RugbyRebels

From Kitson in the Guardian -

Perhaps of more significance, though, is England’s record against the top four teams over the past 20 years, as highlighted by the sharp-eyed rugby statistician Russ Petty. Since being crowned world champions in 2003, they have played 84 Tests against sides ranked in the top four and have won 23 of them, with two draws. Between late 2006 and mid-2010, when their post-2003 slump was at its steepest, they lost 14 on the trot.

Interestingly Andy Robinson and Eddie Jones also lost their jobs as England head coaches after home defeats – by 11 and 14 points respectively – by the Springboks. There were extenuating circumstances in both cases but the figure against the world’s top four on Steve Borthwick’s watch is P10 L9, with Ireland away and France at home kicking off their 2025 Six Nations campaign.

Add it together and the 2025 Six Nations potentially looms as kill or cure for Borthwick’s England project. Lose to Ireland and France (victorious over New Zealand on Saturday night) inside eight days, then slip up against Scotland or Italy at home or beleaguered Wales away and the political sands beneath his feet will definitely start to shift.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:15 am All the stats show are similarities of approach. Maybe, it is time for a radical appointment, not just of the individual, but in terms of defining the role. 'Build a team for 4 years time. Results in years 1 and 2 immaterial. Signs of progress by year 3 necessary. All results in year 4 crucial.' Based on the last 20 years, what is there to lose?

What if that’s the agreement/metric/defined role Sliding Backwards is employed under?

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 1:49 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:15 am All the stats show are similarities of approach. Maybe, it is time for a radical appointment, not just of the individual, but in terms of defining the role. 'Build a team for 4 years time. Results in years 1 and 2 immaterial. Signs of progress by year 3 necessary. All results in year 4 crucial.' Based on the last 20 years, what is there to lose?

What if that’s the agreement/metric/defined role Sliding Backwards is employed under?

Well if it is then the RFU Comms team is very poor indeed - they would've let people know so that we wouldn't be as impatient as we are right now.

Reflecting on it all over the weekend it's easy to forget how close SB has been to being quite successful... BUT I think the key thing has just been being too conservative in changing personnel after the world cup, that's the fundamental problem. I think if he'd replaced Isiekwe, Cole, Marler, Ford, Dombrandt, Slade, even, with younger options with greater potential or frankly with new, promising players, I don't think he'd be taking as much flack, or at least he'd be able to say "I am changing it".

He's got to roll the dice for the 6ns I think and that starts with blooding some new people against Japan probably, well as much as is possible.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:15 am All the stats show are similarities of approach. Maybe, it is time for a radical appointment, not just of the individual, but in terms of defining the role. 'Build a team for 4 years time. Results in years 1 and 2 immaterial. Signs of progress by year 3 necessary. All results in year 4 crucial.' Based on the last 20 years, what is there to lose?

Always been a ludicrous approach imo. Every game has to matter. It shouldn't take that long to get a side winning/playing well given a decentish squad. Look at how quickly Schmidt has turned Oz round, with what is a talented couple of players.

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:32 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:15 am All the stats show are similarities of approach. Maybe, it is time for a radical appointment, not just of the individual, but in terms of defining the role. 'Build a team for 4 years time. Results in years 1 and 2 immaterial. Signs of progress by year 3 necessary. All results in year 4 crucial.' Based on the last 20 years, what is there to lose?

Always been a ludicrous approach imo. Every game has to matter. It shouldn't take that long to get a side winning/playing well given a decentish squad. Look at how quickly Schmidt has turned Oz round, with what is a talented couple of players.

I agree with that completely - teams can be turned around rapidly. England coaches are forever talking about "the process", the "development phase", all that shite like it goes on forever.

TheDasher wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:45 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:32 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:15 am All the stats show are similarities of approach. Maybe, it is time for a radical appointment, not just of the individual, but in terms of defining the role. 'Build a team for 4 years time. Results in years 1 and 2 immaterial. Signs of progress by year 3 necessary. All results in year 4 crucial.' Based on the last 20 years, what is there to lose?

Always been a ludicrous approach imo. Every game has to matter. It shouldn't take that long to get a side winning/playing well given a decentish squad. Look at how quickly Schmidt has turned Oz round, with what is a talented couple of players.

I agree with that completely - teams can be turned around rapidly. England coaches are forever talking about "the process", the "development phase", all that shite like it goes on forever.

yus. Jones - possibly not everyone's cup of tea - turned us from a sh8t show to GS winners in a month iirc.

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:32 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:15 am All the stats show are similarities of approach. Maybe, it is time for a radical appointment, not just of the individual, but in terms of defining the role. 'Build a team for 4 years time. Results in years 1 and 2 immaterial. Signs of progress by year 3 necessary. All results in year 4 crucial.' Based on the last 20 years, what is there to lose?

Always been a ludicrous approach imo. Every game has to matter. It shouldn't take that long to get a side winning/playing well given a decentish squad. Look at how quickly Schmidt has turned Oz round, with what is a talented couple of players.

So, it is purely down to not appointing a competent HC since 2004?

I certainly agree that nobody has got the best out of the players but every one of them has stood by the 'experience is all' mantra. Every time a youthful selection is on the cards, up comes, 'Robinson tried that against Wales in 1907' or whenever it was. Meantime, all the other top sides produce.

Something different needs trying. 'Same old' keeps failing. Bloody hell, would it be such a surprise if Farrell is back for the RWC the way things are going?

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 3:09 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:32 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:15 am All the stats show are similarities of approach. Maybe, it is time for a radical appointment, not just of the individual, but in terms of defining the role. 'Build a team for 4 years time. Results in years 1 and 2 immaterial. Signs of progress by year 3 necessary. All results in year 4 crucial.' Based on the last 20 years, what is there to lose?

Always been a ludicrous approach imo. Every game has to matter. It shouldn't take that long to get a side winning/playing well given a decentish squad. Look at how quickly Schmidt has turned Oz round, with what is a talented couple of players.

So, it is purely down to not appointing a competent HC since 2004?

I certainly agree that nobody has got the best out of the players but every one of them has stood by the 'experience is all' mantra. Every time a youthful selection is on the cards, up comes, 'Robinson tried that against Wales in 1907' or whenever it was. Meantime, all the other top sides produce.

Something different needs trying. 'Same old' keeps failing. Bloody hell, would it be such a surprise if Farrell is back for the RWC the way things are going?

No, Jones had them winning a GS within a month, and to a world cup final. IIRC he brought a few young guys in.
Its also not experience or nothing, but a balance; I agree if the incumbent aint good enough, bring a better guy in, and if he's a young un great. Also if its a performance toss up between and experience and yoof, go yoof.
As always, you seem to look for a silver bullet- but its a combo of not having great coaches for a lot of the time, plus not having enough top class players, hampered by an unhelpful club system. Bit of chicken and egg with players and coaches tis true.

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:59 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:45 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:32 pm

Always been a ludicrous approach imo. Every game has to matter. It shouldn't take that long to get a side winning/playing well given a decentish squad. Look at how quickly Schmidt has turned Oz round, with what is a talented couple of players.

I agree with that completely - teams can be turned around rapidly. England coaches are forever talking about "the process", the "development phase", all that shite like it goes on forever.

yus. Jones - possibly not everyone's cup of tea - turned us from a sh8t show to GS winners in a month iirc.

This is too oft forgotten.

Also on Schmidt, he's a frikkin magician. And Valentini might be the best player in the world just after Dupont right now

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 7:44 pm Also on Schmidt, he's a frikkin magician. And Valentini might be the best player in the world just after Dupont right now

Add to that Roumat

p/d wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 9:24 pm

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 7:44 pm Also on Schmidt, he's a frikkin magician. And Valentini might be the best player in the world just after Dupont right now

Add to that Roumat

Yep

p/d wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 9:24 pm

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 7:44 pm Also on Schmidt, he's a frikkin magician. And Valentini might be the best player in the world just after Dupont right now

Add to that Roumat

…..has it?

TheDasher wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:25 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 1:49 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:15 am All the stats show are similarities of approach. Maybe, it is time for a radical appointment, not just of the individual, but in terms of defining the role. 'Build a team for 4 years time. Results in years 1 and 2 immaterial. Signs of progress by year 3 necessary. All results in year 4 crucial.' Based on the last 20 years, what is there to lose?

What if that’s the agreement/metric/defined role Sliding Backwards is employed under?

Well if it is then the RFU Comms team is very poor indeed - they would've let people know so that we wouldn't be as impatient as we are right now.

Reflecting on it all over the weekend it's easy to forget how close SB has been to being quite successful... BUT I think the key thing has just been being too conservative in changing personnel after the world cup, that's the fundamental problem. I think if he'd replaced Isiekwe, Cole, Marler, Ford, Dombrandt, Slade, even, with younger options with greater potential or frankly with new, promising players, I don't think he'd be taking as much flack, or at least he'd be able to say "I am changing it".

He's got to roll the dice for the 6ns I think and that starts with blooding some new people against Japan probably, well as much as is possible.

I think this series has been exactly that. Certain players (CCS, Spencer, Marcus, Dombrandt, Sleithholme, potentially Curry proving he still has it, Slade/Lawrence proving the combo works) have been given the chance to make their case either as a starter or a regular squad player. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some big changes for the 6 nations with those who haven't made the grade either dropped completely or shifted to impact roles on the bench (CCS, Earl, maybe even Marcus if it's deemed we need to stop relying on his brilliance).

That's the hope anyway, if not then we're in for another crap 6 nations, followed by a tour where promising players get blood before being replaced by the same old stodge

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:59 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:45 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:32 pm

Always been a ludicrous approach imo. Every game has to matter. It shouldn't take that long to get a side winning/playing well given a decentish squad. Look at how quickly Schmidt has turned Oz round, with what is a talented couple of players.

I agree with that completely - teams can be turned around rapidly. England coaches are forever talking about "the process", the "development phase", all that shite like it goes on forever.

yus. Jones - possibly not everyone's cup of tea - turned us from a sh8t show to GS winners in a month iirc.

That's undervaluing this Aussie squad. The building blocks have been there for years and they were improving nicely under Rennie. They just got shafted by Eddie who ripped their senior players out of the team and ruined their gun 10. Schmidt has given the team direction again and installed some self belief. It seems a lot of fans in the UK don't watch the rugby championship but this didn't come from no where - they had some losses but you could see them building (very similar to England tbh). They have quality (but no depth) in the front row, esp. the props, a very solid 2nd row, a back row that can and does compete with the best. Good 9's, great centres and a solid back 3 - it's not a couple of good players schmodt lifted from nowhere, only Sua'ali'i is new really

Skalyba wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 8:40 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:59 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:45 pm

I agree with that completely - teams can be turned around rapidly. England coaches are forever talking about "the process", the "development phase", all that shite like it goes on forever.

yus. Jones - possibly not everyone's cup of tea - turned us from a sh8t show to GS winners in a month iirc.

That's undervaluing this Aussie squad. The building blocks have been there for years and they were improving nicely under Rennie. They just got shafted by Eddie who ripped their senior players out of the team and ruined their gun 10. Schmidt has given the team direction again and installed some self belief. It seems a lot of fans in the UK don't watch the rugby championship but this didn't come from no where - they had some losses but you could see them building (very similar to England tbh). They have quality (but no depth) in the front row, esp. the props, a very solid 2nd row, a back row that can and does compete with the best. Good 9's, great centres and a solid back 3 - it's not a couple of good players schmodt lifted from nowhere, only Sua'ali'i is new really

I stand corrected, but no question Schmidt has turned them around in a pretty short time, thus demonstrating the art of the possible. I may have undercalled slightly the quality of the squad but the point was about decent coaching not magicking up players - just that as you say it’s not an entire group of worldies

And I confess to not having watched the RC for a while.

Skalyba wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 8:34 am

TheDasher wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:25 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 1:49 pm

What if that’s the agreement/metric/defined role Sliding Backwards is employed under?

Well if it is then the RFU Comms team is very poor indeed - they would've let people know so that we wouldn't be as impatient as we are right now.

Reflecting on it all over the weekend it's easy to forget how close SB has been to being quite successful... BUT I think the key thing has just been being too conservative in changing personnel after the world cup, that's the fundamental problem. I think if he'd replaced Isiekwe, Cole, Marler, Ford, Dombrandt, Slade, even, with younger options with greater potential or frankly with new, promising players, I don't think he'd be taking as much flack, or at least he'd be able to say "I am changing it".

He's got to roll the dice for the 6ns I think and that starts with blooding some new people against Japan probably, well as much as is possible.

I think this series has been exactly that. Certain players (CCS, Spencer, Marcus, Dombrandt, Sleithholme, potentially Curry proving he still has it, Slade/Lawrence proving the combo works) have been given the chance to make their case either as a starter or a regular squad player. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some big changes for the 6 nations with those who haven't made the grade either dropped completely or shifted to impact roles on the bench (CCS, Earl, maybe even Marcus if it's deemed we need to stop relying on his brilliance).

That's the hope anyway, if not then we're in for another crap 6 nations, followed by a tour where promising players get blood before being replaced by the same old stodge

I’m not sure I see anything in Stuttering Banter to suggest he’d do anything radical. Slow and steady wins the spreadsheet.

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 8:17 am

Skalyba wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 8:34 am

TheDasher wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:25 pm

Well if it is then the RFU Comms team is very poor indeed - they would've let people know so that we wouldn't be as impatient as we are right now.

Reflecting on it all over the weekend it's easy to forget how close SB has been to being quite successful... BUT I think the key thing has just been being too conservative in changing personnel after the world cup, that's the fundamental problem. I think if he'd replaced Isiekwe, Cole, Marler, Ford, Dombrandt, Slade, even, with younger options with greater potential or frankly with new, promising players, I don't think he'd be taking as much flack, or at least he'd be able to say "I am changing it".

He's got to roll the dice for the 6ns I think and that starts with blooding some new people against Japan probably, well as much as is possible.

I think this series has been exactly that. Certain players (CCS, Spencer, Marcus, Dombrandt, Sleithholme, potentially Curry proving he still has it, Slade/Lawrence proving the combo works) have been given the chance to make their case either as a starter or a regular squad player. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some big changes for the 6 nations with those who haven't made the grade either dropped completely or shifted to impact roles on the bench (CCS, Earl, maybe even Marcus if it's deemed we need to stop relying on his brilliance).

That's the hope anyway, if not then we're in for another crap 6 nations, followed by a tour where promising players get blood before being replaced by the same old stodge

I’m not sure I see anything in Stuttering Banter to suggest he’d do anything radical. Slow and steady wins the spreadsheet.

Can a HC succeed if he has to rely on assistants for ideas? Simple Bugger may be a decent developer of others' innovative thoughts (probably having few of his own). That makes him a useful assistant commander perhaps but can he lead? So far, there has been little evidence to suggest he can.

Keeping it simple (stodgy) may be his only chance.

The caricature that seems to be being drawn of Slandered Badly on here is really something. I don't **want** to be defending him, cause we've lost a load of games and I'm highly frustrated, but some of this is over the top. "Would never do anything radical in selection", despite bringing in CCS and IFW to be regular players despite inexperience (and a fair few of the board saying they weren't ready and it was silly to chuck them in and expect miracles), and despite dropping Steward (who was considered inked in by most) to bring in the more attacking option of Furbank. No, I'm not happy with all of his selections by a long shot, but we're harping on like he's never taken a single risk nor brought in anyone of any excitement.

"Probably having few ideas of his own" is the highlight. I really don't want to be defending him right now, but you're making it hard not to with the hyperbole the other way.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 10:28 am The caricature that seems to be being drawn of Slandered Badly on here is really something. I don't **want** to be defending him, cause we've lost a load of games and I'm highly frustrated, but some of this is over the top. "Would never do anything radical in selection", despite bringing in CCS and IFW to be regular players despite inexperience (and a fair few of the board saying they weren't ready and it was silly to chuck them in and expect miracles), and despite dropping Steward (who was considered inked in by most) to bring in the more attacking option of Furbank. No, I'm not happy with all of his selections by a long shot, but we're harping on like he's never taken a single risk nor brought in anyone of any excitement.

"Probably having few ideas of his own" is the highlight. I really don't want to be defending him right now, but you're making it hard not to with the hyperbole the other way.

Puja

Pfff. Did you ever even see him try a chip and chase or a reverse pass?

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 10:28 am The caricature that seems to be being drawn of Slandered Badly on here is really something. I don't **want** to be defending him, cause we've lost a load of games and I'm highly frustrated, but some of this is over the top. "Would never do anything radical in selection", despite bringing in CCS and IFW to be regular players despite inexperience (and a fair few of the board saying they weren't ready and it was silly to chuck them in and expect miracles), and despite dropping Steward (who was considered inked in by most) to bring in the more attacking option of Furbank. No, I'm not happy with all of his selections by a long shot, but we're harping on like he's never taken a single risk nor brought in anyone of any excitement.

"Probably having few ideas of his own" is the highlight. I really don't want to be defending him right now, but you're making it hard not to with the hyperbole the other way.

Puja

Its a bit like the retro view of Jones tbh, especially til sep 2019 (like jumping selectively on Care's comments....when the big picture was that Care said quote-I stand by the fact - and I say it in the book - that Eddie is still the best coach that I have ever worked with ). Backdated confirmation bias or summat.

That said, SB needs to find the plot between now and the 6N. The losses are all the more frustrating because getting quite close when not delivering much well indicate something useful . And yes, the best HC's get tons of ideas from their 'assistants' quite rightly; like in any executive role, appoint smart people who are after your job!

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 7:33 am

p/d wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 9:24 pm

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 7:44 pm Also on Schmidt, he's a frikkin magician. And Valentini might be the best player in the world just after Dupont right now

Add to that Roumat

…..has it?

Shows how strong France are at backrow- Roumat benched, Aldritt dropped v Argentina (who are very dangerous )

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 10:28 am The caricature that seems to be being drawn of Slandered Badly on here is really something. I don't **want** to be defending him, cause we've lost a load of games and I'm highly frustrated, but some of this is over the top. "Would never do anything radical in selection", despite bringing in CCS and IFW to be regular players despite inexperience (and a fair few of the board saying they weren't ready and it was silly to chuck them in and expect miracles), and despite dropping Steward (who was considered inked in by most) to bring in the more attacking option of Furbank. No, I'm not happy with all of his selections by a long shot, but we're harping on like he's never taken a single risk nor brought in anyone of any excitement.

"Probably having few ideas of his own" is the highlight. I really don't want to be defending him right now, but you're making it hard not to with the hyperbole the other way.

Puja

Picking the odd player unexpectedly does not prove anything - especially if it was someone else's idea for all we know. I think it is reasonable to assess SB as 'limited'. He did a reasonable job at the RWC by backing his predecessor's team and keeping it simple. Since then, a few individual players have looked good but the team only has for the odd short spell apart from one good effort v Ireland.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 1:00 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 10:28 am The caricature that seems to be being drawn of Slandered Badly on here is really something. I don't **want** to be defending him, cause we've lost a load of games and I'm highly frustrated, but some of this is over the top. "Would never do anything radical in selection", despite bringing in CCS and IFW to be regular players despite inexperience (and a fair few of the board saying they weren't ready and it was silly to chuck them in and expect miracles), and despite dropping Steward (who was considered inked in by most) to bring in the more attacking option of Furbank. No, I'm not happy with all of his selections by a long shot, but we're harping on like he's never taken a single risk nor brought in anyone of any excitement.

"Probably having few ideas of his own" is the highlight. I really don't want to be defending him right now, but you're making it hard not to with the hyperbole the other way.

Puja

Picking the odd player unexpectedly does not prove anything - especially if it was someone else's idea for all we know. I think it is reasonable to assess SB as 'limited'. He did a reasonable job at the RWC by backing his predecessor's team and keeping it simple. Since then, a few individual players have looked good but the team only has for the odd short spell apart from one good effort v Ireland.

Exciting picks do not show that he might make exciting picks, because I do not believe that he is exciting, so any exciting picks that may have happened were snuck in under his nose by persons unknown. Same goes for any attempts this season to play with quick ball, any tries scored by exciting backs play this season, any moving away from incessant box-kicking, picking a running 8 (even if not the one that we'd want). He is uninventive limited stodge, with barely a brain of his own, solely responsible for the bad bits and any good things have likely been somebody else's idea.

Frankly, I think he should be sacked - seems like he's been halfway deposed already with the amount of stuff that's gone on without his say-so.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 1:42 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 1:00 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 10:28 am The caricature that seems to be being drawn of Slandered Badly on here is really something. I don't **want** to be defending him, cause we've lost a load of games and I'm highly frustrated, but some of this is over the top. "Would never do anything radical in selection", despite bringing in CCS and IFW to be regular players despite inexperience (and a fair few of the board saying they weren't ready and it was silly to chuck them in and expect miracles), and despite dropping Steward (who was considered inked in by most) to bring in the more attacking option of Furbank. No, I'm not happy with all of his selections by a long shot, but we're harping on like he's never taken a single risk nor brought in anyone of any excitement.

"Probably having few ideas of his own" is the highlight. I really don't want to be defending him right now, but you're making it hard not to with the hyperbole the other way.

Puja

Picking the odd player unexpectedly does not prove anything - especially if it was someone else's idea for all we know. I think it is reasonable to assess SB as 'limited'. He did a reasonable job at the RWC by backing his predecessor's team and keeping it simple. Since then, a few individual players have looked good but the team only has for the odd short spell apart from one good effort v Ireland.

Exciting picks do not show that he might make exciting picks, because I do not believe that he is exciting, so any exciting picks that may have happened were snuck in under his nose by persons unknown. Same goes for any attempts this season to play with quick ball, any tries scored by exciting backs play this season, any moving away from incessant box-kicking, picking a running 8 (even if not the one that we'd want). He is uninventive limited stodge, with barely a brain of his own, solely responsible for the bad bits and any good things have likely been somebody else's idea.

Frankly, I think he should be sacked - seems like he's been halfway deposed already with the amount of stuff that's gone on without his say-so.

Puja

now now....you know what they say about sarcasm...

I think the Furbank example is a good analogy of the current regime. I have it second hand that he was given changing messages from the coaches about whether he would start the 6N as first choice 15, which we all know he didn’t. He obvs came in for the Ireland match after, according numerous journos, a demand from the players that they play a more expansive game. He was then part of a vastly improved attack (correlation or causation) but at the first sign of it not working, and amidst a tantrum about law changes, he’s dropped for the luxury diplodocus rather than an attempt to work around the new laws - would SA do this or come up with another cunning plan?