Calum Clark

First topic message reminder :

Reading through the England EPS/Saxons threads I can see that a lot of the debates, some a bit heated, are rounding back to Calum Clarks inclusion so I thought I'd try and keep these debates condensed into one topic.

As a quick overview of the situation, there are several reason many people are debating the inclusion of Clark:

1. His apparent inclusion as the 4th lock in the squad - not Clark's fault but a very odd choice in my mind!

2. His form this season - if he's been included as a second row (nonsense IMO) then his form definitely doesn't qualify selection, if he's been included as another flanker firstly you could argue we've got enough of them but primarily many think Kvesic is in better form.

3. The big one for many people, the arm breaking incident with Rob Hawkins last season.

Personally I wouldn't have selected him for a mixture of the things above (the arm breaking certainly not helping). The main one being that as a flanker I don't feel he has proven he deserve a place on form alone this season with Kvesic playing so well.

Another good point being made is that he's a very similar style of player to Robshaw and Wood in that he's viewed as a 6.5 rather than a 7. To me a '6.5' as people refer to them is simply a flanker with the poaching ability of an openside but lacking the link work between forwards backs that a traditional 7 should offer. In that sense he is a very similar player to Robshaw/Wood to me and as such we'd have been better of with another lock or Kvesic in the squad.

NB - You can vote for more than one option in the poll if your view is down to more than one of them.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Big Trev...sorry but there is no way that Clark can be viewed as a Lock.

Everyone coach from Neil back to Lancs has said he's a 7...or 6 at a push.

If we wanted a quality up and coming Lock who can play great at 6 aswell..then they should have gone with Slater or Kruis...now they can play...and have some great recent form!

Geordie - from the Telegrpah today

The attraction of Clark’s potent mix of abrasiveness and athleticism is such that Lancaster has named him as one of four locks in the squad, despite having played all but once for his club in the back row this season.
Clark’s elevation in preference to experienced locks Mouritz Botha and Tom Palmer, who have both been dropped to the Saxons with Wasps forward Joe Launchbury also permanently promoted, suggests Lancaster expects Clark to big a significant role on the road to the 2015 World Cup.
“He’s got to have the desire to play in the second row for him to be successful,” Lancaster added. “I’ve checked that is the case and he’s happy. I think he’d play full-back for England to be honest. He enjoys the physicality of it.
“He’s big, strong and athletic, good in the contact, a good defender and he can play for 80 minutes easy. What he’s got to do is make the step from a good player of potential to an international player.”

SL has faith in him to be turned into a lock, he certainly has the size. It will be interesting to follow his development.

TJ wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:I had a slight issue with Matt Stevens returning to the England fold. He'd been a role model and really let people down. But his 2 year ban made him well and truly learn a lesson (had it been performance enhancing he'd have to go for life imo). I fully supported him returning to rugby, but wasn't sure if it was right to go back at the international stage. In hindsight, I think it acts as an incentive in rehab and should any other player fall in such a manner it shows there can be redemption.

Its interesting to compare Stevens with Mike Tindal. Stevens was never found guilty in law of any crime. Mike Tindal twice drove a car when drunk - not tipsy but drunk and was lucky not to get a custodial sentance. Stevens could not have harmed anyone but himself. Tindal could have done.

Stevens got a two year ban - Tindall - nothing.

I think Stevens was very harshly dealt with. should have been supported thru rehab not banned for two years.

I'm not privy to the support Stevens did receive, but I would hope he was helped through rehab, but regardless he was addicted to an illegal and banned substance, so the ban was right. It is a very interesting point you make about Tindall. My understanding is that his 2nd offence was the morning after and would find the distinction between tipsy and drunk difficult to agree, BUT that makes it no less of an offence, merely arguing over semantics! However, his case is certainly occupying one of those grey areas. He was dealt with by a court of law and punished accordingly, so should he have received a double punishment issued by the RFU? I think there would be valid arguments on both sides, but I totally agree that his offence had the potential to kill; but then you could also argue Stevens was helping support organised crime/terrorism but that really is stretching it far! Ultimately, I feel the Stevens ban was right; and Tindall for his 2nd offence should have received some form of ban too, but I'd find it difficult to support much more than a 12-16 week ban.

Many people argued (fairly) at the time that as Stevens is in a position of being a role model he actions deserved a severe punishment. Equally however I'd say that Tindall being caught DUI twice or breaking someones arm/gouging comes well under that same title of terrible role model as well however.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxfOcZrxuHU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkmMK76xARo

Here's a clip of the incident from two different angles for those who haven't seen it (it's not really the sort of thing that's enjoyable to watch but does bring the incident into perspective).

It does put a huge question mark over the 'I was trying to get him off the ball' defence given the whistle is gone.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Using that method of thinking Jimpy...you could say Roy Keane clattered Busst (i believe it was or was it Haangeland) and shattered his leg. Busst had to retire Keane went on playing.

Actually that's a common misconception. Haaland continued to play professional football after that incident.

He didn't even leave the field after the incident, finished the whole game.

Very conclusive vote.

king_carlos wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxfOcZrxuHU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkmMK76xARo

Here's a clip of the incident from two different angles for those who haven't seen it (it's not really the sort of thing that's enjoyable to watch but does bring the incident into perspective).

It does put a huge question mark over the 'I was trying to get him off the ball' defence given the whistle is gone.

Well yes but there is often a scrabble to get the ball when the game pauses for penalties, free kicks, line outs etc. when the opposing team has hold of the ball. So Clarke may well have been 'trying to get him off the ball'.

Keane purposely tackled Alfie haaland that way blatantly for revenge after Haaland stood over RK shouting he was faking an injury a few season ago.When in fact he tore his ACL ( while trying to kick Haaland)

My faith is restored in the humanity of these boards.

Going by tonight's game I can't see where Lancasters faith in his future talent is stemming from. He looked pretty average all game and gave away some silly pens. Can't remember a single thing that set him above any other flankers in the league.

yappysnap wrote:Going by tonight's game I can't see where Lancasters faith in his future talent is stemming from. He looked pretty average all game and gave away some silly pens. Can't remember a single thing that set him above any other flankers in the league.

That's not reassuring from a national stand point.

This is the first really bizarre decision from Lancaster I don't agree with. Clarke is tool at best, a thug at worst - and not the form choice to boot. This all coming from SL who said, and has demonstrated so far, that he picks on form and behaviour on & off pitch.

I can only assume it's down to their days together at Leeds. Lancaster obviously has very fond memories of Clark from them and is letting those sway him.

To be fair Strettle is another pick based on factors other then form and before him Botha and Dowson.

Oh and there's always Ashton, poor form and even worse discipline but always starting.

yappysnap wrote:I can only assume it's down to their days together at Leeds. Lancaster obviously has very fond memories of Clark from them and is letting those sway him.

I think the comments on Lancaster partially picking on past memories is very true but also something all coaches can be guilty of. The fact that he's used 'I know him well junior level' more than comments on his form isn't reassuring at all though. I really hope Clark can sort his discipline out as this isn't the first incident (JWC final) and he often gives away silly penalties throughout matches, there is no doubting he has the physical attributes to be a very good 6 however.

I don't think he'll ever completely separate himself from the arm breaking but how much he separates himself from it will be determined by what he achieves on the pitch. There is no doubting Hartley is a thug but he's a thug that people will pick now he has grown up a bit and developed his game. Tana Umaga was a great centre (also a very good wing) who achieved a huge amount in the game but people will never completely forget the assault on BOD. The list can go on and on really....

Hore...

What did you just call Carlos??