RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:Lineout’s a problem, you're right. Picking Armand would sort that, but I'm not sure of the balance in the loose with him and Robshaw, whichever wears the 7 shirt. And Robshaw is undroppable as the only (good) back rower available to us currently with more than 5 caps.

I have a horrible suspicion that we'll see Lawes, Robshaw and Simmonds, regardless of the copious evidence that it just doesn't work.

Puja

As I see it, the lineout is not impacted by Billy’s absence. He rarely, if ever, takes any lineout ball. We normally have three jumpers - the two locks and Robshaw. Why should that be any different? Ideally we’d have an 8 who was a good lineout jumper too, but we don’t have that with Billy anyway. All things being equal, Mercer could/should become that option in time.

I’d question whether we have ‘copious evidence’ of a Lawes, Robshaw, Simmonds back row? Individually, there’s evidence to support that Lawes and Robshaw are not at their best at 6 and 7, but not as a trio.

If we do see that back row, what is the worst that can happen? To be honest, as painful as it may be, a couple of failed experiments now might help us later. In a way, I’d be more concerned if it worked OK i.e. if it’s not bad enough to be an obvious problem, it would give a bit more validity to it as an option which we don’t really want.

How many of the back-row players mentioned on this thread would get into the other 6N starting XVs?

Food for thought.

Fair point, but I also think we’re very quick to put down our own players and overrate the opposition.

Does Billy lift much in the lineout?

Scrumhead wrote:Fair point, but I also think we’re very quick to put down our own players and overrate the opposition.

I tend to think we want more from our own players, and don't care so much if others teams have issues

Scrumhead wrote:

Puja wrote:Lineout’s a problem, you're right. Picking Armand would sort that, but I'm not sure of the balance in the loose with him and Robshaw, whichever wears the 7 shirt. And Robshaw is undroppable as the only (good) back rower available to us currently with more than 5 caps.

I have a horrible suspicion that we'll see Lawes, Robshaw and Simmonds, regardless of the copious evidence that it just doesn't work.

Puja

As I see it, the lineout is not impacted by Billy’s absence. He rarely, if ever, takes any lineout ball. We normally have three jumpers - the two locks and Robshaw. Why should that be any different? Ideally we’d have an 8 who was a good lineout jumper too, but we don’t have that with Billy anyway. All things being equal, Mercer could/should become that option in time.

I’d question whether we have ‘copious evidence’ of a Lawes, Robshaw, Simmonds back row? Individually, there’s evidence to support that Lawes and Robshaw are not at their best at 6 and 7, but not as a trio.

If we do see that back row, what is the worst that can happen? To be honest, as painful as it may be, a couple of failed experiments now might help us later. In a way, I’d be more concerned if it worked OK i.e. if it’s not bad enough to be an obvious problem, it would give a bit more validity to it as an option which we don’t really want.

Fair point on Billy not doing much in the lineout. I'm just scared that we'll get Lawes at 6 again, which has never worked at international level and especially not when paired with Robshaw. I'll give you that Simmonds offers a little bit more around the field that could ameliorate that, but it's still a colossal bodge job and one I'd like to avoid wasting any more time on.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Puja wrote:Lineout’s a problem, you're right. Picking Armand would sort that, but I'm not sure of the balance in the loose with him and Robshaw, whichever wears the 7 shirt. And Robshaw is undroppable as the only (good) back rower available to us currently with more than 5 caps.

I have a horrible suspicion that we'll see Lawes, Robshaw and Simmonds, regardless of the copious evidence that it just doesn't work.

Puja

As I see it, the lineout is not impacted by Billy’s absence. He rarely, if ever, takes any lineout ball. We normally have three jumpers - the two locks and Robshaw. Why should that be any different? Ideally we’d have an 8 who was a good lineout jumper too, but we don’t have that with Billy anyway. All things being equal, Mercer could/should become that option in time.

I’d question whether we have ‘copious evidence’ of a Lawes, Robshaw, Simmonds back row? Individually, there’s evidence to support that Lawes and Robshaw are not at their best at 6 and 7, but not as a trio.

If we do see that back row, what is the worst that can happen? To be honest, as painful as it may be, a couple of failed experiments now might help us later. In a way, I’d be more concerned if it worked OK i.e. if it’s not bad enough to be an obvious problem, it would give a bit more validity to it as an option which we don’t really want.

Fair point on Billy not doing much in the lineout. I'm just scared that we'll get Lawes at 6 again, which has never worked at international level and especially not when paired with Robshaw. I'll give you that Simmonds offers a little bit more around the field that could ameliorate that, but it's still a colossal bodge job and one I'd like to avoid wasting any more time on.

Puja

Puja, just for the sake of accuracy, how often have Robshaw and Lawes started in the back-row under Eddie? Am I wrong to suggest it is only once or was it more in the AIs? I'm not advocating it but maybe 'never worked at international level' suggests it's been tried often which is a bit of an exaggeration. My memory is not the best but I thought the AIs just gone saw Robshaw's first start at 7 in Eddie's time.

Timbo wrote:I reckon Eddie will go with;

6. Lawes
7. Robshaw
8. Simmonds
20. Haskell/Underhill

Hopefully Hughes will be back during the tournament.

yuck

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:I reckon Eddie will go with;

6. Lawes
7. Robshaw
8. Simmonds
20. Haskell/Underhill

Hopefully Hughes will be back during the tournament.

yuck

It's going to be a long hard tournament. I think loads of our players are only half fit anyway and there will lots more injuries coming. All the pundits commenting on how physically shot sarries look this morning.

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:I reckon Eddie will go with;

6. Lawes
7. Robshaw
8. Simmonds
20. Haskell/Underhill

Hopefully Hughes will be back during the tournament.

yuck

Is the 'yuck' for the suggested back-row selection, Hughes's return or both?

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:I reckon Eddie will go with;

6. Lawes
7. Robshaw
8. Simmonds
20. Haskell/Underhill

Hopefully Hughes will be back during the tournament.

yuck

Agreed, bloody awful. I will never get the Lawes at 6 thing to be honest.

Would rather Robshaw, Armand, Wilson, Ewers, Haskell, Itoje, Simmonds, almost anyone at 6 personally.

Although, I think Eddie may go with that back row too...

I'd pick Morgan at 8, which Eddie won't do.

Is it worth someone who knows what they're doing listing all injured players and discussing what we do about it?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:I reckon Eddie will go with;

6. Lawes
7. Robshaw
8. Simmonds
20. Haskell/Underhill

Hopefully Hughes will be back during the tournament.

yuck

Is the 'yuck' for the suggested back-row selection, Hughes's return or both?

Anything with lawes at 6 in, pretty much. Lawes and Robshaw is just yuck. I don’t have a massive issue w Hughes.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: yuck

Is the 'yuck' for the suggested back-row selection, Hughes's return or both?

Anything with lawes at 6 in, pretty much. Lawes and Robshaw is just yuck. I don’t have a massive issue w Hughes.

I'd definitely give Armand a start with Robshaw and Simmonds but Eddie's selections to date suggest that he is more likely to pick Lawes than Armand. He was prepared to give Underhill a run at 7 with Robshaw and Hughes/Billy. Eddie has also said that he sees Simmonds as next in line for the 8 shirt.

What we don't know is whether he is prepared to play both Underhill and Simmonds with Robshaw. I think that is lacking in physicality as a unit. Will Eddie think the same?

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
As I see it, the lineout is not impacted by Billy’s absence. He rarely, if ever, takes any lineout ball. We normally have three jumpers - the two locks and Robshaw. Why should that be any different? Ideally we’d have an 8 who was a good lineout jumper too, but we don’t have that with Billy anyway. All things being equal, Mercer could/should become that option in time.

I’d question whether we have ‘copious evidence’ of a Lawes, Robshaw, Simmonds back row? Individually, there’s evidence to support that Lawes and Robshaw are not at their best at 6 and 7, but not as a trio.

If we do see that back row, what is the worst that can happen? To be honest, as painful as it may be, a couple of failed experiments now might help us later. In a way, I’d be more concerned if it worked OK i.e. if it’s not bad enough to be an obvious problem, it would give a bit more validity to it as an option which we don’t really want.

Fair point on Billy not doing much in the lineout. I'm just scared that we'll get Lawes at 6 again, which has never worked at international level and especially not when paired with Robshaw. I'll give you that Simmonds offers a little bit more around the field that could ameliorate that, but it's still a colossal bodge job and one I'd like to avoid wasting any more time on.

Puja

Puja, just for the sake of accuracy, how often have Robshaw and Lawes started in the back-row under Eddie? Am I wrong to suggest it is only once or was it more in the AIs? I'm not advocating it but maybe 'never worked at international level' suggests it's been tried often which is a bit of an exaggeration. My memory is not the best but I thought the AIs just gone saw Robshaw's first start at 7 in Eddie's time.

"Never worked at international level" was for Lawes at 6. He's had about 5-6 games there and has never looked anything other than a third lock. I was happy to give him another go in the AIs because he'd been showing up well for Saints, but the same thing happened again and at some point you do have to accept that it just won't work.

I'm only in favour of Robshaw at 7 if he's got a complementary player at 6 (Wood, back when he used to actually do work, was pretty good). Pairing him with a lock is asking for trouble.

He has played with Lawes 3 times, twice under Burt (culminating in the wonderful 30-3 game), which I was willing to write of as being a long time ago, but then it happened again in the autumn.

Puja

I don't think Robshaw has ever had a good match at 7 for England, there have been matches he's done well in for periods, but with his decision making and technical skills not being Hill like he has to lift the physical effort to a level even he can't sustain.

Weird. I feel like I’ve seen him come out on top v McCaw/Pocock/Hooper etc. more than once. He certainly is a 6, and has holes in his game, but I think the lack of balance has more often been the issue.

I too tend to drink whilst watching rugby, certainly England games. Maybe not as much. And Robshaw is part of the lack of balance, not a player cruelly exposed by failings in others.

Mikey Brown wrote:Weird. I feel like I’ve seen him come out on top v McCaw/Pocock/Hooper etc. more than once. He certainly is a 6, and has holes in his game, but I think the lack of balance has more often been the issue.

Agreed. He's been a good international 7 in the past and probably could be again, but you can't plunk him in a back row with Lawes/Wood or Lawes/Hughes and expect him to do all the work without support - he's just not that type of player.

Puja

Dasheragain wrote:Is it worth someone who knows what they're doing listing all injured players and discussing what we do about it?

So, off the top of my head (only really considering the first block of 2 games, as it’s a long tournament and players may be fit at various points);

Marler (suspended)
Genge
Ewels (50/50 with a hamstring injury)
Tom Curry
Billy Vunipola
Hughes
Clifford (back soon, but no game time)
Te’o
Daly
Rokoduguni

Nowell, Robshaw, Brown and Piers Francis are all currently injured but minor stuff I believe.

Whatever one's preferences are about where Robshaw plays, the simple fact is that he is the only proven international back-rower available for selection for the opening 6N games.

Let’s also give the guy a bit of respect too.

I can’t think of many other players who have been as consistently good in an England shirt.

Scrumhead wrote:Let’s also give the guy a bit of respect too.

I can’t think of many other players who have been as consistently good in an England shirt.

You can't fault his effort, commitment, or consistency.....but he does not sit at the same table as the others I actually can think of (Johnson, Dallaglio, Hill et al)- amongst the current group its a fair comment.

Timbo wrote:

Dasheragain wrote:Is it worth someone who knows what they're doing listing all injured players and discussing what we do about it?

So, off the top of my head (only really considering the first block of 2 games, as it’s a long tournament and players may be fit at various points);

Marler (suspended)
Genge
Ewels (50/50 with a hamstring injury)
Tom Curry
Billy Vunipola
Hughes
Clifford (back soon, but no game time)
Te’o
Daly
Rokoduguni

Nowell, Robshaw, Brown and Piers Francis are all currently injured but minor stuff I believe.

Ewels, Curry, Clifford, Roko probably weren't going to get picked anyway so probably Genge, Marler, Billy V, Daly, Hughes and Teo are giving Eddie headaches...

Re Daly; EJ will just play Brown at FB and then Watson and May on the wings no? As imo Daly is our best player, he's a miss but that cover is pretty good.

No 8 is an issue of course as we're discussing.

EJ wants to pick Teo but will now settle with Farrell and Joseph which is strong (love it or hate it).

Then there's loosehead bench cover unless Obano is seen as being the obvious man there.

Lots of injuries but could all be worse to be honest.

Mullan at loosehead is out aswell. He’d be well ahead of Obano. I’d have Hepburn in over Obano too, he’s such a good player and still very young, but doesn’t look as if Jones will do that.