• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Investec Champions Cup 23/24 - Rd 4

Yeah Itoje's really finding his form, which is even more impressive considering how stuttering Saracens have been this season


I know I've been championing him for ages but I think Isiekwe was quietly efficient at tight head lock - if we've pencilled in George Martin in the 23 then I think Isiekwe is the closest thing we have to a replacement now that he's injured
Isiekwe is the PERFECT mold for a lock or 6 - 6'7 , 19 stone...strong, athletic and powerful.

he's never brought the full package consistently but has done recently.

See what he brings.
 
Isiekwe is the PERFECT mold for a lock or 6 - 6'7 , 19 stone...strong, athletic and powerful.

he's never brought the full package consistently but has done recently.

See what he brings.
I think he's been pretty consistent for Sarries tbf, but in and out with injury and illness, overshadowed by Itoje (who over that time period has regularly been one of the best locks in the world) and never really translated the form when given a shot for England - easy to forget how young he is though, as he started playing for Sarries 1sts when he was 18, he's 4 years younger than Itoje, and two years older than Chessum

He'd be my pick for the 19 shirt, but I think it will go to Coles (who has earned it tbf)
 
Where are you getting this? I saw a full table of all clubs flash up earlier but can't find it now
Just looking at the tables and presuming a Toulouse win tomorrow.

1. Toulouse - 19 pts minimum and better PD than Leinster
2. Leinster - 19 pts
3. Saints (Exeter if they win by 52+) 18pts
4. Bordeaux - 17 pts
5-12. Doesn't concern me.
13. Sarries - 10 pts
14. Munster - 9 pts 0pd
15. Tigers - 9 pts -38pd
16. Racing - 8pts

Could change if Sale get an LBP and a 4 try BP (Tigers go out and Sale ahead of Munster) or Bath beat/draw Toulouse in Toulouse (Leinster go top and Bath go second or Toulouse go 3rd)
 
What a game. First half we were absolutely dire, Farrell still off form, but it all somehow came together and Lyon imploded.
 
Who's wearing 5 after this week? Chessum was bolloxed earlier.
I'm hoping that he passes all his protocols and starts at 5, if he does pass them all then he's back in contact training on the Tuesday of game week - which is cutting it fine but probably OK

If he's out I'd personally start Isiekwe with Coles on the bench but think that Borthwick would go for Itoje/Coles - but IMO that's too light in the setpiece (while Isiekwe does moonlight at 6 a bit he was very noticeably bigger than Itoje today and I think his bulk would be needed at scrum and maul)
 
What a game. First half we were absolutely dire, Farrell still off form, but it all somehow came together and Lyon imploded.
Yeah plan seemed to be everything Sarries don't usually do, I wonder if that and Faz having a terrible day were the two main factors, arguably a tactical master piece from MM, Sarries not rattling the score board and supreme opportunism from Lyon really kept it interesting.
 
Isiekwe is the PERFECT mold for a lock or 6 - 6'7 , 19 stone...strong, athletic and powerful.

he's never brought the full package consistently but has done recently.

See what he brings.
Perfect 'mould' doesn't mean anything unless he can actually deliver.

Given the health challenges he's had, I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, but until now, I've mostly been underwhelmed by him. His lineout and defensive work are good but for a huge man, his carrying is powder puff.

he has the physical gifts to be a top player. I'd love to see him mature into one, but as of right now, I'm a little sceptical.
 
Well this will be his 3rd or 4th standout appearance in a row in the Champions Cup so it's not just domestic form.

If England allow him to play a bit more of his natural game, I think he can do it.
Think Earl and him play a similar style, so don't think they could play in same team.
 
Seen more replays this morning and he looked down too which didn't help. I think it was a red per laws but again don't think it was on purpose or anything. A clumsy unfortunate incident if anything.
Think this is where I'm landing on it. I'm coming round on the idea of an "orange" card though, allowing a team to replace a player after 20 minutes for certain offences.

I wouldn't want to be the one writing or implementing the rules but after the two reds this weekend which absolutely weren't intentional and a result of messy contact zones and the yellows last week that should have been reds I think it would help referees to have that third option.
 
Seen more replays this morning and he looked down too which didn't help. I think it was a red per laws but again don't think it was on purpose or anything. A clumsy unfortunate incident if anything.
What laws? I don't believe anything re. contact to the head is relevant to this type of incident. Even if they were applied, there's every possible piece of mitigation you can imagine. Just a rubbish call on every level.
 
What laws? I don't believe anything re. contact to the head is relevant to this type of incident. Even if they were applied, there's every possible piece of mitigation you can imagine. Just a rubbish call on every level.
I think, and this is just my thought, it comes in to duty of care. So when you go in there has to be a duty of care. So like if there was an intentional knee to head it a red. This wasn't intentional but happened and when Saints player entered the ruck he didn't have the duty of care for Ahern. He also looked down which didn't help but more he just lost duty of care. No intention or malice. It something that happens 100 times in match. All borderline but when it goes wrong tou can be in trouble. As @Leonormous Boozer said maybe an Orange card or something I don't know.
But not sure on mitigation bit. Ahern was on ground so not much mitigation
 
What laws? I don't believe anything re. contact to the head is relevant to this type of incident. Even if they were applied, there's every possible piece of mitigation you can imagine. Just a rubbish call on every level.
This, the stamp on the head was clumsy as he had time to properly place his foot but need up. In this case he was literally just driving through contact in a perfectly normal way and the player unfortunately fell in such a way that his head fell in front of the players knee. Nothing reckless, no way he could really avoid it. It's not even a card in my opinion.
 
100%. How a TMO looks at that and decides on a red is totally baffling to me. The players' head fell into a player whose foot was on the floor. If it had been a tackle, there would have been mitigation on the fact that it was secondary contact so the player was already dropping plus the height of the contact with the knee. Why wasn't the same logic applied?
 
Perfect 'mould' doesn't mean anything unless he can actually deliver.

Given the health challenges he's had, I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, but until now, I've mostly been underwhelmed by him. His lineout and defensive work are good but for a huge man, his carrying is powder puff.

he has the physical gifts to be a top player. I'd love to see him mature into one, but as of right now, I'm a little sceptical.

Carrying's not his forte, but pretty much everything else is.

Natural ballast - even as a youngster they said he was the strongest at Sarries, brilliant in the air, strong defence and hits a load of rucks. From watching him in the flesh it's quite noticeable how often he's the first man in.

If you want an all round 'footballer' he's probably not your man. If you want a selfless team man happy to do the dirty work that lets others play in the mould of Kruis we could do a lot worse.

There's also the club continuity argument playing alongside George and Itoje.
 
I think, and this is just my thought, it comes in to duty of care. So when you go in there has to be a duty of care. So like if there was an intentional knee to head it a red. This wasn't intentional but happened and when Saints player entered the ruck he didn't have the duty of care for Ahern. He also looked down which didn't help but more he just lost duty of care. No intention or malice. It something that happens 100 times in match. All borderline but when it goes wrong tou can be in trouble. As @Leonormous Boozer said maybe an Orange card or something I don't know.
But not sure on mitigation bit. Ahern was on ground so not much mitigation
You can ramble on about duty of care until the cows come home, it was a dynamic movement with two points of contact, as you stated it happens and there is potential for this to happen every ruck of which there are plenty every game. Of course there is always a duty of care, Don't shoulder charge to the head or tackle high, don't fly into a ruck with a leading shoulder all very controllable most of the time, as you know rucking is a core part of the game, if you don't challenge to slow opposition ball or secure your own it's going to be a tough day at the office, calling duty of care doesn't suddenly enable the player to predict the freak event of a players head being in an awkward position or give him the ability to defy natural movement and pull out mid way though a dynamic movement. Really need to accept that applying a phrase doesn't change the physical reality of things. This isn't to say I'm unsympathetic toward Ahern I am it was horrible unfortunate and really wish him a speedy recovery.

The more I think about it the more the commentary boils my ****, he felt contact so should have stopped (with limbs all over the shop why would he assume it's with the head), you can't just stop a dynamic movement it easy to say when you put it clip by clip in slow it happened so quickly, to play judge, jury and executioner in the manor does a disservice to the sport and those that play it, I expect better from those that have plaid the sport, id put money on them having a different view were it the other way around.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top