Jamie George vs Dylan Hartley - Round 12

If not beaten to the punch I shall be posting a match thread for the first of England's AIs shortly. To avoid that descending into a complete off topic farce (and prompted by an article I read today) how about we discuss this now perennial subject in a single thread rather than ruin any others.

Facts

1) Hartley has started every test under Eddie Jones with England winning all but one of them
2) When available George has been on the bench.
3) Jamie George started all 3 tests in the summer for the Lions, his only international starts



Opinions

1) Jamie George is the best hooker in the Aviva Premiership
2) Depending on your point of view, George was either outstanding in NZ or was lucky to start all 3 tests (opinions on Lions threads did differ that widely)
3) With injuries to Taylor and LCD, the options behind George and Hartley do not inspire confidence.
4) Eddie Jones has placed skipper Hartley on a pedestal and deems him undroppable.


For what it is worth: 1 & 3 I agree with, 4 I deem to be utter lovesacks and 2 I am in the middle (such that I feel George never really showed his premiership form and at times was rather meh - yet was still better than the other two options)


Discussion Points

1) Is George a better hooker than Hartley?
2) Should Hartley be in the match day squad (ie ahead of Dunn who is a real novice)
3) Does George's dynamism make him better suited (than Hartley) to the role of a finisher?
4) Are England best served over a full 80 minutes by starting George and bringing on Hartley or vice versa (noting that last season George typically played only 10 minutes less than Hartley in each game)
5) Is Hartley's place in the squad due to being captain, or the lack of any other players, outside of George, capable of playing international rugby.



Add your own discussion points, but please lets leave this issue out of the AI threads

For me Hartley isn't playing well enough so I'd rather give George 60 minutes and not worry if Hartley is an impact player etc. Maybe he's an experienced head to close out the game.

My responses to discussion points:

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) George is the better player he is a much better finisher but would also be a better starter
4) Despite being in my opinion a better option to start, I feel that Hartley then George is better for England than George then Hartley. The gap between the two as starters is I believe much lower than the chasm between their abilities as finishers.
5) Should LCD ever be fit, I do believe he would replace Hartley in the matchday squad - being skipper would not save the Saint.

Lol well done ld. I expect that it'll be a bit mixed but for what's it's worth I'd prefer to see george start against either argentina or to a lesser extent aus. They're going to be the better scrumagers and we should see a little better how much george can still offer in the loose when hrs against fresh legs. I didn't think he was as prominent for the lions as he has for England coming from the bench but it was also at the end of the season with unfamiliar players.

Oh and to the points.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hartley and George but we need to see Georges impact against good scrummagers from the start
No hartley is very good but.looking forward to LCD and Taylor putting pressure on them both.

With Hartley it must be a matter of
1) time (Back end of career but not done yet)
2) other options (injured/ issues with basics - Hartley is arguably the best option at lineouts )
3) Captaincy. Who else is there?

For what its worth I do think Hartley's leadership makes a difference, and that we would have to feel that there is a ready made replacement to take over. And yes I do know he's not on the pitch for half the game but most of his work should be done by then anyway (and a good proportion of it is done before they get on the pitch).

The replacement captain issue will be solved in time, either forced with Hartley put out to grass or new guys coming in. (To be known as FECA's - Future England Captain Apprentices). Having watched the U20 games I do have high hopes for Mercer as a real FECA.

I think Hartley brings that extra bit of niggle to games than George does and that is something Jones likes. I would say that George, in my opinion, is the better player right now though.

To understand this it's obvious to look at the two players and how they got to where they are.

Dylan Hartley

One of England's most experienced hookers.

His strength for England has been his reliability at set piece.

His discipline for England has been in complete contrast to that of his at Northampton.

From 2012-2015 - he was deservedly the no 1 hooker for England and only missed out on selection for the 2015 RWC because of his poor club discipline.

Over the years he's picked up bans for a variety of sins and it hasn't helped him.

In 2016 picked as Jones' captain. Seen as a safe pair of hands by Jones.

No one else has got an opportunity to start at hooker for England since Jones has been in charge.



In contrast you have Jamie George.

Jamie George has had to be incredibly patient.

Initially kept to a bench spot/squad option by Saracens, thanks to Brits and Smit, he's emerged as the no 1 hooker at Saracens.

From 2015-2017 I personally think he's been the best hooker in England.

Only Lancaster's 4th choice hooker in the RWC 2015 squad.

Has not started a game for England under either Lancaster or Jones. Now holds the unwanted record of the most England caps without a start.

In my opinion he does everything Hartley does and more. Just as reliable at set piece but does more around the park.


Discussion Points

1) From 2015-2017 I believe Jamie George has been the superior hooker but not given an opportunity to start by Lancaster or Jones. Not 1 start.

2) With the way things are ,yes, Dunn is not as good as Hartley.

3) Yes but his all round abilities mean he's also suited as a starter too.

4) Whilst the answer might be Hartley-George it doesn't change that George needs to be given a start sooner rather than later. At Saracens George-Brits rotate, they share the starting and finishing, England should aspire to this.

5)Hartley would still be in the squad as a 3rd choice hooker rival to either George or Hartley hasn't emerged.

The problem is at England at hooker -it's

No 1 - Hartley
No 2 - George

The rest......

England should aspire to being comfortable with either hooker starting or finishing and developing a 3rd choice.

It's about continuing to build the squad mentality.

Also Hartley isn't our best hooker so why should Jones pretend he is?

Most experienced, sure.

Captain? Sure.

Better suited to start than finish? Sure

But he's not the best hooker in England IMO.

On leadership I feel that Hartley's influence has been overrated.

Now of course it's subjective but I didn't see much leadership from Hartley in this year's 6 nations.


It has been the 23 which have been leading England to victory and I wouldn't say Hartley has been one of our stronger performers.



Yes England have won 19/20 but how much of that would you seriously credit to Hartley?

Jamie George himself has contributed to Jones' England too afterall.


Also let's not forget the work done by the likes of Borthwick and Gustard and I am sure other coaches behind the scenes.

All valid points BS.

I do however think it is very important to understand that for EJ it is about the 23 players and the best use of them across the 80 minutes. I don't think he considers 'starters' as somehow more important than 'finishers', just players whose skill sets better suit different points in the game. This is one of the most interesting tactical developments that EJ has brought in.

I don't think that the lack of starts for George has to be a big deal at all. He is still an important player who has contributed a great deal to the cause.

I would like to see George start a game, but can understand why he may not.

Hooker is a worrying position as ,Tom Youngs aside (and his time has gone), there is little experience outside of the top 2. Accusations could be levied at coaches for not trying people, but when you look at the fitness record of LCD it is hard to see how he could have featured significantly and barring Taylor briefly, no-one else has been putting in regular good performances.

Of recent U20 hookers, Jack Walker looked the best, but he spent the whole of 2016/17 injured. Singleton was taken to Argentina but (perhaps after his shocker at the lineout vs Barbarians) was not trusted to come off the bench.

I am interested to see who will Feature for the Saxons in Jan/Feb (assuming they have any matches)

LondonTiger wrote:
4) Are England best served over a full 80 minutes by starting George and bringing on Hartley or vice versa (noting that last season George typically played only 10 minutes less than Hartley in each game)

Is this a fitness point or just circumstantial. Saracens do have Brits to bring on, and Hartley's position in the leadership group at Saints (I've lost track of whether he's actually captain there anymore to be honest) might make them even more reluctant to take him off.

Hartley will be fine assuming not banned, Eddie is so contrary he won't go with Gatland's pick.

lostinwales yes but the "finishers" I am sure don't see it that way. They are hungry to start.

In a way it feels like George is being disadvantaged because he's a more versatile player.

The problem is if Hartley does get injured, George lacks experience as a starter at international level.

I 'd like George to start 1 game in the AIs.

thomh Hartley is still captain of Saints though I'd give it to Lawes personally. Simply because I think he's Saints' shining beacon.

That's another issue - players surely need to be prepared to play for full 80 because injuries do happen?

What if Hartley or George picks up a knock in training?


England have been fortunate that so far George and Hartley have stayed fit for England but there will be a time that at hooker, the depth will be tested I expect. It's when 3rd choices become more important.

Let's also not forget that for any hooker coming in their job should be easier because they get to work with excellent 2nd rows. Of course it's part of the 2nd rows job to help their hooker!

Lawes has been Captain a lot this season. My question would be how well he interacts with referees. He hasn't learnt to speak yet.

Who would be captain if George started at 2. Itoje? Kruis? Farrell?

Personally...I've swayed towards Hartley..but now i think it's time to start George these AIs . And then pick another on the bench. Yeandle would be my choice. Always puts in a cracking shift!

Whats happened to Taylor? And oh for Thacker to have been taller than 5ft!!!

LondonTiger wrote:My responses to discussion points:

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) George is the better player he is a much better finisher but would also be a better starter
4) Despite being in my opinion a better option to start, I feel that Hartley then George is better for England than George then Hartley. The gap between the two as starters is I believe much lower than the chasm between their abilities as finishers.
5) Should LCD ever be fit, I do believe he would replace Hartley in the matchday squad - being skipper would not save the Saint.

1 to 4, I agree with you. Jones is picking a team not ranking players. Both hookers are always going to play so the question is not who is best but which order is most effective.

I disagree about LCD. I very doubtful about him being a real success at international level.

Gwlad wrote:Hartley will be fine assuming not banned, Eddie is so contrary he won't go with Gatland's pick.

Gatland was picking a team to include the two best hookers from the four countries and then deciding on the order. I suspect Jones would not pick Hartley for the Lions as he is not one of the two best from GB&I. He does however quite rightly pick him for England and having done so plays him first as Hartley then George makes better use of their relative strengths than George then Hartley. If, God forbid, Gatland was managing England I suspect he would do the same.

Some people seem to think that a coach's job is to pick the best fifteen players in the country as if they were ranking players in a beauty contest. They are not. They are picking a team.

Jones picks Brown over Goode at full back. That does not mean he thinks he is a better full back just that he is better suited to Jones' team considering that he has Ford and Farrell in his backline. If he ever went with Farrell at ten and Teo/Manu at twelve he might change his mind.

Exiledinborders wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:My responses to discussion points:

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) George is the better player he is a much better finisher but would also be a better starter
4) Despite being in my opinion a better option to start, I feel that Hartley then George is better for England than George then Hartley. The gap between the two as starters is I believe much lower than the chasm between their abilities as finishers.
5) Should LCD ever be fit, I do believe he would replace Hartley in the matchday squad - being skipper would not save the Saint.

1 to 4, I agree with you. Jones is picking a team not ranking players. Both hookers are always going to play so the question is not who is best but which order is most effective.

I disagree about LCD. I very doubtful about him being a real success at international level.

When has LCD ever managed to get a decent run of games together without getting injured?

Managed it last year and was starting to look rather impressive. I'd partially written him off due to his lineout but looked.leaps and bounds ahead of where it was. Scrums good and probably the best available hooker we have in the loose. Him Taylor and George are all very good though.

Again Hartley lacking dynamism. If England want to aspire to be the best in the world they must start their best players and that means George should start.


I'd rather see 60 minutes of George on the pitch than only 20. In his 20 minutes he made 12 tackles vs Argentina. He didn't get an opportunity with ball in hand but we know what he can do.

But.... Hartley's awesome leadership? Where was it?

Another flat performance from England. Yes they won but surely the defensive structure was more to thank for that?

Hartley only made 5 tackles in 60 minutes.

I'd say complacency is what Cole,Hartley and Youngs currently have - undroppable so they don't need to perform better.

Obviously it's different at lock where Kruis will likely be sacrificed and perhaps deservedly so.


Hartley does not need to play well to be retained - that is the reality till proven otherwise.

Is tackling dynamism? And why would you not get a chance ball in hand in 20 minutes against a tiring Argentina side? Is he scared of work? Is that why England and Sarries never give him more than 50 minutes.

McCall and Eddie don't seem to think he's capable of 60 minutes.

scottrf well yes because you need to keep getting into position to make tackles. He was there again and again.

Tackling is work. Hartley seemed afraid of tackling.

It also shows that George isn't just a hooker who has a license to roam and find the open spaces.

England barely had the ball in the last 20 minutes. George didn't have one lineout or scrum either.

He didn't touch the ball but he did a lot without it which can be just as important.

Mccall has started George many times. When you have the quality of Brits in the squad, you use him too - it's why Saracens frequently rotate.

George has started most of the big games though in the last 2-3 years.

You don't do your argument any good when saying hartley is scared of tackling.

Well you don't do your arguments any good when you come up with false rubbish like saying Mako and Hughes made very few carries.....  when Hughes made the most carries in the game.


Hartley only made 5 tackles in 60 minutes, that's poor. I know you were proud of Hartley's performance but that's because your standards are so low.

England must aspire for better which is why I'd drop Kruis too.

Front five needs to improve as a whole.

So I'd drop Kruis, give Cole a warning but give H.Williams an opportunity vs Samoa anyway, drop Hartley to the bench.

Start Mako,George,Cole,Lawes,Itoje.

Vunipola and Hughes didn't carry effectively. Hughes out wide way too much when they would be more effective for the team to be doing the hard trudging. Ive also never talked about being proud of hartley. You're slipping into that trap of making stuff up to support your argument.

You said they barely made any carries which was false.

Sigh..... Hughes made the most metres, scored a try. I admit I haven't analysed all his carries but I am sure got over the gain line more often than not. Yes I know he was in open spaces but that's how he scored the try.

Mako was being targeted but still beat 3 defenders. He also drew the defence for the first try. Another forward like Hartley would just take the contact.

You said you think Hartley's performance was good which is just wrong. He was one of our weakest performers in the pack.

Scrum didn't go well, now you can attribute some of that to Mako, but the scrum is about the front five as a whole which is why I am talking about trying to energise the front five.

If England are to beat Australia they need to perform better.

The lineout went fine and it's something Hartley has done consistently well at but England need more than that.


Another point is that George is just a better more all rounded rugby player - more skillful with ball in hand.

If England want to link backs and forwards you need forwards who can handle the ball with skill and precision.

Hartley is your old school kind of forward.


Sorting out the front five is important because Australia will test us there.

But George is fat and doesn't play more than 50 minutes at club level.

But risk starting a specialist sub with unproven fitness.

Hartley playing well isn't wrong. At worst it's 2 opinions. If you want your 8 on the wing rather than your winger again it's opinion. There are many ways to play a game of rugby. For me and those 2 are our strongest carriers in the the pack put out last Saturday. They didn't take up the mantle of those tight carries anywhere near enough.

Still faster, more skillful and fitter than Hartley. Not sure why George's size matters.

Unproven fitness really? When you are doing as much work as George does you have to be fit. Not just lumbering around like Hartley.

no 7 & 1/2 yes it is because in terms of positive contributions, Hartley was one of the weakest performers in the England side.

You make out as if Hughes was just luxuriating on the wing which is unfair.

Mako was running into heavy traffic - did you somehow miss the Argentinians trying to target him?

It's unproven. He hasn't even played 40 minutes at international level and rarely lasts 60 at club level.

Well except for the Lions..... but I guess playing the best team in the world away from home in 3 tests doesn't count?


Well this season at club level - he's played 3 games more than 60 +. Actually only really in 2016-17 did he rarely play 60+, in other seasons he's played his fair few  60+.

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/player-archive/


Myth busting again...

no 7 & 1/2 you are also the genius who didn't want to start Itoje vs Wales 2016 - Itoje got MOTM in that game.....

Anyway, you can't judge Hartley vs George on tackles when all the Argentine carries were at the end of the game. You can't tackle when you have the ball.

Is Hartley just a Big Game player and saving his major hoofing and stomping for Australia?

True that you have to weigh the overall contribution per minute.

George wasn't able to carry and test himself at  lineout time - only on for 22 minutes. Didn't touch the ball once. I forget, maybe George did have a scrum, if he did it was uneventful (no penalty conceded with him on the pitch).

Bear in mind, Hartley was on for 58 minutes so should have more carries, more tackles, more everything.

Now if the tackle count was closer, sure you'd have a point but 5 is low for 58 minutes.

I do realise the Argentinians were on the attack but George really did throw himself into the defensive line.

Bear in mind others racked up higher totals than both. Cole didn't but then again he was unimpressive.


The scrum didn't go well with Hartley on the pitch. I think that's fair to say. Now of course it would be unfair to blame one player - it's why I keep banging on about the front five as a collective.

I am not suggesting George would magically fix the front five issue, he might have as tough a time as Hartley did but I would select him because of his extra dynamism and skill with ball in hand.


Don't forget the scoreline flatters England because Argentina lack an international goal kicker. If Argentina had Farrell at 10, England could well have lost.


In certain stats like lineout and set piece I think both hookers are basically on par but it's workrate,dynamism,speed,passing,skill etc I'd put George ahead.

Again I feel Hartley's so called leadership is overstated. Best thing a leader can do is lead by example, put their body on the line etc.

5 tackles in 58 minutes isn't doing that...

All the pack subs had high tackle counts and low attacking stats, a reflection of Argentina's 72% possession and 76% territory in the 2nd half.

Hoonercat wrote:All the pack subs had high tackle counts and low attacking stats, a reflection of Argentina's 72% possession and 76% territory in the 2nd half.

And for all that possession they only got near England's line the one time. Our performance was a step back as far as cohesion goes but we are still a very difficult team to beat.

lostinwales wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:All the pack subs had high tackle counts and low attacking stats, a reflection of Argentina's 72% possession and 76% territory in the 2nd half.

And for all that possession they only got near England's line the one time. Our performance was a step back as far as cohesion goes but we are still a very difficult team to beat.

Correct but the Argies are a club side. And not a particularly good one.

That's true beshocked I did say if Launchbury was fit he should start. I also said after 40 min that o doubt Launchbury would have played that as well. Of course he went onto play magnificently against the same team a few months later.

beshocked wrote:True that you have to weigh the overall contribution per minute.

George wasn't able to carry and test himself at  lineout time - only on for 22 minutes. Didn't touch the ball once. I forget, maybe George did have a scrum, if he did it was uneventful (no penalty conceded with him on the pitch).

Bear in mind, Hartley was on for 58 minutes so should have more carries, more tackles, more everything.

Now if the tackle count was closer, sure you'd have a point but 5 is low for 58 minutes.

I do realise the Argentinians were on the attack but George really did throw himself into the defensive line.

Bear in mind others racked up higher totals than both. Cole didn't but then again he was unimpressive.


The scrum didn't go well with Hartley on the pitch. I think that's fair to say. Now of course it would be unfair to blame one player - it's why I keep banging on about the front five as a collective.

I am not suggesting George would magically fix the front five issue, he might have as tough a time as Hartley did but I would select him because of his extra dynamism and skill with ball in hand.


Don't forget the scoreline flatters England because Argentina lack an international goal kicker. If Argentina had Farrell at 10, England could well have lost.


In certain stats like lineout and set piece I think both hookers are basically on par but it's workrate,dynamism,speed,passing,skill etc I'd put George ahead.

Again I feel Hartley's so called leadership is overstated. Best thing a leader can do is lead by example, put their body on the line etc.

5 tackles in 58 minutes isn't doing that...

Maybe having Hartley on the pitch was one of the reasons England kept more possession and therefore he did not need to make lots of tackles.

Stats don't lie but they never tell the whole truth either.

beshocked wrote:In certain stats like lineout and set piece I think both hookers are basically on par but it's workrate, dynamism, speed, passing, skill etc I'd put George ahead.

Agree on passing and skill, but keep in mind that George comes onto the field knowing that he only has to play for 20-odd mins, where as Hartley has to play for almost 3 times as long against a first-choice front row, so will need to pace himself more carefully. Ask me to run a mile and I'll do it with far more dynamism than being asked to run 3 miles

Hoonercat whilst that's a fair point do you really think Hartley was that dynamic?
Mako was on the field as much as him and did much more.

The preserving energy argument only goes so far. It's not as if Hartley has been throwing himself about then coming off - he made 5 tackles in 58 minutes. Got turned over twice, missed a couple of tackles and gave away a penalty. Not really a performance to get fans excited about unless you are no 7 & 1/2.

When you know someone is going to replace you surely you can try and empty the tank.

You'd think that the way some posters talk about George in his entire career of rugby, he only plays off the bench. He's played quite a few big games as a starter.

Again there's the assumption that George can't last 80 minutes when he did for the Lions...


lostinwales do you seriously believe that?

Why the little digs beshocked? You have yourself said that george needs to start as he's unproven as a starter for England. You've also said this is a must win game. Don't blame others for pointing out your own words.

Little digs because to be honest you are annoying me. I don't know if you are being a WUM purposely or not.

It's simple - George should start for England vs Australia. It is irrelevant whether he's an inexperienced starter or not because this will be mitigated for the reasons I've already said.

It's a must win game so you pick George to try and win the game.

I've already explained to you why it's not particularly risky to start George - not my fault if you can't see the logic of my argument.

1) At Home.
2) He's played many games at Twickenham and won.
3) Has played for England quite a few times albeit as someone coming on.
4) He has big match experience as a starter (Lions and big title matches)
5) He has shown at both club level and international level he can play for 60 + mins
6) If Mako and Itoje are picked it will be with 2 of his club mates for extra familiarity.

Which points are you having difficulty understanding?

It's not contradictory to look to win the game and picking George.

I see picking George as less risky than picking the stodgy Hartley who performance wise wasn't good enough vs Argentina.

At least your repetition here suits the thread. What are you hoping to see from him. What's the benchmark that he needs to hit to keep the shirt for the 6ns?

As long as George is adding more than Hartley did he should keep the shirt.

Being reliable at set piece and scrum but adding more dynamism than Hartley.

I think he'll do that but George needs to do it but also be given the opportunity by Jones.

Absolutely fair enough. So yu don't have a line in the sand you really just rate george more highly than hartley so no matter what you want him to start. Personally really.looking forward to Taylor and LCD coming back from.injury as it's those 2 from the bench which will set in stone george being in the team. I don't think Hartley suits the gwnerally more open game he'll find coming on late.

Well the problem is I feel like Hartley is the cat with 10 lives, he just seems undroppable.

If someone is playing well, I'd say fair enough. Road Runner played well vs Argentina last year and I gave credit where it was due.

Other than the Scotland game in the 6 nations where basically everyone in the England team looked good, I can't really say Hartley has played particularly well for England. He hasn't done any real howlers but nothing particularly inspiring.

If I felt Hartley was keeping George out of the hooker shirt with strong performances it might be different.

Lawes will likely continue to keep Kruis out at lock because of strong performances and that's fair enough.

When the incumbent is doing well, it's very difficult to make a case to drop them but Hartley vs George is a very different scenario.


Itoje and Nowell weren't similar. Itoje was able to play at home vs Wales at a stadium he'd already won an AP title at. Good memories for him.

Oh and he was playing alongside his 2nd row partner, Kruis, not in an unfamiliar back three.

Also it was the 3rd game for England, his 2nd match .

But then the question until those others are back fit and firing is if george has a steady game and hartley a steady game is that the best balance of using them at the moment where as.you've said george has been impressive in a more open game. That's the one thing I keep.coming back to. Using your squad to best effect may mean keeping he best player on the bench until later.
Lawes or Itoje are going to be back row cover I feel.

This whole George is better than Hartley argument is just irrelevant. Jones is picking a team to win a game not selecting the best fifteen players in the country.

Is George the better hooker? Yes. I am sure Jones thinks that too. However he has to consider which works best, Hartley then George or George then Hartley and he thinks the former which is quite logical.

In the same way I think Alex Goode is a better player than Mike Brown. However I would not pick him along with both Farrell and Ford as his ball playing abilities are not needed.

Is there a reason why every England game is followed by a debate on George vs Hartley? Is it because beshocked develops an obsession over a player every now and again and then must convince everyone around him why that player must start for every team ever?