You're happy with Hartley because he helped provide a solid set piece despite not doing much in the loose, but aren't happy with three of the other starting tight five, who were part of the same set piece but did more in the loose? That's pretty inconsistent. If Marler was under sufficient pressure in the scrum to consider dropping him, how was the set piece solid? If the props each coughed up a penalty at scrum time, how was the set piece solid?
Either the set piece alone is a pass mark, and none of them should be considered droppable; or the set-piece wasn't good enough for some, so the set-piece wasn't good enough for all (with differing levels of responsibility); or the set-piece was good enough but work outside is considered, at which point Hartley did least of all and it can't be considered job done.
I said concerned, not unhappy. They all fall into the solid, but uninspiring bracket. I didn't say I'd drop anyone, which would be inconsistent when my argument is in favour of stability in the short to medium-term. Cole's penalties were two loose, one scrum: not rolling away and taking out Richie Gray at the side of a ruck. (Something which doesn't seem to inspire the same outrage as pushing someone into touch.)
I also didn't say I was happy with Hartley, only that he did his job. Something that is much more important for a hooker in the lineout than it is a prop.
But he got caught. Don't get caught. You don't defend someone on the basis of "They nearly didn't get caught". That's the worst defence ever.
I don't care how much we cheat to win trophies. But you have to not get caught for that. A really obvious push in the back to turn a risky 5m lineout throw for them into get out of jail free? Dumb. That it was caught by the lino, not the ref? Not. A. Defence.
Nothing to do with culture. Nothing to do with PR. Everything to do with results. The result was a Scottish penalty.
I didn't. I said it was worth the risk. End result: 0 points change. Should players only cheat when they're guaranteed to get away with it? How often is that?
If it goes the other way it gets a wink from the coach and everyone moves on with their life. England get a chance at a one man advantage and a penalty try.
You were the one to mention him ahead of those players, not me
I distinctly remember taking about four pages up on another thread when you were going after Hartley post-WC to try to argue Tom Youngs' set-piece wasn't abysmal. In claiming that Hartley was sub-par SN2015 and therefore it was unfair to suggest Youngs was a detriment to England's lineout at the World Cup. Lo and behold Hartley's back, without particularly good jumpers, missing his clubmates, with only two primary jumpers, and the lineout was far better than Youngs with Parling, Wood, and Lawes to aim at -- only at the front and middle, mind you.
It's telling that when I reply to someone else defending Hartley you immediately jumped in to derride him. Definitely all down to me...
not changing to a better player because they might lose form is one of the worst arguments I've seen in a long time.
It's an argument for overall stability in selection: not picking the latest fashion immediately and dropping them as soon as the honeymoon is over. We've had years of fluctuation and it didn't work. Now the new bloke is trying an alternative approach. I'm happy to let him do it. The constant moving of halos from the latest, greatest youngster has become something of an English trait since 2003. Every time they're brought in, don't live up to wild expectation, and get dropped. This is exactly the reason Jones gave for delayed Itoje and Daly's first caps. To paraphrase: "get their debut right and they become 60 cap players, get it wrong and they're out after 10 - 20". Sound familiar?
For example, off the top of my head: Twelvetrees, Eastmond, Burrell, Burgess, Yarde, Rockoduguni, Burns, and Ford were all brought in with some excitement, played well on their debuts, lost form, and were dropped shortly afterwards. Apart from Rocko, who mysteriously disappearing after one cap.
Take Ford. At the moment he would be lucky to get on the bench for a top six club in the Premiership. Were Lancaster in charge, Farrell would be 10 and Ford would rot in camp. The new bloke is apparently trying to rebuild his confidence through play and sticking with him through bad form. So we might actually see some consistency in selection for more than a single tour/championship and a youngster get more than 20 caps to prove their worth. The old way didn't work, I'm willing to give the new way a chance.
But about five straw men arguments in and I'm out. Don't want to hijack another thread.
