RugbyRebels

Does he have to be a 2?
He's a ridiculously good carrier both in the tight and the loose, but does anyone else feel he can do more damage further out? He's certainly effective in the back row. Why not play at 12? If he's got the skills...

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:Does he have to be a 2?
He's a ridiculously good carrier both in the tight and the loose, but does anyone else feel he can do more damage further out? He's certainly effective in the back row. Why not play at 12? If he's got the skills...

For 2 vs 6/7/8 I'd say where does he improve the team the most, rather than where can he individually have the greatest impact.

You'd maybe get 1 or 2 more points (out of 10) if he plays at 8, compared to whoever you'd normally play there, but at hooker I'm thinking you could get 3-4 more out of 10. No, he won't be able to get his hands on the ball quite as much, but if he's as powerful in the scrum as he is everywhere else, he'll be a weapon at hooker, and hookers still get to play a lot.

Apparently he wants to play centre.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.waleso ... 488378.amp

From what I’ve seen he looks like a forward, but I don’t hate the idea of him being an English Scott Gibbs style of centre, particularly given the dearth of good 12s.

Scrumhead wrote:Apparently he wants to play centre.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.waleso ... 488378.amp

From what I’ve seen he looks like a forward, but I don’t hate the idea of him being an English Scott Gibbs style of centre, particularly given the dearth of good 12s.

He did it at school, whether he's got the soft skills to do it at the top, who knows. I'd love to see it tried in a nothing game for wasps, even just for giggles.

Yeah I watched him playing for his school at centre (can’t remember why the game was televised). As I recall, he played 13?

Scrumhead wrote:Yeah I watched him playing for his school at centre (can’t remember why the game was televised). As I recall, he played 13?

Wore the 13 shirt, played 12. They didn't have a 12 shirt big enough to fit him...

The impression that I got from Barbeary mentioning it in his post-match interview is that him wanting to play centre is more of a running joke than a genuine ambition. It didn't appear to be a serious comment.

Is he quick enough to play in the backs? I mean, I know he was at school level and he's quick for a forward, but I don't know if he's got the speed to play centre at club level, let alone international.

Puja

Puja wrote:The impression that I got from Barbeary mentioning it in his post-match interview is that him wanting to play centre is more of a running joke than a genuine ambition. It didn't appear to be a serious comment.

Is he quick enough to play in the backs? I mean, I know he was at school level and he's quick for a forward, but I don't know if he's got the speed to play centre at club level, let alone international.

Puja

Is he Any slower than Farrell?

If we are all - apparently - hanging our hopes on the return of Manu then it can do no harm to give Barbeary a go.

Puja wrote:The impression that I got from Barbeary mentioning it in his post-match interview is that him wanting to play centre is more of a running joke than a genuine ambition. It didn't appear to be a serious comment.

Is he quick enough to play in the backs? I mean, I know he was at school level and he's quick for a forward, but I don't know if he's got the speed to play centre at club level, let alone international.

Puja

I think the gap in pace between forwards and backs is closer now than ever before. Barbeary has certainly got that quick twitch kind of pace and while he might struggle attacking from deep in the back three and if he got turned defensively, I reckon he's probably faster than a great many premiership backs (including Farrell!).
While there is certainly a light hearted tone to all the talk of playing in the centre, it is where he has played most growing up.

Luke Cowan-Dickie will be 30 by the next world cup and Jamie George 32/33. Hooker is the tougher route to go down but there's no obvious successor to those two. Singleton looked good for Gloucester against Ulster but that's the first sign of form in a while. Dunn at Bath is a similar age to George and LCD.

If Barbeary works on his set piece game and still covers backrow then he could make the world cup squad under Jones as Eddie has shown previously he likes a third choice hooker that can also cover the backrow. It's the harder option but post the next world cup Barbeary could take the 2 jersey and hold it for 10 years given his age and ability. That would see him notch a Danny Cole level of caps and become a bit of an England legend. Short term pain long term gain.

Staying in the backrow puts him in to competition with a multitude of excellent young players several of whom already have quite a few caps. Inside centre is a fools errand as Eddie won't drop Farrell so either he won't be picked over Farrell or he'll have to play 12 alongside the attacking sponge at flyhalf and he crashed into brick walls or forced to watch the backs go side to side.

FKAS wrote:Inside centre is a fools errand as Eddie won't drop Farrell so either he won't be picked over Farrell or he'll have to play 12 alongside the attacking sponge at flyhalf and he crashed into brick walls or forced to watch the backs go side to side.

Isn't this exactly why we're having this conversation though? Because we're resigned to the fact that Farrell will play, whether at 10 or 12, so we need someone (hopefully Lawrence eventually but he's never going to be Tuilagi, could be as good, but will always be different) who thrives at being crashed into brick walls constantly? Slade is wasted outside Farrell. Barbeary strength is being thrown at brick walls and smashing/wriggling through.

True he could smash through at 12 and that job. At 13 would be too much particularly in defence as that's a tough position to defend. I'd rather we left the Farrell at 10 option in the gutter though. Just give Ford a 13 or winger (even better both) that'll run a line for him so he can actually use the backline.

Having watched Lawrence a bit now he doesn't seem anything like manu really (I realise most people aren't). Was this just a lazy comparison?

I don’t think anyone was actually comparing Lawrence to Tuilagi. It was more a case of him being more powerful than our other midfield options. Tuilagi is a freak, but I think Lawrence has the potential to be a better/more rounded rugby player.

Exactly. The comparisons were all made by lazy journalists. Lawrence is a solid crash ball player but could almost certainly never break the line like Manu. Having said that he could be just as good or even better, it just would mean changing the game plan and probably getting rid of Farrell.

I think Lawrence can still be the power option in the midfield it's just that England will have to be less lazy in how they use that option. Particularly with Farrell at 10, less so Ford, it's just give it Manu and watch him smash into people. Sale do similar, which is probably why he's injured again. Geordan changed that at Tigers to try and use him on an angle more and less just straight into a brick wall which saw him stay fitter for longer. Using Lawrence as the direct threat is fine if we play Ford and closer to the gain line because Lawrence has a nice turn of speed and if there's a gap you aren't going to stop him with an arm tackle.

Most of England's problems this autumn were either nobody ran the line to straighten the attack in the backs or Farrell played so far back and so slow it was a hospital pass if they did. We saw with Curry playing 8 and hitting hard lines you don't have to be massive if you are used with a degree of creativity. England have been allowed to be lazy having units like Billy and Manu at 8 and centre.

Not exactly international standard, but Lawrence definitely looked very Manu-like running over 3 Ospreys forwards to score his try yesterday.

They have differences, but Lawrence could do a similar job to Manu for England. Although, as stated above, would have to be used a touch smarter.

Timbo wrote:Not exactly international standard, but Lawrence definitely looked very Manu-like running over 3 Ospreys forwards to score his try yesterday.

They have differences, but Lawrence could do a similar job to Manu for England. Although, as stated above, would have to be used a touch smarter.

I might have slightly snorted some whisky on reading that

What has anyone seen from Barbeary (other than school vides) that makes anyone possibly think he could be a centre?

I doubt many have seen his set piece, but there weren't any real issues there, that said age grade scrums and lineout are not really as competitive as Prem rugby and beyond. The only issue really was at scrum time where his hook could be a little hit and miss, but compensated with power to drive over.

Oh and Banquo - you called it mate!

Epaminondas Pules wrote:What has anyone seen from Barbeary (other than school vides) that makes anyone possibly think he could be a centre?

I doubt many have seen his set piece, but there weren't any real issues there, that said age grade scrums and lineout are not really as competitive as Prem rugby and beyond. The only issue really was at scrum time where his hook could be a little hit and miss, but compensated with power to drive over.

Oh and Banquo - you called it mate!

Same could be said for playing 2 surely?
Seriously though, I'd imagine his future is 2 (maybe 6) but I do wonder if that's just because we all look at him with a fair dose of rugby orthodoxy and think, stocky fella, violent ball carrier, must be a forward. The kid has put the time in as a back in age grade, learning the required skills and getting a more varied view of the game. Obviously we're all also tainted by the back line mess at international level where square pegs into round holes might be our best bet.
Having said all that, the reason he had the freedom to experiment with position so much in youth rugby was probably because he was dominant wherever he played and as such doesn't have much bearing on where he'll end up as an adult.

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:What has anyone seen from Barbeary (other than school vides) that makes anyone possibly think he could be a centre?

I doubt many have seen his set piece, but there weren't any real issues there, that said age grade scrums and lineout are not really as competitive as Prem rugby and beyond. The only issue really was at scrum time where his hook could be a little hit and miss, but compensated with power to drive over.

Oh and Banquo - you called it mate!

Same could be said for playing 2 surely?
Seriously though, I'd imagine his future is 2 (maybe 6) but I do wonder if that's just because we all look at him with a fair dose of rugby orthodoxy and think, stocky fella, violent ball carrier, must be a forward. The kid has put the time in as a back in age grade, learning the required skills and getting a more varied view of the game. Obviously we're all also tainted by the back line mess at international level where square pegs into round holes might be our best bet.
Having said all that, the reason he had the freedom to experiment with position so much in youth rugby was probably because he was dominant wherever he played and as such doesn't have much bearing on where he'll end up as an adult.

He was rather one dimensional as a centre, and definitely dominant, and although quick, for a big forward, wasn't really quick enough. Or what you'd conventionally consider quick enough for a back.

I get the backline mess bit, but I'd rather focus on Redpath, or Cokanasiga (who played well at the weekend).

He just looked incredibly comfortable at 8 and can seemingly do all different sorts of different ball carries well. Even his control of the ball at the base of the scrum looked very natural (I've seen international 8's struggle to do this).

twitchy wrote:He just looked incredibly comfortable at 8 and can seemingly do all different sorts of different ball carries well. Even his control of the ball at the base of the scrum looked very natural (I've seen international 8's struggle to do this).

It did look pretty good to be fair, though it was pretty obvious they didn't want him to pick and go from the base, rather get it out and spread.

What impressed me most about him was his ruck choice both in attack and defence. A very mature head in terms of when to engage, to protect the ball or slow theirs / counter ruck. I know the highlights reel stuff gets the headlines and grabs the attention, but his nitty gritty work and decision making was very, very good. He showed a lot of game intelligence for a 20 year old.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

twitchy wrote:He just looked incredibly comfortable at 8 and can seemingly do all different sorts of different ball carries well. Even his control of the ball at the base of the scrum looked very natural (I've seen international 8's struggle to do this).

It did look pretty good to be fair, though it was pretty obvious they didn't want him to pick and go from the base, rather get it out and spread.

What impressed me most about him was his ruck choice both in attack and defence. A very mature head in terms of when to engage, to protect the ball or slow theirs / counter ruck. I know the highlights reel stuff gets the headlines and grabs the attention, but his nitty gritty work and decision making was very, very good. He showed a lot of game intelligence for a 20 year old.

He's another player I'd love to see take a sabbatical in New Zealand and keep building that game intelligence even further.

Puja