RugbyRebels

Mikey Brown wrote:Can anyone tell me what that Telegraph article says?

Climate change/house prices/brexit is jeremy corbyn's fault (some how).

Stom wrote:

jngf wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
My point is the balance of it. Are we changing the game-plan entirely and not requiring a big, heavy carrier like Vunipola (who even at his least effective draws in a huge number of defenders) or are we shuffling the shape of the backrow to have a big hitter/carrier at 6 for instance?

Given you've just said 8 requires more power and size than 6 I'd guess not the latter one. If we can rebalance the pack to allow for a Simmonds/Mercer to be used effectively at 8 (and not have it all fall apart as soon as it starts raining) then great, but I'm curious how you picture the end goal of this that it makes removing one of our best players (over the last 4 years) worth it.

I would say the gold standard for no.8 is that optimum balance of physical size and power together with explosive pace and athleticism which was perhaps best exemplified by Dayglo ( up to 2003) there was no doubting his physicality and power as a carrier but at the same time he was explosive off the back of scrums and a prominent lineout target ( one arguably has to go back to Andy Ripley in the 70s to find another England 8 who covered all these bases so well) - recently there has been a trade off of size over athleticism: Billy and to a lesser degree Morgan, Hughes and Easter or vice versa, namely: Clifford, Simmonds and Mercer. I take the point that the hard carrying can be shared with a powerful direct no.6 - and that perhaps describes Lawes - though ultimately you still need an 8 to do the ‘bulldozing’ - and this is the challenge for those players who are athletic but at the expense of physical power.

Though he covered manfully at 8 against Argentina I think it’s too big a stretch in versatility to select Curry to start here. If anything I actually think Underhill has more of the attributes of an 8 based on explosiveness and power as a ball carrier in heavy traffic ( a la Pocock). That notwithstanding, if Billy is sidelined for the rest of the tour imo Eddie should get on the phone to Ben Morgan pronto!

The thing is, Easter fits that description perfectly. He was surprisingly athletic, surprisingly fast over shorter distances, very strong, an excellent lineout operator...just a lazy bastard.

Not only a lazy bastard but also subject to brainfarts, likely due to fatigue. Frustrating at intl level, excellent for his club.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

jngf wrote:
I would say the gold standard for no.8 is that optimum balance of physical size and power together with explosive pace and athleticism which was perhaps best exemplified by Dayglo ( up to 2003) there was no doubting his physicality and power as a carrier but at the same time he was explosive off the back of scrums and a prominent lineout target ( one arguably has to go back to Andy Ripley in the 70s to find another England 8 who covered all these bases so well) - recently there has been a trade off of size over athleticism: Billy and to a lesser degree Morgan, Hughes and Easter or vice versa, namely: Clifford, Simmonds and Mercer. I take the point that the hard carrying can be shared with a powerful direct no.6 - and that perhaps describes Lawes - though ultimately you still need an 8 to do the ‘bulldozing’ - and this is the challenge for those players who are athletic but at the expense of physical power.

Though he covered manfully at 8 against Argentina I think it’s too big a stretch in versatility to select Curry to start here. If anything I actually think Underhill has more of the attributes of an 8 based on explosiveness and power as a ball carrier in heavy traffic ( a la Pocock). That notwithstanding, if Billy is sidelined for the rest of the tour imo Eddie should get on the phone to Ben Morgan pronto!

The thing is, Easter fits that description perfectly. He was surprisingly athletic, surprisingly fast over shorter distances, very strong, an excellent lineout operator...just a lazy bastard.

Not only a lazy bastard but also subject to brainfarts, likely due to fatigue. Frustrating at intl level, excellent for his club.

Yeah, I think those came because of his lazy approach to training.

There was an interesting video, I seem to remember, of him gassing some Quins backs years ago. Over 30m. Then he blew up, lol.

I agree frustrating. If he'd had the drive to make himself a world beater, he could have been.

I've only read the opening paragraph saying there could be seven changes and that Slade is expected to start.

francoisfou wrote:I've only read the opening paragraph saying there could be seven changes and that Slade is expected to start.

7 would be interesting...

Mako in for Marler
Wilson in for Billy
Slade in for Farrell

Then who are the other 4?

Lawes may deserve a start, even though I thought Kruis was good.
Cole starting instead of Sinck so we get either Mako or Sinck on the pitch. Makes sense.
Nowell in for Watson? Not sure on that one, tbh.
???

Stom wrote:

francoisfou wrote:I've only read the opening paragraph saying there could be seven changes and that Slade is expected to start.

7 would be interesting...

Mako in for Marler
Wilson in for Billy
Slade in for Farrell

Then who are the other 4?

Lawes may deserve a start, even though I thought Kruis was good.
Cole starting instead of Sinck so we get either Mako or Sinck on the pitch. Makes sense.
Nowell in for Watson? Not sure on that one, tbh.
???

You're also assuming there's no real illness then? I do like the sound of those changes if true. Could we actually see Ford/Slade/Tuilagi?

Stom wrote:

francoisfou wrote:I've only read the opening paragraph saying there could be seven changes and that Slade is expected to start.

7 would be interesting...

Mako in for Marler
Wilson in for Billy
Slade in for Farrell

Then who are the other 4?

Lawes may deserve a start, even though I thought Kruis was good.
Cole starting instead of Sinck so we get either Mako or Sinck on the pitch. Makes sense.
Nowell in for Watson? Not sure on that one, tbh.
???

Mako, Launchbury, Lawes, Ludlum and Wilson mentioned as likely starters. Farrell and LCD reported as having stomach bug. Nowell did not train - tightness in leg. Heinz probable starter together with Francis and Slade. All reporting conjecture, obviously.

Ugh. Francis. Keep forgetting about him.

Francis and Slade starting together is insanity unless 1 is at 10...and then we'll lose.

Stom wrote:Francis and Slade starting together is insanity unless 1 is at 10...and then we'll lose.

Implication in article was Ford at 10, Francis 12, Slade 13.

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:

francoisfou wrote:I've only read the opening paragraph saying there could be seven changes and that Slade is expected to start.

7 would be interesting...

Mako in for Marler
Wilson in for Billy
Slade in for Farrell

Then who are the other 4?

Lawes may deserve a start, even though I thought Kruis was good.
Cole starting instead of Sinck so we get either Mako or Sinck on the pitch. Makes sense.
Nowell in for Watson? Not sure on that one, tbh.
???

Mako, Launchbury, Lawes, Ludlum and Wilson mentioned as likely starters. Farrell and LCD reported as having stomach bug. Nowell did not train - tightness in leg. Heinz probable starter together with Francis and Slade. All reporting conjecture, obviously.

Nowell in injury shocker.

Looks like Eddie is giving the back-up a proper run out, which I sort of get. But Ford, Francis, Slade isn't worrying anyone.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:
7 would be interesting...

Mako in for Marler
Wilson in for Billy
Slade in for Farrell

Then who are the other 4?

Lawes may deserve a start, even though I thought Kruis was good.
Cole starting instead of Sinck so we get either Mako or Sinck on the pitch. Makes sense.
Nowell in for Watson? Not sure on that one, tbh.
???

Mako, Launchbury, Lawes, Ludlum and Wilson mentioned as likely starters. Farrell and LCD reported as having stomach bug. Nowell did not train - tightness in leg. Heinz probable starter together with Francis and Slade. All reporting conjecture, obviously.

Nowell in injury shocker.

Looks like Eddie is giving the back-up a proper run out, which I sort of get. But Ford, Francis, Slade isn't worrying anyone.

It's worrying me!

Can’t help think that having a yappy, terrier like scrum half bounding with energy and sheparding/geeing up the forwards is paying dividends for the boks yet both Young’s and Heinz appear a bit too much on the taciturn/quiet side to do this IMO.

The game is apparently being played behind closed doors in Oita (600 miles from yokohama) because of the typhoon. Gutted for people that paid for tickets.

Given France’s temperament I wonder how that will affect them. They might like not having a crowd to deal with? Am I buying into the commentator bullshit too much there?

Will it still be televised?

It will definitely be televised. Odd atmosphere though. It will be way less intense though which might suit both teams on the fatigue/injury front.

Another update is apparently if the weather is bad it may be just cancelled/postponed not moved. Same with the jap/sco game.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:
7 would be interesting...

Mako in for Marler
Wilson in for Billy
Slade in for Farrell

Then who are the other 4?

Lawes may deserve a start, even though I thought Kruis was good.
Cole starting instead of Sinck so we get either Mako or Sinck on the pitch. Makes sense.
Nowell in for Watson? Not sure on that one, tbh.
???

Mako, Launchbury, Lawes, Ludlum and Wilson mentioned as likely starters. Farrell and LCD reported as having stomach bug. Nowell did not train - tightness in leg. Heinz probable starter together with Francis and Slade. All reporting conjecture, obviously.

Nowell in injury shocker.

Looks like Eddie is giving the back-up a proper run out, which I sort of get. But Ford, Francis, Slade isn't worrying anyone.

Looking on the bright side at least it’s not Farrell, Francis, Slade

twitchy wrote:Another update is apparently if the weather is bad it may be just cancelled/postponed not moved. Same with the jap/sco game.

With England V France it’s not that big a deal. But Jap/Sco game will decide who goes through. That would be ridiculous.

Which Tyler wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:The jaw does naturally allow for some lateral and vertical movement before the head has to follow.

Thanks - I know my TMJ anatomy - yes, it moves in those directions but not in a way that will provide any bracing against an impact.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:I don't think anyone is brushing it under the carpet. Medical teams have got tremendously better in this regard, which is awesome, especially considering where the sport used to be, but taking a blow does not automatically mean that a HIA should be necessary in my opinion.

I disagree with your opinion - the whole point of an HIA is to assess head trauma; and significant head trauma should always lead to an HIA IMO.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:I don't feel it is as simple as that. Farrell was demonstrably fine immediately following the blow and looking at it again he takes the majority of the impact to the neck.

You obviously have a different dictionary to me. The only way to demonstrate that he was fine after the head trauma is to assess him with an HIA. I also disagree that he looked fine after the blow - he looked terrible, mentally slow, comparatively unaware, reduced fine motor control - I, and a fair few others thought he looked like he was playing whilst concussed.
You don't need ANY head contact to create head trauma.

Having had several mixed martial arts bouts I'll disagree with you on that one. The jaw does act somewhat as a cushion. It's also why we're coached on the ideal angles to contact the jaw to create the bell ringing motion rather than straight lateral movement. Simply because the impact is far more effective and damaging. It's not nice, but is what it is.

He didn't display any of those symptoms. Show me any example of such? The only one really possible is when he took the ball into contact 4 clock minutes, but ten actual minutes later. Where he gets tackled, rolls and presents the ball perfectly to Youngs.

Immediately after the red card tackle and resulting ruck he gets straight to his feet and back in the line and communicating with the players around him. Afterwards he's clearly conversing with both Owens and Matera. Calls straight for the kicking tea. Goes through his routine. Strikes the ball cleanly, but hooks it slightly left and misses. Which is not massively unusual for Farrell. After the restart on second phase he puts a perfectly weighted high ball up. The one where Manu gives away a penalty for a tackle in the air. Farrell is chatting to Owens with a grin on his face.

I get the need to protect players, but if a player is fine then a player is fine. It is OK to not HIA everyone.

Mikey Brown wrote:

twitchy wrote:Another update is apparently if the weather is bad it may be just cancelled/postponed not moved. Same with the jap/sco game.

With England V France it’s not that big a deal. But Jap/Sco game will decide who goes through. That would be ridiculous.

Cancelling them is daft, wrecks the whole league dynamic. Even for us, it is important in that it determines who we/France play. I understand though that if the match starts but is abandoned then its 2 points apiece.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:The jaw does naturally allow for some lateral and vertical movement before the head has to follow.

Thanks - I know my TMJ anatomy - yes, it moves in those directions but not in a way that will provide any bracing against an impact.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:I don't think anyone is brushing it under the carpet. Medical teams have got tremendously better in this regard, which is awesome, especially considering where the sport used to be, but taking a blow does not automatically mean that a HIA should be necessary in my opinion.

I disagree with your opinion - the whole point of an HIA is to assess head trauma; and significant head trauma should always lead to an HIA IMO.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:I don't feel it is as simple as that. Farrell was demonstrably fine immediately following the blow and looking at it again he takes the majority of the impact to the neck.

You obviously have a different dictionary to me. The only way to demonstrate that he was fine after the head trauma is to assess him with an HIA. I also disagree that he looked fine after the blow - he looked terrible, mentally slow, comparatively unaware, reduced fine motor control - I, and a fair few others thought he looked like he was playing whilst concussed.
You don't need ANY head contact to create head trauma.

Having had several mixed martial arts bouts I'll disagree with you on that one. The jaw does act somewhat as a cushion. It's also why we're coached on the ideal angles to contact the jaw to create the bell ringing motion rather than straight lateral movement. Simply because the impact is far more effective and damaging. It's not nice, but is what it is.

He didn't display any of those symptoms. Show me any example of such? The only one really possible is when he took the ball into contact 4 clock minutes, but ten actual minutes later. Where he gets tackled, rolls and presents the ball perfectly to Youngs.

Immediately after the red card tackle and resulting ruck he gets straight to his feet and back in the line and communicating with the players around him. Afterwards he's clearly conversing with both Owens and Matera. Calls straight for the kicking tea. Goes through his routine. Strikes the ball cleanly, but hooks it slightly left and misses. Which is not massively unusual for Farrell. After the restart on second phase he puts a perfectly weighted high ball up. The one where Manu gives away a penalty for a tackle in the air. Farrell is chatting to Owens with a grin on his face.

I get the need to protect players, but if a player is fine then a player is fine. It is OK to not HIA everyone.

Not sure if you missed this post or just consider it too anecdotal, but it describes basically everything you have done there.

Mellsblue wrote:From personal experience, I’m not sure it’s possible to diagnose whether there has been a brain trauma just by viewing an impact or a quick chat with the player on the field. I’ve taken a blow to the head, and now think I was knocked out momentarily, and continued to play the rest of the match. I then ‘came to’ in the showers with no recollection of the match, I didn’t even know whether we’d won or lost. Despite being flyhalf - calling plays etc - and being captain - halftime team talk, conversing with the ref etc - nobody had a clue that I’d suffered a brain trauma.

I just can’t follow why you think an HIA would not have been a good idea at that point? You say “if a player is fine then a player is fine” but your suggestion for measuring that is what?

Letting a player continue on the assumption they’re fine and then using that as evidence they didn’t need to be checked doesn’t really add up.

If you have to wait a few phases to see physical symptoms of concussion before doing an HIA then you’ve left that player open to another clash (even in that short time) that could have awful consequences.

You appear to repeatedly acknowledge the need for player care and then discard it all in one. It’s very confusing.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

twitchy wrote:Another update is apparently if the weather is bad it may be just cancelled/postponed not moved. Same with the jap/sco game.

With England V France it’s not that big a deal. But Jap/Sco game will decide who goes through. That would be ridiculous.

Cancelling them is daft, wrecks the whole league dynamic. Even for us, it is important in that it determines who we/France play. I understand though that if the match starts but is abandoned then its 2 points apiece.

Does the rescheduled match see any crowd turning up? Who gets tickets, is any travel laid on, how does it impact security arrangements, what does it do to commercial arrangements, what happens to accommodation for fans and the teams?

Basically I'd understand them cancelling over trying to reschedule, though one might want a word with however picked a country to host during typhoon season

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
With England V France it’s not that big a deal. But Jap/Sco game will decide who goes through. That would be ridiculous.

Cancelling them is daft, wrecks the whole league dynamic. Even for us, it is important in that it determines who we/France play. I understand though that if the match starts but is abandoned then its 2 points apiece.

Does the rescheduled match see any crowd turning up? Who gets tickets, is any travel laid on, how does it impact security arrangements, what does it do to commercial arrangements, what happens to accommodation for fans and the teams?

Basically I'd understand them cancelling over trying to reschedule, though one might want a word with however picked a country to host during typhoon season

despite the impact on the tournament? So you'd also cancel the final?

The arrangements are certainly possible, as they are for any postponed cup game, as I believe we saw in the European Cup. Hardly beyond the wit of man. To your last point, you'd have a contigency plan- its a two day window for the final, for example. I'm reasonably sure Scots fans (say) would happily make do and mend, rather than exiting the tournament under these conditions.

word is the games will be called off. Not sure yet of the implications. Be a terrible way for Scotland to exit.