[November Tests 2017 EOYT] England vs. Argentina (11/11/2017)

[MikeTheNative]

I think the score flattered England a bit, how many points did Argentina miss from the tee? Farrell will come back in at 12 next week which should help them get back to their best, Youngs struggled but he was behind a pack that was losing the contact in the loose so I'm not sure how much you can ask from him in that situation.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I've had a change of heart about Brown. If no one else watches 1014 Rugby on Youtube I'd seriously recommend them, I've learnt a lot from their analysis (I hope this doesn't count as advertising as I have 0 ties to them, I'd honestly just recommend them, they deserve way more publicity than they get), and recently they've focused quite a bit on the idea of the spine of the team; the 2, 8, 9, 10 and 15. They're considered to be the leading decision makers and the players that should have most experience and should be the first names on the team sheet. EJ clearly buys into this philosophy; since his reign began, Hartley, Vunipola, Youngs, Ford and Brown have all been first choices when fit (other than Burrell's 20 minutes in Oz and some experimental Care cameos), and furthermore have all captained or vice-captained at some point.

It's also no coincidence that in 3 of the 4 home nations, the biggest selection controversies are their fullbacks (Brown for England, Kearney for Ireland, Halfpenny for Wales). Almost all supporters of these nations want these players dropped for more exciting, younger players (Watson, Carbery and Williams), yet the nations' coaches refuse to do this. The reason why is simple, it's because we play suffocation rugby; we revolve around reliability in defence, in our kicking and under the high ball. Sure, Brown isn't a bonafide linebreaker like Folau or DMac but when he's he ever dropped a high ball, made a glaring defensive error (other than that Betts humiliation) or put in a poor kick? He doesn't. Does he need to learn to pass the more ball instead of running himself? Absolutely, but I'd much rather keep a player who has 62 caps, all of the core skills but just needs a slight change in attitude than risk a fullback unproven at test level in that position just 2 years before a world cup who is, IMO, more suited to the wing anyway.

I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but this is the opinion I've come to adopt (as hard as it is considering that it likely means Nowell no longer making the 23).

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I like Mike Brown and think he gets **** on way too much.
Deserves the shirt atm. If Nowell was fit then I'd say this series was the one to start the process of Watson taking over at 15, but as it stands I'd have Watson on the wing and Brown at 15.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I've had a change of heart about Brown. If no one else watches 1014 Rugby on Youtube I'd seriously recommend them, I've learnt a lot from their analysis (I hope this doesn't count as advertising as I have 0 ties to them, I'd honestly just recommend them, they deserve way more publicity than they get), and recently they've focused quite a bit on the idea of the spine of the team; the 2, 8, 9, 10 and 15. They're considered to be the leading decision makers and the players that should have most experience and should be the first names on the team sheet. EJ clearly buys into this philosophy; since his reign began, Hartley, Vunipola, Youngs, Ford and Brown have all been first choices when fit (other than Burrell's 20 minutes in Oz and some experimental Care cameos), and furthermore have all captained or vice-captained at some point.

It's also no coincidence that in 3 of the 4 home nations, the biggest selection controversies are their fullbacks (Brown for England, Kearney for Ireland, Halfpenny for Wales). Almost all supporters of these nations want these players dropped for more exciting, younger players (Watson, Carbery and Williams), yet the nations' coaches refuse to do this. The reason why is simple, it's because we play suffocation rugby; we revolve around reliability in defence, in our kicking and under the high ball. Sure, Brown isn't a bonafide linebreaker like Folau or DMac but when he's he ever dropped a high ball, made a glaring defensive error (other than that Betts humiliation) or put in a poor kick? He doesn't. Does he need to learn to pass the more ball instead of running himself? Absolutely, but I'd much rather keep a player who has 62 caps, all of the core skills but just needs a slight change in attitude than risk a fullback unproven at test level in that position just 2 years before a world cup who is, IMO, more suited to the wing anyway.

I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but this is the opinion I've come to adopt (as hard as it is considering that it likely means Nowell no longer making the 23).

I've watched them a little bit, while I'm not too sure I agree with the "spine of the team", think their point there might be coincidental more than anything else and can hardly be applied to NZ's 2011 winning side, I agree with your point at 15. The boring core skills at 15 are definitely far more important than attacking ability, every strong fullback has these but the likes of Smith, Hogg, Williams and Folau add to it and their sides use this to their advantage. Kearney and Brown, very similar players, aren't going to play make, aren't going to beat men themselves but the two are still very useful strike runners and don't lose the ball when match fit. I can't remember any teams getting much change kicking the ball at either of thire sides because they position themselves so well and always have time on the ball to do the right thing, now I think Carbery can do and has been doing it with Leinster (O'Halloran can't, Conway needs to improve his fielding/get taller...) which is why I wouldn't mind seeing that but Schmidt is using him as a 10 while there's no Jackson and rightly so. I couldn't comment too much regarding English 15s as I haven't watched any English club rugby since last season's ERCC but reading this post I'd imagine I would be quite Pro Brown unless Watson or Daly are as intelligent at 15 which I'd be surprised at having seen them on the wing.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

We know exactly what Brown brings. He has excellent strengths- helps set the tone, great under the high ball etc. Yet he has very obvious weaknesses in both pace and vision which aren't great for a position that's just as offensive as defensive.

He may be our best option, he may not. Personally I don't think he is, but there are two very good reasons to find out. One is that he'll be 34 by the start of Japan 19 and it's unlikely he'll get any better in those two years. Second, given his history he may be only one awkward landing or mistimed tackle away from retirement.

And if we are serious about RWC 19, then we have to look at our players and compare them against the calibre of opposition. Would you pick Brown over Smith or Folau? Even if Smith's not around for Japan, the ABs will find someone else of similar calibre. Watson could be of a comparable standard.

 

[Scotty]

I've had a change of heart about Brown. If no one else watches 1014 Rugby on Youtube I'd seriously recommend them, I've learnt a lot from their analysis (I hope this doesn't count as advertising as I have 0 ties to them, I'd honestly just recommend them, they deserve way more publicity than they get), and recently they've focused quite a bit on the idea of the spine of the team; the 2, 8, 9, 10 and 15. They're considered to be the leading decision makers and the players that should have most experience and should be the first names on the team sheet. EJ clearly buys into this philosophy; since his reign began, Hartley, Vunipola, Youngs, Ford and Brown have all been first choices when fit (other than Burrell's 20 minutes in Oz and some experimental Care cameos), and furthermore have all captained or vice-captained at some point.

It's also no coincidence that in 3 of the 4 home nations, the biggest selection controversies are their fullbacks (Brown for England, Kearney for Ireland, Halfpenny for Wales). Almost all supporters of these nations want these players dropped for more exciting, younger players (Watson, Carbery and Williams), yet the nations' coaches refuse to do this. The reason why is simple, it's because we play suffocation rugby; we revolve around reliability in defence, in our kicking and under the high ball. Sure, Brown isn't a bonafide linebreaker like Folau or DMac but when he's he ever dropped a high ball, made a glaring defensive error (other than that Betts humiliation) or put in a poor kick? He doesn't. Does he need to learn to pass the more ball instead of running himself? Absolutely, but I'd much rather keep a player who has 62 caps, all of the core skills but just needs a slight change in attitude than risk a fullback unproven at test level in that position just 2 years before a world cup who is, IMO, more suited to the wing anyway.

I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but this is the opinion I've come to adopt (as hard as it is considering that it likely means Nowell no longer making the 23).

Agreed on almost all of that amd he shouldnt be dropped out of hand, but its also not that much of a risk to play watson there, he has experience at FB and we need to give watson experience at this level at FB incase brown gets injured.

Brown is one of the most solid FB ive ever seen, he doesnt make many mistake at all and needs to be in the set up no matter what. But i have to admit watsons counter attacking is what im looking forward to. And he seemed solid under all high balls against the argies.

Im not to worried about him at FB vs aus. I think he will put down a marker.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Agreed on almost all of that amd he shouldnt be dropped out of hand, but its also not that much of a risk to play watson there, he has experience at FB and we need to give watson experience at this level at FB incase brown gets injured.

Brown is one of the most solid FB ive ever seen, he doesnt make many mistake at all and needs to be in the set up no matter what. But i have to admit watsons counter attacking is what im looking forward to. And he seemed solid under all high balls against the argies.

Im not to worried about him at FB vs aus. I think he will put down a marker.

Is Watson's counter-attacking actually that good though? Granted I don't watch a ton of Bath games but I've never seen him launch a real counter-attack from the deep field; I don't think that out and out pace is actually that much of an asset when you're running at a defence head on, and his foot work really isn't that exceptional and he definitely doesn't have the play-making ability to fall into that category. I'm not at all saying that he's a bad player or that he shouldn't be Brown's heir but I fail to see what he really offers ATM that Brown doesn't.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Is Watson's counter-attacking actually that good though? Granted I don't watch a ton of Bath games but I've never seen him launch a real counter-attack from the deep field; I don't think that out and out pace is actually that much of an asset when you're running at a defence head on, and his foot work really isn't that exceptional and he definitely doesn't have the play-making ability to fall into that category. I'm not at all saying that he's a bad player or that he shouldn't be Brown's heir but I fail to see what he really offers ATM that Brown doesn't.

I'm genuinely shocked that you believe either of these things...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Weirdly on most other places I've seen (social media, rugbynetwork, reddit) Watson has a terrible reputation as a runner, everyone says he makes no ground and trips over his own feet.
I don't see it, I always thought he was universally like tbh

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I'm genuinely shocked that you believe either of these things...

As I said, I don't watch a ton of Bath games but from what I've seen of him in that Bath games I have watched and all of his international outings, I've never seen anything to suggest anything other than what I've said. I'm in no way saying he has bad footwork but he's hardly NMS. He gets taken by the first defender far more than he beats them IMO, especially when running it from deep. I think his running style is far better suited to the wing.

 

[curtbob7]

Agree on Watson, as good as he is he hasn't got the counter attacking ability and footwork of Veainu, creativity and Nowse of Goode or the solidity under the high ball of Brown.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

On Watson's counter attacking, I think its more a case of teams being very careful not to kick to him in space where he can use his speed. They're probably not so concerned when kicking to Brown or Goode.

Bit like Robinson before him, some aspects of his game can look awkward, but are usually effective enough. Defensively he's decent (and pace isn't just useful offensively). His footwork in tight spaces is pretty good. He's an automatic pick for us and if he's not world class, he's closing in on it.

 

[curtbob7]

Does Lozowski like playing 15 when he's put there? (probs rare now with Williams and Goode both at Sarries)