Mellsblue wrote:I may be misremembering but.......wasn’t Armitage being ignored before the move to France? Once there, why move back for less money and worse weather just on the proviso that Eng might pick you. Given he was competing with the capt and the teacher’s pet for a starting jersey, I’m not sure I blame him for staying en France.
He wasn't in the England team when he left, but then he wasn't that good back then. Certainly not anywhere near demanding a place in the squad. He only kicked on in France.
I have no problem with him moving to France or even stay in France. I have problems with him repeatedly choosing to stay in France and turn down Prem offers, while still complaining about not being selected for England. He knew the rules and whining about them didn't help.
Banquo wrote:
Puja wrote:
Banquo wrote:
What would you classify them as?
Containing a team that's been European Champions for 3 out of the last 4 years surely counts for something and, while we have our gripes and had a shite end to the 6N, England are 4th in the world and are genuine competitors for the RWC.
I'd prefer both were better, but that's not "okay at best".
Puja wrote:
Containing a team that's been European Champions for 3 out of the last 4 years surely counts for something and, while we have our gripes and had a shite end to the 6N, England are 4th in the world and are genuine competitors for the RWC.
I'd prefer both were better, but that's not "okay at best".
Puja
That answer is Ok, at best.
How much worse would it be if a handful of EPS players were playing abroad?
Are you just bored / playing devil's advocate here or is this a serious question?
Crane was worth more than his brace I feel.
6N Winter fare would have been better for him.
Lund never really had a run but he was top-drawer consistently for several seasons.
Mellsblue wrote:I may be misremembering but.......wasn’t Armitage being ignored before the move to France? Once there, why move back for less money and worse weather just on the proviso that Eng might pick you. Given he was competing with the capt and the teacher’s pet for a starting jersey, I’m not sure I blame him for staying en France.
He wasn't in the England team when he left, but then he wasn't that good back then. Certainly not anywhere near demanding a place in the squad. He only kicked on in France.
I have no problem with him moving to France or even stay in France. I have problems with him repeatedly choosing to stay in France and turn down Prem offers, while still complaining about not being selected for England. He knew the rules and whining about them didn't help.
Banquo wrote:
Puja wrote:
Containing a team that's been European Champions for 3 out of the last 4 years surely counts for something and, while we have our gripes and had a shite end to the 6N, England are 4th in the world and are genuine competitors for the RWC.
I'd prefer both were better, but that's not "okay at best".
Mellsblue wrote:I may be misremembering but.......wasn’t Armitage being ignored before the move to France? Once there, why move back for less money and worse weather just on the proviso that Eng might pick you. Given he was competing with the capt and the teacher’s pet for a starting jersey, I’m not sure I blame him for staying en France.
One of us is mis-remembering - or possibly both at once.
To my recollection he'd had a couple of auditions, didn't look particularly comfortable (not bad, just... not comfortable) went back to LIrish and lost form. Wasn't in consieration for England because he wasn't close to playing well enough to be in consideration; moved to France, and moved to #8; where he thrived. I don't recall him being particularly in challenge with Robshaw for an England shirt as he played a different position, and I'm pretty sure if he'd been available he'd have been alongside Robshaw, be that at 8 or 7 (where Robshaw played to make room for reluctant volunteer Tom Wood).
Mellsblue wrote:I may be misremembering but.......wasn’t Armitage being ignored before the move to France? Once there, why move back for less money and worse weather just on the proviso that Eng might pick you. Given he was competing with the capt and the teacher’s pet for a starting jersey, I’m not sure I blame him for staying en France.
One of us is mis-remembering - or possibly both at once.
To my recollection he'd had a couple of auditions, didn't look particularly comfortable (not bad, just... not comfortable) went back to LIrish and lost form. Wasn't in consieration for England because he wasn't close to playing well enough to be in consideration; moved to France, and moved to #8; where he thrived. I don't recall him being particularly in challenge with Robshaw for an England shirt as he played a different position, and I'm pretty sure if he'd been available he'd have been alongside Robshaw, be that at 8 or 7 (where Robshaw played to make room for reluctant volunteer Tom Wood).
Jonno didn't seem to like the cut of his jib, he wasn't given much of a run at all. He was comfortably the best 'conventional' openside available at the time
Banquo wrote:Tom Croft wasn't very good at openside, and it would have negated his strengths. He was deployed badly at 6 by both Tigers and England, Gatland got it right.
I always thought Croft reminded me of the type of player France pick at 7 - usually someone good in the line out but who could also run and support the backs e.g. Cabannes, Magne, Nyanga, Camara, Ituria etc. not exactly an open side per se but certainly not an out and out blindside either.
Digby wrote:Don't France normally pick a 6 at 7, unless you're compensating for that?
Looking at French flanker partnerships, they invariably play a left and right system , as opposed to openside and blindside (Pre match TV team line ups please note) with the player in the 6 shirt, being the smaller, stockier player and appearing to play a more tightish role doing fetching work e.g Betsen, Dusautoir and most recently Wenceslas Servat whereas the player in the 7 shirt , tends to be the taller, rangier player of the two who plays a bit wider and tends to support the backs a bit more in the wider channels - imo this sort of system would have played to Croft’s strengths rather than England’s style which imo needs a more ‘orthodox’ 6 and 7 balance.
Wenceslas Lauret (I assume that’s who you mean?) is definitely more of the ‘rangier’ type of flanker and is neither short or stocky. Dusautoir and Betsen are much better examples.
TBH, having watched a lot of French flank pairings over the years, it is normally a left a right system but the roles and numbers are less rigid.
Right now, Iturria (a converted lock) is playing in the 7 shirt but performing the role we’d normally associate with a blindside flanker. Although, Gourdon, who is definitely more of an openside has typically played in the 7 shirt too so it’s not that consistent.
Banquo wrote:Tom Croft wasn't very good at openside, and it would have negated his strengths. He was deployed badly at 6 by both Tigers and England, Gatland got it right.
I always thought Croft reminded me of the type of player France pick at 7 - usually someone good in the line out but who could also run and support the backs e.g. Cabannes, Magne, Nyanga, Camara, Ituria etc. not exactly an open side per se but certainly not an out and out blindside either.
Digby wrote:Don't France normally pick a 6 at 7, unless you're compensating for that?
Looking at French flanker partnerships, they invariably play a left and right system , as opposed to openside and blindside (Pre match TV team line ups please note) with the player in the 6 shirt, being the smaller, stockier player and appearing to play a more tightish role doing fetching work e.g Betsen, Dusautoir and most recently Wenceslas Servat whereas the player in the 7 shirt , tends to be the taller, rangier player of the two who plays a bit wider and tends to support the backs a bit more in the wider channels - imo this sort of system would have played to Croft’s strengths rather than England’s style which imo needs a more ‘orthodox’ 6 and 7 balance.
My view was quite simple, Croft was never going to make a good fist internationally of a 'traditional' openside. As ever, balance in the backrow is key.
Scrumhead wrote:Wenceslas Lauret (I assume that’s who you mean?) is definitely more of the ‘rangier’ type of flanker and is neither short or stocky. Dusautoir and Betsen are much better examples..
Sorry I did indeed mean Lauret - but his stats are 6’2” 16 stone so stocky rather than rangy (in fact very typical test openside size these days).
Envious of France who have Camara and Marcalou to pick from both 6’5” 17 stone and jet propelled!
Mellsblue wrote:I may be misremembering but.......wasn’t Armitage being ignored before the move to France? Once there, why move back for less money and worse weather just on the proviso that Eng might pick you. Given he was competing with the capt and the teacher’s pet for a starting jersey, I’m not sure I blame him for staying en France.
One of us is mis-remembering - or possibly both at once.
To my recollection he'd had a couple of auditions, didn't look particularly comfortable (not bad, just... not comfortable) went back to LIrish and lost form. Wasn't in consieration for England because he wasn't close to playing well enough to be in consideration; moved to France, and moved to #8; where he thrived. I don't recall him being particularly in challenge with Robshaw for an England shirt as he played a different position, and I'm pretty sure if he'd been available he'd have been alongside Robshaw, be that at 8 or 7 (where Robshaw played to make room for reluctant volunteer Tom Wood).
Jonno didn't seem to like the cut of his jib, he wasn't given much of a run at all. He was comfortably the best 'conventional' openside available at the time
My recollection is that Armitage was definitley worth a call up - playing really well in the premership.
The first time he played for England Mrs Richy spluttered out her crisps and asked "who is that little fat bloke?"
He then went on to cough the ball up in contact a couple of times and just looked not to the manor born.
I don't remember much from his second cap - so cant have set the world alight.
I also do not think he had a cat in hell's chance of playing at 8 for England at sub 6 foot. It certainly wouldn't have got off the drawing board then.
Galfon wrote:Crane was worth more than his brace I feel.
6N Winter fare would have been better for him.
Lund never really had a run but he was top-drawer consistently for several seasons.
I watched Crane (on tv) when he played in the England (under 20's?), that I think won the world cup?......anyway.
I was impressed as I think he did pack down at 8 but in phase play they had him carrying dynamically a little further out......say between the 12 and 13 channel and he did serious damage, looked fast, skillful and the real deal.
Tigers seemed to want him doing the claustrophobic grunt work and he didn't set the world so alight there.
Which Tyler wrote:
One of us is mis-remembering - or possibly both at once.
To my recollection he'd had a couple of auditions, didn't look particularly comfortable (not bad, just... not comfortable) went back to LIrish and lost form. Wasn't in consieration for England because he wasn't close to playing well enough to be in consideration; moved to France, and moved to #8; where he thrived. I don't recall him being particularly in challenge with Robshaw for an England shirt as he played a different position, and I'm pretty sure if he'd been available he'd have been alongside Robshaw, be that at 8 or 7 (where Robshaw played to make room for reluctant volunteer Tom Wood).
Jonno didn't seem to like the cut of his jib, he wasn't given much of a run at all. He was comfortably the best 'conventional' openside available at the time
My recollection is that Armitage was definitley worth a call up - playing really well in the premership.
The first time he played for England Mrs Richy spluttered out her crisps and asked "who is that little fat bloke?"
He then went on to cough the ball up in contact a couple of times and just looked not to the manor born.
I don't remember much from his second cap - so cant have set the world alight.
I also do not think he had a cat in hell's chance of playing at 8 for England at sub 6 foot. It certainly wouldn't have got off the drawing board then.
Those matches were notable for Robshaw's insane workrate making a first appearance on the international stage. He was mind bogglingly everywhere, but unfortunately not that effective, mainly due to the lack of balance in the pack at the time.
Stom wrote:
Those matches were notable for Robshaw's insane workrate making a first appearance on the international stage. He was mind bogglingly everywhere, but unfortunately not that effective, mainly due to the lack of balance in the pack at the time.
I recall Robshaw’s first appearance was at 6 and I can’t help feeling that if he’d stayed in this role and Tom Wood had been picked at open side (rather than becoming a bit of a Tom Croft tribute band at 6) this flank combination might have fared better during Burt era? Always thought Wood was more of a 7 than 6 for sure.
I’ll chuck Django (James Forester) into that mix too, awesome 8, had bags of pace and tore Saints to pieces in his last final at Twickenham. A real shame his playing career was cut short.
Stom wrote:
Those matches were notable for Robshaw's insane workrate making a first appearance on the international stage. He was mind bogglingly everywhere, but unfortunately not that effective, mainly due to the lack of balance in the pack at the time.
I recall Robshaw’s first appearance was at 6 and I can’t help feeling that if he’d stayed in this role and Tom Wood had been picked at open side (rather than becoming a bit of a Tom Croft tribute band at 6) this flank combination might have fared better during Burt era? Always thought Wood was more of a 7 than 6 for sure.
Again, other than first phase off the scrum, it doesn't really matter who wears 6 or 7, it's the job they're assigned.
Robshaw and Wood is not a good combo, as they both lack the same skills: neither are link players, Robshaw has become good on the floor, but has never been a world beater there, neither have high end pace, neither are strong carriers, and neither make "bone crunching tackles.
Gloskarlos wrote:I’ll chuck Django (James Forester) into that mix too, awesome 8, had bags of pace and tore Saints to pieces in his last final at Twickenham. A real shame his playing career was cut short.
Good call.
On Armitage, I remember there was a bit of an obsession about how he couldn't be picked because he couldn't be lifted in the line out.
Gloskarlos wrote:I’ll chuck Django (James Forester) into that mix too, awesome 8, had bags of pace and tore Saints to pieces in his last final at Twickenham. A real shame his playing career was cut short.
Good call.
On Armitage, I remember there was a bit of an obsession about how he couldn't be picked because he couldn't be lifted in the line out.
