What to expect in the November rugby tours

There goes that prediction. :)

Thanks mate, will do

'Lievremont wasn’t talking about then. Perhaps I didn’t make that clear.' I see. Yes, you didn't make that clear. Given the reference to a year old Test and a NZ quote I assumed you meant that Lievremont had said that post-loss, and not recently. 'You make the mistake of extrapolating club rugby to national approach. A disinterested observer could point to obvious difference between any of the New Zealand franchises and the All Blacks manner of play.' It's not a mistake because I understand the French context. I have been watching French rugby for years and read variousFrench rugby books. I understand the French philosophy, and the philosophy is based on the pack, hence Lievremont's gleeful 'No scrum, no win.' comments. That resonates throughout the Top 14 which is why basically every French side plays the same way. Every side has a big kicker and a big pack. There's little running rugby, and that philosophy has spilled out to the national side, and it was a philosophy that Laporte absorbed and Lievremont has too. By and large we have seen a very conservative France side over the past 10 years. That validates my point. 'France, during the 6N played to the application of the law and were better than the limited efforts of their opposition.' And when the side attempted to play with the ball they struggled, and put together some inane pieces of play, which suggests that France are not the side most likely to profit from the current law interpretations. 'Your observations of the players is faulty as well. Ball handling is not the change – it’s the momentum of possession and speed of the breakdown that has changed the game. Speed, size and aggression are necessary to gain dominance. And half the players you nominate are donkeys in my humble opinion. Then again, I’d say the same to Deans…' Then my point remains because none of the players you mentioned are big, apart from Jauzion, or fast. Also, I think ball-handling is the charge. If the game is quicker and there are more phases then more players will carry the ball. More significantly, of the players you list only two are regular starters. Half the players I listed are donkeys? Well which ones, Jason?

Checked out the adaptation,scarlet, and it's on 4od if you're interested. I googled it and that came up. I work from home so I think I'll have it on in the background today.

No I am not "saying is that France ‘are certainly looking to divest themselves of the South African habit of looking to kick as a first option.’ based on the Test versus New Zealand last season". The first problem I have is that that Test match was played under the former law interpretations and therefore Lievremont’s desire to play how New Zealand played then is irrelevant to the game that is currently being played out now. a) Lievremont wasn't talking about then. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. b) New Zealand have merely benefited from the adjustment in the application of the law as the method in which they were attempting to play then and how they're playing now is more closely aligned than any other team, except South Africa... France, during the 6N played to the application of the law and were better than the limited efforts of their opposition. That their approach was demonstrated to be inadequate against SH opposition, combined with the law application change means they have to change their method of play. Hence Lievremont's statement. You make the mistake of extrapolating club rugby to national approach. A disinterested observer could point to obvious difference between any of the New Zealand franchises and the All Blacks manner of play. Your observations of the players is faulty as well. Ball handling is not the change - it's the momentum of possession and speed of the breakdown that has changed the game. Speed, size and aggression are necessary to gain dominance. And half the players you nominate are donkeys in my humble opinion. Then again, I'd say the same to Deans...

South Africa can breathe a little easier with the news that they'll be facing what could amount to an Ireland B team when they line out for the promotional inauguration match in Lansdowne Road on Nov 6. First-teamers such as Paul O'Connell, Jerry Flannery, Marcus Horan and Tomas O'Leary are already out of contention and could be joined by Brian O'Driscoll, Keith Earls, Gordon D'Arcy and Rory Best cheering from the sidelines. That leaves Ireland without two of their first-choice hookers, their key line-out jumper, first-choice scrum-half, along with the long-time centre partnership of O'Driscoll and Darcy. O'Driscoll's main back-up is meant to be Keith Earls, but the Irish Lions utility back is still nursing a niggling injury. Ireland have drafted in 6 Academy players as emergency cover into the squad for the money-spinner contest, which is looking less like a test match and more like a pom-pom affair for both teams with the Springboks pocketing a chunk of money for making the promotional appearance outside of the normal November test window. Maybe Peter de Villiers might even be persuaded to try on one of the cheerleader's tutus and dance an Irish jig to commemorate the occasion. However, questions are starting to be asked about the ability and quality of the Irish medical team over the last 18 months and the trailing list of injuries from their treatment rooms that are 'not quite fixed' leading to further breakdowns on the the training pitches and in matches. Are the latest set of "injuries" just a bad run of luck, or is Kidney holding something in reserve for some of the bigger battles on the horizon in the shape of indomitable New Zealand and the arch-enemy Argentina later in the month?

Jason - I was including Fiji as one of the 6 SH teams playing in the series. Hadn't realised you were being politically selective in answering the question I posed. On your obvious typo on Ireland, are you saying that you meant Ireland "maybe gets one win out of four" then? As in they mightn't beat beat Samoa? Or did you mean to say maybe two wins out of four? Australia's matches are the hardest to call given their matches against England and France and those teams ambitions to beat them in particular. Roll on the 6th.

Sad as this sounds, RF, I sat down and worked out tries conceded some time last year, and England did very well out of it. And if I recall correctly there were no law interpretation changes at that point. Anyhow, let's see how the defence holds this Autumn. I though Flood's kicking was good, but to be fair I was working and watching when the second half was on. I'm more worried about the passing of Youngs. He throws some real wobblies out. Agree about Hartley and Armitage. They're simply too spiteful/immature, and it often comes back to haunt them. In my ideal team both would be bench players anyway. Agree about the kicking too, although Cueto, if he starts, has a big left boot.

Mike Ford says in an interview that England have conceded the second-lowest number of tries over the last 18 months, with only New Zealand doing better. Given that the new interpretations were introduced at different times in the North and South, I'm not sure how valuable that statistic is. One concern for England in these upcoming Tests might be their kicking game. Youngs and Flood didn't handle that challenge very well against Bath last weekend when the rain came down, and very nearly let the visitors back in. Youngs has a decent box kick but Flood's kicking out of hand still looks rusty. With Flutey doubtful, we won't have a lot of kicking skill in the centres either. The back three of Foden, Ashton + 1 ought to be safe enough but they won't get a lot of distance. England did manage to get their penalty count down after that bad 2009 6N campaign when they picked up yellow cards regularly. However, Hartley is attracting the whistle a lot right now and even Delon Armitage - perhaps not a likely starter although he's been mentioned as a possible winger - has been sin-binned twice so far this season. The comeback NZ staged against Australia was based on poor kicking by the Wallabies and a high penalty count late in the match so they aren't the opponents you want if those are weak parts of your game.

Since 2003 whenever he has played he has always been one of England's best players, and playing Tindall at 12 wouldn't necessarily mean that he has to set up any great movements. Give him the ball, let him lay a quick ball platform and let the others like Armitage, Foden, Ashton, Cueto and potentially Waldouck do the rest. Tindall offers balance, Rowdy. Jamie Roberts wasn't throwing out 30 yard miss passes on the Lions tour, and look how he dominated the midfield.

Ben, putting Trundle at 12 would mean it wouldn't matter who played 13 as they'd never see the ball.

I'm not sure that's particularly accurate, Jason.

Injuries to toeava, nonu, kahui, mcalister and sonny with regan king pulled into the WC squad.

I wasn't being obtuse, Jason, but I have a habit of naming Tests by the teams involved, and not where they took place. So, what you're saying is that France 'are certainly looking to divest themselves of the South African habit of looking to kick as a first option.’ based on the Test versus New Zealand last season? The first problem I have is that that Test match was played under the former law interpretations and therefore Lievremont's desire to play how New Zealand played then is irrelevant to the game that is currently being played out now. The second problem I have is that in the multiple matches following that game France played rugby exactly in the manner of South Africa, and not New Zealand. If you have taken in the French Tests since that game then there can be no debate. France aped South Africa during the 6N and made no real attempt to play with width. Not only that, but when they did try to play with width they were awful to the extent that we saw Trinh-Duc putting up Garryowens just outside of the opposition 22. Conversely, England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland attempted to play a wider brand of rugby during the 6N. Put simply, France were by far the most conservative side in last season's 6N. It probably isn't a coincidence therefore that France had some unfortunate results on the end of the season tour, whereas England and Scotland didn't. Further, if you watch European rugby, then surely you would have to concede that the Top 14 is inherently conservative, which is a cosy parallel to the national side. I completely disagree with the list of your players too. Szarzewski is no more of a ball-handling hooker than Thompson, Hartley, Ford, Rees or Flannery. Dusautoir has very poor ball skills for a flanker, Fritz is an aggressive and committed but limited centre, Jauzion is positively pedestrian, Poitrenaud is skilled, but flaky and erratic, and Trinh-Duc carries well but hasn't really improved over the past few seasons. In short, I don't think any of the above players are on the same level as players like O'Driscoll, Bowe, Kearney, Flood, Ashton, Foden, Roberts, Hook, Armitage, Williams, Byrne, Halfpenny, Croft, Ferris, Thomas, Wallace, M Williams etc, and that has been played out in the Heineken Cup and on the national stage.

I'm not in the habit of repeating myself for the benefit of people being deliberately obtuse. Clearly the reference to Marseille last year was the November fixture with the All Blacks. Some specific players: Trinh-Duc Fritz Jauzion Dusautoir Szarzewski Poitrenaud Yes, I watch European rugby.

I think you know what I am getting at, Jason. Your rudeness is most unnecessary. What game are you referring to in Marseille? Which players does France have, of all teams in the NH, that are equipped to take advantage of the new law interpretations? I'm presuming you're not European, so do you watch European rugby, specifically Top 14 or Heineken Cup?

Answer my question? No it doesn't. At no stage was your first choice tight five unavailable.l

When? I've already told you. Do pay attention, it would be important. France has, of all the NH teams, the players to take advantage of the law interpretations.

TPN benched for something like 80% of his caps. Moore started in the 3N, It was Deans' choice to drop him for Faingaa. Robinson came back, and Mumm and Sharpe locked. That isn't 2nd or 3rd string. You're only referring to the pre-3N Tests by the sound of it, Craig, and even then you could only be referring to the front row.

'Granted it’s not helter skelter like Wales can be, but they are certainly looking to divest themselves of the South African habit of looking to kick as a first option.' When? Not in the 6N they didn't. On what basis is France best placed to take advantage of the new law interpretations? Do you watch Top 14 or have you watched France play recently Jason?