England World Cup Warm Ups

First topic message reminder :

Don't expect the snazzy pics produced on better match threads!

England Wales 11th August
Wales England 17th August
England Ireland 24th August
England Italy 6th September.

Squad for the world cup is due 2nd September so theres a chance the 1st 3 could be used for selection purposes and likely to see some combos not considered 1st choice.

BBC saving me typing:

England: Daly; McConnochie, Slade, Francis, Watson; Ford, Heinz; Genge, Cowan-Dickie, Cole, Launchbury, Ewels, Curry, Underhill, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Singleton, Marler, Williams, Kruis, Ludlam, Youngs, Marchant, Cokanasiga.

Wales: L Williams; North, J Davies, Parkes, Adams; Anscombe, G Davies; Smith, Owens, Francis, Beard, Jones, Wainwright, Tipuric, Moriarty.

Replacements: Dee, Jones, Lewis, Ball, Shingler, T Williams, Biggar, Watkin.

Collapse2005 wrote:It was tongue in cheek but there are plenty of fairly green internationals in the squad would you not agree?

Absolutely.

11 players with 13 caps or fewer: Wilson, Cowan-Dickie, Curry, Genge, Underhill, Francis, Cokanasiga, Singleton, Ludlam, Heinz and McConnochie.

Only 8 players with 50 caps or more.

Would I feel happier with Robshaw in over Ludlam? Hartley over Singleton? Brown over McConnochie? Care over Heinz? It would be more comfortable, more familiar, but not necessarily a squad better equipped to win the World Cup.

Well it tends to be the more experienced squads that win RWCs in the past but who knows maybe England will buck the trend. Id be pretty happy for England to win if Ireland dont.

I'd like to see the split compared to the squad Wales pick, I don't think the over vs under 25 caps split would be massively different, but Wales will have more at the very experienced end. They went through a pretty big overhaul not long back, there's a lot of unfamiliar faces in their training squad likely to get a run out in the next test as an opportunity to force a place like ludlam did.

Edit... 22 of Wales' extended 42 squad have less than 20 caps. 11 have over 50. So they have a very experienced core ( awj with 125) there's a similar number of low experience players and a couple of new caps in there.

robbo277 wrote:Would I feel happier with Robshaw in over Ludlam? Hartley over Singleton? Brown over McConnochie? Care over Heinz? It would be more comfortable, more familiar, but not necessarily a squad better equipped to win the World Cup.

Ludlam vs Robshaw? If Ludlam continues as he started? No. But if one of the selected flankers gets injured (not unlikely given Underhill's injury record in particular) I'd much prefer Robshaw to Shields.

Singleton vs Hartley? If Hartley were fully fit, then yes. But he's not and won't be in time

McConnochie vs Brown? It would be harsh to write off McConnochie before he's played - especially since he's reputed to be very capable. But until we have seen that at least two of the players in the squad can cover fullback with a degree of competence, I will worry about not having Brown in the squad. Would Wales have scored their first try with Brown on the pitch? I think the odds are against it. They might not even have tried that tactic.

Heinz vs Care? Given Eddie's strategy of having two scrumhalves who can play like Youngs, then no. On Saturday, Heinz played more like Youngs than Youngs did. But if England are behind in a close game at any point, they may rue not having Care's ability to create something from nothing.

Poorfour wrote:

robbo277 wrote:Would I feel happier with Robshaw in over Ludlam? Hartley over Singleton? Brown over McConnochie? Care over Heinz? It would be more comfortable, more familiar, but not necessarily a squad better equipped to win the World Cup.

Ludlam vs Robshaw? If Ludlam continues as he started? No. But if one of the selected flankers gets injured (not unlikely given Underhill's injury record in particular) I'd much prefer Robshaw to Shields.

Singleton vs Hartley? If Hartley were fully fit, then yes. But he's not and won't be in time

McConnochie vs Brown? It would be harsh to write off McConnochie before he's played - especially since he's reputed to be very capable. But until we have seen that at least two of the players in the squad can cover fullback with a degree of competence, I will worry about not having Brown in the squad. Would Wales have scored their first try with Brown on the pitch? I think the odds are against it. They might not even have tried that tactic.

Heinz vs Care? Given Eddie's strategy of having two scrumhalves who can play like Youngs, then no. On Saturday, Heinz played more like Youngs than Youngs did. But if England are behind in a close game at any point, they may rue not having Care's ability to create something from nothing.

Agree on Hartley and Brown, as much as anything England have tons of potential cover for wing but not having a proper fullback seems foolhrady. That said its good to see Jones having confidence in his convictions, and its quite possible Browns omission was decided by the fight with Teo even if he didnt take the primary blame. Self discoline and Brown have never been a thing, right back to when he got in trouble on his first tour with England (cough Manu cough)

Care...maybe the question is should be be Youngs, Heinz ( who so far seems a genius left field pick) AND care rather than instead of. Ok that would mean one less player elsewhere, but to be honest that could be McConnochie and there would still be enough wing cover, or Francis and with Farrell (even Daly in a bind) there would still be enough centre cover.

But again this just shows that Jones is confident he is on the right track with Englands tactics and has the players to execute them. Rather than taking a spare plan B hes sticking to his guns.

What is the news regarding Curry's shoulder injurie. any one know?

And who would be his replacement if he is ruled out?

Not heard anything about Curry yet. Eddies comments after the game (presumably from the medics) was that it was minor. Although that was pre-scans.
Who would be best to call up?
Shields or Robshaw are the 2 names that spring to mind (both have been discussed extensively in this thread)

Marchant has been retained with the squad to cover for Slade's injury. As no such back row cover is included, I assume that Curry is indeed "not too bad"

A lot of discussion on the previous page about a lack of experience in the squad. Rugby Pass have analysed the caps for this squad vs 2015. Across the entire squad the caps are appreciably higher and the only area they are lower is, unsurprisingly, the back row.

I mean I for one am much happier with this back row purely as we now have 2 guys who are class 7s.

Joe Marler said on the BBC podcast that the England set-up has changed from when he was last in it. He used the phrase "next level". He didn't feel off the pace physically, although he did note that the squad seems to like running more than he does. Specifically, he thought some squad players were notably more vocal than before, and he picked out Mark Wilson as a prime example.

Marler also mentioned he has been to Japan before, for the 2009 Junior World Cup. Looking at the squad back then, it looks like Lawes, George and Ben Youngs were also there.

Not many other players from back then are in contention now. Ben Moon is the only other one to feature in the training squad. If he wasn't in France, then Carl Fearns might have been considered. Henry Trinder could have pushed for a place if injury hadn't interrupted his run.

I'm a big fan of Alex Shaw's writing on RugbyPass, he's just tweeted about an article he wrote after the 2015 U20s RWC - http://www.talkingrugbyunion.co.uk/world-rugby-u20s-xv-of-the-tournament/13071.htm

Interesting to see some of the English names here, Genge, Ludlam and Ewels being the names who have stepped up 4 years on, while the likes of Hill, Tompkins and Townsend have fallen off to varying degrees.

LondonTiger wrote:Marchant has been retained with the squad to cover for Slade's injury. As no such back row cover is included, I assume that Curry is indeed "not too bad"

The Independent reports that Ewels and Kvesic are currently with the squad as well, with both in line to feature this weekend. If true Eddie is not planning to risk anyone who has a knock.

LondonTiger wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Marchant has been retained with the squad to cover for Slade's injury. As no such back row cover is included, I assume that Curry is indeed "not too bad"

The Independent reports that Ewels and Kvesic are currently with the squad as well, with both in line to feature this weekend. If true Eddie is not planning to risk anyone who has a knock.

Kvesic?? Nothing wrong with the player, but Eddie certainly likes to keep us guessing. Dombrandt went to Treviso but didn't get the call, Robshaw, Hughes, Mercer, Simmonds, Harrison and Armand have all featured under Eddie, but he goes to Kvesic who I'm not sure he's ever even met before?

I assume Ewels is covering Launchbury and Kvesic is covering Curry and/or Underhill?

Kvesic is very random

LondonTiger wrote:A lot of discussion on the previous page about a lack of experience in the squad. Rugby Pass have analysed the caps for this squad vs 2015. Across the entire squad the caps are appreciably higher and the only area they are lower is, unsurprisingly, the back row.

Not that shocking really, Lancaster did his big clear out when he took over (despite going back to Easter) rather than in the warm ups. From memory it was only really Burgess who was parachuted in but a large chunk of his squad where players who had been capped in that cycle or only had a handful prior to it.

I forget where but I was reading an article earlier about why Jones chose to name his squad early, and it was partly based on player experience from that Lancaster squad through the 4 games where they found players became divided and infighting between those vying for spots happened. The rift of Burgess was made worse through this, even with players not competing directly with him but seeing their long term playing partners at threat.
By setting the squad early he has taken a lot of the stress off the players and can focus the coaching on building a team rather than a bunch of individuals all trying to outperform and even sabotage their rivals.

Replacing long term team members like Care and Robshaw at this late a stage with absolute newcomers is a huge risk, but I think hes doing what he can to manage that. Itll be interesting to see how it pans out compared to the panic thats setting in over at Wales over who the fly halves will be.

It seems that Underhill and Curry will not be fit to feature while Ludlum will be on bench at most and Billy fully rested. With Lawes having played for much longer than anticipated it is suggested we may see Kruis and Ewels start in second row and Itoje, Kvesic and Wilson in the back row. With both opensides currently down, it does make sense for team balance to have called up a similar type of player.

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:A lot of discussion on the previous page about a lack of experience in the squad. Rugby Pass have analysed the caps for this squad vs 2015. Across the entire squad the caps are appreciably higher and the only area they are lower is, unsurprisingly, the back row.

Not that shocking really, Lancaster did his big clear out when he took over (despite going back to Easter) rather than in the warm ups. From memory it was only really Burgess who was parachuted in but a large chunk of his squad where players who had been capped in that cycle or only had a handful prior to it.

I forget where but I was reading an article earlier about why Jones chose to name his squad early, and it was partly based on player experience from that Lancaster squad through the 4 games where they found players became divided and infighting between those vying for spots happened. The rift of Burgess was made worse through this, even with players not competing directly with him but seeing their long term playing partners at threat.
By setting the squad early he has taken a lot of the stress off the players and can focus the coaching on building a team rather than a bunch of individuals all trying to outperform and even sabotage their rivals.

Replacing long term team members like Care and Robshaw at this late a stage with absolute newcomers is a huge risk, but I think hes doing what he can to manage that. Itll be interesting to see how it pans out compared to the panic thats setting in over at Wales over who the fly halves will be.  

This certainly ties in with what he has been publicly saying. Learning from previous mistakes, best prepared squad ever, most together squad ever, etc.

LondonTiger wrote:It seems that Underhill and Curry will not be fit to feature while Ludlum will be on bench at most and Billy fully rested. With Lawes having played for much longer than anticipated it is suggested we may see Kruis and Ewels start in second row and Itoje, Kvesic and Wilson in the back row. With both opensides currently down, it does make sense for team balance to have called up a similar type of player.

That's a real makeshift back 5. I had read that Underhill only had a light toe injury so thought he might return. I suppose the team will be announced tomorrow?

Rob Vickerman, who is a big fan of Danny Care, has heard Care was told he wasn't sharp enough.

House of Rugby podcast also mentioned Russ Petty's stat work, showing how England have rarely used a third scrum half at a World Cup, which makes only taking two seem like a more reasonable risk.

robbo277 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:A lot of discussion on the previous page about a lack of experience in the squad. Rugby Pass have analysed the caps for this squad vs 2015. Across the entire squad the caps are appreciably higher and the only area they are lower is, unsurprisingly, the back row.

Not that shocking really, Lancaster did his big clear out when he took over (despite going back to Easter) rather than in the warm ups. From memory it was only really Burgess who was parachuted in but a large chunk of his squad where players who had been capped in that cycle or only had a handful prior to it.

I forget where but I was reading an article earlier about why Jones chose to name his squad early, and it was partly based on player experience from that Lancaster squad through the 4 games where they found players became divided and infighting between those vying for spots happened. The rift of Burgess was made worse through this, even with players not competing directly with him but seeing their long term playing partners at threat.
By setting the squad early he has taken a lot of the stress off the players and can focus the coaching on building a team rather than a bunch of individuals all trying to outperform and even sabotage their rivals.

Replacing long term team members like Care and Robshaw at this late a stage with absolute newcomers is a huge risk, but I think hes doing what he can to manage that. Itll be interesting to see how it pans out compared to the panic thats setting in over at Wales over who the fly halves will be.  

This certainly ties in with what he has been publicly saying. Learning from previous mistakes, best prepared squad ever, most together squad ever, etc.

Quite ironic as saying he'd do that is what got Lancaster the permanent job and was used to assassinate Johnsons character to build his media bandwagon (lets not mention chucking Easter under the bus only to go back England cap in hand 3 years later)

Does anyone think that Cares media work was a factor in Uncle Eddies decision making process?

Well Kvesic is a class player. i rate him hugely...and he's developed his game under Baxter. Watch him have a brilliant game v Wales if he plays.

Rugby Fan wrote:Rob Vickerman, who is a big fan of Danny Care, has heard Care was told he wasn't sharp enough.

House of Rugby podcast also mentioned Russ Petty's stat work, showing how England have rarely used a third scrum half at a World Cup, which makes only taking two seem like a more reasonable risk.

Reading an interview with George Ford, he says he has been doing SH training all season with England. That Youngs was only ever taken off very late adds to the mix. All suggests that Eddie has planned to take just two for quite some time and that he does not really trust other options.

LondonTiger wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Rob Vickerman, who is a big fan of Danny Care, has heard Care was told he wasn't sharp enough.

House of Rugby podcast also mentioned Russ Petty's stat work, showing how England have rarely used a third scrum half at a World Cup, which makes only taking two seem like a more reasonable risk.

Reading an interview with George Ford, he says he has been doing SH training all season with England. That Youngs was only ever taken off very late adds to the mix. All suggests that Eddie has planned to take just two for quite some time and that he does not really trust other options.

I guess the difference is the schedule. As Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu will tell you, until recently it heavily favoured the Tier 1 teams.

In 2015 we took Youngs, Care and Wigglesworth. Care didn't feature until the last game when we were already eliminated. However as hosts we got quite a soft schedule and didn't play any midweek games.

In 2011 we took Youngs, Wigglesworth and Simpson. Simpson got 13 minutes off the bench against Georgia. Again, no midweek games though.

In 2007 we took Perry, Gommersall and Richards. Perry started the first two games against USA and South Africa before he was dropped and not seen again.

All scrum halves do is chuck the ball around and fall over when someone comes to tackle them.  Its hardly the most physicaly demanding of jobs in rugby, or one where they have high injury rates. More often than not when used as replacements its for tactical reasons rather than them being tired out or breaking a limb. 

You can get by rotating the two and noone would implode if they had to play 80 minutes of a game. Imagine what its like for the back row wheres there typically one replacement between 3 in a matchday squad, no 20 minute nap at the end of the game for them yet they do vastly more physical work in a game. 

A third SH is a nice luxury, but not a vital one. Its an especially problematic position for squads though as with hooker because theres rarely a utility player who covers that position (something something Bergomasco) 

I dont no what the difference in the schedule is if England have always taken one before it just means they were dumb enough to bother doing that. Sides who do have a midweek just need to swap round who gets to start and who comes off the bench if one of them is that tired from playing for 60 minutes earlier in the week...but id still argue its a much bigger issue for their flankers unless they rotate fully through the squad. 

Its maybe seen as a brave decision but the evidence backs up they dont really need 3 and its just led to playing being given a run out so they can say they played at a world cup and some who simply arent good enough being taken because you need 3.

Gooseberry wrote:All scrum halves do is chuck the ball around and fall over when someone comes to tackle them.  Its hardly the most physicaly demanding of jobs in rugby, or one where they have high injury rates. More often than not when used as replacements its for tactical reasons rather than them being tired out or breaking a limb. 

You can get by rotating the two and noone would implode if they had to play 80 minutes of a game. Imagine what its like for the back row wheres there typically one replacement between 3 in a matchday squad, no 20 minute nap at the end of the game for them yet they do vastly more physical work in a game. 

A third SH is a nice luxury, but not a vital one. Its an especially problematic position for squads though as with hooker because theres rarely a utility player who covers that position (something something Bergomasco) 

I dont no what the difference in the schedule is if England have always taken one before it just means they were dumb enough to bother doing that. Sides who do have a midweek just need to swap round who gets to start and who comes off the bench if one of them is that tired from playing for 60 minutes earlier in the week...but id still argue its a much bigger issue for their flankers unless they rotate fully through the squad. 

Its maybe seen as a brave decision but the evidence backs up they dont really need 3 and its just led to playing being given a run out so they can say they played at a world cup and some who simply arent good enough being taken because you need 3.

I'd largely agree and have been in the two scrum half camp for a while. I would have had 6 back row and lost either a front row or a back three player as well.

My idea of a squad was built on 2 XVs and a spare front row to navigate the first two games and prevent anyone needing to start twice. Then any injury you get to non-specialised positions where you can use utility cover could be used to draft in extra cover on specialists if anyone has a knock. E.g. if Curry suffered a tournament ending injury and Youngs took a knock you'd replace Curry with a scrum half, have Lawes cover second row and back row and leave Youngs in the squad.

Eddie's not too far off this tbh, and will have nailed it if we see Singleton starting against the USA at 6.

Would you have gone with only 2 Tight heads aswell?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Would you have gone with only 2 Tight heads aswell?

Yep.

Sinckler to start against Tonga and get 60/70 minutes. Cole to start against USA and do similar. After that they both get 10 days off and then play weekly. Sinckler to start, Cole to bench for the rest of the tournament.

If one of my tight heads then went down the day before a game, I'd put my spare front row there to cover and ask my starter to get through 65/70. Then I'd assess whether I needed to call in a replacement after the game.

Again, I'd use injury replacements flexibly. If I had 4 locks and 6 back row, after the first two games I'd only need 5 to start and 2 to bench, so I'd have 3 spare where really I could get by from that point with 2. So if one of them went down I could call up cover for any position I needed where I have a player struggling I don't want to replace, e.g. tight head or scrum half.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Would you have gone with only 2 Tight heads aswell?

The problem with two tightheads is, what happens if Sinckler pulls up a calf strain 10 minutes into the first game? Do you then send him home or do rinse Dan for nearly two full games hoping he can struggle through. Cole can play a full game better than most props but Japan will be warmer than his native Leicestershire and he isn't getting any younger so two games in three days could be challenge. There's no tighthead cover in the other front row options either.

Personally I'd have cut a centre and included that extra tighthead.

3 X LH
3 X hooker
3 X TH
4 X lock
6 X backrow
2 X scrum half
2 X flyhalf (one of which can play centre)
3 X centres (one of which can cover 10)
5 X back three players (Inc at least two that can play 15 and one that can cover centre)

Backrowers and locks pick up lots of knocks and horses for courses can be helpful as well. Maybe drop a backrow for an additional back if there's an outstanding candidate.

You take your chances, I guess.

One factor is that some of the players picked have good injury records. Marler and Sinckler haven't lost much time to injury, and I think Cole has been pretty reliable since his neck surgery.

Youngs has also been reliable, not sure about Heinz but any scrum half who's still able to play internationally at 32 probably hasn't had any bad leg injuries.

TightHEAD wrote:Does anyone think that Cares media work was a factor in Uncle Eddies decision making process?

Marler has done just as much, if not more, so I doubt it.

Kvesic being able to cover 8 might be factor?

Jones has certainly stacked his back row options with opensides though. Especially if Kvesic is being viewed as first reserve.

I'm personally happy with all of Underhill, Curry, Ludlam and Kvesic being involved as I think they are fantastic flankers.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Would you have gone with only 2 Tight heads aswell?

The problem with two tightheads is, what happens if Sinckler pulls up a calf strain 10 minutes into the first game? Do you then send him home or do rinse Dan for nearly two full games hoping he can struggle through. Cole can play a full game better than most props but Japan will be warmer than his native Leicestershire and he isn't getting any younger so two games in three days could be challenge. There's no tighthead cover in the other front row options either.

Personally I'd have cut a centre and included that extra tighthead.

3 X LH
3 X hooker
3 X TH
4 X lock
6 X backrow
2 X scrum half
2 X flyhalf (one of which can play centre)
3 X centres (one of which can cover 10)
5 X back three players (Inc at least two that can play 15 and one that can cover centre)

Backrowers and locks pick up lots of knocks and horses for courses can be helpful as well. Maybe drop a backrow for an additional back if there's an outstanding candidate.

You say sorry to Cole and flog him for near enough 160 minutes. You're never going to be able to get another tight head out there and acclimatized in time.

Have Cole play the 70 minutes against Tonga (which he should be fine to do) and then start against USA. You'd have the extra loose head covering on the bench, and if he started to flag to the point where his negative impact in the loose counteracted his positive impact in the scrum (around 50-60 minutes?) you'd bring your second loosehead on. Cole then has 10 days to recover for a squad role against Argentina, with Sinckler either recovering or cover being drafted in.

Picking a third choice tight head to purely cover the chance that Sinckler goes down in the first half of the first game is a pretty extreme scenario to be picking for. Anyone know the last time a prop went down in the first 40 minutes of England's first game of any series? It would be quite a freak incident.

I am looking forward to the squad announcement, today I guess. I have suspicion that we still won’t see a clear 1st choice team out there. Injury forced changes aside, I think he will try a few different combos. E.g. would he try Francis 12, manu 13 or manu 12 JJ 13. Will he give Francis some time at 10. Back 3 is hard to pick first choice anyway so doubt we will know that but RMc will probably get a game, assuming his injury is cleared up, and I doubt he is 1st choice. Watson at FB? (which may become first choice)

We will find out at 11am. Both squad announcements at this time.

I'm going to this game so I'm hoping for some strong-ish line-ups. I also don't think Eddie has to mix and match for this game any more than he wants to. He has the Italy game where he can try things out if he wants (e.g. 20 minutes of Ford at 9, Francis or Slade at 10, for instance), and if he isn't changing his squad he doesn't need any of these questions answered before the tournament - it is effectively already too late.

From earlier in the thread I picked:

Marler, Singleton, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis, Lawes/Curry, Underhill, Wilson, Youngs, Farrell, May, Tuilagi, Slade, McConnochie, Watson
George, Mako/Genge (depending on Mako's fitness), Cole/Williams (depending on who gets picked), Curry/Lawes, Billy, Heinz, Joseph, Daly

I think we'll see something like that this week. Obviously we have injury concerns over Curry and Underhill and Lawes played a lot of the first test when he wasn't scheduled to, so LT's reported back 5 of Kruis, Ewels, Itoje, Kvesic and Wilson might feature with Ludlam and Billy on the bench. The other question is over Slade at 13 so maybe Marchant to start or Joseph promoted from the bench. Cole will obviously be in over Williams as well now that one is decided.

I think I'd feel really nervous if this was a Six Nations game at the Millennium Stadium, but I think the nature of the fixture will be a leveller. Remains to be seen what team Wales put out. Gatland said that there was no selection principles agreement with Eddie Jones for the two fixtures, so we could see anything to be honest.

Three changes, two forced by injury. England team named at 1pm.

If that's not Wales strongest 23 (given the injury to Anscombe), it's very close.

Davies and Ball look the two least likely to be in a full strength team, but otherwise I'd agree with you

Hope we can leave them psychologically weakened after beating their first choice team two weeks in a row and also losing their starting 10

BamBam wrote:Davies and Ball look the two least likely to be in a full strength team, but otherwise I'd agree with you

Hope we can leave them psychologically weakened after beating their first choice team two weeks in a row and also losing their starting 10

Yeah I think Navidi makes the strongest team. He didn't play last week, is he recovering from injury?

What a chance we have to turn them over at Home and destroy their confidence.

Forgot about Navidi, I was thinking of Tipuric! Does Navidi usually play 6 for them?

With that selection, winning the game has become very important for Wales. England likely to have more first choice players this week, but will still be a lineup designed to give as many as possible game time. Of course no-one ever wants to lose but, imo, Wales need the win more.

Gatland needs this win, his arrogant selection last week backfired on him, a loss in Cardiff is unthinkable for him.

Risking AWJ again is foolish IMHO.

I hope the answer is no-one, but will be waiting to see who gets injured this time.

BamBam wrote:Forgot about Navidi, I was thinking of Tipuric! Does Navidi usually play 6 for them?

Of course Tipuric. I noticed Navidi was missing last week and thought he normally starts ahead of Wainwright, now he's been bumped onto the bench this week I thought it odd he still wasn't starting. Tipuric obviously played last week and makes their strongest team every time.

Navidi started 4 games at blindside during the Six Nations and 1 game at 8 in a change-team against Italy where he won man of the match.

TightHEAD wrote:Gatland needs this win, his arrogant selection last week backfired on him, a loss in Cardiff is unthinkable for him.

Risking AWJ again is foolish IMHO.

I know you're on the wind up, but how is it arrogant to select your strongest XV?