England vs South Africa November 15th 2014

First topic message reminder :

Courtney Lawes is a doubt, since he is going through concussion protocols. That would see Kruis start and Kitchener on the bench, unless Lancaster wants to do something funky with Clark. Luther Burrell not in contention, and Stephen Myler still out with a hamstring problem. Haskell is there.

England team to face South Africa:

Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Anthony Watson (Bath)
Brad Barritt (Saracens)
Kyle Eastmond (Bath)
Jonny May (Gloucester)
Owen Farrell (Saracens)
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Dylan Hartley (Northampton)
David Wilson (Bath)
Dave Attwood (Bath)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton)
Tom Wood (Northampton)
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)

Replacements

Rob Webber (Bath), Matt Mullan (Wasps), Kieran Brookes (Newcastle), George Kruis (Saracens), Ben Morgan (Gloucester), Ben Youngs (Leicester), George Ford (Bath), Marland Yarde (Harlequins)

South Africa

15 Willie le Roux,
14 JP Pietersen,
13 Jan Serfontein,

12 Jean de Villiers,
11 Bryan Habana,
10 Pat Lambie,
9 Cobus Reinach,
8 Duane Vermeulen,
7 Schalk Burger,
6 Marcell Coetzee,
5 Victor Matfield,
4 Eben Etzebeth,
3 Jannie du Plessis,
2 Adriaan Strauss,
1 Tendai Mtawarira

Replacements:

16 Bismarck du Plessis,
17 Trevor Nyakane,
18 Coenie Oosthuizen,
19 Bakkies Botha,
20 Teboho “Oupa” Mohoje,
21 Francois Hougaard,
22 Handré Pollard,
23 Cornal Hendricks

England have gone without a win in their last eleven Tests against the Springboks. Their best recent result was a draw in Port Elizabeth in June 2012. The match on Saturday will be almost eight years exactly since England's last victory. England have lost their last four Twickenham encounters.

This is the third time Lancaster has taken England through a round of Autumn Internationals. In 2012, his team beat New Zealand. In 2013, it was Australia. He has never beaten South Africa; his record reads one home loss, two away losses and one away draw.

MMaaxx wrote:SA is super lucky to have Bismark and Strauss. To me the two best hookers around and I have no issue with who starts between them.

SA showed flashes of back line magic on the weekend, obviously Reinach's score comes to mind and the little blindside move before Lambie's first 3 pointer.

If teams can get through the first 20m against England at Twicks then most of the match is won. Beyond that period where they are running around with tempo, chests out etc, they currently offer little. Still dangerous because of their strong pack and set piece play but will not be a team to take the opposition apart.

Comments along the lines of England would have won 'if' they had one or two players available, or small improvements in small areas of England's play would have resulted in two wins against NZ or SA are a joke. Please consider that SA and NZ had players missing, didn't play their best (small improvement here and there?) etc. maybe they could've won by more? In both games I didn't feel England were going to win. They remain a competitive but limited team. Their backrow needs tweaking and 10 as well as 12/13 remain major issues.

Same issues I have with all Robshaw's post match presentations. Always England who let the opposition get ahead or win. Never that the opposition played well / better. Some honesty would do this England team well, face some realities and adapt / change accordingly

Saying "oh well, we lost because the opposition just played too well" is pointless, useless and actively counterproductive. I couldn't disagree with you more. It focuses on things you cannot fix. Every game, no matter how the opposition play, has to be seen as winnable else there is no point in turning up, and when the ABs lose you can bet your bottom dollar that McCaw doesn't talk about how the opposition did

JDV is rugby's gentleman though. A winner but also a very gracious loser and excellent on the mic. No doubt he will get a cosy pundit gig wherever he chooses to go post retirement given he is a former springbok captain with over 100 caps and a RWC winner too.

He always talks up the opposition and shows them respect.... he's making up for lost time on behalf of the boks...3 years of pious diplomacy on top of Smits 8, 100 years worth yet to recover from!!!

To be honest I thought Smit was a great ambassador for SA rugby and also quite diplomatic.

I was very surprised how well spoken Burger has been too each time I heard him speak. by contrast I heard Schalk Britts speak recently and he sounds like a South African Michael Jackson.

Britts speak recently and he sounds like a South African Michael Jackson.

I heard him during the Saracens vs Western Province match.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

MMaaxx wrote:SA is super lucky to have Bismark and Strauss. To me the two best hookers around and I have no issue with who starts between them.

SA showed flashes of back line magic on the weekend, obviously Reinach's score comes to mind and the little blindside move before Lambie's first 3 pointer.

If teams can get through the first 20m against England at Twicks then most of the match is won. Beyond that period where they are running around with tempo, chests out etc, they currently offer little. Still dangerous because of their strong pack and set piece play but will not be a team to take the opposition apart.

Comments along the lines of England would have won 'if' they had one or two players available, or small improvements in small areas of England's play would have resulted in two wins against NZ or SA are a joke. Please consider that SA and NZ had players missing, didn't play their best (small improvement here and there?) etc. maybe they could've won by more? In both games I didn't feel England were going to win. They remain a competitive but limited team. Their backrow needs tweaking and 10 as well as 12/13 remain major issues.

Same issues I have with all Robshaw's post match presentations. Always England who let the opposition get ahead or win. Never that the opposition played well / better. Some honesty would do this England team well, face some realities and adapt / change accordingly

Saying "oh well, we lost because the opposition just played too well" is pointless, useless and actively counterproductive. I couldn't disagree with you more. It focuses on things you cannot fix. Every game, no matter how the opposition play, has to be seen as winnable else there is no point in turning up, and when the ABs lose you can bet your bottom dollar that McCaw doesn't talk about how the opposition did

I agree About Robshaws interviews , a little honesty will go a long way . I dont believe for a second that the All blacks and Boks beat England because the English let them do A B C or as Lancaster put it " they didnt create much , they scored off our mistakes" . Mistakes are generally forced on the rugby field. Care didnt throw that pass out of the blue , he saw the defense was organised and hesitated and Serfontein was actually where he should have been to punish that split second hesitancy . England need to accept the other team played better ,executed their own gameplan and didnt just win because of English mistakes. Take away the mistakes and chances are the opposition will create their own tries anyway . The Boks lost to Ireland opening week and you never heard this mistakes excuse. We all know why we lost. The Irish played better smarter rugby and won simple as that .

GunsGerms wrote:To be honest I thought Smit was a great ambassador for SA rugby and also quite diplomatic.

I was very surprised how well spoken Burger has been too each time I heard him speak. by contrast I heard Schalk Britts speak recently and he sounds like a South African Michael Jackson.

Schalk is a smart chap. Went to Stellenbosch (SA's Oxford/UCD), not sure what he majored in but they generally don't do fanny degrees on behalf of their sporting stars. You'd expect him to be a meathead on first inspection.

Paarl Gim (the school which both JDV and Schalk went to) is highly disciplined and the kids are a very respectful bunch. I went there to have a look around with my vrou (prospective viewing etc) and all the kids greet you as uncle and aunt even if you're just walking by.

If anyone can tell me a tougher test to your discipline then being forced to wear a European style thick blazer at all times both in and out of school for 6 years in 40c heat then I yet to know one... well bar those practiced at Abu Ghraib!

When you have 60% territory and 60%  possession! beat 20 more defenders and have 7 more line breaks, have over 3 times as many passes and run twice the meters you should win. No excuses we feicked up. We need to stop losing tight games. It's getting stupid. If the boks had our amount of play they would have racked up 60 pts.

mystiroakey wrote:When you have 60% territory and 60%  possession! beat 20 more defenders and have 7 more line breaks and run twice the meters you should win. No excuses we feicked up. We need to stop losing tight games. It's getting stupid. If the boks had our amount of play they would have racked up 60 pts.

Here are three test matches played in the last couple of years.

Possession
Team A 67%
Team B 33%

Territory
Team A 75%
Team B 25%

Defenders beaten and Line breaks
Team A 14
Team B 7

Meters ran
Team A 488
Team B 284

Tries scored
Team A 0
Team B 1

................................................

Possession
Team A 58%
Team B 42%

Territory
Team A 60%
Team B 40%

Defenders beaten and clean breaks
Team A 30
Team B 4

Meters ran
Team A 378
Team B 237

Tries scored
Team A 3
Team B 3

..................................................

Possession
Team A 57%
Team B 43%

Territory
Team A 62%
Team B 38%

Tries scored
Team A 2
Team B 2

Meters ran
Team A 355
Team B 232

Defenders beaten and clean breaks
Team A 31
Team B 17


In all three cases the team with the least possession, territory and defenders beaten had won.

Proof that some teams play bone head rugby?

Ireland are masters at that kinda game (I mean the stat games that almost command a loss for us but we end up winning

I have quite often seen the All Blacks destroy us with very little possession or territory. Usually it relates to us having the ball in the their half and attacking. And attacking, and not going forward. Whoops, turnover, All Blacks try, rinse and repeat as needed. Get very little territory, very little possession for that...but lots of points.

Usually if one team is massively ahead in the stats but loses the game it's because they were completely outclassed. That is based on nothing more than gut feeling and vague memories.

HammerofThunor wrote:I have quite often seen the All Blacks destroy us with very little possession or territory.  Usually it relates to us having the ball in the their half and attacking. And attacking, and not going forward. Whoops, turnover, All Blacks try, rinse and repeat as needed. Get very little territory, very little possession for that...but lots of points.

Usually if one team is massively ahead in the stats but loses the game it's because they were completely outclassed.  That is based on nothing more than gut feeling and vague memories.

Contain contain contain, turn it on for 5-10 minutes score a couple of tries put the game to bed then back to sleep. That is what I always think of with the AB's. One of the best best things about that game 2 years ago was the way England responded when NZ did try turning it on, they came back with interest.

lostinwales wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I have quite often seen the All Blacks destroy us with very little possession or territory.  Usually it relates to us having the ball in the their half and attacking. And attacking, and not going forward. Whoops, turnover, All Blacks try, rinse and repeat as needed. Get very little territory, very little possession for that...but lots of points.

Usually if one team is massively ahead in the stats but loses the game it's because they were completely outclassed.  That is based on nothing more than gut feeling and vague memories.

Contain contain contain, turn it on for 5-10 minutes score a couple of tries put the game to bed then back to sleep. That is what I always think of with the AB's. One of the best best things about that game 2 years ago was the way England responded when NZ did try turning it on, they came back with interest.

Probably explains why the All Blacks always seem to be less tired in the last 10 . They switch off for 40min each game and just go through the motions while holding a tight defense

Now we're getting somewhere.  ABs are not about all out energy all the time that other sides can't live with but about very very  crafty usage of energy.  Like heavyweight boxers, they use tricks and a fair deal of play acting to drag out reserves of energy from their opponents.  Give hope, kill it.  Give hope, kill it.  Soul destroying stuff and it can take the energy out of legs and minds of opponents trying to live with it.  
Give hope, steal it.

SecretFly wrote:Ireland are masters at that kinda game (I mean the stat games that almost command a loss for us but we end up winning

not anymore you are not.. we have taken that mantle.

If we dont get to a semi final of the WC and win the 6nations at a bear minimum SL has to go. We have so many players in england. If he wants to keep on playing Players like farrell - why arnt we playing a better kicking game!!

Because SL wants a running game and one of his coaches has a son.....................

LondonTiger wrote:Cole should only be considered when/if he lasts till end of December - and shows up well in AP matches against Saints and European against Toulon.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Cole should be an option for the six nations and not before.

Fortunately I haven't actually seen a single person suggesting anything other than this. He's had a horrible injury and definitely wont be considered until the Six Nations.


I've a slight hope that he's actually going to come back better than before, provided it doesn't cost him any loss of strength in his upper body in the long-term. He looked tired before the Lions tour and completely done-in after it. He should be in the world's top three tightheads, and will have had a proper rest now, with 3/4 of a season to get back up to speed before the World Cup camp.


I wouldn't necessarily place too much emphasis on the Toulon games though. Even by early December he'll still only be a few games into his comeback, which is massive for a player in that position. See how he progresses over the whole period between the AIs and the 6N. You've also got Bath, Quins and Ulster during that.

I was at the match, so waited to comment on this thread till I read through it whilst watching the recording.

Reading through it's astonishing how selective people's praises and criticisms are based on their current favourites and pariahs. Wood for example got an absolute drubbing from some in this thread, yet for me it was Attwood that most disappointed (his same number and same type of penalties barely got a mention on here in comparison to Wood's). He had a good game last weekend, but this he had hands like shovels and terrible awareness with ball in hand that butchered a great try opportunity. It's moments like that that make the biggest difference against the top sides, Launchbury is much better on the ball and still first choice with Lawes when fit.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Haskell can do in the side next weekend, but still don't see it fully addressing the balance of the backrow, he's another 6.5 whose game is primarily openside orientated and it still means we're missing extra carrying. I do wish Ewers was in the squad apart from yet another 6.5 like Clark, I guess Exeter not being in the Champions this year can't be helping his chances.

I was amazed to read that Hartley thought his yellow card was unfair, he said in his piece in The Sun, that he didn't stamp on the bok number 8, he trode on him.

Seems to have forgotten that he gave the guy a slap on the rump just before he illegally stamped on him.

Why do England still pick this liability of a player??? He is a thug you have better hookers.

maestegmafia wrote:I was amazed to read that Hartley thought his yellow card was unfair, he said in his piece in The Sun, that he didn't stamp on the bok number 8, he trade on him.

Seems to have forgotten that he gave the guy a slap on the rump just before he illegally stamped on him.

Why do England still pick this liability of a player??? He is a thug you have better hookers.

I'm suprised he had the gall to be suprised after he got Dan Coles yellow for a reaction .

maestegmafia wrote:I was amazed to read that Hartley thought his yellow card was unfair, he said in his piece in The Sun, that he didn't stamp on the bok number 8, he trade on him.

Seems to have forgotten that he gave the guy a slap on the rump just before he illegally stamped on him.

Why do England still pick this liability of a player??? He is a thug you have better hookers.

btsport did a twitter poll on their rugby programme tonight and about three quarters agreed with Hartley, as well as most of the pundits and a number of current players, but then I wouldn't describe them or you as being impartial on Hartley.

alcoombe wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I was amazed to read that Hartley thought his yellow card was unfair, he said in his piece in The Sun, that he didn't stamp on the bok number 8, he trade on him.

Seems to have forgotten that he gave the guy a slap on the rump just before he illegally stamped on him.

Why do England still pick this liability of a player??? He is a thug you have better hookers.

btsport did a twitter poll on their rugby programme tonight and about three quarters agreed with Hartley, as well as most of the pundits and a number of current players, but then I wouldn't describe them or you as being impartial on Hartley.

Are you serious?

Wow..! That is amazing.

Bullsbok wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I have quite often seen the All Blacks destroy us with very little possession or territory.  Usually it relates to us having the ball in the their half and attacking. And attacking, and not going forward. Whoops, turnover, All Blacks try, rinse and repeat as needed. Get very little territory, very little possession for that...but lots of points.

Usually if one team is massively ahead in the stats but loses the game it's because they were completely outclassed.  That is based on nothing more than gut feeling and vague memories.

Contain contain contain, turn it on for 5-10 minutes score a couple of tries put the game to bed then back to sleep. That is what I always think of with the AB's. One of the best best things about that game 2 years ago was the way England responded when NZ did try turning it on, they came back with interest.

Probably explains why the All Blacks always seem to be less tired in the last 10 . They switch off for 40min each game and just go through the motions while holding a tight defense

Its turning out that the win in 2012 is getting to be one of the worst things that could have happened to England. For one they haven't shown anything even in the same street as that game since and have instead won little and lost a lot since.

It's tending to happen with an uncanny consistency when sides either beat or get close to the AB's- Oz drew with the AB's, then got hammered at Eden park, lost to Argie, and now France.

SA f....inally won one at Ellis, then lost to Ireland fairly convincingly. (Its happened in every world cup bar 91- the side thats won has gone on to bad things, and also bar 91 every world cup winner has lost next start versus the AB's).

So the motto is really...all good if you beat the AB's...but don't expect anything from it, cos its likely to turn to custard.

Taylorman wrote:So the motto is really...all good if you beat the AB's...but don't expect anything from it, cos its likely to turn to custard.

Man, that is cocky. Sport is a funny thing, it bucks trends, no matter how confident you are.

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:So the motto is really...all good if you beat the AB's...but don't expect anything from it, cos its likely to turn to custard.

Man, that is cocky. Sport is a funny thing, it bucks trends, no matter how confident you are.

Not about being cocky. I honestly think there's an unrealistic expectation that seems to happen after the AB's are beaten. It happened when England won. Everyone automatically assumed a 6N win. Then they got smashed by Wales.

At Eden park Ewan Mac challenged the AB's to bring their 'A' game after they drew in Sydney. They did and got hammered.

Even Bok supporters- yourself included- were saying how can the Boks go from beating the All Blacks to losing to Ireland so badly in such a short time?

Am I wrong in suggesting there are perhaps unrealistic expectations after beating the AB's? Not about my confidence Biltong. Its about what is unfolding in front of us all with the other teams performances. And it happens time and time again.

Am I wrong in suggesting there are perhaps unrealistic expectations after beating the AB's? Not about my confidence Biltong. Its about what is unfolding in front of us all with the other teams performances. And it happens time and time again

It isn't about having unrealistic expectations Tman, it is about underestimating opponents. South Africa regularly lose matches they should, yet they do, and it has little to do with NZ. BUt rather the manner in which they prepare.

We lift ourselves to play NZ, it is rare that we play really poorly against NZ, yet just in the last 2 years I can give you half a dozen examples where the Boks were atrocious against weaker opposition.

Biltong wrote:

Am I wrong in suggesting there are perhaps unrealistic expectations after beating the AB's? Not about my confidence Biltong. Its about what is unfolding in front of us all with the other teams performances. And it happens time and time again

It isn't about having unrealistic expectations Tman, it is about underestimating opponents. South Africa regularly lose matches they should, yet they do, and it has little to do with NZ. BUt rather the manner in which they prepare.

We lift ourselves to play NZ,  it is rare that we play really poorly against NZ, yet just in the last 2 years I can give you half a dozen examples where the Boks were atrocious against weaker opposition.

Yes we're saying the same thing there but with Ireland I think a small part of that underestimation was due to the Boks thinking if they can beat NZ then....

You and I don't know whether it was actually a factor but I think in Englands case the nature of their win two years ago has done more harm than good. No way would they have contemplated 5 losses in a row at this point now after that win, and I think theyve got worse.

Its just the number of occasions that the team that beats us then goes on to almost spectacular failure is uncanny- France beats us in 99 and 07- then loses. Oz in 03 then loses though understandably England were a stronger side. Even the boks in 95..lose a home series in 96. There's such a compelling consistency of it happening yet you would think there would be some of the opposite...beat the AB's then surely you can go on and beat someone that's not the AB's? Surely more often than it does happen.

Tman, New Zealand as a superior record against all nations, against some the odds of a win against NZ is unlikely at the best of times.

England has won 7 matches in their history against NZ, the odds are at 75% that they won't win a match, so once they have won one, the odds that they will lose the next one is bared out by the stats, I doubt expectations have much to do with it.

Biltong wrote:England has won 7 matches in their history against NZ, the odds are at 75% that they won't win a match, so once they have won one, the odds that they will lose the next one is bared out by the stat

You do know that is complete gibberish don't you?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Biltong wrote:England has won 7 matches in their history against NZ, the odds are at 75% that they won't win a match, so once they have won one, the odds that they will lose the next one is bared out by the stat

You do know that is complete gibberish don't you?

Why?

maestegmafia wrote:

alcoombe wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I was amazed to read that Hartley thought his yellow card was unfair, he said in his piece in The Sun, that he didn't stamp on the bok number 8, he trade on him.

Seems to have forgotten that he gave the guy a slap on the rump just before he illegally stamped on him.

Why do England still pick this liability of a player??? He is a thug you have better hookers.

btsport did a twitter poll on their rugby programme tonight and about three quarters agreed with Hartley, as well as most of the pundits and a number of current players, but then I wouldn't describe them or you as being impartial on Hartley.

Are you serious?

Wow..! That is amazing.

maes - how many Welsh fans didn't think Warburton deserved his red card v France at the RWC? I would guess the vast majority.

This is no different really; people being blinkered by their own national prejudice and a perceived sense of injustice.

Me, if I was Lancaster I would have read Hartley, Attwood and Wood the riot act for conceding totally avoidable penalties - the latter two leading to penalties that cost points.

The same with Farrell, Care and Attwood who all made wrong decisions that led to either SA scoring, or England not scoring, points. Maybe SL did let them have both barrels, we'll probably never know.

Brainless rugby from all of them. But then I'm a harsh critic who does his best to watch games with both eyes open.

Because the the results from previous games have no impact on the next ones. The very recent ones have some baring on current form and performance but that's it. It's like rolling a dice and saying "I rolled a '6' last time so I'm probably not going to roll a '6' this time".

Hound of Harrow wrote:

maes - how many Welsh fans didn't think Warburton deserved his red card v France at the RWC? I would guess the vast majority.

This is no different really; people being blinkered by their own national prejudice and a perceived sense of injustice.

Me, if I was Lancaster I would have read Hartley, Attwood and Wood the riot act for conceding totally avoidable penalties - the latter two leading to penalties that cost points.

The same with Farrell, Care and Attwood who all made wrong decisions that led to either SA scoring, or England not scoring, points. Maybe SL did let them have both barrels, we'll probably never know.

Brainless rugby from all of them. But then I'm a harsh critic who does his best to watch games with both eyes open.

Hound I do see your point, the Warburton example being a sensitive comparison but although both acts were illegal the huge difference is, Warburton tackled a player using an illegal technique, Hartley saw a top opposition player trapped at the base of a ruck, goadingly slapped him on the leg and stamped on his leg, watching him the whole time.

Please look at your two examples from the opposite perspective, do you think many NON WELSH fans thought Warburtons tackle in the RWC Semi finalwas premeditated and intended to injure? (I would guess no...!)

Would non English fans look at Hartleys' stamp and say it looked premeditated, it was no accident, that he intended to do it, from the video I would say yes, no matter how much we do not want to believe players like that exist.

If you want to review it again yourself then the link is below. Fast forward to about 60 mins on the match clock, around 35mins on the video timer.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04pl78z/rugby-union-20142015-autumn-international-highlights-england-v-south-africa

I wouldn't say it's a stamp it wasn't a ruck and he wasn't trapped.

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:So the motto is really...all good if you beat the AB's...but don't expect anything from it, cos its likely to turn to custard.

Man, that is cocky. Sport is a funny thing, it bucks trends, no matter how confident you are.

Beware of false dawns is probably the point. Kind of seeing it with England at the moment and after 2012 how many predicted win(s) in NZ and at twickers. It's true, many on here did.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I wouldn't say it's a stamp it wasn't a ruck and he wasn't trapped.

Depends on your definition of stamp - it was not especially dangerous as it was fairly light contact, however it was completely deliberate and thought out. I cannot see how it is any different from many other lower end stamping offences where the action is designed to let the player know they are in the wrong place. thus for consistency should have been a red cards and 1 week ban. IMO

To think that once that was standard practice, esp for the ABs, for  clearing prone bodies out of the way at the back of a ruck or maul. Matfield was flopping around waving his legs to make sure England footing was going to be made difficult. On a more benign interpretation, Hartley (NZ trained) was encourging Matfield to get out of the f#g way with a moderate treading.  Today's laws yellow, just understandable, red ? ridiculous.

markb wrote:I was at the match, so waited to comment on this thread till I read through it whilst watching the recording.

Reading through it's astonishing how selective people's praises and criticisms are based on their current favourites and pariahs.  Wood for example got an absolute drubbing from some in this thread, yet for me it was Attwood that most disappointed (his same number and same type of penalties barely got a mention on here in comparison to Wood's).  He had a good game last weekend, but this he had hands like shovels and terrible awareness with ball in hand that butchered a great try opportunity.  It's moments like that that make the biggest difference against the top sides, Launchbury is much better on the ball and still first choice with Lawes when fit.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Haskell can do in the side next weekend, but still don't see it fully addressing the balance of the backrow, he's another 6.5 whose game is primarily openside orientated and it still means we're missing extra carrying.  I do wish Ewers was in the squad apart from yet another 6.5 like Clark, I guess Exeter not being in the Champions this year can't be helping his chances.

Really?

Haskell is a 6 for me, who is adaptable and can do alot of different roles. He had a slump after his world trip, but has come back on fire this season.

Also when you have two monsters like Hughes and Johnson in the Wasps back row you need someone who can do the other fetching jobs...its a compliment to Haskell that he has been asked to play that role...and can do it well.

In NZ we saw the difference he made in the tackle area...much more physicality than Wood.

As for everyone suddenly disliking Wood. Its not a case of that. Its about disliking the balance of the current back row. For many people Robshaw and Wood are very similar types of players and that isnt working.

gregortree wrote:To think that once that was standard practice, esp for the ABs, for  clearing prone bodies out of the way at the back of a ruck or maul. Matfield was flopping around waving his legs to make sure England footing was going to be made difficult. On a more benign interpretation, Hartley (NZ trained) was encourging Matfield to get out of the f#g way with a moderate treading.  Today's laws yellow, just understandable, red ? ridiculous.

0
TBH Hartley got yellow for the attempt not for the (lack of ) damage it caused . It was stupid to deliberately stamp on someone in front of the ref . And he fully deserved yellow . Last week England fans were defending Dan Coles yellow for reacting to being held in the ruck by the same Hartley now the tables are turned and you think Hartleys yellow is harsh and the wrong call.

HammerofThunor wrote:Because the the results from previous games have no impact on the next ones. The very recent ones have some baring on current form and performance but that's it. It's like rolling a dice and saying "I rolled a '6' last time so I'm probably not going to roll a '6' this time".

Playing rugby is a tad different to rolling dice.

The one result will bring random results, England vs NZ is hardly random.

If Hartley were Healy he'd be called a thug - openly.  As Healy was called by an English fan or three a few months ago.

So yes.............. it's a loop that goes round and round.  I wouldn't refer to Hartley as a thug but simply put him down as a very naughty boy

Seriously, I think Hartley's view is that he kinda provides an 'enforcer' presence in the English squad.  He likes you to know that he'll put you in your place if he thinks an 'enforcer' exercise is required.

He's repetitive even with I'm sure Lancaster's warning burning in his ears every time he takes to the field.  He's a card magnate and so I think he'll always be a balanced risk to his boss.

Coles kicked out, Hartley walked over someone who had been warned. I think it's harsh.

SecretFly wrote:If Hartley were Healy he'd be called a thug - openly.  As Healy was called by an English fan or three a few months ago.

The people who called Healy a thug were wrong - though he did commit a thuggish act that day. It was far more violent than Hartley's stamp at the weekend and why I still feel Healy got off lightly and Hartley's offence was only worthy of a one match ban.

Hartley however has real previous - and it seems fair to call him not only a thug, but a malevolent, stupid, malicious thug.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Coles kicked out, Hartley walked over someone who had been warned. I think it's harsh.

It turns out Vermuelan tried to pull down the maul legal and fell under . Hartley did not walk we all so the incident he deliberately stepped on his knee after he knew full well he was there because he slapped this thigh .He could have EAsily chosen to step over him but he didnt.

SecretFly wrote:If Hartley were Healy he'd be called a thug - openly.  As Healy was called by an English fan or three a few months ago.

So yes.............. it's a loop that goes round and round.  I wouldn't refer to Hartley as a thug but simply put him down as a very naughty boy

Seriously, I think Hartley's view is that he kinda provides an 'enforcer' presence in the English squad.  He likes you to know that he'll put you in your place if he thinks an 'enforcer' exercise is required.

He's repetitive even with I'm sure Lancaster's warning burning in his ears every time he takes to the field.  He's a card magnate and so I think he'll always be a balanced risk to his boss.

Hartley is frequently called a thug, and he does have some 'interesting' form. Just look what happened when that nice Mr. Ferris stuck his fingers in Hartley's mouth.

On form he can be a very effective hooker, and crucially he is good at throwing the ball in. Overall he is a bit like Wales's AWJ - someone who has been around a long time and sometimes does very good things but someone you had always hoped would do more.

Bullsbok wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Coles kicked out, Hartley walked over someone who had been warned. I think it's harsh.

It turns out Vermuelan tried to pull down the maul legal and fell under . Hartley did not walk we all so the incident he deliberately stepped on his knee after he knew full well he was there because he slapped this thigh .He could have EAsily chosen to step over him but he didnt.

Agree completely. Should have been a pen to England.

I call a spade a spade when I see it. Healy got no support from me. Wrong in act and intent - and could have broken a leg. I even criticised BOD when a moment of madness got to him too and he did the dirty.

As supporters of our teams it's always up to us, and not the supporters of the opposing team, to call it as we honestly see it and to hell with loyalty. If a guy acts dumb or dangerous, even if he's in your colours - you call him up on it. And in that sense, I appreciate your views, Tiger. Although, I still wouldn't call Hartley a thug (to me he's more a school bully boy who can't seem to help the smartass stuff - it's not always ruthlessly dangerous (thug) but more teasing and testing and taunting)

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Coles kicked out, Hartley walked over someone who had been warned. I think it's harsh.

It turns out Vermuelan tried to pull down the maul legal and fell under . Hartley did not walk we all so the incident he deliberately stepped on his knee after he knew full well he was there because he slapped this thigh .He could have EAsily chosen to step over him but he didnt.

Agree completely. Should have been a pen to England.

Actually I also agree. The fairest solution would be England penalty for Vermuelan and yellow for Hartley for being an idiot. Same as last week yellow to Coles and Pen all blacks for Hartley holding a man off the ball.

lostinwales wrote:Just look what happened when that nice Mr. Ferris stuck his fingers in Hartley's mouth.

when Hartley's mouth found Ferris's finger? Yeah, I remember, lost

I completely agree Fly, there are too many people that get all precious when it comes to thuggish behaviour.

Some go completely over board and others try to under play the situation, often depending who's foot the shoe fits.