RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:Back row being reported as Robshaw, Harrison and Vunipola

Looks poor.

...what???

jngf wrote:On a further point can someone explain why has Will Evans not come into Eddie's openside reckoning whereas Nathan Hughes has?

I would imagine mostly because Evans has started a grand total of 0 games for Leicester this season and has had only cursory appearances off the bench.

Puja

jngf wrote:On a further point can someone explain why has Will Evans not come into Eddie's openside reckoning whereas Nathan Hughes has?

He can hardly get a start at Leicester.
He's too small.
He's overhyped for a player at this stage of his career.

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:On a further point can someone explain why has Will Evans not come into Eddie's openside reckoning whereas Nathan Hughes has?

I would imagine mostly because Evans has started a grand total of 0 games for Leicester this season and has had only cursory appearances off the bench.

Puja

FTR he's played 26 minutes in the Prem so far this season

But he's a classic openside with athleticism and good linking play and he's not even 6 foot tall. On paper he's just like a young Neil Back and on paper is where games are truly won.

If England really want to progress the first two names on the team sheet should be Evans at openside and Will Carrick-Smith at 4.

Mikey Brown wrote:But he's a classic openside with athleticism and good linking play and he's not even 6 foot tall. On paper he's just like a young Neil Back and on paper is where games are truly won.

If England really want to progress the first two names on the team sheet should be Evans at openside and Will Carrick-Smith at 4.

[img]ironydies[/img]

Sorry. Just sort if slipped out.

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:On a further point can someone explain why has Will Evans not come into Eddie's openside reckoning whereas Nathan Hughes has?

I would imagine mostly because Evans has started a grand total of 0 games for Leicester this season and has had only cursory appearances off the bench.

Puja

Ok. But the other part of my question was in what way shape or form can Nathan Hughes be viewed as openside? Looks like another out and out 8 to me.

Mikey Brown wrote:But he's a classic openside with athleticism and good linking play and he's not even 6 foot tall. On paper he's just like a young Neil Back and on paper is where games are truly won.

If England really want to progress the first two names on the team sheet should be Evans at openside and Will Carrick-Smith at 4.

I'd settle for Garvey at 4:)

Not an awful shout. He seems to have dropped out if the picture completely. He is a real boulder isn't he.

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:On a further point can someone explain why has Will Evans not come into Eddie's openside reckoning whereas Nathan Hughes has?

I would imagine mostly because Evans has started a grand total of 0 games for Leicester this season and has had only cursory appearances off the bench.

Puja

Ok. But the other part of my question was in what way shape or form can Nathan Hughes be viewed as openside? Looks like another out and out 8 to me.

That's a fair question. It appears to be along the special Eddie-Jones-reasoning of "Everyone in the world can play 7, apart from Chris Robshaw, who absolutely definitely can't, despite having done it successfully on many occasions."

I do kind of see the logic of Hughes, in the same way that Itoje, Williams and Haskell sort of made sense. If you are defining 7 play as a very limited "Hit the first ruck, every time, and hit it hard" then you can get away with much more limited players in the position. The play appears to be to let Robshaw do the thinky bits and just have a 7 who follows basic instructions. I think it'd be a bit of a waste of Hughes myself, but it could work*. You could probably put Courtney-Go-Smash there, to be honest.

Puja


*Despite him not being even remotely English, of course.

Maybe the fact that Hughes game doesn't really involve smashing into rucks might be an issue? His strengths lie elsewhere. I wouldn't be keen on him at 6 but 7? Uuurgh.

There's joking and then there's suggesting Carrick-Smith. He barely punches Michael Carrick's weight in the Champ, let alone his own.

Do we seriously think putting Hughes in our backrow is a good idea? He doesn't work hard enough, and the entire ruck burden will fall on Robshaw. We've seen what happens when that's the case before...

Stom wrote:Do we seriously think putting Hughes in our backrow is a good idea? He doesn't work hard enough, and the entire ruck burden will fall on Robshaw. We've seen what happens when that's the case before...

No. Next question?

Puja

Stom wrote:Do we seriously think putting Hughes in our backrow is a good idea? He doesn't work hard enough, and the entire ruck burden will fall on Robshaw. We've seen what happens when that's the case before...

To be slightly more elaborate, you're exactly right. Quite apart from my all-purpose dislike of Hughes and his amazing appearing Englishness, he is a glory-hunting player who looks for spectacular things to do. We already have one of those in BillyV, with the major advantage that he does it better and does a lot of hard work as well. If we play both, then one of them is going to have to concentrate on doing things which aren't their forté (meaning it's a waste of time having them both), or we're going to end up with poor Robshaw getting swamped and no doubt getting demoted to a 5 1/2 at best.

Puja

Stom wrote:Do we seriously think putting Hughes in our backrow is a good idea? He doesn't work hard enough, and the entire ruck burden will fall on Robshaw. We've seen what happens when that's the case before...

Let's be honest, none of the backrowers worked hard enough till Eddie 'adjusted' them. Billy is now putting in 80 minutes. Robshaw is totally committed. Wood has been recalled. Once Hughes has adjusted and IF he is fully on-form, he has the potential to be our best back-rower, IMO. His pace and skill-set give him something over and above the rest. Would I pick him tomorrow? No. Ignore the prejudice because of how he qualified and judge on rugby ability would me my plea.

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:Do we seriously think putting Hughes in our backrow is a good idea? He doesn't work hard enough, and the entire ruck burden will fall on Robshaw. We've seen what happens when that's the case before...

Let's be honest, none of the backrowers worked hard enough till Eddie 'adjusted' them. Billy is now putting in 80 minutes. Robshaw is totally committed. Wood has been recalled. Once Hughes has adjusted and IF he is fully on-form, he has the potential to be our best back-rower, IMO. His pace and skill-set give him something over and above the rest. Would I pick him tomorrow? No. Ignore the prejudice because of how he qualified and judge on rugby ability would me my plea.

I'm afraid that you're not going to convince me that Hughes is a better bet than Beaumont. We have a situation now where, like it or not, there are two guaranteed spots in that backrow. Billy and Robshaw. Now, Billy provides a physical carrying threat. But he also does a lot of ruck work. Robshaw does more than any other player, hitting rucks and tackling, as well as defensive organisation.

We gained some semblance of balance with Haskell. A targeted Haskell. He was given clear instructions and he hit his rucks and made his tackles. And he made them all day long, and that's it. So you want to replace that sheer unthinking workrate with a player whose weakest area is workrate?

Sorry, but no. If Hughes wants to play test rugby, he can wait until Billy is injured or rested. He just does not fit in currently.

If you want an extra carrier then you could make a case for Hughes in the back row. That would leave the rest of the pack having to do a bit more work around the breakdown, but that wouldn't be an insurmountable issue. Having Billy and Hughes charging around does have its attractions, though it does bring with it a degree of imbalance.

Right now I see him as the back up 8 and possible impact sub. EJ may look at things differently as its interesting he's got Morgan in the squad who is an out and 8. Do we really need 3 of them?

EJ (who frankly says a lot of slightly odd things) thinks Morgan can play 6, that Hughes is a 6 but who could play 7

On Hughes, he's not just a carrier, he was right up there with some of the best turnover winners in the league a couple of years back - he's far better over the ball than you'd think. And he's a genuine line out option.

He needs to improve, no doubt. He needs to improve his work rate, his tackling and his rucking. But there's a good player there and I think with the right steer he could definitely play alongside Billy. He's no ready yet, but I'm glad he's in and around the squad, questionable eligibility aside.

I think Jones is on record as seeing Hughes as a 6. Barnes, in today's Times, has come to the conclusion that he would play Hughes in the 7 shirt in the Haskell role of smashing into the breakdown to stop turnovers. I can't see that suiting Hughes' skill set. If we're going to put a square peg in a round hole, I'd put B Rolipola at 7, with Morgan at 8, and tell him to run around fulfilling the Haskell role. If nothing else it would be a good learning opportunity for Billy. That said I still think Harrison at 7 is the best option. He might not get be ready at the moment but at least there is the possibility that he may be Eng's first choice 7 at some point which Hughes never will be (and not just because he's Fijian).

Only a tangential note, I can't believe we've come to the point where 'the Haskell role', or variations of, is now common rugby parlance that needs no further explanation. Jones, for all the good he's done, has some apologising to do.

TheNomad wrote:On Hughes, he's not just a carrier, he was right up there with some of the best turnover winners in the league a couple of years back - he's far better over the ball than you'd think. And he's a genuine line out option.

Thats not what Jones wants from his 7, though. Or at least that's not what he wants given the players at his disposal. Unless he sees Hughes' turnovers as a viable long term option I would think he will want to stick with the game plan of having a destructive 7.

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:Do we seriously think putting Hughes in our backrow is a good idea? He doesn't work hard enough, and the entire ruck burden will fall on Robshaw. We've seen what happens when that's the case before...

Let's be honest, none of the backrowers worked hard enough till Eddie 'adjusted' them. Billy is now putting in 80 minutes. Robshaw is totally committed. Wood has been recalled. Once Hughes has adjusted and IF he is fully on-form, he has the potential to be our best back-rower, IMO. His pace and skill-set give him something over and above the rest. Would I pick him tomorrow? No. Ignore the prejudice because of how he qualified and judge on rugby ability would me my plea.

Tsch. Robshaw has his limitations and has had his periods of poor form, but to say he's not previously been totally committed is just wrong. He has *always* run his heart out for England.

My enduring memory of the world cup debacle against Australia is AAC's try when the game was already lost - one of the replays perfectly captures [redacted] ambling gently over to give an impression of being in the right area, while at the same time Robshaw is sprinting at top speed in a futile last ditch attempt to stop the try (and is in fact the reason it's scored in the corner rather than under the posts). I loved him for that.

Puja

Am I being dumb or didn't EJ already say he was picking harrison at 7?