Search results

I agree. However having to start one of our first-choice outside backs against Uruguay would also not be ideal. 31 is a funny number for the organisers to set.

The idea that this configuration was chosen to even up the numbers for opposed training in the UK is a complete furphy. There's no restriction on who can train with the squad before they arrive in the UK, so there's nothing stopping Sio training at hooker now.

Here's my take on the risk of taking only two halfbacks and hookers. We play three games in 10 days: Fiji on the 24th, Uruguay on the 27th, and England on the 4th. Taking two complete contingents means that no one has to start against both Uruguay and England. Given that the game against...

Cheika doesn't 'by rights know better than all', TWAS. For a start, there is no 'all', since not everyone disagrees with him. However he has access to much more information than we do. This 'major discontent' is over two selection choices. It doesn't take much to get people majorly discontented.

I'm excited by Speight being there. He had no chances in the Kiwi schemozzle. We know how good he can be. He has a month.

Perhaps they are. I for one have no problem with admitting I know less about rugby than the professionals who're paid to run our national team. Maybe what is happening is innovative thinking that I just don't understand yet. Maybe it's a risk taken for good reasons. Maybe there are facts I don't...

It's the wildest speculation to hypothesise that in the event of an injury players can't be replaced. If that were the case then teams that suffer injuries to two hookers or props would be equally sunk.

My point is, that the Internet could (whisper it) be wrong, and the people we pay to run the national team be right.

You can say that about almost any innovation.

There's always that chance. We might have three hookers and injure 2 in the 72 hours before a game. Then we'd have to rely on the extenuating circumstances clause in the rules, like we might have to now if we injure a hooker and a prop.

It's hardly that severe. If a hooker gets injured, then Hansen can be flown out. If it's a non-tour-ending injury, then Sio covers from the bench. In the case of a non-tour-ending injury to both a hooker AND a prop, preventing us making the numbers, then one of those injuries will have to be...

I'm amazed at the level of anger about this squad. Apart from the selection of Douglas over Horwill, and the non-selection of Hansen for one of the outside backs, it's almost precisely what everyone would've picked. Getting angry about McMahon is just finding things to get angry about.

Madam!

Continuing on the positivity theme, this is a very good squad, and apart from the schemozzle against New Zealand, we've had an excellent year. In terms of our RWC preparation, perhaps even the loss to the Kiwis wasn't such a bad thing. It will certainly have shaken out any possible...

Beale's defence is nowhere near as bad as people say it is, especially at the back, where he's made plenty of try-saving tackles for the Wobs.

At the risk of expressing positivity, I think our current lot are potentially better.

Our piglets are hardly weak. Despite the absence of a third hoooker, this is possibly the strongest and deepest set of forwards we've fielded at a RWC. We've never had two test class front rows, ever.

What exactly is wrong with Beale? He's an extremely effective impact sub.

I dunno. Tomane is damned fast. I'd play Tomane and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), on form, every day of the week. Speight at his best in place of Tomane.

You should assume nothing. G&GR doesn't pick the team, so the reports of Palu's demise are probably exaggerated. Despite the theatrical tearing open of shirts, the reality is, as has already been said, the big pack actually did better on the scoreboard than the small pack. People are using the...