Comments on: 34-man England squad named for Australia test

By: Don P

Don P — Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:32:13 +0000

TeeCee, Mike, Banastre
Are you saying there’s an echo in here then? Anyway pt taken. I suppose the issues I’ve seemed to have gone on… & on… like a nun’s knickers about are important for England though. Others here however, appear to have (relatively) ignored these whilst engaging in what I’ve perceived as (relative) minutiae, esp when the ship may be meandering. Maybe it’s a perception thing. Anyway, as a presi, I’ll do my level not to mention SL, Cips and Armitage (ooops!) again. Well, not before Xmas anyway. Cheers.

By: Banastre

Banastre — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:59:25 +0000

Don P
I think what Mike was getting at was that you have a tendency to regurgitate your opinion, over and over on each post. It is a blog site, correct, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don’t think anyone has any problem with you criticising the England team, i certainly don’t. The points you make are valid, and i agree with a lot of them. But they are all points you have made previously, multiple times.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:57:05 +0000

Well put TeeCee

Don P, as you say you are entitled to blog as you wish.
And of course I acknowledge that there are probems with Englands back row and midfield. I would be delusional if I did not.

I take it I can look forward to your next post on SL, Cips and Armitage…

By: TeeCee

TeeCee — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:23:50 +0000

Just to try and diffuse the situation a little,the one thing we all agree on is our concern for the current state of affairs regarding the England team.
You both make valid points,the only difference being in relation to timescale ie this Saturday and the longer term.

By: Don P

Don P — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:43:47 +0000

Mike
Ok, no problem, either way, but as it’s a blog site, each to his own. We see ‘issues’ diff. For me, discussing the team is somewhat akin to Nero’s fiddling, which, from the length of yr r, r, r, reply, seems to irritate you. You want to discuss this team only & you’re so entitled. I see broader team issues for England & which, IMO, by & large haven’t been addressed by SL. However, If my comments so annoy, you are, of course, free to ignore them (like Brighty… are you watching?). However, even you can’t surely deny that this England team has issues @ back row & midfield!? So, without meaning to tread too heavily on your pinkies, is this new & is discussing this particular team, at least in part, not shuffling deck chairs? If you call this trolling, then it beats me.. or am I, perhaps, just not playing the game?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:11:12 +0000

Indeed. That is an interesting point that you make. and so unexpected and original.

All I was trying to point out is that we are generally discussing the team for this weekend, that can only be selected from the 34 included in the training squad. And that 34 can only be selected from the EPS.

We have all discussed at length our various opinions of who should be included in the EPS, and who we would like to see in our personal fictional England team.

We are all aware of:
1) Your opinion of SL
2) Your opinion of SL’s UK only selection policy
3) Your opinion of S Armitage
4) Your opinion of the handling, physical and general rugby skills of all NH players with the exception of Cipriani and Armitage.

It is reasonable to state that your opinion on 1 – 3 is shared by a number of England fans. This is almost certainly true, as England fans are reasonably divided on all three points, especially in light of the last 6 games.

Re J Schmidt:
Since being in charge The comparable record between Ireland and England is as follows:
Vs Australia
Ireland won 1 lost 1
England won 1
Vs South Africa
Ireland won 1
England lost 1
Vs France
Ireland won 1
England lost 1
Head to head
England won 1
Ireland lost 1

To clarify my position, I think Ireland are the form NH team at the moment and fully deserve there place in the IRB rankings. I am concerned that England are actually worse than they were 4 months ago.

However, I think it would be wise to wait at least until we have played Australia, but more sensibly until we have played each other before making too many comparisons.

I was trying to (helpfully?) bring you into the discussion as your comment was limited in addressing the issues being discussed. In fact your comment seemed more to be a slightly vitrolic rant an a number of the most contraversial issues in England selection, but none of which are relevant in who is likely to play on Saturday.

If you prefer, I will assume it is trolling and ignore your comments in future.

By: brighty

brighty — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:43:41 +0000

Gats negotiated it basically. For Charteris we let him go for the Aus game. Not sure of the details of the others but the only ones I have heard that we def do not have are the English based players where we get caught up in the Prem Rugby v Everyone thing where they won’t let any player be involved in an out of window game unless it’s for their financial benefit e.g. US players released to play against the ABs.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:36:00 +0000

I got caught up in the flow, and the point seemed better made by employing a bit of hyperbole. “B team” was easier than “A minus 1/4 team” or “not quite A team”

As you say, SA are only missing 3 or 4.

I had not realised however that you have release of the France based players. How did WRU engineer that?

By: brighty

brighty — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:22:49 +0000

Mike, Wales hopefully won’t be a B team. We won’t have Hibbard, Hook, James. The latter two may not have appeared anyway. North is there and we have release for all of the France based players.

Injuries might scupper us but that’s no different to other weekends.

I do hope that SA select a B team. Sod “wanting to play the best”, I just want to win one now. We can play their A team in the future.

By: Don P

Don P — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:14:53 +0000

Matt B
Gd regds Ford, early days, but so far, so goodish. However, oughtn’t Lancs be trying to WIN the game 1st, rather than looking ‘‘… at other options’’, esp after 6 losses v the SH? Hasn’t he already tried 12trees prev & ‘discarded’ him? Do not Eastmond & Burrell (for Billy 12), e.g., rate a go? What have they done wrong… or 12t for that matter? I find SL’s thinking muddled, particularly after the desperate move of pushing Farrell, an Int’al journeyman fly1/2, to inside centre!

By: Don P

Don P — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:02:01 +0000

Mike
Well it’s the point for you maybe. Another take on it is that Lancs has lost 6 v the SH heavier hitters & it’s, @ least in part, HIS self imposed limitations that are responsible for his team availability for selection; e.g., 1 not picking outside the UK except under ‘special circs’. How special is special when he’s lost 6 you & HE, may well ask, esp with his belated b/row reshuffling?; 2 his stating that the same SH teams have so much more exp, yet HE imposed his ‘yoof’ policy! So whoever is available IS somewhat down to him. His mindset is too rigid by 1/2. Compare with J Schmidt. And every team has injuries, but they don’t have so many too choose from as England.

By: Matt B

Matt B — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:01:46 +0000

Lancaster has confirmed Ford will start – hooray. And that Eastmond won’t be involved as he has already had two games and ‘wants to look at other options’ i.e. it’s between Farrell and 12Trees. He didn’t mention outside centre, so let’s see if he lives by his word and picks Burrell, as Barritt has already had three chances!