By GHA
#28441
London Irish:

15 Tom Parton
14 Ben Loader
13 Theo Brophy Clews
12 Terrence Hepetema
11 Ollie Hassell-Collins
10 Paddy Jackson
9 Nick Phipps

1 Facundo Gigena
2 Agustin Creevy
3 Lovejoy Chawatama
4 George Nott
5 Rob Simmons
6 Matt Rogerson (c)
7 Blair Cowan
8 Albert Tuisue

Replacements:

16 Matt Cornish
17 Harry Elrington
18 Ollie Hoskins
19 Chunya Munga
20 Ben Donnell
21 Sean O’Brien
22 Ben Meehan
23 James Stokes
By GHA
#28442
Bath:

15 Anthony Watson
14 Joe Cokanasiga
13 Jonathan Joseph
12 Cam Redpath
11 Ruaridh McConnochie
10 Orlando Bailey
9 Ben Spencer

1 Beno Obano
2 Jack Walker
3 Will Stuart
4 Josh McNally
5 Charlie Ewels ©
6 Taulupe Faletau
7 Josh Bayliss
8 Zach Mercer

Replacements:

16 Jacques du Toit
17 Juan Schoeman
18 Henry Thomas
19 Mike Williams
20 Miles Reid
21 Will Chudley
22 Max Clark
23 Alex Gray
By M_W
#28443
Hopefully Rona just rested for this. Really interested to see Theo in the Henry Slade role at 13 and had a feeling that Elrington may get the nod over Dell on the bench. He's clearly struggled in the scrum, but in the absence of Dell looking up to too much there on his last few outings, Elrington's bulk and energy in the loose may be useful.
By GC89
#28445
Rona probably needs a week off, but thought he looked very good against Cardiff, so would have probably tried to get him through this one and then rotate him out for Saints. Wonder if it is a slight knock. Quite excited by the possibilities of Hepetema and TBC linking up though. TBC's handling in those wide channels could be really useful.

Bath team looks strong...
By shimmieandshake
#28448
Don't fancy us too much for this one. I think we might struggle in the scrum with Gigena/Elrington, especially with Nott's relative lack of bulk in behind.

Well deserved rest for Rona, but very difficult for anyone to fill in at 13 if they're not keenly attuned - everyone says it's the most complex position in defence especially - so it's asking a lot of Theo to immediately understand the subtleties, especially against someone as electric as JJ.

So I think it's fair to say we're underdogs, despite the win the other day, but you never know; Bath have a habit of punching below their weight, and we can score from anywhere, as well as a newfound nous/resilience for winning games at the death...
User avatar
By Narbia
#28455
Well I was wrong about Bath's tactics in the centre third last time.

This time I expect ; penalties, kick to corner and up-the-jumper maul it over. Hope I'm wrong again though. :-k
User avatar
By Stevie J
#28460
Against Zebre Bath also looked ropey but they eventually got going with the usual recipe; scrum - penalty - maul. I expect them to do that and I expect Spencer to not miss kicking for touch this time, giving Parton counter-attacking opportunities.

I do feel this is a game too far, but I say that almost every week now expecting the bubble to burst. Its very hard to play the same opponent twice in quick succession and win both times.
By GHA
#28503
Scrums, penalties and mauls. Not one for the neutrals, it's just annoying three of their tries came from our mistakes (knock on at the restart, mistake following lineout and then scrum in their 22, mistake at our lineout 5m from our line...)

Ah well, if you could only have one I'd rather the 5 league points
By M_W
#28505
That was just one of those games. Bath were the better team and we had no answer to the tight game as was the fear pre game. Not a huge fan of the Exeter style 3 player pre bind on the pick and go, but it seems to be legal, so can't really complain.

We made far to many errors to deserve to get anything out of the game really. Having to play Stokes at 13 so early didn't help either.
By Ajax Treesdown
#28507
Crap game to watch, bullied upfront and we gave away far too many unforced errors to stand a chance.

For all the hype and excitement over Bath's backline they are a very very dull side, effective, but dull.

Take the 5 point win a few weeks ago vs a win tonight and a big defeat vs Montpelier / Ulster later in this tournament.
Narbia liked this
User avatar
By Narbia
#28508
Ajax Treesdown wrote:
Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:15 am
and a big defeat vs Montpelier / Ulster later in this tournament.
I've watched MP and Ulster and they are both FEROCIOUS.
If Bath can handle either of those 2, then they deserve to be champions. :brickwall:
MattM liked this
User avatar
By SixNineOne
#28512
M_W wrote:
Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:03 pm
That was just one of those games. Bath were the better team and we had no answer to the tight game as was the fear pre game. Not a huge fan of the Exeter style 3 player pre bind on the pick and go, but it seems to be legal, so can't really complain.

We made far to many errors to deserve to get anything out of the game really. Having to play Stokes at 13 so early didn't help either.
I agree. If, heaven forbid, I were a Bath fan I’d be pretty pleased with their effort last night. They stepped their performance up a couple of levels compared to the previous two weeks and executed a fairly simple game plan very effectively. Anthony Watson was looking a bit more like his normal self and Zac Mercer was a constant nuisance.

We, on the other hand, didn’t raise our game and allowed far too many errors, a result, perhaps, of the pressure Bath were putting us under. Sadly, we reverted to a few consistent themes: Phipps giving away a dumb penalty; Albert dropping the ball at crucial moments; OHC not giving the final pass; the line out going awry near their line; and the ball being dropped or coughed up too readily. One small consolation was that Harry Elrington didn’t get absolutely murdered in the scrum - I only recall one free kick and one penalty against him, which isn’t too bad given the pressure they put us under.

Still, as others have said, I prefer the 5 points in the league to the chance of getting slaughtered in the semi-finals, so it’s off to Franklin’s Gardens for yet another Friday night game.
Pirate Queen, GHA liked this
By GC89
#28634
Not too despondent after that. I know we have some old heads in the set-up, but it is a young team. Experience of knock-out Rugby (even if Challenge Cup) will hold us in good stead in the future I think.

I think we also learnt quite a lot about where we are as a team and where we need to strengthen the squad, so if we take those things on board I think it can be a positive outcome.

It is our backs that have been causing sides problems and often keeping us in games we shouldn't have been in, so I was never confident when it became clear we were going to play the majority of the 80 with a Hepetema-Stokes partnership in the midfield. I would query whether the 6-2 split is the best option for us as it seems to have backfired twice now. I would also have loved (considering it was knock-out Rugby) for DK to have kept Blair on when he brought SOB onto the pitch. I am sure there are reasons for going like-for-like (Blair having worked his socks off and line-out options being the most obvious ones), but I just think the two of them working in unison would make life really difficult for opposition.
By shimmieandshake
#28639
Agree with this, GC89.

I'd like to see us start with SOB, Blair and Rogerson at 8 for a game or two. If Blair and SOB started to get a partnership and mutual understanding going, they could be an excellent duo.

Albert is still class but hasn't seemed quite as dynamic this year, and might be especially effective against tiring sides for the last 25 minutes or so.
User avatar
By Stevie J
#28654
The game went pretty much as we all expected. Bath went to their power game and a Friday night in the rain at the Rec was never going to be our friend. On the plus side, in the past, we would have been well beaten and had close to 40 points put on us so in that regard you can see how the team is growing.

[Please, never can we see the 6-2 bench split again? It seems every time we try to pack an additional forward on the bench we come unstuck. You can’t presume an injury but with Theo starting especially it would have been great to have an additional back on there.
By Florida
#28655
Was it just me or was there an added bite to our defense in the second half? We really seemed to up the physicality of our tackles.
User avatar
By Narbia
#28656
Florida wrote:
Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:18 pm
Was it just me or was there an added bite to our defense in the second half? We really seemed to up the physicality of our tackles.

Short answer : yes.
Long answer :

I think when SO'B comes on he ups the tempo and grit from all the players. He's never a captain per se, but the others seem to grab some energy from him.

When he came at first, I thought he was just going to be another expensive casualty with nothing to add. But no, he definitely adds something with his nous and undoubted experience. Other than that I've no explanation.

As above the 6-2 split seems to be a bit jinxed.
By M_W
#28658
Thinking about it, I don't think the 6:2 problem was the problem in this case so much. Was more the choice of replacement. It was the ten cover from the bench that Kidney essentially dropped with Meehan and TBC in the 23 as emergency cover there. Problem was the lack of centre (and specifically 13) cover and the balance of the replacements. Given Joseph's involvement to date, he may have been a better bench pick.

Not that Stokes did a huge amount wrong, but it didn't help.

Overall though, I'm generally not a fan and it stitched us up massively earlier in the year when Phipps ended up on the wing. Should probably be utilised only when we have genuine heavy pack reinforcements ready to come on rather than promising academy players.

Edit - Although saying all that. If he thought he had cover for Jackson, he could have had Joseph and Stokes on the bench
By Ruckinggood
#28659
My tuppence worth agrees that that the 6:2 split is fraught with risk and blew up in our faces on Friday. In addition, the substitute switches were lacking logic - Albert was buggered after 55 mins and yet we took of Blaire. The front row were blowing after 60 and we waited to bring on the "finishers" until 12 mins from time. Once TBC was out, we tried to play the same game plan for the remainder of the 80 and did not seem to realise that Bath had us covered out wide knowing our back three are dangerous. Wide and wide again in the wet when the cover defense is waiting for it leads to pressure and mistakes that, as the game went on, became an easy pressure release for Bath. Our conversion rate in the 22 was poor by our standards, I think, due to all of the above. We do need a plan B when the speedsters are being well defended and we need fresh legs on earlier when it is obvious that guys are blowing hard. IMO, it was poor game and player management from Dec and Les this week. That being said, if they were to have a poor game, happy that it is in the ECC not the Prem.
Narbia, SixNineOne liked this
Covid Repayments

I’m pretty sure I read from an interview s[…]

LC-D health scare

https://www.rugbypass.com/plus/luke-cowan-dickie-i[…]

Mr Critchard Keeps Us Informed

Good, solid prop. Never let us down, especially in[…]

That's a shame, Wonder where he'll go? I know hi[…]