Possible England Side compared to last England side VS AUS

Possible England Side compared to last England side VS AUS

Post by Duncan Keen » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00


The Side originally Selected to play Australia Back before Christmas:

Full back: Perry                On Tour
Left wing: Rees                 Chapman, Brown, Beim etc.. as good
Centres: Catt and Greenwood     Greenwood On Tour, Ravenscroft far
superior to Catt
Right wing: Adebayo             Not as good as Healey or Brown or Chapman
Fly half: King                  On Tour
Scrum half: Bracken             Dawson is better
Front row: Leonard, Long, Green Green on tour,***y better than Long,
Leonard and Rowntree both poor but the best in the country.
Locks: Johnson, Archer          Archer on tour, Grewcock playing better
than Johnson
Back row: Dallaglio, Diprose, Hill      Diprose on Tour, Back better than
Hill, Dallaglio the only man not on tour who would get in the team.

So if the touring squad is such a sell out then was the test which
England DREW (i.e did not get thrashed) with Australia last year also
an insult to Australia.

You have to look at the squad and say some of the players aren't much
good. But it does not matter because only 15 players can be on the pitch
at once.

Duncan Keene

 
 
 

Possible England Side compared to last England side VS AUS

Post by Ian Diddam » Fri, 15 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> The Side originally Selected to play Australia Back before Christmas:

> Full back: Perry                On Tour
> Left wing: Rees                 Chapman, Brown, Beim etc.. as good

Hmmm... dunno...  well maybe ...  but Rees really looked the part,
whilst the others are yet to show.  That said I'm glad they've the
chance at last.  I'll miss Rees on the wing, but may the others prove
him yesterday's man!  ;-)

Quote:
> Centres: Catt and Greenwood     Greenwood On Tour, Ravenscroft far
> superior to Catt

Moot point.  catt hasn't really played in the centre internationally
(maybe as a replacement?) so is an unknown factor here.

Quote:
> Right wing: Adebayo             Not as good as Healey or Brown or Chapman

Agreed.  A disappointment for me, 'cos I think he's a trier.  But time
for someone else to have a chance certainly.

Quote:
> Fly half: King                  On Tour
> Scrum half: Bracken             Dawson is better

Moot point...  but not much between them that's for sure.  Healey as
adeqaute back up anyway.

Quote:
> Front row: Leonard, Long, Green Green on tour,***y better than Long,
> Leonard and Rowntree both poor but the best in the country.

Hmm...  Messrs Vickery & Yates (nautiness notwithstanding) might have a
word to say about that.

Quote:
> Locks: Johnson, Archer          Archer on tour, Grewcock playing
> better than Johnson

At pesent certainly.  I'm not sure Johnson will actually be missed on
tour - Archer seesm to have his "athleticism" and both of the above a
fine 2nd rows in their own right.

Quote:
> Back row: Dallaglio, Diprose, Hill      Diprose on Tour, Back better >than  Hill,

The old arguments...  I still wouldn't say better, just different.  But
Back at openside is no "2nd stringer" that's for sure!  

Quote:
> Dallaglio the only man not on tour who would get in the team.

As the incumbant captain, yes.  On current form I wouldn't be so sure.
Sturnum showed him up heaps at the w/e.

Quote:
> You have to look at the squad and say some of the players aren't much
> good.

Poor phrasing.  Untested, possibly not an obvious choice.  But not
"poor".

Oltherwise, I agree entirely Duncan, as especially with your angle!

Didds.

 
 
 

Possible England Side compared to last England side VS AUS

Post by Ben Cle » Fri, 15 May 1998 04:00:00


<<stuff deleted>>

Quote:
>The Side originally Selected to play Australia Back before Christmas:

>Full back: Perry                On Tour
>Centres: Catt and Greenwood     Greenwood On Tour
>Fly half: King                  On Tour
>Front row: Leonard, Long, Green Green on tour,***y better than Long,
>Locks: Johnson, Archer          Archer on tour
>Back row: Dallaglio, Diprose, Hill      Diprose on Tour

This also illustrates the problem. A maximum of 6 players [probably less
will play, possibly as few as a couple] who feature in both teams -- and
half of them were winning their first cap then. Which of them have been
first choice players for more than a year?

The first team that Woodward named was a big shake up, the fact that less
than a year later England are going through yet more upheaval is not a good
sign. You can't simply put a "gives us a chance to give some young players
a go" spin on it and pretend that there isn't anything surprising or
strange about it.

No matter what noises Woodward is making, I can't believe he would choose
to make such a difficult trip with no experienced players even in the
squad.

I hope England do well on the tour, they do have some good players in the
squad. But that on it's own is not the issue. We all know that this is not
the squad that we would like or expect to be taking. If England came first
it wouldn't be.

         Cheers,

                     Ben

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

University of Oregon            | http://SportToday.org/~benc
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 
 
 

Possible England Side compared to last England side VS AUS

Post by Ian Dale » Mon, 18 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
> If England came first
>it wouldn't be.

Congratualtions Ben, I think you have summed it up perfectly.

Well Jonathan, there are some straight mined people in your country!!

Ian

 
 
 

Possible England Side compared to last England side VS AUS

Post by Jonathan Chapma » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>> If England came first
>>it wouldn't be.

>Congratualtions Ben, I think you have summed it up perfectly.

>Well Jonathan, there are some straight mined people in your country!!

Indeed there are Ian, Ben Clegg prime amongst them - I would like to think
that I am also.

The set-up here could almost have been designed to shaft the national team.
If any of you had said "It is a disgrace that the players have been
permitted to get into this condition", then you would have absolutely no
argument here.
The composition of the touring side is a symptom, not the disease.

To suggest that anyone here is overjoyed that so many are injured would be
laughable.

But to suggest that there is any element of choice regarding the composition
of the touring side IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES is equally laughable and in the
terms that a lot of SH posters - yourself included - have chosen to attack
the symptom rather than the disease, offensive.

Not for me to put words in Ben Clegg's mouth - but I doubt very much that he
was referring to the players (as I think you would wish him to) when he said
that England doesn't come first.

JC