Lancaster Comes down hard on Hartley

Stuart Lancaster has warned Dylan Hartley he can forget about resuming his Test career in the cauldron of South Africa if he can't be trusted on the field.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_7747968,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9258411/England-head-coach-Stuart-Lancaster-warns-his-players-to-toughen-up-and-toe-the-line.html

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/saints/breaking-news-lancaster-warning-for-hartley-1-3829498

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/10/lancaster-warns-england-behave-south-africa

Is there really an option?

If he doesnt go....we have

Gray - Quins regular...does he have any caps?
Youngs - Zero caps
Lindsay - Zero Caps
George - Zero Caps
Mears - Woeful

Just want you want facing off with Bismark!

Stuart Lancaster seems to be taking a very sensible line here. He can't ignore players who have gone off the rails with poor behaviour on or off the pitch. He is happy to apply punishment but he is also willing to give them the opportunity to prove they can behave and be part of how he see's the future.

Good man...!

He's just saying what the media expect him to say.

After last years media witch hunt he has to manage them first and the team second.

Hartley will be starting in SA and that's completely the right call.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Is there really an option?

If he doesnt go....we have

Gray - Quins regular...does he have any caps?
Youngs - Zero caps
Lindsay - Zero Caps
George - Zero Caps
Mears - Woeful

Just want you want facing off with Bismark!

Looking at that line up, what is with all of our hookers being small and quick? Only Lindsay I think is actually a big unit.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Is there really an option?

If he doesnt go....we have

Gray - Quins regular...does he have any caps?
Youngs - Zero caps
Lindsay - Zero Caps
George - Zero Caps
Mears - Woeful

Just want you want facing off with Bismark!

In my opinion, there are at least three players there who I think are better than Dylan "stand up" Hartley.

Yappy - I dont think that Rob Webber is a small guy.
He seemed to be there or there about for England untill recent injury - only inconsistency is his throwing!

Yeh Webber's pretty big, Gray's not short, and Youngs and George may be quite short but are certainly squat in frame. Mears though, is small and quick- but I don't like that in a hooker. I like a bit of power and ferocity.

But Prop David...Webber is injured...otherwise he would be an option.

Youngs is a powerhouse despite being small of height...he's 16stone...which makes him very squat,,,and he's rapid.

He would be my choice as a crackin hooker.

But Lindsay is a monster...just needs to get his lineout improved. ..interestingly him like Youngs is a former centre...so very mobile...

All the rest i rate...but have zero caps...would you want them to get their first v Bismark Du Plessis and the Bok front row in SA?

Big call....

From Ackfords Telegraph Piece

To my mind it looks a bit lightweight at hooker; short of punishing, combative locks; devoid of out-and-out opensides which, on the hard tracks of the highveld, could be an issue; and, disturbingly, inexperienced generally. But it is yet another bravura performance from Midas man Lancaster. One-on-one, and in the media huddle, he comes across as savvy, organised, clear and credible.
Let me put a depressing scenario to you, I say, trying to unsettle the charm offensive on the media which he openly acknowledges is important to his communication strategy of “connecting with the nation”. We’re in a Port Elizabeth hotel the Sunday after the third Test and…”we’ve lost the series 3-0,” he interjects, smiling. Yes, and you’ve been panned from pillar to post by the very people in the room. Will you still be as open and as comfortable talking then?
“If I feel that the balance of the comments has been fair, I will. If I feel that it’s been unfair, then I might respond differently.”
What constitutes unfair? “Where people have offered opinions which are out of context. Take the Italy game in the Six Nations. We were pilloried for an average attacking performance, but we’d only had eight weeks together, we changed things around at half-time and, by the way, it’s pretty hard to play when it’s freezing cold and snowing.”
The censure is delivered lightly, but it is difficult not to suspect that Lancaster might need to acquire a thicker skin in the weeks and months ahead. For the moment, though, his stock is so high that he can even risk a dig at previous regimes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9261906/Stuart-Lancaster-Englands-tour-to-South-Africa-is-a-stepping-stone-on-journey-to-2015-World-Cup.html

Don't mind that piece too much but on the whole Ackford is a much worse writer/pundit than he was a player. Then again, he's a worse writer than Andy Goode was a player in my opinion and that's harsh on Goode

He also doesn't seem to be aware that none of the tests are on "the hard tracks of the highveld"

I think Ackford sees Lancaster as a PR man and not a coach.

Ackford may see that PR bit, but then he is a Journo (or a frustrated wannabe coach ?)
What the rest of us saw in Lancaster during the 6N was a coach getting on with his work, and creditable work it was in the brief time he had.
RSA will be a much tougher test though. Expect Ackford to keep his stilettoes sharpened.

Ackford is a nob of the highest order. Can't stand his pieces in the DT. In fact most of the DT's rugby hack are shoite and should be fired into the heart of the Sun from a massive cannon.

Agree about SL Maesteg.

Yet hes happy to take Tuilagi, Ashton, Youngs, Lawes, and all the other
players with bans for violent conduct?

Fair enough.

maestegmafia wrote:I think Ackford sees Lancaster as a PR man and not a coach.

Fair enough,. The guy has concentrated on saying the right things and being a press whore pretty well so far. Its a lot easier to do that when Rob Andrew isnt telling the press behind your back that he never wanted you in the job of course.

Thing is hes backed the BS up with results so far (discounting Wales who are the third best team in the world, unless you discount actual facts)

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Yet hes happy to take Tuilagi, Ashton, Youngs, Lawes, and all the other
players with bans for violent conduct?

What do you mean 'yet'? Hartley is in the squad. He's not been dropped.

Building an international rugby team without players who've had bans for dangerous play at some point in the past would be impossible.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Yet hes happy to take Tuilagi, Ashton, Youngs, Lawes, and all the other
players with bans for violent conduct?

Fair enough.

maestegmafia wrote:I think Ackford sees Lancaster as a PR man and not a coach.

Fair enough,. The guy has concentrated on saying the right things and being a press whore pretty well so far. Its a lot easier to do that when Rob Andrew isnt telling the press behind your back that he never wanted you in the job of course.

Thing is hes backed the BS up with results so far (discounting Wales who are the third best team in the world, unless you discount actual facts)

Re results the Paris victory was a good one though the others were not so magnificent. Wins are wins but i think Ackford is right to be sceptical there is a great deal more to prove this summer than there was achieved in the six nations.

England may have progressed quicker and better for the future by losing some of their close matches and being more retrospective.

That has certainly applied to recent other international sides that are doing well, Wales and Australia are good examples as recent under achievers that after many narrow losses have now turned a corner, winning a GS up here and the ozzies a tri nations down there

maestegmafia wrote:England may have progressed quicker and better for the future by losing some of their close matches and being more retrospective.

Ah, The Welsh Way.

'Retrospective' is an odd word to throw in there.

Lancaster is a strange cove as he tends to favour the wins, naive young manager that he is.

sugarNspikes wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:England may have progressed quicker and better for the future by losing some of their close matches and being more retrospective.

Ah, The Welsh Way.

'Retrospective' is an odd word to throw in there.

Lancaster is a strange cove as he tends to favour the wins, naive young manager that he is.

Yep the welsh way, lose a lot of matches, underachieve to the point where we the fans start actually think that posters who we generally disregard start making sense, then we learn from it and win another grandslam thus proving us wrong to criticise our coaching team and players and right to ignore you...!

Where did you say Wales would come in the six nations we just won? I think it was sixth or fourth..?

The RWC I think you said we would fail to get out of our group?

maestegmafia wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:England may have progressed quicker and better for the future by losing some of their close matches and being more retrospective.

Ah, The Welsh Way.

'Retrospective' is an odd word to throw in there.

Lancaster is a strange cove as he tends to favour the wins, naive young manager that he is.

Yep the welsh way, lose a lot of matches, underachieve to the point where we the fans start actually think that posters who we generally disregard start making sense, then we learn from it and win another grandslam thus proving us wrong to criticise our coaching team and players and right to ignore you...!

Where did you say Wales would come in the six nations we just won? I think it was sixth or fourth..?

The RWC I think you said we would fail to get out of our group?

My comment was about you saying that England would have done better (in the long run) to have lost more games. It's not true. England needed wins. It's not like everybody is getting carried away that we're better than we are. Losing to Ireland, France, Scotland or Italy would not have been a good thing in the 6 Nations. It wasn't like the side needed shaking up, it needed stability and confidence. You don't get that from losing.

I'm still waiting for the ones who were touting Hartley as a Lions starting hooker and captain to come fourth and admit how silly they were. Sgt_Pooly where are you??

Sugar and yappysnap were two others.

Morgannwg wrote:I'm still waiting for the ones who were touting Hartley as a Lions starting hooker and captain to come fourth and admit how silly they were. Sgt_Pooly where are you??

Sugar and yappysnap were two others.

I'm not sure how any of this would affect Hartleys chances of starting for the Lions or captaining them? A lot of captains in the past have had a bit of an edge to them, Johnson and POC to name a couple, and they have hardly done badly. I think Hartley has a good chance of starting personally, the series of stats articles on each position done after the 6N, showed that Hartley was one of the standout hookers (possibly THE standout) in terms of metres made, carries, tackles and lineouts won. I know you dislike him but thats no reason to discount him as a good hooker, which he is.

Of course it affects his chances!



I like O'Connell and Johnson as captains. They were natural leaders and inspired the guys around them to play great rugby. If that was to involve standing by your team-mate when they may have got themselves into a spot of bother then you could rely on them.

I don't see how you can compare them to this thug Hartley. He hardly has their leadership skills. I think the only time DH is dependable is when he is not running around trying to play rugby hard-man, he is not one of those. All gob and no action. He was nailed by the press before Blues v Saints then Wales v England. In those games he stuck to just the rugby and did well.

I wouldn't think Hartley would be anyone's serious choice of lion's skipper, certainley not a certain coach's......could very well be a starting hooker though and do a half decent job. Unfortunately the edgey, arrogant side to his personality which in one hand makes him perfect to butt skulls with bismark is just as likely in the other, to find him walking off in a red haze if things start going badly!

Ford could be a reasonable Lions skipper

Youngs is a powerhouse despite being small of height...he's 16stone...which makes him very squat,,,and he's rapid.

His throwing is dubious though it's improving. He is White esque aggressive as well so on the upside if Bismark tries that intimidation thing of his he is liable to get a smack round the chops. Now that might no be the best idea in terms of cards and bans etc but it will at least let the Boks know that the England boys aren't afraid to get involved because if we lose the physical battle we will lose the series.

Hartley could still feature for the Lions. Tbh I can't see this hurting his chances for the Lions, what's more likely is that another of our prospects gets in front of him. After all a year is a long time in International Rugby.

Hartley has been a pretty good captain for Saints and other than 2 incidents (one of which happened 5 years ago, the other more recent but with some provocation) he has calmed down his hot-headedness a great deal. I'm not advocating him as captain and i very much doubt he'd get it, but that to me is more down to there being other greater choices rather than him being completely unsuitable.

I was referring to the fact of Lancaster telling him to control himself a little not being detrimental to his selection, as evidenced by the fact that Lancaster himself has selected him. Are you honestly saying that if Hartley saw one of his teammates getting into some trouble with an opposing player, he wouldn't get himself involved then you clearly have no idea about Hartley.

In the same paragraph you mention that he is a thug, and then talk about he is all mouth and no action, how does this work? Surely for him to be a thug he actually needs to do something???

Just ignore him belovedfrosties, you should know by now that the poster in question has little understanding of the sport and is rarely interested in serious discussion, but is the sort of immature person found on these boards whose primary interest is goading.

If we all just leave his comments unaddressed he'll hopefully drift off or maybe grow up.

Cowardly acts like Gouging and biting makes him a thug, duh. I was referring to how he talks the talk on the pitch but when someone offers him out he'll bottle it. I hope this answers your questions.

So presumably you have vast experience of what he says on the pitch then? Also when has someone "offered him out" and he's bottled it? Would you class Wanenburg of Ulster a thug and coward as well?

His gouging offence was 5 years ago for gods sake, he served his time and had nothing against his name until this years 6N after a cowardly act by Ferris on him.

Gouging is thuggery (altho' he served his sentence). Having a nibble on a pinkie shoved in your north and south by a hairy rsed forward is just bad manners.

Mind you picking someone up and dropping them on their neck is also thuggery.

True Barney, and I'm not saying he's whiter than white but since then he has stayed edgy but never gone beyond the law, guess mud just sticks though.

beloved, I've answered your questions. Why do you continue to dig deeper with irrelevant posts? Wannenburg isn't in contention for Lions captain. Talk about off topic...

Absolutely. And I want a hooker to be feisty (ooh err missus). Making him the Lion's captain would be an inspired decision.

maesteg, have you had your comment removed again? Tut tut

propdavid_london wrote:Ford could be a reasonable Lions skipper

Even as a Scot I can't agree with this. There are far better options for captain. I think he'll make the tour though.

No Sugar

I removed the post myself.

I thought you had stopped continuously stalking me and posting rubbish that you think will annoy me next to my comments...?

Your behaviour is tiresome, pathetic and a very creepy obsession. Please relent now.

This is a forum to discuss sport.

All you do is troll people trying to annoy them.

Just read the first article. They're going to sit down and have a chat? Bloody hell, that's a bit draconian isn't it? They're going to make him do lines next.

"I will not bite other players"
"I will not bite other players"
"I will not bite other players......"

Just read the first article. They're going to sit down and have a chat? Bloody hell, that's a bit draconian isn't it?

They'll discuss how he's feeling after some time off and how the Saffas are likely to target him and try to wind him up etc. Lancaster knows the score and we all know Ferris was naughty and got some retribution then cried and lied about it afterwards.

Hartley had some success with a sports psychologist, so maybe we'll see him go back for a little while...? I remember that his on-field anger was blamed on a 'monkey' in his head which had to be caged...or something like that. All very odd.

Nothing odd about it. It's a tool to visualise a subconscious issue and keep it locked away. A similar thing is done with PTSD. Take your issue, give it a visual representation and then deal with it on a conscious level. Works a treat!

Do you have a caged monkey in your head Carpe?

Nope i had a large 'castle' (don't ask me why) and every day i'd put the 'bins' out. Ok, come to mention it, it is quite weird! Ignore my last!!!

The subconscious is a very fun place.

Well, I had a pig that shat in my head the other morning. Might have had something to do with being out on the lash the night before I suppose.

The reason I'm bringing up Wanenburg is to see whether you think he is a thug as well, seeing as he quite clearly bit Hartley, or do you think what he did was justified and in response to what Hartley did?

There is a reason to this line of questioning and why it relates to Hartleys chances to start for the Lions (There is virtually no chance of him captaining them, unless its a mid-week team perhaps).

beloved, you are still goiing off topic. Wanenburg or what incident he was involved in CLEARLY has NOTHING to do with Hartley being a Lion or captaining the Lions.