RugbyRebels

Wasps: Minozzi; Odogwu, Fekitoa, Le Bourgeois, Bassett; Umaga, Robson; Harris, Taylor, Brookes, Launchbury, Rowlands, Gaskell, Young, Shields

Replacements: Oghre, Owlett, Toomaga-Allen, Vukasinovic, Vailanu, Wolstenholme, Gopperth, Kibirige.

Clermont: Matsushima; Penaud, Moala, Fofana, Raka; Lopez (c), Bezy; Ravai, Pelissie, Ojovan, Jedrasiak, Vahaamahina, Cancoriet, Fischer, Lee

Replacements: Fourcade, Bibi Biziwu, Slimani, Lanen, Yato, Parra, Nanai-Williams, Bethan

No AB .

AB?

Alfie Barbeary, silly me.

Calf injury.

you mean CI

Dumbest knock on I've seen for a while.

Got to go for 3 points on the final scrum pen. Oghre's throwing has never looked comfortable at this level, Silly.

Great heart from Wasps though

Big effort from Wasps who played very well at times. Ran out of steam in the 2nd half. Bench use and depth a telling factor.

Forward pass to Fritz to finish. Ah well. Shows what we're capable of, hopefully take it back into the prem.

So many points left out there by both sides. Clermont clearly more potential but as so often they're more than a little lazy.

Something I've not really thought about before is just how quick Umaga's kick action is, he's rapid getting the boot onto ball

Feel for Wasps. Think they’re a better team than Clermont, but just ran out of bodies in the end. Asking too many players to go too long because of a lack of depth.

Timbo wrote:Feel for Wasps. Think they’re a better team than Clermont, but just ran out of bodies in the end. Asking too many players to go too long because of a lack of depth.

Quite. Brookes looked seriously in need of oxygen. At one point I wondered if he was concussed.

As regards replacements, it was somewhat ironic that Gopperth, presumably sent on with 10 minutes left to steady the ship, conceded a crucial penalty.

Oakboy wrote:

Timbo wrote:Feel for Wasps. Think they’re a better team than Clermont, but just ran out of bodies in the end. Asking too many players to go too long because of a lack of depth.

Quite. Brookes looked seriously in need of oxygen. At one point I wondered if he was concussed.

As regards replacements, it was somewhat ironic that Gopperth, presumably sent on with 10 minutes left to steady the ship, conceded a crucial penalty.

He definitely got a knee in the head a couple of phases before the try. Stood up then went the long way round the wrong side of a ruck to get back into the line.

I'd be asking who called that last wasps line out. If ever there was a case for firing it to the front that was it.

Also, I know people don’t want to hear it for various reasons, but Brad Shields was immense yet again in this game.

Shields has been brilliant for Wasps despite their otherwise deep set shiteness

Peej wrote:Shields has been brilliant for Wasps despite their otherwise deep set shiteness

Agreed. What I find so interesting is that he has taken 2 years(ish) to adjust totally to the English game - destroying the myth that the SH game is so superior.

The enigma then is interpreting Jones's judgement - right to say Shields was quality or wrong to put him in immedately? My concern has always been that understanding the English game is vital and this is an instance indicating that Jones is suspect in that respect perhaps.

Timbo wrote:Also, I know people don’t want to hear it for various reasons, but Brad Shields was immense yet again in this game.

Very good player.

Oakboy wrote:

Peej wrote:Shields has been brilliant for Wasps despite their otherwise deep set shiteness

Agreed. What I find so interesting is that he has taken 2 years(ish) to adjust totally to the English game - destroying the myth that the SH game is so superior.

The enigma then is interpreting Jones's judgement - right to say Shields was quality or wrong to put him in immedately? My concern has always been that understanding the English game is vital and this is an instance indicating that Jones is suspect in that respect perhaps.

Can the prem be compared to international any moreso than super?

Shields was ok for England. Not ground breaking, maybe not more deserving of a spot than some players in England, but he was a long was from sh*t the bed awful that some seem to think he was. He didn't do enough to hold the shirt, but he wasn't a terrible pick either.

Oghre's such a busy player but his throwing in isn't up to scratch yet. Gutted for Wasps, unrecognisable after their last few outings. Big shift from Brookes and Harris but JTA would've been munched by that pack.

Raggs wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Peej wrote:Shields has been brilliant for Wasps despite their otherwise deep set shiteness

Agreed. What I find so interesting is that he has taken 2 years(ish) to adjust totally to the English game - destroying the myth that the SH game is so superior.

The enigma then is interpreting Jones's judgement - right to say Shields was quality or wrong to put him in immedately? My concern has always been that understanding the English game is vital and this is an instance indicating that Jones is suspect in that respect perhaps.

Can the prem be compared to international any moreso than super?

Shields was ok for England. Not ground breaking, maybe not more deserving of a spot than some players in England, but he was a long was from sh*t the bed awful that some seem to think he was. He didn't do enough to hold the shirt, but he wasn't a terrible pick either.

Fair comment but the point might be that if he had not been picked until he had settled into the English game with Wasps, he might have got an English shirt and kept it. Now, unless there are half a dozen injuries, I doubt he will get another chance - yet, IMO, he is a far more effective player now than he was when first capped.

I suggest that you/we can't have it both ways with Jones. He, reportedly, sees English players as having limitations of style/application or whatever. Yet, a SH player, ultimatey proven to be of quality, took time to adjust to the English game. After all, he was not outstanding for Wasps originally but now he is. I don't have a clue about prem/super comparisons but Shields had some sort of issue with switching initially.

Raggs wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Peej wrote:Shields has been brilliant for Wasps despite their otherwise deep set shiteness

Agreed. What I find so interesting is that he has taken 2 years(ish) to adjust totally to the English game - destroying the myth that the SH game is so superior.

The enigma then is interpreting Jones's judgement - right to say Shields was quality or wrong to put him in immedately? My concern has always been that understanding the English game is vital and this is an instance indicating that Jones is suspect in that respect perhaps.

Can the prem be compared to international any moreso than super?

Shields was ok for England. Not ground breaking, maybe not more deserving of a spot than some players in England, but he was a long was from sh*t the bed awful that some seem to think he was. He didn't do enough to hold the shirt, but he wasn't a terrible pick either.

I will also note that Shields isn't really a lock, which is where he was used for most of his early appearances for England. Looked a lot better in the white shirt when he was played at 6.

Puja


[Mod]Let's make sure not to turn this into another Eddie thread. Talking about Shields and his treatment = fine, talking about Eddie's selections and attitude to the Prem in general = stick it on the Eddie thread that already exists.[/Mod]

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Agreed. What I find so interesting is that he has taken 2 years(ish) to adjust totally to the English game - destroying the myth that the SH game is so superior.

The enigma then is interpreting Jones's judgement - right to say Shields was quality or wrong to put him in immedately? My concern has always been that understanding the English game is vital and this is an instance indicating that Jones is suspect in that respect perhaps.

Can the prem be compared to international any moreso than super?

Shields was ok for England. Not ground breaking, maybe not more deserving of a spot than some players in England, but he was a long was from sh*t the bed awful that some seem to think he was. He didn't do enough to hold the shirt, but he wasn't a terrible pick either.

I will also note that Shields isn't really a lock, which is where he was used for most of his early appearances for England. Looked a lot better in the white shirt when he was played at 6.

Puja


[Mod]Let's make sure not to turn this into another Eddie thread. Talking about Shields and his treatment = fine, talking about Eddie's selections and attitude to the Prem in general = stick it on the Eddie thread that already exists.[/Mod]

Memory suggests to me that he was picked at 6, but Isiekwe got the hook, and we used Shields at lock instead of bringing Hill on? So he was further hampered there.

Shields was playing well in Super rugby, I don't think waiting for him to play well in the prem makes much difference to be honest. If Wasps had just had a few less injuries, that games becomes even more winnable.

Either way, I'm hoping it's the spark Wasps needed. With 7 games left top 6 is still very much in grasp, and even top 4 is not yet out of sight.

And Wasps might improve again as the grounds are getting faster fast

Raggs wrote:

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Can the prem be compared to international any moreso than super?

Shields was ok for England. Not ground breaking, maybe not more deserving of a spot than some players in England, but he was a long was from sh*t the bed awful that some seem to think he was. He didn't do enough to hold the shirt, but he wasn't a terrible pick either.

I will also note that Shields isn't really a lock, which is where he was used for most of his early appearances for England. Looked a lot better in the white shirt when he was played at 6.

Puja


[Mod]Let's make sure not to turn this into another Eddie thread. Talking about Shields and his treatment = fine, talking about Eddie's selections and attitude to the Prem in general = stick it on the Eddie thread that already exists.[/Mod]

Memory suggests to me that he was picked at 6, but Isiekwe got the hook, and we used Shields at lock instead of bringing Hill on? So he was further hampered there.

Shields was playing well in Super rugby, I don't think waiting for him to play well in the prem makes much difference to be honest. If Wasps had just had a few less injuries, that games becomes even more winnable.

Either way, I'm hoping it's the spark Wasps needed. With 7 games left top 6 is still very much in grasp, and even top 4 is not yet out of sight.

Isiekwe started at lock and he got hooked for Shields on 35 minutes. I was sure that Shields started the second test at lock, and played lock again in the AIs, but a quick google shows me I'm entirely wrong.

Puja

Yep, it was Robshaw at 6. Robshaw was fairly invisible so easy to assume it was Isiekwe at 6