Aviva Premiership Final Preview - Leicester vs Northampton

First topic message reminder :

Saturday 25th May
Twickenham
Referee: Wayne Barnes

Well the Sold-Out signs have now gone up as demonstrated by captains Toby Flood and Dylan Hartley, and with most tickets in the hands of neutrals I suspect that most support will be for Northampton (is it me or does this picture look photo-shopped?):

Spoiler:

Expected Teams

Leicester
Mulipola, Youngs, Cole, Kitchener, Parling, Croft, Salvi, Crane, Youngs, Flood, Thompstone/Goneva, Allen, Tuilagi, Morris, Tait.

Northampton
Tonga'uiha, Hartley, Mujati, Lawes, Day, Clark, Wood, Manoa, Dickson, Myler, Elliot, Burrell, Pisi, Pisi, Foden


Match-Ups

Front Row - With Ayerza playing, Tigers have had a clear advantage over saints over the last two years. Mulipola though is not the technician that the Argentinian is, but he is strong and should be able to gain parity with Mooj. On the other side much will depend on the ref. If he allows tiny to swing out and drive inwards as he did against Sarries the Cole could struggle. If he is kept straight, then Cole has shown in the past that he can make life very difficult for Saint's departing talisman. Tom youngs will need to be on top of his game when it comes to lineouts, but expect a hell of a battle between two people who right now are competing for the bench spot for the first Lions test.

Second Row - Geoff Parling is a lock forward under-rated by fans, but loved by coaches and fellow players. Should he be partnered by Graham Kitchener, Tigers may lose a little physicality compared to Slater (who may still be injured and not risked as a starter even if fit) but gain in other areas. Courtney Lawes form has improved as the season has progressed and will look to make a real impact. His likely partner, Day, is not the most prominent second row but is highly effective.

Back Row - Northampton are likely to start with a highly physical and combative back row, looking to smash Tigers back at every opportunity. With the pace of Croft and a genuine openside in Salvi, Tigers will hope to gain an advantage here, but if they are unable to match Saints the whole match gets very interesting.

Half Backs - Ben Youngs and Toby Flood should have the experience and class to help this become a defining aspect of the game. Should tigers pack be on the front foot expect to see them keeping the tempo high and really running at Saints, whilst when Saints are in possession we can expect to see Youngs really harrying Dickson. Should Myler be sending out too many floaty passes, Flood will be looking for the intercept. Dickson is the heartbeat of the Saints team. If he is prominent their forwards will have done a job and he will be driving the team forwards. Stephen Myler, who will be buoyed by his call up to the England squad, bneeds to keep things simple, kick his goals and reduce mistakes to the minimum. With big runners outside he can rely on them to do the work.

Centres - Leroy burrell (another called up by Lancaster) and George Pisi against Allen and Manu. Mouth watering clash. George Pisi is sheer class, but will not want to remember the last meeting when Manu burned him for pace. Leicester need to look to get Manu in the game a little more, Saints will be marking him closely.

Back 3 - Both teams are better in attack than defence in the back 3. Matt Tait has improved his handling of the high ball immeasurably since December and is on a hot vein of form. Saints cannot afford to kick badly to him. Opposite number Foden has had a miserable season, Tigers fans will not want him to find form on the big day. Tigers will look to expose Elliots lack of physicality, Saints will hope his speed and elusive running hold sway.



Form
Tigers usual post 6Ns, end of season rush had an uncommon blip when they lost narrowly in Bath. Otherwise form has been excellent having won their other 6 matches since the 6Ns (and the 5 immediately before them). Saints performance levels have been up and down - veering between the excellent such as ending Ulster's unbeaten start to the season in Belfast to the crazy when being thrashed by London Irish. Recent form has seen them win 7 of their last 9 matches. They will though want to forget one of those defeats - by 28pts at home to tigers. that was the 7th win in a row for Leicester over East Midlands rivals. Tigers have a poor record in finals in recent times, but will hope to extend their streak to 8 matches.

Well done to all the Tiggers fans on here. deserved champions. Credit to Saints though, they never gave it up out there.

Well, I have to say I feel a bit shortchanged as a neutral. Saints more than played their part in their own downfall but I think the ref definitely made a curious deduction and overreacted

Well done to Tigers though, still looked the best side on the whole.

wales606 wrote:Flood for the Lions

To take Hartley's place?
Strupid in-bred piece of fecal matter.
It's a finals, toadstool! Whatever you do, watch your gobber!
Grrrrr.

I think Cockerill needs to take a closer look at the VT, he's blaming Lawes for Flood's concusion when it was one of his own players, Cole's knee on his head as he went down.

It's a shame Flood and Hartley had to leave the field early as it was building to up to one hell of a game. The captains going off by half time led to a baabaas style second half that wasn't quite of the same quality as the first 20 mins.

Nth would he have connected with Cole's knee if he hadn't been hit late.

Sam, that's so ridiculous a drawing of cause and effect I'm actually ashamed of myself for replying to your comment. The concusion was pure accident that happens from players going down all the time.

I think we can just call Sam cyclops today!

Congratulations to Tigers!

I wasn't sure beforehand, but having just seen them go through the replay of the incident on ESPN I don't think Hartley was talking about Barnes, but one of Tigers' players. He was looking down at a player on the floor for a good while, really giving him the evil eye, looks up briefly, says what he says and then goes on staring at the player on the floor again.

Wrong decision by Barnes, but not a big jump for him to come to that conclusion and Hartley should really just have kept his lip buttoned.

At last! A Cup Final win of sorts.

Shame Fezzeds denied us of the double though.

Nth you don't agree so it's ridiculous? Nice debate there. I can't agree with Cockers that it's a yc as you should punish the act not the consequence. It's a late hit, how Flood falls is not Lawes fault, neither is it Cole's. Yet if Lawes doesn't make the late hit there's no concussion so you can see Cocker's reasoning, the old actions have consequences arguement.

Wrong decision by Barnes, but not a big jump for him to come to that conclusion and Hartley should really just have kept his lip buttoned.

Barnes had already warned him. It was clearly in his mind that Hartley was criticising him. Hartley definitely looks at the ref as he makes his comments though they were probably aimed at Youngs. Barnes has it in his mind already then Hartley looks at him and makes the comment.

In accordance with most of the posters on this thread and the commentators on ESPN I don't think the tackle was a penalty to start off with, but Cockerill was clearly stating that Lawes directly caused the concussion which simply was not the case and showed that he hadn't watched the incident on VT with any sort of care.

Yes, I think extrapolating cause and effect in the manner you have to lay blame is utterly ridiculous and I think you'll struggle to find any neutral fan that would agree with you. Even if the tackle had been slightly beyond the edge and just worth a penalty the concussion still wouldn't have been Lawes' fault, just as it wouldn't have been the fault of a player that caused an opposition player to twist his knee by being marginally offside when going to make a tackle.

Just watched the game on live record, a very entertaining game that was won by the team that played the best rugby over the course of the season.

Having said that, that isn't what a final is all about is it?

Tigers should feel themselves a little fortunate in that they got the rub of the green today, and I do wish Cockers could learn to keep his "powder dry".

Lawes' tackle wasn't late, he committed when Flood still had the ball and the time between Flood releasing the ball and the hit was less than 0.4 of a second in ESPN's slow motion!

nth wrote:In accordance with most of the posters on this thread and the commentators on ESPN I don't think the tackle was a penalty to start off with, but Cockerill was clearly stating that Lawes directly caused the concussion which simply was not the case and showed that he hadn't watched the incident on VT with any sort of care.

Yes, I think extrapolating cause and effect in the manner you have to lay blame is utterly ridiculous and I think you'll struggle to find any neutral fan that would agree with you. Even if the tackle had been slightly beyond the edge and just worth a penalty the concussion still wouldn't have been Lawes' fault, just as it wouldn't have been the fault of a player that caused an opposition player to twist his knee by being marginally offside when going to make a tackle.

To be fair on Barnes in his warning to Dylan (in a repeat of his warning to Flood earlier in the match about not mouthing off) he did tell him specifically that he'd decide whether or not he was being spoken to.

And not the player.

And to be honest a player calling another player - let alone an official - an effing cheat is unacceptable.

Mind you, it was only worth a yellow in the circumstances. Unless Barnes was 100% sure that it was aimed at him. But as hes a prissy individual at times, I guess we'll never know.

but Cockerill was clearly stating that Lawes directly caused the concussion which simply was not the case

I don't agree with Cockers but he was arguing on a basis that is upheld by the law and extrapolating that to rugby as we operate under laws. Cause and effect. For instance if you went out tonight and a guy started hassling you, things got out of hand and you hit him. How you would be treated by the law would depend on what effect that punch had. If the guy took it and walked off you'd probably get ejected from the bar, if you knocked the guy out you'd be arrested and charged with assault and if the guy hit his head on the bar on the way down from your punch and dies on the spot you'd be done for manslaughter. Cause and effect.

So It's not ridiculous It's just a different point of view to both mine and yours. Lawes has made a late tackle (or what is perceived to be a late tackle) hence what happens to player because of that late tackle is Lawes fault as Flood would not have otherwise come into contact with Cole's knee.

Personally I felt it was late, Lawes is a victim of his own athleticism he covers such a distance with his hit that although It's only fractionally late he's come from so far away it looks later than it is. However, if you're going to drop your head and go diving in for the big tackle from that range then you have to accept that if the ball is gone you're going to get pinged. Lawes wanted to rough up Flood and he managed to, Cockers was understandably annoyed to see his 10 go off injured. It was still no more than a penalty.

Cause and effect? Interesting.

Thing is, Hartley got sent off after Tigers were awarded a penalty at a scrum where Tigers clearly got an early shove on. If Tigers had been penalised for that, Hartley wouldn't have been sent off...

Just saying like.

PJHolybloke wrote:Cause and effect? Interesting.

Thing is, Hartley got sent off after Tigers were awarded a penalty at a scrum where Tigers clearly got an early shove on. If Tigers had been penalised for that, Hartley wouldn't have been sent off...

Just saying like.

Cole and Youngs learnt something from Cardiff then

Tired and ecstatic, will wait till ~I have seen the match on TV before making any real comments.

But for now, felt Tigers dominated the first 20mins. Then Flood got concussed which could have been a game changer. While I understand why Lawes was penalised, as a former back rower I would have been incensed if I had been pinged for that. I then felt Saints were the better team for the second quarter, and were unlucky to be losing 13-5 as the clock ticked down. Myler's brainfart followed by Hartley's petulance (guys with reflink swore blind he had already been warned by Barnes) was a game changer. Saints came out in the second half and knew they had to throw the ball around, and until they tired it was close.

Well played (most) Saints. Your captain owes you a massive apology.

They're quick learners LT, for sure.

Hartley was spoken to by Barnes, and I'll paraphrase it for you.

"If I hear you say something like that again and I think you're speaking to me, I'll act on it."

He couldn't have been more clear on that.

However, I had to rewind the Myler 22 incident as I thought I heard Barnes say "That's time but you can kick it out."

On listening again to the replay, it turns out his West Country accent meant that he pronounced "can't" like "slant". Easy to mishear, but still Myler's responsibility to know the Laws. I actually think Myler tried to grubber it out anyway but just got under it.

A very entertaining game.

We all understand how cause and effect can be applied Sam, my stated objection was in the manner you suggested it could be extrapolated to apportion reasonable blame.

Here is another example of cause and effect which is as nonanalogous as yours but simply serves to show the limits of the line of reasoning:

Two old-timers have had a bit too much Pimms and are having an argument in the pavilion at a village cricket match. Things get a bit excited and one mildly shoves the other out the door at the exact moment a six is smacked in their direction. The ball cracks the backward stepping man on the head and he later dies. Yes the shove caused the man to be put in harms way, but the ball hitting him was a freak event beyond the other man's control and no reasonable person would say he was to blame for his death, he certainly wouldn't be charged with manslaughter.

Depends how you interpret the intent of Lawes then nth. Clearly Cockers thought it was a cheap shot. Personally I think he went all out to make an impression in a big game and was unlucky. Cockers was demanding the use of the TMO but that would not have resorted in a harsher punishment on Lawes as it looked worse in normal time than it did in slow motion.

Wayne Barnes name was greeted by resounding boos from both sets of fans before the game.

Both sets of fans will be unhappy with him after the game, suggests he was balanced.

I felt Lawes was harshyly penalised, Manu was correctly penalised (before the tap and go for first try), Croft was dropped by Mulipola onto his head (some Tigers fans were screaming for a card suggesting it was Saints interference).

I cannot comment from the stand, end on, about his scrum interpretations. It looked to me as if Cole was just lifting his shoulder a touch to exacerbate Tiny driving inwards. Tiny should have been experienced enough to stay straight.

My main quibble about the reffing wa that Barnes twice penalised Saints on/near their own line for clear cynical play preventing almost certain tries. Not probable so not Penalty try area, but looked clear cut YCs to me. One in the first half a Tait break saw Tigers looking to recycle ball 5m from the line in the shadow of the posts. 4 on 1 overlap to their right and the man on the ground scooped the ball back.
In the 2nd half ford made a break but the inside man who would have had a clear run in was tackled off the ball.

Of course there were probably times we should have been penalised more.

Finally I suspect that Cockerill will have triggered his suspended ban and can expect to sit out the start of next season. Was Paul Burke also involved, or was he trying to calm things down?

The Croft drop was due to a big pull on his arm by the Saints jumper. I felt the call on Manu incorrect but having seen it on a replay Barnes was 20m away and even in slow motion fans and commentators are disagreeing so fair does.

I thought Barnes had one of his better games. His free for all approach at the breakdown allowed for a good battle, he didn't force a gap at the lineout so both, teams got steals and pressured each others jumpers.

only just got around to watching the game as i was away at the weekend, Hartley clearly looks up and says Frak cheat to the ref then looks back down at tom youngs.

I'm not sure how anyone can see anything other than that!

nathan wrote:only just got around to watching the game as i was away at the weekend, Hartley clearly looks up and says Frak cheat to the ref then looks back down at tom youngs.

I'm not sure how anyone can see anything other than that!

Agreed, he was looking directly at Barnes when he said it.

The RFU also felt Hartley had changed his version of events when he attended the hearing.
It said: "We believe that he quickly regretted what he had done and that as soon as he left the field of play he told his team management that he had directed the comments to Tom Youngs, who was on the ground after the scrum had collapsed.
"We observed that this account changed subtly, no doubt after he had examined the DVD footage showing that his eyes were not looking downwards.
"The version provided to the panel was that he had spoken to Soane Tonga'uiha, who was between him and the referee, about Tom Youngs and then looked down at Youngs.
"In our view this is not a credible explanation."

So he was caught changing his story after watching the footage and realising his eyes were directed at the ref.

I'm disappointed in the saints management, if this had been a Leicester player and Cockerill had stuck up for him fans on here would be shouting at the top of their lungs.

That's because no one (bar Tigers fans) likes Cockers, they find his blunt and passionate manner disagreeable.