[2013 EOYT] England

[Patchey]

Part of me, admittedly the Cockerill hating part, thinks that the Youngs not hooking issues comes from Leicester still being sore over the new scrum rules. Considering the noises that came from RC and Youngs himself regarding the new laws at the start of the season I wouldn't be that surprised if it was a case of trying to soldier on with the 'old way' of doing things and prove a point.

Hopefully Rowntree will have a word and point out that unless he hooks, Youngs is likely to embarrass himself and lose a starting place and that'll be that/ Right now I'd love to see Youngs starting with Webber on the bench (although am I right in thinking Webber still isn't in the EPS?). Hartley may be in great form this season but after his brain implosion in the final and don't want him near a shirt while we have two good alternatives.

Based on what I've seen so far and a looking at Lancaster's past selections I think we'll see something like this against Australia:

1 Cole
2 Youngs
3 Corbs/Vunnipola
4 Parling
5 Launchbury
6 Robshaw (c)
7 Wood
8 Vunnipola
9 Youngs
10 Farrell
11 Ashton
12 Twelvetrees
13 Tompkins
14 Yarde
15 Brown

Frankly apart from Ashton, who I think will return simply because Wade has suffered due to a misfiring Wasps back line and Ashton has at least managed to be consistently average, I'd be quite happy with that.

As far as the captaincy goes I would say this. Wood has been solid as part of a very dominant Northampton side so far this season. Robshaw has been exceptional for us (Quins) and along with Care, Brown and at times Evans is effectively dragging the rest of the team along with him. He was outstanding against Clermont at the weekend and has certainly shown much more leadership that Wood. Both deserve to start, for now at least, but I can't see what Wood would bring as captain that Robshaw doesn't already have in spades.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Webber would definitely be my first choice 2.
Rotating with Tommy Taylor on the bench p).

 

[Bada-Bing!]

It's more a case of asking whether he has been told not to, or whether he can't do it.
Rowntree should be able to figure that out in training.
Hartley will not be starting the first test given his recent ban.

Why would Hartley's recent ban prevent him from starting the 1st test?

I think from Cockerill's and then Tom Young's pre-season comments on their disapproval of the new engagement rules that it can be inferred that they don't suit Leicester's game plan. They'd much rather the old rules stayed in place, so Tom Young's didn't have to hook and they could use the scrum as a means to win penalties. Hence why they've come up with the stepping over the ball to conform.

Australia, Argentina and NZ have all had 6 matches to get used to the new rules; I agree with Brian Moore that this is not the time to try and wing it. At least we know Hartley can hook the ball in match conditions; we don't know if Tom Youngs can.

 

[Patchey]

Webber would definitely be my first choice 2.
Rotating with Tommy Taylor on the bench p).

Here's a question, would you rather see Webber at 2 or Dave Seymour in the squad at all?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Why would Hartley's recent ban prevent him from starting the 1st test?

I don't think "will not" is the right phrase, more "should not".
Hartley shouldn't be in the England squad after his idiotic outburst. Should've been dropped completely from the EPS and made to earn his way back in. Lancaster goes on about core values of rugby etc.etc. then allows a pillock like that to stay in the squad, and even suggests he's in the running for captaincy.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Why would Hartley's recent ban prevent him from starting the 1st test?

Because Lancaster knows how the media would react to it.
Bad PR.

 

[Patchey]

I don't think "will not" is the right phrase, more "should not".
Hartley shouldn't be in the England squad after his idiotic outburst. Should've been dropped completely from the EPS and made to earn his way back in. Lancaster goes on about core values of rugby etc.etc. then allows a pillock like that to stay in the squad, and even suggests he's in the running for captaincy.

Did he actually suggest the captaincy thing or was that a rumour? I agree Hartley should have been dropped but I guess with the constraints on changing the EPS that would have meant one less newer player coming in right? I mean Hartley out and Webber in but then someone like Wade or Eastmond wouldn't have made the cut?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Here's a question, would you rather see Webber at 2 or Dave Seymour in the squad at all?

Damn....
That's a tough one! Seymour is a far better 7 than any in the EPS (Kvesic being the closest, but still a way off) - Webber a better "traditional" hooker than the others, who all think they're backrowers, but they can all do a job there (especially if Corbisiero is playing loosehead - I think Webber is the best scrummager of the lot).

I'll go with Seymour, lest our one true God smite me down.

Did he actually suggest the captaincy thing or was that a rumour?

I could've sworn he had, but the quickest of Google searches only brought up Stuart Barnes (*spit*) mentioning it, so maybe not.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Because Lancaster knows how the media would react to it.
Bad PR.

Does SL want to win test matches or pander to the media? For me the line has been drawn; Hartley has served his ban and it's time to move on.

 

[Patchey]

Damn....
That's a tough one! Seymour is a far better 7 than any in the EPS (Kvesic being the closest, but still a way off) - Webber a better "traditional" hooker than the others, who all think they're backrowers, but they can all do a job there (especially if Corbisiero is playing loosehead - I think Webber is the best scrummager of the lot).

I'll go with Seymour, lest our one true God smite me down.



I could've sworn he had, but the quickest of Google searches only brought up Stuart Barnes (*spit*) mentioning it, so maybe not.

Out of curiosity, and because you're most likely to know this, has Seymour ever come close to a cap and if so, what stopped him?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Out of curiosity, and because you're most likely to know this, has Seymour ever come close to a cap and if so, what stopped him?

Benched for the Saxons during the 6 Nations a couple of years ago, when we had like a million backrow injuries - think he got a Saxons cap or two when still at Saracens.

I'd imagine what stops him is that he's relatively small (5'11, just over 15st) and only plays 7. England, for the longest time, prefer to have 6s at 7, or at least have versatility in their backrowers. Was a right sh*tter when Lancaster said, when he first took over, that there were no senior 7s in England, and that the only ones were for the future (i.e. Kvesic and Fraser), meanwhile Seymour was consistently besting every 7 he came up against in the premiership and Europe.

Playing for an unfashionable club, in Sale, can't have helped either - neither would snubbing Saracens twice (turned them down to move to us, and then again to re-sign for us) these days.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Does SL want to win test matches or pander to the media? For me the line has been drawn; Hartley has served his ban and it's time to move on.

It's not quite as simple as that.
There do have to be standards set within the team.
Starting him would not really fit with those standards.

And then of course you have the fact that Youngs is in possession of the shirt and most people want him to start anyway.

Definitely agree on Webber being the more "traditional" hooker of the three.
Almost certainly the strongest scrummager and carries very well in the tight.
Bear in mind he is currently injured with a minor arm fracture (not 100% on what it was exactly??) although he might be fit again.
I think he's certainly next on the list as he played very well in Argentina (captained the team no less) and has continued to play well for Bath.

More than his temperament, what worries me about Hartley is his ball carrying.
He seems to be overconfident in his ability to bosh people, and he often loses the ball in doing so.

 

[Peat]

I am 99pc certain Lancaster mentioned Robshaw, Parling, Hartley and Wood as potential captains not that long ago.

Personally, never mind the media, Hartley should be gone. If Lancaster is serious about having a squad that avoids controversy, that upholds the values of the game, all that, Hartley's gone. He's not though, so we know that's media dressing and PR and hypocrisy.

But even stripped back to rugby issues, he should be gone. There have been too many major disciplinary failings and he's just not good enough a player to keep round in the knowledge that sooner or later he'll have one of those gasket-blowers in an England shirt. We should not be carrying a liability like him. Both Paice and Webber have looked solid enough when given England chances and solid in their Prem form. That's enough for me to think there'd be little drop off from them to Hartley.

edit: That's a worst case scenario. I've already expressed a belief Webber might well be better, and would extend it to Paice too.

 

[j-dawg]

For such a weighty fellow, Hartley's pretty substandard on the carry

 

[TRF_Olyy]

For such a weighty fellow, Hartley's pretty substandard on the carry

True enough.
Same goes for Robshaw, though.
17st5 and I'd back Danny Care/Tom Williams to make more yards in traffic than him.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

It's mad that Hartley is considered our safest lineout option, considering he used to be considered our worst option and hasn't improved since then, the only thing that's changed is Thompson retiring.
Why do we have so few decent darts throwers?!

For the saints and england Hartley has some of the best lineout stats, i think your thinking of 4 years ago.

The only thing that people should worry about Hartley is his discipline, every other aspect of his game is brilliant.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

It's not quite as simple as that.
There do have to be standards set within the team.
Starting him would not really fit with those standards.

And then of course you have the fact that Youngs is in possession of the shirt and most people want him to start anyway.

Definitely agree on Webber being the more "traditional" hooker of the three.
Almost certainly the strongest scrummager and carries very well in the tight.
Bear in mind he is currently injured with a minor arm fracture (not 100% on what it was exactly??) although he might be fit again.
I think he's certainly next on the list as he played very well in Argentina (captained the team no less) and has continued to play well for Bath.

More than his temperament, what worries me about Hartley is his ball carrying.
He seems to be overconfident in his ability to bosh people, and he often loses the ball in doing so.

Then why have Hartley in the EPS to begin with, if he has not met those standards since his ban? The guy's been punished enough (not just being banned but also missing the BIL tour, where he probably would have started) and the SL has made it clear that he's on his last chance. He has yet to offend this season right? He hasn't bitten anyone yet or called the ref an f'ing cheat.

On the playing front, SL has made it clear that players should be competent in all areas of their position and provide an x-factor in two areas. Hooking the ball has to be one of those facets and getting Youngs to do it in training is one thing, doing it this November is another. I just don't think England can just rely on shoving the Wallabies, Pumas or All Blacks packs and stepping over the ball. Maybe Rowntree should show both Hartley and Youngs the below video before the 1st test v Australia.

<iframe width="960" height="720" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/szI7wpnRB-I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yes, Youngs is the incumbent in the shirt, but that should not stop SL from starting Hartley. Although some people want Youngs to start, at the end of the day it does not matter what the media or England fans want, it is who SL wants to start.

Regarding your concerns on Hartley's carrying this is probably because he is too upright when he goes into contact compared to Youngs, who has a lower centre of gravity. I just think Youngs is better coming on as a sub, when the game is more broken up where England can utilise his better loose game.

 

[Peat]

I don't know why Hartley is in the EPS following that ban and am quite annoyed that he is. I feel it shows disturbing inconsistency from Lancaster. This isn't about his punishment, its about protecting ourselves.

As for the insistence on basics - if that was true I don't think Youngs would have ever made the squad to begin with, Ashton would have gone ages ago etc.etc. A pinch of salt is required here.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I don't know why Hartley is in the EPS following that ban and am quite annoyed that he is. I feel it shows disturbing inconsistency from Lancaster. This isn't about his punishment, its about protecting ourselves.

As for the insistence on basics - if that was true I don't think Youngs would have ever made the squad to begin with, Ashton would have gone ages ago etc.etc. A pinch of salt is required here.

Unfortunately the 5 live interview with SL has been taken down on I player; otherwise I would have provided a link. A listener on the show asked him exactly the same question. SL just said he would take each player in their merits. Sounded like a politicians answer to me, but still I think SL thinks Hartley deserves one more chance and I do hope now he knows it. The guy does play on the edge and I think Lancaster and Gatland appreciate that, but he now knows where the line is.

Stuart Lancaster insisting that players have to be competent in all facets of their position and also show an x-factor in two areas to warrant selection was also there in the interview; if England are to have any hope of winning the 2015 WC. His words, not mine. Whether that's reflected in his selections is another matter. It will be worrying if they can't execute the basics well under pressure because that is what Test rugby is all about.

 

[ratsapprentice]

SL thinks Hartley deserves one more chance and I do hope now he knows it. The guy does play on the edge and I think Lancaster and Gatland appreciate that, but he now knows where the line is.

Personally, I don't think Hartley is a bad guy BUT...
He cannot control himself at times, so whether he consciously recognises he shouldn't do things is irrelevant.