Why do we have such a poor record of producing quality 9s?

[Oakboy]

It's strange. On the one hand, 20 games doesn't sound like much, but when you consider Itoje only has 12 England caps, it does put in to perspective what a player can achieve in a short space of time if they take their chance.

True, but from Eddie's viewpoint, any new player has to have time to fail and be replaced. That's why I said we are close to it being too late for personnel changes. Let's face it, Itoje was never a gamble. None of the debutants in Argentina were in the same league. That's not to write off any but none were up to walking into the 1st XV and looking like they belonged immediately. And, it's not as though the benchmark at 7,9, or 12 is especially high. I think it boils down to Eddie nominating 2 or 3 for a game or two (Maunder, Slade, Devoto, Lozowski, Francis, Mercer(s) or whoever) and saying 'impress me' or I'll stick with what we have. Let's face it, in this debate, none of us has come up with anyone and said, "X is demanding a shirt."

[Scrumhead]

It's strange. On the one hand, 20 games doesn't sound like much, but when you consider Itoje only has 12 England caps, it does put in to perspective what a player can achieve in a short space of time if they take their chance.

True, but from Eddie's viewpoint, any new player has to have time to fail and be replaced. That's why I said we are close to it being too late for personnel changes. Let's face it, Itoje was never a gamble. None of the debutants in Argentina were in the same league. That's not to write off any but none were up to walking into the 1st XV and looking like they belonged immediately. And, it's not as though the benchmark at 7,9, or 12 is especially high. I think it boils down to Eddie nominating 2 or 3 for a game or two (Maunder, Slade, Devoto, Lozowski, Francis, Mercer(s) or whoever) and saying 'impress me' or I'll stick with what we have. Let's face it, in this debate, none of us has come up with anyone and said, "X is demanding a shirt."

Yes an no. I'm not sure I agree with the bolded statement. For example, giving Underhill the AIs to show that he has the potential to replace Haskell is a slight gamble, but if he doesn't work out, Eddie is probably looking at reverting to Haskell rather than looking for someone else.

The way I see it, the AIs give us a relatively risk-free opportunity to start some players in a sink or swim scenario. If they put in strong enough performances, we keep them for the 6N, if they don't, I wouldn't jettison them entirely, but I'd look at a slower integration in to the side. Essentially, prove you can be a starter or stay as a 'finisher' until you demand a start.

I think Eddie's already taken that approach - Itoje was eased in to the team (albeit pretty quickly) - and I think he's doing something similar with Sinckler.

[Spiffy]

I like Whitten. He's a very good Premiership player and to honest, I'm surprised none of the Irish provinces have gone in for him over the years.

It annoys me that Quins have so few quality centres in comparison to Exeter. I would happily take one of Whitten or Hill if they need to free up some space.

Whitten did play for Ulster before Exeter, but moved on because he was not getting regular game time. He was a pretty reliable player then, but has improved tremendously since the move, especially in self-confidence.

[Scrumhead]

Yeah - I know - I meant in recent years.

[Peat]

Yeah - I know - I meant in recent years.

Why take a pay cut to go back to Ireland and still not play international rugby? Might be different if he was going back to Ulster itself, but Ulster remain stacked in the back line.

[Scrumhead]

I'm not saying Whitten should go back to Ireland - I was just saying I'm surprised none of the provinces haven't made more obvious overtures.

Anyway - how did a thread about England 9s become a discussion about a centre from Northern Ireland?

[Peat]

This is a very mild tangent I'll have you know. In any case, I'm guessing the provinces know the score and don't bother.

Back on topic, I think you're right that in a lot of cases, he can afford to have a punt on guys and just go back to Hask/Brown/whoever if it doesn't work out.

The problem that exists he can't have a punt on one guy, then another, then another... if they're getting a decent window of opportunity, there's only going to be one or two a position from here on. Which seems okay to me. More if he's happy to judge people off only one cap, which he may be (Rokoduguni does not like this post).

[Scrumhead]

I guess we've been spoilt by Itoje who has looked 'to the manor born' from day one at test level.

Other players take longer to hit their stride. Having said that, Tom Curry immediately looked very good against the Barbarians and in the first test Argentina. Underhill was less obviously impressive, but he wasn't a headless chicken like Harrison.

If it were up to me, I'd rest Haskell and have Underhill and the Currys fight it out for the 7 shirt for the AIs (assuming the three of them are playing and playing well enough pre-AIs).

With Robshaw and Billy likely to be at 6 and 8, it's relatively low-risk and if any one of them steps up to the extent that they're genuinely challenging Haskell, then the potential pay-off is huge.

Haskell still has plenty to offer and I actually think he could evolve in to an effective, highly experienced impact sub with his energy and physicality coming off the bench.

To bring it back to the scrum half debate, I'd rest Care for the AIs and bring Youngs back in to the side with Maunder, Townsend or Robson on the bench - whoever starts best - with the specific intention that they come on at 55/60mins unless the game makes that a dumb call.

[Stom]

I guess we've been spoilt by Itoje who has looked 'to the manor born' from day one at test level.

Other players take longer to hit their stride. Having said that, Tom Curry immediately looked very good against the Barbarians and in the first test Argentina. Underhill was less obviously impressive, but he wasn't a headless chicken like Harrison.

Less highlight reel impressive, more like... Underhill was very good. He hit lots of rucks and hit them effectively, supported perfectly and worked beautifully with Robshaw. If I had to pick one to start tomorrow, I'd pick Underhill - with Curry on the bench for impact, as he definitely has that!

[Scrumhead]

Fair enough. To be honest, I'd be happy either way. I genuinely believe that those three are the future of the 7 shirt. Ben Earl and Will Evans may well come in to the mix, but definitely not before the World Cup.

[Mikey Brown]

Aye. Curry did a lot more of the things we've been dying to see in a 7 for 10 years, but Underhill basically did 70 cap Haskell's job pretty well on his debut.

Not an awful position to be in.

And as someone else said if worst comes to worst and we have to reinstate Hask/Youngs/Faz-at-12/Brown after failing to integrate other options it's not totally terrible. But we could do a lot better.

[Peat]

Other players take longer to hit their stride.

I'd question this. I'd argue that you can, by and large, see whether a player has it at that level pretty much immediately. I'd say more of the current England squad were very obviously international class within their first few caps than were not. A few guys get put in early, don't get back in for a while, then put it together later once they've added the necessary skills, but even then, I'd argue that they're usually obviously not really international class to begin with and then obviously international class on their return. (I stress the word usually).

The only player in the squad I can think of who left people muddled and in the end just needed time to adjust to what he could and could not do at that level was Jonny May.

edit: I'm hoping Nathan Hughes is added to this category or I don't think he fulfils his full potential here.

[Scrumhead]

I take your point, but to be fair, I think there are some that really stand-out immediately in the best way like Itoje, some that stand-out as being out of their depth, such as Harrison and a whole heap in between that are inconspicuous and not noticeably good or bad.

[Peat]

I would generally consider being inconspicuous to just be bad. Its probably bad for the career prospects, I'll say that much. What long term internationals do you think started with a meh?

[Puja]

I would generally consider being inconspicuous to just be bad. Its probably bad for the career prospects, I'll say that much. What long term internationals do you think started with a meh?

Only Brown that I can think of, and he has the excuse of having been picked too early and in an injury and illness-ravaged team.

Puja

[Peat]

Brown and Joseph were who I was thinking of with players who started poorly but came back later. I can't really young Brown; I think Joseph has grown as a defensive decision maker since his debut in SA.

[Scrumhead]

Brown and Joseph were who I was thinking of with players who started poorly but came back later. I can't really young Brown; I think Joseph has grown as a defensive decision maker since his debut in SA.

Yes - those two spring to mind. I also seem to recall Billy was less than stellar in his early days with England.

I think our expectation levels are high and we underestimate how difficult it is to come in and immediately perform at a higher level - particularly if they're the subject of a crazy amount of hype like Underhill. I generally reserve judgement for 120mins or so!

[Digby]

The players in the England team who looked to the manor born when starting out are Youngs, Launch and Itoje, maybe Ford, Watson and Daly, most looked okay or at least not bad which depending on how one assigns labels might come under 'meh'

[Peat]

Eh. I thought Lawes looked right at home, if obviously too skinny. Kruis was immediately decent. For me Vunipola looked like an international from the beginning, question was just how good of one he'd be as he was pitched in too early. I think Nowell showed pretty much immediately why he was in the team.

[Banquo]

Eh. I thought Lawes looked right at home, if obviously too skinny. Kruis was immediately decent. For me Vunipola looked like an international from the beginning, question was just how good of one he'd be as he was pitched in too early. I think Nowell showed pretty much immediately why he was in the team.

Nowell was poor on debut, dropped his first ball and missed tackles,so yes.
Kruis gifted NZ a try on debut with a mad rush out of line.

[Banquo]

Brown and Joseph were who I was thinking of with players who started poorly but came back later. I can't really young Brown; I think Joseph has grown as a defensive decision maker since his debut in SA.

Jj defended well in SA. Mysterious why he was dumped.

[Digby]

Brown and Joseph were who I was thinking of with players who started poorly but came back later. I can't really young Brown; I think Joseph has grown as a defensive decision maker since his debut in SA.

Jj defended well in SA. Mysterious why he was dumped.

Andy Farrell

Though even for JJ I'd lean more toward he didn't balls up more than he was good in defence on debut, it wasn't as if it was like a new Sella out there from the off

[Banquo]

Brown and Joseph were who I was thinking of with players who started poorly but came back later. I can't really young Brown; I think Joseph has grown as a defensive decision maker since his debut in SA.

Jj defended well in SA. Mysterious why he was dumped.

Andy Farrell

Though even for JJ I'd lean more toward he didn't balls up more than he was good in defence on debut, it wasn't as if it was like a new Sella out there from the off

True, but didn't warrant ditching from the squad

[Digby]

Jj defended well in SA. Mysterious why he was dumped.

Andy Farrell

Though even for JJ I'd lean more toward he didn't balls up more than he was good in defence on debut, it wasn't as if it was like a new Sella out there from the off

True, but didn't warrant ditching from the squad

Absolutely not. But we've just seen again that Farrell really isn't a fan, though it's not just him, Graham Henry has commented in the last few weeks that JJ isn't especially strong in defence, which seems odd to me, but multiple senior coaches must have something to base their concerns on, and I'd like to think it's more than Burgess for example is bigger.

Really no idea why JJ was on the Lions tour, his only seeming role was to avoid backlash in the press for not taking him. And it mayn't simply be he didn't impress much in training and matches, the 2013 squad (or a number of them) would happily confirm there were points where Wade was ripping people a new one in training and it made not the least bit of difference, not even when he was ripping the the test team apart in training.

[Oakboy]

To what extent is it just a player not starring on debut and how much is it coaching/preparation? If a player comes in to a higher level and to a radically different style of play there needs to be a lot of work in training, I'd suggest. There are other factors too. Maybe some positions are automatically harder to get into. It has to be easier to look good for a single debutant in an experienced group. The quality of opposition has to count. Who the player replaces matters - ask CH.

Getting a debut at just the right time has to be a matter of luck. I'd argue that a few are so good that they'll succeed however they start. Others, who could get to top levels, just start badly and don't recover.