Mikey Brown wrote:I suppose I just don't see the point in a 5th prop (who plays one side) in an age where all props are specialists. If you bring Bhatti, for instance, and then there's an injury to (one of our very injury prone tightheads) Nel/Fagerson it seems a waste of a spot.
The issue is that you have to have 6 front row in every match day squad. So if you only take 4 props and one gets a very slight niggle that keeps then out for one game, you have to replace them permanently in your squad in order to field a legal XXIII. Having a 3rd loosehead isn't useful if a tighthead goes down long-term, but if Nel has a twinge that causes him to miss just the Russia game, you could have two looseheads on the bench and avoid making a permanent replacement.
That said, I'd still have 3 of each front row in my RWC squad - it's just too important a position not to. Same with scrum-halves.
Taylor has got to play all 4 warm ups (if fit) to get some meaningful game, imo, and that limits trying other combinations particularly with an uncapped player.
Mikey Brown wrote:I suppose I just don't see the point in a 5th prop (who plays one side) in an age where all props are specialists. If you bring Bhatti, for instance, and then there's an injury to (one of our very injury prone tightheads) Nel/Fagerson it seems a waste of a spot.
I suspect we will see 3 THs with one playing LHP in an emergency. Probably Berghan. With Dell, Nel, Berghan, Fagereon and one of Reid and Bhatti.
Mikey Brown wrote:I suppose I just don't see the point in a 5th prop (who plays one side) in an age where all props are specialists. If you bring Bhatti, for instance, and then there's an injury to (one of our very injury prone tightheads) Nel/Fagerson it seems a waste of a spot.
The issue is that you have to have 6 front row in every match day squad. So if you only take 4 props and one gets a very slight niggle that keeps then out for one game, you have to replace them permanently in your squad in order to field a legal XXIII. Having a 3rd loosehead isn't useful if a tighthead goes down long-term, but if Nel has a twinge that causes him to miss just the Russia game, you could have two looseheads on the bench and avoid making a permanent replacement.
That said, I'd still have 3 of each front row in my RWC squad - it's just too important a position not to. Same with scrum-halves.
Puja
That actually makes a lot of sense.
I don’t know how willing/capable any prop is to play on the ‘wrong’ side these days but it makes sense in terms of covering short-term injuries.
Big D - have any of those THs ever played LH to our knowledge?
Mikey Brown wrote:I suppose I just don't see the point in a 5th prop (who plays one side) in an age where all props are specialists. If you bring Bhatti, for instance, and then there's an injury to (one of our very injury prone tightheads) Nel/Fagerson it seems a waste of a spot.
The issue is that you have to have 6 front row in every match day squad. So if you only take 4 props and one gets a very slight niggle that keeps then out for one game, you have to replace them permanently in your squad in order to field a legal XXIII. Having a 3rd loosehead isn't useful if a tighthead goes down long-term, but if Nel has a twinge that causes him to miss just the Russia game, you could have two looseheads on the bench and avoid making a permanent replacement.
That said, I'd still have 3 of each front row in my RWC squad - it's just too important a position not to. Same with scrum-halves.
Puja
That actually makes a lot of sense.
I don’t know how willing/capable any prop is to play on the ‘wrong’ side these days but it makes sense in terms of covering short-term injuries.
Big D - have any of those THs ever played LH to our knowledge?
I think Berghan may have but certainly not since he came to Scotland.
I am surprised he only named 3 of each for the training camp.
This conversation makes me even more gutted Jon Welsh seemed to have disappeared from the conversation. He was the last guy I remember that could convincingly play both.
On form, Cummings deserves it but it is absolutely mad to exclude someone of Ritchie's experience AND physical stature (plus in pretty good form!) as an alternative option alone. I'd prefer him to Toolis if we have to play this game.
Yeah, as much as I like Cummings I don't see him really pushing for a starting spot, so if you have a vastly more experienced option available to contribute to the squad I'd have thought that was the better option.
hugh_woatmeigh wrote:On form, Cummings deserves it but it is absolutely mad to exclude someone of Ritchie's experience AND physical stature (plus in pretty good form!) as an alternative option alone. I'd prefer him to Toolis if we have to play this game.
I think reducing it to Cummings v Gray was daft in the 1st place. In reality there is very little difference to a 42 or 43 man squad especially as both have the potential to force his way into the 31.
On a separate note, if you were Gray with a 5 year deal in Toulouse, beautiful woman on your arm and an international coaching staff who don't think you are in the best 5 locks he has to chose from (and he also name checked Swinson and Davison) I wonder if he and his agent would be tempted to ask Toulouse what his value is if he retires from international rugby?
He is still only 30 this year but another world cup is unlikely, he already has 60 odd caps and a lions tour under his belt so why not maximise any potential earnings.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - with our playing resources we cannot afford to alienate top players in this manner. We do not have the numbers.
That's not to say that Gray should have made the squad but he's played 1 game under Toony, I think? I appreciate there have been a lot of injuries but Toony does not have the results to justify not looking at this guy. Especially the manner in which we lose some games (physically overpowered up front).
hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Completely agree with you on both points.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - with our playing resources we cannot afford to alienate top players in this manner. We do not have the numbers.
That's not to say that Gray should have made the squad but he's played 1 game under Toony, I think? I appreciate there have been a lot of injuries but Toony does not have the results to justify not looking at this guy. Especially the manner in which we lose some games (physically overpowered up front).
Maybe Townsend is still pissed that Gray was the 1st real big money departure from his Glasgow side?*
hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Completely agree with you on both points.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - with our playing resources we cannot afford to alienate top players in this manner. We do not have the numbers.
That's not to say that Gray should have made the squad but he's played 1 game under Toony, I think? I appreciate there have been a lot of injuries but Toony does not have the results to justify not looking at this guy. Especially the manner in which we lose some games (physically overpowered up front).
Maybe Townsend is still pissed that Gray was the 1st real big money departure from his Glasgow side?*
* nah it has been the injuries.
He's fit. He is a regular in the runaway leaders of the Top 14. He's played in the business end of the big boy cup. He'll play in the business end of the Domestic season.
This is a mistake. As Big D says it wouldn't have been difficult to have made an extra spot in the squad.
hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Completely agree with you on both points.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - with our playing resources we cannot afford to alienate top players in this manner. We do not have the numbers.
That's not to say that Gray should have made the squad but he's played 1 game under Toony, I think? I appreciate there have been a lot of injuries but Toony does not have the results to justify not looking at this guy. Especially the manner in which we lose some games (physically overpowered up front).
Maybe Townsend is still pissed that Gray was the 1st real big money departure from his Glasgow side?*
* nah it has been the injuries.
He's fit. He is a regular in the runaway leaders of the Top 14. He's played in the business end of the big boy cup. He'll play in the business end of the Domestic season.
This is a mistake. As Big D says it wouldn't have been difficult to have made an extra spot in the squad.
I was referring to his earlier omissions. There is no good reason for this one IMO.
Big D wrote:
Maybe Townsend is still pissed that Gray was the 1st real big money departure from his Glasgow side?*
* nah it has been the injuries.
He's fit. He is a regular in the runaway leaders of the Top 14. He's played in the business end of the big boy cup. He'll play in the business end of the Domestic season.
This is a mistake. As Big D says it wouldn't have been difficult to have made an extra spot in the squad.
I was referring to his earlier omissions. There is no good reason for this one IMO.
No idea why I directed you back to "Big D's" earlier comments when you are in fact him... Long commute to client today has left me groggy. Carry on.
Are we 100% sure Gray won't come into the squad as well? Otherwise seems very strange (although have to say I haven't seen one minute of Gray playing at Toulouse)
Ritchie Gray played the second half of Saturday's runaway victory over relegated Perpignan.
Their next match is a semi final on the 8th/9th of June and I'll be disappointed if he's not included in the match day squad.
francoisfou wrote:Ritchie Gray played the second half of Saturday's runaway victory over relegated Perpignan.
Their next match is a semi final on the 8th/9th of June and I'll be disappointed if he's not included in the match day squad.
There is chat now that he’s not getting in the squad. I doubt it, mais peut-être I am wrong.
francoisfou wrote:Ritchie Gray played the second half of Saturday's runaway victory over relegated Perpignan.
Their next match is a semi final on the 8th/9th of June and I'll be disappointed if he's not included in the match day squad.
There is chat now that he’s not getting in the squad. I doubt it, mais peut-être I am wrong.
