RugbyRebels

Discreet Hooker wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Timbo wrote:
Barely even an 8 at club level I'd say. Does loads of good things still cos he's a good player, but not an 8 imo.

In what way is he not an 8 in your opinion?

I remember certain knowledgeable fans saying that Mike Teague was too small for International rugby .

? really. He was hardly small, and certainly not in his time.

Season off to a nice gentle start then....

Mistakes for sure but there was no denying the intensity and pace both teams brought to the game.

Glaws should be very pleased. Their set piece held up very well and they defended with great tenacity. Exe should be a bit disappointed as they made mistakes at crucial times. Simmonds was excellent.

Fantasy team wise I had a good night with Thrush and Morgan both scoring.

Re: Simmonds, he's under powered for an internal 8 IMO.

I understand it's wrong to stereo type what any position should be, but off the base of the scrum at test level he is wager he'd struggle to make yards in contact.

His point of difference, as a back tower, is his speed and step. Would need to be complemented by bigger players I reckon.

I'm still of the view that he needs to try 7 but it obviously won't happen in the near term

TheNomad wrote:Re: Simmonds, he's under powered for an internal 8 IMO.

I understand it's wrong to stereo type what any position should be, but off the base of the scrum at test level he is wager he'd struggle to make yards in contact.

His point of difference, as a back tower, is his speed and step. Would need to be complemented by bigger players I reckon.

I'm still of the view that he needs to try 7 but it obviously won't happen in the near term

Underpowered? Pound for pound he's extremely powerful, I'd say. He might lack poundage but momentum = mass x velocity. With his pace over the first couple of yards I suggest he will take more stopping than bigger players. For example, he clearly was capable of going through traffic more effectively than Morgan. Plus, Armand is in the back row with him - an excellent complementary partner.

A frustrating night in the end for exe but well done to glos.

Simmonds may be a touch underpowered at international level but he sure gave Exe plenty of go forward last night and was quite a handful. He reminds me a bit of the Aussie back rower, McMahon, in that he's not that tall but compact and very quick off the mark. Its early days but he looks a very promising player and one I want to see more of.

Discreet Hooker wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Timbo wrote:
Barely even an 8 at club level I'd say. Does loads of good things still cos he's a good player, but not an 8 imo.

In what way is he not an 8 in your opinion?

I remember certain knowledgeable fans saying that Mike Teague was too small for International rugby .

The problem that he has is that our game for England is currently built around having BillyV at 8. So picking Simmonds currently would mean rejigging the pack.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Discreet Hooker wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
In what way is he not an 8 in your opinion?

I remember certain knowledgeable fans saying that Mike Teague was too small for International rugby .

The problem that he has is that our game for England is currently built around having BillyV at 8. So picking Simmonds currently would mean rejigging the pack.

Puja

Aye. Simmonds (or Clifford even) could be options if were looking for a Kieran Read style 8 but we seem very much set on the 8 being the big tight carrier.

I get the potential contention of playing 8 for England, but don't get why Simmonds isn't an 8 at all.

Mind it's far too early to talk country when he's hardly played first team rugby.

I was just going down a google hole looking at different players. Wikipedia lists henry purdy as being 6 foot 2 and 10 stone 8. Can you imagine a pro rugby player built like that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Purdy_(rugby_union)