RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:
Yes but is it the considered opinion of the emb that he was good enough to be an international?

No.
Some do, but it would surprise me if it evened reach majority consensus.

Of course, there was a time when we were desperate for anyone not called "Robshaw" "Wood" or "Haskell" - at which point hyperbole sets in with the latest unproven flavour of the month; but even then, I doubt that Armand reached majority approval.

I feel a poll coming on.

It's that exciting to you?

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: No.
Some do, but it would surprise me if it evened reach majority consensus.

Of course, there was a time when we were desperate for anyone not called "Robshaw" "Wood" or "Haskell" - at which point hyperbole sets in with the latest unproven flavour of the month; but even then, I doubt that Armand reached majority approval.

I feel a poll coming on.

It's that exciting to you?

No. I’m just pleased to see you.

Will the poll be "what to drink now it's not socially acceptable to drink snowballs?

a) sherry
b) sherry
c) sherry
d) g&t

I scorn societies approval and plan to continue drinking 2-3 snowballs each and every Christmas. I'm partial too to Sherry as long as it's dry enough and suitably chilled. And a nice G&T never hurt anyone, I've got a bottle of Hendrik's open in the fridge which should probably be further emptied this evening, a little odd that one, been a while since I've had Hendrik's and I think it's rather lose the cucumber flavour, or maybe I've just gone mad.

Will this poll allow more than one option?

Digby wrote:I scorn societies approval and plan to continue drinking 2-3 snowballs each and every Christmas. I'm partial too to Sherry as long as it's dry enough and suitably chilled. And a nice G&T never hurt anyone, I've got a bottle of Hendrik's open in the fridge which should probably be further emptied this evening, a little odd that one, been a while since I've had Hendrik's and I think it's rather lose the cucumber flavour, or maybe I've just gone mad.

Will this poll allow more than one option?

I meant seasonally on the snowball...Now is not snowball season...but I might have an advocaat based drink soon anyway, even though the bottle is almost empty.

Hendricks hasn't lost the cucumber. I find it really comes out in a gin sour.

But I'm all out of Hendricks. Only got Tanqueray for gin. Which is fine as I find it works very nicely in a negroni...although I just ran out of sweet vermouth, so can't have one of them, either...

Stom wrote:But I'm all out of Hendricks. Only got Tanqueray for gin. Which is fine as I find it works very nicely in a negroni...although I just ran out of sweet vermouth, so can't have one of them, either...

This is an incredibly profound metaphor for our number 8 situation. Well done. For a moment there I thought you too were just babbling aimlessly.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Stom wrote:But I'm all out of Hendricks. Only got Tanqueray for gin. Which is fine as I find it works very nicely in a negroni...although I just ran out of sweet vermouth, so can't have one of them, either...

This is an incredibly profound metaphor for our number 8 situation. Well done. For a moment there I thought you too were just babbling aimlessly.

It kinda is, though...

No Billy, only got Simmonds or Dombrandt. Both of whom are great in a certain back row. But I don’t have Wilson, so can’t have them, either...

Does my subtlety know no bounds?

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Stom wrote:But I'm all out of Hendricks. Only got Tanqueray for gin. Which is fine as I find it works very nicely in a negroni...although I just ran out of sweet vermouth, so can't have one of them, either...

This is an incredibly profound metaphor for our number 8 situation. Well done. For a moment there I thought you too were just babbling aimlessly.

It kinda is, though...

No Billy, only got Simmonds or Dombrandt. Both of whom are great in a certain back row. But I don’t have Wilson, so can’t have them, either...

If it was football, we'd be singing, "You don't know what you're doing . . . "

I dare say football suits your knee-jerk, hyperbolic reactions better.

We lost the final - the coach is $hit. Sack him now.

Saracens cheated - let’s bin all of their England players forever.

All very football-esque.

Scrumhead wrote:I dare say football suits your knee-jerk, hyperbolic reactions better.

We lost the final - the coach is $hit. Sack him now.

Saracens cheated - let’s bin all of their England players forever.

All very football-esque.

For me it’s more any excuse to be rid of Fazlet from the England shirt...

Stom wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I dare say football suits your knee-jerk, hyperbolic reactions better.

We lost the final - the coach is $hit. Sack him now.

Saracens cheated - let’s bin all of their England players forever.

All very football-esque.

For me it’s more any excuse to be rid of Fazlet from the England shirt...

Hard to argue with that.

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:Good enough to be an international yes, but not good enough to be an English international

You mean he'd be a centurion for Wales?

Their back row is pretty good, maybe he'd have picked up caps ahead of Shingler, Coombs. If he could play front row or be the other lock alongside Alun-Wyn he'd have been in the money there.

I do think Eddie missed a trick not having a look. Not because I think he's that good, but it sends a message that playing well in the GP isn't going to get you a look, and that isn't healthy even if the incumbents like the security

Jones has had a look at Armand. He’s seen him on tour and in a fair amount of training and capped him. Clearly doesn’t see what he wants to see; as he’s 31 now, suspect the ship has sailed.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: You mean he'd be a centurion for Wales?

Their back row is pretty good, maybe he'd have picked up caps ahead of Shingler, Coombs. If he could play front row or be the other lock alongside Alun-Wyn he'd have been in the money there.

I do think Eddie missed a trick not having a look. Not because I think he's that good, but it sends a message that playing well in the GP isn't going to get you a look, and that isn't healthy even if the incumbents like the security

Jones has had a look at Armand. He’s seen him on tour and in a fair amount of training and capped him. Clearly doesn’t see what he wants to see; as he’s 31 now, suspect the ship has sailed.

Agreed. Jones appears, though, to not like Exeter's back row methods at all. Based on last season as a whole, Kvesic should have been in the RWC squad and based on this season so far, Simmonds can make a case for being our best No 8. With Exeter being our best performing legal club, that is strange.

What's galling is that Brad Shields was parachuted immediately into the team when Armand was available and playing at his best.
It should also be remembered that Wilson only got back in due to a number of injuries. He was completely ignored for a year after the Argentinian tour where he put in a terrific performance.
Coaches pick the team so we have to accept some players arent going to fit in.
It is hard to take when a player displays consistently high form and gets overlooked, though.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Their back row is pretty good, maybe he'd have picked up caps ahead of Shingler, Coombs. If he could play front row or be the other lock alongside Alun-Wyn he'd have been in the money there.

I do think Eddie missed a trick not having a look. Not because I think he's that good, but it sends a message that playing well in the GP isn't going to get you a look, and that isn't healthy even if the incumbents like the security

Jones has had a look at Armand. He’s seen him on tour and in a fair amount of training and capped him. Clearly doesn’t see what he wants to see; as he’s 31 now, suspect the ship has sailed.

Agreed. Jones appears, though, to not like Exeter's back row methods at all. Based on last season as a whole, Kvesic should have been in the RWC squad and based on this season so far, Simmonds can make a case for being our best No 8. With Exeter being our best performing legal club, that is strange.

He also has had a good look at Simmonds. Kvesic was called up briefly too. If you are trying to paint an anti Exeter bias it somewhat falls apart when you look at the facts.

fivepointer wrote:What's galling is that Brad Shields was parachuted immediately into the team when Armand was available and playing at his best.
It should also be remembered that Wilson only got back in due to a number of injuries. He was completely ignored for a year after the Argentinian tour where he put in a terrific performance.
Coaches pick the team so we have to accept some players arent going to fit in.
It is hard to take when a player displays consistently high form and gets overlooked, though.

Armand wasn’t overlooked though. He was looked at and Eddie didn’t like something.

I'd agree Armand has done something or isn't doing something that means Eddie is happy to pass him by. But still, Eddie isn't making it clear there's a pathway from playing well in the GP to getting a chance with England, and whilst that's partly test rugby is a different thing it's not a good look to the players outside the squad, and not enough pressure then coming on players inside the squad

Digby wrote:I'd agree Armand has done something or isn't doing something that means Eddie is happy to pass him by. But still, Eddie isn't making it clear there's a pathway from playing well in the GP to getting a chance with England, and whilst that's partly test rugby is a different thing it's not a good look to the players outside the squad, and not enough pressure then coming on players inside the squad

Indeed.

Anyway, we know why Eddie picks players...it's for "attitude" and that unknowable dog...in other words he says a player has a certain winning mentality so should be picked.

Brad Shields apparently has this. Don Armand apparently does not.

I think it's an arse about face way of picking players, tbh.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Jones has had a look at Armand. He’s seen him on tour and in a fair amount of training and capped him. Clearly doesn’t see what he wants to see; as he’s 31 now, suspect the ship has sailed.

Agreed. Jones appears, though, to not like Exeter's back row methods at all. Based on last season as a whole, Kvesic should have been in the RWC squad and based on this season so far, Simmonds can make a case for being our best No 8. With Exeter being our best performing legal club, that is strange.

He also has had a good look at Simmonds. Kvesic was called up briefly too. If you are trying to paint an anti Exeter bias it somewhat falls apart when you look at the facts.

I'm not saying anything about an overall anti-Exeter thing - Devoto and Williams in, Hill out is just marginal opinion etc. I am surprised about the consistent back row rejection, though.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:I'd agree Armand has done something or isn't doing something that means Eddie is happy to pass him by. But still, Eddie isn't making it clear there's a pathway from playing well in the GP to getting a chance with England, and whilst that's partly test rugby is a different thing it's not a good look to the players outside the squad, and not enough pressure then coming on players inside the squad

Indeed.

Anyway, we know why Eddie picks players...it's for "attitude" and that unknowable dog...in other words he says a player has a certain winning mentality so should be picked.

Brad Shields apparently has this. Don Armand apparently does not.

I think it's an arse about face way of picking players, tbh.

And that Shields didn't even have to show anything, and he hasn't at test standard, is a further problem

Digby wrote:I'd agree Armand has done something or isn't doing something that means Eddie is happy to pass him by. But still, Eddie isn't making it clear there's a pathway from playing well in the GP to getting a chance with England, and whilst that's partly test rugby is a different thing it's not a good look to the players outside the squad, and not enough pressure then coming on players inside the squad

You said he’d missed a trick by not looking at him, which is just incorrect. I accept that you should be able to play your way into the squad, even if the AP is a poor benchmark, and Eddie, like many many coaches, makes the odd decision - cough 9 cough- which dismay many punters. In this case though, he saw Armand plenty up close.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:I'd agree Armand has done something or isn't doing something that means Eddie is happy to pass him by. But still, Eddie isn't making it clear there's a pathway from playing well in the GP to getting a chance with England, and whilst that's partly test rugby is a different thing it's not a good look to the players outside the squad, and not enough pressure then coming on players inside the squad

Indeed.

Anyway, we know why Eddie picks players...it's for "attitude" and that unknowable dog...in other words he says a player has a certain winning mentality so should be picked.

Brad Shields apparently has this. Don Armand apparently does not.

I think it's an arse about face way of picking players, tbh.

He’s the one who has to live with his selection. My only point on this is that he hadn’t overlooked Armand, he’s been in squads and assessed close up; as has Shields now, and also been rejected.

The Shields situation was so odd. Is it reasonable to assume if he'd been fit he would have made the squad and EJ would never have looked at Curry as a 6? He might have dumped him immediately after the RWC anyway I suppose.

It's totally fair to say he's looked at Armand/Shields in training and made different choices. It just feels odd as a viewer of the GP to know that this guy came in to the training camp and was impressive he demanded immediate international starts with no domestic game time. He's supposedly very loud on the pitch though which appears to be Jones's top priority in a player.

Mikey Brown wrote:The Shields situation was so odd. . . . He's supposedly very loud on the pitch though which appears to be Jones's top priority in a player.

That could be a fair indication of Jones's priorities. I see him as a strange individual and it may be significant that when Borthwick goes, none of his original assistants remain.