Jamie George vs Dylan Hartley - Round 12

First topic message reminder :

If not beaten to the punch I shall be posting a match thread for the first of England's AIs shortly. To avoid that descending into a complete off topic farce (and prompted by an article I read today) how about we discuss this now perennial subject in a single thread rather than ruin any others.

Facts

1) Hartley has started every test under Eddie Jones with England winning all but one of them
2) When available George has been on the bench.
3) Jamie George started all 3 tests in the summer for the Lions, his only international starts



Opinions

1) Jamie George is the best hooker in the Aviva Premiership
2) Depending on your point of view, George was either outstanding in NZ or was lucky to start all 3 tests (opinions on Lions threads did differ that widely)
3) With injuries to Taylor and LCD, the options behind George and Hartley do not inspire confidence.
4) Eddie Jones has placed skipper Hartley on a pedestal and deems him undroppable.


For what it is worth: 1 & 3 I agree with, 4 I deem to be utter lovesacks and 2 I am in the middle (such that I feel George never really showed his premiership form and at times was rather meh - yet was still better than the other two options)


Discussion Points

1) Is George a better hooker than Hartley?
2) Should Hartley be in the match day squad (ie ahead of Dunn who is a real novice)
3) Does George's dynamism make him better suited (than Hartley) to the role of a finisher?
4) Are England best served over a full 80 minutes by starting George and bringing on Hartley or vice versa (noting that last season George typically played only 10 minutes less than Hartley in each game)
5) Is Hartley's place in the squad due to being captain, or the lack of any other players, outside of George, capable of playing international rugby.



Add your own discussion points, but please lets leave this issue out of the AI threads

Give it 6 months it'll be LCD vs george. Englabd hasve a lot of players!

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is there a reason why every England game is followed by a debate on George vs Hartley? Is it because beshocked develops an obsession over a Saracens player every now and again and then must convince everyone around him why that player must start for every team ever?

Yes

No 7&1/2 wrote:Give it 6 months it'll be LCD vs george. Englabd hasve a lot of players!

There are always selection debates but this one is beyond repetitive. Surely every point that could be made has been made at this stage? It comes up every single time, usually started by beshocked it seems. Totally obsessive.

It's because george is pretty much universally accepted as the better player. There's then obviously discussion of the granted same reason s why he may not get starts.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's because george is pretty much universally accepted as the better player. There's then obviously discussion of the granted same reason s why he may not get starts.

For reasons which are almost universally accepted.

Then there is the debate over an artificially defined criteria as to starters somehow being more important than 'finishers'. Interestingly EJ shows no apparent interest in this division, being more concerned with putting together a team of 23 players designed to win a match.

Unfortunately rory gallagher George has broken the world record for most matches without a start.

It's ridiculous. It's actually unprecedented.

I am perhaps too obsessed and repetitive, it's just frustating why Jones refuses to start him.

Yes I know there's the "our best combination is no 1 hooker - Hartley, no 2 hooker - George" argument but come on.

Wouldn't you be frustated if one of your favourite players was breaking a record like that?


Exileinborders depends if you think 60 minutes of Hartley is better than 60 minutes of George.... if you think the former is better - fair enough.

If you think Hartley is playing well - you are entitled to your opinion. Of course I think it's silly but that's your opinion.


I want England to win and win well, just as you do but do I think leaving our best hooker with only 20 minutes vs Argentina is the way to do that? No.

Eddie (and England) seem to be doing ok with the current selection. I really rate George, but it's going ok with Hartley right now as the starter.

beshocked, stick on this thread rather than de-railing the main ones.

I actually thought Hartley had a pretty good game at the weekend, certainly one of the better front 5 performers. George wasn't that great when he came on, he needs to step it up when he comes on and impress.

beshocked wrote:

Exileinborders depends if you think 60 minutes of Hartley is better than 60 minutes of George.... if you think the former is better - fair enough.

Have you stopped to consider why Eddie Jones think's the former is better? Not asking you to agree or dismiss your viewpoint. I'm just asking you to consider why Jones prefers it his way.

Now I don't KNOW if it's better, because I've never seen the other way. Neither have you of course, so equally you don't know the other way is better, you just have an opinion on it. We do have one fact though, doing it this way round has yielded superb results. I'd also look at what Jamie George does when he comes on, and I'd say he is very effective (i'm sure you'll agree here). I can remember a couple of times on the Aus tour he came on and directly affected the game (hack through in second test, try in third). On that basis, I think we can agree on the statement of "Hartley starting and George finishing has been effective for England"? Please note, I'm aware you think that starting George would be even more effective, but that doesn't mean the previous statement is false.

beshocked wrote:
I want England to win and win well, just as you do but do I think leaving our best hooker with only 20 minutes vs Argentina is the way to do that? No.

I do. I agree that George is our best hooker, but he is also a different type of player to Hartley. Although Hartley may not be as good as George, he is "Good enough" to keep everything ticking over until such time that Jamie George can come on against tiring legs.

Do I believe Jamie George will be more effective in 30 mins at the end vs 50 mins from the start? Yes.

Do I believe Dylan Hartley will be a detriment to England in those first 50? No.

Therefore it seems perfectly reasonable to me to optimise the hooker position in this way.

Another England article destroyed by the Hartley v George debate........god give me strength.

To be fair pooly this is a hartley george thread!

I think he was talking about the other thread, but saying it here to avoid derailing it further.

cyril going okay is enough for some England fans I guess....

It's why performances vs France,Argentina and Italy should be applauded not criticised..... that's what fans say.

Why should England accept mediocrity?

Why have one rule for Kruis and one for Hartley? Kruis didn't perform so was dropped, fair enough. Let's use the same logic with Hartley.....

No - it won't happen because Hartley has immunity seemingly.


Sgt Pooly if you ignore the game like you do, then yes Hartley performed better. You and no 7 & 1/2 two peas in a pod.


cascough

Yes I know Jones thinks George is a better finisher.

I challenge the belief by many that Jones sees them as equals. Well no obviously he doesn't. If there was some sort of equality, then George would have had a start by now, he would not have had only 22 minutes on the weekend either.


I don't think it's optimising to be honest. And yes I think Hartley starting does weaken the side yes because you are leaving your best hooker on the bench.

If you are only getting 22 minutes from your best hooker instead of 50+ then yes it is weakening the team.


You are also setting a pecking order, not based on ability but based on bias toward a particular player - in this case Hartley.

Scottrf wrote:I think he was talking about the other thread, but saying it here to avoid derailing it further.

Er yea, that's what I was doing.....

Didn't ignore the game. Hartley played well.

I've seen nothing in George's performances recently for the Lions or England that suggest he should currently be ahead of Hartley.

Have to say I do find this tread great fun.

Well no 7 & 1/2 your comments have suggested you didn't watch the game.

Sgt Pooly no surprise there.

No they haven't beshocked. But as you regularly don't have access to sky and fail to provide little more than talk about highlights or stats right back at ya!

Will you be watching his weekend and what will.you be hoping to see in general?

beshocked wrote:


cascough

Yes I know Jones thinks George is a better finisher.

I challenge the belief by many that Jones sees them as equals. Well no obviously he doesn't. If there was some sort of equality, then George would have had a start by now, he would not have had only 22 minutes on the weekend either.


I don't think it's optimising to be honest. And yes I think Hartley starting does weaken the side yes because you are leaving your best hooker on the bench.

If you are only getting 22 minutes from your best hooker instead of 50+ then yes it is weakening the team.

No no, you've ignored what I said.

I'm not disagreeing that George is better than Hartley so England are de facto weaker with Hartley in the side. But think of this.

Let's assume JG and DH play a half each.

Scenario 1 - DH first half, JG second half. - We agree England are stronger in the second half.

Scenario 2 - JG first half, DH second half. - We agree England are stronger in the first half.

Which of those two scenarios do you think is better for JG? Remember, we are talking about 40 mins each here. I think JG will be much more effective in Scenario 1. And DH? Arguably DH would struggle with a potentially looser game, which also means he would benefit from scenario 1. Given that Scenario 1 is beneficial for both players, it stands to reason that it's also better for England. What I'm suggesting, is JG is so much more effective in Scenario 1, that even if you tweak the minute balance, it's still better for JG and DH and therefore England.

Put simply, I believe JG would be more effective in 30 second half minutes, than 50 minutes from the start. You're being rather more straightforward than that and saying more minutes on the pitch is better because it's more.

I admit when I don't watch the game.

You are the one who didn't seem to think Hughes carried the ball....

cascough minutes are never split like that though. It's not 40-40.

It's lion share going to the starter generally. Jones hasn't changed this - it's not a rotation system.

Yes it's simplistic but George can do more - have more influence if he's on the pitch longer.

Against Argentina George didn't get the opportunity to carry the ball once, he was on defensive duty.

You should see it the other way, if you start George early you can potentially take more of the sting out of the opposition, keep intensity at a high level from minute one.

Against Argentina, it's not as important but vs Australia you seriously think the Aussies won't bring a higher intensity?

Hartley brings a higher intensity. George is too nice (and too fat to start at international level).

carpet baboon wrote:Have to say I do find this tread great fun.

I think it would be funnier if we did not have exactly the same conversation every few months.

lostinwales wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Have to say I do find this tread great fun.

I think it would be funnier if we did not have exactly the same conversation every few months.

Definitely not.

beshocked wrote:

cascough minutes are never split like that though. It's not 40-40.

It's lion share going to the starter generally. Jones hasn't changed this - it's not a rotation system.

You've ignored what I said again.

I didn't say they were, I asked you, IF they were, which scenario is best for JG and DH?

Even though I'm on ignore from beshocked just have to respond to the lie about Hughes. I said he didn't carry anywhere near enough in the tight for me and played too far out wide.

lostinwales fortunately this will die down if Jones ever decides to give George a start.

It's been months. I agree. I am sick of talking about it - it's up to Jones to make the call.

scottrf not sure if fattist is a terminology but it's what I'd call you.

So what if George is a bit on the podgy side. I'd rather be fat than be a dirty player who believes the way to deal with an opposition player is gouge, punch them, head butt etc. Oh and of course abuse refs and cost their side an AP title by doing that.

To be honest, Hartley has been such a liability to Saints, I am surprised you still like him.


As to why I am so vocal - I feel it's a really big issue when it comes to English rugby. I know the argument has been done to death but it hasn't gone away.

What's more annoying is it's basically BS arguing (and rarely reading) against 15 other posters. Same debate, same points....time and time again.

beshocked wrote:To be honest, Hartley has been such a liability to Saints, I am surprised you still like him.

Who said I do? You can look up who I suggested should start for the Argentina game if you like.

I'm definitely not fattist though. Much fatter people than me.

Hey beshocked you talk a lot about what's right and standard's, yet you defended teams breaking the salary cap not being public named and correctly punished, by saying it would harm England's hosting of the world cup, so by default I can't take anything you say seriously.

But I am impressed with your persistence.

cascough you are talking about hypothetical situations which haven't yet come into fruition.

If it's 40-40 yes. You are right.

We are not in that situation though.

It also doesn't change that every player wants to start for their international side.


Look at Farrell, he was hungry to start for England even when Jones rested him.

It's that competitive spirit. No one wants to languish on the bench.

A coach can call you a "finisher" all they want but it doesn't change that it's those starting who have been given higher priority.

If it's a situation where 2 players rotate - starting and bench it can be different but when it's always player X starting and player Y on the bench, player Y unsurprisingly would feel like they are not treated right if they are seen as the superior player.


I think George is better than Brits these days but Brits still starts for Saracens.



carpet baboon innocent till proven guilty.... I know in this day and age it's guilty till proven innocent but still...

Too many people talk as if they have all the facts with no evidence to back it up....

You're saying that george has expressed this thought or you're speaking for him?

The salary cap thing was shocking and clubs and competition in the league will suffer for a long time to come.

The greater good.

It's easier to blame other for your woes than look inwards at what you can do better.

Saints aren't floundering because of the salary cap. Floundering because they are poorly coached.

Same with other teams who like to point the finger.

Exeter are well coached and deservedly won the AP. Good on them.

When are the full findings being released? They said after the world cup but I stupidly assumed they meant the 2015 one!

Beshocked you may not have seen the evidence, or happy to be wilfully blind to it, but people have, and a lot of people know exactly which two clubs it was.

And the reason the public don't know is because the two clubs in question threatened everyone with witholding signing the new RFU agreement so they all lost.
Eventually they agreed to take a fine, hidden in the complex income streams from competitions and the RFU payments to hide that they got a fine in the first place and no one was allowed to name them.

Fiking shameless , and yet you still defend them, yet happy to point out , rightfully, that Hartley has a discipline problem.

It's called hypocrisy.

But I do enjoy your enthusiasm

Hartley does have a discipline problem. Plenty of evidence of this.

It is hypocritical to defend Hartley but accuse clubs of breaking the salary cap with no evidence.....

As I said it's people looking to blame others instead of looking at what they can do better.


The rant about the salary cap isn't relevant to Jamie George vs Dylan Hartley either.

The whole Saffacens criticism can't be used anymore so need to move onto another reason to bash Saracens no?

Look at evil Saracens with all their academy players, their own stadium and a passionate rugby owner.

Nigel Wray is a bigger rugby fan than probably everyone on these forums, he goes to practically every game.

Is he an angel? No of course not but he's passionate about the club he supports and does everything he can to look after the players.

Look at Saracens breaking competition rules, aren't they great

Academy players, owning a stadium and a passionate owner doesn't excuse financial doping

So they don't have to play to the rules.

beshocked wrote:cascough you are talking about hypothetical situations which haven't yet come into fruition.

If it's 40-40 yes. You are right.

Okay, you said that it's as simple as getting more minutes on the pitch for George but when minutes are equal you're conceding that George is better in the second half. So, clearly it's not that simple as there are other factors at play. You may feel that that even though there are other factors, the amount of time George spends on the pitch is still by far and away the most important factor (which is fine) but given that even you have conceded that there are other factors to consider, you must be able to appreciate that the opposite viewpoint to yours is a rational one even if it's not one you agree with.

Ahh beshocked you really can't see it can you.
Yes there academy is very good, yes they are investing in the game, yes good old nige loves his club.
But they cheated, had a tantrum when they were caught and threatened there fellow clubs with financial ruin if they dared to speak out about it.
Yet you defend them but call out anyone who thinks Hartley is doing ok as an England player and hold up his past bad behaviour as a stick to hit him with, but we can't do the same with uncle nige?
Hypocrisy

Why is there such a high correlation between people being called Nigel and being utter cnuts?

BamBam wrote:Why is there such a high correlation between people being called Nigel and being utter cnuts?

I'm guessing genetics?

cascough if it's 40-40 yes but my point is it hasn't worked out like that. You are talking about something that hasn't been implemented. It still doesn't change that George needs to start for England sooner rather than later either

I can see the other point of view yes. I just don't think it's ever been a 40-40.

carpet baboon where's the evidence?

You are beating Nigel Wray with a stick when he's innocent till proven guilty and defending an already guilty Hartley.

You are missing the point though - Jamie George has no disciplinary issues like Hartley, he's not a dirty player.

You attack Wray but defend Hartley.

I am defending Wray on the basis of innocent till proven guilty.

It's not even as if Hartley is reformed - his old demons are still there.


No evidence Bambam.

Look at Hartley - 60 weeks of bans -eye gouging, biting headbutting people, elbowing and abusing refs, isn't he great?

Being England captain doesn't excuse his actions....

You'd think he had learnt his lesson but picked up a YC vs Clermont.


It's not even as if Hartley is destroying opposition at international level. He's plodding along - getting the plaudits from his fan base. Riding the coat tails of better performing players.

He's been starting every single game for Jones, not based on incredible performances but because Jones refuses to start anyone else at hooker.

beshocked wrote:It's easier to blame other for your woes than look inwards at what you can do better.

Saints aren't floundering because of the salary cap. Floundering because they are poorly coached.

Same with other teams who like to point the finger.

Exeter are well coached and deservedly won the AP. Good on them.

Not just about the teams. Clubs are losing money, some unsustainably.

beshocked wrote:Hartley does have a discipline problem. Plenty of evidence of this.

It is hypocritical to defend Hartley but accuse clubs of breaking the salary cap with no evidence.....

As I said it's people looking to blame others instead of looking at what they can do better.


The rant about the salary cap isn't relevant to Jamie George vs Dylan Hartley either.

The whole Saffacens criticism can't be used anymore so need to move onto another reason to bash Saracens no?

Look at evil Saracens with all their academy players, their own stadium and a passionate rugby owner.

Nigel Wray is a bigger rugby fan than probably everyone on these forums, he goes to practically every game.

Is he an angel? No of course not but he's passionate about the club he supports and does everything he can to look after the players.

Nobody even mentioned Saracens but you've made it clear you only support the breaking of the cap and subsequent brushing under the carpet because it was Saracens.

scottrf well it's obviously Saracens who you think broke the cap so let's not pretend it's another team you are attacking.

Not at all, when Leicester were accused of breaking the cap, I didn't jump down the throat of Leicester fans.

I have not attacked any other club who has been accused of breaking the cap.

True some clubs are losing money and that's another reason to try and bash other clubs instead of looking at what you can do.

beshocked wrote:scottrf well it's obviously Saracens who you think broke the cap so let's not pretend it's another team you are attacking.

Not at all, when Leicester were accused of breaking the cap, I didn't jump down the throat of Leicester fans.

I have not attacked any other club who has been accused of breaking the cap.

True some clubs are losing money and that's another reason to try and bash other clubs instead of looking at what you can do.

I'm not attacking any team for breaking it. I'm attacking the cover up and lack of punishment (and subsequent raise of the cap).

Saracens (Wray) broke the cap rules

Saracens (Wray) bullied the other clubs into a legal agreement not to disclose the breach

That is why there is no evidence in the public eye

Wray can take his supposed innocence and shove it where the sun doesn't shine