England vs South Africa November 15th 2014

by **Rugby Fan** Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:54 pm

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.

by Geordie Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:03 pm

Does Webber not do the same in set pieces yet offer more around the pitch?

That's all im asking.

by Manu's Boxing Coach Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:06 pm

We lost a line out with Webber's throwing, and I do think it was slightly under thrown.

by maestegmafia Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:06 pm

quinsforever wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:I don't have a problem with the yellow. You can't even blame Walsh this time because he saw it but was prepared to play on. The TMO suggested a second look and it clinched the deal.
tmos should NOT be allowed to introduce slowmos that the ref saw in real time. everything looks worse in slow mo. everything. do we want tmos to run the game in hindsight, and see multiple yellows for nothing infringements?

look at the yellow for strauss last week.

Many of us said the same over Cian Healey being sighted a few years ago.

I see your opinion differs when the boot is on an England players foot.

by fa0019 Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:06 pm

I think Lancaster has to take some flak. Farrell needs to be dropped IMO. Played poorly but he is so poor in attack. Not just his poor kicking, he lacked so much insight it's ridiculous.

All he does is run plays not read the scenario. He played a number if inside balls to isolated men who ran into 3-4 boks... What do you expect the player to do other than penalise.

If he can't see that throwing the ball to an isolated prop against 4 boks is a bad idea he should be a 10.

England did hat do often it was akin to schoolboy rugby.

by quinsforever Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:15 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:I don't have a problem with the yellow. You can't even blame Walsh this time because he saw it but was prepared to play on. The TMO suggested a second look and it clinched the deal.
tmos should NOT be allowed to introduce slowmos that the ref saw in real time. everything looks worse in slow mo. everything. do we want tmos to run the game in hindsight, and see multiple yellows for nothing infringements?

look at the yellow for strauss last week.

Many of us said the same over Cian Healey being sighted a few years ago.

I see your opinion differs when the boot is on an England players foot.

no. if the ref sees it in real time and is looking at it his gut instincts are what should determine the offense. and if he is unsure, then HE can request the TMO to review it.

utter BS for the tmo to intorduce a slow-mo which the ref himself saw in real time right in front of him. everything looks like a yellow in slow-mo where there is contact. TMO should pipe up when something happened off the ball or that the ref was not aware of.

otherwise...

kearney should have gotten yellow for tackling player in the air on 2nd minute...
habana should have been penalised the first time he tackled watson in the air (pushed him and watson knocked on)
countless examples of things in slow-mo which looked a lot worse than in realtime and would have had an impact on the game in each case
etc
etc

by No 7&1/2 Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:15 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:I don't have a problem with the yellow. You can't even blame Walsh this time because he saw it but was prepared to play on. The TMO suggested a second look and it clinched the deal.
tmos should NOT be allowed to introduce slowmos that the ref saw in real time. everything looks worse in slow mo. everything. do we want tmos to run the game in hindsight, and see multiple yellows for nothing infringements?

look at the yellow for strauss last week.

Many of us said the same over Cian Healey being sighted a few years ago.

I see your opinion differs when the boot is on an England players foot.

Was that Healey on Cole? If so that was a stamp for me today it was just walking over anoth Bok who was trying to slow the ball. Didnt matter as we made too many silly errors.

by tatterd Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:18 pm

blimey are england the new wales? 2 narrow losses in a row to the SH and 2 in the summer

by quinsforever Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:21 pm

agree FA. farrell is woefully off-form and has been since the Aviva playoffs in May. Bomber is obviously in awe of and defers to Farrell Sr. As there can be no other explanation for why he keeps getting picked. Bomber goes with form in most other positions apart from the most important one on the pitch.

wtf?

England at least looked like scoring points ball in hand once Ford went on.

we could have won this match but we didnt. 1 interception, and 2 or 3 soft, poor penalties (bad by us, right calls by walsh) and we were chasing the game. Walsh refereed the breakdown consistently, but he did favour defense (never penalised tackler not releasing, and gave tackler assist a freebie) for both sides, and unfortunately that hurt us as we were always chasing the game

by No 7&1/2 Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:24 pm

Walsh was lenient on the mauls as well Lawes prob should have gone to the bin after coming round the side.

by Heaf Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:30 pm

He didn't seem to mind players 'falling over' in front of mauls and then grabbing players by the legs either - SA got away with that at least 3 or 4 times ... if he'd dealt with that properly maybe the Hartley 'incident' wouldn't have happened

by englandglory4ever Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:32 pm

Hartley, Lawes, Attwood, kruis Vunipolar, Robshaw, wood, all gave very stupid penalties away. With a pack that generous to the opposition we have no chance. Add to that the hatfull of knockons. Rubbish.

by protea438 Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:34 pm

Heaf wrote:He didn't seem to mind players 'falling over' in front of mauls and then grabbing players by the legs either - SA got away with that at least 3 or 4 times ... if he'd dealt with that properly maybe the Hartley 'incident' wouldn't have happened

But I will counter argue and say that Englands second try wouldnt have happened if they made the right decision regarding the line out. When Habanna caught the ball

by yappysnap Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:35 pm

Well done SA!

Although it looked close, honestly it wasn't really. Playing against 7 men England looked pretty competent, but in general we were so ineffective ball on hand.

Farrell needs to be booted, he was lucky to even be there in the first place. And he repays that misplaced faith by being utterly Poopie. Poor kicking, crap passing and a total lack of game awareness. Him arguing to stay on long enough to give the horror kick and concede a pen should be the nail in his international coffin at least for this series.

Wood as well should go. We have to ask Catt about the use if May and Watson too. Oh and finally Youngs should start next week.

by Heaf Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:37 pm

protea438 wrote:
Heaf wrote:He didn't seem to mind players 'falling over' in front of mauls and then grabbing players by the legs either - SA got away with that at least 3 or 4 times ... if he'd dealt with that properly maybe the Hartley 'incident' wouldn't have happened

But I will counter argue and say that Englands second try wouldnt have happened if they made the right decision regarding the line out. When Habanna caught the ball

I wasn't arguing that he cost England the match - just that his refereeing of the maul was poor. No argument that Habana was hard done by.

by sad_gimp Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:38 pm

Biltong wrote:Well played England, commiserations, you gave us one hell of a game.

When are captains going to be allowed to challenge poor touch judge decisions?

That was a huge turning point in the game

As no one else commented...yes that was a shocking decision. Was a bit miffed what was going on when the touch judge was standing on the pitch gesticulating at the SA player pulling the maul down but letting play go on? Near side TJ to TV was dreadful.

by thomh Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:39 pm

Ah the Healey incident rearing it's head again. I've never understood at all why anyone ever bothered defending that or at least playing it down. One of the worst incidents I've ever seen on a rugby pitch and nothing like today's. What's more it looked even worse in real time than slow-mo.

Well done SA. Hartley was dim and probably deserved his yellow. I thought Walsh was alright today - certainly not worth discussing as if he affected the result.

Same old problems for England. A powerful set of forwards but not precision or running threat in the backs. Part of that can be absentees, but it's consistently been an issue forest of the last 10 years. Coming away from that opening 30 minutes 10-3 down really cost us.

by No 7&1/2 Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:39 pm

Wood was good today. Seeing as Farrell was poor think its a touch harsh on the wingers when given the ball with some space they looked much better than when asked to run into a wall!

by quinsforever Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:40 pm

protea438 wrote:
Heaf wrote:He didn't seem to mind players 'falling over' in front of mauls and then grabbing players by the legs either - SA got away with that at least 3 or 4 times ... if he'd dealt with that properly maybe the Hartley 'incident' wouldn't have happened

But I will counter argue and say that Englands second try wouldnt have happened if they made the right decision regarding the line out. When Habanna caught the ball

it also wouldnt have happened if SA had defended a rolling maul from 35 metres out. Yes it was a mistake but they have plenty still to do from there.

by ChequeredJersey Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:41 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wood was good today. Seeing as Farrell was poor think its a touch harsh on the wingers when given the ball with some space they looked much better than when asked to run into a wall!

Wood was not "good". Nothing he did was good. He was Frak abysmal

by Sgt_Pooly Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:47 pm

Wood was pretty awful bar that burst he made. If it wasn't for that he would have minus yards made.

by No 7&1/2 Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:50 pm

Didnt see the poor game. The only under par forward for me was Vunipola.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:52 pm

I didn't say drop him, I said his yellow wasn't 50/50. The only ones querying it seem to be English. All neutrals say yellow. Think that says a lot.

by Sgt_Pooly Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:53 pm

Billy went ok but nothing special, he's the only player in our pack who can make yard which is tough.

I do wonder if we could go:

6. Billy
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

Morgan was excellent when he came on and Wood adds very little apart from line out.

by ChequeredJersey Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:56 pm

Wood was a penalty machine, without any turnovers, enough in the lineout, enough graft carries or positive contributions to make up for it. Diet Robshaw, with added uselessness

by TightHEAD Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:56 pm

With yet another defeat we have learnt nothing more about the team other than confirm to us all, apart from those that matter! that Farrell isn't as good as his dad makes out, wood is lightweight at this level and Hartley is a moron.

Steffon Has to be given a chance in the squad to prove himself, yes I know he plays is France but so did wilkinson!

by No 7&1/2 Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:57 pm

Id like to see Haskell to be fair just so we can be reinded how good he is.

by protea438 Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:00 pm

quinsforever wrote:
protea438 wrote:
Heaf wrote:He didn't seem to mind players 'falling over' in front of mauls and then grabbing players by the legs either - SA got away with that at least 3 or 4 times ... if he'd dealt with that properly maybe the Hartley 'incident' wouldn't have happened

But I will counter argue and say that Englands second try wouldnt have happened if they made the right decision regarding the line out. When Habanna caught the ball
it also wouldnt have happened if SA had defended a rolling maul from 35 metres out. Yes it was a mistake but they have plenty still to do from there.

Well ithe line out wouldnt have happened 35 metres out

by Geordie Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:17 pm

7.5

What did you see in Wood that was good?

by Geordie Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:20 pm

Currently watching the Falcons v Bath game...and Joseph has scored a well taken try.

by maestegmafia Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:22 pm

thomh wrote:Ah the Healey incident rearing it's head again. I've never understood at all why anyone ever bothered defending that or at least playing it down. One of the worst incidents I've ever seen on a rugby pitch and nothing like today's. What's more it looked even worse in real time than slow-mo.

Well done SA. Hartley was dim and probably deserved his yellow. I thought Walsh was alright today - certainly not worth discussing as if he affected the result.

Same old problems for England. A powerful set of forwards but not precision or running threat in the backs. Part of that can be absentees, but it's consistently been an issue forest of the last 10 years. Coming away from that opening 30 minutes 10-3 down really cost us.

Probably because many non England fans who watch Healey know he is not a cynical or dirty player and the incident did not look premeditated to the impartial.

Hartley, has one of the worst reputations and worst records as a dirty player in world rugby.

by thomh Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:26 pm

I agree that they have those reputations, but if you allow that to affect your view of an incident then those reputations will become self-perpetuating. The Healey incident was bloody horrific. I don't see why saying that at all implies that I'm defending Hartley. It has nothing to do with him.

by yappysnap Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:57 pm

On a brighter note I decided to try Adnams brewery for this game, specifically Light House (summer ale) and Broadside (bitter) both were exceedingly drinkable and made a poor game far more enjoyable. Nice to have a change from IPA too!

by doctor_grey Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:14 pm

The Boks played smart on defense and extremely well at the breakdown. And took their opportunities for which England had little answer. Sound fundamental Rugby. Deserved the W.

Unfortunately, this match was a travesty from an England standpoint. I haven't criticised the England set-up since the bad olde Robinson days, but I now have serious concerns. England were clearly full of intent and absent of even a jot of intelligence. Players, good players, who don't know how to go into a ruck and knock-on or hold on. Either late or no support when these geniuses do go into contact. Individuals trying to score 10 point tries by themselves (with the inevitable let off for the Boks) is illustrative of players who know something is seriously wrong. Poor decisions in open play, especially when kicking. I could go on for hours - my frustration with what I saw today is huge.

We certainly need a different pair of halfbacks. Farrell kicks for no reason and almost got the poor Watson lad killed a few times. He is either too robotic or simply hasn't the brains for the position. Care is such an up and down player that, despite the great individual plays we know he can make, fundamentally he can not be relied upon, except perhaps by Jan Serfontein, the Bok 13.

I am now coming around to the conclusion that Lancaster needs a boot up the bum as much as the players. Yes, I want to see change at 9 and 10, but I am not sure player selection can fix this. I believe this is institutional with the current management. If Lancaster believes such a brainless match is the right preparation leading up to the RWC, then we should eat his contract now and bring in someone else. My 14 year old daughter needs a job and even she was aware of what was wrong..........

by kingraf Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:16 pm

Serfontein gained more metres in one run than he has the whole season Very Happy

(yes, my pops at Serfontein really are unending)

Alright game, we were poor for large periods, but had enough X factor to pull through. The Habana touch fiasco was embarrassing, but I can't pretend to be to upset... 95/100, nothing happens and it's forgotten as a footnote. Don't think England played particularly well either. Close match, but neither team really got out of second. Both Lambie and Handre missed kicks which woulda added some (scarcely deserved) gloss over the scoreline.

by stub Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:26 pm

yappysnap wrote:On a brighter note I decided to try Adnams brewery for this game, specifically Light House (summer ale) and Broadside (bitter) both were exceedingly drinkable and made a poor game far more enjoyable. Nice to have a change from IPA too!

So yappy, educate me, what is the difference between an IPA and a summer ale? Both lighter beers brewed for warmer times I guess?

by yappysnap Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:30 pm

London Evening Standard's Review:

England were undone by dozy play and debilitating errors as they sank to a second successive three-point loss to a southern hemisphere superpower. Chris Robshaw’s team had been retained en bloc from the previous week’s defeat by New Zealand, save for one change due to injury, but blew the chance to prove to be called worthy World Cup contenders, as South Africa’s greater precision under pressure took over.

It would be wrong to say England’s pain at another loss 10 months out from the all-important global tournament was entirely self-inflicted. The Springboks are the world’s No 2 ranked team – behind only the All Blacks – and even when they were down to 14 men, with Victor Matfield in the sin-bin, they had the class to hurt England with a try brilliantly finished by another veteran forward, Schalk Burger, in the 53rd minute. It was a crucial moment as it brought a crushing halt to a good spell for England in which tries by Davey Wilson – the prop’s first in his 39th Test – and replacement No 8 Ben Morgan, both converted by Owen Farrell had dug them out of a hole and tied the scores at 20-20.

With Burger latching on to fellow flanker Marcell Coetzee to score from a line-out drive, despite South Africa being under-manned at the throw, the momentum swung back to the visitors. All the more so five minutes later when Dylan Hartley was shown a yellow card for a daft stamp on Duane Vermeulen. It came in one of many mauls as each side tried to out-muscle the other in that facet; a juicy heavyweight battle within the war that brought England those tries.

But when Dave Attwood conceded a penalty for grabbing Bakkies Botha in a line-out and Pat Lambie kicked the goal to put South Africa 28-20 up, it was as deflating for the Twickenham crowd as the scores by Wilson and Morgan had been a thrilling response to South Africa’s first-half dominance. George Ford, who did enough as a replacement for Farrell to suggest he should start both remaining autumn internationals against Samoa and Australia, kicked a penalty, yet still England blundered. Two line-outs in Bok territory ended respectively with Brad Barritt woefully isolated, while Webber’s throw-in was stolen by Vermeulen. Then Ford kicked a ball out on the full, Lambie dropped a goal at the other end, and Barritt’s late, late try at the corner was not enough.

“We need to be smarter in the way we apply ourselves,” was how England’s coach Stuart Lancaster, explained it, and he promised a “few changes” against Samoa, although that would have been the case anyway. His pack, as against New Zealand, was formidable in the set-piece, but the team need to tighten up everywhere else as they digest a depressing 11th loss with one draw in 12 meetings with the Boks since 2006. Before that England were on a run of seven wins.

Eastmond was picked ahead of Billy Twelvetrees Eastmond was picked ahead of Billy Twelvetrees Kyle Eastmond had been chosen ahead of Billy Twelvetrees to solve a playmaking problem but an early scuttle by the Bath centre ended with the ball lost in the tackle. Billy Vunipola suffered similar ignominy, for all his willing carries. In defence, Mike Brown’s slowness in covering back obliged Farrell to get in a muddle with Anthony Watson and hand South Africa the first points with a penalty by Lambie after 10 minutes. Then, most heinously, Danny Care dithered over a pass to Eastmond behind a ruck and allowed Jan Serfontein an interception score, run in from the Springbok 10-metre line. Care had earlier led England out to mark his 50th cap.

Lambie’s conversion for 10-0 was followed by a break from Brown that ended with more imprecision. The Durban-born Barritt strove to breach the gain-line but it was basic. At least England had three points in the 28th minute when Farrell kicked a penalty, but even that came after a promising position was snuffed out by Attwood on one wing and Eastmond and Jonny May on the other cramping England’s space.

It cannot be ignored that some good players are absent injured – Alex Corbisiero, Joe Launchbury and Manu Tuilagi are three who spring to mind – but it appeared as if the likes of Care and Brown were on different wavelengths despite hundreds of matches for country and club. When England were beating Wales and Ireland here last spring, Brown might have been thought of as a candidate for World Player of the Year, but Vermeulen and Willie le Roux showed here why they are among the five vying for that honour tomorrow.

Le Roux set-up the try for Reinach and early had one of his own Le Roux set-up the try for Reinach and early had one of his own Farrell cut the lead to 13-6 on 37 minutes, and England were further relieved when Lambie slid a 40-metre penalty wide just before the interval. Nevertheless there was a 14-point gap 43 seconds into the second half when Le Roux caught Lambie’s chip and slipped a scoring pass to scrum-half Cobus Reinach. It was stretching rugby common sense to believe South Africa would make the same number of errors as in their 29-15 loss to Ireland eight days ago – and they didn’t.

by quinsforever Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:31 pm

doctor_grey wrote:The Boks played smart on defense and extremely well at the breakdown. And took their opportunities for which England had little answer. Sound fundamental Rugby. Deserved the W.

Unfortunately, this match was a travesty from an England standpoint. I haven't criticised the England set-up since the bad olde Robinson days, but I now have serious concerns. England were clearly full of intent and absent of even a jot of intelligence. Players, good players, who don't know how to go into a ruck and knock-on or hold on. Either late or no support when these geniuses do go into contact. Individuals trying to score 10 point tries by themselves (with the inevitable let off for the Boks) is illustrative of players who know something is seriously wrong. Poor decisions in open play, especially when kicking. I could go on for hours - my frustration with what I saw today is huge.

We certainly need a different pair of halfbacks. Farrell kicks for no reason and almost got the poor Watson lad killed a few times. He is either too robotic or simply hasn't the brains for the position. Care is such an up and down player that, despite the great individual plays we know he can make, fundamentally he can not be relied upon, except perhaps by Jan Serfontein, the Bok 13.

I am now coming around to the conclusion that Lancaster needs a boot up the bum as much as the players. Yes, I want to see change at 9 and 10, but I am not sure player selection can fix this. I believe this is institutional with the current management. If Lancaster believes such a brainless match is the right preparation leading up to the RWC, then we should eat his contract now and bring in someone else. My 14 year old daughter needs a job and even she was aware of what was wrong..........

i think the general consensue on here agrees with you Doc.

Shame the RFU extended Lancaster and his coaching staff's contracts til 2019 as a reward for 3 losses against the ABs down under. That appalls me. Rugby is a results-based business, and Farrell Jr's selection, given his clear lack of form, and clear lack of performance for England, should mean somebody needs to leave the England setup for a while. Either Bomber, Farrell Sr or Farrell Jr. Anything else is completely unacceptable in my opinion.

by quinsforever Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:35 pm

If Bomber doesnt have the guts or experience to get rid of either Farrell, then he needs to be ditched. The public, and the team, will turn against him if he doesnt, and we will likely not escape Pool A.

by yappysnap Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:37 pm

stub wrote:
yappysnap wrote:On a brighter note I decided to try Adnams brewery for this game, specifically Light House (summer ale) and Broadside (bitter) both were exceedingly drinkable and made a poor game far more enjoyable. Nice to have a change from IPA too!

So yappy, educate me, what is the difference between an IPA and a summer ale? Both lighter beers brewed for warmer times I guess?

You know what? I have no definitive idea. Going by what I just drunk a summer ale is a lot lighter, crisper and weaker then IPA, IPA is more malty and smoother. But that may just be the one I tried rather then all of them...

by stub Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:44 pm

doctor_grey wrote:The Boks played smart on defense and extremely well at the breakdown. And took their opportunities for which England had little answer. Sound fundamental Rugby. Deserved the W.

Unfortunately, this match was a travesty from an England standpoint. I haven't criticised the England set-up since the bad olde Robinson days, but I now have serious concerns. England were clearly full of intent and absent of even a jot of intelligence. Players, good players, who don't know how to go into a ruck and knock-on or hold on. Either late or no support when these geniuses do go into contact. Individuals trying to score 10 point tries by themselves (with the inevitable let off for the Boks) is illustrative of players who know something is seriously wrong. Poor decisions in open play, especially when kicking. I could go on for hours - my frustration with what I saw today is huge.

We certainly need a different pair of halfbacks. Farrell kicks for no reason and almost got the poor Watson lad killed a few times. He is either too robotic or simply hasn't the brains for the position. Care is such an up and down player that, despite the great individual plays we know he can make, fundamentally he can not be relied upon, except perhaps by Jan Serfontein, the Bok 13.

I am now coming around to the conclusion that Lancaster needs a boot up the bum as much as the players. Yes, I want to see change at 9 and 10, but I am not sure player selection can fix this. I believe this is institutional with the current management. If Lancaster believes such a brainless match is the right preparation leading up to the RWC, then we should eat his contract now and bring in someone else. My 14 year old daughter needs a job and even she was aware of what was wrong..........

Well said Doc - something is not right. England are not the most creative team in the world (and never will be) but our inability to do anything clever at all is incredible. The team seems far weaker than the sum of it's parts to me. I like Lancaster and his approach and I think he's done great things for England Rugby but we need a bit more now and I think that's a change of coaching staff for me. Our backs aren't scaring anyone and they should at least keep the opposition guessing.

by Geordie Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:45 pm

Quins

Even if we were playing Australis next week not Samoa...theres surely no possible way Lancaster could justify picking Farrel Jr.

It is critical position in the game and you need genuine skills that he just lacks.

The other crucial thing I mentioned months ago is the lac of genuine carriers in the pack.
They are assembled as grafters, etc but aside from Vunipola (or Morgan who start next week) Attwood and Robshaw none of the others really take the ball in to contact with the intention of getting way beyond the gain line.

I bore people with my constant referral to Matt Garvey...but he is a man mountain (6'6, 20 stone) He is one of the best tacklers in the league and has been for years (h actually knocks people back - offensive tackling)...he grafts like the best of them, has lineout presence and has the bulk to make big inroads through traffic.
You need players like that when your under the cosh.

Wood just doesn't have the physical presence I want at 6...and I think Robshaw puts in better performances.

Lancaster needs to rejig the back 3

On another note im fed up hearing about missing Cole and Corbs. Id be amazed if we ever see Corbs in the team again hes so injury prone and Brookes and WIlson are good TH's. We'll see how Cole goes after he's played a few games.

by stub Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:47 pm

yappysnap wrote:
stub wrote:
yappysnap wrote:On a brighter note I decided to try Adnams brewery for this game, specifically Light House (summer ale) and Broadside (bitter) both were exceedingly drinkable and made a poor game far more enjoyable. Nice to have a change from IPA too!

So yappy, educate me, what is the difference between an IPA and a summer ale? Both lighter beers brewed for warmer times I guess?

You know what? I have no definitive idea. Going by what I just drunk a summer ale is a lot lighter, crisper and weaker then IPA, IPA is more malty and smoother. But that may just be the one I tried rather then all of them...

Damn - I'm just going to have to work it out for myself!! Very Happy

by doctor_grey Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:08 pm

stub wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:The Boks played smart on defense and extremely well at the breakdown. And took their opportunities for which England had little answer. Sound fundamental Rugby. Deserved the W.

Unfortunately, this match was a travesty from an England standpoint. I haven't criticised the England set-up since the bad olde Robinson days, but I now have serious concerns. England were clearly full of intent and absent of even a jot of intelligence. Players, good players, who don't know how to go into a ruck and knock-on or hold on. Either late or no support when these geniuses do go into contact. Individuals trying to score 10 point tries by themselves (with the inevitable let off for the Boks) is illustrative of players who know something is seriously wrong. Poor decisions in open play, especially when kicking. I could go on for hours - my frustration with what I saw today is huge.

We certainly need a different pair of halfbacks. Farrell kicks for no reason and almost got the poor Watson lad killed a few times. He is either too robotic or simply hasn't the brains for the position. Care is such an up and down player that, despite the great individual plays we know he can make, fundamentally he can not be relied upon, except perhaps by Jan Serfontein, the Bok 13.

I am now coming around to the conclusion that Lancaster needs a boot up the bum as much as the players. Yes, I want to see change at 9 and 10, but I am not sure player selection can fix this. I believe this is institutional with the current management. If Lancaster believes such a brainless match is the right preparation leading up to the RWC, then we should eat his contract now and bring in someone else. My 14 year old daughter needs a job and even she was aware of what was wrong..........

Well said Doc - something is not right. England are not the most creative team in the world (and never will be) but our inability to do anything clever at all is incredible. The team seems far weaker than the sum of it's parts to me. I like Lancaster and his approach and I think he's done great things for England Rugby but we need a bit more now and I think that's a change of coaching staff for me. Our backs aren't scaring anyone and they should at least keep the opposition guessing.

This is what I tried to say, but you said it better. When England, or any team, goes up against the big boys, we can't leave the brain power at home.

by quinsforever Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:35 pm

france opening up can of whoop-ass on Australia.

accumulator odds on an all-NH RWC final?

by majesticimperialman Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:41 pm

A coach needs time to put his mark on the team. and also time to Produce a world cup winning team.

Look how long it took Clive Woodward. Success does not come easaly.

by quinsforever Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:50 pm

i have had enough of the lancaster defending.

owen farrell is never, ever going to be a 10 capable of leading a team to RWC victory.

he just doesnt have the game. he has had 1 great game of the 15 i have seen him, against Ireland in the 6Ns. thats not enough.

so if bomber insists on continuing to pick him, then it doesnt matter how "long" we have, because we have a limited player in our most important position.

in fact, Bomber could have 20 years, but if farrell is nailed on 10 irrespective if form, injury, ability or vision, are we going to keep on rolling out the excuses?

by doctor_grey Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:54 pm

Indeed it does take time, mate. Sir Clive's early teams did sometimes play poorly. But some of those teams were really not very good. As they progressed and improved they would lose the odd one here and there (unfortunately it happened in the 6 Nations). But not plying as if they suffered from a collective cerebral embolism. That is what I saw today. Dumb play.

by **Pal Joey** Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:01 pm

quinsforever wrote:france opening up can of whoop-ass on Australia.

accumulator odds on an all-NH RWC final?

Ireland - France you mean? Pretty big I'd would say.

by DeludedOptimistorjustDave Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:05 pm

majesticimperialman wrote:A coach needs time to put his mark on the team. and also time to Produce a world cup winning team.

Look how long it took Clive Woodward. Success does not come easaly.

Oh God PLEASE! but Sir Clive did this but Sir Clive did that, seriously who gives a dam what he did over a decade ago this kind of talk is just plain embarrassing.
Go watch a game from Sir Clives era and tell me that any top eight team wouldn't hammer them right now! the game changes every seasons and is so physical you can't bark on about a time when 80% of the playing nations were stuck in the amateur age.
Lancater has a big task because quite frankly he has a solid stable group of players to pick from but very very little world class players to chose from.

by yappysnap Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:06 pm

I am constantly frustrated by Brown.

He makes tonnes of breaks and beats defenders for fun when on form. But none of his breaks ever seem to come to anything other then handling errors or penalties for holding on. I can not actually remember him ever linking with another player.

by Sponsored content