LEICESTER TIGERS 2023/24 - Crocodile McKeller: Men at Work

[SETiger]

McKellar and the club are suggesting that retention rather than recruitment is the aim right now. This could purely be for the benefit of the agents who are looking to get the highest price for new recruits. But it does seem to me like a lot of churn would be bad for the squad (what constitutes "a lot of churn" is up for debate).

A big turnover in players and before you know it, the head coach is talking about another rebuilding season, which, coming off the end of the Murphy era, the start of the Borthwick era, the end of the Borthwick era, and a World Cup year, would be a bit difficult to swallow.

[AViewFromLe2]

I would be very disappointed to lose Wells, I doubt he's on a huge salary, he does a good job as backup lock, and his attitude and work rate set a brilliant example for the kids.

Chessum and Martin will hopefully be our starting locks for the next decade, which one are we dropping to make room for the big ball carrier?

How many of us have even seen L Chessum play? Yes he's tall and his brother is a fantastic player, but that doesn't mean that he's the next big thing, or that he should be in the first team.

Because of his height, it's difficult to transition into the first team via the back row, which means he needs a higher level of bulk first, and it may take him longer to break through than his brother or Martin.

Personally, at the moment, I'd take Wells over L Chessum every day of the week.

I'm not advocating losing Wells for Chessum, I'm advocating losing Carter for Chessum.

I watched all of England U20's games last season in which Chessum played, as well as all of his appearances in the PRC this season and he looks in as good a position as he can be to be the 5th choice lock. In the England under 20's last season, there were only two who looked physically ready for senior rugby. They were Lewis Chessum and Chander Cunningham-South. CCS has been given a shot in senior rugby, both with Irish and Quins, and being used as a back-up to get minutes. He has now gone onto England recognition.

I am not calling for Lewis Chessum to be a starting lock, nor play every week, but I am advocating him to replace Carter in the pecking order as 5th choice lock, I don't think that is too controversial.

As for your other point, we have Ollie Chessum and Henderson who are rangey, line out-specialists. We have Martin as a big ball-carrier second row, but we don't have anyone else who fits that mould, and that is a worry given Martin has had 3 knees injuries in 18 months, so we need someone who can compete and rotate with Martin. In an ideal world that is Wells, but if not, we need to look at other options.

[AViewFromLe2]

No way I would get rid of Wells. Wouldn’t be too disappointed to lose Van Wyk, Carter, Rogerson, Cronin, Dolly on the proviso that we sign a starting top notch loose head and a decent 3rd choice. Think we’re ok for hookers but wouldn’t mind us signing a big no 8 and a big south sea islander to play wing or centre.

In an ideal world, we would sign a big number 8, however we're apparently telling media both at local and national level we're not going to do so.

Either that is A) a massive bluff, B) it means we're looking to bulk up the pack with ball carriers elsewhere or C) McKellar is in danger of making a huge mistake by not replacing Wiese and not bulking up the pack elsewhere.

For everyone's sake, i hope it is A or B.

[AViewFromLe2]

Just thinking this through, I would lose Cronin, Van Wyk, Dolly (though i get the counter-arguments), Richardson, Carter & Phil C. Wiese we know is off, and from is being said it would appear likely that we lose Porter too. I would also be tempted to lose Wells, though like Dolly that is a tough call. All this season it feels like he lacks an extra punch compared to before and to other locks around. If we're not replacing Wiese, we need extra carrying punch from our locks and I'm not convinced he has that.

That released list would free up some space for young lads to come in as squad players (i've already listed the 4-5 I'd move up), and free up some cash for some new signings in areas we need to target, and for me they are: Top Tier LH, a bulky ball-carrying lock, a 13 and a big ball-carrying winger. Just as a list to match up names to those profiles- Genge, Joe Batley or Freddie Clarke, Sam Spink and Joe Cokanasiga.

That's way too much churn. Losing a player like Wells to sign Bately or Clarke would be player trading for its own sake. If he's looked off it (not that I agree) coach him better to do what you need.

I don't think releasing players to "make room" to select youngers ones works. Because when push comes to shove the coach doesn't want to pick them & gets a short term signing in or selects someone out of position. The coach has to believe in the players, and that's a mental thing not a squad size thing.

I think Wells has played well this season - whilst used occasionally for it he was never a heavy ball carrier but his basic skills and work in the lineout/driving maul/defence are exemplary. Remember he missed a good chunk of the pre-season and the start due to injury (hence one of the reasons for the recruitment of Williams on a short contract). He's a 100% Tigers man who knows and accepts where he sits in the pecking order but will always play his heart out so can't see any reason to let him go. I'd stick with Phil C for at least for another season as he looks to have bulked and improved his defence. I would lose Richardson and Carter and bring up youngsters. Whilst he's a big fella I am not totally convinced L Chessum is the next 'big' thing unlike Finn Carnduff who looks ready to step up next season. Similarly I think Whitcomb will be a regular bench/starter.

Personally I think Wells has dropped off quite a bit, and i fear his injury is why. In an ideal world we can bulk him up to be a ball-carrier but if we cannot do that, then we need to be flexible in our approach.

Personally I think Carnduff will be a 6 and looks the perfect foil to Hanro.

[GB72]

No way I would get rid of Wells. Wouldn’t be too disappointed to lose Van Wyk, Carter, Rogerson, Cronin, Dolly on the proviso that we sign a starting top notch loose head and a decent 3rd choice. Think we’re ok for hookers but wouldn’t mind us signing a big no 8 and a big south sea islander to play wing or centre.

In an ideal world, we would sign a big number 8, however we're apparently telling media both at local and national level we're not going to do so.

Either that is A) a massive bluff, B) it means we're looking to bulk up the pack with ball carriers elsewhere or C) McKellar is in danger of making a huge mistake by not replacing Wiese and not bulking up the pack elsewhere.

For everyone's sake, i hope it is A or B.

Again, my concern (maybe the wrong word as it could be a sensible approach) is actually this is part of simply trimming the wage bill. Despite the message being one of it is all fine and we will spend to the cap, I am nervous that recent interviews have been played with a straighter bat than they have been in the past and perhaps McKellar may have a few more financial restraints on recruitment than maybe we have had in the past.

Total speculation, no real grounds for thinking like this but I just get a feeling that everything is not a steady behind the scenes as we are being told.

I shall now go and put my tin foil hat back on.

[LE18]

George Martin our next No 8 anyone? I think his tackling is best suited to a back row, he is quite mobile and bulky and Im sure he could replace Weise and leave 2 x Chessums at lock.

[GB72]

George Martin our next No 8 anyone? I think his tackling is best suited to a back row, he is quite mobile and bulky and Im sure he could replace Weise and leave 2 x Chessums at lock.

Would also solve an England problem as well as would allow him, Chessum and Itoje in the side and allow Earl to move to 7.

Not sure how practical or feasible it is but not the worst idea and, as I said, may help his England Career by moving into a less congested position.

[sam16111986]

George Martin our next No 8 anyone? I think his tackling is best suited to a back row, he is quite mobile and bulky and Im sure he could replace Weise and leave 2 x Chessums at lock.

He's a good carrier for a lock as an 8 though I'm not convinced. He did play there in a PRC game with van Wyk and Reffell as the flankers.

[ay2oh]

No way I would get rid of Wells. Wouldn’t be too disappointed to lose Van Wyk, Carter, Rogerson, Cronin, Dolly on the proviso that we sign a starting top notch loose head and a decent 3rd choice. Think we’re ok for hookers but wouldn’t mind us signing a big no 8 and a big south sea islander to play wing or centre.

In an ideal world, we would sign a big number 8, however we're apparently telling media both at local and national level we're not going to do so.

Either that is A) a massive bluff, B) it means we're looking to bulk up the pack with ball carriers elsewhere or C) McKellar is in danger of making a huge mistake by not replacing Wiese and not bulking up the pack elsewhere.

For everyone's sake, i hope it is A or B.

Andrea has stated that we will spend up to the cap so with Wiese and others possibly leaving can’t see us not signing at least 2-3 players

[johnthegriff]

I have seen Louis Chessum play a few times and he is definitely if fit a lock for the future, Chessington x 2 plus Henderson & Martin backed by Wells would give us a fine group of locks. For me Illione is an eight and when studies are complete will challenge anyone for that position. Reffell is on his own for his style of play, we do have good back row replacements but they are different in natural technique to Tommy.

[AViewFromLe2]

No way I would get rid of Wells. Wouldn’t be too disappointed to lose Van Wyk, Carter, Rogerson, Cronin, Dolly on the proviso that we sign a starting top notch loose head and a decent 3rd choice. Think we’re ok for hookers but wouldn’t mind us signing a big no 8 and a big south sea islander to play wing or centre.

In an ideal world, we would sign a big number 8, however we're apparently telling media both at local and national level we're not going to do so.

Either that is A) a massive bluff, B) it means we're looking to bulk up the pack with ball carriers elsewhere or C) McKellar is in danger of making a huge mistake by not replacing Wiese and not bulking up the pack elsewhere.

For everyone's sake, i hope it is A or B.

Andrea has stated that we will spend up to the cap so with Wiese and others possibly leaving can’t see us not signing at least 2-3 players

I agree, you would hope that to be the case. But if we're not signing anyone at 8, the power is going to have come in the front 5 when it comes to recruitment.

The alternative is that we sign a big ball-carrying 6 and move Hanro to 8, which I'm unsure about given how well Hanro has gone at 6.

[TigerXV]

That's way too much churn. Losing a player like Wells to sign Bately or Clarke would be player trading for its own sake. If he's looked off it (not that I agree) coach him better to do what you need.

I don't think releasing players to "make room" to select youngers ones works. Because when push comes to shove the coach doesn't want to pick them & gets a short term signing in or selects someone out of position. The coach has to believe in the players, and that's a mental thing not a squad size thing.

I think Wells has played well this season - whilst used occasionally for it he was never a heavy ball carrier but his basic skills and work in the lineout/driving maul/defence are exemplary. Remember he missed a good chunk of the pre-season and the start due to injury (hence one of the reasons for the recruitment of Williams on a short contract). He's a 100% Tigers man who knows and accepts where he sits in the pecking order but will always play his heart out so can't see any reason to let him go. I'd stick with Phil C for at least for another season as he looks to have bulked and improved his defence. I would lose Richardson and Carter and bring up youngsters. Whilst he's a big fella I am not totally convinced L Chessum is the next 'big' thing unlike Finn Carnduff who looks ready to step up next season. Similarly I think Whitcomb will be a regular bench/starter.

Personally I think Wells has dropped off quite a bit, and i fear his injury is why. In an ideal world we can bulk him up to be a ball-carrier but if we cannot do that, then we need to be flexible in our approach.

Personally I think Carnduff will be a 6 and looks the perfect foil to Hanro.

you're never going to get a player of Wells age to bulk up - he is what he is and we'll just have to disagree on how well he has played.
I probably didn't make it clear: I meant to say Carnduff could easily step up next season into the first team as a 6/7 even though he's 2(?) years younger than L Chessum who I've also seen play in all the PRC games plus England U20's - there's just something I think is missing in his rugby brain at the moment and technique (particularly catching) and he needs to fill out big time if he wants to step up - time will tell and I'm sure he will give it his best shot

[sam16111986]

In an ideal world, we would sign a big number 8, however we're apparently telling media both at local and national level we're not going to do so.

Either that is A) a massive bluff, B) it means we're looking to bulk up the pack with ball carriers elsewhere or C) McKellar is in danger of making a huge mistake by not replacing Wiese and not bulking up the pack elsewhere.

For everyone's sake, i hope it is A or B.

Andrea has stated that we will spend up to the cap so with Wiese and others possibly leaving can’t see us not signing at least 2-3 players

I agree, you would hope that to be the case. But if we're not signing anyone at 8, the power is going to have come in the front 5 when it comes to recruitment.

The alternative is that we sign a big ball-carrying 6 and move Hanro to 8, which I'm unsure about given how well Hanro has gone at 6.

I'm sure we'll sign an 8 of some sort. There's no many like for like replacements around for someone as explosive as Weise. If there were he'd not be exceptional. We might well add a bit more carrying power in the pack as well, ideally at loosehead. Perhaps in the backrow depending on who we keep.

[Tiglon]

I'm not convinced by the theory of signing a big carrying lock to replace Wiese's contribution. Unless you're going to drop/move Martin or Chessum, the big carrying lock will be on the bench, so how is he going to replace Wiese's contribution? You've then also got Henderson and Wells who would be pushed down the pecking order. Seems to me that we're well set for the 2nd row, apart from maybe 5th/6th choice.

Since we are in need of a LH, it would make a lot more sense to try to find one of those who is capable of putting in some big carries.

Or, crazy I know, sign a big ball carrying 8. Then you're not compromising on set piece ability.

[ay2oh]

I'm not convinced by the theory of signing a big carrying lock to replace Wiese's contribution. Unless you're going to drop/move Martin or Chessum, the big carrying lock will be on the bench, so how is he going to replace Wiese's contribution? You've then also got Henderson and Wells who would be pushed down the pecking order. Seems to me that we're well set for the 2nd row, apart from maybe 5th/6th choice.

Since we are in need of a LH, it would make a lot more sense to try to find one of those who is capable of putting in some big carries.

Or, crazy I know, sign a big ball carrying 8. Then you're not compromising on set piece ability.

Agree with this. A big loosie and no 8