England Player Elimination

First topic message reminder :


Right-io then since Goal 1 of the tour (winning the series) is gone let us now turn our attention to one of the other goals - finding out who has the raw materials to play for England and just as relevantly : who doesn't.

For me the England careers of the following players should be terminated forthwith without notice and on a permanent basis. They should be flown home immediately and replaced.....

Mears (too small and not good enough)
Parling (ineffectual outside the lineout. The new borthwick)
Botha (not good enough. misses tackles - no carrying and not smart enough)
Johnson ("A star" for effort and guts but we have 10 better options when fit and prospects)
Strettle (simply not good enough to get away with being 80 something kilos dripping wet)
Waldrom (too old now)
Anthony Allen ( if he was good enough he would've played T2)
Ugo Monye (too old now. his ship has sailed)

And to be singled out as no more than possibles for the AIs and put on temporary banishment until they develop their game a hell of a lot more….

Farrell (decision making, speed work with Margot Wells, weights, intensive kicking (from hand) and passing practice)
Morgan (stop eating all the pies and get on the tread mill)
Wade ( defence)
Tom Youngs (lineout throwing)
Barrit (passing and speed work with Margot Wells)

The rest need to be told just how disappointing they have been and given a clear individual plan to follow in the lead up to the AIs.

Lawes, Croft and Wood need the same plans. All 3 of them need to spend a lot of time in the gymnasium and told they might be welcome back in for the AIs.

Garvey, Steffon Armitage, Johnny May and Billy Twelvetrees need to be looked at as inclusions. 36 and Manu could be the combo we need.

Before anyone starts bleating to me about this all being a bit unfair and harsh, save your words. If you are not good enough then that is it.

We are England rugby. We are not here to provide careers to substandards. We are here to win and there is zero room for sentiment.

We will not win Test Matches on the basis of "deserving to win" them. We will win Test Matches that we are good enough to TAKE by force. The same applies to selection.

Unless you are so good that you cannot not be selected then you are gone.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm with Beshocked on Garvey, haven's seen anything to suggest he's Int quality. I acyually quite like Botha and think he's the best we have currently.

Can't believe people mention Fearns as a possible England starter too. As soon as the quality of opposition goes up Fearns goes missing.

I have to admit I've been one of those frothing at the mouth re Garvey playing for England. But I can accept why people may feel he hasn't earned it yet. However, i do think he's shown he can do things that Botha can't.

I think his work-rate is a little overrated but I think he needs to be tried. At club level I think he defends the fringes and against power runners far better than Botha and he carries much better too. Everything else? Jury's out. But given our lack of carriers I think we need to see him given a go.

Fearns has been a big disappointment, but i imagine his injury has had something to do with the lack of progress.

Personally the issues with Morgan and Fearns is fitness. Ie They seem to have an extremely poor level for professional players let alone internationals. Maybe the injuries have played their part...

But they are talented guys and big robust players...and if we can get them fit and firing...then they will be diffferent animals to the ones we're seeing at the moment.

Regardless of his other abilities Garvey has had LI defender of the year twice i believe and having seen the boks run through our pack at will...that alone would be a bonus.

Beaker wrote:

beshocked wrote:
People say Garvey is the messiah but seriously what did he do after Christmas? Did he fly into the sky never to be heard of again.

Due to LI's BR problems, the powers that be played Garvey at 6 for much of 2012. This is not his best position as he really is a lock. However he clearly is considered talented enough to do a reasonable job there. Most LI fans know that he is not only a good carrier in the tight and open spaces further out, he also is great defensively and puts in one hell of shift at the breakdown. Oh and his handling is also good. Why was Botha chosen over him? You tell me.

BasicallyGarvey has played barely any rugby as a 2nd row in 2012 in a LI side performing woefully. Doesn't exactly make him a shoe in for England. Compare that to Botha who has been an important player for his team for the last 3 seasons.

I would have picked Garvey for the 6nations but why should Garvey be gifted an England spot for the SA tour when he's not playing as a 2nd row?

He's not proven at club level let alone international.

Equo I find your hypocrisy amusing but sadly unsurprising. Waldrom is a foreign journeyman yet his selection is ok because he's a Tiger in your eyes.

beshocked wrote:

Beaker wrote:

beshocked wrote:
People say Garvey is the messiah but seriously what did he do after Christmas? Did he fly into the sky never to be heard of again.

Due to LI's BR problems, the powers that be played Garvey at 6 for much of 2012. This is not his best position as he really is a lock. However he clearly is considered talented enough to do a reasonable job there. Most LI fans know that he is not only a good carrier in the tight and open spaces further out, he also is great defensively and puts in one hell of shift at the breakdown. Oh and his handling is also good. Why was Botha chosen over him? You tell me.

BasicallyGarvey has played barely any rugby as a 2nd row in 2012 in a LI side performing woefully. Doesn't exactly make him a shoe in for England. Compare that to Botha who has been an important player for his team for the last 3 seasons.

I would have picked Garvey for the 6nations but why should Garvey be gifted an England spot for the SA tour when he's not playing as a 2nd row?

He's not proven at club level let alone international.

Equo I find your hipocrisy amusing but sadly unsurprising. Waldrom is a foreign journeyman yet his selection is ok because he's a Tiger in your eyes.

I thought he played pretty well today, not enough to improve your opinion of him?

I didn't think much of Waldrom's control at the base of the scrum, either in the test or the dirt-tracker game he played in. Otherwise he went well though.

Really disappointed that JJ couldn't get into the game more. England picked him as an attacking player, and then had him chasing kicks all afternoon, when care and farrell kicked all the possession away. Playing outside Tuilagi didn't help either, he just doesn't pass, ever.

mawhis wrote:I didn't think much of Waldrom's control at the base of the scrum, either in the test or the dirt-tracker game he played in. Otherwise he went well though.

Really disappointed that JJ couldn't get into the game more. England picked him as an attacking player, and then had him chasing kicks all afternoon, when care and farrell kicked all the possession away. Playing outside Tuilagi didn't help either, he just doesn't pass, ever.

To be fair to Tuilagi that isnt really the job England are making him do he is pretty much at the moment a dump truck up the middle and today he was pretty effective. But I do agree it is annoying that we havent seen more of him, he should start against Fiji in the autumn to actually give him the chance to get into a test match.

Just because a player may not have proved himself week in week out domestically doesn't mean he shouldn't get a call up to the test side. The 3N sides are never worried too much on performance.... Giteau played for AUS before he played SR right? SA have called up a number of youngsters this season with perhaps 10 senior matches to their name... if you have talent... lets see how good you can be. Garvey should be tested..lets see how he features, ENG need to become bullies again up front if they're ever to compete again with the likes of NZ & SA... he could be the guy they need.

ENG obviously have a little issue in the engine room. Palmer played well and with Croft back I think Parling maybe excess to requirements.... esp. given, if he's not winning 100% of his ball and say 25% of the opposition ball whats the point of playing a lineout specialist who is useless in every other department.

Croft is by far the better operator..... he is near untouchable in the skies.

I do worry with ENG controlled by Farrell... young may he be but he just no a natural attacker. Most world class 10s are natural attackers who become good kickers. JW was half decent in attack before his injuries. What he needs IMO is not what you can teach. Perhaps ENG should start looking to him as a LT alternative at 12. He's big enough, has a semi decent boot on him.... but he's not a player you want to build your team around for a RWC.

fa0019 wrote:Just because a player may not have proved himself week in week out domestically doesn't mean he shouldn't get a call up to the test side. The 3N sides are never worried too much on performance.... Giteau played for AUS before he played SR right? SA have called up a number of youngsters this season with perhaps 10 senior matches to their name... if you have talent... lets see how good you can be. Garvey should be tested..lets see how he features, ENG need to become bullies again up front if they're ever to compete again with the likes of NZ & SA... he could be the guy they need.

ENG obviously have a little issue in the engine room. Palmer played well and with Croft back I think Parling maybe excess to requirements.... esp. given, if he's not winning 100% of his ball and say 25% of the opposition ball whats the point of playing a lineout specialist who is useless in every other department.

Croft is by far the better operator..... he is near untouchable in the skies.

I do worry with ENG controlled by Farrell... young may he be but he just no a natural attacker. Most world class 10s are natural attackers who become good kickers. JW was half decent in attack before his injuries. What he needs IMO is not what you can teach. Perhaps ENG should start looking to him as a LT alternative at 12. He's big enough, has a semi decent boot on him.... but he's not a player you want to build your team around for a RWC.

FA - absolutely correct.

We need a couple of monsters in the second row. Too many times this series ive seen our second rows run and get knocked back at will with ball in hand.
I do think we have improved our breakdown work massively...and Haskell is a puzzle. His physicality was massive yesterday...but he gave away about 5-6 penalties....
As for Farrell...i cant remember how many times i was shouting at the telly...because he kicked, kicked and kicked again.

I dont care how strong he is defensively....how strong mentaly he is for a 20 yr old....HE CANT ATTACK...!

That's not my recollection of Haskell. It was Palmer who was giving away the penalties, I was impressed with the way Haskell was slowing the ball and then making a clear show of getting out of the way.

England's breakdown play has come a long way in the last 6 months.

mawhis wrote:I didn't think much of Waldrom's control at the base of the scrum, either in the test or the dirt-tracker game he played in. Otherwise he went well though.

I agree Waldrom's control at the base of the scrum is not good enough. Too many tigers attacks falter when the scrum goes forward too quickly for him to control the ball.

However the mistake was more Haskells yesterday - we had a rare hooked ball that went straight through number one channell (ie Haskell). If that was not the intention, Haskell needed to direct the ball towards the back of the scrum. I sound old now but in my day that was standard for the flanker. Now though we rarely see the ball hooked so they just are not used to guarding the channel.

DaveM wrote:That's not my recollection of Haskell. It was Palmer who was giving away the penalties, I was impressed with the way Haskell was slowing the ball and then making a clear show of getting out of the way.

England's breakdown play has come a long way in the last 6 months.

They had the same scrum cap?

I certainly thought it was mainly Haskell, who then was "awarded" turnovers incorrectly by the commentators when Johnson had got the ball.

Johnson, Cole and Marler had highly impressive games at the breakdown.

fa0019 wrote:Just because a player may not have proved himself week in week out domestically doesn't mean he shouldn't get a call up to the test side. The 3N sides are never worried too much on performance.... Giteau played for AUS before he played SR right? SA have called up a number of youngsters this season with perhaps 10 senior matches to their name... if you have talent... lets see how good you can be. Garvey should be tested..lets see how he features, ENG need to become bullies again up front if they're ever to compete again with the likes of NZ & SA... he could be the guy they need.

ENG obviously have a little issue in the engine room. Palmer played well and with Croft back I think Parling maybe excess to requirements.... esp. given, if he's not winning 100% of his ball and say 25% of the opposition ball whats the point of playing a lineout specialist who is useless in every other department.

Croft is by far the better operator..... he is near untouchable in the skies.

I do worry with ENG controlled by Farrell... young may he be but he just no a natural attacker. Most world class 10s are natural attackers who become good kickers. JW was half decent in attack before his injuries. What he needs IMO is not what you can teach. Perhaps ENG should start looking to him as a LT alternative at 12. He's big enough, has a semi decent boot on him.... but he's not a player you want to build your team around for a RWC.

Absolutely spot on IMO, although I wouldn't want Farrell at 12 either right now.

LondonTiger wrote:

DaveM wrote:That's not my recollection of Haskell. It was Palmer who was giving away the penalties, I was impressed with the way Haskell was slowing the ball and then making a clear show of getting out of the way.

England's breakdown play has come a long way in the last 6 months.

They had the same scrum cap?

I certainly thought it was mainly Haskell, who then was "awarded" turnovers incorrectly by the commentators when Johnson had got the ball.

Johnson, Cole and Marler had highly impressive games at the breakdown.

I think Haskell helped at the breakdown, but often in partnership with A N Other, normally Johnson, Cole or Palmer. I think they were all good at competing for the ball in pairs, giving the Saffas a much tougher time in clearing them out. In that regard I think Haskell was a vast improvement and a really useful player.

However, although his work at the breakdown does appear to have improved a lot, he is regularly getting on the wrong side of refs. He's been picking up yellows in NZ and looked like he might at one point yesterday. He's got more active in this area, but not much smarter I feel.

Also, his carrying seems to have gone down a notch. I thought he was decent yesterday but not amazing, and he still stands too upright, when he gets his body position right he's a real handful. Someone needs to drill him on that. Overall I think we need players of that size and power against teams like SA.

Of course, SA didn't have Alberts or Burger. I really fear we'd struggle to get through or past those two with our current ball carriers. God how we need a 25yr old Shaw...

Ah it was definately Haskell with the penalites mate...i was counting them .

BUT he was very impressive with his physical work...and his defence was powerful.

Ive been a little critical of both Marler and Tom Johnson this series...but yesterday i thought they were very good. Im not sure Johnson will keep his spot with the returning 6's but Marler is in a battle now with Corbs for that 1 spot.

fa0019 wrote:Just because a player may not have proved himself week in week out domestically doesn't mean he shouldn't get a call up to the test side. The 3N sides are never worried too much on performance.... Giteau played for AUS before he played SR right? SA have called up a number of youngsters this season with perhaps 10 senior matches to their name... if you have talent... lets see how good you can be. Garvey should be tested..lets see how he features, ENG need to become bullies again up front if they're ever to compete again with the likes of NZ & SA... he could be the guy they need.

ENG obviously have a little issue in the engine room. Palmer played well and with Croft back I think Parling maybe excess to requirements.... esp. given, if he's not winning 100% of his ball and say 25% of the opposition ball whats the point of playing a lineout specialist who is useless in every other department.

Croft is by far the better operator..... he is near untouchable in the skies.

I do worry with ENG controlled by Farrell... young may he be but he just no a natural attacker. Most world class 10s are natural attackers who become good kickers. JW was half decent in attack before his injuries. What he needs IMO is not what you can teach. Perhaps ENG should start looking to him as a LT alternative at 12. He's big enough, has a semi decent boot on him.... but he's not a player you want to build your team around for a RWC.

Parling is a top class operator but he is unable to do it alone against a top draw SA lineout attack. Our backrow offered little yesterday in terms of variation, even Matfield had Smith, Spies, Botha to call on.

People seem to have short memories, Parling was brought into the side because a Palmer/Croft/Botha outfit was suffering big time. Parling with Croft offers two top draw option as well as Robshaw providing another gives us an excellent attacking and defensive weapon.

I fail to see what Garvey would bring tbh. Botha has had a much better season but isn't a favourite on here whilst Garvey can do no wrong despite not even shining in the Saxons.

Sgt..

Id be happy with Parling (and croft)...but if we do go for that we simply MUST have a serious monster alongside him in the engine room....

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Just because a player may not have proved himself week in week out domestically doesn't mean he shouldn't get a call up to the test side. The 3N sides are never worried too much on performance.... Giteau played for AUS before he played SR right? SA have called up a number of youngsters this season with perhaps 10 senior matches to their name... if you have talent... lets see how good you can be. Garvey should be tested..lets see how he features, ENG need to become bullies again up front if they're ever to compete again with the likes of NZ & SA... he could be the guy they need.

ENG obviously have a little issue in the engine room. Palmer played well and with Croft back I think Parling maybe excess to requirements.... esp. given, if he's not winning 100% of his ball and say 25% of the opposition ball whats the point of playing a lineout specialist who is useless in every other department.

Croft is by far the better operator..... he is near untouchable in the skies.

I do worry with ENG controlled by Farrell... young may he be but he just no a natural attacker. Most world class 10s are natural attackers who become good kickers. JW was half decent in attack before his injuries. What he needs IMO is not what you can teach. Perhaps ENG should start looking to him as a LT alternative at 12. He's big enough, has a semi decent boot on him.... but he's not a player you want to build your team around for a RWC.

Parling is a top class operator but he is unable to do it alone against a top draw SA lineout attack. Our backrow offered little yesterday in terms of variation, even Matfield had Smith, Spies, Botha to call on.

People seem to have short memories, Parling was brought into the side because a Palmer/Croft/Botha outfit was suffering big time. Parling with Croft offers two top draw option as well as Robshaw providing another gives us an excellent attacking and defensive weapon.

I fail to see what Garvey would bring tbh. Botha has had a much better season but isn't a favourite on here whilst Garvey can do no wrong despite not even shining in the Saxons.

Go forward...something Botha has shown he is incapable of providing. Even when he came on fresh yesterday he was the one player dumped back in the tackle. Garvey had one half for the Saxons if I remember correctly, in which he was excellent but then inexplicably taken off by Lancaster never to be seen again. It smacked of a pre-match sub decision, and it was hugely frustrating.

Garvey may be no better at test level, but he absolutely has earned a shot at it.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Just because a player may not have proved himself week in week out domestically doesn't mean he shouldn't get a call up to the test side. The 3N sides are never worried too much on performance.... Giteau played for AUS before he played SR right? SA have called up a number of youngsters this season with perhaps 10 senior matches to their name... if you have talent... lets see how good you can be. Garvey should be tested..lets see how he features, ENG need to become bullies again up front if they're ever to compete again with the likes of NZ & SA... he could be the guy they need.

ENG obviously have a little issue in the engine room. Palmer played well and with Croft back I think Parling maybe excess to requirements.... esp. given, if he's not winning 100% of his ball and say 25% of the opposition ball whats the point of playing a lineout specialist who is useless in every other department.

Croft is by far the better operator..... he is near untouchable in the skies.

I do worry with ENG controlled by Farrell... young may he be but he just no a natural attacker. Most world class 10s are natural attackers who become good kickers. JW was half decent in attack before his injuries. What he needs IMO is not what you can teach. Perhaps ENG should start looking to him as a LT alternative at 12. He's big enough, has a semi decent boot on him.... but he's not a player you want to build your team around for a RWC.

Parling is a top class operator but he is unable to do it alone against a top draw SA lineout attack. Our backrow offered little yesterday in terms of variation, even Matfield had Smith, Spies, Botha to call on.

People seem to have short memories, Parling was brought into the side because a Palmer/Croft/Botha outfit was suffering big time. Parling with Croft offers two top draw option as well as Robshaw providing another gives us an excellent attacking and defensive weapon.

I fail to see what Garvey would bring tbh. Botha has had a much better season but isn't a favourite on here whilst Garvey can do no wrong despite not even shining in the Saxons.

BUt he has played for the Saxons v Irish Wolfhounds...in the first half and was absolutely outstanding...best player on the pitch...but for what ever reason didnt come out for the second half. Was there an arguement?? because he has never featured for any English team since....

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Just because a player may not have proved himself week in week out domestically doesn't mean he shouldn't get a call up to the test side. The 3N sides are never worried too much on performance.... Giteau played for AUS before he played SR right? SA have called up a number of youngsters this season with perhaps 10 senior matches to their name... if you have talent... lets see how good you can be. Garvey should be tested..lets see how he features, ENG need to become bullies again up front if they're ever to compete again with the likes of NZ & SA... he could be the guy they need.

ENG obviously have a little issue in the engine room. Palmer played well and with Croft back I think Parling maybe excess to requirements.... esp. given, if he's not winning 100% of his ball and say 25% of the opposition ball whats the point of playing a lineout specialist who is useless in every other department.

Croft is by far the better operator..... he is near untouchable in the skies.

I do worry with ENG controlled by Farrell... young may he be but he just no a natural attacker. Most world class 10s are natural attackers who become good kickers. JW was half decent in attack before his injuries. What he needs IMO is not what you can teach. Perhaps ENG should start looking to him as a LT alternative at 12. He's big enough, has a semi decent boot on him.... but he's not a player you want to build your team around for a RWC.

Parling is a top class operator but he is unable to do it alone against a top draw SA lineout attack. Our backrow offered little yesterday in terms of variation, even Matfield had Smith, Spies, Botha to call on.

People seem to have short memories, Parling was brought into the side because a Palmer/Croft/Botha outfit was suffering big time. Parling with Croft offers two top draw option as well as Robshaw providing another gives us an excellent attacking and defensive weapon.

I fail to see what Garvey would bring tbh. Botha has had a much better season but isn't a favourite on here whilst Garvey can do no wrong despite not even shining in the Saxons.

BUt he has played for the Saxons v Irish Wolfhounds...in the first half and was absolutely outstanding...best player on the pitch...but for what ever reason didnt come out for the second half. Was there an arguement?? because he has never featured for any English team since....

It's baffling isn't it?

I watched that game and just didn't see an outstanding display from Garvey, he's a decent AP lock but I just see this saviour others do.

really? Im surprised...he played very well.

I dont see him as a saviour...but he is worth a shot.,..

I was at the Saxons-Wolfhounds game, I thought Garvey was responsible for *several* badly missed tackles in the first half. Then again with England's stupid shirt numbers it's very difficult for anyone at the ground to tell who is who, so he may have been innocent.

I may be wrong GF but I just fail to see the hype personally. Garvey gets a lot of good press on these boards but just hasn't really justified it imo.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I may be wrong GF but I just fail to see the hype personally. Garvey gets a lot of good press on these boards but just hasn't really justified it imo.

Pretty much my thoughts on Botha, I just can't see what his advocates do. I'm with GF, perhaps not a saviour, but well worth a shot.

I think Botha will now be fazed out. Lawes is be given some starts and SL obviously rates Launchbury so I'd expect an early sight of him. Garvey needs to be a regular in the LI second row and impress there before he'll be considered for England as it seems the coaches aren't convinced. England need to balance 4, 5 and 6 and ensure the pack as a whole has at least 2 excellent line-out options and someone who knows how to call one at international level as if the line-out goes wrong you are basically stuffed (this is more important than second row carrying, although obviously we want both).

My next tip for the secondrow is James Criag at Saints. He could be really special, will presumably be moved back to the second row as Saint's backrow options become available. Capable of being dominant at the line-out, with a real workrate and physicality.

Wi11 wrote:I was at the Saxons-Wolfhounds game, I thought Garvey was responsible for *several* badly missed tackles in the first half. Then again with England's stupid shirt numbers it's very difficult for anyone at the ground to tell who is who, so he may have been innocent.

Whether he was responsible or not I cannot say, but he's been LI's best defensive player for 2 seasons now so if he was, it could be considered an anomaly more than anything else.

I do think that Garvey's earned a shot but understand those who say let's see how he performs this season. I just want to see a number of 2nd row players have great seasons as it's a position that I think is weak, especially with Lawes seeming propensity for injury.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I watched that game and just didn't see an outstanding display from Garvey, he's a decent AP lock but I just see this saviour others do.

I am on your side in not seeing what everyone else on here does with Garvey. I will watch more closely, when I get the chance, next season to see if I change my mind.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Haskell is a puzzle. His physicality was massive yesterday...but he gave away about 5-6 penalties....

I'm happy to stick with Haskell for the moment, he's a useful squad member and good bench option, but I do worry about his rugby nous at times.

Regarding his performance yesterday though he was one of the few forwards that didn't concede penalties.

ESPN have the penalty count as:
Marler 0
Hartley 1
Cole 4
Palmer 2
Parling 1
Johnson 0
Haskell 0
Waldrom 1

Rugby Stats have the penalty count as:
Marler 1
Hartley 2
Cole 4
Palmer 2
Parling 1
Johnson 0
Haskell 0
Waldrom 1


In terms of player confusion, Haskell had a light blue scrum cap, Botha & Johnson red, Waldrom white and Palmer black.

I counted 4 at least for haskell....so those stats are definately wrong...

jeffwinger wrote:I've discussed Flood on here many times over the last few weeks. I realise not many seem to agree and that's fine. I just don't rate him. He's not the same player for England as for Leicester. He is physically and mentally weak, a poor defender, an average kicker, and only performs to any sort of standard when the pack are dominant and Youngs is on form. I think he should have gone a long time ago, and now I'd far rather see the younger players given the opportunities as soon as possible.

I agree. When rating his performances in the AP you have consider how good would the others look playing behind the Leicester pack. Unfortunately England are never likely to have a pack that dominates like Leicester do in most games.

I hope that next season Ford get more starts in the AP.

Triangulation wrote:
Johnson ("A star" for effort and guts but we have 10 better options when fit and prospects)

I would love to know who the ten better options are.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I counted 4 at least for haskell....so those stats are definately wrong...

I definitely didn't see him penalised 4 times, in fact I can't remember him being penalised once. I thought he was at one moment near a ruck close to our tryline, but it turned out Walsh was blowing for someone else and it just seemed it was Haskell because he was the one protesting innocence, which he was.

No offence Geordie, but if 2 companies from opposite sides of the planet (UK & Aussie) that specialise and make money in rugby data both have him as clean and you have him as numerously penalised, I think you're the more likely one in error.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Triangulation wrote:
Johnson ("A star" for effort and guts but we have 10 better options when fit and prospects)

I would love to know who the ten better options are.

I disagree with the OP, but if we play devil's advocate, you could put forward - Croft, Haskell, Wood, Robshaw, Fearns, Dowson!?, Launchbury, Lawes, Wilson, Walker, Kvesic, Welch?, Etc

Add to that Savage, Guest, York, Vunipola

alcoombe wrote:
I definitely didn't see him penalised 4 times, in fact I can't remember him being penalised once. I thought he was at one moment near a ruck close to our tryline, but it turned out Walsh was blowing for someone else and it just seemed it was Haskell because he was the one protesting innocence, which he was.

No offence Geordie, but if 2 companies from opposite sides of the planet (UK & Aussie) that specialise and make money in rugby data both have him as clean and you have him as numerously penalised, I think you're the more likely one in error.

Exactly, there was one instance where he held his hands up and a penalty was given, but that was because another England player was handling the ball in the ruck. I don't remember a single penalty he conceded either.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Triangulation wrote:
Johnson ("A star" for effort and guts but we have 10 better options when fit and prospects)

I would love to know who the ten better options are.

I disagree with the OP, but if we play devil's advocate, you could put forward - Croft, Haskell, Wood, Robshaw, Fearns, Dowson!?, Launchbury, Lawes, Wilson, Walker, Kvesic, Welch?, Etc

Waldrom, Armitage, Gibson *shrug*
Oh and werent people wetting themselves over Saull a couple of years ago?

As always we can name 50 backrow players whove been touted as england players in recent months. Maybe one day 3 will play together and look a good choice for 2 games in a row.

Not 6s which was what I was looking at. As I said, I don't think we have 10 6s better than Johnson I was just showing that the claim could be backed up

Oh and werent people wetting themselves over Saull a couple of years ago?

Couple of injuries have decimated his progress PSW. The one that kept him out for the majority of last season looked to be a nasty one.