Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
2024 Guinness Six Nations
[2016 RBS Six Nations] Round 1: Scotland vs. England (06/02/2016)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crapspray" data-source="post: 781783" data-attributes="member: 58918"><p>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.)</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>It's telling that when I reply to someone else defending Hartley you immediately jumped in to derride him. Definitely all down to me... </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>But about five straw men arguments in and I'm out. Don't want to hijack another thread.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crapspray, post: 781783, member: 58918"] 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. 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. 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... 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
2024 Guinness Six Nations
[2016 RBS Six Nations] Round 1: Scotland vs. England (06/02/2016)
Top