Ok so as it's been in the public domain most of the week that Long is a doubt for the game I reckon Noble will have alternative gameplans if Long doesn't play so where is the edge in pretending he might play?

Fully agree. Long's our go-to player and a main target for the opposition. Why assist their gameplanning when you don't need to?

ok hunch time, will both horne and long play, one of them play or neither?

i'm going for one

Both.

Ok then since there is only one option left I will go for

None

£5 on it !!

OK


As long as if you win I get the chance to double or quits at some point through the season

Guess I must be a bit slow. I really don't see how this 'mind games' (if true) is to our advantage? I would have thought if anything, the opposite would be truer, in that saying Horne and Long are vey doubtful to play, and then they turn up.

If Noble has a game plan to try and stop Horne and Long, and then it turns out to be any combination of Washy/Berro/Turner, then his plan will make life even much harder for whoever the halves are.

If you don't train all week you don't play .. To take a risk with the two players send out a statement that players are carrying an injuries Why take a risk ..I want to see 17 fit players battling it out

Not really. You have to prioritise danger men in the opposition. Planning to target Long means by default concentrating less on someone else. If Long isn't playing you might re-adjust those priorities, not necessarily just target Washy in the same way.

I'm quite OK with our approach TBH. If we had previous in terms of, for example, exaggerating injuries only for players to miraculously be fit and provide a Morgan-esque "timely boost" this stuff could be shrugged off as business as usual bollox, but the fact is that we've generally provided clarity for the opposition about what to expect and the fact we're having this conversation means it creates uncertainty for the opposition. Say Long and Horne are injured. Agar's decided on his 17. Who to name as 18 and 19? Moa and Lyne? Or Long and Horne? I personally think the latter as they are pivots who might change the game and therefore create more scenarios for Noble to have to consider.

It's a small thing. But as someone has said, the margins are small these days. Whilst I despise rugby union, Clive Woodward's philosophy of doing 100 things 1% better did reap rewards. Why not just make things 1% more difficult for the opposition's gameplan for the sake of putting 2 names on a sheet of paper?

Flipside to that is if we've spent all week with a certain game plan that Long will play were does it leave our preparation if he fails a fitness test?