RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The Winterbottom comparison isnt too wide of the mark. When he first started for England, it was his eye catching defence that stood out. His game developed but initially it was very much about his tackling.
I'm quite happy with Underhill. He looks physically equipped for test rugby and i think has the capacity to move on. Would like to see him with the ball a bit but i'm sure that will come.

Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

They expected the new Richard Hill. But, just like every other flanker we've had since, he's some way under Hill's quality.

At the risk of affronting the Richard Hill sacred cow, it could be argued that both Tom Rees and Tom Croft were respectively at least as good as Hill ever was ... certainly in terms of pace and athleticism.

He did exactly as I expected him to do. Killed attack after attack with his tackling. It’s up to him and the coaching staff to graft more on to his game over the next six months. A dominant tackler is not to be sniffed at but I’m sure he’s capable of adding more. Oz should be a different game - faster and more open - and it’ll be another challenge, with perhaps more opportunity to get over the ball at the breakdown. Of course, if he’s making so many tackles we may have to look elsewhere for jackals. It’s not all on the 7. Having Itoje back should help that.

Puja wrote:Before seeing him for England and Bath, my expectation level was at 2001 Lewis Moody levels, whereas we're instead getting 2003 Joe Worsley. Which isn't inherently terrible, but a step down from what was promised.

Puja

I’d argue he’s a more dominant tackler than Worsley ever was. Worsley in 2003 was a lot older and had a lot more club and test experience - it’s not really a fair comparison. What was promised and by whom?

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:Before seeing him for England and Bath, my expectation level was at 2001 Lewis Moody levels, whereas we're instead getting 2003 Joe Worsley. Which isn't inherently terrible, but a step down from what was promised.

Puja

I’d argue he’s a more dominant tackler than Worsley ever was. Worsley in 2003 was a lot older and had a lot more club and test experience - it’s not really a fair comparison. What was promised and by whom?

The Welsh, basically. He ripped it up in the Rabid Pro12 or whatever it's called now. Which perhaps says more about the quality of that league...

Mellsblue wrote:He did exactly as I expected him to do. Killed attack after attack with his tackling. It’s up to him and the coaching staff to graft more on to his game over the next six months. A dominant tackler is not to be sniffed at but I’m sure he’s capable of adding more. Oz should be a different game - faster and more open - and it’ll be another challenge, with perhaps more opportunity to get over the ball at the breakdown. Of course, if he’s making so many tackles we may have to look elsewhere for jackals. It’s not all on the 7. Having Itoje back should help that.

Be interested to know how many rucks he hit as well. I'm sure someone will know.....

(cough Raggs cough)

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:Before seeing him for England and Bath, my expectation level was at 2001 Lewis Moody levels, whereas we're instead getting 2003 Joe Worsley. Which isn't inherently terrible, but a step down from what was promised.

Puja

I’d argue he’s a more dominant tackler than Worsley ever was. Worsley in 2003 was a lot older and had a lot more club and test experience - it’s not really a fair comparison. What was promised and by whom?

Worsley looked like he was going to be absolutely brilliant when he broke through, genuinely pacy and looked at home in loose games. Not entirely sure what happened; mind, he was still a decent 6.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:He did exactly as I expected him to do. Killed attack after attack with his tackling. It’s up to him and the coaching staff to graft more on to his game over the next six months. A dominant tackler is not to be sniffed at but I’m sure he’s capable of adding more. Oz should be a different game - faster and more open - and it’ll be another challenge, with perhaps more opportunity to get over the ball at the breakdown. Of course, if he’s making so many tackles we may have to look elsewhere for jackals. It’s not all on the 7. Having Itoje back should help that.

Be interested to know how many rucks he hit as well. I'm sure someone will know.....

(cough Raggs cough)

Not as many as Tom Wood. I know that much.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:He did exactly as I expected him to do. Killed attack after attack with his tackling. It’s up to him and the coaching staff to graft more on to his game over the next six months. A dominant tackler is not to be sniffed at but I’m sure he’s capable of adding more. Oz should be a different game - faster and more open - and it’ll be another challenge, with perhaps more opportunity to get over the ball at the breakdown. Of course, if he’s making so many tackles we may have to look elsewhere for jackals. It’s not all on the 7. Having Itoje back should help that.

Be interested to know how many rucks he hit as well. I'm sure someone will know.....

(cough Raggs cough)

Not as many as Tom Wood. I know that much.

doesnt Raggs have some effectiveness measure as well.

Yeah +1 for present/passive, +3 for effective clear-out, +4 if you play for Wasps, +5 for a clean turnover.

Mikey Brown wrote:Yeah +1 for present/passive, +3 for effective clear-out, +4 if you play for Wasps, +5 for a clean turnover.

lol.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Yeah +1 for present/passive, +3 for effective clear-out, +4 if you play for Wasps, +5 for a clean turnover.

lol.

No comment

There really can’t be too many 21 year old kids who smoke people as often as this lad does. We’re not talking the odd Samoan highlight reel shoulder charge, but virtually every defensive contribution that’s dominant.

From what I’ve seen I think his breakdown work has huge potential also, but it’s much more of a work in progress. Not sure he’ll ever be more than an honest hard runner ball in hand, mind.

In his mould I think he has the tools to aspire towards a Sam Cane level for sure.

Underhill did his assigned job well for England. He put in a lot of hits and tackled around the legs, the way you are taught to at school. But the Argies did make life easy for him by constantly running down his channel and inviting the tackle. He didn't even have to go looking for them or chase them down. Apart from his tackling, he was not that prominent at turnover or in link play. But he is only a kid at the start of his international career and has plenty of time to develop his all round game. He does seem a tough little nut with a good attitude. Still - would like to see Simmonds get a run. He looks the most explosive of the new backrowers, is a powerful carrier and seems to have a bit more to him at this stage.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

They expected the new Richard Hill. But, just like every other flanker we've had since, he's some way under Hill's quality.

Did anyone expect that? Surely there's a more likely expectation whether on selection/performance between what transpired and one of our best ever players

Honestly, the only reason I said that was for the potential pun. But as no-one seems to have noticed it's just died a death...

In seriousness, he was compared to Hill, because he's Hill's project a little bit. And he has the potential to be very good, but comparisons to Hill are definitely very premature.

I also second the concept of him moving over to 6 after the WC so TBCurry or Simmonds can slot in at 7. With Billy at 8 and either another Curry/Simmonds/Mercer on the bench, that would be a very handy backrow combination.

jngf wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Me too. I'm a bit mystified as to what folks expected from him.

They expected the new Richard Hill. But, just like every other flanker we've had since, he's some way under Hill's quality.

At the risk of affronting the Richard Hill sacred cow, it could be argued that both Tom Rees and Tom Croft were respectively at least as good as Hill ever was ... certainly in terms of pace and athleticism.

If 'pace and athleticism' are the only criteria maybe. Otherwise absolutely not.

Croft and Rees would undoubtedly have achieved a lot more but for their injuries, but unfortunately they didn't.

From the first half only, I saw Mako, Hughes and Underhill try and grab at least one turnover (Mako was for 2 at least I think, Underhill as well, but one of his came during an advantage for Arg I believe, so we just went back). I didn't bother doing ruck marks, with the new ruck laws, very few sides put in much on a defending scrum, and on attack it's tough to generate much. More than ever first man to the ruck is king. From what I saw and paid attention to, Hartley and Underhill were two of the forwards that were more regularly first man over our ball, but even then there's still a lot of work generally being done by others, especially the backs when we go wider. Cole didn't seem to do much.

Underhill probably created 2 turnovers in that game simply by forcing knock ons in the tackle, and those dominant hits go a long way to killing attacking momentum too. He needs to grow his game, but his tackling is truly exceptional in terms of the % of dominant tackles

Aye. I’m aware of doing it myself but it’s crazy how quickly we’ve been able to dismiss that kind of tackling. He’s everything Lydiate was and probably more after 2 caps, at the age of 21, and the Welsh were creaming themselves over him for a good while.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:Before seeing him for England and Bath, my expectation level was at 2001 Lewis Moody levels, whereas we're instead getting 2003 Joe Worsley. Which isn't inherently terrible, but a step down from what was promised.

Puja

I’d argue he’s a more dominant tackler than Worsley ever was. Worsley in 2003 was a lot older and had a lot more club and test experience - it’s not really a fair comparison. What was promised and by whom?

Worsley looked like he was going to be absolutely brilliant when he broke through, genuinely pacy and looked at home in loose games. Not entirely sure what happened; mind, he was still a decent 6.

Worsley was a hell of an athlete when he first hit the England scene, galloping into space pretty frequently, useful in the lineout, never missed a tackle etc. I have seen so little of Underhill that I can't claim my view to be fully formed or fair - from what I have seen, he seems a hard-working tackling machine with a well above normal level of physicality in the way he chops them down. I haven't seen anything in attack really mind, and that does count against him heavily. Unless I'm missing something. Obviously many years to develop.

Dasheragain wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I’d argue he’s a more dominant tackler than Worsley ever was. Worsley in 2003 was a lot older and had a lot more club and test experience - it’s not really a fair comparison. What was promised and by whom?

Worsley looked like he was going to be absolutely brilliant when he broke through, genuinely pacy and looked at home in loose games. Not entirely sure what happened; mind, he was still a decent 6.

Worsley was a hell of an athlete when he first hit the England scene, galloping into space pretty frequently, useful in the lineout, never missed a tackle etc. I have seen so little of Underhill that I can't claim my view to be fully formed or fair - from what I have seen, he seems a hard-working tackling machine with a well above normal level of physicality in the way he chops them down. I haven't seen anything in attack really mind, and that does count against him heavily. Unless I'm missing something. Obviously many years to develop.

Didn’t see much in attack from any England player in truth.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
They expected the new Richard Hill. But, just like every other flanker we've had since, he's some way under Hill's quality.

Did anyone expect that? Surely there's a more likely expectation whether on selection/performance between what transpired and one of our best ever players

Honestly, the only reason I said that was for the potential pun. But as no-one seems to have noticed it's just died a death...

In seriousness, he was compared to Hill, because he's Hill's project a little bit. And he has the potential to be very good, but comparisons to Hill are definitely very premature.

I also second the concept of him moving over to 6 after the WC so TBCurry or Simmonds can slot in at 7. With Billy at 8 and either another Curry/Simmonds/Mercer on the bench, that would be a very handy backrow combination.

I saw it. An underhand pun.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
Did anyone expect that? Surely there's a more likely expectation whether on selection/performance between what transpired and one of our best ever players

Honestly, the only reason I said that was for the potential pun. But as no-one seems to have noticed it's just died a death...

In seriousness, he was compared to Hill, because he's Hill's project a little bit. And he has the potential to be very good, but comparisons to Hill are definitely very premature.

I also second the concept of him moving over to 6 after the WC so TBCurry or Simmonds can slot in at 7. With Billy at 8 and either another Curry/Simmonds/Mercer on the bench, that would be a very handy backrow combination.

I saw it. An underhand pun.

I don’t understand.

There's a button missing on my keyboard, it seems I've lost contol

Banquo wrote:

Dasheragain wrote:

Banquo wrote: Worsley looked like he was going to be absolutely brilliant when he broke through, genuinely pacy and looked at home in loose games. Not entirely sure what happened; mind, he was still a decent 6.

Worsley was a hell of an athlete when he first hit the England scene, galloping into space pretty frequently, useful in the lineout, never missed a tackle etc. I have seen so little of Underhill that I can't claim my view to be fully formed or fair - from what I have seen, he seems a hard-working tackling machine with a well above normal level of physicality in the way he chops them down. I haven't seen anything in attack really mind, and that does count against him heavily. Unless I'm missing something. Obviously many years to develop.

Didn’t see much in attack from any England player in truth.

Very true. It’s not like anyone really made a break for him to run a support line either. I want to see more from an attacking POV but I’m going to reserve judgement considering we didn’t really attack as a team last weekend.

Digby wrote:There's a button missing on my keyboard, it seems I've lost contol

You need to shift position and play lock..

For me Underhill has an exceptional strength with his tackling. His groundhog game seems acceptable, his clearing out work also seems at least decent. His carry from the highlights vid, was at least aggressive, even if it was relatively ineffective. If the rest of his game can continue to improve, then the exceptional elements of it will lead to him hopefully having a very good international career.