England vs South Africa November 15th 2014

First topic message reminder :

Courtney Lawes is a doubt, since he is going through concussion protocols. That would see Kruis start and Kitchener on the bench, unless Lancaster wants to do something funky with Clark. Luther Burrell not in contention, and Stephen Myler still out with a hamstring problem. Haskell is there.

England team to face South Africa:

Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Anthony Watson (Bath)
Brad Barritt (Saracens)
Kyle Eastmond (Bath)
Jonny May (Gloucester)
Owen Farrell (Saracens)
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Dylan Hartley (Northampton)
David Wilson (Bath)
Dave Attwood (Bath)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton)
Tom Wood (Northampton)
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)

Replacements

Rob Webber (Bath), Matt Mullan (Wasps), Kieran Brookes (Newcastle), George Kruis (Saracens), Ben Morgan (Gloucester), Ben Youngs (Leicester), George Ford (Bath), Marland Yarde (Harlequins)

South Africa

15 Willie le Roux,
14 JP Pietersen,
13 Jan Serfontein,

12 Jean de Villiers,
11 Bryan Habana,
10 Pat Lambie,
9 Cobus Reinach,
8 Duane Vermeulen,
7 Schalk Burger,
6 Marcell Coetzee,
5 Victor Matfield,
4 Eben Etzebeth,
3 Jannie du Plessis,
2 Adriaan Strauss,
1 Tendai Mtawarira

Replacements:

16 Bismarck du Plessis,
17 Trevor Nyakane,
18 Coenie Oosthuizen,
19 Bakkies Botha,
20 Teboho “Oupa” Mohoje,
21 Francois Hougaard,
22 Handré Pollard,
23 Cornal Hendricks

England have gone without a win in their last eleven Tests against the Springboks. Their best recent result was a draw in Port Elizabeth in June 2012. The match on Saturday will be almost eight years exactly since England's last victory. England have lost their last four Twickenham encounters.

This is the third time Lancaster has taken England through a round of Autumn Internationals. In 2012, his team beat New Zealand. In 2013, it was Australia. He has never beaten South Africa; his record reads one home loss, two away losses and one away draw.

GeordieFalcon wrote:So the lions bring down the wildebeast....

The problem is that then the Hyenas come and chase the lions away.

In that case the Lions need to come in force at the feeding site , if they do that repeatedly they drive the wildebeest back each time

Be a vulture.... eat when Lions and hyenas are fighting

Bullsbok wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:So the lions bring down the wildebeast....

The problem is that then the Hyenas come and chase the lions away.

In that case the Lions need to come in force at the feeding site , if they do that repeatedly they drive  the wildebeest back each time

Confused ? I thought we Lions are supposed to be driving back the Springboks. You bringing in a back up team too ?

...oh sorry for mentioning Poite again.....

SecretFly wrote:...oh sorry for mentioning Poite again.....

oh you rascal you

out of interest. how much has the england side changed since that second test in SA? names in bold are players not in the 2014 AI squad. Only tuilagi, cole and marler miss through injury. It's quite a different team.



2012:
15 Foden
14 Ashton
13 Joseph
12 Tuilagi
11 Strettle
10 Flood
9 Youngs
8 Ben Morgan
7 Robshaw (C)
6 Johnson
5 Parling
4 Mouritz Botha
3 Cole
2 Hartley
1 Marler

That team hasnt exactly been replaced by players of superior ability though.

The Lions (England pack) tackle the Wildebeast (Vermeulen) but the the Hyenas (the rampaging Bok Pack) chase away the Lions.

England need to get their own African Buffalo (Ben Morgan) rampaging...!

quinsforever wrote:out of interest. how much has the england side changed since that second test in SA? names in bold are players not in the 2014 AI squad. Only tuilagi, cole and marler miss through injury. It's quite a different team.



2012:
15 Foden
14 Ashton
13 Joseph
12 Tuilagi
11 Strettle
10 Flood
9 Youngs
8 Ben Morgan
7 Robshaw (C)
6 Johnson
5 Parling
4 Mouritz Botha
3 Cole
2 Hartley
1 Marler

In Comparison 2012 Boks 2nd Test

15 Zane Kirchner
14 JP Pietersen
13 Jean de Villiers (c)
12 Frans Steyn
11 Bryan Habana
10 Morné Steyn
9 Francois Hougaard
8 Pierre Spies
7 Willem Alberts
6 Marcell Coetzee
5 Juandré Kruger
4 Eben Etzebeth
3 Jannie du Plessis
2 Bismarck du Plessis
1 Tendai Mtawarira

quinsforever wrote:out of interest. how much has the england side changed since that second test in SA? names in bold are players not in the 2014 AI squad. Only tuilagi, cole and marler miss through injury. It's quite a different team.



2012:
15 Foden
14 Ashton
13 Joseph
12 Tuilagi
11 Strettle
10 Flood
9 Youngs
8 Ben Morgan
7 Robshaw (C)
6 Johnson
5 Parling
4 Mouritz Botha
3 Cole
2 Hartley
1 Marler

Springbok team for that match

15 Pat Lambie
14 JP Pietersen
13 Jean de Villiers (c)
12 Frans Steyn
11 Bryan Habana
10 Morne Steyn
9 Francois Hougaard
1 Tendai Mtawarira
2 Bismarck du Plessis
3 Jannie du Plessis
4 Eben Etzebeth
5 Juandre Kruger
6 Marcell Coetzee
7 Willem Alberts
8 Pierre Spies
Replacements
16 Adriaan Strauss
17 Werner Kruger
18 Flip van der Merwe
19 Keegan Daniel
20 Ruan Pienaar
21 Bjorn Basson
22 Wynand Olivier

Bullsbok wrote:

quinsforever wrote:out of interest. how much has the england side changed since that second test in SA? names in bold are players not in the 2014 AI squad. Only tuilagi, cole and marler miss through injury. It's quite a different team.



2012:
15 Foden
14 Ashton
13 Joseph
12 Tuilagi
11 Strettle
10 Flood
9 Youngs
8 Ben Morgan
7 Robshaw (C)
6 Johnson
5 Parling
4 Mouritz Botha
3 Cole
2 Hartley
1 Marler

In Comparison 2012 Boks 2nd Test

15 Zane Kirchner
14 JP Pietersen
13 Jean de Villiers (c)
12 Frans Steyn
11 Bryan Habana
10 Morné Steyn
9 Francois Hougaard
8 Pierre Spies
7 Willem Alberts
6 Marcell Coetzee
5 Juandré Kruger
4 Eben Etzebeth
3 Jannie du Plessis
2 Bismarck du Plessis
1 Tendai Mtawarira

That was the first test Bullsbok

quinsforever wrote:out of interest. how much has the england side changed since that second test in SA? names in bold are players not in the 2014 AI squad. Only tuilagi, cole and marler miss through injury. It's quite a different team.



2012:
15 Foden
14 Ashton
13 Joseph
12 Tuilagi
11 Strettle
10 Flood
9 Youngs
8 Ben Morgan
7 Robshaw (C)
6 Johnson
5 Parling
4 Mouritz Botha
3 Cole
2 Hartley
1 Marler

Marler's still in isn't he?

I thought Parling was another of our 38 injured second row players, so would probably be in the squad even if only 4th choice behind Lawes, Launchbury and Attwood. Slipped down the order with better younger players emerging, who fortunately have also pushed Botha right out to sea.

Johnson seems to have slipped out of contention with Wood and Haskell being back and Ewers coming through. Good club level player but a tad short of real international class.

As for the back division, the less said the better. Of those you've highlighted, Foden is a bit unlucky to have slipped behind Watson in the FB/wing role (although I thought he was in the wider squad, as is Joseph). Manu would clearly be playing if fit, but surely at 13 rather than 12.

Biltong wrote:

quinsforever wrote:out of interest. how much has the england side changed since that second test in SA? names in bold are players not in the 2014 AI squad. Only tuilagi, cole and marler miss through injury. It's quite a different team.



2012:
15 Foden
14 Ashton
13 Joseph
12 Tuilagi
11 Strettle
10 Flood
9 Youngs
8 Ben Morgan
7 Robshaw (C)
6 Johnson
5 Parling
4 Mouritz Botha
3 Cole
2 Hartley
1 Marler

Springbok team for that match

15 Pat Lambie
14 JP Pietersen
13 Jean de Villiers (c)
12 Frans Steyn
11 Bryan Habana
10 Morne Steyn
9 Francois Hougaard
1 Tendai Mtawarira
2 Bismarck du Plessis
3 Jannie du Plessis
4 Eben Etzebeth
5 Juandre Kruger
6 Marcell Coetzee
7 Willem Alberts
8 Pierre Spies
Replacements
16 Adriaan Strauss
17 Werner Kruger
18 Flip van der Merwe
19 Keegan Daniel
20 Ruan Pienaar
21 Bjorn Basson
22 Wynand Olivier

That bench is Basson , MEISIEKIND

GunsGerms wrote:That team hasnt exactly been replaced by players of superior ability though.

i disagree there.

15 Brown - improvement imo
14 Watson/Yarde - Ashton was defensively too weak for Bomber
13 Tuilagi - he is 2 years older and stronger
12 Burrell - improvement
11 May - could be an improvement. wait and see.
10 Farrell - Flood never really performed for England. neither did farrell last weekend
9 Care - improvement, apart from last weekend ;(
8 Bill V/ Morgan - improvement albeit same types of player
7 Robshaw - better player
6 Woods. dont know
5 Launchbury - big improvement
4 Lawes - big improvement
3 same
2 Hartley - same and hopefully less dumb!
1 Marler - is much stronger now

Bullsbok wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Biltong wrote:

gregortree wrote:I think it was the 2nd test on the last tour (2012 ?) when the Bokke pack beasted England in open play for an extended period.Impressively brutal go forward ball in hand. Although Boks ran out of gas from the intensity, and England managed to shore up their defence to their credit. Boks won. Score ? anyone with a better memory ?

Ever since that test I have felt that is where England are vulnerable vs RSA. The one SH team England have not figured out a way to beat in recent memory.

The socres weren't that far apart, by memory it was around 25-19?

Nah, I checked, 36-27, was still close though

The big player missing from that team is Willem Alberts . Louw is instrumental yes but Alberts is the player we miss the most .

I think Louw is a better player but I admit Coetzee is a good replacement. SA don't have a like for like replacement for Willem.

I do admit the holes he smashes are missed but he does drop the odd tackle.... regularly.

quinsforever wrote:
i disagree there.

15 Brown - improvement imo - Not much. Foden was very good at the time.
14 Watson/Yarde - Ashton was defensively too weak for Bomber - Ashton is one of Englands top try scorers per game ever
13 Tuilagi - he is 2 years older and stronger - Same guy but injured now anyway
12 Burrell - improvement - Ill give you that one but he is injured anyway.
11 May - could be an improvement. wait and see. - Undecided
10 Farrell - Flood never really performed for England. neither did farrell last weekend - Jury is still out on Farrell as lots of England fans agree. If his goal kicking is off most of his value is lost
9 Care - improvement, apart from last weekend ;( - Not much of an improvement
8 Bill V/ Morgan - improvement albeit same types of player Again not much as you admit yourself
7 Robshaw - better player - Same guy no change
6 Woods. dont know
5 Launchbury - big improvement
4 Lawes - big improvement
3 same - Definitely not. Cole is still one of your best players
2 Hartley - same and hopefully less dumb! Same guy and still a weasel, no change
1 Marler - is much stronger now Maybe but not much


The only area I really agree with you on that there has been a significant change is lock the rest is much of a muchness. England are preforming better though.

When is the Egland team announced

Going on the team.
If Attwood keeps up performances like Saturday then Launchbury will strugle to make it back in.

Team i'd like to see run out.

1 Marler
2 Webber
3 Brookes
4 Attwood
5 Lawes
6 Haskell
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan

9 Care
10 Ford
11 Watson / Yarde
12 Barritt
13 Eastmond / Joseph
14 May
15 Brown

fa0019 wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Biltong wrote:

gregortree wrote:I think it was the 2nd test on the last tour (2012 ?) when the Bokke pack beasted England in open play for an extended period.Impressively brutal go forward ball in hand. Although Boks ran out of gas from the intensity, and England managed to shore up their defence to their credit. Boks won. Score ? anyone with a better memory ?

Ever since that test I have felt that is where England are vulnerable vs RSA. The one SH team England have not figured out a way to beat in recent memory.

The socres weren't that far apart, by memory it was around 25-19?

Nah, I checked, 36-27, was still close though

The big player missing from that team is Willem Alberts . Louw is instrumental yes but Alberts is the player we miss the most .

I think Louw is a better player but I admit Coetzee is a good replacement. SA don't have a like for like replacement for Willem.

I do admit the holes he smashes are missed but he does drop the odd tackle.... regularly.

Louw for me is too volatile and too quick to resort to violence even for a bok. with the messrs Du Plessis ,Eztebeth on the field . Coeztee is very disciplined and has superb workrate

GunsGerms wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
i disagree there.

15 Brown - improvement imo - Not much. Foden was very good at the time.
14 Watson/Yarde - Ashton was defensively too weak for Bomber - Ashton is one of Englands top try scorers per game ever
13 Tuilagi - he is 2 years older and stronger - Same guy but injured now anyway
12 Burrell - improvement - Ill give you that one but he is injured anyway.
11 May - could be an improvement. wait and see. - Undecided
10 Farrell - Flood never really performed for England. neither did farrell last weekend - Jury is still out on Farrell as lots of England fans agree. If his goal kicking is off most of his value is lost
9 Care - improvement, apart from last weekend ;( - Not much of an improvement
8 Bill V/ Morgan - improvement albeit same types of player Again not much as you admit yourself
7 Robshaw - better player - Same guy no change
6 Woods. dont know
5 Launchbury - big improvement
4 Lawes - big improvement
3 same - Definitely not. Cole is still one of your best players
2 Hartley - same and hopefully less dumb! Same guy and still a weasel, no change
1 Marler - is much stronger now Maybe but not much


The only area I really agree with you on that there has been a significant change is lock the rest is much of a muchness. England are preforming better though.

Too a degree yes...but in all honesty we look no more threatening ball in hand than we did then....and thats one of the biggest gripes.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
i disagree there.

15 Brown - improvement imo - Not much. Foden was very good at the time.
14 Watson/Yarde - Ashton was defensively too weak for Bomber - Ashton is one of Englands top try scorers per game ever
13 Tuilagi - he is 2 years older and stronger - Same guy but injured now anyway
12 Burrell - improvement - Ill give you that one but he is injured anyway.
11 May - could be an improvement. wait and see. - Undecided
10 Farrell - Flood never really performed for England. neither did farrell last weekend - Jury is still out on Farrell as lots of England fans agree. If his goal kicking is off most of his value is lost
9 Care - improvement, apart from last weekend ;( - Not much of an improvement
8 Bill V/ Morgan - improvement albeit same types of player Again not much as you admit yourself
7 Robshaw - better player - Same guy no change
6 Woods. dont know
5 Launchbury - big improvement
4 Lawes - big improvement
3 same - Definitely not. Cole is still one of your best players
2 Hartley - same and hopefully less dumb! Same guy and still a weasel, no change
1 Marler - is much stronger now Maybe but not much


The only area I really agree with you on that there has been a significant change is lock the rest is much of a muchness. England are preforming better though.

Too a degree yes...but in all honesty we look no more threatening ball in hand than we did then....and thats one of the biggest gripes.

Disagree with this, at least based on how we tried to play in the last 6Ns - there's much more ambition to play running rugby, including countering from deep. Conditions on Saturday, especially in the 2nd half, were against this, and our tactical kicking was poor at times. I do think though that if we could get something like the XV listed above on to the field and in reasonable form, we have a potentially outstanding side that would cause any opposition serious problems.

oh, and Dan Cole picked up some rave reviews for his first half of rugby in 9 months for Leicester. Let's not forget how good he was before fatigue and the neck injury curtailed him. For me, easily a better all-rounder than Wilson.

There migt be more ambition to do it Dummy Half....but in all honesty we dont LOOK anymore threatening.

We are not clinical in try scoring moments. We more likely than not....screw up the chance.

According to the Evening Standard Wood sat out training yesterday due to an injury meaning Haskell is primed to start. And if that happens they don't want too many back row changes so Billy stays at 8. If Wood recovers then he might start whilst Billy drops to the bench? I guess we will find out tomorrow.

Regarding Pollard being 'dropped': I wonder whether it's more a case of Hougaard being dropped and Reinach needing a familiar face outside him - hence Lambie comes in to give him some moral support, so to speak. I didn't think Pollard did too badly against Ireland, considering the awful service he was getting!

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Regarding Pollard being 'dropped': I wonder whether it's more a case of Hougaard being dropped and Reinach needing a familiar face outside him - hence Lambie comes in to give him some moral support, so to speak. I didn't think Pollard did too badly against Ireland, considering the awful service he was getting!

unfortunately for him due to the Springboks decades long search for the perfect flyhalf , our number 10s are expected to walk on water and when they dont the public turns very quickly

Bullsbok wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Regarding Pollard being 'dropped': I wonder whether it's more a case of Hougaard being dropped and Reinach needing a familiar face outside him - hence Lambie comes in to give him some moral support, so to speak. I didn't think Pollard did too badly against Ireland, considering the awful service he was getting!

unfortunately for him due to the Springboks decades long search for the perfect flyhalf , our number 10s are expected to walk on water and when they dont the public turns very quickly

How come Steyn was allowed to wade through mud all these years then?
Its clear the boks are finding their way with their style if play. Unfortunately the wide range of styles of their sxv sides are showing up in the top side. They now have run the line 10s as well as in the pocket ones, box kick halves and running ones etc.

Players of one style are having to chop and change match to match so all this experimentation is confusing. Now the top lineup is not really obvious, form is deviating across the side.

I sure don't get why the worlds best hooker never plays a full 80 let alone doesn't start.

Taylorman wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Regarding Pollard being 'dropped': I wonder whether it's more a case of Hougaard being dropped and Reinach needing a familiar face outside him - hence Lambie comes in to give him some moral support, so to speak. I didn't think Pollard did too badly against Ireland, considering the awful service he was getting!

unfortunately for him due to the Springboks decades long search for the perfect flyhalf , our number 10s are expected to walk on water and when they dont the public turns very quickly

How come Steyn was allowed to wade through mud all these years then?
Its clear the boks are finding their way with their style if play. Unfortunately the wide range of styles of their sxv sides are showing up in the top side. They now have run the line 10s as well as in the pocket ones, box kick halves and running ones etc.

Players of one style are having to chop and change match to match so all this experimentation is confusing. Now the top lineup is not really obvious, form is deviating across the side.

I sure don't get why the worlds best hooker never plays a full 80 let alone doesn't start.

Steyn had the redeeming quality of being a prodigious kicker especially when it counted most . A record 42 consecutive kicks kind of guaranteed him a jersey even when he didnt deserve it

Just a small point but Tom Johnson hasn't been dropped he is Injured and has been for a while! Dave Ewers may well have overtaken him anyway though

Note for England team if they're looking to mimic the Irish tactic of not engaging the Boks at lineout time:

The IRB provided direction on how to referee this circumstance:

In order to provide clarity, please instruct all referees to rule as follows:

If the non-ball-winning team in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by “leaving the line out as a group”, PENALTY KICK to team in possession.

If the non-ball-winning team in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap and “creating space” and they remain at the lineout, the following process would be followed:

The ball-winning team would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play – non-ball-winning players could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only).

if they immediately hand it back to a player behind the front player, the referee will tell them to “use it” which they must do immediately.

if they drive forward and the ball is in possession of a player behind the front player, the referee will award a scrum for “accidental offside” rather than a Penalty Kick for obstruction.

We believe that teams who are adept at mauling will very quickly make use of their options to their advantage and therefore non-ball-winning teams will be taking a massive risk if they choose not to compete and, therefore, create the initial maul.

The message to referees regarding the ball-winning team formation is:

We need to ensure that the ball is not transferred from the Jumper to the back player before a maul is formed.

We need to be FAR MORE vigilant on team-in-possession players “joining the maul ahead of the ball carrier and/or the last player on their own side of the maul” – we need to ensure team-in-possession players join from the back (just as we expect the non-possession team to do).

PotHale, when did this come into effect?

The only reason the Irish tactic worked is because the South Africans did indeed transfer the ball to the back of the maul before the maul was formed.

In fact, I don't see how any of that impacts on what Ireland did or other teams who might do the same. They didn't open a gap or leave the lineout. It's all irrelevant to what happened in the Ireland vs SA game.

i think notch, that what ireland did is specifically covered by opening up a gap, and then the laws are explained from there.

the point of these rules is to let attacking sides know what their options are. and also to reinforce that correct entry to the maul for both sides is at the back.

so a clever side will wait to see if the defenders engage before handing the ball to the back of the maul. as far as i read it, there is no problem with the ball catcher presenting the ball backwards while holding onto it, while his lifters bind on to him and drive him towards the opposition line. if the defenders do not engage in a maul situation then they have the option to try to tackle the ball carrier. but if they cant bring him to ground, supported as he is by his lifters, then a maul will have been deemed to have formed and the drive can continue.

its going to be interesting to see yet another very grey area get utilised by teams against each other.

i suspect we are going to see teams practicing rumbling forward en masse with the ball carried at the front of the rumble if defenders at lineouts dont engage. its like giant sized chess.

quinsforever wrote:i think notch, that what ireland did is specifically covered by opening up a gap, and then the laws are explained from there.

the point of these rules is to let attacking sides know what their options are. and also to reinforce that correct entry to the maul for both sides is at the back.

so a clever side will wait to see if the defenders engage before handing the ball to the back of the maul. as far as i read it, there is no problem with the ball catcher presenting the ball backwards while holding onto it, while his lifters bind on to him and drive him towards the opposition line. if the defenders do not engage in a maul situation then they have the option to try to tackle the ball carrier. but if they cant bring him to ground, supported as he is by his lifters, then a maul will have been deemed to have formed and the drive can continue.

its going to be interesting to see yet another very grey area get utilised by teams against each other.

Yeah, that is what I am reading in this as well.

quinsforever wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:That team hasnt exactly been replaced by players of superior ability though.

i disagree there.

15 Brown - improvement imo - An of form Foden beats an on form Brown for me
14 Watson/Yarde - Ashton was defensively too weak for Bomber - Ashton was weak defensively but scored Poopie loads more, those two are raw and at least one of them hasn't been very good defensively too
13 Tuilagi - he is 2 years older and stronger - but still the same limited player, Joseph has been out standing
12 Burrell - improvement - Yes but he isn't our 12
11 May - could be an improvement. wait and see. - I don't think so, he's flaky, bit like Strettle but Strets seems to have got better with age
10 Farrell - Flood never really performed for England. neither did farrell last weekend - the Flood never performed for England is a big old red herring, he was the key contributor to us scoring a hell of a lot of tries, to Ashton, Foden and Tuilagi looking so good and he nailed a fair few kicks along the way too, people get pissy because he isn't Wilkinson or Carter
9 Care - improvement, apart from last weekend ;( - Agreed
8 Bill V/ Morgan - improvement albeit same types of player - 50/50
7 Robshaw - better player - Agreed
6 Woods. dont know -  Agreed
5 Launchbury - big improvement - Agreed
4 Lawes - big improvement - Agreed
3 same
2 Hartley - same and hopefully less dumb! - I'd say he's lost a bit of form now, seems pretty quiet
1 Marler - is much stronger now - Agreed

So a much better pack and the backs are the same, or worse, or maybe better, we don't really know. Which is pretty much what we've all said all along.

Biltong wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i think notch, that what ireland did is specifically covered by opening up a gap, and then the laws are explained from there.

the point of these rules is to let attacking sides know what their options are. and also to reinforce that correct entry to the maul for both sides is at the back.

so a clever side will wait to see if the defenders engage before handing the ball to the back of the maul. as far as i read it, there is no problem with the ball catcher presenting the ball backwards while holding onto it, while his lifters bind on to him and drive him towards the opposition line. if the defenders do not engage in a maul situation then they have the option to try to tackle the ball carrier. but if they cant bring him to ground, supported as he is by his lifters, then a maul will have been deemed to have formed and the drive can continue.

its going to be interesting to see yet another very grey area get utilised by teams against each other.

Yeah, that is what I am reading in this as well.

So what happens when the team with the ball drag opposition players into the maul to make sure it's formed? I may be imagining it but i'm sure this is a tactic teams have used to make sure the maul gets going and the oppo can't make a gap, would that be a pen to the defenders?

yappysnap wrote:

Biltong wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i think notch, that what ireland did is specifically covered by opening up a gap, and then the laws are explained from there.

the point of these rules is to let attacking sides know what their options are. and also to reinforce that correct entry to the maul for both sides is at the back.

so a clever side will wait to see if the defenders engage before handing the ball to the back of the maul. as far as i read it, there is no problem with the ball catcher presenting the ball backwards while holding onto it, while his lifters bind on to him and drive him towards the opposition line. if the defenders do not engage in a maul situation then they have the option to try to tackle the ball carrier. but if they cant bring him to ground, supported as he is by his lifters, then a maul will have been deemed to have formed and the drive can continue.

its going to be interesting to see yet another very grey area get utilised by teams against each other.

Yeah, that is what I am reading in this as well.

So what happens when the team with the ball drag opposition players into the maul to make sure it's formed? I may be imagining it but i'm sure this is a tactic teams have used to make sure the maul gets going and the oppo can't make a gap, would that be a pen to the defenders?

That is illegal.

ENGLAND TEAM:

England have made just one change ahead of Saturday's game against the Springboks at Twickenham.

With Semesa Rokoduguni ruled out due to a hip injury, his Bath team-mate Anthony Watson is handed his first Test start on the wing where he will face the unenviable task of trying to contain Bryan Habana. In the pack, Tom Wood was an injury doubt but he retains his place at blindside while Marland Yarde is added to the bench to cover the back three.

Dylan Hartley and Courtney Lawes suffered concussions against New Zealand last weekend but both have completed the graduated return to play protocol and start in the pack. At half-back, Danny Care wins his 50th cap.

"Anthony has been pushing hard for a while and has been in impressive form for Bath and in training with us," Lancaster said. "It was great that he got on against New Zealand and we feel he is ready to start. Equally, it's good to have Marland back in the matchday 23. Congratulations to Danny Care who will be winning his 50th cap. It'll be a special moment for him and I am sure he will rise to the occasion."

England will hope to bounce back against South Africa on Saturday after falling to a 24-21 loss to New Zealand last weekend. But they will not have it easy against the Springboks who have not lost to England since 2006.

"I know the players are looking forward to the challenge," Lancaster added. "South Africa have quality and experience across the park and it will be a big test for us."

England:

Mike Brown, Anthony Watson, Brad Barritt, Kyle Eastmond, Jonny May, Owen Farrell, Danny Care;
Joe Marler, Dylan Hartley, Dave Wilson, Dave Attwood, Courtney Lawes, Tom Wood, Chris Robshaw (captain), Billy Vunipola

Replacements: Rob Webber, Matt Mullan, Kieran Brookes, George Kruis, Ben Morgan, Ben Youngs, George Ford, Marland Yarde

So only change is forced by injury. Story of Stu's career, time will tell if it's the right approach or not.

Looking forward to this game either way and I'll be cheering them on come Sat when we demolish the Boks...

Congrats to Care for getting to the 50 cap milestone, for England that's a big achievement only taken him since '08!

Will be interesting to see if consistency of selection or the 5 changes win the day.

Burrell and Tuilagi are both injured arent they? Is Nowell injured?

Big enough sick list.

Very uninspirational England backline.

Why would you put the woefully out of form Yarde on the bench?

Looks like another loss for England vs SA?

I'd back Yarde to do ok if he comes on. With the injuries, who else would you have on the bench? My only concern would be centre cover, but I guess Bomber reckons that is covered by Farrell moving to 12

So the plan is get a lead and then have a Ford-Faz-Barritt midfield to grind out the rest of the game...

beshocked wrote: Very uninspirational England backline.

Why would you put the woefully out of form Yarde on the bench?  

Looks like another loss for England vs SA?

Its not the best we could put out but that is driven more by injury than anything else. I think a lot of people agree that we'd rather have Farrell jnr getting fitness and form back somewhere else, but what then are the issues?

Lots of people have been wanting Eastmond to have a chance. The back 3, more or less, could be pretty exciting if they click, and Barrett at least is a player on form.

Pack is decent...ill not mention the current big back row debate going on.

Backs...Farrell im afraid should simply NOT be starting.
I like the back three though. Pace galore on the wings...and lets hope Brown finds a bit of last seasons form.

Lets moitor who in Englands pack ACTUALLY gets hold of the ball and makes some big carries through the game.
I dont expect many!

lostinwales wrote:

beshocked wrote: Very uninspirational England backline.

Why would you put the woefully out of form Yarde on the bench?  

Looks like another loss for England vs SA?

Its not the best we could put out but that is driven more by injury than anything else. I think a lot of people agree that we'd rather have Farrell jnr getting fitness and form back somewhere else, but what then are the issues?

Lots of people have been wanting Eastmond to have a chance. The back 3, more or less, could be pretty exciting if they click, and Barrett at least is a player on form.

Fly Half:
Farrell Out
Ford in
Barritt and Eastmond swapping on Attack and defence so theres a big tackler between him and Ford.

Back row:
Wood Out
Haskell in if not Dave Ewers.
Ben Morgan on from start

And with Ford and Morgan and Eastmond on...id consider Ashton again on the wing.

No to Ashton. he's had enough chances.

Surely he deserves a chance with a backline thats creative?
He proves he can score tries on a weekly basis...everyone knows England are creatively inept.

We went through about 12 months when he had 1 more chance though and never looked that threatening. I'm happy enough with what we've got. If we want to look further afield surely it should be Wade?