Mikey Brown wrote:Jones has said it’s due to Porter’s running being better against the Aus defence. Apparently Marchant only goes for outside breaks, which seems like a bizarrely simplistic view of Marchant being the fast and nimble sort, rather than someone who consistently cuts fantastic lines against the grain.
Porter has been impressive for Leicester and I can accept having a good look at him, but Joseph ahead of Marchant on the bench just seems dumb.
Where have you seen this?
Personally, this is my single biggest annoyance on a long list for this tour. Marchant is such a good player who should be in the starting XV, let alone the 23. Porter is no more than decent and Will Joseph may turn out to be a brilliant player, but there is no way he deserves to be in the 23 ahead of Marchant on any normal measure.
Have to agree. Wasn't it Marchant that punched that great line through the Saffa defence in November to set up a try?
And his lovely quick hands that set up Arundell's try in the first test. And his incisive strong running that led to our attacks of note against France. I can't think of an occasion where he's had a bad game for England.
Puja wrote:I can't think of an occasion where he's had a bad game for England.
Puja
First test of this series, obvs!
No doubt we’ll belatedly find out he’s torn a hamstring or similar and all this whining will be for nothing. From peak Eddie to peak RR in one press release.
Puja wrote:I can't think of an occasion where he's had a bad game for England.
Puja
First test of this series, obvs!
No doubt we’ll belatedly find out he’s torn a hamstring or similar and all this whining will be for nothing. From peak Eddie to peak RR in one press release.
That must be the case. It's too bizarre a selection if it isn't.
On a related note, I'm excited to see WJoseph get more than 2 minutes. Lots of fervour about Arundell, but I think Joseph is just as worthy of getting excited about, going forwards.
But did Marchant have a poor game in the first test of this series? None of us thought so at the time.
I’d argue that he was individually better in the first test than Porter was in the second. When you add in the fact that he team performance was better last week, I’d say Porter had a better opportunity and didn’t obviously take it (stats would back that up too).
Illness/injury would be the only fair reason for him to miss out, but sadly I suspect it’s just the latest example of a good player being treated poorly for no real reason.
Scrumhead wrote:But did Marchant have a poor game in the first test of this series? None of us thought so at the time.
I’d argue that he was individually better in the first test than Porter was in the second. When you add in the fact that he team performance was better last week, I’d say Porter had a better opportunity and didn’t obviously take it (stats would back that up too).
Illness/injury would be the only fair reason for him to miss out, but sadly I suspect it’s just the latest example of a good player being treated poorly for no real reason.
I'm fairly certain Mells is being sarky., as I don't think anyone (apart from Eddie?) could say Marchant was a problem in that first test.
Scrumhead wrote:But did Marchant have a poor game in the first test of this series? None of us thought so at the time.
I’d argue that he was individually better in the first test than Porter was in the second. When you add in the fact that he team performance was better last week, I’d say Porter had a better opportunity and didn’t obviously take it (stats would back that up too).
Illness/injury would be the only fair reason for him to miss out, but sadly I suspect it’s just the latest example of a good player being treated poorly for no real reason.
I'm fairly certain Mells is being sarky., as I don't think anyone (apart from Eddie?) could say Marchant was a problem in that first test.
Puja
Correct. This is the reason you are mod: all seeing and all knowing. It has changed you, though.
Mikey Brown wrote:Jones has said it’s due to Porter’s running being better against the Aus defence. Apparently Marchant only goes for outside breaks, which seems like a bizarrely simplistic view of Marchant being the fast and nimble sort, rather than someone who consistently cuts fantastic lines against the grain.
Porter has been impressive for Leicester and I can accept having a good look at him, but Joseph ahead of Marchant on the bench just seems dumb.
Where have you seen this?
Personally, this is my single biggest annoyance on a long list for this tour. Marchant is such a good player who should be in the starting XV, let alone the 23. Porter is no more than decent and Will Joseph may turn out to be a brilliant player, but there is no way he deserves to be in the 23 ahead of Marchant on any normal measure.
About 5 minutes in to this they talk to Eddie and says 'hole runner' a lot for some reason.
I saw the clip of Farrell giving Porter is first cap and he said something like Porter's competitiveness or similar both in the game and training had been awesome. I wonder if Eddie just wants a bit more dog in the midfield, Porter doesn't have the class of Marchant but he's the kind of bloke who'd run through a brick wall for the team and bring the aggression, which England have definitely gone in for this tour.
p/d wrote:Arundell and Joseph have been that good in training Jones couldn’t leave them out.
As an aside could the loss of Itoje have had a bearing on his decision to start Care? Or is it simply the constant hair fiddling he misses
When Quins were dreadful, we always used to hear from Gustard about how well we were training. My point is - even if it was true, it made f all difference when it came to the actual matches. Perhaps Joseph is ripping it up in training, but Marchant has played reliably well in all of his England games which is more than we can see for a chunk of the squad. It feels grossly unfair to leave him out.
You could be right on Care coming in to fill the experience gap.
I'm all for giving guys a chance to establish themselves. Having picked Porter last week, giving him another go this week doesnt strike me as unreasonable.
I dont think he's in the same league as Marchant or Dingwall but he's been given a chance so maybe he's got more to offer then we've seen so far.
Marchant on the bench would have made a bit more sense as he's plainly up to international standard and could have covered wing.
Unfortunately Heyes will not be starting an international on this tour. Pity, as we do need to test him to see if he really can challenge the top 2. Stuart has been very good, though.
FKAS wrote:I saw the clip of Farrell giving Porter is first cap and he said something like Porter's competitiveness or similar both in the game and training had been awesome. I wonder if Eddie just wants a bit more dog in the midfield, Porter doesn't have the class of Marchant but he's the kind of bloke who'd run through a brick wall for the team and bring the aggression, which England have definitely gone in for this tour.
I do get why we're doing it - 2nd and 3rd test of a crucial Australia series are not time to blood a new full-back and also it's easy to forget that Steward is still very young and inexperienced and still needs these kind of games for his development.
That said, this overplaying needs to be paid back later and I'm hoping that discussions have been had with Leicester, not only for us to give him an extra 2-3 weeks rest at the start of the season, but for England to be preparing to rest him for one of the AIs (probably Argentina or Japan) and for the Italy 6N match. Last thing we need is to break him.
The players through the RPA should be lobbying- and taking direct action if needed- to reduce the number of games overall. Unfair to ask individual players to sit out big test series deciders or prem finals/semi finals etc. Those games are career defining and why they play the sport in the first place. If 32 is the max a player should be playing then there should be no more than 32 games in a season.
Also the only real way the sport will deal with the concussion is issue is to reduce the number of fixtures and have a proper break between seasons.
Timbo wrote:The players through the RPA should be lobbying- and taking direct action if needed- to reduce the number of games overall. Unfair to ask individual players to sit out big test series deciders or prem finals/semi finals etc. Those games are career defining and why they play the sport in the first place. If 32 is the max a player should be playing then there should be no more than 32 games in a season.
Also the only real way the sport will deal with the concussion is issue is to reduce the number of fixtures and have a proper break between seasons.
I mean, you're absolutely right, but I don't think the appetite is there from the players. Fewer club games means less money for the clubs, less money for the clubs means lower wages, and while they might want less abuse of their bodies (and wish they'd voted for it when they're 40), they're not willing to take a lower paycheque for it. Speaking as someone who does life insurance and income protection insurance for a living, people of 20-29 are very hard to convince to take jam tomorrow.
Timbo wrote:The players through the RPA should be lobbying- and taking direct action if needed- to reduce the number of games overall. Unfair to ask individual players to sit out big test series deciders or prem finals/semi finals etc. Those games are career defining and why they play the sport in the first place. If 32 is the max a player should be playing then there should be no more than 32 games in a season.
Also the only real way the sport will deal with the concussion is issue is to reduce the number of fixtures and have a proper break between seasons.
I mean, you're absolutely right, but I don't think the appetite is there from the players. Fewer club games means less money for the clubs, less money for the clubs means lower wages, and while they might want less abuse of their bodies (and wish they'd voted for it when they're 40), they're not willing to take a lower paycheque for it. Speaking as someone who does life insurance and income protection insurance for a living, people of 20-29 are very hard to convince to take jam tomorrow.
Puja
Right, but over the last few years you’ve had a players union that has stood by while the number of fixtures have gone up and the salary cap has gone down. Whatever the reasons, if I was asked the do more work for less pay I’d expect my union to step in. No good chiming in now with a few sound bites.
I still think a 'top-down' dose of realism is the only way to get anywhere. The first agenda item has to be country/club fixture clashes. No top club games should be scheduled when internationals are on. If that creates overall fixture congestion, reducing the size of European competitions should be a first step.
Loss of club 'gate' income needs imagination and compromise to overcome. Under-21 competitions, reinstating 'A' internationals on Friday nights at club grounds and even regional games could all be considered - any competitions that do not involve international players (all within the 32 game rule etc.).
