Englands Summer Tour of NZ - The rugby

First topic message reminder :

NZ tour squad

England squad flying on May 27 (30)
Props
Joe Marler (Harlequins), Matt Mullan (London Wasps), Kieran Brookes (Newcastle Falcons), Henry Thomas (Sale Sharks), David Wilson (Bath Rugby)

Hookers
Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs), Joe Gray (Harlequins), Dave Ward (Harlequins), Rob Webber (Bath Rugby)

Locks
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby), Joe Launchbury (London Wasps), Geoff Parling (Leicester Tigers), Ed Slater (Leicester Tigers)

Back rows
James Haskell (London Wasps), Tom Johnson (Exeter Chiefs), Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby), Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby), Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)

Scrum halves
Danny Care (Harlequins), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Fly halves
Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby), Danny Cipriani (Sale Sharks)

Centres
Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby), Manusamoa Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers), Henry Trinder (Gloucester Rugby), Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby)

Wings
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby), Marland Yarde (London Irish)

Full backs
Mike Brown (Harlequins), Chris Pennell (Worcester Warriors)

Prem Final - 31st May (Sarries v Saints)

England v Baa Baas - 1st June

New Zealand v England (First Test)- 7th June
New Zealand v England (Second Test) - 14th June
Crusaders v England - 17th June
New Zealand v England (Third Test) - 21st June.

England will put out a strong side in the first test. The forwards are missing a few players, but the likes of Attwood and Haskell won't let us down. I think we'll be pretty competitive.

I can't believe Haskell may be involved, he's a sin bin a game guaranteed.

Thought you'd be a Haskell fan Pooly!

The squad is more or less as I expected. Interesting that Parling is in there...but with others missing he does have experience.

I thought Buchanan might have travelled over Gray.

But I can just show my annoyance again of the selection of Patterson for the Baa Baas game.

I appreciate he's had a decent season and an older head...but hes a 29yo Kiwi!!

Why oh why not select one of the numerous young English locks like Kitchener or Barrow, or Stooke. That's would make much more sense.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The squad is more or less as I expected. Interesting that Parling is in there...but with others missing he does have experience.

I thought Buchanan might have travelled over Gray.

But I can just show my annoyance again of the selection of Patterson for the Baa Baas game.

I appreciate he's had a decent season and an older head...but hes a 29yo Kiwi!!

Why oh why not select one of the numerous young English locks like Kitchener or Barrow, or Stooke. That's would make much more sense.

 Well Kitchener is in it.

 Agreed Stooke should be given a shot but I guess he is rewarding form.

SL recently visited Toulon i believe and cannot have failed to see how outstanding the new ERP 2014 was on Saturday…..aren't England cutting off their nose to spite their face in omitting him from the squad because of the playing in England rule, or was SL at the Millie to see if Jonny could make one last tour down to NZ?

Scratch wrote:SL recently visited Toulon i believe and cannot have failed to see how outstanding the new ERP 2014 was on Saturday…..aren't England cutting off their nose to spite their face in omitting him from the squad because of the playing in England rule

Problem being, where do you draw the line? Do you make special exceptions for players putting in a string of outstanding performances (like Armitage) or for extenuating circumstances (significant injuries)?

If the idea is to have a rule to stop a potential exodus to France, with all the potential release problems, then you need to be careful. You also need to show, as far as you can, that the rules apply to all.

Having said that, it's a results-based business and you need to pick your best players if at all possible. Armitage has certainly done enough (in my opinion) to be strongly considered. Especially as he can cover 7/8.

In what world is the European Player of the Year not a special case?

Makes no sense, if England's obvious best option is omitted for a seemingly arbitrary rule then the rule needs breaking.
The rule should be that all eligible players negotiate full release into their contracts otherwise you get the ridiculous situation you have in Wales.
Of course the legal conflicts that arise due to unions behaving like god over players careers means most players will avoid these potential situations.

It's not an arbitrary rule, it's one intended to keep all the best English players playing in England. This has several advantages. Armitage is tricky because he is playing very well, but the English back-row is settled and effective, which weakens the case for making an exception.

Armitage is playing well, in a team full of superstars. Would he have the same effect playing for england?

DaveM wrote:It's not an arbitrary rule, it's one intended to keep all the best English players playing in England. This has several advantages. Armitage is tricky because he is playing very well, but the English back-row is settled and effective, which weakens the case for making an exception.

If so it has failed in this case. Though both Morgan and Vunipola are good players, Armitage is a different class at both 7 and 8

Armitage knew the rules when he went to France.

I accept he is a cracking player (easier to do when you have Juan Smith, Bakkies Botha etc etc around you), but if I were in Lancasters shoes I would do the same...ie not make an exception.

We have a cracking back row...and we have players coming through.

Armitage isn't a top 8. If you actually watch him he plays like a 7 in open play rather than a 8.

I honestly don't think he's any better than what we have. He gets a licence to roam with Toulon's 4/5/6/8 doing a lot of the graft. Something that England or many other teams could not offer.

He's a good player doing the "showy" stuff in a fantastic pack. I would wager he'd be half as effective in a lesser side (as he was for Irish).

We have a rule in place and it's working quite well. If Armitage wishes to go against Robshaw for an England spot he should return to England.

Scratch wrote:

DaveM wrote:It's not an arbitrary rule, it's one intended to keep all the best English players playing in England. This has several advantages. Armitage is tricky because he is playing very well, but the English back-row is settled and effective, which weakens the case for making an exception.

If so it has failed in this case. Though both Morgan and Vunipola are good players, Armitage is a different class at both 7 and 8

Armitage wasn't showing this kind of form when he left to join Toulon though. He last played for England in the 2010 Six Nations so he made his choice knowing at the time he wasn't being considered for international duty. Fair play, he's done brilliantly in France.

To suggest that Armitage is a better 8 than Vuinipola or Morgan exhibits a distant lack of knowledge about the game and what is required from the position.

Stevan armitage should have his own thread

Sgt_Pooly wrote:To suggest that Armitage is a better 8 than Vuinipola or Morgan exhibits a distant lack of knowledge about the game and what is required from the position.

To suggest that to suggest that is to show a distinct and boring propensity to be really dull   

Pleased that eastmond,parling and Haskell made the squad.
Surprise inclusions probably pennell,trinder,Cowan-dickie and gray.
these selections pose the most questions I believe:
Is pennell there just in case brown breaks down or has he leapfrogged Goode or foden,is foden now seen as a wing for England?
Trinder is interesting,is it back to 12 for Burrell to compete with 12trees,Barrett and eastmond or manu(Alan?) to wing?
Gray and LCD,have they both leapfrogged Jamie George?harsh if true.only one of those should have been selected unless Hartley isn't touring.

I'd love to see a Burrell/Tuilagi midfield, I don't think any team in the NH could compete with their physicality.

If twelvetrees breaks down in the 1st test I think we will see Tuilagi/Burrell start the 2nd test.

Scratch wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:To suggest that Armitage is a better 8 than Vuinipola or Morgan exhibits a distant lack of knowledge about the game and what is required from the position.

To suggest that to suggest that is to show a distinct and boring propensity to be really dull   

Why?

Sarge is correct. Billy is a tremendous No.8. He's already amongst the best in the world...imagine a couple of years time. He'll be almost unplayable. Ben Morgan is a cracking 8 as well and will show it in NZ.

Billy id our starting 8 and I certainly wouldn't replace him with Steffon

Taking 36 to NZ before he's even trained suggests he's not going to make the 1st test, therefore either;

Eastmond/Tuilagi
Tuilagi/Trinder

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:To suggest that Armitage is a better 8 than Vuinipola or Morgan exhibits a distant lack of knowledge about the game and what is required from the position.

To suggest that to suggest that is to show a distinct and boring propensity to be really dull   

Why?

Sarge is correct. Billy is a tremendous No.8. He's already amongst the best in the world...imagine a couple of years time. He'll be almost unplayable. Ben Morgan is a cracking 8 as well and will show it in NZ.

Billy id our starting 8 and I certainly wouldn't replace him with Steffon

You guys have to believe this because you haven choice, Steffon played Billy off the park last weekend, stop deluding yourselves

Billy had a tough game. That's fine, it will probably do him good.

The rule is a good one. Without it a large part of the EPS squad might well be playing in France. If every now and then you lose a good player to the rule then that is a price worth paying if you have decent strength in depth as England do.

I'm surprised Armitage's desire to play for England wasn't strong enough that he was prepared to come back to England for a couple of seasons. After-all, a number of English club sides are looking quite strong now, and I could certainly imagine a team like Leicester being interested in him.

Steffon wouldn't work at 8 for England due to the dynamics of the current set-up, it's pretty obvious really when you understand what we need from this position.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'd love to see a Burrell/Tuilagi midfield, I don't think any team in the NH could compete with their physicality.

England could become very predictable with those to in the midfield. I really don't think that is how SL, Farrell and Catt want England to play. The pressure it puts on the FH to be the only playmaker is too much. SCW pointed this out as the Barrett/Bosch partnership was being outplayed in the HC Final. Eastmond is in the squad to provide that second option.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Steffon wouldn't work at 8 for England due to the dynamics of the current set-up, it's pretty obvious really when you understand what we need from this position.

so according to you you want a player that carries less, tackles less and makes fewer if any turnovers. Go for Billy then that is definitely what you need.

or just continue with your thinly veiled WUMs

DaveM wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'd love to see a Burrell/Tuilagi midfield, I don't think any team in the NH could compete with their physicality.

England could become very predictable with those to in the midfield. I really don't think that is how SL, Farrell and Catt want England to play. The pressure it puts on the FH to be the only playmaker is too much. SCW pointed this out as the Barrett/Bosch partnership was being outplayed in the HC Final. Eastmond is in the squad to provide that second option.

This sort of blunt instrument selection, though perfectly understandable, is a clear misunderstanding of what England are looking to do in midfield

I've been a bit disappointed with the way some of our top players and prospects are ending the season. It's fair to say that many of them put in their best performance of the season in an England shirt, or earlier in the year for their clubs.

I hope being back in an England environment helps relight the fire. We aren't going to provide much of a challenge to NZ without showing our best. We also won't do much at the World Cup if key men can't demonstrate and maintain world class form.

The target for England has to be to win one test in NZ. Anything less seems to be failure thanks to the stupid scheduling - does anyone in that job actually look at a calendar - they have been hamstrung before leaving but, the first test can be used as a way to draw NZ out and find out what if any weakness the full squad can exploit in tests 2 and 3

Merts shoots straight from the hip...seems some are starting to put bits of coal on the fire already...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/10088398/Mehrtens-England-still-No-1-enemy

Massive egalitarian chip + colonial inferiority complex = hypocritical whinge about importing Polynesians.

Thought he had more class than that.

I think he pretty much sums up a lot of the thinking of the time- I don't think its there as much today and he admits to that. Generally I've found Merts straight shooting refreshing in his commentary down here since hes been back. Adds a level of analysis that others generally don't see. And he's fairly quick.

sickofwendy wrote:Pleased that eastmond,parling and Haskell made the squad.
Surprise inclusions probably pennell,trinder,Cowan-dickie and gray.
these selections pose the most questions I believe:
Is pennell there just in case brown breaks down or has he leapfrogged Goode or foden,is foden now seen as a wing for England?
Trinder is interesting,is it back to 12 for Burrell to compete with 12trees,Barrett and eastmond or manu(Alan?) to wing?
Gray and LCD,have they both leapfrogged Jamie George?harsh if true.only one of those should have been selected unless Hartley isn't touring.

Technically all four of those names could be in the AP final - so were ineligible for selection for this initial squad.

With 4 hookers selected though, I do suspect that Hartley will not be fit.

Scratch wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Steffon wouldn't work at 8 for England due to the dynamics of the current set-up, it's pretty obvious really when you understand what we need from this position.

so according to you you want a player that carries less, tackles less and makes fewer if any turnovers. Go for Billy then that is definitely what you need.

or just continue with your thinly veiled WUMs

Steffon has always looked class at club level. Currently he is helped by the phenomenal efforts of the likes of Smith and Lobbe. Both of them outplayed Armitage and made his job easy - and allowed him to have his quiet periods.

I would have liked to see if he had improved enough to to make an impact at test level - when he had a go he was overpowered by the opposition. However he made the choice to stay in France, and he made the decision to take the Rand this summer.

I would much rather we lose one potentially decent player to uphold the only in extremis rule.

Steffon may be wearing 8, but he's still basically playing 7. So, realistically, you'd play him instead of Robshaw and who in their right mind would do that?

If the T1 pack can hold out (more to do with whether it can gel), then the backline has plenty of weapons to hurt NZ. A genuinely dangerous back 3, attack oriented FH, solid 13 and Manu, and Care at 9...


However, if not, then watch Cips/Burns struggle to manage the game, Manu, Brown and Care take on too much themselves and an absolute tonking could occur

That pack doesn't look weak and NZ's pack is more competent in the set piece than destructive. I'm not expecting to get hammered to be honest.

Mind, I've been wrong before  

Lancaster has been talking up LCD saying how impressive he has been in training.

Scratch wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Steffon wouldn't work at 8 for England due to the dynamics of the current set-up, it's pretty obvious really when you understand what we need from this position.

so according to you you want a player that carries less, tackles less and makes fewer if any turnovers. Go for Billy then that is definitely what you need.

or just continue with your thinly veiled WUMs

  

SL is never going to replace captain Robshaw and that's fair enough, especially as SA is in France. But let's get this right - SA not only plays for the best team in Europe getting numerous moms, he's also wins the ERC POY, for gawds sake. Any talk that he is not good enough for the England test side (albeit at 7) is simply farcical. Let's hope Robshaw doesn't get injured too often.

He'd be a great option off the bench but I don't think he'd get in ahead of any of the 3 back row options at the moment. It does make me sad that he didn't come back to England when he had the chance and contest his place.

LCD is an extremely gifted rugby player. If he can get his throwing right then he has the potential to be world class.

Scratch wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Steffon wouldn't work at 8 for England due to the dynamics of the current set-up, it's pretty obvious really when you understand what we need from this position.

so according to you you want a player that carries less, tackles less and makes fewer if any turnovers. Go for Billy then that is definitely what you need.

or just continue with your thinly veiled WUMs

When a player like Jaques Burger comes out and says that Billy Vunipolas workrate and tackling is hugely impressive to compliment his carrying then ill believe what he says....

Im quite happy with him and Ben Morgan at 8, and Robshaw at 7. Let Steffon enjoy his life in Toulon.

And just think how much BV has improved in only a year. He is incredibly young for where he is at.

Welly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:The squad is more or less as I expected. Interesting that Parling is in there...but with others missing he does have experience.

I thought Buchanan might have travelled over Gray.

But I can just show my annoyance again of the selection of Patterson for the Baa Baas game.

I appreciate he's had a decent season and an older head...but hes a 29yo Kiwi!!

Why oh why not select one of the numerous young English locks like Kitchener or Barrow, or Stooke. That's would make much more sense.

 Well Kitchener is in it.

 Agreed Stooke should be given a shot but I guess he is rewarding form.

Im glad Lancaster recognises form, but i disagree when its a Kiwi. I dont care about "experience" or an older head being in there etc etc...he shouldnt be in the squad.

Steffon knew the rules when he signed a contract extension about 12 months ago (ish). Yes he's playing well but with some of the best players in the club world. He enjoys his life in Toulon clearly and fair play it's a lovely place. However Stuart Lancaster has worked really hard to create an atmosphere where you have to have pride in playing for England earn the right, if Steffon wanted to earn it he had to return to England. That seems pretty straight forward to me.

Scratch wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Steffon wouldn't work at 8 for England due to the dynamics of the current set-up, it's pretty obvious really when you understand what we need from this position.

so according to you you want a player that carries less,tackles less and makes fewer if any turnovers. Go for Billy then that is definitely what you need.

or just continue with your thinly veiled WUMs

This is beginning to feel like we're banging our head against a brick wall.

Armitage carried 16 times for 28m.

Vuinipola carried 19 times for 86m.

Armitage will never play 8 for England. He's not a top 8, he's a 7. He'd be in direct competition with Robshaw for a jersey and he's not as good as Robshaw.

Really hope the last post puts this to bed
Armitage for England=yawn!!!