England will retain 16 players for the remainder of the training week at Pennyhill Park.
In addition, Ed Slater and Manusamoa Tuilagi (both Leicester Tigers) and Joe Launchbury (Wasps) will be in camp to continue their rehabilitation.
Players retained for training
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby)
Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Luther Burrell (Northampton Saints)
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers)
George Ford (Bath Rugby)
Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints)
James Haskell (Wasps)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby)
George Kruis (Saracens)
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs)
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)
Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)
Retained for rehabilitation
Joe Launchbury (Wasps)
Ed Slater (Leicester Tigers)
Manusamoa Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers)
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
70 replies on “Lancaster retains 16 players in England camp”
Mike Brown back in for Goode and Twelvetrees in for Burrell if he doesn’t recover from his calf strain then. Lawes, Parling and Wood will get a chance to prove themselves with their clubs.
What’s the long term news on Slater, Launchbury and Tuilagi?
Right so he usually retains the first 15 and potential first team selections. I take it same 15 with 12t possibly coming in.
This really is selection by formula. Why ignore returning proven players like Lawes or red hot players like Slade? Head in sand as usual. As if a good performance against a Scottish side lacking confidence, from those who failed against Ireland, answers any questions.
Not necessarily the case – Nowell was released pre-Ireland game with May being retained.
Lawes had played one game since November, seems like a sensible call to send him back for more game time.
Can’t really argue with the first XV being retained – that’s quite normal. With Burrell being injured it’s also not a surprise to see 12T retained.
Whilst I am not a 12T fan (I’m not a massive Burrell fan either), I can’t say I have a clue who I’d bring it. Eastmond can be brilliant, but I’ve not seen him play well for a long time. Who else is there? 12 is a really problem for England, has been for years.
Surely the case for Slade is becoming unarguable. You lose nothing in defence and gain in attack. Yes lose the bosh of Burrell, but he’s been fairly anonymous in the first few rounds. Of course we all know that if Burrell is out 12t gets in by virtue of SL’s selectorial straight jacket; you have to be in camp x times, work your way to the bench and then only get selected when out of form player gets injured.
*sigh*
Not convinced by the idea of Slade in the 12 shirt either – he looks like a seriously good 10. To throw him into a position that he’s barely played when he’s so young spells disaster; we’ve seen it far too many times before to do it again.
While you might call it “SL’s selectorial straight jacket” – I’d call it good sense! NZ for years have worked in this way, it is why any new players that come in do so seamlessly. It also helps that they also appear to be highly skilled intelligent rugby players…but the integration thing is still something they insist on!
I genuinely feel sorry for SL when it comes to the 12 shirt. He’s blamed for it but he has tried everything it seems! He’s gone from Barritt to Tuilagi, back to to Barritt, then to 12T’s, then on to Eastmond and now Burrell. Throw in the time we saw Farrell there in the AI’s and the odd experiment with Flood there in 2012/13 he couldn’t have tried much else!
None of those have convinced. In fact, the only player that has managed to put a couple of decent games together in a row is 12T’s, and we know how everyone on this blog feels about him.
If I was SL I’d be wanting to try Tuilagi and JJ together as soon as possible.
You mention NZ but they think nothing of playing players not in their regular position. Ben Smith, Kahui? Carter began in the centres before moving to 10. They believe in getting their best players on the pitch. Anyway moving from 10 to 12 is not as big a positional switch as say 10 to 13, which Slade took in his stride. The guy just screams test class.
Tuilagi is bit too injury prone to place any hope in at the moment. Slade is fit and available. Sometimes you just have to go with what life throws at you. Barritt, Burrell and 12t have all had their opportunity and been found wanting.
I have absolutely no issue with players playing out of position at all. I’m just not as convinced by Slade’s class as you are. He may well turn out to be a top player but I think throwing him in now at 12 would be a mistake.
I certainly don’t have any real confidence in any of the three you mentioned, or Eastmond.
From what I’ve seen, he has it in the most important area – the top 2 inches. If only 12t had better judgement.
Think they’ve played Barrett in the centres as well as at fly half
I think Slade has the skill to make a success of it whether at 12, 13 or 10, he can distribute, kick, run and is strong in the tackle – but he needs to get his chance.
Launchbury out for season, will be back for WC
Slater, not sure, doesnt really matter as wouldn’t
Twelvetrees has had more than enough chances and it’s probably time to rest him whilst he finds some form again. Burrell should be the part but just seems to lack a little confidence he has in his club game though never the less I would give him and Joseph another run together. Slade should certainly have a place on the bench in place of 12T. Brown is a given and Care to return to sit on the bench.
Lawes has to come back into the side and Parling should be on the bench. There is also a case for Wood to return with Haskell moving to the bench or if I had my way Billy dropping to the bench and Easter staring but that won’t happen. Finally I would consider starting with Tom Youngs and letting Hartley collect a few splinters.
Having said all that I expect the only change to the starting XV to be Brown and Lawes to replace Easter on the bench.
I think you guys are forgetting how the EPS works. Bomber can’t promote Slade (or Daly) from the Saxons if he has a player available who’s already in the EPS (Twelvetrees)
Are these actually the rules or what people assume, as this only really happened since SL. I believe this is his preference. Anyway he can pick who he likes a week before any international
If you check the RFU website you’ll find is already in the EPS squad
If you check the RFU website you’ll find Slade is already in the EPS squad
Play Christian Wade instead of Nowell and/or Watson (especially if May comes back which I would say yes to) The reason? Pace frightens everyone – Remember Jason Robinson scoring the World Cup winning try? He scared teams witless just by being on the pitch. Likewise two flankers with pace might be good (Croft and one other!) Vunipola I’m not sure about – not when there is Steffon Armitage abroad and an injured Morgan. What is the Armitage thing about? If this were a business you would pick the best man for the job – simple! Why make life harder for yourself. Get over it and pick him!
SL is too conservative and reactionary! You don’t win things by reacting to and catering for things the opposition bring to the party (think changing May for Nowell). A national coach should be confident in himself; the All Blacks don’t go into meltdown just because they hear the opposition is going to hoist ‘bombs’/Garry Owens at you all day; they just play it their own way i.e. Running it! Get rid of SL (he’s had his chances just as he passes over his own players in favour of someone better – England need someone better.
I’m not sure how many times the Big Steff situation has to be explained, but it’s nothing to do stubbornness. The EPS agreement is there to provide full access to players (so they’re retained during Six Nations off weeks, for instance), and so they can attend all training sessions. It also ensures clubs are reimbursed for this. Picking a player who is based outside of England leaves England at the mercy of the body they play under (e.g. LNR in France) which means they will not be available for training sessions, and have to be released in weeks where there’s not a game on. Look at the difficulties Wales had with North, for instance.
I think also that a key rule of the EPS continuing to exist is the no picking players from overseas except for the “exceptional circumstances”. Basically of SL decided that the “exceptional circumstance” was simply that Steff was awesome and so picked him, and then Premier League decided this undermined their ability to stop their players from going abroad for more money, then the whole EPS goes down the tubes and England get access to their players for about 3 days before each international, nothing more.
So – pick Steff and lose access to every single player, or not pick him and keep the EPS running, Seems like a simple decision to me.
Absolutely spot on, Brighty.
Moreover, Armitage knew full well what the rules are when negotiating his new contract with Toulon. If that’s the extent of his desire to play for England, then so be it.
it’s also a side of the central contracts and “Gatlands Law” thing that doesn’t seem to be understood in the same way “not picking Steff” is misunderstood.
In the new particp agreement with the Welsh regions they pushed for the “play in Wales” rule in return for agreeing to limiting the num of non-Welsh qual’d players per squad. Seems fair to me – why should any team (as they do in England) agree to rules on foreign imports and not expect national unions to abide by the same limiting rules (and they are limiting – Leicester could be Toulon if they had free reign but they’re in the English system and are going with it).
Oh, and as for the AB’s “just running it” – they are masters of the kick and chase. Utter masters as well of giving the ball to the oppo so that they can screw it up and then the ABs score from turnovers. Lots of AB game stats have them with sig. less than 50% of the posession. They’re also great at driving mauls and throwing big lads up the middle to gain hard yards around the fringes. Great at defensively limiting teams to their own 22.
In short they do everything that Wales/Eng/Ire do and get criticised for. They don’t simply just go for all out attack and run it all over the place. They play rugby, select the options and execute. So there’s no such thing as your team “not playing enough like the ABs” as criticism of a particular style. The only valid criticism would that they don’t do it as well as the ABs do it.
Yep – quite simply, New Zealand make better use of the ball they have than any other team, maintaining composure when it counts. It was evident in the narrow win in the first England test against New Zealand, the win over Wales in the autumn, *that* game against Ireland, etc.
I remember reading they’re actually one of the leading teams when it comes to kicking the ball away. Everyone just has the impression they constantly run it because when they do it almost always results in a try!
Nice to see a growing scepticism re Mr L. Have faith my brothers,the revolution will come!
Good to see too that 36 is now considered the best bet to replace Burrell following his superb contribution to last sundays fiasco.
I agree that it’s too early for Slade. Remember Matt Tait!
I know this will send Benjit’s BP through the roof but Barritt.Yes,he’ll offer less in attack than a one legged sloth with narcolepsy but he will lock the door defensively.In theory this means that JJ and Watson can run riot especially if Ford is being encouraged to put last week behind him.
If England can score a hat full then who knows the title could possibly,maybe ,perhaps end up in Captain dopey’s paws. Stranger things have happened.
Correction, Barritt offers nothing in attack. We conceded one opportunistic try against Ireland why do people feel we need to strengthen the defence?
Matt Tait was 18 and in his first pro season, and “that tackle” has to be the most overrated play in the history of rugby, yes it looked bad but he Orange Gave didn’t even win a turnover for that tackle. Slade has won a junior world cup had a couple of pro seasons and acquitted himself for England seniors both against Ireland A and the Baa Baas, with the latter properly roughing him up.
He’s ready. anyone who says otherwise hasn’t been watching him. George North is 23 and has 50 caps. why does England feel the need to wait excessively before blooding players. If you’re good enough , you’re old enough. Slade is good enough and better than the other available options.
Barritt – just no.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with our defense when he doesn’t play. He offers nothing in attack. Why would you select him? What is he bringing to the table?
Throughout SL’s reign there are times when I thought his selection was justified, i.e. early on when he was trying to play some simple tight rugby and in the 2014 AI’s when it seemed most other options were out injured.
Now? Seems like madness to me. I’d rather see Slade brought in that have Barritt back.
@ Benjit – I don’t think we can compare North to anyone else, it’s not like he is a regular occurrence, he’s the anomaly.
But as a general rule you can’t win without the ball. True AB’s are more efficient/ruthless but as we are not it again makes perfect sense to argue we therefore need to “run it” ball in hand more in order to make the scores/tries. If we are less ruthless (which we are) we need to practise running it and will take more attempts to touch it down. Several chances will be butchered (we are less ruthless) but so what. By law of averages we will score with the pace of
A. Wade
B. May
C. Brown/Foden
D. Cipriani
……you can achieve try scoring rugby.
The problem with May is that he doesn’t back himself – he’s been dining out on that try against New Zealand, but the closest he’s come to anything like that since was the run to set up Cipriani’s try v Italy. May’s got 13 caps (although the one against France was cut very short!), Nowell now deserves his chance, and we should stick with him for a few more games.
If one defensive liability has to be picked in the XV, I’d go for Wade over May – but absolutely not both.
Have to agree with you on May and Nowell. I think Nowell is a better all round player. His defence, kicking and support play are all better than May’s.
At the moment I could live with one defensive weakness in the back three. A back three of Nowell, Wade and Brown would provide good pace with two out of three solid defenders, and with Watson on the bench to cover wing/fb. A shame to drop Watson to the bench, but in attack Wade is arguably the best option England have.
Agree with that, but I’d definitely start Watson over Nowell – he is far more dangerous with ball in hand, better under a high ball and not bad defensively either.
Can’t understand where this notion that May is no good under the high ball. Goode and Nowell were lauded for their catching skills before the last game. Hmmm. May is good in the air. Disappointed with him defensively, but that can be rectified. Pace can’t be taught. Still think he is a good RWC option and therefore ought to be getting more game time to get him up to speed with international rugby. He is one of the few potential game changers we have. The others being JJ, Tuilagi and Wade. Can’t have all of them on the pitch at the same time, but two in a team could work.
It is so simple. Just keep running at oppo with fast boys and you’ll score. I mean, you might lose a stack of games with turnovers and bad defensive alignment and clueless headless chicken running, but by the law of averages you’ll score some tries so it’s all worth it.
If you genuinely think the ABs game plan is that simple then I find it hard to believe you have ever seen them play. In fact, have you ever seen any rugby? The one where people tackle these fast boys time and time again?
My question to everyone:
Would you keep Robshaw? Great tackler but you can’t score points and win games by tackles alone (no ball as statistically turn overs are rare). Warburton or player like him has twice the speed. Could argue England need two new flankers (closer to the mole of Croft) Morgan is badly missed for same reason. Don’t worry your heads about EPS rules and regulations; they’re there to be broken/reformed and then whack Armitage (Steffon) into the reckoning. Funnily enough it’s about 15 players on a turfed pitch for 80 minutes (the best 15) not puerile bureaucratic measures. Think BUSINESS principles and the best 15 or 26/32 for the job
Alex, don’t belittle people who understand the eps rules far better than you and are capable of considering them carefully. If Armitage is picked then the eps goes out the window. That’s not puerile bureaucracy, it’s a cold hard and important fact. Rugby hasn’t been just about the best 15 on the pitch for 80 mins since as long as Carwyn wrote the coaching manual. This isn’t schoolboys in the park, this is grown up rugby.
You come out with some cracking lines on here but that one may have made your top 5…
Amen
A jackling 7 with massive turnover stats is a myth and Robshaw is as good as the rest at turnovers
Stats so for from 6N this year
Robshaw 3,
LeRoux 3,
Cowan 2,
Warburton 2,
O’Brien 0
Robshaw is an interesting one – great work rate, right up there in world rugby for tackle stats and as Leon says he does win turnovers but he does seem to lack pace and doesn’t provide a real carrying threat. I wonder if he wouldn’t be better at 6 and Haskell at 7? Still think Ewers should get a chance at some point as i think he could really add something.
I think Lawes and Parling should both come into the 15 with Attwood going to bench and Easter and Kruis dropping out. Tough on both but these 2 guys will make England better, also want to see 12T drop out completely and Eastmond come in with Burrell on bench if fit, Slade if not. Don’t know what the issue is with Estmond for some people – he is someone that could really spark the backline.
Last change is Simpson/Care for Wigs – he either starts or isn’t there for me as i don’t see him being a viable bench option.
brighty
Blinkered, more like. You’re a conservative red neck & it’s just yr point of view you pompous ass. Rule bound, hide bound. How would picking Armitage cause the disintegration of English rugby? The higher French salary cap has already affected the English game more than many other factors surely!? Lack of Euro Cup success, player drain, higher quality French rugby/players (the French coach notwithstanding)?
English rugby might be better off with a SH coach to take advantage of their still numerically superior player numbers, as per other NH countries (although it’s early days yet). A change in mind set might be more beneficial in how they play rather than the limited style England presently adopt. Or is your fear based worrying about how 1 player’s potential signing might upset the whole apple cart more important?.
If England started winning, like Ireland currently are (no guarantees that it will continue of course), then all your EPS rules will hardly matter in the way you imply. It may even attract ‘offshore’ players back home. As SCW said, ‘it’s all about winning’. Mind you, having said that, your precious Wales under Gatland didn’t exactly had a smooth start to this 6N have they? And until recently v the SH for eons either. On the other hand it took 2 NZ coaches for Wales to actually beat the Boks twice.
Maybe England could also benefit more from a positive appointment @ coach instead of ‘what might be, might not be, but we don’t know yet’ approach about some rules written by some RFU buffs. The same ‘people’ who recently gave Lancs a 6 year extension with a track record similar to Johnno’s?! And who brought Andy Farrell into the England set up, @ c. 30 years of age, on the back of a long term injury, who’d never played Union before & they didn’t even know what posi he was going to play in? Yeah right.
‘don’t belittle people who understand the eps rules far better than you and are capable of considering them carefully’. Yeah right again.
But it’s ok brighty, I don’t expect a reply. Santa’s unlikely to have given you a new backbone last Xmas. Hope you make that world record in grudge holding though.
Fingers crossed for Gatland v Schmidt next up eh?
Don, what a rant. Post a single sensible reply about rugby that doesn’t include any name calling and you might get a reply. Post a long, bitter, twisted and ill informed missive that shows you don’t understand basic concepts, don’t understand rugby, have nothing sensible to add and, crucially, no intent of listening to any contrary opinions without abuse, then you will not get any debate and usually no reply. It’s up to you.
I’m currently unemployed (in the US awaiting a work permit) but I still have better things to do than attempt to read that tome of a post.
I’ll summarise for you Geat if you don’t mind;
Brighty, you’re not giving this bully the satisfaction of replying to my abuse so I’m just going to increase the volume and nastiness of it until you do.
EPS “stay here to play here” rule – it’s just a scaredycat load of nonsense and nothing at all like the exact same kiwi rule.
England – you need a kiwi coach. Kiwi’s rock. Except when they coach Wales.
Much easier to read without the meandering trains of thought and bizarre/antiquated (perhaps even fabricated) idioms.
After reading this, I suddenly realised that actually I had stopped reading Don’s posts. Not intentionally, just had obviously given up on extensive flannel, repetition and communication so poor that you couldn’t really figure out what he was talking about. I am really busy at work, (as you can tell!) so I guess it was a natural filtering of text. Annoyingly I always read Brightys posts even when they make my blood boil, because the points are normally informed and well made even if I do regularly disagree with them.
“when they make my blood boil, because the points are normally informed and well made even if I do regularly disagree with them”
This sounds like my performance appraisal review the other week….
What does the P in Don P stand for?
My money is on Pedantic.
DDD
Perjorative
Pissed
Only way I can explain his abuse of the English language
Leon
P….. off perhaps? Mind you I do occasionally have the odd gargle too, don’t you know?
I did once try to point out that it is possible to completely disagree with the opinion of another poster without resorting to insulting the person that holds that opinion.
Given the reply was more insults and name calling I gave up ….
Fair point about EPS. Sorry not belittling fellow rugby fans just the rules and regulations that make a simple game overly complicated bureaucratically. It might even be a case of us the Brits interpreting the rules literally as usual (the EU and health and safety spring to mind!)
Would changing the rules not be possible! Make them work for you not against! Maybe I’m thick here but if you can’t choose a player who is arguably the best in his position (bar Morgan) for the national team then change the system! Understand SL can’t do it (doesn’t have the time) but someone bloody well can!
It’s nowhere near as simple as that. If the rule was to change the knock on effects in the long term are drastic for the English team.
If we allow French based players – then a lot of our other top players will head to France, can we agree there?
On the assumption that this obvious point is agreed on – then surely we can see the long term issues here?
As Brighty quite rightly points out, the English international set up then do not have access to their top players for training or throughout the year. They also lose control over the number of fixtures they play (please see Sexton issue).
Long term as well, it is quite likely that our club set up suffers as a result of our top stars leaving (please see Wales).
Therefore, thankfully, the RFU are set up in a way that looks more long term than, “but Armitage is really good”.
There is not one person arguing against Armitage’s ability as a player and what he’d bring to the squad as a player. But the knock on effects of selecting him could have extremely negative long term effects on the game of rugby in England.
Alex, cheers. What’s at stake is bigger than simply picking Steffon or not. At the mo Engish clubs have an agreement with England rugby about releasing players and, critically, having a minimum number of English qualified players in their squads. In return they expect the RFU to enforce, barring exceptional circumstances, a similar rule ie home based players in the English squad. This enables them to attract some players to stay in England e.g. Cipriani recently turning down Toulon. No doubt Toulon’s financial offer would dwarf any offer from an English club so the carrot of an English spot is crucial for encouraging him to stay and for him to be able to be afforded by the English clubs who operate within a salary cap. There will be many English players being tempted by moves to France and the chance of not playing for England is factoring into their decision.
So if England start picking players from everywhere then there is no carrot to keep those players in England. The quality all moves to where the money is. English top end clubs decide they’re not limiting themselves if England rugby doesn’t do the likes of Leicester ditch the salary cap and start buying in quality from all over the world.
End result – top end English players no longer in England. English clubs stuffed with overseas players just like Toulon. Look how well that has gone for France so far.
The Southern Hemisphere nations of Aus and NZ have the same rules for the same reasons – it’s about their very existence. New Zealand cannot compete on cash so haven the same rule. Some NZers will tell you that’s just about distance but they’re just hopelessly ignorant as there are NZ missives that explain the fundamental reasons for their “play here to be picked” and it’s not, in the 21st century, simply the distance. Anyone who tells you otherwise has problems of comprehending facts.
Sorry for long reply but I think it’s worth it – it’s not just some old stick like SL who wants to obey the rules, he’s genuinely walking a tightrope between what’s great right now (picking Armitage) and then very structure of the English game where only a few clubs would survive if it went totally open like France.
I think another key point that has been alluded to by Brighty here is that the EPS and no-overseas-players agreement is crucial for the premiership salary cap structure. Without the lure of the England team to keep top English players at premiership clubs, the clubs would have to offer money on the same level as France and the likes of Saracens and Bath would throw the salary cap out of the window. Then the league would most probably become dominated by a few rich clubs. Look at the league at the moment – yes Northampton are out in front this year but then 1 point separates 2nd and 6th.
I’m sure people have different opinions on the salary cap but personally, as a premiership spectator and England fan, I’d take a well balanced league any day over simply picking Armitage for England.
Not having a go at fellow rugby fans just the bureaucratic EPS regulations. I might be thick here but if the present regulations prevent you from picking you’re best no 8 (bar Morgan) then change the rules! Anything to get the poor guy – Steffon -(who wants to play for England and is recorded as saying so) to play! Understand SL can’t do it; he’s too busy and nor is it within his remit). It is presumably up to the games sporting equivalents of The House of Commons – the RFU – to sort it and change it! Yes/no?
If it doesn’t work for you change it (rules are there to be broken). Fortunately the EPS are not enshrined like the 10 Commandments – they can be changed/reformed! Right? Unless of course we do that typically British thing and stick with a literal adherence to the rules (the EU and Health and Safety spring to mind!! Ha ha) We all know where that got us! Change and reform!
He wanted to play for England SO much, he renewed his 6-figure contract with Toulon knowing FULL WELL it ruled him out of England selection. Boo hoo, my heart bleeds. Poor Steffy Weff.
Actually it’s one thing we’ve really got right at the moment. More countries are heading down that route as well.
Who is it good for:
England: They get access to players outside of the IRB test window
The clubs: They get remunerated (compensated) for absence of players. Critically the policy discourages players from going oversees and suppresses wage inflation. The clubs also get bonus if they achieve a certain percentage of English qualified players in their matchday 23s of the course of a season.
Who is it bad for:
Steffon Armitage
If it gets replaced with anything then dual/central contracts would be a possible improvement, particularly for player welfare, but in the current market changing the home based rule would be a disaster.
Much as I’d like to know if Armitage would improve the side I’d only want to see him picked if he’s got a confirmed contract to come back and play in the prem.
Thanks Brighty. Very informative and am in the picture now. Still think it’s a load of bull though! It’s politics and big money of course in sport (albeit professional)! None of these things can be inviolate. They’re just (without having read them) clauses on paper agreed upon between Rugby Unions. I guess they can be reformed by making a song and dance about it (albeit a bloody loud one!)
What is he answer? Any suggestions?
Sorry about earlier repetition of same message!
Alex, you were talking earlier about “business”. Don’t forget that since rugby went professional, it’s basically been a constant power struggle between PRL and the RFU. I was reading the original negotiating points before the latest EPS was agreed – they wanted no more than 8 tests per season(!), no more than 2 Saxons games, and for the clubs to have first pick on U20s players before the England U20 coach could pick them.
I expect in part this “not picking overseas players” rule has actually come from PRL to protect their product (the Premiership), and so the RFU’s hands are tied regardless.
Alex, I’m afraid I don’t understand where you’re coming from here. The issue isn’t that people can’t change or get around the rules. Reforming them would be trivial once people agreed to do so. The issue is that changing that rule would, many believe (me included), lead to disaster for English rugby so it is not worth doing it, even for Armitage.
How much do I think it’s a sensible rule? I would *love* it if they ditched it and had to deal with the negative consequences cos I’m a Welshman 🙂
brighty
What progress. 1st direct reply in, what, c. 2 yrs? Will respond further, but due to time constraints right now, @ a later date.
Regds for now.
dingdongdenny
Precisely.
Related to the discussion on English qual’d players, Prem Clubs, etc. is this worrying development for Wales:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/two-wales-brightest-u20-rugby-8786109
For those who don’t want to click through.
Two boys selected for Wales U20s, born and mostly raised in Wales but now attached to English clubs, have turned down the caps because our U20s side is our designated A team and hence this would tie them to Wales.
Their reasons are not quoted but I can’t help but think we might see more of this – English Prem clubs have a min quota of English qual’d players so by turning down these caps they’ve increased their chances of a pro contract with those clubs. Great for England – a disaster for Wales and I think a salutary lesson of “play in country X to play for country X” impact
Their agents should inform them better. They’re only tied to the country if they play another U20 side that is a designated A team. E.g. England, Ireland and Scotland have the Saxons, Wolfhounds and A, so games against them wouldn’t count in the U20 Six Nations.
Sorry, should have made it clear that this was before the French game so it would have been the French U20s which, as you say, qualifies as an A team.
brighty
And they’re just my good points!
We have different styles (heart on sleeve v ‘cool, calm, collected, erudite’ – @ least I see this as how you see yourself?) for sure & draw somewhat different conclusions from various ‘issues’.
This doesn’t necessarily equate to my (or your) being ‘wrong’, or ‘bitter, twisted…ill informed’, or not ‘understand(ing) basic concepts, … rugby, or hav(ing) nothing sensible to add’.
Your response is surely, @ least partly (anger generated?), opinion. Understandable to an extent. I think I too endured a not dissimilar tirade (or ‘abuse’? Unwarranted, unprovoked? I mean it was England, not Wales fcol!) form you in respect of the ‘Norovirus’ test. You likely recall my contention then (?), which I think has been subsequently (in part @ least) vindicated as evidenced by England’s recent record v the SH.
Stating the latter is not to score points, but merely to illustrate that we can both be ‘kettles’ capable of calling ‘pots black’, ‘rant’ wise?… and that not all of my opinions are without foundation. Make sense?
Anyway, that’s history now & as you state; ‘It’s up to you’… and me.
By “SH” I assume you mean “New Zealand and South Africa”, as England have won 4 of their last 5 against Australia.
Yeah, I think being called blinkered, a conservative redneck, a pompous ass and backbone-less all in the space of one reply does tend to mean I reply with some anger. With regards to both of us being able to do that I genuinely don’t recall such name calling from me but I’m happy to admit I might just not be remembering it.
We’ll never agree on the Norovirus issue (for the record I don’t see that you have been vindicated but that’s our difference of opinion on how to value a single match, a run of matches and primarily my different opinion to yours that once the team are on the pitch all results are valid and should not be post-justified e.g. “but so and so was injured” or “but X was ill” or “it was raining” etc.) so will have to agree to disagree on that.
I would never call myself calm and collected. I’m a loud Welshman who knows he is loud as he works in a genteel English dominated office every day.
And .. on the general thread of Lancaster, players picked, etc. I see he’s been lucky again and had “not picking Barrit” forced on him when everyone and their uncle knew he was going to pick him…
Benjit
Don’t recall Carter usually starting @ centre for the ABs? Kahui normally played centre didn’t he? Ben Smith admittedly has played fullback, but mainly wing, @ least for the ABs. Jane was fullback for the Hurricanes for a time too, but mostly wing for the ABs I think. They do rotate players, e.g., 1st 5, somewhat, but don’t normally play guys out of posi as far as I’m aware..
brighty
Ok. Perhaps we can agree that we’re both human (well, I sometimes have my moments) then.