@CharlieFelix Ok. So it’s an implicit style backing rather than efficient use of the bench? Agreed? All the best for this weekend. It’s going to be intense. What a rush.
Ok. I am confused (not surprisingly, it’s me). To summarise, you are comforted that the ABs chose a 5-3, even though a 5-3 last week added no value because they left an unused player on the bench. But you are really pleased that they are using a 5-3 split this week. Because ? a 6-2 split means no additional bruiser that you back to use (implies a slight on the unused AB forwards, there are some gooduns) or ? it allows you to maintain back line dominance even with an injury? Not even going into what we expect the match to devolve into. Confused, you are the professional🤷♂️
@CharlieFelix Huh? We were talking about the subs bench? Which he didn’t use fully. Which is directly related to 6-2 or 5-3 or whatever. Which particular point are you emphasising other than the ABs finished the game stronger?
@Ryan____a@Sportsfreakconz So, are you a lawyer or just a guy? Because in the UK, esquire just means a guy, and is considered fairly pompous. My guess is just a guy, because Yanks don’t call us Saffas (no apostrophe, not possessive, it’s your language) often. Just asking.
@Rugby_Scoop It’s what you wrote🤷♂️ I mentioned lineouts (let’s not get into the scrums, I didn’t mention them), you mentioned it can be “fixed in a week, provided they (are) being judged equally”. Are you perhaps prevaricating here?