Saracens extending the ruck

Has anyone else noticed how Saracens almost make a train of three or even more players backwards from the original place of the ruck and then roll it back though the legs so the SH can box kick with no pressure. Surely if it's wrong to have blockers then this should also be looked at. It's one thing with the player at the back of the ruck stretching his leg out to make it a little easier for the SH but sarries take the urine. Am I the only one who this irritates?

As long as they bind from the back it's fine. But other side needs to be able to compete, which means staying on feet. Most rucks have layers of players. First lot off their feet, second on their feet leaning on the 1st layer

I know how rucks work and how to compete legally at them however Sarries make it impossible for the opposition to compete thus taking away the contest. I know it's technically legal, I just don't like how it means other teams can't get anywhere near the ball to compete

That's not what makes it impossible to compete. It's the guys lying in the ruck that do. There are loads of things at every ruck that the refs could penalise them for. I think if they start taking the urine refs could pick them up on that

Happy to see Saracens doing well, on the old 606 I predicted that after Venter had built an impressive squad, McCall was just the Coach to bring them over the finishing line and he has with winning the Premiership and now Saracens look set to challenge again.

They can compete. All the players should be bound, so if you smash the first player they'll all rock back and you could cause a fumble.

Nothing wrong with it, certainly no worse than teams winding down the clock with 'pick and go's and flopping all over the ball.

To be fair it's probably a lot more difficult to manage then they make it look. Teams need to hit the ruck hard before all their support players there though.

Personally I was more alarmed by the dirty tactics employed by Worcester. They didn't come to Vicarage Road to play a game of rugby. It was all about getting into scraps and damage limitation. They succeeded on both levels.

They successfully injured Brits which they tried so hard to do.

Worcester knew they couldn't win so simply used spoiling tactics such as trying to have punch ups every other minute.

Gangrene who do you support? I'll stick the boot into your side if you tell me.

I wouldn't worry too much about it Beshocked, hopefully this'll be a wake up call for Saracens.

Quins are away to Worcester this weekend so we'll see how they try to play this time.

Yappysnap I thought the wake up call was the Wasps game... I was very disappointed. It's because I know this Saracens team can play so much better. We upped our game a bit and scored two tries - why couldn't we keep it up?

Too predictable is what we are.

Congrats to Quins. I did say on a previous thread that you were my dark horses for the title. You are proving me right at least.

beshocked wrote:Yappysnap I thought the wake up call was the Wasps game... I was very disappointed. It's because I know this Saracens team can play so much better. We upped our game a bit and scored two tries - why couldn't we keep it up?
.

It may seem perverse to say this about the reigning champions - but Saracens should be a lot better than they are. There is still a conservatism (or fear of risk taking?) about their play. Against Tigers at Twickenham they had opportunities to put the game to bed long before they did - but far too often when faced by a disorganised and narrow defence they either kicked or bashed it up the middle.

This happened agains yesterday - moving the ball wide more than they did (and look what happened when they did with Strettle scoring in the corner) rather than repeatedly charging down the middle would have yielded better results.

To compete in Europe you feel they have to be a bit more ambitious with the attacking play - they have the ability, but do they have the courage?

Spot on London Tiger.

The problem Saracens have is that they played superbly in that 2009-10 final but lost. The year after as you say there were ugly yet they triumphed. Didn't play as well as the final before but prevailed because of resolute defence keeping a clean sheet. Compare that to the 3 tries they conceded in the 2009-10 final. Also every single opportunity was taken. Being error free and clinical was what Saracens were best at.

It is an ugly win vs the beautiful defeat. The ugly win meant silverware.

That loss to Leicester meant Saracens have gone further into that shell.

I agree that Saracens need to be more ambitious in attack but easier said than done.

Beshocked I'm a Saints fan, fire away lol.
In regards to the scraps I'm pretty sure Nieto was starting a fair amount of trouble. I agree that Sarries have the pieces to be an even better team if they can take a few more risks. Yes ppl can say they don't need to because they are current champs but I'm sure their fans would like to see abit more from them in terms of entertainment.

Only problem with Saints is the lack of strength in depth.

What exactly was Nieto doing in your opinion? I could only see Worcester players doing cheap shots and roughing up Schalk Brits.

Yes more entertainment is needed. Saracens can be a frustating side. They have gone into their shell for the reasons said.

Chris Jones on Brits was perhaps a cheap shot, stepping into his running line and blocking - I am not 100% convinced how intent there was.

The secod incident when he was laid out and taken off was a case of getting his head in the wrong place when he tried to tackle.



Nieto v Fortey looked like they were both equally to blame. This was exacerbated by the refs turgid crouch,5,4,3,2,1, touch 5,4,3,2,1, pause,2,1 engage. The players were kept down far too long and then he went quickly from pause to engage.

Tiger you are spot on about the ref. His scrum command timing was ridiculous, should take no longer than 5 seconds for the whole engagement in my opinion. He had no control over the game though, think it was Healey who said 'he's got no control over the game, so the players are taking it into their own hands.'

As for Nieto, both him and Forte were probably equally to blame on reflection, no doubt there was plenty being said and done in the scrum and it really fired Nieto up

btw Beshocked - I see Saull as crucial to Sarries playing a more expansive game. Will he start much though when Brown and Berger return from WC?

I have been Saull's one of biggest fans. Particular on these forums but he has been very poor recently. Not sure if it's down to lack of match practice, the Saracens gameplan etc but he certainly has been outplayed.

Unless he starts performing he will definitely lose his spot to Burger and Brown.

He hasn't been helped by an out of form Joubert either. Not easy when two out of 3 backrow players are misfiring in a team.

Brown and Burger have put in strong performances for their respective countries. We are missing their physicality and presence in the Sarries backrow.

beshocked wrote:Personally I was more alarmed by the dirty tactics employed by Worcester. They didn't come to Vicarage Road to play a game of rugby. It was all about getting into scraps and damage limitation. They succeeded on both levels.
.

In fairness to Wuss, they were can't compete in an open game against a side like Sarries, especially away. Hill's teams have always been scrappers and street-wise and Wuss are playing exactly how Bristol did under his management. I couldn't comment on whether they deliberatley injured Brits, but any team hoping to contain Sarries will target him as he is at the centre of so much.