I'm at 6's and 7's

[wasps]

Is Jack Willis a 6 or a 7, and does it matter?


I still think of blind side flankers as being like Richard Hill.
Tough tackler, ball carrying option, slowing down opposition set piece. Generally someone to stop the opposition playing

Open side flankers on the other hand, like Neil Back, were meant to win ball at the ruck, link play between the forwards and backs, and try to take out the opposition play maker (legally, of course). They also seemed to be everywhere on the park at once and the first to the breakdown.



So, where does Jack fit in this?


His headline skill is definitely winning turnovers. So does that alone make him an open side?

His general approach to the game seems to be "tough as nails, don't miss tackles". That's obviously a general skill for a forward, but he physically looks more like a blind side.

I don't think of ball carrying when I think of Jack, but also I've never seen anything you suggest he doesn't or can't.
He doesn't feel like a link player in the way that Thomas Young does. You'll often see Thomas breaking off a ruck into space, draw a defender and pass to a centre or winger.



So, without any other names in the team sheet, where does Jack get selected?


My gut feel is that you get best use out of him by using him as we do. A blind side flanker who just happens to be better than anyone else at stealing the ball on the ground.

[Mellie]

Is Jack Willis a 6 or a 7, and does it matter?

I still think of blind side flankers as being like Richard Hill...

Open side flankers on the other hand, like Neil Back...

Rugby has changed. The players nowadays have to be more adaptable. There used to be talk of 6.5 players, which was a bit derogatory as it implied not quite good enough for a 7. However, I think the current game requires people who have the skills to play all positions in the back row. Jack is one of them and so is Curry. That's why Brad has shifted to 8. You would probably still pick the quickest player at 7 but only to get them off scrums and lineouts quicker.

[Hymenoptera]

Jacks better Jackler than Curry and Underhill - So you expect him to be a 7.
He's a better carrier than both too - So maybe he's a 6
He's as good at tackling as both, may less destructive than Underhill - 6 or 7
His gas tank is as good as Curry, better than Underhill.

So from that, i'd say it matters not because he better than both these players..for me, by some margin. The 'next best', likes of Ludlam can't get near this trio...Simmonds is the only other back row at this level, he's a better version of Earl. Vunipola is only near the team on reputation of some time ago.

[mike909]

Personally, I don't think it matters. In Back's day and Tom Rees for us, the 7 was bit like a an "extra centre" who also did the dirty work around the pitch at breakdown and provided a link. Richard Hill was actually a really good 7, and I believe played there for the Lions? Would have been more the intelligent tracker of play rather than linking of play but still a tackler and breakdown merchant. The 6 of the time did similar but with an emphasis tailored to their team, often an other ball carrier/lineout option

Moving forwards a couple of decades and the backrow has become more and more focused on getting possession. A trend perhaps pushed first by the Aussies and the "George Smith" style player -we saw the effect in the flesh here. And then providing the ability to switch between being a forward and being a "proto" back. You need a team that's comfortable to play like the Aussies, or indeed Wasps, unstructured and off the cuff

The alternative is a backrow based around a Billy V style player who alongside other backrow giants, tend to look for contact and structure, to over power the opposition. Trouble with that is if you are given the literal run around.....Which is why for me, Billy is past it for England. Too predictable, too one trick pony.

[Raggs]

As Mellie says, the game has changed, now the 7 just needs to be the quickest, in order to get off the scrum and lineout quickly to support the first phase.