By TOKS
November 18 2008
Well, wasn't yesterday morning an unfortunate one for Marius Jonker to call his old mate Sean Davey and pass on everything he knew about front-row play? True, the conversation wouldn't have taken long but it did lead to some confusion in an area Sarries could and should have dominated during the game.
Let's get the referee issue out of the way first. Now, I'm no great fan of Sean Davey - he spends far too much time looking bewildered and staring in a multitude of different directions at the same time in a vain attempt to see what's going on. But, with him, one thing is quite consistent. Namely, he makes up his mind very early in a game who's dominating and who's infringing and he tends to go with that for the whole game. Thus, it's essential to be off the mark quickly and establish the right credentials in Mr. Davey's mind. Sarries started the game like a retired greyhound who'd been on the lash for the past few years whilst Gloucester, on the other hand, were out of the traps like a whippet on speed and proceeded to totally dominate the first portion of the game. After 25 minutes or so I turned to one of my fellow bi-weekley sufferers and commented that it seemed that Gloucester had re-cycled the ball about 400 times to our 2. In hindsight, that may not have been too far wide of the mark.
Despite the away side's dominance Sarries kept the score down with good defence and were also aided by Ryan Lamb's showing off by trying to hit one of the posts rather than sticking the ball between them. However pressure did tell, unfortunately Mr. Davey - unlike a famous occasion of a couple of years back - had brought his cards onto the pitch and despatched Hugh Vyvyan to the sin-bin for constant infringing. Ryan Lamb struck two penalties for Gloucester with Glen replying with one of his own in the 19th minute to make the score 6-3.
Now, the rub of the green didn't really seem to be going Sarries' way (although, as a blinkered home supporter isn't that always the case?). De Kock, clearly inside the 22, had passed to Jackson, also clearly inside the 22 and the ball was kicked directly into touch. Back came the lineout to where Jackson had kicked the ball from. Cue much muttering. (This didn't happen again, so I assume someone had informed the officials of the recently-introduced ELV soon thereafter). Sarries also took three Gloucester put-ins against the head, but only one of these was allowed to stand. Why is a stronger front-row not allowed to dominate? Why are these things "evened up" by referees?
In the 24th minute came one of the pivotal moments of the game. Anthony Allen crossed the line in the corner and whilst we in the South Stand could see that the grounding was ok we could also see the expression on the lady's face in row 4 of the Lower Rous as Allen's size 9 landed in her bag of chips fractionally before the ball was grounded. Even the referee is powerless when one of his henchmen (two feet away and perfectly sighted) gets a decision so wrong. It must have made for a very awkward couple of minutes for the officials as the big screen, in true Sarries style, replayed the incident half-a-dozen times. Lamb converted but a well-worked try from Skirving after several phases meant that Sarries were only down by 8-13 at the break.
Within a couple of minutes of the restart Jackson had reduced that to 11-13 with another penalty but then unfortunately, having marshalled Vainikolo well all game, Sorrell was caught between two stools when defending the big South Sea Islander and Olly Morgan out wide and Morgan scooted through the gap to score, albeit with some unnecessary and crowd-baiting show-boating to go with it. We were then treated to the unedifying sight of Lamb "congratulating" the crest-fallen Sorrell while he was still on the floor, which to his immense credit Sorrell didn't react to (apparently, when he grows up, Lamb wants to be a professional rugby player).
So, with the Gods rebuking Lamb for his childish and unsporting behaviour by making him miss a straightforward conversion, it was 11-18 and the next score was crucial. Regrettably it was the visitors again, but this time it was neither illegal nor greeted by behaviour more in line with the roundball game, it was a thing of beauty. Many phases of play worked a large gap on the left and a perfectly placed cross-kick allowed a wide open Vainikolo to touch down (at least I think it was Vainikolo, some websites give it to Satala!).
Thus, 11-25 and this was surely too much for Sarries to make up. Brad Barritt and Wikus Van Heerden were introuduced for their debuts, Tom Ryder came on to shore up what had been a fairly creaky line-out and Tom Mercey entered the fray to inflict yet more damage on a fairly inept opposition front row. In true Sarries style they then produced the rugby in the final 20 that would have seen them win the game if produced 60 minutes earlier, but it had been left too late. Another Jackson penalty and a penalty try when the Gloucester pack very nearly ended up in the South Stand meant that the final score was 21-25 and Sarries had only a losing bonus point to show for their efforts.
Again, the "what ifs" proliferated in the after-match conversations, but the fact remains that Gloucester were better for more of the game than Sarries were. Indeed if the somewhat odious Lamb had had his kicking boots on, and the Gloucester back-line had had their overlap blinkers off, it could have been worse. Sarries have to produce 60-70 minutes of good rugby per game if they are going to prevail against opposition of this quality, and Gloucester were good value for a narrow win.
Quote:I really wouldn't worry about our props, I think you'll find that they're well up to looking out for themselves! There are plenty down Glaws way who think you might just be seeing the future England props on show - Forster is the more inexperienced of the two, but ask Carl Hayman about Nick Wood as the first time they met Hayman spend a fair amount of time popping up out of the @#$%&!
