Saracens Vs Sale

[FKAS]

Saracens Men team to play Sale Sharks:
1 Eroni Mawi
2 Jamie George
3 Marco Riccioni
4 Maro Itoje (c)
5 Hugh Tizard
6 Juan Martin Gonzalez
7 Ben Earl
8 Tom Willis
9 Charlie Bracken
10 Fergus Burke
11 Lucio Cinti
12 Owen Farrell
13 Nick Tompkins
14 Noah Caluori
15 Max Malins

Replacements:
16 Theo Dan
17 Rhys Carre
18 Marcus Street
19 Harry Wilson
20 Nick Isiekwe
21 Andy Onyeama-Christie
22 Gareth Simpson
23 Jack Bracken

Injured: Phil Brantingham, Elliot Daly, Max Eke, Tobias Elliott, Olly Hartley, Toby Knight, Alex Lozowski, Theo McFarland, Vilikesa Nairau, Sam Spink, Harvey Beaton, Rotimi Segun, Ivan van Zyl.

Starting XV:

15. Tom O’Flaherty 14. Tom Roebuck, 13. Rob du Preez, 12. Marius Louw, 11. Arron Reed, 10. George Ford, 9. Gus Warr; 1. Bevan Rodd, 2. Luke Cowan-Dickie, 3. Asher Opoku-Fordjour, 4. Ben Bamber, 5. Hyron Andrews, 6. Ernst van Rhyn ©, 7. Tristan Woodman, 8. Sam Dugdale.

Replacements:

16. Nathan Jibulu, 17. Simon McIntyre, 18. James Harper, 19. Tom Burrow, 20. Ethan Caine, 21. Raffi Quirke, 22. Rekeiti Ma’asi-White, 23. Luke James

[Puja]

Charlie Bracken getting a start! Wooo! Hope he has a great game and can start a run that will keep van Zyl out of the team when he's back from injury.

Puja

[Captainhaircut]

They absolutely love Van Zyl. I just don’t see it myself- solid all rounder but their lack of game breaking from 9-10-12 is a big reason they have been very poor the last 2 years.

[fivepointer]

Delighted to see Bracken starting.

Van Zyl is bang ordinary but they've made him captain so there must be something other than his game play that warrants that.

[twitchy]

Good game so far.

[twitchy]

[FKAS]

Sale's discipline has been appalling, two senior players making moronic errors to get themselves carded.

Young Calouri looks the business doesn't he. He's got a bit of everything. Think he might end up skipping the under 20s if he keeps playing like this. He's exactly the type of winger Borthwick likes, the A side might be calling this Autumn.

[fivepointer]

Calouri looks a a very special talent. A team is surely on the cards.

Thought Bracken did well at SH.

Sale fell apart after a decent start, losing composure and shape.

Uncontested scrums in the modern pro game with a full complement of replacements is an absurdity that has to be addressed.

[oldbackrow]

Bit of a blow that Tom Willis is off to join his brother in France.

[Spiffy]

Bit of a blow that Tom Willis is off to join his brother in France.

He'd rather grab the loot than play for England. His decision. Good luck to him. It's a short career. He will do well in France. Maybe England will loosen up their selection regulations one of these days.

[Puja]

Bit of a blow that Tom Willis is off to join his brother in France.

He'd rather grab the loot than play for England. His decision. Good luck to him. It's a short career. He will do well in France. Maybe England will loosen up their selection regulations one of these days.

A part of me wonders whether he's made the decision with the hope that it will put pressure on England to loosen their restrictions. Hopefully not - last thing we want is half our first team being unavailable for one of the AIs or all the training sessions. Watching Australia have to beg and negotiate for the use of Will Skelton in some of their matches by relinquishing him for others, so that La Rochelle wouldn't require him to fly across the world and back during the bye-weeks of the Rugby Championship, made me so grateful for our selection policies.

Puja

[FKAS]

Bit of a blow that Tom Willis is off to join his brother in France.

He'd rather grab the loot than play for England. His decision. Good luck to him. It's a short career. He will do well in France. Maybe England will loosen up their selection regulations one of these days.

A part of me wonders whether he's made the decision with the hope that it will put pressure on England to loosen their restrictions. Hopefully not - last thing we want is half our first team being unavailable for one of the AIs or all the training sessions. Watching Australia have to beg and negotiate for the use of Will Skelton in some of their matches by relinquishing him for others, so that La Rochelle wouldn't require him to fly across the world and back during the bye-weeks of the Rugby Championship, made me so grateful for our selection policies.

Puja

Not to mention the massive asset stripping that would take place from the English game. Prem sides aren't massively competitive in Europe as it is.

[Oakboy]

He's not going to the unknown in France having been before. IF it is just a rugby decision there should be questions about the England set-up but it's not - presumably. It's a family/welfare decision too.

I'd pick him and his brother as first choice if available but that's that. The team is weaker.

[Epaminondas Pules]

See, I don't see the asset stripping as inevitable. The English players will come with a premium price and the clubs are still bound by JIFF rules. It is also not beyond the wit of man to ensure players negotiate release clauses into their contracts, but that is another thing. Some countries are good with it, others not. And it is not like one model works better than others. Yes a few top players might go (and actually have their workload managed), but it is more likely that any larger drain will be to Pro D2 and will be squad players, or end of career pay dayers, which in turn opens up more opportunities for the players we're still failing to develop properly to get good game time.

And none of us know what the rationale behind Tom's decision is.

[Puja]

See, I don't see the asset stripping as inevitable. The English players will come with a premium price and the clubs are still bound by JIFF rules. It is also not beyond the wit of man to ensure players negotiate release clauses into their contracts, but that is another thing. Some countries are good with it, others not. And it is not like one model works better than others. Yes a few top players might go (and actually have their workload managed), but it is more likely that any larger drain will be to Pro D2 and will be squad players, or end of career pay dayers, which in turn opens up more opportunities for the players we're still failing to develop properly to get good game time.

And none of us know what the rationale behind Tom's decision is.

See, I don't get this argument. Yes, JIFF does put a limit on things, but it's not stopping them from picking up a lot of English players already and, if the rules were loosened, that removal of English talent would change from the older players who have given up hope, to the young talents and those in their prime. Instead of Jonny May, we'd lose Adam Radwan; instead of Collier, it'd be Heyes; instead of Nowell, it'd be Freeman; instead of Harrison, it'd be Pollock; instead of Shillcock, it'd be Furbank.

We might only lose the same number of players, but it'd be a much higher tier of current internationals and potential internationals, all of whom would be lost to the control of the England camp, and it'd be much harder to coalesce as a team. If we think it's bad picking from 9 clubs and trying to make a cohesive unit, imagine how it'll be when our team is split to the four corners and has a chunk of players who didn't negotiate training release clauses into contracts.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

And none of us know what the rationale behind Tom's decision is.

I thought Tom Willis had said that he was feeling unwanted by England (whilst simultaneously being first choice, told he was going to continue as first choice for the foreseeable future, and being given a standard contract)?

Or was that an aside?

[TheNomad]

See, I don't see the asset stripping as inevitable. The English players will come with a premium price and the clubs are still bound by JIFF rules. It is also not beyond the wit of man to ensure players negotiate release clauses into their contracts, but that is another thing. Some countries are good with it, others not. And it is not like one model works better than others. Yes a few top players might go (and actually have their workload managed), but it is more likely that any larger drain will be to Pro D2 and will be squad players, or end of career pay dayers, which in turn opens up more opportunities for the players we're still failing to develop properly to get good game time.

And none of us know what the rationale behind Tom's decision is.

See, I don't get this argument. Yes, JIFF does put a limit on things, but it's not stopping them from picking up a lot of English players already and, if the rules were loosened, that removal of English talent would change from the older players who have given up hope, to the young talents and those in their prime. Instead of Jonny May, we'd lose Adam Radwan; instead of Collier, it'd be Heyes; instead of Nowell, it'd be Freeman; instead of Harrison, it'd be Pollock; instead of Shillcock, it'd be Furbank.

We might only lose the same number of players, but it'd be a much higher tier of current internationals and potential internationals, all of whom would be lost to the control of the England camp, and it'd be much harder to coalesce as a team. If we think it's bad picking from 9 clubs and trying to make a cohesive unit, imagine how it'll be when our team is split to the four corners and has a chunk of players who didn't negotiate training release clauses into contracts.

Puja

I'm 100% with you Puja - totally agree

[fivepointer]

Seems pretty obvious to me that our top players would be targeted and a fair percentage of them would decide to play abroad if they could continue to play for England.

That would be bad for the Prem and bad for England trying to manage their resources to maximum effect.

[Danno]

[quote=Puja post_id=352389 time=1761131070

Puja
[/quote]

(/snip)

Eight clubs. We don't pick Glos players either.

[Danno]

And none of us know what the rationale behind Tom's decision is.

I thought Tom Willis had said that he was feeling unwanted by England (whilst simultaneously being first choice, told he was going to continue as first choice for the foreseeable future, and being given a standard contract)?

Or was that an aside?

I still haven't seen a quote for that, only a line in an article by The Times that has no attribution

[Epaminondas Pules]

See, I don't see the asset stripping as inevitable. The English players will come with a premium price and the clubs are still bound by JIFF rules. It is also not beyond the wit of man to ensure players negotiate release clauses into their contracts, but that is another thing. Some countries are good with it, others not. And it is not like one model works better than others. Yes a few top players might go (and actually have their workload managed), but it is more likely that any larger drain will be to Pro D2 and will be squad players, or end of career pay dayers, which in turn opens up more opportunities for the players we're still failing to develop properly to get good game time.

And none of us know what the rationale behind Tom's decision is.

See, I don't get this argument. Yes, JIFF does put a limit on things, but it's not stopping them from picking up a lot of English players already and, if the rules were loosened, that removal of English talent would change from the older players who have given up hope, to the young talents and those in their prime. Instead of Jonny May, we'd lose Adam Radwan; instead of Collier, it'd be Heyes; instead of Nowell, it'd be Freeman; instead of Harrison, it'd be Pollock; instead of Shillcock, it'd be Furbank.

We might only lose the same number of players, but it'd be a much higher tier of current internationals and potential internationals, all of whom would be lost to the control of the England camp, and it'd be much harder to coalesce as a team. If we think it's bad picking from 9 clubs and trying to make a cohesive unit, imagine how it'll be when our team is split to the four corners and has a chunk of players who didn't negotiate training release clauses into contracts.

Puja

There's no real evidence for that though. It is guesswork that French wage packets will lead to a mass exodus of our best players. There is the odd Marchant there, fringe England or squad picks, and historically people who have lost their livelihoods. other than that we see career enders and never gonna be's. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. If the model were to change then we'd establish a new baseline.

If the rules were changed and Pollock, for example, could play in France and represent England it doesn't mean he automatically would. It is also likely that English players will be more expensive than south sea islanders, Saffers, Kiwis and Aussies as their relative local pay is higher already on a like for like basis.

[Epaminondas Pules]

And none of us know what the rationale behind Tom's decision is.

I thought Tom Willis had said that he was feeling unwanted by England (whilst simultaneously being first choice, told he was going to continue as first choice for the foreseeable future, and being given a standard contract)?

Or was that an aside?

I still haven't seen a quote for that, only a line in an article by The Times that has no attribution

This.

[Oakboy]

IMO, the England XV will now be two short of its best unit with both Willises missing. I can see the arguments for sticking to only picking from the Prem but when would that change? Would it be if we were missing 4 of our 1st choice players? Or 8, or 12 or 14? How many would it take to change us from realistic RWC challengers to non-competitive?

Principles are all very well but . . .

[Puja]

See, I don't see the asset stripping as inevitable. The English players will come with a premium price and the clubs are still bound by JIFF rules. It is also not beyond the wit of man to ensure players negotiate release clauses into their contracts, but that is another thing. Some countries are good with it, others not. And it is not like one model works better than others. Yes a few top players might go (and actually have their workload managed), but it is more likely that any larger drain will be to Pro D2 and will be squad players, or end of career pay dayers, which in turn opens up more opportunities for the players we're still failing to develop properly to get good game time.

And none of us know what the rationale behind Tom's decision is.

See, I don't get this argument. Yes, JIFF does put a limit on things, but it's not stopping them from picking up a lot of English players already and, if the rules were loosened, that removal of English talent would change from the older players who have given up hope, to the young talents and those in their prime. Instead of Jonny May, we'd lose Adam Radwan; instead of Collier, it'd be Heyes; instead of Nowell, it'd be Freeman; instead of Harrison, it'd be Pollock; instead of Shillcock, it'd be Furbank.

We might only lose the same number of players, but it'd be a much higher tier of current internationals and potential internationals, all of whom would be lost to the control of the England camp, and it'd be much harder to coalesce as a team. If we think it's bad picking from 9 clubs and trying to make a cohesive unit, imagine how it'll be when our team is split to the four corners and has a chunk of players who didn't negotiate training release clauses into contracts.

Puja

There's no real evidence for that though. It is guesswork that French wage packets will lead to a mass exodus of our best players. There is the odd Marchant there, fringe England or squad picks, and historically people who have lost their livelihoods. other than that we see career enders and never gonna be's. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. If the model were to change then we'd establish a new baseline.

If the rules were changed and Pollock, for example, could play in France and represent England it doesn't mean he automatically would. It is also likely that English players will be more expensive than south sea islanders, Saffers, Kiwis and Aussies as their relative local pay is higher already on a like for like basis.

I'm sorry, but I don't get your logic. Already, current England players leave England for French wage packets - Sinckler, Marchant, Ribbans, JWillis, TWillis, and that is with them turning down EPS money and international glory. Why do you think removing that disincentive would not increase the numbers going across?

I agree that top English players will be more expensive than some other nations (although I would disagree on some of the ABs lured across), but they'd become significantly cheaper than they are now if the French clubs didn't have to chuck enough money to make them abandon their international career. Also, I'd note that the relative local pay for a fair chunk of the foreigners in the Top14 is less relevant because their market value is based around French clubs competing with each other, not what they can earn at home. There's a shortage of very top-quality players that make a difference and the French clubs squabble over getting them in - there's no way they're going to ignore a new source.

IMO, the England XV will now be two short of its best unit with both Willises missing. I can see the arguments for sticking to only picking from the Prem but when would that change? Would it be if we were missing 4 of our 1st choice players? Or 8, or 12 or 14? How many would it take to change us from realistic RWC challengers to non-competitive?

Principles are all very well but . . .

Slippery slopes only work when the slope is slippery and the whole point of the restrictions on England selection is to stop that. So far, we're two off our best unit (although the gap between JWillis and our other flankers isn't huge), but there's no sign that we are going to get to 8, 12, 14, 200, because the current regs work. TWillis is such a seismic thing, as he's the first England first choice player to go in a very, very long time. If more follow, then maybe we rediscuss. Right now, we'll be okay.

Puja

[twitchy]

LCD's red overturned. I thought it was a little harsh at the time.