What Exeter make of Joe Simmonds the sub and not the starting No10

You've given a spot at 6 to Finau whom you haven't even had the courage to use off the bench in the last two games. Now the young enforcer is going into a big much with no rugby, we should expect a similar result to how Aumua struggled to impact a game after he'd hardly been given any chances of the bench either.

Weve now dropped a back three player who also wasn't even given any game time off the bench for someone coming in cold when they really need to have been playing constantly to perform at their best. There are just so many better pictures that should have been present rather than this mickey mouse selection.

I really hope Finau can overcome this, it won't be the first time he's had to. How is the bench even made up? Could you not just have included these changes in the article as well? I actually like BB coming back in, it highlights how courageous he is after sitting out through another concussion that could just as easily sent him back into months of symptoms again.

Dmac was also off his game last week, as was Ratima, with the poor platform Razor and his team have been setting the players up with. He needs to freedom to clear his mind from the clutter that saw him make so many bad decisions last week. It will still probably be a net loss for the team performance not having him on from the start but it should be better for them in the long run if he's allowed to just come on late and play his game trying to claw things back for the team.

With Roigard starting that might prove an outlet for the team to actually get on top first however. Along with Ardie busting a gut in his new role and emptying the tank by halftime, and being replaced by another new star, might mean that Dmac is just icing on the cake at the end.

I was going through the Prems 10s yesterday though and the star ones did play the full 80 for a good two thirds of their games. Generally the back up ten still got minutes however. I think you'll find you'll see the same as last week were Smith stayed on for 80 (he got found out but it was still an exciting move/tactic that worked).

Having said that I really hope that Rassie has got his team fired up for the game. The Boks at maximum intensity and with no crises (eg red cards) would be expected to win this game. But it does not take much reduction in pressure for Bok teams to lose. The Boks lose when complacency sets in.

On Felix Jones, my guess is that they can't agree on a non-compete so they kept him on payroll for the duration of the Nov tests. The risk was that he would be hired by Rassie or Razor prior to the tests.

As relates to law tweaking, it feels like WR are more comfortable discussing changes in laws than insisting on implementation. For my money the biggest thing they could do is to be strict and consistent in officiating ruck behavior. In every game we see flopping, lazy lying, clearing of unbound players, making plays while off your feet, delays in placing the ball, side entry, offside line infringements, and similar nonsense. It's really really bad, and the WR attitude seems to be that we should turn a blind eye in pursuit of "flowing rugby". In truth it's just boring, because it randomizes the outcome.

Could prove a masterstroke and you see why the team naming was delayed so that SA don't have time to change preparation from a kick heavy strategy. Will Rassie have predicted this or be looking to double down with a running approach anyway? I've suggested for a couple of years while SA produce box kickathons that they actually do better playing rugby, this could be another cracker of a match if SA go in with this mindset of beating England at their own game.

Then on top of that you have the picture of three games before you first lions test, so you don't have enough to time to "bed in a more friendly interface" really. You could lean on it by moving the pieces around, and possibly different personal around it, but think it would be more wise to let it play out. It will be hard for Schmidt to hold himself back though.