England v Fiji, 19 November

First topic message reminder :

 
ENGLAND v FIJI
19 November 2016
14:30 GMT (UTC+0)
Twickenham Stadium, London

Live on [Sky Sports 1]

Referee: Marius Mitrea (Italy)
Assistant referees: Paul Williams (New Zealand), Lloyd Linton (Scotland)
Television match official: Gareth Simmonds (Wales)
Assessor: Mark Lawrence (South Africa)

A. Head to Head

6 Played 6
6 Won 0
0 Drawn 0
0 Lost 6
245 Points 94

B. Recent Form

18 September 2015
England 35 - 11 Fiji
Twickenham

10 November 2012
England 54 - 12 Fiji
Twickenham

20 October 1999
England 45 - 24 Fiji
Twickenham

20 July 1991
Fiji 12 - 28 England
National Stadium, Suva

04 November 1989
England 58 - 23 Fiji
Twickenham

17 June 1988
Fiji 12 - 25 England
National Stadium, Suva

C. Teams

ENGLAND 

A Goode; S Rokoduguni, J Joseph, O Farrell, E Daly; G Ford, B Youngs; M Vunipola, D Hartley, D Cole, J Launchbury, C Lawes, C Robshaw , T Harrison, B Vunipola.

Replacements: J George, J Marler, K Sinckler, C Ewels, N Hughes, D Care, B Te'o, H Slade.

FIJI

M Talebula; B Masilevu, A Tikoirotuma, A Vulivuli, N Nadolo; J Matavesi, S Vularika; C Ma'afu, S Koto Vuli, M Saulo, A Ratuniyarawa, L Nakarawa, D Waqaniburotu, P Yato, A Qera.

Replacements: T Talemaitoga, P Ravai, L Atalifo, N Soqeta, N Dawai, E Radrodro, N Matawalu, K Murimurivalu.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I agree Robbo,  only with Mccaw hadn't Sam cane already accumulated about 30 odd caps.

In the four years that their careers overlapped Sam Cane did indeed gain 30 odd caps (31 to be precise, with 13 as a starter). This year he has gained a further 8, all as a starter. In general Cane only started for NZ when McCaw was unavailable (excepting the odd fixture here and there against teh lieks of USA and Namibia)

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I agree Robbo,  only with Mccaw hadn't Sam cane already accumulated about 30 odd caps.

In the four years that their careers overlapped Sam Cane did indeed gain 30 odd caps (31 to be precise, with 13 as a starter). This year he has gained a further 8, all as a starter. In general Cane only started for NZ when McCaw was unavailable (excepting the odd fixture here and there against teh lieks of USA and Namibia)

Excellent checking.

Gooseberry can you actually find a quote where I said I wanted Robson starting vs SA?

I would have picked Robson vs Fiji, I'll admit that.

You talk about building a team, England have a team, it should be about building a squad.

You are relying on players not getting injured. Injuries happen so it's important to be pro active, not reactive.

I have been ahead of the curve but if certain posters like you cannot see that, well you can't be helped.

You don't think it would have been useful to play Robson vs Fiji?

If you exclusively pick someone in one position like no 8 and hooker then there will be no experienced back up.


England fans have short memories - forgetting that England could not handle the injury of Billy and the lack of Hartley in the RWC. Still replacements need to be developed. These are pressing matters.

I don't think it's right that change has to happen merely because of injuries.

Beshocked, ENG are building a squad.

And what is this curve you're so fond of?

Im not sure how picking players who werent good enough to fill the gap for meaningles tests would have made any difference to england being unable to fill the gaps left by injured players.

In the case of Hartely is was really backing the wrong horse and Youngs' dramatic loss of form over a number of years. There only so much you can mitigate for, and only so much to be gained by giving third/fourth choice players caps for the sake of it....espeically when there will be occassions youll get forced into that any way ( the Lions summer being very much a thing this time around with the bulk of the team likley to be touring).

The Barabrians fixtures and world cup warm ups give another chance for the fringe squad mamebers to get a game.

Its not like it doesnt happen. Developing players isnt just a case of giving them a test cap for the sake of making them feel special. The training camps are there for teh squad to play together, and the EPS gives a wider pool of players that can be managed ..but the focus should alywas be on the players the coaches think are likley to be the best in a position....not their third and fourth choices.

The Saxons, Age grade teams and err Fiji are there for the real long term development players.

Im sure youll come back with a "yeah yeah I told you so" when someone gets injured and we have to pick and uncapped player at some point in the future, but Id look at the experienced core of the team, with back up in most positions and no glaring candidates that absoolutely shoudl be ahead of them, as evdience that a settled winning team kinda works...and has weathered an injury storm.

Erm, injuries to Morgan and Billy in the WC not just one injury. And to be fair to Easter he was ok as 3rd choice in the end.

Imagine player A has 4 caps. He's played 80 mins in all of them, but they were against Canada, Italy, Samoa and Georgia. Also in these games the management made wholesale changes to the matchday squad so there were a number of other players earning their first caps in these games. Still, he has 320 mins of test rugby under his belt, right?

Now player B has 10 caps, but they are all from the replacements bench, getting between 10 and 30 minutes each time. He hasn't even got 300 mins of test rugby to his name. A disaster.

Except, player B played with an established leadership group. When the chips were down, he could look around and be inspired by his company and draw confidence from this. His team mates were well drilled in the teams systems, this gives him a structure to execute his game, an unerring faith that if he knows what is required and if he executes, he and ENG will prevail. Overall he knows he's part of a special team, they're drilled to win matches, and they do, and that he's here, means he belongs. He is good enough, he is special, he is ready. Player A hasn't even played with his captain yet.


Extreme examples of course. I'd much prefer to be player B. And from a fan's perspective, I want to know the backup players can survive in a cut throat test match rather than chuck the ball around as ENG run in 10 tries.

cascough wrote:Imagine player A has 4 caps. He's played 80 mins in all of them, but they were against Canada, Italy, Samoa and Georgia. Also in these games the management made wholesale changes to the matchday squad so there were a number of other players earning their first caps in these games. Still, he has 320 mins of test rugby under his belt, right?

Now player B has 10 caps, but they are all from the replacements bench, getting between 10 and 30 minutes each time. He hasn't even got 300 mins of test rugby to his name. A disaster.

Except, player B played with an established leadership group. When the chips were down, he could look around and be inspired by his company and draw confidence from this. His team mates were well drilled in the teams systems, this gives him a structure to execute his game, an unerring faith that if he knows what is required and if he executes, he and ENG will prevail. Overall he knows he's part of a special team, they're drilled to win matches, and they do, and that he's here, means he belongs. He is good enough, he is special, he is ready. Player A hasn't even played with his captain yet.


Extreme examples of course. I'd much prefer to be player B. And from a fan's perspective, I want to know the backup players can survive in a cut throat test match rather than chuck the ball around as ENG run in 10 tries.

+1

Just to repeat an earlier post - Eddie Jones has capped 41 players across 10 matches (Roku will make that 42, Ewells 43 if he comes on). Of those 41 , 27 have started tests, while just 3 have played in every test. 11 players have made their debuts.

With that kind of rotation when you are not "throwing caps like confetti" is there really any need to make mass changes for this week, especially as when mentioned above aking too many changes makes the experience largely irrelevant for player and coaches.

Gooseberry well that's the thing. Sometimes players are good enough, just not given the opportunities.

England clearly now have some depth in some positions but that doesn't mean we should not build depth in other areas.

I agree a cap here or there to make a player feel special isn't right but England IMO need to fully utilise the squad.

cascough it's just the term - ahead of the curve.


whilst I see your point, the problem in both scenarios is that player A and player B are both portrayed clearly seen as 2nd choice. Sticking a player exclusively with those seen as 2nd choice, just makes a game like Saxons whereas making it so all players see themselves as first choice is important.

starting is different. Player B as you call him is clearly seen as 2nd choice. A player cannot execute if they are starved of gametime.

Ultimately it comes down to a player not being able to prove themselves without gametime.

I won't pick player X because he hasn't proved himself, he obviously can't if you don't try him out.

I think the aim should to make all players feel like 1st choices. Make players feel like they are valued.

At lock it's as if we have 4 first choices now, there was no drop off in quality because Lawes and Launchbury are sufficiently experienced. Development at lock is good. England would have not been in a position with 4 lock options if Jones didn't give experience to Itoje.




no 7 & 1/2 I would hardly call a 37 year old no 8 well past his best at international level good cover.... yes I know options were bad but that's what England needs to try and avoid in the future.


Londontiger your selection policy worked wonders in the RWC 2015, that's why England strolled to the RWC 2015 win!

Building a team... I've heard that before.... Don't worry guys we'll use the warm ups to just get combinations right....

Squads win trophies not teams.


England must still try and find solutions and depth in problem positions, not just rely on injuries because that didn't work for Lancaster.

Even if the numbers say Jones is starting lots of players he's still ignoring the likes of hooker, no 8 and full back.

But what curve?

The point is, player B is getting meaningful gametime with the first team. He does feel special.

Player A isn't and does not.

Okay so I agree that he is still being seen as a second choice, but nontheless he is a second choice who has demonstrated his capability to step into the breach. You're talking about developing backup options (ie second choices) so unless you're now changing your point, this seems to fit your brief perfectly?

And that's my point beshocked, there is not a way to do that.

cascough I would suggest that neither player feels special.

20 minutes off the bench when the game has basically already been won is not meaningful. How many times have you seen a match become a bit messy with substitutions?

Of course there are games where a player can have a meaningful impact off the bench but it's not always like that.

Stepping into the breach in my opinion would be something like having to come on early as the starter has got injured. Now that's more useful as that gives vital experience and gametime.

You ask any player - I am sure they'll be wanting to be starting, not just permanently staying on the bench.

My point is that you want to get to the point where you can trust them to start, not just be a bench man.


The player who is special, is the undroppable one, the one who the coach will pick regardless of fitness or form. He is put upon a pedestal.

This is an attitude I don't like to see. Rugby is about the team and squad, not individuals.

Of course there are players who standout but even they need to be looked after and not overworked.


no 7 & 1/2 there is, if you have the players who you believe can step up, you pick them.

I also fundamentally disagree that he is ignoring hooker. Jamie George has 9 caps, likely 10 after this weekend and hes shown that he can come on in tight games and affect them positively. If Hartley went down tomorrow, George has already demonstrated that he can fill the void. In terms of developing backup for Hartley, it's done. What more could you possibly need to see from George?

I suspect you are being slightly disingenuous when you talk about George and developing backup options in the same breath. What you actually want (IMO) is for George to get more gametime so he can usurp Hartley and show he is the better first choice, not backup. FYI, I've no problem with this, I'm a huge fan of George. But if that's what you want, say it. Don't use George as a "not developing backup" stick to beat EJ and his team with.

As for backup to Vunipola, well Hughes made his debut last week didn't he? (the first available oppurtunity I might add) And is rumoured to be starting tomorrow, so what more do you want? Of course he is tweaking the positions but fear not, being as Hughes is a number 8, if Hughes continues to get gametime in this fashion and Vunipola goes down injured we should have a player capable of stepping in.

beshocked wrote:cascough I would suggest that neither player feels special.

20 minutes off the bench when the game has basically already been won is not meaningful. How many times have you seen a match become a bit messy with substitutions?

George came off the bench with the AUS series in the balance and contributed to the winning try. With the 3rd test still in the Balance (a game that ENG still clearly desperately wanted to win) he comes off the bench and scores a try. I'd say hes feeling pretty awesome about his moments in an England shirt.

Daly came off the bench to fill at flanker when AUS were throwing the kitchen sink at ENG. He's then part of a monumental effort to get ENG over the line and secure a historic whitewash. I reckon he was thrilled to be a part of that.

'no 7 & 1/2 there is, if you have the players who you believe can step up, you pick them.'

Keeping to my previous plan not to go round in circles, last post on this. There isn't enough games available in the calander to get players down to 3rd choice specialists the 10-20 odd starts you seem to require to do this.

cascough George has no experience starting at international level. He needs to get used to playing more. It's about conditioning too.

I've seen it before - George stuck behind Smit and Brits for a while at Saracens but when Brits picked up a long term injury, George flourished in Brits' absence. George was being held back and now he shares the 2 shirt - two 1st choice options.

Billy developed from a player who couldn't last 80 minutes to someone who can play 5 80 minutes games in a row if needed.

I agree, it's not a back up to Hartley I want to see. I want George to challenge Hartley. It's about competition. I admit I don't like seeing Hartley on an undroppable pedestal.

I actually ideally want two 1st choices in every position. If Hughes can challenge Billy then great. At the moment there's a huge gap between Billy and anyone else at 8. That's why England got into difficulty at the RWC partly, no one could replace Billy sufficiently.

Challenge is needed for Cole too.

I think Launchbury and Lawes have benefitted from competition of Kruis and Itoje? Would you agree?

Hughes will not be playing 8 though.


I am sure that Daly would have preferred his start vs SA. I am not saying it's all doom and gloom being on the bench for England. I am just saying players would prefer to be starting.


England held back Itoje but when he got his opportunity, hey presto he flourished, now England have nice depth at lock.

cascough wrote:

beshocked wrote:cascough I would suggest that neither player feels special.

20 minutes off the bench when the game has basically already been won is not meaningful. How many times have you seen a match become a bit messy with substitutions?

George came off the bench with the AUS series in the balance and contributed to the winning try. With the 3rd test still in the Balance (a game that ENG still clearly desperately wanted to win) he comes off the bench and scores a try. I'd say hes feeling pretty awesome about his moments in an England shirt.

Daly came off the bench to fill at flanker when AUS were throwing the kitchen sink at ENG. He's then part of a monumental effort to get ENG over the line and secure a historic whitewash. I reckon he was thrilled to be a part of that.

A team effort to win a team game. It's not really that complicated is it?

Oh I also forgot about Luke Cowan Dickie. Comes on with a Grand Slam in the balance. A Grand Slam. Hadn't won one in 13 years. Special moment. There have been some crucial moments in EJ short reign. To write off what he's doing as bringing people on when the games are "basically already won" isn't fair and more importantly isn't true.

I'm sure Daly loved his start against SA. But he got it didn't he? So what's the problem? EJ is 10 games in, winning everything, capping players, we've got depth developing across the board.

Launchbury and Lawes have benefitted from Kruis and Itoje. But since EJ has capped them all, Attwood AND Ewels (likely) precisely what is Jones doing wrong?

cascough

Of course there are games where a player can have a meaningful impact off the bench but it's not always like that.

That's what I said too. Yes there have been some moments when people off the bench have mattered but some when they haven't.

No problem with Daly getting a start or indeed the 10 wins.

Or indeed the current lock situation, that's good.

Look at the positives of those, now let's see a little bit more tweaking.

Jones is not doing much wrong but putting player's on pedestals is.

It comes down to this for me...

If you are holding EJ and his team to account for not developing backup, you're wrong. We're only 10 games in and he is doing a marvelous job of developing backup.

If you are holding EJ and his team to account for not developing 2 first choices in every position, you're being unreasonable. As someone else has said, there aren't enough games in a season. I can't think of a team that have ever had this. NZ don't have it, ENG circa 2000-2003 didn't have it, SA circa 2006-2009 didn't have it.

If you're holding EJ and his team to account for not picking your favourite players then that's entirely personal to you and it would be wrong of me or anyone else to argue with you about that. I can however freely dismiss it as irrelevant.

beshocked wrote:cascough

Of course there are games where a player can have a meaningful impact off the bench but it's not always like that.

That's what I said too. Yes there have been some moments when people off the bench have mattered but some when they haven't.

No problem with Daly getting a start or indeed the 10 wins.

Or indeed the current lock situation, that's good.

Look at the positives of those, now let's see a little bit more tweaking.

Jones is not doing much wrong but putting player's on pedestals is.

Who is putting who on pedestals?

lostinwales wrote:

beshocked wrote:cascough

Of course there are games where a player can have a meaningful impact off the bench but it's not always like that.

That's what I said too. Yes there have been some moments when people off the bench have mattered but some when they haven't.

No problem with Daly getting a start or indeed the 10 wins.

Or indeed the current lock situation, that's good.

Look at the positives of those, now let's see a little bit more tweaking.

Jones is not doing much wrong but putting player's on pedestals is.

Who is putting who on pedestals?

Well he seems to think the Capatin should start games when hes not suspended. Pretty outrageous.

cascough

Back up in certain areas - he needs to do more. If Goode and Hughes are picked at 15 and 8 respectively that's good, still missing out on hooker.

Every team should aspire to 1st choices in every position, I would agree it's not always possible but those sides had depth. England going into the 2003 RWC had very good strength in depth.

No it's not just about my favourite players, Hughes is not a favourite player of mine.

Obviously Eddie Jones has made Hartley undroppable regardless of form or match fitness by making him his captain.

Hartley is undroppable until he's dropped. That will happen, but right now Hartley is pretty central to EJ's plans - and as has been frequently pointed out its not like it isn't working.

Only injury will stop Jones picking Hartley at the moment it seems.

You say it will happen, I have seen no indication that Jones will drop Hartley.

Hartley has indeed been reliable in the set piece and has been competent as captain but he has his limitations.

Do you honestly think that Hartley has been putting in man of the match performances every game? No his performances have generally been consistent but not outstanding. Now maybe you believe that's fine.

England need another hooker or even two they can rely on. Especially if Hartley does pick up an injury.

If a back up is starved of game time how can they prove themselves?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/11/17/england-to-name-team-to-face-fiji-will-nathan-hughes-be-handed-f/


According to the telegraph road runner is injured meaning Daly potenitally on the wing.

Harrison looks likely to start.

beshocked. England did not "hold back" Itoje. Lancaster used the RWC warmups to check the form and fitness of his core squad, and - Burgess aside - didn't take the risk of using uncapped players in the key games. Most people felt that - Burgess aside - that was a sensible approach. We know you didn't, but if you are honest you have to concede that you are in a minority of something approaching one. You are, in this respect, the Captain Redbeard Rum of the good ship 606v2.

Instead, Itoje got his break like most players do (including Kruis before him): when someone was injured, his form earned him a shot and he took it with considerable aplomb. The net difference between throwing him uncapped into the RWC and his debut in the 6 nations was 6 months and about 6 potential caps difference. It's not like Neil Back being excluded for years.

We are 1 year into an RWC cycle. Jones has already introduced a lot of players into the squad - off the top of my head Hill, Sinckler, Itoje, Harrison, Hughes, Clifford, Daly and Devoto have all had game time, several 1 or 2 cappers have been given much more gametime, and he's working on bringing through the likes of Genge, Beaumont, Ewels, Evans and Marchant.

All of these will get more gametime at some point in the cycle, simply because of injury or loss of form. That's how it's always worked.

It's how the All Blacks have traditionally done it; it's only during their recent period of dominance that they've been able to play a completely different side against weaker nations and still be confident of winning. When England are in a similarly dominant position, they may be able to afford to do the same.

It's also worth considering the RWC seedings: until the draw is made, every win matters. We do not want to be in the same kind of pool we faced last time. England are now in a position where it's much easier to lose points than win them, so taking risks with selection is very dangerous.

Put it another way: are you really trying to tell us that if George had to start against Australia this autumn, he'd do a bad job? Do you really have that little faith in a player you've championed as an international for nearly 2 years now?

Most of the players you favour will get their chance to start sooner or later, and probably because of injury to the incumbent. This isn't club rugby: Eddie won't adopt McCall's squad rotation policy and McCall wouldn't either if he were an international coach, because the dynamics of the international season are different.

What do we need to do to stop this very circular discussion from eating up more acres of every England thread? We know your viewpoint by now, and you know ours, and we know we're never going to agree.

beshocked wrote:...England going into the 2003 RWC had very good strength in depth...

That's a wee bit revisionist.

Our squad back-up fly-halves to Wilkinson were Paul Grayson & Mike Catt, and Catt only got in because Alex King was injured. The other man in the frame was Dave Walder.

With Catt included, we had another experienced centre, but beyond Greenwood and Tindall, we didn't have rich resources. Stuart Abbott was the other centre in the squad, and he had precisely 2 caps before he went to the World Cup.

Poorfour Itoje was held back but it's worked out for Jones. He is the beneficiary.

Yes of course core squad men like Calum Clark and Rob Webber were used in the RWC warm ups...

Sam Burgess was a core player, a veteran rugby union player....

You call it a sensible approach, I call it failure.  

My point is sometimes you have to be pro active not just reactive.

It's not up to England whether we get a tough pool or not - it was Wales dropping outside the top 8 which led to the tough group.

I don't think it would have been fair to start George vs Australia, basically chuck him in the deep end.

What else is there to discuss? This thread is about England afterall, the AIs and the game vs Fiji.

You say players will get their chance. When will George get his? I am pleased when players get an opportunity and take it.

I am obviously not a big fan of road runner but I am pleased he got a try on the weekend, hopefully he picks up more.


Rugby fan we had such depth that you had someone with the calibre of Healey missing out and initially Shaw missed out till an injury meant he was called up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Rugby_World_Cup_squads#.C2.A0England

Personally I think it's great strength in depth especially when you consider that for example 3rd choice 9 Gomarsall in 2003 was first choice in 2007.

beshocked wrote:...Rugby fan we had such depth that you had someone with the calibre of Healey missing out and initially Shaw missed out till an injury meant he was called up...

You said your idea of depth is two 1st choices in each position, so I pointed out two positions where it's hard to say the 2003 squad had that. It's not relevant that we were better blessed in other positions.

beshocked wrote:

Personally I think it's great strength in depth especially when you consider that for example 3rd choice 9 Gomarsall in 2003 was first choice in 2007.

Nah Mate,

You're going round in circles now just to try and win an argument.

Gomarsall had 9 caps going into the World Cup. You can't cite his standing later in his career as a good example of how well England were placed 4 years previous.

Lets try and draw a parallel with this squad shall we? Who could we pick? Ooh I dunno, Jamie George?

So George has 9 caps now, using your criteria, provided that George is first choice in 2020 (four years from now) then that indicates that we have good depth in 2016 (now)

Apologies for interrupting the "Why Beshocked is always right" tirade, but apparently the team announcement has been delayed because of Brown, May and Vunipola missing training

Team apparently could be

Goode, Roko, JJ, Farrell, Daly, Ford, Youngs, Mako, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes, Robshaw, Harrison, Hughes

Bench - George, Marler, Sinckler, Ewels, Wood, Care, Teo, Slade

Dont tell me mays broken his nose and ruined everything again.

Beshocked ... you can look at that strength in depth in a lot of ways. Grayson became back up fly half at the last minute, he hadnt played for 4 years before getting on thye bench for the arse end of teh 6 nations. It was hardly great forward planning that he was able to step in and even start a game at the world cup. If Woodward had been ahead of the curve he wouldve been picking him in Argentina in 2002 knowing that Hodgson would be injured in the future (the only other game wilkinson didnt start FH for 2 years up to the world cup).

Turned out it wasnt a great mistake. Or maybe it was because pre 2003 when wilko shat the bed they neither Grasyon nor Hodgson could really cut it. So maybe he shouldve devleoped Catt more as a fly half, except he couldnt cut it eiither. So maybe he shouldve looked at a fifth choice just to be sure.

Maybe making Dorian West Captain for a world cup warm up and then only giving him one start in it was a stroke of genius...or a waste of time. Who knows.

This is just getting tired now. As ever its transpired that injuries are dictating selection as much as any master plans to transform players not considered good enough into world class off the back of one cap vs a second rate team.

Every time these discussion go the same way covering the same ground. Different vibe to when the likes of GG got involved but a similar end result. It is getting tiresome.

Why consider Daly on the bench unless Jones now believes YArde isn't good enough? He wasn't great or even good against SA, ball handling not good enough in even tricky conditions but I woudln't say he did anything drsatically bad.

Daly covers a lot more than Yarde

Team announcement is still later today?

Sorry didn't mean to write bench, distracted by a ham sandwich. Wing not bench.

Just to really tire this out ..
... the real chance for "squad development" picks ahead of 2003 was the Argentina game in 2002 where many of the stars didnt travel.

Team then was Horak, Stimpson, Appleford (??), Johnston, Christophers, Hodgson, Gomarsall, Flatman, Thompson, Vickery. Codling, Kay, Sanderson, Moody, Worsely

Of those who actualy went to the world cup Gomarsall had a load of caps already and ended up playing a minor role.
Thompson was already well established first choice and remained so (so bassicaly Woodward couldve been ahead of the curve and picked Jamie George)
Vickery, Moody and Kay too were well established starters.
Joe Worsely had played at the previous world cup.

There were 8 "fringe" players started, one of them (controversialy) made the world cup squad and barely played.

2003 ear is a bad example of finding players by picking for the sake of it. The squad was big because they had made changes over a period of time and had a 50 cap cavalry to back up the quality talent that had come through teh dawning of professionalism. England were ahead of the curve on training like professional athletes and recruiting white orcs on steroids.

Picking a player they didnt think was good enough for a rubbish yawnsome test match just because wasnt the major reason for their success IMO.

doctor_grey wrote:Team announcement is still later today?

2.30 apparently

Aaaaaargh. Delayed until tomorrow.

So in terms of player fitness what would you do? Obviously personally I'd just let the unfit players have the weekend off.

Now maybe if it was a crucial RWC game or a must win GS game, there would be more urgency to make sure players are fit but in the circumstances I just don't get it.

I know there will be people saying - the England need continuity etc. A non fully fit player is not useful.

I don't think uncertainty of selection is good either.

What's unfit? How many players go into a match with a sore calf etc. Especially given Mad Eddies Judo sessions!

Well the players and the coaches should know better than us but that doesn't stop them playing clearly unfit players. You say what's unfit - I guess you could say can tell if someone is unfit by the way it affects their performance. Being unfit isn't straightforward as it could be down to an illness or ongoing niggle. Or poor conditioning.

E.g. Dan Carter in the ERCC final, Launchbury in Scotland this year etc. Morgan in the RWC. Farrell Jr on a few occasions. Sometimes you don't find out till later.

We don't know what condition players are in. Quite clearly players can't be fully recovered if they aren't even in full training.

Sometimes coaches make unnecessary risks.

So for instance Lawes shouldn't have been involved against SA. Glad he was though. Understandable he wants to give some an extra 24 hours. Annoying though!

Another potential problem is that because players want to play it wouldn't surprise me if some downplay their issues.

Of course it's only speculation. Of course certain areas like fitness and training are areas where the coaches and management have all the data.

Well it happened with Moody in 2011, he even admitted after hed lied.

Whats the answer...pick players who dont want to play?

We shouldn't be using training as any indicator though clearly. Tricky situation for them.

Gooseberry wrote:Well it happened with Moody in 2011, he even admitted after hed lied.

Jack Nowell just said he didn't tell England about his thumb problem.

Gooseberry perhaps need to get the lie detector out though I heard they don't work so.....

Surely coaches and management monitor the players to make sure they are fully fit?

no 7 & 1/2 of course training is an indicator, it's just how important you believe it is, some believe training is the most important thing.

It's not easy but that's why they get paid lots of £££ to be England coaches.

Rugby Fan very good point about Nowell. I suppose it's just an indicator of who desperate players are to play even if it's potentially damaging to their health.