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:

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.

I like the idea of the centres swapping on attack and defence, but other than when defending first phase ball I'm not sure its practical. Off a lineout, sure it works well, but in open play its probably not so easy, isn't 13 seen as the hardest channel to defend?

If we win a turnover, and Eastmond is out at 13, that's a long way to go before the ball gets to someone who will do damage with ball in hand unless Care takes it on (think I've repeated this elsewhere too)

Well to be honest...i dont think the wings are the issue anyway i shouldnt have mentioned it.

6&7
10

Are the MAJOR issues for me at the moment.

Balance in the flanks....and creativity / form and game control from 10.

All critical areas of a successful team

BamBam wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

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.

I like the idea of the centres swapping on attack and defence, but other than when defending first phase ball I'm not sure its practical. Off a lineout, sure it works well, but in open play its probably not so easy, isn't 13 seen as the hardest channel to defend?

If we win a turnover, and Eastmond is out at 13, that's a long way to go before the ball gets to someone who will do damage with ball in hand unless Care takes it on (think I've repeated this elsewhere too)

Not really...Barritt is a decent passer (basic but decent). He can ship the ball to Eastmond who then causes damage in a different area of the field...keeps the opposition guessing.

England are the most predictable team.

Remember attack is the best form of defence.

At the moment Lancasters tactics is...Stop them first THEN we'll get at them.

All the SH teams say lets get at them first...make them worry about us...THEN we can play possession and shore up the game when we need to.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Watson does this weekend, I just hope he get passed the ball more than poor Roko did. I see him as a player more willing to come off his wing though, plus he is a FB at heart, which as we all know is SL's main criteria for a back 3 player.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well to be honest...i dont think the wings are the issue anyway i shouldnt have mentioned it.

6&7
10

Are the MAJOR issues for me at the moment.

Balance in the flanks....and creativity / form and game control from 10.

All critical areas of a successful team

I agree I wonder if Haskell should be given another go over Wood? Overall big tackling, ruck work and drives. Haskell probably is inferior on the lineout.

10 - I too think Ford is the way forward.

The 10 dilemma is similar to England 1999

Ford is JW, Farrell is Grayson. Same issue over again.

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/features/tale-the-tape-england-new-zealand-1306351/

Problem is always if you change the pack you may loose something as well as gain.

Right now what we really need is a fully fit Cole back.

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.

Balance is horrific though. It's got a lack of strike threat.

Farrell and Barritt shouldn't be in the same England backline - just one should be in there.

As Farrell Jr is in woeful form he should be the one given the boot and he can take his father with him too!

Watson is inexperienced but I guess it's better than putting Yarde back in there.


There is definitely a lack of carriers in the backrow with Robshaw and Wood being uninspirational in that role. Bit of a bold selection but how about pick Billy at 6 with Morgan at 8?

We need forwards who get over the gain line - make the hard yards which will mean that gaps open.

beshocked wrote:

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.

Balance is horrific though. It's got a lack of strike threat.

Farrell and Barritt shouldn't be in the same England backline - just one should be in there.

As Farrell Jr is in woeful form he should be the one given the boot and he can take his father with him too!

Watson is inexperienced but I guess it's better than putting Yarde back in there.


There is definitely a lack of carriers in the backrow with Robshaw and Wood being uninspirational in that role. Bit of a bold selection but how about pick Billy at 6 with Morgan at 8?

We need forwards who get over the gain line - make the hard yards which will mean that gaps open.

When Sale played Glos, we all thought Cipriani was man of the match. Mercurial, creative, and converted his kicks. Some have ?? over his defence. But if you want creative I think he is the, or one of the form 10s.

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well to be honest...i dont think the wings are the issue anyway i shouldnt have mentioned it.

6&7
10

Are the MAJOR issues for me at the moment.

Balance in the flanks....and creativity / form and game control from 10.

All critical areas of a successful team

I agree I wonder if Haskell should be given another go over Wood? Overall big tackling, ruck work and drives. Haskell probably is inferior on the lineout.

10 - I too think Ford is the way forward.

The 10 dilemma is similar to England 1999

Ford is JW, Farrell is Grayson. Same issue over again.

I think the Lock situation was similar...Launchbury is quality but i see him as another version of Wood & Robshaw. Attwood is different he is a bruiser,who has added the workrate to his game. Him and Lawes will really be a cracking combo to take on the SA's.

Compare Wood / Robshaw to Kaino.
Now everyone says we cant compare them...but why? Because Wood, Robshaw are grafters...do the unseen stuff.
Erm so does Kaino. They are basic requirments of plaing a Black Shirt.
But he offers more.

We need players that can do that. Haskell looks the obvious one...maybe big Ewers needs to be looked at. Or Billy V on the Flank.
His workrate has been praised highly.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well to be honest...i dont think the wings are the issue anyway i shouldnt have mentioned it.

6&7
10

Are the MAJOR issues for me at the moment.

Balance in the flanks....and creativity / form and game control from 10.

All critical areas of a successful team

I agree I wonder if Haskell should be given another go over Wood? Overall big tackling, ruck work and drives. Haskell probably is inferior on the lineout.

10 - I too think Ford is the way forward.

The 10 dilemma is similar to England 1999

Ford is JW, Farrell is Grayson. Same issue over again.

I think the Lock situation was similar...Launchbury is quality but i see him as another version of Wood & Robshaw. Attwood is different he is a bruiser,who has added the workrate to his game. Him and Lawes will really be a cracking combo to take on the SA's.

Compare Wood / Robshaw to Kaino.
Now everyone says we cant compare them...but why? Because Wood, Robshaw are grafters...do the unseen stuff.
Erm so does Kaino. They are basic requirments of plaing a Black Shirt.
But he offers more.

We need players that can do that. Haskell looks the obvious one...maybe big Ewers needs to be looked at. Or Billy V on the Flank.
His workrate has been praised highly.

Yep I have to completely agree with you there GF. The situation at 10 needed changing as far back as the NZ tour, Burns on form looked to add a lot more to the back-line as a whole with Eastmond ant Tuilagi outside him. Then OF came in and regressed the situation. I'm afraid the same has happened this time round. Burns isn't exactly on form and Ford is both a superior runner and tactical kicker than Burns and he's the obvious choice.

As far as I can see the balance of the pack needs to involve at least four, if not five, good carriers. Not just wide open runners like Croft but tight-in hard yards types like Attwood. The pairing of him and Lawes in the SR is our best at present I think, with JL having cracking games and then vanishing in others.

If Woodshaw is to be kept the change needs to come in the FR. Webber is a drastically superior carrier and close-in defender to Hartley. He would give more options. Davy Wilson has done just fine and can carry. Marler seems to be very steady in the scrum but is adding neither carrying or fetching around the feild at present. If he could bring what Cole did, without being a carrier then that would be a good trade-off.

At present my preferred pack, of those available would be: 1. J Marler 2. R Webber 3. D Wilson 4. D Attwood 5. C Lawes 6. J Haskell 7. C Robshaw 8. B Morgan
16. D Hartley 17. M Mullan 18. K Brookes 19. G Kitchener 20. B Vunipola

I think that has a pretty decent balance to it with Marler, Lawes, Haskell and Robshaw providing some seriously high work-rate with the power carriers of Morgan, Attwood, Webber and Wilson. Haskell also offers a lot as a carrier on the second wave.

I think the back-line needs further investigation with Burrell and Tuilagi out it does lack the traditional monster in the backs and that's something that cannot be catered for outside of those players at present. With that in mind a bit more creativity is required and I think that we're getting there along that road.

May and Watson on the wings are probably our most creative, gifted and pacy options at the moment and that's to be applauded. Eastmond in the centres is exactly what this team needs to offer a running and passing threat from 12.

There are two issues at the moment in the backline as far as I can see. Firstly, as Beshocked mentioned above, OF and Barritt can't play in the same side if you want to really expand your game in the way England seem to want to play (with wide wingers). The second is that, Brown is off form at the moment and was through the summer tour. He's a class act but isn't hitting the heights he's previously set for himself.

In the first instance I would suggest that George Ford is brought in at 10. He's more creative, a better tactical kicker and crucially offers a running threat from FH. Paired with Eastomnd and Barritt in the centres I think he could work pretty well. Defensively Eastmond stood up perfectly well to SBW last weekend.

At FB I don't see a lot of mileage in dropping Brown although it might give him some more impetus. Foden is a good running option, but the problem with that is that he doesn't have a particularly good kicking game and that's an issue given Ford would be the only recognised kicker. That leaves only one option and it might not be a bad one. Goode. He could come in and provide another option as a receiver and with the pace of May and Watson I don't know how much his lack of speed would be a problem.

That would give a backline (currently available) of: 9. D Care 10. G Ford 11. J May 12. K Eastmond 13. B Barritt 14. A Watson 15. A Goode
21. B Youngs 22. F Burns 23. M Yarde

noooo not Goode. never again. noooooo

Foden I could live with. Just not Goode

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well to be honest...i dont think the wings are the issue anyway i shouldnt have mentioned it.

6&7
10

Are the MAJOR issues for me at the moment.

Balance in the flanks....and creativity / form and game control from 10.

All critical areas of a successful team

I agree I wonder if Haskell should be given another go over Wood? Overall big tackling, ruck work and drives. Haskell probably is inferior on the lineout.

10 - I too think Ford is the way forward.

The 10 dilemma is similar to England 1999

Ford is JW, Farrell is Grayson. Same issue over again.

I think the Lock situation was similar...Launchbury is quality but i see him as another version of Wood & Robshaw. Attwood is different he is a bruiser,who has added the workrate to his game. Him and Lawes will really be a cracking combo to take on the SA's.

Compare Wood / Robshaw to Kaino.
Now everyone says we cant compare them...but why? Because Wood, Robshaw are grafters...do the unseen stuff.
Erm so does Kaino. They are basic requirments of plaing a Black Shirt.
But he offers more.

We need players that can do that. Haskell looks the obvious one...maybe big Ewers needs to be looked at. Or Billy V on the Flank.
His workrate has been praised highly.

Robshaw also links and plays first receiver , but your point about carrying stands. Haskell took himself out of the  squad as he had not recovered enough, otherwise we should start him

Cj,

In that case keep Robshaw for the moment, tell him to focus on getting those turnovers, being the link man and make his tackles.

At 6 im not jumping on the bandwagon saying it must be Haskell...im saying it should be someone who can do the graft, but who can knock people back in the tackle when the time is right...or break the gainline and more when we are pegged on our tryline for ten mins under pressure.

Kaino, Alberts etc are the type of players who can do that. Wood for all his ability isnt.

Maybe its Ewers, Maybe Haskell, hell even Garvey or Fearns if he ever stays fit.

We both know Garvey will never be picked. I hope Ewers will get a chance sometime though

Yeah i just like to throw that name in there now and again

Well Ewers played well for Exeter...hes a huge guy. He does the showy stuff....big hits, big carries etc...I must confess ive never focussed on what his workrate around the pitch is like. Im sure its good as Exeter play that style.

Isn't Robshaw always going to start though (unless rested) given he's been named skipper a bit like Warburton for us.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah i just like to throw that name in there now and again

Well Ewers played well for Exeter...hes a huge guy. He does the showy stuff....big hits, big carries etc...I must confess ive never focussed on what his workrate around the pitch is like. Im sure its good as Exeter play that style.

I don't think Ewers is ready yet GF, mainly because of his work rate. He's quite lumbersome around the park and seems to take forever to get to rucks. He's a unit nd a strong carrier close in but needs work on his fitness/speed imo.

Yeah that would go against him Sgt.

The person to come in must have a high work rate...thats for sure.

Maybe i do Lancaster a disservice as there simply are no other options..... then its a straight choice Wood v Haskell.

So boys, who's nervous about tomorrow?

I'm less nervous, more resigned to a narrow scoreboard defeat. SA will be pumped after last weeks loss and I can see that backrow getting a number of turnovers against us. I don't think we have such a clever coach as Ireland do, our game plan will be to win through a high work rate and frankly I don't think it will be enough.

Its currently raining pretty hard here, so hopefully that will clear up by tomorrow. I'm going to this one so despite my pessimism I'm looking forward to it anyway!

Hope SA win and Ireland move up to 4th but usually I'd be up for England.

I'm as nervous as you are Biltong.

I just cant help expecting a defeat.

I do hope we see the young lads in the backs really have go at the SA's though.

I think the back row needs a massive game...not just grafting...i mean carrying! They'll get a lesson from the Boks how they're supposed to do it.

Nah, I am not nervous, I was hoping for third successive unbeaten tour and that's now gone thanks to those pesky Irish, on top of that we have been either very good or very poor this year and I am tired of it now.

What will be will be.

me neither then

Biltong wrote:So boys, who's nervous about tomorrow?

You nervous BB?

Lose to England and I think its probably 50:50.. (England getting home advantage, SA having a good recent record I think evens itself out) and it could become the tour of hell. Italy won't challenge but no one will want to go to Wales with 2 losses in the bag vs. Ireland and England. Could be the worst tour since 2002 when the boks lost 3 straight games to SCO, ENG & FRA.

England have their own problems, like SA a poor spate of injuries and they can no longer say they are in a building phase. That comes with its own pressures as well as not beating the boks for a decade.

Anyhow, come on chaps, do me a favour... its not easy being a brit in a boere family. All I'm asking is for an occasional win, makes my life a lot easier!!!

GeordieFalcon wrote:I just cant help expecting a defeat.

I do hope we see the young lads in the backs really have go at the SA's though.

I think the back row needs a massive game...not just grafting...i mean carrying! They'll get a lesson from the Boks how they're supposed to do it.

Well I suppose no one on the England team has ever won v SA. However, I think they will all be confident enough and SA arent infallible.

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:So boys, who's nervous about tomorrow?

You nervous BB?

Lose to England and I think its probably 50:50.. (England getting home advantage, SA having a good recent record I think evens itself out) and it could become the tour of hell. Italy won't challenge but no one will want to go to Wales with 2 losses in the bag vs. Ireland and England. Could be the worst tour since 2002 when the boks lost 3 straight games to SCO, ENG & FRA.

England have their own problems, like SA a poor spate of injuries and they can no longer say they are in a building phase. That comes with its own pressures as well as not beating the boks for a decade.

Anyhow, come on chaps, do me a favour... its not easy being a brit in a boere family. All I'm asking is for an occasional win, makes my life a lot easier!!!

"Our" so you backs to being a Boks fan? '09 was a worse year for the boks. They lost to France, Leicester, Saracens and Ireland and only beat Italy. Thats dire.

Edit: not sure where I saw the word our, maybe my imagination but Ill leave the comment there for the laugh.

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:So boys, who's nervous about tomorrow?

You nervous BB?

Lose to England and I think its probably 50:50.. (England getting home advantage, SA having a good recent record I think evens itself out) and it could become the tour of hell. Italy won't challenge but no one will want to go to Wales with 2 losses in the bag vs. Ireland and England. Could be the worst tour since 2002 when the boks lost 3 straight games to SCO, ENG & FRA.

England have their own problems, like SA a poor spate of injuries and they can no longer say they are in a building phase. That comes with its own pressures as well as not beating the boks for a decade.

Anyhow, come on chaps, do me a favour... its not easy being a brit in a boere family. All I'm asking is for an occasional win, makes my life a lot easier!!!

Nah.

I actually expect us to lose tomorrow.

Biltong wrote:I actually expect us to lose tomorrow.

What did you think of Rob Kearneys comment that the Boks didnt seem to care too much that they had just lost after the game. Agree?

Biltong wrote:I actually expect us to lose tomorrow.

but we can't both lose

Biltong wrote:I actually expect us to lose tomorrow.

Hang on, I expect us to lose!

we did draw the 3rd test

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:So boys, who's nervous about tomorrow?

You nervous BB?

Lose to England and I think its probably 50:50.. (England getting home advantage, SA having a good recent record I think evens itself out) and it could become the tour of hell. Italy won't challenge but no one will want to go to Wales with 2 losses in the bag vs. Ireland and England. Could be the worst tour since 2002 when the boks lost 3 straight games to SCO, ENG & FRA.

England have their own problems, like SA a poor spate of injuries and they can no longer say they are in a building phase. That comes with its own pressures as well as not beating the boks for a decade.

Anyhow, come on chaps, do me a favour... its not easy being a brit in a boere family. All I'm asking is for an occasional win, makes my life a lot easier!!!

"Our" so you backs to being a Boks fan? '09 was a worse year for the boks. They lost to France, Leicester, Saracens and Ireland and only beat Italy. Thats dire.

Edit: not sure where I saw the word our, maybe my imagination but Ill leave the comment there for the laugh.

Guns

As I've said before... I do tend to support all home nations teams when facing SA... even Ireland!!! We're all classed the same in SA anyhow..... you know below pond scum.

Would have won the second Test if it wasn't for the non try being awarded from the scrum... We were robbed!!!

Sadly I can't see that being the case tomorrow

Still just as long as this doesn't happen... http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/nov/22/england-south-africa-rugby-twickenham ... bad bad days, they make me shudder!

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:I actually expect us to lose tomorrow.

What did you think of Rob Kearneys comment that the Boks didnt seem to care too much that they had just lost after the game. Agree?

I changed the channel after he yellow card so I didn't see the end.

Bathman_in_London wrote:

Biltong wrote:I actually expect us to lose tomorrow.

Hang on, I expect us to lose!

We're the underdog... no we're the underdog.... no we're the underdog etc etc etc!

I like SA fans Fa. They always seem so grumpy, broody and unaproachable when they come to Dublin. I know that sounds like an insult but there is something curious about it. They probably do think we are pond scum but I feel it is in their nature to be a little intense albeit they arent all that bad really.

I once met Ernie Els in the in the old Wanderers bar. If you have have never been to the old Landsdowne road it was effectively a house a few meters from the pitch at one corner of the ground. I asked Ernie how his Guinness was. "I fackinnn lave it" he piped in his typically squeaky but warm, magnetic voice.

I have some pretty good memories of SA fans over the years to be honest.

GunsGerms wrote:I like SA fans Fa. They always seem so grumpy, broody and unaproachable when they come to Dublin. I know that sounds like an insult but there is something curious about it. They probably do think we are pond scum but I feel it is in their nature to be a little intense albeit they arent all that bad really.

I once met Ernie Els in the in the old Wanderers bar. If you have have never been to the old Landsdowne road it was effectively a house a few meters from the pitch at one corner of the ground. I asked Ernie how his Guinness was. "I fackinnn lave it" he piped in his typically squeaky but warm, magnetic voice.

I have some pretty good memories of SA fans over the years to be honest.

Guns, they're great people, real salt of the earth types. You can easily have a 3hr conversation with a stranger on rugby easy. But little things get to me... when AUS win or are playing their seems to be a calm about them, both the players and the fans... when the boks play its akin to a blitzskreig waves and waves of intense emotion and play... when you're in the lions den sometimes in a perverse way... you wouldn't mind seeing them slayed.

The taps on the shoulders on Monday morning, the nods.. it all adds up. Ireland's win was great but this is the one they really want.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I like SA fans Fa. They always seem so grumpy, broody and unaproachable when they come to Dublin. I know that sounds like an insult but there is something curious about it. They probably do think we are pond scum but I feel it is in their nature to be a little intense albeit they arent all that bad really.

I once met Ernie Els in the in the old Wanderers bar. If you have have never been to the old Landsdowne road it was effectively a house a few meters from the pitch at one corner of the ground. I asked Ernie how his Guinness was. "I fackinnn lave it" he piped in his typically squeaky but warm, magnetic voice.

I have some pretty good memories of SA fans over the years to be honest.

Guns, they're great people, real salt of the earth types. You can easily have a 3hr conversation with a stranger on rugby easy. But little things get to me... when AUS win or are playing their seems to be a calm about them, both the players and the fans... when the boks play its akin to a blitzskreig waves and waves of intense emotion and play... when you're in the lions den sometimes in a perverse way... you wouldn't mind seeing them slayed.

The taps on the shoulders on Monday morning, the nods.. it all adds up. Ireland's win was great but this is the one they really want.

It's only because of your weather, once you warm them up they are nice blokes

There is no question about that. They love hoovering up guiness too.

FA wrote:Guns, they're great people, real salt of the earth types. You can easily have a 3hr conversation with a stranger on rugby easy. But little things get to me... when AUS win or are playing their seems to be a calm about them, both the players and the fans... when the boks play its akin to a blitzskreig waves and waves of intense emotion and play...

You need to understand what rugby means to us.

When you grow up as a boy your manhood is measured by whether you play rugby or not.

When you meet a strange uncle that knocks on your front door the first thing they do is look you up and down and ask you whether you play rugby.

Then what position and then which team.

At school parents will paint the rugby poles, sponsor money or anything else that gets their son into the 1st team.

Kids at school that don't play rugby don't mix with those that do, because you are simply don't measure up.

The first thing you get as a boy when you are born is a rugby ball and jersey. Your dad dreams of you playing for the Boks.

It is very serious, every match is a battle, when I grew up and someone knocked your block off you have no choice but to hit back, if you don't your teammates lose respect for you, once they have seen you are tough they will fight for you, but not until you have proven yourself.

It is just different.

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:I actually expect us to lose tomorrow.

What did you think of Rob Kearneys comment that the Boks didnt seem to care too much that they had just lost after the game. Agree?

Shock can work that way. You know the stories of people in accidents, walking out calmly, being very articulate, reasoned...etc....and then moments later the more apparent signals of shock set in and it's rapidly off to hospital.
A nephew of mine witnessed a friend lose an arm in an agricultural accident, in NZ actually, and he said the guy appeared to take it so so calmly............. for a while - but then all hell broke lose as he tried to calm the poor fella down and wait for assistance to come in the remote field.
SA didn't expect to lose to Ireland - period.

Thats a little intense Billtong no? It is only a game afterall.

Biltong wrote:

FA wrote:Guns, they're great people, real salt of the earth types. You can easily have a 3hr conversation with a stranger on rugby easy. But little things get to me... when AUS win or are playing their seems to be a calm about them, both the players and the fans... when the boks play its akin to a blitzskreig waves and waves of intense emotion and play...

You need to understand what rugby means to us.

When you grow up as a boy your manhood is measured by whether you play rugby or not.

When you meet a strange uncle that knocks on your front door the first thing they do is look you up and down and ask you whether you play rugby.

Then what position and then which team.

At school parents will paint the rugby poles, sponsor money or anything else that gets their son into the 1st team.

Kids at school that don't play rugby don't mix with those that do, because you are simply don't measure up.

The first thing you get as a boy when you are born is a rugby ball and jersey. Your dad dreams of you playing for the Boks.

It is very serious, every match is a battle, when I grew up and someone knocked your block off you have no choice but to hit back, if you don't your teammates lose respect for you, once they have seen you are tough they will fight for you, but not until you have proven yourself.

It is just different.

So it's kinda like the GAA in Ireland. We have the skits here about the Hurling Coaches laying into their side in a dressing room, crying out in pain and violence about what they want their guys to do to the opposition in the second half. The viciousness grows and the allusions to blood and death get more gory...and the camera pulls backs and shows you his team - a bunch of 7 year olds.

GunsGerms wrote:Thats a little intense Billtong no? It is only a game afterall.

Yes, it is only a game, the modern day dads, like myself don't push our kids into rugby, I never forced hm to play, yet he wanted to start playing rugby because as he said it "I don't want to break your heart"

WHen I grew up rugby was a right of passage in a sense.

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Thats a little intense Billtong no? It is only a game afterall.

Yes, it is only a game, the modern day dads, like myself don't push our kids into rugby, I never forced hm to play, yet he wanted to start playing rugby because as he said it "I don't want to break your heart"

WHen I grew up rugby was a right of passage in a sense.

Jesus if my son said that to me it would break my heart. Im soft though when it comes to my son.

So far he likes football. Ill try and wean him off that soon.

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Thats a little intense Billtong no? It is only a game afterall.

Yes, it is only a game, the modern day dads, like myself don't push our kids into rugby, I never forced hm to play, yet he wanted to start playing rugby because as he said it "I don't want to break your heart"

WHen I grew up rugby was a right of passage in a sense.

Jesus if my son said that to me it would break my heart. Im soft though when it comes to my son.

So far he likes football. Ill try and wean him off that soon.

It is hard to explain what it means to a dad when he knows he means that much to his son. I must admit I have a very close relationship with my boy. His personality is very similar to mine. He oves to gang up with me on his mom, then we have to tease her until she explodes, then we have to say sorry.

Tomorrow the same thing happens.

Yeah me too. Was gonna bring my son to the SA game for his first International. He is only 5 and it was cold so I gave the ticket to someone else in the end. Brought him to see Munster v Leinster earlier in the year though. Some funny old Munster lady gave him a Munster flag. He loved it and waved it furiously for most of the game.