Eddie Jones' Phase 2 (Forwards)

[Puja]

Don't really understand this business of wanting to play Robshaw at 7 again when he was conclusively found to be far too slow and neither an instinctive fetcher nor a linkman (at test level at least). For me he's always been an out and out 6 and in this role has a similar impact to that of Hill.

While I don't want Robshaw to move back to 7, I will defy the consensus that he was a failure at 7. He did very well there and matched McCaw, Hooper, Pocock, Warburton, O'Brien, etc. He wasn't a dominant 7, but he was very rarely overmatched when played in a properly balanced back row. RWC 2015 was clearly a disaster, but that was the result both of him having a run of poor form and trying to do the work of three men because Wood and Morgan had decided not to bother.

We have better 7 options now and I am glad for that, but let's face it, he's been doing half the 7's job to support Haskell for the past 18 months anyway, regardless of what number he wears or what Eddie insists.

Puja

[Digby]

Worth looking at having both Hughes and Vunipola, we need the carrying options

We need two flankers more, I suspect.

Puja

We could call them Launchbury and Itoje

[Scrumhead]

Don't really understand this business of wanting to play Robshaw at 7 again when he was conclusively found to be far too slow and neither an instinctive fetcher nor a linkman (at test level at least). For me he's always been an out and out 6 and in this role has a similar impact to that of Hill.

Moving Hughes to 6 makes as much sense as keeping Itoje there - and on that note if Itoje ever is tried in the back row again I'd be tempted to have a look at him as an 8 (as like Billy and Hughes he doesn't have the mobility or speed endurance around the park to be a test flanker) - I could however see Itoje doing a more powerful version of I guess what it was anticipated Beaumont might have brought to the party in the 8 role. Ready as always to be shot down in flames for this idea;)

jngf you're not going to believe this, but I actually agree with you on something. Your last comment on Robshaw as a 6 in the Richard Hill mould is along the lines of my thinking.

Although normal service is resumed on the rest of the post ... I actually see where you going with the principle of Itoje as a Beaumont style of 8, but why in the world would we move a world class lock to 8 when we also have a world class 8??

Hughes has shown a lot of improvement over the past few tests, but now Wilson has shown he can replicate his club form at test level we have two very good, specialist options at 6, so I don't see any good reason to select Hughes out of position in anything other than an emergency?

[Digby]

Your last comment on Robshaw as a 6 in the Richard Hill mould is along the lines of my thinking.

It's really only the difference in pace, decision making and technical skills which preclude me from agreeing. Which isn't especially something to beat Robshaw over the head with, rather Hill is just much better than most people at such things and it seems an unfair point of comparison

[Oakboy]

Don't really understand this business of wanting to play Robshaw at 7 again when he was conclusively found to be far too slow and neither an instinctive fetcher nor a linkman (at test level at least). For me he's always been an out and out 6 and in this role has a similar impact to that of Hill.

While I don't want Robshaw to move back to 7, I will defy the consensus that he was a failure at 7. He did very well there and matched McCaw, Hooper, Pocock, Warburton, O'Brien, etc. He wasn't a dominant 7, but he was very rarely overmatched when played in a properly balanced back row. RWC 2015 was clearly a disaster, but that was the result both of him having a run of poor form and trying to do the work of three men because Wood and Morgan had decided not to bother.

We have better 7 options now and I am glad for that, but let's face it, he's been doing half the 7's job to support Haskell for the past 18 months anyway, regardless of what number he wears or what Eddie insists.

Puja

Spot on, apart from 'We have better 7 options now . . .'

We might have. We might not. That's my point, really. One or two might get there in time for the RWC but there are no guarantees based on what we saw in Argentina.

If Eddie really is phlegmatic as indicated by Haskell at 7 for the last two years, maybe he'll take the same approach for the next two - i.e. Haskell, 1st choice, till someone proves he is better; if not, Robshaw, till someone proves he is better. In other words, he will just pick whoever is best in the shirt at any given time regardless of age, style and traditional position-description.

[Banquo]

Don't really understand this business of wanting to play Robshaw at 7 again when he was conclusively found to be far too slow and neither an instinctive fetcher nor a linkman (at test level at least). For me he's always been an out and out 6 and in this role has a similar impact to that of Hill.

While I don't want Robshaw to move back to 7, I will defy the consensus that he was a failure at 7. He did very well there and matched McCaw, Hooper, Pocock, Warburton, O'Brien, etc. He wasn't a dominant 7, but he was very rarely overmatched when played in a properly balanced back row. RWC 2015 was clearly a disaster, but that was the result both of him having a run of poor form and trying to do the work of three men because Wood and Morgan had decided not to bother.

We have better 7 options now and I am glad for that, but let's face it, he's been doing half the 7's job to support Haskell for the past 18 months anyway, regardless of what number he wears or what Eddie insists.

Puja

Spot on, apart from 'We have better 7 options now . . .'

We might have. We might not. That's my point, really. One or two might get there in time for the RWC but there are no guarantees based on what we saw in Argentina.

If Eddie really is phlegmatic as indicated by Haskell at 7 for the last two years, maybe he'll take the same approach for the next two - i.e. Haskell, 1st choice, till someone proves he is better; if not, Robshaw, till someone proves he is better. In other words, he will just pick whoever is best in the shirt at any given time regardless of age, style and traditional position-description.

In a novel twist to selection

[Oakboy]

In a novel twist to selection

Phlegmatic, innit?

[Banquo]

In a novel twist to selection

Phlegmatic, innit?

cough, what?

[bitts]

Don't really understand this business of wanting to play Robshaw at 7 again when he was conclusively found to be far too slow and neither an instinctive fetcher nor a linkman (at test level at least). For me he's always been an out and out 6 and in this role has a similar impact to that of Hill.

While I don't want Robshaw to move back to 7, I will defy the consensus that he was a failure at 7. He did very well there and matched McCaw, Hooper, Pocock, Warburton, O'Brien, etc. He wasn't a dominant 7, but he was very rarely overmatched when played in a properly balanced back row. RWC 2015 was clearly a disaster, but that was the result both of him having a run of poor form and trying to do the work of three men because Wood and Morgan had decided not to bother.

We have better 7 options now and I am glad for that, but let's face it, he's been doing half the 7's job to support Haskell for the past 18 months anyway, regardless of what number he wears or what Eddie insists.

Puja

Pretty sure Wood was smashing the unseen work...

But, to echo others, Robshaw has been quality for England. Often dealing manfully with some rubish selections around him and Burt's comical gameplans.

Thought he was very unlucky to be behind Moriarty for the Lions. Moriarty did some eyecatching stuff in the SN. Robshaw has shown he can mix it with the best consistantly over the last 3 years.

[Puja]

Don't really understand this business of wanting to play Robshaw at 7 again when he was conclusively found to be far too slow and neither an instinctive fetcher nor a linkman (at test level at least). For me he's always been an out and out 6 and in this role has a similar impact to that of Hill.

While I don't want Robshaw to move back to 7, I will defy the consensus that he was a failure at 7. He did very well there and matched McCaw, Hooper, Pocock, Warburton, O'Brien, etc. He wasn't a dominant 7, but he was very rarely overmatched when played in a properly balanced back row. RWC 2015 was clearly a disaster, but that was the result both of him having a run of poor form and trying to do the work of three men because Wood and Morgan had decided not to bother.

We have better 7 options now and I am glad for that, but let's face it, he's been doing half the 7's job to support Haskell for the past 18 months anyway, regardless of what number he wears or what Eddie insists.

Puja

Pretty sure Wood was smashing the unseen work...

But, to echo others, Robshaw has been quality for England. Often dealing manfully with some rubish selections around him and Burt's comical gameplans.

Thought he was very unlucky to be behind Moriarty for the Lions. Moriarty did some eyecatching stuff in the SN. Robshaw has shown he can mix it with the best consistantly over the last 3 years.

Against Australia?! Must've been very unseen.

Puja

[Tom Moore]

Your last comment on Robshaw as a 6 in the Richard Hill mould is along the lines of my thinking.

It's really only the difference in pace, decision making and technical skills which preclude me from agreeing. Which isn't especially something to beat Robshaw over the head with, rather Hill is just much better than most people at such things and it seems an unfair point of comparison

Robshaw is Tesco Value Richard Hill. Which, in this case, is a compliment.

[Banquo]

Your last comment on Robshaw as a 6 in the Richard Hill mould is along the lines of my thinking.

It's really only the difference in pace, decision making and technical skills which preclude me from agreeing. Which isn't especially something to beat Robshaw over the head with, rather Hill is just much better than most people at such things and it seems an unfair point of comparison

Robshaw is Tesco Value Richard Hill. Which, in this case, is a compliment.

I've Lidl to add.

[Tom Moore]

It's really only the difference in pace, decision making and technical skills which preclude me from agreeing. Which isn't especially something to beat Robshaw over the head with, rather Hill is just much better than most people at such things and it seems an unfair point of comparison

Robshaw is Tesco Value Richard Hill. Which, in this case, is a compliment.

I've Lidl to add.

Asda be you saying that.

[Banquo]

Robshaw is Tesco Value Richard Hill. Which, in this case, is a compliment.

I've Lidl to add.

Asda be you saying that.

been co-oped up all day

[richy678]

I feel that people who say Kruis is overrated massively underrate the importance of a quality lineout and how good Kruis is in that area.

For me Kruis is Borthwick 2.0 good in scrum and lineout, very underpowered as a carrier in the loose.

cher



Kruis makes me want say Gareth Archer.....but not quite a Tim Rodber.