England Versus Australia 18th November 2017 3pm k.o.

by hugehandoff Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:41 pm

First topic message reminder :

A resurgent Wallabies arrive in town with a great opportunity to halt their run of defeats to England. They are in much better current form and are looking sharp. EJs is trying to test out a few new players and rotate his Lions with a long term RWC view. He has said he will take the odd defeat along the way if it helps develop the side longer term. I think this Sat could be one of those defeats.

I do agree with seeing how some different players cope and do not disagree with his approach. Therefore, we need to see Williams, George, Watson (at 15) all start. If Teo was fit I would also go Farrell at 10 and Teo at 12 with Slade at 13 (deserves 1 more go despite being poor on Sat).

Once these AIs are over then I think the time for experimenting is done and we then play each match as if it is our last. This will enable the combinations to bed in and be battle hardened for RWC 2019.

Team: Watson, May, Joseph, Farrell, Daly; Ford, Youngs; M Vunipola, Hartley, Cole; Launchbury, Lawes; Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes.

Replacements: George, Marler, Williams, Itoje, Simmonds, Care, Slade, Rokoduguni.

Australia: 15 Kurtley Beale, 14 Marika Koroibete, 13 Tevita Kuridrani, 12 Samu Kerevi, 11 Reece Hodge, 10 Bernard Foley, 9 Will Genia; 1 Scott Sio, 2 Tatafu Polota-Nau, 3 Sekope Kepu, 4 Rob Simmons, 5 Adam Coleman, 6 Ned Hanigan, 7 Michael Hooper, 8 Sean McMahon
Replacements: 16 Stephen Moore, 17 Tom Robertson, 18 Allan Alaalatoa, 19 Matt Philip, 20 Ben McCalman, 21 Lopeti Timani, 22 Nick Phipps, 23 Kurtley Beale, 24 Henry Speight*

*one to be omitted

by beshocked Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:51 pm

No 7 & 1/2 okay so we agree it's not a gamble.

No, it's not the same with Nowell for the reasons I've already said - Nowell was thrown in the deep end and at first was really floundering which cost England the GS in the first game.

I didn't think Nowell was ready to start and I felt like my opinion was justified. Nowell has subsequently improved.

Again you are comparing very different scenarios and saying they are the same which is wrong.

Australia at home in the AIs in the 2nd game is not the same as France away in the first game - different players, different experiences, different ages, different positions etc.

They are not the same.

by No 7&1/2 Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:54 pm

Itoje and Nowell very similar. Keep it to the other thread though.

by Poorfour Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:32 pm

beshocked, you were the poster who lambasted Lancaster for months for not playing a then uncapped Itoje at the Rugby World Cup, but you're still quite happy to criticise him for playing Nowell in a Six Nations game.

A little consistency might go a long way.

by yappysnap Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:51 pm

Never rated Kruis that highly, out side of the lineout he’s behind the other three locks around the park. So Itoje and Lawes to start?

by hugehandoff Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:12 pm

Kruis just did not do enough but squad rotation could also be at play. If EJs wants to experiment a little he could be looking at Lawes at 6? I would probably pick Itoje and Launchbury with Lawes and Ewels on the bench. Lawes to cover 6 with Robshaw moving across if required.

Marler
George
Cole
Itoje
Launchbury
Robshaw
Hughes
Underhill
Youngs
Ford
Farrell
Slade
May
Daly
Watson

Bench
Mako
Dylan
Williams
Ewels
Lawes
Care
Roko
JJ

by lostinwales Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:25 pm

yappysnap wrote:Never rated Kruis that highly, out side of the lineout he’s behind the other three locks around the park. So Itoje and Lawes to start?

At his best he was arguably the best lock in Europe, but I am beginning to think it was one of those short periods where everything comes together and he hasn't been up to that level for a while. Can't help thinking sometimes that we have the same problem with JJ.

Form may go up and down.

by hugehandoff Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:09 pm

lostinwales wrote:
yappysnap wrote:Never rated Kruis that highly, out side of the lineout he’s behind the other three locks around the park. So Itoje and Lawes to start?

At his best he was arguably the best lock in Europe, but I am beginning to think it was one of those short periods where everything comes together and he hasn't been up to that level for a while. Can't help thinking sometimes that we have the same problem with JJ.

Form may go up and down.

I think Kruis at his best is also a top lock but I think it is taking a long time to recover from last season's injuries. He was out for ages so I think he just needs time. JJ is effective when we are on the front foot. With Billy smashing holes and quick ball he is very effective, but when that ain't happening he is not.

by beshocked Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:30 pm

Poorfour wrote:beshocked, you were the poster who lambasted Lancaster for months for not playing a then uncapped Itoje at the Rugby World Cup, but you're still quite happy to criticise him for playing Nowell in a Six Nations game.

A little consistency might go a long way.

Its about being bold at the right time. Not being recklessly idiotic.

Nowell decision - gamble which failed and cost England the GS.

Not picking Itoje - a poor decision which didnt help Lancaster.

Itoje is rubbish isn't he? That's what his doubters thought before his rise.

Lancaster failed in the biggest games.

by Scottrf Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:15 pm

"Itoje is rubbish": Nobody, ever.

by lostinwales Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:04 pm

Scottrf wrote:"Itoje is rubbish": Nobody, ever.

On the bright side we may have moved on from being May's nose wot lost it.

by Poorfour Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:46 pm

Utter Love sacks. beshocked, you have 20/20 hindsight.

A more factual way of looking at it was that choosing Nowell was forced by a lack of fit wingers young enough to make 2015 RWC. Choosing Itoje would have meant excluding a fit and more experienced lock.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:12 am

I'd like to find our strongest scrum over these games. We can do well enough in the lineout but we haven't really strung together an imposing series of scrums.

Although Jones talked about going back to England's traditional strengths, none of the teams he has coached has ever had a dominant scrum. That's mostly down to personnel but he also seems to prefer having an adequate scrum, if the pack offers more in other areas.

The Lions never did much to the All Blacks scrum, with George, Vunipola and Kruis/Itoje in the starting front five.

It's often argued that a dominant scrum doesn't offer much of an advantage these days, so some trade-offs are inevitable. No-one thinks Vunipola is a top scrummager but some rate him the best loosehead in the world right now.

Still, it looked to me like Ireland went well in the scrum against South Africa, so just matching them will be a challenge. France also did to New Zealand at times what the Lions could not manage, and they are in our World Cup group.

One of the arguments for starting Hartley is that he is less effective off the bench than George. If, however, George is part of our best scrum (I don't know if he is), then that would tip the balance for me, and I'd want to see him in the first XV.

by Poorfour Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:55 am

I think you have to view George and Vunipola as a unit when it comes to scrummaging. Mako is noticeably better in the scrum with George alongside him, whereas the choice of hooker doesn't seem to affect our other props as much.

I prefer, and I think Eddie also prefers, to have their carrying ability on the pitch late in the game when they can really punch holes in a defence.

by hugehandoff Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:11 am

Rugby Fan.....I agree re our scrum but think it is purely down to the talent available. Cole is not a top scrummaging tighthead and that is the cornerstone to the scrums. Hope Sinckler or someone else makes the step up. I also think we need to address the back row balance which to be fair EJs is trying to do. Plus the lack of T'eo or Manu leaves our backline lacking go forward. But EJs hands are somewhat tied and hoping that by the 6Ns some of these issues are resolved.

by BamBam Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:18 am

Poorfour wrote:Utter Love sacks. beshocked, you have 20/20 hindsight.

A more factual way of looking at it was that choosing Nowell was forced by a lack of fit wingers young enough to make 2015 RWC.

But, but, but .. Ashton was available

by beshocked Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:59 am

Poorfour

Utterly brilliant use the first game of the 6 nations vs France away to prep up for the RWC 2015 - this was foolish on so many levels - in the end Lancaster didn't even start Nowell in the RWC!

You can perhaps get away with it if a) you win the game b) don't bomb out in the group stages of the RWC...

It's not hindsight when you can see the errors before they happen. Unfortunately many can't.

So many people jumped on the Burgess bandwagon.....

Nowell selection was similar to Burgess one.

Let's not pick one of the brightest rugby union prospects of his generation who just won the AP, that would be too risky.... nah... if we are going to gamble let's pick a rugby league player whose barely played any rugby union.... and we can't even work out his best position.

You do not need to intelligent to know which is more risky.

Being bold but not reckless is fine.

You think NZ are the best in the world because of their scrum? No.

Vunipola isn't the best scrummager but what he offers outside the scrum more than not makes up for it.

If you are losing games solely on your scrum not being strong enough then yes you should look to strengthen it but England's biggest problem is not in the scrum.

England must aspire more to linking backs and forwards but you can't do that if there's a lack of dynamism in your front five.

Kruis has been dropped and that's fair enough but let's not pretend he's the only front five player who didn't do well enough.

I think it's unfair that the only front five players under scrutiny were Mako and Kruis.

Sort out the front five first then we can move onto sorting out that balance of the backrow.

by Scottrf Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:13 am

"Let's not pick one of the brightest rugby union prospects of his generation who just won the AP, that would be too risky.... nah... if we are going to gamble let's pick a rugby league player whose barely played any rugby union.... and we can't even work out his best position."

I agree with you but Ashton knows his best position. Nowell definitely a great talent who won the AP though.

by beshocked Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:28 am

Scottrf good WUM.

Ashton as a selection might have well failed but we don't know. He certainly would have at least had the opportunity to play with his back three club mate, Goode - familiarity.

Familiarity is important. Something I feel is ignored again and again.

Ford and Slade lacked familiarity, they are not clubmates, they were not on the same wavelength.

It would take time for that to gel.

Ford and Farrell played U20s together and played rugby together.

If you play a new player with a familiar clubmate it inevitably makes it easier.

It's why if you slotted George alongside Mako with Itoje in the 2nd row it would not be as risky.

Look at even Hartley and Lawes, it's a familiar partnership.

by BamBam Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:30 am

Ashton has managed to show he's sh!t with Goode for company plenty of times, I doubt it would have made much difference

by SecretFly Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:34 am

I don't really know what clubs you all support - or maybe I just constantly forget - but is English bickering about player selections the same as Ireland's, in that it tends to drawn neatly down along club/provincial team loyalties?
Or is it more cerebral? Do some of you fight for the inclusion of a player outside of your own Club loyalties at possibly the expense of a player from your own club?

Just curious about the dynamics of the arguments about Hartley and Itoje and all that stuff.

by Scottrf Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:44 am

SecretFly wrote:I don't really know what clubs you all support - or maybe I just constantly forget - but is English bickering about player selections the same as Ireland's, in that it tends to drawn neatly down along club/provincial team loyalties?
Or is it more cerebral? Do some of you fight for the inclusion of a player outside of your own Club loyalties at possibly the expense of a player from your own club?

Just curious about the dynamics of the arguments about Hartley and Itoje and all that stuff.

Beshocked is all about Sarries but I think most of the others here are pretty fair. But obviously you see your clubs players more so know what they can do.

by SecretFly Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:50 am

Scottrf wrote:

Beshocked is all about Sarries but I think most of the others here are pretty fair. But obviously you see your clubs players more so know what they can do.

Just wanted a general feel for that, Scottrf. Thanks.

by No 7&1/2 Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:17 am

Have I just read that beshocked thinks familiarity is key? Well I never!

by beshocked Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:50 am

scottrf

I want a team that will win and perform well.

Not lose and stodgily move along, go with the motions.

It's why I've said time and time again to the Welsh they need to get rid of Gatland. It does not benefit me personally if Wales are good or bad but I've seen them struggling with Gatland for years but they fail to make the change.

sure... that's why I would have dropped Kruis like everyone else wants....

I've been calling for every single position to be filled by a Saracens player right?

If they are the best, I want them in, if not then they have to do more.

It would be ridiculous for me to say let's get Earle on the wing, Tompkins at outside centre, Wigglesworth to start etc.

If I really wanted that I wouldn't have criticised Kruis' performance.

Well no obviously not. Only those I think deserve to be picked.

Is Lozowski unlucky yes but I can understand Jones wants to give Slade another go despite his disjointed performance.

You talk about fairness.... breaking the record for most international appearances without a start is not fair when most people agree that George is a better player.

no 7 & 1/2 yes, it's something that you have shown a lack of understanding of.

by No 7&1/2 Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:51 am

No. I think it's good you're coming round to the idea. Will be good to see.more understanding and patience from you.

by beshocked Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:16 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. I think it's good you're coming round to the idea. Will be good to see.more understanding and patience from you.

Ha! Amusing.... you are one of the most stupid posters on these forums and you talking to me about understanding.....

I cannot be bothered discussing with you anymore. You are going on my ignore list, my patience with you has run out.

by cascough Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:18 pm

beshocked wrote:

I've been calling for every single position to be filled by a Saracens player right?

If they are the best, I want them in, if not then they have to do more.

It would be ridiculous for me to say let's get Earle on the wing, Tompkins at outside centre, Wigglesworth to start etc.

I don't think it would be "ridiculous".

Last season, such was his form, people were touting Wigglesworth as an outside bet for the Lions. You could make a case for saying the's the best tactical kicking 9 in the world. You might think CM is better or AS but it's not a ridiculous suggestion. Tompkins has looked electric everytime he's played for Saracens. With JJ out of form is it ridiculous to suggest that Tompkins would more of a spark and a better fit for Ford and Farrell than Slade? Again others might disagree but it's not ridiculous. And Earle, a guy who starred in the recent U20s and went on the Argentina tour, is scoring for Saracens and looking dangerous? An outside shout, but ridiculous?

Point is, if you explain it and it's clearly based on Rugby, it shouldn't be ridiculous to suggest these players. If you don't explain your opinions on Sarries players then you are going to be susceptible to people thinking the only reason you hold that view is that you're a Saracens fan.

by No 7&1/2 Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:21 pm

Quite rude beshocked. But I understand you don't like your views on saracens players being questioned at all. I assume we won't see more patience from you after all!

by beshocked Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:32 pm

cascough wrote:
beshocked wrote:

I've been calling for every single position to be filled by a Saracens player right?

If they are the best, I want them in, if not then they have to do more.

It would be ridiculous for me to say let's get Earle on the wing, Tompkins at outside centre, Wigglesworth to start etc.

I don't think it would be "ridiculous".

Last season, such was his form, people were touting Wigglesworth as an outside bet for the Lions. You could make a case for saying the's the best tactical kicking 9 in the world. You might think CM is better or AS but it's not a ridiculous suggestion. Tompkins has looked electric everytime he's played for Saracens. With JJ out of form is it ridiculous to suggest that Tompkins would more of a spark and a better fit for Ford and Farrell than Slade? Again others might disagree but it's not ridiculous. And Earle, a guy who starred in the recent U20s and went on the Argentina tour, is scoring for Saracens and looking dangerous? An outside shout, but ridiculous?

Point is, if you explain it and it's clearly based on Rugby, it shouldn't be ridiculous to suggest these players. If you don't explain your opinions on Sarries players then you are going to be susceptible to people thinking the only reason you hold that view is that you're a Saracens fan.

Cascough I am not as biased as some posters think. In reality I don't really differ that much. It's just certain decisions really annoy me. Is it irrational? Yes.

Do I feel sometimes people disagree just to get a reaction? Yes.

I do explain my points.

Is my selection of a potential front five for saturday really that farfetched?

Now I can understand that Jones might want to pick Marler for his alleged superior scrummaging but I don't think the main problem was the scrum.

If you looked at it - my starting XV won't be dramatically different.

by Poorfour Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:51 pm

beshocked, you don't really explain your points. You make assertions and then restate them, usually without additional reasoning or evidence.

I still don't think you've made any sort of case for why picking Nowell, a young, highly regarded prospect but by definition unproven at international level, for his first cap in the 6N was a foolish and risky move, whereas picking Itoje, a young, highly regarded prospect but by definition unproven at international level, for his first cap in the RWC would have been not just acceptable but desirable. Possibly we would have won the France game if Ashton or someone else had been picked instead of Nowell (personally I doubt it); possibly England would have done better in the RWC had Itoje been picked (a bit more likely, but Itoje isn't so much better than the alternatives that he could compensate for the impact of reshaping the scrum or Lancaster's poor substitutions.

The fact that Itoje was part of a Premiership winning team isn't making a case; it's stating a fact, but not one that most people would regard as all that relevant. Playing regularly and well in Premiership and European rugby is important when looking at a player for a first cap; playing a part in winning performances helps. But being part of a trophy winning team does not guarantee that a player would transfer to international rugby. Case in point: Charlie Hodgson was part of the same team. So was Alex Goode. Both are good examples of great club players who have not replicated it on the international stage.

by beshocked Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:12 pm

I do explain my points. If you ignore them I can't help that.

I've explained it many many times. It's become boring even for me.

Nowell whilst undoubtedly a good prospect was not ready to start vs France away in the first game of the 6 nations.

It's the context - it was France away in an inexperienced back three.

You are making the false assumption that Hodgson and Goode are the same as Itoje.

Itoje is a special player and he also has physical attributes which put him above those two.

You didn't need the benefit of hindsight to see this.

As 6,5, 18st player with a big match mentality, the likelihood of him making the step up was always going to be higher.

Hodgson and Goode - both talented playmakers but lacking physicality. Also Hodgson's composure with kicking wasn't good enough.

Look at Itoje's trajectory - he's been on an upwards journey ever since he was young - winning silverware after winning silverware.

Yes of course winning is a team thing but think about it - Itoje did contribute in all those victories - captained U20s, captained LV cup, started in the AP final.

It is showing he's a big match player which he has subsequently shown again and again.

Again I didn't champion Itoje based on hindsight, I always believed Itoje would step up and he's done that.

Itoje is made of sterner stuff than a lot of players. He's got a more intelligent brain in a very physical body.

Nowell didn't take to a duck like water at international level - he was thrown in the deep end and floundered for a bit.

Itoje is also more mature than a lot of youngsters. Rarely has let the occasion get to him.

by No 7&1/2 Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:56 pm

Don't use a definite rule of you shouldn't start players on debut away from home against tough countries as all players and situations are different I guess. Which is pretty much what everyone said. Worth remembering that when Nowell was forced off england were winning but by that time due to a really unlucky broken nose we were down to no wingers which france capitalised on.

Even with 8 subs you can't cover every position with a specialist. That's why players such as day slade Farrell etc are extra valuable.

by No 7&1/2 Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:17 pm

Not juch meat to the bones here but Hatley mentions that brown is still in concussion protocols and sidesteps why Kruis was diappointing.

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/hatley-updates-injuries-and-squad-rotation/#

by Geordie Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:29 pm

So Mike Brown is fit to play? Interesting. EDIT: Just seen your post 7.5

Kruis rested / dropped, but I thought he wasn't at his best anyway.

Wow are we still talking about Itoje and Nowell circumstances...years after the events!
Move on folks.

On Saturday England must up their game 2/3 notches if they want to compete with Oz. They looked pretty good v Wales.

by beshocked Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:51 pm

Geordiefalcon

I agree England must up their game. Going to be a bit harder if England don't pick the best team to win.

Please Jones pick your best team.

http://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/sport/15662957.Neal_Hatley__England_dropped_George_Kruis_because_of____ridiculous_riches____at_lock/

This doesn't fill me was confidence. Looks like Jones is picking a team to lose..... I hope I am wrong but not looking good.

by No 7&1/2 Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:58 pm

Yes. Jones is picking a team to lose....I don't insult people on here so I'll just leave that hanging.

by Scottrf Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:02 pm

So you claim that Kruis was poor and should be dropped then when he drops him he's picking a team to lose?

by beshocked Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:10 pm

scottrf if the front five is Marler,Hartley,Cole,Launchbury,Lawes then yes.

Front five needs strengthening not weakening.

If you take out Kruis you put Itoje in.

I've talked about the importance of the front five - Jones needs to get his selection spot on.

I've heard worrying reports that Ford will be dropped too.

Jonny May needs to be proven to be fully fit, no point having a crocked winger in the team.

by No 7&1/2 Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:16 pm

Jeez I'm a huge fan of Launchbury but I'm not sure picking any duo of our locks could be considered putting out a particular weakened lineup and not one picked to lose. Then we have a front 3 that's consistently been picked in jones tenure when available. Has he lost one game?

by **Rugby Fan** Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:39 pm

England seem to have an inordinately large number of players over the last ten years, who see large fluctuations in form. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem so long ago that we just discovered how essential George Kruis had become. Now, it seems, we (meaning supporters) aren't so sure.

Clearly, form can fluctuate, and players get injured but there are plenty of international players who are automatic first picks for their respective sides over several seasons, and I haven't felt that about England for a long time.

by Poorfour Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:39 pm

beshocked wrote:I do explain my points. If you ignore them I can't help that.

I've explained it many many times. It's become boring even for me.

Nowell whilst undoubtedly a good prospect was not ready to start vs France away in the first game of the 6 nations.

Your opinion, stated as fact.

It's the context - it was France away in an inexperienced back three.

Partial explanation. But the RWC was the RWC, and in a pack that had been radically reshaped physically and was clearly struggling to cope.

You are making the false assumption that Hodgson and Goode are the same as Itoje.

No I am not. Please don't presume to tell me what I am and am not thinking, especially when it's the opposite of what I am actually thinking.

The whole point of that comparison is that you've repeatedly said that one reason Itoje should have been picked was that he was in a Premiership winning team. Logically, that argument should extend to other players in the same team. I picked a couple of examples to show that being in a title-winning team doesn't automatically make a player good enough at international level.

Itoje is a special player and he also has physical attributes which put him above those two.

You didn't need the benefit of hindsight to see this.

That's not what is at issue. No one ever doubted that Itoje was a future star. What is at issue is whether choosing not to give a player - however special - a debut at an RWC is a reasonable decision.

As 6,5, 18st player with a big match mentality, the likelihood of him making the step up was always going to be higher.

Hodgson and Goode - both talented playmakers but lacking physicality. Also Hodgson's composure with kicking wasn't good enough.

There are plenty of 6'5", 18 stone locks with apparent big game mentality who didn't make it as internationals.

And there are smaller, less physical players who did. A large part of rugby's appeal is that there's room in it for players of all shapes and sizes.

Hodgson was seen for years as the obvious successor to Wilkinson. Stuart Barnes still drools over Goode's skills. Neither has been accused of a lack of physicality for their position, though each are a little in the shadow of a more physically imposing contemporary. Both of them have demonstrable big match temperament at club level. Neither of them could quite translate it to the next level. There was no guarantee in advance that they would.

Look at Itoje's trajectory - he's been on an upwards journey ever since he was young - winning silverware after winning silverware.

Yes of course winning is a team thing but think about it - Itoje did contribute in all those victories - captained U20s, captained LV cup, started in the AP final.

It is showing he's a big match player which he has subsequently shown again and again.

Yes, Itoje did well as a junior and moved into senior rugby smoothly. That was still no guarantee that he would make the step up to international level. Jack Clifford had a very similar trajectory the year before Itoje, and his second half performance in the 2013(?) JRWC Final was the closest I have seen on a rugby field to a player winning a game single handed - it's well worth a look. And yet (partly through injury), he's yet to bring that ability to senior International level. But this was a player about whim Conor O'Shea said "If he stays fit, he will captain England one day." Nothing is guaranteed.

Again I didn't champion Itoje based on hindsight, I always believed Itoje would step up and he's done that.

No-one is saying you didn't. We are just saying it was not a foregone conclusion, and that it was reasonable not to find that out at a Rugby World Cup.

Itoje is made of sterner stuff than a lot of players. He's got a more intelligent brain in a very physical body.

Very poetic. Until he'd actually played and performed at international level, that was just an unverified opinion, though.

Nowell didn't take to a duck like water at international level - he was thrown in the deep end and floundered for a bit.

Your opinion, presented as fact. Most observers think that Nowell had a very good start to his career, and his repeated selection when fit bears that out.

Itoje is also more mature than a lot of youngsters. Rarely has let the occasion get to him.

Yes, but nobody knew for certain how he would take to full international rugby before he was tried. And if he had needed time to adapt, then at an RWC is the worst possible place to find that out. You can't change the squad from one game to the next: you can only drop someone if they are injured.

Every player's debut is a risk. Some really special players make the step up easily, but plenty of others, apparently equally special, don't and there appears to be no reliable predictor of who will and who won't.

If a 6N away game is a bad place to find out (and wasn't the situation of Kruis's first cap very similar - an away 6N game in Cardiff? Was that a stupid decision?), then an RWC squad is worse, however talented the player.

To be honest, I very rarely do more than skim your posts. They are usually long collections of single sentences answering multiple different posts. Both the formatting and content are hard to read and they rarely construct any kind of argument or introduce new factual information. You rarely if ever concede that anyone else might have a point, or show any sign of actually wanting to discuss rather than just bludgeon people into submission by repeating your points.

I say this because it seems you're surprised that your posts don't get through many people's mental noise filters. If you want people to pay more attention, you might want to change your approach.

But not all change is good. It was novel in one of your posts above when you started insulting 7.5 (who I find to be one of the more knowledgeable and reasoned posters on here). Novel, but not very fair or polite.

by Scottrf Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:43 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:Clearly, form can fluctuate, and players get injured but there are plenty of international players who are automatic first picks for their respective sides over several seasons, and I haven't felt that about England for a long time.

You're forgetting the deity and the national treasure at 2 and 15.

by beshocked Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:15 pm

Poorfour well it's pretty factual that 2 Nowell mistakes contributed to France scoring their first 2 tries.

The evidence can be found. Ignore the evidence if you want - doesn't mean you are right.

If the pack is clearly struggling to cope, why not try and re-energise it?

Well my point was that Itoje had the experience of winning big matches.

If you can make a case for Burgess, you can make a case for pretty much anyone....

There were world cup warm up games too.

Like who?

True no guarantee but as I said Itoje showed that he's different. Different to Clifford too.

Clifford didn't lead his team to LV Cup victory or win the AP, or account himself well in a tough match against Clermont away...

Some prospects look good at the time but fall away. Itoje is special.

I agree it's not a foregone conclusion but it was less risky than Burgess.

Unverified at the time but proven to be true.

Nowell made 2 errors which contributed to France's first two tries. He floundered.

Lancaster dropped Nowell in the RWC, perhaps harshly actually I'd add.

Yes but then again you could see that it was likely he'd do well.

Your whole argument is we didn't know, how he would do but my point is I basically predicted Itoje would do well.

Kruis is a good player but he's not had the same meteoric rise to Itoje. Itoje has shown he's different.

That last sentence cracked me up - no 7 & 1/2 is one of the most frustating posters on here.

You say I have mental noise filters but I get frustated simply because facts are ignored.

No 7 & 1/2 is one of the worst offenders, because he/she ignores facts and doesn't apologise.

He/she got it horribly wrong about the amount of carries Hughes made but instead of holding their hands up and saying he/she was wrong - just ignored the facts.

It was factual that Nowell contributed to France's first two tries but it's ignored. I've said before that it wasn't solely his fault but to completely ignore his mistakes - well that's frustating.

Instead you use deflection by blaming Goode instead. Goode can be argued as at fault too but it's just used as a way to excuse Nowell.

I did admit I was wrong when looking at the stats of the England-Argentina game - Lawes put in a much better shift than I thought.

To be frank I don't care about being polite to certain snipy posters who just like to wind me up and put in sly digs - that's why I've put 2 of them on ignore.

no 7 & 1/2 has said they agree with me but I've seen no proof of this as they continuously act as if they disagree with everything I say.

I am up for someone disagreeing with me if they put in a reasonable argument.

no 7 & 1/2 rarely puts in a reasonable argument.

I guess you also approve of posters having cheap shots at a player's weight despite him probably being to outpace most people on here. Probably in better shape.

by BamBam Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:17 pm

Did I really get put on ignore for my thin ice comment Laugh

(Can someone quote this so he sees it, thanks)

by SecretFly Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:22 pm

BamBam wrote:Did I really get put on ignore for my thin ice comment

(Can someone quote this so he sees it, thanks)

by No 7&1/2 Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:23 pm

Thanks poor four.

Again just want to say my point of vunipola and hugs in the argentina game was they didn't carry enough in the tight. Vunipola playing too much as first or 2nd receiver and Hughes too far out.

He by the way. As I suggest 99.9% of posters on here are.

by SecretFly Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:25 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thanks poor four.

Again just want to say my point of vunipola and hugs in the argentina game was they didn't carry enough in the tight. Vunipola playing too much as first or 2nd receiver and Hughes too far out.

???

Are you having trouble with your keyboard, 7&1/2? Rugby is not a place for Weinsteinisms....

by BamBam Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:26 pm

SecretFly wrote:
BamBam wrote:Did I really get put on ignore for my thin ice comment

(Can someone quote this so he sees it, thanks)

Much obliged Hug

by No 7&1/2 Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:38 pm

Fat thumbs fly. Not sure if that helps.

by Poorfour Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:57 pm

beshocked, your post is unreadable in that format.

by Sponsored content