England vs SA

[p/d]

Why can't we just play players in their club positions... Except Freeman, of course, oh, and Stewart - now there's a centre pairing made in... well, somewhere that doesn't make centres.

Steward!!! Come on WT move with the times

[Which Tyler]

Sry guvna

[FKAS]

I do think we have a huge tendency to simply not look at new players. Even when we play tests against Tier 2 nations, we tend to pick a wishy washy team and keep Slade and Lawrence in midfield if possible. And Earl at 8...which just does not make any sense, as he's clearly not good enough.

9 is a huge problem position, yet we still keep going back to the same players who have been shown not up to it previously. Why not take a chance on someone new? Aus do. Wales do. Scotland do. NZ do. Heck, even France do.

Everyone else changes their team up a lot more, and we're stuck with largely the same XV as years ago, just shorn of carrying because we must have Earl in there for his shouting. And we get IFW. What about trying any of the good players who could shine given the right environment?

And that's before we get to the tactics, which just do not seem to be working.

Baxter, Dan, Martin, CCS, IFW, Sleightholme, Furbank's return - we seem to forget that we do bring in new players, just not every one that people clamour for.

Puja

This was the first squad where it felt we hadn't taken a step forward into building something better. Seeing Ben Curry, Dombrandt, Davison and to a lesser degree Cole and LCD in there it felt a bit meh. Excitement level was missing.

[FKAS]

Why can't we just play players in their club positions... Except Freeman, of course, oh, and Steward - now there's a centre pairing made in... well, somewhere that doesn't make centres.

Yeah it's called the Tigers academy...

* We've finally had the first one in about 10 years emerge now with Woodward but it's been a while.

So we going with a more out there backs selection for the Boks?

9. JvP
10. Ford
11. Northmore (he's played there for Quins... two years ago as a one off)
12. Steward
13. Freeman
14. Sleightholme
15. M Smith

[Oakboy]

Why can't we just play players in their club positions... Except Freeman, of course, oh, and Stewart - now there's a centre pairing made in... well, somewhere that doesn't make centres.

To be fair, Freeman has occasionally looked exceptional at 13 for his club. His handling, his physicality and his running lines indicated that he had natural prowess there in attack - sufficient, arguably, to suggest that there was decent raw material for a good coach to develop. Is it potential going to waste, that's the crunch.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I'm hoping we actually see some of Fin Smith, cause frankly him holding tackle bags whilst Ford leapfrogged him despite being injured pre-AIs, non-match fit and a bit gash (form wise) is the epitome of Safety Bollard!

[Puja]

I'm hoping we actually see some of Fin Smith, cause frankly him holding tackle bags whilst Ford leapfrogged him despite being injured pre-AIs, non-match fit and a bit gash (form wise) is the epitome of Safety Bollard!

In fairness, Ford looked superb for Sale before his injury, but that was several.months ago.

Puja

[FKAS]

I'm hoping we actually see some of Fin Smith, cause frankly him holding tackle bags whilst Ford leapfrogged him despite being injured pre-AIs, non-match fit and a bit gash (form wise) is the epitome of Safety Bollard!

In fairness, Ford looked superb for Sale before his injury, but that was several.months ago.

Puja

Ford coming on and moving Smith to 15 also really bright our attack alive later on after a good forty plus minutes of stodgy ineffective attacking play.

Not sure I'm looking forward to a Ford that's not full fit tackling the bomb squad mind.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I'm hoping we actually see some of Fin Smith, cause frankly him holding tackle bags whilst Ford leapfrogged him despite being injured pre-AIs, non-match fit and a bit gash (form wise) is the epitome of Safety Bollard!

In fairness, Ford looked superb for Sale before his injury, but that was several.months ago.

Puja

Did he? I mean, he looked decent against Quins and then got injured 6 minutes into the next game, and that's his season.

[Banquo]

Sh*t article by Jones tbh (dangerous and arrogant...fck off), you use what you've got and what the laws allow; that said, I've said for ages that restricting 'replacements/finishers/subs/system players/don't hurt their feelings too much' bench would benefit the game in many ways.

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/rugby-un ... -mg07xrn28

[Mikey Brown]

Agreed. If nothing else, the response from SA would be hilarious.

Obviously gets a bit complicated around injuries, front rows and cards though.

[Banquo]

Agreed. If nothing else, the response from SA would be hilarious.

Obviously gets a bit complicated around injuries, front rows and cards though.

fraid so, because coaches always find a way to get an edge (or in Richards case, a razor edge).

[Puja]

Sh*t article by Jones tbh (dangerous and arrogant...fck off), you use what you've got and what the laws allow; that said, I've said for ages that restricting 'replacements/finishers/subs/system players/don't hurt their feelings too much' bench would benefit the game in many ways.

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/rugby-un ... -mg07xrn28

Yeah, terrible article, but somehow reaching the right conclusion. Should be an 8 man bench, but only 4 substitutions per game to cover any injury/tactical, excluding blood and failed HIA. If you knew that 11 of you were playing 80 minutes (probably more likely 12, given the need to prepare for unexpected injury), it would make a massive difference to conditioning and reduce the emphasis on muscled behemoths smashing into each other for 40-50 minutes, to players who would go the distance. There'd still be the option of a game-changing tactical sub or two, but it would remove the planned "empty the tank and then we'll send a fresh one on" strategies.

I'd bet it'd have a massive impact on concussions I'd bet - you'd end up with the same change in conditioning that Super Rugby had under their ELVs in the 00s, where Jerry Collins lost half a stone of muscle as being smaller and fitter became more valuable.

Puja

[jimKRFC]

Agreed. If nothing else, the response from SA would be hilarious.

Obviously gets a bit complicated around injuries, front rows and cards though.

Not sure it is that difficult. If I were incharge it would be:
2 forwards subsitituions
2 backs subsitituions

Injury cover for the front row, but if a change is made for "injury" then the injured player(s) gets blocked from the next match (minimum).

[p/d]

Would we then see more locks starting at 6 and IceMen at 12?

[Mikey Brown]

Agreed. If nothing else, the response from SA would be hilarious.

Obviously gets a bit complicated around injuries, front rows and cards though.

Not sure it is that difficult. If I were incharge it would be:
2 forwards subsitituions
2 backs subsitituions

Injury cover for the front row, but if a change is made for "injury" then the injured player(s) gets blocked from the next match (minimum).

That's a simple solution is it? Assuming your next game is of any importance at all I don't see that being a safe option. Coaches get the choice of taking an injured star player off the field and them missing the next match (essentially a 1 game ban for picking up an injury) or they play on through the injury.

[Mellsblue]

I now read Stephen Jones stuff as if it’s a Fast Show sketch or a Victor Meldrew monologue (apols to the youngsters for those cultural references) it makes the fact I contribute to his wages far more tolerable.

[jimKRFC]

Agreed. If nothing else, the response from SA would be hilarious.

Obviously gets a bit complicated around injuries, front rows and cards though.

Not sure it is that difficult. If I were incharge it would be:
2 forwards subsitituions
2 backs subsitituions

Injury cover for the front row, but if a change is made for "injury" then the injured player(s) gets blocked from the next match (minimum).

That's a simple solution is it? Assuming your next game is of any importance at all I don't see that being a safe option. Coaches get the choice of taking an injured star player off the field and them missing the next match (essentially a 1 game ban for picking up an injury) or they play on through the injury.

Yup.

If they're genuinely injured a week off will be needed anyway & if they're not they'll stay on. I'm under no illusion it's fool proof or would be popular with managers.

[pjm1]

Here's a controversial suggestion (and probably a terrible one)...

You can use as many subs as you want (up to say 10 on the bench) but each sub made (HIAs which are unwound don't count) results in the opposition being awarded 2 points.

Use 7 subs, the other team gets a 14 point advantage...

[Danno]

It'd just balance out at 14/14 to start the match. Except perhaps Rassie who'd gamble on 16/14 to get a whole pack on at 45mins.

[Mikey Brown]

Any idea when the announcement is meant to be?

I think we announced the team very early last week, whereas Rassie (and Towsnend) waited until the last possible moment. Not really sure how they decide these things or if the mind-games element is real or not.

[FKAS]

Any idea when the announcement is meant to be?

I think we announced the team very early last week, whereas Rassie (and Towsnend) waited until the last possible moment. Not really sure how they decide these things or if the mind-games element is real or not.

Going to leave it as late as possible to spring the surprise of an almost unchanged starting 15 (would be unchanged but for injury) with a 6-2 bench split.

[Banquo]

Smith to 15 rumour…..

[Puja]

Smith to 15 rumour…..

I'm still not unconvinced that it might not be his best position internationally. Allows him to step in at 10 when he sees holes he wants to attack, while also allowing him to be an attacking runner out wide, using the pace and that wicked step to attack the outside channels. It'd be an interesting double-act to go Smith/Smith going forwards.

Puja