RugbyRebels

Adam_P wrote:Saints team for Dragons today:

15 Harry Mallinder
14 Ollie Sleightholme
13 Fraser Dingwall
12 Rory Hutchinson
11 Taqele Naiyaravoro
10 James Grayson
9 Alex Mitchell

1 Nick Auterac
2 Mikey Haywood
3 Ehren Painter
4 Alex Moon
5 Alex Coles
6 Nick Isiekwe
7 JJ Tonks
8 Teimana Harrison (c)

Replacements:
16 Sam Matavesi
17 Alex Waller
18 Oisín Heffernan
19 Lewis Bean
20 Shaun Adendorff
21 Henry Taylor
22 Ahsee Tuala
23 Tom Collins


Interested to see how Mallinder goes with a start at 15. He really needs to settle into a position to realise his early promise. I'd persist with 12 if I were him.

I can't see any position where he is better than probably two players at Saints. His defence and agility needs to take a big step up for 12- and he looks like he has little confidence tbh.

Time is ticking by for Mallinder IMO. He’s been massively unfortunate to lose so much time to injury and that’s been really detrimental to his development.

The last time I watched him play, he touched the ball about 6 times and made a hash of it on 4 of those (missing a kick, forward pass, knock on etc.). I understand why Saints still believe there’s something there, but he as Banquo said, he doesn’t deserve a starting spot so it’s hard to see how he’s going to get the game time to get back up to speed.

Scrumhead wrote:Time is ticking by for Mallinder IMO. He’s been massively unfortunate to lose so much time to injury and that’s been really detrimental to his development.

The last time I watched him play, he touched the ball about 6 times and made a hash of it on 4 of those (missing a kick, forward pass, knock on etc.). I understand why Saints still believe there’s something there, but he as Banquo said, he doesn’t deserve a starting spot so it’s hard to see how he’s going to get the game time to get back up to speed.

What I don't know is about his ticker tbh. Whether the shoulder injury led to him ...let us say...not being especially robust in the tackling department.....or whether he just lacks a bit of heart, is tricky to say. He seems to have a lot of talent, its whether the aptitude and attitude are good enough. But at 15, I'd pick Furbank and Freeman and maybe Tuala ahead of him, at 12 I'd pick Francis and Hutchinson ahead of him, and he's not a winger imo. No idea about him as a 10 tbh, but Biggar, Grayson and Furbank have all done well there.

Agree with most of that, he certainly shouldn't be starting in key games on present form. Mallinder in particular is really missing out from the lack of 2nd team fixtures, where ideally he'd have the time to settle into a position and find some form. To be honest I'd send him to Bedford where a lot of our young guys are currently playing for that exact reason

Adam_P wrote:Agree with most of that, he certainly shouldn't be starting in key games on present form. Mallinder in particular is really missing out from the lack of 2nd team fixtures, where ideally he'd have the time to settle into a position and find some form. To be honest I'd send him to Bedford where a lot of our young guys are currently playing for that exact reason

disappointing score so far from the Dragons game.

Started getting competitive but the ref has put a stopper in that. Good finish by Sleights for his try

This has been a crazy game

Saints did well and Newcastle beat Ospreys earlier. 4 wins from 4 so far this weekend.

Don't know if anyone saw the falcons game, wouldn't blame anyone for missing it, but for a pretty poor line up we aren't easy to beat!

Well, I've egg on my face as Leicester come out on top against Connacht. The Borthwick revolution continues apace - he's even managed to get a good performance out of Johnny McPhillips. Good solid basic game - good defence, big strong runners going onto passes, and excellent scrum*, lineout, and maul.

Tried our best to throw it away by stationing no-one behind the ruck and letting Connacht walk through three times for tries though - absolutely incredible.

Thought the young props were decent, and Lenny had a fantastic game. Lavanini can't f*ck off to France soon enough though - two brainless penalties for deliberate knock on and no-arms daisy cutter and was lucky not to see yellow. Plus, he stopped running for Connacht's opening try - he probably wasn't going to make it, but minimum expectations is that you try, rather than slowing to a gentle jog and leaving it to others to make sure he didn't go in unopposed.

Puja

*I don't know who the Scots commentator was, but he had decided before the game that Connacht would have a dominant scrum based on our selection and *would* *not* *let* *it* *go*. First scrum where both sides were at total parity and Wiese picked with ease, "You can see Leicester struggling there; Connacht looking to paint the picture to the referee that they're on top." Second scrum, goes down on the opposite side to the camera, looked like a technical infringement on engage, given as penalty Connacht, "Going to be a long day for that Leicester scrum. Heyes just couldn't take the pressure there and brought it down." Third scrum, Leicester get a slight nudge forward and Wiese picks, "Leicester just starting to buckle there, Connacht continue their dominance." Just kept insisting that Connacht were dominating the scrums despite it being a very even battle.

To be fair Lavanini's daisy cutter challenge he had his arms out but had over extended and looked guilty even though he probably wasn't. He smashed a lot of Connacht ball carriers but he didn't look like our big money lock. Not that fussed him by going with the young guys we've got coming through who will continue to improve. Henderson led the lineout well, Martin was everywhere and Chessum is still to come in as well.

Entertaining game. Very impressed by a lot of young or inexperienced guys who played their hearts out for the shirt. The experienced guys seemed to feed off their enthusiasm. I worried a little about the bench but at the end for the Weise try I think we had a 19/21/21 year old front row and they were rock solid. Dolly and Hurd came in for the debuts and fitted in well. Potter and Porter just fight for everything. Heyes put in a flankers level of tackles in. Weise was a monster but Martin had 22 tackles and 35m carried from I think 7 carries they said at the end. What a shift at 19.

Half a first team to down the strongest Connacht a damn good team could offer is very good. In Borthwick we trust, I didn't give us much chance when I saw the teams.

Oh and Ben Youngs was excellent, great to see him back. I think he's going to love playing behind a Borthwick pack.

Thought Martin was outstanding. Big hits and strong carrying. He's a fantastic prospect.

FKAS wrote:To be fair Lavanini's daisy cutter challenge he had his arms out but had over extended and looked guilty even though he probably wasn't. He smashed a lot of Connacht ball carriers but he didn't look like our big money lock. Not that fussed him by going with the young guys we've got coming through who will continue to improve. Henderson led the lineout well, Martin was everywhere and Chessum is still to come in as well.

Entertaining game. Very impressed by a lot of young or inexperienced guys who played their hearts out for the shirt. The experienced guys seemed to feed off their enthusiasm. I worried a little about the bench but at the end for the Weise try I think we had a 19/21/21 year old front row and they were rock solid. Dolly and Hurd came in for the debuts and fitted in well. Potter and Porter just fight for everything. Heyes put in a flankers level of tackles in. Weise was a monster but Martin had 22 tackles and 35m carried from I think 7 carries they said at the end. What a shift at 19.

Half a first team to down the strongest Connacht a damn good team could offer is very good. In Borthwick we trust, I didn't give us much chance when I saw the teams.

Oh and Ben Youngs was excellent, great to see him back. I think he's going to love playing behind a Borthwick pack.

Should've mentioned Martin; he was terrific. I'd always assumed 6 was a temporary way-station on the way to him settling down at lock, but he does look the absolute business there and I wouldn't be upset if he specialised there instead. Like a young CGS, but one that doesn't look out of place in the back row.

On the bold bit, it felt an awful lot like the 2009 win over South Africa - a significantly understrength team binding around the enthusiasm of the youngsters and a lucky break or two, with everyone working their socks off and refusing to be beaten. That game launched the careers of several Leicester stalwarts (Lenny for one!) and I'm hopeful that this one will do similar for the likes of Henderson, Hurd, and Whitcombe.

We've set up a chance for a really good run at this cup now. Newcastle are far from insuperable in the quarter finals and there's nobody we can't beat on our day left in the competition.

Puja

As Borthwick pointed out after, the Connacht starting team had 1500 games between them the Tigers team had 500 and 250 odd of those were Benny. Some good prospects there and yes I agree there was a similar feel to the South Africa game back in 2009 which featured some who made it (Benny, a very fresh faced Dan Cole) and some who didn't (Tom Armes, whatever happened to him?).

Can't believe that Borthwick has even got a tune out of McPhillips. A player that looked thoroughly Championship standard until a couple of games ago. The acquisitions of Hurd (the size of the kid!) and Dolly look like they could be very good bits of business to. I think this game was a good introduction particularly for Hurd. Whitcombe has looked a ridiculous talent since his first appearance, it's not right that a loosehead can look that comfortable at senior level at 19. Another Tigers loosehead started coming into the side early (around 19/20ish) as well don't know if you remember him as it was early 90s (admittedly bit early for me) Graham Rowntree turned out alright though. Hurd, Whitcombe and Heyes could be part of our front row stock for more than a decade.

I'm interested to see what we do with Martin. I to had assumed 6 was temporary but you look how Liebenburg plays for us and Martin seems to be doing the same. Liebenburg is a vital cog in the machine and might pip Weise to fan's player of the season. If Martin goes on to play like that then you can imagine he'll do very well at 6 covering lock and then transition to lock as he hits 30. He's less of a third jumper just for the tail and more of a third lock at lineout time like Liebenburg which suits our rolling maul game perfectly. I'm sure Eddie likes seeing these kind of performances at 6 as well. I still hope to see Chessum come back in as well because I really like what he offers us, not Martin's level but similar skillset and at 6ft7 he makes the hooker's job easy at lineout time.

FKAS wrote:As Borthwick pointed out after, the Connacht starting team had 1500 games between them the Tigers team had 500 and 250 odd of those were Benny. Some good prospects there and yes I agree there was a similar feel to the South Africa game back in 2009 which featured some who made it (Benny, a very fresh faced Dan Cole) and some who didn't (Tom Armes, whatever happened to him?).

Can't believe that Borthwick has even got a tune out of McPhillips. A player that looked thoroughly Championship standard until a couple of games ago. The acquisitions of Hurd (the size of the kid!) and Dolly look like they could be very good bits of business to. I think this game was a good introduction particularly for Hurd. Whitcombe has looked a ridiculous talent since his first appearance, it's not right that a loosehead can look that comfortable at senior level at 19. Another Tigers loosehead started coming into the side early (around 19/20ish) as well don't know if you remember him as it was early 90s (admittedly bit early for me) Graham Rowntree turned out alright though. Hurd, Whitcombe and Heyes could be part of our front row stock for more than a decade.

I'm interested to see what we do with Martin. I to had assumed 6 was temporary but you look how Liebenburg plays for us and Martin seems to be doing the same. Liebenburg is a vital cog in the machine and might pip Weise to fan's player of the season. If Martin goes on to play like that then you can imagine he'll do very well at 6 covering lock and then transition to lock as he hits 30. He's less of a third jumper just for the tail and more of a third lock at lineout time like Liebenburg which suits our rolling maul game perfectly. I'm sure Eddie likes seeing these kind of performances at 6 as well. I still hope to see Chessum come back in as well because I really like what he offers us, not Martin's level but similar skillset and at 6ft7 he makes the hooker's job easy at lineout time.

Not to mention Manu Tuilagi's first appearance! Parling was another one from that South Africa game that really stepped up and stood forward. I have a soft spot for Craig Hammond, who was called up to the bench the day before when Kay pulled out and the club rang Nottingham to see if anyone fancied sitting on the bench for 70, and then ended up playing 68 minutes when BDeacon went off early. Played out of his skin and did a fantastic job playing 8 behind a scrum under pressure.

I started the game thinking, "Bloody hell, why did we pick McPhillips, can't wait till Steward comes on and Henry moves to 10," and, by the time Steward came on, I breathed a sigh of relief when I saw that it was Henry who'd made way. We'll see whether it can be more than a one-off though! I'm still baffled as to the purpose of signing Burns, unless we've got him super cheap.

I started watching Tigers in 95, so Rowntree was already established by the time I began. Agreed on the signings of Hurd and Dolly - that's the kind of depth signing we should be making, players who have talent and something to prove. If we can turn them into good Prem players, we'll be more likely to keep them for having turned their careers around, and it'll make it easier to build a good squad under the cap. It's been a long time since I've had faith that the Leicester coaching setup would improve a player though!

Puja

I like what Borthwick is doing. It feels like there is a defined style of play, a mostly coherent transfer policy (I say mostly because the Burns signing is strange) and lots of faith in promoting from the academy.

Beautiful try from bristol.

That try by tiny Ulster fullback Lowry against Quins was amazing. What gas.

Unbelievable speed.

Did anyone see the Gloucester La Rochelle game? For those that did; can anyone explain how George Barton didn't get a card for his hit on Leyds?

Peej wrote:Unbelievable speed.

Did anyone see the Gloucester La Rochelle game? For those that did; can anyone explain how George Barton didn't get a card for his hit on Leyds?

Deemed to be an unavoidable accident. Doesn't correlate with any of the current framework. Ref decided that as he clearly lowered his height and wrapped his arms he couldn't do anything about the falling player. On one hand it's common sense on the other it's massively inconsistent.

FKAS wrote:

Peej wrote:Unbelievable speed.

Did anyone see the Gloucester La Rochelle game? For those that did; can anyone explain how George Barton didn't get a card for his hit on Leyds?

Deemed to be an unavoidable accident. Doesn't correlate with any of the current framework. Ref decided that as he clearly lowered his height and wrapped his arms he couldn't do anything about the falling player. On one hand it's common sense on the other it's massively inconsistent.

It might fit fine with the framework if Barton lowered his height - the first question is "Was the player at fault?" which basically boils down to did they bend at the waist. I didn't see the incident, but if Barton's tried to make a midriff tackle and the player's lowered into him, then I think that's your answer.

ETA. Found video and it was what I said - the ref's taken that Barton has gone to make a lower tackle and thus is not at fault for the collision, therefore the framework exits on the first question. Saved by good technique!
https://www.rugbydump.com/news/andrew-b ... pions-cup/


Puja

See, I don't see any attempt to wrap an arm at all. He leads straight in with the shoulder

Puja wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Peej wrote:Unbelievable speed.

Did anyone see the Gloucester La Rochelle game? For those that did; can anyone explain how George Barton didn't get a card for his hit on Leyds?

Deemed to be an unavoidable accident. Doesn't correlate with any of the current framework. Ref decided that as he clearly lowered his height and wrapped his arms he couldn't do anything about the falling player. On one hand it's common sense on the other it's massively inconsistent.

It might fit fine with the framework if Barton lowered his height - the first question is "Was the player at fault?" which basically boils down to did they bend at the waist. I didn't see the incident, but if Barton's tried to make a midriff tackle and the player's lowered into him, then I think that's your answer.

ETA. Found video and it was what I said - the ref's taken that Barton has gone to make a lower tackle and thus is not at fault for the collision, therefore the framework exits on the first question. Saved by good technique!
https://www.rugbydump.com/news/andrew-b ... pions-cup/


Puja

I thought the first question was, "is there contact to the head with force". If the answer is yes then you look to mitigate down but can only go down one step to yellow. If there's any illegal play you can't mitigate.

Given the La Rochelle player went off for a HIA I was expecting a yellow card personally. I was happy with the refs reasoning.

FKAS wrote:

Puja wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Deemed to be an unavoidable accident. Doesn't correlate with any of the current framework. Ref decided that as he clearly lowered his height and wrapped his arms he couldn't do anything about the falling player. On one hand it's common sense on the other it's massively inconsistent.

It might fit fine with the framework if Barton lowered his height - the first question is "Was the player at fault?" which basically boils down to did they bend at the waist. I didn't see the incident, but if Barton's tried to make a midriff tackle and the player's lowered into him, then I think that's your answer.

ETA. Found video and it was what I said - the ref's taken that Barton has gone to make a lower tackle and thus is not at fault for the collision, therefore the framework exits on the first question. Saved by good technique!
https://www.rugbydump.com/news/andrew-b ... pions-cup/


Puja

I thought the first question was, "is there contact to the head with force". If the answer is yes then you look to mitigate down but can only go down one step to yellow. If there's any illegal play you can't mitigate.

Given the La Rochelle player went off for a HIA I was expecting a yellow card personally. I was happy with the refs reasoning.

We're both wrong on the order. First question is contact to the head, second question is whether the player was at fault, third question is about force. So the ref kicked it out based on player not being at fault (because he wasn't upright and therefore there was no question of it being a reckless act).

Peej wrote:See, I don't see any attempt to wrap an arm at all. He leads straight in with the shoulder

I can see where you've come from, but this is the frame before contact: His right arm is definitely out in front; I'd say there's an attempt to use the arms. What's possibly more lucky on that screenshot is the assessment that he bent to make the tackle - he does look relatively upright there.

Puja

Although Step 2 often seems to be removed from the equation (eg Charlie Ewels getting yellow carded for head contact with no foul play).

TBH - I'm good with step 2 being removed, for a while at least until players and coaches start adapting, then we can re-introduce nuance (a bit like tackling the man in the air; where being an innocent party who's been jumped into doesn't seem to be an automatic red anymore)