Argentina vs England, 1st Test

First topic message reminder :

Match Details

Venue: Estadio del Bicentenario, San Juan
Date: Saturday 10th June
Time: 20:15 BST
TV: BBC2



Officials

Referee - Nigel Owens (Wales)
Ass 1 - John Lacey (Ireland)
Ass 2 - Egon Seconds (SA)
TMO - Aaron Paterson (NZ)


Teams

Argentina - 15 Joaquin Tuculet, 14 Matias Moroni, 13 Matias Orlando, 12 Jeronimo de la Fuente, 11 Emiliano Boffelli, 10 Nicolas Sanchez, 9 Martin Landajo, 1 Lucas Noguera Paz, 2 Agustin Creevy (c), 3 Enrique Pieretto, 4 Matias Alemanno, 5 Tomas Lavanini, 6 Pablo Matera, 7 Javier Ortega Desio, 8 Juan Manuel Leguizamon.

Replacements: 16 Julian Montoya, 17 Santiago Garcia Botta, 18 Nahuel Tetaz Chaparro, 19 Guido Petti, 20 Leonardo Senatore, 21 Gonzalo Bertranou, 22 Juan Martin Hernandez, 23 Ramiro Moyano.



England - 15 Mike Brown, 14 Marland Yarde, 13 Henry Slade, 12 Alex Lozowski, 11 Jonny May, 10 George Ford, 9 Danny Care; 1 Ellis Genge, 2 Dylan Hartley (c), 3 Harry Williams, 4 Joe Launchbury, 5 Charlie Ewels, 6 Mark Wilson, 7 Tom Curry, 8 Nathan Hughes.

Replacements: 16 Jack Singleton, 17 Matt Mullan, 18 Will Collier, 19 Nick Isiekwe, 20 Don Armand, 21 Jack Maunder, 22 Piers Francis, 23 Denny Solomona.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They're both coming to the end. Trouble is you tend to want to avoid a host of debutant in the same team at the same time. Can we give a run at 2 possibly 3 7 14 and 15 and keep winning?

If you bring in George and Sinckler in your pack and played a back 3 of Nowell, Daly and Watson, then I wouldn't worry about experience or disruption.

Bringing in someone like Underhill at the same time would potentially be a bit much at the same time, but if you had Robshaw, Haskell and Vunipola fit you could introduce him from the bench. If you didn't have the three of them fit, you'd need to bring in an inexperienced player anyway, unless you were going to go for Tom Wood again.

robbo277 there have been opportunities to try out other options at 15.

Just Jones hasn't.

Putting someone in a squad is not looking at them really, giving them gametime is.

They are undroppable as far as Jones is concerned. Something I disagree with obviously.

It's not experimenting to start a more complete player. Training....

It's on the pitch where players need to perform not in training.

Geordiefalcon fair enough if you think Brown and Hartley were good enough in the 6 nations.

I personally think they their limitations were on show for all to see - Hartley offering little out of the set piece and Brown's inability to pass plus not making the same line breaks he was.

It's about improving as a side.

no 7 & 1/2 being available doesn't mean they need to start every game.

Eddie Jones has now been in charge of 19 games, he has had opportunities to try out different options as starters at hooker and 15.

The whole - "but he can't try out numerous people" - just doesn't work he's had enough games and he's experimenting in other positions.

I don't think it's outrageous to suggest Jones looks at 2 and 15.

You say he will, when? He hasn't yet. I said he should look at them last AIs but no progress since then.

beshocked wrote:robbo277 there have been opportunities to try out other options at 15.

Just Jones hasn't.

Putting someone in a squad is not looking at them really, giving them gametime is.

They are undroppable as far as Jones is concerned. Something I disagree with obviously.

It's not experimenting to start a more complete player. Training....  

It's on the pitch where players need to perform not in training.

Geordiefalcon fair enough if you think Brown and Hartley were good enough in the 6 nations.

I personally think they their limitations were on show for all to see - Hartley offering little out of the set piece and Brown's inability to pass plus not making the same line breaks he was.

It's about improving as a side.

no 7 & 1/2 being available doesn't mean they need to start every game.

Eddie Jones has now been in charge of 19 games, he has had opportunities to try out different options as starters at hooker and 15.

The whole - "but he can't try out numerous people" - just doesn't work he's had enough games and he's experimenting in other positions.

I don't think it's outrageous to suggest Jones looks at 2 and 15.

You say he will, when? He hasn't yet. I said he should look at them last AIs but no progress since then.

Maybe we think differently...but I think the improvements under Jones has been fantastic. He knows what he is doing, and I trust his planning.

Please beshocked, tell us more about how you don't like coaches using training to assess a player, I'm dying to hear your thoughts

There really isn't enough time to give everyone a run. You have to pick and choose when and where to an extent and then it will.come down to choices of the coaches. There are players that Jones has always chosen when available more than brown and Hartley.

BamBam wrote:Please beshocked, tell us more about how you don't like coaches using training to assess a player, I'm dying to hear your thoughts

beshocked wrote:robbo277 there have been opportunities to try out other options at 15.

Just Jones hasn't.

Putting someone in a squad is not looking at them really, giving them gametime is.

They are undroppable as far as Jones is concerned. Something I disagree with obviously.

It's not experimenting to start a more complete player. Training....  

It's on the pitch where players need to perform not in training.

If they're not showing enough in training to make it onto the pitch, then I'd disagree and say they need to show up stronger in training.

There are 4 options at hooker - Hartley, George, Cowan-Dicke and Taylor, unless you want to add Singleton and the next tier into the mix. Should Jones give them 10 starts each between World Cups? Then he can judge them all on what they've done on the pitch. Even though that would mean playing a weakened team 75% of the time.

Imagine if he did that across every position. There just isn't enough games to give everyone who could potentially be an England player good game time.

So if he's not allowed to watch these guys in trainng - how do you suggest Jones cuts down the 60+ players who could come into England reckoning into a core 33 to work with for a series, and then into a starting 15 beyond that?

Don't forget its also about how players fit in to the tactics and instructions Jones wants to give them...and how influential players are on the squad.

Brown and Hartley might be driving leaders...who are infectious and get others to raise their game...

Theres LOTS we don't see that goers on.

Its pretty pointless blooding players at 15 for the sake of it on this tour when the likely replacements for Brown are in NZ.

If these guys were genuinely in line to start playing in the real England side in the near future thne they wouldve been in the senior EPS.

I dont mind seeing Brown play, its nice to have an actual England player or two in the side. Ditto Hartley.

Geordiefalcon Not at starting hooker and full back. I like what Jones has been doing at the other positions hence why I think he should look at them too.

no 7 & 1/2 19 games and you say there's been no opportunity?

Hartley and Brown have played the most under Jones.

Bambam it's fine to use training to assess players but in my opinion it's not the most important aspect.

robbo277 that's where we disagree. It's going with just training that has led to selections like Webber and May.

It's not about giving 10 starts. It's about not giving 19 starts to 1 player and giving scraps to the others.

It wouldn't have weakened the team to start George at hooker, if anything would have strengthened it. As for Taylor and LCD, they need opportunities at some point too.

Gooseberry surely Hartley is a New Zealander? At least half anyway.


I find it amusing that Gatland is doing what Jones should have - giving George a start.

At 15, surely there were opportunities to try out someone like Watson?

There isn't an opportunity to give all players a chance beshocked. We're talking about 4 or 5 games to bed in. When you're trying to ensure you still win. Then there's the judgement of who to give a chance to ie fo you think they're good enough. For me Jones has brought george through and he's cemented in the squad. You would have to acknowledge on the whole jones has brought through newbies well wouldn't you?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Don't forget its also about how players fit in to the tactics and instructions Jones wants to give them...and how influential players are on the squad.

Brown and Hartley might be driving leaders...who are infectious and get others to raise their game...

Theres LOTS we don't see that goers on.

Well they do talk very highly about Hartley's contribution off the pitch and Brown is certainly very visible shouting at everyone on it. It does seem counter intuitive to cut out the main leaders when you are trying to develop leadership through the squad

I wonder if coaches are damned no matter what they do?

Stick with a winning formula and they are not developing players.
Bring in new players and lose and they castigated for making the wrong decision.
Bring in new players and win and they are failing to develop team cohesion with all the chopping and changing.

Two autumn campaigns two 6N campaigns, one tour to Australia and one game in to a tour of Argentina. One loss. EJ is such a failure.

Of course we are free to question his decisions. We should also acknowledge the work of Lancaster and the many excellent academies producing unparalleled numbers of quality young players (with decent basic skills), but he's produced the best run of results for England since the run up to 2003.

lostinwales you still don't need to play them in every single game. Also need to allow others to grow and develop at 2 and 15.

No 7 & 1/2 seems like there is except for at 2 and 15 which is exactly what I am saying. Jones has of course done some development work but not enough in those 2 positions. He's had 19 games in charge.

It has not been necessary to start Brown and Hartley every single time.

Tell me - how will we improve our depth at 2 and 15, if only those two players start?


What do you actually disagree with? You are satisfied to hold back development at hooker and full back?

Jones has done a very good job but ignoring hooker and full back is a problem in my opinion.

It will not go away till Jones stops exclusively starting 2 players in those positions.

Putting those two on a pedestal is a problem in my opinion. You can agree to disagree.


When Jones takes those two off the pedestal then the issue will go away but till then.....

Has Jones really had a look at that many players though? I would argue that when fit the following players have (almost) always made his starting XI (other than the odd game against Italy or Fiji):

Harley, Cole, Kruis, Itoje, Robshaw, Haskell, Vunipola, Ford, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Brown.

In addition I think Youngs is clearly his number one SH, though Care has been given a few starts. So it's really only LH prop and one of the wing spots where he doesn't have a clear option.

Now yes, plenty of other players have had gametime, but it seems to be mostly injury induced IMO. Maybe it's just a case of Brown and Hartley not getting injured. Has Cole missed a start? Has Farrell?

Ultimately I agree with Goose re this tour, there's no real point in starting someone else at hooker or FB because the back-up options are on the Lions tour or injured, so you're looking at fourth or fifth picks at best.

So jones hasn't done enough at 2. So you don't belive that george is proven at international level beshocked?

beshocked wrote:robbo277 that's where we disagree. It's going with just training that has led to selections like Webber and May.

It's not about giving 10 starts. It's about not giving 19 starts to 1 player and giving scraps to the others.

It wouldn't have weakened the team to start George at hooker, if anything would have strengthened it. As for Taylor and LCD, they need opportunities at some point too.

What evidence do you have that Webber and May were training picks?

A player with no international experience gets called into camp based on the form and ability they show for their club. They then make the match day team based on whether they can transfer that form and ability to the international environment - and the way to judge that is to watch them in training.

George isn't a bad player and I'm not saying he shouldn't have had a start by now based on form and ability - in fact I was calling for George to start vs Italy and Farrell to be made captain. However, that wasn't a "give him a go" selection, that was a "from what I've seen he's the best selection". If Eddie doesn't agree, I don't think he should just be switching them for the sake of it.

The following 25 players have all been called up to England squads in Eddie Jones' tenure who had at most a handful of caps before he took over. How many of them should have been "given a go" as an experiment? How many games should they have been given to qualify a "proper go" and not just "scraps".

Beaumont, Cowan-Dickie, Clifford, George, Paul Hill, Itoje, Kvesic, Mullan, Thomas, Daly, Devoto, Sam Hill, Jones, Rokodoguni, Taylor, Catt, Genge, Sinckler, Ewels, Harrison, Williams, Hughes, Lozowski, Slade, Te'o.

Eddie Jones needs a method of separating these guys so he can decide who has the potential to make it as a top level International player and who just looks good for their club. Unless he's going to just give all of these guys a go, the closest look he'll get to these guys at training.

As it is, I'd say Clifford, George, Itoje, Daly, Sinckler, Harrison, Hughes and Te'o have been given a decent number of opportunities to show what they've got, and only Harrison looks like he won't cut it long-term (although Clifford's future might be curtailed by others coming through). 5 of them are on the Lions tour.

This shows Eddie is only giving caps to people he's confident of succeeding at International level, he isn't throwing confetti caps out unless injury forces his hand. This is a much better approach in my opinion.

Mad for Chelsea I am not saying that Jones necessarily needs to look at hooker right now (Argentina tour) - with LCD and Taylor injured and George on tour, Hartley starting makes sense. Hartley is also the captain.

It's more to do with a lack of flexibility throughout the 19 games in those positions.

Injuries have allowed opportunities for players to get more game time with of course 2 and 15 being the exception.

no 7 & 1/2 as a bench option yes but he clearly needs more starts. He currently has 0 starts at international level. Think he's broken the record for most caps without a start. I believe that's wrong.

Look I get it - you are satisfied with Jones' lack of flexibility at 2 and 15. If that's how you feel fair enough.

beshocked wrote:Mad for Chelsea I am not saying that Jones necessarily needs to look at hooker right now (Argentina tour) - with LCD and Taylor injured and George on tour, Hartley starting makes sense. Hartley is also the captain.

It's more to do with a lack of flexibility throughout the 19 games in those positions.

Injuries have allowed opportunities for players to get more game time with of course 2 and 15 being the exception.

no 7 & 1/2 as a bench option yes but he clearly needs more starts. He currently has 0 starts at international level. Think he's broken the record for most caps without a start. I believe that's wrong.

Look I get it - you are satisfied with Jones' lack of flexibility at 2 and 15. If that's how you feel fair enough.

He was captain for the last 19 games too

It's so fascinating having the same debate about Hartley and Brown.

Mad for Chelsea wrote: I would argue that when fit the following players have (almost) always made his starting XI (other than the odd game against Italy or Fiji):

Harley, Cole, Kruis, Itoje, Robshaw, Haskell, Vunipola, Ford, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Brown.

It was a point I was trying to make earlier with reference to the concept of undroppable players. Of those you mention, only Ford has been dropped (for 30 minutes) while Brown an Joseph were rested for single games. The rest have been selected when fit and available.

Jones calls up players to the squad to see if they have what it takes. If they impress the coaches in training they get a bench spot, otherwise they are dispatched to work on their game. Then natural wastage through injury and Lions tours enables further experimentation.

Sure he could have rotated more - but at what risk?

Hopefully Jamie George will come back from his post Lions holiday refreshed and displace Hartley. However in just over 3 years he has gone from 3rd choice at his club and perhaps 9th choice for England to being in the Lions squad and probably being capped in two weeks time. Continue making progress and by 2019 he will be an impressive contributor for England.

At FB who has been banging the door down with club performances to actually displace Brown?

LondonTiger wrote:I wonder if coaches are damned no matter what they do?

Stick with a winning formula and they are not developing players.
Bring in new players and lose and they castigated for making the wrong decision.
Bring in new players and win and they are failing to develop team cohesion with all the chopping and changing.

You've summed up Beshocked nicely...well done!

Not too bothered by George not starting tbh. He's adding real impact coming on vs weakened front rows and tired players and personally think Hartley starting with george adds more overall than the other way round. Plus in front row you're going to get on the pitch more likely than not. As Taylor and LCD are looking class with even their lineouts now my h more solid I'd expect george to get the consistent starts and one of them to get the role from the bench. At full back there has been a distinct lack of pressure from anyone. If solomona gets a wing spot you suddenly then have Daly and Watson not able to fill the one slot and more temptation to move them.

Once Solomona learns how to defend that is

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's so fascinating having the same debate about Hartley and Brown.

True, and I shall stop now.

Think he knows already judging by his sale performances bam. Solomona is also the perfect example of why I think you need a few games in the shirt to bed in. Else we'd judge him.as a failure and move on to earle etc.

Londontiger

All those players haven't played all 19 games.

Really risky starting George in the AIs last year... Especially vs Fiji.....

Only in England would a hooker who has 2 AP titles and 2 European titles, not get a start for England.....

no 7 & 1/2 I thought the general feeling was try either Nowell or Watson at 15. Let's just wait another year?

beshocked wrote:Only in England would a hooker who has 2 AP titles and 2 European titles, not get a start for England.....

Not true. Would happen for every other country.

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Only in England would a hooker who has 2 AP titles and 2 European titles, not get a start for England.....

Not true. Would happen for every other country.

No not really. As I said before, it's amusing that Gatland can see George's worth but Jones can't. Even if George doesn't start in the tests at least he's started 1 game on tour.

Why doesn't Mako start instead of Marler then?

Using team achievements to validate an individual doesn't really work.

beshocked wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Only in England would a hooker who has 2 AP titles and 2 European titles, not get a start for England.....

Not true. Would happen for every other country.

No not really. As I said before, it's amusing that Gatland can see George's worth but Jones can't. Even if George doesn't start in the tests at least he's started 1 game on tour.

Whoosh.

I'd like to see one of them get a run now beshocked but as you yourself have stated no one has been pressuring brown. Watson has now seemingly been moved to full back by bath which is an advantage for him. Daly can play there but jones saw wing as his way into the team which is fair enough.

Prem titles and euro titles when talking of an individual is a bit of a distraction as.it's a team sport. Jones clearly sees george as an excellent player as he's been involved in practically all jones teams.

It's great coming back to a thread after half a day to see we're debating training and Jamie George......

George is with the Lions to be a possible impact sub, he won't start a test.

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Only in England would a hooker who has 2 AP titles and 2 European titles, not get a start for England.....

Not true. Would happen for every other country.

No not really. As I said before, it's amusing that Gatland can see George's worth but Jones can't. Even if George doesn't start in the tests at least he's started 1 game on tour.

Whoosh.

Maybe the mistake is Gatlands for taking the wrong player.

Gooseberry wrote:Maybe the mistake is Gatlands for taking the wrong player.

Please lets not.

beshocked wrote:

Gooseberry surely Hartley is a New Zealander? At least half anyway.

By in New Zealand I meant on the Lions tour. Its somewhat difficult to give Daly or Watson a start on this tour.

BamBam wrote:Please beshocked, tell us more about how you don't like coaches using training to assess a player, I'm dying to hear your thoughts

Burial or cremation?

beshocked wrote:Mad for Chelsea I am not saying that Jones necessarily needs to look at hooker right now (Argentina tour) - with LCD and Taylor injured and George on tour, Hartley starting makes sense. Hartley is also the captain.

It's more to do with a lack of flexibility throughout the 19 games in those positions.

Injuries have allowed opportunities for players to get more game time with of course 2 and 15 being the exception.

no 7 & 1/2 as a bench option yes but he clearly needs more starts. He currently has 0 starts at international level. Think he's broken the record for most caps without a start. I believe that's wrong.

Look I get it - you are satisfied with Jones' lack of flexibility at 2 and 15. If that's how you feel fair enough.

12? Burrell has started two games, one where Farrell was unavailable (vs Wales) and one where he was hauled off after 30 minutes. Equally at 10 Ford has started every game bar the Aus one where he came on after 30 minutes.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think he knows already judging by his sale performances bam. Solomona is also the perfect example of why I think you need a few games in the shirt to bed in. Else we'd judge him.as a failure and move on to earle etc.

I jest, I agree he definitely needs more opportunities, I'm hopeful it is just being in a new system and that he has actually got the positional sense to play wing. He's clearly got the physicality

I'd start him this week but can see Earle getting a go in the 23

Yes. Definitely.

A lot of hot air about Mike Brown. The guy is not coming back and that's final.

Realistically the shirt is Watson's for the taking.

I doubt Gatland will select him ahead of Halfpenny, or not until the cause is lost, but should he get a go then it will be very instructive for those with eyes to see.

With regards to Somuchmoremoneyinunionmona, don't make me laugh. And there's eejits on here who'll tel you Wade can't defend!

About the first winger you don't rate king. You've called for everyone else to be capped in the last 6 years!

Mako has started ahead of Marler. Not every game but at he has started a game for England.

Mad for Chelsea Lozowski played at 12 for England vs Argentina.


Oh and on a side note looks like Hartley isn't quite as effective without Lawes,Kruis and Itoje. Understandable I guess but Launchbury needs to work on his lineout. Those 3 players are superior.

I think Launchbury is an excellent player but if he has a weakness it's the lineout.

Who took the most lineouts in the 2017 6 nations? From any country.

No 7&1/2 wrote:About the first winger you don't rate king. You've called for everyone else to be capped in the last 6 years!

Ah I see you've chosen the 'conflate' approach today.

I assume you've watched him for Sale before as you do appear to have invested in him, and so you will understand the weaknesses in his game as well as his strength's. Defense can be learn't, however some what surprisingly he does appear to be on page 1.

Any impartial observation would appreciate the injustice of his selection by comparison with Wade. Still he won't be the first Christian to have been blithely dealt with.

kingelderfield wrote:Any impartial observation would appreciate the injustice of his selection by comparison with Wade. Still he won't be the first Christian to have been blithely dealt with.

And perhaps like many Christians before him, Wade was irreparably damaged by his involvement with Lions?

It's not that Wade can't defend, he's just isn't very good....

LondonTiger wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:Any impartial observation would appreciate the injustice of his selection by comparison with Wade. Still he won't be the first Christian to have been blithely dealt with.

And perhaps like many Christians before him, Wade was irreparably damaged by his involvement with Lions?

Way!

Ya mixin ma metA4's man!

Yup watched him for sale. He doesn't seem to have a massive weakness defensively and certainly impressed in attack. Best record in 2017 and deserves his shot. It was a real point in that you've called on practically every qualified winger from ojo to most recently bassett. I don't get your Christian point.