The Armitage thing rumbles on.......

http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/252099.html

England to make an exception???

The main thing that article says is he's not in the 6 nations squad. But he 'could' be named in a larger training squad?? Not even sure what this is. Either it's before the 6 nations (why would Toulon release him) or it's during the 6 nations (in which case isn't that the 6 nations squad).

So big pinch of salt at the moment, but still more credible that the Rugby Paper

HammerofThunor wrote:The main thing that article says is he's not in the 6 nations squad. But he 'could' be named in a larger training squad?? Not even sure what this is. Either it's before the 6 nations (why would Toulon release him) or it's during the 6 nations (in which case isn't that the 6 nations squad).

So big pinch of salt at the moment, but still more credible that the Rugby Paper

I think they are referring to the larger training squad to be picked in May for the RWC warm up games.

Yeah, the "squad to be picked in May" should have given that away really.

If Lancaster recognises the need for Armitage in the team to win the World Cup an exception will be made.

I think an exception will be made, with Robshaw moving to 6

The problem is ....as it has been clearly made a lot.....Armitage is given an armchair free ride for Toulon.

He wouldn't be as effective for England as he would play in the Robshaw / Wood / Clark mould. He wouldn't be given a free role.

Personally I think it would be completely ridiculous to bring him in just before the world cup. Either he's being considered so bring him in during the 6 nations so he can at least be training with guys. Or he's not so exclude him until there is a massive injury crisis (and I mean Wood, Robshaw and Haskell all being injured for the World Cup).

The team would need to change the way they play, each players job role, etc, to enable him to fit in. Or they'll demand he fits in to their pattern, which is ridiculous to do with a few weeks to go to the World Cup. I expect/hope this is "Will Armitage be in the 6 nations squad?"..."No"..."Will he be in the big pre-world cup squad?"..."Depends"..."On?"..."Lots of the things"....STORY

Objectively, England are the only top ten team that do not play with a conventional open side flanker, preferring two more typically blindside flankers.

It seems very clear that both the fans and the pundits fear England's back row lacks effectiveness. I read a thread on hear the other day deriding Tom Woods attributes mainly for being to similar to Robshaw's.

The options, other than Armitage, for a natural, conventional open side are thin on the ground.

Barring Robshaw, Kvesic, Fraser, Wallace who are all there or there abouts spot on.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Barring Robshaw, Kvesic, Fraser, Wallace who are all there or there abouts spot on.

Fraser would be a good option. Probably a lot more effective than those suggestin Callam Clarke...!

Kvesic hasn't really matured into the player most people thought he could. Wallace is pretty new to this but yes I guess he could well usurp Robshaw's position at international level, he seemed to be doing the same at Quins quite quickly earlier in the season. He's not played for a while though...!

A bit worrying that there are so many selection issues this close to both the six nations and the RWC...!

Backrow, centre, halfbacks all key areas also up for discussion. I wonder whether the RFU will be making an exception for the return of Armitages' brother to fill the centre too?

Robshaw not conventional openside shocker. Never heard that before, or not for atleast 5, no 3 minutes.

*sigh...

maestegmafia wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Barring Robshaw, Kvesic, Fraser, Wallace who are all there or there abouts spot on.

Fraser would be a good option. Probably a lot more effective than those suggestin Callam Clarke...!

Kvesic hasn't really matured into the player most people thought he could.

Kvesic has been the form 7 for me in the prem. Fraser has had a couple of stand out games but then been quiet. Clarke is a very good 6 who can play 7. Robshaw is a top quality 7 who is very under rated. Suggest you watch a bit more of the AP.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Barring Robshaw, Kvesic, Fraser, Wallace who are all there or there abouts spot on.

Fraser would be a good option. Probably a lot more effective than those suggestin Callam Clarke...!

Kvesic hasn't really matured into the player most people thought he could.

Kvesic has been the form 7 for me in the prem. Fraser has had a couple of stand out games but then been quiet. Clarke is a very good 6 who can play 7. Robshaw is a top quality 7 who is very under rated. Suggest you watch a bit more of the AP.

Michael Hooper and Richie McCaw are very good opensides if Robshaw was too then I wouldn't imagine that so many england fans, pundits and the RFU themselves would be looking at other options.

There's always an England fan looking at another option as we have so many fans and so many great options. As has been said we could pick several very good players in various positions and people have their particular favourites. i wouldn't swap Robshaw for another 7 and I suspect I'm not alone.

Agree I think Robshaw is a class 7. Its just the roles of both flankers are very clear under Lancaster

If Robshaw was given the "7" role, people would be saying how good he is.

That's why I don't think Armitage should be brought in as England don't play that way....and I don't see the point in trying to change it a few months before the World Cup.

Aside from that I would rather focus on long term by giving Fraser or Kvesic etc the spot where they will benefit from the experience.

Is Fraser injured again? He wasn't in the Sarries side last weekend

GeordieFalcon wrote:Agree I think Robshaw is a class 7. Its just the roles of both flankers are very clear under Lancaster

If Robshaw was given the "7" role, people would be saying how good he is.

That's why I don't think Armitage should be brought in as England don't play that way....and I don't see the point in trying to change it a few months before the World Cup.

Aside from that I would rather focus on long term by giving Fraser or Kvesic etc the spot where they will benefit from the experience.

Fair point, but is the way england are playing under Lancaster with two 6.5s working?

Isn't that the real question being raised here...???

There wouldn't be speculation if things were going well.

If Armitage has another good season with Toulon, then why not stick him in the May squad? As its unlikely that Robshaw will play every game, it would be useful to at least have him familiar with the England set up in case of injury.

On the question of Robshaw 'not being a proper 7', what else do people want from the bloke? Against Oz he made 20 odd tackles, a couple of turnovers and took the ball at 1st receiver to act as a link man between forwards and backs. To me that's pretty much a textbook definition of a 7's role.

My other comment on the 'proper 7' is that the game has changed hugely and no modern player is as specialised as they used to be; props who can pass, wingers who can tackle, the game for all shapes and sizes has changed and for me the important thing is now balance across the team (or across units), rather than each player only being responsible for 1 specific area.

There is speculation because there always is. Its a price for having an alternative who is much feted (although playing in a very different style), a big pool of players in general and a big pool of fans with different opinions, plus concerns over what happens at times (like now) when Robshaw is injured.

He really is that much better than the alternatives.

maestegmafia wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Agree I think Robshaw is a class 7. Its just the roles of both flankers are very clear under Lancaster

If Robshaw was given the "7" role, people would be saying how good he is.

That's why I don't think Armitage should be brought in as England don't play that way....and I don't see the point in trying to change it a few months before the World Cup.

Aside from that I would rather focus on long term by giving Fraser or Kvesic etc the spot where they will benefit from the experience.

Fair point, but is the way england are playing under Lancaster with two 6.5s working?

Isn't that the real question being raised here...???

There wouldn't be speculation if things were going well.

You don't know people very well do you?

HammerofThunor wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Agree I think Robshaw is a class 7. Its just the roles of both flankers are very clear under Lancaster

If Robshaw was given the "7" role, people would be saying how good he is.

That's why I don't think Armitage should be brought in as England don't play that way....and I don't see the point in trying to change it a few months before the World Cup.

Aside from that I would rather focus on long term by giving Fraser or Kvesic etc the spot where they will benefit from the experience.

Fair point, but is the way england are playing under Lancaster with two 6.5s working?

Isn't that the real question being raised here...???

There wouldn't be speculation if things were going well.

You don't know people very well do you?

So you all think things are going well for England?

Other than McCaw, Hooper and maybe Louw/SOB (if on top form) there's not a 7 I would rather have than Robshaw personally. Is Armitage better than any of those guys either?

Last season Lancaster named a 45 man training squad which included the 32 man 6Ns squad. the full squad was required for training within IRB guidlines for International release, the 32 man squad was completely under Lancaster's control for the whole period.

The suggestions are that Steffon and Burgess will be in the bigger squad. Sam may feature in a Saxon's game, Steffon is there primarily for the coaches to ascertain whether he is fitter than they believe him to be and whether he could fit into the teams patterns. I have also read that they see him as possibly fulfilling the same No8 role he has been playing at Toulon on and off (including HEC final) and as a versatile cover man.




On a different note I lobe this talk about "Natural" 7s. You could easily make a valid argument that only Australia regularly select a specialist 7.

No chance of robshaw moving to blindside,if armitage plays it will be as an 8

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Agree I think Robshaw is a class 7. Its just the roles of both flankers are very clear under Lancaster

If Robshaw was given the "7" role, people would be saying how good he is.

That's why I don't think Armitage should be brought in as England don't play that way....and I don't see the point in trying to change it a few months before the World Cup.

Aside from that I would rather focus on long term by giving Fraser or Kvesic etc the spot where they will benefit from the experience.

Fair point, but is the way england are playing under Lancaster with two 6.5s working?

Isn't that the real question being raised here...???

There wouldn't be speculation if things were going well.

You don't know people very well do you?

So you all think things are going well for England?

Out of the blue question but, I think they're going ok. Back row is perfectly fine and I'm not one to advocate changing the entire team structure to accomodate a plan you looks good in a team of some of the best players in the world. The issues are elsewhere in the team, mostly in the backs due to a lack of stability.

My actual point was that some people somewhere will complain about anything. There are plenty of people who think we need a 'bigger' player in the second row. Others think that Lawes and Launchbury are one of the best second row partnerships in the world. Whatever happens someone will complain there. Doesn't mean it's a problem. As I said, you don't appear to know people very well.

LondonTiger wrote:On a different note I lobe this talk about "Natural" 7s. You could easily make a valid argument that only Australia regularly select a specialist 7.

I that a strange way of saying you hear it?

I have asked this before but as the topic is again in vogue will ask it again.

With regards to Armitage is it a 'case of absence makes heart fonder, out of sigth out of mind' etc etc. By that I mean do people have a higher opinion of him and his abilities due to fact he hasn't been available for selection.

When things haven't gone right you have been able to say 'if only Armitage was picked' is he really that good, do people think he will walk straight in as 1st choice if so in place of who?

bedfordwelsh wrote:I have asked this before but as the topic is again in vogue will ask it again.

With regards to Armitage is it a 'case of absence makes heart fonder, out of sigth out of mind' etc etc.  By that I mean do people have a higher opinion of him and his abilities due to fact he hasn't been available for selection.

When things haven't gone right you have been able to say 'if only Armitage was picked' is he really that good, do people think he will walk straight in as 1st choice if so in place of who?

He is an integral part of the most successful club team in europe, and voted european player of the year. These things tend to get noticed, as does the way he plays. The problems are that Toulon dont play the same way as England and he isnt available for training in the same way as he would if he were in England. Also there are a whole bunch of reasons why he didnt do well when he did get his England caps, but he didn't, and the current England no.7 is none too shabby either. He has no claim to special status

I think he has a lot to prove at International level and he isnt going to do that playing in France.

He is probably the most high profile of the 'If only X was picked' brigade but is far from being alone (see Garvey or Slade for another couple of high profile examples)

lost,

That's my point because he isn't picked the 'if only brigade' hype him up even more than maybe he deserves.

If England did make the exception and pick some would walk him straight back into the side as the great saviour etc but is he really that good, like you said Robshaw is none to shabby himself and as skipper who would then drop out for Robshaw to play?

I dont think I am alone in thinking that we would have to change too much to fit him in, with no guarantee of success.

He might be the best thing since sliced bread but its a team game and the best team may not always contain the best players.

Yeah that's a fair point and well put, the backrow especially I feel is all about combinations and how well the 3 players compliment each other.

In that way I guess its not so far from the Hook problem, although at least he had plenty of chances to become established. (Does seem very bizarre talking about a 70 cap player not being established, but...)

Regardless of how he's playing what's the general consensus on him being considered given England have rigidly for the past few seasons stuck to the 'play in England to play for England' policy.

Should they consider him is it now time to relax the restriction etc etc

Plenty of opinions out there.

In my mind he shouldnt be considered unless he is playing in England, or we have a truly awful injury crisis. If he is to be integrated into the England team he is going to need time training with them to learn the calls etc and for them to get used to him

LT

The suggestions are that Steffon and Burgess will be in the bigger squad. Sam may feature in a Saxon's game,

If Sam gets gametime over the Falcons Mark Wilson it will be discrageful. Wilson is made of steel and has been Mr Consistent since he came into the first team...not to mention the perfect attitude. If he is overlooked i'll be seriously annoyed.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Regardless of how he's playing what's the general consensus on him being considered given England have rigidly for the past few seasons stuck to the 'play in England to play for England' policy.

Should they consider him is it now time to relax the restriction etc etc

Well he hasn't been considered as of yet. But I see no reason to bring him into any squad unless there are significant injuries. However, if he's released by Toulon I don't really have a problem with him joining a squad, especially if it gives a chance for him to work with the coaches and possibly encourage him to come back.

I think Armitage would make an excellent impact sub for England, and could see him coming off the bench to great effect, with Robshaw moving to 6. He just offers something a bit different, and more dynamic than the other options.

I'd pick him, but there are very sound and strategic reasons for not doing so.

If Armatage does not play in the 6ns, then i cannot see him playing in the RWC.

He will need to be training with the squad for the start of the 6ns and onwards. Will Toulon allow him to have the time off to train with the squad?.....i Doubt it.

majesticimperialman wrote:If Armatage does not play in the 6ns, then i cannot see him playing in the RWC.

He will need to be training with the squad for the start of the 6ns and onwards. Will Toulon allow him to have the time off to train with the squad?.....i Doubt it.

They will have to release him for the recognised timescales won't they? How much extra time would he miss, Gatland normally has his Welsh players for month before is that same time SL gets?

World Cup? I think it's something like 4 weeks but can't quite remember. But the point is he hasn't been training with the squad at all and then he'll have less time with the squad before the world cup. It's insanity to even consider him IMO, unless we have something like 4 or 5 injuries in the back row.

Which players are ahead of him then HT..?

England are already missing a couple of players from the flanks...

PLayers ahead of him...

Robshaw
Wood
Clark - Like it or not...Lancaster always selects him.
Haskell

That's list should give you an idea of the type of player Lancaster selects as most of these are very similar heights, weights, styles etc.

The point those against Armitage coming in is that we don't play the game for a strict 7 or Robshaw could play it very effectively.

Should we be playing tactics geared for a strict 7....well that's another argument.

So if he does get the call does that signify a change in tactics from SL?

GeordieFalcon wrote:PLayers ahead of him...

Robshaw
Wood
Clark - Like it or not...Lancaster always selects him.
Haskell

That's list should give you an idea of the type of player Lancaster selects as most of these are very similar heights, weights, styles etc.

The point those against Armitage coming in is that we don't play the game for a strict 7 or Robshaw could play it very effectively.

Should we be playing tactics geared for a strict 7....well that's another argument.

Wood and Robshaw are good players, Haskell has been in decent form, Clarke too but as a plate I would say Armitage is more useful than the later two.

He has been used quite diversly for Toulon so I wouldn't think that he would struggle to fit in. The team wouldn't have to change its dynamic.

Whether it should or not is another question. One that is most likely the crux of this debate more than selection.

Maybe your right and it wouldn't need a massive tactics change.

But I think the crux of the matter is the RFU backing down on its no foreign based players stance.

Regardless of what I think....the law is in place so we should abide by it and no exceptions should be made.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Maybe your right and it wouldn't need a massive tactics change.

But I think the crux of the matter is the RFU backing down on its no foreign based players stance.

Regardless of what I think....the law is in place so we should abide by it and no exceptions should be made.

The law is in place to keep the English clubs happy, it keeps the cost of English players contracts a lot lower when you don't have to compete with a foreign competitor.

The RFU seem to be trying to find any avenue they can to get Armitage in the squad, there was the move to Bath and now this...!

At least he understands how the line out works.

Hasnt Steff Armitage been playing a lot at no.8 for Tulon?
Perhaps the issue isnt about him coming in as a replacement on the flank but also someone that can cover 7 and 8.

We've tried that before with Wood in the previous 6N and it didnt work, but Armitage has played there many times.
Morgan at the moment is nailed on first pick. Billy V is a bit out of sorts at the moment.
Its worth considering that his versatility is a good asset for anyone picking squads at the moment.

Wood playing at 8 isn't what didn't work. Having Croft, Robshaw and Wood in a backrow, with a front 5 of Marler, T Youngs, Cole, Launchbury and Parling, didn't work. Wood is fine controlling the ball at the base of the ruck. If we had Morgan at blindside and Wood at 8, we probably would have been fine (regarding the backrow). Armitage doesn't fit any position in the current English pack. His inclusion would require other players being moved around as well.

Don’t get all the hoo-ha with SA – he’s a top player, who’s accumulated numerous plaudits, plays for a top side, flexible across the BR, in a position that doesn’t have great strength in depth in England, who offers something different to the incumbent number 1 choice in that position, would be great as injury cover and/or off-the-bench impact, AND a RWC is just round the corner. It’s a complete no-brainer to me.

I don’t buy the argument that he’s only good because he plays in a good side (unless you argue the same for McCaw I suppose).

And although England may have to tweak their game-plan a bit to accommodate his style – if we’re losing and he comes off the bench for impact, perhaps that is what is required to win. And if a top side can’t incorporate a plan B to their game, then they’re not a top side.

And I don’t get all precious about how much he really loves (or doesn’t love) all things English – don’t really care if he prefers croissants to Yorkshire pud tbh.