England tour to Argentina

First topic message reminder :

beshocked wrote:


cascough a 10-12-13 of Farrell-T'eo and Davies is lacking a bit of creativity though. Too much boshing IMO.

Any more lacking than Farrel Barrit Tuilagi?

According to Gatlands latest outburst Teo was slected because of his offloading game and footwork, not to be a bash merchant.

We will see.

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Yarde is a natural treasure, a winger of the highest calibre supposedly.

Presume that's below deity?

No7&1/2

To be fair Jones would probably ruin it by not bringing the other one on. Man has no time for sentiment!

I'm pleased with the overall team. Not sure I've commented too much if at all over yarde. I personally think on this tour it's best to get a bit of a mix to give the newbies a foot hold. With that in mind I don't mind seeing hartley Launchbury ford care yarde may and Brown and to an extent Hughes. It gives a core around some players with huge potential. I think if you go down the route of just sending a saxo s squad you don't learn much and even those impressing would find it hard to take an immediate step into the full squad as has been seen from some who impressed last year.

True robbo. There's debutant here and I suspect there may be further debutant next match bur jones will want to win the tour.

Against the Barbarians it was mostly the newbies who provided the flair but it was the old hands who made the victory, shored up the defense, set up the new guys etc. Watching it you could really see what the likes of Care, Robshaw and Brown did for the team regardless of how much flashy stuff they did.

As said above its great to see the new players but they won't achieve anything on their own, not yet.

Need the deities and national treasures alike to steer the ship.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

cascough wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I fail to see where your pessimism is coming from pooly!

I don't rate Ewels in the slightest and both midfield options don't inspire confidence. Low is no 12 and Slade doesn't even start for Exeter does he? We basically have 3 FH's 10/12/13, no gas or physicality from any position. Odd choice.

I think that's quite a lazy appraisal. Lozowski did actually exist before he burst onto your screens for Saracens. At Wasps, and even before that for Carnegie. He earned his first senior appearances at full back and demonstrated genuine pace time and time again. He's also showed his outside break and pace off for Saracens on a number of occasions this season. Slade's hardly slow. I'd certainly put him as quicker than Farrell.

Physicality is the same as it's been whenever we've picked Farrell and Joseph. Neither Farrell nor Joseph are big carriers. Defensively, both Slade and Lozowski are quite capable of putting in big hits. I've never seen Slade take a backwards step and Lozowski has been praised many times this season for his physicality in defence.

Lazy because you don't agree? Thanks.

Lozowski should be nowhere near the England squad imo, but he is so I'm within my rights to pass judgement. He's a decent AP 10 but he's not an Int 12. He's lighweight and nowhere as physical as Farrell. A Ford/Lozowski axis has to be the weakest defensively in Int rugby.

I like Slade but he's not in great form and would be better with a more physical option.

Where is our get out in the backs? Our go to man if under pressure? At least Farrell has the ability to take the ball into contact, who has it in this set-up? Devoto or James should be at 12 imo.

It's just my opinion (which I made clear), so please don't take offence. There's none intended.

Lazy because you added nothing to tell us why you think that. Without that, to my eyes it looks like you are saying that they are 10s, so by default they don't possess the other attributes you mentioned. Especially when Slade and Lozowski are becoming renowned for possessing the attributes you say that they don't. Calling it lazy has got nothing to do with whether I agree with it or not. I don't, but that's by the by.

So Lozowski is lightweight? Again, given that he has been lauded for physicality this year, it looks to me as if you are judging him on his size. Again, I would consider that lazy. Would you care to tell us why you think Lozowski lacks physicality and pace even though he has demonstrated just that in his career to date?

I've seen nothing to suggest Lozowski is physical enough to be an international 12 to date. He looks actually a little underpowered for his size if truth be told and he's not exactly a big lad.

I just rate the guy too highly really.

Okay. So my next question is, just how much have you seen? I'll grant you I've seen a lot of him, more than a lot of others I'm sure, but you're calling it very differently to a lot of pundits and ex players.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I've seen nothing to suggest Lozowski is physical enough to be an international 12 to date. He looks actually a little underpowered for his size if truth be told and he's not exactly a big lad.

I just rate the guy too highly really.

What about stopping Waldrom dead?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJIyJEyP9Bo

To be fair I can't remember when i last saw ford being defensively weak. I think what we mean is they're not big guys.

No 7&1/2 wrote:To be fair I can't remember when i last saw ford being defensively weak. I think what we mean is they're not big guys.

Lozowski, as he has demonstrated this season, hits well above his weight. He is a ferocious tackler.

I have to laugh at the criticism here. It's a development tour so new people will start, sometimes in odd positions and wany to show what they can do. I was a front row forward at school (not a very good one at that) but if the coach said I had to play centre I would have done simply because I wanted to play. As the coach said "It doesn't matter who you play with and whether you like them or not. You could be the greatest of enemies off the field - but on the pitch, he's your mate" That way he instilled a team first, individuals later ethic. It was all about the shirt.

I am certain that both Lozowski and Slade are delighted to be starting at 12 & 13. Eddie has put them together for a reason and you can bet that the same team won't start next week. Eddie is trying out new things and there may be many reasons why the team is like this that we don't know about. I am not a fan of putting players out of position but I am a fan of England. So I will support them no matter who plays.

It's a development tour. The last Argentina tour also saw many newbies capped with much fanfare but not all became stalwarts of the squad. Step forward Messrs Kvesic, Eastmond, Wade, Attwood and Burns. There were also a couple of youngsters called Vunipola, Launchbury and Joseph who featured. So get behind the team and stop whingeing

Scottrf wrote:Need the deities and national treasures alike to steer the ship.

We need Allah and Dame Judi Dench?

cascough wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:To be fair I can't remember when i last saw ford being defensively weak. I think what we mean is they're not big guys.

Lozowski, as he has demonstrated this season, hits well above his weight. He is a ferocious tackler.

I think we're poles apart on our views of Lozowski, I have no idea what you're on about.

Sgt_Pooly you presumably have no idea what No 7&1/2 is on about because you have presumably not watched Lozowski play. If you had you would appreciate that whilst not a big man, he puts 100% into the tackles and falls into the "hits hard for his size" category. he may not be a Sonny Bill Williams and never will be, but that doesn't mean he is a weak or ineffective tackler.

I can't recall commenting on anything 71/2 said tbh.

Quite a lazy suggestion to say I've not seen him play. I've obviously seen him plsy or I wouldn't comment. I just have a different opinion.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

cascough wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:To be fair I can't remember when i last saw ford being defensively weak. I think what we mean is they're not big guys.

Lozowski, as he has demonstrated this season, hits well above his weight. He is a ferocious tackler.

I think we're poles apart on our views of Lozowski, I have no idea what you're on about.

I have absolutely no problem with a differing viewpoint. I'm just trying to understand how you arrived at your conclusions. So just to repeat a question you haven't answered (it may have got buried in the flurry of posts) just when have you watched him? Have you seen a lot of him? Or are you basing this on one or two games you've seen on BT. Or even perhaps the highlights on ITV?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm pleased with the overall team. Not sure I've commented too much if at all over yarde. I personally think on this tour it's best to get a bit of a mix to give the newbies a foot hold. With that in mind I don't mind seeing hartley Launchbury ford care yarde may and Brown and to an extent Hughes.  It gives a core around some players with huge potential. I think if you go down the route of just sending a saxo s squad you don't learn much and even those impressing would find it hard to take an immediate step into the full squad as has been seen from some who impressed last year.

I understand the necessity of having core men like Hartley,Launchbury,Ford,Care,Brown and Hughes but I do not believe Yarde should be there.

Why are you against trying out either Solomona or Earle?

I know it's your tendency to be conservative when boldness is more logical and reckless when the situation requires a more steady selection but still.... I thought you would learn by now.

Sgt Pooly Lozowski isn't Ford, he's not a 10 who people think is a great defender because he makes tackles despite allow the opposition to get beyond the gain line and needing support more often than not.

I'm not. If you've taken in anything I've said since January you'll have noticed I consider solomona rather special. Again you say I'm conservative...The person who wanted slade at the WC the person who wanted Burgess at 6 in the WC the person who would've chosen george for the WC. Just 3 recent examples. Do you really not bother to understand view points for the attention you get beshocked?

My summary: 7.5 I assume would select Solomona, but is able to see the logic in starting this first test with the more experienced player who has had a reasonably successful time in an England shirt. Thus while he may not select Yarde he can see why Jones has.

After all it is possible to disagree with someone's decisions, but still understand their motives.

If that's the case why champion the likes of Yarde and Webber?

If you agree just say so. You don't need to purposely choose to disagree.

I want to see if Solomona can back up his club form.

Londontiger that's the problem though - picking someone simply because they have England caps - it was similar with Webber.

There should be a purpose to selection - not just picking someone to make up the numbers.

[quote="cascough"][quote="No 7&1/2"]To be fair I can't remember when i last saw ford being defensively weak. I think what we mean is they're not big guys.[/quote]

Lozowski, as he has demonstrated this season, hits well above his weight. He is a ferocious tackler.[/quote]

Lozowski is an excellent defender, has shown it time and time again this season. Only issue really is whether he has the positional sense to play there at this level as seen him struggle there a few times for Saracens in the premiership. Slade is also a very good defender, seen him man-handle Tuilagi a few times before and not many people have done that.

Ford's defence is also very good these days, lazy comments to say he can't defend in my opinion. He just isn't a physically dominant no10 like Wilkinson or Farrell. Barrett/Cruden both similar for NZ and he doesnt pick up the criticisms.

I didn't champion webber and not championing yarde. So hopefully now you'll start to read what people want and not say they hold opinions they don't. Though we've had this discussion before and you still go back to points I haven't made.

Samthequin making a tackle isn't the same thing. Ford is not someone you'd generally have faith in consistently stopping the opposition get over the gain line.

He's a tenacious defender but because he lacks power and size, he's frequently targeted.

no 7 & 1/2 you did champion Webber, perhaps you've changed your tune on Yarde, fair enough.

Ford's defence is also very good these days

He's a better defender in filthy weather - the sodden and muddy shirt gives him more weight...

How did I champion webber then beshocked. Please bump the post up because you're just lying at the moment.

No 7&1/2 wrote:How did I champion webber then beshocked.  Please bump the post up because you're just lying at the moment.

Because after stating you would have selected George, you said you understood the logic behind why Lancaster went with Webber.

No 7&1/2 wrote:How did I champion webber then beshocked.  Please bump the post up because you're just lying at the moment.

We've gone over this so many times. Webber was your 2nd favourite hooker after T.Youngs.

Please stop trying to pretend you didn't support him now, that with hindsight we can see picking Webber was an idiotic decision.

Anyway let's not go back to this. Webber thankfully is no longer in England contention.

Londontiger sadly there was no logic to selecting Webber as it's been proven.

no 7 & 1/2 argued in favour of Webber's selection. He defended Lancaster's poor decision making as a Lancaster apologist.

Should have really just put your hands up and say - you know what - Lancaster made a bad call and the reasons for doing so were not compelling.

No let's not move. You're lying beshocked. You're a liar.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No let's not move. You're lying Mrs May. You're a liar.

Fixed that for you.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No let's not move. You're lying beshocked. You're a liar.

I am not. You are a Lancaster apologist who won't acknowledge Lancaster made a poor decision, you have tried to defend the selection.

It seems now you are telling me, you argued me just for arguments sake and actually you agreed with me that George should have been selected.

Easy to say that now you have hindsight.... If you agree, just say it. You choose to disagree with me.

Ha. You've changed it and you're still wrong. I gave a reason why webber may have ben chosen and said george would now need to impress in training. The only bit I got wrong was saying he'd be the starting hooker by the end of the WC as we got knocked out. And you know what we didn't go out of the world cup due to a bad performance by the pack; more an insipid choice of 2 stodgy midfielders. Let's move on now you've admitted you were making stuff up.

Simple question then beshocked did you not understand the discussion at the time or did you not understand deliberately? Go back re read it. I suspect you'll realise that you did the same thing with your national treasure talk ie made it up in yur head.

I understood the discussion - you were trying to justify Lancaster's decision despite it being blatantly obvious it was a poor decision.

Yes you talked up the importance of training which I still think is laughable. Being world class in training does not make you world class in an actual rugby match.

If that was the case, Jonny May would be superior to Lomu as Lancaster hyped up May in training,

The reasons for picking Webber were poor. He wasn't even starting for his club, he was in his poor form, he hadn't played particularly well for England.

You effectively dismissed the obvious reasons why George should be picked and elevated the importance of training as the primary thing for picking a player.

Forget form,potential, ability - training trumps them all.....

Chris, Ford is not a good defender. He's a decent speedbump and gets stuck in, but thats about it.

You still don't understand he point about training. Dear me. Youre quite funny.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Chris, Ford is not a good defender. He's a decent speedbump and gets stuck in, but thats about it.

I absolutely agree with you. Very fair comment.

no 7 & 1/2 oh but I do - training is the most important thing to you and Lancaster for player selection.

Shame it backfired in the RWC but doesn't matter that England went out of their own RWC does it?

It's ok beshocked. If it's too complex to understand ill try to make it simple next time.

Indeed, I don't understand why you think training is the most important aspect for selecting a player - don't get me wrong - training is one aspect that has to be factored in but no I don't think it should be the deciding factor.

I don't. I don't know why you feel you have to make up arguments to argue against. It may have ben easier for you to make points against that. Besides the point though as no one was saying that.

In summary discuss people's points not points you've made up for people.

[quote="Sgt_Pooly"]Chris, Ford is not a good defender. He's a decent speedbump and gets stuck in, but thats about it.[/quote]

Can you please not interact with me at all on these boards, all I see you do is take digs at people. Thanks.

no 7 & 1/2 whatever you say. As usual let's just agree to disagree. You always like to argue with me even when you say you agree.

You are saying I am making up your fondness with training as a primary factor for picking a player? Perhaps you've changed your mind again. Have you?

It would be much simpler for you to say - I agree with you beshocked but the coach has made his mind up so we just have to accept it.

You seem to fixate on what we disagree on, whereas mostly I actually I am in agreement with England fans.

Try the block function Chris

No not changed my mind. Never held the opinion. I'm not chris?if that was to me.

No not you lol

Ok. I'll bite.

Players get noticed and selected for training squads on the basis of good club performances.

But club rugby, at whatever level, is not international rugby. There are players who are superb at club level who just don't cut it at international level. Charlie Hodgson is the classic example. And the tactics and plays that an International side uses are different from those a club side uses.

Coaches have access to information that we don't have. They can see which of the good club players that they have selected are good at picking up the systems and tactics they want to use. They get this information from training, which they attend every day, and we rarely get to see.

The job of a coach isn't just selection, it's to devise and implement a winning game plan. Selection serves the game plan. The only measure outside of international matches themselves that a coach has of who can execute the game plan is how players perform in training.

So if player A looks better than player B in club matches, but player B does a better job of doing what the coach wants them both to do in training, who should the coach pick? The coach is judged on having a winning game plan. Picking a player - however talented - who's less good at executing the game plan is not a rational strategy.

International performances are a better measure than training, but training - if you are a coach and not a random fan without inside knowledge - is a better measure than club performances.

"Training" is a source of information that coaches have but we don't. It's rational for them to use it. I don't see why that's an issue.

Poorfour wrote:Ok. I'll bite.

Players get noticed and selected for training squads on the basis of good club performances.

But club rugby, at whatever level, is not international rugby. There are players who are superb at club level who just don't cut it at international level. Charlie Hodgson is the classic example. And the tactics and plays that an International side uses are different from those a club side uses.

Coaches have access to information that we don't have. They can see which of the good club players that they have selected are good at picking up the systems and tactics they want to use. They get this information from training, which they attend every day, and we rarely get to see.

The job of a coach isn't just selection, it's to devise and implement a winning game plan. Selection serves the game plan. The only measure outside of international matches themselves that a coach has of who can execute the game plan is how players perform in training.

So if player A looks better than player B in club matches, but player B does a better job of doing what the coach wants them both to do in training, who should the coach pick? The coach is judged on having a winning game plan. Picking a player - however talented - who's less good at executing the game plan is not a rational strategy.

International performances are a better measure than training, but training - if you are a coach and not a random fan without inside knowledge - is a better measure than club performances.

"Training" is a source of information that coaches have but we don't. It's rational for them to use it. I don't see why that's an issue.

Excellent post, Poorfour.

The caveat I'll give is when coaches, usually ones who have been in charge of a set-up long enough for things to get 'stale', stick with an experienced player on the basis of past performance which has long since gone. In these situations players can often cling on due to 'knowing the game plan' or 'being a good influence at training' when in reality it's just a mix of complacency and fear of taking a risk to improve the side.

As usual the All Blacks are the best example at preventing this complacency from setting in by constantly bringing through young players to training, giving them chances and rewarding performance when it comes. The counter argument to this is that bringing young players through is easier with that conveyor belt of talent to pick from, but the example for exposing players to training with established internationals still stands.

To use a more precise example than this I'd point to ABs wingers. Bring them through young when outside backs are naturally at their quickest, nimblest and most dangerous. Then if their threat fades due to age/injury/whatever they will be replaced. The ABs are ruthless with dropping back three players who don't perform regardless of past successes. As such they consistently have the most threatening outside backs in the world.

Very true Carlos. It's one of the fascinating things about having Eddie in charge - in the past he has had a fairly limited pool of players and has pushed so hard that he's eventually burned them out. With England, he has a lot of opportunity to bring through new players - and seems to have done so quite judiciously. I want to see if he can keep it up - and I think this tour will give us a good idea of who we might expect to bring through.

On the subject of bringing through young, dangerous wingers, Gabriel Ibitoye in the U20s looks really exciting, if a little raw positionally...