Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

England duo inspire Harlequins to dominant win over Worcester

By PA
Marcus Smith /PA

Harlequins took advantage of excellent conditions and willing opponents to engineer a 50-26 victory over Worcester that returned them to fourth place in the Gallagher Premiership.

ADVERTISEMENT

Quins had the bonus point secured on the half-hour mark as they ran amok at Twickenham Stoop, inspired by their irrepressible half-backs Danny Care and Marcus Smith.

A host of players shone, however, as the Premiership’s bottom-placed team waved in eight tries in a game lacking intensity.

Will Evans crossed two to spearhead the rout and there were also scores for Care, Smith, Andre Esterhuizen, Wilco Louw, Tyrone Green and Luke Northmore.

England assistant coaches John Mitchell and Simon Amor watched from the stands and can only have been impressed by Smith and Dombrandt, Quins’ rising stars who are making compelling cases to be given their Test debuts.

An eventful start produced an early blizzard of tries and was a poor indicator of the one-way traffic to come, the first scored when Care instinctively exploited a blindside that had been deserted by the Warriors’ defence.

Worcester hit back through Billy Searle, but it was his team-mates who orchestrated the try through a series of strong carries and crisp passing, although Quins’ passive tackling also played a role.

ADVERTISEMENT

Smith took advantage of Ollie Lawrence darting out of the line to create space for Dombrandt and a pass later the supporting Smith crossed under the posts.

But once more Quins paid the price for a lack of urgency in defence as Joe Batley finished another sweeping move that began from inside Worcester’s half.

The clock had just passed the 10-minute mark and while the points briefly dried up, there was no shortage of drama with the rivals taking advantage of the dry weather to mount attack after attack.

Quins’ third try to regain the lead was a classy score, started by Mike Brown’s brave catch with Joe Marchant and Dombrandt also involved until Care sent Esterhuizen over.

ADVERTISEMENT

South African brute strength was the source of their fourth, with inside centre Esterhuizen bulldozing a path off a line-out before Louw arrived to deliver the killer blow from close range.

It started to look bleak for Worcester as Evans peeled off a line-out drive to touch down virtually unopposed and as Marchant sliced through two feeble tackles early in the second half, there was clearly more misery ahead.

A throw to the back of the line-out brought it about sooner rather than later as the Warriors’ pack folded with embarrassing ease for Evans to claim his second.

Wing Tyrone Green raced over after a period of sustained pressure and with 10 minutes to go Northmore was the recipient of crisp passing from Dombrandt and Marchant.

Worcester had the final say when Richard Palframan and Alex Hearle went over late on, but the result had been decided long ago.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 40 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen."


That's not quite my idea.

For a 20 team champions cup I'd have 4 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 4 from the previous years challenge cup. For a 16 team champions cup I'd have 3 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 1 from the previous years challenge cup.


"The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime."

If teams get a tough draw in the challenge cup quarters, they should have won more pool games and so got better seeding. My system is less about finding the best teams, and more about finding the teams who perform at the highest level in european competition.

57 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Would I'd be think"

Would I'd be think.


"Well that's one starting point for an error in your reasoning. Do you think that in regards to who should have a say in how it's setup in the future as well? Ie you would care what they think or what might be more fair for their teams (not saying your model doesn't allow them a chance)?"

Did you even read what you're replying to? I wasn't arguing for excluding south africa, I was pointing out that the idea of quantifying someone's fractional share of european rugby is entirely nonsensical. You're the one who was trying to do that.


"Yes, I was thinking about an automatic qualifier for a tier 2 side"

What proportion of european rugby are they though? Got to make sure those fractions match up! 😂


"Ultimately what I think would be better for t2 leagues would be a third comp underneath the top two tournemnts where they play a fair chunk of games, like double those two. So half a dozen euro teams along with the 2 SA and bottom bunch of premiership and top14, some Championship and div 2 sides thrown in."

I don't know if Championship sides want to be commuting to Georgia every other week.


"my thought was just to create a middle ground now which can sustain it until that time has come, were I thought yours is more likely to result in the constant change/manipulation it has been victim to"

a middle ground between the current system and a much worse system?

57 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Huh? You mean last in their (4 team) pools/regions? My idea was 6/5/4, 6 the max, for guarenteed spots, with a 20 team comp max, so upto 5 WCs (which you'd make/or would be theoretically impossible to go to one league (they'd likely be solely for its participants, say 'Wales', rather than URC specifically. Preferrably). I gave 3 WC ideas for a 18 team comp, so the max URC could have (with a member union or club/team, winning all of the 6N, and Champions and Challenge Cup) would be 9."


That's a lot of words to say that I was right. If (e.g.) Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.


"And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League."

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.


"It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously"

This doesn't make sense. Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't. Under my system, teams will "compete for the seed" by winning the Challenge Cup, under yours they won't. If a team is automatically qualified anyway why on earth would that make them treat it more seriously?


"I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again"

So am I. I'm suggesting that places could be allocated according to a UEFA style points sytem, or according to a system where each league gets 1/4 of the spots, and the remaining 1/4 go to the best performing teams from the previous season in european competition.


"Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share."

Currently there is an equal share, and you are arguing against it. My system would give each side the opportunity to achieve an equal share, but with more places given to sides and leagues that perform well. This wouldn't promote outcry, it would promote teams to take european competition more seriously. Teams that lose out because they did poorly the previous year wouldn't have any grounds to complain, they would be incentivised to try harder this time around.


"This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing."

That's not the assumption I'm making. I don't think the teams that perform better should be given places in the competition because they will be the best performing teams next year, but because sport should be based on merit, and teams should be rewarded for performing well.


"I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance."

how?


"I won't say I've done anything compressive"

Compressive.

57 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Will Bristol's daredevil 'Bears-ball' deliver the trophy they crave? Will Bristol's daredevil 'Bears-ball' deliver the trophy they crave?
Search