Treating the Summer Internationals as real Test Matches.

Pretty much every rugby player knows that if you go into a match or even a tackle half-heartedly then there is a real danger of coming off worst.

With the RWC impending, I reckon that National coaches/managers should elect to field pretty much their best squads. The danger of injury is real. But that's always the same in any game or full-on training session.

OK - even at this stage there will be some experimentation going on. And that's fair enough.

But my point is that every team should go out to win every SI game in order to to build the morale momentum.

Teams that 'protect' their top squads may live to regret their decisions at their own leisure.

You're absolutely right. Gareth Jenkins and Eddie O'Sullivan did it last time round and paid the price.

Players need to hit the ground running, and they need to play to prepare properly, otherwise they may be fit, but they won't be ready for rugby.

FULLY FULLY agree

I think it is a mindeset of international coaches these days to protect their players as they are overplayed and under rested.

That tells me the problem is lying in how much control national rugby unions have over their internationally contracted players.

It is sad to think that test mtatches now play second fiddle to club and Frnachise commitments.

I'm glad to see in Ireland out top flight guys play hardly any Pro 12 games to compensate for their European and International committments. It also keeps the conveyour belt moving and is leading to strenght in depth.

I think that with all the best intentions in the world that these won't be full on test matches.

There will be a lot of rotation and coaches will not want to see their best players get injured.

Another factor is that coaches will not want to show their full hand or risk their rivals getting a psychological edge. For example if Ireland put out their test team against England or France and lose then that will be a big psychological blow.

I just can't see these being full blown 80 min tests.

The players who are picked should give 100% to the match, but I wouldn't pick my strongest 22 for all 3 tests. I would however only be looking at a squad of 35 or so for the 3 matches (injuries permitting).

robbo277 wrote:The players who are picked should give 100% to the match

The players will give 100% no doubt about it but the coaches will be looking to make sure they don't over do it and won't be taking any chances with players. Results will be secondary to getting the players a decent run out in these games.

That's what I'm saying. I'd rather England do well at the World Cup and lose all 3 warm-ups than win all 3 warm-ups and crash out at the group stage (obviously I'd rather 3 warm-up wins followed by a great World Cup, but if we're talking one or the other). The point about "if you go into a match or even a tackle half-heartedly then there is a real danger of coming off worst" is moot, because none of the players will be going in half-heartedly. It might not be the strongest 15 out there, but there will be 15 committed players going for the win.

The title of this thread makes me laugh. I guess it's a difference in expectation and priority.

I know all players go out to give 100% but the difference is NZ can field a B (or sometimes C) team yet they are still expected to win and they damn well know that. Every international game is a test, there are no friendlies in Rugby.

I'm acutely aware that coaches will rotate the squad for the overall benefit and long term objectives of the team (SA 07) but seriously the day NZ start talking about friendlies is the day I stop watching Rugby.

Sorry to go off the track a bit, I just despise talk of friendlies

I agree totally robbo but the coaches approach will be different in these games than a standard test. They'll be less concerned with the result than ensuring key players come through unscathed and preventing any psychological damage to their side.

From an Irish perspective there's no point going all guns blazing and winning 4 warm ups and then failing to get out of their group. Likewise they won't want to get walloped and go into the WC of the back of 3 or 4 defeats.

chewed_mintie wrote:The title of this thread makes me laugh. I guess it's a difference in expectation and priority.

I know all players go out to give 100% but the difference is NZ can field a B (or sometimes C) team yet they are still expected to win and they damn well know that. Every international game is a test, there are no friendlies in Rugby.

I'm acutely aware that coaches will rotate the squad for the overall benefit and long term objectives of the team (SA 07) but seriously the day NZ start talking about friendlies is the day I stop watching Rugby.

Sorry to go off the track a bit, I just despise talk of friendlies

2007. The ABs came in with any number of team options. Prepared for all circumstances - except the possibility of defeat.

You need to gel that top squad.

Agree Portnoy. In NZ's case I think they have learnt about continuity however, I think Slade will be starting in Port Elizabeth and Brisbane. It's the only way the coaches and Slade will know if he's got it in him. I expect a few others like SBW will be in the same boat.

I think a ballence needs to be found in teh warm up matches where the first choice players do start, however the expected bench players do also need to get a run (more than 10 mins in a match or two) in order to get them confident in their ability to step up if required. For example, if Gatland is thinking of having Tipuric/Turnbull/McCusker on the bench during the RWC then I would think it would be prudent to give them a half during the warm up games.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I think a ballence needs to be found in teh warm up matches where the first choice players do start, however the expected bench players do also need to get a run (more than 10 mins in a match or two) in order to get them confident in their ability to step up if required. For example, if Gatland is thinking of having Tipuric/Turnbull/McCusker on the bench during the RWC then I would think it would be prudent to give them a half during the warm up games.

It's a bit late in the day to go trying out bench contenders.

MJ may want to try out Manu. But not pick one of three.

Personally I think you at the very least need one full warm-up game with the XV you expect to play the big WC matches, and that XV needs an 80 minutes game, not a match full of endless tinkering. The top combinations need time together to gel, and the instructions must be as Portnoy suggests, play as if your place in the side depended on it.

I would encourage coaches to make the players treat these matches as if they were part of the World Cup, not an extension of training exercises. This is particularly important for England, because they have Argentina first up. If they hit that game cold, they'll lose.

Luckily for Scotland we start with Romania and Georgia, but still, at the very least I'd like to see our first choice midfield worked hard in the warm-up games. We need to get slick in that area before the tournament starts. AR has already rested some players at the end of the season, they need to get up to speed, and that means 80 minutes, not bursts of 40.

Portnoy - apologies that may have come across wrong. I did not mean that everyone who is going to NZ should get played during the warm ups, more like this is the time to make sure that the bench players you are taking are going to be up for the job and your not going to take someone to NZ that will fold under the pressure. Also I meant one of the following Tipuric/Turnbull/McCusker as I am not too sure which one Gatland will opt for being the young backrower he will take.

chewed_mintie wrote:Agree Portnoy. In NZ's case I think they have learnt about continuity however, I think Slade will be starting in Port Elizabeth and Brisbane. It's the only way the coaches and Slade will know if he's got it in him. I expect a few others like SBW will be in the same boat.

DC needs the game time, and I'll be annoyed if Slade starts half the 3N. Of course, if DC plays and gets injured I'll be reversing that and swearing that the selection was all wrong.

chewed_mintie wrote:Agree Portnoy. In NZ's case I think they have learnt about continuity however, I think Slade will be starting in Port Elizabeth and Brisbane. It's the only way the coaches and Slade will know if he's got it in him. I expect a few others like SBW will be in the same boat.

DC will start in the big games and ABs and Wallabies want to win 3N this year. Can't see the point of resting DC - he needs to play. Slade might get more game time in the pool games at RWC.

robbo277 wrote:That's what I'm saying. I'd rather England do well at the World Cup and lose all 3 warm-ups than win all 3 warm-ups and crash out at the group stage (obviously I'd rather 3 warm-up wins followed by a great World Cup, but if we're talking one or the other). The point about "if you go into a match or even a tackle half-heartedly then there is a real danger of coming off worst" is moot, because none of the players will be going in half-heartedly. It might not be the strongest 15 out there, but there will be 15 committed players going for the win.

I think a lot of fans will call us arrogant but I think Henry will be going for a win in all the tests this year. I don't think there should be an either or.

What is best in life?
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their fans.