Hartley has to start against Italy

Before the team was announced to play France, everyone (bar me perhaps) was demanding thet Tom Youngs be dropped and Dylan Hartley recalled. Youngs had had an iffy day at the lineout against ireland, whilst Hartley had come on and steadied the ship. Hartley was the better man at the set-piece we were told (probably true) and Youngs would make more of an impact coming off the bench.

What did we get? Well Hartley was not good and Youngs made a real impact coming off the bench.

So why do I say Hartley has to stay?

Mainly because everything people said before the French match still stand - just Hartley had a poor game. That happens sometimes and if we start dropping players for a single poor performance you start to get a squad that is scared to play as they are scared to make mistakes. would Youngs make such an impact starting? Did anyone notice he was given much easier throws at the lineout? I thus feel that Hartley should retain the starters jersey against Italy - with Youngs again coming on against a tiring back row and midfield.


It may be hypocritical but the same argument does not extend to Courtney Lawes. He was picked as an experiment on the flank and was palpably out of his depth. (Not quite as bad as Mauro Bergamasco at 9, but not that far off)

I don't think Hartley was quite as poor as some have rated - I got the impression he was busy in the loose both as a carrier and hitting the breakdowns, while I can only recall one missed line-out that was his fault (a slight underthrow that got stolen).

OK, the scrum struggled in the first half, but then the French props have a habit of causing our taller guys problems by getting underneath (of course a lot of it also came down to refereeing and to winning the 'hit' - Joubert was a bit random with who and when he penalised early engagements). Hartley may offer a bit more bulk in the front row, but hookers are not really scrummaging monsters (just wish they realised that when the scrum is on the back foot they need to get a good quick hook of the ball to get it to the no 8, rather than just trying to walk over it).

Youngs did well when he came on, but he was aided by a number of other changes - Haskell made a big difference for us (the difference between a lock playing at blindside and a genuine international back row forward) plus France made some bizarre substitutions and started to play less well and with a lower intensity once Michalak was on (and even moreso after Parra went off). I agree the lineout calls seemed to be for easier throws, but by then we were leading and dominating rucks and mauls anyway so there was less need to be adventurous.

Agree that Lawes looked well out of his depth as a starting 6 - lacks the speed and awareness that a back row has to have (the missed tackle on Fofana coming because he was too far inside and not quick enough to cover the gap - I know Ashton is getting some stick for also missing, but he was covering the outside man and wouldn't have expected the inside defender to just let the ball carrier arc round him), and his carrying is still not dominant in the way you'd expect for a guy of his size.

Hopefully Morgan will be back to match fitness and we can revert to the Wood-Robshaw-Morgan line-up with Haskell on the bench. Otherwise, I think Haskell has to come back in to the starting lineup.

Can't agree with that really. I can see your argument, but think that on balance Youngs is the better player. If you can drop Youngs for one poor game against Ireland, I struggle to see why you can't drop Hartley for not taking his chance against France. I don't really see why it should damage morale too much - it's not like the players are being dropped from the EPS and never hearing from Lancaster again (like some of our managers in recent years might have done), it's just a question of who get the first 50 and who gets the last 30.

It's definitely not hypocritical to suggest not playing Lawes at 6 again. There's a big difference between two fairly closely matched hookers fighting for their spot, and experimenting with a player out of position. He shouldn't be prejudiced as a lock, but looked completely clueless at 6 - I would be horrified if Lancaster picks him at 6 again.

Hartley seems to be the steadier player, Youngs the more exciting.

I think Youngs looked incredible when he came on -but that the timing had a lot to do with it and I dont think he would have been as great starting. - Funnily enough I do wonder if his height might have been useful vs the short and very strong French front row.

I think it really depends on when in the game their respective skills are most useful, rather than saying that the starting shirt is the most important. Its a 23 man game not just 15.

lostinwales wrote:Hartley seems to be the steadier player, Youngs the more exciting.

I think Youngs looked incredible when he came on -but that the timing had a lot to do with it and I dont think he would have been as great starting. - Funnily enough I do wonder if his height might have been useful vs the short and very strong French front row.

I think it really depends on when in the game their respective skills are most useful, rather than saying that the starting shirt is the most important. Its a 23 man game not just 15.

Cole, Hartley & Marler all had issues with a technically very good French front row, though by the time PSA made the changes they had gained parity and were perhaps starting to look stronger. Certainly Cole seems to scrummage much lower for Tigers with the much shorter Youngs and Ayerza (another good technician). This may indeed have helped against domingo - but as you say the fact that Youngs looked so good when he cam on was in large part due to the French tiring and lesser players coming on for France.

Domingo getting under Cole was an issue, but I thought Lawes was a problem as well. The drive from the flank is very different to pushing in the second row, and on at least a couple of occasions I thought we started to go backwards when he slipped off.