Aviva Premiership - Round 19

First topic message reminder :

Table:

Pos	Team	__Pld__	__Won__	_Drawn_	_Lost_	__For__	_Against_	__TF__	__TA__	__TBP__	__LBP__	__Pts__
1	Saracens	18	16	0	2	507	260	53	27	8	0	72
2	Northampton Saints	18	14	1	3	451	269	52	22	5	2	65
3	Leicester Tigers	18	12	2	4	422	342	43	30	4	2	58
4	Bath Rugby	18	12	1	5	410	313	40	32	3	2	55
5	Sale Sharks	18	11	0	7	323	296	31	25	2	5	51
6	Harlequins	18	11	0	7	337	288	32	26	2	3	49
7	London Wasps	18	7	0	11	341	364	33	33	2	9	39
8	Gloucester Rugby	18	7	0	11	328	425	33	46	2	6	36
9	Exeter Chiefs	18	7	0	11	324	349	28	34	1	6	35
10	London Irish	18	5	0	13	283	390	24	37	0	6	26
11	Newcastle Falcons	18	3	0	15	200	414	15	45	1	6	19
12	Worcester Warriors	18	1	0	17	224	440	18	45	0	6	10

Fixtures:

Fri 11th Apr 14
19:45 Sale Sharks  v   Harlequins BT Sport

Sat 12th Apr 14
15:00 Leicester Tigers  v   London Wasps
15:00        Worcester Warriors  v   Exeter Chiefs
15:15 Gloucester Rugby  v   Bath Rugby BT Sport

Sun 13th Apr 14
14:00 Saracens  v   Northampton Saints BT Sport
15:00 London Irish  v   Newcastle Falcons

beshocked wrote: Jimpy Only meaningless to you because you disagree!

You defend Nowell for being a newcomer but were happy to see him thrown in vs France away with no try scoring pedigree or experience.....

My biggest problem with Nowell is his woeful try scoring record and lack of game time.

My dislike is not irrational.  I do not think that Lancaster's faith in Nowell was vindicated. I feel he contributed to the France defeat yet his role is largely ignored.

I don't necessarily think he is a bad player - just overrated and thrown in the deep end too early.

Ozzy Other aspects of the game....finishing is integral for a winger.  Well obviously tries mean nothing to you when you advocate wingers who don't score them often!

Londontiger against France away, yes it was a very poor decision which cost England dear with hindsight. That lack of experience on the wing was costly. Lancaster took a gamble on the wings which failed. Perhaps Ashton on the wing might have not made a difference but he's the more experienced option and a far better finisher. It might have made a difference.

Of course I disagree, you've hand picked statistics that deliberately target Nowell's inexperience to suit your end of the argument.

beshocked wrote: Jimpy Only meaningless to you because you disagree!

You defend Nowell for being a newcomer but were happy to see him thrown in vs France away with no try scoring pedigree or experience.....

My biggest problem with Nowell is his woeful try scoring record and lack of game time.

My dislike is not irrational.  I do not think that Lancaster's faith in Nowell was vindicated. I feel he contributed to the France defeat yet his role is largely ignored.

I don't necessarily think he is a bad player - just overrated and thrown in the deep end too early.

Ozzy Other aspects of the game....finishing is integral for a winger.  Well obviously tries mean nothing to you when you advocate wingers who don't score them often!

Londontiger against France away, yes it was a very poor decision which cost England dear with hindsight. That lack of experience on the wing was costly. Lancaster took a gamble on the wings which failed. Perhaps Ashton on the wing might have not made a difference but he's the more experienced option and a far better finisher. It might have made a difference.

Who have I advocated? Yarde? You mean the man who averages about a try a game in an England jersey. Yeah rubbish, get Ashton back in!!!  

beshocked wrote:
Londontiger against France away, yes it was a very poor decision which cost England dear with hindsight. That lack of experience on the wing was costly. Lancaster took a gamble on the wings which failed. Perhaps Ashton on the wing might have not made a difference but he's the more experienced option and a far better finisher. It might have made a difference.

If any other player had been out of form for so long, should they be kept?

Ashton had to be dropped otherwise players could feel that they were safe forever in the side. Lancaster was more brutal with Ben youngs, rightly so, but yes we had experienced alternatives available. Even so Ashton had played like a drain for england pretty much for the entire Lancaster reign. He had to try something different.

Perhaps Ashton on the wing might have not made a difference but he's the more experienced option and a far better finisher. It might have made a difference..

Beshocked your saying that it was Nowells defensive issues that cost the France game...but Ashtons defence in all his recent games for England was appalling so i really cant see how him being there instead would have made a difference.

I do also think there was a huge amount of luck in the bounce of the ball. And yes i am saying luck of the bounce.

If you mean that offensively we may have scored with Ashton on...very possibly. But i say again im not convinced that the England team have been hugely creative as far as wingers have gone. Maybe with Ashtons excellent lines of running it may have been different. But we shall not know. Maybe in NZ we will see if that is the case.

I feel many of you use double standards - you highlight Ashton's defensive frailties yet do not acknowledge Nowell's woeful try scoring record. You highlight Ashton's recent lack of try scoring form at international level yet ignore Nowell's lack of game time and experience.

Imagine the furore if Ashton was picked to start vs France away and we lost. It didn't happen that way of course. Instead Nowell and Lancaster are forgiven. I cannot forgive Lancaster for his failure to acknowledge that perhaps he got things wrong.

beshocked wrote:I feel many of you use double standards - you highlight Ashton's defensive frailties yet do not acknowledge Nowell's woeful try scoring record. You highlight Ashton's recent lack of try scoring form at international level yet ignore Nowell's lack of game time and experience.

Imagine the furore if Ashton was picked to start vs France away and we lost. It didn't happen that way of course. Instead Nowell and Lancaster are forgiven. I cannot forgive Lancaster for his failure to acknowledge that perhaps he got things wrong.

Maybe herein lies the problem Beshocked. Maybe the fact is that lancasters game plan has not suited wingers. It didnt suit Ashton and hasnt made Nowell or May stand out either.

Jimpy Nowell is inexperienced at club level. There's no way getting round that.

Ozzy yarde is still an inexperienced and unproven player. Oh and I see you're ignoring club form.

Londontiger it failed though. Lancaster should be held accountable for failure.

Geordiefalcon it was more the lack of communication that cost England and Nowell was part of that. I think Ashton would have communicated far better with his fellow back three. France away is a very difficult first cap and Nowell seemed to be overwhelmed by the occasion in the first half.

So you are effectively saying that no matter how badly a player is performing they should stay in the team?

I disagree that it was lack of communication, other than for the Nowell's dropped ball. That led to an awkward position but it's harsh to say it directly led to the first try. England had the French attack contained and Twelvetrees (IIRC) even got a foot to the chip-through. The ball bounced kindly for France and unkindly for Brown (and we saw later in the series just what he can do in stopping an awkward chip through).

The second try was again a kick that fell nicely for France. It was well-gathered but it needed a bit of luck and it's not as if Nowell was at fault for it.

The third try had about half the backline playing out of position and Farrell cramping and well off the pace of the game. It did come down Nowell's wing, but wasn't it Barritt and Goode who were meant to be covering by that point?

Nowell was off by the time the 3rd try was scored.

No. I was saying last chance saloon for Ashton because it's better than throwing in yet another rookie vs France away, especially one who is not proven as a try scoring threat at club level.

I don't think France away is the smartest time to try and blood too many new and inexperienced players.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy Nowell is inexperienced at club level. There's no way getting round that.

Ozzy yarde is still an inexperienced and unproven player. Oh and I see you're ignoring club form.

Londontiger it failed though. Lancaster should be held accountable for failure.

Geordiefalcon it was more the lack of communication that cost England and Nowell was part of that. I think Ashton would have communicated far better with his fellow back three. France away is a very difficult first cap and Nowell seemed to be overwhelmed by the occasion in the first half.

In the same way you are ignoring Ashton's most recent international form, which was poor.

Possibly lack of communication was an issue Beshocked. But i think the lad did exceptional well in his first cap in France.

It suggest to me that he has something about him.

He also played his part setting up Browns try out on the left v...Scotland i think it was?

You were very defensive about Farrell when he came into the side...about him being young and needs to be given a chance. Why is it different for Nowell?

beshocked wrote:No. I was saying last chance saloon for Ashton because it's better than throwing in yet another rookie vs France away, especially one who  is not proven as a try scoring threat at club level.

I don't think France away is the smartest time to try and blood too many new and inexperienced players.

The AIs were last chance saloon. He was so poor that he had been dropped and sent back to Sarries - only to be recalled when Wade and Yarde were injured. You cannot give people second (and third) last chance saloons. While not great the replacements were no worse - and possibly a fair bit better - than Ashton had been for well over a year.

Poorfour the 2nd try was a lack of communication between Goode and Nowell. Someone should have committed to getting the ball. It's was an unlucky bounce sure but someone should have still covered it. I am sorry it's just a weak excuse to say - nope no ones to blame.

The favourable French position came from Nowell's knock on for the first try. Again lack of communication.

3rd try was lack of communication again. Launchbury allowing the French to have numbers out wide - not to do with Nowell this time.

beshocked wrote:
3rd try was lack of communication again. Launchbury allowing the French to have numbers out wide - not to do with Nowell this time.

Well as Nowell was on the bench by then, of course it was nothing to do with him.

Ozzy never ignored his international form.

Farrell is different before he got his international shot he had won an AP, played in quite a few HC games, he had a lot more game time than Nowell had.

Oh and with Farrell his flaws are constantly pointed out, Nowell's are ignored.

Londontiger you do when the replacements aren't great. It's why Easter was in the no 8 shirt for England for so long.

But you still claim he would have done better than Nowell despite his most recent international form pointing to the contrary!

I go back to the point where Louis Picamoles was rumbling down the wing one on one with our winger.

Would Ashton have stopped him/slowed him down/done anything other than be trodden on? I highly doubt it. Nowell did well there and stopped him

I have nothing against Ashton, but for me he is behind Yarde/Wade and on a similar level to May/Nowell in the hierarchy for the wing spots.

I'm glad to see he has been scoring tries for his club, now I want to see him carry that form onto the NZ tour and force Lancs to pick him, if not for the first test then for the Crusaders game.

Looking at the Fijian Crusaders rolled out at the weekend, his defence would be well tested!

tbh, this is now a circular argument and should be locked so we can concentrate on next week.

To be fair, Ashton has done enough for Saracens to deserve a recall to the squad to go to New Zealand. I would start him on the right wing with Yarde on the left, and either Nowell or May covering from the bench. I don't suspect it's likely to happen in the first test, not least because Saracens are likely to be in the AP final.

I think we are all pretty much in agreement that:

a) Ashton's club form in 2014 means he should tour
b) Neither May nor Nowell did enough to make the shirt theirs.


The big problem now for Ashton is indeed the AP final. He will miss a couple of weeks training with the coaches as well as that first test. The problem for Yarde will be a lack of gametime with LI seeming to have decided to concentrate on those players staying.

That may not be such a problem LT. JOC and Ojo are now both injured. I suspect that it could be Lewington at full back this week, with Yarde and Fenby on the wings. Alternatively Homer may come in with Lewington and Fenby on the wings, but I suspect that Yarde will at very least be on the bench.

I like pizza as well.

 But how did this turn into the England thread again??

Welly wrote: But how did this turn into the England thread again??

Dunno, but will not be the last time a thread spirals back to this.

At least we've had no Welsh on saying how our win meant nothing and they have more slams over the last 4 years.

Nothing wrong with a good honest debate about our national side with only a few personal attacks thrown in.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
Nothing wrong with a good honest debate about our national side with only a few personal attacks thrown in.

Thankfully you kept your shoes on.

LondonTiger wrote:I think we are all pretty much in agreement that:

a) Ashton's club form in 2014 means he should tour
b) Neither May nor Nowell did enough to make the shirt theirs.


The big problem now for Ashton is indeed the AP final. He will miss a couple of weeks training with the coaches as well as that first test. The problem for Yarde will be a lack of gametime with LI seeming to have decided to concentrate on those players staying.

It isn't really circular, it's one person sat there, fingers in ears, going 'lalalalala', while the rest of the participants have the debate. I'd just like to add if I may:

a) Ashton's club form in 2014 means he should tour;
b) Neither May nor Nowell did enough to make the shirt theirs;
c) Nobody has over-rated Nowell (he done a good solid job, but it's widely acknowleged that there's room for improvement);
d) Rugby is about 14 players creating the room for 1 to score, regardless of the number on his back. England are doing quite nicely;
e) It's pointless saying a certain player would have done this or that or been there to cover - they weren't there, so we'll never know.

Good luck to HMS Lancaster, and all who sail in her.

It seems a perfectly rational argument to me.

Except that I wouldn't describe England as 'scoring tries a-plenty' just yet. Although I feel that Nowell was brought in early but clearly needs to demonstrate that he has more to offer if he's to become more than another footnote in England's progress towards RWC 2015 (triumph   ).

If you judge a player solely on stats you can miss what a player has to offer.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you judge a player solely on stats you can miss what a player has to offer.

True, but in this particular case, the stats demonstrate that the player in question did a pretty good job. It wasn't glamerous or eye catching, but it wasn't a disaster. Most of us agree, but in addition, what we also agree on is that there is room for improvement and that the player definately has more to offer if given the chance.

Stats, schmats, Jimpy.

The coach has to select the optimal balance of his available resources.

That's the art of balancing the analytical (science) of his job with the creative (art) side of it.

It is quite possible that a player is a lynchpin component of his side whilst having rubbish personal stats.
e.g. Mike Brearley in the '70s England side in cricket.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Stats, schmats, Jimpy.

The coach has to select the optimal balance of his available resources.
That's the art of balancing the analytical (science) of his job with the creative (art) side of it.

It is quite possible that a player is a lynchpin component of his side whilst having rubbish personal stats.
e.g. Mike Brearley in the '70s England side in cricket.

Then according to some (two?) he didn't by selecting Nowell. When the general consensus seems to be that he did. So which is it?

Jimpy, give it a break will you.

So me and Beshocked don't think Nowell was great, get over it with the little digs. It's an opinions forum, we're not all going to agree. Nobody is more right than anyone else and it's pretty arrogant to think so.

I don't think Nowell provided balance, this would suggest we have a scoring threat on the other wing.....we didn't.

Nowell & May provided little scoring threat imo but May added more and made less mistakes. I don't rate Nowell highly as a winger in the current time in the AP and I don't think he should be near the national side.

Well as the devils advocate,
 
i can see both sides arguements...the one point i will make however is that with the probable considerable sized squad that will be going on tour in the summer, i think we'll see Ashton, May AND Nowell on the plane.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Jimpy, give it a break will you.

So me and Beshocked don't think Nowell was great, get over it with the little digs. It's an opinions forum, we're not all going to agree. Nobody is more right than anyone else and it's pretty arrogant to think so.

I don't think Nowell provided balance, this would suggest we have a scoring threat on the other wing.....we didn't.

Nowell & May provided little scoring threat imo but May added more and made less mistakes. I don't rate Nowell highly as a winger in the current time in the AP and I don't think he should be near the national side.

 
Er.... not yet.
 
It's true, we're dealing in opinion, but when the majority have one opinion, and a very small minority another, is it not possible that the minority could actually just be wrong?
 
I'm not a huge fan of hair-pulling Ashton, but I accept that he has beneficial attributes.
 
Can you quantify the number of mistakes May made v Nowell, or is it just your 'opinion' that he made less?

It's my opinion from watching the games, can you qualify he didn't (no doubt involving stats.....yawn)

Majority/minority who cares, it doesn't make anybody more right.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It's my opinion from watching the games, can you qualify he didn't (no doubt involving stats.....yawn)

Majority/minority who cares, it doesn't make anybody more right.

Probably, however, it was a rhetorical question. We'll dig them out if you like. I suspect May made less handling errors (which are unambiguous stats) than Nowell, but then statistically, he received less high balls - which put him under less pressure. Boring though you may find stats, they are quite empirical with regards to sporting achievement. We can go on all day if you like, i'm on holiday now.

How are handling errors unambiguous yet meters made aren't? Neither give any real information.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:How are handling errors unambiguous yet meters made aren't? Neither give any real information.

I didn't say meters made weren't however, we have the figures for Nowell's meters made, you go and get May's and perhaps we can measure effectiveness from that metric instead.

Jimpy wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:How are handling errors unambiguous yet meters made aren't? Neither give any real information.

I didn't say meters made weren't however, we have the figures for Nowell's meters made, you go and get May's and perhaps we can measure effectiveness from that metric instead.

Why would this measure anything? We've no context for the meters that were made, it's possible to make 20/30 meters without facing a tackle. It's a pointless stat, especially in the back 3.

Just forge opinions on watching games, it's much easier than trying to bend stats to fit an argument.

Well, I can now officially announce that ever since 1st February, Deep Thought has devoted it's entire processing power to running simulations of the France-England match for 1,000s of different scenarios.

I am able to confirm that there is no scenario that sees Chris Ashton playing and England winning. The worst case sees Mike Brown pulling up lame in the Captains run. Ashton is selected on the right wing, with Nowell at Full back due to alex goode suffering food poisoning from a dodgy L'escargot. In the 9th minute Fofana beats Ashton on the outside, before cutting inside Nowell and goose-stepping out of Mays desperate cover tackle. In the 16th minute Ashton is used as a speed bump by Matthieu Basteraud. 3 Minutes later Huget sets the Sarries winger in his sights. Ashton refuses to back down and drives into Huget's midrif. Lifting him, high into the air, the Sarries wing pile drives his opponent into the ground. A mass fight errupts after which Hartley, Picamoles and Ashtron are all sent off. France win by 40 points before going on to secure a Grand Slam.


After running through 42,042,042 different scenarios - only one sees an England victory. That is the scenario that sees tom Youngs start, nail his throws and make 16 tackles before - with 30 minutes to go, England leading by 8pts and with an attacking 5m lineout he is replaced by Dylan Hartley who comes on to close out the game. Jumper is hit, lineout formed and France commit to the maul. Care (who is not replaced) darts sideways with the ball, dummies to Burrrell before sneaking under the posts.

LondonTiger wrote:Well, I can now officially announce that ever since 1st February, Deep Thought has devoted it's entire processing power to running simulations of the France-England match for 1,000s of different scenarios.

I believe there is no scenario that sees Chris Ashton playing and England winning.The worst case sees Mike Brown pulling up lame in the Captains run. Ashton is selected on the right wing, with Nowell at Full back due to alex goode suffering food poisoning from a dodgy L'escargot. In the 9th minute Fofana beats Ashton on the outside, before cutting inside Nowell and goose-stepping out of Mays desperate cover tackle. In the 16th minute Ashton is used as a speed bump by Matthieu Basteraud. 3 Minutes later Huget sets the Sarries winger in his sights. Ashton refuses to back down and drives into Huget's midrif. Lifting him, high into the air, the Sarries wing pile drives his opponent into the ground. A mass fight errupts after which Hartley, Picamoles and Ashtron are all sent off. France win by 40 points before going on to secure a Grand Slam.


After running through 42,042,042 different scenarios - only one sees an England victory. That is the scenario that sees tom Youngs start, nail his throws and make 16 tackles before - with 30 minutes to go, England leading by 8pts and with an attacking 5m lineout he is replaced by Dylan Hartley who comes on to close out the game. Jumper is hit, lineout formed and France commit to the maul. Care (who is not replaced) darts sideways with the ball, dummies to Burrrell before sneaking under the posts.

That's what you get when reading between the lines.

Knoyle banned for four weeks, Puafisi one. I would say both have got off lucky.

Possible sanctions:

10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist
LE – 2 weeks
MR – 5 weeks
TE – 8+ weeks


10.4 (e)Dangerous tackling of an Opponent including early or late and including the action known as the “stiff arm tackle”
LE – 2 weeks
MR – 6 weeks
TE – 10+ weeks