England vs USA on Patriotism Day!

[Raggs]

Hooley did pull out late on but his replacement put in a better performance than I’ve ever seen Hooley provide in the US 15 shirt.
If Umaga is rewarded for that performance with a promotion then..... well, I don’t know, I’ll have a tantrum and stomp my feet.

It's not a reward. It's a chance to actually play in the 10 shirt. And it's against Canada. As I said, this isn't going to decide who's first choice in the autumn.

[Mellsblue]

Hooley did pull out late on but his replacement put in a better performance than I’ve ever seen Hooley provide in the US 15 shirt.
If Umaga is rewarded for that performance with a promotion then..... well, I don’t know, I’ll have a tantrum and stomp my feet.

It's not a reward. It's a chance to actually play in the 10 shirt. And it's against Canada. As I said, this isn't going to decide who's first choice in the autumn.

On his last performance he doesn’t deserve to move from the bench to the starting XV. On a seasons worth of performances Smith deserves to start against Canada and Umaga can count himself lucky he’s even in the squad.
It’s not about who is first choice in the autumn, most likely because it won’t be Smith or Umaga, it’s about who has earned the chance.

[Puja]

It didn't strike me as very comfortable. USA were also missing a few players, whilst introducing a ton of new caps, and had even less time together than most of ours I believe?

USA had a couple of new caps, but they were more of the "we're excited to see this player who's been performing domestically" variety rather than Josh McNally. Their only real absentees were Lasike and McGinty at 12 and 10 - both of whom are significant players for them, but the rest of the XV was their chosen first team. Time together was a major problem though, as can be seen by the complete lack of cohesion in defence.

In what way wasn't the game comfortable though? We never looked like losing and spent the vast majority of the match over 20 points up.

Puja

They had another late pull out just before starting too didn't they? Hooley?

As for comfortableness, it just never felt very controlled to me. Sure we had a comfortable lead, but I'd not have been shocked to ship 14 points at any time. There's other games I've seen where there's only been an 8 point lead, but it never felt like it was going to be lost etc.

I'd forgotten about Hooley, but there's a fairly decent argument to be made that losing him strengthened the team! I suspect he was only named because they were worried about giving Carty a debut at 10 and wanted another 10 to back him up, but in the end Carty had a decent game.

Each to their own - to my mind, the USA didn't look like scoring until we started substituting most of the pack and gave them two free lineout mauls and a chargedown from inadequate blocking. Certainly didn't feel like we were going to ship quick points before that to me - most of the time the USA attacked, we drove them backwards with aggressive defence. But everyone watches a game differently.

Puja

[Puja]

All we’ve learnt about Lawrence in his handful of caps is what his arse cheeks look like.

I'm reliably informed that this is very useful information. Ali was disappointed that they only showed that angle once, and avoided it in all subsequent replays

Gift for the missus:



It's like a male version of Powergirl's boob window.

Puja

[Digby]

Hooley did pull out late on but his replacement put in a better performance than I’ve ever seen Hooley provide in the US 15 shirt.
If Umaga is rewarded for that performance with a promotion then..... well, I don’t know, I’ll have a tantrum and stomp my feet.

It's not a reward. It's a chance to actually play in the 10 shirt. And it's against Canada. As I said, this isn't going to decide who's first choice in the autumn.

On his last performance he doesn’t deserve to move from the bench to the starting XV. On a seasons worth of performances Smith deserves to start against Canada and Umaga can count himself lucky he’s even in the squad.
It’s not about who is first choice in the autumn, most likely because it won’t be Smith or Umaga, it’s about who has earned the chance.

Nobody deserves to start based on the last performance, holding it against people at random seems harsh

[Spiffy]

It didn't strike me as very comfortable. USA were also missing a few players, whilst introducing a ton of new caps, and had even less time together than most of ours I believe?

I thought Genge, Heyes, Underhill, Randall, Smith, Lawrence, Malins and Steward all showed up well according to the expectations of them.

Given this isn't a series, and Smith isn't becoming first choice, I'd like to see Umaga at 10, still with Randall at 9, for the next game.

Yes.They did well. But the game was practically meaningless. These players encounter better teams than the USA every week in their domestic league. Rather than a step up to international rugby, this was more of a step down.

[Mellsblue]

It's not a reward. It's a chance to actually play in the 10 shirt. And it's against Canada. As I said, this isn't going to decide who's first choice in the autumn.

On his last performance he doesn’t deserve to move from the bench to the starting XV. On a seasons worth of performances Smith deserves to start against Canada and Umaga can count himself lucky he’s even in the squad.
It’s not about who is first choice in the autumn, most likely because it won’t be Smith or Umaga, it’s about who has earned the chance.

Nobody deserves to start based on the last performance, holding it against people at random seems harsh

I’m assuming a team will need to be picked. If so, probably best to pick the better players in each position based on the season as a whole and the match v USA. It’s not exactly random.

[FKAS]

It's not a reward. It's a chance to actually play in the 10 shirt. And it's against Canada. As I said, this isn't going to decide who's first choice in the autumn.

On his last performance he doesn’t deserve to move from the bench to the starting XV. On a seasons worth of performances Smith deserves to start against Canada and Umaga can count himself lucky he’s even in the squad.
It’s not about who is first choice in the autumn, most likely because it won’t be Smith or Umaga, it’s about who has earned the chance.

Nobody deserves to start based on the last performance, holding it against people at random seems harsh

We didn't lose. A scratch mish mash of youth, experience and mediocrity won comfortably. Saying nobody deserves to start based on last week's game is being a bit pessimistic.

I'd opt to at best bench Umaga based on his take it or leave it attitude to tackling last weekend. He seemed to have perfected the exaggerated diving tackle that just misses intended target. Eddie may well choose differently but he is keen on defence.

I'm hoping for changes at lock, 8 and the centres.

[Digby]

On his last performance he doesn’t deserve to move from the bench to the starting XV. On a seasons worth of performances Smith deserves to start against Canada and Umaga can count himself lucky he’s even in the squad.
It’s not about who is first choice in the autumn, most likely because it won’t be Smith or Umaga, it’s about who has earned the chance.

Nobody deserves to start based on the last performance, holding it against people at random seems harsh

I’m assuming a team will need to be picked. If so, probably best to pick the better players in each position based on the season as a whole and the match v USA. It’s not exactly random.

Merely noting if basing on last performance, as was noted, there's quite a few players one wouldn't pick again, 23 to be approx. If you wanted to pick over a season that's fine. I'd hope Eddie is picking backed on potential as he sees it, and that could be anyone from the current group tbh.

I'd be inclined to try and keep as many involved again to try and get some cohesion. I'm not especially fussed on Umaga Vs Smith, I'd slightly back Umaga but Smith had the winning finish to the season so why take the grief for not picking Smith almost, and now he has picked Smith I'd stick with him for the 2nd of the matches sponsored by Richard Osman

[Puja]

Nobody deserves to start based on the last performance, holding it against people at random seems harsh

I’m assuming a team will need to be picked. If so, probably best to pick the better players in each position based on the season as a whole and the match v USA. It’s not exactly random.

Merely noting if basing on last performance, as was noted, there's quite a few players one wouldn't pick again, 23 to be approx. If you wanted to pick over a season that's fine. I'd hope Eddie is picking backed on potential as he sees it, and that could be anyone from the current group tbh.

I'd be inclined to try and keep as many involved again to try and get some cohesion. I'm not especially fussed on Umaga Vs Smith, I'd slightly back Umaga but Smith had the winning finish to the season so why take the grief for not picking Smith almost, and now he has picked Smith I'd stick with him for the 2nd of the matches sponsored by Richard Osman

More than a bit harsh. Genge and Heyes did well, both in scrums and in defence and hard carries (Genge's early cloghands notwithstanding), Underhill led the defence exceptionally, both Malins and Lawrence looked good before going off (I remember one gorgeous pass from Lawrence when he was in the centre), Cokanasiga looked like he'd regained his confidence going forwards, and Steward was commanding at the back and created two tries in attack.

Was the team performance great? No. But those 7 that I mentioned were good IMO - at the very least they were certainly nowhere near even close to saying you wouldn't pick them again based on that performance.

Puja

[Digby]

See that's the thing, you can't if judging on a game ignore things like the handling errors. A number of players had good moments, but when you're not consistent and also throw in some really quite poor errors along with the good stuff it's not a good performance, and if it's not a good performance you're not laying a strong claim to the jersey

I'm also not saying I wouldn't pick them again, I'm saying I would. I merely noted if the last performance is to be held against one player, Umaga, it really should be held against the lot

[Mellsblue]

It was held against Umaga as he was worse, IMO, than the bloke he would replace. Struggling to see why it’s so difficult.

[Puja]

See that's the thing, you can't if judging on a game ignore things like the handling errors. A number of players had good moments, but when you're not consistent and also throw in some really quite poor errors along with the good stuff it's not a good performance, and if it's not a good performance you're not laying a strong claim to the jersey

I'm also not saying I wouldn't pick them again, I'm saying I would. I merely noted if the last performance is to be held against one player, Umaga, it really should be held against the lot

One handling error is enough to doom a performance in your eyes? Tough judge!

The difference also is that, while those 7 had good games and probably another 7 had variable with some good, some bad (including Smith and Randall in that), Umaga's was more bad than good. He was playing out of position, but he performed worse than the player you'd have him replace - it's not really unfairly "holding a game against him" to note that he did nothing to suggest he'd improve on Smith.

Puja

[FKAS]

I’m assuming a team will need to be picked. If so, probably best to pick the better players in each position based on the season as a whole and the match v USA. It’s not exactly random.

Merely noting if basing on last performance, as was noted, there's quite a few players one wouldn't pick again, 23 to be approx. If you wanted to pick over a season that's fine. I'd hope Eddie is picking backed on potential as he sees it, and that could be anyone from the current group tbh.

I'd be inclined to try and keep as many involved again to try and get some cohesion. I'm not especially fussed on Umaga Vs Smith, I'd slightly back Umaga but Smith had the winning finish to the season so why take the grief for not picking Smith almost, and now he has picked Smith I'd stick with him for the 2nd of the matches sponsored by Richard Osman

More than a bit harsh. Genge and Heyes did well, both in scrums and in defence and hard carries (Genge's early cloghands notwithstanding), Underhill led the defence exceptionally, both Malins and Lawrence looked good before going off (I remember one gorgeous pass from Lawrence when he was in the centre), Cokanasiga looked like he'd regained his confidence going forwards, and Steward was commanding at the back and created two tries in attack.

Was the team performance great? No. But those 7 that I mentioned were good IMO - at the very least they were certainly nowhere near even close to saying you wouldn't pick them again based on that performance.

Puja

When your tighthead has dominated the scrums and is the top tackler at the point he's subbed I agree that's an impressive debut. Some of those hits were big double hits that took momentum away from the USA. I thought Heyes was putting his hand up and saying I'm your new third choice tighthead. Needs to increase the number of carries because he only made one carry of note when he went straight over the top of the USA player and the commentator somehow mistook him for Langdon. If he's going to go from third to second choice he need more carries. Stuart isn't an unobtainable distance away.

Sinckler is currently a different level, might take another season or two of regular rugby before Heyes can reach that level.

[Puja]

Merely noting if basing on last performance, as was noted, there's quite a few players one wouldn't pick again, 23 to be approx. If you wanted to pick over a season that's fine. I'd hope Eddie is picking backed on potential as he sees it, and that could be anyone from the current group tbh.

I'd be inclined to try and keep as many involved again to try and get some cohesion. I'm not especially fussed on Umaga Vs Smith, I'd slightly back Umaga but Smith had the winning finish to the season so why take the grief for not picking Smith almost, and now he has picked Smith I'd stick with him for the 2nd of the matches sponsored by Richard Osman

More than a bit harsh. Genge and Heyes did well, both in scrums and in defence and hard carries (Genge's early cloghands notwithstanding), Underhill led the defence exceptionally, both Malins and Lawrence looked good before going off (I remember one gorgeous pass from Lawrence when he was in the centre), Cokanasiga looked like he'd regained his confidence going forwards, and Steward was commanding at the back and created two tries in attack.

Was the team performance great? No. But those 7 that I mentioned were good IMO - at the very least they were certainly nowhere near even close to saying you wouldn't pick them again based on that performance.

Puja

When your tighthead has dominated the scrums and is the top tackler at the point he's subbed I agree that's an impressive debut. Some of those hits were big double hits that took momentum away from the USA. I thought Heyes was putting his hand up and saying I'm your new third choice tighthead. Needs to increase the number of carries because he only made one carry of note when he went straight over the top of the USA player and the commentator somehow mistook him for Langdon. If he's going to go from third to second choice he need more carries. Stuart isn't an unobtainable distance away.

Sinckler is currently a different level, might take another season or two of regular rugby before Heyes can reach that level.

I'd actually say there's a decent argument Stuart's ahead of Sinckler - Stuart's had a superb last year and Sinckler has been off the boil since moving to Bristol. Mind, he picked up significantly after not making the Lions, so maybe that was the kick up the backside he needed.

Heyes has got so much potential though. Ainu'u is not a bad prop - he plays for Toulouse! - and Heyes was dominating him. He's got a perfect mentor to learn from in Cole and I'd say another couple of years and he'll be right up there.

Puja

[FKAS]

More than a bit harsh. Genge and Heyes did well, both in scrums and in defence and hard carries (Genge's early cloghands notwithstanding), Underhill led the defence exceptionally, both Malins and Lawrence looked good before going off (I remember one gorgeous pass from Lawrence when he was in the centre), Cokanasiga looked like he'd regained his confidence going forwards, and Steward was commanding at the back and created two tries in attack.

Was the team performance great? No. But those 7 that I mentioned were good IMO - at the very least they were certainly nowhere near even close to saying you wouldn't pick them again based on that performance.

Puja

When your tighthead has dominated the scrums and is the top tackler at the point he's subbed I agree that's an impressive debut. Some of those hits were big double hits that took momentum away from the USA. I thought Heyes was putting his hand up and saying I'm your new third choice tighthead. Needs to increase the number of carries because he only made one carry of note when he went straight over the top of the USA player and the commentator somehow mistook him for Langdon. If he's going to go from third to second choice he need more carries. Stuart isn't an unobtainable distance away.

Sinckler is currently a different level, might take another season or two of regular rugby before Heyes can reach that level.

I'd actually say there's a decent argument Stuart's ahead of Sinckler - Stuart's had a superb last year and Sinckler has been off the boil since moving to Bristol. Mind, he picked up significantly after not making the Lions, so maybe that was the kick up the backside he needed.

Heyes has got so much potential though. Ainu'u is not a bad prop - he plays for Toulouse! - and Heyes was dominating him. He's got a perfect mentor to learn from in Cole and I'd say another couple of years and he'll be right up there.

Puja

After the resumption last year Stuart looked unplayable. His carrying game really came on and that Bath front row was doing really well at scrum time. Post 6N this year I thought he was poor. Genge stuffed him in the Prem and a French ref would have had him in the bin after conceding two freekicks and four penalties at the scrum. Wasn't the last time he seemed to struggle either. Obano and Dunn picking up bans may have not helped his form but he wasn't playing his best.

Sort of the opposite to Sinckler. Sinckler had it tough going to Bristol who play a very different brand of rugby to everybody else under Lam. Ok Quins are probably the closest in style otherwise but a mixture of lots of England game time and that new pretty unique system took some adjusting to.

Cole is the ideal mentor for Heyes, big work rate and how to dismantle looseheads in the scrum. Heyes just needs to offer more carrying than Big Dan did in his prime as the game has moved on. Plus if he's going to force Dan out of the 3 shirt at Tigers he's going to have to be good and consistently so.

[Raggs]

Dan Cole and big workrate?

[FKAS]

Dan Cole and big workrate?

It's one of the reasons he played so often for Eddie. He's good at making his tackle and then getting back into the defensive line quickly (or within the 3 seconds or whatever it is Eddie bangs on about). Good at slowing the ball down and not being sucked into the ruck as a result as well. Doesn't win the penalties he used to in his prime and he's obviously slowing down but he does work hard. Hits a lot of rucks in a selfless job for the team. It's the unflashy stuff. Not at a level where he'll get back into international rugby especially with his lack of a notable carrying game.

He was mentored by Julian White who once described his perfect game as hitting thirty rucks and not touching the ball so the love of graft was instilled early.

[Puja]

Dan Cole and big workrate?

You forget how he was in his youth - he was the tighthead who did the fetching at the breakdown and (with Launchbury) covered the fact that we didn't have a 7 for about 6 years. Even as he grew older and slower and more injured, he still offered himself constantly for carries and tackles. You can call him slow and lacking mobility as he got older, but I don't think you could ever accuse him of not working hard.

He was mentored by Julian White who once described his perfect game as hitting thirty rucks and not touching the ball so the love of graft was instilled early.

If there's one thing that Leicester are good at in youth development (and, across the last decade, there probably has been literally one thing), it's developing a chain of tightheads to pass the knowledge down through. From White to Castro to Cole to Heyes, each passing on their knowledge of the dark arts and being there just long enough for the youngster to need to force their way past before fading into the 18 jersey and providing support and backup to the young'un.

Puja

[Raggs]

I remember how he was in his prime.

The Eddie years though? Remember, I'm the guy who was sad enough to do ruck marks. Cole was nothing like his prime, ruck inspector general. Lowest workrate on the pitch. I know Sinckler is a bit of a freak, but i think even Williams workrate was better by memory.

I will say he seemed to have a bit of a revival in the last season or so at club level at least.

[Puja]

I remember how he was in his prime.

The Eddie years though? Remember, I'm the guy who was sad enough to do ruck marks. Cole was nothing like his prime, ruck inspector general. Lowest workrate on the pitch. I know Sinckler is a bit of a freak, but i think even Williams workrate was better by memory.

I will say he seemed to have a bit of a revival in the last season or so at club level at least.

Good point, well made!

He did have a few years of going from injury to injury and being utterly flogged by Leicester and England in between them, as neither had a decent backup and so played him 80 minutes every week. Did that coincide with the period you're describing?

Puja

[Raggs]

He went down hill with Lancaster, but not terribly. With Eddie I don't believe he was overplayed in the same way for England (memory might be wrong), but he was nowhere near as effective during the Eddie era. I used to be quite annoyed when I saw him picked (and lost a huge amount of confidence in the 2019 world cup when he came on so early). Whilst he's probably too old now, the last games I've seen him in for Tigers, he did seem a lot more active and making himself available.

[Puja]

He went down hill with Lancaster, but not terribly. With Eddie I don't believe he was overplayed in the same way for England (memory might be wrong), but he was nowhere near as effective during the Eddie era. I used to be quite annoyed when I saw him picked (and lost a huge amount of confidence in the 2019 world cup when he came on so early). Whilst he's probably too old now, the last games I've seen him in for Tigers, he did seem a lot more active and making himself available.

Just trying to grind my memory into working. Sinckler came into the England team late 2016 (and saw about 20 minutes combined across the three AIs) - who did we have as our number 18 before him? And did they get any game time?

Puja

[Raggs]

He went down hill with Lancaster, but not terribly. With Eddie I don't believe he was overplayed in the same way for England (memory might be wrong), but he was nowhere near as effective during the Eddie era. I used to be quite annoyed when I saw him picked (and lost a huge amount of confidence in the 2019 world cup when he came on so early). Whilst he's probably too old now, the last games I've seen him in for Tigers, he did seem a lot more active and making himself available.

Just trying to grind my memory into working. Sinckler came into the England team late 2016 (and saw about 20 minutes combined across the three AIs) - who did we have as our number 18 before him? And did they get any game time?

Puja

Without looking up the games I believe Paul Hill, Harry Williams, Sinckler and maybe someone else saw gametime?

[Beasties]

Yup, Heyes did have a good game. He's coming on nicely if still a bit off Stuart and Sinck territory. He's slowly winning me round to the point I might have to let go of being the only one on here that thinks Williams is easily our third choice, in spite of general apathy towards him. We're in a good place TH-wise with the young lad at Sale just getting on the conveyor belt too.