England 2023 - Post 6N and beyond

First topic message reminder :

Continued......

I see big George Martin put in another shift at the weekend.

Surely he has to go to the WC....

He did but I wouldn't said he was a standout. Not that it excludes him but for time he was on(I think subbed around 60mins?) he was good but not exceptional.

Pity Wiese isnt eligible though as he was fantastic as ever.

63 mins 19 tackles, a try and generally big alround game from a lock if the reviews are correct.

Tom Curry also hit 25 tackles...3 turnovers and 2 try assists.

You dropping Ribbans then?

I watched match and Leicester so good all over really but players that really stood out for me were Wiese, Reffell, Watson and of course Ashton(not that he was brilliant it's just scoring 100th, hat trick etc). Kelly good in centre which is encouraging for England also.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You dropping Ribbans then?

Yup for martin...defo

mountain man wrote:I watched match and Leicester so good all over really but players that really stood out for me were Wiese, Reffell, Watson and of course Ashton(not that he was brilliant it's just scoring 100th, hat trick etc). Kelly good in centre which is encouraging for England also.

Needs to actually stay fit!

Think Ribbans picked up potm himself though on Saturday didn't he? Purely because he may not be available after the WC?

Geordie wrote:63 mins 19 tackles, a try and generally big alround game from a lock if the reviews are correct.

Martin is good but he isn't flashy with it. He'll often make tackles behind the gain line or drive the opposition back over it but because his tackling style is so good and low it's not the slow mo inducing big shot to the chest style the TV producers want. Similarly he carries well but it's often the dirty work in the tight. His try was from about 5m out with three would be tacklers. It wasn't flashy though just a big man barrelling through a half gap. It's just all the things you want your tighthead lock to be doing.

I hope he goes to the world cup. He's big, physical and mobile. Pretty much an ideal understudy to Lawes as he covers 6 as well and versatility is useful at a world cup.

Yes....

I would have had Ribbans starting long ago...but we have got to the stage where he will be away, and we have a ton of young kids coming through...with Martin playing very well and he's the future. Why then have have Ribbans in...

Comes down to what the real aim is for England and Borthwick. Ribbans for me is the better lock by a bit at the mo, so if the aim is to have the best crack at the WC I'd be having him in the side (know the potential wider squad both could go of course). There's still the question of whether playing abroad will exclude players or not, just can't see it staying the same.

Bit like back in 2015 for me when there was the question of whether you would take someone like Slater or Itoje, (neither of whom went in the end).

I'd have Ribbans and Itoje starting if Chessum does miss out through injury. I'd take Martin in the squad though. A great number 19 option is Lawes is going to start at blindside as it gives more options with the 20 shirt. Lawes is a bit fragile so having cover there makes sense and Ribbans has a dodgy back so having a good lock option that can be rotated in for any short turnaround games just makes lots of sense. Ribbans has more experience than Martin which might be key on the big stage in the short term.

If Chessum has recovered in time then it is perhaps more of a question.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Comes down to what the real aim is for England and Borthwick. Ribbans for me is the better lock by a bit at the mo, so if the aim is to have the best crack at the WC I'd be having him in the side (know the potential wider squad both could go of course). There's still the question of whether playing abroad will exclude players or not, just can't see it staying the same.

Bit like back in 2015 for me when there was the question of whether you would take someone like Slater or Itoje, (neither of whom went in the end).

i cant see the rule for overseas players changing...will open a can of worms.

This is a peculiar world cup for England. They should be going for the best performance possible of course, we always should go out to win EVERY tournament we play in...but at the same time...SB has a free hit out....so he can use it to get the future big players experience...and a world cup is a huge amount of experience for young guys.

Hence go for the first choice team but in the wider squad id be looking for the kids who have massive potential but are also playing well now....such as George Martin.

And the final point, you're happy to go with him at lock even with his height?

He's 6'6" and having seen him in person I very much doubt he's any smaller than listed. The guy is a mountain. Taller than Woki, same height as the likes of Mostert and Alemanno. There's absolutely no issue with a lock being 6'6".

Geordies gripe for ages has by 6 6 locks though! Though hes down at 6 5 depending on where you're looking.

He's also been confirmed at 19 stone and GF has wanted a big and mobile lock for a while.

king_carlos wrote:He's 6'6" and having seen him in person I very much doubt he's any smaller than listed. The guy is a mountain. Taller than Woki, same height as the likes of Mostert and Alemanno. There's absolutely no issue with a lock being 6'6".

That's too short for South Africa...

Well yes, that was my tongue in cheek reason for asking. He's not the mountain pined for.

mikey_dragon wrote:

king_carlos wrote:He's 6'6" and having seen him in person I very much doubt he's any smaller than listed. The guy is a mountain. Taller than Woki, same height as the likes of Mostert and Alemanno. There's absolutely no issue with a lock being 6'6".

That's too short for South Africa...

My bad I forget that Mostert is from Atlantis.

Ok tongue in cheek accepted.....but He's 6'6...im happy with that...was more than happy with kruis who is 6'6.

What i wanted for years as ive bored you all......in fact yearned for is a physical monster in the engine room who dominates the exchanges and does have that aura about him (and yes one at 6 would be nice also). George is someone who is looking like he could be that player. Mobile physicality...i honestly belived Jones ignored that a little too much..though Aside from Ribbans we maybe didnt have that player.

Itoje will be pushed post WC...and i dont care what anyone says on here....he will be. Theres some absolutely huge athletic kids coming through...Ollie Chessum slightly ahead of them all in development at the moment...but its going to be fascinating watching them develop.

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Comes down to what the real aim is for England and Borthwick. Ribbans for me is the better lock by a bit at the mo, so if the aim is to have the best crack at the WC I'd be having him in the side (know the potential wider squad both could go of course). There's still the question of whether playing abroad will exclude players or not, just can't see it staying the same.

Bit like back in 2015 for me when there was the question of whether you would take someone like Slater or Itoje, (neither of whom went in the end).

i cant see the rule for overseas players changing...will open a can of worms.

This is a peculiar world cup for England. They should be going for the best performance possible of course, we always should go out to win EVERY tournament we play in...but at the same time...SB has a free hit out....so he can use it to get the future big players experience...and a world cup is a huge amount of experience for young guys.

Hence go for the first choice team but in the wider squad id be looking for the kids who have massive potential but are also playing well now....such as George Martin.

Nah whatever we think on here, as soon as the RWC starts the press and general public will be out for success, anything less then last 4 will be seen as a failure for Borthwick and the pressure will be on. There's no freebie world cups.

As for height, isn't Itoje "only" 6'5"?

What England need more there is a mass monster of Etzebeth proportions. Add some real heft to scrum and carry.

mountain man wrote:As for height, isn't Itoje "only" 6'5"?

What England need more there is a mass monster of Etzebeth proportions. Add some real heft to scrum and carry.

As the yearner of the bigger individual i would say someone of his proportons isnt the requirement (but hey if it came along all the better) . We need a powerhouse or two...

George Kruis was outstanding in this regard at 6'6 around 19st. Everyone acknowledges his absence. George Martin whilst still early days is certainly showing he could potentially be the one we're looking for in there...lets hope so...

Kruis' loss if more to do with the fact we went from 4 excellent locks in him, Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes. We lost the latter 2 at around the same time to injury, then Wasps and also the move of 1 to flanker. Half the time its about having a good well planned transition through the support players. We lacked it a little at lock, compounded by the fact that Hill (the chosen one) is frankly pants.

Bit of overkill on Hill there to be fair.

He's not that good...

No 7&1/2 wrote:Kruis' loss if more to do with the fact we went from 4 excellent locks in him, Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes. We lost the latter 2 at around the same time to injury, then Wasps and also the move of 1 to flanker. Half the time its about having a good well planned transition through the support players. We lacked it a little at lock, compounded by the fact that Hill (the chosen one) is frankly pants.

i think the thing with Kruis was his alround game in his role. The others had one area of their game that wasnt as strong (Launchbury and Lineout etc) ...but Kruis seemed to have everything, and it showed when he was gone.

Anyway...we have a new batch coming through...some of whom im very hopeful of. We shall see how they develop over the next few seasons.

mountain man wrote:Bit of overkill on Hill there to be fair.

He's not that good...

Hill was very good for Exeter...mobile, physical and scored tries...so i can understand why he was selected and worked with...sadly he just couldnt lift his game to the next level.

He was good for Chiefs but never showed anything like that form in an England shirt. My comment was obviously in jest but he's not answer in 2nd row for England. Plus too prone to stupid penalties although the same can be levelled at several others as well.

Never really understood his promotion to England myself. He was always pretty good for Exeter but didn't strike me as an international.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Kruis' loss if more to do with the fact we went from 4 excellent locks in him, Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes. We lost the latter 2 at around the same time to injury, then Wasps and also the move of 1 to flanker. Half the time its about having a good well planned transition through the support players. We lacked it a little at lock, compounded by the fact that Hill (the chosen one) is frankly pants.

As a Welsh fan, I was always worried when I saw his name on the team sheet against us, absolute pest & incredible work rate!!

yappysnap wrote:

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Comes down to what the real aim is for England and Borthwick. Ribbans for me is the better lock by a bit at the mo, so if the aim is to have the best crack at the WC I'd be having him in the side (know the potential wider squad both could go of course). There's still the question of whether playing abroad will exclude players or not, just can't see it staying the same.

Bit like back in 2015 for me when there was the question of whether you would take someone like Slater or Itoje, (neither of whom went in the end).

i cant see the rule for overseas players changing...will open a can of worms.

This is a peculiar world cup for England. They should be going for the best performance possible of course, we always should go out to win EVERY tournament we play in...but at the same time...SB has a free hit out....so he can use it to get the future big players experience...and a world cup is a huge amount of experience for young guys.

Hence go for the first choice team but in the wider squad id be looking for the kids who have massive potential but are also playing well now....such as George Martin.

Nah whatever we think on here, as soon as the RWC starts the press and general public will be out for success, anything less then last 4 will be seen as a failure for Borthwick and the pressure will be on. There's no freebie world cups.

I agree, there are no freebies. If anything that was the recent Six Nations. This is top level sport. Honeymoon periods really don't exist.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Never really understood his promotion to England myself. He was always pretty good for Exeter but didn't strike me as an international.

I can see what Eddie saw in him...certainly from his Exeter performances. He gave him plenty of chances but Hill just couldnt do it consistently.

Geordie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Never really understood his promotion to England myself. He was always pretty good for Exeter but didn't strike me as an international.

I can see what Eddie saw in him...certainly from his Exeter performances. He gave him plenty of chances but Hill just couldnt do it consistently.

Yep on his Exeter form he deserved his chances with England, can see why Jones picked him. Just shame it didn't work out. I think Jones showed too much faith at times but then he did that with some players but wouldn't pick those who were more deserving.

Great lock pairings are usually made up of one who's more of a setpiece specialist and one who's more of an enforcer. Kruis was a great example of a setpiece lock and covering the basics gave Itoje in particular more freedom to do what he does best and be a nuisance to the opposition. Launchbury and Lawes blurred the boundaries a bit more and were capable of playing both roles to a good level. Between the four of them England always had the bases covered.

We don't have that today. I'm pretty sure Saracens recruited Tizard as a direct replacement for Kruis and he may be a prospect for the future, as may Martin. Itoje himself is struggling with his long term health issue so isn't as effective - and is prone to overplaying when he doesn't have a strong partner. Chessum Maj looked very promising until his injury, and Chessum Mi will probably come through once he's fully baked. But right now, there's a shortage.

Launchbury will be at Quins next season, which may be part of the answer for the RWC, especially if Lawes can get fit.

It does feel like the England team in general are between phases at the moment. There are players who are fading out and their replacements aren't ready yet, and the coaching team is still in flux. Almost feels like limbo, like we're waiting for the world cup to get out of the way (regardless of how the press see it), so Borthwick can properly rebuild.

I miss Launchbury at his best, he was such a good player. I agree that the depth isn't really there at lock yet. Itoje, Martin, Isiekwe and Chessum Sr are a good start, but if people don't want to also rely on Jonny Hill or Charlie Ewels, somebody else needs to come through and really press a claim. Looking at the options, Ribbands is potentially making himself unavailable, Tizard seems way off international rugby ATM. The same goes from the less green options like Alex Coles (Northampton), Chunya Munga (Irish), George Hammond (Quins) and Ewan Richard (Bath).

I appreciate that there are players coming through, but players like Chessum Jr, Alfie Bell, Alex Groves, Charlie Rice or Ben Bamber aren't really near the conversation at the moment.

If Lauhchbury could come in refesthed and give us a couple of years more service, it could be a real boon IMO.

I'd love Launchbury to return near his best but he's not shown that in a fair few years now. I fear injuries have taken their toll there. It's a shame as he was a favourite of mine at his peak. The combination of ruck work, offloading and support lines near the ruck were such useful strengths compared to the other locks. Regardless of slowing down he still had the massive strength of being brilliant in maul defence after the injuries but even then England did improve a lot in the lineout over the Six Nations anyway. The set-piece as a whole was good to be fair.

Tizard still impresses whenever I watch a full Sarries game but I wouldn't pick him ahead of Isiekwe having seen them in the same side I don't think.

Whilst I'm not advocating a recall Hill's impressive form with Sale since being dropped is another worrying example of the 'not looking good enough at international level then shining in the Prem after being discarded' trend. I know I keep mentioning it but it was nagging in the back of my head during the end of EJs tenure as I thought about his views of the Prem not indicating international quality. That nag has steadily grown into a headache over this season. Over the Six Nations I thought Mako was decent a couple of times and middling to anonymous in the other games for instance. His first week back with Sarries he was fantastic though. In that Quins game I honestly thought he was better than Marler who I've been wanting recalled!

king_carlos wrote:I'd love Launchbury to return near his best but he's not shown that in a fair few years now. I fear injuries have taken their toll there. It's a shame as he was a favourite of mine at his peak. The combination of ruck work, offloading and support lines near the ruck were such useful strengths compared to the other locks. Regardless of slowing down he still had the massive strength of being brilliant in maul defence after the injuries but even then England did improve a lot in the lineout over the Six Nations anyway. The set-piece as a whole was good to be fair.

Tizard still impresses whenever I watch a full Sarries game but I wouldn't pick him ahead of Isiekwe having seen them in the same side I don't think.

Whilst I'm not advocating a recall Hill's impressive form with Sale since being dropped is another worrying example of the 'not looking good enough at international level then shining in the Prem after being discarded' trend. I know I keep mentioning it but it was nagging in the back of my head during the end of EJs tenure as I thought about his views of the Prem not indicating international quality. That nag has steadily grown into a headache over this season. Over the Six Nations I thought Mako was decent a couple of times and middling to anonymous in the other games for instance. His first week back with Sarries he was fantastic though. In that Quins game I honestly thought he was better than Marler who I've been wanting recalled!

Suppose it's what you class as impressive in prem form too. There are real people who think Malins looks good at club level and for England....sorry MM!

I don't buy completely that Jones rated training more than club merely he picked players he felt added a skillet he wanted and used it as an excuse.

king_carlos wrote:I'd love Launchbury to return near his best but he's not shown that in a fair few years now. I fear injuries have taken their toll there. It's a shame as he was a favourite of mine at his peak. The combination of ruck work, offloading and support lines near the ruck were such useful strengths compared to the other locks. Regardless of slowing down he still had the massive strength of being brilliant in maul defence after the injuries but even then England did improve a lot in the lineout over the Six Nations anyway. The set-piece as a whole was good to be fair.

Tizard still impresses whenever I watch a full Sarries game but I wouldn't pick him ahead of Isiekwe having seen them in the same side I don't think.

Whilst I'm not advocating a recall Hill's impressive form with Sale since being dropped is another worrying example of the 'not looking good enough at international level then shining in the Prem after being discarded' trend. I know I keep mentioning it but it was nagging in the back of my head during the end of EJs tenure as I thought about his views of the Prem not indicating international quality. That nag has steadily grown into a headache over this season. Over the Six Nations I thought Mako was decent a couple of times and middling to anonymous in the other games for instance. His first week back with Sarries he was fantastic though. In that Quins game I honestly thought he was better than Marler who I've been wanting recalled!

I agree with you about the Prem, i think we just need to see a lot of English clubs results in Europe to see how it isn't as competitive as it used to be. It doesn't matter so much if we have a handful of strong clubs to draw from, but in reality at the moment we have Tigers and Sarries and then a bunch of average clubs and a few poor ones after that. Like you've said before, take out those top two and Sale and all of the other really lack for grit and game control, they're often great at racking up points but it becomes helter skelter. That just doesn't cut it at the top levels.

Also I felt that Hill could have been better and showed glimpses, but him and EJ got too caught up with all the off the ball stuff instead. The success in Australia went to their heads and Hill became this gobshite player who only thought about the rugby secondary to silly antics.

yappysnap wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I'd love Launchbury to return near his best but he's not shown that in a fair few years now. I fear injuries have taken their toll there. It's a shame as he was a favourite of mine at his peak. The combination of ruck work, offloading and support lines near the ruck were such useful strengths compared to the other locks. Regardless of slowing down he still had the massive strength of being brilliant in maul defence after the injuries but even then England did improve a lot in the lineout over the Six Nations anyway. The set-piece as a whole was good to be fair.

Tizard still impresses whenever I watch a full Sarries game but I wouldn't pick him ahead of Isiekwe having seen them in the same side I don't think.

Whilst I'm not advocating a recall Hill's impressive form with Sale since being dropped is another worrying example of the 'not looking good enough at international level then shining in the Prem after being discarded' trend. I know I keep mentioning it but it was nagging in the back of my head during the end of EJs tenure as I thought about his views of the Prem not indicating international quality. That nag has steadily grown into a headache over this season. Over the Six Nations I thought Mako was decent a couple of times and middling to anonymous in the other games for instance. His first week back with Sarries he was fantastic though. In that Quins game I honestly thought he was better than Marler who I've been wanting recalled!

I agree with you about the Prem, i think we just need to see a lot of English clubs results in Europe to see how it isn't as competitive as it used to be. It doesn't matter so much if we have a handful of strong clubs to draw from, but in reality at the moment we have Tigers and Sarries and then a bunch of average clubs and a few poor ones after that. Like you've said before, take out those top two and Sale and all of the other really lack for grit and game control, they're often great at racking up points but it becomes helter skelter. That just doesn't cut it at the top levels.

It's regularly entertaining but the standards in defence, fitness and therefore physicality have fallen off a cliff. It's the legacy of removing relegation sadly.

Losing the "squad men" in their late twenties or early thirties and replacing them with academy grads sounds great in theory but it has a huge affect  in the lower league games. When 11th and 12th played each other with relegation those squad men are potentially playing for a career. If their club gets relegated there's no guarantee they get another gig. As such those games aren't pretty but they are physical and teams are fit. Those guys prepare like it's their RWC final in a way. They are as fit as they can be, do extra defence and set-piece sessions as needed.

I was back in Edinburgh at my old club recently and caught up with a guy who went onto be Scotland capped and played in the Prem. He was talking about being at that type of club last season. They got absolutely pumped by a top of the league team towards the end of the season. He was expecting them to be called in on Sunday instead of Monday for analysis, then get an extra session in on the Monday looking at the scrum that was torn apart, etc. You know, like pro sportsmen almost. Instead they were told to take a half day on Monday for extra recovery, they came in the next week and a large part of one session was apparently having a bit of a laugh coming up with a Noughties style set play from a tap penalty. They couldn't make Champions Cup qualification, couldn't get relegated, U20s lads were getting Prem bows, it was a bit of a jolly basically by the sounds of things.

Exposure for academy grads is only a good thing if they are being exposed to the standard required.

Fitness and physicality; interesting question, but does the impact of reducing impact in training around player health go in part to explaining anything? Can't say I've noticed a massive drop off in those areas though.

Contact training has reduced across professional contact sports though. It's not led to a reduction in top end physicality in other sports or leagues however.

Whereas we are seeing guys who thrive in contact in the Premiership getting dominated by their counterparts in the international scene and in Europe. That's a big issue from a selection POV. Particularly when only selecting from the Prem.

Bit of a tangent into S&C chat rather than rugby specific stuff below so I separated it out before posting in case some aren't interested!

From talking to guys involved in S&C I think the general consensus is that generally reducing full contact training to one "match intensity" session a week has actually allowed more time to concentrate on fitness training methods. The general view being that rugby was wedded to training as much as possible at full exertion. Fitness had to be HIIT. Contact was full whack. Accrued fatigue means that very quickly that high intensity stuff sees a reduction in quality though. When rugby went pro it was fallible there. They had time and resources to do more but didn't know what to do more. So they did what they'd done before but did absolutely tons of it. Very much quantity over quality. Hence stories of guys like Thompson scrummaging an obscene amount every week to the point where hookers are passing out in training.

Whereas now we are seeing far more periodisation with less high intensity work done but focussing on quality and actually being closer to 100% when doing it. Then concentrating on lots of low intensity work in around it that requires very little recovery. Aled Walters for instance is a big proponent of that I've heard. Lots of zone 2 cardio work to build a base then when you do higher intensity stuff you do it right. It worked wonders for the Boks and then Tigers.

As a former rower there are interesting parallels to rowing there just a few years behind. In rowing you do a ton of really low intensity rowing machine work. Then when you go hard you push to the brink basically. "If your slow work is too fast your fast work will be too slow", being the common instruction. Most sports that require a cardio base are now shifting that way now.

Thought the physicality was there vs Ireland, Wales, Scotland. Got a bit blown away by France but the defence was a bit iffy first couple of games, new systems?

Ellis Genge will be unavailable for England's first World Cup warm-up match against Wales. He also needs to complete the World Rugby coaching intervention programme. Duncan Taylor got exactly the same ban but, as Saracens have more games, he'll be back for the Premiership semi-final.

king_carlos wrote:
Whereas now we are seeing far more periodisation with less high intensity work done but focussing on quality and actually being closer to 100% when doing it. Then concentrating on lots of low intensity work in around it that requires very little recovery. Aled Walters for instance is a big proponent of that I've heard. Lots of zone 2 cardio work to build a base then when you do higher intensity stuff you do it right. It worked wonders for the Boks and then Tigers.

As a former rower there are interesting parallels to rowing there just a few years behind. In rowing you do a ton of really low intensity rowing machine work. Then when you go hard you push to the brink basically. "If your slow work is too fast your fast work will be too slow", being the common instruction. Most sports that require a cardio base are now shifting that way now.

I think the Prem are in the middle of a new period of adjustment. Quins won the trophy on the back of switching to the ProTECHt mouthguards, which enabled them to see when players were overtraining and adjust accordingly - that year they were clearly the fittest team in the competition as the Bristol semi final showed. Others have caught up somewhat as the mouthguards have been rolled out but I think there's a further evolution needed in terms of how that translates to the international arena.

The rowing analogy is a good one - I remember Pinsent and Redgrave describing Jurgen Grobler's methodology, which was based almost entirely around long periods of training at 75% intensity (the highest people could maintain indefinitely) against a 4 year cycle of progression targets aimed at being good enough to win Olympic medals, with only very small and very focused pieces of high intensity work (from memory, a lot of the time focused around the start).

Rugby's equivalent is a bit harder to define, but it's probably around repeated low impact practice of getting the patterns right in attack and defence coupled with focused high intensity work around the breakdown and setpiece. It's also clearly something where relatively small adjustments can make a big difference - England's performance against Ireland was an order of magnitude better than against France; given the small gap in time a big factor is likely to be how the coaches prepped the team and managed their readiness for the match.

Dolly back in his first match shortly, too little time for the WC?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Dolly back in his first match shortly, too little time for the WC?

The RWC is a bit different because the coach gets access to the players for an extended training camp and warm up matches ahead of time. Any player who's fit and in form at the end of the season could potentially be included, and the extended format gives them a chance to look at bolters and fringe players. History says they still tend to stick with experience (Johnson ignored Wood and Robshaw, who were reportedly the best performers in camp; Lancaster looked at Itoje but ultimately didn't take him, much to beshocked's annoyance), but in theory Dolly's got enough time to be in contention.

Poorfour wrote:

king_carlos wrote:
Whereas now we are seeing far more periodisation with less high intensity work done but focussing on quality and actually being closer to 100% when doing it. Then concentrating on lots of low intensity work in around it that requires very little recovery. Aled Walters for instance is a big proponent of that I've heard. Lots of zone 2 cardio work to build a base then when you do higher intensity stuff you do it right. It worked wonders for the Boks and then Tigers.

As a former rower there are interesting parallels to rowing there just a few years behind. In rowing you do a ton of really low intensity rowing machine work. Then when you go hard you push to the brink basically. "If your slow work is too fast your fast work will be too slow", being the common instruction. Most sports that require a cardio base are now shifting that way now.

I think the Prem are in the middle of a new period of adjustment. Quins won the trophy on the back of switching to the ProTECHt mouthguards, which enabled them to see when players were overtraining and adjust accordingly - that year they were clearly the fittest team in the competition as the Bristol semi final showed. Others have caught up somewhat as the mouthguards have been rolled out but I think there's a further evolution needed in terms of how that translates to the international arena.

The rowing analogy is a good one - I remember Pinsent and Redgrave describing Jurgen Grobler's methodology, which was based almost entirely around long periods of training at 75% intensity (the highest people could maintain indefinitely) against a 4 year cycle of progression targets aimed at being good enough to win Olympic medals, with only very small and very focused pieces of high intensity work (from memory, a lot of the time focused around the start).

Rugby's equivalent is a bit harder to define, but it's probably around repeated low impact practice of getting the patterns right in attack and defence coupled with focused high intensity work around the breakdown and setpiece. It's also clearly something where relatively small adjustments can make a big difference - England's performance against Ireland was an order of magnitude better than against France; given the small gap in time a big factor is likely to be how the coaches prepped the team and managed their readiness for the match.

Conversely, a lot of ex rugby players have talked about over training, and being absolutely beasted week in and week out - some positively some negatively.

but it is baffling there's still these views that when teams are struggling what they need is more shuttle runs, burpees etc and not better coaching. Hearing Haskell talk about being beasted into the ground while still carrying injuries is just mad (obviously the guys a plonker but sheds some good light on modern rugby).

Curtis Langdon will be available too. I really rate him as a hooker. He should immediately improve Saints by nudging Matavesi, a decent player himself to be fair, to a bench spot. Davison will improve them too. As should Iyogun as he develops. It's a front row that needs some rejuvenation so I think Langdon and Davison could make a big difference.

That final hooker spot is wide open. McGuigan was picked then got injured so will presumably be in the running. Walker was barely used. Blamire isn't being looked at.

With the RWC squads being expanded to 33-man instead of 31 we should see three specialists in those positions in most squads which is good. With the pool stages being more spread out due to an extra week in the schedule it might also be the tournament where they aren't needed as much ironically. The less well financed sides tended to get a shafting from short turnarounds with the more cramped pool stages. Whilst situations such as Marler training at TH, Ford at SH and Singleton playing back row in the sports showpiece is pretty silly. I think both changes are a good thing but it just makes me chuckle that it happening at the same tournament might mean some hookers and scrum-halves in particular twiddling their thumbs a bit.