RugbyRebels

Looking at Sam Underhill my impression is he has 6.5 running through him like a stick of rock.
Is this a fair assessment and if so should he be viewed as an alternative 6 option to Robshaw rather than as a specialist 7?

I happen to agree! He's still good though

ah, a new twist on the theme

still only seen him a few times, a reasonable tackler and carrier for his age. yet to see anything which would make me think he's knocking on the door, though he's played a lot more games I haven't seen.

From what I have seen, I can see your angle on him being more of a 6.5 but I'm reserving judgement until I've seen him play a few games in the AP.

With our dearth of good opensides - he'd better be a 7.

Rich wrote:With our dearth of good opensides - he'd better be a 7.

That dearth of good opensides has 2 Curries on their way; whilst behind Robshaw, we have a dearth of blindsides too (Itoje/Lawes aren't blindsides without spending a pre-season losing mass and gaining flexibilty, and a full season training as a flanker).
We could conceivably have Robshaw, Underhill, Curry, Curry, Vunipola, Hughes, Mercer in place in time for the RWC19; giving us 3 options for each backrow spot.

Which Tyler wrote:

Rich wrote:With our dearth of good opensides - he'd better be a 7.

That dearth of good opensides has 2 Curries on their way; whilst behind Robshaw, we have a dearth of blindsides too (Itoje/Lawes aren't blindsides without spending a pre-season losing mass and gaining flexibilty, and a full season training as a flanker).
We could conceivably have Robshaw, Underhill, Curry, Curry, Vunipola, Hughes, Mercer in place in time for the RWC19; giving us 3 options for each backrow spot.

backrow is indeed not great in the short term. As we saw.

It's really unfortunate that Jones is injured - think he could be a great 6

Eddie sees Underhill as a 7. At present!

Looking at it from the 'just backrowers' viewpoint, I believe, until it's proven otherwise, that the best three are Billy, Robshaw and Hughes. It's almost a year away until the best back-row is chosen (assuming Eddie's AIs rest occurs). For the opening 6N match next year I'd pick that trio unless someone else does something to justify not doing so. I know that will bring on palpitations for many posters but it's a reasonable challenge to lay down, albeit that Robshaw at 7, Billy at 6 offends many preconceptions.

Oakboy wrote:Looking at it from the 'just backrowers' viewpoint, I believe, until it's proven otherwise, that the best three are Billy, Robshaw and Hughes. It's almost a year away until the best back-row is chosen (assuming Eddie's AIs rest occurs). For the opening 6N match next year I'd pick that trio unless someone else does something to justify not doing so. I know that will bring on palpitations for many posters but it's a reasonable challenge to lay down, albeit that Robshaw at 7, Billy at 6 offends many preconceptions.

Is not a question of offending preconceptions, it just looks like bad judgement based on repeated viewing of the players.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Looking at it from the 'just backrowers' viewpoint, I believe, until it's proven otherwise, that the best three are Billy, Robshaw and Hughes. It's almost a year away until the best back-row is chosen (assuming Eddie's AIs rest occurs). For the opening 6N match next year I'd pick that trio unless someone else does something to justify not doing so. I know that will bring on palpitations for many posters but it's a reasonable challenge to lay down, albeit that Robshaw at 7, Billy at 6 offends many preconceptions.

Is not a question of offending preconceptions, it just looks like bad judgement based on repeated viewing of the players.

As above. Does the fact that Hughes has so far turned in performances of a Tom Wood standard for England count as someone doing something to justify not picking that trio?

Puja

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Looking at it from the 'just backrowers' viewpoint, I believe, until it's proven otherwise, that the best three are Billy, Robshaw and Hughes. It's almost a year away until the best back-row is chosen (assuming Eddie's AIs rest occurs). For the opening 6N match next year I'd pick that trio unless someone else does something to justify not doing so. I know that will bring on palpitations for many posters but it's a reasonable challenge to lay down, albeit that Robshaw at 7, Billy at 6 offends many preconceptions.

Is not a question of offending preconceptions, it just looks like bad judgement based on repeated viewing of the players.

Looks to me like a drinking problem come to life. Why the fuck anyone would move Billy from 8 baffles me considerably.

Puja wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Looking at it from the 'just backrowers' viewpoint, I believe, until it's proven otherwise, that the best three are Billy, Robshaw and Hughes. It's almost a year away until the best back-row is chosen (assuming Eddie's AIs rest occurs). For the opening 6N match next year I'd pick that trio unless someone else does something to justify not doing so. I know that will bring on palpitations for many posters but it's a reasonable challenge to lay down, albeit that Robshaw at 7, Billy at 6 offends many preconceptions.

Is not a question of offending preconceptions, it just looks like bad judgement based on repeated viewing of the players.

As above. Does the fact that Hughes has so far turned in performances of a Tom Wood standard for England count as someone doing something to justify not picking that trio?

Puja

I think the criticism of Wood if he had turned in those performances would have been absolutely relentless to be honest. I absolutely believe that Hughes can be the better player than Wood/Haskell but that's quite an enormous leap from Hughes being the best option at 8 "until proven otherwise".

Which Tyler wrote:

Rich wrote:With our dearth of good opensides - he'd better be a 7.

That dearth of good opensides has 2 Curries on their way; whilst behind Robshaw, we have a dearth of blindsides too (Itoje/Lawes aren't blindsides without spending a pre-season losing mass and gaining flexibilty, and a full season training as a flanker).
We could conceivably have Robshaw, Underhill, Curry, Curry, Vunipola, Hughes, Mercer in place in time for the RWC19; giving us 3 options for each backrow spot.

The Curry brothers are as yet unproven but could easily add to England's options at open side


I don't see an issue at blindside just yet:

Nathan Hughes
Robshaw
Haskell
.
.
.
Then Ewers, Ben Morgan, Mike Williams

All will be options until the 2019 RWC.

Note: I've not mentioned Tom Wood or Tom Croft.

I watched Underhill with interest playing for Ospreys vs Ulster the other day.

He started at 6 and was fairly anonymous. Didn't do anything eyecatchingly good, but nothing bad either. He carried OK and tackled well (including a big hit that lead to Olding going off injured), but was fairly anonymous at the breakdown. He just seemed to fan out and leave it to others, so it could have been tactical, but all in all, I didn't see anything to particularly excite me.

Given his age, he looked decent enough at 6, but on that showing, I'd have either Curry ahead of him by some distance as a 7.

Scrumhead wrote:I watched Underhill with interest playing for Ospreys vs Ulster the other day.

He started at 6 and was fairly anonymous. Didn't do anything eyecatchingly good, but nothing bad either. He carried OK and tackled well (including a big hit that lead to Olding going off injured), but was fairly anonymous at the breakdown. He just seemed to fan out and leave it to others, so it could have been tactical, but all in all, I didn't see anything to particularly excite me.

Given his age, he looked decent enough at 6, but on that showing, I'd have either Curry ahead of him by some distance as a 7.

Playing next to Tipuric?

Yes. Tipuric was at 7.

Scrumhead wrote:I watched Underhill with interest playing for Ospreys vs Ulster the other day.

He started at 6 and was fairly anonymous. Didn't do anything eyecatchingly good, but nothing bad either. He carried OK and tackled well (including a big hit that lead to Olding going off injured), but was fairly anonymous at the breakdown. He just seemed to fan out and leave it to others, so it could have been tactical, but all in all, I didn't see anything to particularly excite me.

Given his age, he looked decent enough at 6, but on that showing, I'd have either Curry ahead of him by some distance as a 7.

That echoes almost exactly what I've seen from him too. Not quite the physical whirlwind I expected.

Timbo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I watched Underhill with interest playing for Ospreys vs Ulster the other day.

He started at 6 and was fairly anonymous. Didn't do anything eyecatchingly good, but nothing bad either. He carried OK and tackled well (including a big hit that lead to Olding going off injured), but was fairly anonymous at the breakdown. He just seemed to fan out and leave it to others, so it could have been tactical, but all in all, I didn't see anything to particularly excite me.

Given his age, he looked decent enough at 6, but on that showing, I'd have either Curry ahead of him by some distance as a 7.

That echoes almost exactly what I've seen from him too. Not quite the physical whirlwind I expected.

I was on this bandwagon before the band arrived, so agreed, but you're not going to impress people like Richard Hill if you're not doing something right so it's quite possible I'm missing the obvious (or just not seen him enough)

Yup - the Curry's make me sit up and notice them, though I'm not sure which one I'm noticing.

Underhill I remain unconvinced but very open minded. He's still very young after all

I've not seen Sam Underhill yet but even if Underhill is a failure during the summer tour. I suspect Eddie will continue to invest in him just like Harrison.

Underhill also has the benefits from learning from Francois Louw which in no doubt will help him, Just as George Smith helped improve James Haskell.

Peasant wrote: Just as George Smith helped improve James Haskell.

But even the great George Smith couldn't turn Haskell into anything remotely ressembling a specialist openside

I watched The Ospreys v Scarlets last Friday and for the first 40 mins Underhill was very impressive. Sadly the Scarlets were on a mission and the O's kinda fell apart in the 2nd half.
He's a quality player. It'll be interesting to see how he fares next season.

jngf wrote:Looking at Sam Underhill my impression is he has 6.5 running through him like a stick of rock.
Is this a fair assessment and if so should he be viewed as an alternative 6 option to Robshaw rather than as a specialist 7?

Thinking about Saturday’s game, I remembered this thread and thought it deserved being resurrected.

It’s rare that I agree with jngf, but the opening post on this thread really sums up my thoughts.

Post World Cup, we will need a replacement for Robshaw and on recent evidence, Underhill looks as though he could do a fine job in replacing him at 6. Whether he has the additional elements to his game I expect from our starting 7 now is definitely up for debate though.

It’s a real shame Tom Curry got injured and very frustrating that Ben Curry wasn’t in the squad (for no obvious reason) as I’d like to have seen a comparison. I expect to see Underhill at 7 again for the Australia game but I’d love to see Simmonds get the job against Samoa.