Argentina vs England, 2nd test

by robbo277 Wed 14 Jun 2017, 8:44 am

First topic message reminder :

Match Details

Venue: Estadio Brigadier Estanislao López, Santa Fe
Date: Saturday 17th June
Time: 20:15 BST
TV: BBC2

Officials

Referee - John Lacey (Ireland)
Assistant 1 - Nigel Owens (Wales)
Assistant 2 - Egon Seconds (South Africa)
TMO - Aaron Paterson (New Zealand)

Teams

Argentina
15 Joaquin Tuculet, 14 Ramiro Moyano, 13 Matias Orlando, 12 Jeronimo de la Fuente, 11 Emiliano Boffelli, 10 Nicolas Sanchez, 9 Martín Landajo, 8 Juan Manuel Leguizamon, 7 Javier Ortega Desio, 6 Pablo Matera, 5 Tomas Lavanini, 4 Matias Alemanno, 3 Enrique Pieretto, 2 Agustín Creevy (captain), 1 Lucas Noguera Paz.
Replacements: 16 Julian Montoya, 17 Santiago García Botta, 18 Ramiro Herrera, 19 Guido Petti, 20 Tomas Lezana, 21 Gonzalo Bertranou, 22 Juan Martin Hernández, 23 Matias Moroni.

England
Argentina vs England, 2nd test - Page 4 DCYoTgqXUAEsqiu

Argentina vs England, 2nd test - Page 4 DCYoTgqXUAEsqiu

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 19 Jun 2017, 10:13 am

beshocked wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're boring Beshocked.

I am sick of repeating myself too but till Jones makes the obvious change then I have to keep with the

Because you're a petulant little child.

by Exiledinborders Mon 19 Jun 2017, 10:14 am

beshocked wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
beshocked wrote:Looking at the AIs, I am wondering who should be the next captain. Need to pick best players first and foremost then captain.

We already have a captain?

Not the best player in his position though, that's the problem.

Maybe 4th or 5th best hooker in NH (though according to Gatland he's probably not even that), 2nd best in England.

England should be striving towards picking the best players then captain if they want to aspire to be the best side in the world.

It's why we need to look at other captaincy options.

What difference does it make if Hartley is better or worse than other NH hookers? Whether he is the best or the 2nd best English hooker, he will play for around half the game. The question is then which of your hookers is better suited to starting and which to finishing. George is the better hooker. However I think Hartley starting and George finishing works better than the reverse. Jones seems to think he makes a good captain and it seems to be working.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 19 Jun 2017, 10:15 am

beshocked wrote:Hartley is well off the pace. He might hold a special place in the heart of England fans who put him on a pedestal (hail him as a deity)

I am sick and tired of you saying this, when it is completely untrue. It is dumb comments like this that cause so much antipathy and ire towards your posts. State facts - no problem, state opinions- no problem. Continuously repeat untruths will always cause a problem

by robbo277 Mon 19 Jun 2017, 10:23 am

LondonTiger wrote:Purely my ratings for the tour as a whole (% is how likely I think they are, barring injury to feature in the AIs):

Brown 7/10, 80% - Poor in first test, excellent in second.
Yarde 5/10, 20% - Solid in defence ant attack in first test. At fault (though left exposed) for Argentina's first try in the second match.
Solomona 5/10, 30% - Awful first few minutes in T1, rescued by match winning try. Quieter in T2.
Slade 6/10, 30% - Decent in first game, quieter in second.
Francis 7/10, 30% - Try assist in first game, try in second. Sometimes tried too hard to make something happen.
Lozowski 5/10, 20% - Outshone by the other two centres.
May 6/10, 80% - Would have liked to see him get the ball a bit more.
Ford 8/10, 100% - Kicked his goals, ran the backline well, scored a try. Made his tackles in first test, but missed a couple in second losing him a point.
Care 7/10, 100% - Provided leadership to a young team, was a little lightweight in defence at times.
Maunder 5/10, 0% - Not enough minutes to really be sure. Needs to go back to Chiefs and nail the starting spot. Time will (probably) come.
Genge 7/10, 10% - Struggled at the first scrums in both tests, but grew stronger as the game went on. Sealed turnovers, tackled well - perhaps need to see him taking the ball at speed more.
Mullan 6/10, 20% - Struggled in T1 a little, but very strong when off the bench in T2.
Hartley 7/10, 100% - Leadership was key to securing the series. Strong defence in T1, more prominent with ball in hand in T2. May struggle to hold off the challenge of George (but will be helped by ending the season earlier and being ready sooner for 17/18)
Williams 5/10, 0% - Struggled at times in teh scrum, and keeping up with play in the loose. Needs to be fitter.
Collier 7/10, 10% - Very strong in the scrum and scored a try. Could easily become Englands best scrummaging TH - if he can keep getting the games at Quins.
Launchbury 8/10, 100% - Some storming performances, let down just a smidge through being a more peripheral figure at lineout
Ewells 7/10, 0% - Surprised me, but behind four outstanding locks.
Isiekwe 5/10, 0% - Decent first appearance off the bench in T1
Wilson 7/10, 10% - Did for England what he does for Falcons. MAy struggle to feature next season barring injury to Robshaw, but surely showed enough to ensure that Itoje is viewed as a lock from now on.
Robshaw 8/10, 100% - Outstanding in T2, shame he missed T1 (though not for Mark Wilson)
Curry 6/10, 0% - Decent debut, and good against Barbarians.
Underhill 6/10, 50% - Decent debut, tired later on. Will robably feature in AIs at least once, assuming he nails down a spot at Bath.
Hughes 7/10, 100% - Solid, re-assuring presence at the base of teh scrum. Seems to have bulked up and lost some of his dynamism.

Good set of ratings and I agree with lots of them.

In the back row, do we think it will be Robshaw, Haskell and Vunipola with Wilson, Underhill and Hughes as first back-ups in each position? So you would have your hardworking 6, your physical 7 and your carrying 8 regardless of who was fit?

Back row seems to have moved on this tour, if not in starters in depth at least, which can only help drive up competition. As someone else said, still not sold on the centre options used in this tour, although Te'o is going well in New Zealand.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Jun 2017, 10:23 am

Nasty individual to represent jones' england? What are you on about. Eroding values. Launchbury leaving it to others.I think you've had too much sun beshocked!

by Cyril Mon 19 Jun 2017, 10:26 am

TJ wrote:
Cyril wrote:
Indeed. Aussie rugby looks shafted

.

Or just perhaps Scotland are a good team who went down under and beat them? But of course not. Scotland only beat poor teams don't they. Never give any credit where credit is due

I'm talking about the structures in Aus rugby, the weakness of their Super Rugby sides and the likely reduction of their franchises (in reply to another poster who was stating that perhaps it's just NZ sides that are strong, which I agree with). Nothing to do with the Aus/Scotland game. I praised Scotland on the match thread for a good win. It's not like it's a series win though is it? Wink

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Jun 2017, 10:29 am

Have to say wilson looked good as well. Only for England could he have got to his age without having more caps. If only the Newcastle fans talked of him for england honours a bit more!

by beshocked Mon 19 Jun 2017, 10:33 am

Londontiger it is true though. I can even understand why he's been elevated to deity status.

Yes I get it, he's the captain, that makes him undroppable in the eyes of many. England have done well with him as captain but he's simply not the best hooker in England and hasn't been for the last couple of years.

Even you conveniently ignore the lineout falling apart in the first test.

He's filling a leadership role currently but it should not last.

You have to be fair but when it comes to Hartley his limitations are ignored, it's what he adds which are focused on, not what he doesn't.

A player's strengths and weaknesses must be looked at.

I actually do that hence why I even criticise one of my favourite players' Itoje because his discipline is still not good enough. It's one of his weaknesses, also he just needs to calm down a bit.

Hammersmith Harrier Laugh

if you say so.

Exileinborders it's about picking the best players. It's silly that the best hooker in England, Jamie George hasn't started for England yet. Not in one game. I think that's wrong.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 19 Jun 2017, 11:16 am

Yet when Hartley came head to head with George, he schooled him.....intetesting.

Good to see we've changed topic.

by Poorfour Mon 19 Jun 2017, 11:34 am

Always with the absolutes, beshocked. "Pedestal", "undroppable", "deity". Always with a sense of the pejorative underneath that.

I don't think anyone on this board would argue that George isn't the better hooker in technical terms. All most people are saying - and have said in so many words on numerous occasions - is that Hartley isn't sufficiently far behind that the gap outweighs his experience and leadership. Hartley's shortcomings as a hooker aren't even close to those of, say, Tom Youngs, and George's talents while extensive don't put him that far ahead.

I was one of the people arguing that Hartley's international career should have ended with his missing the RWC. Jones saw something in him that I didn't. He was right (as he bloody well should be, given his experience, position and salary), and I was wrong.

I am not arrogant enough to assume that as a keyboard warrior, fan and amateur coach I know better than an international coach, especially not one whose record includes two visits to the RWC final, one win, a Grand Slam at the first attempt and a 95% record after 20 games including two whitewash series wins in the Southern Hemisphere.

You seem to be taking George's lack of a start more personally than he is taking it himself. Have you ever tried instead to understand and look for explanations as to why coaches do certain things, and why certain selections are made? You might find it leads to a more harmonious, interesting and peaceful life. It certainly would for the rest of us on here.

Life is full of injustices. You seem to think that you are compelled to champion the case of George and your other favourites, ad nauseam, as if it would make any difference. It won't, other than to continue to hack the rest of us off. If that's your aim, go right ahead. We don't have much option but to put up with it.

by beshocked Mon 19 Jun 2017, 11:46 am

Sgt Pooly I know you like to focus on insignificant games hence why you banged on about a journeyman lock from Newcastle supposedly outplaying Itoje, just like that game, it didn't matter.

Hartley might well have outplayed George, that day but it does not matter - because a) his team still lost b) it's not good to save one of your best performances for an inconsequential game vs a mostly 2nd string pack.

Poorfour

Well George can't develop experience and leadership if held back. It's nice that Gatland is giving gametime to George.

Hartley is solid in the set piece generally but outside that he's a limited player. George in comparison is a well rounded player.

Oh I do understand why Jones has picked Hartley but cannot understand why Jones has refused to start George in ANY game.

I think that's hard to justify - no I don't think George should have the record for most caps without a start.

Well actually I think that the criticisms of Brown's lack of passing has had an effect somewhere - not directly me of course but obviously the message has come across.

by Barney McGrew did it Mon 19 Jun 2017, 11:52 am

I've been ok with Hartley's place in the team to date (although not quite in pedestal territory), but it's got to be said he's had a somewhat unimpressive Arg tour... losing the ball in contact, some lost LOs, knocked back in the tackle a bit too easily. He's got to have credit for leading a scratch side to a series W/W away from home though. I'm hoping the last 2 games were just minor blips, but if George gets and takes his chance in NZ it will make things more interesting. In addition Cole has been blowing hot and cold since & including the last RWC. Could a changing of the FR old guard be close?

by beshocked Mon 19 Jun 2017, 11:58 am

To be honest it's a win-win for England at hooker with Hartley leading an inexperienced England to a series win and hopefully George enhancing his credentials on the Lions tour.

I agree Barney - Hartley should get credit for being in a winning England team.

I would have liked to seen LCD and Taylor getting opportunities but injuries robbed us of that (though I am not sure they would have had much game time anyway).

The present is looking good for England but still need to keep building.

by robbo277 Mon 19 Jun 2017, 12:05 pm

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I've been ok with Hartley's place in the team to date (although not quite in pedestal territory), but it's got to be said he's had a somewhat unimpressive Arg tour... losing the ball in contact, some lost LOs, knocked back in the tackle a bit too easily. He's got to have credit for leading a scratch side to a series W/W away from home though. I'm hoping the last 2 games were just minor blips, but if George gets and takes his chance in NZ it will make things more interesting. In addition Cole has been blowing hot and cold since & including the last RWC. Could a changing of the FR old guard be close?

I think it might be. I personally want us to get to a stage where we have 6 guys in the matchday 23 who are rugby players first, front rowers second.

Mako and Genge look good on the loose-head side, George and Sinckler can come into the equation as well. Then you have Taylor and Cowan-Dickie as hooking options and Hill as a tight-head option. The only issue is making sure you don't allow your scrum to become a liability.

The current plan is to use the "finishers" to punch holes as the game breaks up, but assuming we can find the required 6 front row with real rugby ability, I'd like to see us take the game on the front foot early on and use the bench to maintain that.

I'd have Mako, George and Sinckler starting this autumn, with Marler, Hartley and Cole sticking around if needed, but I'd have an eye on replacing them before the 2019 World Cup - if the right players come through.

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 19 Jun 2017, 12:10 pm

The scrum being a liability is exactly why Marler and Cole will still be around in 2019, if you can't do your primary job to a high standard first and foremost then the rest is irrelevant.

by robbo277 Mon 19 Jun 2017, 12:14 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The scrum being a liability is exactly why Marler and Cole will still be around in 2019, if you can't do your primary job to a high standard first and foremost then the rest is irrelevant.

Mako and Sinckler can. The coaches should be looking for more players who can do both, or if not available the coaches should look for players who at least fit the bill as rugby players, and then teach them to scrummage.

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 19 Jun 2017, 12:21 pm

robbo277 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:The scrum being a liability is exactly why Marler and Cole will still be around in 2019, if you can't do your primary job to a high standard first and foremost then the rest is irrelevant.

Mako and Sinckler can. The coaches should be looking for more players who can do both, or if not available the coaches should look for players who at least fit the bill as rugby players, and then teach them to scrummage.

They can initially but they lack the technique to do it consistently and are prone to wilting quickly.

by beshocked Mon 19 Jun 2017, 12:31 pm

Mako looks unfit but he's actually got a very workrate and puts in a lot of tackles.

He's generally fine if he's packing down with a strong scrummaging hooker and TH. For the Lions, he has 2 of the best alongside him IMO.

Certainly different to packing down alongside T.Youngs......

Combinations are important.

Mako is also fortunate to pack down with Itoje and Kruis who were according to Jones the two best scrummaging locks.

or Stuart Lancaster it was British Cycling’s marginal gains that held the key to success; for Jones it seems to be the fractions, explaining the decision by saying “Maro’s a better scrummager”. The Australian said: “You want your best people scrummaging. George Kruis is a super scrummager, the best scrummaging lock in England, so we’re missing him and Maro’s probably the next best.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/feb/13/maro-itoje-england-eddie-jones-scrum-six-nations

Explains why Maro was packing down at lock in the 6 nations.

by Exiledinborders Mon 19 Jun 2017, 12:42 pm

beshocked wrote:
Exileinborders it's about picking the best players. It's silly that the best hooker in England, Jamie George hasn't started for England yet. Not in one game. I think that's wrong.

In the front row it is about picking the best two players in each position because both will play. It is not about picking the best player and starting with them.

If Hartley and George are both going to play then which is best suited to the start of the game when play is more structured? I would argue Hartley. Which is best suited to the end of the game when play is more open? I would argue George.

It is not a matter of better or worse. It is a matter of starters and finishers.

For England I would start with Marler, Hartley and Cole and finish with Mako, George and Sinkler. The finishing three are better than the starting three but more importantly they are better suited to finishing.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 19 Jun 2017, 12:45 pm

Games are only insignificant when your boy doesn't play well or is outplayed BS, it's rather convenient from that respect.

I agree George should have started at least a game but Jones doesn't seem to rate him in this role yet so what can we do.

by lostinwales Mon 19 Jun 2017, 1:06 pm

To be fair to Hartley there were some man sausage ups in the first test but I am not so bothered about the lineout issues in the second. They came late on in the game when he was knackered.

As for the Autumn I think 2019 will be up front in EJ's thoughts. Robshaw will probably make it. Barring injury Billy will. I am not so sure about Haskell and I do wonder with his ongoing foot problems if he'll be able to reach the heights of the Oz series again. I think the 7 shirt is wide open.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Jun 2017, 1:09 pm

Jones certainly has plenty of choice in the front row all offering something a bit different. Another 6 to 12 months you could be talking of serious competition from Taylor LCD genge williams and collier and that's ignoring Sinckler who is just establishing himself. So are more raging bull in the loose than setpiece orientated. Seeing Sinckler improve in the scrum maybe we should be sending all our youngsters to Adam jones' finishing school.

by Poorfour Mon 19 Jun 2017, 1:26 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Jones certainly has plenty of choice in the front row all offering something a bit different. Another 6 to 12 months you could be talking of serious competition from Taylor LCD genge williams and collier and that's ignoring Sinckler who is just establishing himself. So are more raging bull in the loose than setpiece orientated. Seeing Sinckler improve in the scrum maybe we should be sending all our youngsters to Adam jones' finishing school.

Sinck's got Rowntree and John Kingston as well as Jones, plus the likes of Collier (whose scrummaging against Argentina was technically superb from what I could see) and Marler.

I was pleased to see Mako go well against the Maori, but he is still more vulnerable to being found out at scrum time than Marler.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Jun 2017, 1:31 pm

He is. He struggled a bit earlier in the tour. If he can be shielded like beshocked suggests fantastic as in the loose he's the best prop with ball in hand in the nh and dare I suggest it the world. I'd still have him on the bench though as either Marler or Mcgrath give you more solidity at scrum while neither are slouches elsewhere. Good point on Rowntree, his rep also struggled a bit post wc but they're all showing it was 1 small part of their coaching careers.

by beshocked Mon 19 Jun 2017, 2:07 pm

Sgt Pooly come on, even you can't seriously suggest they were particularly important games.

I will say that George didn't play particularly well in the semi final vs Exeter which was a big game.

Be patient I guess - tough for me.

Haskell isn't in great form. Perhaps it's injury related but certainly could see him dropping out.

Exiledinborders but then you don't get 50-60 minutes from the likes of Mako and George.

George can do the structured stuff very well. Just no opportunity for England.

by Exiledinborders Mon 19 Jun 2017, 2:25 pm

beshocked wrote:Sgt Pooly come on, even you can't seriously suggest they were particularly important games.

I will say that George didn't play particularly well in the semi final vs Exeter which was a big game.

Be patient I guess - tough for me.

Haskell isn't in great form. Perhaps it's injury related but certainly could see him dropping out.

Exiledinborders but then you don't get 50-60 minutes from the likes of Mako and George.

George can do the structured stuff very well. Just no opportunity for England.

I think you are missing the point. I agree George can do the structured stuff well. However Hartley can't do the unstructured stuff as well as George. Therefore it makes sense to use Hartley at the start of the game.

You seem to think that the best player starts and see the other player as a second best - merely a substitute. That is rather an old fashioned way of looking at things. The finishers should be at least as good as the starters and preferably better at finishing.

That appears to be how Jones looks at it.

by beshocked Mon 19 Jun 2017, 2:37 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
beshocked wrote:Sgt Pooly come on, even you can't seriously suggest they were particularly important games.

I will say that George didn't play particularly well in the semi final vs Exeter which was a big game.

Be patient I guess - tough for me.

Haskell isn't in great form. Perhaps it's injury related but certainly could see him dropping out.

Exiledinborders but then you don't get 50-60 minutes from the likes of Mako and George.

George can do the structured stuff very well. Just no opportunity for England.
I think you are missing the point. I agree George can do the structured stuff well. However Hartley can't do the unstructured stuff as well as George. Therefore it makes sense to use Hartley at the start of the game.

You seem to think that the best player starts and see the other player as a second best - merely a substitute. That is rather an old fashioned way of looking at things. The finishers should be at least as good as the starters and preferably better at finishing.

That appears to be how Jones looks at it.

Exiledinborders well actually I think it just shows that Hartley needs to be eased out of the team if he's not good enough.

We could be in a situation where we have a more complete hooker than Hartley starting and a dynamic hooker coming off the bench. Meaning that dynamism is higher throughout the 80 minutes.

You are deemed 2nd best when you are exclusively a substitute yes.

In a team where there is rotation - e.g.they can start and finish - they is more feeling of players being on a more equal footing.

It's important to get to a point where you have 2 first choice players.

I support a team which uses rotation more most others in the AP. I think I understand the concept of 1st choice players and 2nd choice.

For England At full back we have 1 starter. At hooker we have 1 starter. No one else gets a look in.

That's pretty old fashioned I'd say.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Jun 2017, 2:43 pm

Is that not more to do with availability and quality of players? You could say LCD is about ready to properly challenge as is Taylor. Would give the opportunity to start george and gave that dynamism from the bench. It's not that long ago both players lineouts were decidedly shaky though so that option is only just presenting itself. Similar to brown where there has been no one putting pressure on him. Now you see Watson playing full back at Bath, Daly has obviously played there before and more wing options coming through you have realistic options that haven't always been there.

For instance dynamism isn't the be all and end all. Would genge and Vunipola be the ideal choices now? What about Sinckler with williams off the bench?

by **LondonTiger** Mon 19 Jun 2017, 3:04 pm

There are some players who really should either start, or not be in the squad at all. Guys whose basics are good, but lack that little something extra to make an impact later on.

Interestingly I feel that Haskell and Brown both fit this category (along with Dan Cole) and once they lose their starting berth should really be excluded entirely.

by beshocked Mon 19 Jun 2017, 3:32 pm

no7 & 1/2

It's a shame LCD didn't make the Argentina tour.

T.Youngs was dynamic but his overall set piece wasn't good enough. Hartley does generally give set piece reliability.

If there are less scrums, then a more dynamic player is much more valuable.

Londontiger I think Haskell is close to going now unless he can rediscover his 2016 form.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Jun 2017, 3:38 pm

So lack of options has been a factor. Moving forward seems to be some excellent young options. Likely to see these come in quite slowly though and integrate. Still not sure we'll get down down to those proven 3rd choices and beyond bur there's decent depth as ever.
Come the AIs were probably only going to see 2.or 3 newbies het game time unless a rush of injuries hits. Lions will.help jones.

by Geordie Mon 19 Jun 2017, 3:45 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So lack of options has been a factor. Moving forward seems to be some excellent young options. Likely to see these come in quite slowly though and integrate. Still not sure we'll get down down to those proven 3rd choices and beyond bur there's decent depth as ever.
Come the AIs were probably only going to see 2.or 3 newbies het game time unless a rush of injuries hits. Lions will.help jones.

Agreed, I think Jones has his core squad firmly in place. Theres maybe 1 or 2 places that someone could come in, but not wholesale changes. But that drives improvements...as the likes of the Currys or Underhill etc know they have to seriously work to get in the starting team.

by robbo277 Mon 19 Jun 2017, 3:46 pm

LondonTiger wrote:There are some players who really should either start, or not be in the squad at all. Guys whose basics are good, but lack that little something extra to make an impact later on.

Interestingly I feel that Haskell and Brown both fit this category (along with Dan Cole) and once they lose their starting berth should really be excluded entirely.

I'm not sure I agree.

Haskell looked good coming on against France, certainly contributed to upping the tempo with Te'o and others.

Cole and Brown can also offer a stabilising presence coming on. Cole coming on against a tired loose-head or the weaker loose-head could be destructive in the scrum, and produce penalties which could convert to points or territory - both of which are very handy when looking to either snatch or close out a game. You wouldn't bring Brown on as a game-breaker, but in a similar way you could bring him on if you had a narrow lead and you wanted a more assured player at the back.

I certainly don't think we should just be splitting our squad into "warriors" and "greyhounds" - as I think Woodward claimed for the Lions and looking to battle for 60 minutes and then pull away. Let's look to run through teams for 55 and then close out, until we have developed the players to run through teams for 80.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 19 Jun 2017, 4:03 pm

You seem to have changed from insignificant to not important BS. I would never class an AP game as either and I doubt the players and coaches would.

by Geordie Mon 19 Jun 2017, 4:30 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Have to say wilson looked good as well. Only for England could he have got to his age without having more caps. If only the Newcastle fans talked of him for england honours a bit more!

by Geordie Mon 19 Jun 2017, 4:31 pm

beshocked wrote:Sgt Pooly I know you like to focus on insignificant games hence why you banged on about a journeyman lock from Newcastle supposedly outplaying Itoje, just like that game, it didn't matter.

.

Journeyman lock????

Classic Beshocked comment!

by beshocked Mon 19 Jun 2017, 4:42 pm

Sgt Pooly you seem to be overstating the importance. When you are fighting on more than 1 front you'd understand.

Geordiefalcon you don't think he is?

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 19 Jun 2017, 5:10 pm

A 1 club jouneyman?

If the game was that insignificant George wouldn't have played. Do you think George was uninterested in outperforming his International superior?

Back in reality, it was a huge moment for George to lay down a marker against his competion, he failed miserably.

You suggest the game was insignificant, I would suggest it was a huge game for George.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 19 Jun 2017, 5:27 pm

robbo277 wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:There are some players who really should either start, or not be in the squad at all. Guys whose basics are good, but lack that little something extra to make an impact later on.

Interestingly I feel that Haskell and Brown both fit this category (along with Dan Cole) and once they lose their starting berth should really be excluded entirely.

I'm not sure I agree.

Haskell looked good coming on against France, certainly contributed to upping the tempo with Te'o and others.

Cole and Brown can also offer a stabilising presence coming on. Cole coming on against a tired loose-head or the weaker loose-head could be destructive in the scrum, and produce penalties which could convert to points or territory - both of which are very handy when looking to either snatch or close out a game. You wouldn't bring Brown on as a game-breaker, but in a similar way you could bring him on if you had a narrow lead and you wanted a more assured player at the back.

I certainly don't think we should just be splitting our squad into "warriors" and "greyhounds" - as I think Woodward claimed for the Lions and looking to battle for 60 minutes and then pull away. Let's look to run through teams for 55 and then close out, until we have developed the players to run through teams for 80.

Oops. Meant Hartley, not Haskell. Blame the heat.

by beshocked Mon 19 Jun 2017, 5:41 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:A 1 club jouneyman?

If the game was that insignificant George wouldn't have played. Do you think George was uninterested in outperforming his International superior?

Back in reality, it was a huge moment for George to lay down a marker against his competion, he failed miserably.

You suggest the game was insignificant, I would suggest it was a huge game for George.

Someone had to start. It was mostly a 2nd string pack vs the full strength Saints one.

I think George would have liked to have performed better but it didn't cost him a Lions place and he was still a winning captain on the day.

It wasn't significant.

The game where Hartley headbutted George which cost him a RWC spot as well as losing a semi final at home.... well that was slightly more significant....

If you are going to win a H2H you'd rather win in a big game than a relatively inconsequential one.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Jun 2017, 5:43 pm

Not a headbutt.

by lostinwales Mon 19 Jun 2017, 8:32 pm

I got 3 names on my foe list. 2 of them are variations of the grey ghost. The third isn't Gwlad, but does mean I get to read much shorter England threads.

by yappysnap Tue 20 Jun 2017, 6:56 am

Glad to hear Collier went so well on tour, he's not really hot the praise at Quins that he deserves as Synk picks up all the accolades.

I guess he's still behind Cole, Synkler and Mullan though?

by Geordie Tue 20 Jun 2017, 8:25 am

beshocked wrote:Sgt Pooly you seem to be overstating the importance. When you are fighting on more than 1 front you'd understand.

Geordiefalcon you don't think he is?

Erm....he's not a journeyman! He came through our academy.

And the fact Dean Richards rates him crazily high...is good enough for me over your opinion...

by Geordie Tue 20 Jun 2017, 8:26 am

yappysnap wrote:Glad to hear Collier went so well on tour, he's not really hot the praise at Quins that he deserves as Synk picks up all the accolades.

I guess he's still behind Cole, Synkler and Mullan though?

A LH amongst TH's Yappy Wink

by robbo277 Tue 20 Jun 2017, 9:02 am

LondonTiger wrote:
robbo277 wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:There are some players who really should either start, or not be in the squad at all. Guys whose basics are good, but lack that little something extra to make an impact later on.

Interestingly I feel that Haskell and Brown both fit this category (along with Dan Cole) and once they lose their starting berth should really be excluded entirely.

I'm not sure I agree.

Haskell looked good coming on against France, certainly contributed to upping the tempo with Te'o and others.

Cole and Brown can also offer a stabilising presence coming on. Cole coming on against a tired loose-head or the weaker loose-head could be destructive in the scrum, and produce penalties which could convert to points or territory - both of which are very handy when looking to either snatch or close out a game. You wouldn't bring Brown on as a game-breaker, but in a similar way you could bring him on if you had a narrow lead and you wanted a more assured player at the back.

I certainly don't think we should just be splitting our squad into "warriors" and "greyhounds" - as I think Woodward claimed for the Lions and looking to battle for 60 minutes and then pull away. Let's look to run through teams for 55 and then close out, until we have developed the players to run through teams for 80.

Oops. Meant Hartley, not Haskell. Blame the heat.

Makes more sense!

by beshocked Tue 20 Jun 2017, 9:07 am

lostinwales wrote:I got 3 names on my foe list. 2 of them are variations of the grey ghost. The third isn't Gwlad, but does mean I get to read much shorter England threads.

Just means you are a narrow minded fool if you think I am comparable to greyghost.

It's a shame because I thought you were a reasonable poster. Obviously I am wrong.

by Gooseberry Tue 20 Jun 2017, 9:09 am

beshocked wrote:.

For England At full back we have 1 starter. At hooker we have 1 starter. No one else gets a look in.

That's pretty old fashioned I'd say.

Going over a year without getting injured is pretty old fashioned, and in Hartleys case going so long without getting banned previously unheard of

by beshocked Tue 20 Jun 2017, 9:13 am

Gooseberry wrote:
beshocked wrote:.

For England At full back we have 1 starter. At hooker we have 1 starter. No one else gets a look in.

That's pretty old fashioned I'd say.

Going over a year without getting injured is pretty old fashioned, and in Hartleys case going so long without getting banned previously unheard of

True but also Hartley has been injured, just made sure he's fit for country not club. To be fair all his bans have been for his club.

Got to say I feel Saints have treated Hartley better than he's treated them. Fitness and discipline wise he's superior for England. Can't deny that.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 20 Jun 2017, 9:31 am

Fitness it injury? He was out a fair while with concussion wasn't he?

by Sponsored content