Sale Sharks

http://www.salesharks.com/news/5586.php#.WgRCCsZl9PY

Starters:
15. Mike Haley
14. Byron McGuigan
13. Luke James
12. Cameron Redpath
11. Arron Reed
10. AJ MacGinty
9. Will Cliff
1. James Flynn
2. Curtis Langdon
3. Alexandru Tarus
4. George Nott
5. Matt Postlethwaite
6. Sam Moore
7. Ben Curry
8. Josh Strauss (C)

Substitutes:
16. Marc Jones
17. Jake Pope
18. WillGriff John
19. David Seymour
20. Nic Dolly
21. Matt Sturgess
22. Kieran Wilkinson
23. Connor Doherty

Would of liked to see charnley again

Saracens team to face Sale Sharks

15 Matt Gallagher (14)

14 Nathan Earle (24)

13 Rotimi Segun (2)

12 Nick Tompkins (64)

11 Mike Ellery (42)

10 Max Malins (7)

9 Tom Whiteley (6)

1 Richard Barrington (114)

2 Scott Spurling (25)

3 Kieran Longbottom (8)

4 Will Skelton (11)

5 Mark Flanagan (10)

6 Jack Nay (3)

7 Joel Conlon (15)

8 Ben Earl (c) (7)

Replacements

16 Tadgh McElroy (0)

17 Hayden Thompson-Stringer (15)

18 Billy Walker (5)

19 Danny Cutmore (1)

20 Sean Reffell (0)

21 Ben Spencer (110)

22 Rueben Bird-Tulloch (0)

23 Ali Crossdale (1)

Quote:

2007dwain
Would of liked to see charnley again

Maybe injured? - he limped off last week versus Worcs

looking forward to this one.

Several youngsters I'm excited to take a look at.

set for a good game.

Another interesting, balanced selection. Moore at 6 and Langdon will be interesing.

Like the side a lot.

No lock cover is a worry - Strauss covering from the pitch?

No problems at lock. We'll just call on the tall, strong, lineout capable Laurence Pearce.

Oh, hold on a minute......

At a burgeoning 32 players, our squad couldnt afford to keep him even until Josh was back to boost numbers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2017 12:37 by MartWhit.

Interesting side from Sarries, definitely a game that we should be targeting the win.

Quote:

MartWhit
No problems at lock. We'll just call on the tall, strong, lineout capable Laurence Pearce.
Oh, hold on a minute......

At a burgeoning 32 players, our squad couldnt afford to keep him even until Josh was back to boost numbers.

Perhaps there were issues behind the scenes but unlike Quins we chose not to make them public?

The reality is we don't know, but presumably Ostrikov could have been on the bench if required so the coaches must think it's covered through the selection. How big is Dolly?

Mart, Pearce would have known he was surplus to requirements. I'd like to think we agreed to let him go early as he had a nice offer.

Plus, he's not really a second row, and Poselthwaite has potentially emerged, in which case we have

Evans/Beaumont/Ostrikov/Nott/Poselthwaite. So Pearce would be 6th choice lock and about 10th choice back row.

Quote:

Perhaps there were issues behind the scenes but unlike Quins we chose not to make them public?

...or maybe the French side said "we want him now, or not at all."

Are the figures in brackets for the opposition the number of games the player has had in their first team?

Goodness me MW, you really can find a negative towards the club out of every single situation can't you?

His initial comment was that it was an interesting, balanced selection to be fair...and I agree.

Quote:

Olyy
No lock cover is a worry

I initially read this quite specularly wrongly...

Yeah I agree with the original comment.

The board needs a bit of Mart negative for a balanced discussion.

Matt how wrong did you read that? Intrigued.

not negative here. Just a little sarcastic perhaps.

Pearce was not high on the list of locks or back row. But in this instance, less than a week after we let him go, we identify a clear opportunity where he could have been very useful. Dolly & Seymour on the bench are definitely not lock options, and if they dont duplicate each other, Dolly is definitely a duplicate for Marc Jones. Beaumont is not close to a return and Ostrikov and Evans need to be rested and saved for Premiership action.

There could be all sorts of reasons for Pearce moving when he did, but still the most obvious is that he was poor value for money for a Sale management still trying to balance the books in hard times. And I do think that reflects badly when you only have a squad of 32 players and you remain willing to compromise already limited selection options in favour of a limited cost saving.

How much salary might we save from Pearce's departure? Lets hypothesise it may be £75k for the remainder of the season for a typical squad player. Then lets hypothesise what the opportunity cost of losing this game to a lost lineout late in the game after George Nott was forced off by injury? If thats the difference between qualifying for a knockout fixture and not, then the £75k saved on Pearce is a trivial sum.

IMO, it tells you a lot about the mental space of the Sale management that the £75k in the hand is worth more than the opportunity cost in the bush.

Apologies that that is negative, but its also logical. I'd be less negative if Sale's management were willing to back the team as passionately as many on here do.

Wasn't yarde meant to be making his debut this game?

It is completely logical, if looking at it from your Sale management are always at fault POV.

As has been said by others, how do you know there weren't issues with Pearce at the club? We just didn't want to air our dirty laundry. As it happens that wasn't the case, but how do you know that we didn't do the good thing by not stopping a player we weren't playing and didn't see a future him, taking another opportunity that he may of really wanted and we didn't want to hold him back?

Obviously it's much more logical to look at it from your perspective though.

Think it was only suggested on here Olyy and not actually by the club. As good as it would have been to see him make his debut at home against a weaker Sarries I think giving him an extra week of training is the right call.

Could've sworn I read it at the end of an article about him, can't remember if it was the interview on the iffy or the other one posted on here this week.
Either way it obviously didn't come to pass - looking forward to seeing what reed can do

I might be wrong Olyy, it has been known once or twice apparently.

Quote:

clutch
Matt how wrong did you read that? Intrigued.

The c and l swopped locations.

You could be right Monty.

Nonetheless, its only prudent for Sale to let him move on if it doesn't harm their own interests and a move is mutually beneficial. In all cases its their choice to make as he's contracted to them.

What we see is that they've determined that facilitating the move for Pearce is mutually beneficial given the cost saving achieved. As a consequence they have left themselves without a bench 2nd row for this competition. That does tell you something doesn't it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2017 15:09 by MartWhit.

No it hasn't harmed us at all at this point. He's not even a 2nd row anyway. It's not remotely about £75k. Remember what we just signed Yarde for, are we really penny pinching? You are clutching at straws with this one, even by your standards.

Quote:

How big is Dolly?

Just looked him up on the RFU website for U18s
Age 18
Caps 6
height n/a
weight n/a

.....so, that's no help.

MW - why do you think Pearce went to balance the books? I’ve seen no hint we did it for those reasons

I'm losing the track of this, but I don't think MartWhit said Pearce was moved on to balance the books but that it was a cost saving.

What is true is that there seems to be plenty of back row cover but significantly less second row cover. I'm not too sure how retaining Pearce would have helped there. Who knows, next week we might announce one of those second rows who was talked about on another thread. There again, we might not.

Last time I saw Pearce in a Sale shirt he came on for Ross early in the game vs Toulouse, and did a very substantial amount of lineout jumping. He's not a lock, but performs a great many of the functions of one.

Pearce in the 2nd row is less of a stretch than Michael Rhodes doing that job for Sarries last year. Or Nick Easter for Quins and England.

Most back rows take on lineout duties. So your point is basically that the club have f**ked up again by not holding on to LP to cover the bench in 1 AW Cup game? All for the sake of a few quid. That's all I can take from your post. There is a whole thread dedicated to bashing SD (rightly so to be fair). Why don't you stay there, that's like your dream thread!!!

I'm excited to see a good young side out, some real potential in that team

I'm sure there have been all sorts of players who have filled in all sorts of positions when needs must. It maybe that Pearce had been tried at second row in training only for them to find the scrum didn't function. Perhaps he was sacrificed just on the basis that we think a squad of 32 is all that's needed and Yarde would be more of a headline grabber.

Pearce has left, he has been allowed to take an offer from
Another club. He was no where near our 1st XV squad and him leaving gives more chances to younger guys. It's a joke that he is even been discussed on this thread, hence my point of MW clutching at straws to blame the club for whatever.

Quote:

mattw7787

Quote:

clutch
Matt how wrong did you read that? Intrigued.

The c and l swopped locations.

colk?

Yes, I've been pondering that one, Chris but I came up with ccutlh or maybe lcutch.

Ask Dr Spooner...

Again lot's of academy players getting a shot, delighted for them.

Maybe not too surprised M.Y. isn't playing, he hasn't trained for a while (although some of that was his doing! ) and I'd imagine it will take a few sessions to get to know his team mates, so I think the club are doing the right thing and not playing him.

Suggestion he may be cup tied as well.

Quote:

Olyy
Wasn't Yarde meant to be making his debut this game?

It was in the article about his interview, presumably just a punt in the dark by someone which has since been kicked into touch.

I've just spotted that the definitive "big unit" Will Skelton is playing for Sarries tonight.

Yes, quite a mismatch at 2nd row. Need Strauss to make a big impact tonight I think.

both teams with some good young talent on show. quite a lot of those playing tonight are recent england age group caps. sale probably with a little more experience overall but the sarries pack looks useful with two second row units and a back row with lots of potential.

Hopeful of a W but imagine it will be close either way.

Sarries only have 4 starters with less than 10 firs team appearances.

Quote:

Crutch
Yes, quite a mismatch at 2nd row. Need Strauss to make a big impact tonight I think.

A regular call on this forum is for a big, knarly 2nd row (I wouldn't fancy lifting a 22/23st player in a lineout) and I'll be interesting to see how youth and mobility competes angainst the biggun.

Not so worried about the lineout, which apparently went well last week, but getting bullied around the park and in the scrum.

Surprised Langdon starts with Jones on the bench, big opportunity for him and I hope he does well.

the lineout should be ok. With Skelton in they dont have as many people to put in the air as they might ordinarily. We could still be in trouble if Nott goes off early though.

Agree with Crutch that they have quite some weight and experience in their pack.

FT Sale win 29-22

A win against the head. Will be v happy to hear the individual stories, but even at ho e we had formidable opposition to overcome and we did it fair and square. Top effort.

Quote:

MartWhit
A win against the head. Will be v happy to hear the individual stories, but even at ho e we had formidable opposition to overcome and we did it fair and square. Top effort.

Still probably won't be able to win our group with exeter and quins likely to match our wins with bonus point victories I reckon

Which is a nonesense is t it.

Great result especially with such a green side!
Sounds like Langdon had a great game

Was super impressed with Langdon. I'd kind of forgotten about him as a prospect. Probably MOM. Cliff was excellent as well. The centres went well together and defended well. Scrum was excellent as well. Maul defence good. Just a pleasing performance. The attacking structure was much better as well. Interested to see people's thoughts on why that was the case.

Can anyone answer why AJ was prevented from taking a conversion by the ref? Was he excessively delaying it? That made for a nerve-jangling finale when watching on twitter!

A very satisfying and well deserved victory. Thought we were second best in the first half but we managed to do what we have failed to do in league games and that's dig in and stay in the game with some grit and a bit of class from Curry

Second half I thought we were excellent and it was only some bewildering reffing that kept the margin of victory down to 7 points. The conversion incident was just ridiculous.

Well done Sale

The ref and the player seemed that AJ had started the conversion. Can't really comment on that. The fact that the player charged it implied that something had happened.

McGinty was stood still. 1 player started to charge, stopped, perhaps thinking he had gone to too early (McGinty still not moved), ref said nothing so the charging player moved forward again (McGinty still not moved), got to the ball, waiting a few seconds and picked it up. McGinty still not moved anywhere and looking completely baffled as to what the Sarries player and ref were up to

Very odd

He deemed that AJ had started his run-up and so the Sarries player could run and play the ball. AJ obviously didn't think he'd started his run up as he made no attempt to kick it when the Sarries player advanced. If we hadn't won the game it would've been interesting to hear Dimes take in it!.................

I agree that Langdon gave an all-action performance, the lineout generally went well and the scrum was if anything slightly on top. However I think that MoM would have to go to Curry.

The young 2nd row did well I thought from kick offs and at the line, Nott wasn't as apparent as I thought he'd be.

A word of praise for AJ's distribution, I thought his pass was crisper and more consistently placed for the centres to run on to than it generally has been before.

Centres did well defensively, nothing stand out in attack except in the build up for our first try which I think Redpath was involved in (the break before the ruck on the line) but need to see again as was on far side of the pitch (looked like a double scissors??)

Faff and O Connor are so talented that it will take a long time to bed in to the team. I think the more straight forward half backs suit the structure a bit better at the moment. Also, having a ball playing 12 helped massively compared to Jennings. Not saying one is better than the other.

Kia ora!
I thought Luke James/Cameron Redpath showed great hands and deception on at least two occasions in putting Mike Haley through a gap, both of which resulted in scores.

The ref could be heard on reflink informing Maginty that he had moved (I actually think he merely raised his foot and touched his toe on the ground) Unfortunately Maginty just ignored him. Had he not done so he could still have got the kick away...

We did well tonight to beat a team that looked very well coached in attack. Superbly taken try to win it: our backs seemed to know the best thing to do at each point in broken play and were well aware of each others support lines of running!
Also good to see two hookers on the pitch who were accomplished throwers-in, in pretty wet conditions......(apart from the insane decision to throw very long on his own line by the Sarries hooker before the break!)

It was Friday night, there was no natural light, it rained, we won. Please note in diaries.

After the "kick", going back to the halfway, AJ enquired and the ref said he saw AJ's foot move and that signalled the start of his run up. Interestingly at that point the ref must have got chatter through his earpiece and said "who is this speaking?". Possibly the touch judges making comment, or CMK prompting a replacement.

On a side note, the Reflink really does added another dimension, for me it pretty much clears up every decision (even if i disagree) and also my partner is learning more about the rules too

At 30 mins I was thinking that it was a deadly boring game and we were likely to lose it by some margin. The odd decision by Sarries to throw long right by their tryline, allowing the catch and try by Curry, was vital I think, otherwise we could have gone in at HT 13 points down, and maybe some of the younger guys might have seen it as too much to do in the 2nd half.
Impressed with what happened later on and getting the win.

Thought the spirit shown by the team to come back and win, especially ensuring the sin binning period finished 3-3 was key to the victory. The confidence in the camp/squad must be sky high.

Curry for the second week running the stand out player. Just watching him in the warm up, his energy and organising is tremendous.

His support running again off AJ was terrific.

Funny isn't it that Curry is only the same age or younger than a number of the other kids who were getting their opportunity in the game, whereas he's already an established player making the difference.

The AJ conversion sounds similar to the time Stringer (playing for barbarians) ran up and picked the ball up off the kicking tee in front of James O'Connor. During JOCs prep he took a slight step towards the ball which stringer (And more importantly: The referee) interpreted as him starting his run up, despite him still being stood still as Stringer reached the ball



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2017 12:33 by Olyy.

If the ref told AJ to kick it and he just stood there then it's poor. You need to react to the ref whether you agree or not.
It is interesting Crutch. At their age players develop physically at different rates. Which is why redpath is ahead of Wilkinson. Moore looks already fully formed which he clearly isn't. Was quietly impressed with Poselthwaite as well.

Shame we didn't see Sturgess or Wilkinson and Doherty was only on briefly.

FWIW, it looked to me (East Stand) as though AJ did make a small movement towards the ball - Sarries certainly thought so! Overall, though, the most encouraging thing for me was the set piece. I was surprised we held own in the first half against Skelton, and then we were on top in the 2nd. Really liked Langdon, although trying to stop Skelton head-on was really not a good idea!

From what was shown on the highlights AJ appeared to tap his boot on the ground a couple of times, but I couldn't see any movement towards the ball. That would be like Jonny crouching, or Farrell tilting his head, being sufficient for the defence to run out...

Disappointed that they didn't show the move that led up to the second try.

Without playing the highlights in slow-motion it was very hard to make out any forward movement but an adjustment of his foot position in the same spot. Anyway it didn't make a difference to the result, but sadly two wins of two doesn't look like it is going to be enough to win the pool, as both Exeter and Quins have the bonus points from their games, so unless they have a sudden change of form one of them will surely qualify for the semis

Not necessarily LJK - looking at the remaining fixtures, in round 4 Quins are away to Northampton and Exeter are home to Saracens. If we beat Saints at home in the next game round and Sarries beat Dragons at home, then both Saints and Sarries can still qualify and therefore retain an interest in the competition despite only having 1 win from 3 games.

missed the ch 5 highlights last night. Where can I catch them online at this point?

Quote:

MartWhit
missed the ch 5 highlights last night. Where can I catch them online at this point?

On the Aviva Prem website

Highlights clearly show the conversion incident and imho show what a poor decision it was by the ref

Thanks Ashton. Pretty brief. Not much to go on wrt the young players.

Nice work from McGuigan for Haley's try though. Overall it looks like we were more coherent for appearing to have a simpler gameplan.

wrt the Ref, all you can say from the highlights is he gave AJ no benefit of doubt in either case. Looked like a guy wanting to play his part in the game and not be left out.

Quote:

ashtonshark
Highlights clearly show the conversion incident and imho show what a poor decision it was by the ref

Poor decision. Hopefully the club will tweet it to seek wider comments on the injustice.

Wasn't he just flicking mud from his boot or something?

the rule is not very clear as you can charge own based on a) kicker begins the approach or
b) kicker starts the kick. therefore it depends if the referee believes AJ's foot tap is his start of the kick (as he hadnt begun the approach).

Personally I think its really harsh as he made no attempt to move forward towards the ball and therefore, in reality, start the kick. ref didnt really apply common sense imho and I doubt he would apply the rule as he did in a higher profile match.

if the foot tap is 'starting his run up' then johnny Wilkinson would never have made a conversion in his life.

Exactly. Just apply a bit of common sense. In hindsight the whole thing is rather amusing looking back at the highlights.

Speaking of common sense, none shown by the ref in terms of the Maginty yellow. The ball was out and footed back in the ruck, which I think is technically a penalty offence!

Thought he was pretty awful all round, which is a given for a second string pro 14 ref. Having said that he's clearly young, and I think he was trying to get the game flowing so promising signs that a young ref is emerging. Don't have ref link so cannot comment on his communication skills, which are extremely important. On that regard, England's ref was also pretty shocking. I heard more from Owens a touch then I did from him. He seemed to improve second half, but the damage had already been done after the shocking decision to give that yellow, which cost Argentina dearly. It was wrong on all counts. 1. He clearly had a chance of catching it. 2. If the ref deemed he hadn't it was a red card. Totally muddled thinking, though you have to sympathise the officials with the law being so ott.

Quote:

clutch
Exactly. Just apply a bit of common sense. In hindsight the whole thing is rather amusing looking back at the highlights.
Speaking of common sense, none shown by the ref in terms of the Maginty yellow. The ball was out and footed back in the ruck, which I think is technically a penalty offence!

Thought he was pretty awful all round, which is a given for a second string pro 14 ref. Having said that he's clearly young, and I think he was trying to get the game flowing so promising signs that a young ref is emerging. Don't have ref link so cannot comment on his communication skills, which are extremely important. On that regard, England's ref was also pretty shocking. I heard more from Owens a touch then I did from him. He seemed to improve second half, but the damage had already been done after the shocking decision to give that yellow, which cost Argentina dearly. It was wrong on all counts. 1. He clearly had a chance of catching it. 2. If the ref deemed he hadn't it was a red card. Totally muddled thinking, though you have to sympathise the officials with the law being so ott.

Was mcginty given a yellow because we had been giving away a lot of penalties too?

Quote:

Irish_Shark

Was mcginty given a yellow because we had been giving away a lot of penalties too?

Possibly because the ref decided that he'd cynically given the penalty away in the "red zone"

We definitely hadn't been giving away lots of penalties prior to that and it was a break that led to the breakdown near the line, rather than a number of phases.

However if the ball wasn't out then it was so blatant and near the line you can understand a yellow.

Having said that, my impression live was that there was no Sarries player ready to take the ball, so AJ didn't go in to stop quick ball and a likely try. He clearly thought it was out, and from my (not particularly good) vantage point it looked out too.

Quote:

Crutch

Having said that, my impression live was that there was no Sarries player ready to take the ball, so AJ didn't go in to stop quick ball and a likely try. He clearly thought it was out, and from my (not particularly good) vantage point it looked out too.

From my (not particularly good) vantage point, the ball was clearly out and was available to be played --- however, AJ Mc was possibly standing in an offside position, adjacent to the ruck, rather than behind the hind most foot, which is why it would have been deemed to have been cynical play
If my memory is working OK, the ref was very well placed to judge AJ Mc's position in relation to the ruck.

He wouldn't have given a yellow for being 1cm offside I wouldn't have thought.

Quote:

clutch
He wouldn't have given a yellow for being 1cm offside I wouldn't have thought.

I've just watched the highlights, Aj Mc was (a lot) closer to standing alongside the middle of the ruck, than behind the rear most foot and wasn't making any attempt at getting onside.
Right in front of the ref.
Penalty for offside, which became a yellow for where the ruck was located.

Good spot. Not a yellow imho but the ref things he's offside and the ball wasn't out. Double whammy.

Quote:

clutch
Good spot. Not a yellow imho but the ref things he's offside and the ball wasn't out. Double whammy.

When I saw it live, I thought that it was harsh. But watching it on TV, you can see how ref could interpret it.

i think the ref acted instinctively for what he thought was a cynical offside play.

Acting instinctively is what we amateur refs in the stands do. Its not what professional refs are supposed to do. By all means give the penalty, but had he taken a few seconds to consider whether the offence was cynical or not, he could find plenty of doubt. He didnt. I thought it was a poor decision.

Agreed and well reasoned.