RugbyRebels

Shiny wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Tom Curry will play no further part in England’s tour Down Under after sustaining a concussion.

He will fly home this week.

Any guesses on who Eddie will pick as a replacement (someone who can cover 8 hopefully).

Will we need one? With Ludlam, Willis, and Underhill already on tour, surely any replacement would just be holding tackle bags?

Puja

I’ve a bit of sympathy for the medics over Curry. Iirc, there was no contact with the head but, rather, just the head knocked back by the force of the impact on the torso. He didn’t hit the floor and didn’t really show an signs of being impaired (he was probably the best player in the first half… which says slot about the other 14), in fact, the commentators made a point of how well he rode the hit and completed the tackle.

FKAS wrote:Seems to be a problem prevailant in rugby. Not the only case this weekend.

Yup.

For the last 6-7 years or so, the problem hasn't been what rugby's rules on concussion are - but that they're widely ignored - ever since the only people in the country who couldn't see that George North was KOd were the people responsible for getting him off the pitch.


Part of this is confusion as to what the English Language means.
They're called Head Injury Assessments; but they seem to be used as Concussion Confirmation Assessments, and only then when the player isn't essential to the team's performance.

Mellsblue wrote:I’ve a bit of sympathy for the medics over Curry. Iirc, there was no contact with the head but, rather, just the head knocked back by the force of the impact on the torso. He didn’t hit the floor and didn’t really show an signs of being impaired (he was probably the best player in the first half… which says slot about the other 14), in fact, the commentators made a point of how well he rode the hit and completed the tackle.

I was of the opinion that his head connected pretty solidly with Kerevi's forearm, but I've only watched it once live when they showed the slow motion replay. Anyone know what time in the match it was?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’ve a bit of sympathy for the medics over Curry. Iirc, there was no contact with the head but, rather, just the head knocked back by the force of the impact on the torso. He didn’t hit the floor and didn’t really show an signs of being impaired (he was probably the best player in the first half… which says slot about the other 14), in fact, the commentators made a point of how well he rode the hit and completed the tackle.

I was of the opinion that his head connected pretty solidly with Kerevi's forearm, but I've only watched it once live when they showed the slow motion replay. Anyone know what time in the match it was?

Puja

If that is the case then I retract everything I said.

Puja wrote:

Shiny wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Tom Curry will play no further part in England’s tour Down Under after sustaining a concussion.

He will fly home this week.

Any guesses on who Eddie will pick as a replacement (someone who can cover 8 hopefully).

Will we need one? With Ludlam, Willis, and Underhill already on tour, surely any replacement would just be holding tackle bags?

Puja

True, but we know Eddie likes an apprentice.

I think I'd call up t'other Willis. I don't like the idea of Ludlum at 8 for part of a game, never mind a whole one if Billy breaks.

May ruled out of the second test after slow recovery from COVID. Real shame for him, but I'm interested to see more of Arundell at the top level. I still have huge concerns about his overall nous and how incredibly green he is, but last weekend has assuaged my concerns that he could have a mare and be damaged for it, and I've now switched to the camp of "get minutes into him and accelerate his development."

Puja

Arundell for Coka from the start seems a worthwhile risk. It should always have been Coka OR Nowell, IMO, not both.

Oakboy wrote:Arundell for Coka from the start seems a worthwhile risk. It should always have been Coka OR Nowell, IMO, not both.

How about neither?

Spiffy wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Arundell for Coka from the start seems a worthwhile risk. It should always have been Coka OR Nowell, IMO, not both.

How about neither?

Arguably. I rate Nowell, though.

Oakboy wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Arundell for Coka from the start seems a worthwhile risk. It should always have been Coka OR Nowell, IMO, not both.

How about neither?

Arguably. I rate Nowell, though.

Nowell was second highest tackler I think, 11 tackles. Second most metres made. According to ESPN stats.

No thread for the 2nd test yet - seems ominous. It's as if there is little to debate until Jones gets selection wrong again.

I mean aren’t we just waiting for the team announcement before someone makes the thread either way?

Oakboy wrote:No thread for the 2nd test yet - seems ominous. It's as if there is little to debate until Jones gets selection wrong again.

Surely the only reasonable measure of whether selection is right or not is the result?

Even then, you might argue that a coach can pick the best 23 available and still be beaten by a better team.

Times saying that Underhill will be no7 and there’s a chance Arundell might start with May being unavailable and Jones wanting more pace.

Mellsblue wrote:Times saying that Underhill will be no7 and there’s a chance Arundell might start with May being unavailable and Jones wanting more pace.

Similar in DT. I really hope we can pull it off. I do not want the Aussies crowing at 2-0. They might field a fresh team in the 3rd like SA are doing (almost - 14/15) v Wales. That would be so embarrassing.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:No thread for the 2nd test yet - seems ominous. It's as if there is little to debate until Jones gets selection wrong again.

Surely the only reasonable measure of whether selection is right or not is the result?

Even then, you might argue that a coach can pick the best 23 available and still be beaten by a better team.

You are ignoring the 'told you so' gloating afterwards for those who say the selection is wrong before the match!

Your first sentence is spot on, of course. As for the second sentence, do you believe that is/was the case v Australia - that their 'best possible' is better than ours? I see that Australia XXIII and think our best XXIII from the tour squad should win 8/10. They are not particularly good, IMO.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Times saying that Underhill will be no7 and there’s a chance Arundell might start with May being unavailable and Jones wanting more pace.

Similar in DT. I really hope we can pull it off. I do not want the Aussies crowing at 2-0. They might field a fresh team in the 3rd like SA are doing (almost - 14/15) v Wales. That would be so embarrassing.

That's the second test, odd call tbh.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/62067343

Lots of people (not necessarily on here) seem to think this Aus side are rubbish and I’m not clear why. Sure they’ve generally been a bit shit the last few years but it looks like Rennie’s team is starting to take shape.

They’re patchy, both in performance and personnel, but I don’t view them as much different to England on either level.

Mikey Brown wrote:Lots of people (not necessarily on here) seem to think this Aus side are rubbish and I’m not clear why. Sure they’ve generally been a bit shit the last few years but it looks like Rennie’s team is starting to take shape.

They’re patchy, both in performance and personnel, but I don’t view them as much different to England on either level.

Their front five is theoretically well behind ours in experience; Hooper is quality, Leota has 3 caps, Valetini 19. White is ok, 10 been very inconsistent (and replaced cooper at the last minute) Kerevi is good, Ikitau good but again not many caps, Koroibete is quality, Kelleway newish, Tom Banks similar.

They are pretty raw compared to us, frankly; we have quite a bit more proven international class. Rennie has done pretty well with what he has, some good young uns (Bell), some top grade vets (Hooper, Kerevi, Koroibete) and some later career Super rugby guys.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Lots of people (not necessarily on here) seem to think this Aus side are rubbish and I’m not clear why. Sure they’ve generally been a bit shit the last few years but it looks like Rennie’s team is starting to take shape.

They’re patchy, both in performance and personnel, but I don’t view them as much different to England on either level.

Their front five is theoretically well behind ours in experience; Hooper is quality, Leota has 3 caps, Valetini 19. White is ok, 10 been very inconsistent (and replaced cooper at the last minute) Kerevi is good, Ikitau good but again not many caps, Koroibete is quality, Kelleway newish, Tom Banks similar.

They are pretty raw compared to us, frankly; we have quite a bit more proven international class. Rennie has done pretty well with what he has, some good young uns (Bell), some top grade vets (Hooper, Kerevi, Koroibete) and some later career Super rugby guys.

Wouldn't mind seeing James O'Connor play 10 for Oz. He has had a couple of very good seasons for the Reds and has developed into a crafty old-head fly half who knows how to run a game. I've always regarded him as an outstanding footballer who would have been one of the all-time Oz greats if he hadn't let his career run off the rails at an early stage. Seems a long time since he was scoring tries and kicking goals for Oz at age 18.

Oakboy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:No thread for the 2nd test yet - seems ominous. It's as if there is little to debate until Jones gets selection wrong again.

Surely the only reasonable measure of whether selection is right or not is the result?

Even then, you might argue that a coach can pick the best 23 available and still be beaten by a better team.

You are ignoring the 'told you so' gloating afterwards for those who say the selection is wrong before the match!

Your first sentence is spot on, of course. As for the second sentence, do you believe that is/was the case v Australia - that their 'best possible' is better than ours? I see that Australia XXIII and think our best XXIII from the tour squad should win 8/10. They are not particularly good, IMO.

The short answer is no. Broadly I agree with you, although I think 8/10 may be a touch over egging it.

TBH, I was just making a general point - not specifically referring to England and Australia.

The guardian reports Itoje's tour is over.

Mr Mwenda wrote:The guardian reports Itoje's tour is over.

It should be, he was knocked out. Absolutely no reason to risk him next weekend irrelevant of what game it is. He should probably stay in camp so the medics can keep an eye on him, he might be able to offer some mentoring to the other locks if he feels up to it.