Ollie Lawrence on Harlequins' radar if Andre Esterhuizen heads home
Harlequins could look no further than England international Ollie Lawrence should they need to replace Springboks Rugby World Cup winner Andre Esterhuizen this summer. The Sharks would like to buy Esterhuizen out of the last year of his contract at The Stoop, but the London club are demanding a £500,000 transfer fee before allowing him to leave.
Esterhuizen left the Durban-based URC side to move to the English capital four years ago, but they want him back to replace Rohan Janse van Rensburg, who has linked up with immediate effect with Yokohama Canon Eagles as injury cover for Jesse Kriel ahead of a switch to Bordeaux-Begles for the 2024/25 season in France.
If Esterhuizen moves home, Harlequins could buy the 24-year-old Lawrence out of the final year of the Bath contract he signed when moving to The Rec in October 2022 after Worcester Warriors went out of business just months after winning the Premiership Rugby Cup.
The outside centre, who originally joined Bath as a short-term injury dispensation cover, has been sensational for the West Country club, winning the Gallagher Premiership player of the season award last May.
He was also named Premiership player of the month for December, making an instant impact when he returned from France after helping England to finish third in the World Cup.
Lawrence, who has scored five tries in eight 2023/24 games with Bath, is this week set to return to England training ahead of the Guinness Six Nations round three trip to face Scotland at Murrayfield on February 24.
He suffered a hip injury playing for Bath in January against Toulouse in the Investec Champions Cup and missed the recent Test wins over Italy and Wales. His return to training will be a massive boost for England boss Steve Borthwick.
Latest Comments
They also use a far more consistent scale.
Rugby pass seem to have a different scale for each player based on the authors expectations or how much he likes them.
Can't fathom how Moodie and Reece both were a 3.
Go to commentsYes for sure, thanks for sharing. I fully understand that both parties are better off, no one needs to lose, neither competition suffers, in fact both can be better as a result.
Too many true rugby fans (and analysts) don't understand that.
I wouldn't imagine there is a date aye. It was a long decline rugby in SA and Australia was going through, and was so bad it even effected NZ, caused them to argue to can a couple of teams. The nation of SA probably grew into it? I know I watch more of the NH now specifically because of the SR teams playing there. I actually had to mention to Nick Bishop (because of his stubborn perspective) the other day that I've never been a fan of Super Rugby, I don't think they chose the right way to go about professionalism back in 1995. Unfortunately, NZR was stuck between a rock and a hard place, because it had SA's and Australians that ran their unions by States, so we had to separate into "two or three" teams as a result. Our game is in the kak now because of it, they want to kill off the lifeblood of our National Provincial Championship. But now we might see a way out of it, so it's all good.
Go to comments