RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Hooky wrote:

Digby wrote:Gats did the same thing in the final week of the Lions tour to Oz, and the team looked much better for not having Gat's coaching input. But if you try that and it doesn't work you will get rinsed as a clueless tosser

Why would you get rinsed? Wales have had 5 tough matches. It's the sensible option if you ask me. If he drills them too hard in training this week, that would be a reason to rinse him, given how knackered we looked. We need to taper, much like marathon training

Because the media will interview any number of ex pros who'll talk about failing to do the hard work required. I'm not saying it's the wrong call, but it's a riskier move for the reputation of the coach

Also, 5 tough matches? When?

If he wins then he is a hero. Lose and he isn’t. Sometimes even when you win you get a kicking. Such is the coaches lot.

There are things we need to work on, but I’d like to think that energy levels are being managed well this week. Personally I’d make sure they have at least one cultural visit this week, perhaps even two to defuse some of the pressure.

MrK wrote:

Numbers wrote:Navidi out of the rest of the tournament

And sounds like they are going to call up Scott Williams to replace him. Thats a good call IMO.

I saw him play for the Os the other week and he looked pretty sharp, he's the obvious choice for me, Lane has played 13 thru the age grades so could be considered.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... d-17121537

Owen Lane called up

.....I had been thinking about Faletau's collarbone. We are really missing him.


.

Ross. S wrote:https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... d-17121537

Owen Lane called up

Im pretty pleased with that.

Id even be tempted to chuck him straight in either as 13 or instead of North !

MrK wrote:

Ross. S wrote:https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... d-17121537

Owen Lane called up

Im pretty pleased with that.

Id even be tempted to chuck him straight in either as 13 or instead of North !

It'd be nice to see him involved in some way but Hammy mentioned on the FB group that he'd spoken to one of Owen's relatives and hes not expecting to play much part out there

It seems like fairly sharp practice, if not downright dodgy, to "replace" a loose-forward with a centre. Press reports suggest it is because there are plenty of other fit loose forwards in the squad and some injury concerns in the centres. Surely the spirit of the rules would be that if you have injury concerns in the centres, and want a replacement centre, then you send an injured centre home to be replaced. If you've gt the balance of your squad wrong you shouldn't be allowed to correct that part way through the tournament.

I accept that in this case Navidi's injury is genuine, but the potential for abuse here is obvious.

Lizard wrote:It seems like fairly sharp practice, if not downright dodgy, to "replace" a loose-forward with a centre. Press reports suggest it is because there are plenty of other fit loose forwards in the squad and some injury concerns in the centres. Surely the spirit of the rules would be that if you have injury concerns in the centres, and want a replacement centre, then you send an injured centre home to be replaced. If you've gt the balance of your squad wrong you shouldn't be allowed to correct that part way through the tournament.

I accept that in this case Navidi's injury is genuine, but the potential for abuse here is obvious.

Perhaps by SH cheating bastards, but not by upstanding NH teams with honest nobility flowing through their veins.

..or by Wales either.

Lizard wrote:It seems like fairly sharp practice, if not downright dodgy, to "replace" a loose-forward with a centre. Press reports suggest it is because there are plenty of other fit loose forwards in the squad and some injury concerns in the centres. Surely the spirit of the rules would be that if you have injury concerns in the centres, and want a replacement centre, then you send an injured centre home to be replaced. If you've gt the balance of your squad wrong you shouldn't be allowed to correct that part way through the tournament.

I accept that in this case Navidi's injury is genuine, but the potential for abuse here is obvious.

LMFAO

Graigwen wrote:.....I had been thinking about Faletau's collarbone. We are really missing him.


.

Definitely. Moriarty has had some great games for Wales, but Faletau is consistently class.

Lizard wrote:It seems like fairly sharp practice, if not downright dodgy, to "replace" a loose-forward with a centre. Press reports suggest it is because there are plenty of other fit loose forwards in the squad and some injury concerns in the centres. Surely the spirit of the rules would be that if you have injury concerns in the centres, and want a replacement centre, then you send an injured centre home to be replaced. If you've gt the balance of your squad wrong you shouldn't be allowed to correct that part way through the tournament.

I accept that in this case Navidi's injury is genuine, but the potential for abuse here is obvious.

I’m not sure that replacing a prop with a winger is a problem, the potential for abuse is in declaring a fit player injured and bringing out someone else. If Amos had developed a hamstring twitch to be replaced by Lane then it would be far more suspicious. Provided there are genuine medical checks (don’t know how WR manages this) then so be it.

The French seem to have sent home and replaced a perfectly fit player (followed quickly by 31 fit and I replaced players!)

Do you think Lizard is already worrying about NZ choking in the final against Wales!!!

Mate, right now a final against anybody is the least of my concerns.

Lizard wrote:It seems like fairly sharp practice, if not downright dodgy, to "replace" a loose-forward with a centre. Press reports suggest it is because there are plenty of other fit loose forwards in the squad and some injury concerns in the centres. Surely the spirit of the rules would be that if you have injury concerns in the centres, and want a replacement centre, then you send an injured centre home to be replaced. If you've gt the balance of your squad wrong you shouldn't be allowed to correct that part way through the tournament.

I accept that in this case Navidi's injury is genuine, but the potential for abuse here is obvious.

I really don't understand this view. The squad limit is presumably to help keep a level playing field between nations with different levels of resources. But the make-up of the squad is for the nation to choose. What difference does it make if the replacement is not like-for-like?

MrK wrote:

Ross. S wrote:https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... d-17121537

Owen Lane called up

Im pretty pleased with that.

Id even be tempted to chuck him straight in either as 13 or instead of North !

If we have a weakness in the centres, we should be bringing in a centre ie Scott Williams or maybe Tyler Morgan, not a winger (especially an inexperienced one at this level) who is able to cover centre. IMO I'd rather Scott cover centre and wing than Lane - safer to have a makeshift winger than a makeshift centre.

Lizard wrote:It seems like fairly sharp practice, if not downright dodgy, to "replace" a loose-forward with a centre. Press reports suggest it is because there are plenty of other fit loose forwards in the squad and some injury concerns in the centres. Surely the spirit of the rules would be that if you have injury concerns in the centres, and want a replacement centre, then you send an injured centre home to be replaced. If you've gt the balance of your squad wrong you shouldn't be allowed to correct that part way through the tournament.

I accept that in this case Navidi's injury is genuine, but the potential for abuse here is obvious.

What a strangely arbitrary rule. It’s not like the makeup of the initial squad is limited outside of the front row, is it?

I can understand the potential for abuse angle if, for instance, you’re waiting on the fitness of a world class player and then ditch somebody else in order to call them up. But I’m not totally sure how the position/versatility of that player makes much difference as you’re still only able to field 23 and you’ve still (presumably) been carrying a dead weight in order to drop them.

On a side note I really hope we don’t see an England/Wales or NZ/SA final.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Lizard wrote:It seems like fairly sharp practice, if not downright dodgy, to "replace" a loose-forward with a centre. Press reports suggest it is because there are plenty of other fit loose forwards in the squad and some injury concerns in the centres. Surely the spirit of the rules would be that if you have injury concerns in the centres, and want a replacement centre, then you send an injured centre home to be replaced. If you've gt the balance of your squad wrong you shouldn't be allowed to correct that part way through the tournament.

I accept that in this case Navidi's injury is genuine, but the potential for abuse here is obvious.

I really don't understand this view. The squad limit is presumably to help keep a level playing field between nations with different levels of resources. But the make-up of the squad is for the nation to choose. What difference does it make if the replacement is not like-for-like?

Look at it this way: most true contenders have 1, maybe 2, properly competitive pool games. They also can probably narrow down their likely QF opponent to 1 of 2 teams. It is quite possible that you want a different squad balance to get you through the pool from the balance you want in the playoffs. Should teams be allowed to claim a clearly fake injury (like France) to adjust the balance (like Wales)?

I’m not going to die in a ditch over this. I just think it opens the door for abuse.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

MrK wrote:

Ross. S wrote:https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... d-17121537

Owen Lane called up

Im pretty pleased with that.

Id even be tempted to chuck him straight in either as 13 or instead of North !

If we have a weakness in the centres, we should be bringing in a centre ie Scott Williams or maybe Tyler Morgan, not a winger (especially an inexperienced one at this level) who is able to cover centre. IMO I'd rather Scott cover centre and wing than Lane - safer to have a makeshift winger than a makeshift centre.

Gatland no longer has to worry about hurting the feelings of Tyler Morgan or Scott Williams.

I doubt Lane will feature but there is an interesting dynamic here on who Gatland rates.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

MrK wrote:
Im pretty pleased with that.

Id even be tempted to chuck him straight in either as 13 or instead of North !

If we have a weakness in the centres, we should be bringing in a centre ie Scott Williams or maybe Tyler Morgan, not a winger (especially an inexperienced one at this level) who is able to cover centre. IMO I'd rather Scott cover centre and wing than Lane - safer to have a makeshift winger than a makeshift centre.

Gatland no longer has to worry about hurting the feelings of Tyler Morgan or Scott Williams.

I doubt Lane will feature but there is an interesting dynamic here on who Gatland rates.

I'm fairly sure he's never been terribly worried about players' feelings over selections (and nor should he be), I just think the weakness here is best fixed by bringing a centre in. I guess he must think that Lane is more likely to make some kind of impact in the last 20 minutes (should it come to that).

Lizard wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Lizard wrote:It seems like fairly sharp practice, if not downright dodgy, to "replace" a loose-forward with a centre. Press reports suggest it is because there are plenty of other fit loose forwards in the squad and some injury concerns in the centres. Surely the spirit of the rules would be that if you have injury concerns in the centres, and want a replacement centre, then you send an injured centre home to be replaced. If you've gt the balance of your squad wrong you shouldn't be allowed to correct that part way through the tournament.

I accept that in this case Navidi's injury is genuine, but the potential for abuse here is obvious.

I really don't understand this view. The squad limit is presumably to help keep a level playing field between nations with different levels of resources. But the make-up of the squad is for the nation to choose. What difference does it make if the replacement is not like-for-like?

Look at it this way: most true contenders have 1, maybe 2, properly competitive pool games. They also can probably narrow down their likely QF opponent to 1 of 2 teams. It is quite possible that you want a different squad balance to get you through the pool from the balance you want in the playoffs. Should teams be allowed to claim a clearly fake injury (like France) to adjust the balance (like Wales)?

I’m not going to die in a ditch over this. I just think it opens the door for abuse.

Fair enough. Do you know if there's any limit to how many such replacements a team can bring in? Or if they have to do anything at all to prove the injury is real?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: If we have a weakness in the centres, we should be bringing in a centre ie Scott Williams or maybe Tyler Morgan, not a winger (especially an inexperienced one at this level) who is able to cover centre. IMO I'd rather Scott cover centre and wing than Lane - safer to have a makeshift winger than a makeshift centre.

Gatland no longer has to worry about hurting the feelings of Tyler Morgan or Scott Williams.

I doubt Lane will feature but there is an interesting dynamic here on who Gatland rates.

I'm fairly sure he's never been terribly worried about players' feelings over selections (and nor should he be), I just think the weakness here is best fixed by bringing a centre in. I guess he must think that Lane is more likely to make some kind of impact in the last 20 minutes (should it come to that).

If I were asked to pick a game changer to sit in the bench in case of emergency, then out of those three and in current form I’d probably go for Lane.

Maybe Scott Williams and Tyler Morgan will establish themselves once Parkes and JD2 have retired before the next RWC, but both had had their opportunities and I don’t think too many supporters were upset by their non inclusion in the touring squad. So probably not a surprise they weren’t called up.

Why are people getting so het-up over a back replacing an injured forward?

Each team is allowed 31 players in their squad but how that squad is made up is down to selection by each country. I guess the only stipulation is that there has to be at least six front row specialists.

We don’t know if North, Amos and Halfpenny are all carrying knocks possibly making them ineligible for the next match. With only two games maximum to go it would be daft to call up a back row forward who would twiddle his thumbs because we already have back row cover by five experienced players.

normanski wrote:Why are people getting so het-up over a back replacing an injured forward?

Each team is allowed 31 players in their squad but how that squad is made up is down to selection by each country. I guess the only stipulation is that there has to be at least six front row specialists.

We don’t know if North, Amos and Halfpenny are all carrying knocks possibly making them ineligible for the next match. With only two games maximum to go it would be daft to call up a back row forward who would twiddle his thumbs because we already have back row cover by five experienced players.

Completely agree. The only stipulation for me would be that it was a genuine injury.