RugbyRebels

and no, to 14 men. They had two tightheads in the squad, starter went off with a hammy after 2 minutes, and the replacement failed a HIA.

Still a shame we’d never see 6. Dombrandt 7. Polledri 8. Vunipola for England, just for a laugh.

Lots of people on here wrote him off as average.

Mikey Brown wrote:Still a shame we’d never see 6. Dombrandt 7. Polledri 8. Vunipola for England, just for a laugh.

Be quite a scary prospect in terms of carrying.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:
on that note, uncontested scrums as both Italy tightheads crocked. Imagine if they hadn't planned for that event.....

Are Italy down to 14 then?

And on the other point I think Polledri would struggle to make that impact if anyone gave a fudge about Italy's attack

bit of a hypothetical, and he can only play what's in front of him. If he made half that impact, it''d be worth having in any case.

Where would you play him? And I'd assume you'd have picked him over Ludlam in the squad? And why not just pick Dombrandt if you wanted another carrier anyway?

twitchy wrote:Lots of people on here wrote him off as average.

I know, I wasn't one of them.

Banquo wrote:and no, to 14 men. They had two tightheads in the squad, starter went off with a hammy after 2 minutes, and the replacement failed a HIA.

Well isn't that a giant loophole I can't imagine anyone else exploiting. Tricky to see what the solution is mind

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Are Italy down to 14 then?

And on the other point I think Polledri would struggle to make that impact if anyone gave a fudge about Italy's attack

bit of a hypothetical, and he can only play what's in front of him. If he made half that impact, it''d be worth having in any case.

Where would you play him? And I'd assume you'd have picked him over Ludlam in the squad? And why not just pick Dombrandt if you wanted another carrier anyway?

You've made quite the leap. All I said was that I wasn't as sanguine as others when he opted for Italy- and at that time Dombrandt, Ludlam, Curry hadn't emerged.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:and no, to 14 men. They had two tightheads in the squad, starter went off with a hammy after 2 minutes, and the replacement failed a HIA.

Well isn't that a giant loophole I can't imagine anyone else exploiting. Tricky to see what the solution is mind

They've solved it themselves by the loosehead getting himself sent off! (indeed two players could have been sent off in the same incident)

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:and no, to 14 men. They had two tightheads in the squad, starter went off with a hammy after 2 minutes, and the replacement failed a HIA.

Well isn't that a giant loophole I can't imagine anyone else exploiting. Tricky to see what the solution is mind

They've solved it themselves by the loosehead getting himself sent off! (indeed two players could have been sent off in the same incident)

Nonetheless Gats and Edwards could well look at this as a way to get an extra back row onto the field, it's not like they haven't done it before

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:and no, to 14 men. They had two tightheads in the squad, starter went off with a hammy after 2 minutes, and the replacement failed a HIA.

Well isn't that a giant loophole I can't imagine anyone else exploiting. Tricky to see what the solution is mind

They've solved it themselves by the loosehead getting himself sent off! (indeed two players should have been sent off in the same incident)

FTFY

Willis started today’s game and has scored again.