RugbyRebels

Interesting that of the 26 retained, Alex Goode is one of them....

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:
Lineout aside, I would be delighted by that. Absolutely delighted.

What both Banquo and Puja said, plus going in to a grand slam game with a second choice club player (behind an uncapped player) with two caps and uncapped player with two weeks in the EPS.

I'd still back both to at least equal Hartley's average contribution, lineout aside.

edit: Have I missed something? Before this 6N, I could have sworn the majority view here was that Hartley wasn't worth a place in the XV, maybe not the 23. That a deeply average player with more than his fair share of disicpline problems wasn't really worth the candle. Do people now think he's more than deeply average? Do people actually want Hartley in the side? Or is it just nerves about casting in young 'uns for a Grand Slam decider against a comically inept French team?

That's when we thought Youngs and George would be in the 23. At no point didn anyone say LCD and Taylor were ahead of Hartley.

Secondly, a desire to drop Hartley was based on a desire for long term improvement not when playing for a grand slam. At this moment winning a grand slam is a bigger plus to long term improvement than an extra cap for LCD and Taylor.

Banquo wrote:Interesting that of the 26 retained, Alex Goode is one of them....

Bad news for Daly

Mellsblue wrote:


That's when we thought Youngs and George would be in the 23. At no point didn anyone say LCD and Taylor were ahead of Hartley.
.

Apart from, probably, Diggers

though he would suggest Stefler as hooker before Dylan

p/d wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:


That's when we thought Youngs and George would be in the 23. At no point didn anyone say LCD and Taylor were ahead of Hartley.
.

Apart from, probably, Diggers

though he would suggest Stefler as hooker before Dylan

Well that snowballed quickly!

Digby wrote:

p/d wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:


That's when we thought Youngs and George would be in the 23. At no point didn anyone say LCD and Taylor were ahead of Hartley.
.

Apart from, probably, Diggers

though he would suggest Stefler as hooker before Dylan

Well that snowballed quickly!

Probably started around post 17 of this thread

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:
What both Banquo and Puja said, plus going in to a grand slam game with a second choice club player (behind an uncapped player) with two caps and uncapped player with two weeks in the EPS.

I'd still back both to at least equal Hartley's average contribution, lineout aside.

edit: Have I missed something? Before this 6N, I could have sworn the majority view here was that Hartley wasn't worth a place in the XV, maybe not the 23. That a deeply average player with more than his fair share of disicpline problems wasn't really worth the candle. Do people now think he's more than deeply average? Do people actually want Hartley in the side? Or is it just nerves about casting in young 'uns for a Grand Slam decider against a comically inept French team?

That's when we thought Youngs and George would be in the 23. At no point didn anyone say LCD and Taylor were ahead of Hartley.

Secondly, a desire to drop Hartley was based on a desire for long term improvement not when playing for a grand slam. At this moment winning a grand slam is a bigger plus to long term improvement than an extra cap for LCD and Taylor.

George didn't exactly bring more experience than LCD.

How would you rate our chances of winning the Grand Slam with Hartley starting vs. LCD starting?

p/d wrote: Probably started around post 17 of this thread

What can I say, I have as much trust in Hartley as I would a gypsy.

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:
I'd still back both to at least equal Hartley's average contribution, lineout aside.

edit: Have I missed something? Before this 6N, I could have sworn the majority view here was that Hartley wasn't worth a place in the XV, maybe not the 23. That a deeply average player with more than his fair share of disicpline problems wasn't really worth the candle. Do people now think he's more than deeply average? Do people actually want Hartley in the side? Or is it just nerves about casting in young 'uns for a Grand Slam decider against a comically inept French team?

That's when we thought Youngs and George would be in the 23. At no point didn anyone say LCD and Taylor were ahead of Hartley.

Secondly, a desire to drop Hartley was based on a desire for long term improvement not when playing for a grand slam. At this moment winning a grand slam is a bigger plus to long term improvement than an extra cap for LCD and Taylor.

George didn't exactly bring more experience than LCD.

How would you rate our chances of winning the Grand Slam with Hartley starting vs. LCD starting?

I'd disagree with your first assertion but it is subjective. I'd also add that I think George a far superior player regardless of experience.

I'd obviously rate them greater with Hartley starting. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this exchange.

Digby wrote:

p/d wrote: Probably started around post 17 of this thread

What can I say, I have as much trust in Hartley as I would a gypsy.

You've been summonsed to a RR disciplinary hearing. You'd better get baking.

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:
I'd still back both to at least equal Hartley's average contribution, lineout aside.

edit: Have I missed something? Before this 6N, I could have sworn the majority view here was that Hartley wasn't worth a place in the XV, maybe not the 23. That a deeply average player with more than his fair share of disicpline problems wasn't really worth the candle. Do people now think he's more than deeply average? Do people actually want Hartley in the side? Or is it just nerves about casting in young 'uns for a Grand Slam decider against a comically inept French team?

That's when we thought Youngs and George would be in the 23. At no point didn anyone say LCD and Taylor were ahead of Hartley.

Secondly, a desire to drop Hartley was based on a desire for long term improvement not when playing for a grand slam. At this moment winning a grand slam is a bigger plus to long term improvement than an extra cap for LCD and Taylor.

George didn't exactly bring more experience than LCD.

How would you rate our chances of winning the Grand Slam with Hartley starting vs. LCD starting?

I'd rate them better with Hartley. He has more experience and so far this tournament I think he's put in a decent shift (line out has been good) as a player and has stepped up as captain. England have looked assertive. This is a guy used to captaining a side. I don't think there's many else in the side currently that would be able to do that, especially given the added pressure of obtaining the first GS we've had for donkeys (EJ isn't excatly going to hand Robshaw the armband, is he).

Freks wrote:

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:
That's when we thought Youngs and George would be in the 23. At no point didn anyone say LCD and Taylor were ahead of Hartley.

Secondly, a desire to drop Hartley was based on a desire for long term improvement not when playing for a grand slam. At this moment winning a grand slam is a bigger plus to long term improvement than an extra cap for LCD and Taylor.

George didn't exactly bring more experience than LCD.

How would you rate our chances of winning the Grand Slam with Hartley starting vs. LCD starting?

I'd rate them better with Hartley. He has more experience and so far this tournament I think he's put in a decent shift (line out has been good) as a player and has stepped up as captain. England have looked assertive. This is a guy used to captaining a side. I don't think there's many else in the side currently that would be able to do that, especially given the added pressure of obtaining the first GS we've had for donkeys (EJ isn't excatly going to hand Robshaw the armband, is he).

To be fair to Jones he has named Robshaw his choice of standout player so far. No fan of the appointment of Jones but got to credit him for saying the right thing to boost a player's confidence.

Anyway, is it going to be Billy, Owen or Mikey?

p/d wrote:

Freks wrote:

Peat wrote:
George didn't exactly bring more experience than LCD.

How would you rate our chances of winning the Grand Slam with Hartley starting vs. LCD starting?

I'd rate them better with Hartley. He has more experience and so far this tournament I think he's put in a decent shift (line out has been good) as a player and has stepped up as captain. England have looked assertive. This is a guy used to captaining a side. I don't think there's many else in the side currently that would be able to do that, especially given the added pressure of obtaining the first GS we've had for donkeys (EJ isn't excatly going to hand Robshaw the armband, is he).

Anyway, is it going to be Billy, Owen or Mikey?

Has X Factor started already?

p/d wrote:

Freks wrote:
I'd rate them better with Hartley. He has more experience and so far this tournament I think he's put in a decent shift (line out has been good) as a player and has stepped up as captain. England have looked assertive. This is a guy used to captaining a side. I don't think there's many else in the side currently that would be able to do that, especially given the added pressure of obtaining the first GS we've had for donkeys (EJ isn't excatly going to hand Robshaw the armband, is he).

To be fair to Jones he has named Robshaw his choice of standout player so far. No fan of the appointment of Jones but got to credit him for saying the right thing to boost a player's confidence.

Anyway, is it going to be Billy, Owen or Mikey?

I hadn't seen that. Fair play to him then.

I would say EJ will pick Billy, as he seems to worship him. I cannot stomach the thought of Faz. FBs aren't my fave positional pick for captain so would be surprised if Mikey gets it (no offence, Mr B).

Cometh the hour,cometh the sports bra. Billy to be Eddie's choice if Hartley is unfit.

Peat wrote: I'd still back both to at least equal Hartley's average contribution, lineout aside.

edit: Have I missed something? Before this 6N, I could have sworn the majority view here was that Hartley wasn't worth a place in the XV, maybe not the 23. That a deeply average player with more than his fair share of disicpline problems wasn't really worth the candle. Do people now think he's more than deeply average? Do people actually want Hartley in the side? Or is it just nerves about casting in young 'uns for a Grand Slam decider against a comically inept French team?

In fairness to Hartley, he's put in a good shift this tournament and I no longer regard him as an utter liability to the team.

I'd still rather have George, but it'd be a closer battle between a fit Youngs and Hartley on his current form.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Peat wrote: I'd still back both to at least equal Hartley's average contribution, lineout aside.

edit: Have I missed something? Before this 6N, I could have sworn the majority view here was that Hartley wasn't worth a place in the XV, maybe not the 23. That a deeply average player with more than his fair share of disicpline problems wasn't really worth the candle. Do people now think he's more than deeply average? Do people actually want Hartley in the side? Or is it just nerves about casting in young 'uns for a Grand Slam decider against a comically inept French team?

In fairness to Hartley, he's put in a good shift this tournament and I no longer regard him as an utter liability to the team.

I'd still rather have George, but it'd be a closer battle between a fit Youngs and Hartley on his current form.

Puja

The captaincy may be the making of him. The players seem a lot happier and when given the choice they have binned nearly everything from the Burt regime. I was gutted to see the Arnie slogan binned.

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:
That's when we thought Youngs and George would be in the 23. At no point didn anyone say LCD and Taylor were ahead of Hartley.

Secondly, a desire to drop Hartley was based on a desire for long term improvement not when playing for a grand slam. At this moment winning a grand slam is a bigger plus to long term improvement than an extra cap for LCD and Taylor.

George didn't exactly bring more experience than LCD.

How would you rate our chances of winning the Grand Slam with Hartley starting vs. LCD starting?

I'd disagree with your first assertion but it is subjective. I'd also add that I think George a far superior player regardless of experience.

I'd obviously rate them greater with Hartley starting. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this exchange.

How much greater though?

I mean, the fact I keep bringing up the line out obviously means I think our chances would be greater with Hartley starting. Just I think our chances look pretty damn good and substituting Hartley for LCD doesn't weaken us hugely (big glowing question mark over the line out aside).

Puja - Utter liability was always harsh. Set-piece usually solid, work rate usually high, moments of madness usually done for Northampton. Now, utter mediocrity...

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:
Lineout aside, I would be delighted by that. Absolutely delighted.

What both Banquo and Puja said, plus going in to a grand slam game with a second choice club player (behind an uncapped player) with two caps and uncapped player with two weeks in the EPS.

I'd still back both to at least equal Hartley's average contribution, lineout aside.

edit: Have I missed something? Before this 6N, I could have sworn the majority view here was that Hartley wasn't worth a place in the XV, maybe not the 23. That a deeply average player with more than his fair share of disicpline problems wasn't really worth the candle. Do people now think he's more than deeply average? Do people actually want Hartley in the side? Or is it just nerves about casting in young 'uns for a Grand Slam decider against a comically inept French team?

That is correct. Jones has done a master, Svengali-like job in convincing the media and the punters that there is something special about Hartley and his leadership. Total bollocks on both counts. He has looked the average hooker he is, and is no better captain than Robshaw (though Robshaw's play may have improved from losing the responsibility of captaincy). In the 6N overall Hartly would rank as a hooker as no better than fourth behind his Irish, French and Italian counterparts, and quite possibly lower than that. His limitations are overlooked beause the team is winning.

Spiffy wrote:

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:
What both Banquo and Puja said, plus going in to a grand slam game with a second choice club player (behind an uncapped player) with two caps and uncapped player with two weeks in the EPS.

I'd still back both to at least equal Hartley's average contribution, lineout aside.

edit: Have I missed something? Before this 6N, I could have sworn the majority view here was that Hartley wasn't worth a place in the XV, maybe not the 23. That a deeply average player with more than his fair share of disicpline problems wasn't really worth the candle. Do people now think he's more than deeply average? Do people actually want Hartley in the side? Or is it just nerves about casting in young 'uns for a Grand Slam decider against a comically inept French team?

That is correct. Jones has done a master, Svengali-like job in convincing the media and the punters that there is something special about Hartley and his leadership. Total bollocks on both counts. He has looked the average hooker he is, and is no better captain than Robshaw (though Robshaw's play may have improved from losing the responsibility of captaincy). In the 6N overall Hartly would rank as a hooker as no better than fourth behind his Irish, French and Italian counterparts, and quite possibly lower than that. His limitations are overlooked beause the team is winning.

regarding Hartley, I don't think he is a long term fixture as captain or player for England. I will be surprised if he is still around by 6N's 2017 as first choice. I think he was brought in as a replacement for Robshaw with EJ's preference for a forward as captain and nothing else but a temporary position until EJ could find someone else, besides the fecking nugget will do something stupid anyway before long to make that happen. Leopards & spots.

As for France, the Scots showed that side to side ball shuffling wont work against the French defense, which was decent enough to be fair unless the Jock's crashed through with Strauss and the beach-ball with legs (and then they didn't support enough to make it count most of the time) or rely on Taylor skipping through some tackles to open the game up. Whether the lamb flop kebab muncher can start or not at 12, England will need to cut the French line with ball carriers who ever that may be to turn the French inside out and the last 20 against Wales showed with a combo of pace/tempo and skill the England defense could be stretched and turned over easy enough and the French can do that....... sometimes!


Edit: Bearing in mind that Laidlaw was as bad as Ben Youngs at giving shoite ball and making the scots static in attack

England could easily lose the game IMO and badly.. we've managed to do it before

They are now claiming he was just rested.

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:
George didn't exactly bring more experience than LCD.

How would you rate our chances of winning the Grand Slam with Hartley starting vs. LCD starting?

I'd disagree with your first assertion but it is subjective. I'd also add that I think George a far superior player regardless of experience.

I'd obviously rate them greater with Hartley starting. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this exchange.

How much greater though?

I mean, the fact I keep bringing up the line out obviously means I think our chances would be greater with Hartley starting. Just I think our chances look pretty damn good and substituting Hartley for LCD doesn't weaken us hugely (big glowing question mark over the line out aside).

Puja - Utter liability was always harsh. Set-piece usually solid, work rate usually high, moments of madness usually done for Northampton. Now, utter mediocrity...

Enough for our chances of winning to be lesser and, as I've said, a grand slam really should be the priority for both short and long term development.

Lineout is also pretty key for this side at the moment.

......anyone know what's up with Hartley? I've not seen anything that said he is crocked, merely sat out training. Torygraph says he'll play!



(the other factor that wasn't considered above was the likely absence of Marler; so we could be ending the match with a very green international front row should both he and Hartley not be available).

Kind of like Haskell I feel he's been showing a lot more in these last few games. It's a bit late in the day for that but maybe that's just Jones getting what we should have had out of these guys all this time. I still think George just looks right as the longterm option but Hartley isn't the biggest problem at the moment

As I said as soon as T Youngs was left out, it is all about what EJ can get out of the team with Hartley in it. His individual performance as hooker was always going to be secondary to the performance of the pack as a whole, especially in the context of how it had performed at the RWC. Hartley has been an essential part of the team.

He has been the correct short-term selection. How long he stays is up to the other candidates. To take the shirt somebody has to convince EJ that his presence improves the pack overall compared with Hartley. It is never going to be about eye-catching romps in the loose or the occasional dominant scrum. It is going to be about being an integral part of a consistently effective scrum (all the other bits such as solid lineout throwing obviously have to be a given).

One other factor is the inconsistency of referee interpretation at the scrum. Having an experienced hooker as captain able to talk to the referee legitimately is more important than many accept. Hartley is not phased by weird decisions. Younger alternatives may be.