Argentina vs England, 2nd test

First topic message reminder :

Match Details

Venue: Estadio Brigadier Estanislao López, Santa Fe
Date: Saturday 17th June
Time: 20:15 BST
TV: BBC2



Officials

Referee - John Lacey (Ireland)
Assistant 1 - Nigel Owens (Wales)
Assistant 2 - Egon Seconds (South Africa)
TMO - Aaron Paterson (New Zealand)


Teams

Argentina
15 Joaquin Tuculet, 14 Ramiro Moyano, 13 Matias Orlando, 12 Jeronimo de la Fuente, 11 Emiliano Boffelli, 10 Nicolas Sanchez, 9 Martín Landajo, 8 Juan Manuel Leguizamon, 7 Javier Ortega Desio, 6 Pablo Matera, 5 Tomas Lavanini, 4 Matias Alemanno, 3 Enrique Pieretto, 2 Agustín Creevy (captain), 1 Lucas Noguera Paz.
Replacements: 16 Julian Montoya, 17 Santiago García Botta, 18 Ramiro Herrera, 19 Guido Petti, 20 Tomas Lezana, 21 Gonzalo Bertranou, 22 Juan Martin Hernández, 23 Matias Moroni.

England

While at times Argentina were brainless, still impressive by England across both games.


(If Ford can maintain those kicking percentages next season, it could make things interesting for club and Country)

I cant think of any (maybe the AB's) side that Launchbury would not walk into right now.

Robshaw was also excellent tonight, how are these players so overlooked by Gatland I will never know.

Rating some of my prospects for the autumn squad today:

Underhill showed some really good physicality in the first half, smashing some players back. Faded a bit in the game and made a couple of errors, a decent first cap but a little way for him to go.

I gave Slade a shout out in the week saying he always looks classy for England, his hands weren't there today and he didn't look sharp. Disappointing game, but he still comes out of the tour with credit after week 1.

Solomona didn't really get into the game. He chased kicks hard and made his tackles, but ends the tour with one touch, one try.

2-0 is a great result for England. Players should enjoy the rest of their time in the country, take a bunch of work-ons from the coaches and look to hit the new season running.

LondonTiger wrote:While at times Argentina were brainless, still impressive by England across both games.


(If Ford can maintain those kicking percentages next season, it could make things interesting for club and Country)

Difficult for Jones that's for sure. I feel that Ford is by far the better attacker and better at getting backlines into the game but he can be very inconsistent, Farrell will always be consistent.

Eating my words from last week, Brown did very well today... I counted 4 passes! He keeps playing like that and he will be in the team for a bit longer.

Underhill was on a hiding to nothing and I think the criticism is a little harsh. Not everyone can put in MOTM performance on debut like the Curry's.

I was a bit underwhelmed by the Pumas though, they should have buried us today, given the strength of the respective teams. They will be battered a Twickenham in November if they turn up like this.

eirebilly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:While at times Argentina were brainless, still impressive by England across both games.


(If Ford can maintain those kicking percentages next season, it could make things interesting for club and Country)

Difficult for Jones that's for sure. I feel that Ford is by far the better attacker and better at getting backlines into the game but he can be very inconsistent, Farrell will always be consistent.

If Jones wants two playmakers, then I'd stick with Ford and Farrell over Lozowski or Francis. It might be worth experimenting with Ford, Te'o and Joseph in the midfield with Farrell on the bench in the autumn though.

robbo277 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:While at times Argentina were brainless, still impressive by England across both games.


(If Ford can maintain those kicking percentages next season, it could make things interesting for club and Country)

Difficult for Jones that's for sure. I feel that Ford is by far the better attacker and better at getting backlines into the game but he can be very inconsistent, Farrell will always be consistent.

If Jones wants two playmakers, then I'd stick with Ford and Farrell over Lozowski or Francis. It might be worth experimenting with Ford, Te'o and Joseph in the midfield with Farrell on the bench in the autumn though.

Ford and Farrell do work well together that's for sure. I do like Francis though, seems to be a good ball playing centre.

Cumbrian wrote:Eating my words from last week, Brown did very well today... I counted 4 passes! He keeps playing like that and he will be in the team for a bit longer.

Underhill was on a hiding to nothing and I think the criticism is a little harsh. Not everyone can put in MOTM performance on debut like the Curry's.

I was a bit underwhelmed by the Pumas though, they should have buried us today, given the strength of the respective teams. They will be battered a Twickenham in November if they turn up like this.

Was that aimed at me? If so, I didn't think he was bad, just possibly didn't show any more than Haskell has offered throughout Eddie Jones' tenure (a bit more on the ground, a bit less physicality, probably balances out).

I still think he has a way to go to be the player we all want, but he's only 20 and showed promise. Worth persisting with, either in the 7 or 20 shirt over the Autumn.

Agree with the pundits that the smash into Hughes' knee (during the maul) by the Argentinian (lock?) needs citing. Awful, cowardly 'tackle'.

Not at you, sorry I should have been clearer. I was watching the ITV analysis whilst typing.

Cumbrian wrote:Not at you, sorry I should have been clearer.  I was watching the ITV analysis whilst typing.

Ah okay, I was half watching that. Think Guscott wasn't impressed? Tune out when he talks tbh.

Guscott just seems like a contrary git to be honest, takes the opposite position to everyone else as a rule. The funny thing is he often contradicts himself in the space of an interview.

Cumbrian wrote:Guscott just seems like a contrary git to be honest, takes the opposite position to everyone else as a rule. The funny thing is he often contradicts himself in the space of an interview.

Guscott and Monye aren't a particularly good addition to any pundit team. Good to see Moore looking well, although his blazer could have done with a scrub!

A little worried by the defensive system, though. The two tries down the left wing were both products of easy three on twos. Yarde could have handled it better, but was left with really difficult choices both by the inside defenders.

The tackle on Hughes could have been a career ender, as well as just being highly illegal

Other than that it was another great game. Both teams were so fast on the counter attack, and both teams showed great touches. It is important to remember that it wasn't just a case of Francis making a complet hash of that grubber, Matera showed fantastic control of the bouncing ball at pace to score the try.

Great individual performances from the old heads. Launchbury is just amazing. Robshaw was everywhere. Care and Ford pulling all the strings

I thought Underhill was good, but has a long way to go. Its great seeing him make the tackle then recover so quickly to look for the next target. And he always looks like he's up for it. Curry arguably had the better debut.

Plenty of mistakes though.

lostinwales wrote:Great individual performances from the old heads. Launchbury is just amazing. Robshaw was everywhere. Care and Ford pulling all the strings

That can't be over-stated. Great to see the young lads doing well, but equally brilliant to see the experienced guys playing well. Don't forget Brown too!

Although I would love these guys to be Lions for their own sake it's good for England that Gatland is being a complete twonk from our point of view.

For this England side to win 2-0 in Argentina is a real achievement.

Will Collier is a serious tight head. Sinkler (and Williams) gets the attention, but that was some really impressive scrummaging.

Brown should have been dropped a long time ago, but he played well today.

Probably not for this thread, but I'd say today's results are raising questions about how good Super Rugby actually is.

DaveM wrote:Probably not for this thread, but I'd say today's results are raising questions about how good Super Rugby actually is.

Indeed. Aussie rugby looks shafted, Although SA have smashed France twice in Tests. Good for SA or are France awful?

England's 2nds/3rds beating Argentina really makes you think.

lostinwales wrote:The tackle on Hughes could have been a career ender, as well as just being highly illegal

Even if it had ben a clean tackle it should have been yellow for the pure cynicism, but the tackle was horrible and I think it should have been a red card. The fact Lacy chose not to review it, when he reviewed a couple of far more minor incidents involving England players in the first half is very disappointing.

robbo277 wrote:

If Jones wants two playmakers, then I'd stick with Ford and Farrell over Lozowski or Francis. It might be worth experimenting with Ford, Te'o and Joseph in the midfield with Farrell on the bench in the autumn though.

I don't think you will ever see Ford play that well if Farrell is alongside him.

DaveM wrote:

lostinwales wrote:The tackle on Hughes could have been a career ender, as well as just being highly illegal

Even if it had ben a clean tackle it should have been yellow for the pure cynicism, but the tackle was horrible and I think it should have been a red card. The fact Lacy chose not to review it, when he reviewed a couple of far more minor incidents involving England players in the first half is very disappointing.

The reviews made sense by the letter of the law as they were borderline high tackles. Neither were malicious, but there is obviously a fine line between a tackle over the shoulder and around the neck.

This whole Lions calling up the geographically convinient options has been brought into sharp focus. Finn Russell is the only player who deserves to be there and to be honest if Ford was chosen, I couldn't really grumble. The panel last night need to remember or at least watch how well he has been playing over the last couple of weeks.

Hamish Watson, John Barclay and Chris Robshaw should have gone before Haskell. A case could be made for Laidlaw before Care too.

But these 3 Welsh nobodies has devalued the lion. Add to that Alan Dell, he's not Lions material either.

There's a real danger that he alienates the midweek team. If that's your bench, then you're saying the fixture doesn't matter - you haven't picked the best guys for the job.

Russell was a fine pick, so we're Haskell and Laidlaw to an extent. I wouldn't have gone with either, but I can believe that Gatland thought they were the best options.

Even Dell to an extent makes it because of a lack of realistic alternatives (Healy, Evans and Dickinson all out?). Certainly no-one from England is established in this area.

Gareth Davies is competition with Care, Price and Marmion. While I'd have Care, that's not as shocking as some of the others.

Francis is probably competing with Nel and Fagerson in the main, and is probably a little lucky again.

But Hill and Dacey are the two for me. I'd have Launchbury and Hartley on one leg over the two of them. Even if you ruled out England and Ireland players on the grounds of distance (a disgrace in its own right), you have Ross Ford and Fraser Brown who I'd rather have at hooker and Johnny Gray leading a host of Scots locks I'd prefer over in Australia - which is demonstrably not too far away.

If distance was the deciding factor between two closely matched players - fine, just. But Gatland has looked for appropriate players in the Welsh squad first and then the Scottish squad; England and Ireland players were not even considered.

These players are going to get Lions numbers and pull on the untouchable jersey. It's a disgrace plain and simple.

This wasn't Tom Court or Shane Williams being called up in 2013 for an emergency as were short and they're already in the country - this was a preplanned move to add players to the squad. It would have cost us a test, but I'm sure Jones would have happily packed Hartley, Launchbury, Care and/or Ford on a plane earlier in the week had he been asked, or he'd have risked losing the players loyalty long-term.

Gatland will live and die by the test results, but this leaves a very sour taste. Should the worst happen and we not win a test (which looks likely given how the respective teams are shaping up), it's this kind of additional displeasure that singles a tour out as bad - as in 2005.

So what do we think are the positive and negatives from the tour? I'd have it as:

Positives

Our counter-attacking (or "transition" if you're from the SH) looked a step above anything I've seen previously. We converted sloppy mistakes from Argentina into tries from half chances. I thought that was a step in the right direction.

Our depth is obviously extremely impressive, but we probably already knew that.

The next generation have had a taste of international rugby. I can't see it being anything but a good thing for Isiekwe, Curry and Underhill to play, and play that well, at this stage of their careers.

Ford's either in a rich vein of form, or he's raised his game another level. The same could be said for Launchbury. The other old hand Robshaw also looked fantastic.

Negatives

Scrum - It ended up holding up OK with Collier and Mullan against their replacement props, but my worry is this - we have a great stable of props, but most can either scrummage, or do everything else. I'm not sure we have any one who can do both. If we want to match the ABs I think either carriers like Genge, Mako and Sinckler need to significantly improve their scrummaging, or Collier etc. need to improve their mobility. I think we have the opposite problem with our locks - all fantastic all rounders, but perhaps not the greatest carriers.

Defence - Not bad but in the wide channels we seemed to get twisted and turned and up front there were times Argentina made a lot of ground. I'd expect a team like SA (given their recent improvements) to punish us there.

Structure - We were very, very loose at times. Perhaps it helped our counter-attacking game, but sometimes we looked a little clueless. I still think we need to get the ball away from the ruck quicker and hit the line at pace, whenever we did, we scored. We jut didn't do it enough.

Most importantly a great series win for an inexperienced England. Good to see Robshaw back and Launchbury, Care and Ford were very good. Even Mike Won’t Pass Can’t Pass Brown showed he can... pass. And particularly impressed with how the scrum held out in the final quarter. But jeez that was definitely an England B side – so many dropped balls, poor defensive organization, missed tackles, and I won’t mention that schoolboy grubber. Good entertainment and experience but I wouldn’t want to see that side against a top nation. Which is ok cuz I won't.

Jones reckons he's got 61 players to pick from for his 45 man EPS. I've got 50 of them I think. Any I've missed?

Looseheads (4): Mako, Marler, Genge, Mullan
Hookers (4): Hartley, George, Cowan-Dickie, Taylor
Tightheads (5): Cole, Sinckler, Hill, Williams, Collier
Locks (6): Itoje, Kruis, Launchbury, Lawes, Ewels, Isiekwe
Flankers (7): Robshaw, Haskell, Underhill, Wilson, Tom Curry, Ben Curry, Wood
No 8s (4): Vunipola, Hughes, Beaumont, Mercer

Scrum-halves: (3) Youngs, Care, Maunder
10/12s (7): Ford, Farrell, Lozowski, Francis, Slade, Devoto, Mallinder
Centres (4): Te'o, Joseph, Marchant, James
Back three (10): Daly, Watson, Nowell, Brown, May, Solomona, Yarde, Haley, Earle, Cokanasiga

Clifford, Sam Jones, Mike Williams, Tuilagi, Robson, Evans, Harrison, Tom Youngs, Simpson, Catt, Spencer.

That makes it up to 61.

Has he ever shown interest in Robson or Simpson? Ford-Robinson may be one of the 61.

Both Robson and Simpson have been in training squads before under Jones.

Robson has certainly been named in the 45-man EPS under Jones. As has Spencer too, in fact he replaced Robson in the 6 Nations EPS IIRC.

It seems very safe to assume that Maunder will be the 3rd scrum-half in the next EPS though.

EDIT: Both Robson and Spencer were named in the 45-man 6 Nations EPS.

If you roughly picked a 45-man EPS by selecting two 23s (minus one of course) then it could look something like below.

1.Vunipola 2.Hartley 3.Cole 4.Itoje 5.Kruis 6.Robshaw 7.Haskell 8.Vunipola
9.Youngs 10.Ford 11.Nowell 12.Farrell 13.Joseph 14.Watson 15.Brown

16.George 17.Marler 18.Sinckler 19.Lawes 20.Hughes 21.Care 22.Te'o 23.Daly

1.Genge 2.Taylor 3.Williams 4.Launchbury 5.Ewels 6.M Wilson 7.Underhill 8.Clifford
9.Maunder 10.Lozowski 11.Yarde 12.Francis 13.Slade 14.Solomena 15.Haley

16.LCD 17.Mullan 18.Collier 19.Isiekwe 20.T Curry 21.Robson 22.James 23.N/A

Jones might favour keeping someone such as Marchant involved, which would likely be at one of Francis or Slade's expense as keeping that many second five-eighths around is overkill. Devoto and Mallinder not getting game time this tour suggests they won't be ahead of the other centres.

Mark Wilson could be under pressure from Ben Curry if Jones wants to get both twins in. Will Evans will likely drop out after his injury misfortune. Clifford may well be under pressure too.

I forgot Marchant. He could force his way in ahead of Slade if he's showing form in preseason. Clifford is likely to be involved, given Eddie's investment in him, as long as he comes back from surgery successfully.

My guess is that the Currys will be given a bit of time to gain AP experience - but Eddie has surprised us before and might again.

Got to remember the EPS is used very differently under jones, Poorfour. The 45-man EPS has routinely included development picks (Marchant and Evans for example) who then missed out on the 'training squads' picked before international periods.

Both Curry's could realistically be in the EPS then miss out on the training squads to someone like Mark Wilson depending on where injuries hit. I agree with your hope that both brothers are left to get some Premiership game time. Sale have some serious back row options for them to compete with as well.

king_carlos wrote:Got to remember the EPS is used very differently under jones, Poorfour. The 45-man EPS has routinely included development picks (Marchant and Evans for example) who then missed out on the 'training squads' picked before international periods.

Both Curry's could realistically be in the EPS then miss out on the training squads to someone like Mark Wilson depending on where injuries hit. I agree with your hope that both brothers are left to get some Premiership game time. Sale have some serious back row options for them to compete with as well.

You're right; but I was taking that partly into account. The EPS is definitely the "long term player pool" - but I see the way the training squads are composed as being very pragmatic: training squad = EPS - injuries - longer term prospects + players who can do a job in the short term. The Currys might displace someone like Wilson, Jones or Williams from the EPS; they're unlikely to displace Clifford or possibly Harrison, and I think it would be better for them not to make the training squads.

Cyril wrote:
Indeed. Aussie rugby looks shafted

.

Or just perhaps Scotland are a good team who went down under and beat them? But of course not. Scotland only beat poor teams don't they. Never give any credit where credit is due

.

Add to that Alan Dell, he's not Lions material either

Aye - a decent prospect for the future but 3rd choice for Scotland

Well done England incidentally - huge strength in depth is massing amongst the youngsters here.

Cyril wrote:

DaveM wrote:Probably not for this thread, but I'd say today's results are raising questions about how good Super Rugby actually is.

Indeed. Aussie rugby looks shafted, Although SA have smashed France twice in Tests. Good for SA or are France awful?

England's 2nds/3rds beating Argentina really makes you think.

TJ wrote:

Cyril wrote:
Indeed. Aussie rugby looks shafted

.

Or just perhaps Scotland are a good team who went down under and beat them?  But of course not.  Scotland only beat poor teams don't they. Never give any credit where credit is due

It is both. Australia are not great and Scotland are a pretty good team. The new rankings when they are published later today accurately reflect the position. New Zealand at the top followed by England, Ireland and Scotland with the other SH teams pushed out.

Super Rugby is dominated by the NZ franchises and the Rugby Championship is not a great event when the winner is known before it starts. Australian and SA rugby both have real structural problems for different reasons. In Australia it is competition from other sports and in SA it is quotas.

Well done Brown. It was nice to see him pass the ball. Looks like he'll be set to stay for some time and if he keeps on passing the ball then great.

Yarde didn't play well though - defensively a liability. Don't expect he'll keep his spot when the other wingers come back.


Looking at the AIs, I am wondering who should be the next captain. Need to pick best players first and foremost then captain.

beshocked wrote:Looking at the AIs, I am wondering who should be the next captain. Need to pick best players first and foremost then captain.

We already have a captain?

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Looking at the AIs, I am wondering who should be the next captain. Need to pick best players first and foremost then captain.

We already have a captain?

Not the best player in his position though, that's the problem.

Maybe 4th or 5th best hooker in NH (though according to Gatland he's probably not even that), 2nd best in England.

England should be striving towards picking the best players then captain if they want to aspire to be the best side in the world.

It's why we need to look at other captaincy options.

beshocked wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Looking at the AIs, I am wondering who should be the next captain. Need to pick best players first and foremost then captain.

We already have a captain?

Not the best player in his position though, that's the problem.

Maybe 4th or 5th best hooker in NH (though according to Gatland he's probably not even that), 2nd best in England.

England should be striving towards picking the best players then captain if they want to aspire to be the best side in the world.

It's why we need to look at other captaincy options.

I wouldn't take Gatland's picks as a good barometer of where players are, unless we're looking to regress to one-out rugby-by-numbers.

When the 2018 Six Nations rolls around and we get to Wales, regardless of current form or how the team has developed, I'd pick Hartley, Launchbury, Robshaw, Care, Ford and Brown to start. Probably wouldn't bother with a team talk.

If george manages to squeeze out hartley and he has a pretty big stage to make his point Farrell will be captain.

robbo277 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Looking at the AIs, I am wondering who should be the next captain. Need to pick best players first and foremost then captain.

We already have a captain?

Not the best player in his position though, that's the problem.

Maybe 4th or 5th best hooker in NH (though according to Gatland he's probably not even that), 2nd best in England.

England should be striving towards picking the best players then captain if they want to aspire to be the best side in the world.

It's why we need to look at other captaincy options.

I wouldn't take Gatland's picks as a good barometer of where players are, unless we're looking to regress to one-out rugby-by-numbers.

When the 2018 Six Nations rolls around and we get to Wales, regardless of current form or how the team has developed, I'd pick Hartley, Launchbury, Robshaw, Care, Ford and Brown to start. Probably wouldn't bother with a team talk.

To be fair to Gatland he's been picking a good 1st choice pack and the back up in general is pretty good too.

Hartley is well off the pace. He might hold a special place in the heart of England fans who put him on a pedestal (hail him as a deity) but Gatland doesn't hold the same sentiment and rightly so.

It's actually amusing that Gatland might well go with form against NZ in the first test instead of bias in the pack - Jones could actually learn from Gatland in that sense.

We'll see if he goes ahead but if he does - I'll say fair play.

Launchbury is a good lock but is currently the 4th best lock in England, he's very unlucky not to tour and if he did might move up the pecking order but he lacks the all round ability of the others. His lineout work isn't good enough yet.

It's just the strength of the English 2nd rows which is so high.

At 15, Brown has no competition, Jones isn't willing to give anyone else a go either so yes he's nailed on.

Ford nailed on sure. Robshaw probably.

The difference between let's say Ford and Hartley is Ford deserves to be starting in his position.


no 7 & 1/2 that would be a shame if that's the case but makes sense. Have to pick a nasty individual - that's Jones' England.

Would be nice if England don't need to continue to erode values just for the sake of winning.

You're boring Beshocked.

Coming away from the tour I'm really pleased how good Hughes and Ewells looked. Always good that another lock comes through! Don't think we're that much on in midfield though underhill looks good enough to put pressure Robshaw and haskell.

I don't get why Launchbury is apparently so bad at the lineout all of a sudden? He never calls, its not his role in the team, so why is he being blamed for the lineout problems in Argentina?

Ewels was brought in to start and is the lineout caller, I don't get why Launchbury's lineout work is "not good enough" when he catches whatever he is thrown.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're boring Beshocked.

I am sick of repeating myself too but till Jones makes the obvious change then I have to keep with the

Bambam Launchbury is a very good player but if he leaves the lineout to everyone else then he's easier to replace. He offers less overall.

Lawes,Itoje and Kruis more versatile which is why I think partly they edged out Launchbury.

It helps a player if they are more versatile generally.

Launchbury for me whilst a good player is not more valuable.

Purely my ratings for the tour as a whole (% is how likely I think they are, barring injury to feature in the AIs):

Brown  7/10, 80% - Poor in first test, excellent in second.
Yarde 5/10, 20% - Solid in defence ant attack in first test. At fault (though left exposed) for Argentina's first try in the second match.
Solomona 5/10, 30% - Awful first few minutes in T1, rescued by match winning try. Quieter in T2.
Slade 6/10, 30% - Decent in first game, quieter in second.
Francis 7/10, 30% - Try assist in first game, try in second. Sometimes tried too hard to make something happen.
Lozowski 5/10, 20% - Outshone by the other two centres.
May 6/10, 80% - Would have liked to see him get the ball a bit more.
Ford 8/10, 100% - Kicked his goals, ran the backline well, scored a try. Made his tackles in first test, but missed a couple in second losing him a point.
Care 7/10, 100% - Provided leadership to a young team, was a little lightweight in defence at times.
Maunder 5/10, 0% - Not enough minutes to really be sure. Needs to go back to Chiefs and nail the starting spot. Time will (probably) come.
Genge 7/10, 10% - Struggled at the first scrums in both tests, but grew stronger as the game went on. Sealed turnovers, tackled well - perhaps need to see him taking the ball at speed more.
Mullan 6/10, 20% - Struggled in T1 a little, but very strong when off the bench in T2.
Hartley 7/10, 100% - Leadership was key to securing the series. Strong defence in T1, more prominent with ball in hand in T2. May struggle to hold off the challenge of George (but will be helped by ending the season earlier and being ready sooner for 17/18)
Williams 5/10, 0% - Struggled at times in teh scrum, and keeping up with play in the loose. Needs to be fitter.
Collier 7/10, 10% - Very strong in the scrum and scored a try. Could easily become Englands best scrummaging TH - if he can keep getting the games at Quins.
Launchbury 8/10, 100% - Some storming performances, let down just a smidge through being a more peripheral figure at lineout
Ewells 7/10, 0% - Surprised me, but behind four outstanding locks.
Isiekwe 5/10, 0% - Decent first appearance off the bench in T1
Wilson 7/10, 10% - Did for England what he does for Falcons. MAy struggle to feature next season barring injury to Robshaw, but surely showed enough to ensure that Itoje is viewed as a lock from now on.
Robshaw 8/10, 100% - Outstanding in T2, shame he missed T1 (though not for Mark Wilson)
Curry 6/10, 0% - Decent debut, and good against Barbarians.
Underhill 6/10, 50% - Decent debut, tired later on. Will robably feature in AIs at least once, assuming he nails down a spot at Bath.
Hughes 7/10, 100% - Solid, re-assuring presence at the base of teh scrum. Seems to have bulked up and lost some of his dynamism.

Launchbury 4th best lock in England? Get away now!

beshocked wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Looking at the AIs, I am wondering who should be the next captain. Need to pick best players first and foremost then captain.

We already have a captain?

Not the best player in his position though, that's the problem.

Maybe 4th or 5th best hooker in NH (though according to Gatland he's probably not even that), 2nd best in England.

England should be striving towards picking the best players then captain if they want to aspire to be the best side in the world.

It's why we need to look at other captaincy options.

I wouldn't take Gatland's picks as a good barometer of where players are, unless we're looking to regress to one-out rugby-by-numbers.

When the 2018 Six Nations rolls around and we get to Wales, regardless of current form or how the team has developed, I'd pick Hartley, Launchbury, Robshaw, Care, Ford and Brown to start. Probably wouldn't bother with a team talk.

To be fair to Gatland he's been picking a good 1st choice pack and the back up in general is pretty good too.

Hartley is well off the pace. He might hold a special place in the heart of England fans who put him on a pedestal (hail him as a deity) but Gatland doesn't hold the same sentiment and rightly so.

It's actually amusing that Gatland might well go with form against NZ in the first test instead of bias in the pack - Jones could actually learn from Gatland in that sense.

We'll see if he goes ahead but if he does - I'll say fair play.

Launchbury is a good lock but is currently the 4th best lock in England, he's very unlucky not to tour and if he did might move up the pecking order but he lacks the all round ability of the others. His lineout work isn't good enough yet.

It's just the strength of the English 2nd rows which is so high.

At 15, Brown has no competition, Jones isn't willing to give anyone else a go either so yes he's nailed on.

Ford nailed on sure. Robshaw probably.

The difference between let's say Ford and Hartley is Ford deserves to be starting in his position.

Yeah, the 13 forwards who are likely to make the test squad are there or thereabouts what I would have picked from the tour squad based on tour performances, even if I maybe would have taken a few different guys on tour.

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, and I think the whole thing has a sense of arranging deckchairs on the titanic, but the recent call-ups were the straw the broke the camels back for me. I defended his initial selections because I knew he thought they were the best 41 players available to him. Now, he's either called up players he knows are inferior, or he honestly thinks the players he's called up are better. Either way he's wrong.

I hope the players win. I will still support them and the jersey they wear. I hope the Lions win in spite of Gatland.

George being selected for the Lions over Hartley is therefore not enough to convince me that George is the better player. George having a good test series though will be enough. It's all about the players and performances for me now, not the coach and his selections.