a lucky boy

Is he? Seems like this one is about right, and people get away with that shit basically every game. Previous bans for incidents like that have seemed pretty low in general.

I haven’t seen Polledri, but to be honest it would be quite nice for Italy to be a bit more of a worry.

Curry doesn’t seem like much of a carrier himself but they are both really smart with the ball and putting people through gaps, we need that just as much as we need big ball carriers. Vunipola and Sinkler have this ability, weirdly as they’re two of our few good carriers, but not many others. All our 8s, locks and George are more than capable of breaking the line with players like that alongside in the forwards.

Dont think Marler can have any gripe with that ban. It does make things tricky for England who look like they will have to trust Obano to cover LH for the opening 2 games. Italy have a very good young TH and Lee is no mug for Wales. Fridays game at Bath, where Lee should play for Scarlets, suddenly has a very interesting subplot.

For me, Polledri has simply opted to play for the country of his choice. Cant blame him for that.

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:Attacking threat or just carrying threat?

With the way we play, I’d argue a carrying threat is what we need to complement Billy although from what I’ve seen Polledri’s link play is good as well as his carrying.

Re. the other names mentioned, Ben Curry runs excellent support lines and seems to be a very instinctive player but I wouldn’t have said carrying was an obvious strength. I don’t currently see us playing in a way that would bring the best out of him, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see him get a shot. Same goes for Tom although Ben looks the better of the two based upon both last season and this season.

Underhill seems to be almost exclusively a defensive player.

I’ve said plenty of times I’d like to see Simmonds tried at 7, particularly if Billy’s fit but I don’t see that happening and it bothers me asking him to do so at test level when he’s played 90% or more of his games this season at 8.

Mercer seems to have a good attacking game. He can carry, runs good lines, can pass(!!) and makes good decisions, but I would only regard him as an 8 or a 6.

I will note that BCurry is only 19 and has the frame to suggest that he hasn't finished growing yet. Polledri is 23 and so is pretty much into his adult size. I think we'll see more carrying from Curry across the next couple of years.

Puja

Tbh, I thought Polledri was more of a 6/8 himself, just playing a bit at 7 because Gloucester have Ackermann and Morgan.

We could really use the game in England taking a look at itself with its ongoing belief anyone can fill in at 7

100% agree there Digby. For all his success, Eddie’s not really helping with that either.

I appreciate he may have initially felt that he didn’t have players to fit the bill and that Haskell was the best option for his immediate game plan, but our options have most definitely increased since then and with Haskell on the wane, it remains a priority.

Leicester playing Williams there ahead of Evans for example is a criminal waste of talent and smyptomatic of the problem. I can kind of forgive Bath playing Grant there on the basis that Underhill (and Louw) are out at the moment. That said, a lot of our teams are doing it.

TBH, as much as I like Don Armand, I’d definitely question whether he’s a 7 too. IMO, it should be Armand OR Ewers but perhaps Baxter feels as though he needs the bulk to compensate for Simmonds being a lighter 8.

Credit to Sale for using the Currys properly!

Eddie's not trying to help, he's here for 4 years and that's that. I don't blame Eddie for this either, I might disagree with him over Kvesic, but it's not his problem to solve

Yes, but he’s got 2 years to go and it’s entirely possible that Haskell won’t be a viable option by the World Cup. Encouraging the clubs to focus on developing the right players at 7 and utilise them in the right way now is surely in his best interests?

Anyone a little bit concerned about the stability of our scrum with Obano coming off the bench? It's a bit of a change in height to go from scrummaging with Mako (5ft11) to Obano (5ft8) mid-game, especially given that George, Hartley, Dunn, Cole, Thomas, and Williams are all over 6ft.

We could conceivably end up with a front row of Obano (5ft8), Dunn (6ft2), and Sinckler (5ft10), which would be odd-looking to say the least. Or Obano (5ft8), George (6ft), Williams (6ft3), which'd look like a set of stairs. It always used to be a given truth that a hooker had to be shorter than his props because otherwise he'd have struggle striking - is that just not a thing anymore?

Puja

This is precisely EJs problem to solve. Other than the club DoRs and head coaches he probably has more of a say (within reason) on seeing a player he is really interested in being tested week in week out somewhere

Whether that's a Haskell that can Australia tour form Haskell it, or someone that actually ticks a few of the more interesting and effective boxes is neither here nor there for me, as long as it works. Broken ancient outta form Hask 7, locks at 6+Robshaw 7, proven club 8 stuck at international 7, and super defensive but likes a concussion and has no backup Gothmogg 7 does not work for me right now.

Basically I want the Currys.

It’s definitely rare for a hooker to be taller than his props, but I can’t say I’m unduly worried about the height difference between Mako and Obano.

Danno wrote: Basically I want the Currys.

Meat Vindaloo and a saag paneer?

The old memory might be playing tricks but wasn't Steve Thompson taller than Woodman and Vickery? I remember Leonards height because its the same as mine!

Banjo was certainly taller than Woodman, but I doubt taller than Vickery

Dave Seymour is back for Sale tomorrow.

Puja

Scrumhead wrote:Yes, but he’s got 2 years to go and it’s entirely possible that Haskell won’t be a viable option by the World Cup. Encouraging the clubs to focus on developing the right players at 7 and utilise them in the right way now is surely in his best interests?

Is he even a viable option right now for the current squad? There are many better backrowers in all three positions than Haskell.

I agree with you Spiffy, but apparently Eddie doesn’t.

At least Haskell’s form has improved recently to the point that he’s not there solely on past performances.

Rightly or wrongly, I think Eddie also likes him in camp as a leader/senior player.

He may have carded himself out of contention