OK just to give an alternative point of view.
1. wonky horizons - it could legitimately be the case that there is a slope as it is at Bedford Blues. I hate 'horizons' being corrected when there is a slope. Use verticals rather than horizontals to correct the problem
2. cropping - you can play it both ways, crop tight and you can get plenty of punch in a shot, give room and it gives a feeling of movement
3. the background is cluttered and therefore distracting - this can be tricky, no matter how hard I try, I can't get the ambulance and the pavilion moved at the north end of Franklin's Gardens;-) I want to shoot Saints attack so I have to live with the clutter - a wide aperture will reduce it but not necessarily remove it
4. he's looking away from me, would be better if he was facing me. I disagree totally - I get really bored of nothing but head on shots. I sit on the 5m line in one half and then behind the posts in the other. Variety is the spice of life
Here's James Downey against Wasps a couple of weeks ago:
5. His face is in shadow and therefore you lose the detail - I am one who likes just living with the light I have. You can get some great effects with half shadow faces.
And as for needing to be lower and looking up - who says?;-) Some of the best shots I have taken have been at the same height as me, in half shadow, side on. Others have been from above.
I prefer the original - just marginally sharper. The new version has way too much contrast and in combination with the sharpening makes the players' muscles and shirt look unreal.
You are your best critic - you probably know what you want to achieve and there are many folks here who can help so do ask