RugbyRebels

SDHoneymonster wrote:

Puja wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:
Think Ireland have a lot to do to get close considering Leinster's season ended in such disappointment on two fronts, although the fact that the world's likeliest place to catch covid at the moment seems to be the All Blacks camp tilts the odds back in their favour somewhat. I have just had a look at the Boks team to play Wales on Saturday and I'd suggest anyone of a Welsh persuasion should be watching that one through their fingers. Conversely, I feel weirdly optimistic about England: quite a lot of the coverage over on the Roar seems to suggest they're focusing on the wrong areas, which is perhaps because England are confusing even themselves at the moment, let alone their opposition.

I think there's a much bigger difference between Ireland A and Ireland than there is between Maori All Blacks and the All Blacks. New Zealand has the most enviable depth of any rugby nation, while Ireland have been known to cap Mike Haley and Billy Burns in an attempt to expand their available player pool, but their 1st XXIII is superb. I expect to see it being very close at the weekend.

Puja

The Irish selection strategy of 'Just pick Leinster' certainly backfired a bit tonight with Frawley, no idea why you play a young 12 at 10 ahead of promising 10s from other provinces like Healy. Really think that mentally a squad with such a high Leinster contingent is going to struggle to get themselves properly up for another long tour at the end of a long and ultimately heartbreaking season too.

Raggs wrote:Is it just me who honestly has no clue as to how this will go? Aus seem to be fairly strong at the moment, I can see England losing all the games badly, slightly, winning them slightly, or even winning them solidly if things click a little.

Which Tyler wrote:

Danno wrote:Nah, Find all/Tindall

I... didn't even spot that when you drew my attention to a typo...

Banquo wrote:No, I meant he wore the 13 shirt for the Lions in the tests in 97, for some unknown reason (as I'd referenced the retirement of the Bath shirt, I'd got that bit....and then it became a superstition, which somehow stopped on that tour). I also stopped wearing 13 after I broke my jaw.

Oh, and Tindall inserted makes a lot more sense. As an aside, Greenwood actively wanted to wear 13 even when playing inside centre; Tindall debuted in the 13 shirt for England.

Preferences, typical behaviour, not absolutes.
Neither Guscott nor Tindall liked wearing the 13 shirt, for Bath, England or the Lions: (initially) because of the Bath shirt retirement (though it may then have become a personal superstition). That doesn't mean they got an allergic reaction that prevented them from wearing the number if it was insisted on by others; or that they would make themselves unavailable if it was 13 or no cap.

Lions '97 is right at the beginning of the professional era, when it was first being mooted that anything other than numbering teams 1-15 is too confusing for all those new fans who would love rugby if it weren't for that - so Bath started issuing a 13 shirt, Leicester lost their letters, Bristol started counting upwards...
I suspect that Guscott was up against the management on wearing 13; but that's the exception for him, not the rule.

Raggs wrote:Is it just me who honestly has no clue as to how this will go? Aus seem to be fairly strong at the moment, I can see England losing all the games badly, slightly, winning them slightly, or even winning them solidly if things click a little.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Is it just me who honestly has no clue as to how this will go? Aus seem to be fairly strong at the moment, I can see England losing all the games badly, slightly, winning them slightly, or even winning them solidly if things click a little.

yep. I'd back us to get stronger over the series though.

jimKRFC wrote: Actually we lost our letters, but we did it properly...

Banquo wrote:well, yes. Just was originally making the point that it wasn't only for Bath that Guscott didn't wear 13.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Is it just me who honestly has no clue as to how this will go? Aus seem to be fairly strong at the moment, I can see England losing all the games badly, slightly, winning them slightly, or even winning them solidly if things click a little.

yep. I'd back us to get stronger over the series though.

Interesting comment. I wonder if our strength in depth is on the line. A few injuries to important players seems more crucial than normal. Take out Itoje, Smith and Curry, for example. Or Farrell, LCD and Billy V. I know injuries can always happen but on top of players left behind? It just feels at a critical point.

Which Tyler wrote:

jimKRFC wrote: Actually we lost our letters, but we did it properly...

Which Tyler wrote:

jimKRFC wrote: Actually we lost our letters, but we did it properly...

Ah yes, you had weird lettering; sorry, being an idiot.
I'm sure there was also someone who used numbers but put them backwards.

Banquo wrote:well, yes. Just was originally making the point that it wasn't only for Bath that Guscott didn't wear 13.

My apple orgies - I obviously got your point completely arse about face - as above, I'm being an idiot today.

jimKRFC wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:
Bristol started counting upwards...

Actually we lost our letters, but we did it properly...

A-G: Full back to 9
H-O: Loose head to 8

As opposed to Leicester who did weirdly:
A - H: Loose head to Open side (6-F, 8-G, 7-O)
I-O: 9 to full back

Puja wrote:

jimKRFC wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:
Bristol started counting upwards...

Actually we lost our letters, but we did it properly...

A-G: Full back to 9
H-O: Loose head to 8

As opposed to Leicester who did weirdly:
A - H: Loose head to Open side (6-F, 8-G, 7-O)
I-O: 9 to full back

How is the Leicester way more weird than Bristol's? A=1, B=2, C=3 (don't ask about the back row). How is A=15 making sense?

I blame Harlequins. They tried to introduce squad numbers to sell shirts and that was the tipping point that forced the ruling.

Puja

Peej wrote:Maybe Jeffries was already in Australia.

Scrumhead wrote:I think Jeffries is actually Aussie by birth so maybe Eddie wanted to give him a trip home? A bit of a leftfield pick, but with the possible exception of Tizard who hasn’t been involved in any England squads, I guess there isn’t really a like-for-like lock to draft in. Jeffries has been in camp so at least has that in his favour. I’d have much preferred Ted Hill though.

Hopefully Ewels’ injury means that Isiekwe or Chessum get more opportunities. I wonder if we’ll see Lawes used as a lock now too?

Interesting Aussie side - Dave Porecki (formerly of London Irish) and Caderyn Neville (a 33yr old lock) on dayboo.

Puja wrote: How is the Leicester way more weird than Bristol's? A=1, B=2, C=3 (don't ask about the back row). How is A=15 making sense?

I blame Harlequins. They tried to introduce squad numbers to sell shirts and that was the tipping point that forced the ruling.

Mikey Brown wrote: Bristol... flanker? Or is he actually a lock?

Shame for Ewels on a personal level, but, er, yeah.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Is it just me who honestly has no clue as to how this will go? Aus seem to be fairly strong at the moment, I can see England losing all the games badly, slightly, winning them slightly, or even winning them solidly if things click a little.

yep. I'd back us to get stronger over the series though.

Interesting comment. I wonder if our strength in depth is on the line. A few injuries to important players seems more crucial than normal. Take out Itoje, Smith and Curry, for example. Or Farrell, LCD and Billy V. I know injuries can always happen but on top of players left behind? It just feels at a critical point.

Scrumhead wrote: A bit of a leftfield pick, but with the possible exception of Tizard who hasn’t been involved in any England squads, I guess there isn’t really a like-for-like lock to draft in.

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: yep. I'd back us to get stronger over the series though.

Interesting comment. I wonder if our strength in depth is on the line. A few injuries to important players seems more crucial than normal. Take out Itoje, Smith and Curry, for example. Or Farrell, LCD and Billy V. I know injuries can always happen but on top of players left behind? It just feels at a critical point.

We are down a few players from our first choice XXIII through injury/unavailability anyway - Marler, Sinckler, Launchbury, Youngs, May/Watson (and Ewels, of course). Wouldn't really be surprising if losing 3 more made us look weak.

Puja

Adam_P wrote:

Scrumhead wrote: A bit of a leftfield pick, but with the possible exception of Tizard who hasn’t been involved in any England squads, I guess there isn’t really a like-for-like lock to draft in.

Not quite like-for-like, as he's actually good, but what about Ribbans?