RugbyRebels

Epaminondas Pules wrote:And yet both Ford and Youngs played with our first team today and we were utterly devoid of any attacking or defensive clue. Weird that.

It’s still a sh*t show I’m afraid

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:And yet both Ford and Youngs played with our first team today and we were utterly devoid of any attacking or defensive clue. Weird that.

It’s still a sh*t show I’m afraid

Certainly is. There’s a lot wrong in there.

Mental.

Seems like the numbers change a bit, the Wasps journalist pointed out that after a game he was attributed with 5 turnovers, but come the stats pack, he was down to 2. That was round 17.

Ben Earl was absolutely immense for Bristol this evening.

With Billy in such indifferent form, I like the idea of Curry, Underhill and Earl as a back row. They could be a fantastic trio IMO.

Scrumhead wrote:Ben Earl was absolutely immense for Bristol this evening.

With Billy in such indifferent form, I like the idea of Curry, Underhill and Earl as a back row. They could be a fantastic trio IMO.

No Willis then?

Was going to post something similar about Earl. He looks really, really good. Elements similar to Simmonds in terms of his pace and what he can do ball in hand, but arguably an even better player around the edges. Some really tricky questions to answer.

- The only player in our back row that is secured is, IMO, T.Curry
- It would be very harsh, given performances (and I can't see Eddie doing it), to drop Underhill
- But...the options we have now are crazy
- Billy Vunipola - first name on the team sheet a few years back, but questionable form
- Willis is the form player in the premiership...
- ...with Earl not far behind. 10 tries, and they're not exactly walk-ins at the back of a maul
- Hill is one of the most promising players in the country
- B.Curry is a fantastic, true 7
- We haven't even mentioned Simmonds or the likes of Evans or the kid at Gloucester

How do you solve that?

Assuming T.Curry is there for sure, my own (medium term) view is that, while untested, Willis has to feature and be blooded. If he doesn't translate his form onto international stage, so be it, but I feel he has a better chance than most. Him and Curry in the back row give us a massive amount of the skills we would need, and so...

...we could then pick and choose who the other individual was based on the situation or form. I can see Earl or Hill ending up being the one that push ahead. While he's a great tackler, I can see (with what Curry and Willis bring) either of the two before being the better complements than Underhill. Tough to say though, I'm speculating, and in the near term I can't see Eddie rocking the boat too much unless someone gets injured.

I know Hill is playing for Wuss, which becomes a lot harder to look good in a game, than playing for Bristol against a Saints 2nd XV, but has he shown the form of the other two?

I can't speak for Earl, but there's been games in which Wasps have been dire, yet Willis has basically been a one man wrecking ball in keeping Wasps in the game, literally turning the tide by himself. One of the euro games against a French side comes to mind, Wasps looked poor, but Willis played like a man possessed.

I’ve not seen Hill play, is he a useful line out man?

francoisfou wrote:I’ve not seen Hill play, is he a useful line out man?

In theory he'd be the strongest lineout option in the back row


Edit - unless someone wants to claim Lawes is a flanker

I think Hill was an age grade lock/blindside? I guess he's that height where that question will always get posed at age grade, regardless of your skillset. I haven't seen much of him either. Certainly looks to have some physicality and a grit to him. Are his ball skills perhaps closer to that of a lock than a linking 7 or 8?

Another thing that keeps baffling me is the thought of Willis's jackalling at 6 being perfect to compliment Underhill's defensive approach at 7. I don't want Curry at 8, but leaving him out seems illogical too. With someone like Earl or Curry linking things up alongside those two you've covered a lot of bases though.

Mikey Brown wrote:Another thing that keeps baffling me is the thought of Willis's jackalling at 6 being perfect to compliment Underhill's defensive approach at 7. I don't want Curry at 8, but leaving him out seems illogical too. With someone like Earl or Curry linking things up alongside those two you've covered a lot of bases though.

Yeah, although I come to a different conclusion

I don't really mind where they play, but I think a Willis, Curry, Earl back row gives you everything. Carrying, tackling, jackling, linking etc.

The only thing it doesn't do is give you an outstanding line out option, but that looks good to me

TheNomad wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Another thing that keeps baffling me is the thought of Willis's jackalling at 6 being perfect to compliment Underhill's defensive approach at 7. I don't want Curry at 8, but leaving him out seems illogical too. With someone like Earl or Curry linking things up alongside those two you've covered a lot of bases though.

Yeah, although I come to a different conclusion

I don't really mind where they play, but I think a Willis, Curry, Earl back row gives you everything. Carrying, tackling, jackling, linking etc.

The only thing it doesn't do is give you an outstanding line out option, but that looks good to me

I think we're broadly on the same page, it's just hard to look at any backrow selection for me and not think "but it would cool if Underhill was running around annihilating people". Not that those three are especially lacking in physicality. Ted Hill looks like he might offer both that and the outstanding lineout option though, which could really give him a point of difference.

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Ben Earl was absolutely immense for Bristol this evening.

With Billy in such indifferent form, I like the idea of Curry, Underhill and Earl as a back row. They could be a fantastic trio IMO.

No Willis then?

Given he has no test experience yet, I’d have him in the 20 shirt. However, I’d expect that to be fairly short-lived as I think he’s a more rounded player than Underhill who I think he’s most likely to displace.

As others have pointed out, we really do have an embarrassment or riches on our hands. Long may it continue.

This is potentially controversial, but right now, I would be inclined to leave Billy out of the squad. Of all the back rowers mentioned, he’s been in the least eye-catching form and I don’t think the stricter interpretation of the breakdown laws favour his style of play. If we see the laws implemented as they have been in the Premiership, any combination of T. Curry, Underhill, Earl, Willis, B. Curry, Mercer and Hill feels like a more attractive option.

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Ben Earl was absolutely immense for Bristol this evening.

With Billy in such indifferent form, I like the idea of Curry, Underhill and Earl as a back row. They could be a fantastic trio IMO.

No Willis then?

Given he has no test experience yet, I’d have him in the 20 shirt. However, I’d expect that to be fairly short-lived as I think he’s a more rounded player than Underhill who I think he’s most likely to displace.

As others have pointed out, we really do have an embarrassment or riches on our hands. Long may it continue.

This is potentially controversial, but right now, I would be inclined to leave Billy out of the squad. Of all the back rowers mentioned, he’s been in the least eye-catching form and I don’t think the stricter interpretation of the breakdown laws favour his style of play. If we see the laws implemented as they have been in the Premiership, any combination of T. Curry, Underhill, Earl, Willis, B. Curry, Mercer and Hill feels like a more attractive option.

Earl doesn’t have that much intl exp either.

It could just be horses for courses, with T Curry being the only constant. This obvs requires Willis etc to bring Prem form to int level.

All we need now is three scrum halves and two 12s.

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote: No Willis then?

Given he has no test experience yet, I’d have him in the 20 shirt. However, I’d expect that to be fairly short-lived as I think he’s a more rounded player than Underhill who I think he’s most likely to displace.

As others have pointed out, we really do have an embarrassment or riches on our hands. Long may it continue.

This is potentially controversial, but right now, I would be inclined to leave Billy out of the squad. Of all the back rowers mentioned, he’s been in the least eye-catching form and I don’t think the stricter interpretation of the breakdown laws favour his style of play. If we see the laws implemented as they have been in the Premiership, any combination of T. Curry, Underhill, Earl, Willis, B. Curry, Mercer and Hill feels like a more attractive option.

Earl doesn’t have that much intl exp either.

I know and you’re preaching to the converted - I’m a huge fan of Willis and I think he’ll take to test rugby like a duck to water, but when we’re talking about fine margins and the vagaries of Eddie’s selection, Earl’s recent caps/time in camp count for something.

Mellsblue wrote:It could just be horses for courses, with T Curry being the only constant. This obvs requires Willis etc to bring Prem form to int level.

All we need now is three scrum halves and two 12s.

Indeed. Some green shoots being:

at 9...
- Robson is showing some form
- Spencer...maybe...
- ...after that, it requires an optimistic appraisal of Maunder and Mitchell

At 12:
- Redpath looks a good player
- Faz can play there, even though it's not very exciting
- Not that I'm a fan of converting someone purely for International games, but given our embarassment of riches at 13, the likes of Tuilagi, Slade etc. could do a good fair I reckon, and we'd still have a good looking 12/13 pair given the options we have
- I still feel Devoto hasn't been given a proper chance
- Interesting to see Seabrook there if he sticks...really starting to clutch at straws now, who am I missing? Piers O'Conor?
- If we wanted to persist with the converted 10, we've got a load now that you feel could just about manage - Umaga, Simmonds etc., but then why screw around with very promising 10s?

Difficult really.

More generally, we really do have fantastic options in the pack now. Lots of talent at 10, 11, 13, 14 - I wouldn't be surprised to see the Lions (at a push) start with our players there.

Even 15 I feel we have some options now, even if we haven't settled on one.

So 9 and 12 remain our Achilles heel

Mikey Brown wrote:Another thing that keeps baffling me is the thought of Willis's jackalling at 6 being perfect to compliment Underhill's defensive approach at 7. I don't want Curry at 8, but leaving him out seems illogical too. With someone like Earl or Curry linking things up alongside those two you've covered a lot of bases though.

Willis has played a lot more 8 than Curry has, although I suppose Curry does have experience at international level now. I am fully onboard the Cunderhillis boat with you.

Puja

TheNomad wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:It could just be horses for courses, with T Curry being the only constant. This obvs requires Willis etc to bring Prem form to int level.

All we need now is three scrum halves and two 12s.

Indeed. Some green shoots being:

at 9...
- Robson is showing some form
- Spencer...maybe...
- ...after that, it requires an optimistic appraisal of Maunder and Mitchell

I don't know that it requires an optimistic appraisal of Mitchell - he's been the form 9 in the Prem since the restart to my mind and much better than Robson and Spencer.

Puja

Watching Bath play gives you plenty of time to stop, pause, and consider that Spencer isn't moving the ball at any pace. I suspect he's following orders in doing that looking at the Bath pack, but coming on the back of Super Rugby Aotearoa it is to be polite about it fucking embarrassing to watch our ponderous play in Premier League, and certainly Spencer isn't putting his hand up for international rugby being stuck with team orders such as they are

That’s a pretty harsh review.

Not a fashionable shout, but I’m normally pretty impressed by Andy Uren when he plays. His box kicking probably isn’t good enough to float Eddie’s boat, but in terms of injecting pace and getting the ball away quickly, I’d say he’s among the better EQ 9s.