The Irishman Christian Wade wants England to target

This is why Intention is so important. Board members have no choice but to accept the intention at law. If they put their personal opinions above the intention of a law then they should not be near a board or governance.

A person like Owen Doyle who was involved in that law making stating the intention was 5:3 is significant. He may be wrong, but he has a long history in law making and application in International Rugby.

Which all basically means it’s going to become predictable and permanent, a set feature, and there anything but strategic.

It also gives more brilliant players opportunity to play, and for us to see them in action. Also allows players greater longevity, some guys play till their late 30’s.

Are you referring to the bench splits here? In this day an age DR you’re whole bench is being used, regardless of what the split is. Those facets you mention are also the same with the names change week to week, or in the same game. There’s no need to have 10 subs to make the game more enjoyable in that aspect, as it’s still 15 people playing 80 minutes, and playing 1 game in four is the exact same as play a quarter of each game.

Test rugby has come alive alright, lets try and keep it like that 🖕

It will never happen though as it will cost a test and the associated revenue (not much international interest from an All Blacks trial atm). Also, the coaches won’t like their favorites being shown up on tv.

I would have said playing personal, even now, or especially, would have benefit front open rugby, but certainly it would still be in contrast to much of rugby’s persona to want to go all the way with it like that, abandoning some of the ethos or grinding matchplay rugby. Far more a case of just knowing how to strike all over the park, as definitely the tools like the wingers highlighted in this article have been heavily undervalued or under utilized by South Africa. Your thinking of similar concepts to the Proteas not being able to win a semi final in a WC?

If Robertson also dropped Tamati Ellison for Joe Schmidt, he’d have a much better coaching group.

This whole debate (sorry again Nick as this might not be the debate at all) is nothing to do with whos best or how they do it.

How good they are to watch, how entertaining, would be one thing, but otherwise it’s about participation, safety, and having a game for all sizes.

So if they play a 7-1 it’s going to be because theres no risk in it. South Africa aren’t a poor rugby nation to role the dice like that. I myself repeating call for my teams to try a 6-2 or a 7-1 because I don’t want to see pointless backline changes for no reason, and they’ve got a lot of loose forwards, which as the most attritional position it makes great sense to utilize that depth. Also some are full of lock forward and blindside combinations so 7 can be even better.

But really there’s not much change in props, and their whole buildup is that they can keep on trucking and doing their thing. Hookers offer some tactical variation, but for the most part the f/r is like the backline, it doesn’t need to be changed, which is why a limit on the number of people you can use off the bench is the way to go (not all of them).

THAT is what risk is, not the idea of rolling the dice and hoping you don’t get injuries in a game. It’s who you actually choose to start, because they’re going to be their for 80 minutes!