Transfer gossip - sometimes even accurate (accidentally) - Season 2022/23

[Banquo]

I did listen to a podcast a good while ago with Marchant where he said he’d always wanted to give the Top14 a go. Think he said his agent had looked around at one point but the right offer wasn’t on the table. Remember he also left for Super Rugby at a time that didn’t make a lot of sense in terms of pushing his case as an England player.

I think he’s a young bloke that wants to make the most of the great opportunities professional sport brings. My personal opinion is that the England situation has had very little effect on his choice to go abroad.

yep, made similar point re super rugby.

[Gloskarlos]

I’m guessing Marchant only had to talk to Care to find out that once you’ve pissed him off, which it seems Marchant has done, then there is virtually no way back.
Again, I’m not saying Marchant would’ve stayed if he were still on the England team but it must’ve surely weighed on his decision, if even only slightly. I just don’t agree with the line that being completely dropped despite being in good form wouldn’t even enter the decision making process.
As for working your way back in, according to Mike Brown once you dare to question Eddie you’re done, see Lozowski, Care and Goode. Not that that has any bearing if Eddie’s actions, past or future, didn’t play a part in Marchant’s decision.
I guess we’ll never know, unless Eddie tells us in the latest iteration of his autobiography…

Yep, and if you go digging there is plenty more fodder to feed the fire.



http://www.rugb.co.uk/forum/download/fi ... &mode=view

Not sure that link will work, but therein resides a Max Malins story.

Take from it what you will, but I guarantee this has an affect on players.

[Mellsblue]

I’m guessing Marchant only had to talk to Care to find out that once you’ve pissed him off, which it seems Marchant has done, then there is virtually no way back.
Again, I’m not saying Marchant would’ve stayed if he were still on the England team but it must’ve surely weighed on his decision, if even only slightly. I just don’t agree with the line that being completely dropped despite being in good form wouldn’t even enter the decision making process.
As for working your way back in, according to Mike Brown once you dare to question Eddie you’re done, see Lozowski, Care and Goode. Not that that has any bearing if Eddie’s actions, past or future, didn’t play a part in Marchant’s decision.
I guess we’ll never know, unless Eddie tells us in the latest iteration of his autobiography…

Yep, and if you go digging there is plenty more fodder to feed the fire.



http://www.rugb.co.uk/forum/download/fi ... &mode=view

Not sure that link will work, but therein resides a Max Malins story.

Take from it what you will, but I guarantee this has an affect on players.

The Times have reported the same on Malins in a piece today about the atmosphere in camp (in fact I’m fairly certain they are excerpts from The Times today). There were other bad ones as well, particularly one about Marland Yarde. As a paper they’ve been pretty hot on how Jones treats players and staff, writing numerous stories on it over the last year or so with stories that have clearly come from inside camp. In the middle of today’s piece the journo wrote: ‘Joe Marchant has turned his back on the national team altogether by signing for Stade Francais’. Make of that what you will.
Two other sentences that sum it up for me:
1) ‘Senior players were increasingly uncomfortable with how some junior team-mates were spoken to.’
2) ‘He (Sweeney) could’ve just listened to the players’ song. They genuinely used to have a song about the departed staff.’ Gallows humour stuff.
And I write all this as someone who chuckled when hearing he chucked a bag of sweets at Youngs* and told him to lose some weight…

I always picture it as Jones throwing the bag at his feet.

[FKAS]

I’m guessing Marchant only had to talk to Care to find out that once you’ve pissed him off, which it seems Marchant has done, then there is virtually no way back.

That the Care that was recalled in the summer, showed he wasn't up to international rugby (again) and then dropped in favour of a 21 year old making his debut.

Players fall out of international favour for various reasons and sometimes because they aren't good enough. Some like to point to disagreements with Eddie rather than maybe admit they aren't as good as they were when they were selected regularly.

[Mellsblue]

I’m guessing Marchant only had to talk to Care to find out that once you’ve pissed him off, which it seems Marchant has done, then there is virtually no way back.

That the Care that was recalled in the summer, showed he wasn't up to international rugby (again) and then dropped in favour of a 21 year old making his debut.

Players fall out of international favour for various reasons and sometimes because they aren't good enough. Some like to point to disagreements with Eddie rather than maybe admit they aren't as good as they were when they were selected regularly.

Yep, but you left out the fact there were many years between the drop and the recall, that he was the form 9 for decent chunks of those intervening years, and the numerous players on record stating it was because Care dared question Eddie at some point before or after that fateful match vs Japan, not just the affected player(s) himself.
You’ve also completely ignored the word ‘virtually’ which renders your point, erm, pointless.
You also seemed to have conveniently not quoted the section with a name check of a couple of other players who suffered similar treatment.

All that said, I’m enjoying the irony of you criticising a poor performance by an England scrumhalf.

[Banquo]

I’m guessing Marchant only had to talk to Care to find out that once you’ve pissed him off, which it seems Marchant has done, then there is virtually no way back.

That the Care that was recalled in the summer, showed he wasn't up to international rugby (again) and then dropped in favour of a 21 year old making his debut.

Players fall out of international favour for various reasons and sometimes because they aren't good enough. Some like to point to disagreements with Eddie rather than maybe admit they aren't as good as they were when they were selected regularly.

Yep, but you left out the fact there were many years between the drop and the recall, that he was the form 9 for decent chunks of those intervening years, and the numerous players on record stating it was because Care dared question Eddie at some point before or after that fateful match vs Japan, not just the affected player(s) himself.
You also seemed to have conveniently not quoted the section with a name check of a couple of other players who suffered similar treatment.

All that said, I’m enjoying the irony of you criticising a poor performance by an England scrumhalf.

Danny has been pretty magnanimous about it all, which is interesting and classy (from the beeb); he was not well treated on the surface of it (mind, I remember Burt canning him as well, after a mare)

Meanwhile, England scrum-half Danny Care has revealed he exchanged messages with Jones after news broke of the coach's exit.

Care started in Jones' first England team selection in 2016 and was recalled to the set-up for this summer's tour of Australia after four years out of the squad.

"I dropped him a text to say thanks for everything you did for me, to wish him all the best in the future and say that hopefully we can share a bottle of wine in the future," said Care.

"He gave me my greatest moment in an England shirt, that start in the Grand Slam game [the 2016 win over France], so I do owe a lot to him.

"I didn't play for a few years under him but he will always be one of the greatest coaches I ever worked with.

"Eddie replied. He said he really appreciated the message, that it was a pleasure to coach you, keep playing well and good luck for the next couple of years. It was a nice text."

[Puja]

Yeah, I thought that was a touch of class from Care too. Nice gesture, when he could very easily have taken the opportunity to earn a few quid from the media by sticking the boot in.

Puja

[FKAS]

I’m guessing Marchant only had to talk to Care to find out that once you’ve pissed him off, which it seems Marchant has done, then there is virtually no way back.

That the Care that was recalled in the summer, showed he wasn't up to international rugby (again) and then dropped in favour of a 21 year old making his debut.

Players fall out of international favour for various reasons and sometimes because they aren't good enough. Some like to point to disagreements with Eddie rather than maybe admit they aren't as good as they were when they were selected regularly.

Yep, but you left out the fact there were many years between the drop and the recall, that he was the form 9 for decent chunks of those intervening years, and the numerous players on record stating it was because Care dared question Eddie at some point before or after that fateful match vs Japan, not just the affected player(s) himself.
You also seemed to have conveniently not quoted the section with a name check of a couple of other players who suffered similar treatment.

All that said, I’m enjoying the irony of you criticising a poor performance by an England scrumhalf.

And if Youngs or any other scrum half was dropped I'd expect him to work on areas of his game to force his way back in. Care never fixed the areas he needed to, to be anything more than an international impact sub. Despite his good attacking form he regularly came off second best in tactical battles with opposition 9s which is why I assume he was dropped in the first place.

I've generally found most of the hype relating to Care to come from either Care or via some of his friends who are now pundits.

Nice to hear that he and Eddie get on well off the pitch and there's mutual respect. Makes the accusations from Eddie's pal on the GBR podcast earlier quite interesting.

[Mellsblue]

That the Care that was recalled in the summer, showed he wasn't up to international rugby (again) and then dropped in favour of a 21 year old making his debut.

Players fall out of international favour for various reasons and sometimes because they aren't good enough. Some like to point to disagreements with Eddie rather than maybe admit they aren't as good as they were when they were selected regularly.

Yep, but you left out the fact there were many years between the drop and the recall, that he was the form 9 for decent chunks of those intervening years, and the numerous players on record stating it was because Care dared question Eddie at some point before or after that fateful match vs Japan, not just the affected player(s) himself.
You also seemed to have conveniently not quoted the section with a name check of a couple of other players who suffered similar treatment.

All that said, I’m enjoying the irony of you criticising a poor performance by an England scrumhalf.

And if Youngs or any other scrum half was dropped I'd expect him to work on areas of his game to force his way back in. Care never fixed the areas he needed to, to be anything more than an international impact sub. Despite his good attacking form he regularly came off second best in tactical battles with opposition 9s which is why I assume he was dropped in the first place.

I've generally found most of the hype relating to Care to come from either Care or via some of his friends who are now pundits.

Nice to hear that he and Eddie get on well off the pitch and there's mutual respect. Makes the accusations from Eddie's pal on the GBR podcast earlier quite interesting.

We’ll never know whether he fixed them as he had one opportunity, many less than favourites who were allowed plenty of bad games. If he was only an international impact sub then it’s strange that wasn’t picked as just that rather than the likes of Heinz and Spencer…
You’re still missing the point that Care is far from alone from being ostracised for daring to question Jones. You’re also missing the point of numerous stories about how he treated many players and coaches.

Where did you hear they get on well off the pitch?

[p/d]

Where did you hear they get on well off the pitch?

Gary Morgs

[FKAS]

Yep, but you left out the fact there were many years between the drop and the recall, that he was the form 9 for decent chunks of those intervening years, and the numerous players on record stating it was because Care dared question Eddie at some point before or after that fateful match vs Japan, not just the affected player(s) himself.
You also seemed to have conveniently not quoted the section with a name check of a couple of other players who suffered similar treatment.

All that said, I’m enjoying the irony of you criticising a poor performance by an England scrumhalf.

And if Youngs or any other scrum half was dropped I'd expect him to work on areas of his game to force his way back in. Care never fixed the areas he needed to, to be anything more than an international impact sub. Despite his good attacking form he regularly came off second best in tactical battles with opposition 9s which is why I assume he was dropped in the first place.

I've generally found most of the hype relating to Care to come from either Care or via some of his friends who are now pundits.

Nice to hear that he and Eddie get on well off the pitch and there's mutual respect. Makes the accusations from Eddie's pal on the GBR podcast earlier quite interesting.

We’ll never know whether he fixed them as he had one opportunity, many less than favourites who were allowed plenty of bad games. If he was only an international impact sub then it’s strange that wasn’t picked as just that rather than the likes of Heinz and Spencer…
You’re still missing the point that Care is far from alone from being ostracised for daring to question Jones. You’re also missing the point of numerous stories about how he treated many players and coaches.

Where did you hear they get on well off the pitch?

I don't generally offer to meet up with people I don't get on with over a bottle of wine which is what Care is credited with saying per Banquo's post earlier.


"I dropped him a text to say thanks for everything you did for me, to wish him all the best in the future and say that hopefully we can share a bottle of wine in the future," said Care.

I assume Heinz and then Spencer were preferred because Eddie was only willing to have two scrum halfs in the squad and if Youngs was injured early doors then he wanted that tactical ability. Eddie wanted a specific skillset at 9 and Care unfortunately didn't fulfill that. Care questioning the game plan because it didn't suit him may or may not have helped matters. I refer to my earlier post where I point out there are many reasons a coach may drop a player but sometimes the player doesn't want to accept or publicly accept those reasons so it's easier to blame the coach.

[Mikey Brown]

Care has his faults as a player, and certainly in Eddie's plan, but I thought that clash was fairly well documented/accepted as being the end of Care's time with England back then? It's good that neither seem to hold grudges, it just feels like an odd example to point to.

It's hard to picture going back to not having all this drama and questions over the subtext of everything Eddie says/does. It's a bit like going from Trump to Biden. Borthwick just shutting up and pretending everything fine might be an improvement, but who knows.

[Spiffy]

And if Youngs or any other scrum half was dropped I'd expect him to work on areas of his game to force his way back in. Care never fixed the areas he needed to, to be anything more than an international impact sub. Despite his good attacking form he regularly came off second best in tactical battles with opposition 9s which is why I assume he was dropped in the first place.

I've generally found most of the hype relating to Care to come from either Care or via some of his friends who are now pundits.

Nice to hear that he and Eddie get on well off the pitch and there's mutual respect. Makes the accusations from Eddie's pal on the GBR podcast earlier quite interesting.

We’ll never know whether he fixed them as he had one opportunity, many less than favourites who were allowed plenty of bad games. If he was only an international impact sub then it’s strange that wasn’t picked as just that rather than the likes of Heinz and Spencer…
You’re still missing the point that Care is far from alone from being ostracised for daring to question Jones. You’re also missing the point of numerous stories about how he treated many players and coaches.

Where did you hear they get on well off the pitch?

I don't generally offer to meet up with people I don't get on with over a bottle of wine which is what Care is credited with saying per Banquo's post earlier.


"I dropped him a text to say thanks for everything you did for me, to wish him all the best in the future and say that hopefully we can share a bottle of wine in the future," said Care.

I assume Heinz and then Spencer were preferred because Eddie was only willing to have two scrum halfs in the squad and if Youngs was injured early doors then he wanted that tactical ability. Eddie wanted a specific skillset at 9 and Care unfortunately didn't fulfill that. Care questioning the game plan because it didn't suit him may or may not have helped matters. I refer to my earlier post where I point out there are many reasons a coach may drop a player but sometimes the player doesn't want to accept or publicly accept those reasons so it's easier to blame the coach.

Care's skillset has always been pretty obvious. He is an attack orientated SH who is not particularly good in defence, always likely to make a couple of howlers, but capable of the unexpected and at times a match winner. Jones was well aware of this, so he selected him anyway and asked him to play a game that was not his natural one. If that did not work I would blame Jones, not Care.
It's the same as selecting Marcus Smith and asking him do do something different (and more constraining) than the things he does every week at Quins. We saw something like the real Smith in England's purple patch 10 min v. the All Blacks. If you have players with natural flair in some elements of the game, it's probably better to design tactics around the strength of those players rather than trying to shoe horn them into a game plan where they don't fit. Or, vice versa, if you want to play with specific tactics/game plan, then don't select players who are not comfortable with that setup.

[Mellsblue]

And if Youngs or any other scrum half was dropped I'd expect him to work on areas of his game to force his way back in. Care never fixed the areas he needed to, to be anything more than an international impact sub. Despite his good attacking form he regularly came off second best in tactical battles with opposition 9s which is why I assume he was dropped in the first place.

I've generally found most of the hype relating to Care to come from either Care or via some of his friends who are now pundits.

Nice to hear that he and Eddie get on well off the pitch and there's mutual respect. Makes the accusations from Eddie's pal on the GBR podcast earlier quite interesting.

We’ll never know whether he fixed them as he had one opportunity, many less than favourites who were allowed plenty of bad games. If he was only an international impact sub then it’s strange that wasn’t picked as just that rather than the likes of Heinz and Spencer…
You’re still missing the point that Care is far from alone from being ostracised for daring to question Jones. You’re also missing the point of numerous stories about how he treated many players and coaches.

Where did you hear they get on well off the pitch?

I don't generally offer to meet up with people I don't get on with over a bottle of wine which is what Care is credited with saying per Banquo's post earlier.


"I dropped him a text to say thanks for everything you did for me, to wish him all the best in the future and say that hopefully we can share a bottle of wine in the future," said Care.

I assume Heinz and then Spencer were preferred because Eddie was only willing to have two scrum halfs in the squad and if Youngs was injured early doors then he wanted that tactical ability. Eddie wanted a specific skillset at 9 and Care unfortunately didn't fulfill that. Care questioning the game plan because it didn't suit him may or may not have helped matters. I refer to my earlier post where I point out there are many reasons a coach may drop a player but sometimes the player doesn't want to accept or publicly accept those reasons so it's easier to blame the coach.

The offer of a bottle of wine seems like more of a rapprochement than an acknowledgment they get on.

As M Brown says, it’s pretty well documented from numerous reliable sources that Care and Jones fell out but I’ll take your word for it that you’re right and the numerous reliable sources are wrong.

[FKAS]

We’ll never know whether he fixed them as he had one opportunity, many less than favourites who were allowed plenty of bad games. If he was only an international impact sub then it’s strange that wasn’t picked as just that rather than the likes of Heinz and Spencer…
You’re still missing the point that Care is far from alone from being ostracised for daring to question Jones. You’re also missing the point of numerous stories about how he treated many players and coaches.

Where did you hear they get on well off the pitch?

I don't generally offer to meet up with people I don't get on with over a bottle of wine which is what Care is credited with saying per Banquo's post earlier.


"I dropped him a text to say thanks for everything you did for me, to wish him all the best in the future and say that hopefully we can share a bottle of wine in the future," said Care.

I assume Heinz and then Spencer were preferred because Eddie was only willing to have two scrum halfs in the squad and if Youngs was injured early doors then he wanted that tactical ability. Eddie wanted a specific skillset at 9 and Care unfortunately didn't fulfill that. Care questioning the game plan because it didn't suit him may or may not have helped matters. I refer to my earlier post where I point out there are many reasons a coach may drop a player but sometimes the player doesn't want to accept or publicly accept those reasons so it's easier to blame the coach.

The offer of a bottle of wine seems like more of a rapprochement than an acknowledgment they get on.

As M Brown says, it’s pretty well documented from numerous reliable sources that Care and Jones fell out but I’ll take your word for it that you’re right and the numerous reliable sources are wrong.

I didn't say they didn't have a disagreement, I said that might not be the sole reason Eddie went in another direction. In the work place people have disagreements about direction all the time. Can get heated sometimes, in the good work places it's encouraged and not taken personally.

[FKAS]

We’ll never know whether he fixed them as he had one opportunity, many less than favourites who were allowed plenty of bad games. If he was only an international impact sub then it’s strange that wasn’t picked as just that rather than the likes of Heinz and Spencer…
You’re still missing the point that Care is far from alone from being ostracised for daring to question Jones. You’re also missing the point of numerous stories about how he treated many players and coaches.

Where did you hear they get on well off the pitch?

I don't generally offer to meet up with people I don't get on with over a bottle of wine which is what Care is credited with saying per Banquo's post earlier.


"I dropped him a text to say thanks for everything you did for me, to wish him all the best in the future and say that hopefully we can share a bottle of wine in the future," said Care.

I assume Heinz and then Spencer were preferred because Eddie was only willing to have two scrum halfs in the squad and if Youngs was injured early doors then he wanted that tactical ability. Eddie wanted a specific skillset at 9 and Care unfortunately didn't fulfill that. Care questioning the game plan because it didn't suit him may or may not have helped matters. I refer to my earlier post where I point out there are many reasons a coach may drop a player but sometimes the player doesn't want to accept or publicly accept those reasons so it's easier to blame the coach.

Care's skillset has always been pretty obvious. He is an attack orientated SH who is not particularly good in defence, always likely to make a couple of howlers, but capable of the unexpected and at times a match winner. Jones was well aware of this, so he selected him anyway and asked him to play a game that was not his natural one. If that did not work I would blame Jones, not Care.
It's the same as selecting Marcus Smith and asking him do do something different (and more constraining) than the things he does every week at Quins. We saw something like the real Smith in England's purple patch 10 min v. the All Blacks. If you have players with natural flair in some elements of the game, it's probably better to design tactics around the strength of those players rather than trying to shoe horn them into a game plan where they don't fit. Or, vice versa, if you want to play with specific tactics/game plan, then don't select players who are not comfortable with that setup.

If you're an international halfback without any versatility then you aren't a very good one. The All Blacks purple patch was the same attack that England had been trying to run for most of the game. The main change was an additional distributor and Porter's ability to be a flanker on the wing to provide an extra physical carrier. Smith's got plenty of ability but England are unlikely to ever to be able to offer him the helter skelter game plan Quins do because it's reliant on a massive inside centre and isn't particularly reliable.

Care was a fairly experienced scrum half when Eddie joined and there wasn't a lot of options. Useful impact sub but as Eddie honed down his game plan heading to the world cup Care didn't fit. Care didn't like that (understandably) but the game plan was effective and one player isn't more valuable than the team.

[Which Tyler]

Care's skillset has always been pretty obvious. He is an attack orientated SH who is not particularly good in defence, always likely to make a couple of howlers, but capable of the unexpected and at times a match winner. Jones was well aware of this, so he selected him anyway and asked him to play a game that was not his natural one. If that did not work I would blame Jones, not Care.
It's the same as selecting Marcus Smith and asking him do do something different (and more constraining) than the things he does every week at Quins. We saw something like the real Smith in England's purple patch 10 min v. the All Blacks. If you have players with natural flair in some elements of the game, it's probably better to design tactics around the strength of those players rather than trying to shoe horn them into a game plan where they don't fit. Or, vice versa, if you want to play with specific tactics/game plan, then don't select players who are not comfortable with that setup.

Out of interest - who's fault is it if you select 14 players to suit the skillset of one? Or change the gameplan of the whole team to suit the gameplan of 1 player?
I seem to remember a hell of a lot of criticism of Jones using a gameplan to suit Tuilagi (who is a hell of a lot more justified in building a gameplan around than Danny Care is/was) even though it wasn't true that he'd done such a thing.

[Mellsblue]

Smith's got plenty of ability but England are unlikely to ever to be able to offer him the helter skelter game plan Quins do because it's reliant on a massive inside centre and isn't particularly reliable.

I think you need to have a chat with Nick Evans about the framework for Harlequins’ ‘helter skelter’ game plan.

[Mellsblue]

I don't generally offer to meet up with people I don't get on with over a bottle of wine which is what Care is credited with saying per Banquo's post earlier.


"I dropped him a text to say thanks for everything you did for me, to wish him all the best in the future and say that hopefully we can share a bottle of wine in the future," said Care.

I assume Heinz and then Spencer were preferred because Eddie was only willing to have two scrum halfs in the squad and if Youngs was injured early doors then he wanted that tactical ability. Eddie wanted a specific skillset at 9 and Care unfortunately didn't fulfill that. Care questioning the game plan because it didn't suit him may or may not have helped matters. I refer to my earlier post where I point out there are many reasons a coach may drop a player but sometimes the player doesn't want to accept or publicly accept those reasons so it's easier to blame the coach.

The offer of a bottle of wine seems like more of a rapprochement than an acknowledgment they get on.

As M Brown says, it’s pretty well documented from numerous reliable sources that Care and Jones fell out but I’ll take your word for it that you’re right and the numerous reliable sources are wrong.

I didn't say they didn't have a disagreement, I said that might not be the sole reason Eddie went in another direction. In the work place people have disagreements about direction all the time. Can get heated sometimes, in the good work places it's encouraged and not taken personally.

Again, we’re still meant to believe you over numerous sources from within the pro game?
If you think it’s ok for an employer to sack/ostracise/force out an employee (not just Care, there is a list) then…
A good work place encourages input from the entire team not a culture in which it leads to censure.
The irony is that in The Times write up today one of the positives about Borthwick is the fact he lets all coaches of all standings to contribute rather than managing by diktat.

[Puja]

Right, let's shovel any further Jones chat into the Jones thread. We're supposed to be free of him now - we don't need two threads going with this discussion!

Mod

[Stom]

Care's skillset has always been pretty obvious. He is an attack orientated SH who is not particularly good in defence, always likely to make a couple of howlers, but capable of the unexpected and at times a match winner. Jones was well aware of this, so he selected him anyway and asked him to play a game that was not his natural one. If that did not work I would blame Jones, not Care.
It's the same as selecting Marcus Smith and asking him do do something different (and more constraining) than the things he does every week at Quins. We saw something like the real Smith in England's purple patch 10 min v. the All Blacks. If you have players with natural flair in some elements of the game, it's probably better to design tactics around the strength of those players rather than trying to shoe horn them into a game plan where they don't fit. Or, vice versa, if you want to play with specific tactics/game plan, then don't select players who are not comfortable with that setup.

Out of interest - who's fault is it if you select 14 players to suit the skillset of one? Or change the gameplan of the whole team to suit the gameplan of 1 player?
I seem to remember a hell of a lot of criticism of Jones using a gameplan to suit Tuilagi (who is a hell of a lot more justified in building a gameplan around than Danny Care is/was) even though it wasn't true that he'd done such a thing.

I think the point is that if you don't want your SH to play like Care...don't pick Care. Or, you know, pick Care and get frustrated when it doesn't go to plan.

But I don't get this conversation, it's pointless.

Someone being magnanimous has that held against them? I'd say Care comes out of this pretty well. And Quins are hardly helter skelter. If they were, they'd lose just as many as win, and that's definitely not been the case.

[Mikey Brown]

Right, let's shovel any further Jones chat into the Jones thread. We're supposed to be free of him now - we don't need two threads going with this discussion!

Mod

Agreed. We need to focus our energy and collective expertise on the more pressing matter, whether 28 year old Danny Care was actually good or not.

[Mellsblue]

Right, let's shovel any further Jones chat into the Jones thread. We're supposed to be free of him now - we don't need two threads going with this discussion!

Mod

Agreed. We need to focus our energy and collective expertise on the more pressing matter, whether 28 year old Danny Care was actually good or not.

The real question was whether he was better than Heinz and Spencer…

[FKAS]

Right, let's shovel any further Jones chat into the Jones thread. We're supposed to be free of him now - we don't need two threads going with this discussion!

Mod

Agreed. We need to focus our energy and collective expertise on the more pressing matter, whether 28 year old Danny Care was actually good or not.

The real question was whether he was better than Heinz and Spencer…

No it's whether he could deliver the game plan better than Heinz or Spencer.

I suggest we follow Puja's advice and shelve the discussion.

[jimKRFC]

Bristol Evening Post saying that Pat Lam is looking at Fergus Lee-Warner for next year. Apparently feels the 2nd row is under powered and, due to cap cock up, was unable to replace Attwood.