England pack for AIs?

[Oakboy]

THE BEST LOOSEHEAD PROP THERE HAS EVER BEEN. The man who gave Al Baxter nightmares for life. The gentle giant. The one, the only Andrew Sheridaaaaaaaaan!

I just can't get my memory to lock on to Sheridan without picturing Julian White's punch.

[Scrumhead]

I can't see there's much to gain from having given caps to Hughes in not simply continuing with Hughes, especially given that with Billy out nobody else is much demanding the shirt .

Exactly!

I wasn't suggesting we don't continue with Hughes. I'm suggesting that we look at a slightly different way of playing that suits him (and our other 8s) better than trying to be Billy.

[Digby]

I can't see there's much to gain from having given caps to Hughes in not simply continuing with Hughes, especially given that with Billy out nobody else is much demanding the shirt .

Exactly!

I wasn't suggesting we don't continue with Hughes. I'm suggesting that we look at a slightly different way of playing that suits him (and our other 8s) better than trying to be Billy.

Billy hasn't always played the same way for England, he started off carrying very tight, but later on he's carried much wider. It'd be easier for Hughes to carry wider if we had Mako and George, but in theory they'll be rested, if we've got Marler and Hartley then Hughes might be needed closer in

[Scrumhead]

Fair point. If not Mako, then Genge will help.

[Stom]

On the Billy style of play debate...We were mainly working on defense up until the Lions, no? So Eddie did not want to break what attacking patterns he had created, as he didn't want to spend the time on it and take away from the defensive patterns.

Now he's kicking off changing the play to something better going forward... Now, where the feck did I read that?

[Banquo]

Oi! Fake news! I said I had less problems with a lock playing 8 than one playing 6, not that it's my favoured option. Square pegs for square holes.

Puja

I was jesting......though I have seen a fair few relatively successful lock to 6 and vice versa, but can't recall many, if any, successsful lock to 8 conversions.....so I'm not sure what your thinking is?

Off the top of my head, Easter, Ewels, Beaumont, and Slater have all played AP rugby at both 8 and lock. But you're right in that lock to flank is far more common.

Puja

and all were 8's moving to lock, generally (did Slater play much at 8?). You could have had Corry and Rodber, but again back row/8 moving forward. You do see 8's who are either ageing or shorter on skill/dexterity moving forward, but I'd proffer that locks moving successfully to 8 is pretty rare, for good reason.

[Banquo]

I was jesting......though I have seen a fair few relatively successful lock to 6 and vice versa, but can't recall many, if any, successsful lock to 8 conversions.....so I'm not sure what your thinking is?

Off the top of my head, Easter, Ewels, Beaumont, and Slater have all played AP rugby at both 8 and lock. But you're right in that lock to flank is far more common.

Puja

Martin Corry...

What about lock, 8 and THE BEST LOOSEHEAD PROP THERE HAS EVER BEEN. The man who gave Al Baxter nightmares for life. The gentle giant. The one, the only Andrew Sheridaaaaaaaaan!

I think I was asking about lock to 8, not tother way round. Corry was originally a 6 too, so very versatile.

[Banquo]

It's not making a role for a Read, it's (perhaps) trying to balance the players we do have that can carry, link, jump etc. which may be more like a Read role than just busting in to brick walls.

I accept I was using that comparison very loosely, but the Read comment was in relation to how we can use our more versatile backrowers to cover 7/8 duties between them, in the abscence of Vunipola. I wasn't suggesting he just runs wild, but he's got a much broader remit than Billy I'd say.

That'd be Nathan Hughes then....

Ish ... Hughes is an interesting one. He's basically had to adapt his game to fit a role with England rather than playing in the same way he does at Wasps. It took him a while, but he's become more successful over the past year or so in Billy's absence.

However, I tend to agree more with Mikey Brown in that my preference would have been for us to develop a different game plan at 8 for occasions/periods where Billy is unavailable. As it is, Hughes has made a decent effort, but I'd still prefer to see him play more like he does for Wasps and I think this style would suit our other possible 8s like Clifford or Simmonds as well.

With Billy being out again, the AIs may now give us an opportunity to try it, rather than asking Hughes, Clifford or whoever it is to do their best impression of Billy.

Not sure why you say 'ish, tbh. Mikey Brown was asking for a looser role for an 8, and Hughes as you say does that for wasps, ergo the solution is there already.

[Dasheragain]

I'd pick Hughes at 8 in Billy's absence, no hesitation there whatsoever, he offers a lot I think.

The flanks are more difficult for me. Is Eddie 100% decided on where to play Itoje? He's had him at lock and 6 and if Launch, Lawes, Kruis and Itoje are all fit, he may put Maro at 6 again, I don't know.

Is Robshaw as valuable as some make out? I'm in the camp that rates him but probably wouldn't pick him if I was in charge. Underhill at this point is a hope, I can't see why he's nailed on to start tbh. It goes on and on with various others.

Not sure why some have such an issue with Haskell who's been excellent under Eddie and offers pace, power, work-rate, great defence etc - he's a very fine player hence the faith of Eddie, Dai Young, the Lions etc.

[Oakboy]

I'd pick Hughes at 8 in Billy's absence, no hesitation there whatsoever, he offers a lot I think.

The flanks are more difficult for me. Is Eddie 100% decided on where to play Itoje? He's had him at lock and 6 and if Launch, Lawes, Kruis and Itoje are all fit, he may put Maro at 6 again, I don't know.

Is Robshaw as valuable as some make out? I'm in the camp that rates him but probably wouldn't pick him if I was in charge. Underhill at this point is a hope, I can't see why he's nailed on to start tbh. It goes on and on with various others.

Not sure why some have such an issue with Haskell who's been excellent under Eddie and offers pace, power, work-rate, great defence etc - he's a very fine player hence the faith of Eddie, Dai Young, the Lions etc.

Hi Dash. Welcome back, assuming it's you!!

I think a reasonable balance is achieved with Robshaw, Hughes and somebody quick. As long as Haskell genuinely retains pace, I suppose he's a candidate but his legs look a bit leaden to me now. I was always happy with Robshaw at 7 and still would be compared with anyone else I've seen so far. Lawes is quick enough to give balance if picked at 6 and his current performances there for Saints are encouraging. I'd start with those three and simply challenge others to demand the shirts.

[Stom]

I'd pick Hughes at 8 in Billy's absence, no hesitation there whatsoever, he offers a lot I think.

The flanks are more difficult for me. Is Eddie 100% decided on where to play Itoje? He's had him at lock and 6 and if Launch, Lawes, Kruis and Itoje are all fit, he may put Maro at 6 again, I don't know.

Is Robshaw as valuable as some make out? I'm in the camp that rates him but probably wouldn't pick him if I was in charge. Underhill at this point is a hope, I can't see why he's nailed on to start tbh. It goes on and on with various others.

Not sure why some have such an issue with Haskell who's been excellent under Eddie and offers pace, power, work-rate, great defence etc - he's a very fine player hence the faith of Eddie, Dai Young, the Lions etc.

Hi Dash. Welcome back, assuming it's you!!

I think a reasonable balance is achieved with Robshaw, Hughes and somebody quick. As long as Haskell genuinely retains pace, I suppose he's a candidate but his legs look a bit leaden to me now. I was always happy with Robshaw at 7 and still would be compared with anyone else I've seen so far. Lawes is quick enough to give balance if picked at 6 and his current performances there for Saints are encouraging. I'd start with those three and simply challenge others to demand the shirts.

For me, Underhill gave an Eddie performance in his one start this season. Almost exactly what Eddie said he wants from a 7. If he can add some more work offensively, then that's perfect. And in his game alongside Robshaw in Argentina, their ruck work in tandem was impressive.

Plus, with Hughes, you need to have two flankers whose workrate is unfaultable. I think that would be balanced.

[Mikey Brown]

Aye. Not sure I get the thing about Haskell offering pace. To be fair Jones has managed to get him to show a glimmer of his powerful running, but he often is too technically poor to be consistently useful in these areas. That Underhill performance the other day was better than anything I've ever seen (even at club level) in about 10 years of watching Haskell. And I started off as a big fan, or at least very hopeful.

Hughes is definitely an option to play a bit of the wider, linking game. I was really just wondering if we can balance the things we want at 7 with the things we want at 8, given the players available. Though Hughes is pretty handy over the ball on occasion too, no?

[Digby]

For me, Underhill gave an Eddie performance in his one start this season. Almost exactly what Eddie said he wants from a 7. If he can add some more work offensively, then that's perfect. And in his game alongside Robshaw in Argentina, their ruck work in tandem was impressive.

And yet in many ways Curry and Wilson was the better pairing on tour, so we might have the position being taken that Robshaw and Underhill were both impressive and inferior. Downside to Curry and Wilson was we lacked a little protecting our ball, but we also looked much faster on attack.

[Raggs]

For me, Underhill gave an Eddie performance in his one start this season. Almost exactly what Eddie said he wants from a 7. If he can add some more work offensively, then that's perfect. And in his game alongside Robshaw in Argentina, their ruck work in tandem was impressive.

Plus, with Hughes, you need to have two flankers whose workrate is unfaultable. I think that would be balanced.

Why? Hughes is in the top 10 for tackles made, 2nd highest for meters carried in the forwards, joint 6th for defenders beaten (joint 1st in the forwards only), fairly sure he's also top 10 in carries (harder to find, since it's oddly not in the rugby magazine but I see it reported).

I mean flankers should have fantastic workrates regardless, but as of now in the AP, Hughes is definitely not showing any reason to assume he needs a lot of help compared to other options.

[Puja]

For me, Underhill gave an Eddie performance in his one start this season. Almost exactly what Eddie said he wants from a 7. If he can add some more work offensively, then that's perfect. And in his game alongside Robshaw in Argentina, their ruck work in tandem was impressive.

Plus, with Hughes, you need to have two flankers whose workrate is unfaultable. I think that would be balanced.

Why? Hughes is in the top 10 for tackles made, 2nd highest for meters carried in the forwards, joint 6th for defenders beaten (joint 1st in the forwards only), fairly sure he's also top 10 in carries (harder to find, since it's oddly not in the rugby magazine but I see it reported).

I mean flankers should have fantastic workrates regardless, but as of now in the AP, Hughes is definitely not showing any reason to assume he needs a lot of help compared to other options.

The problem with Hughes is that he likes the Hollywood stuff. Harder to find the stats for, but I guarantee he won't be anywhere near the top of "Turnovers Prevented", "Necessary Rucks Hit", "Boring Carries to Recycle Possession", "Binding Onto Big Carrier To Drive Him On", "Staying In Guard Position and Soaking Up Rumbles Round The Corner". He hangs back and picks his moment for the big busts and big tackles. Nothing wrong with liking the Hollywood stuff - BillyV does it as well (although he does muck in a bit more) - but you do need two decent workrate flanks to complement him.

It's why I find suggestions that Billy and Nathan could play in the same back row so annoying - one of them would have to be the grafter and that's not what you pick either of them for.

Puja

[Raggs]

Picks his moments in attack, whilst simultaneously being top 10 for carries? Hollywood stuff tackles whilst still being in the top 10 tacklers in the league? If he can make more tackles than most, whilst still hanging back and going for the big tackles, then that's fine by me! 2nd highest passer in the forwards too. You'd also expect your top carrier to struggle to simultaneously prevent himself being turned over, or binding onto himself to drive himself on.

You'll recall my ruck marks too, and whilst Hughes wasn't matching our flankers (Itoje and Hask), he was far from absent, and he's only improving.

[Stom]

For me, Underhill gave an Eddie performance in his one start this season. Almost exactly what Eddie said he wants from a 7. If he can add some more work offensively, then that's perfect. And in his game alongside Robshaw in Argentina, their ruck work in tandem was impressive.

And yet in many ways Curry and Wilson was the better pairing on tour, so we might have the position being taken that Robshaw and Underhill were both impressive and inferior. Downside to Curry and Wilson was we lacked a little protecting our ball, but we also looked much faster on attack.

We scored and equal number of tries in either game, but conceded 1 fewer in the second. We secured a higher %age of rucks in the 2nd game, conceded fewer turnovers and kept the ball better (more possession and more territory).

Both Robshaw and Underhill made more meters than the player they replaced but fewer tackles...

[jngf]

Not sure why some have such an issue with Haskell who's been excellent under Eddie and offers pace, power, work-rate, great defence etc - he's a very fine player hence the faith of Eddie, Dai Young, the Lions etc.

Hi Dasher, Can only speak for myself but the frustrating thing for me about Haskell is that despite being a powerful and athletic loose forward with a large work rate he's never really nailed down a single back row position and I see him as a jack of all trades but a master of none of them (blindsides probably been his best natural fit).I've never seen him as a credible specialist openside because (i) he doesn't seem to go looking for turnovers with the same effort he undoubtedly applies to looking to make tackles plus he's simply too heavy and immobile imo to do the jackal role justice (ii) in attack whilst he can carry in hard yards I've never once seen him link up in an attacking move with the backs again because of this comparative lack of mobility and pace in the loose (certainly compared to some of the young openside prospects on the radar) (iii) he only started playing openside because Croft and Easter where getting selecting ahead of him at 6 and 8 respectively - and Haskell tried to justify his selection at 7 under a hazy rationale of the backrow being about balance etc. trouble being he's not imo the back row bringing the openside skills into that balance and was invariably coupled with 6s such as Croft and latterly Robshaw and to a lesser extent Wood who didn't really have the openside skills to make up the deficit either. Finally it's a bit of a shame that Haskell didn't take to the No.8 role more in all those years of having to sit through stodgy, lack of dynamic go forward attack play, no.8 play from the likes of Corry and Easter.
It's striking how closely Haskell's career has mirrored Worsley's given his original goal seemed to be more focussed towards emulating Dallagio's!

[Digby]

For me, Underhill gave an Eddie performance in his one start this season. Almost exactly what Eddie said he wants from a 7. If he can add some more work offensively, then that's perfect. And in his game alongside Robshaw in Argentina, their ruck work in tandem was impressive.

And yet in many ways Curry and Wilson was the better pairing on tour, so we might have the position being taken that Robshaw and Underhill were both impressive and inferior. Downside to Curry and Wilson was we lacked a little protecting our ball, but we also looked much faster on attack.

We scored and equal number of tries in either game, but conceded 1 fewer in the second. We secured a higher %age of rucks in the 2nd game, conceded fewer turnovers and kept the ball better (more possession and more territory).

Both Robshaw and Underhill made more meters than the player they replaced but fewer tackles...

And still they looked inferior to me on attack. If we simply see this differently that's simply how it is.

Though in that first game it wasn't just England that were more open the Argies were too, and frankly that's not going to happen much to any side so it's difficult to judge, or at least it's questionable how much should be gleaned from that first game, other than Eddie will not have liked a lot of that first game.

[Stom]

And yet in many ways Curry and Wilson was the better pairing on tour, so we might have the position being taken that Robshaw and Underhill were both impressive and inferior. Downside to Curry and Wilson was we lacked a little protecting our ball, but we also looked much faster on attack.

We scored and equal number of tries in either game, but conceded 1 fewer in the second. We secured a higher %age of rucks in the 2nd game, conceded fewer turnovers and kept the ball better (more possession and more territory).

Both Robshaw and Underhill made more meters than the player they replaced but fewer tackles...

And still they looked inferior to me on attack. If we simply see this differently that's simply how it is.

Though in that first game it wasn't just England that were more open the Argies were too, and frankly that's not going to happen much to any side so it's difficult to judge, or at least it's questionable how much should be gleaned from that first game, other than Eddie will not have liked a lot of that first game.

Let's put it this way. I think both Wilson and Curry were individually better in the first test, but I think Robshaw and Underhill worked together better in the 2nd test.

[jngf]

We scored and equal number of tries in either game, but conceded 1 fewer in the second. We secured a higher %age of rucks in the 2nd game, conceded fewer turnovers and kept the ball better (more possession and more territory).

Both Robshaw and Underhill made more meters than the player they replaced but fewer tackles...

And still they looked inferior to me on attack. If we simply see this differently that's simply how it is.

Though in that first game it wasn't just England that were more open the Argies were too, and frankly that's not going to happen much to any side so it's difficult to judge, or at least it's questionable how much should be gleaned from that first game, other than Eddie will not have liked a lot of that first game.

Let's put it this way. I think both Wilson and Curry were individually better in the first test, but I think Robshaw and Underhill worked together better in the 2nd test.

I could actually see 6 Underhill 7 Curry working quite nicely as a back up and think in due course Underhill may just succeed Robshaw as England's starting 6 - having said that starting Underhill at 7 would be good experience and stretch him in terms of developing an attacking game.

[Oakboy]

Not sure why some have such an issue with Haskell who's been excellent under Eddie and offers pace, power, work-rate, great defence etc - he's a very fine player hence the faith of Eddie, Dai Young, the Lions etc.

Hi Dasher, Can only speak for myself but the frustrating thing for me about Haskell is that despite being a powerful and athletic loose forward with a large work rate he's never really nailed down a single back row position and I see him as a jack of all trades but a master of none of them (blindsides probably been his best natural fit).I've never seen him as a credible specialist openside because (i) he doesn't seem to go looking for turnovers with the same effort he undoubtedly applies to looking to make tackles plus he's simply too heavy and immobile imo to do the jackal role justice (ii) in attack whilst he can carry in hard yards I've never once seen him link up in an attacking move with the backs again because of this comparative lack of mobility and pace in the loose (certainly compared to some of the young openside prospects on the radar) (iii) he only started playing openside because Croft and Easter where getting selecting ahead of him at 6 and 8 respectively - and Haskell tried to justify his selection at 7 under a hazy rationale of the backrow being about balance etc. trouble being he's not imo the back row bringing the openside skills into that balance and was invariably coupled with 6s such as Croft and latterly Robshaw and to a lesser extent Wood who didn't really have the openside skills to make up the deficit either. Finally it's a bit of a shame that Haskell didn't take to the No.8 role more in all those years of having to sit through stodgy, lack of dynamic go forward attack play, no.8 play from the likes of Corry and Easter.
It's striking how closely Haskell's career has mirrored Worsley's given his original goal seemed to be more focussed towards emulating Dallagio's!

I still think one of the best club back-rows was Johnson, Haskell and Hughes two or three seasons back. It had more collective go-forward than most.

[Stom]

And still they looked inferior to me on attack. If we simply see this differently that's simply how it is.

Though in that first game it wasn't just England that were more open the Argies were too, and frankly that's not going to happen much to any side so it's difficult to judge, or at least it's questionable how much should be gleaned from that first game, other than Eddie will not have liked a lot of that first game.

Let's put it this way. I think both Wilson and Curry were individually better in the first test, but I think Robshaw and Underhill worked together better in the 2nd test.

I could actually see 6 Underhill 7 Curry working quite nicely as a back up and think in due course Underhill may just succeed Robshaw as England's starting 6 - having said that starting Underhill at 7 would be good experience and stretch him in terms of developing an attacking game.

I also think Underhill at 6 may be a good bet long term, but I'd be interested to see how a) his attacking game develops, b) how Curry(s) develop, and c) whether Sam Jones comes back as good as he was pre-injury.

[Puja]

Picks his moments in attack, whilst simultaneously being top 10 for carries? Hollywood stuff tackles whilst still being in the top 10 tacklers in the league? If he can make more tackles than most, whilst still hanging back and going for the big tackles, then that's fine by me! 2nd highest passer in the forwards too. You'd also expect your top carrier to struggle to simultaneously prevent himself being turned over, or binding onto himself to drive himself on.

You'll recall my ruck marks too, and whilst Hughes wasn't matching our flankers (Itoje and Hask), he was far from absent, and he's only improving.

Yeah - carries, tackles, hitting undefended rucks, turnovers - glory work. I'm not saying it's bad that he does that, as he does it very well. I'm saying the inglorious work that I referenced in my post is what he doesn't do.

Puja

[Raggs]

Picks his moments in attack, whilst simultaneously being top 10 for carries? Hollywood stuff tackles whilst still being in the top 10 tacklers in the league? If he can make more tackles than most, whilst still hanging back and going for the big tackles, then that's fine by me! 2nd highest passer in the forwards too. You'd also expect your top carrier to struggle to simultaneously prevent himself being turned over, or binding onto himself to drive himself on.

You'll recall my ruck marks too, and whilst Hughes wasn't matching our flankers (Itoje and Hask), he was far from absent, and he's only improving.

Yeah - carries, tackles, hitting undefended rucks, turnovers - glory work. I'm not saying it's bad that he does that, as he does it very well. I'm saying the inglorious work that I referenced in my post is what he doesn't do.

Puja

And do you have actual evidence of that? Ruck marks on games etc? Or is it just a feeling or a sense?