RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:There are number 8s who are more all action around the park (Faletau for instance) but if you want to get over the gainline and get some momentum then Billy does that better than anyone.

Faletau and a few others have a little more pace, but Billy if allowed a looser role is very effective around the park, he just tends to get lumbered with the tight role. You want to think carefully about how your system gets Billy into the wider role, because he's less a player you want running off the ball than the likes of Faletau, so rather than him wrapping around you'd prefer to live him static and play away and then back to him. Frankly it's a bit of a mystery to me we do only use Billy like we do

Oakboy wrote:I think a fully fit Billy V picks himself but an injury-prone one presents issues because nobody else plays like him.

No similar carrier at 8 has been found. So, is a 'lump'-carrier necessary? Exeter, broadly-speaking, pick a carrier at 6, a line-out option at 7 and a speedster at 8. Jones, recently, picked a line-out option/carrier at 6 and two 7's with one wearing 8 on his back. Is the next step, picking three 7's?

Lawes could be left out with Curry reverting to 6 and Simmonds coming in at 8 or Curry could stay at 8 with Wilson, Willis or whoever at 6.

That all adds up to three styles of backrow at least. It's hell of a mix depending on whether Billy is fit or not - unless Dombrandt makes sufficient progress, I suppose.

I think I did a whole thread on this a prior to the 6N Curry experiment. With the exception of maybe Vermeulen, most Tier 1 8s aren’t ‘lump carriers’ these days. These players have always been relatively scarce, but now more than ever, I’d say the majority of 8s need to be more athletic all rounders than big lumps.

To Digby’s point, Billy is more versatile/athletic than he gets credit for, but for some reason, we only seem to use him as a heavy carrier. Sure it can be effective, but it would be interesting to see how much more could be added by using him in a more varied role.

My main bugbear (which I’ve definitely raised on multiple occasions) is that using Billy as a heavy carrier can’t really be replicated by our other 8s. Dombrandt, Mercer, Earl and Simmonds are all different types of player, but none of them are best used as heavy carriers. Neither is Curry. I think we’d be much better off developing a system that benefits the majority of our 8 options rather than being tailored to Billy. We have other players in the pack that can take on increased tight carrying and an 8 in a roaming role would suit pretty much all of our options including Billy.

Scrumhead wrote:
My main bugbear (which I’ve definitely raised on multiple occasions) is that using Billy as a heavy carrier can’t really be replicated by our other 8s. Dombrandt, Mercer, Earl and Simmonds are all different types of player, but none of them are best used as heavy carriers. Neither is Curry. I think we’d be much better off developing a system that benefits the majority of our 8 options rather than being tailored to Billy. We have other players in the pack that can take on increased tight carrying and an 8 in a roaming role would suit pretty much all of our options including Billy.

This.

Or we could use Billy as currently, and very successfully, and have a plan b for when he’s not available. Contrary to that, using Billy less as a bludgeon may mean we see him more often.

Well I do wonder whether an extended break might actually prolong the test careers of some players. Someone like Lawes who probably would have been too old for 2023 might still be available because of this pause.

Scrumhead wrote:Well I do wonder whether an extended break might actually prolong the test careers of some players. Someone like Lawes who probably would have been too old for 2023 might still be available because of this pause.

Depends on the next few months, I’d imagine. If they somehow manage to cram all the remaining back games in to the next 12 months any benefit from the rest will be swiftly undone.

Mellsblue wrote:Or we could use Billy as currently, and very successfully, and have a plan b for when he’s not available. Contrary to that, using Billy less as a bludgeon may mean we see him more often.

Agreed, but what bothers me a little is that the current plan b has a lock at 6. I'm not against that as a principle as much as others are BUT, if it is seen as essential because Billy is not at 8, I think it is flawed thinking. I'd start by having Curry, Underwood, Willis and Simmonds in the 23 in some combination to discover whether the loss of a few stones really hurt us. (To combine that with recent thinking, depending on the opposition, Lawes as a second lock on the bench would provide a fallback option at 6.)

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Or we could use Billy as currently, and very successfully, and have a plan b for when he’s not available. Contrary to that, using Billy less as a bludgeon may mean we see him more often.

Agreed, but what bothers me a little is that the current plan b has a lock at 6. I'm not against that as a principle as much as others are BUT, if it is seen as essential because Billy is not at 8, I think it is flawed thinking. I'd start by having Curry, Underwood, Willis and Simmonds in the 23 in some combination to discover whether the loss of a few stones really hurt us. (To combine that with recent thinking, depending on the opposition, Lawes as a second lock on the bench would provide a fallback option at 6.)

existing stones cost us the world cup final. In at least two senses of the word.

Mellsblue wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Well I do wonder whether an extended break might actually prolong the test careers of some players. Someone like Lawes who probably would have been too old for 2023 might still be available because of this pause.

Depends on the next few months, I’d imagine. If they somehow manage to cram all the remaining back games in to the next 12 months any benefit from the rest will be swiftly undone.

Very true ... I don’t see that happening though TBH. I think a longer lay off and abandoning the season is more likely..

Scrumhead wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Well I do wonder whether an extended break might actually prolong the test careers of some players. Someone like Lawes who probably would have been too old for 2023 might still be available because of this pause.

Depends on the next few months, I’d imagine. If they somehow manage to cram all the remaining back games in to the next 12 months any benefit from the rest will be swiftly undone.

Very true ... I don’t see that happening though TBH. I think a longer lay off and abandoning the season is more likely..

You’re probably correct but I’m trying to be optimistic. The lack of live rugby is one of the hardest things to cope with in lockdown.

Mellsblue wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Depends on the next few months, I’d imagine. If they somehow manage to cram all the remaining back games in to the next 12 months any benefit from the rest will be swiftly undone.

Very true ... I don’t see that happening though TBH. I think a longer lay off and abandoning the season is more likely..

You’re probably correct but I’m trying to be optimistic. The lack of live rugby is one of the hardest things to cope with in lockdown.

Yes, agreed. How can it return though? Physical contact sports or those where players are constantly exposed to opposition or team-mates' exhalation streams (e.g. squash, my main current participation sport) have to be months away from resumption. IF, covid-19 does not peter out naturally to insignificant levels, will its demise only occur when a fully effective vaccine is on-stream? That could be a year or two in the future. It's a struggle to be in the 'glass-half-full' brigade sometimes!

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Very true ... I don’t see that happening though TBH. I think a longer lay off and abandoning the season is more likely..

You’re probably correct but I’m trying to be optimistic. The lack of live rugby is one of the hardest things to cope with in lockdown.

Yes, agreed. How can it return though? Physical contact sports or those where players are constantly exposed to opposition or team-mates' exhalation streams (e.g. squash, my main current participation sport) have to be months away from resumption. IF, covid-19 does not peter out naturally to insignificant levels, will its demise only occur when a fully effective vaccine is on-stream? That could be a year or two in the future. It's a struggle to be in the 'glass-half-full' brigade sometimes!

Wouldn't pin hopes on a vaccine. Treatment is a/the way out imo

Scrumhead wrote:
To Digby’s point, Billy is more versatile/athletic than he gets credit for, but for some reason, we only seem to use him as a heavy carrier. Sure it can be effective, but it would be interesting to see how much more could be added by using him in a more varied role.

But is Billy capable of playing in a more mobile and athletic way? Whilst you seem convinced , I’m not so sure this is a given.

For starters,his basic physique and body shape are more typical of a front row than a back row (he’s quoted as being heavier than Mako) and I just can’t see him playing this wider game - where’s he demonstrated this ability?

Many, perhaps most test no.8s have the mobility to play at blindside if called upon - Billy’s never played 6 for England - has he ever for Wasps or Saracens?

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Or we could use Billy as currently, and very successfully, and have a plan b for when he’s not available. Contrary to that, using Billy less as a bludgeon may mean we see him more often.

Agreed, but what bothers me a little is that the current plan b has a lock at 6. I'm not against that as a principle as much as others are BUT, if it is seen as essential because Billy is not at 8, I think it is flawed thinking. I'd start by having Curry, Underwood, Willis and Simmonds in the 23 in some combination to discover whether the loss of a few stones really hurt us. (To combine that with recent thinking, depending on the opposition, Lawes as a second lock on the bench would provide a fallback option at 6.)

Rory or Tony?

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Or we could use Billy as currently, and very successfully, and have a plan b for when he’s not available. Contrary to that, using Billy less as a bludgeon may mean we see him more often.

Agreed, but what bothers me a little is that the current plan b has a lock at 6. I'm not against that as a principle as much as others are BUT, if it is seen as essential because Billy is not at 8, I think it is flawed thinking. I'd start by having Curry, Underwood, Willis and Simmonds in the 23 in some combination to discover whether the loss of a few stones really hurt us. (To combine that with recent thinking, depending on the opposition, Lawes as a second lock on the bench would provide a fallback option at 6.)

Rory or Tony?

Apologies. Senility strikes again. Not much difference between a hill and a wood is there?

It’s not about having him out on the wing trying to step people, there’s plenty of middle ground. I can’t imagine why he’d ever get picked at 6 for England but I don’t see that as being about mobility. He’s got great hands, a very strong all round game but 8 is where you can get the most involvements out of him.

Given the carrying options we have we are often remarkably bad at clearing, recycling and moving the ball on accurately. This often creates the need for a static carrier to take on a pressing defence where there shouldn’t necessarily be one.

If we could sort some of that out I’d feel a lot more keen on giving someone like Simmonds a go. Currently Jones plan B at number 8 is just don’t bother picking a number 8.

I tend to think of it this way, if I were a defensive coach would I want Billy Vunipola running at my guard defenders or 3 channels further out?

Exactly this. I think Billy is often classed as just a heavy carrier but there is more to his game than that. Saracens mix it up a bit more and while they clearly do use Billy as a heavy carrier, if you watch any club rugby (jngf) you’d definitely see more of him in midfield or the wide channels than we do with England.

I’m not saying he’s Kieran Read in a big Tongan body, but his athleticism and handling skills are better than he gets credit for and surely using him in a less predictable way would be a good thing?

I actually think the England coaching team are pretty clueless on how to blend a backrow and play backrow players according to their strengths. Aside from the Curry at 8 experiment another example is the use of Nathan Hughes. He’s attracted plenty of critical reaction on the board along the lines of wasted caps etc. but Hughes has many of the physical virtues of Billy in a much more athletic and quicker package - he does have the game for the wider channels (much more so than Billy imo) and yet doesn’t give away anywhere near as much ballast as Simmonds or Curry. The fact that this ability was largely negated and Hughes was expected to reproduce exactly the same sort of tight carrying style as Billy himself, says more to me about Eddie’s (mis)judgement and limitations as a coach than it does about the all round ability of Hughes. Why is it so many players get better when ejected from the test squad?

Eddie certainly sees England as benefiting from a limited approach .

Hughes for me was a bit too lazy to play test rugby, lost some weight to up his contribution and promptly lost his carrying game which is what marked him out to begin with. Yes Hughes could have been given a wider role and not be asked to replicate Billy's tight carrying, but as above Billy could carry wider out too

Indeed. I don’t really understand why he feels our players aren’t capable of a more adventurous gameplan?

TBH, I’m not even advocating a massive change. In essence, all I’m suggesting is that a plan B that involves using our number 8 in a more varied way and spreads the tight carrying load across more players would be to our benefit with or without Billy.

I don’t ever want to see Hughes in an England shirt again. We have plenty of alternatives who are at least equally as talented as he is with the added bonus of actually being English.

I think he rocked up and looked at our players in training and simply concluded our skills and decision making are poor, and so whilst you might let Smith, Gregan and Larkham develop play the idiots in England need an attack plan they can remember. That's not entirely unfair, nor is an observation our league game doesn't force players to develop towards being test players on a skills and decision making basis, it promotes a work ethic and athleticism/power. I'll confess I was hoping for rather more back in season 1 under Eddie, and for sure by now, but his win ratio is right up there for an England coach so he's got an easy counter to my observations

Digby wrote:I think he rocked up and looked at our players in training and simply concluded our skills and decision making are poor, and so whilst you might let Smith, Gregan and Larkham develop play the idiots in England need an attack plan they can remember. That's not entirely unfair, nor is an observation our league game doesn't force players to develop towards being test players on a skills and decision making basis, it promotes a work ethic and athleticism/power. I'll confess I was hoping for rather more back in season 1 under Eddie, and for sure by now, but his win ratio is right up there for an England coach so he's got an easy counter to my observations

This, not sure how many times this needs saying tbh. He's a pragmatist, and winning is what he is interested in, and will use what he has to work with to that end.

I understand that, but by now I’d have hoped he’d have seen that some of our players have the skill set to do more than just execute a basic gameplan.

I think there’s an argument to say he’s probably favoured more skilful forwards - for example, he’s generally favoured/encouraged a ball playing front row. However, my frustration is that we have a lethal back three that are under-utilised with the amount of kicking from 10-12. Farrell at 12 is often referred to as a ‘second playmaker’ when I think he truth is that he’s actually a second kicker. This is why I’m firmly of the opinion that 13 is the worst position to play for this England side - you’d barely get he ball and on the rare occasion you did it’s unlikely to be in any time or space.

Scrumhead wrote:I understand that, but by now I’d have hoped he’d have seen that some of our players have the skill set to do more than just execute a basic gameplan.

I think there’s an argument to say he’s probably favoured more skilful forwards - for example, he’s generally favoured/encouraged a ball playing front row. However, my frustration is that we have a lethal back three that are under-utilised with the amount of kicking from 10-12. Farrell at 12 is often referred to as a ‘second playmaker’ when I think he truth is that he’s actually a second kicker. This is why I’m firmly of the opinion that 13 is the worst position to play for this England side - you’d barely get he ball and on the rare occasion you did it’s unlikely to be in any time or space.

Absolutely spot-on. I would so love to see Slade at 12, Tuilagi at 13, anybody but Farrell at 10 and anybody but Youngs at 9 for a run of matches with a game-plan that allowed them to play with the freedom to think for themselves.