Saracens reinforce their Saffa credentials

First topic message reminder :

John Smit has agreed to join Saracens. The record-breaking Springbok captain, 33, will join the Premiership champions after the World Cup.

http://www.saracens.com/news/view.php?Id=6457

English clubs should concentrate on English players.

And this is not sour grapes coming from a Tigers fan - I spent some time bigging up the Saints this past season.

beshocked,

Stop talking as if you play for Saffacens, you don't. Using the terms 'us' and 'we' makes you sound like a kissball supporter. Back under your rock until Saffas come good at the end of the season again, after benefitting from the fact that Saffas' EQP aren't quite good enough for selection, despite what you think.

I just laugh at your pathetic posts. Whatever some keyboard warrior doesn't like me.

I am a passionate fan of my rugby team.You know nothing about rugby so please don't pretend you do.

I hope you are banned though.

Beshocked, I've probably forgotten more about rugby than you know, so don't make silly assumptions on my depth of knowledge. Furthermore, don't try to put words in the mouths of the moderators, or you may find that it backfires on you.

Then I suggest you take a consistant stance and edit the last sentence of his last post. Thanks.

Thanks RD.

To get back on topic, I see no problem forcing young players to earn their position. Not bringing in good players because they'll get picked ahead of a young player is a bad idea. They just need to improve. Young english players have often performed well enough to move experience international players out of the team. George is still very young for a hooker and playing in the championship for most of his games and coming in every now and then isn't a problem. Once he's proved himself the second best hooker there he'll be on the ebnch. Once he's the best he'll start. Smit probably won't be there for long but that'll a much great positive effect than George being on the bench. If George can force his way onto the bench anyway it'll do him even more good.

Cheers Geordie and Yappy.

Will Saull only start during the opening phase of the season and then be relegated to the bench though Beshocked? England are lookingly thin on opensides for post RWC at the minute and we could do with him coming into the wider squad. Short looks a classy winger and I would think he'll be involved in an England squad sooner or later. Farrell looks to be another Hougaard but with no drop goal speciality but an improved defence. Hopefully Hodgson will mentor him over the next couple of seasons as currently he is only a mediocare fly half but is still very young.

Judging by Sarries scrum in the AP Final (the battle Tigers won) I'd have though Vunipola would have been at least on the bench, give a little grunt to the scrum when Stevens tires and bring plenty of mobility against a tiring opposition defence. Some what suprised to see him dumped out on loan.

RD the title is just silly anyway as I showed in my first post. Never mind the debate goes on.

HammerofThunor I absolutely agree. Look at Owen Farrell vs Henson. Henson thought he was going to just swagger into the Saracens first team. The rest is history. Short has cemented himself in the side. Jamie George will have a couple of months before Smit arrives. Jamie George is currently the 2nd hooker at Saracens. He came on in the AP final too.

Sam I thought in the final it was only in the 2nd half where Leicester had the upper hand in the scrum. Fair enough if you believe differently.

Saracens do have a lot of props - Gill, Du Plessis,Carstens,Nieto,Stevens,Saunders and now Vunipola. I don't rate Carstens. Think Du plessis and Gill are alright. Saunders is just a youngster. Nieto and Stevens are our best by a fair margin.

I personally would bench Vunipola at least but think the Saracens management will favour the others. Nako Vunipola reminds me of big ol' Census Johnston in terms of physique.

Little harsh calling Farrell mediocre when he outplayed Flood in the AP final. He's a youngster (19) who needs development but there is no doubting his mental strength. To slot 6/6 in an ap final takes talent. No I don't think he deserves to be in the England squad but I wouldn't underestimate him.

Personally I think Farrell is more like Wilko in regards to style - good tactical kicker, excellent mental strength, good goal kicker, strong defence.

I agree with Sam in regards to the Saracens props - behind the first choice two there does look to be a big drop off in quality.

Disagree about Farrell - I think that is unduly harsh. Currently he does look like he can only play a limited game plan well but he's far too young to start labeling him as Hougaard without the drop goals, given his age he still has plenty of time to develop his all round game... and he was also limited by the style Saracens opted to play, which I would imagine was at least in part to limit what he had to do given his youth. If you've got a younng fly half, you should protect him and not expose him unless you have to... and sadly for Tigers Saracens didn't have to.

In terms of bringing young players into the side - good management is to give them some chances, to build up some experience and show why they should start, poor mamangement would be to just hand them a place in the starting line up because they're young and promising. They need learn they have to earn their place in the side, not learn they'll just have things handed to them. Saracens seem to have done that so far, I don't see a reason to assume they'll stop,

Farrell's performance in the AP Final is a bit or a weird one, off of the tee he was immaculate and you really couldn't fault him there. He held up well in defence as well and his up and unders were great when combined with the Sarries kick chase. However, ball in hand he created absolutely nothing. His back three were in lethal form in that game but never got the ball from Farrell, on the rare occasions he did pass it was only for a forward or Barritt to crash the ball. As a kicker he was excellent as a playmaker he was dreadful. Think 12 may be his best position as he looked iffy at 10 in the JWC but flourished once Ford came on at 10 and took most of the responsibility off of his shoulders.

Sarries had two dangerous breaks in the first half, one from de Kock in the opening mins from which Youngs was sin binned (he took one for the team there, it was harsh on him) and the one they scored the try from the quick throw in. Similar theme against Gloucester in the semi, with the counter attack from the back three providing nearly all of the breaks.

I think Tigers edged the scrum through out but there seemed to be more scrums in the second half. Not that it mattered a great deal as with a combination of Flood's off day with the boot and the malfunctioning line out we couldn't reap the rewards from the penalties anyway.

Snoopster you make a good point. I am surprised you didn't target Farrell in the final. Maybe we didn't allow you to though.

You targetted Brits instead and put some big hits on him (all were legal) but he shook off two potential injury scares. Unfortunately for you it didn't work.

As an England fan I am little worried by Youngs and Flood's recent poor form. Do you think my worries are unfounded or do you agree?

In regards to Farrell, I think everyone is unsure whether he'll be a centre or fly half.

The gameplan is limited but everyone knows we can be more expansive (it just isn't as effective).

You can't really target Farrell though Beshocked as in defence he is solid and is covered by Barritt on one side and normally by a flanker or Joubert on the other. A pretty damn strong defensive alignment. In attack he never had the ball long enough to get hit, he kicked it away constantly though Newbs still managed to say hello but just the once.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Portnoy wrote:English clubs should concentrate on English players.

And this is not sour grapes coming from a Tigers fan - I spent some time bigging up the Saints this past season.

You mean like Leicester signing Julian Salvi (an Australian) to cover for Craig Newby (a Kiwi) rather than trusting Ben Woods (a young English player) to provide adequate cover.

That is the main issue I have with Farrell. He kicks like a young Flood. I hope with Hodgson on board he may add some more attacking assets to his game.

I'm not sure we can assume Smit is being brought in as a hooker.

Given his age and physique a lot of commentators this season (Sean Fitzpatrick being just one of them) suggested that Smit should think about moving to loose head, something which Smit suggested he was considering.

I don't think he will have been brought in specifically to challenge/replace Brits.

Brits is far too skilled and loved by fans and players alike to warrant replacing. Though this should mean they can rest him if needed or cover 2 seperate positions from the bench.

beshocked wrote:Snoopster you make a good point. I am surprised you didn't target Farrell in the final. Maybe we didn't allow you to though.

I think there was a definite case of Saracens stopping it - he's solid in defence and in attack he never had the ball for long.

beshocked wrote:You targetted Brits instead and put some big hits on him (all were legal) but he shook off two potential injury scares. Unfortunately for you it didn't work.

Yes, it was a shame he's quite so tough... it was fustrating though, as beyond trying to get to him there didn't seem to have been much effort put in on working out how to counter Saracen's style. Of course that might be more a sign of how well they play it than a failing to plan by Tigers.

beshocked wrote:As an England fan I am little worried by Youngs and Flood's recent poor form. Do you think my worries are unfounded or do you agree?

I've got a bit of worry there as well - they were improving towards the end of the season though, apart from Flood's kicking (which went wrong after he worked with the England kicking coach, so hopefully they can fix whatever damage he did). I think the problem started in the 6N when they were left badly exposed in three games in a row - not protected enough and given limited passing options. For Youngs in particular I think it was a new experience which hopefully he will have learnt from.

beshocked wrote:In regards to Farrell, I think everyone is unsure whether he'll be a centre or fly half.

A lot might depend on where he wants to play and if he can add a bit more creativity into his play. Either way, he should be a good player.

beshocked wrote:The gameplan is limited but everyone knows we can be more expansive (it just isn't as effective).

Having Hodgeson there should help with that, it is tricky though since it does mean giving up a bit of defensive solidity - with the WC in it though next season is a good time to experiment with trying to play a more expansive game.

Sam you are probably right.

Farrell is given a lot of protection but that's what a young player needs.

It's what Tigers will have to do if you decide to play Ford instead of Staunton as fly half cover for Flood.

Snoopster it seems that protection and putting off opposition is a part of the game which is probably underrated. E.g. an erratic kicker really damages their own team's chances.

Saracens beat Leicester in their last two encounters due to simply nailing every single kick. You have to take every chance against Leicester or you lose. We missed 6 kicks in the playoff semi against Gloucester -4 of them Owen Farrell.

I might be wrong but to me it seems as if teams know how to limit the effectiveness of Flood and Youngs now. Hopefully in the world cup I am proved wrong.

My thoughts on Farrell pretty much echo those of Sam - I think he'll ultimately settle as a 12 rather than a 10, and could go nicely with Hodgson and Barritt around him, and Goode running into the line from 15.

Moving to Barritt to 13 might free him up as well. He's a better player than simply a crash ball merchant. He's got decent hands and quick feet, playing outside Hodgson and Farrell could really free him up.

What this does all mean I think is that Goode will end up staying at 15 next season.

I think you are right Beshocked, teams are clocking on to how Flood and Youngs like to attack the fringes and use little pops and offloads to exploit gaps as defences spread. However, they didn't have the easiest time of it against Sarries as their forwards gave them little to work with and Flood certainly missed having Manu as an easy out ball. Youngs yellow card certainly didn't allow them to settle. There England performances are a slightly different matter with players around them offering next to nothing in the way of running lines.

Beshocked, I'm sure the young English forwards will get some gametime during the WC (as wil be the case at all clubs), and then I expect them to be dropped to the bench or out of the matchday squad all together. I'm certainly not suggesting that George should be guarenteed starts, but Sarries aren't bringing in a player like Smit to have George ahead of him in the squad, so I don't see it as a fair fight.

Also I don't agree that more expansive is less effective. In the 2010 final Sarries were excellent and would have won if they hand taken a restart at the end. And the Sarries side from the end of 2010 was infinitely more attractive to watch than that of 2011.

As for this year's final I thought Farrell got the better of Flood. Farrell is clearly under instructions to stick to the limited gameplan the coaches wanted last season. Probably my biggest hope for English rugby in 2011/12 is that Sarries play a more expansive game.

Flood and Young's form is very worrying. Without them in their autumn 2010 form England have very little chance of making a serious dent at the WC, and they showed few signs of truely good form after the 6 Nations. I'd ccertainly start Care ahead of Youngs at present, and possibly Wilkinson ahead of Flood. It will be interesting to see everyone's form in the warm up games.

Agree with that Dave; Care and Wilkinson have been in better form then the currant england 9/10 but I think MJ will stick with those two as starters for at least the first match. I imagine he may well be changing a few other areas and will want to keep a few key areas consistent.

I think everyone wants to see a return to Saracens running style and now hopefully with the cup safely in their hands they may feel a bit more like they can try it out again.

If they can manage the two well (much like the Reds have this season) then they could make an impact in the HC as well.

Not sure on the Care and Wilkinson starting. Will depend who is on form. Care blows hot and cold when in and England jersey, would like to see more of the composure he shows when playing for Quinns. If Wilkinson is going to be at 10 then we need Flutey at 12 as Wilko works far better with an inside centre that can remove some of the pressure and add to the passing game. If we're going to keep the Youngs and Flood combo we've got to change the running lines of the forward and inside centre because towards the end of the 6N they were both left horribley isolated.

Isn't Youngs injured for the first game?

There are conficting report as to when he will be back. I've heard everything from back for all three to missing first one/two. Tigers nor England have confirmed anything more probabley because it will depend on how his rehab goes.

I think I'd prefer to have him rest the first game (bench if fit) and start Care with Flood.

Yea there is no reason to rush him back for a friendly, i'd prefer he was well rested and as close to 100% as possible.

Agree with you Sam that we really need to look at how the players combine with 9/10 axis, after the Italy match it all seemed to go a bit wrong.

Hape for me has some serious work to do and Smith needs to earn his keep and get those boys presenting themselves as options.

Hape started the 6N very well and was always on Flood's shoulder so that Flood could step inside the drift defence and offload the ball to either the blindside winger or Hape. Wales and Italy struggled to maintain their defensive patterns with Flood's step in side mixed up with his big miss passes to the back three out wide. Then against France they seemed to start spreading wider for no reason. By the Scotland and Ireland games not only had the backs drifted so wide it took a 10m pass to find Hape but the forwards pods had done the same damn thing. England were trying to go wide without earning the right to. It was stupid. The only time an England player ran off the shoulder of Flood we sliced open the Irish defence. Unfortunatley Ashton finished his 40m run with a pass to D'Arcy.

That needs to change back to how we started the 6N otherwise we'll struggle.

Unfortunatley Ashton finished his 40m run with a pass to D'Arcy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That still upsets me now.


On another thread they are discussing whether the coach is to blame for a poor team, reading your discription there i'd have to say i blame the coaches almost completely, one game is forgiveable but that happened three times in a row without any one getting a grip of the players.

formerly known as Sam wrote: By the Scotland and Ireland games not only had the backs drifted so wide it took a 10m pass to find Hape but the forwards pods had done the same damn thing.

That needs to change back to how we started the 6N otherwise we'll struggle.

Was that not because they were getting turned over at the breakdown and started to try to avoid the close contact? I seem to recall the game starting with the Irish committing large numbers and holding the ball carrier up to force a scrum.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote: By the Scotland and Ireland games not only had the backs drifted so wide it took a 10m pass to find Hape but the forwards pods had done the same damn thing.

That needs to change back to how we started the 6N otherwise we'll struggle.

Was that not because they were getting turned over at the breakdown and started to try to avoid the close contact? I seem to recall the game starting with the Irish committing large numbers and holding the ball carrier up to force a scrum.

No, in the Ireland game Haskell was spreading wide from the start - he in particular seemed happy to concede the breakdown are to the Irish backrow right from the start.

No there was far tomuch spreading of the ball from the start. The issue was too many forwards were spreading wide and so the Irish hunting in packs of three could take on the largely unsupported runners and either hold them up for tackle them and turn them over. You can't hold up and player if the entire tight five come in behind them and drive them ten metres up the pitch, you'll lose your grip. Instead of hunting as a pack and smashing the Irish right back they tried to just move it quickly which piled loads of pressure on Youngs and Flood and later Care and Wilkinson and really meant that any ball we had was rushed and poor quality because the scrummy was trying to get it away before being hammered by the Irish backrow.

Far to few of the forwards wanted to get the basics right first. They just wanted to spread it quick. Often only Shaw (Parling before his injury) and Deacon were bothering to do the donkey work with the front row in particular standing far to wide. Hartley seemed to think he was a sodding winger, Cole somewhere near the fly half and Corbisiero generally by the OC. I can't imagine that impressed Rowntree very much.

formerly known as Sam wrote:No there was far tomuch spreading of the ball from the start. The issue was too many forwards were spreading wide and so the Irish hunting in packs of three could take on the largely unsupported runners and either hold them up for tackle them and turn them over. You can't hold up and player if the entire tight five come in behind them and drive them ten metres up the pitch, you'll lose your grip. Instead of hunting as a pack and smashing the Irish right back they tried to just move it quickly which piled loads of pressure on Youngs and Flood and later Care and Wilkinson and really meant that any ball we had was rushed and poor quality because the scrummy was trying to get it away before being hammered by the Irish backrow.

Far to few of the forwards wanted to get the basics right first. They just wanted to spread it quick. Often only Shaw (Parling before his injury) and Deacon were bothering to do the donkey work with the front row in particular standing far to wide. Hartley seemed to think he was a sodding winger, Cole somewhere near the fly half and Corbisiero generally by the OC. I can't imagine that impressed Rowntree very much.

I'd just managed to get that awful day out of my mind. Thanks for bringing it all flooding back to me. Good analysis though.

[quote="Far to few of the forwards wanted to get the basics right first. They just wanted to spread it quick. Often only Shaw (Parling before his injury) and Deacon were bothering to do the donkey work with the front row in particular standing far to wide. Hartley seemed to think he was a sodding winger, Cole somewhere near the fly half and Corbisiero generally by the OC. [i]I can't imagine that impressed Rowntree very much[/i].[/quote]

You say that but then it's been happening for how long now? If he and Ford weren't impressed you'd expect them to have got a grip on the players after the first or second instance but if anything it seemed to get worse.

I've said it before and i'll say it again, post WC there needs to be a MASSIVE coaching clean out under MJ and a whole new coaching team picked.

Rowntree is only the scrummaging coach, how much control does he realistically have? You'd have thought Smith would be calling the shots as he is the attack coach and that is supposed to be what they're doing. Wells might also have to take some flack.

True, between Smith, Ford and MJ there seems to be some real issues and disagreements as to what certain players should be doing and the worrying thing is that as soon as they have a good game where this is cleared up they all go straight back to their bad habits.

Did MJ actually pick his coaches or as he just been stuck with what he's got?

The problems I see with the English side are the backrow and the centres.

The backrow's job is to protect the halfbacks,give them time to work their magic,generate quickball and generally make a nuisance of themselves for the opposition.Our backrow simply weren't good enough against France,Scotland and Ireland.

Is it any surprise these countries backrows are better?

The backrow are supposed to protect the half backs but if the front five are standing out wide rather than getting stuck into the tight work then it is never going to work. The centres are a long standing problem for England.

Maybe once the first choice flankers (Croft and Moody) return and we see a little more impetus with Manu in the midfield things may improve. Got to refine the tight fives focus first though. Stevens or Sheridan to come in for Corbisiero will definitely help.

I do think the losses of Croft, moody and Lawes played a big role - the three of them are key players for the team (after all, Croft and Lawes are the players who gave the try scoring passes against Australia, something our centres wouldn't have managed)

Could be an interesting centre pairing Snoopster. Retain Haskell at 6 put Moody at seven and then Lawes to IC and Crofty at OC. Crossfield kick would become a serious weapon.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Could be an interesting centre pairing Snoopster. Retain Haskell at 6 put Moody at seven and then Lawes to IC and Crofty at OC. Crossfield kick would become a serious weapon.

I think when Lawes and Croft were fit there was an element of that - Lawes and Croft were forwards playing like centres a lot of the time for England while Tindall and Hape were used pretty much as flankers. Though actually just picking Croft and Lawes at the centre would be an improvement on the Tindall and Hape pairing...

Sadly they'd probably actually have better ball handling, pace and passing skills then the current players.

I'd put Robshaw at 6 though. Haskell is a utility back in the same mould as Tait for me.

I still see Robshaw as just a Worsley mark 2.0. Not sure he is really international standard especially when England need more dog in the breakdown (which he doesn't offer) and more off the shoulder runners for the half backs (which other players do better). May well be worth having him in the squad should we have to play the Saffas though, as his tackle rate would be really handy then.