Clermont Auvergne v Saracens, 18 April

                           
ASM Clermont Auvergne v Saracens
Saturday 18 April 2015
KO 16:15
Stade Geoffroy-Guichard, Saint Etienne

Referee: George Clancy

Live on beIN / BT Sport

Form:

ASM Clermont Auvergne
4/4/15 - ASM Clermont 37 - 5 Saints
25/1/15 - ASM Clermont 18 - 6 Saracens
17/1/15 - Sharks 13 - 22 ASM Clermont

Saracens
5/4/15 - Racing Metro 11 - 12 Saracens
25/1/15 - ASM Clermont 18 - 6 Saracens
17/1/15 - Saracens 33 - 10 Munster

Teams:

ASM Clermont Auvergne
Nick Abendanon; Noa Nakaitaci, Jonathan Davies, Wesley Fofana, Naipolioni Nalaga, Brock James, Ludovic Radoslavjevic; Vincent Debaty, Benjamin Kayser, Davit Zirakashvili, Jamie Cudmore, Sebastien Vahaamahina, Julien Bonnaire, Julien Bardy, Damien Chouly (capt).

Replacements: John Ulugia, Raphael Chaume, Clement Ric, Julien Pierre, Alexandre Lapandry, Morgan Parra, Camille Lopez, Aurélien Rougerie.

Saracens
Alex Goode; Chris Ashton, Marcelo Bosch, Brad Barritt (capt), Chris Wyles; Charlie Hodgson, Richard Wigglesworth; Mako Vunipola, Jamie George, Petrus Du Plessis, George Kruis, Jim Hamilton, Maro Itoje, Jacques Burger, Billy Vunipola.

Replacements: Schalk Brits, Rhys Gill, James Johnston, Kelly Brown, Jackson Wray, Neil de Kock, Owen Farrell, David Strettle

Probably no B Vunipola which it'll make it a touch more difficult.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Probably no B Vunipola which it'll make it a touch more difficult.

It depends. He should get off the first charge of "striking with the head" as, surely, that is an abvious accident. Would be harsh to be suspended for the secondary charge of illegally clearing out at the ruck as we have seen much worse go un-banned. A YC on the day would have been fair, anything retrospective (other than putting a YC on his record) is vindictive.

After the Hughes debacle I'm just assuming he's out!

The only past bans have been when the opposition were injured by the clear out, I don't think that happened in this case so he should get off without a ban.

Of course they could decide to ban him for a month and it wouldn't surprise me, it'd surprise me even less if they then scrubbed that out after it was argued.

No 7&1/2 wrote:After the Hughes debacle I'm just assuming he's out!

after the Burger farce, I'm just assuming he will play

yappysnap wrote:The only past bans have been when the opposition were injured by the clear out, I don't think that happened in this case so he should get off without a ban.

Of course they could decide to ban him for a month and it wouldn't surprise me, it'd surprise me even less if they then scrubbed that out after it was argued.

True, I really hate seeing a ban based on the consequences but it seems to happen all the time now.

Londontiger I agree.

This decision by the citing commissioners is huge. If Billy gets any ban it's Saracens effectively losing their best player.


Need Billy to be cleared or Saracens chances go from very tough to basically impossible.

YC perhaps but surely citings are generally RC offences?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citing_commissioner


Oh and I would much rather lose Burger than Billy.

Citing Officer is just saying it needs looking at, and there have been citings this season to ensure players get the YC on their record - as 3 in a season means a one week ban. BillyV will probably get at least a retrospective Yellow. no use now though.

Londontiger I wish I could be as optimistic as you are.

I think a retrospective YC would probably be the correct decision but unfortunately I can see a ban for Billy.

At the time I thought it deserved a YC but surely a ban would be for a RC offence.

whocares Saracens players have been cited though so they haven't exactly been ignored by the disciplinary panels!

Oh and I did say I thought Burger was lucky to get only a 1 week ban.

The issue is the lack of consistency. There are of course some players who don't get cited at all.

Citing of Billy V seems daft. It was clearly just a clash of heads. The citing of Goneva is fine. He should have got a red at the time.

Let's hope Vunipola does not get a ban and disadvantage Saracens unfairly like happened to Wasps.

Exiledinborders wrote:Citing of Billy V seems daft. It was clearly just a clash of heads.

He has also been charged for the no-hands clear out.

It's stupid the whole citing system. It's only picked out as the commentators saw it and kept mentioning it. Bar that it seems there has to be an injury or it's ignored. How many times do we see no hands clear outs? Shed loads, where are the citings? Where was Hibbards citing for knocking out North? I don't give a damn if they were on the same side as it was clearly reckless (the latest thing they're going with) as he had no idea North was there. Why isn't there a clear policy they stick to?

No 7&1/2 wrote:...Where was Hibbards citing for knocking out North? I don't give a damn if they were on the same side as it was clearly reckless...

That was a point brought up on an earlier Eggchasers podcast. If reckless play is to be punished, and intent disregarded, then it's not clear why a player can't be punished for hurting someone on his own team. If it doesn't matter that a player didn't intend to harm the opposition, then it can't be a defence when hurting your own.

no 7 & 1/2 actually the commentators didn't mention this incident much at the time. There was no outcry from any of them. They saw it as a collision and moved on - whether not you agree or not.I was actually surprised the commentators seemed to brush over it to be honest.

As for the North incident I feel the medics are more guilty of negligence than even Hibbard.
If a player is quite clearly suffering from concussion then leaving them on is very foolish indeed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's stupid the whole citing system. It's only picked out as the commentators saw it and kept mentioning it. Bar that it seems there has to be an injury or it's ignored. How many times do we see no hands clear outs? Shed loads, where are the citings? Where was Hibbards citing for knocking out North? I don't give a damn if they were on the same side as it was clearly reckless (the latest thing they're going with) as he had no idea North was there. Why isn't there a clear policy they stick to?

I think the problem is that he lead with his head and showed no attempt to use his arms for the clear out. Oh and he came in at the side wouldn't of helped.

I think refs and citing commissioners are a bit more lenient when they see a player attempt to use arms. I don't think the commentators mentioned it at all?

For me though I think it's a yellow and move on

They brought it up again beshocked and mentioned it was slightly naughty. Not saying they were banging on but it was highlighted.

Again I'd hate to see Hibbard cited, as it's accidental, but lets try and keep the same rules for everyone.

Billy V is flavour of the month at BT head offices so the sinical part of me says they were never going to bring it up other then a quick mention.

They did though, with replays the next break in play, with comments about how he was lucky to get away with it. Vunipola is in great form though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They did though, with replays the next break in play, with comments about how he was lucky to get away with it. Vunipola is in great form though.

they spent about 5 minutes treating Tait on field with no replays. to say the commentators banging on about it and that affected the citing seems odd to me.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:They did though, with replays the next break in play, with comments about how he was lucky to get away with it. Vunipola is in great form though.

they spent about 5 minutes treating Tait on field with no replays. to say the commentators banging on about it and that affected the citing seems odd to me.

Erm I said the exact opposite LT. 'Not saying they were banging on but it was highlighted. '

It was raised, commentated on and replayed. Without that I think it just slips under the radar, as I don't get the feeling that there are set things that they decide to cite or review.

Havent Cleremont just lost their home win record by loosing a close T14 game?
There could be some serious backlash coming Sarries way.

propdavid_london wrote:Havent Cleremont just lost their home win record by loosing a close T14 game?  
There could be some serious backlash coming Sarries way.

Clermont 10 - 11 Oyonnax

No 7 & 1/2 there wasn't as significant an analysis of the incident as let's say the Hughes-North incident. There wasn't much discussion about it even when Tait was being treated.

You said the commentators kept mentioning it - I missed the half time analysis as I watched the grand national - did they mention it numerous times then I assume?

propdavid london I think it just tells you how seriously Clermont are taking the game when they sacrifice a game at home.

They mentioned it at the time in actual play by play commentary then briefly discussed it when they ran a replay stating he was lucky. Not sure where I've said they kept mentioning it, as I've stated they weren't banging on about. It was however highlighted by them.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's stupid the whole citing system. It's only picked out as the commentators saw it and kept mentioning it.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding this?

I was actually surprised about how little the commentators spoke about the incident, given how hot the topic of concussion is at the minute I'd have expected them to jump onto any reckless play that resulted in a clash of heads. I'd say it actually looks like the citing officer has made the decision for the right reasons for once. The outcome wasn't severe, so it can't have been based on that, and the broadcasters weren't endlessly replaying the incident to get the public in uproar.

It was a dangerous clear out leading with the head and I'd normally be OK with a 1 week ban, but this week is a semi final of the EC and it's not worth that. I'd like to see the citing panel have the powers to delay a ban until it has the desired effect, as not all games are equal.

no 7 & 1/2 I watched the game and I didn't hear that much discussion.

Well of course it had to be mentioned - Tait went down injured though he was fortunately well enough to continue. The point is that they didn't show replay after replay - which they did in the Saints-Wasps game.

Austin Healey actually thinks it would be wrong if Billy is banned.

Surely a ban is for a Red card offence?

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's stupid the whole citing system. It's only picked out as the commentators saw it and kept mentioning it.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding this?

Sorry that comment was about the system in general but fair point my wording could have been clearer.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 I watched the game and I didn't hear that much discussion.

Well of course it had to be mentioned - Tait went down injured though he was fortunately well enough to continue. The point is that they didn't show replay after replay - which they did in the Saints-Wasps game.

Austin Healey actually thinks it would be wrong if Billy is banned.

Surely a ban is for a Red card offence?

I didn t mean to suggest it was replay after replay just highlighted my overall point being the citing officer seems led, to me anyway, by whatt he media mention rather than a predefined set of rules. I wouldnt like to Vunipola banned but I think he will be as I have little faith in the current process.

Is anyone actually going to have a say about the actual game coming though? What do people think?

SecretFly wrote:Is anyone actually going to have a say about the actual game coming though?  What do people think?

Sarries have a chance, but if Clermont come out with the intensity they showed against Saints it is a tiny one.

Phew Billy has been cleared to play though a RFU disciplinary panel is hardly impartial to be fair.....


Londontiger I wouldn't read too much into the Saints game if I were you. Saints have been in poor form in the last few weeks.

Bear in mind Racing Metro blew Saints away but were unable to do the same vs Sarries.

Also Saracens have beaten Clermont this season.

I do think it will be a tough game of course but Saracens can win and can play at a level which could give Clermont trouble.

Saracens defence has also been very sharp in the last 3 games.

Arguably the form team in the AP with pretty much a full strength team on a winning run. I think a win is possible. Underdogs but it's not like they'll lack the belief.

If we go on this seasons meetings, Sarries played the best they have done all season at home to CA yet only just squeeked home. They looked second best in the reverse fixture.

I would hardly say a try bonus win vs Clermont with a 7 point win margin is just squeaking home personally!

Winning in the 80th minute with the last kick of the game is.....

2nd best in the return fixture agreed but Saracens were well below par that day.

Plus this game is not at Clermont's fortress.

Perhaps Clermont will be too strong for Saracens but I believe that Saracens have the defensive strength to stop Clermont at source.

Barritt's return is significant - he will be expected to keep Fofana quiet.

Physically wise I believe Saracens can match Clermont but discipline and precision will be key.

I know you believe Sarries are in good form, but if they play as they did against us and Racing then it will be a struggle. They need to improve their performance significantly or hope Clermont play poorly. Both are possible.

As you keep pointing out this season, Sarries are often "below par" away from home. (Translated: opposition play better on the day). That was certainly the case against Racing.

Maybe Sarries can pull a performance out of the bag. After all not many expected them to play so well in last year's semi after being so poor in the 1/4 final. Equally though, maybe this will be another occasion when they huff and puff and fail to blow any houses down.

LondonTiger wrote:I know you believe Sarries are in good form, but if they play as they did against us and Racing then it will be a struggle. They need to improve their performance significantly or hope Clermont play poorly. Both are possible.

As you keep pointing out this season, Sarries are often "below par" away from home. (Translated: opposition play better on the day). That was certainly the case against Racing.

Maybe Sarries can pull a performance out of the bag. After all not many expected them to play so well in last year's semi after being so poor in the 1/4 final. Equally though, maybe this will be another occasion when they huff and puff and fail to blow any houses down.

I thought they beat Tigers pretty comprehensively. Sarries defence were completely on top.

They pretty much thrashed us by tackling us to a stand still, but that is no indicator as we are so far below Clermont's ability level it is out of sight. Heck we have had worse beatings than that this season from Bath, Gloucester, Scarlets, Ulster and Quins, so thrashing us is no sign of a performance sadly.

LondonTiger wrote:They pretty much thrashed us by tackling us to a stand still, but that is no indicator as we are so far below Clermont's ability level it is out of sight. Heck we have had worse beatings than that this season from Bath, Gloucester, Scarlets, Ulster and Quins, so thrashing us is no sign of a performance sadly.

True. The days when you looked at a Tigers team sheet in awe are long gone.

I rate Sarries as being the best English side. Defence is as good as any in Europe. Their ability to turn defence into effective attack is impressive. I think they will lose but they have a realistic chance. I do not think any other English side would.

Exiledinborders wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:They pretty much thrashed us by tackling us to a stand still, but that is no indicator as we are so far below Clermont's ability level it is out of sight. Heck we have had worse beatings than that this season from Bath, Gloucester, Scarlets, Ulster and Quins, so thrashing us is no sign of a performance sadly.

True. The days when you looked at a Tigers team sheet in awe are long gone.

I rate Sarries as being the best English side. Defence is as good as any in Europe. Their ability to turn defence into effective attack is impressive.  I think they will lose but they have a realistic chance. I do not think any other English side would.

I agree with this in light of the strange falling away of Quins and Tigers.

Northampton can burn brighter than Sarries but the impression I get (perhaps wrongly) is that they are less consistent.

Hmm, having been informed by Beshocked that Sarries English players alone are better than Scotland, I now rather want Sarries to fail. An odd feeling, because with Brown and Taylor on board I usually wish Sarries well.

I'm supporting Clermont, and suspect they will win with something to spare. Too much class behind the pack.

Londontiger they are winning though - something you can't say Clermont are doing.....

They haven't been performing top notch all the time but then they've done enough to keep their current unbeaten run.


you are right - they have been below par because of the opposition away from home. Also it's no coincidence that as you say the performances at home have far surpassed that of the away ones.

That's the biggest worry I guess. Though the away wins vs Racing and Wasps should give them belief.


FES of course I am exaggerating a bit - Saracens couldn't beat Scotland with Alo at TH but I think head to head in terms of quality of personnel Saracens take the majority - certainly in the backline.

I think Scotland have some quality players like Hogg and J.Gray with some potential excellent prospects but not there yet. I still regret R.Gray not coming to Saracens as I think he would have been turned into a better player.

Scotland would be stronger if they played K.Brown. He has strengths that Scotland are screaming out for like leadership and belief. He's also a very remarkably consistent player.

You might not believe it but I want to see a stronger Scotland. Just think you're coach is as poor as his predecessors so far. Also the team lacks structure and leadership.

It's a team with potential but at the moment it's a team that won the wooden spoon because it wasn't good enough. Probably most of the Scottish players will be much improved in a year or so as Cotter gets to grips with his role though.

That class you talk about behind the pack has been cut open by Saracens twice albeit both at "home".

Clermont do have "home" advantage though which might be the deciding factor.

Probably the most important head to heads

Kayser vs George

Cudmore vs Kruis

Chouly vs Billy

Lopez vs Hodgson

Fofana vs Barritt

Abendanon vs Goode

lopez is out (along with Domingo, Lee, Parra). Lee and Parra are the biggest losses.

Fritz Lee is a massive loss

Yes he would have certainly helped neutralising Billie. Parra replacememt is a bit shaky at times as well. Now I think this game is a bit of a 50/50 call. Home advantage and hopefully home refereing might help ASM

Whats going on with O.Farrell ?
He's not played for ages has he?

propdavid_london wrote:Whats going on with O.Farrell ?
He's not played for ages has he?

Injured in the match at Clermont in Jan, apparently on the bench this weekend.

whocares who is the ref?

I am sure that Clermont don't want Nigel Owens....

propdavid london got to hope that Hodgson doesn't get injured. I don't want to see Farrell come onto the field if possible. Not played well since last year's 6 nations and has been dogged by injuries in the last year.

Hodgson held up well defensively vs Leicester though I think it's fair to say that Clermont have more firepower than Leicester!

As risky as this sounds I would pick Itoje instead of Hargreaves.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/european-rugby/11536171/Europe-gives-Jackson-Wray-and-Nick-Abendanon-chance-to-make-claim-for-World-Cup-spots.html

Great article by Greenwood on Abendanon and Wray.

Greenwood is absolutely right

Greenwood is an excellent pundit, a proper analyst of the game.

15 Alex Goode; 14 Chris Ashton, 13 Marcelo Bosch 12 Brad Barritt ©, 11 Chris Wyles; 10 Charlie Hodgson, 9 Richard Wigglesworth; 1 Mako Vunipola, 2 Jamie George, 3 Petrus Du Plessis, 4 George Kruis 5 Jim Hamilton; 6 Maro Itoje, 7 Jacques Burger, 8 Billy Vunipola.

Replacements: 16 Schalk Brits, 17 Rhys Gill, 18 James Johnston, 19 Kelly Brown, 20 Jackson Wray 21 Neil de Kock, 22 Owen Farrell, 23 David Strettle.


Guess Wray has lost the chance to push any WC claims. Wyles ahead of Strettle interesting call. Sarries going for bulk.