[2015 Six Nations] Wales vs England (Round 1)

[Ragey Erasmus]

The Saxons back row was really what I want to see for England. Good carrying and decent breakdown work (even if the ref whistled every other breakdown).

 

[j'nuh]

Experience is the most overstated value in a player in rugby IMO, that is talked about all the time, but means much less than people say it does. Being talented gives you international experience. The best players get picked for their nations; that much is fairly obvious. But I don't think that the converse is true: I don't think international experience gives you talent. At least, I don't think it has a massive effect. The international arena is more difficult than the club arena, so it will improve your skills in a way. But I think that isn't the bigger picture: I think a good player is always going to be a good player, whether they are tested internationally or not.

That is to say, Kvesic is a better player than Croft for me, and experience doesn't give any tangible benefit that makes me feel it should overturn the levels of form and ability that Kvesic has over Croft. Kvesic plays better than Croft at club level; therefore Kvesic will play better than Croft at international level. (The only caveats to this are knowledge of Lancaster's England's systems (Croft doesn't have a particular edge here given how long he has been out), and when a player's game does not suit international level (for me, there are big question marks over Easter here... is he a flat-track bully, will he struggle with the pace of international rugby?).)

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The experience argument drops away a little bit when you considering they're covering lock, where neither have any real experience at all, especially internationally.

 

[goodNumber10]

The experience argument drops away a little bit when you considering they're covering lock, where neither have any real experience at all, especially internationally.

I don't think they are covering Lock - as such. I think they are going to try and get 80 mins out of Attwood and Kruis so whilst they will cover lock in an emergency they are there to actually provide backrow cover.

if that makes sense - it's a big gamble.

Personally I'd have gone go for a 6/2 split and allowed the backs to mix and match rather than the pack.

 

[Peat]

I don't think I'll cease getting surprised by how poorly Croft is rated by some of England's fan base.

He's quality. Genuine star quality. Hardly orthodox, but my gods he is effective. Leaving aside his lineout ability for a moment, his pace is a huge advantage. There's nothing like being first to the breakdown, nothing like being able to skin outside-centres on the outside. The statistics on his work rate are out there for anyone who cares to look, they've been posted here too. No, he's not going to be standing guard on every ruck like Robshaw - but that's part of what makes him such an effective partner for him. Robshaw's game as a 7 breaks down the most when people expect him to be following breaks and linking up with the back-line. That's Croft's forte, he's a fantastic support player. It's pretty weird that people think that Johnson, McGeechan, Gatland, Ashton and Lancaster are all wrong on him - five guys who've had far more rugby education than any five on this board put together.

And, tbh, the lineout does bear mentioning. Dylan Hartley is a petulant timebomb who offers very little either carrying or at the breakdown, yet no one's really blinking at his inclusion ahead of Youngs and Webber, who do offer quite a lot in the loose at international level. Why? He can throw better than either and we all know it. That's how important the lineout is and Croft is one of the best jumpers out there.

I'm not gonna derail here on experience but Croft's a better player than Kvesic and that's got nothing to do with experience. He's better because his best > Kvesic's best, and that's a fµcking fact until Kvesic hits up a Lions tour/IRB player of the year shortlist or two. He mightn't be the better player right now, because Kvesic's form is hot, but he is flat out better overall. He has demonstrated a level of ability that Kvesic hasn't.

And given England's need for a highly effective kick-chase, rock solid set-piece, and as much cohesiveness as possible, then I'm cool if Lancaster thinks he'd rather have Croft right now. Sure, I'd like Kvesic, but Croft's pretty good himself.

p.s. Croft actually has as many appearances for England at lock as Kruis and has played cup finals there; I'd really rather not see him play lock, but it's not a completely novel experience for him.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Experience is the most overstated value in a player in rugby IMO, that is talked about all the time, but means much less than people say it does. Being talented gives you international experience. The best players get picked for their nations; that much is fairly obvious. But I don't think that the converse is true: I don't think international experience gives you talent. At least, I don't think it has a massive effect. The international arena is more difficult than the club arena, so it will improve your skills in a way. But I think that isn't the bigger picture: I think a good player is always going to be a good player, whether they are tested internationally or not.

That is to say, Kvesic is a better player than Croft for me, and experience doesn't give any tangible benefit that makes me feel it should overturn the levels of form and ability that Kvesic has over Croft. Kvesic plays better than Croft at club level; therefore Kvesic will play better than Croft at international level. (The only caveats to this are knowledge of Lancaster's England's systems (Croft doesn't have a particular edge here given how long he has been out), and when a player's game does not suit international level (for me, there are big question marks over Easter here... is he a flat-track bully, will he struggle with the pace of international rugby?).)

Experience is not per we the reason those two are in.
Easter is, regardless what you think of him, the form 8 in England and to be fair, shows a breadth to his game I don't remember from 2011. Experience just adds to his case.

As for Croft, the reason he was fast tracked back in 2013 and again now is because Lancaster clearly rates him over and above the options we have here. I don't really think experience acts as the single decisive factor at all.

GN10: I don't believe that the can cover lock / emergency lock cover is a meaningful distinction. The fact is that intentions - for example to have Kruis and Attwood play a full 80 - matter little in rugby because Injuries are so inevitable. In not picking a specialist lock you are saying that you are happy and prepared for the other guys - Easter and Croft - to cover lock. You pick your bench on the assumption they will play a part. So I really hope that Lancaster isn't just hoping that Kruis and Attwood don't get injured.

Hardly a vote of confidence in Kitchener to be honest...

 

[Patchey]

You see, I agree with a lot of that. But I can't get past the idea that Croft may well have to play in the row. Include him in the back row or as a back row sub, great. Excellent in fact, as you pointed out his many qualities. But regardless of whether he has played there before, the man is not a second row (and neither is Easter for that matter).

I'm also concerned about how quickly he has been brought back. But then I'm keen for Corbs to play so I'm probably being a massive hypocrite.

 

[Tony Manx]

I don't think I'll cease getting surprised by how poorly Croft is rated by some of England's fan base.

He's quality. Genuine star quality. Hardly orthodox, but my gods he is effective. Leaving aside his lineout ability for a moment, his pace is a huge advantage. There's nothing like being first to the breakdown, nothing like being able to skin outside-centres on the outside. The statistics on his work rate are out there for anyone who cares to look, they've been posted here too. No, he's not going to be standing guard on every ruck like Robshaw - but that's part of what makes him such an effective partner for him. Robshaw's game as a 7 breaks down the most when people expect him to be following breaks and linking up with the back-line. That's Croft's forte, he's a fantastic support player. It's pretty weird that people think that Johnson, McGeechan, Gatland, Ashton and Lancaster are all wrong on him - five guys who've had far more rugby education than any five on this board put together.

And, tbh, the lineout does bear mentioning. Dylan Hartley is a petulant timebomb who offers very little either carrying or at the breakdown, yet no one's really blinking at his inclusion ahead of Youngs and Webber, who do offer quite a lot in the loose at international level. Why? He can throw better than either and we all know it. That's how important the lineout is and Croft is one of the best jumpers out there.

I'm not gonna derail here on experience but Croft's a better player than Kvesic and that's got nothing to do with experience. He's better because his best > Kvesic's best, and that's a fµcking fact until Kvesic hits up a Lions tour/IRB player of the year shortlist or two. He mightn't be the better player right now, because Kvesic's form is hot, but he is flat out better overall. He has demonstrated a level of ability that Kvesic hasn't.

And given England's need for a highly effective kick-chase, rock solid set-piece, and as much cohesiveness as possible, then I'm cool if Lancaster thinks he'd rather have Croft right now. Sure, I'd like Kvesic, but Croft's pretty good himself.

p.s. Croft actually has as many appearances for England at lock as Kruis and has played cup finals there; I'd really rather not see him play lock, but it's not a completely novel experience for him.

+1

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Peat I agree with much of that but I think unorthodox players like Croft might not be right for all occasions equally. Leaving aside form as an issue, what about the comparable work rates of the two back rows with Croft in ours.

6.Lydiate 7. Warburton 8. Faletau

Is a combo with a hugely higher work-rate in the areas which matter to the back-row, than 6. Croft 7. Robshaw 8. Vunipola.

We would be in trouble. Now, swap Haskell in for Croft and that suddenly changes.

 

[j'nuh]

I don't think I'll cease getting surprised by how poorly Croft is rated by some of England's fan base.

He's quality. Genuine star quality. Hardly orthodox, but my gods he is effective. Leaving aside his lineout ability for a moment, his pace is a huge advantage. There's nothing like being first to the breakdown, nothing like being able to skin outside-centres on the outside. The statistics on his work rate are out there for anyone who cares to look, they've been posted here too. No, he's not going to be standing guard on every ruck like Robshaw - but that's part of what makes him such an effective partner for him. Robshaw's game as a 7 breaks down the most when people expect him to be following breaks and linking up with the back-line. That's Croft's forte, he's a fantastic support player. It's pretty weird that people think that Johnson, McGeechan, Gatland, Ashton and Lancaster are all wrong on him - five guys who've had far more rugby education than any five on this board put together.

And, tbh, the lineout does bear mentioning. Dylan Hartley is a petulant timebomb who offers very little either carrying or at the breakdown, yet no one's really blinking at his inclusion ahead of Youngs and Webber, who do offer quite a lot in the loose at international level. Why? He can throw better than either and we all know it. That's how important the lineout is and Croft is one of the best jumpers out there.

I'm not gonna derail here on experience but Croft's a better player than Kvesic and that's got nothing to do with experience. He's better because his best > Kvesic's best, and that's a fµcking fact until Kvesic hits up a Lions tour/IRB player of the year shortlist or two. He mightn't be the better player right now, because Kvesic's form is hot, but he is flat out better overall. He has demonstrated a level of ability that Kvesic hasn't.

And given England's need for a highly effective kick-chase, rock solid set-piece, and as much cohesiveness as possible, then I'm cool if Lancaster thinks he'd rather have Croft right now. Sure, I'd like Kvesic, but Croft's pretty good himself.

p.s. Croft actually has as many appearances for England at lock as Kruis and has played cup finals there; I'd really rather not see him play lock, but it's not a completely novel experience for him.

For me, Croft is a luxury player. When your pack lacks fundamental elements such as a carrying and breakdown game, then those need to be sorted before you look at Croft. I do like the idea of Croft/Kvesic/Morgan or Vunipola, but there would have to be another couple of strong carriers in the front 5. Attwood could be one (if he continues to be picked when Launchbury and Lawes are back) but I would like to see another. Wilson, arguably.

A nice balance would be:

1. Corbs/Marler
2. Hartley
3. Wilson
4. Launchbury
5. Attwood
6. Croft
7. Kvesic
8. Morgan/Vunipola

If you start to remove Attwood (for Lawes) and Wilson (for Cole), then I think you would have to have Ewers in for Croft or Mako in for Corbs. But even with the above line-up, I do like the idea of Ewers, because I think you can never have enough carriers.

Also, I think it's unfair to compare a 29 year old's best against the promise of a 22 year old... by the same token, Ashton should be in because he was ripping it up in 2010 and what has May won?

 

[Every Time Ref]

Experience is the most overstated value in a player in rugby IMO, that is talked about all the time, but means much less than people say it does. Being talented gives you international experience. The best players get picked for their nations; that much is fairly obvious. But I don't think that the converse is true: I don't think international experience gives you talent. At least, I don't think it has a massive effect. The international arena is more difficult than the club arena, so it will improve your skills in a way. But I think that isn't the bigger picture: I think a good player is always going to be a good player, whether they are tested internationally or not.

I agree with the general thrust of your post, and that the fairly nebulous concept of "experience" is often overstated, however I don't think it isn't at all relevant. It doesn't turn a bad player into a good player as such, but it can enable a good player to manage a run of poor form (or even the complete loss of a key weapon) better, minimising the impact on the team. It also has an impact on decision making, especially under pressure, which shouldn't be overlooked. All sports, at root, come down in large part to making the right decisions, and the ones under pressure are the most important.

I'm not arguing with you on specifics, I don't think Croft's experience outweighs his lack of game time or form compared to Kvesic by any stretch, but experience in general is a complicated one. I also think sometimes conservative coaches like Lancaster use the experience argument to justify their own lack of b0ll0cks in selection...

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

What does Kitchener have to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cole and Croft imo shouldn't be in there yet.

We lose this and i'm calling for Lancaster to be sacked.

 

[Patchey]

Team out:

Marler, Hartley, Cole, Attwood, Kruis, Hask, Robshaw, Binny; Youngs, Ford, May, Burrell, Joseph, Watson, Brown.
Bench: Youngs, Mako, Brookes, Croft, Easter, Wigglesworth, Cips, Twelvetrees.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Why no backthree on the bench? (No Cipriani is not fullback cover).
Watson and May covering 15 from the pitch and Burrell and Joseph (neither of whom have played wing in the last two years) covering wing.
Insanity.

 

[Maverick1987]

Why no backthree on the bench? (No Cipriani is not fullback cover).
Watson and May covering 15 from the pitch and Burrell and Joseph (neither of whom have played wing in the last two years) covering wing.
Insanity.

I can't see the real need for 36 to be on the bench ? May can cover 13 and JJ can cover both centre positions . Would have been more beneficial to have Nowell on the bench imo

 

[Patchey]

Why no backthree on the bench? (No Cipriani is not fullback cover).
Watson and May covering 15 from the pitch and Burrell and Joseph (neither of whom have played wing in the last two years) covering wing.
Insanity.

It is just like the France game last year!

Can anyone shed any light on how Burrell has gone from injured and out to starting in less than a week?

 

[Every Time Ref]

Yeah the team I quite like - especially the centres - but the bench is madness. Second row and wing are both pretty much uncovered - that's four out of 15 positions we're pretty much just crossing fingers on.

 

[goodNumber10]

Why no backthree on the bench? (No Cipriani is not fullback cover).
Watson and May covering 15 from the pitch and Burrell and Joseph (neither of whom have played wing in the last two years) covering wing.
Insanity.

because there just aren't enough positions on the bench to cover everything, so you factor the most important ones in 9/10/15.

So back three cover in that squad is:

Cirpiani (15), Watson (15), Burrell/Jospeh (11/14) (not ideal but works).

It is just like the France game last year!

Can anyone shed any light on how Burrell has gone from injured and out to starting in less than a week?

he was concussed, and was always on the Return to Play protocol was due to be training last friday AFAIK.

 

[SharksFan86]

I like the look of our lineup, feeling positive !

 

[RWC2011Fan]

Just trying to make some changes to my fantasy team ahead of the opening weekend. Who's doing the goal kicking for Wales? Is it gonna be Halfpenny or Biggar?