EPCR statement: Champions Cup semi-finals venues

Hell they were the ones getting tired in South Africa last year.

Previously, we had always had to get ourselves pumped up to match the SB. Our forwards would need to punch above their weight. There’s been no such feeling or talk like that for a decade. We’re happy that we can go toe to toe all day everyday now. I suggest Ireland still need to do that though.

Yes I’m not familiar with those games, or the way you’d played them, you and Graham were discussing, but I’d say the players I’ve seen recently certainly do have those capabilities (to outplay/skill NZ or France). Really though I think we both acknowledging the same thing, the capaticity to play multiple ways, because you have the most well rounded player types.

So I fully endorse unlocking that further. Ireland became a tricky bunch for sure. You may not have heard me champion their play when it first started coming out, by I credited them/Lancaster, as encompasing a lot of the great backline/phase play trickery I’d become accustomed to naturally seeing, through evolution, from all ages in New Zealand. He put a plan together about how/when to cut/when to loop/when to skip. Players I grew up with, well even myself of course, we just did those things based on what we see, and Lancaster put that together as a package for people who don’t.. have such DNA, or ‘IP’. I’ve not seen any other team do it with such precision, or make it look so natural as they did. They’ve lost it now of course (as had NZ already), but my point would be that you can also do you’re own thing. For instance you could go to grubbers instead of territory kicks, low fast guys, even the tall lanky Fassi’ are supreme at reading and catching a bouncing ball. Simply by not going to your lineout strength, you can put immense attacking pressure through space and speed for example. Brown got the use of those athletes going in the wide channels, while still looking for say someone who was as good as Kieran Read to really unlock that threat. But anyway, maybe I misconstrued what you wanted the team to do, but I just think there are, as youve said about the past, ways SA can play. I wouldn’t be worried about anything too fancy, but yes, they say defence wins match’s but really that’s just because attack is the hardest thing to get right. So if you can get it right, yes, you do almost become unbeatable. Like I said I couldn’t see going as far as to play like a “Brazil” being a “trick” to get over the mental barrier of expectation, not with SA’s psyche. In tsaying that though I’m thinking to myself, in terms of clamming up in big games, Irelands playbook approach would be better than instinct. That’s because you need that ‘brazilian’ to play on instinct, and I think the game means too much to us for that, and maybe that’s how Ireland was able to keep up it’s threat in those big games, all everyone simply had to do with stick the playbook.

Even without winning WCs NZ has been able to feel like it was still on top, and playing with some audacious flair, as in just backing yourself to beat these two players in front of me that results in a breakdown field which wins you the game, requires that sort of knowledge that you are the best, that level of confidence. That’s an advantage NZ has had to keep that style going over the decades. The acid test has come on, there is a desire their from from Razor to regain it, now to be able to play that way when doubts set in.

Injured players can’t be brought back on. If you substitute the fr at halftime, those players can come back on if one of the replacements get injured.

If the fr fakes injuries at halftime to get replaced (so that you can make your allotted say 3 tactical changes in the other 5 forward positions), the game goes to golden oldies if someone gets injured.

I can’t see South Africa for example risking loosing their scrumming advantage with an injury and going to golden oldies.

That solution looses a lot of interesting possibilities however, so it’s not my choice of action, but I’m perfect OK with the current unlimited injury changes, and if any future law changes somehow magically make injury replacements more likely, I’m happy with that too, as long as the game doesn’t stop for them of course.

Hell, I was happy to even allow injured players to come back on inside the 10 minute bloodbin type application, because I believe speeding the game up by removing stoppages would tire people out more than being able to have a fake replacement for 10 minutes would give them an advantage.

Ah, but at least you make a point that we can take interest in, risk. What makes you think it’s risky?

Double also, you wouldn’t have cleared up anything, as they may have simply told Doyle it wasn’t needed in the law as there was no need. Now that there is obviously a need it makes perfect sense that they will go back to vote it in. But has the situation changed, maybe they actually like this?

Isn’t that what your whole discussion was about, that you care because you want to make the game fast?

You can’t worry about anything retrospectively as if the intention was never laid out, say in the laws or in the code/spirit, then how is anybody to know that? Looking forward, if it was there intention, for next step is to recalibrate. They are simply going to put it in writing without first wondering if they still want a strict 5;3.

I’d therefor suggest worrying/talking about that first.

Enforcing a split seems a bit draconian, much more simple, elegant, and relevant ways of doing it. Would be easy to do, but also easily gamed and then we just have an even worse problem.

Why on earth would you say he won’t start though? That’s ridiculous, the opposite of an impact sub so I would have thought only there as a 80 minute option.

The whole article smells of cherry picking, but totally random which way it falls.