rugby_rockstar says...

Thats a bit harsh on the youngest brother D4tress, he's only got about 12 months top flight experience and he's been written off.

As far as Steffan goes though I agree with everyone that this is a good omen. I really hope Lancaster finds a place for him in our backrow, Maybe Lawes coming back will boost the physicality of the pack and allow England to pick two lighter flankers with Waldrom at 8, (a compromise solution that'll slap an unsightly patch over the gaping hole that is physicality in our back row). The other (less likely) option is a total rethink to get that balance between power, pace, link play and fetching. I know its unpopular and that Robshaw does give 100% EVERY MATCH but he is stopping armitage getting into the side and Arimitage is the better seven. Robshaw is a grafter and a real stand up captain full of integrity but is he really good enough to beat the best back rows in the world? Backrows with specialist opensides and blindsides? Its tough but I'd rather see lancaster make the tough decision and rebuild the back row with balance in mind. November's match up with Aus SA and NZ will be really interesting. the tour to SA kinda proved we lacked power and the best we managed was a draw by throwing two big power players into the back row. the faster cruiser weight back rows of the first two tests got hit by the Bok wrecking ball and were smashed to hell and back. I like Steffan and he's a tough nugget of a player but you need enforcers around him and Robshaw isn't a enforcer. Don't forget that Saracens blindside Ernst Joubert is elligable to play for England and is probably the best no.6 playing in the aviva premiereship. how about

6, Joubert,

7, Armitage

8, Waldrom

that back row will chew up and spit out the Wallabies and I think they have a better chance of competing the The Boks and AB's than a lighter back row.

Posted 09:55 03rd August 2012

Frooschman says...

The interesting question is which body suspended him and subsequently lifted that suspension prior to the hearing? If it's the AFLD that would imply that the hearing is more of a formality and that the facts of the case do not warrant a suspension. However, if it's his club, this simply means that the club feels he has no case to answer - however this doesn't necessarily mean that the AFLD will feel the same way?

Posted 08:23 03rd August 2012

APV1 says...

The right result, me thinks.

Posted 17:04 02nd August 2012