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.

The Loaded Dog wrote:

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.

nice try. any of 4 could make the final given the current state of world rugby. although admittedly some more likely than others.

yappysnap wrote: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.

Been saying it all last season, he is just like Foden, people oh and ah because he runs it back but always to little effect.

yappysnap wrote: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.

He had no support, ever. Not to secure the ball, not to offload to. And he turned over the ball once with no pens given away... I assume the turnover was that time he slotted the ball between his legs and 2 forwards just ran over it and let the SA player just pick it up

Just watching the Aus-France game, when was the last time England put the ball through the hands in the backs, and were able to make space with it?

Not thinking of a solo run like May last week, I mean a proper fluid set of passes with runners at pace?

BamBam wrote:Just watching the Aus-France game, when was the last time England put the ball through the hands in the backs, and were able to make space with it?

Not thinking of a solo run like May last week, I mean a proper fluid set of passes with runners at pace?

England couldn't get the ball to the wings because the Boks defensive line curves round to cut off the quick passes. To counter this you need a creative flyhalf, to mix it up with chip kicks and grubbers etc. Farrell isn't up to it in my opinion. Find a decent flyhalf and things might change. Also England need quicker possession in second and third phase ball, but they were being slowed down by the Boks fetchers. England didn't seem to have an equivalent fetcher to return the favour, or secure fast ball off the back of the metres that Vunipola was gaining (when he wasn't dropping the ball that is)

We can't continue with Care and Farrell it just isn't working. They gifted the Boks with a ten point head start.

Need someone to carry in that back. The locks and flankers just aren't making the hard yards ball in hand. The balance isn't there.

The error count was also horrific. Knock ons, unnecessary penalties and a moronic yellow card. The set piece saved us from humiliation. Give Graham Rowntree a hand.

formerly known as Sam wrote:We can't continue with Care and Farrell it just isn't working. They gifted the Boks with a ten point head start.

Need someone to carry in that back. The locks and flankers just aren't making the hard yards ball in hand. The balance isn't there.

The error count was also horrific. Knock ons,  unnecessary penalties and a moronic yellow card. The set piece saved us from humiliation. Give Graham Rowntree a hand.

At last someone finally agrees with me.....been saying it for ages now.

quinsforever wrote: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?

I do agree on Owen Farrell. Why oh Why does he keep getting picked above every body else?

Maybe because their is not many more to take his place. Or maybe it is because his dad is one of the England coaches. Either way we need to be bringing some one else in.

Is George ford the answer? Is it time to give Cipriani/Burns another chance, or is their some one else?

I think Ford deserves a chance. He played well today. If he doesn't fire then Cipriani, Burns and Slade are all options. Certainly some experimentation is required with the Saxons in the new year.

Geordie, I've not been on the international board much but I've been bemoaning the lack of physicality in the pack for a while. Wood and Robshaw are good but offer too similar characteristics. The locks aren't pulling their weight ball in hand either. The injuries to Slater and Launchbury are hurting us there. Not sure Kruis in the answer in that regard. A Dave Ewers or James Haskell might help at 6 and maybe Kitchener onto the bench for next week.

So serious question here now, Wales are likely to end up with 1 from 4 from the AIs which for me is totally unacceptable.

Do you guys think you will beat the Aussies which will give you (no dis respect to Samoa) 2 from 4 if you lose how would 1 from 4 sit with you lot.

Watching the Aussies v France which has just finished....I seriously doubt if we'll beat them.

THe only chance is if SL gives Ford etc a run out and then keeps him in.

If Farrell starts v Australia it'll be a disgrace.

What was score GF

France pipped Australia 29-26. Late Wallaby try made it interesting after Tales got a yellow for cynically killing the ball.

bedfordwelsh wrote:So serious question here now, Wales are likely to end up with 1 from 4 from the AIs which for me is totally unacceptable.

Do you guys think you will beat the Aussies which will give you (no dis respect to Samoa) 2 from 4 if you lose how would 1 from 4 sit with you lot.

It is looking (at this moment in time) unlikely that we will beat Australia. For me it will all depend on who starts at 10.

Farrell looked like he was injured today when he was taken off. Maybe he should be given the next 2 weeks off to recover.

So if Ford starts next week, who will be on the bench as cover?

I assume Myler?

I can tell you from a South African perspective I am happy every time Farrell is selected, because he is predictable to a tee.

Biltong wrote:I can tell you from a South African perspective I am happy every time Farrell is selected, because he is predictable to a tee.

A bit tooooooooooooooo predictable most of the time.

I really don't think we should be experimenting too much next week against Samoa. I think we should be picking the team that should go out against Australia as well and give them a game to blood in. Not forgetting Samoa wont just be an easy walk in the park.

Any ideas what you'd go for ?

1 Marler
2 Hartley
3 Brookes - Better carrier than D.Wilson
4 Attwood
5 Lawes
6 Haskell
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan

9 Care
10 Ford (Cipriani on the bench)
11 May
12 Eastmond or Barritt
13 Barritt or Joseph
14 Watson
15 Brown

Just watched the game on bbc3 the sooner Hartley is ditched the better he is a liability for the rwc, from a Welsh point of view I hope he is picked.

This game felt all wrong from an England point of view very early on. It was great to see us get back on level terms but I can't have been the only supporter to feel fatalistic when South Africa went ahead again while Matfield was still in the bin. That's the third match were we've gone behind, made a comeback, and then finally lost.

Farrell showed enough poor moments to warrant coming off earlier. Lancaster had two reasons to risk him in these matches. Firstly, he wanted his key man to feature in the last matches against these top 2 sides before the World Cup. Secondly, none of our other fly half options cover centre, so our bench choices become a lot harder without him in the matchday squad.

This reasoning was misguided since it seemed clear to a lot of us that Farrell wasn't in good nick. He might have responded to the challenge but he didn't, and now he's probably more out of sorts than if he'd been rested.

I'm even more worried now about our options if Robshaw gets injured before, or especially during, a match. If Wood is supposed to be the alternative seven then I'm not thrilled. If we are relying on him to switch roles and assume the captaincy in the middle of a game, then that could be a match-losing strategy.

Meanwhile, one of our other captaincy options - Hartley - just got yellow-carded for foul play, which will not be forgotten. It's no good talking about players showing leadership: someone else needs to be capable of handling a referee and making key tactical decisions which his team will back. It's not encouraging to think we could end up calling on Haskell, Marler or Barritt to do that. Who else is there?

This South African team wasn't exceptional. You could see how they could be beaten but it was always hard to believe we would have the composure to do so.

Rugby fan, I think the incorrect line call made a big impact in this game, instead of us having a line out inside English territory we had to defend another brilliant maul with seven men against the English inside our 22.

That gave momentum to England and belief that they could win. Luckily it didn't cost us the game, but it did change the way the game played out.

Had we not conceded that try I think the win would have been much more convincing.

At that point South Africa looked in control, even though England was making most of the play.

The manner in which we scored with less opportunities showed the difference in the end.

Farrell is too predictable and although England has a very good team in my opinion, unless you make the defence hesitate more from the 10, England will struggle to put top team away.

BamBam wrote:I assume Myler?

Ford and Myler are the other two 10s in the EPS. I would play them both next weekend.

doctor_grey wrote:

BamBam wrote:I assume Myler?

Ford and Myler are the other two 10s in the EPS.  I would play them both next weekend.

Would Myler be your centre cover on the bench?

Rugby fan, haskell is doing a pretty good job as captain of wasps.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Rugby fan, haskell is doing a pretty good job as captain of wasps.

He may well be, but I don't want us suddenly calling on him during a World Cup without him having done the job for his country before.

I understand the frustrations, but it's early to be writing this England team off. England gifted a 10 point start today, literally, and lost by 3. Last week another ref doesn't think much of kruden's grounding and arguably it's a win against the all blacks.

Now we didn't deserve to win either game. But, if we're losing by 3 points to the best 2 teams in the world with a stack of first choice players missing, and error filled displays, I'm not sure its as disasterous as is being painted.

Test matches between reasonably well matched teams are usually decided on a few key moments and more often than not won by the team that makes the least number of mistakes. At the moment England are consistently losing close games. That's not an accident. They do some things really well but individual errors and in my view a lack of on field leadership and key decision making is costing us. Bomber has wanted a brand of rugby where squad  players could slot in and hit the ground running. In many respects he's achieved that. Our injury replacements have rarely weakened the team. He needs to do it on form now not just injuries. I've defended Farrell as a work in progress in the past, but he's been a liability of late.

I'm not as doom and gloom as many. A few changes, a few players back, a few more finding their form and it will take a good team to beat them next year. The concern is how long can you stay a work in progress without any obvious progression.

The problem is milkboy is that the scoreline flattered England...in my opinion.

England are a sharp, sharp side.  They are prowling around the edges of these big three SH sides and will get the formula right IF they get the formula right!  But correcting the formula is Lancaster's worry.

The main thing I like about England, and worry about in terms of the opposition they present into the future for my side, is that driven dynamic they have in forcing pace onto a game and seeing where the mistakes will come from the opposition.  Everything is done at pace.... it's almost a panic of pace.

And that is probably the weakness I see in England - ironically.  That inability or unwillingness to get bogged down in a slower version of the game to perhaps just add something the opposition aren't expecting and preparing for.

Lancaster's aim seems to be that finally he'll achieve a pace and a clinical attention to detail from all 15 players that will push aside all and any side.  I think he feels he'll achieve an ingredient of pace, power and ACCURACY that will eventually make his team unbeatable.  The opposition will know what's coming but they won't be able to live with it regardless of how well they prepare.

But that's all the opposition - the good opposition sides - are doing.  Looking at England over and over and preparing for what they'll meet, which seldom seems to vary.  So Lancaster is I think making life easy for the opposition and giving the enemy many reels of stuff to work with.

I think England would be a better side if they toyed with pace more, like the ABs do.  The ABs act like boxers.  They undulate through a game - they can get cloggy and sticky and pedestrian and then they can explode through a period of intense pace that plays havoc with the mental rhythms of the opposition.

I think England have a lethal fast game but the only problem seems to be that it's always 'ON'.  Lancaster should hit the 'OFF' button now and again to disrupt the opposition's expectations.

I wonder if another deal for at it's will happen?

How are England playing Aus in the same "outside IRB" window as the Wales RSA game? What's the deal on player release? I can't imagine PRL will be fining clubs 60K for giving players a runout. Seems like a farcical situation.

PRL have a Special relationship with a union called RFU.  It's taken care of, Marcus.  Don't worry about it.  Quinsforever has the detail on the payments required to make the PRL look the other way

milkyboy wrote:I understand the frustrations, but it's early to be writing this England team off. England gifted a 10 point start today, literally, and lost by 3. Last week another ref doesn't think much of kruden's grounding and arguably it's a win against the all blacks.

Now we didn't deserve to win either game. But, if we're losing by 3 points to the best 2 teams in the world with a stack of first choice players missing, and error filled displays, I'm not sure its as disasterous as is being painted.

Test matches between reasonably well matched teams are usually decided on a few key moments and more often than not won by the team that makes the least number of mistakes. At the moment England are consistently losing close games. That's not an accident. They do some things really well but individual errors and in my view a lack of on field leadership and key decision making is costing us. Bomber has wanted a brand of rugby where squad  players could slot in and hit the ground running. In many respects he's achieved that. Our injury replacements have rarely weakened the team. He needs to do it on form now not just injuries. I've defended Farrell as a work in progress in the past, but he's been a liability of late.

I'm not as doom and gloom as many. A few changes, a few players back, a few more finding their form and it will take a good team to beat them next year. The concern is how long can you stay a work in progress without any obvious progression.

This is the problem in a nutshell. Lancaster seems to be getting by using this similar excuse which he's used for the last 2 years . It simply doenst hold water anymore. The wins should have been coming . You dont want to start winning at the WC you should start winning before it .This was the time we should have seen stand supreme at home in HQ instead its the same old "positive" defeat because "we could have won it" ,"we gave away a few soft tries,penalties etc" . Theres no such thing , the opposition would have worked hard all week in training to make sure they are in the right position to punish mistakes like that.

England for all the hype about being the team to beat come 2015 have not delivered and they need to rectify that now while they still have some time.

Just read the number whilst that South Africa remains the only major nation Lancaster has yet to beat, he has managed only 2 wins in 13 matches against the southern hemisphere big three.

Lots for him to think about, because it's those snaredrum tight games that England need to learn to close out.
It's the difference between winning another World Cup and departing in the semis.

Certainly England are missing a few players, namely Cole, Launchbury and Manu, but the key selections are still worrying. The emphasis is still heavily on defence and the set piece. That would be fine but we end up with a large amount of possession and a nine and ten incapable of drop goals or kicking it in to the corner. We lose the tactical kicking battle every week with Care and Farrell and that makes the game plan a tad redundant.

Youngs and Ford should be able to get the ball moving in hand. The last ten mins yesterday was when we actually looked threatening.

I'm not to worried about the captaincy issue. Captain Fantastic will be fit again in March.

Will Slater come on to the starting team Sam.
He'd certainly add the bulk and physicality I want in the pack. The carrying ability.

I think the 2 from 13 stat is quite misleading. It's 1 from 11 against the top 2, and 1 from 2 against Australia. I don't think Australia are miles better than us, and rolling them in with New Zealand and South Africa (who are ahead of us) confuses the issue slightly. If we beat Australia in two weeks, we'll have a winning record against them under Lancaster ahead of the World Cup.

For the Samoa game, I'd make changes and bring in the second-choice players, but only because I don't believe that second choice is the same as second best. Are any of the starting front row better than their replacements, who have all come on and performed their tasks well? What about the half-backs? This game will be the last chance for Lancaster to really look at his options, and if someone has a standout game against Samoa then he should keep his place for Australia.

I'd go with:

Mullan, Webber, Brookes, Attwood, Kruis, Haskell, Robshaw (C), Morgan.
Youngs, Ford, May, Barritt, Joseph, Watson, Goode.
Hartley, Marler, Wilson, Kitchener, Ewers, Care, Eastmond, Yarde.

"I don't think Australia are miles better than us"

fixed

Id rather see Kitchener start over Kruis. Hes a monster.

mystiroakey wrote:"I don't think Australia are miles better than us"

fixed

Funny. But sadly out of date.

On the form of this weekend I'd put Oz ahead of us, not by much but still ahead of us. Of course we can turn it around and we know how to beat them at least, but they're still showing a lot more then we are at the moment.

I have been a huge fan of England under Lancaster, and I am not so worried about the 2/13 stat given that it is heavily slanted by being dominated by 2 tours to the SH (one very early on) which returned 1 draw from 6 matches.

Having said that, I see the 'we wont panic' line and think, well, for once (or twice) lets see what happens if we do panic.

Just watched the extended highlights and some more thoughts:

The breakdown was dominated by SA, in the first half especially they turned us over at will or got to Care.

Lawes was class in the loose, lots and lots of good disruption.

That Attwood break was gut wrenching, not only did he have a two on one that he failed to recognise but England then quickly spin the ball to the left only for sloppy passing to leave May with 3 defenders in stead of one. Two botched try scoring chances in under 60s.

Our defense was really solid, which makes some of the penalties given away even more stupid. Is that a coaching thing or a lack of faith in the players around them?

Eastmond was our best back.

hi all, long time lurker here.

Like a lot of people I am very frustrated with a lack of fluency in the back line. I have no idea why England is not generating the inside centers that we need. I have spent a lot of time in Ireland and NZ and these countries do not have that type of problem. I guess every country has its own rugby DNA and England is just missing the natural play-making second five eighth skillset.

Having said that I keep an eye on the premiership and Devoto and Slade look like natural play makers who can both run and tackle. They also have time on the ball. Is this world cup to early for them? Burgess is a different kind of player but potentially very exciting as well.

Is it worth persevering with what we have or should we try out the new generation? We look broken at this point.

The main issue in the centres is that we're simply not sticking to the same guys. I shudder to think how many different centre partnerships we've had in the last year...often down to injury.

Yea we seem to love changing them and are then baffled when the same problems keep occuring, again, and again and again.

It's taken the 3 years (?) of Stu Lancaster's reign for people to realise the problem may not be at 12 and 13. Hopefully the coach might have realised that too now.

Not sure I totally agree. Part of the problem is definitely at 12 and 13, its also at 10 though. Changing them all the time is obviously wrong though.

The pack are looking very solid. I believe if the wingers got the ball in time and space they could do damage.

Its the ability and accuracy to make the best use of the huge amount of possession that we have that is missing. I wish I knew what the answer was.

The mid field is not functioning. Its been the English problem forever. We cannot be in the situation where we have to wait for Manu to come back to give us an edge. The current answer appears to be give the lads a chance and they will come good.

yappysnap wrote:Yea we seem to love changing them and are then baffled when the same problems keep occuring, again, and again and again.

It's taken the 3 years (?) of Stu Lancaster's reign for people to realise the problem may not be at 12 and 13. Hopefully the coach might have realised that too now.

The problem is also at 12 and 13. Barritt is a decent player, but he's not a top class 13 and never will be. Eastmond is slightly inconsistent, smaller than you'd want as a partner for Ford and has almost no kicking game. I'd change 10, 12 and 13 this week.

Does any one know if Elliot Daily is in the EPS?

If so maybe he Daily (Burrell if fit ) for the Samoa game,

DaveM wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Yea we seem to love changing them and are then baffled when the same problems keep occuring, again, and again and again.

It's taken the 3 years (?) of Stu Lancaster's reign for people to realise the problem may not be at 12 and 13. Hopefully the coach might have realised that too now.

The problem is also at 12 and 13. Barritt is a decent player, but he's not a top class 13 and never will be. Eastmond is slightly inconsistent, smaller than you'd want as a partner for Ford and has almost no kicking game. I'd change 10, 12 and 13 this week.

Who'd you have Dave?

Cippers, 12Trees, Tuilagi _ when fit.
For me Eastmond is more like a 13, but we need a 5/8 type at 12.
Let me know if you see other distributive candidates for 12.