RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:I’m interested to see whether Wilson is retained at 6 - I think he’s been quietly efficient and competent though 6 Nations but think England could use him more in the hard yards carrying than has been the case to date. He’s not an explosive carrier imo but he’s got sufficient power to take on more of the load from Billy. I think Underhill’s Lions class but the balance between Wilson and Curry is slightly better than Underhill and Curry ( who together play increasingly like two 6.5s imo a sort of Robshaw and Haskell 2.0 - but that’s the way Eddie sees the flanker role I guess)

Wilson was the crucial third jumper in the lineout, used at both the front and the tail. His decision making at the breakdown is very important, and allowed Billy (for example) to pay close attention to Dupont. He has good pace, and could carry more, but Curry's carrying has got even batter, so Wilsons support tasking is pretty important.

I'd say Curry's lineout jumping is sufficient that we don't *need* Wilson (or Lawes, heavens forfend). I'd say this series has shown just how important Underhill is to us - having two pure 7s clearing out to make those sub-2s rucks that our attack depends on is vital and, useful though Wilson is, Underhill is a class apart (as well as being a vital leader in defence).

Puja

I'm going to disagree on the lineout piece- sufficient won't be enough v Ireland imo- Wilson can do it up and down the line. And we created a truck load of said rucks in the last two games; Underhill is physically more destructive for sure, but Wilson is a tip top decison maker come ruck time. The old unseen work - it was noticeable how many penalties we conceded at the ruck when he went off. TBH, he balances the back row better and allows Billy to do more too. Tricky call- trade-offs, and a good position to be in.
(PS someone has just told me elsewhere that Wilson took as many lineouts on Saturday as Curry has in his international career- I'm just trying to verify....but if so...)

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: Wilson was the crucial third jumper in the lineout, used at both the front and the tail. His decision making at the breakdown is very important, and allowed Billy (for example) to pay close attention to Dupont. He has good pace, and could carry more, but Curry's carrying has got even batter, so Wilsons support tasking is pretty important.

I'd say Curry's lineout jumping is sufficient that we don't *need* Wilson (or Lawes, heavens forfend). I'd say this series has shown just how important Underhill is to us - having two pure 7s clearing out to make those sub-2s rucks that our attack depends on is vital and, useful though Wilson is, Underhill is a class apart (as well as being a vital leader in defence).

Puja

I'm going to disagree on the lineout piece- sufficient won't be enough v Ireland imo- Wilson can do it up and down the line. And we created a truck load of said rucks in the last two games; Underhill is physically more destructive for sure, but Wilson is a tip top decison maker come ruck time. The old unseen work - it was noticeable how many penalties we conceded at the ruck when he went off. TBH, he balances the back row better and allows Billy to do more too. Tricky call- trade-offs, and a good position to be in.
(PS someone has just told me elsewhere that Wilson took as many lineouts on Saturday as Curry has in his international career- I'm just trying to verify....but if so...)

The bolded bit strikes me as ridiculous hyperbole - Curry's been used quite significantly as a lineout option for England and was our designated third jumper through all the time when we had Cunderhill. I actually wouldn't say Wilson was a significantly better lineout option than Curry - the value of him is that he makes Curry a 4th option which often enables Wilson to go up uncontested.

If we had fully fit Underhill who'd been in the squad, then I'd probably go Underhill because I think the lift to the defence and rucks is bigger than the loss to the lineout. However, I'm far from sad about having Wilson - as you said, our rucks went pretty well last week.

Puja

Lads? Why?!!!

Mr Mwenda wrote:Lads? Why?!!!

The second question mark isn't needed given it's an answer to the first

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I'd say Curry's lineout jumping is sufficient that we don't *need* Wilson (or Lawes, heavens forfend). I'd say this series has shown just how important Underhill is to us - having two pure 7s clearing out to make those sub-2s rucks that our attack depends on is vital and, useful though Wilson is, Underhill is a class apart (as well as being a vital leader in defence).

Puja

I'm going to disagree on the lineout piece- sufficient won't be enough v Ireland imo- Wilson can do it up and down the line. And we created a truck load of said rucks in the last two games; Underhill is physically more destructive for sure, but Wilson is a tip top decison maker come ruck time. The old unseen work - it was noticeable how many penalties we conceded at the ruck when he went off. TBH, he balances the back row better and allows Billy to do more too. Tricky call- trade-offs, and a good position to be in.
(PS someone has just told me elsewhere that Wilson took as many lineouts on Saturday as Curry has in his international career- I'm just trying to verify....but if so...)

The bolded bit strikes me as ridiculous hyperbole - Curry's been used quite significantly as a lineout option for England and was our designated third jumper through all the time when we had Cunderhill. I actually wouldn't say Wilson was a significantly better lineout option than Curry - the value of him is that he makes Curry a 4th option which often enables Wilson to go up uncontested.

If we had fully fit Underhill who'd been in the squad, then I'd probably go Underhill because I think the lift to the defence and rucks is bigger than the loss to the lineout. However, I'm far from sad about having Wilson - as you said, our rucks went pretty well last week.

Puja

I was told Curry had taken 5 lineouts in his England career by a journo. Frankly I can't be ar5ed to check, as like you I think it unlikely.. But its true that Wilson took 5- which is a lot- on Saturday, and at both the front and the tail; the latter takes a fair bit of organisation (there was an article on it), so I'd suggest he's become quite key. Curry wasn't being used as a dummy option to my knowledge either. I'd argue primary possession is pretty important, especially as our rucking is very effective with Wilson playing.

Mr Mwenda wrote:Lads? Why?!!!

What’s the problem Houston?

I am please for you to finish all over Ireland.


*Jazz Hands*

Banquo wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:Lads? Why?!!!

What’s the problem Houston?

JNGF backrowing....

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:Lads? Why?!!!

What’s the problem Houston?

JNGF backrowing....

Tbf, his post was pretty reasonable. I'm willing to encourage that.

Puja

Agreed. I’m usually among the first to bite on jngf (unless Raggs beats me to it), but it was a decent post and a reasonable argument.

I’ve always been a big advocate of Wilson and I’m never disappointed to see him selected. However, like Puja, I feel that Underhill and Curry is a slightly better combination for the same reasons he’s already outlined.

The Irish lineout is very good defensively but less good in attack IMO. Their hookers are just OK, so currently, I’d actually say they’re better disrupting opposition ball whilst being reliable but not brilliant on their own throws. Ryan is a loss, but I imagine Beirne will move up from the back row to second row with O’Mahoney coming in at 6 so the lineout won’t be massively impacted.

I’m more worried about the breakdown than the lineout TBH. We’ve not been brilliant at protecting our possession and that will need to be a lot better against Ireland.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:Lads? Why?!!!

What’s the problem Houston?

JNGF backrowing....

gotcha. Hangs head...

Scrumhead wrote:Agreed. I’m usually among the first to bite on jngf (unless Raggs beats me to it), but it was a decent post and a reasonable argument.

I’ve always been a big advocate of Wilson and I’m never disappointed to see him selected. However, like Puja, I feel that Underhill and Curry is a slightly better combination for the same reasons he’s already outlined.

The Irish lineout is very good defensively but less good in attack IMO. Their hookers are just OK, so currently, I’d actually say they’re better disrupting opposition ball whilst being reliable but not brilliant on their own throws. Ryan is a loss, but I imagine Beirne will move up from the back row to second row with O’Mahoney coming in at 6 so the lineout won’t be massively impacted.

I’m more worried about the breakdown than the lineout TBH. We’ve not been brilliant at protecting our possession and that will need to be a lot better against Ireland.

Fair enough- just pointing out how important Wilson was in the lineout- and you've kind of made the point about how good the irish are at attacking the opposition; they wiped the scots out, and POM is strong in this area too. Our lineout has been vulnerable from time to time.....
As I said trade offs- and Wilsons breakdown work is very good imo

Scrumhead wrote:Agreed. I’m usually among the first to bite on jngf (unless Raggs beats me to it), but it was a decent post and a reasonable argument.

I’ve always been a big advocate of Wilson and I’m never disappointed to see him selected. However, like Puja, I feel that Underhill and Curry is a slightly better combination for the same reasons he’s already outlined.

The Irish lineout is very good defensively but less good in attack IMO. Their hookers are just OK, so currently, I’d actually say they’re better disrupting opposition ball whilst being reliable but not brilliant on their own throws. Ryan is a loss, but I imagine Beirne will move up from the back row to second row with O’Mahoney coming in at 6 so the lineout won’t be massively impacted.

I’m more worried about the breakdown than the lineout TBH. We’ve not been brilliant at protecting our possession and that will need to be a lot better against Ireland.

I'm trying not to touch Jngf on the backrow any more. I won't always resist, but when it's a less contentious call like Wilson had a good game etc, it's easier to let go.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'm going to disagree on the lineout piece- sufficient won't be enough v Ireland imo- Wilson can do it up and down the line. And we created a truck load of said rucks in the last two games; Underhill is physically more destructive for sure, but Wilson is a tip top decison maker come ruck time. The old unseen work - it was noticeable how many penalties we conceded at the ruck when he went off. TBH, he balances the back row better and allows Billy to do more too. Tricky call- trade-offs, and a good position to be in.
(PS someone has just told me elsewhere that Wilson took as many lineouts on Saturday as Curry has in his international career- I'm just trying to verify....but if so...)

The bolded bit strikes me as ridiculous hyperbole - Curry's been used quite significantly as a lineout option for England and was our designated third jumper through all the time when we had Cunderhill. I actually wouldn't say Wilson was a significantly better lineout option than Curry - the value of him is that he makes Curry a 4th option which often enables Wilson to go up uncontested.

If we had fully fit Underhill who'd been in the squad, then I'd probably go Underhill because I think the lift to the defence and rucks is bigger than the loss to the lineout. However, I'm far from sad about having Wilson - as you said, our rucks went pretty well last week.

Puja

I was told Curry had taken 5 lineouts in his England career by a journo. Frankly I can't be ar5ed to check, as like you I think it unlikely.. But its true that Wilson took 5- which is a lot- on Saturday, and at both the front and the tail; the latter takes a fair bit of organisation (there was an article on it), so I'd suggest he's become quite key. Curry wasn't being used as a dummy option to my knowledge either. I'd argue primary possession is pretty important, especially as our rucking is very effective with Wilson playing.

There’s definitely something in that stat. It was either the World Cup or last 6 nations I saw that he took just 1 line out, which was an overthrow. He really doesn’t get thrown up very often for whatever reason.

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
The bolded bit strikes me as ridiculous hyperbole - Curry's been used quite significantly as a lineout option for England and was our designated third jumper through all the time when we had Cunderhill. I actually wouldn't say Wilson was a significantly better lineout option than Curry - the value of him is that he makes Curry a 4th option which often enables Wilson to go up uncontested.

If we had fully fit Underhill who'd been in the squad, then I'd probably go Underhill because I think the lift to the defence and rucks is bigger than the loss to the lineout. However, I'm far from sad about having Wilson - as you said, our rucks went pretty well last week.

Puja

I was told Curry had taken 5 lineouts in his England career by a journo. Frankly I can't be ar5ed to check, as like you I think it unlikely.. But its true that Wilson took 5- which is a lot- on Saturday, and at both the front and the tail; the latter takes a fair bit of organisation (there was an article on it), so I'd suggest he's become quite key. Curry wasn't being used as a dummy option to my knowledge either. I'd argue primary possession is pretty important, especially as our rucking is very effective with Wilson playing.

There’s definitely something in that stat. It was either the World Cup or last 6 nations I saw that he took just 1 line out, which was an overthrow. He really doesn’t get thrown up very often for whatever reason.

Eddie is keeping him as a secret lineout weapon for the World Cup

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
The bolded bit strikes me as ridiculous hyperbole - Curry's been used quite significantly as a lineout option for England and was our designated third jumper through all the time when we had Cunderhill. I actually wouldn't say Wilson was a significantly better lineout option than Curry - the value of him is that he makes Curry a 4th option which often enables Wilson to go up uncontested.

If we had fully fit Underhill who'd been in the squad, then I'd probably go Underhill because I think the lift to the defence and rucks is bigger than the loss to the lineout. However, I'm far from sad about having Wilson - as you said, our rucks went pretty well last week.

Puja

I was told Curry had taken 5 lineouts in his England career by a journo. Frankly I can't be ar5ed to check, as like you I think it unlikely.. But its true that Wilson took 5- which is a lot- on Saturday, and at both the front and the tail; the latter takes a fair bit of organisation (there was an article on it), so I'd suggest he's become quite key. Curry wasn't being used as a dummy option to my knowledge either. I'd argue primary possession is pretty important, especially as our rucking is very effective with Wilson playing.

There’s definitely something in that stat. It was either the World Cup or last 6 nations I saw that he took just 1 line out, which was an overthrow. He really doesn’t get thrown up very often for whatever reason.

Yes, I always think he looks handy, but strangely underused.

I'd assume that Curry isn't used by England at the lineout because he's the tail gunner ready to go after the opposition's flyhalf if they win the ball or break off and loop into our backline if we win the ball. It's a bit different at Sale where he's used a fair bit in the lineout, they tend for a pretty direct style (even more so than England) so there's less pressure on him to get away.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:Joseph is 29 and soon to hit the big 30. Can see why Jones is looking at younger options to be fair.

bout the same age as Faz

and two years younger than Ben Youngs.

Faz isn't allowed to be dropped he's the captain. We've tried Robson as an alternative to Youngs but he's been shockingly bad so on to the summer.

Plus it's worth mentioning that whomever gets called up is unlikely to actually play so it might as well be a young guy who you can work on as opposed to an experienced guy who knows exactly what you want already.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: bout the same age as Faz

and two years younger than Ben Youngs.

Faz isn't allowed to be dropped he's the captain. We've tried Robson as an alternative to Youngs but he's been shockingly bad so on to the summer.

Plus it's worth mentioning that whomever gets called up is unlikely to actually play so it might as well be a young guy who you can work on as opposed to an experienced guy who knows exactly what you want already.

Therein lies many issues.

FKAS wrote:I'd assume that Curry isn't used by England at the lineout because he's the tail gunner ready to go after the opposition's flyhalf if they win the ball or break off and loop into our backline if we win the ball. It's a bit different at Sale where he's used a fair bit in the lineout, they tend for a pretty direct style (even more so than England) so there's less pressure on him to get away.

Not if Underhill has been playing. He tail guns and its also why he packs down at openside.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: and two years younger than Ben Youngs.

Faz isn't allowed to be dropped he's the captain. We've tried Robson as an alternative to Youngs but he's been shockingly bad so on to the summer.

Plus it's worth mentioning that whomever gets called up is unlikely to actually play so it might as well be a young guy who you can work on as opposed to an experienced guy who knows exactly what you want already.

Therein lies many issues.

Agreed.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:I'd assume that Curry isn't used by England at the lineout because he's the tail gunner ready to go after the opposition's flyhalf if they win the ball or break off and loop into our backline if we win the ball. It's a bit different at Sale where he's used a fair bit in the lineout, they tend for a pretty direct style (even more so than England) so there's less pressure on him to get away.

Not if Underhill has been playing. He tail guns and its also why he packs down at openside.

Fair point. I was thinking this 6N.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:I'd assume that Curry isn't used by England at the lineout because he's the tail gunner ready to go after the opposition's flyhalf if they win the ball or break off and loop into our backline if we win the ball. It's a bit different at Sale where he's used a fair bit in the lineout, they tend for a pretty direct style (even more so than England) so there's less pressure on him to get away.

Not if Underhill has been playing. He tail guns and its also why he packs down at openside.

Fair point. I was thinking this 6N.

Yep, though the other point I was making on Wilson is that he was taking ball at the tail, lifted by Billy--- I haven't checked what Curry's tasking was for that one....

Telegraph hinting that martin might start.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... tes-eddie/

twitchy wrote:Telegraph hinting that martin might start.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... tes-eddie/

IMO that'd be insane