England Saxons v Irish Wolfhounds - Kingsholm

First topic message reminder :

25th January 2014 - Live on Sky Sports 1 (4:45pm Kick Off)

Saxons XXIII to face Ireland Wolfhounds:

1. A Waller
2. J George
3. T Mercy
4. C Matthews
5. G Kruis
6. C Clarke (c)
7. L Wallace
8. D Ewers
9. J Simpson
10. F Burns
11. C Sharples
12. S Hill
13. M Hopper
14. A Watson
15. E Daly

16. D Ward 17. N Catt 18. S Wilson 19. E Stooke 20. S Dickinson 21. D Lewis 22. H Slade 23. R Miller


Ireland XXIII

15. Felix Jones (Shannon/Munster)
14. Fergus McFadden (Old Belvedere/Leinster)
13. Robbie Henshaw (Buccaneers/Connacht)
12. Darren Cave (Belfast Harlequins/Ulster)
11. Craig Gilroy (Dungannon/Ulster)
10. Ian Madigan (Blackrock College/Leinster)
9. Isaac Boss (Terenure College/Leinster)
1. David Kilcoyne (UL Bohemians/Munster)
2. Rob Herring (Ballynahinch/Ulster)
3. Martin Moore (Lansdowne/Leinster)
4. Iain Henderson (Ballynahinch/Ulster)
5. Dan Tuohy (Ballymena/Ulster)
6. Rhys Ruddock (St. Mary’s College/Leinster) (capt)
7. Tommy O’Donnell (UL Bohemians/Munster)
8. Robin Copeland (Cardiff Blues)

Replacements:

16. Richardt Strauss (Old Wesley/Leinster)
17. Jack McGrath (St. Mary’s College/Leinster)
18. Stephen Archer (Cork Constitution/Munster)
19. Robbie Diack (Malone/Ulster)
20. Jordi Murphy (Lansdowne/Leinster)
21. Kieran Marmion (Corinthians/Connacht)
22. Ian Keatley (Young Munster/Munster)
23. Simon Zebo (Cork Constitution/Munster)

ME-109 wrote:The lunatics have taken over the asylum....

ME-109 - for such a patently intelligent poster, it does seem odd to the mod team that you seem not to have any real concept of how close you are to being banned. It would be a pity, as you're always worth a read.

Wasn't impressed with some of the English lads' handling ability.  Passes constantly forcing players to check their runs, easy passes dropped.  I get that the conditions were rubbish and the Irish press defence was good, but still.

Freddie Burns, never have I seen a player play himself out of contention for international rugby as emphatically he has in the last 6-8 months.  Last night was the cherry on the cake. He was dreadful,  I don't think I saw him throw an accurate pass all game and his all round kicking was so inaccurate.  I feel sorry for him,  his head clearly isn't in the game and I hope he sorts it out soon.

Sam Hill looked okay when he was on, although he seemed a bit of a blunt instrument.  Matt Hopper only seemed to be on the pitch for the switch ball where he seemed to sprint back into traffic.  Henry Slade looked fairly good in comparison and I would like to have seen him at stand off in the second half,  but Hill's injury ruled it out.  Miller and Elliott looked lively compared to the rest (damning with feint praise).  Aside from the try and a few kick off returns Anthony Watson didn't seem to see much of the ball and it is hard to judge his all round performance.

As a whole, the forwards did okay-ish,  they dominated the possession but lost the breakdown emphatically.  It worries me that we are producing another set of forwards who are athletic and good at smothering a game,  but don't compete at the break down and can't punch holes in the opposition. They spent practically two-thirds of the game camped on the Irish 22 metre line but never looked like breaking through or pulling enough defenders to create space out wide.

The way Luke Wallace played was an odd one too,  he seemed to spend all of his time getting as far away from the ball as he could! Calum Clarke didn't really seem to do anything of note.  Ewers seemed okay,  but his rumbling runs seemed a little ineffective.  Kruis seemed to have a busy game and looked better than Matthews. The front row was a little underwhelming,  Mercey doesn't look like an international prop,  although I thought Wilson did well when he came on.

Aside from Daly,  the only other person who seemed like they might trouble the first team was Sam Dickinson,  but is he better than Morgan or Vunipola?

Thought Slade was pretty good when he came on as did Miller. George was pretty good as well in the pack which struggled overall.

Cumbrian wrote:Wasn't impressed with some of the English lads' handling ability.  Passes constantly forcing players to check their runs, easy passes dropped.  I get that the conditions were rubbish and the Irish press defence was good, but still.

Freddie Burns, never have I seen a player play himself out of contention for international rugby as emphatically he has in the last 6-8 months.  Last night was the cherry on the cake. He was dreadful,  I don't think I saw him throw an accurate pass all game and his all round kicking was so inaccurate.  I feel sorry for him,  his head clearly isn't in the game and I hope he sorts it out soon.

Sam Hill looked okay when he was on, although he seemed a bit of a blunt instrument.  Matt Hopper only seemed to be on the pitch for the switch ball where he seemed to sprint back into traffic.  Henry Slade looked fairly good in comparison and I would like to have seen him at stand off in the second half,  but Hill's injury ruled it out.  Miller and Elliott looked lively compared to the rest (damning with feint praise).  Aside from the try and a few kick off returns Anthony Watson didn't seem to see much of the ball and it is hard to judge his all round performance.

As a whole, the forwards did okay-ish,  they dominated the possession but lost the breakdown emphatically.  It worries me that we are producing another set of forwards who are athletic and good at smothering a game,  but don't compete at the break down and can't punch holes in the opposition. They spent practically two-thirds of the game camped on the Irish 22 metre line but never looked like breaking through or pulling enough defenders to create space out wide.

The way Luke Wallace played was an odd one too,  he seemed to spend all of his time getting as far away from the ball as he could! Calum Clarke didn't really seem to do anything of note.  Ewers seemed okay,  but his rumbling runs seemed a little ineffective.  Kruis seemed to have a busy game and looked better than Matthews. The front row was a little underwhelming,  Mercey doesn't look like an international prop,  although I thought Wilson did well when he came on.

Aside from Daly,  the only other person who seemed like they might trouble the first team was Sam Dickinson,  but is he better than Morgan or Vunipola?

A very good summary Cumbrian, at least from what I saw of the game. So much for English strength in depth, there is a huge gulf in quality between first and second string (at least I hope so!)

Perhaps Lancaster has been reading 606 and thought, I'll show them why I stick with boring old limited players like OF and Barritt!!

Only Dickinson lived up to expectations and Miller (don't know so much about him) came across as potential

Think you have to look at the experience of that side as well Armchair and the fact a lot of the combos have never played together that much. I'm almost certain in the next 5 years you will see players like George, Kruis, Daly, Sloan regularly involved in the full side along with a few others..

There are definitely some talented players in there, but they just aren't ready for the step up to first team international rugby. To be fair, in most cases we are not desperate for them to do so. England are fairly well stocked in pretty much every position apart from tight-head and (due to injuries) wing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think you have to look at the experience of that side as well Armchair and the fact a lot of the combos have never played together that much. I'm almost certain in the next 5 years you will see players like George, Kruis, Daly, Sloan regularly involved in the full side along with a few others..

Agreed, but as of right now........huge gulf.

Also supports the need to make incremental rather than wholesale changes

Given the amount of experience in the Wolfhounds ( international caps) compare to the amount of England Saxon caps. Did the Wolfhounds play badly, judging by the score, or did the Saxons play really well?

Not making any excuses here but did the conditions play any part in how the game panned out? There was one or two English players that did look out of place, Freddie Burns for one of them.

All in all i think it was a good game for both teams. Not sure if the score line was a good indicator of how the game went. Should it have been a bigger score by the Irish Wolfhounds though?

Huge gulf from 1st squad but not 1st team in most cases. When you consider most of that team would be 4th or 5th down the pecking order.

Saxons had most of the ball maj but didn't do anything with it. Don't think the conditions helped either team. Saxons seemed hell bent to throw it around ignoring the weather until about 20 min from the end when they seemed to realise they could keep it tight. Score was about right.

Armchair, this was not and England second XV, rather more a development squad of young potentials. A second XV would have had a lot more experience than the that selected. Bearing in mind that with the exception of Burns and Simpson they were all uncapped. Only Burns and Watson dropped down from the EPS which would contain the second XV with 40 or so players.

I missed the first half, so can only comment on the last 35 minutes.

What as good about it was that it showed England have a youthful front five who can hold their own against much older and more experienced players, some of these players do not even feature as regulars for their clubs, i.e. Mercy, George.

The 10 issue is sorted, Burns has burnt any bridges he had left to a place in the match day squad.

Dickinson, has shown that he has the quality to move up is we have an injury to Billy V or Morgan.

Simpson, well see Burns. Robson needs to be moved up.

The lateral crabbing of the backs gave no chance for the wingers to impress, when they got the ball there was no space to work with

We have to look at some of our discarded or in some case disregarded back row players. Clarke and Wallace did not look up to it, Ferns and he who shall not be picked Garvey need to be looked at. SL needs to swallow nay pride regarding previous happenings if they did occur. The Irish lads showed that we do not have the yard breaking back rowers in any depth.

If Farrell is injured we may have to resort to 36 as cover, Slade is potential but not ready to move up and Ford is a complete unknown.

Learning is what development sides are all about. We have learnt quite a bit form yesterday both good and bad. That applies to the coaching as well which is still below par.

Yes the players played poorly but I still think a large part of the blame needs to be at Callards feet.

The tactics used on the day were terrible, just passing the ball along the line straight to a winger with little space to work in is never going to cut it at this level. Likewise players like Wallace being told to stay out on the wing when it's so obvious they're needed in the tight!

Burns as well has to hold his hands up to a lot of the blame, if we'd had better use of territory then we could easily have won that game (as undeserving as it would have been). But likewise Simpson is just as culpable. Is he even a scrum half? He can't seem to pass or kick and I never once saw him looking to see what was actually on when he got the ball. Why wasn't Wigglesworth put into this match? It seemed like the perfect game for him. At least the replacement scrum half was 100x better and helped to create the purple patch at the end (which actually included Burns looking like a semi pro 10 for the first time in the game).

Someone mentioned to me last night he thought the match was fairly scripted because there was little time to prepare.  Would any of you who saw the match agree?  It wan't televised over here.  

On the "England *EPS 2014* and 6N Squad" thread I asked how Dickinson fared.  Seems like the general impression was pretty good.  You gents agree?  Not that I like the idea of losing another player to England, but he has been a good acquisition for Saints.

yappysnap wrote:Yes the players played poorly but I still think a large part of the blame needs to be at Callards feet.

The tactics used on the day were terrible, just passing the ball along the line straight to a winger with little space to work in is never going to cut it at this level. Likewise players like Wallace being told to stay out on the wing when it's so obvious they're needed in the tight!

Burns as well has to hold his hands up to a lot of the blame, if we'd had better use of territory then we could easily have won that game (as undeserving as it would have been). But likewise Simpson is just as culpable. Is he even a scrum half? He can't seem to pass or kick and I never once saw him looking to see what was actually on when he got the ball. Why wasn't Wigglesworth put into this match? It seemed like the perfect game for him. At least the replacement scrum half was 100x better and helped to create the purple patch at the end (which actually included Burns looking like a semi pro 10 for the first time in the game).

I think poor coaching is an issue across the board in England, sadly. If someone has any idea why Callard is involved I'd be delighted to hear it, but I think we are possibly the worst nation at spotting coaching talent and promoting it, and the worst at keeping coaches involved in developmental sides when they offer nothing. Possibly a little unfair as regards this match, but I think it's a problem. Who are the Prem level English coaches who really stand out?

doctor_grey wrote:Someone mentioned to me last night he thought the match was fairly scripted because there was little time to prepare.  Would any of you who saw the match agree?  It wan't televised over here.  

On the "England *EPS 2014* and 6N Squad" thread I asked how Dickinson fared.  Seems like the general impression was pretty good.  You gents agree?  Not that I like the idea of losing another player to England, but he has been a good acquisition for Saints.

Dickinson made a really strong impact. Added some straight running and power to the team that was desperately needed. Linked well too. He should start against Scotland.

Yes the England team were very scripted, played a wide expansive game when it really wasn't on and didn't change tactics until the last 20 when subs appeared.

England seem to play the exact game at all levels. Forwards as always are excellent backs clueless.

I appreciate that a massive part of rugby is doing the simple things well however I feel the problem with England is almost an over emphasis on this to the detriment of an ability to ad lib. Both Irelands trys came from a bit of magic or quick intellegent thinking from backs. You rarely see this with England. Why is this?

For me this is the missing link between a very good team and a great team.

GunsGerms wrote:England seem to play the exact game at all levels. Forwards as always are excellent backs clueless.

Their U20 backs are always good, so I wonder why it doesn't transfer over to senior level?

Isn't it a lack of cohesion or gameplan?

Did Copeland play well? He's been a massive player for the Blues.

Yes, obviously Stuart Barnes has an allergic reaction if he ever has to give a man of the match award to a forward but 4-8 for Ireland were excellent.

Are there highlights for this anywhere? I'd really like to see them.

The Saint wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:England seem to play the exact game at all levels. Forwards as always are excellent backs clueless.

Their U20 backs are always good, so I wonder why it doesn't transfer over to senior level?

In age grade rugby the players tend to have played together a lot growing up so have a decent amount of understanding and cohesion. Saxons and above are a mix of ages and players will have spent more time in their club systems than the England one - so they will not have had the experience of playing together in the same system.

That gets exposed when they come up against a much more experienced Irish team who have played in the same system for some time. I took some encouragement from the fact that despite that and a shockingly poor performance from Burns, they still had plenty of chances to win.

The senior England side have a similar problem - Lancaster has an inexperienced bunch of backs and has had little time to get them used to a system.

Poorfour wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Their U20 backs are always good, so I wonder why it doesn't transfer over to senior level?

In age grade rugby the players tend to have played together a lot growing up so have a decent amount of understanding and cohesion. Saxons and above are a mix of ages and players will have spent more time in their club systems than the England one - so they will not have had the experience of playing together in the same system.

That gets exposed when they come up against a much more experienced Irish team who have played in the same system for some time. I took some encouragement from the fact that despite that and a shockingly poor performance from Burns, they still had plenty of chances to win.

The senior England side have a similar problem - Lancaster has an inexperienced bunch of backs and has had little time to get them used to a system.

In fairness the backs were never going to look great in that game because:

- The FH is so badly out of form he should not have been in the matchday squad, let alone starting.
- The FH and SH have probably not played together before, and neither have the rest of the backline
- Hopper is never going to play international rugby
- Hill is still trying to establish himself at Exeter and has played virtually no senior Rugby (other than some games with the Pirates)
- The conditions were not exactly conducive to back driven rugby

And all that's before England deployed a poor game plan, which included telling the backs to pretend it was a nice dry day in terms of their spacing and deciding that rather than compete at the breakdown we'd position our 7 on the wing.

There was loads wrong with that England side and performance, and Ireland looked stronger on paper, but England could have won. In the last few minutes they achieved some proper dominance and even strung together a backs move. There's no need to feel too down.

Probably the most depressing thing is that yet again s Saxons game is almost ruined by the weather. Oh for summer rugby......

Poorfour wrote:

The Saint wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:England seem to play the exact game at all levels. Forwards as always are excellent backs clueless.

Their U20 backs are always good, so I wonder why it doesn't transfer over to senior level?

In age grade rugby the players tend to have played together a lot growing up so have a decent amount of understanding and cohesion. Saxons and above are a mix of ages and players will have spent more time in their club systems than the England one - so they will not have had the experience of playing together in the same system.

That gets exposed when they come up against a much more experienced Irish team who have played in the same system for some time. I took some encouragement from the fact that despite that and a shockingly poor performance from Burns, they still had plenty of chances to win.

The senior England side have a similar problem - Lancaster has an inexperienced bunch of backs and has had little time to get them used to a system.

He's had two and a half years...! I think thats enough time ...says to me the coaching is the problem.

The Saint wrote:Did Copeland play well? He's been a massive player for the Blues.

Only watched extended highlights but for me he must have been close to motm - the entire backrow were very impressive.

It seemed the backline didn't go so well in terms of execution but given the conditions and short preparation time I though the wolfhounds played very well - some of the Irish 1st XV will be looking over their shoulders a bit I'd say.

Irish backrow was brilliant. Question for people regarding the choke tackle though. I know the name of it is due to 'choking' the ball so it can't go to ground but does anyone know the precise law regarding the holding of players? A few times the tackling player ends up with his arm around the throat or head of the player with the ball (not always) but it never gets penalised as a high tackle. Is the high tackle law just for the initial impact. Cheers.

Hood83 wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Yes the players played poorly but I still think a large part of the blame needs to be at Callards feet.

The tactics used on the day were terrible, just passing the ball along the line straight to a winger with little space to work in is never going to cut it at this level. Likewise players like Wallace being told to stay out on the wing when it's so obvious they're needed in the tight!

Burns as well has to hold his hands up to a lot of the blame, if we'd had better use of territory then we could easily have won that game (as undeserving as it would have been). But likewise Simpson is just as culpable. Is he even a scrum half? He can't seem to pass or kick and I never once saw him looking to see what was actually on when he got the ball. Why wasn't Wigglesworth put into this match? It seemed like the perfect game for him. At least the replacement scrum half was 100x better and helped to create the purple patch at the end (which actually included Burns looking like a semi pro 10 for the first time in the game).

I think poor coaching is an issue across the board in England, sadly. If someone has any idea why Callard is involved I'd be delighted to hear it, but I think we are possibly the worst nation at spotting coaching talent and promoting it, and the worst at keeping coaches involved in developmental sides when they offer nothing. Possibly a little unfair as regards this match, but I think it's a problem. Who are the Prem level English coaches who really stand out?

Of course I am biased but I think the English coaches at Sarries are doing a good job. Alex Sanderson,Kevin Sorrell and Paul Gustard.

Alex King is doing a good job at Saints. Jim Mallinder obviously too.

Tony Diprose at Quins.

Rob Baxter at Exeter

No 7&1/2 wrote:Irish backrow was brilliant. Question for people regarding the choke tackle though. I know the name of it is due to 'choking' the ball so it can't go to ground but does anyone know the precise law regarding the holding of players? A few times the tackling player ends up with his arm around the throat or head of the player with the ball (not always) but it never gets penalised as a high tackle. Is the high tackle law just for the initial impact. Cheers.

Wouldn't really be a high tackle as the initial contact isn't around the neck (or shouldn't be). Also I suspect the reason that hands end up high is because often the tackled player will try and raise his hands to dump the ball of basketball style which the tacklers try to prevent

Thanks

I dont think the backrow were brilliant - very good but not brilliant

TOD played well and is a live wire but did not do enough to jump ahead of Henry - his work at the breakdown is essential

Copeland did some very good things but made one or two mistakes too many for my liking. Good first appearance

Ruddock was very impressive - possibly the best game I have seen him play - I can see him on the bench with Henderson this weekend

It was a pretty dire match with the conditions to compliment. I thought the Wolfhounds deserved their win but was surprised at how much possession they conceded and quite how poor England's play and tactics were.

Aside from the Irish back-row I don't think any unit had a high quality game. Indeed if anyone caught the LV Cup match prior to the Saxons game they'd have seen far better play all round in conditions that were arguably worse.

Here's my run down of the Saxons team:

- Saxons Star Man - George Kruis - I thought young Kruis was England's best player by a country mile. He offered leadership, ran the line-out well, carried well into contact and rucked well. He put in an excellent work-rate and has certainly staked a claim as one of the leading young locks.

1. Alex Waller - put in a decent scrummaging effort and tackled relatively well. Otherwise than that he was part of a pack that was clueless at the breakdown and team tactics that were'nt suited wither to the opposition or conditions.

2. Jamie George - was busy and industrious throughout, strong at the set piece but i've seen him carry better.

3. Tom Mercy - again part of a reasonable scrummage but otherwise completely anonymous. Cetainly has confirmed his place in the pecking order which is quite a way down the list.

4. Charlie Matthews - i've seen him offer an awful lot more in games for Quins and was fairly inconspicuous in this match. Didn't seem to offer the aggression or urgency required when up against a strong Irish pack.

5. George Kruis - as above.

6. Callum Clark - apart from giving away a few penalties and dropping the ball on one vaguely promising attack he was pretty ineffectual. Part of a backrow unit that was outplayed by their opposite numbers.

7. Luke Wallace - has offered far more for Quins than we got to see of him in this match. Positioning wise he did a similar job as he does for Quins but with the general lack of go-forward all round he struggled to have any impact. Poor defence lead to the first try.

8. Dave Ewers - I had high hopes for Ewers in this game but he was hindered by the performances of Burns and Simpson. He seemed to be coming on to the ball from a yard out and was regularly gang tackled. Generally failed to have much positive impact bar some tight carries.

9. Joe Simpson - pretty poor display from a SH with a decent amount of experience. Hampered by a vicous wind in the first half but regularly seemed to run out of ideas. Some poor distribution at times put the team on the back foot. This would've been the perfect game for Wigglesworth.

10. Freddie Burns - I have read a statement which perfectly summed up his performance 'never have I seen someone play themselves so emphatically out of contention for a Test match'. The last play where he passed the ball to the linesman summed it all up. Apalling kicking and passing display for most of the game. Failed to take control.

11. Charlie Sharples - was always going to struggle with the general team play, his positioning in defence wasn't too bad at times but butchered a try scoring chance in the second half by being far too deep.

12. Sam Hill - given more than 20 minutes on the pitch and he might have made a bit more of an impact, particularly if Slade could've replaced Burns.

13. Matt Hopper - never looked like he had much of an idea other than cutting back in and not surprisingly failed to have any impact. Daly looked far better when he was moved there.

14. Anthony Watson - looked competent, some raving by Barnes about the intercept which was a bit OTT but made a fair point about adjusting to different systems. Were it the sort of game the Saxons had planned for he could've gone well.

15. Elliot Daly - was far better at 13, one poor kick but otherwise competent. Some nice running from 13.

16. Dave Ward - was industrious and forced a couple of turnovers when he came on. Should start against Scotland.

18. Scott Wilson - looked impressive for such a young lad, needs to improve his carrying technique but i'd like to see him start next week.

19. Elliot Stooke - was busy and added strength to the pack when he came on. Went for the glory run and got turned over but was far more impressive than Matthews.

20. Sam Dickinson - was able to run from much deeper than Ewers and made some impressive yards from the base of the scrum. Generally looked like he could more than handle that level and should start next week. Could be third choice 8.

21 Dave Lewis - looked like he game a bit more shape to the team and was surprised it took so long to get him on.

22. Henry Slade - was far more composed than Burns even playing out of position at 12. Better passing and ran well in a position he was not intended for.

23. Rob Miller - probably the best back on the pitch for Saxons, was solid but offered zip in attack and defended really well. If he'd have started with Daly at 13 it could've been a different outcome.

Burns needs to get his act to gether and quickly.

Ford is already going past him in the pecking order and given decent game time Slade will do so next year.

A man on the skids who needs to arrest that decline quickly.
Whether he is at Leicester or Gloucester next year he will be behind a better set of forwards than this year - should help.

Trouble is at Leicester he would need to play well that Williams guy looks good

I thin Ford is way ahead of Burns at the moment. That was a totally inept performance from somone that i have backed to shine.

So chuffed for Scott Wilson...he's shown everyone what we have been going on about for some time now that we have another potentilally top TH on his way. And the devious England management have kept him out of Scotlands reach aswell. Dont forget we've got Keiron Brookes flying again aswell...!

Kruis did play well...from the dismal options of a few years ago we now have the beginnings of quite a stock of Second Rows...Kruis, Stooke, Barrow, Matthews (Still rate him despite a quiet game) Lawes, Launchbury etc...

I'd even consider Burrell and Daly at 12 and 13 for the France game on Saturday

I thought Daly looked a class act and should go into the senior squad.

Dickinson and Wilson impressed when they came on as well

George Carlin wrote:Are there highlights for this anywhere? I'd really like to see them.

Georgie mo chara, this is all I could find at the minute...

http://balls.ie/rugby/england-saxons-vs-ireland-wolfhounds-highlights/

Sexton is getting his Lions form back...
http://balls.ie/rugby/gif-mike-phillips-try-for-racing-metro-vs-toulouse/

One match, Gibbo, never constitutes form...

CJ,
Its just that he is now running a bunch of rich, disparate, mercenaries, like a team now. Its happening. Of course he needs to do it more from here on in. But it was great to watch him shepherd his side brilliantly over Toulouse. He is key to Ireland's chances in the 6-N and beyond.

i agree. i have said before, to much derision, that sexton is going to really blossom from his time in france, and that finally seems to be happening.

good for him. will look forwards to seeing him on the weekend in green.

he's in my espn fantasy team at 10 so i hope he starts all 5 matches

quinsforever wrote:i agree. i have said before, to much derision, that sexton is going to really blossom from his time in france, and that finally seems to be happening.

good for him. will look forwards to seeing him on the weekend in green.

he's in my espn fantasy team at 10 so i hope he starts all 5 matches

That presumes he's a young wet-nosed kid who needs the experience though, quins.  Where does he blossom to from Top14 experience?  He already knows how to run a successful heavy weight European side - he has three HEC titles.  Racing bought him so that he'd help their players blossom, not to teach him the ropes.  And Racing are 8th in Top14.  A long way to go yet for Sexton in France before he begins to feel like he's back where he left off with Leinster in accomplishment terms.
Anything he might accomplish into the immediate future with Ireland will also be much more down to his familiarity with Schmidt plus teammates, and Schmidt's inner knowledge of him.

Maybe a few Racing players might blossom by coming to Leinster (on reduced wages) .

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i agree. i have said before, to much derision, that sexton is going to really blossom from his time in france, and that finally seems to be happening.

good for him. will look forwards to seeing him on the weekend in green.

he's in my espn fantasy team at 10 so i hope he starts all 5 matches

That presumes he's a young wet-nosed kid who needs the experience though, quins.  Where does he blossom to from Top14 experience?  He already knows how to run a successful heavy weight European side - he has three HEC titles.  Racing bought him so that he'd help their players blossom, not to teach him the ropes.  And Racing are 8th in Top14.  A long way to go yet for Sexton in France before he begins to feel like he's back where he left off with Leinster in accomplishment terms.  
Anything he might accomplish into the immediate future with Ireland will also be much more down to his familiarity with Schmidt plus teammates, and Schmidt's inner knowledge of him.

Maybe a few Racing players might blossom by coming to Leinster (on reduced wages) .

+1. I even seen some Irish posters on here saying how he could benefit from playing with Racing? Of course everybody is saying the exact opposite now as they realize they are much better off here. If you are going to France you should always at least look to go to one of the top teams like Clermont or Toulouse who still have a good core of top French players. Sexton had offers from both those clubs but choose the money instead which is of course understandable but his rugby has suffered.

the test of how sexton has improved or not will be in both whether racing improse with more games for him at 10, and also whether ireland do.

if sexton felt there was nothing else for him to learn, and no other players or environment that could challenge and improve him he would never have left ireland.

irelands failure to deliver at test level thus far could maybe described as the failure of passion over cohesion? works in the HC where lots of mercenary teams lack the passion, but at test level everyone is fired up.

sexton having gone to france will be a huge contributor to ireland making the next step up at international level in terms of results AND consistency. he is, in my opinion, capable of being the worlds best 10 (is only just behind cruden imo currently), and ireland should be getting much better results. the confidence and knowledge he will have from playing in france will let him really direct the game and passions of the team and i think get irelands best results.