Aviva Premiership FINAL - Bath Rugby v Saracens, 30 May

First topic message reminder :

         
BATH RUGBY v SARACENS
Saturday 30 May 2015
KO: 14:30
Twickenham

Live on BT Sport

Referee: Wayne Barnes (156th Premiership game, 6th final).
Assistant Referees: JP Doyle & Greg Garner.
TMO: Graham Hughes.

A. Head to Head - Aggregate

38 Played 38
13 Wins 23
23 Losses 13
2 Draws 2
82 Tries 87
68 Conversions 60
82 Penalties 107
2 Drop Goals 4
798 Points 888
26 Avg. Age 27

B. Head to Head - This Season

Sun 15 Feb 15: Saracens 34 - 24 Bath Rugby

Fri 3 Oct 2014: Bath Rugby 21 - 11 Saracens

C. Run-In

Bath Rugby

23/05/15 Bath 47 - 10 Tigers

16/05/15 Bath 50 - 30 Gloucester

08/05/15 Quins 26 - 27 Bath

Saracens

23/05/15 Saints 24 - 29 Saracens

16/05/15 L Welsh 17 - 68 Saracens

10/05/15 Saracens 20 - 24 Chiefs

D. Teams

Bath Rugby

Watson; Rokoduguni, Joseph, Eastmond, Banahan; Ford, Stringer; James, Batty, Wilson, Hooper (capt), Attwood, Burgess, Louw, Houston.

Replacements: Webber, Auterac, Thomas, Day, Garvey, Fearns, Cook, Devoto.

Saracens

Goode; Strettle, Taylor, Barritt, Wyles; Farrell, Wigglesworth; M. Vunipola, George, Du Plessis, Kruis, Hargreaves (capt), Itoje, Burger, B. Vunipola.

Replacements: Brits, Barrington, Figallo, Hamilton, Wray, de Kock, Hodgson, Ashton.

Congratulations Sarries and hard luck to Bath. I haven't seen the whole match yet but it looks like Sarries were just about always in control?

Replay is on by sport now

stub wrote:Congratulations Sarries and hard luck to Bath. I haven't seen the whole match yet but it looks like Sarries were just about always in control?

Saracens generally were in control, except for the third quarter, which was almost all Bath. To me, Bath could have, arguably should have, done more during that stretch.

Disappointing that the final was directly affected by some poor officiating, my feeling after the game was similar to how I felt after the 2011 WC final.

Farrell's challenge on Watson was reckless and deserved yellow. Not red for me as it didn't seem malicious but for him to score within what would have been a sin bin period was harsh on Bath, especially with Watson going off soon after which nullified one of Bath's main counter attacking weapons, thus helping the already formidable Saracens kicking game.

Couldn't fathom the Goode one either. Barnes stated there was cover but surely that means no pen try but it was still a professional foul and so yellow card? Seems to me that the referee really didn't want to show a yellow card regardless. Not saying he was showing favouritism and if the roles had been reversed and it had been Bath committing the offences then I think the same thing would have happened.

As as neutral fan I've no issue with Saracens victory, they were good for it and executed there gameplan brilliantly. Just that the game was somewhat spoiled for me.

LondonTiger wrote:Farrell and Webber both given retrospective yellow cards for foul play.

Doesn't retrospectively change the score line though. Farrell should have at least been off for ten minutes, given his contribution to the Saracens score over all and the fact that Bath then had to play the rest of the match without Watson, Bath can feel somewhat aggrieved. To then award Farrell MoM was a sick joke IMO.

Now, the question we have to ask ourselves, is Farrell a 'dangerous thug' and does he have a 'flawed psyche'?  

Watson was also at fault for Farrell's try. He was covering behind and went for the winger when Joseph had him covered. It was after that he was taken off I think.

I would love to say that an unconcussed Watson would have made a better decision. Not sure he would though.

Really disappointing final from a neutral perspective - Bath just were never in the game.

Agree with Beshocked about certain teams playing into Sarries hands and giving easy targets for the wolfpack defence - Sarries looked pretty comfortable throughout with anything Bath threw at them.

It will be interesting to see if this has any bearing on England selection because a few of the sarries definitely go one up on their opposites.

England don't really play in the same style as Saracens which is where we come unstuck. Pick the best players to do the job for England not necessarily the best players.

It was a shame Bath couldn't get their free flowing and offload game going, it's such a joy to watch, however Saracens are just superb at the minute, and close down attacks before the breakdown happens let alone after the ball is moved away.

After a european run, and just making the top 4 all credit to Saracens heart for going out and having to outmuscle both Northampton and Bath within 7 days or so.

Direct match-ups:

George v Webber - barely both on pitch at same time, but George a clear winner.
Kruis v Attwood - honours even
Itoje v Burgess - Itoje moved to second row too early to make a call
Farrell v Ford - honours even imo
Barritt v Eastmond - will merely have confirmed the pecking order in Lancaster's head.
Goode v Watson - thanks to foul play we were unable to maker a judgement


Only match up that may have caused Lancaster to rethink will have been at hooker

No offence London tiger but I dislike when people use head to heads to judge players, in every action there is a differing scenario or situation, so even when those above seemingly get one over on the other it's generally due to circumstances.

Whats clear is that George had a good day, Webber came on into a struggling pack, Itoje hits hard! and Burgess is physically a monster, and Baritts defence capabilities helped those around him, whereas Eastmods abilities weren't allowed a platform.

Watson and Goode are such different players it would be unfair to compare, and a decision between them will be solely on other personell selection i think.

Fanster wrote:No offence London tiger but I dislike when people use head to heads to judge players, in every action there is a differing scenario or situation,

I agree completely, was just a response to a previous post that stated Sarries would have caused Lancaster to rethink by winning head to heads.

PS it takes a lot to offend me, but once offended I do tend to explode.

Apologies, I see a lot of head to head debates in real life, generally about children and its a bugbare of mine.

I'm not sure the Saracens win will have caused a rethink, unless Lancaster was proposing a Bath style beautifull gameplan, which I'm sure he's not.

If anything I think Lancaster must be rubbing his hands watching a hard nosed English led defence display manage to outdo the creative capabilities of Bath. The likes of Eastmond, and Ford never stopped trying to unlock the door.

I think England probably has a very balanced team which is capable of turning games that aren't necesarily going their way, and thats one of the strengths New Zealand have had over the years.

Agree with Londontiger it will have a minimal impact on selection actually.

Though what this final showed was that Saracens are developing some very talented young forwards. Even Auterac who played for Bath came from Saracens academy.

Also Saracens forwards actually could well suit an attacking game if that's the way England want to go.

The athleticism and handling of the Saracens forwards is underrated. What they have is a nice mix of power,work rate and athleticism. It's what a modern forward needs.

I expect Lancaster will want a mix of styles.

I would love to see this line up at some point.

1. Vunipola
2.George
3.Cole
4.Launchbury
5.Kruis
6.Itoje/Burgess
7. Robshaw
8. Vunipola

9. Youngs
10.Ford
11.Nowell
12.Barritt
13. Joseph
14. Watson
15. Brown