6 Nations 2025

A fly half who is very different to the man he is replacing. Arguably England have this with Marcus Smith dropping in to different positions.

If that is where your strengths lie then yes that is exactly what it is. As the 4-time RWC winning Springboks will attest to. Possible injuries incurred in doing so? It's rugby at the end of the day, not football or cricket. All teams have an equal opportunity to bring on their replacements of choice to reflect their playing style or who their opposition might be. 

At the elite 6N level that this topic is about, these are professional athletes one and all, conditioned as such, and are therefore no more or less likely to get injured in a scrum vs a replacement pack (for which all forwards train for week in week out) than whilst getting smashed by the likes of Bundee Aki in the midfield.

Of course, just my opinion at the end of the day, but it's worth recognising that the science and medical expertise across World Rugby/6N is exceptionally detailed and comprehensive, so if the experts (not your average rugby enthusiast like us on the forum) deems it necessary to change the rules and regs on replacements then so be it.

Indeed but it should be remembered that professional sport is not always the best sport to watch.

& 3 open-sides in the back-row...

and could end up with a flanker or a FH in midfield & a back row at lock. Quite the gamble from 'Borthers', who could attain hero or villain status by 6.40pm tomorrow depending how things turn out...

Good news for the fan but bad news for the game where their appeared to be no other interest and a small uplift in value. Don't forget CVC will get their cut meaning less for everyone else and a possibility ticket prices will rise again as the Union's look to increase their revenues. 

"Uplift in value"?! Do you put any value on top-level rugby having some exposure to the largest-possible TV audience, rather than being restricted to niche channels that limit such exposure? Is it all about the immediate price-tag, (ie taking whichever is higher) or should there be some consideration of the bigger picture and whether the game might grow or decline over the next decade or so?

You misunderstood me.  To the Union's and CVC is it all about the price tag. The latter would not have invested in the competition if they werent going to see any return on their investment.  The Unions needed an increase in the TV rights to dig themselves out of their financial mess. They would have been happy with a bidding war but there wasn't one which should tell the Union's that they aren't a good place if they can't interest competition in their prize tournament. The only upside for them is wider exposure will have a value in selling sponsorship and advertising. 

For the game as a whole it is good news as it keeps it in the wider publics view with the hopeful uptake in playing and supporter numbers... But the downside is that the Union's will squeeze the latter more to cover shortfalls in revenue. 

The deal should be a warning to the Premiership clubs that their estimation of their value will probably be lower than they expect and their next TV deal won't be a good one for them.