Playoff time - Tigers vs Sarries - Saturday 12th May 17:30 KO (Build-Up)

First topic message reminder :

Sarries team announced:

Saracens line-up vs Leicester Tigers

15 Alex Goode
14 David Strettle
13 Owen Farrell
12 Brad Barritt
11 Chris Wyles
10 Charlie Hodgson
9 Neil de Kock
1 Rhys Gill
2 Schalk Brits
3 Matt Stevens
4 Steve Borthwick ©
5 Mouritz Botha
6 Jackson Wray
7 Will Fraser
8 Ernst Joubert

16 Jamie George
17 John Smit
18 Carlos Nieto
19 Hugh Vyvyan
20 George Kruis
21 Richard Wigglesworth
22 Adam Powell
23 James Short

Tigers team

15 Geordan Murphy (c)
14 Horacio Agulla
13 Manusamoa Tuilagi
12 Anthony Allen
11 Alesana Tuilagi
10 Toby Flood
9 Ben Youngs
1 Marcos Ayerza
2 George Chuter
3 Dan Cole
4 George Skivington
5 Geoff Parling
6 Steve Mafi
7 Julian Salvi
8 Thomas Waldrom

Replacements
16 Tom Youngs
17 Logovi'i Mulipola
18 Martin Castrogiovanni
19 Graham Kitchener
20 Craig Newby
21 Sam Harrison
22 Billy Twelvetrees
23 Scott Hamilton



Not really my bag - the playoffs - so first I'll just congratulate the Quins on being Regular season champions.

However tickets seem to be selling pretty well but I don't know that it will be a full house.

But I want a Leicester victory not so much as a on-eyed Tiger, but just to express my opinion regarding the Sarries season-long negative approach.

Oh also it's funny isn't it Equo Troiano that you are fighting the corner of Attwood and Garvey but yet haven't piped up about Kitchener.

What has Kitchener done to warrant a call up?

I think you'll find I spell it correctly.

Equo Troiano wrote:

beshocked wrote:Agree with Sam. Funny that you focus all your bile on Botha but don't mention Palmer.

Botha performed adequately in the 6 nations. He didn't have a howler like the scrum halves did.

Just because I happen to disagree with you it has to be because they are Saracens? Sigh. Stop being so sanctimonious.

I would have picked Garvey for the 6 nations over Botha but as Botha had an alright 6 nations and Garvey has not put his hand up recently - Botha gets the nod.

Attwood hasn't really stood out in a rubbish Bath side so shouldn't feature.

Both Garvey and Attwood need to focus on turning their clubs into contenders.

Do you even know what sanctimonious means?

We're both entitled to our opinions, but its as sure as eggs are eggs that if anyone offers criticism of a SAracens player at any level, you flare up like teenage acne, so don't you dare accuse anyone of being 'sanctimonious', because you wrote the rule book.

Equo, don't you think it is time you start spelling Saracens correctly?

It is getting a little old now, as far as being sanctimonious, well.

Yet you question selection of Botha who is starting lock for his club and played for England in the 6 nations. Yet seem to show no objection to Kitchener who can't get into the Leicester XV.

Is he even in the Leicester 23 with Slater,Skivington and Parling in the mix? Oh and when Deacon is back he could be 5th choice.

biltongbek wrote:

Equo Troiano wrote:

beshocked wrote:Agree with Sam. Funny that you focus all your bile on Botha but don't mention Palmer.

Botha performed adequately in the 6 nations. He didn't have a howler like the scrum halves did.

Just because I happen to disagree with you it has to be because they are Saracens? Sigh. Stop being so sanctimonious.

I would have picked Garvey for the 6 nations over Botha but as Botha had an alright 6 nations and Garvey has not put his hand up recently - Botha gets the nod.

Attwood hasn't really stood out in a rubbish Bath side so shouldn't feature.

Both Garvey and Attwood need to focus on turning their clubs into contenders.

Do you even know what sanctimonious means?

We're both entitled to our opinions, but its as sure as eggs are eggs that if anyone offers criticism of a SAracens player at any level, you flare up like teenage acne, so don't you dare accuse anyone of being 'sanctimonious', because you wrote the rule book.

Equo, don't you think it is time you start spelling Saracens correctly?

It is getting a little old now, as far as being sanctimonious, well.

Which part don't I spell correctly?

beshocked wrote:Oh also it's funny isn't it Equo Troiano that you are fighting the corner of Attwood and Garvey but yet haven't piped up about Kitchener.

What has Kitchener done to warrant a call up?

Don't you think it kind of desperate that you should question why I havent 'piped up' (great expression that ) about Kitchener but have questioned the absence of Garvey & Attwood, neither of whom are Leicester players?

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/squads.php?player=73576&includeref=dynamic

Interesting stats

Kitchener has only played 7 AP games for Tigers this season. 4 starts, 3 replacements. Very poor actually.

Not been in the Leicester 23 since the 30th March. It's strange that he gets picked.

Obvious your blatant Leicester bias prevents you from questioning a very dubious call.

beshocked wrote:http://www.premiershiprugby.com/squads.php?player=73576&includeref=dynamic

Interesting stats

Kitchener has only played 7 AP games for Tigers this season. 4 starts, 3 replacements. Very poor actually.

Not been in the Leicester 23 since the 30th March. It's strange that he gets picked.

Obvious your blatant Leicester bias prevents you from questioning a very dubious call.

Beshocked

Technically he was in the 23 on Saturday, he just didn't come on, but I get your point. He is behind Parling at Tigers but as Parling is starting for England (and deservedly so) that isn't surprising and he hasn't played very much.

However, for me Palmer is the one that shouldn't be there. It is obvious that Lancaster has taken a punt on certain players due to the potential he thinks they have, such as Youngs and Kitchener. They won't get near the test side but they are going to be tested out in this environment. I have no problem with that, I am assuming the likes of Joseph and Wade will be in the same situation. However, we also are going there to go up against South Africa and we need our best 22 out there and I assume Palmer will be on the bench for the first test at least and this is where I don't agree. Much like Stevens, I do not see what he brings off the bench and this is where I would replace him with someone else. Maybe Robson could get that spot but I don't see it happening to start with anyway.

Killer I just find it difficult to understand picking someone who has had so little gametime.

Wow I didn't realise Tom Youngs has played so little.

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/squads.php?player=21383&includeref=dynamic


I get the impression only Leicester players seem to get this treatment.

Well I find it hard to believe Lancaster has any bias, in fact a lot of people were complaining when a certain Hodgson of Sarries got picked ahead of Flood. He has no allegiances so there must be another reason. It does seem that it happens only in the forwards so I guess some people could go down the Rowntree biased route but then again Rowntree has been working wonders with the forwards so I think we can cut him a little slack and trust he knows what he is doing. No-one is going to agree with every selection anyway, as I have already said I don't, but they are the guys in charge and have done a pretty good job so far so I am going to trust them on certain calls which may not seem the best.

Killer no I don't think Lancaster is biased.

Hodgson has been very consistent. Also was the trying scoring hero vs Scotland and Italy.

Forgot that the England forwards coach is a Leicester man. Coincidence that two Leicester forwards with virtually no experience/ not all first choice get picked. Hmmmm

We'll see if these picks pay off.

beshocked wrote:Killer I just find it difficult to understand picking someone who has had so little gametime.

Lancaster picked Kitchener regularly for the Saxons when he was back-up to Rawlinson and Gillies at Wuss. There is obviousley something there that he likes.

Wow I didn't realise Tom Youngs has played so little.

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/squads.php?player=21383&includeref=dynamic


I get the impression only Leicester players seem to get this treatment.

First you have to remember he had a long period out due to spinal surgery. Of course Youngs is a punt - but as 4th choice hooker it is a chance for them to see someone different. As a former England U20 centre, Youngs could very well develop into (an even better) English version of Schalk Brits. Or he could be rubbish. Without a churchill cup there is limited opportunity for Lancaster to look at hunches like this on the field.

While you may be dissapointed that Jamie George is not going, his chance will come. to blame it all on preferential treatment for leicester players is rather silly though.

No I don't think our 2nd/3rd choices like Jamie George and Ben Spencer deserve to go. Simply because they are not first choice.

Funnily enough they have more game time than your guys but still....

Of course it's preferential treatment - you don't see 2nd/3rd choices from other clubs being picked.

I just want to see a bit more consistency.

The likes of Launchbury,Joseph and Wade have all had a lot of gametime under their belts this season and are first choice.

So as fourth choice hooker who do you want to go? As 6th choice second row, Lancaster is allowed to take a punt on someone he has worked closely with. I am not sure I agree with either decision - but you can be fairly sure it is down to what Lancaster sees in the player, and nothing to do with what colour they wear. To say otherwise is the act of a paranoid fool, something I am sure you are not.

Lancaster selected a clubs second choice Stand-Off, which so far has worked out pretty well for him.

Dowson is going on the tourdespite being Sainst second choice for all 3 back row spots.

4th choice hooker - why not Webber?

When did Lancaster select a club's 2nd choice stand off?

If you are referring to Farrell him and Hodgson share fly half duties. Farrell has proved himself time and again - winning an AP final is exactly that.

It's a completely different situation as both have had significant gametime.

It's why there isn't too much problem when the 2nd choice Leicester tighthead prop was picked for England for his first cap.

Isn't Dowson Saint's first choice 6? If not then who is?

LondonTiger I just find it funny when a fellow Tiger fan of yours complains about Botha but doesn't look closer to home.

Anyway we'll see how these punts go. If Rowntree gets it right he deserves the credit. If not then he'll get the criticism he'll deserve.

Webber is injured and ruled out. Paice is banned.

Neither Youngs or Kitchener will feature in test squads, nor will they start the first midweek game. With a large squad, Lancaster is taking the chance to look at players and see how they go when training witrh the "big" boys.

Something he did in the 6Ns when calling up a variety of young players to train with the squad (including Daly, Launchbury and George).


There are a number of selections that I do not agree with (including youngs) but Lancaster has some credit in the bank, so I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

beshocked wrote:4th choice hooker - why not Webber?

When did Lancaster select a club's 2nd choice stand off?

If you are referring to Farrell him and Hodgson share fly half duties. Farrell has proved himself time and again - winning an AP final is exactly that.

It's a completely different situation as both have had significant gametime.

It's why there isn't too much problem when the 2nd choice Leicester tighthead prop was picked for England for his first cap.

Isn't Dowson Saint's first choice 6? If not then who is?

LondonTiger I just find it funny when a fellow Tiger fan of yours complains about Botha but doesn't look closer to home.

Anyway we'll see how these punts go. If Rowntree gets it right he deserves the credit. If not then he'll get the criticism he'll deserve.

Probably because Botha is in the 1st choice XV and those 'closer to home' aren't?

Of course it's preferential treatment - you don't see 2nd/3rd choices from other clubs being picked

I saw Sarries second choice 10 picked during the 6N...

Lancaster has taken an experiemental squad because he want to use the mid week games in order to have a look at inexperienced players he feels have promise. That's fair enough, the man has the top job and wants to expand squad possibilities then that's his call. Personally I don't think any player who played in both the 6N and the RWC (three games or more in each) should be going on tour at all. That would have given rise to and even more experimental squad.

Lancaster picked Kitchener regularly for the Saxons when he was back-up to Rawlinson and Gillies at Wuss. There is obviousley something there that he likes.

Maybe he's aware that England are in need of lineout technicians and that Palmer is not especially good in that role, Parling has had a couple of nasty injuries and Robson seems to be a late developer. Bringing Kitchener in early because he knows him and likes what he can do is a bit of forward planning. Kitchener might be somewhat fortunate he has that history with Lancaster otherwise it could have just as easily been Myall of Sale or Kruis of Sarries.

You were more upbeat when he took a chance on two uncapped Sarries players and partnered them with Hodgson. Lancaster is a man who wants to hand out some experience and see who steps up. Fair enough, Johnno did the same when trying to find his squad.

With England having such a big player base for it's international coach to choose from I suppose sometimes they have to go with a little bit of gut feeling when picking 'bolters' or players for the future. And I suppose being in a top club which has a lot of pedigree aids that stab in the dark.

What will be more interesting is if Farrell gets any test time on tour or if he is the mid week 10.

Farrell will start the first test at 10.

Really??

I would bet that unless he's injured Flood will start. Especially as Dickson is off form and Youngs is getting back to his best.

Flood is litterally 1 million times the better, more rounded and more dangerous fly half then Farrell is. Farrell though does nerves of steel and an impressive boot.

I just cannot see Lancaster dropping him.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Of course it's preferential treatment - you don't see 2nd/3rd choices from other clubs being picked

I saw Sarries second choice 10 picked during the 6N...

Lancaster has taken an experiemental squad because he want to use the mid week games in order to have a look at inexperienced players he feels have promise. That's fair enough, the man has the top job and wants to expand squad possibilities then that's his call. Personally I don't think any player who played in both the 6N and the RWC (three games or more in each) should be going on tour at all. That would have given rise to and even more experimental squad.

Lancaster picked Kitchener regularly for the Saxons when he was back-up to Rawlinson and Gillies at Wuss. There is obviousley something there that he likes.

Maybe he's aware that England are in need of lineout technicians and that Palmer is not especially good in that role, Parling has had a couple of nasty injuries and Robson seems to be a late developer. Bringing Kitchener in early because he knows him and likes what he can do is a bit of forward planning. Kitchener might be somewhat fortunate he has that history with Lancaster otherwise it could have just as easily been Myall of Sale or Kruis of Sarries.

You were more upbeat when he took a chance on two uncapped Sarries players and partnered them with Hodgson. Lancaster is a man who wants to hand out some experience and see who steps up. Fair enough, Johnno did the same when trying to find his squad.

Sam at least Farrell has played plenty of games, has been a key player in the Saracens squad and XV - just look at his amount of game time.

Completely different situation - actually playing in matches helps selection.

George Kruis as you mentioned has played an awful lot more rugby than Kitchener. He's not even on the radar. No I don't think Kruis is ready but why Kitchener over Garvey or Attwood?

I feel T.Youngs and Kitchener should get more gametime first - they don't think they have done enough to warrant fast tracking.

It's different with the uncapped Saracens players playing a lot more rugby and were playing well.

There will always be accusations of bias when a Leicester coach is in the England set up. It must be coincidental that two Leicester forwards with virtually no game time get picked. Who is the England forward's coach again?

Bit harsh on Leicester there. I take your point on Kitchener, not really sure where that has come from, I'd argue Slater was an equally good prospect going on the same principles. Think Attwood and Garvey have been really unlucky, but maybe it is down to them both playing in very poor and inconsistent sides this year, both of which have average packs?

Completely disagree on the Youngs point though, we have a real gap at hooker, with Mears experienced but won't make the next WC and with no obvious blooded back up to Hartley. It's a perfect opportunity to give Youngs some top level experience, without throwing him to the wolves a la Tait. Get him in and around the squad to pick up things and develop, without the pressure of playing test level rugby straight away, in a very high profile position.

Bathite fair enough I suppose but why not pick Skivington or Slater instead?

How can T.Youngs not wrest the 2 shirt off old man Chuter?

I mean how does T.Youngs get in ahead of Chris Whitehead who many thought was the best hooker in the AP this season.

1, Yep, I agree, that's what I said with Slater....

2, Because he's still a risk in the big games and it makes sense to go with experience if you have it. We don't have that luxury at int level.

3, True, seems really harsh. Certainly a case that Exeter have been unlucky not to get more call ups and Tigers have got more than their fair share

Bathite fair enough I suppose but why not pick Skivington or Slater instead?

Because neither are lineout operators? I presume that is why he has been selected ahead of Attwood and Garvey.

When did Kitchener last operate a lineout? Difficult to when not first choice. Also with Croft and Parling running the show at Leicester.

Beshocked, I have explained why Lancaster chose Kitchener. I may not agree with his choice, but I explained why several times.

If Kitchener and T.Youngs perform well I will apologise for ever doubting them.

When did Kitchener last operate a lineout? Difficult to when not first choice. Also with Croft and Parling running the show at Leicester.

LV Cup Final. A League semi final where he also ran in a long range interception try. Croft rarely calls the lineout he is the main jumper not the tactician.

Cheers Sam for looking it up It kind of proves my point though.

I think the lineout could actually be a real weakness on this tour. I think it is underestimated just how good Croft is in that area and how much we will miss him. Without him we don't have a safety net and so we are going to have to mix it up a lot more.

He took on the Saints lineout and did well. He's a young lock taken to play in the mid week team. Similarly Tom Youngs has been taken as 4th choice to come off the bench in the mid week team. Incidentally had Tom Youngs not missed some three and a half months through injury I think he'd have that number 2 shirt as he'd already overtaken Hawkins and was applying pressure to Chuter. Cockers rarely changes the team in the tail end of the season so there's not really chance to push on now, the rankings in terms of position are set.

beshocked wrote:If Kitchener and T.Youngs perform well I will apologise for ever doubting them.

I would be surprised if either start a game - though Kitchener may be more likely to as he has been a Lancaster favourite for a couple of years now.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

When did Kitchener last operate a lineout? Difficult to when not first choice. Also with Croft and Parling running the show at Leicester.

LV Cup Final. A League semi final where he also ran in a long range interception try. Croft rarely calls the lineout he is the main jumper not the tactician.

+1

beshocked wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Of course it's preferential treatment - you don't see 2nd/3rd choices from other clubs being picked

I saw Sarries second choice 10 picked during the 6N...

Lancaster has taken an experiemental squad because he want to use the mid week games in order to have a look at inexperienced players he feels have promise. That's fair enough, the man has the top job and wants to expand squad possibilities then that's his call. Personally I don't think any player who played in both the 6N and the RWC (three games or more in each) should be going on tour at all. That would have given rise to and even more experimental squad.

Lancaster picked Kitchener regularly for the Saxons when he was back-up to Rawlinson and Gillies at Wuss. There is obviousley something there that he likes.

Maybe he's aware that England are in need of lineout technicians and that Palmer is not especially good in that role, Parling has had a couple of nasty injuries and Robson seems to be a late developer. Bringing Kitchener in early because he knows him and likes what he can do is a bit of forward planning. Kitchener might be somewhat fortunate he has that history with Lancaster otherwise it could have just as easily been Myall of Sale or Kruis of Sarries.

You were more upbeat when he took a chance on two uncapped Sarries players and partnered them with Hodgson. Lancaster is a man who wants to hand out some experience and see who steps up. Fair enough, Johnno did the same when trying to find his squad.

Sam at least Farrell has played plenty of games, has been a key player in the Saracens squad and XV - just look at his amount of game time.

Completely different situation - actually playing in matches helps selection.

George Kruis as you mentioned has played an awful lot more rugby than Kitchener. He's not even on the radar. No I don't think Kruis is ready but why Kitchener over Garvey or Attwood?

I feel T.Youngs and Kitchener should get more gametime first - they don't think they have done enough to warrant fast tracking.

It's different with the uncapped Saracens players playing a lot more rugby and were playing well.

There will always be accusations of bias when a Leicester coach is in the England set up. It must be coincidental that two Leicester forwards with virtually no game time get picked. Who is the England forward's coach again?

Leicester bias? grow up will you. Next you'll be saying Lancaster is bias towards Leicester because he once drove through it.

Your the only one who has issue with it, so I'm more inclined to say your being anti-Leicester

And I thought I was the only one who'd noticed...