RugbyRebels

I didn't understand why we arrived late at altitude for the first test, now I don't understand why we've gone back to Durban between the tests

You need to stay at altitude for 2, prerably 3 weeks to get the physiological benefits, during which time training is very much limited.
Youn either need to get to altitude and stay there, sacrificing training, or stay low down and just head uphill for matches. Both options are perfectly valid, but once the decision is made its insanity to change it part-way through.

I'd suggest that a scratch side is better staying on the coast, as training is that much more important; a more established side can afford to sacrifice some of that to gain altitude advantages.
England were a bit of both, qualified that Eddie is deliberately over-training, so wouldn't want to sacrifice that, and we'd barely have had the 2 weeks ahead of the first test, so any advantage from at altitude would have barely been felt by test 1; but would have been there for test 2.

I finally watched the match today, I don't the altitude played any part whatsoever.

Mellsblue wrote:

Peej wrote:Cowan-Dickie also has a worrying tendency to botch late, important throws it seems. This past weekend, the game against France in the 6N...

All the more reason to get experience in him. Who would you pick instead?

LCD should be starting. George looked dreadful on Saturday. When his form goes he is just a fat lad with thin arms.

Which Tyler wrote:You need to stay at altitude for 2, prerably 3 weeks to get the physiological benefits, during which time training is very much limited.
Youn either need to get to altitude and stay there, sacrificing training, or stay low down and just head uphill for matches. Both options are perfectly valid, but once the decision is made its insanity to change it part-way through.

I'd suggest that a scratch side is better staying on the coast, as training is that much more important; a more established side can afford to sacrifice some of that to gain altitude advantages.
England were a bit of both, qualified that Eddie is deliberately over-training, so wouldn't want to sacrifice that, and we'd barely have had the 2 weeks ahead of the first test, so any advantage from at altitude would have barely been felt by test 1; but would have been there for test 2.

I finally watched the match today, I don't the altitude played any part whatsoever.

I see the England camp are saying it didn't impact them, which if true makes them unique

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:You need to stay at altitude for 2, prerably 3 weeks to get the physiological benefits, during which time training is very much limited.
Youn either need to get to altitude and stay there, sacrificing training, or stay low down and just head uphill for matches. Both options are perfectly valid, but once the decision is made its insanity to change it part-way through.

I'd suggest that a scratch side is better staying on the coast, as training is that much more important; a more established side can afford to sacrifice some of that to gain altitude advantages.
England were a bit of both, qualified that Eddie is deliberately over-training, so wouldn't want to sacrifice that, and we'd barely have had the 2 weeks ahead of the first test, so any advantage from at altitude would have barely been felt by test 1; but would have been there for test 2.

I finally watched the match today, I don't the altitude played any part whatsoever.

I see the England camp are saying it didn't impact them, which if true makes them unique

Jones's view is that the two SA franchises at sea level don't try to acclimatise so it's the best approach. Adam Beard, ex-Wales and Lions S&C coach and 'expert in the effects of altitude on exercise', says otherwise: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sout ... -76k5lfq8m

M Vunipola shredded Exeter and won MOTM in the Premiership Final. England has a good chunk of the Sarries team that was putting 50+ points on everyone in the Premiership, including some of the saffers squad, towards the end of the season.

They are all knackered and should have been rested over the summer.

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:You need to stay at altitude for 2, prerably 3 weeks to get the physiological benefits, during which time training is very much limited.
Youn either need to get to altitude and stay there, sacrificing training, or stay low down and just head uphill for matches. Both options are perfectly valid, but once the decision is made its insanity to change it part-way through.

I'd suggest that a scratch side is better staying on the coast, as training is that much more important; a more established side can afford to sacrifice some of that to gain altitude advantages.
England were a bit of both, qualified that Eddie is deliberately over-training, so wouldn't want to sacrifice that, and we'd barely have had the 2 weeks ahead of the first test, so any advantage from at altitude would have barely been felt by test 1; but would have been there for test 2.

I finally watched the match today, I don't the altitude played any part whatsoever.

I see the England camp are saying it didn't impact them, which if true makes them unique

George has said it had an impact

Mellsblue wrote:

Peej wrote:Cowan-Dickie also has a worrying tendency to botch late, important throws it seems. This past weekend, the game against France in the 6N...

All the more reason to get experience in him. Who would you pick instead?

At the minute? I'd probably still pick him with Taylor injured. But he's not going to push Hartley out of the squad. Longer term Singleton and even Cruse would be worth trying

Peej wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Peej wrote:Cowan-Dickie also has a worrying tendency to botch late, important throws it seems. This past weekend, the game against France in the 6N...

All the more reason to get experience in him. Who would you pick instead?

At the minute? I'd probably still pick him with Taylor injured. But he's not going to push Hartley out of the squad. Longer term Singleton and even Cruse would be worth trying

The only reason he couldn't push Hartley out of the squad would be if Hartley has put on a lot of weight again

CONVEX HULL wrote:M Vunipola shredded Exeter and won MOTM in the Premiership Final. England has a good chunk of the Sarries team that was putting 50+ points on everyone in the Premiership, including some of the saffers squad, towards the end of the season.

They are all knackered and should have been rested over the summer.

I agree that they looked leaden-footed playing for England but not for the final. They did not become knackered overnight. It has to be down to a poor training regime under Jones.

Oakboy wrote:

CONVEX HULL wrote:M Vunipola shredded Exeter and won MOTM in the Premiership Final. England has a good chunk of the Sarries team that was putting 50+ points on everyone in the Premiership, including some of the saffers squad, towards the end of the season.

They are all knackered and should have been rested over the summer.

I agree that they looked leaden-footed playing for England but not for the final. They did not become knackered overnight. It has to be down to a poor training regime under Jones.

Or altitude or a faster game.

Or that SA are a better set of players.

Oakboy wrote:

CONVEX HULL wrote:M Vunipola shredded Exeter and won MOTM in the Premiership Final. England has a good chunk of the Sarries team that was putting 50+ points on everyone in the Premiership, including some of the saffers squad, towards the end of the season.

They are all knackered and should have been rested over the summer.

I agree that they looked leaden-footed playing for England but not for the final. They did not become knackered overnight. It has to be down to a poor training regime under Jones.

This IMO, though whether he's right or wrong (AKA "poor") were still 12 month's away from knowing.

I still firmly believe that the first XV should be resting right now though, you don't get the benefit of Britain training without giving the body recovery time. You can, of course, also overdo the training so that you don't benefit even with the rest; thought even that depends on the outcomes you're looking at.

We have recently moved and I haven't got round to organising satellite but I did watch the game live via a decent stream.

Opposition weaknesses aside, in that first 20 minutes I thought we were superb. Ford and Slade in particular stood out during that period. That said, I was disgruntled at Ford's selection ahead of Cipriani. It isn't an experimental tour and Eddie wants to win the series but the bigger picture is the WC. Can we please look at alternatives?

Overall, I thought there were solid performances by May and others and, like many on here, was perplexed at Eddie's substitution of Isiekwe on 36 mins. At the time I thought Jones was trying to recreate the Burrell moment in Brisbane but on this occasion it just felt wrong whereas back then most England supporters around me tended to agree with the 1st half change.

Twitter rumours are that launch won't be fit and they are calling up some one back from blighty.

I'm not even sure who that would be as I can't remember who is and isn't fit (spencer/attwood?) Also RIP to jonny hill's test career also?

twitchy wrote:Twitter rumours are that launch won't be fit and they are calling up some one back from blighty.

I'm not even sure who that would be as I can't remember who is and isn't fit (spencer/attwood?) Also RIP to jonny hill's test career also?

Spencer was marked as unavailable when the tour squad was named. I would pick Attwood myself - experienced test player and in good form. Or a wild-card pick could be Geoff Parling if we want to invoke exceptional circumstances.

Puja

Ribbans?
Green?
Mike Williams?

Mellsblue wrote:Ribbans?
Green?
Mike Williams?

I think I'd rather have Shields...

Puja

twitchy wrote:Twitter rumours are that launch won't be fit and they are calling up some one back from blighty.

I'm not even sure who that would be as I can't remember who is and isn't fit (spencer/attwood?) Also RIP to jonny hill's test career also?

Seems you were right when you said it would be make or break for Isiekwe

I feel Attwood got a bit hard done by. I wouldn't mind seeing him back, even for the short-term.

I thought you guys had quite a few decent locks.....more so than loosies at any rate. Eddie seems to have dismantled that strength in depth with his weird selection policy.

We have lost four of our top five locks to injury and scheduled surgery.

Fair enough then.

Puja wrote:

twitchy wrote:Twitter rumours are that launch won't be fit and they are calling up some one back from blighty.

I'm not even sure who that would be as I can't remember who is and isn't fit (spencer/attwood?) Also RIP to jonny hill's test career also?

Spencer was marked as unavailable when the tour squad was named. I would pick Attwood myself - experienced test player and in good form. Or a wild-card pick could be Geoff Parling if we want to invoke exceptional circumstances.

Puja

I'd go Attwood or Slater. Agree with you that Attwood's a good, experienced player and as Mike Brown (RR) says, he's been hard done by, no doubt. I think he should've been in the squad for years. Slater too, he's a leader, he's mobile, can cover the back-row in emergencies etc. I'd have them in.

Puja wrote:Marler
George
Williams
Itoje
Shields
Hughes
Robshaw
BillyV

Youngs
Farrell
Brown
Loz
Slade
May
Daly

Is what I'm scared Eddie will pick.

Puja

Puja, for a moment I thought you'd lost it.

That team is like a pedophile raping a special needs child in an elevator...wrong on so many levels.