RugbyRebels

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I don't know how relevant this really is but I thought it may interest some who haven't seen it re: Farrell.

And there was me thinking Farrell was one of the few names you couldn't stick a 'Y' on the end of. Then again, if you're used to being called Paulie Farrellsy probably seems more than acceptable.

Think it's Philsy, as in Mike Phillips.

Ah, ok. Though, even with Phillips, my point still stands!!

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I can't keep track. Is Lawes officially out and has a replacement been named? I think Kitchener could be a good call. I thought we were done with compromising our back row to cover failings in other selections.

They're hopeful that Lawes will be fit so no replacement.

Ah, ok. I thought Beaumont replaced Itoje but as long as he's there I'm happy. Even if I preferred that he was second choice 8 rather than 7th choice lock.

Mellsblue wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I can't keep track. Is Lawes officially out and has a replacement been named? I think Kitchener could be a good call. I thought we were done with compromising our back row to cover failings in other selections.

They're hopeful that Lawes will be fit so no replacement.

Ah, ok. I thought Beaumont replaced Itoje but as long as he's there I'm happy. Even if I preferred that he was second choice 8 rather than 7th choice lock.

Speaking of No.8s with Billy, Nathan Hughes and Ben Morgan we have 3 good, powerful out and out 8s, however I wouldn't think any of them had sufficient mobility and speed endurance to play blindside flank effectively (let alone openside) at test level.Happy to be proved wrong though!:)

jngf wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: They're hopeful that Lawes will be fit so no replacement.

Ah, ok. I thought Beaumont replaced Itoje but as long as he's there I'm happy. Even if I preferred that he was second choice 8 rather than 7th choice lock.

Speaking of No.8s with Billy, Nathan Hughes and Ben Morgan we have 3 good, powerful out and out 8s, however I wouldn't think any of them had sufficient mobility and speed endurance to play blindside flank effectively (let alone openside) at test level.Happy to be proved wrong though!:)

It's not like the incumbent at 6 bases his game on speed and mobility, though he'd surely be winning the work rate challenge. That said Hughes is now working harder and longer, and consequently has some fans saying he's not doing as much, go figure.

Digby wrote:

jngf wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Ah, ok. I thought Beaumont replaced Itoje but as long as he's there I'm happy. Even if I preferred that he was second choice 8 rather than 7th choice lock.

Speaking of No.8s with Billy, Nathan Hughes and Ben Morgan we have 3 good, powerful out and out 8s, however I wouldn't think any of them had sufficient mobility and speed endurance to play blindside flank effectively (let alone openside) at test level.Happy to be proved wrong though!:)

It's not like the incumbent at 6 bases his game on speed and mobility, though he'd surely be winning the work rate challenge. That said Hughes is now working harder and longer, and consequently has some fans saying he's not doing as much, go figure.

The English susceptibility to play the backrow and back 3 as being interchangeable positions is nothing new.
They've finally worked out that 15 is a specialist position......in a few more years they might work out the rest.
Jones is ripping the English preconceptions from the bottle to the tit. Rugby is a better sport because of it.

By playing Hask at 7?

Quality.

The new breed of 7s will have to be all-rounders - contributing all aspects of physicality together with groundhog skills. Why? Because every position has moved on in physicality. The traditional open-side (i.e. smaller, lighter and single dimensional) won't be competitive the way the game is adapting. That's not to say that the ultimate 7 won't play there regularly for his club but it may be that he can operate comfortably at 6 and 8 too. Let's face it, Hill did and even Mr Armitage played at 8 for his club more or less as often as he did at 7 (still may, for all I know).

With a broader range of skills inevitable, it may remain possible that our best international 7 does NOT play there for his club. Why that should tie so many sets of knickers in a twist, I will never understand.

Just watching some of Marchant's footwork on the weekend. He really is a special talent.

I was wondering if he might actually make a pretty handy full back? Maybe a touch on the small side but I think he might suit the position quite well

Mikey Brown wrote:By playing Hask at 7?

Quite...

http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/drey/p ... jonny-may/

Interesting article on what Jonny May's been doing with his time away. Shows admirable ambition to use an enforced layoff to try and make himself a better player.

Puja

The Times ran a similar article prior to his first game back. They said he was only 2% off his pre-injury numbers for acceleration and top speed a week before his comeback game. At the top level 2% is quite a bit to be that close even before your first match back is pretty impressive*.

*Obviously I have no data or professional knowledge to back this assertion up.

Great to see jonny back. Such an exciting player on form.

Yes, it will be interesting to see if EJ has different ways of getting him into the game. I have to say that Slade's long, accurate pass gels with May being there. Ford, Farrell and Joseph has a fair bit to offer as a unit but an inch-perfect miss-pass? Maybe not.

Oakboy wrote:The new breed of 7s will have to be all-rounders - contributing all aspects of physicality together with groundhog skills. Why? Because every position has moved on in physicality. The traditional open-side (i.e. smaller, lighter and single dimensional) won't be competitive the way the game is adapting. That's not to say that the ultimate 7 won't play there regularly for his club but it may be that he can operate comfortably at 6 and 8 too. Let's face it, Hill did and even Mr Armitage played at 8 for his club more or less as often as he did at 7 (still may, for all I know).

With a broader range of skills inevitable, it may remain possible that our best international 7 does NOT play there for his club. Why that should tie so many sets of knickers in a twist, I will never understand.

I agree that there is now an expectation that contemporary opensides are now increasingly expected to be as powerful as blindsides and with an increasing emphasis on hard yard carrying and hitting rucks (indeed it seems that in 2 decades we've gone from an era of 6' ft 14.5 stone or thereabouts sized 7's to 6'2" 16 stone (at least)ones ) - where I expect we disagree particularly on this issue is that I feel something has been lost in this change to the role of the openside, namely having the handling skills, pace and work rate to act as a further 'de facto 3 quarter' where needed, especially being a link man. Peter Winterbottom and Backy were masters of this ability, and further one could imagine that players like Back, Hill and Dallagio (in their early test careers at least) would not looked out of place as test centers (in the former two cases even wingers).

From the onset of the Burt regime onwards my own opinion is that the role of openside has been somewhat 'deskilled' in the England team, and whilst nowbody's doubting the physicality and power of players like Robshaw and Haskell when played at openside, it's hard to imagine either of these supporting a backs move in the way a player like Winterbottom or Back would. This is why I admire players like Hooper, Tipuric and Nyanga - they rely on skill and pace rather than all out brute force but I admit I'm sentimental about this and it's not a view shared by Eddie it seems.

jngf wrote:

Oakboy wrote:The new breed of 7s will have to be all-rounders - contributing all aspects of physicality together with groundhog skills. Why? Because every position has moved on in physicality. The traditional open-side (i.e. smaller, lighter and single dimensional) won't be competitive the way the game is adapting. That's not to say that the ultimate 7 won't play there regularly for his club but it may be that he can operate comfortably at 6 and 8 too. Let's face it, Hill did and even Mr Armitage played at 8 for his club more or less as often as he did at 7 (still may, for all I know).

With a broader range of skills inevitable, it may remain possible that our best international 7 does NOT play there for his club. Why that should tie so many sets of knickers in a twist, I will never understand.

I agree that there is now an expectation that contemporary opensides are now increasingly expected to be as powerful as blindsides and with an increasing emphasis on hard yard carrying and hitting rucks (indeed it seems that in 2 decades we've gone from an era of 6' ft 14.5 stone or thereabouts sized 7's to 6'2" 16 stone (at least)ones ) - where I expect we disagree particularly on this issue is that I feel something has been lost in this change to the role of the openside, namely having the handling skills, pace and work rate to act as a further 'de facto 3 quarter' where needed, especially being a link man. Peter Winterbottom and Backy were masters of this ability, and further one could imagine that players like Back, Hill and Dallagio (in their early test careers at least) would not looked out of place as test centers (in the former two cases even wingers).

From the onset of the Burt regime onwards my own opinion is that the role of openside has been somewhat 'deskilled' in the England team, and whilst nowbody's doubting the physicality and power of players like Robshaw and Haskell when played at openside, it's hard to imagine either of these supporting a backs move in the way a player like Winterbottom or Back would. This is why I admire players like Hooper, Tipuric and Nyanga - they rely on skill and pace rather than all out brute force but I admit I'm sentimental about this and it's not a view shared by Eddie it seems.

I won't go over old ground but just one point. Do you really remember Back as having that good a set of hands (for England)? I can remember him buggering up many a move that would have been a try had Hill, Moody or Winterbottom been there (or Itoje, Lawes or Hughes come to that).

Adding to what oakboy says aren't all the modern forwards supposed to contribute at the breakdown (with obviously differing levels of competence). So the 7 role is possibly on the way out unless you have an exceptional specialist.

If we are to copy any thing that that NZ do it should be try and get all our players be all rounders. Sort of like "total rugby" as it were. It's sort of a shame because rugby was seen as a sport where there was a role for people of all body types/shapes etc )and there still is at the low/medium level).

Oakboy wrote:

jngf wrote:

Oakboy wrote:The new breed of 7s will have to be all-rounders - contributing all aspects of physicality together with groundhog skills. Why? Because every position has moved on in physicality. The traditional open-side (i.e. smaller, lighter and single dimensional) won't be competitive the way the game is adapting. That's not to say that the ultimate 7 won't play there regularly for his club but it may be that he can operate comfortably at 6 and 8 too. Let's face it, Hill did and even Mr Armitage played at 8 for his club more or less as often as he did at 7 (still may, for all I know).

With a broader range of skills inevitable, it may remain possible that our best international 7 does NOT play there for his club. Why that should tie so many sets of knickers in a twist, I will never understand.

I agree that there is now an expectation that contemporary opensides are now increasingly expected to be as powerful as blindsides and with an increasing emphasis on hard yard carrying and hitting rucks (indeed it seems that in 2 decades we've gone from an era of 6' ft 14.5 stone or thereabouts sized 7's to 6'2" 16 stone (at least)ones ) - where I expect we disagree particularly on this issue is that I feel something has been lost in this change to the role of the openside, namely having the handling skills, pace and work rate to act as a further 'de facto 3 quarter' where needed, especially being a link man. Peter Winterbottom and Backy were masters of this ability, and further one could imagine that players like Back, Hill and Dallagio (in their early test careers at least) would not looked out of place as test centers (in the former two cases even wingers).

From the onset of the Burt regime onwards my own opinion is that the role of openside has been somewhat 'deskilled' in the England team, and whilst nowbody's doubting the physicality and power of players like Robshaw and Haskell when played at openside, it's hard to imagine either of these supporting a backs move in the way a player like Winterbottom or Back would. This is why I admire players like Hooper, Tipuric and Nyanga - they rely on skill and pace rather than all out brute force but I admit I'm sentimental about this and it's not a view shared by Eddie it seems.

I won't go over old ground but just one point. Do you really remember Back as having that good a set of hands (for England)? I can remember him buggering up many a move that would have been a try had Hill, Moody or Winterbottom been there (or Itoje, Lawes or Hughes come to that).

I do remember him knocking a ball out of Peter Stringer's hands in a Premiership match (professional foul ). I think by the standards of most flankers his handling skills were very good indeed (in fact I recall the Manager of the Lions 1997 Tour recalling his "footballing" skills as revelatory).

I do think we get a bit hung up over the number a player is wearing. Nowadays back rowers are much more interchangeable with skillsets overlapping. Not only back rowers of course but all players are now adept at some of the openside's traditional areas of expertise. As long as there is a balance I really don't think we need to get fussed on whether player A is the right size, or whether he is lightning quick, or has the handling of a centre. Ultimately it's what works as a team that matters.

jngf wrote: Back, Hill and Dallagio (in their early test careers at least) would not looked out of place as test centers (in the former two cases even wingers).

Finally, a group of wingers in which Nowell could argue he was the fastest.

Mellsblue wrote:

jngf wrote: Back, Hill and Dallagio (in their early test careers at least) would not looked out of place as test centers (in the former two cases even wingers).

Finally, a group of wingers in which Nowell could argue he was the fastest.

Whereas, if it included Croft, Moody . . . . ?

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

jngf wrote: Back, Hill and Dallagio (in their early test careers at least) would not looked out of place as test centers (in the former two cases even wingers).

Finally, a group of wingers in which Nowell could argue he was the fastest.

Whereas, if it included Croft, Moody . . . . ?

I would agree Croft and Moody, and indeed Tom Rees, Pat Sanderson and possibly Magnus Lund? would come into this bracket.

Who is the greatest openside of the modern era?

Whatever anyone thinks, McCaw has to be there.

And McCaw is not a small man. In fact, he's remarkably similar to Robshaw in physique. 6'2", 108kg (110 for Robshaw).

And remarkably similar to Teimana Harrison - 6'2", 106. And remarkably similar to Richard Hill, 6'2", 108kg...

Oakboy wrote:Yes, it will be interesting to see if EJ has different ways of getting him into the game. I have to say that Slade's long, accurate pass gels with May being there. Ford, Farrell and Joseph has a fair bit to offer as a unit but an inch-perfect miss-pass? Maybe not.

Yarde's try vs Australia and Parling's try vs Scotland both sprang to the mind.

Yeah, Ford's passing is not something I'm too quick to complain about. Though two people in the back line who can pass that well??? Must be almost unheard of? Farrell does seem to have got a whole lot better though.