RugbyRebels

I’m going to be intrigued to see who gets priority at open side and blindside flanks in the starting XV for the forthcoming RWC matches and don’t necessarily see this as a foregone conclusion. Of the players currently in contention the two combos who might work best together in terms of complementary skills might be? ;

6 Shields & 7 Underhill

or

6 Wilson & 7 Curry


and is there scope for a pacier wildcard to be included like Ludlum, Clifford or Simmonds?

Well neither of Simmonds or Clifford have been in any of Eddie’s training squads so I think we may as well rule them out completely.

The fact that Ludlam has been retained for the duration suggests he’s doing something right. However, I can’t see him going ahead of Curry or Underhill and he’s not going to cut it as a test 6 or 8.

I can’t see us taking more than 5 back rowers, so I can only really see it being the four you mentioned + Billy.

We could potentially play Underhill at 6, but that probably weakens the lineout too much.

It'll be Wilson and Curry or Underhill and that is good.

End.

Wilson is our best 6 by a fair distance. I still do not like the thought of him being moved to 8 with Shields at 6 should Billy have to miss games. I would have preferred a genuine 6/8 rather than Shields but would settle for a 7/8 like Kvesic. Jones's selections leave Billy as our most important player by a huge margin.

Stom wrote:It'll be Wilson and Curry or Underhill and that is good.

End.

Yep.

I know you want this to be an exciting discussion Jngf but do you really think there's anything much to it? Curry has the shirt, Underhill has shown he can perform if he gets the chance though. Wilson is our best 6. That's about it.

I assume you're suggesting Shields in at 6 (with Underhill) for his lineout work. There's certainly no other area that he beats Wilson, and Wilson isn't even a bad option there.

We'll take 5 back rowers with Itoje or Lawes offering a covering option at 6.
Curry will be exclusively a 7, Billy an 8. Underhill can be deployed on both sides and Wilson will cover 8. Some shifting around might be required.
I'd be very surprised if our back row for the Argentina game and every one thereafter isnt Wilson, Curry, Billy, assuming they are fit.

Scrumhead wrote:Well neither of Simmonds or Clifford have been in any of Eddie’s training squads so I think we may as well rule them out completely.

The fact that Ludlam has been retained for the duration suggests he’s doing something right. However, I can’t see him going ahead of Curry or Underhill and he’s not going to cut it as a test 6 or 8.

I can’t see us taking more than 5 back rowers, so I can only really see it being the four you mentioned + Billy.

We could potentially play Underhill at 6, but that probably weakens the lineout too much.

Curry's a good lineout option, possibly better than Wilson, and Underhill can and does go up. Shields is the best and tallest, but he isn't going to start (please), so all Underhill has to do is be solid cover for Wilson to beat him out.

Puja

The only real debate, assuming everyone is fit, is who is on the bench with Wilson, Curry and Billy starting. Theoretically, it comes down to Shields or Underhill but Jones just might pick Lawes and Launchbury if Itoje and Kruis start in the 2nd row.

Oakboy wrote:The only real debate, assuming everyone is fit, is who is on the bench with Wilson, Curry and Billy starting. Theoretically, it comes down to Shields or Underhill but Jones just might pick Lawes and Launchbury if Itoje and Kruis start in the 2nd row.

And frankly, that debate should only not have the automatic answer of Underhill if there's a remarkable about-turn and Robshaw is called up, in which case it's up for grabs.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:The only real debate, assuming everyone is fit, is who is on the bench with Wilson, Curry and Billy starting. Theoretically, it comes down to Shields or Underhill but Jones just might pick Lawes and Launchbury if Itoje and Kruis start in the 2nd row.

And frankly, that debate should only not have the automatic answer of Underhill if there's a remarkable about-turn and Robshaw is called up, in which case it's up for grabs.

Puja

Agreed, but we are talking about Jones. The fact that Shields is in the squad means that other better players are not. If he's in the squad he could get into the 23, as could Lawes as 6 cover.

I'd rather shields at lock than Lawes at 6.

Raggs wrote:I'd rather shields at lock than Lawes at 6.

Not sure I'd go that far. As ever, we are not debating our own views as much as trying to predict what Jones will do. I'd still have Armand ahead of Shields, for example.

Actual answer:
No I don't want jack pissing clifford instead of billy vunipola?

More diplomatic answer:
Our back row is in the best shape it has been in at least a decade. No idea why any one feels the need to tinker.

Raggs wrote:I'd rather shields at lock than Lawes at 6.

Why settle for one when you could have both?

Mikey Brown wrote:

Raggs wrote:I'd rather shields at lock than Lawes at 6.

Why settle for one when you could have both?

I'd rather neither.

Wilson, Curry, Vunipola

I suspect we end up with shields on the bench, but seeing as Jones doesn't seem to mind leaving a player on the bench I'm hoping he stays there in case a lock or backrow goes down.

I think this bloke is nailed on at 6, surely. Though, with a tacking technique like that, Jones may see him as a 10.

twitchy wrote:Actual answer:
No I don't want jack pissing clifford instead of billy vunipola?

More diplomatic answer:
Our back row is in the best shape it has been in at least a decade. No idea why any one feels the need to tinker.

It is at least getting us talking about something other than the sodding word association thread.

Puja

Amen to that ...

There are less breaks between matches this round aren't there? So Billy can't be expected to start every match. So if Wilson is the back-up 8, presumably he won't play 6 at some games

I'd imagine we'll get a hybrid back row for the first two games against US and Tonga - Lawes/Curry/Billy for one and Shields/Underhill/Wilson for the other. Then it'll be first choice from Argentina onwards, as there'll be a week's gap between each game from then with a max of 5 games.

Puja

Puja wrote:

twitchy wrote:Actual answer:
No I don't want jack pissing clifford instead of billy vunipola?

More diplomatic answer:
Our back row is in the best shape it has been in at least a decade. No idea why any one feels the need to tinker.

It is at least getting us talking about something other than the sodding word association thread.

Puja

We should start a match thread for the wales game Longest build up in history.

Oakboy wrote:Jones's selections leave Billy as our most important player by a huge margin.

Almost any selection does that, and actually Jones has actually made Ben Youngs our most important player is an argument you could make by dint of not selecting anyone else, so Jones more than anyone could have predicted has found a (novel) solution to the problem of Billy being the key man

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Jones's selections leave Billy as our most important player by a huge margin.

Almost any selection does that, and actually Jones has actually made Ben Youngs our most important player is an argument you could make by dint of not selecting anyone else, so Jones more than anyone could have predicted has found a (novel) solution to the problem of Billy being the key man

Diggers, I see your point. We all know Jones has been stupid not to have done more to get viable SH back-up (or succession, because Youngs is not that good). As Banquo delights in pointing out, I was a big Hughes advocate a year or two back. Jones appeared to rate him too until the 11th hour. Now, Billy is not just important, he's essentially irreplaceable - to the extent that if he gets injured we are out of contention.

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Jones's selections leave Billy as our most important player by a huge margin.

Almost any selection does that, and actually Jones has actually made Ben Youngs our most important player is an argument you could make by dint of not selecting anyone else, so Jones more than anyone could have predicted has found a (novel) solution to the problem of Billy being the key man

Diggers, I see your point. We all know Jones has been stupid not to have done more to get viable SH back-up (or succession, because Youngs is not that good). As Banquo delights in pointing out, I was a big Hughes advocate a year or two back. Jones appeared to rate him too until the 11th hour. Now, Billy is not just important, he's essentially irreplaceable - to the extent that if he gets injured we are out of contention.

I've never been a Hughes fan for England, when he was an explosive carrier for Wasps he was too fat and lazy to take on the top test sides, even if he'd replicated the looks good on TV moments the work ethic that survived in club rugby is one which I'd supposed would have been brutally exposed in test rugby, though of course I could be wrong. And then since he's improved his conditioning and work rate he's no longer bringing the explosive side of his game.

But that said I don't know what you could do to offer up a sensible alternative to Billy. If you want England not to be so reliant on his remarkable physicality you need to dramatically improve fitness, skill levels and decision making to keep our ball from being slowed down, and that's unlikely. And actually this isn't an odd thing, the very best player tend to be bloody hard to replace, for anyone, and Billy is truly world class.

Replacing Billy (or attempting to) like for like has proved far less successful than going with 3 flankers in the back row. What we lose with his power and attacking ability we gain through additional work rate and breakdown/turnover threat.

A lot of country’s seem to be doing this actually. NZ, SA, Wal etc, all have 1 top class more traditional ball carrying 8, but if they are unavailable will go with 3 mobile flankers in the back row.