Steffon Armitage for England?

First topic message reminder :

Wilko backs him, so should Lancaster.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/20025686

Thoughts?

Also I'd like to see Delon back in the squad too.

Interesting on the FB's....I'd have Armitage back in a shot, real class act and proven performer.

On Goode/Brown, I think Brown is the superior player but I think Goode would make the better International if that makes sense. We don't have many footballers in the backline and Goode is a very clever player who brings a different dimension to our attack.

Until we find a footballing 12 I'd have Goode at FB.

Back on point anyway. I'm unsure on Steffon, maybe a Saxons call to test the water if available??

Thats a fair point Pooly, Goode is a decent footballer and we do lack that especially if Tuilagi plays 12.

Not sure what playing Steffon in Saxons would prove. He would dominate at that level. He is dominating in the HC and Top 14 so international level is the test for him. Whether he should be picked whilst in France or not is the question for me. If he cant make training camps, then probably shouldnt be picked.

Pat Sanderson was on Talkback's "Full Contact" show on Sunday. He was full of praise for Steffon Armitage, saying he's been the best English seven for two years. As far as he's concerned, the Toulon man should be playing for England with Robshaw or Wood at six.

He went further and suggested there must be more to his non-selection than just playing in France. He didn't know what the reason might be, but could only conclude that Steffon's face was deemed not to fit.

I don't think he's right on that score. Johnson tried Armitage at openside, as he did Fourie, but decided he hadn't shown enough. When Lancaster was chosen to take over, no-one was arguing hard for Armitage, and I'm sure Lancaster felt he didn't want to ignore the RFU's recommendation not to select a player from outside the Premiership.

Lancaster had a good Six Nations without selecting him and it was only around this time that everyone started to notice how well Steffon was playing. A place on the South Africa tour seemed a good opportunity to see what he might do, but he was tied up with Toulon commitments for the early part.

Only now has Lancaster openly spoken of his reluctance to select outside the Premiership. I think this is a genuine position rather than a mask for some behind-the-scenes bad blood. It is a shame, because both Armitage brothers warrant inclusion, and the average sports supporter just wants to see the best players on show.

What makes it slightly harder for Lancaster is that Palmer, Haskell and Cipriani have all returned to the Premiership to stake their England claims. At this stage, I suspect the wheels would have to fall off dramtically before he decided "exceptional circumstances" warranted calling up from overseas.

I am in danger of repeating myself but here goes:

No player should be excluded because they play abroad.
Playing abroad does make it harder to be selected as you will miss training camps and some matches.
Steffon is competing for a place against Chris Robshaw, twice Premiership Player of the Year, current England Captain and a man who immediately translated club form to the international stage (I admit something I doubted he could do - nice to be wrong) and a man who has actually been Englands best 7 for the last two years.

LondonTiger wrote:
Steffon is competing for a place against Chris Robshaw, twice Premiership Player of the Year, current England Captain and a man who immediately translated club form to the international stage (I admit something I doubted he could do - nice to be wrong) and a man who has actually been Englands best 7 for the last two years.

For me this should be the sole reason why Steffon doesn't make the side. Robshaw is the man in possession of the 7 jersey and has performed well enough to warrant keeping it. If for whatever reason he was suddenly unavailable, then for me you have to pick the best man for the job, and at the present time that is Steffon Armitage.

(Obviously the other alternative could be Robshaw at 6 and Steffon at 7)

Problem is I think you have to be clearly better than the next alternative if you are unable to attend training sessions or will miss matches. Teamwork can create a better team than a group of disparate, more talented, individuals.

In build and attitude Robshaw is the archetypal modern day 7. almost identikit - 1m 86 (+/- 2cm), 110kg (+/- 4kg). dynamic at the breakdown, decent pace, good hands, great tackler. He could play 6 (or more likely 8) just as many other international 7s can. However he is less of a player there.

It is not just in the backs where we should play people in their normal position.

I'm surprised Sanderson wasn't talking up Andy Saull as England saviour at 7, he normally does.

For me Robshaw is a better 6 than he is 7 LT. I am also a firm believer that you pick your back row as a unit as opposed to individuals. The issue for England is getting that balance right, and the best individuals may not make for the best team. It is annoying right now, as there are plenty of good options at 6 and 7 in my mind right now, but at 8 there are issues, with Morgan having looked unable to do a full 80 minutes and Waldrom simply not really top international standard.

The thing I would say about Steffon right now though (keeping this on topic), is he is different to the other options for the 7 jersey. He is not the identikit openside in terms of build, but he is very dynamic, and has the ability to make things happen, that x factor if you like. I think we are missing that in the England team right now, particularly in the pack, where we are functional and workmanlike as opposed to being dynamic and dominating.

I think you lose too much by playing Robshaw at 6. I know there are comparisons with Richard Hill - but we are talking about a different era. The key things he has done for england are much easier done at 7.

Unlike Robshaw, Steffon failed to translate club ability immediately on the international stage. that is either because England were crap (they were - but he should have been able to shine against an Italy featuring mauro at 9) or because he is a smidgeon below international class.

It is harder for management to assess his form when they cannot see him live. TV only shows a limited amount. If Robshaw was to get injured during the AIs then there is room to call Steffon up for all but the 4th test - if not he may well go to Argentina in the summer.

I do like Steffon but is it possible he only looks good because Toulon's pack is strong?

Has he actually improved as a player?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I do like Steffon but is it possible he only looks good because Toulon's pack is strong?
Has he actually improved as a player?

Fair point - though one that can be raised about a number of England squad members who are in strong teams. Youngs (B) and Flood can look world class - when Leicester are in control. Also many felt Youngs (T) and kitchener were unfairly taken to SA just because they were at Leicester. They have been excellent this season - but again is that their ability or the players around them?

For all the talk of the English players playing in France I was very impressed with Lancasters view on it.

If I can't get my hands on the players I need for regular meets and camps then how are they going to be able to produce what I want on the feild when it matters.

Or something along those lines, I think he suggested that they'd only be available for 60% or so of squad meets, and all that time would be in performance situations, that seemes very risky to me too.

Hersh, are you joking? Do you even watch much rugby?

Brown has been the best full back in the premiership for the past two seasons.

He is extremely fast. His pace has increased markedly since he started training with Margot Wells a few years back.

In defence he is outstanding, easily fast enough to make some superb cover tackles, whilst his front on tackling is just as solid.

His positioning and confidence under the high ball is second to none.

His kicking game is top notch, he possesses a huge left boot which can help you get out of a tight situation or gain you extra yards when kicking to touch with a penalty.

His running game from deep and broken play is one of my highlights of Brown, he has the ability to take players on and beat them using his pace or his distribution skills. His ball carrying in the tight and the loose are equally impressive.

He also tops most of the stats for defenders beaten, metres gained, offloads made, tries scored e.t.c

Hersh is deluded and needs to watch more rugby. I guarantee if Brown stays injury free he will be our first choice full back post AI's and will be on the flight to Aus with the Lions come the summer of 2013.

I would never describe Brown as "extremely fast"

I'd also have Halfpenny, Kearney as current FB incumbents(long way to go) with Foden and Hogg snapping behind.

Brown will not be a Lion.

England have often played without a real fetcher at number seven. For instance, Peter Winterbottom was preferred to Gary Rees of Nottingham. Both were fearless at putting themselves in harm's way but Winterbottom was a hard, intimidating player while Rees was cunning. In the last 25 years, only Robinson and Back really fitted the scavenging, ball-playing open-side profile.

England have had a number of players who might have amounted to more if they'd been lucky enough to be selected in more successful teams, and allowed a run. A mate of mine still swears that Chris Jones and Luke Narraway are two that got away. I reckon Stuart Barnes would have done well by England and the Lions if he'd been given as many chances as Rob Andrew.

It's the luck of the draw to some extent. When Josh Lewsey got his first cap, he looked like he'd been with England for ages. The team went on winning, so he stayed. Geraghty and Cipriani has great debuts but then the team subsequently lost and they were in the firing line. Stuart Barnes had the same problem when he was recalled in 1993. In his first ever Five Nations start, he was outstanding against Scotland:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby-union-a-stumpylegged-chassis-purring-along-stuart-barnes-at-last-got-his-chance--and-took-it-richard-williams-reports-1496074.html

In the following match, he was part of the team which lost to Ireland. Never got another cap and Will Carling's chances at leading the Lions to NZ disappeared in 80 minutes.

Lancaster won't be delighted coming away without a win in South Africa but he's still broadly in credit. If he can win 3 out of 4 in the Autumn then there'll be fewer questions raised. 2 out of 4 will only really work in his favour if one of them is NZ but that would still mean losing to either Australia or Fiji. 1 out of 4 will look like we don't know how to play rugby

Brown is actually the fastest guy over shorter distances (20-30m sprints) in the Quins squad now! Hard to call him slow any more when he's outpacing Care,Monye,Guest etc.

Sounds hard to believe but the work he has done with Margot Wells has made a huge difference. I actually had the pleasure/honour of meeting Mrs Wells due to a friend who coaches with her/was taught how to coach sprinting in rugby by her.

From a short chat I could tell a big part of her work in rugby is trying to disprove the view that sprinters are 90% born with it 10% work for it when she believes it's more 50-50. She also knows through experience that the initial acceleration over 15-20m is the part of sprinting that can be most improved through technique and hard work. (Really is a chat I've been meaning to put in an article now this as reminded me)

I know it's an odd thought to get your head around when we're all used to being told sprinters are born not made but personally I trusted her views over my school PE teacher. Also since employing some fairly simple advice from my friend who worked with her have improved my raw pace from almost as slow as the props to almost as slow as the second rows - a big deal for me!

Also this initial acceleration is arguably the most important element of speed in rugby for most positions. This period is where most breaks are made after all.

HERSH wrote:Why are you bringing Banahan into this?
(By the way he has slimmed down and is beginning to look like the player he was (JEFF top try scorer) until MJ and SIM destroyed his confidence, he just keeps g

etting injured)

Brown isn’t good enough for England far too slow for FB, Saxons maybe but not the 1st XV.

IMO…

Hmm... Well you're entitled to your opinion (though I don't believe this is your real opinion for 1 second Hersh) but you get to make excuses for Banahan, the atrocity, but won't take any for Brown? Banahan can improve at top level rugby but other players can't?

Yeah, the level of irony and hypocrisy leads me to believe you know exactly what you are doing and you are an artist at work

Rugby Fan wrote: When Josh Lewsey got his first cap, he looked like he'd been with England for ages.

I suspect you are thinking of Lewseys first appearance in the 6Ns. He played 3 tests on the 1998 tour of hell. He was called up to the team at IC against NZ (the week after the 76-0 thrashing by Australia). This match was lost 64-22 and the following weeks he replaced Jonny Wilkinson and appeared at 10 in the 40-10 and 18-0 defeats to NZ & SA.
There was then a 3 year gap before he played for England again, appearing at FB on the Summer tour to North America (standing in for Balshaw who was on the Lions tour) followed by an almost two year gap before his first 6Ns appearance in 2003.

I think we all know that he wont be selected for the AI's as we have a good group of back rowers...
Also whilst Robshaw is there...Lancs has shown a preferance for a left and a right flanker...that can do it all. Whether this is down to lack of options at 7 or lack of options due to injuries im not sure...but i think he will stick with the group he has.

I hope Fearns gets a shot this Autumn.

I'm really realy hoping Feanr sis selected for the AIs. We could really do with his abrasive style against the Fijians. He doesn't take a backwards step, and is very tough will ball in hand and tackles hard.

Another 7 who's starting to impress is Will Fraser....thought he was excellent for Sarries the other day.

I keep hearing this name Will Fraser...but havent seen a thing of him yet.

He's obviously another youngster...let him continue his devlopement this season with Sarries and if he makes it...great. Maybe he can do what Saul couldnt and achieve the expectations of the 606 build up

We have plenty backrowers fighting it out for the moment to make a quality trio...for the Ai's

Ah he's pretty decent GF, but still young. I think Saull may find it hard to break back into the first team to be honest now Fraser's starting at 7. Despite saying that, Saull had a good cameo at the weekend, and stole a little ball in a short appearance. Hopefully the rest did him good during his injury and he got his act together!

Like you say, we've got loads of options for the AIs, but I would love to see

6. Fearns
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

Bench: Wood/Haskell.

Fingers crossed!

Squad announcement tomorrow....?

I just don't see it with Fearns, he seems to disappear as the quality of the opposition goes up.

I definitely think he did last season Sgt.Pooly, but he's come back so much fitter this season. I think he's been very very good each game I've seen him in. He's strong at the breakdown, hits very hard, and gains the hard meters. A good 6 option, very different from Croft and Wood (6/7).

For me Fearns is not international class. Would be happy to be proved wrong but I think he would struggle at international level.

Taking Armitage out fo the equation as it appears he is not going to be in the squad, I would like to see

6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

Both flankers are really 6/7's, so could work well together. They also both provide a lineout option, with Wood also able to lead the lineout. The benefit of this would be that potentially we could include two heavier, ball carrying locks, as I remain unconvinced by either Botha or Parlings international credentials.

Yeah Pooly i think alot of that was down to his fitness...in SA he looked very poor in that regards.

The only problem with that back row Vedder...is lacking any kind of quality lineout options. And i think you need three decent options in a pack. Both locks and a back rower.

Robshaw is really developing in the lineout. Never going to be a Croft/Wood but takes a lot of ball for Quins.

Yea I think similar there Ozzy, don't really see it Fearns.

Ozzy thats the back row that i think will start v Fiji...and the rest of the AI's.

I think it then gives you Lawes as one SR...and the option of Parling (wouldnt be my choice)...or a more robust SR...

We need to see alot more of Morgan than we did in SA....or his place is under threat already.

What has Wood's form been like since he came back from injury though? I seem to remember an article about the Saints - LI game which had him coming off second best against Gibson.

The last game i saw him was against Glasgow...and his second half performance looked like he was coming back to himself again.

And the lineout performance of him and Lawes was a big factor in their win....in my opinion.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The last game i saw him was against Glasgow...and his second half performance looked like he was coming back to himself again.

And the lineout performance of him and Lawes was a big factor in their win....in my opinion.

That doesn't sound like he's crying out to be selected.

LondonTiger wrote:I suspect you are thinking of Lewseys first appearance in the 6Ns...

Yes, I was. Thanks for picking that up.

England were in a sweet position back then. Almost everyone added to the team over that winning run did enough to stay included. There were few examples of players getting a cap or two and then dropping out of sight.

I recall Woodward being so enamoured with the way players seemed to step up at international level when selected that he once claimed England's third choice team would be internationally competitive. There's a big difference between selecting a third choice player for the first team and asking 15 third choice players to deliver a top class team performance.

I was thinking about this the other day when all the talk was about New Zealand looking to set a new record for consecutive Test wins.

In 2003, England were on 14 consecutive wins when Woodward fielded an experimental side against France in one of their World Cup warm-up matches. This was the side:

I Balshaw; J Lewsey, O Smith, M Tindall, B Cohen; P Grayson, A Healey; G Rowntree, D West (capt), J White, S Borthwick, D Grewcock, M Corry , L Moody, A Sanderson.

Replacements: S Thompson, J Leonard, S Shaw, A Hazell, A Gomarsall, D Walder, J Noon

No Johnson, Kay, Greenwood, Wilkinson, Dawson, Robinson, Dallaglio, Back, Hill, Vickery, Woodman or Catt. Meanwhile, France fielded a full-strength side. To be fair, in the later warm-up game against France at Twickenham, the situation was reversed and it's likely this was what Woodward and LaPorte had agreed to do.

It was almost enough but we went down 17-16 in Marseille after Moody gave away a penalty with 15 minutes still on the clock. If Woodward had been more determined to win, rather than making sure his squad players all had game time ahead of the Cup, England would have had 15 consecutive victories. We then won 45-14 in the return match at Twickenham which could have been 16. We'd have beaten the old record in our first two pool matches. The World Cup as a whole added 7 more victories so England could have registered 23 consecutive wins as Wilkinson dropped that goal.

Woodward dismissed the idea he had fielded a "B" team and I think he genuinely believed they were going to be good enough to beat France. Still, I wouldn't have minded having that record on the books.

That warm-up loss showed just how important it was to have a core of winning players. Add a couple of new faces to the mix and they might rise to the occasion. Too many new players, however, and the core belief and execution just isn't reliably there. The interesting thing about that B team is how much it feels like an Andy Robinson-era team and we know what happened there.

We've never really established any consistency since. Our stand-out wins in the years after 2003 have been the 2007 Six Nations win over France under Ashton, when Geraghty played a blinder; the 2007 World Cup QF and SF which represented the last spark of life from the old guard; the 2008 win over Ireland when Cipriani got his first start; and the two wins over Australia under Johnson which proved to be another false dawn. The 2011 Six Nations saw good wins but the loss to Ireland left a bad taste and proved to be an early sign of the trouble we would have at that year's World Cup.

I'm all in favour of Lancaster trying to develop the core of players we seem to have lacked since 2003. Steffon's non-selection at this point won't be a major issue for me if we can go on to register some consistently good wins this season. I'm fed up with the occasional high followed by the very mediocre.

mawhis wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:The last game i saw him was against Glasgow...and his second half performance looked like he was coming back to himself again.

And the lineout performance of him and Lawes was a big factor in their win....in my opinion.

That doesn't sound like he's crying out to be selected.

He played well mate...but as i havent seen alot of Haskell and Croft is out ...who else do you pick.
Do we go for the bruising option of Fearns. Many doubt his ability at the top level...but how are we going to know unless he actually plays?
Is Haskell playing well?

Haskell doesnt seem to be pulling up trees really. Dont think he has been as good as Fearns.

Im unconvinced by Fearns at int. level but then again he deserves a chance or we will never know.

I think Haskell's had one or two good games, but others have been disappointing. He's given away a lot of penalties too.

I think we saw the best out of him Six Nations 2011. He really seemed to come into his own, using his size and speed. His performance against Italy was so good. I just feel that he's a slightly different play now than he was then. Maybe he's just readjusting to the NH game after his time abroad- who knows.

I'd be surprised if Lancaster doesn't stick with Johnson at blindside, he wouldn't necessarily be my choice, but he's the man in possession of the shirt and he's playing well for Exeter.

Actually i completely forgot about Johnson...and hes playing very well in a team playing well....

Your right Lancaster will probably stick with him.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Actually i completely forgot about Johnson...and hes playing very well in a team playing well....

Your right Lancaster will probably stick with him.

Johnson's an excellent player, but too small for int. level I think. I know Alberts bumped off plenty of people but Johnson was incapable of bringing him down.

Fearns, i agree, i've yet to see him dominate against a good team or very good back-row, but his form looks good. He probably deserves a chance. It's a shame Haskell isn't back to his best, I think the WC seemed to knock his confidence.

If Johnson (6'2" & 229lb) is too small for international rugby, then so are Dusautoir (6'2" & 218lb) and McCaw (6'2" & 233lb).

Not a chance TJ is over 16st

I'm amazed by the posters that can correctly guage a player's weight from the stands or the TV, successfully judging their muscle structure and bone density, they must be the same people that clear up at the guess the jar competitions.

It's a special talent, be amazed

Those guys are the best in the business though...not relying on their weight...is Johnson in the same class as them? Im not so sure...

I would never suggest that Johnson is as good as Dusautoir or McCaw, but the simple claim that he is too small for international rugby just isn't true. A claim that he isn't powerful enough might be more debatable, but not something I would agree with, though neither would he be my first pick for the 6 shirt. At the same time I can't claim that any of the players I would substitute him for are playing miles better at present.

Failed his drugs test, ooops. HERSH you jynx. I guess your players can't cut it sothey turn to illegal substances. Something England rubgy learnt from Bath .

Morgannwg wrote:Failed his drugs test, ooops. HERSH you jynx. I guess your players can't cut it sothey turn to illegal substances. Something England rubgy learnt from Bath .

Isn't that Libellous?

Mods mods!!!!!

Libellous how? HERSH I genuinely think you've jynxed Armitage. England lack a fetcher and he was playing well. Then a 'Bath fan', the team that plays at the 'rec' posts this, only for him to fail a drugs test days later. I'm concerned. Some fan you are HERSH.

He failed the drug test last season.

If he is found not guilty of taking illegal substances (and him and Toulon state that the negative test for morphine was due to takin g codeine which is legal) the accusing him of taking illegal substances to boost performance is I guess ptentially libellous.

HERSH posts this then his hearing resurfaces! HERSH needs to stop going out of his way to jynx England players. You lot should disown him.