ENGLAND v WALES - Match Thread / Build up - 7/3/2020

[TightHEAD]

First topic message reminder :

England    v Wales    - 07/03/2020 - 16:45pm - the HOME of Rugby.

England XV

Daly; Watson, Tuilagi, Farrell, May; Ford, Youngs; Marler, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis, Lawes, Wilson, Curry

Replacements: Cowan-Dickie, Genge, Stuart, Launchbury, Ewels, Earl, Heinz, Slade

Wales XV

Halfpenny; North, Tompkins, Parkes, Williams; Biggar, T Williams; R Evans, Owens, D Lewis, Ball, AW Jones (capt), Moriarty, Navidi, Tipuric.

Replacements: Elias, Carre, L Brown, Shingler, Faletau, Webb, J Evans, McNicholl.


Overall - Played 134 - Eng 63 - Wales 59 - Drawn 12

[BamBam]

I prefer lilac anyway

[Gooseberry]

Scrum caps are an interesting one as well, headguards have been dispensed with in amateur boxing because studies actually showed that their use increased concussions by a significant percentage. 

Something about James Haskell running into padded posts

[Guest]

Thick skulls do tend to mean you have more ability to absorb blows to the head, a strong neck and trunk help as well, your gym bunnies like a George North don't tend to have those things whereas a naturally big guy like a Martin Johnson will.

Scrum caps are an interesting one as well, headguards have been dispensed with in amateur boxing because studies actually showed that their use increased concussions by a significant percentage. I wonder if the same is true in Rugby so looking at someone like Leigh Halfpenny.

Scrum caps are not meant to protect against concussion.  Their purpose is to help stop soft tissue injuries and abrasion. Lots of research shows that, obviously, a small padded cap does not stop the brain from sloshing around in the skull after a big impact. Makes sense.  One of the theories of why it actually increases concussion in rugby is because players feel more protected and so are more reckless and go into contact more heavily with a scrum cap on, and put their head in places they might not want to if they were not wearing protection.  Similar stuff was found in America Football.  Huge concussion problem despite wearing those helmets, for similar reasons - they do not stop the brain sloshing from sudden impact.

[lostinwales]

Thick skulls do tend to mean you have more ability to absorb blows to the head, a strong neck and trunk help as well, your gym bunnies like a George North don't tend to have those things whereas a naturally big guy like a Martin Johnson will.

Scrum caps are an interesting one as well, headguards have been dispensed with in amateur boxing because studies actually showed that their use increased concussions by a significant percentage. I wonder if the same is true in Rugby so looking at someone like Leigh Halfpenny.

Scrum caps are not meant to protect against concussion.  Their purpose is to help stop soft tissue injuries and abrasion. Lots of research shows that, obviously, a small padded cap does not stop the brain from sloshing around in the skull after a big impact. Makes sense.  One of the theories of why it actually increases concussion is because players feel more protected and so are more reckless and go into contact more heavily with a scrum cap on, and put their head in places they might not want to if they were not wearing protection.  Similar stuff was found in America Football.  Huge concussion problem despite wearing those helmets, for similar reasons - they do not stop the brain sloshing from sudden impact.

The main issue with the removal of head guards in boxing in the last Olympics was the increased number of cuts - a major problem when there is not enough time between bouts for these injuries to recover.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

For now the Government will not start calling off anything.

Aside from the building of those 40 new hospitals

One as already got the go ahead, guess where, Boris' home patch in Hillingdon. The other 39 are as doomed as a third runway.

[Guest]

Thick skulls do tend to mean you have more ability to absorb blows to the head, a strong neck and trunk help as well, your gym bunnies like a George North don't tend to have those things whereas a naturally big guy like a Martin Johnson will.

Scrum caps are an interesting one as well, headguards have been dispensed with in amateur boxing because studies actually showed that their use increased concussions by a significant percentage. I wonder if the same is true in Rugby so looking at someone like Leigh Halfpenny.

Scrum caps are not meant to protect against concussion.  Their purpose is to help stop soft tissue injuries and abrasion. Lots of research shows that, obviously, a small padded cap does not stop the brain from sloshing around in the skull after a big impact. Makes sense.  One of the theories of why it actually increases concussion is because players feel more protected and so are more reckless and go into contact more heavily with a scrum cap on, and put their head in places they might not want to if they were not wearing protection.  Similar stuff was found in America Football.  Huge concussion problem despite wearing those helmets, for similar reasons - they do not stop the brain sloshing from sudden impact.

The main issue with the removal of head guards in boxing in the last Olympics was the increased number of cuts - a major problem when there is not enough time between bouts for these injuries to recover.

Yes, I can imagine that a scrum cap type thing (whatever they're called in boxing) would be ideal for protecting against cuts and other soft tissue injuries.

[king_carlos]

Concussion is due to inertia rather than the collision or head knock itself. It seems a pedantic thing to bring up but is vital in understanding the condition. Brain injury is caused by the brain colliding with the inside of the skull, hence inertia. In the words of my Neurologist when I retired due to head injury, "your skull stops moving and the brain doesn't". As such scrum caps, 'a thick skull' (that's a new one!), neck exercises etc do little (judging by many studies nothing) to protect against concussion.

The biggest threat to contact sport is arguably Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy though. In basic terms the accumulation of sportsman taking thousands of sub-concussive blows to the head which leads to neuronal loss and tau deposition (proteins vital in the central nervous system) amongst other horrible things linked to early onset dementia.

I adore rugby and have played it from a young age. I often feel like a killjoy of sorts when discussing concussion and early onset dementia as both are topics close to my heart. It is my honest opinion that contact sport will change fundamentally over the course of our lifetime though.

In the first two years after the NFL concussion settlement over $500m had been approved in claims from former players. Estimations from the NFL at the time of settlement were that claims could reach $1b. Estimations last year were that claims would double that, potentially reaching $2b. That is a different argument to rugby though given that the NFL knew far more about the long term effects of concussion and willfully hid it.

Those payouts have been largely been made to athletes in eras where the players were lighter and slower, hence collisions smaller.

I know that most Prem clubs have sought legal advice over the potential for future lawsuits from former employees.

[lostinwales]

From what I understand a particular problem with NFL is that players were taught to lead with their heads on the basis that helmets would protect them. They also have had on average 2 college players a year die playing the sport (this is not just down to collisions but all causes including extreme exhaustion/ heat stroke).

Rugby has its dangers for sure but it is not in the same league as American football

[Soul Requiem]

Concussion is due to inertia rather than the collision or head knock itself. It seems a pedantic thing to bring up but is vital in understanding the condition. Brain injury is caused by the brain colliding with the inside of the skull, hence inertia. In the words of my Neurologist when I retired due to head injury, "your skull stops moving and the brain doesn't". As such scrum caps, 'a thick skull' (that's a new one!), neck exercises etc do little (judging by many studies nothing) to protect against concussion.

That's news to me.

I've followed boxing for the best part of 30 years and every neurologist will tell you that a thicker skull in most cases results in there being less brain mobility and a stronger neck (we're not talking about neck exercises here) reduces the whiplash effect.

[king_carlos]

From what I understand a particular problem with NFL is that players were taught to lead with their heads on the basis that helmets would protect them.  They also have had on average 2 college players a year die playing the sport (this is not just down to collisions but all causes including extreme exhaustion/ heat stroke).

Rugby has its dangers for sure but it is not in the same league as American football

Tackle technique was/is a huge issue for the NFL with head injuries. Though it is being outlawed and policed now.

The distinction between concussion and CTE (caused by sub concussive head knocks) is a massively important one though. Whilst rugby sees fewer concussions it has a massive number of collisions throughout a match.

Rugby's big worry from my understanding is the increase in the number of collisions per game as well as the impact of those collisions. Fitness levels and the number of phases sides go through has gone through the roof. With it so has the number of collisions. As we develop more understanding of CTE and the long term effects of sub concussive head knocks that show few to no symptoms at the time of occurrence this is a massive potential problem for rugby going forward.

[LondonTiger]

In the first two years after the NFL concussion settlement over $500m had been approved in claims from former players. Estimations from the NFL at the time of settlement were that claims could reach $1b. Estimations last year were that claims would double that, potentially reaching $2b. That is a different argument to rugby though given that the NFL knew far more about the long term effects of concussion and willfully hid it.

Those payouts have been largely been made to athletes in eras where the players were lighter and slower, hence collisions smaller.

I know that most Prem clubs have sought legal advice over the potential for future lawsuits from former employees.

In terms of financial risks to rugby, that is the main point. Clubs and Unions would argue that as information has been available they have introduced and re-inforced the regulations to attempt to safeguard players. Rugby will never be risk free (as someone whose neck was broken in a tackle I can confirm that) but so long as teh authorities continue to monitor and enforce best practice then legally they are doing all they can.

[king_carlos]

Concussion is due to inertia rather than the collision or head knock itself. It seems a pedantic thing to bring up but is vital in understanding the condition. Brain injury is caused by the brain colliding with the inside of the skull, hence inertia. In the words of my Neurologist when I retired due to head injury, "your skull stops moving and the brain doesn't". As such scrum caps, 'a thick skull' (that's a new one!), neck exercises etc do little (judging by many studies nothing) to protect against concussion.

That's news to me.

I've followed boxing for the best part of 30 years and every neurologist will tell you that a thicker skull in most cases results in there being less brain mobility and a stronger neck (we're not talking about neck exercises here) reduces the whiplash effect.

From my understanding they are often repeated misnomers that have failed to be backed up by research since concussion has been studied more closely. Similar to many people (including those in medicine) repeating for a long time that you needed to lose consciousness to get severe concussive symptoms. Or that scrum caps helped significantly to prevent concussion in rugby for instance.

Similar from my understanding with neck strength. It does reduce the potential severity of concussion but only to a small extent. Unless you have a superhuman neck or skull there are only negligible reductions in the rate and severity of concussion.

Especially when the discussion moves onto the differing effects on inertia injuries (sometimes called acceleration injuries) of linear forces (i.e. head-to-head impact in NFL) and rotational forces (seen frequently in boxing).

The rate at which basic teachings on concussion have changed in the last decade alone shows how under researched it was for an awfully long time. As conditions such as CTE can only be diagnosed definitely at autopsy it's a subject that went ignored for far too long.

[Guest]

With Tompkins and Gareth Davies covering the wing Pivac might just select North, McNicholl, and Halfpenny and go with 2 halfbacks on the bench for the backs or maybe just Watkin.

North won’t feature again this 6 Nations, following his concussion last week. That was a bad hit and he was out cold. So without him and Josh, we don’t have back 3 cover, if Liam isn’t fit. We’ll need to bring in someone else, and not picking Rees-Zammet will be a kick in the teeth for him.

What's the rush to retire North? This is his first concussion for 4 years apparently. It did look bad but he was up on his feet quickly and quite simply no one knows at this moment how able be is to come through the concussion protocol. I think there's a good chance he'll play but who knows.

[Guest]

I'd be gutted to see North play again for Wales this 6 nations, that didn't look like a devastating blow to the head but it knocked him clean out. There's a lot of research available on repeated blows to the head and he hasn't been anything approaching robust enough to handle the knocks he's been getting since '15.

Of course we will trust the experts opinions but I do worry for him especially....

While concussion is bad, CTE is a hard thing to predict - other than the more trauma suffered, the more likely you are to damage your brain. You can be doing awful damage without getting concussed let alone knocked out. I think the lesson her is not just around concussion or North but rugby in general and how there are likely several players out there who withstand head blows quite well in terms of the concussion protocol, but are likely going to suffer in later life anyway. It's not as clear cut as it should be and often, unlike in boxing where the ability to take a head shot is a necessity, some players are simply more susceptible to getting knocked out than others due to their biology. North clearly needs looking after but hes not the only one.

[Soul Requiem]

I'll be honest here the majority of articles I've read relating to concussion make reference to neck stiffness which is improved by a stronger neck. It relates more to boxers than those in other sports but is still relevant. I'd be interested in reading what you've read that disagrees with that.

It will have very little effect when landing but will in a tackle situation. The riskiest are the clear outs like the two in quick succession on Tom Curry, very unlikely he was braced for the second one.

[LondonTiger]

With Tompkins and Gareth Davies covering the wing Pivac might just select North, McNicholl, and Halfpenny and go with 2 halfbacks on the bench for the backs or maybe just Watkin.

North won’t feature again this 6 Nations, following his concussion last week. That was a bad hit and he was out cold. So without him and Josh, we don’t have back 3 cover, if Liam isn’t fit. We’ll need to bring in someone else, and not picking Rees-Zammet will be a kick in the teeth for him.

What's the rush to retire North? This is his first concussion for 4 years apparently. It did look bad but he was up on his feet quickly and quite simply no one knows at this moment how able be is to come through the concussion protocol. I think there's a good chance he'll play but who knows.

His last major concussion was December 2016 at Welford Road - so to be fair not much more than 3 years ago. Northampton were found guilty of allowing him to go back out to play because, iirc, he passed the HIA but had been fully knocked out. I think he only lasted a few more minutes after coming back out.

I would argue that he should be left out on form grounds.

[Guest]

Concussion is due to inertia rather than the collision or head knock itself. It seems a pedantic thing to bring up but is vital in understanding the condition. Brain injury is caused by the brain colliding with the inside of the skull, hence inertia. In the words of my Neurologist when I retired due to head injury, "your skull stops moving and the brain doesn't". As such scrum caps, 'a thick skull' (that's a new one!), neck exercises etc do little (judging by many studies nothing) to protect against concussion.

The biggest threat to contact sport is arguably Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy though. In basic terms the accumulation of sportsman taking thousands of sub-concussive blows to the head which leads to neuronal loss and tau deposition (proteins vital in the central nervous system) amongst other horrible things linked to early onset dementia.

I adore rugby and have played it from a young age. I often feel like a killjoy of sorts when discussing concussion and early onset dementia as both are topics close to my heart. It is my honest opinion that contact sport will change fundamentally over the course of our lifetime though.

In the first two years after the NFL concussion settlement over $500m had been approved in claims from former players. Estimations from the NFL at the time of settlement were that claims could reach $1b. Estimations last year were that claims would double that, potentially reaching $2b. That is a different argument to rugby though given that the NFL knew far more about the long term effects of concussion and willfully hid it.

Those payouts have been largely been made to athletes in eras where the players were lighter and slower, hence collisions smaller.

I know that most Prem clubs have sought legal advice over the potential for future lawsuits from former employees.

Yes, I see my point about CTE has already been raised.

Rugby really needs to rethink what it is about. We accept head trauma in boxing and MMA because there is huge money to be made from getting to the top and it is par for the course really. Dementia Pugilistica is named for good reason. But rugby doesn't 'need' to factor in head injuries in the same way - and in a game where a principle is a game for all sizes, unlike boxing and weight categories, it really needs to work out what it wants to be, particularly at the professional level but amateur too.

The laws around contact and rucking seem the obvious place to start. It probably needs rolling back to a 'true' interpretation of the laws that would really start penalising sloppy, but effective, contact in tackles and rucks. It needs to value mobility as much as strength. But I don't know how you manage that, there will always be an incentive to toughen up, pick the most physical players, and just accept some players' health and fitness is compromised by the sport.

It needs to change. Look how football has removed the 'aggressive' side of the sport. You can't get away with roughing players up anymore. It's a television sport to the point the womens' game is now front and centre of the BBC (I wonder what the old 606 would think of that). Rugby probably needs to do something similar, to become a technical and 'beautiful' game with added physicality. League got rid of the shoulder charge and I think rugby needs something similar but more comprehensive. Rugby is a commercial sport, sponsored and paid for because people want to watch it, and that means there are vast commercial opportunities to be made when it becomes a televised game. We probably need to make it something it currently isn't, something sanitised, within the next 20 years even if the Pacific Islanders and South Africans would fight it (and no doubt many others would) because it goes against their core strengths of physical dominance. Personally I would rather watch Barcelona from the 2000s than Wimbledon from the 80s. Rugby should value the equivalent move towards outlawing the 'rough' elements of the game without compromising actual athletic physicality and physical competitiveness.

[Guest]

I'll be honest here the majority of articles I've read relating to concussion make reference to neck stiffness which is improved by a stronger neck. It relates more to boxers than those in other sports but is still relevant. I'd be interested in reading what you've read that disagrees with that.

It will have very little effect when landing but will in a tackle situation. The riskiest are the clear outs like the two in quick succession on Tom Curry, very unlikely he was braced for the second one.

Yes it is my understanding that there is definitely truth in muscular strength, bone density and thickness all improving your chances of absorbing head trauma and how that relates to how prone you are to concussion. I think only recently there was something published about women in the sport and how (obviously) their biology meant they were suffering more head related problems as a result of rugby. That in turn has been used as the wake up call for world rugby to have another look at trans women in the womens' game and I'll say no more about that but that size and strength disparity also relates to the mens' game when you have players/men who aren't necessarily blessed with what we'd call a good jaw in boxing. North is one of those clearly but that's not all that counts.

[lostinwales]

I would guess strong neck muscles mean less movement of the head when struck which means less 'brain rattling'

[TightHEAD]

Its good that CTE and concussion is being discussed on a rugby forum, shame it wasn't on a topic set up for it but hey!

Awareness needs to be raised, clearly some here need educating about it.

You do not need to be knocked out or appear not to be moving to have a concussion!

[mikey_dragon]

Webb and Biggar are starting for their clubs this weekend. I assume all England-based players are?

[king_carlos]

I'll be honest here the majority of articles I've read relating to concussion make reference to neck stiffness which is improved by a stronger neck. It relates more to boxers than those in other sports but is still relevant. I'd be interested in reading what you've read that disagrees with that.

It will have very little effect when landing but will in a tackle situation. The riskiest are the clear outs like the two in quick succession on Tom Curry, very unlikely he was braced for the second one.

In boxing you see more of those 'whiplash' style head blows. I.e. linear forces. The boxers head is a lot more stationary than rugby players as they aren't running at one another but takes a direct impact more often, flinging the head back. From what I've read about the distinction of head injuries in boxing compared to other sports their is usually a lot of damage in the cerebellum. Hence many boxers suffering from degenerative conditions that effect balance and movement, key roles of cerebellum.

In rugby you get more rotational forces and as you say the key distinction in neck strength potentially protecting against concussion is that the muscles need to be tensed which they won't always be.

Unless your neck can allow the skull to keep travelling at 20mph when the rest of your body comes to a sudden halt then it will have limited effect on the brain rattling against the inside of your skull is basically how my neurologist put it to me when I asked if neck exercises could make a significant difference on my chances of playing again. Hence the common description of concussion being caused by inertia, not the impact.

Yes it is my understanding that there is definitely truth in muscular strength, bone density and thickness all improving your chances of absorbing head trauma and how that relates to how prone you are to concussion. I think only recently there was something published about women in the sport and how (obviously) their biology meant they were suffering more head related problems as a result of rugby. That in turn has been used as the wake up call for world rugby to have another look at trans women in the womens' game and I'll say no more about that but that size and strength disparity also relates to the mens' game when you have players/men who aren't necessarily blessed with what we'd call a good jaw in boxing. North is one of those clearly but that's not all that counts.

Women have thicker skulls than men but have been suffering concussions at comparable rates, one of the arguments put against the old skull thickness argument I thought.

[Sharkey06]

It is looking like Wales will be without Biggar due to knee injury picked up today - that has got to help England. On the other hand England getting players back from injury. Interesting to see the stats to date on dominant tackles made and kick yardage - England second in both and Wales well down on both (France top of both by a big margin).

England to win by 7 to 10 (hopefully).

[Guest]

I think Biggar might have helped to make it slightly closer but I can’t see, based on recent form and Wales’ injury list, anything other than a big England victory. Like, as big or bigger than the Irish victory.

England by 20+.

[king_carlos]

1.Marler 2.George 3.Sinckler 4.Itoje 5.Kruis 6.Lawes 7.Underhill 8.Curry
9.Youngs 10.Ford 11.May 12.Farrell 13.Tuilagi 14.Watson 15.Daly

16.Cowan-Dickie 17.Genge 18.Williams 19.Launchbury 20.Wilson 21.Heinz 22.Slade 23.Joseph

If the 25 man training squad is anything to go by it would seem that the England squad is going to look very similar to the World Cup.

Cowan-Dickie isn't in the training squad for this weekend but his wife has just given birth, so I expect he's had the weekend off and will return against Wales.

Dunn and Ewels are the two men in the current training squad not in that 23.

[mikey_dragon]

Imagine having just one available fly-half out of five good ones, with the one left standing being a bit of a rookie. That’s some luck.

[RiscaGame]

I think Biggar might have helped to make it slightly closer but I can’t see, based on recent form and Wales’ injury list, anything other than a big England victory. Like, as big or bigger than the Irish victory.  

England by 20+.

I’d have said that before Biggar was a doubt.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Biggar has hyper extended his knee what ever that means, Boyd does not think it is that serious, again whatever that means.

[LondonTiger]

Biggar has hyper extended his knee what ever that means, Boyd does not think it is that serious, again whatever that means.

Usually the knee joint bending the wrong way (backwards). Can either be really painful but no actual damage or (if it really goes back) really painful and serious damage inside the knee.

[mikey_dragon]

Could be swelling but that may take a fortnight or more to go down.

[Poorfour]

It depends on how severe it is. I hyperextended my knee coming down a mountain once, though I was lucky that it could still bear weight as long as I didn’t twist it. Otherwise I’d have been stuck in a -5c snowstorm at 6,500m.

It was quite sore for the first 48 hours but basically recovered by the time we got off the mountain. 

If Biggar’s is that grade of injury, he should be good to play though will need to be careful and will probably have to have it quite heavily strapped as a precaution. If it’s worse than that, then he’s probably out for the game.

[LondonTiger]

England squad
Forwards: Cowan-Dickie, Curry, Dunn, Earl, Ewels, Genge, George, Itoje, Kruis, Launchbury, Lawes, Ludlam, Marler, Sinckler, Stuart, Underhill, M Vunipola, Williams, Wilson.

Backs: Daly, Devoto, Farrell, Ford, Furbank, Heinz, Joseph, May, Maunder, Slade, Thorley, Tuilagi, Umaga, Watson, Youngs.

Not available: B Vunipola, Nowell, Moon, Mitchell*, Hill, Dingwall, Cokanasiga.

*apprentice

[BigTrevsbigmac]

Good to have extra options.
Maunder hallelujah!

[TightHEAD]

Maunder should be on the bench, lets start blooding someone who is the future.

[No 7&1/2]

Maunder and a guy who at least covers 8 well in wilson are good steps forward. Interesting decision coming in the back 3.

[chris_501]

No news currently on Biggar, I watched Sheedy yesterday against Bath and despite having very little ball he looked good. I would agree with those calling for him to come in as a backup to Evans if needed.

[formerly known as Sam]

Biggar has hyper extended his knee what ever that means, Boyd does not think it is that serious, again whatever that means.

The knee bending beyond the the normal limits of the joint flex. I've done it a couple of times, can be minor and you can hobble about and be fine in a few days. Can be absolute agony and walking is really quite difficult for a couple of weeks. Depends if he's tweaked the ligaments as well because that can add to the recovery time.

[mikey_dragon]

If he rushes back for this weekend it’ll probably remain a weak area, then an even worse knee injury might happen. As long as his flopping arms are okay though.

[mikey_dragon]

No news currently on Biggar, I watched Sheedy yesterday against Bath and despite having very little ball he looked good. I would agree with those calling for him to come in as a backup to Evans if needed.

We aren’t sure if Sheedy is committed to Wales though. He has looked pretty good from the little I’ve seen though.

[Guest]

Well if Jarrod Evans is our Aaron Cruden will we find a Stephen Donald?

[yappysnap]

I see Eddie has called Maunders in to the squad for this game. What's he like anyone??

On twitter people mention Robson tore it up on the weekend and was fantastic, so has Maunders been better over the course of the season? Or is he a different style of player to Robson?

[Pie]

This could be embarrassing

No Biggar, Faletau and Halfp creaking, Liam unfit, another Staff Evans in McNichol on one wing, LRZ probably debuting, Tompkins v Tuilagi!!, Amos also out, No JD2, North just fading in front of our eyes, Adams crocked, Biggar likewise, no Patchell or Anscombe to call on.

Best we can do is this

Evans, North, Parkes, Watkin, Half, Liam

that and prayer

[Guest]

Why no Faletau?

[Rugby Fan]

I see Eddie has called Maunders in to the squad for this game. What's he like anyone??

On twitter people mention Robson tore it up on the weekend and was fantastic, so has Maunders been better over the course of the season? Or is he a different style of player to Robson?

Jones often seems to prefer a player he believes will do exactly what he says. I can only think his reluctance to use Robson reflects a belief that his best impacts come from being off-the-cuff, which is anathema to him. Then again, he did have Robson in his starting line-up last year, albeit he didn't sue him, so it's hard to know what he really thinks.

[Guest]

This could be embarrassing

No Biggar, Faletau and Halfp creaking, Liam unfit, another Staff Evans in McNichol on one wing, LRZ probably debuting, Tompkins v Tuilagi!!, Amos also out, No JD2, North just fading in front of our eyes, Adams crocked, Biggar likewise, no Patchell or Anscombe to call on.

Best we can do is this

Evans, North, Parkes, Watkin, Half, Liam

that and prayer

We'll smash 'em!

[Guest]

If Tomkins plays you know he will be getting an earfull all game from the Saracens players.

[No 7&1/2]

Its hard to know what jones looks for sometimes (all the time!) Rugby fan. He seems to take the leap of faith in some players more than others in first chances then gives more chance to others to improve and drops some out of sight. Furbank and Dombrandt being 2 obvious recent examples. Granted different positions but point stands imo.

[bluestonevedder]

That's a heck of an injury list for Wales. What's happened to Faletau though?

[TightHEAD]

KitKat.

[SecretFly]

If Tomkins plays you know he will be getting an earfull all game from the Saracens players.

Oh wonderful! Must Watch game now for all boxing fans. It'll be like watching Sam Lousi v C. J. Stander - one I'm actually looking forward to when the International window ends.

[Sponsored content]