Mike Tindall!!

Is Mike Tindall "Garunteed" his place in the England team for the last 2 warm up games?

With Lewis Moody out with an injured knee, does that now pave they way for Tindall to take over the captains arm band.

Or should Tindall have to fight for the right to play in the team?

Tindall did captain the 6ns in Moodys absence. Or should the captain be Easter,Croft,Or even Robshaw.

Who do you think will captain England in Moodys absence?

Sadly it will be Easter or Tindall. They are the senior guys and the ones who organise and - well - talk. I cant say if they are the best - As a captain I'd probably choose Tindall but its Easter who is the only one of the 2 who might be considered undroppable. Probably too early for Croft and Robshaw is unproven

Of course Tindall should have to fight for the right to play, just like everyone else, and he is by no means guaranteed his place in the side. Having said that, he probably deserves to be there since Tuilagi is still a work in progress, albeit a highly impressive one.

In my opinion, Easter is the right choice to captain England in Moody's absence: Easter is one of those players who will never be able to persuade his critics despite the fact that he consistently plays well and exudes confidence and leadership. I suppose he'll never be very trendy, and you'll always hear the complaints that "he's not as good as Harinordoquy or Parisse" but the truth is that there aren't many eights in the world who can boast his skill set and physicality. He's always the first name on my team sheet, and he's vital to our World Cup hopes.

Sadly you can argue until you are blue in the face about Easter and what the stats say - but because he looks fat and cant run 100m in 10 sec somehow he's inferior. Having said that I cant say that I have been impressed with his captaincy on the opportunities hes had so far. Some captains make teams play better and I believe Moody is in that camp - Easter isnt.

LIW
Absolutely right both regarding Easter the player (better than he looks) and Easter the captain (not that effective)

If Moody is carrying a chronic injury, then he shouldn't be included in the squad, regardless of whether he is the best choice for captain. Tindall then becomes the most likely alternative captain, even if there is an argument that his place in the starting line up is under threat.

If not Tindall, then who?
For me, Croft doesn't look like a captain, so would you go with Hartley (good captain at club level)?

Hartley would have to be right up there on the list. All reports from the saints seem to have been very positive about him being captain there, both its effect on his own playing and what he gets from the team.

He is also first choice in his position by some margin. Be great to see him get the chance to be captain in one of the next 2 games

I'd hope not Robshaw the one game I got to see him captain live the ref refused to speak to him shortly after the half hour mark because of his constant whinging. Quinns fans have told me he improved as the season went on but maybe a bit early for him to be captaining the full first team.

Pecking order;
Moody
Tindall
Easter
Hartley
Croft

For me its got to be Hartley. He always leads from the front and being captain of Saints really seems to mean something to him. I think given the chance he would step up another gear.
Also from what I've seen of him with Saints he's pretty good with the refs and they seem to respond well to him leading the team

Haskell? Or Tom Palmer?

Just not Easter, he is a good 8 and a good deputy within the pack but just doesn't work as a captain.

What we need is a player who doesn't go missing in the tough games.... Ben Foden maybe?

For me, must be Hartley. Has been a terrific captain at Saints, leads from the front and plays hard. As said above the referees respond well to him, the captain's arm band has improved his own play, and might be captain for a long time. He will also relate well to the younger players.

None of this is what I would have predicted for him some years ago. But that goes to show, people do grow up and change. And, of course, i can be wr, wro, wrrrr, wrong. That was hard to say.

Based on my own rugby experience, I really don't think that the particular choice of captain is anywhere near as important as people like to imagine. Of course you want leaders, and you need someone to ultimately take overall responsibility, but I really don't get this idea that your choice of captain is going to have a significantly tangible effect on the teams overall performance.

Sometimes teams play badly no matter who'd leading them: MJ was a good captain, but England HAVE played bad with him at the helm. The same goes for all of the best captains in rugby history, and I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that Nick Easter is a bad captain just because the team didn't play fantastically well on the odd occasions he was leading them. I believe his leadership properties are well known and respected within the England squad which is probably a bit more important.

Tindall is not as good as Tuiliagi or Lowe

Moody is not as good as Wood

Play the form players and then pick your captain.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Tindall is not as good as Tuiliagi or Lowe

Moody is not as good as Wood

Play the form players and then pick your captain.

This is all a bit similar to the previous Borthwick situation.

Interesting to see that out of the home Nations only Ireland have a captain of note and history, non of the rest of us have a clue who will be in charge...!

Thats very true Mafia...but they could pick Bod OR O'Connell. Not a bad choice to have.

Warburton might be worth taking a punt on. Cracking player...and must be influential off the pitch despite his age. Could be an excellent long term Captain.

I think the problem with Englandis as i said and you righlty said with borthwick the best Captains are no where near the best players.

...And the other option hartley is not pulling up trees on the pitch either

Thats leaves Easter who is not certain after haskells decent game at 8 on Sat...and who?

Cueto is experienced and Influential....but i dont like my winger being captain.

Maybe Croft is the man.

Tricky decision....but ill stick with my guns...pick the best team then pick your captain. We have guys with experience in their now to back up the captain.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Thats very true Mafia...but they could pick Bod OR O'Connell. Not a bad choice to have.

Warburton might be worth taking a punt on. Cracking player...and must be influential off the pitch despite his age. Could be an excellent long term Captain.

I think the problem with Englandis as i said and you righlty said with borthwick the best Captains are no where near the best players.

...And the other option hartley is not pulling up trees on the pitch either

Thats leaves Easter who is not certain after haskells decent game at 8 on Sat...and who?

Cueto is experienced and Influential....but i dont like my winger being captain.

Maybe Croft is the man.

Tricky decision....but ill stick with my guns...pick the best team then pick your captain. We have guys with experience in their now to back up the captain.

Maybe Warburton is a good shout as he is likely to start every major game.

That maybe a reason to pick the England Captain that has been neglected. I do feel that if moody was fit he would probably be the man for the job.

Maybe Jonny Wikinson should be reinstated as captain, I think he was made captain before when Andy Robinson was in charge , though his string of unfortunate injuries took its toll, not sure if he even started a match as captain.

Thing is in modern rugby we are so overly concerned with depth of talent and squad strength that we neglect the focus of a first string and the amount of time they need together to build their own team identity.

Countnefarious wrote: Based on my own rugby experience, I really don't think that the particular choice of captain is anywhere near as important as people like to imagine. Of course you want leaders, and you need someone to ultimately take overall responsibility, but I really don't get this idea that your choice of captain is going to have a significantly tangible effect on the teams overall performance.

Sometimes teams play badly no matter who'd leading them: MJ was a good captain, but England HAVE played bad with him at the helm. The same goes for all of the best captains in rugby history, and I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that Nick Easter is a bad captain just because the team didn't play fantastically well on the odd occasions he was leading them. I believe his leadership properties are well known and respected within the England squad which is probably a bit more important.

Not sure if the team ever played badly under Buck Shelford. Thought they wouldn't dare. Anyway they didn't lose.