England Rugby 2020/21 Thread

[TRF_Olyy]

he had a reasonably good game.

Where?

Essentially no tackles and no carries, lineout good but that's the bare minimum.
I'm not trying to be overly harsh on the guy, he just had a poor game - it happens.
I'd absolutely start him again (and even if he has another poor game vs Georgia I would want to see him in a proper test, not an Italy/Georgia training run).

Don't think anyone is saying he should be dropped or anything.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

For context, Hill made 1 carry compared to:
Mako 2
George 3
Sinckler 3
Itoje 5
Curry 8
Underhill 0
Billy 12

and 4 tackles compared to:
Mako 6
George 4
Sinckler 2
Itoje 9
Curry 10
Underhill 5
Billy 5

I love Hill and think he should be England 5 but there's no getting away from the fact that he had an undeniably bad game. Every bench forward made more carries than he did and Earl also made more tackles. Hill just didn't put himself about at all.

 

[Jashay]

My point wasn't so much that we don't have the options, but that sometimes they just don't get in. This forum is littered with posts along the lines of 'what more can Dombrandt/Armand/Goode/Simmonds do to get picked? Did they run over Eddie's dog?'' Eddie clearly has selection criteria that don't match ours, and to be fair sometimes players just don't cut it internationally.

For the front and back row we've got proven, Eddie-approved picks as bankers: If Obano, Dunn and Stuart don't work out we'll just have to fall back on Mako, George, Sinckler. Terrible, I know. Same with back row, even if we are crying out for a new 8 option.

But lock is the position where we might lose the bankers, and Hill and Isiekwe might not fit the plan, and then where are we?

For the record I think we'll be fine at Lock, but I also think it's the position in the Forwards that has the greatest chance of significant change

 

[Reiser99]

Tbh looking at those stats Underhill and Sinckler didn't have a great game either. It's the problem with stats, they don't tell the whole picture. I'd give Hill another chance. I would consider Underhill for Willis though.

 

[BPM]

1 carry, 4 tackles and a yellow card is not a good game although in fairness to Hill, the carrying stats minus Billy's are very low across the board. Also Billy got a bunch of his from kick-offs/kick returns and the rest of the forwards probably picked up the majority of theirs in the first few mins. After that it was a kick fest - no-one carried or tackled because the ball was in the air more often than not.

 

[Scotty]

Shithouse though, weren't he?

There's options knocking about, and similarly to the no.8 slot, it's just a case of blooding them in now.

Was he that bad? I thought though his tackle stats we low he did well at the rucks and he got that charge down and dont remember him messing up any lineouts/mauls ect. He wasnt amazing but does deserve another shot.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Was he that bad? I thought though his tackle stats we low he did well at the rucks and he got that charge down and dont remember him messing up any lineouts/mauls ect. He wasnt amazing but does deserve another shot.

Aye I'm just jabbing - he wasn't terrible but you can't act like he's the saviour of the England second row with stats like that

 

[FLOBALOB]

Aye I'm just jabbing - he wasn't terrible but you can't act like he's the saviour of the England second row with stats like that?

Aye I'm just jabbing - he wasn't terrible but you can't act like he's the saviour of the England second row with stats like that

Blimey ,you been on the hyperbolic pills again?
Calling Hill shitehouse (when he palpably wasn't) then imagining people 'acting like he's the saviour' ,when no one is.
Bit of balance needed methinks.

If Hill had that bad a game according to a few stats ,then Underhill had a shocker ,only 5 tackles wIth 2 missed (71 % success) and a grand total of 0 (zero) carries.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Yup, there were a number of poor performances - which is why it's not worth reading too much into it.
The reason hill is more singled out is because he's not proven on this stage, so it remains to be seen if he can step up

 

[Scotty]

Aye I'm just jabbing - he wasn't terrible but you can't act like he's the saviour of the England second row with stats like that

I said before that he shouldnt have played or least benched given how many minutes he's played in the last 3 weekends before, figured he'd get a shot vs Georgia instead.

Not the saviour by any means but with kruis gone and Lawes he is the in form prem lock but in a very system orientated team so im sure it will take him some adjusting but i think he will step up and get better and better.

 

[Geordie]

Ive been saying this on another forum for a while now......

Whats peoples thoughts on Moving Ted HIll to number 8? Hes got the size, hugely physical in attack and defence and is a lineout option. (and a young Captain)
Then you can put 2 balanced flankers out there

 

[Jashay]

Hmm... that's actually an interesting one. I'm not aware of him having any experience at 8, but that's never stopped Eddie before! And if he's after a physical bosher at 8 he could do far worse.

Now you've mentioned it I kind of want to see it play out, but it's also competing with my 'pick Dombrandt' stance

 

[Geordie]

Yeah i appreciate Dombrandt offers another option.

I just thought HIll might be able to transition over...like Dalaglio, Stander etc have done. He's like a young Duane Vermuelan.
Just a hypothetical thought.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Whilst I wouldn't mind shifting him around, I'd rather see actual 8's looked at first. Dombrandt is the one I'm most interested in but Simmonds is also worth a look and Mercer is being criminally undervalued. The big thing about Mercer, Simmonds and Dombrandt is for a while now they appear to have been game changers, able to get things going when it otherwise stalls and always seem to have lots of drive. Vunipola? Openly admitted he doesn't have much love for the game at the moment and I've not seen him really add any sort of impetus to our attack, he just runs at a brick will and usually gets stopped pretty quickly. He is like Jamie Roberts in that once he gets the ball, teams know he is only going to go route 1 and can just double team him and ensure they slow the ball down enough to nullify any damage he does. It's the weakness of having a player who just runs hard and has no other skillset.

It will require England moving away from our gameplan of a bashing 8 but I think we need to, it's a dead plan and doesn't offer anything any more. Just like the obsession with 3 lineout options, I don't think an 8 needs to be a hard runner. England don't lack others who can take up the slack and I remember statistically England had one of the best workload distributions in the last world cup. We don't need to continue selecting an 8 to compensate for the rest of the pack any more. Itoje has improved his carrying a lot since his debut year, Curry and Underhill are better than Haskell and Robshaw were, Sinckler is better than Cole, Mako and Genge are good options... What we lack are x factor players who can keep defences guessing rather than power runners who simply run perpendicular to the try line and nothing else.

 

[Geordie]

Yeah i wouldnt be averse to more of a playmaker at 8 either. If someone like Mercer was to come in.

I just think if we're continuing with a "lock" in the back row then why not move HIll to 8..and it ticks all the boxes of a Billy V style replacement AND a lineout option, allowing you to select to actual flankers.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Hill doesn't strike me as an 8 at all. I guess he could cover there in a pinch (as he did for U20s) but I just think he lacks the... deftness? Sounds like a silly thing to say when we've had Billy V for half a decade now but he has much more to his game than physicality and brawnishness - he's actually got pretty outstanding footwork for a big guy which he almost always uses before contact and very soft ball handling ability. Hill's game on the other hand is pure physicality - runs into people as hard as possible when he has the ball in hand and hits people as hard as possible when he doesn't. Much more Kaino than Read. 8 has to be able to work as a link man and I've seen nothing to suggest that Hill's got that in his locker. He's a very good player but about as close as you can get to being an out-and-out blindside IMO.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

It's criminal to A. Be talking about moving a non 8 to 8 when we have Simmonds, Mercer and uni rig smashing up the premiership and

B. Still be playing Billy at 8 when he offers nothing in attack or defence, I'd rather have Haskell back at 8 than him

Eddie seems to let positions become a problem rather than dealing with them when he should.

 

[TW27BA]

At least the experiment of having Curry at 8 looks over. Or is it?
I want to see Ben Earl given some decent game time in these Autumn games.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

At least the experiment of having Curry at 8 looks over. Or is it?
I want to see Ben Earl given some decent game time in these Autumn games.

Since Vunipola's the only 8 in the squad (bar Earl, kinda) I'd say EJ still sees Curry as his second choice 8. Would be interesting to see who he'd go with at 6 since Lawes won't be available. Hill would be the most like-for-like replacement.

 

[BPM]

It's criminal to A. Be talking about moving a non 8 to 8 when we have Simmonds, Mercer and uni rig smashing up the premiership and

B. Still be playing Billy at 8 when he offers nothing in attack or defence, I'd rather have Haskell back at 8 than him

Eddie seems to let positions become a problem rather than dealing with them when he should.

I was one of several posters questioning whether Billy should be dropped but come on now ... seriously ... it's complete rubbish to suggest 'he offers nothing in attack or defence'. That's just totally untrue. Right now he's not in the kind of form to be unchallenged as first choice, but he's still a top player.

I'm all for trying Dombrandt or Simmonds but as I've said numerous times both have their drawbacks too. Mercer is injured so it's a moot point as far he's concerned.

I'm with you re. Hill though. Why are we even proposing to move players into positions they don't play at club level for test rugby?