Selecting "Unfit" Players

Prior to the France game, there were plenty of discussions amongst England followers about what match fitness means and whether Eddie Jones was selecting too many guys with minimal recent game-time. Marler and Hartley started having not played for a month and 6(?) weeks, while Haskell on the bench had played about an hour of rugby since June of last year. Jones has now come out and stated that Haskell is not fit enough to start on Saturday against Wales and will therefore be on the bench again.

It seems to me that selecting players who have no recent game-time is a bit of a gamble, but can be justified by use of the various tracking and fitness technology. It seems a huge gamble though to put a guy on the bench, who could be needed very early, who is only deemed fit enough for a cameo as a "finisher". I can see why Jones is so keen to have Haskell available, even if for just 15 minutes, but this is a worry. It also indicates the lack of faith in the alternative options (both in the EPS and not).

Of course Eddie could just be trying to pay mind games.

Could well be mind games! He has Harrison on the bench as well perhaps thinking that's enough cover but hardly beyond the realms of possibility that there s 2 early injuries or that someone's playing so badly that he wants to sub them early.

I've never really understood this 'not fit to start but fit for bench' malarkey.

Surely if you're fit for the bench then you're fit enough to start, what if you have to go n in the first 5/10 minutes then you'll pretty much have to play the whole game.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Surely if you're fit for the bench then you're fit enough to start, what if you have to go n in the first 5/10 minutes then you'll pretty much have to play the whole game.

I agree.

Talking aboutthis at work though our view is that IF Jones is true to his word it is an indication that Haskell is fit enough to play, but not as fit as Jones would like (ie not as fit as Tom wood).

LondonTiger wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Surely if you're fit for the bench then you're fit enough to start, what if you have to go n in the first 5/10 minutes then you'll pretty much have to play the whole game.

I agree.

Talking aboutthis at work though our view is that IF Jones is true to his word it is an indication that Haskell is fit enough to play, but not as fit as Jones would like (ie not as fit as Tom wood).

LT,

Same analogy goes for Faleatu I feel as well plus it would be harsh on Moriarty. If Faletau is fit then put him on the bench in place of King, give the back 3 another run out and then use Faletau later rather than sooner.

I think it raises the issue of does the newly fit player oust the incumbent just because he's fit or does he get eased back in. Some exceptional players like Faletau should just be slotted straight back in because they are a class apart. Same was done with Halfpenny.

Faletau's knee makes me nervous. He's a specimen and i have no doubt he is as 'fit' as can be established prior to contact, its whether his knee is sufficiently conditioned to changes of direction at pace and being hit that is questionable - he was reported as straight line running last week. I think its well known that most of these players perform week in week out carrying niggles and even chronic injuries that they sort out at the end of the season. My instinct is he will start on the bench v England but it is right that if the knee is good he probably should be starting.

For what it's worth I don't think Jones is playing mind games in this instance and I always expected Haskell to be on the bench again this weekend. He's only had about 80 mins of game time since the second test against Aus and his injury meant couldn't do any fitness work for a long time. I understand what others are saying about it being risky but England are lucky that they have a couple of players who can cover a few positions well enough meaning EJ can select two back rowers on the bench or move Itoje back if required. Also he has the option of a 6/2 bench thanks to Daly's versitility.

With regards to the bigger picture I think teams having 8 substitutions a game allows 'risks' like this to be taken. I don't mind having that many on the bench but would limit the amount of subs that can be used, say 4 max or the front row plus 2 for a total of 6 (although it's not long ago that one prop always had to play the entire 80 minutes of course).

Horses for courses.

Injuries effect players in different ways, no black and white, a lot of grey.

Faletau is a player who has rarely missed any rugby through injury in an eight year career, this year he has hardly played a full match if at all.

I would be urging caution and trying to prolonge his career.

We have other options at eight.

*affect

Well I guess we shall see. Could be that both Howley and Jones are taking risks in the back row this weekend - but Jones far more so.

The touted back row (Itoje, Clifford, Hughes) has four back row starts between them, while Clifford is just coming back from injury and Hughes missed training yesterday. On the bench there is likely to be teh experience of Haskell (80 minutes rugby in last 8 months) and Wood (carrying a knock and unable to train yesterday).

Could be interesting.

Cyril wrote:*affect

*can the mods please do something about this troll

Gwlad wrote:

Cyril wrote:*affect

*can the mods please do something about this troll

Oooh!

Cyril wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Cyril wrote:*affect

*can the mods please do something about this troll

Oooh!

Must've gained the wrong affect there Cyril

I'm glad to see that no ones made a "witty" remark about the womens teams selecting fit players. That would be sexist and offensive, its good to know we are mature and liberal minded enough on this board to avoid that kind of comment.

In my opinion it's a bigger risk to put an unfit player on the bench then it is to start them. Take the example of James Haskell.

Let's say Jones looks at him in training, and he estimates he's got no more than half an hour in him, but obviously he can't know exactly how long.

Now, let's say that the actual time Haskell could play was 20 minutes.

Scenario 1: Haskell benches. Jones brings him on around the 50 minute mark to try to influence the game. Around 70 minutes, Haskell is struggling and needs to come off. Either Jones has to hold a substitute back for Haskell or risk trying to close out or even chase a score in the last 10 with 14 players.

Scenario 2: Haskell benches. Worried about the possibility of the above, Jones doesn't bring Haskell on until the 65th minute. Haskell lasts the game, but he could have done 5 minutes longer, and therefore he hasn't maximised the usage of one of his key players. The game might be dead and gone by the 65 minute stage.

Scenario 3: Haskell starts. He runs about smashing everything until he can't walk any more. He lasts his 20 minutes, and Jones has a full bench from which to replace him. Doing this with such an experienced player (given who will be in the back row with him) will help settle the team down from the start as well, and hopefully leave England in a good place.

The merits of playing a player with only 20-30 minutes in him is another debate, but if you deem that necessary with Robshaw, Wood and Vunipola out, then I think the best option is to start him.