Planet Rugby Forum

openclashXX wrote: I would hope whoever takes over in 2019 has a slightly more open mind on the type of player we should be picking at 8

and/or the ability to balance a backrow/pack. There's nowt wrong with picking Simmonds at 8 if you orient some of your other pack picks towards additional tight carrying.

sockwithaticket wrote:

openclashXX wrote: I would hope whoever takes over in 2019 has a slightly more open mind on the type of player we should be picking at 8

and/or the ability to balance a backrow/pack. There's nowt wrong with picking Simmonds at 8 if you orient some of your other pack picks towards additional tight carrying.

It will have to happen eventually. We don't have a pool of thousands of Polynesians to pick from, it's basically Billy and that's it

Most of our age grade Number 8s play more like Simmonds than Billy anyway

Margin_Walker wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Guscott almost always uses his TRP column to big up Farrell at 10 too, so he’s basically clamouring for the 10-12 combination we had in the 2015 World Cup ...

Devoto has all the tools, but he's not really any better than other options. Even with Sam Hill being injured a lot and Slade primarily playing 10 or 13, he's struggled to edge ahead of Whitten at Exeter and is by no means a certain starter while being 25. You'd have to think his development is plateauing a bit now and that this is probably his level: good prem option, not a definite starter at a top club.

Not that I have an answer for England's 12, but then I don't think there are many outstanding 12s in world rugby at the moment a la Jauzion, Greenwood or Nonu in their pomp; it's not just us struggling to fill that shirt with rounded players, let alone quality ones.

Eastmond's probably too small for Eddie and gets injured/banned too frequently to string games together, but he can be brilliant.

Greenwood was a 13, but he was superstitious and wouldn't wear the shirt.

Greenwood was a 12

He played both.

13 outside Catt and 12 inside Tindall.

piquant wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Jason Robinson played outside centre for England more than Greenwood did

Now there's one for the stattos, was Robinson played in a back four more often than Greenwood played outside Catt?

I apologise in advance for making reference to a back four, I blame it on Clive

Robinson played 13 for 3 games, I think. In the 2004 6N.

Greenwood played 13 more than that. Even though he was indeed primarily a 12.

4071 wrote:

piquant wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Jason Robinson played outside centre for England more than Greenwood did

Now there's one for the stattos, was Robinson played in a back four more often than Greenwood played outside Catt?

I apologise in advance for making reference to a back four, I blame it on Clive

Robinson played 13 for 3 games, I think. In the 2004 6N.

Greenwood played 13 more than that. Even though he was indeed primarily a 12.

Sadly J is sure Greenwood only played OC the one world cup, therefore everything else is invalid even when he gets his facts wrong.

piquant wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Jason Robinson played outside centre for England more than Greenwood did

Now there's one for the stattos, was Robinson played in a back four more often than Greenwood played outside Catt?

I apologise in advance for making reference to a back four, I blame it on Clive

Nah. Greenwood played OC on a fair few occasions. Robinson only played a few times.

JM2K6 wrote:Farrell has played 13 at times for England, would you argue to the death that he was an outside centre? Greenwood is the greatest 12 we've ever produced, and literal minutes spent playing 13 does not change the fact that he was a career 12.

He's played more than a few minutes. And I'm not arguing to the death here.

openclashXX wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:

openclashXX wrote: I would hope whoever takes over in 2019 has a slightly more open mind on the type of player we should be picking at 8

and/or the ability to balance a backrow/pack. There's nowt wrong with picking Simmonds at 8 if you orient some of your other pack picks towards additional tight carrying.

It will have to happen eventually. We don't have a pool of thousands of Polynesians to pick from, it's basically Billy and that's it

Most of our age grade Number 8s play more like Simmonds than Billy anyway

We're not exactly blessed with big carriers elsewhere though, and whilst relying on a Billy/Hughes type may seem a bit risky, since there's not a huge number of big 8s, it still seems just as risky to setup the other 7 members of the pack, to support a Simmonds like 8 (and how many of those do we really have?).

Simmonds is fairly unique himself, and whilst he offers a very speedy carrying game, he's also no option at the lineout (unlike Hughes and even Billy, or others).

I think if you look back through the past decade of U20 teams, most of the Number 8s have been more in the mould of a Simmonds or a Jack Clifford than Billy

In fact I'm struggling to think of the last big, slow lump our age grade sides produced at Number 8 - maybe Jordan Crane all the way back in the mid 2000s?

4071 wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Guscott almost always uses his TRP column to big up Farrell at 10 too, so he’s basically clamouring for the 10-12 combination we had in the 2015 World Cup ...

Devoto has all the tools, but he's not really any better than other options. Even with Sam Hill being injured a lot and Slade primarily playing 10 or 13, he's struggled to edge ahead of Whitten at Exeter and is by no means a certain starter while being 25. You'd have to think his development is plateauing a bit now and that this is probably his level: good prem option, not a definite starter at a top club.

Not that I have an answer for England's 12, but then I don't think there are many outstanding 12s in world rugby at the moment a la Jauzion, Greenwood or Nonu in their pomp; it's not just us struggling to fill that shirt with rounded players, let alone quality ones.

Eastmond's probably too small for Eddie and gets injured/banned too frequently to string games together, but he can be brilliant.

Greenwood was a 13, but he was superstitious and wouldn't wear the shirt.

Greenwood was a 12

He played both.

13 outside Catt and 12 inside Tindall.

Sure he played 13 occasionally. There will barely be a player in the league that hasn't got top level experience in another position (9s and front rowers less likely).

No one who watched the bloke play would describe him as a 13 though.

openclashXX wrote:I think if you look back through the past decade of U20 teams, most of the Number 8s have been more in the mould of a Simmonds or a Jack Clifford than Billy

In fact I'm struggling to think of the last big, slow lump our age grade sides produced at Number 8 - maybe Jordan Crane all the way back in the mid 2000s?

Which of them would you class as international potential? We've got Mercer and Simmonds so far, and both would require changes in the rest of the pack.

eldanielfire wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Farrell has played 13 at times for England, would you argue to the death that he was an outside centre? Greenwood is the greatest 12 we've ever produced, and literal minutes spent playing 13 does not change the fact that he was a career 12.

He's played more than a few minutes. And I'm not arguing to the death here.

He played mainly inside centre, wearing a 13 shirt. Woodward experimented with him at outside centre a few times e.g. in the 2003 6N outside Charlie Hodgson against France and Wales; again in the WC when Catt came on and slotted into the inside centre position, with Greenwood moving outside. In both case, that was to give Wilkinson the support of another playmaker next to him, while keeping Greenwood on the pitch.

Boris wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Farrell has played 13 at times for England, would you argue to the death that he was an outside centre? Greenwood is the greatest 12 we've ever produced, and literal minutes spent playing 13 does not change the fact that he was a career 12.

He's played more than a few minutes. And I'm not arguing to the death here.

He played mainly inside centre, wearing a 13 shirt. Woodward experimented with him at outside centre a few times e.g. in the 2003 6N outside Charlie Hodgson against France and Wales; again in the WC when Catt came on and slotted into the inside centre position, with Greenwood moving outside. In both case, that was to give Wilkinson the support of another playmaker next to him, while keeping Greenwood on the pitch.

Point being that Greenwood wasn't a tactical kicker and Wilkinson was coming under pressure - Woodward wanted to alleviate that pressure by inserting a second kicking option.

Raggs wrote:

openclashXX wrote:I think if you look back through the past decade of U20 teams, most of the Number 8s have been more in the mould of a Simmonds or a Jack Clifford than Billy

In fact I'm struggling to think of the last big, slow lump our age grade sides produced at Number 8 - maybe Jordan Crane all the way back in the mid 2000s?

Which of them would you class as international potential? We've got Mercer and Simmonds so far, and both would require changes in the rest of the pack.

Moriarty?

It does seem that when you put some extra pounds on prime English beef, they tend to slow down significantly and end up in the tight five. Maybe the North needs to be scoured more, to snap up youngsters who might otherwise become RL forwards?

openclashXX wrote:I think if you look back through the past decade of U20 teams, most of the Number 8s have been more in the mould of a Simmonds or a Jack Clifford than Billy

In fact I'm struggling to think of the last big, slow lump our age grade sides produced at Number 8 - maybe Jordan Crane all the way back in the mid 2000s?

Dean Richards.

Is Cifford still broken? Thought he was supposed to be starting the season with a clean bill of health.

While re-jigging our pack for one player sounds extreme, we've been crying out for it for a while anyway. Our front and back row selections, Mako aside and Marler when he's on it, have been some of the least effective carriers in top tier international rugby imo, perhaps with the exception of Scotland.

Many of the desired replacements who could remedy this have had their issues with injury at the wrong time, but even when someone like Cowan-Dickie has been fit and had a run of games we haven't used him.

Raggs wrote:

openclashXX wrote:I think if you look back through the past decade of U20 teams, most of the Number 8s have been more in the mould of a Simmonds or a Jack Clifford than Billy

In fact I'm struggling to think of the last big, slow lump our age grade sides produced at Number 8 - maybe Jordan Crane all the way back in the mid 2000s?

Which of them would you class as international potential? We've got Mercer and Simmonds so far, and both would require changes in the rest of the pack.

You have to work with the cattle you've got. Billy and Nathan should be around for a while yet if their bodies can stand the attrition (though this should hopefully abate a bit when Eddie's finally moved on after the RWC, I don't think he's going to be sticking around 'til 2021 unless we have a miraculous reversal of fortunes), but we've been in positions where neither of them are and someone has to play number 8 in that situation, if that requires changng the pack then so be it.

sockwithaticket wrote:Is Cifford still broken? Thought he was supposed to be starting the season with a clean bill of health.

While re-jigging our pack for one player sounds extreme, we've been crying out for it for a while anyway. Our front and back row selections, Mako aside and Marler when he's on it, have been some of the least effective carriers in top tier international rugby imo, perhaps with the exception of Scotland.

Many of the desired replacements who could remedy this have had their issues with injury at the wrong time, but even when someone like Cowan-Dickie has been fit and had a run of games we haven't used him.

Mako/Genge
LCD, ?
Sinckler, ?
Launch
?
?
?
Simmonds

Billy V get's injured, sure, but he's an amazing player, and you surely cannot justify leaving him out, just because we don't have another top tier player to replace him? Has Simmonds really shown enough to displace Billy? And is there really exceptional depth in a similar style to him beneath?

That's before we try and work out who to use in the pack (and the changes in balance that brings).

Billy V is the best 8 we have, when fit, he plays, he's a genuine game breaker. With that in place, we need to look for decent replacements, and we have an acceptable one in Hughes.

Raggs wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:Is Cifford still broken? Thought he was supposed to be starting the season with a clean bill of health.

While re-jigging our pack for one player sounds extreme, we've been crying out for it for a while anyway. Our front and back row selections, Mako aside and Marler when he's on it, have been some of the least effective carriers in top tier international rugby imo, perhaps with the exception of Scotland.

Many of the desired replacements who could remedy this have had their issues with injury at the wrong time, but even when someone like Cowan-Dickie has been fit and had a run of games we haven't used him.

Mako/Genge
LCD, ?
Sinckler, ?
Launch
?
?
?
Simmonds

Billy V get's injured, sure, but he's an amazing player, and you surely cannot justify leaving him out, just because we don't have another top tier player to replace him? Has Simmonds really shown enough to displace Billy? And is there really exceptional depth in a similar style to him beneath?

That's before we try and work out who to use in the pack (and the changes in balance that brings).

Billy V is the best 8 we have, when fit, he plays, he's a genuine game breaker. With that in place, we need to look for decent replacements, and we have an acceptable one in Hughes.

Think I clarified in the second comment, I'm not looking to replace Billy, or even Hughes, but having Simmonds around as an option is useful. He's probably the next best 8 in the country and if we want to use him or anyone at 8 who isn't the kind of heavy carrier the two Polynesian lads are, then the pack needs to be altered to help out.

I'm not saying anyone we bring in has to be an A class carrier, but being better than some of our incumbent options isn't much to ask. I love Robshaw, I really do, but he's never been a particularly strong carrier and he does seem to be on the wane a bit, so even someone like Wilson would represent a step up there. Hask would represent a step up on Curry in that department if he can re-capture form.


Improved carrying options:
1. Genge, Hepburn, Rapava Ruskin
2. LCD, Taylor (I'd say he carries better than Hartley)
3. After Sinkler I don't think we've got anyone for sure, maybe Brookes if he continues to improve at Wasps vs. his Saints form. He's already looked a lot better, but a little way to go before he's in international contention form. People and Eddie seem to rate Schonert, but I can't say I've seen much of him.

Lock isn't really a problem, but if we're really struggling the grunt of Attwood could be handy.

Back row - Wilson, Armand, Simmonds and Hask primarily.

Billy is a force of nature, no denying that - but he's started what, 3 tests for England in the past 2 years? what happens when he reaches Manu levels of brokenness and/or eventually retires?

if you discount Billy, who really is the exception rather than the norm, our age-grade Number 8s have been guys like Clifford, Mercer, Chisholm, Gibson, Gray, Chick etc, ie guys that are really used for a lot more than just smash-up-the-middle ball carrying

I'm not saying any of those are good enough to displace Billy or even that any should be playing for England, but the fact is that these are the types of Number 8s that our system typically produces, not Billy

if we have any sort of eye towards planning for a future without Billy then we should be setting ourselves up for a gameplan where he's a luxury rather than an absolute necessity

openclashXX wrote:Billy is a force of nature, no denying that - but he's started what, 3 tests for England in the past 2 years? what happens when he reaches Manu levels of brokenness and/or eventually retires?

if you discount Billy, who really is the exception rather than the norm, our age-grade Number 8s have been guys like Clifford, Mercer, Chisholm, Gibson, Gray, Chick etc, ie guys that are really used for a lot more than just smash-up-the-middle ball carrying

I'm not saying any of those are good enough to displace Billy or even that any should be playing for England, but the fact is that these are the types of Number 8s that our system typically produces, not Billy

if we have any sort of eye towards planning for a future without Billy then we should be setting ourselves up for a gameplan where he's a luxury rather than an absolute necessity

Chisholm seems like a rather direct runner (quite like him), Chick seems fairly direct too (but not that special yet).

We also need to perhaps recognise that our 8s in age grade are mostly not making the grade when it comes to international.

That's odd, eldan using my real name despite never having met me.

Like I said, he barely played 13 at the world cup. Robinson played more a year later. Happy for 4071 to prove me wrong, because even he wouldn't claim that Greenwood was a 13, isn't a bizarre spoofing weirdo, and uses facts to back himself up...

Raggs wrote:

openclashXX wrote:Billy is a force of nature, no denying that - but he's started what, 3 tests for England in the past 2 years? what happens when he reaches Manu levels of brokenness and/or eventually retires?

if you discount Billy, who really is the exception rather than the norm, our age-grade Number 8s have been guys like Clifford, Mercer, Chisholm, Gibson, Gray, Chick etc, ie guys that are really used for a lot more than just smash-up-the-middle ball carrying

I'm not saying any of those are good enough to displace Billy or even that any should be playing for England, but the fact is that these are the types of Number 8s that our system typically produces, not Billy

if we have any sort of eye towards planning for a future without Billy then we should be setting ourselves up for a gameplan where he's a luxury rather than an absolute necessity

Chisholm seems like a rather direct runner (quite like him), Chick seems fairly direct too (but not that special yet).

We also need to perhaps recognise that our 8s in age grade are mostly not making the grade when it comes to international.

To be fair to him, Chisholm has a few more strings to his bow than just straight line running (he's a good lineout option, for one), but probably does sit somewhere between the two extremes

Again, I don't think it's entirely controversial to say that we're entirely dependent on Billy being fit at this stage to stand a chance at the World Cup - which is fine, because I imagine he probably will be fit for then, but it's still not a great place to be when you consider the pipeline of Number 8s underneath him

How many of our winning streak were without Billy?

He's a huge boon but I don't think it rests purely on him.

Raggs wrote:How many of our winning streak were without Billy?

He's a huge boon but I don't think it rests purely on him.

I haven't looked at the exact numbers but fairly sure he played virtually every test in 2016 (ie the bulk of the winning streak) bar maybe the Fiji game (where I seem to recall someone like Timmy Harrison packing down at 8?). Think he got injured around start of 2017, then got hastily recalled for the Ireland game where the winning streak ended. So at a guess, maybe 80-90% of the games in the winning streak

openclashXX wrote:

Raggs wrote:How many of our winning streak were without Billy?

He's a huge boon but I don't think it rests purely on him.

I haven't looked at the exact numbers but fairly sure he played virtually every test in 2016 (ie the bulk of the winning streak) bar maybe the Fiji game (where I seem to recall someone like Timmy Harrison packing down at 8?). Think he got injured around start of 2017, then got hastily recalled for the Ireland game where the winning streak ended. So at a guess, maybe 80-90% of the games in the winning streak

Fair enough, it was a genuine question, though I thought he was out for a little more than that (not too much).

The other issue is, if we move away from Billy and Nathan, we're going with Simmonds (ignoring the injury), who does look handy, and who? Clifford? He's the biggest sicknote of the lot. Mercer? He's not ready yet (though I do think he should be in camps), and?

There's no more potential international (let alone with a few caps) depth going with a Simmonds type than a Billy one.

Sarries played Earle in an emergency at 8, and he seemed to go well there, but I get the impression he's seen as more of a flanker than 8.

Plus he needs to actually get regular first XV minutes.

That also said, he's also in the mould of Simmons in not being a massive lump.

I don't watch the Prem as closely as I used to but, off the top of my head, perhaps someone like Chisholm or Ben Earl are worth a look in a larger squad? Who plays 8 for Saints or Newcastle these days?

Again, these guys are all raw and clearly not test ready (perhaps some won't ever be), but could clearly benefit from some time in the England setup to speed things along - not to mention we need to hope one of these guys does come good because there aren't dozens of 130kg Polynesians queueing up to play Number 8 for England

there's also an argument to began the succession planning for life after Billy, maybe by playing Billy somewhere else in the back row (at 6, maybe?) or by keeping Billy at 8 and phasing in Mercer or Simmonds at 6/7

Edanielfire, you want to look at you using a poster's proper name?

And greenwood was a 12 who got shifted about you Muppet.

Raggs wrote:

openclashXX wrote:

Raggs wrote:How many of our winning streak were without Billy?

He's a huge boon but I don't think it rests purely on him.

I haven't looked at the exact numbers but fairly sure he played virtually every test in 2016 (ie the bulk of the winning streak) bar maybe the Fiji game (where I seem to recall someone like Timmy Harrison packing down at 8?). Think he got injured around start of 2017, then got hastily recalled for the Ireland game where the winning streak ended. So at a guess, maybe 80-90% of the games in the winning streak

Fair enough, it was a genuine question, though I thought he was out for a little more than that (not too much).

The other issue is, if we move away from Billy and Nathan, we're going with Simmonds (ignoring the injury), who does look handy, and who? Clifford? He's the biggest sicknote of the lot. Mercer? He's not ready yet (though I do think he should be in camps), and?

There's no more potential international (let alone with a few caps) depth going with a Simmonds type than a Billy one.

Aye, with Clifford being a perma-crock our best option is Ross from Sale, who I think is a worthy player but not international quality.

JM2K6 wrote:That's odd, eldan using my real name despite never having met me.

I genuinely didn't know it was your name. I just picked a J name at random. I'll delete it if you want.

Like I said, he barely played 13 at the world cup. Robinson played more a year later. Happy for 4071 to prove me wrong, because even he wouldn't claim that Greenwood was a 13, isn't a bizarre spoofing weirdo, and uses facts to back himself up...

I've already conceded he was more of a 12, I'm always happy to admit I made a mistake and that I probably mixed him partly up with Guscott.

Raggs wrote:How many of our winning streak were without Billy?

He's a huge boon but I don't think it rests purely on him.

He wasn't around for the 2nd 6 Nations title much, as I recall him being thrown into Ireland game rusty.

I'd also say that part of the success with Billy V was due to Itoje and the rest of the back row, Haskell and Robshaw being able to as a unit compensate for the lack of a "real 7" at the time in doing the dirty work.

eldanielfire wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:That's odd, eldan using my real name despite never having met me.

I genuinely didn't know it was your name. I just picked a J name at random.

That's utterly unbelievable. Given a large number of people on the board know me in real life I'm not going to pretend I care too much, but knowing my name as a complete random guess is just out of the question, particularly given you've recently met people who know me...

Also picking a name at random would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

eldanielfire wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:That's odd, eldan using my real name despite never having met me.

I genuinely didn't know it was your name. I just picked a J name at random. I'll delete it if you want.

The dog ate my homework miss, honest.

JM2K6 wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:That's odd, eldan using my real name despite never having met me.

I genuinely didn't know it was your name. I just picked a J name at random.

That's utterly unbelievable. Given a large number of people on the board know me in real life I'm not going to pretend I care too much, but knowing my name as a complete random guess is just out of the question, particularly given you've recently met people who know me...

Also picking a name at random would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I was picking a J as your screen name begins with J to be sarcastic, which was the tone of the post. So it wasn't random and I certainly didn't know it was you or I would have never have used it. And the people I've met basically told me they met literally everyone English on the board, I genuinely don't know anyone's real name I haven't met, except Jake of course, the obvious ones.

Jake's name isn't Jake.

If you'd called me Jacob no-one would have any clue what you're talking about

JM2K6 wrote: Aye, with Clifford being a perma-crock our best option is Ross from Sale, who I think is a worthy player but not international quality.

again, I really don't care enough about the specifics of each player to be pushing for Player X > Player Y at Number 8. FWIW I'm sure Ross would do a perfectly workmanlike, Waldrom-esque job for England

my point was more that (in the medium/long-term) we may need to rethink what role we actually want from our Number 8 given the sort of 8 we tend to produce in abundance

JM2K6 wrote:Jake's name isn't Jake.

If you'd called me Jacob no-one would have any clue what you're talking about

Which only goes to show. I literally know nothing about you besides your screen name. It should be obvious I was referring to your screen names letter and using the less mature version of a J name for a sarcastic reference as you were going off on one again and used the first that came to mind. It's not that random. Though obviously any real life connection is an accident and genuinely apologise that there is as even if I knew you I'd never do such a thing by intent.

openclashXX wrote:

JM2K6 wrote: Aye, with Clifford being a perma-crock our best option is Ross from Sale, who I think is a worthy player but not international quality.

again, I really don't care enough about the specifics of each player to be pushing for Player X > Player Y at Number 8. FWIW I'm sure Ross would do a perfectly workmanlike, Waldrom-esque job for England

my point was more that (in the medium/long-term) we may need to rethink what role we actually want from our Number 8 given the sort of 8 we tend to produce in abundance

I think you're both right, honestly. Eddie's banked on players we don't have good backup for.

eldanielfire wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Jake's name isn't Jake.

If you'd called me Jacob no-one would have any clue what you're talking about

Which only goes to show.

Look, you damaged your credibility beyond repair once already, do you really expect anyone to believe you randomly landed on a name beginning with J that just happens to be spot on when getting it wrong would've made your post incomprehensible?

You have such a bizarre approach to the truth. Kinda creepy.