RugbyRebels

I suspect the issue for Davison is that he'll turn 32 in August. He's unlikely to blossom into an international quality tighthead. Heyes has not long turned 25 and played 18 games this season (12 starts). Heyes form has been solid but he's done nothing special. Given our lack of options and the age of Cole they'll be hoping to develop Heyes. What Heyes does have in his favour is that he's got a good work rate for a bloke who's 6ft4 and not far off 20 stone. Just needs to find some impact in either the scrum or the loose.

I'm not sure Davison has been much more than solid for this season, it's noticeable mainly because Saints scrum has been so poor in prior seasons. He's had some good days at scrum time but not consistently, in the loose he does work hard but similar to Heyes without much in the way of impact. One thing in Davison's favour is that he can cover both sides.

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 9:05 pm

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 8:44 pm I don’t think there’s ’sudden enthusiasm’ for Davison really. It’s more a reflection of our limited options at tighthead and it’s probably a straight choice between Davison who has had a good season in a title winning side or Heyes who has been pretty anonymous for Tigers.

Heyes is probably the better long term prospect but today, Davison is probably the better player.

I'm not sure Heyes is the better long term prospect, tbh. He's 25 now which, while hardly decrepit, is the age at which I'm starting to get annoyed that he's not forcing the 77 year old Dan Cole to take his overdue pension for Leicester.

Either way, we're screwed if we need either of them against NZ.

Puja

Heyes is frustrating. Wish he'd hurry up and kick on again. Lucky there's so little choice available to England.

Hayes is ok enough but I’d take Harper over either of them. He’s recovered from his injuries and has been showing enough form to be in the reckoning now. 23 so could turn out useful.

Blandy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 10:01 am

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 9:37 am

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 9:09 am

Which 6 is it that is dictating we don’t pick the two best performing backrowers? And in Earl’s case that is best performing only at number 8. Has he had any impact as a 7 yet?

CCS or Hill were considered the front runners, no? Both good lineout options anyway.

Totally agree.

I think CCS is probably front runner, but imagine I imagine Roots is still ahead of Ted Hill.

I appreciate not every one can sit through the good, the bad and the rugby podcast, especially when Haskell is on, so I've been waiting for an opportunity to drop this tidbit Jonny May mentioned on this week's episode that Ted Hill is as fast as an international wing.

think Finn Russell said Hill was the fastest player at Bath

Timbo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 11:11 am I’ve always been a big Sleightholme fan & would definitely take him on tour. His tackle technique worries me for international rugby a bit though. Needs to stop grabbing shirts like an u14 & start hitting bodies.

he`s a top finisher and open field runner, but as you say, without the ball not so sure.

Gus Warr just been named in the Scotland squad. Can't blame him really - if he was ever going to get England recognition, it would've been off the back of last season and he doesn't appear to be even close.

Puja

FKAS wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 9:07 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 9:05 pm

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 8:44 pm I don’t think there’s ’sudden enthusiasm’ for Davison really. It’s more a reflection of our limited options at tighthead and it’s probably a straight choice between Davison who has had a good season in a title winning side or Heyes who has been pretty anonymous for Tigers.

Heyes is probably the better long term prospect but today, Davison is probably the better player.

I'm not sure Heyes is the better long term prospect, tbh. He's 25 now which, while hardly decrepit, is the age at which I'm starting to get annoyed that he's not forcing the 77 year old Dan Cole to take his overdue pension for Leicester.

Either way, we're screwed if we need either of them against NZ.

Puja

Heyes is frustrating. Wish he'd hurry up and kick on again. Lucky there's so little choice available to England.

Actually think his work in the loose has improved markedly. Its his scrummaging that seems to have stalled and that was where he looked so good when he first appeared.
There's still potential there but he has to start turning that into regular effective performances.

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 2:58 pm Gus Warr just been named in the Scotland squad. Can't blame him really - if he was ever going to get England recognition, it would've been off the back of last season and he doesn't appear to be even close.

Puja

I saw a rumour that he made it known Scotland was his preference last summer.

Ewels banned for two matches and Isiekwe called up to replace him on tour. Can't imagine he'll do more than provide injury cover though.

Puja

I don’t either, but Isiekwe arguably gives a better option than Ewels, either as a regular partner for Itoje who could allow for Martin being used on the flank, or as part of a heavier 6:2 bench.

I’d prefer we didn’t do that but I wouldn’t rule it out.

2 matches is light for what he tried to do.

Maybe it depends if they saw it as intentional? Is there any detail given on that?

I'd say 12+ weeks if he was really going for Leitch's knee, but I saw it as just very reckless. Still that could easily have been a Swain/Tupaea type injury.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 11:34 am Maybe it depends if they saw it as intentional? Is there any detail given on that?

I'd say 12+ weeks if he was really going for Leitch's knee, but I saw it as just very reckless. Still that could easily have been a Swain/Tupaea type injury.

'just very reckless'
even then, two games for very reckless seems light, and he has previous as a dorty cheap shot fecker

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 12:32 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 11:34 am Maybe it depends if they saw it as intentional? Is there any detail given on that?

I'd say 12+ weeks if he was really going for Leitch's knee, but I saw it as just very reckless. Still that could easily have been a Swain/Tupaea type injury.

'just very reckless'

As a distinction from intentionally trying to injure him, while still saying it was really dumb, I don't see what is wrong with that? It looked more clumsy/lazy than an attempt to go at Leitch's knee.

I can't say I remember seeing cheap shots from him previously, but maybe you're right. I only remember the Ireland incident.

Wasn't he done for "charging into a ruck or maul" rather than "dangerous tackle" or "dangerous play"?
So it's a matter of coming in at the side, and not binding, rather than the act of targetting the knee of a standing leg (which, as far as I'm aware, isn't actually illegal in rugby - though it should be, at least as a specifically named "dangerous play").

Oh, and to stoke the NH v SH wars - Aussie panellists who seem to think that dangerous play is just rugby...

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 12:42 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 12:32 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 11:34 am Maybe it depends if they saw it as intentional? Is there any detail given on that?

I'd say 12+ weeks if he was really going for Leitch's knee, but I saw it as just very reckless. Still that could easily have been a Swain/Tupaea type injury.

'just very reckless'

As a distinction from intentionally trying to injure him, while still saying it was really dumb, I don't see what is wrong with that? It looked more clumsy/lazy than an attempt to go at Leitch's knee.

I can't say I remember seeing cheap shots from him previously, but maybe you're right. I only remember the Ireland incident.

it was the 'just' bit that made me laugh, but I do get your drift.

Insiders in the game say he's known for sly punches in rucks etc. Two red cards back to back in about 10 mins of intl rugby isn't a great look.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 1:47 pm Wasn't he done for "charging into a ruck or maul" rather than "dangerous tackle" or "dangerous play"?
So it's a matter of coming in at the side, and not binding, rather than the act of targetting the knee of a standing leg (which, as far as I'm aware, isn't actually illegal in rugby - though it should be, at least as a specifically named "dangerous play").

Oh, and to stoke the NH v SH wars - Aussie panellists who seem to think that dangerous play is just rugby...

Our wing did something much less (came in sort of at the side, didn't bind/support weight propoerly), and was actually shunted by a team mate onto an oppos knee, and got 4 weeks. Outcome I guess.

In terms of 'duty of care' is there much difference between reckless and deliberate? After all, unless you get a confession of 'deliberate', defining the two from video analysis is a subjective judgement i.e. a matter of opinion.

Someone who might accidentally do something dangerous and someone (like Callum Clark) who might intentionally injure another player are both dangerous, obviously, but surely the latter is considerably worse?

You're right that a lot of the time it would be very difficult to asses intent (outside of punches, head-butts, gouging etc.) but I just can't see how or why Ewels would do that. I simply think Ewels sees Leitch going in for the jackal, but he backs off and then moves to the side. Ewels' technique is poor and he loses his footing. That doesn't mean he hasn't done something wrong though, and his previous record of poor judgement in contact should count against him.

For someone who had done that intentionally I'd be far more concerned about what they might do in the future.

I assume that is Ewels' England career done and dusted, either way.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:16 am Someone who might accidentally do something dangerous and someone (like Callum Clark) who might intentionally injure another player are both dangerous, obviously, but surely the latter is considerably worse?

You're right that a lot of the time it would be very difficult to asses intent (outside of punches, head-butts, gouging etc.) but I just can't see how or why Ewels would do that. I simply think Ewels sees Leitch going in for the jackal, but he backs off and then moves to the side. Ewels' technique is poor and he loses his footing. That doesn't mean he hasn't done something wrong though, and his previous record of poor judgement in contact should count against him.

For someone who had done that intentionally I'd be far more concerned about what they might do in the future.

I assume that is Ewels' England career done and dusted, either way.

Quite, but (purely in duty of care terms) the potential end result is what really counts. I suppose that horrendous assault on BOD in the NZ v Lions game was theoretically worse because his assailants deliberately pile-drove him head-first into the turf but the end result of a broken shoulder was the same. That, of course, was adjudged as innocence - a ridiculous, corrupt 'matter of opinion'.

Ewels has burned his boats, as you suggest. Mind you, I'd not have picked him in the first place. His selection was interesting from the point of view of club form apparently over-ruling previous international performance levels.

There's also the element of body language - does the player look angry, or charge in from a distance, does it look like an active decision was made.
Intent may be all-but unprovable, but a rugby disciplinary panel isn't a court of law, and doesn't need "beyond reasonable doubt" (which still has enough leeway to assign intent).

The damage done, or the potential for damage, doesn't care if an act was deliberate; but a deliberate act is (and should be) worse in terms of subsequent banning.

Interesting article on Sinckler: https://archive.ph/IhXXB

tl;dr
He intends to re-sign for a Premiership club after his 3 year contract because he wants to be in the 2027 RWC squad
Is very down on his mental state and how he has performed since 2019 and a lot of "I let people down" and mea culpa. Frankly, I hope he's getting good psychological support in Toulon as well.
Is going to France because he wants to do better and live up to his potential and then come back to give it to England again.

Frankly, I had mostly written him off from future England consideration and assumed he was going to France for paypacket and pension till he retired, but if he does well and comes back for 2027, then that'd be a good boost. 34 isn't too old for a tighthead to make an impact and, if he walks as good as he's talking, he'll be a very useful option to have.

Puja

Sinkler is an odd one. I’ve seen/read interviews multiple times where I’m convinced he’s turned it around and got his head on straight, but I can’t remember his last consistent patch of good form actually was.

I feel like him and Marler really helped keep eachother in check, to some extent, when he was at Quins. Maybe my bias towards him just faded when he left.

There’s no reason he couldn’t come back a more complete player in 2027 though. You’d hope we’re not relying on Dan Cole at that point.

Shiny Baldpatch has pre-emptively declined any approach to join the Lions in Australia, which I am thoroughly pleased about. I enjoy the Lions a lot and want as many of our players involved as possible, but the rebuild of England is at too early a stage to lose our coach for a time or have his attention divided. I suspect he's got a plan for the next 4 years and I don't want anything getting in the way of that.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 7:00 pm Shiny Baldpatch has pre-emptively declined any approach to join the Lions in Australia, which I am thoroughly pleased about. I enjoy the Lions a lot and want as many of our players involved as possible, but the rebuild of England is at too early a stage to lose our coach for a time or have his attention divided. I suspect he's got a plan for the next 4 years and I don't want anything getting in the way of that.

Puja

Hard agree other than the debate I shall not open. Was good to read that, especially since he's skipped the banana skin of a WC group exit and started to deliver some very promising results. If he could stop the Eddieesque bollocks of Earl at 12 I would be completely on board