RugbyRebels

Public Service Warning:
MellsBlue and Mikey Brown you may wish to look away now - don’t say I didn’t warn you!

The blindside flanker position is arguably the least specialist in the whole side, indeed it’s been described as the Swiss Army Knife of the side.

Seems Sweet Beautiful has 4 options to contemplate for 6 choice:

1. The Wrecking Ball - this would be continuing with CCS - might work especially well with Drombrandt at 8?

2. The Lock - in other words Chessum or Alex Coles - I’m not a fan of the 6 at lock approach but those who are looking for a successor to Lawes will be keener.

3. The glue player - primarily an unflashy player’s player who can do the unglamorous/unseen and grafting work including acting as a supplementary or even primary fetcher - this would seem to be one of the Curry Brothers


4. Offers something from all the strengths listed in 1 to 3 above - in which case we’re looking at Ted Hill


Given the options who do we think will get preference as starting blindside flanker versus Ireland in 6 Nations?

Not sure Ted Hill is really a glue player. He's explosive but has tended to drift in and out of games with average work rate. It's what held him back from more international recognition.

Chessum you could argue is a mix of all three of he comes back carrying like he did at the start of the season. Had made a big improvement in that area pre injury.

Yeah, I’m mostly with @FKAS on this. Hill is a good player but probably not a ‘glue player’.

You don’t have to be a ‘wrecking ball’ to be a good carrier. I think a lot depends on the type of carrying, you’re being asked to do. For example, Chessum is an OK tight carrier, but better in the wide channels where he has a deceptive turn of pace.

As always, it really depends on the balance of the rest of the back row. Willis ought to come in at 8 but if that means Earl at 7 we probably need the graft of Tom Curry or the aerial prowess of Chessum. CCS, Earl and Willis might be good from a carrying POV, but it’s not a particularly well balanced back row, no more than OK aerially and probably asking Willis to the bulk of the ‘unseen’ work, which would be a bit of a waste of his talents.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 12:00 pm Yeah, I’m mostly with @FKAS on this. Hill is a good player but probably not a ‘glue player’.

You don’t have to be a ‘wrecking ball’ to be a good carrier. I think a lot depends on the type of carrying, you’re being asked to do. For example, Chessum is an OK tight carrier, but better in the wide channels where he has a deceptive turn of pace.

As always, it really depends on the balance of the rest of the back row. Willis ought to come in at 8 but if that means Earl at 7 we probably need the graft of Tom Curry or the aerial prowess of Chessum. CCS, Earl and Willis might be good from a carrying POV, but it’s not a particularly well balanced back row, no more than OK aerially and probably asking Willis to the bulk of the ‘unseen’ work, which would be a bit of a waste of his talents.

Agreed. I'd be disappointed for the medium to longer term if CCS and Willis did not get substantial game time this 6N but I'd not be surprised if SB ignores them for the first two matches. IMO, their development is crucial. If, as you say, balance cannot be achieved with Earl at 7 I would pick the pair with Tom Curry, probably with Earl and Hill on the bench. I'd guess that SB will start with Chessum, T Curry and Earl.

I will be fuming if Willis and CCS get ignored for the first two games

p/d wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 1:36 pm I will be fuming if Willis and CCS get ignored for the first two games

Oh, me too, but would you be surprised if SB does just that?

Oakboy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 3:13 pm

p/d wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 1:36 pm I will be fuming if Willis and CCS get ignored for the first two games

Oh, me too, but would you be surprised if SB does just that?

Doubt he'll ignore CCS he's been a regular in the 23 in recent times. Has had plenty of minutes in the summer and autumn.

Willis might be a different matter but I hope I'm wrong and he gets given a go. We need more go forward and he offers that. If we're selecting Marcus at 10 it's imperative we give him momentum to play off of.

One 6 option I forgot to bring up was Tom Pearson. Since Pollock and Pepper appear to have replaced him in media focus as the next test back row prospect for the future, I wonder if he’s still on the SB radar. Of the blindside types I listed I’m not totally sure where he fits?

Pearson is a decent all rounder but his stand out quality is his carrying so he’s probably closest to option 1.

I think this was written just for you, JNGF.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... borthwick/

The man in possession: Tom Curry Super strength: Relentless energy Drawback: Implications for line-out strategy

The powerhouse: Chandler Cunningham-South Super strength: Winning collisions to shift momentum Drawback: Still raw and learning on the job

The set-piece facilitator: Ollie Chessum Super strength: Offers line-out variety Drawback: Glaring lack of game-time

The people’s choice: Ted Hill Super strength: Immense athleticism Drawback: Could lack cohesion with new colleagues

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 3:57 pm I think this was written just for you, JNGF.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... borthwick/

The man in possession: Tom Curry Super strength: Relentless energy Drawback: Implications for line-out strategy

The powerhouse: Chandler Cunningham-South Super strength: Winning collisions to shift momentum Drawback: Still raw and learning on the job

The set-piece facilitator: Ollie Chessum Super strength: Offers line-out variety Drawback: Glaring lack of game-time

The people’s choice: Ted Hill Super strength: Immense athleticism Drawback: Could lack cohesion with new colleagues

The bolded bit is irrelevant. IF our back row had been slick, cohesive and effective it could be a valid point BUT it hasn't!