RugbyRebels

Tom Willis has grown as the season has progressed. There seems to be more of him now, he's drving through tackles rather than getting stopped on the gainline. His workrate is insane and he's become one of Wasps' most important players, be good to see him get some gametime with Eng.

Puja wrote: The question is less whether they can displace Curry/Willis and more whether they can obviate the need for Billy Vunipola. Get a big beast of a 6 in and suddenly you can put Curry, Willis, or even Simmonds in at 8.

Puja

Definitely. The options having dynamic carriers at (a couple of) 4, 5 and 6 is really appealing - Tom Curry is obviously a given, but then you could take your pick as to whether you want speed, jackaling, tackling, carrying, ballast. There are 5 or 6 genuinely interesting options.

When you think about the players we have in the back row, that's pretty attractive.

Scrumhead wrote:I take the figures with a bit of a pinch of salt and to me he currently looks a bit too rangy/lean to be a test lock. He has the frame to be a big boy which is what we need.

I've said it before I expect him to end up north of 19 stone and an absolute monster. He's far from small currently but has a big frame both in height and breadth. Borthwick isn't deploying him as a lock currently and I'm unsure whether that's because he likes his mobile physicality to be free to roam in the loose or whether he is of the opinion scrummaging will take to much from his game until he's finished his physical development.

As a short term option at 6 he can carry hard and make some big hits in defence so could potentially free up the 7 and 8 slots as Puja says. Plus Martin's lineout jumping is good.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... ain-ready/

Nice piece on Farrell. Basically he's an ultra competitive guy, even if it's a champsionship game where they're winning 50+ to 0.

Jones on Sam Simmonds:

ah....unseen work . I think the clue is..'we've looked at him before'; imo he just doesn't like the cut of his jib.

Banquo wrote:ah....unseen work . I think the clue is..'we've looked at him before'; imo he just doesn't like the cut of his jib.

I duuno. He said it's about balance and no-one followed him up with a question of if he'd change his flankers to accomodate Simmonds if Billy was absent, or if he'd play an 8 without Simmonds' experience. That would have been more telling.

Dallaglio nails it as usual. If only Simmonds could jump like Billy he might have a chance.

For Eddie it seems the balance might be more about balance across the pack than the backrow, bar breaking from the scrum, and as the 8 isn't going to break to cover in quite the same way in defence why not have an option who can carry hard it'd seem. Interesting too how much he considers Billy really sits and attack down and not just defenders ball in hand, I don't tend to think we see much of that from Billy, his better work in defence seemingly coming from work rate and getting over the ball, but Eddie will know what he's looking for

Mikey Brown wrote:Dallaglio nails it as usual. If only Simmonds could jump like Billy he might have a chance.

I was just about to post his analysis as usual is a load of bollocks. Okay he gets in the Guscottesque reference to himself, but really, he played with Hill and Back, which should tell him something about balance going beyond the backrow

Mikey Brown wrote:Dallaglio nails it as usual. If only Simmonds could jump like Billy he might have a chance.

I mean, it was almost a relevant point. That's progress for Dallaglio.

Puja

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:ah....unseen work . I think the clue is..'we've looked at him before'; imo he just doesn't like the cut of his jib.

I duuno. He said it's about balance and no-one followed him up with a question of if he'd change his flankers to accomodate Simmonds if Billy was absent, or if he'd play an 8 without Simmonds' experience. That would have been more telling.

Yep. I thought the same.

Banquo wrote:ah....unseen work . I think the clue is..'we've looked at him before'; imo he just doesn't like the cut of his jib.

Its simply that. The other stuff Jones warbled on about is BS. He's had him in the squad and basically doesnt rate him.

Using Billy to carry bcka kicks has been useful. We Have a get out of losing the kicking game and because of his power, we're very unlikely to get turned over running it back.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:ah....unseen work . I think the clue is..'we've looked at him before'; imo he just doesn't like the cut of his jib.

I duuno. He said it's about balance and no-one followed him up with a question of if he'd change his flankers to accomodate Simmonds if Billy was absent, or if he'd play an 8 without Simmonds' experience. That would have been more telling.

The telling bit for me had already been said, as before. He talked about the uncoachable things, clearly saying Simmonds didn't have em imo.

He was asked what would need to be true for Simmonds to be selected and Jones responded around the uncoachable stuff again. Which I take to mean 'being a test match animal' or summat like that.

fivepointer wrote:

Banquo wrote:ah....unseen work . I think the clue is..'we've looked at him before'; imo he just doesn't like the cut of his jib.

Its simply that. The other stuff Jones warbled on about is BS. He's had him in the squad and basically doesnt rate him.

yep.

I thought the stuff about attitude and what you do for your teammates was pretty telling no? But, you know. Eddie...

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:I thought the stuff about attitude and what you do for your teammates was pretty telling no? But, you know. Eddie...

yep...that was part of the 'uncoachables' iirc. Its also why he didn't want to go into the specifics of Simmonds game I reckon.

Tom Homer retires https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/57485248

Always thought he slightly underachieved given a fair amount of natural talent. But a decent career- he must have had a fair few injuries judging by the number of starts he had in 13 years.

Digby wrote:For Eddie it seems the balance might be more about balance across the pack than the backrow, bar breaking from the scrum, and as the 8 isn't going to break to cover in quite the same way in defence why not have an option who can carry hard it'd seem. Interesting too how much he considers Billy really sits and attack down and not just defenders ball in hand, I don't tend to think we see much of that from Billy, his better work in defence seemingly coming from work rate and getting over the ball, but Eddie will know what he's looking for

Eddie will certainly know what he's looking for. But the question is, is he looking for the right things to move England forward?

Spiffy wrote:

Digby wrote:For Eddie it seems the balance might be more about balance across the pack than the backrow, bar breaking from the scrum, and as the 8 isn't going to break to cover in quite the same way in defence why not have an option who can carry hard it'd seem. Interesting too how much he considers Billy really sits and attack down and not just defenders ball in hand, I don't tend to think we see much of that from Billy, his better work in defence seemingly coming from work rate and getting over the ball, but Eddie will know what he's looking for

Eddie will certainly know what he's looking for. But the question is, is he looking for the right things to move England forward?

Don't know. I liked what they tried to do in the 6N, and it certainly could work, whether it works, whether it even continues is yet to be seen. Given how much what we were trying resembled a 7s game and Amor having left, and given the win % dropped rather a bit they might not stay true to the vision they had going into the 6N.

Digby wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Digby wrote:For Eddie it seems the balance might be more about balance across the pack than the backrow, bar breaking from the scrum, and as the 8 isn't going to break to cover in quite the same way in defence why not have an option who can carry hard it'd seem. Interesting too how much he considers Billy really sits and attack down and not just defenders ball in hand, I don't tend to think we see much of that from Billy, his better work in defence seemingly coming from work rate and getting over the ball, but Eddie will know what he's looking for

Eddie will certainly know what he's looking for. But the question is, is he looking for the right things to move England forward?

Don't know. I liked what they tried to do in the 6N, and it certainly could work, whether it works, whether it even continues is yet to be seen. Given how much what we were trying resembled a 7s game and Amor having left, and given the win % dropped rather a bit they might not stay true to the vision they had going into the 6N.

If the timelines we've been leaked are true, and in my mind, we really started trying to play with speed in the later games more than the start, Amor was "out" for the period of us really going for it.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Spiffy wrote:Eddie will certainly know what he's looking for. But the question is, is he looking for the right things to move England forward?

Don't know. I liked what they tried to do in the 6N, and it certainly could work, whether it works, whether it even continues is yet to be seen. Given how much what we were trying resembled a 7s game and Amor having left, and given the win % dropped rather a bit they might not stay true to the vision they had going into the 6N.

If the timelines we've been leaked are true, and in my mind, we really started trying to play with speed in the later games more than the start, Amor was "out" for the period of us really going for it.

Whereas I remain of the view our approach was more consistent and what changed how it appeared was territory and possession more than a tactical shift. Either way it's what Eddie does next which is key

As we head in to the play-offs, I just wanted to draw attention to Jack Kenningham.

With the plethora of back row players at England’s disposal, I’m not necessarily tipping him for international honours, but he has stepped up so impressively over the last few weeks that I wanted to show him some love.

When Evans went down injured, I genuinely thought Quins were screwed but Kenningham has proved to be a superb deputy. He’s a different type of player to Evans and maybe more of a 6.5 but his chop tackling is a thing of beauty, he punches well above his body weight on the carry (helped by nice footwork), runs good support lines and is decent over the ball. A hell of a lot to like and the find of the season for Quins.

Scrumhead wrote:As we head in to the play-offs, I just wanted to draw attention to Jack Kenningham.

With the plethora of back row players at England’s disposal, I’m not necessarily tipping him for international honours, but he has stepped up so impressively over the last few weeks that I wanted to show him some love.

When Evans went down injured, I genuinely thought Quins were screwed but Kenningham has proved to be a superb deputy. He’s a different type of player to Evans and maybe more of a 6.5 but his chop tackling is a thing of beauty, he punches well above his body weight on the carry (helped by nice footwork), runs good support lines and is decent over the ball. A hell of a lot to like and the find of the season for Quins.

Very much agreed - I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the England squad, especially if Quins lose in the semi and he's available for the A game. Really good low tackler and an excellent work-rate.

Puja