England vs Japan - Sunday

[p/d]

If Billy wasn’t in the 23 then SB would look a right dick.
Rod for own back me thinks.

The Curry and Underhill combo was our best for years, Curry & Willis could have been that. Alas the 6 shirt is worn by a lock and the rest is …….

[Beasties]

It's strange how see players differently. FKAS ranks Willis 4th behind the other flankers Curry, Earl and Ludlam. I'd have him 1st for the simple reason that he can do anything the others can do whereas at the breakdown he can do things that the others can't. If we keep kicking as much as we have he is simply the best of the four at getting the ball back (on the reasonable assumption that we have not contested the kick well).

Within the context of where we are at, I have no issue with SB sticking to a winning side but how Vunipola gets a bench slot ahead of Willis is beyond me.

It seemed to me that in his last couple of outings he’d been told specifically not to try any turnovers unless it was nailed on non-risky. Either that or he’d decided himself that possibly giving away a couple of pens would see him removed from selection.

[Beasties]

If Billy wasn’t in the 23 then SB would look a right dick.
Rod for own back me thinks.

The Curry and Underhill combo was our best for years, Curry & Willis could have been that. Alas the 6 shirt is worn by a lock and the rest is …….

Tbf to Lawes, he has actually turned up now, and I’m not a fan of him at 6. Not a fan of Earl either, but he has done a passable impression of an international backrow.

[p/d]

If Billy wasn’t in the 23 then SB would look a right dick.
Rod for own back me thinks.

The Curry and Underhill combo was our best for years, Curry & Willis could have been that. Alas the 6 shirt is worn by a lock and the rest is …….

Tbf to Lawes, he has actually turned up now, and I’m not a fan of him at 6. Not a fan of Earl either, but he has done a passable impression of an international backrow.

Oh, don’t get me wrong he has done a good job and gives that line out option. I’m just disappointed that we are still at that point

[Beasties]

If Billy wasn’t in the 23 then SB would look a right dick.
Rod for own back me thinks.

The Curry and Underhill combo was our best for years, Curry & Willis could have been that. Alas the 6 shirt is worn by a lock and the rest is …….

Tbf to Lawes, he has actually turned up now, and I’m not a fan of him at 6. Not a fan of Earl either, but he has done a passable impression of an international backrow.

Oh, don’t get me wrong he has done a good job and gives that line out option. I’m just disappointed that we are still at that point

Well yeah. The lineout is the main part of why he keeps being selected. I’d rather we had J Willis or someone else in the 6 shirt but we are where we are, and I can just about cope with Lawes at 6 if he’s playing like he did at the weekend rather than the meh version.

[Scrumhead]

I never wanted Lawes at 6, but I’m converted. He was excellent on the Australia tour and fantastic against Argentina. We missed him when he wasn’t there so I really don’t understand the continued criticism? It’s at best out of date and currently is completely unwarranted.

[Mellsblue]

Because some of us want a more expansive game plan which necessitates a different type of 6.

[Puja]

I never wanted Lawes at 6, but I’m converted. He was excellent on the Australia tour and fantastic against Argentina. We missed him when he wasn’t there so I really don’t understand the continued criticism? It’s at best out of date and currently is completely unwarranted.

Because he was excellent on the Australia tour and fantastic against Argentina, but those are sadly not the only international games that he has played across that time period.

He needs to be good more often to be worth not reinventing the kamikaze kids and picking two of our stable of excellent specialist flankers.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I never wanted Lawes at 6, but I’m converted. He was excellent on the Australia tour and fantastic against Argentina. We missed him when he wasn’t there so I really don’t understand the continued criticism? It’s at best out of date and currently is completely unwarranted.

Because he was excellent on the Australia tour and fantastic against Argentina, but those are sadly not the only international games that he has played across that time period.

He needs to be good more often to be worth not reinventing the kamikaze kids and picking two of our stable of excellent specialist flankers.

Puja

I imagine SB's choice of Lawes at 6 and BV at 8 (in his supposed 1st choice line-up) represented what he saw as a necessary physical presence against SA, Ireland or France. That never stacked up for me and it will be interesting to see if he perseveres with it after all that has happened since the 33 was picked. I can't imagine how picking both could work if our game expands as it must for decent progress in the competition. Either/or, maybe, but both? I hope SB has opened his mind to the situation and it will be interesting to see who makes way for BV should he come on against Japan.

[p/d]

Nobody suggested dropping him for, say, Ludlum (12 tackles in 15mins). Agree he has been v good in a very disjointed side that is putting in very mediocre performances. Maybe we have hit our ceiling and aspirations to have better are out of date and maybe Farrell is actually this sides best 10.

We are at a low point, carried away on a wave of euphoria at kicking the life out of Argentina, but wanting better isn’t the same as devaluing a player’s performance

[jngf]

Short term? JWillis has a contract until 2026 with Toulouse.

He's not done enough to come up past Ludlam in the pecking order and isn't available for three seasons after this tournament. Fourth choice is about right.

It’s a two year contract with a third year option. He could be back in the Prem halfway through the World Cup cycle which seems to work ok for NZ. He’s also young enough, and injuries have meant he doesn’t have that many games under his belt, that there’s a possibility he makes the World Cup after. Stripped Barnacle is also lobbying to select players not in the Prem and if he gets his way that Willis is at Toulouse is moot.

He'll be 28 by the time he returns to England, it he opts out of his third year (which will only be if the deal he gets in the Prem can compete with what he'll have been offered to stay where his family is settled in the South of France). Can't keep calling him young. Given the damage to his knees I'm not sure lack of game time necessarily helps.

It's fine for NZ with their big name talents. Unfulfilled potential at the top level not so much.

It's harsh on a nice guy who's a good player but we have opensides, including Tom Curry who is both younger and better, as well as having a lot more experience.

There was one Willis I'd like to have seen found room for and developed for this next cycle and that would have been TWillis.

The RFU I'm sure play the game where they say they might pick from abroad in order to help negotiate terms with the Prem clubs. They'll soon abandon the plan once the new deal is signed, it's considerably more beneficial to have access to players outside of international windows.

I don’t agree that Tom Curry is a better openside than Jack Willis - quite the opposite

[Banquo]

I never wanted Lawes at 6, but I’m converted. He was excellent on the Australia tour and fantastic against Argentina. We missed him when he wasn’t there so I really don’t understand the continued criticism? It’s at best out of date and currently is completely unwarranted.

Perzackly, I was as anti Law(toje) as anyone, esp as initially it was a disaster. But since doing the conditioning work to actually be a 6 at intl level, he's generally been very good and occasionally excellent/outstanding. Having a 3rd, high class lineout option should not be under estimated, and I don't see that picking him at 6 overly constrains a wider game (that'd be our skill sets and decision making under pressure across the team), though if you put Billy alongside him that'd be a stretch- although both are pretty mobile for blokes their size, they have a lot of miles in their legs.

All that said, need to find a way of having three + decent lineout options- just need to be creative there, esp post RWC when Lawes will have gone I assume; whether Martin or Chessum (s) are viable 6's we don't really know.

[Banquo]

It’s a two year contract with a third year option. He could be back in the Prem halfway through the World Cup cycle which seems to work ok for NZ. He’s also young enough, and injuries have meant he doesn’t have that many games under his belt, that there’s a possibility he makes the World Cup after. Stripped Barnacle is also lobbying to select players not in the Prem and if he gets his way that Willis is at Toulouse is moot.

He'll be 28 by the time he returns to England, it he opts out of his third year (which will only be if the deal he gets in the Prem can compete with what he'll have been offered to stay where his family is settled in the South of France). Can't keep calling him young. Given the damage to his knees I'm not sure lack of game time necessarily helps.

It's fine for NZ with their big name talents. Unfulfilled potential at the top level not so much.

It's harsh on a nice guy who's a good player but we have opensides, including Tom Curry who is both younger and better, as well as having a lot more experience.

There was one Willis I'd like to have seen found room for and developed for this next cycle and that would have been TWillis.

The RFU I'm sure play the game where they say they might pick from abroad in order to help negotiate terms with the Prem clubs. They'll soon abandon the plan once the new deal is signed, it's considerably more beneficial to have access to players outside of international windows.

I don’t agree that Tom Curry is a better openside than Jack Willis - quite the opposite

No kidding, we didn't know that!!!

[FKAS]

I never wanted Lawes at 6, but I’m converted. He was excellent on the Australia tour and fantastic against Argentina. We missed him when he wasn’t there so I really don’t understand the continued criticism? It’s at best out of date and currently is completely unwarranted.

Because he was excellent on the Australia tour and fantastic against Argentina, but those are sadly not the only international games that he has played across that time period.

He needs to be good more often to be worth not reinventing the kamikaze kids and picking two of our stable of excellent specialist flankers.

Puja

Lawes has been playing very well to be fair to him. I'm not really a fan but hard to argue with how he's playing. Can't say I'm a fan of Lawes and BillyV being in the same backrow though, to bulky and not mobile enough. Quite happy with Lawes plus two of the flankers given that both Earl and Ludlam can drop into play 8 when required. Well happy with that combination in the short term.

[Mikey Brown]

I’ve accepted him as a 6, I was more just worried that his body was perpetually fucked after that first lumbering performance on his return.

As others have said it’s more about balance. Him and Vunipola in the same back row is just too plodding.

[Adam_P]

Because some of us want a more expansive game plan which necessitates a different type of 6.

You can't play expansive rugby with Lawes at 6? Have you watched Northampton at all in the last few seasons?!

[Danno]

It feels like the tourney needs the customary upset, and it hasn't happened yet....

[Puja]

Because some of us want a more expansive game plan which necessitates a different type of 6.

You can't play expansive rugby with Lawes at 6? Have you watched Northampton at all in the last few seasons?!

How's that worked out at any level above the Premiership? Or against the top teams in the Prem?

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Because some of us want a more expansive game plan which necessitates a different type of 6.

You can't play expansive rugby with Lawes at 6? Have you watched Northampton at all in the last few seasons?!

I have but I’d like to win the comp.

[Danno]

Easy Mells

[Spiffy]

It’s a two year contract with a third year option. He could be back in the Prem halfway through the World Cup cycle which seems to work ok for NZ. He’s also young enough, and injuries have meant he doesn’t have that many games under his belt, that there’s a possibility he makes the World Cup after. Stripped Barnacle is also lobbying to select players not in the Prem and if he gets his way that Willis is at Toulouse is moot.

He'll be 28 by the time he returns to England, it he opts out of his third year (which will only be if the deal he gets in the Prem can compete with what he'll have been offered to stay where his family is settled in the South of France). Can't keep calling him young. Given the damage to his knees I'm not sure lack of game time necessarily helps.

It's fine for NZ with their big name talents. Unfulfilled potential at the top level not so much.

It's harsh on a nice guy who's a good player but we have opensides, including Tom Curry who is both younger and better, as well as having a lot more experience.

There was one Willis I'd like to have seen found room for and developed for this next cycle and that would have been TWillis.

The RFU I'm sure play the game where they say they might pick from abroad in order to help negotiate terms with the Prem clubs. They'll soon abandon the plan once the new deal is signed, it's considerably more beneficial to have access to players outside of international windows.

I don’t agree that Tom Curry is a better openside than Jack Willis - quite the opposite

I think the current Curry is less effective than the athletic, fast, Mark I version we saw in his first few seasons for England. The major reason - bulk! Now he looks like a muscle-bound gym monkey who is just lugging about too much weight for the job he is supposed to do. More like a prop than an open side flanker.

[Oakboy]

He'll be 28 by the time he returns to England, it he opts out of his third year (which will only be if the deal he gets in the Prem can compete with what he'll have been offered to stay where his family is settled in the South of France). Can't keep calling him young. Given the damage to his knees I'm not sure lack of game time necessarily helps.

It's fine for NZ with their big name talents. Unfulfilled potential at the top level not so much.

It's harsh on a nice guy who's a good player but we have opensides, including Tom Curry who is both younger and better, as well as having a lot more experience.

There was one Willis I'd like to have seen found room for and developed for this next cycle and that would have been TWillis.

The RFU I'm sure play the game where they say they might pick from abroad in order to help negotiate terms with the Prem clubs. They'll soon abandon the plan once the new deal is signed, it's considerably more beneficial to have access to players outside of international windows.

I don’t agree that Tom Curry is a better openside than Jack Willis - quite the opposite

I think the current Curry is less effective than the athletic, fast, Mark I version we saw in his first few seasons for England. The major reason - bulk! Now he looks like a muscle-bound gym monkey who is just lugging about too much weight for the job he is supposed to do. More like a prop than an open side flanker.

You could well be right but if you are it is an atrocious condemnation of the club and country training regimes. At top professional level, such mistakes should simply not happen. I associate such misguided policy with the desire (from Lomu onwards) to have players running through opponents rather than around them. Strangely, Billy V or Tuilagi smashing an opponent down and making two yards is often referred to as good carrying whereas Simmonds dodging past tacklers and making forty yards is not.

[FKAS]

Because some of us want a more expansive game plan which necessitates a different type of 6.

You can't play expansive rugby with Lawes at 6? Have you watched Northampton at all in the last few seasons?!

How's that worked out at any level above the Premiership? Or against the top teams in the Prem?

Puja

To be fair you can't blame Lawes for Saints inability to scrum or a complete lack of cohesion in defence. Their scrum and defence coaches have stolen a living for several years. Defence coach is now gone. Some of Saints midfield defence over the last few seasons was like watching a pub side.

Attack was incredible. Shame the RFU couldn't have brought Vesty in to work with Borthwick and Sinfield for the world cup at least.

[Scrumhead]

I never wanted Lawes at 6, but I’m converted. He was excellent on the Australia tour and fantastic against Argentina. We missed him when he wasn’t there so I really don’t understand the continued criticism? It’s at best out of date and currently is completely unwarranted.

Perzackly, I was as anti Law(toje) as anyone, esp as initially it was a disaster. But since doing the conditioning work to actually be a 6 at intl level, he's generally been very good and occasionally excellent/outstanding. Having a 3rd, high class lineout option should not be under estimated, and I don't see that picking him at 6 overly constrains a wider game (that'd be our skill sets and decision making under pressure across the team), though if you put Billy alongside him that'd be a stretch- although both are pretty mobile for blokes their size, they have a lot of miles in their legs.

All that said, need to find a way of having three + decent lineout options- just need to be creative there, esp post RWC when Lawes will have gone I assume; whether Martin or Chessum (s) are viable 6's we don't really know.

I think Lawes’ leadership is the additional factor to mention here. Most (if not all) of our better performances in the past couple of years have been with him leading the side. Discipline has been better too IIRC.

Similarly, a lot of worst performances have been during the periods he hasn’t been available. I’m not saying he’s the only reason for that by any means, but when we’re making tough selection choices, I think these things are difference-makers.

[Scrumhead]

He'll be 28 by the time he returns to England, it he opts out of his third year (which will only be if the deal he gets in the Prem can compete with what he'll have been offered to stay where his family is settled in the South of France). Can't keep calling him young. Given the damage to his knees I'm not sure lack of game time necessarily helps.

It's fine for NZ with their big name talents. Unfulfilled potential at the top level not so much.

It's harsh on a nice guy who's a good player but we have opensides, including Tom Curry who is both younger and better, as well as having a lot more experience.

There was one Willis I'd like to have seen found room for and developed for this next cycle and that would have been TWillis.

The RFU I'm sure play the game where they say they might pick from abroad in order to help negotiate terms with the Prem clubs. They'll soon abandon the plan once the new deal is signed, it's considerably more beneficial to have access to players outside of international windows.

I don’t agree that Tom Curry is a better openside than Jack Willis - quite the opposite

I think the current Curry is less effective than the athletic, fast, Mark I version we saw in his first few seasons for England. The major reason - bulk! Now he looks like a muscle-bound gym monkey who is just lugging about too much weight for the job he is supposed to do. More like a prop than an open side flanker.

Depends what you mean by ‘effective’. Nice to know what you ‘think’, but all of the stats say Curry is the most effective of our flankers in more or less all core aspects of what you’d expect from a flanker …

A better question might be ‘could he achieve even more if he were leaner/lighter?’. I think the answer to that is very possibly, yes. However, to suggest he’s become a less ‘effective’ player since he bulked is just factually inaccurate.