The Official English Rugby Thread

[SaintK]

So... England.

It was nice to see the forwards playing with some freedom in the first half. Much better from Smith, largely because he got to run the game himself, and Randall loved it out there. Not a perfect performance from Randall but still pretty good and so snappy with the ball.

The Smith->Malins->Smith try was a thing of beauty, two extremely good attacking players turning a 2v4 into a try scored without a finger laid on either of them. George did well and although LCD was hamstrung by the other subs, was clearly having the better day of the two and that's excellent moving foward; having two top-class hookers is great news and George could well start the next game.

Steward I'm a little surprised by the level of complaints. Lads, when Torq says someone is anonymous, that doesn't mean it's true: he was solid but fairly invisible against Scotland, but he ran the ball for nearly 200m yesterday, he was heavily involved. Yes, a faster player probably would've scored that linebreak. Yes, he missed the opportunity to throw some offloads, one where he absolutely had to find Smith. Those are reasonable criticisms and given just how young and inexperienced he is there's plenty of chances for him to develop further. He rarely fucked up, though, and was great in the air, has a big boot, and is very solid at the back. I'll take all that front foot ball and territory.

Nowell was a total waste of a cap and while Daly did OK it would've been great to see Radwan start.

Dombrandt had a pleasing game, we saw some of those superb lines he can pick off Smith, and he's superb at the breakdown. The idea of a fit-again Willis at 6, Curry at 7, and Dombrandt at 8 is mouth-watering; it's a great mix of skills and some serious breakdown threat.

Not much to say about the subs. Sinckler showed Stuart up. LCD had a poor outing by his standards, and the pack was a mess in the second half - two 8s and a lock in the back row. Youngs was fucking shit from the start. Ford was thrown into an impossible situation really and dovetailed pretty well with Smith, but that's not a scenario we ever want in a live game situation.

Ultimately this is all fucking pointless, the only questions in Eddie's mind are Dombrandt v Simmonds, LCD v George, and "When is Owen back?". Otherwise it'll be same as for Scotland next time out.

The worrying thing was how lightweight we looked at the breakdown compared to both France and Ireland the previous day.
Oh anmd why did we seem to sit back for 20 or so minutes after the bonus ppoint try?

[Paddington Bear]

So... England.

It was nice to see the forwards playing with some freedom in the first half. Much better from Smith, largely because he got to run the game himself, and Randall loved it out there. Not a perfect performance from Randall but still pretty good and so snappy with the ball.

The Smith->Malins->Smith try was a thing of beauty, two extremely good attacking players turning a 2v4 into a try scored without a finger laid on either of them. George did well and although LCD was hamstrung by the other subs, was clearly having the better day of the two and that's excellent moving foward; having two top-class hookers is great news and George could well start the next game.

Steward I'm a little surprised by the level of complaints. Lads, when Torq says someone is anonymous, that doesn't mean it's true: he was solid but fairly invisible against Scotland, but he ran the ball for nearly 200m yesterday, he was heavily involved. Yes, a faster player probably would've scored that linebreak. Yes, he missed the opportunity to throw some offloads, one where he absolutely had to find Smith. Those are reasonable criticisms and given just how young and inexperienced he is there's plenty of chances for him to develop further. He rarely fucked up, though, and was great in the air, has a big boot, and is very solid at the back. I'll take all that front foot ball and territory.

Nowell was a total waste of a cap and while Daly did OK it would've been great to see Radwan start.

Dombrandt had a pleasing game, we saw some of those superb lines he can pick off Smith, and he's superb at the breakdown. The idea of a fit-again Willis at 6, Curry at 7, and Dombrandt at 8 is mouth-watering; it's a great mix of skills and some serious breakdown threat.

Not much to say about the subs. Sinckler showed Stuart up. LCD had a poor outing by his standards, and the pack was a mess in the second half - two 8s and a lock in the back row. Youngs was fucking shit from the start. Ford was thrown into an impossible situation really and dovetailed pretty well with Smith, but that's not a scenario we ever want in a live game situation.

Ultimately this is all fucking pointless, the only questions in Eddie's mind are Dombrandt v Simmonds, LCD v George, and "When is Owen back?". Otherwise it'll be same as for Scotland next time out.

The worrying thing was how lightweight we looked at the breakdown compared to both France and Ireland the previous day.
Oh anmd why did we seem to sit back for 20 or so minutes after the bonus ppoint try?

Put it on the match thread but under Eddie we've always eased off once the game is won. Does it really matter how many we put on Italy? It was not fun to watch but doesn't really matter.

Fwiw I thought it was fine. We made much lighter work of Italy than France and the ABs have done in the last 6 months, for all that it matters.
Youngs has been done to death, it is frustrating to see what a faster 9 can do but no point dreaming. It's really shitty because he's a good guy and I've no doubt he's trying his heart out but I'm desperate for anything that takes him out the side. He's far from alone in being a fairly average limited player with 100+ caps, but by this stage of his career someone like O'Gara was shit but when put in key positions used his experience to win games other better but less experienced players wouldn't have done. It isn't fair to say Youngs has never been instrumental in an England win, but he hasn't done so for a while.
Our defence was actually pretty good and we took our chances pretty well. Stuart looks well off the international pace and the front row has to be a worry going forwards, perhaps countered by how exciting 6 through to 10 could be.

I'm slightly more bullish on our chances going forwards than others. Hard to take out the 1/10 performance in the last 10 against Scotland but our defence has been very solid and we're doing well up front. We have a core of top class players and I'm hopeful it'll click as we progress in the tournament.
Wales for all that they are ferocious competitors are a poor side and won courtesy of sticking in against a Scotland side that didn't turn up. We ought to beat them comfortably.
Ireland may well be a challenge too far, I don't look at their side and see obvious match ups that work in our favour. I do see a path to a last day win against France. France are a great side but still have glaring weaknesses and gaps in defence. Ireland's first try was an excellent example of that on Saturday. In many ways it suits Eddie's coaching as well as any game will - most of England's best performances under him have come when we've been underdogs and he's been able to prepare a "set-piece battle". I'm more confident that we can find two or three set moves that carve France open like they did SA than I am we can do the same against Ireland. Eddie has produced well documented lows but he also does the opposite. I'm open to giving him a chance to do that one more time.

Still, we'll see. Regardless it is yet another frustrating year. Had we not utterly shit the bed at the end in Murrayfield I could see us tearing this championship wide open.

[Paddington Bear]

Think this is quite telling in the BBC write up of the game:

Smith lined up alongside scrum-half Harry Randall, with whom he says he has a "special" partnership after playing together in England age-group teams.

He added: "To play alongside Harry [Randall] is special, we have a good connection off the field and I hope we have on it as well.

"We have loads to work on, we are still learning on our journey, but we will enjoy tonight and get back on the horse tomorrow."

Strikes me as a decent hint as to who he wants alongside him. It's noticeable (to me) that pointing out Youngs' issues has gone mainstream this tournament in a way it hasn't previously. Shouldn't cling to hope but you never know. Likely best case for Wales is a switch of roles from Sunday and Randall gets the last 25.

[sockwithaticket]

Put it on the match thread but under Eddie we've always eased off once the game is won. Does it really matter how many we put on Italy? It was not fun to watch but doesn't really matter.

Yes! Titles can be won and lost on points difference even in this era of bonus points. Italy are the one team you really get a chance to run up a score against.

It's also a test of a side's focus and discipline to keep putting on the scores and be ruthless. Unsurprisingly, this fairly callow side is lacking a bit there.

[JM2K6]

Put it on the match thread but under Eddie we've always eased off once the game is won. Does it really matter how many we put on Italy? It was not fun to watch but doesn't really matter.

Yes! Titles can be won and lost on points difference even in this era of bonus points. Italy are the one team you really get a chance to run up a score against.

It's also a test of a side's focus and discipline to keep putting on the scores and be ruthless. Unsurprisingly, this fairly callow side is lacking a bit there.

Yup. The All Blacks, Leinster, etc - these sides do not ease off.

[fishfoodie]

Think this is quite telling in the BBC write up of the game:

Smith lined up alongside scrum-half Harry Randall, with whom he says he has a "special" partnership after playing together in England age-group teams.

He added: "To play alongside Harry [Randall] is special, we have a good connection off the field and I hope we have on it as well.

"We have loads to work on, we are still learning on our journey, but we will enjoy tonight and get back on the horse tomorrow."

Strikes me as a decent hint as to who he wants alongside him. It's noticeable (to me) that pointing out Youngs' issues has gone mainstream this tournament in a way it hasn't previously. Shouldn't cling to hope but you never know. Likely best case for Wales is a switch of roles from Sunday and Randall gets the last 25.

Absolutely true !

The problem is that Eddie is such a contrarian prick, the more the media, & the likes of SCW demand he pick a different SH, the more caps Youngs will get !

[Paddington Bear]

Think this is quite telling in the BBC write up of the game:

Smith lined up alongside scrum-half Harry Randall, with whom he says he has a "special" partnership after playing together in England age-group teams.

He added: "To play alongside Harry [Randall] is special, we have a good connection off the field and I hope we have on it as well.

"We have loads to work on, we are still learning on our journey, but we will enjoy tonight and get back on the horse tomorrow."

Strikes me as a decent hint as to who he wants alongside him. It's noticeable (to me) that pointing out Youngs' issues has gone mainstream this tournament in a way it hasn't previously. Shouldn't cling to hope but you never know. Likely best case for Wales is a switch of roles from Sunday and Randall gets the last 25.

Absolutely true !

The problem is that Eddie is such a contrarian prick, the more the media, & the likes of SCW demand he pick a different SH, the more caps Youngs will get !

Not totally convinced on this - see Marcus Smith.

[Kawazaki]

Strikes me as a decent hint as to who he wants alongside him. It's noticeable (to me) that pointing out Youngs' issues has gone mainstream this tournament in a way it hasn't previously.

Mainly because critics have concentrated on Farrell. I've said this countless times, Farrell and Ford have been poorly served (literally) by Youngs for years and, much like chaos theory, small delays on the pass, having to adjust slightly to catch it, having to stand nearer so it reaches etc on the pass from Youngs means the pass from the 10 is compromised and then a little more on the pass from the 12 and so on. Youngs has been limiting the England attack for years. All of the Jones tenure and at least the last 18 months of the Lancaster era.

[Ovals]

So... England.

It was nice to see the forwards playing with some freedom in the first half. Much better from Smith, largely because he got to run the game himself, and Randall loved it out there. Not a perfect performance from Randall but still pretty good and so snappy with the ball.

The Smith->Malins->Smith try was a thing of beauty, two extremely good attacking players turning a 2v4 into a try scored without a finger laid on either of them. George did well and although LCD was hamstrung by the other subs, was clearly having the better day of the two and that's excellent moving foward; having two top-class hookers is great news and George could well start the next game.

Steward I'm a little surprised by the level of complaints. Lads, when Torq says someone is anonymous, that doesn't mean it's true: he was solid but fairly invisible against Scotland, but he ran the ball for nearly 200m yesterday, he was heavily involved. Yes, a faster player probably would've scored that linebreak. Yes, he missed the opportunity to throw some offloads, one where he absolutely had to find Smith. Those are reasonable criticisms and given just how young and inexperienced he is there's plenty of chances for him to develop further. He rarely fucked up, though, and was great in the air, has a big boot, and is very solid at the back. I'll take all that front foot ball and territory.

Nowell was a total waste of a cap and while Daly did OK it would've been great to see Radwan start.

Dombrandt had a pleasing game, we saw some of those superb lines he can pick off Smith, and he's superb at the breakdown. The idea of a fit-again Willis at 6, Curry at 7, and Dombrandt at 8 is mouth-watering; it's a great mix of skills and some serious breakdown threat.

Not much to say about the subs. Sinckler showed Stuart up. LCD had a poor outing by his standards, and the pack was a mess in the second half - two 8s and a lock in the back row. Youngs was fucking shit from the start. Ford was thrown into an impossible situation really and dovetailed pretty well with Smith, but that's not a scenario we ever want in a live game situation.

Ultimately this is all fucking pointless, the only questions in Eddie's mind are Dombrandt v Simmonds, LCD v George, and "When is Owen back?". Otherwise it'll be same as for Scotland next time out.

The worrying thing was how lightweight we looked at the breakdown compared to both France and Ireland the previous day.
Oh anmd why did we seem to sit back for 20 or so minutes after the bonus ppoint try?

Put it on the match thread but under Eddie we've always eased off once the game is won. Does it really matter how many we put on Italy? It was not fun to watch but doesn't really matter.

Fwiw I thought it was fine. We made much lighter work of Italy than France and the ABs have done in the last 6 months, for all that it matters.
Youngs has been done to death, it is frustrating to see what a faster 9 can do but no point dreaming. It's really shitty because he's a good guy and I've no doubt he's trying his heart out but I'm desperate for anything that takes him out the side. He's far from alone in being a fairly average limited player with 100+ caps, but by this stage of his career someone like O'Gara was shit but when put in key positions used his experience to win games other better but less experienced players wouldn't have done. It isn't fair to say Youngs has never been instrumental in an England win, but he hasn't done so for a while.
Our defence was actually pretty good and we took our chances pretty well. Stuart looks well off the international pace and the front row has to be a worry going forwards, perhaps countered by how exciting 6 through to 10 could be.

I'm slightly more bullish on our chances going forwards than others. Hard to take out the 1/10 performance in the last 10 against Scotland but our defence has been very solid and we're doing well up front. We have a core of top class players and I'm hopeful it'll click as we progress in the tournament.
Wales for all that they are ferocious competitors are a poor side and won courtesy of sticking in against a Scotland side that didn't turn up. We ought to beat them comfortably.
Ireland may well be a challenge too far, I don't look at their side and see obvious match ups that work in our favour. I do see a path to a last day win against France. France are a great side but still have glaring weaknesses and gaps in defence. Ireland's first try was an excellent example of that on Saturday. In many ways it suits Eddie's coaching as well as any game will - most of England's best performances under him have come when we've been underdogs and he's been able to prepare a "set-piece battle". I'm more confident that we can find two or three set moves that carve France open like they did SA than I am we can do the same against Ireland. Eddie has produced well documented lows but he also does the opposite. I'm open to giving him a chance to do that one more time.

Still, we'll see. Regardless it is yet another frustrating year. Had we not utterly shit the bed at the end in Murrayfield I could see us tearing this championship wide open.

I know we don't really like seeing Lawes transformed into a flanker - but I think we've really missed his presence in the last 2 games. He's actually an excellent 6, a real force at the lineout and means Eddie doesn't need to play another Lock at 6 (or Ewels at Lock). With him and Launchbury, or Hill, back in the mix, it'll really strengthen the side. We still need a bit more ooomph in our carrying - the likes of Barbeary and Manu could add another dimension, even if it comes off the bench. It'd also improve our backs if we can get Slade back at 13. We should, I hope, be much stronger after the break - especially if, and I know it's a forlorn hope, Eddie chooses Tandall as our starting SH.

[duke]

The worrying thing was how lightweight we looked at the breakdown compared to both France and Ireland the previous day.
Oh anmd why did we seem to sit back for 20 or so minutes after the bonus ppoint try?

Put it on the match thread but under Eddie we've always eased off once the game is won. Does it really matter how many we put on Italy? It was not fun to watch but doesn't really matter.

Fwiw I thought it was fine. We made much lighter work of Italy than France and the ABs have done in the last 6 months, for all that it matters.
Youngs has been done to death, it is frustrating to see what a faster 9 can do but no point dreaming. It's really shitty because he's a good guy and I've no doubt he's trying his heart out but I'm desperate for anything that takes him out the side. He's far from alone in being a fairly average limited player with 100+ caps, but by this stage of his career someone like O'Gara was shit but when put in key positions used his experience to win games other better but less experienced players wouldn't have done. It isn't fair to say Youngs has never been instrumental in an England win, but he hasn't done so for a while.
Our defence was actually pretty good and we took our chances pretty well. Stuart looks well off the international pace and the front row has to be a worry going forwards, perhaps countered by how exciting 6 through to 10 could be.

I'm slightly more bullish on our chances going forwards than others. Hard to take out the 1/10 performance in the last 10 against Scotland but our defence has been very solid and we're doing well up front. We have a core of top class players and I'm hopeful it'll click as we progress in the tournament.
Wales for all that they are ferocious competitors are a poor side and won courtesy of sticking in against a Scotland side that didn't turn up. We ought to beat them comfortably.
Ireland may well be a challenge too far, I don't look at their side and see obvious match ups that work in our favour. I do see a path to a last day win against France. France are a great side but still have glaring weaknesses and gaps in defence. Ireland's first try was an excellent example of that on Saturday. In many ways it suits Eddie's coaching as well as any game will - most of England's best performances under him have come when we've been underdogs and he's been able to prepare a "set-piece battle". I'm more confident that we can find two or three set moves that carve France open like they did SA than I am we can do the same against Ireland. Eddie has produced well documented lows but he also does the opposite. I'm open to giving him a chance to do that one more time.

Still, we'll see. Regardless it is yet another frustrating year. Had we not utterly shit the bed at the end in Murrayfield I could see us tearing this championship wide open.

I know we don't really like seeing Lawes transformed into a flanker - but I think we've really missed his presence in the last 2 games. He's actually an excellent 6, a real force at the lineout and means Eddie doesn't need to play another Lock at 6 (or Ewels at Lock). With him and Launchbury, or Hill, back in the mix, it'll really strengthen the side. We still need a bit more ooomph in our carrying - the likes of Barbeary and Manu could add another dimension, even if it comes off the bench. It'd also improve our backs if we can get Slade back at 13. We should, I hope, be much stronger after the break - especially if, and I know it's a forlorn hope, Eddie chooses Tandall as our starting SH.

I thought you had put Tindall there for a minute.....

[JM2K6]

I know we don't really like seeing Lawes transformed into a flanker - but I think we've really missed his presence in the last 2 games. He's actually an excellent 6, a real force at the lineout and means Eddie doesn't need to play another Lock at 6 (or Ewels at Lock). With him and Launchbury, or Hill, back in the mix, it'll really strengthen the side. We still need a bit more ooomph in our carrying - the likes of Barbeary and Manu could add another dimension, even if it comes off the bench. It'd also improve our backs if we can get Slade back at 13. We should, I hope, be much stronger after the break - especially if, and I know it's a forlorn hope, Eddie chooses Tandall as our starting SH.

Lawes has answered all the questions about being a 6 I think. He was superb there on the Lions tour and has backed it up for England. His breakdown work has improved a lot and he's a threat there now. His carrying and tackling continue to be high quality and he's an excellet lineout forward.

However.

It does mean that Eddie is now wedded to the idea of that kind of player at 6. Which I think is a bit silly. I think with Tom Curry and Dombrandt in the back row, you have 4 lineout targets and Dombrandt's skillset opens up a role for a beefier hard yards kind of 6. Whether that's Barbeary or Jack Willis or someone not from Wasps (Ted Hill?) I don't know, but I think we keep the overall balance with Dombrandt at 8.

And if Willis is the man and is fit, that's 7 covered too. And 8, really. Which gives us the opportunity to pick another raw talent like Ben Curry on the bench.

As for Slade, I used to hate the idea of him at 12 but he did well there against SA and he did fine against Italy with a proper 13 outside him. Marchant made a few errors but he's a powerful guy in contact for his size, runs great support lines, and is a clever player; the two dovetail nicely, and Slade seems to be really enjoying his rugby with Smith in the side. I would like to see Atkinson get a proper go soon, or he gets ditched for Devoto or Lozowski (pref the latter, but I'm a Devoto fan though) but we do need to develop someone other than our regular 13 or Farrell in the 12 shirt.

But yeah, we're doomed to another 2 years of Ben Youngs. It's so aggravating. I genuinely would prefer Danny Care at this stage - old as he is, as over-exuberant as he is, as prone to trying too hard as he is, he has more talent than Youngs could ever wish for and his partnership with Smith is so well grooved. But of course the ideal scenario is we say that Randall, Quirke, and Robson are our 3 scrum halves for the next x years and let them fight it out.

[inactionman]

I know we don't really like seeing Lawes transformed into a flanker - but I think we've really missed his presence in the last 2 games. He's actually an excellent 6, a real force at the lineout and means Eddie doesn't need to play another Lock at 6 (or Ewels at Lock). With him and Launchbury, or Hill, back in the mix, it'll really strengthen the side. We still need a bit more ooomph in our carrying - the likes of Barbeary and Manu could add another dimension, even if it comes off the bench. It'd also improve our backs if we can get Slade back at 13. We should, I hope, be much stronger after the break - especially if, and I know it's a forlorn hope, Eddie chooses Tandall as our starting SH.

Lawes has answered all the questions about being a 6 I think. He was superb there on the Lions tour and has backed it up for England. His breakdown work has improved a lot and he's a threat there now. His carrying and tackling continue to be high quality and he's an excellet lineout forward.

However.

It does mean that Eddie is now wedded to the idea of that kind of player at 6. Which I think is a bit silly. I think with Tom Curry and Dombrandt in the back row, you have 4 lineout targets and Dombrandt's skillset opens up a role for a beefier hard yards kind of 6. Whether that's Barbeary or Jack Willis or someone not from Wasps (Ted Hill?) I don't know, but I think we keep the overall balance with Dombrandt at 8.

And if Willis is the man and is fit, that's 7 covered too. And 8, really. Which gives us the opportunity to pick another raw talent like Ben Curry on the bench.

As for Slade, I used to hate the idea of him at 12 but he did well there against SA and he did fine against Italy with a proper 13 outside him. Marchant made a few errors but he's a powerful guy in contact for his size, runs great support lines, and is a clever player; the two dovetail nicely, and Slade seems to be really enjoying his rugby with Smith in the side. I would like to see Atkinson get a proper go soon, or he gets ditched for Devoto or Lozowski (pref the latter, but I'm a Devoto fan though) but we do need to develop someone other than our regular 13 or Farrell in the 12 shirt.

But yeah, we're doomed to another 2 years of Ben Youngs. It's so aggravating. I genuinely would prefer Danny Care at this stage - old as he is, as over-exuberant as he is, as prone to trying too hard as he is, he has more talent than Youngs could ever wish for and his partnership with Smith is so well grooved. But of course the ideal scenario is we say that Randall, Quirke, and Robson are our 3 scrum halves for the next x years and let them fight it out.

Accepting dip in recent form is temporary, and assuming no more head knocks for a while, where does Underhill fit into this?

[sockwithaticket]

Not sure he does. We just have an insane amount of back row talent and not all of it fits into a squad, let alone a team.

[inactionman]

Not sure he does. We just have an insane amount of back row talent and not all of it fits into a squad, let alone a team.

He was excellent throughout a whole WC campaign to the final and his last outings in Autumn internationals were as starter, I'd have him pretty much first XV when he's fit and firing.

I'm chalking his recent omissions to injury and headknocks, btw, he got injured in December - the main factor in why he was omitted from 6N squad - and then bumped his melon after about quarter of an hour on his comeback in Feb.

I'm not aiming this at you, I'm just surprised some people forget just how effective a combination Underhill and Curry are (note: present tense)

[Paddington Bear]

The worrying thing was how lightweight we looked at the breakdown compared to both France and Ireland the previous day.
Oh anmd why did we seem to sit back for 20 or so minutes after the bonus ppoint try?

Put it on the match thread but under Eddie we've always eased off once the game is won. Does it really matter how many we put on Italy? It was not fun to watch but doesn't really matter.

Fwiw I thought it was fine. We made much lighter work of Italy than France and the ABs have done in the last 6 months, for all that it matters.
Youngs has been done to death, it is frustrating to see what a faster 9 can do but no point dreaming. It's really shitty because he's a good guy and I've no doubt he's trying his heart out but I'm desperate for anything that takes him out the side. He's far from alone in being a fairly average limited player with 100+ caps, but by this stage of his career someone like O'Gara was shit but when put in key positions used his experience to win games other better but less experienced players wouldn't have done. It isn't fair to say Youngs has never been instrumental in an England win, but he hasn't done so for a while.
Our defence was actually pretty good and we took our chances pretty well. Stuart looks well off the international pace and the front row has to be a worry going forwards, perhaps countered by how exciting 6 through to 10 could be.

I'm slightly more bullish on our chances going forwards than others. Hard to take out the 1/10 performance in the last 10 against Scotland but our defence has been very solid and we're doing well up front. We have a core of top class players and I'm hopeful it'll click as we progress in the tournament.
Wales for all that they are ferocious competitors are a poor side and won courtesy of sticking in against a Scotland side that didn't turn up. We ought to beat them comfortably.
Ireland may well be a challenge too far, I don't look at their side and see obvious match ups that work in our favour. I do see a path to a last day win against France. France are a great side but still have glaring weaknesses and gaps in defence. Ireland's first try was an excellent example of that on Saturday. In many ways it suits Eddie's coaching as well as any game will - most of England's best performances under him have come when we've been underdogs and he's been able to prepare a "set-piece battle". I'm more confident that we can find two or three set moves that carve France open like they did SA than I am we can do the same against Ireland. Eddie has produced well documented lows but he also does the opposite. I'm open to giving him a chance to do that one more time.

Still, we'll see. Regardless it is yet another frustrating year. Had we not utterly shit the bed at the end in Murrayfield I could see us tearing this championship wide open.

I know we don't really like seeing Lawes transformed into a flanker - but I think we've really missed his presence in the last 2 games. He's actually an excellent 6, a real force at the lineout and means Eddie doesn't need to play another Lock at 6 (or Ewels at Lock). With him and Launchbury, or Hill, back in the mix, it'll really strengthen the side. We still need a bit more ooomph in our carrying - the likes of Barbeary and Manu could add another dimension, even if it comes off the bench. It'd also improve our backs if we can get Slade back at 13. We should, I hope, be much stronger after the break - especially if, and I know it's a forlorn hope, Eddie chooses Tandall as our starting SH.

I don't mind it at all tbh.

If Randall started I think we'd have a genuine chance of winning all three games. Not the same as doing so but I'd be quite bullish. As you say, regardless I think we'll be better for the break.

[Ovals]

Not sure he does. We just have an insane amount of back row talent and not all of it fits into a squad, let alone a team.

He was excellent throughout a whole WC campaign to the final and his last outings in Autumn internationals were as starter, I'd have him pretty much first XV when he's fit and firing.

I'm chalking his recent omissions to injury and headknocks, btw, he got injured in December - the main factor in why he was omitted from 6N squad - and then bumped his melon after about quarter of an hour on his comeback in Feb.

I'm not aiming this at you, I'm just surprised some people forget just how effective a combination Underhill and Curry are (note: present tense)

I agree - but, for whatever the reason someone loses their place, with the strength we have there, he's going to have to work hard to get back in the squad. With the likes of Barbeary and Willis, when fit, there's already a Q forming. I do like Underhill though, there's something of the 'White Orc' about him - and, given the amount of injuries that Backrow players suffer, he'll be in the mix again.

[JM2K6]

Not sure he does. We just have an insane amount of back row talent and not all of it fits into a squad, let alone a team.

He was excellent throughout a whole WC campaign to the final and his last outings in Autumn internationals were as starter, I'd have him pretty much first XV when he's fit and firing.

I'm chalking his recent omissions to injury and headknocks, btw, he got injured in December - the main factor in why he was omitted from 6N squad - and then bumped his melon after about quarter of an hour on his comeback in Feb.

I'm not aiming this at you, I'm just surprised some people forget just how effective a combination Underhill and Curry are (note: present tense)

I absolutely loved what Underhill and Curry did at the world cup. It was superb. Legal and brutal.

However, Underhill has not reached that level since (maybe one game) and his performance against SA was diabolical, he was an empty shirt. I don't believe he's a better player than anyone I've mentioned, and his one point of difference is getting him hurt, unfortunately. Definitely one who'd have to start excelling at club level or get handed a chance because of injuries before I'd be keen on seeing him there.

There's a lot of 6s and 7s around who can really do a great job. Some of them are injured longer term (Willis on his way back, the Quins duo out until next season) but you still have the Curry twins - Ben really shouldn't be getting overlooked here, he's even more physical than his brother IMO - plus the likes of Barbeary and the Saracens sixes (Christie and McFarland) who look like real talents, Ted Hill who deserves a decent shot at some point, etc etc. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd rather see him than another lock who can play 6 or something, but I don't agree that he was any good in the autumn and he keeps breaking and his club is quite likely dragging him down.

If he was back to his best then it's a live option especially as he's improved his carrying game, but he is our worst lineout option of the lot I think.

[sockwithaticket]

Not sure he does. We just have an insane amount of back row talent and not all of it fits into a squad, let alone a team.

He was excellent throughout a whole WC campaign to the final and his last outings in Autumn internationals were as starter, I'd have him pretty much first XV when he's fit and firing.

I'm chalking his recent omissions to injury and headknocks, btw, he got injured in December - the main factor in why he was omitted from 6N squad - and then bumped his melon after about quarter of an hour on his comeback in Feb.

I'm not aiming this at you, I'm just surprised some people forget just how effective a combination Underhill and Curry are (note: present tense)

JMK summed up my thoughts really. I don't think he's hit the heights of the world cup since and while that doesn't mean he's playing badly, I don't think he's been good enough to keep demanding a starting shirt while someone like Barbeary keeps delivering huge performances week in week out.

[JM2K6]

I do have to admit that I'm putting a fair bit of faith in some players that do seem to get crocked very easily so I realise it's not the strongest case against Underhill.

[inactionman]

Not sure he does. We just have an insane amount of back row talent and not all of it fits into a squad, let alone a team.

He was excellent throughout a whole WC campaign to the final and his last outings in Autumn internationals were as starter, I'd have him pretty much first XV when he's fit and firing.

I'm chalking his recent omissions to injury and headknocks, btw, he got injured in December - the main factor in why he was omitted from 6N squad - and then bumped his melon after about quarter of an hour on his comeback in Feb.

I'm not aiming this at you, I'm just surprised some people forget just how effective a combination Underhill and Curry are (note: present tense)

JMK summed up my thoughts really. I don't think he's hit the heights of the world cup since and while that doesn't mean he's playing badly, I don't think he's been good enough to keep demanding a starting shirt while someone like Barbeary keeps delivering huge performances week in week out.

The Barbeary who until a few months ago was a front row as an international backrow, in preference to someone who stood out in the backrow against pretty much every international team? I'm being facetious, I know Barbeary is one example of many, and he absolutely worth considering in a national team conversation in his own right, but this all seems very premature to me.

I'd hope someone who has been there and bought the tee-shirt would be a better choice once his injury woes are past - which has been a contributor to lack of form. I know there's players in Eddie' rolodex who we all feel have outlived their welcome and there's better options behind them, but I simply don't agree that applies to Underhill - I'd stress I'm talking longer term here, agree the immediate 6N squad is a different question.

(As an aside, isn't it great to be talking about good options instead of best-of-a-bad-job? Go back a few years and we had all the locks in the world and not a single real openside, now we're having to omit players who would have walked into a lot of post Neil Back Tom Rees England sides.)

[SaintK]

Not sure he does. We just have an insane amount of back row talent and not all of it fits into a squad, let alone a team.

He was excellent throughout a whole WC campaign to the final and his last outings in Autumn internationals were as starter, I'd have him pretty much first XV when he's fit and firing.

I'm chalking his recent omissions to injury and headknocks, btw, he got injured in December - the main factor in why he was omitted from 6N squad - and then bumped his melon after about quarter of an hour on his comeback in Feb.

I'm not aiming this at you, I'm just surprised some people forget just how effective a combination Underhill and Curry are (note: present tense)

I absolutely loved what Underhill and Curry did at the world cup. It was superb. Legal and brutal.

However, Underhill has not reached that level since (maybe one game) and his performance against SA was diabolical, he was an empty shirt. I don't believe he's a better player than anyone I've mentioned, and his one point of difference is getting him hurt, unfortunately. Definitely one who'd have to start excelling at club level or get handed a chance because of injuries before I'd be keen on seeing him there.

There's a lot of 6s and 7s around who can really do a great job. Some of them are injured longer term (Willis on his way back, the Quins duo out until next season) but you still have the Curry twins - Ben really shouldn't be getting overlooked here, he's even more physical than his brother IMO - plus the likes of Barbeary and the Saracens sixes (Christie and McFarland) who look like real talents, Ted Hill who deserves a decent shot at some point, etc etc. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd rather see him than another lock who can play 6 or something, but I don't agree that he was any good in the autumn and he keeps breaking and his club is quite likely dragging him down.

If he was back to his best then it's a live option especially as he's improved his carrying game, but he is our worst lineout option of the lot I think.

Thought Christie had declared for and been selected to train with Scotland? And McFarland has been capped recently by Samoa?

[ASMO]

has Christian Scotland-Williamson played for Quins yet? he is a bloody unit and a half.

[sockwithaticket]

He was excellent throughout a whole WC campaign to the final and his last outings in Autumn internationals were as starter, I'd have him pretty much first XV when he's fit and firing.

I'm chalking his recent omissions to injury and headknocks, btw, he got injured in December - the main factor in why he was omitted from 6N squad - and then bumped his melon after about quarter of an hour on his comeback in Feb.

I'm not aiming this at you, I'm just surprised some people forget just how effective a combination Underhill and Curry are (note: present tense)

JMK summed up my thoughts really. I don't think he's hit the heights of the world cup since and while that doesn't mean he's playing badly, I don't think he's been good enough to keep demanding a starting shirt while someone like Barbeary keeps delivering huge performances week in week out.

The Barbeary who until a few months ago was a front row as an international backrow, in preference to someone who stood out in the backrow against pretty much every international team? I'm being facetious, I know Barbeary is one example of many, and he absolutely worth considering in a national team conversation in his own right, but this all seems very premature to me.

I'd hope someone who has been there and bought the tee-shirt would be a better choice once his injury woes are past - which has been a contributor to lack of form. I know there's players in Eddie' rolodex who we all feel have outlived their welcome and there's better options behind them, but I simply don't agree that applies to Underhill - I'd stress I'm talking longer term here, agree the immediate 6N squad is a different question.

(As an aside, isn't it great to be talking about good options instead of best-of-a-bad-job? Go back a few years and we had all the locks in the world and not a single real openside, now we're having to omit players who would have walked into a lot of post Neil Back Tom Rees England sides.)

Facetiousness notwithstanding, Barbeary has only played back row at Prem level, so,while he's only formally given up hooker recently, functionally it's been a couple of seasons. I'm undoubtedly biased in his favour, but watching him week in week out he just looks ready in the way Dombrandt, Simmonds and Willis did. Given the lack of size in our backline plus the absence of a monster lock like Kruis or Launchbury I think we need to be looking for more punch in our back row carriers

I don't want Underhill retired from the national side. If he can come back and demonstrate his world cup form again then I'd happily have him in the squad and maybe he can Curry can go back to playing left and right. However, the period in which he became an automatic pick saw him turning in better performances than the last couple of years and the amount of competition for back row places since then has only increased. I never believe that experience should be selected for its own sake. On field performance should be the driver.

[JM2K6]

He was excellent throughout a whole WC campaign to the final and his last outings in Autumn internationals were as starter, I'd have him pretty much first XV when he's fit and firing.

I'm chalking his recent omissions to injury and headknocks, btw, he got injured in December - the main factor in why he was omitted from 6N squad - and then bumped his melon after about quarter of an hour on his comeback in Feb.

I'm not aiming this at you, I'm just surprised some people forget just how effective a combination Underhill and Curry are (note: present tense)

I absolutely loved what Underhill and Curry did at the world cup. It was superb. Legal and brutal.

However, Underhill has not reached that level since (maybe one game) and his performance against SA was diabolical, he was an empty shirt. I don't believe he's a better player than anyone I've mentioned, and his one point of difference is getting him hurt, unfortunately. Definitely one who'd have to start excelling at club level or get handed a chance because of injuries before I'd be keen on seeing him there.

There's a lot of 6s and 7s around who can really do a great job. Some of them are injured longer term (Willis on his way back, the Quins duo out until next season) but you still have the Curry twins - Ben really shouldn't be getting overlooked here, he's even more physical than his brother IMO - plus the likes of Barbeary and the Saracens sixes (Christie and McFarland) who look like real talents, Ted Hill who deserves a decent shot at some point, etc etc. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd rather see him than another lock who can play 6 or something, but I don't agree that he was any good in the autumn and he keeps breaking and his club is quite likely dragging him down.

If he was back to his best then it's a live option especially as he's improved his carrying game, but he is our worst lineout option of the lot I think.

Thought Christie had declared for and been selected to train with Scotland? And McFarland has been capped recently by Samoa?

Fuck knows. Good captures for both countries if true.

[JM2K6]

has Christian Scotland-Williamson played for Quins yet? he is a bloody unit and a half.

No. He's had a minor injury but there's been a lot of work to prep him for union. No idea if we'll see much of him this season.

[JM2K6]

He was excellent throughout a whole WC campaign to the final and his last outings in Autumn internationals were as starter, I'd have him pretty much first XV when he's fit and firing.

I'm chalking his recent omissions to injury and headknocks, btw, he got injured in December - the main factor in why he was omitted from 6N squad - and then bumped his melon after about quarter of an hour on his comeback in Feb.

I'm not aiming this at you, I'm just surprised some people forget just how effective a combination Underhill and Curry are (note: present tense)

JMK summed up my thoughts really. I don't think he's hit the heights of the world cup since and while that doesn't mean he's playing badly, I don't think he's been good enough to keep demanding a starting shirt while someone like Barbeary keeps delivering huge performances week in week out.

The Barbeary who until a few months ago was a front row as an international backrow, in preference to someone who stood out in the backrow against pretty much every international team? I'm being facetious, I know Barbeary is one example of many, and he absolutely worth considering in a national team conversation in his own right, but this all seems very premature to me.

I'd hope someone who has been there and bought the tee-shirt would be a better choice once his injury woes are past - which has been a contributor to lack of form. I know there's players in Eddie' rolodex who we all feel have outlived their welcome and there's better options behind them, but I simply don't agree that applies to Underhill - I'd stress I'm talking longer term here, agree the immediate 6N squad is a different question.

(As an aside, isn't it great to be talking about good options instead of best-of-a-bad-job? Go back a few years and we had all the locks in the world and not a single real openside, now we're having to omit players who would have walked into a lot of post Neil Back Tom Rees England sides.)

What's the cut-off point? Underhill's not been the same player since the world cup and that was in 2019. It's 2022 now and he's still struggling. If Jack Willis hadn't had his injury woes, chances are Underhill would've been playing second fiddle to him already.

[Happyhooker]

Mark Wilson has just retired, immediately

[SaintK]

Mark Wilson has just retired, immediately

Yep!
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/engla ... e-effect/

[Ovals]

JMK summed up my thoughts really. I don't think he's hit the heights of the world cup since and while that doesn't mean he's playing badly, I don't think he's been good enough to keep demanding a starting shirt while someone like Barbeary keeps delivering huge performances week in week out.

The Barbeary who until a few months ago was a front row as an international backrow, in preference to someone who stood out in the backrow against pretty much every international team? I'm being facetious, I know Barbeary is one example of many, and he absolutely worth considering in a national team conversation in his own right, but this all seems very premature to me.

I'd hope someone who has been there and bought the tee-shirt would be a better choice once his injury woes are past - which has been a contributor to lack of form. I know there's players in Eddie' rolodex who we all feel have outlived their welcome and there's better options behind them, but I simply don't agree that applies to Underhill - I'd stress I'm talking longer term here, agree the immediate 6N squad is a different question.

(As an aside, isn't it great to be talking about good options instead of best-of-a-bad-job? Go back a few years and we had all the locks in the world and not a single real openside, now we're having to omit players who would have walked into a lot of post Neil Back Tom Rees England sides.)

Facetiousness notwithstanding, Barbeary has only played back row at Prem level, so,while he's only formally given up hooker recently, functionally it's been a couple of seasons. I'm undoubtedly biased in his favour, but watching him week in week out he just looks ready in the way Dombrandt, Simmonds and Willis did. Given the lack of size in our backline plus the absence of a monster lock like Kruis or Launchbury I think we need to be looking for more punch in our back row carriers

I don't want Underhill retired from the national side. If he can come back and demonstrate his world cup form again then I'd happily have him in the squad and maybe he can Curry can go back to playing left and right. However, the period in which he became an automatic pick saw him turning in better performances than the last couple of years and the amount of competition for back row places since then has only increased. I never believe that experience should be selected for its own sake. On field performance should be the driver.

I think that is the point - when you have such a great choice you can afford to choose the player who best balances the side - Barbeary adds a carrying dynamic that the team currently lacks - and you're not losing out in the other elements of the job - always assuming he can reproduce his form at the higher level - and that is what we need to find out, and find out soon. I'd have thought he was exactly the type of player that Eddie would like.

[Paddington Bear]

Vis a vis discussion of World Cup form - maybe it's just a covid thing but the world cup seems much more recent than it was.

[Happyhooker]

Vis a vis discussion of World Cup form - maybe it's just a covid thing but the world cup seems much more recent than it was.

Completely disagree. It was the last time I was abroad and that doesn't seem to have happened in the last decade

[inactionman]

JMK summed up my thoughts really. I don't think he's hit the heights of the world cup since and while that doesn't mean he's playing badly, I don't think he's been good enough to keep demanding a starting shirt while someone like Barbeary keeps delivering huge performances week in week out.

The Barbeary who until a few months ago was a front row as an international backrow, in preference to someone who stood out in the backrow against pretty much every international team? I'm being facetious, I know Barbeary is one example of many, and he absolutely worth considering in a national team conversation in his own right, but this all seems very premature to me.

I'd hope someone who has been there and bought the tee-shirt would be a better choice once his injury woes are past - which has been a contributor to lack of form. I know there's players in Eddie' rolodex who we all feel have outlived their welcome and there's better options behind them, but I simply don't agree that applies to Underhill - I'd stress I'm talking longer term here, agree the immediate 6N squad is a different question.

(As an aside, isn't it great to be talking about good options instead of best-of-a-bad-job? Go back a few years and we had all the locks in the world and not a single real openside, now we're having to omit players who would have walked into a lot of post Neil Back Tom Rees England sides.)

What's the cut-off point? Underhill's not been the same player since the world cup and that was in 2019. It's 2022 now and he's still struggling. If Jack Willis hadn't had his injury woes, chances are Underhill would've been playing second fiddle to him already.

I think we're all discussing slightly differing things and different timescales, I'm wondering why we're not trying to get proven performers back performing over the more middling term* rather than look to the next Big Thing as soon as injury and form intervene, with all the risks and required grace periods that typically involves. sockwithaticket's made the reasonable point he's talking about the current form-based selection - Underhill is not part of that question for injury reasons if nothing else so it's fair to raise other promising players - and I assume that's where your head is too.

I'd say the choice of cut-off point is a very good question and one I've no confidence in addressing - it must be the most difficult call for any coach, whether loss of form and practice is correctable, recognising that you need to blood younger players but keep the core of the team intact and continuity going, whether certain players can be adapted to differing systems etc etc.

I've noted that, all else being equal, the most successful teams tend to be the most stable - of course it's a bit self-fulfilling as you don't change successful sides unless you're Eddie, but to steal a cheap phrase - form is temporary, class is permanent.


* how we address injury is a whole thing in itself, linked to workload, training methods etc etc.

[sockwithaticket]

Mark Wilson has just retired, immediately

Yep!
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/engla ... e-effect/

That's a shame. He was capped later than he ought to have been and from then on seems to have had a poor time of it with injuries having previously been quite robust.

[Paddington Bear]

Vis a vis discussion of World Cup form - maybe it's just a covid thing but the world cup seems much more recent than it was.

Completely disagree. It was the last time I was abroad and that doesn't seem to have happened in the last decade

Yeah I meant from a rugby point of view rather than more generally. Seems I'm not the only one still seeing, say, Underhill as the beast of 2019.

[JM2K6]

Underhill in 55mins v SA: 3 tackles made, 2 missed. 1 carry for 0m. 1 pass. Practically invisible while watching the game apart from the penalty he gave away.

Look, I agree class is permanent. I'm just not sure Underhill merits being rated above Jack Willis or Ben Curry or Courtney Lawes. Alfie Barbeary I can understand being a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, because he's still very raw and that'd be a punt on what he does well (bulldozer carrying, ball-thieving) and hoping the rest of his game catches up.

Underhill has a fair few downsides to his game and if that hammer tackling isn't getting him anywhere he really doesn't offer as much as any of the alternatives.

[inactionman]

Underhill in 55mins v SA: 3 tackles made, 2 missed. 1 carry for 0m. 1 pass. Practically invisible while watching the game apart from the penalty he gave away.

Look, I agree class is permanent. I'm just not sure Underhill merits being rated above Jack Willis or Ben Curry or Courtney Lawes. Alfie Barbeary I can understand being a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, because he's still very raw and that'd be a punt on what he does well (bulldozer carrying, ball-thieving) and hoping the rest of his game catches up.

Underhill has a fair few downsides to his game and if that hammer tackling isn't getting him anywhere he really doesn't offer as much as any of the alternatives.

I just disagree, sorry. He's performed against the best in the world on the international stage over a period of time - the WC wasn't the first time he's played well. All the others mentioned, simply put, really haven't - with the exception of Lawes.

I'd be interested in what the downsides you note are, all I see is an workhorse beast of a defender who jackals with the best of them and has added to his running game. Yes, Barbeary is a much more impressive carrier but that isn't the prime role, nor is catching at the lineout.

Apols if I'm appearing tetchy but, seriously, one poor game and a run of injuries and he's written off. Like the worst of 1990s England cricket. It's mad.

[Ovals]

Underhill in 55mins v SA: 3 tackles made, 2 missed. 1 carry for 0m. 1 pass. Practically invisible while watching the game apart from the penalty he gave away.

Look, I agree class is permanent. I'm just not sure Underhill merits being rated above Jack Willis or Ben Curry or Courtney Lawes. Alfie Barbeary I can understand being a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, because he's still very raw and that'd be a punt on what he does well (bulldozer carrying, ball-thieving) and hoping the rest of his game catches up.

Underhill has a fair few downsides to his game and if that hammer tackling isn't getting him anywhere he really doesn't offer as much as any of the alternatives.

I just disagree, sorry. He's performed against the best in the world on the international stage over a period of time - the WC wasn't the first time he's played well. All the others mentioned, simply put, really haven't - with the exception of Lawes.

I'd be interested in what the downsides you note are, all I see is an workhorse beast of a defender who jackals with the best of them and has added to his running game. Yes, Barbeary is a much more impressive carrier but that isn't the prime role, nor is catching at the lineout.

Apols if I'm appearing tetchy but, seriously, one poor game and a run of injuries and he's written off. Like the worst of 1990s England cricket. It's mad.

He has scored a surprisingly small number of tries for a flanker. Just one, v USA, in 27 caps.

[Kawazaki]

Six Nations disciplinary officials are investigating an incident involving the England Under-20 team doctor towards the end of a 6-0 defeat by Italy in Treviso on Friday night.
The independent match doctor ruled that Deago Bailey, the Bristol Bears wing, required a head injury assessment (HIA) after he had fallen heavily in a collision with Lorenzo Pani, his opposite number.
England’s doctor, Nigel Rayner, sought to overrule that decision, arguing with Aurélie Groizeleau, the French referee, that Bailey was fine to continue. “It is my decision on the pitch,” he said. “I am a doctor. We have assessed him.”
Rayner, in the yellow bib, tried to overturn the decision made by an independent doctor
Rayner, in the yellow bib, tried to overturn the decision made by an independent doctor

Groizeleau, one of three female referees in charge of under-20 internationals at the weekend, replied that the final decision on an HIA lay with the independent match doctor and Bailey had to be replaced. “It is the match doctor who decides on the situation,” Groizeleau said.
At that point, Rayner left the field with an arm gesture that displayed his anger and made a comment towards Groizeleau. The citing commissioner is investigating what was said. The RFU declined to comment on claims the referee may have been told to “f*** off”.
In the middle of the incident, another member of England’s medical staff can also be heard asking the referee if Pani would be shown a yellow card because of the way Bailey had landed. Groizeleau said there had been no foul play.
Bill Sweeney, the RFU’s chief executive, and Conor O’Shea, the director of performance rugby, were both present at the game. The RFU said it would co-operate.
“Every Six Nations Rugby Championship fixture is reviewed, and any necessary action taken in the event of an incident,” the RFU said in a statement. “Player welfare and the good of the game is paramount, which is a collaborative process between Six Nations Rugby, Unions, Federations and World Rugby, who have developed robust protocols and regulations.
“This weekend’s Championship games are being reviewed as is common practice and following the conclusion of these reviews, any relevant information will be issued.”
The conduct of the England medical staff has been criticised by Adam White, executive director (UK) of the Concussion Legacy Foundation.
“For many years the rugby authorities have repeatedly claimed they are at the forefront of player safety when it comes to concussion. Yet, their best doctors that are part of their international set up, are not only getting the process wrong, they are also arguing with a match official who was doing what is expected in the laws of the game,” White said.
“This is exactly why rugby cannot continue to mark its own homework and independent oversight is needed to enhance concussion safety. This is just one example for why change is needed now.
“I hope England Rugby do the right thing and start to put player safety first. Unfortunately, I expect to continue to be disappointed by their inaction.
“But they have the opportunity to prove me wrong and use this incident to learn and improve.”

[JM2K6]

Underhill in 55mins v SA: 3 tackles made, 2 missed. 1 carry for 0m. 1 pass. Practically invisible while watching the game apart from the penalty he gave away.

Look, I agree class is permanent. I'm just not sure Underhill merits being rated above Jack Willis or Ben Curry or Courtney Lawes. Alfie Barbeary I can understand being a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, because he's still very raw and that'd be a punt on what he does well (bulldozer carrying, ball-thieving) and hoping the rest of his game catches up.

Underhill has a fair few downsides to his game and if that hammer tackling isn't getting him anywhere he really doesn't offer as much as any of the alternatives.

I just disagree, sorry. He's performed against the best in the world on the international stage over a period of time - the WC wasn't the first time he's played well. All the others mentioned, simply put, really haven't - with the exception of Lawes.

I'd be interested in what the downsides you note are, all I see is an workhorse beast of a defender who jackals with the best of them and has added to his running game. Yes, Barbeary is a much more impressive carrier but that isn't the prime role, nor is catching at the lineout.

Apols if I'm appearing tetchy but, seriously, one poor game and a run of injuries and he's written off. Like the worst of 1990s England cricket. It's mad.

No I get it, and from my perspective this is just a discussion. But I'd say that I don't rate any of his performances since the RWC bar maybe one (and I can't remember which one it was!) and his total lack of club form plus his injury record mean that I am less enthused by him than by some of the guys who have more impact than he does at club level. Obviously he has the international experience and pedigree that they cannot point to. Anyway, his weaknesses:

1) No lineout presence at all
2) Pretty leaden-footed - he's slow and his footwork is not great (he has worked on this and his carrying actually exists now)
3) His jackal work has not kicked on, it was a real bonus early in his international career but he seems to have regressed there
4) He actually misses a fair few tackles now. I wrote this one before checking, but actually: His stats for Oz and SA are attempted 13 (not a lot for a flanker in approx 100 minutes), missed 6.

plus 5) is that he's fairly likely to KO himself in a game...

I know it's not international rugby but watching him put in poor performance after poor performance at club level really worries me. We've seen Ben Curry play bloody well for England, and he's a standout for Sale; his brother is fantastic and there's not much between them. Jack Willis is, IMO, a generational talent: a guy who influences every single game he plays in, one of the best I've seen over the ball and with a superb record of try scoring from his heavy carrying.

[inactionman]

Underhill in 55mins v SA: 3 tackles made, 2 missed. 1 carry for 0m. 1 pass. Practically invisible while watching the game apart from the penalty he gave away.

Look, I agree class is permanent. I'm just not sure Underhill merits being rated above Jack Willis or Ben Curry or Courtney Lawes. Alfie Barbeary I can understand being a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, because he's still very raw and that'd be a punt on what he does well (bulldozer carrying, ball-thieving) and hoping the rest of his game catches up.

Underhill has a fair few downsides to his game and if that hammer tackling isn't getting him anywhere he really doesn't offer as much as any of the alternatives.

I just disagree, sorry. He's performed against the best in the world on the international stage over a period of time - the WC wasn't the first time he's played well. All the others mentioned, simply put, really haven't - with the exception of Lawes.

I'd be interested in what the downsides you note are, all I see is an workhorse beast of a defender who jackals with the best of them and has added to his running game. Yes, Barbeary is a much more impressive carrier but that isn't the prime role, nor is catching at the lineout.

Apols if I'm appearing tetchy but, seriously, one poor game and a run of injuries and he's written off. Like the worst of 1990s England cricket. It's mad.

He has scored a surprisingly small number of tries for a flanker. Just one, v USA, in 27 caps.

Gah, you've just reminded me. I was at that game and utterly gutted, we had the buggers.

On try scoring front, he's got 6 in 62 for Bath (and 4 in 37 for Hairsprays) which is better than Curry's club record, and Wilson and Lawes only the one each at international (granted, Lawes also plays lock but he's got 90-odd caps). In any case, not sure I'd judge non-8 backrow play by tries scored, much like I wouldn't judge 9s by turnovers.