>>>In another posting, John Williams mentioned the whisper of a possibility
>>>of playing Guscott on the wing against SA. Perhaps a better ploy would be
>>>to give Bum-Face a run on the wing. He's fast enough, loves to get the ball
>>>under his arm and his head down, and, given a bit of space is hard to stop.
>>>Tony Underwood would be no great loss.
>>>This would have the added advantage of being able to select Bath team-mates
>>>Catt, Guscott and DeGlanville, who regularly play together, in midfield.
>Norm, on a tour, given no specialist wingers available, you have an
>excellent point. Also, it would have been lovely if the same tactic
>had been used in the WC95 semi-final ! :-) .
>>Clarke, Robinson & Ojomoh in the back row, Redman, Ubogu,
>>Catt, Guscott, DeGlanville, Callard
>>Then you'd have the backbone of a great Bath and England side to get beaten
>>out of sight.
>>Good thinking Batman,
>Rhodri, with the exception of Ojomoh and Redman they are all
>legitimate candidates at the moment. Not that I'd choose any of them
>except for Clarke (at blind side). Callard has apparently improved
>greatly this year, though I didn't spot it when the Tigers played
>Bath. Robinson was far more effective than Back in that game too. A
>persuasive case is made for him in the November issue of Rugby World
>by (I think) Stephen Jones.
Yes, they are all in contention. That was a point I was trying to make:
international sides with too many players from one club don't tend to actually
play to their full potential. England may well pick a side with a lot of Bath
players in it for their next international.
I'm making the point that it isn't necessarily a good thing.