RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

richy678 wrote:

Stom wrote:
Why does he deserve a slot in the top players?

I'm not questioning the fact he has an impact, but he's never one of the top 25 players in World Rugby. And if you're saying he's in the top 45...you're saying he's better than many other players who could also argue they deserve a spot.

I think your trying to attach too much sentiment to the word "deserve" here. I am not claiming Faz has a birth rite or we owe him something. I just believe saying he is not in the top 45 players is doing him a disservice.
Once again - I am not his biggest fan, but in this melding of the 15 recognised positions, to award a grade position on the bell curve - he would be in the top 45.

I'm going to have to disagree he'd be in the 45.

He might, but it'd be close.

He's just not that amazing. England win more without him, score more tries without him...

And his kicking %age isn't 90%. It's below 80%. Bang average. His tackle technique is poor, he flies out of the line, he can't pass well off one hand, and he has 0 to no running game.

Plus his kicks from hand are ok at best.

Add in the petulance and you get a not particularly good international player.

I don't want to do my top 100, as I will always favour the players I see more often, but I just don't see him being close in skill terms to any top player.

Beasties wrote:My biggest hope for the WC is that Farrell gets an injury that keeps him out for the tournament and we're forced to play without him. Under these circumstances I fully expect Eng to adapt and thrive to the utter bewilderment of the Faz worshippers in punditworld. What will they say then?
(Obvs with the caveat that I never want any player injured) Youngs too?

Which Tyler wrote:

Beasties wrote:My biggest hope for the WC is that Farrell gets an injury that keeps him out for the tournament and we're forced to play without him. Under these circumstances I fully expect Eng to adapt and thrive to the utter bewilderment of the Faz worshippers in punditworld. What will they say then?
(Obvs with the caveat that I never want any player injured) Youngs too?

I'll never wish I jury on anyone.
How long would he be out if shown red for one of his "tackles"? And where does that leave the rest of the team? (Presumably Cip.s called to the bench, and Manu to IC?)

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Beasties wrote:My biggest hope for the WC is that Farrell gets an injury that keeps him out for the tournament and we're forced to play without him. Under these circumstances I fully expect Eng to adapt and thrive to the utter bewilderment of the Faz worshippers in punditworld. What will they say then?
(Obvs with the caveat that I never want any player injured) Youngs too?

I'll never wish I jury on anyone.
How long would he be out if shown red for one of his "tackles"? And where does that leave the rest of the team? (Presumably Cip.s called to the bench, and Manu to IC?)

Can you replace a player in the squad for a red card?

Puja

Raggs wrote:

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: I'll never wish I jury on anyone.
How long would he be out if shown red for one of his "tackles"? And where does that leave the rest of the team? (Presumably Cip.s called to the bench, and Manu to IC?)

Can you replace a player in the squad for a red card?

Puja

I don't believe so.

Oakboy wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Puja wrote:
Can you replace a player in the squad for a red card?

Puja

I don't believe so.

So, if a team has only taken two tightheads, would that mean uncontested scrums rather than allow a replacement? Taking it further down that route, can a ref insist on a LH playing at TH? What would happen in our case if Marler said he didn't fancy it - which he might reasonably do against top class opposition, perhaps? Does a prop who can play both sides have to be declared as such?

Raggs wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Raggs wrote:
I don't believe so.

So, if a team has only taken two tightheads, would that mean uncontested scrums rather than allow a replacement? Taking it further down that route, can a ref insist on a LH playing at TH? What would happen in our case if Marler said he didn't fancy it - which he might reasonably do against top class opposition, perhaps? Does a prop who can play both sides have to be declared as such?

I presume in the event of front row, you can nominate someone to be dropped from the 31 in order to ensure a full and proper bench.

Oakboy wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
So, if a team has only taken two tightheads, would that mean uncontested scrums rather than allow a replacement? Taking it further down that route, can a ref insist on a LH playing at TH? What would happen in our case if Marler said he didn't fancy it - which he might reasonably do against top class opposition, perhaps? Does a prop who can play both sides have to be declared as such?

I presume in the event of front row, you can nominate someone to be dropped from the 31 in order to ensure a full and proper bench.

Even if it is a red-carded prop?

Raggs wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Raggs wrote:
I presume in the event of front row, you can nominate someone to be dropped from the 31 in order to ensure a full and proper bench.

Even if it is a red-carded prop?

Got to have the full bench for safety. But I'd guess you can't send home the red carded player, you'd have to choose someone else.

Why not look up the laws?

Stom wrote:Does anyone have the full 100 strong list, btw?

And Dors, you should be able to find it on the WR website.