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.

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

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

Daly can't defend at AP level never mind at Int.

Have those calling for Twelvetrees actually watched him this season??

Ford / Cipriani
Eastmond
Barritt (Until Manu is back)

For the remaining two games this AI

I'm really unconvinced with Eastmond GF. He's too small and adds very little imo.

Burrell has to come back in and we need to look at an actual 13.

9. Youngs
10. Ford

12. Burrell
13. Joseph

Would be my backline for the Samoa game at least. Eastmond needs disgarding imo, he'll never be good enough. Devoto seems to be the only type of player that could fit SL's mould of a second distributor at 12 at the minute, I'm unconvinced with him but he can't o any worse than the rest.

12. Burrell/Devoto
13. Tuilagi/Joseph

yappysnap wrote:

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?

Given Devoto has only started getting regular game time in the last couple of weeks, it's too early for Hill, and Twelvetrees hasn't shown sufficient club form I'd go with Burrell at 12 and Slade at 13.

I think Slade is an outstanding talent. I presume he'll settle at 10 in the end, but for now his running, passing and kicking skills would complement the physicality and pace that Burrell would bring at 12. I think it's important to have a big physical presence next to Ford, and we have to have someone else regularly in the line who can kick if it is appropriate. Relying on your fullback being there will leave you vulnerable once the opposition have worked out what you are doing.

From a Boks suporter's perspective, I thought Eastmand and Brown were your two most dangerous backs on attack. And they'd have been more dangerous had they been getting good service from 9 and 10

Mr Fishpaste wrote:From a Boks suporter's perspective, I thought Eastmand and Brown were your two most dangerous backs on attack. And they'd have been more dangerous had they been getting good service from 9 and 10

I agree. The main reason that Glasgow were so effective in shutting down Bath recently is that the first step of the gameplan was to stop the ball getting to Eastmond, a strategy which Gregor Townsend admits he prioritised.

That for me is the main problem for me in the 2 games. Awful decisions and games from Farrell in particular and Care in general although he's had about 20 min in each game where he's looked good. Pack looks good getting the better of both NZ and SA for long periods, don't think we need big changes at all here, bar Morgan and Launchbury to the bench once fit. I feel for the backline they haven't had great service. Let's see what Ford can do against Samoa and Aus before throwing ourselves off bridges. Considering the consensus that we've played awful we've been close in both games.

It is interesting to gauge how many people think England just need a tweak and some luck and who thinks they need radical change. I agree that England have gone well up front, but clearly we have still lacked some go forward ball carriers. For that reason I think Haskell and Morgan have to start. Tom Wood is still a fine player, but we need to assess what Haskell can offer and therefore he should play the next 2 games. Ford is another necessary change, but I hope they don't shuffle Farrell to 12. Eastmond needs another chance playing alongside his club 10 who stands flatter and creates more chances. Care has not been brilliant so far, but Samoa may be a more unstructured type of game, which could suit his qualities. I think long term that Burrell is the option at 13 over Barritt, who as usual does not let anyone down with his tackling, but I think Luther should return. Wingers need another go and it is important to have some continuity prior to the Aus game so for that reason Brown remains. Harsh on Foden and Goode.

For the 6Ns I would love to see Corbs and Cole return to action. Marler and Wilson are doing fine, but I think Corbs is a step up on Marler and would add quite a lot. Manu should also return at 13 and then I think a decision will be needed between Eastmond or Burrell or even Farrell at 12. If Bath play Burgess at 8 then that would surely rule him out of England?

Captaincy....Robshaw is playing well, but I don't see any evidence of a great leadership or decision making. A couple of wins over the next two weeks and the pressure eases and with a few returning players England could still enjoy a decent 6Ns, but lose either of the next 2 matches and the time for panic could be here?

Sloppy mistakes, a dreadful kicking game and poor individual decision making have really let England down.

small improvements in these and we could have won both games.


Yet the scorelines as it were flattered us.

LT.....how was Cole yesterday?

Better than we could have had any right to expect. TV viewers would have had a better view of scrums - but seemed solid and in general I thought we shaded that - which bearing in mind we had a 12st hooker is amazing. He was highly visible in the loose - carries made little ground but his polar bear arse was often seen in the air as he tried to secure turnovers/slowed down sarries ball.

Was knackered when he left in 64th minute - but looked much better than he did post Lions tour.

Good to hear and fingers crossed he can enjoy a decent run without injuries. Tigers have been hit hard this season so I am sure that having Cole back is a big boost.

Still not sure Haskell is an answer to carrying surely Ewers would be better but then is the balance correct with Ewers and Morgan/Vunipola? Some were saying Attwood was the solution to this but haven't seen a big improvement on Launchbury though he's played well. I've seen people calling for Hartley to be dropped as well which means the hooker and 3rd lineout jumper are lost from an excellent lineout. To me it's just going to be weakening the team rather than improving it.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Looked like a deliberate stamp on a prone player's leg - IMO he's lucky just get get a yellow

Agree 100%.

Hartley patted the knee with his hand twice before stamping on it./ Hartley knew what he was doing, showed he knew it and then did it. Only thing in his favour is that it was not a hard stamp - even so I felt he was lucky to get only a yellow.

Nice to see him back. But i trust that Cockers and Lancaster will give him a nice easy route back...ie not being stupid enough to dump him straight in.

On the other hand...I keep hearing Corbs name being metioned....maybe im the only one but i just cant see Corbs coming back. I really think we need to forget about him for the moment and focus on what we have.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Nice to see him back. But i trust that Cockers and Lancaster will give him a nice easy route back...ie not being stupid enough to dump him straight in.

On the other hand...I keep hearing Corbs name being metioned....maybe im the only one but i just cant see Corbs coming back. I really think we need to forget about him for the moment and focus on what we have.

Cole should only be considered when/if he lasts till end of December - and shows up well in AP matches against Saints and European against Toulon.


Corbs - yeah his injury woes are never ending, best to assume he will never be a long term optiuon.

hugehandoff wrote:It is interesting to gauge how many people think England just need a tweak and some luck and who thinks they need radical change. I agree that England have gone well up front, but clearly we have still lacked some go forward ball carriers. For that reason I think Haskell and Morgan have to start.

England rely too much on "go forward ball carriers" and not enough on tactical diversity. If you are just bashing fatties up the middle all day most teams will have good enough defences to combat that.

England need cleverer game plans and to be less predictable then they will be a better side.

LondonTiger wrote:Sloppy mistakes, a dreadful kicking game and poor individual decision making have really let England down.

small improvements in these and we could have won both games.


Yet the scorelines as it were flattered us.

LT, I would like to know why you think that.

Thanks

Hartley is a frustration.

His lineout and scrummaging has gone brilliantly. And to be fair he has tackled well.

However never for me hits the heights of is powers. In the last 6n he was immense. He carried like a truck...he was everywhere. But we rarely see that Hartley. Then he has the other side to him. Was a stupid stamp in all fairness.

Lineout is a hgue area...that should not be underestimated, but i just wonder if Webber can offer more around the field...specifcially ball carrying whislt still offering all the requirments of a hooker.

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Nice to see him back. But i trust that Cockers and Lancaster will give him a nice easy route back...ie not being stupid enough to dump him straight in.

On the other hand...I keep hearing Corbs name being metioned....maybe im the only one but i just cant see Corbs coming back. I really think we need to forget about him for the moment and focus on what we have.

Cole should only be considered when/if he lasts till end of December - and shows up well in AP matches against Saints and European against Toulon.


Corbs - yeah his injury woes are never ending, best to assume he will never be a long term optiuon.

Absolutely LT.

Also at the moment Wilson is doing fine and Brookes is a monster to come on. Id start him against Samoa.
So its not like we are in dire straights and NEED to bring Cole ack quick.

Geordiefalcon, mate Hookers concede penalties and the odd yellow card, Hartley is not unique.

Go check Bismarck and Strauss, I bet if you analyse them they are likely on par with Hartley.

I think it is the mongrel factor, and I won't swop either of them for any hooker in world rugby.

Biltong wrote:Geordiefalcon, mate Hookers concede penalties and the odd yellow card, Hartley is not unique.

Go check Bismarck and Strauss, I bet if you analyse them they are likely on par with Hartley.

I think it is the mongrel factor, and I won't swop either of them for any hooker in world rugby.

Ireland wouldn't have let you swap them considering their indiscipline took a lot of pressure off us last week, Bismarck was especially helpful to our cause. Same with Hartley. They are assets to their opponents sometimes.

Still think that Hartley was hard done by but even if you consider it fair he's out best hooker and should start the important games for me. Certainly wouldn't swap him for inferior calmer hooker.

Notch wrote:

Biltong wrote:Geordiefalcon, mate Hookers concede penalties and the odd yellow card, Hartley is not unique.

Go check Bismarck and Strauss, I bet if you analyse them they are likely on par with Hartley.

I think it is the mongrel factor, and I won't swop either of them for any hooker in world rugby.

Ireland wouldn't have let you swap them considering their indiscipline took a lot of pressure off us last week, Bismarck was especially helpful to our cause. Same with Hartley. They are assets to their opponents sometimes.

That might be true looking from your point of view, however looking at last weekend they weren't the reason we lost.

I had a chat with a number of mates, listened to Nick Mallett and Naas Botha, and the consensus was simple.

Both teams scored 2 tries, South Africa dominated territory and possession, they refused 3 or 4 kicks to goal, Ireland didn't. They kicked 5 penalties to our one, and Sexton missed no conversions where we missed one.

The decision making and ability to adapt to the match situation was the ultimate reason we lost. a Few AUstralian journalists has climbed onto the band wagon in regards to how NH referees (POite and Owens in particular) allow teams to infringe more and allow bodies on the ball which the SH teams aren't used to.

Be that as it may, When South Africa were dominating the territory and possession in the first half they should have kicked their goals, had they done that Ireland would have gone into the halftime break with the score board pressure on them, rather than on South Africa.

So Ireland came out of the tunnel with the belief that they could win, and they simply kept kicking their points. It is South Africa's fault that they didn't manage the game, and their own fault they allowed Ireland to continue with the same tricks on SA's attacking mauls.

But getting back to your point, Bismarck cost us 3 points by conceding a penalty close to our 22, Strauss' card could have happened to anyone.

Biltong wrote:Geordiefalcon, mate Hookers concede penalties and the odd yellow card, Hartley is not unique.

Go check Bismarck and Strauss, I bet if you analyse them they are likely on par with Hartley.

I think it is the mongrel factor, and I won't swop either of them for any hooker in world rugby.

There is a aggression and then there is stupidity. Bissie is the ultimate mongrel but he doesn't do idiotic things. His penalties are rugby related. Hartley just does too many needlessly idiotic things.. much like Strauss. There is a difference.

Biltong wrote:

Notch wrote:

Biltong wrote:Geordiefalcon, mate Hookers concede penalties and the odd yellow card, Hartley is not unique.

Go check Bismarck and Strauss, I bet if you analyse them they are likely on par with Hartley.

I think it is the mongrel factor, and I won't swop either of them for any hooker in world rugby.

Ireland wouldn't have let you swap them considering their indiscipline took a lot of pressure off us last week, Bismarck was especially helpful to our cause. Same with Hartley. They are assets to their opponents sometimes.

That might be true looking from your point of view, however looking at last weekend they weren't the reason we lost.

I had a chat with a number of mates, listened to Nick Mallett and Naas Botha, and the consensus was simple.

Both teams scored 2 tries, South Africa dominated territory and possession, they refused 3 or 4 kicks to goal, Ireland didn't. They kicked 5 penalties to our one, and Sexton missed no conversions where we missed one.

The decision making and ability to adapt to the match situation was the ultimate reason we lost. a Few AUstralian journalists has climbed onto the band wagon in regards to how NH referees  (POite and Owens in particular) allow teams to infringe more and allow bodies on the ball which the SH teams aren't used to.

Be that as it may, When South Africa were dominating the territory and possession in the first half they should have kicked their goals, had they done that Ireland would have gone into the halftime break with the score board pressure on them, rather than on South Africa.

So Ireland came out of the tunnel with the belief that they could win, and they simply kept kicking their points. It is South Africa's fault that they didn't manage the game, and their own fault they allowed Ireland to continue with the same tricks on SA's attacking mauls.

But getting back to your point, Bismarck cost us 3 points by conceding a penalty close to our 22, Strauss' card could have happened to anyone.

But that's Bissie's job. He is the primary ruck operator for the boks. He takes the position of McCaw for the boks with Louw out. Coetzee also does but no way as prolific. Its his job to play the margins.

Re Cole. Excellent first half but faded quickly in the second. Balmain came on and had a very positive impact. We were 2-1 up on the penalty count at half time with pressure allowing two turnovers at the base of the Sarries scrum. Just that lack of match fitness showed in the second half with Rizzo looking a little tired after the break as well. Conceded two pens then Balmain came on and smashed Barrington and Rizzo came alive strangely.

Cole should be an option for the six nations and not before.

Wilson did ok no? Cole is a good ruck operator though and I think that makes the difference when fully fit. But yeah he should get fit first right.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Certainly England are missing a few players, namely Cole,  Launchbury and Manu, but the key selections are still worrying.

I don't really buy the "England are missing key players" line. Most countries are missing at least a couple of major players. SA were without du Preez, Alberts, Louw, and had a host of other squad players out. They made up for their absence. In the case of Launchbury and Cole, we've been able to bring in players who aren't that much of a step down. Is it that we simply can't replace the specific skills they bring? If so, why not?

On the Farrell front, it seemed to me as though he was trying to prove his doubters wrong, rather than trying to play the right game for the situation. That pass to Watson inside the 22 was criminal.

On the selection front, I think Lancaster's confidence is (somewhat paradoxically) part of the issue. He's come in, he's improved performances and results and has seemingly improved the team ethos. I think this has entrenched him in his views slightly, and he's not seeing where it is causing issues.

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Sloppy mistakes, a dreadful kicking game and poor individual decision making have really let England down.

small improvements in these and we could have won both games.


Yet the scorelines as it were flattered us.

LT, I would like to know why you think that.

Thanks

Perhaps more so against NZ - a late score gave an unbalanced look compared to the performances.

As to Saturdays game, I just felt that SA were always in control and their performance was worthy of more than a narrow win.

SA were poor enough all the same. Some basic errors and very little in the way of craft. I actually think PDiv had some more intellegent backs moves than Meyer has in his playbook.

GunsGerms wrote:SA were poor enough all the same. Some basic errors and very little in the way of craft. I actually think PDiv had some more intellegent backs moves than Meyer has in his playbook.

Other than the Reinach try yeah I agree with that. Poor conditions mind. Didn't stop raining until the 60min mark which does dictate play... although how many times do you need to kick to Brown to know the ball sticks to him like glue? Same with Kearney... if they are in opposition, its a wasted move.

England missed 1 tackle out of 150 odd. With SA's firepower that it a poor return. Missed Tackles happen when you exploit holes, create mismatches, get 3 on 2s etc. Vermeulen was taken out the game well. A better England side with Tuilagi, Burrell etc probably would have got over the line against this bok side (although I acknowledge with Alberts, Louw etc a more enhanced bok side would be different).

In some ways I wonder how SA won the match.

They got their noses ahead part because Serfontein was street smart, part because Care was a little naïve but they didn't offer anything bar the rolling maul for the rest of the game bar Reinach's try. England on the other hand were dire. They can say they were frustrated but the people who should be frustrated the most are the England forwards... week in week out they are setting up their backs, dominating packs, scrums, lineouts only for them to continue to fire duds.

With no Manu to get them out of jail with Farrell running the show they are a bunch of jaffas. He's so poor if it was a lions tour coming up I think I would be calling for Rhys Priestland to join over him, Dan Parks even.

England have no plan B. The last time I have seen them score a try from a clever back move or move in general was Care's try v Ireland in the 6 nations using the Harlequins move.

Yes May got a good try v NZ but I think that was more down to excellent individual play so credit to him for that.

To be fair Guns most of the 6Ns we were good but I guess it depends on what you mean by clever.

Who possibly could work on perfecting 'clever' plans, or work on predicting top form in the WC rather than months before it, or play with expectations of how good or bad the team is leading into a WC................ with Woodward constantly droning in your ear from either newsprint or audio visual, telling you you're not doing it right, that the backs aren't good enough, that the balance is wrong, that he'd choose different players there and different systems here.

Woodward you're not Coach.  It isn't 2003.  Leave the man alone, will you.  He'll make his own decisions and live with them or be sacked because of them.  But the WC is still a year away and England aren't far off the considered top sides.

GunsGerms wrote:SA were poor enough all the same. Some basic errors and very little in the way of craft. I actually think PDiv had some more intellegent backs moves than Meyer has in his playbook.

Weird statement Guns, how were they poor?

fa0019 wrote: the people who should be frustrated the most are the England forwards... week in week out they are setting up their backs, dominating packs, scrums, lineouts only for them to continue to fire duds.

England definitely have a great set piece. I do wonder whether the pack is quite as formidable as they are sometimes made out to be, however. I don't think they carry brilliantly in heavy traffic, and they often seem to get to rucks second. Of course, those are minor fixes and more issues of balance in selection. However, I do think that because the backs so frequently look directionless, the pack gets a bit of a free ride.

Ok to be fair I only saw the first half and the last 10 mins. However, both teams made lots of mistakes in the first half. It was easliy the worst half of rugby in the November internationals so far. There were lots of knock ons and fairly predictable rugby from both teams and some aimless kicking particularly from SA. It doesnt matter that it was wet.

In the second half SA got another yellow card. Didnt see the incident but a two cards from two games surely is something SA will be disapointed with. Didnt see much from either of these teams to suggest they will be finalists next year.

To be honest if SA played the way they played against England against Ireland again I think they would have lost again.

GunsGerms wrote:England have no plan B. The last time I have seen them score a try from a clever back move or move in general was Care's try v Ireland in the 6 nations using the Harlequins move.

Yes May got a good try v NZ but I think that was more down to excellent individual play so credit to him for that.

Guns you had an extra Weetabix this morning? 100% spot on IMO.

When did you ever see England even attempt a move such as this???

Juan De Jongh 2012 Currie Cup Final
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZBJUDh709Y

I actually can't remember even one. Manu's drive vs. NZ doesn't count given it was a simple pass to Manu and his power pushing him through the gap. When did they threaten off the first phase via guile rather than simple brute force?

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:Geordiefalcon, mate Hookers concede penalties and the odd yellow card, Hartley is not unique.

Go check Bismarck and Strauss, I bet if you analyse them they are likely on par with Hartley.

I think it is the mongrel factor, and I won't swop either of them for any hooker in world rugby.

There is a aggression and then there is stupidity. Bissie is the ultimate mongrel but he doesn't do idiotic things. His penalties are rugby related. Hartley just does too many needlessly idiotic things.. much like Strauss. There is a difference.

Yeah theres a difference.

I dont mind hartley being aggressive...i want that in my hookers and front row. I like players who arent afraid of confrontation.
Hartley didnt stamp hard on the guy in my opinon...but its the type of action that is bound to get spotted and penalised. That is not Mongrel, thats stupidity.

Look at the move they use v Ireland in the 6 nations Fa. Not only was it quite clever it was executed very well and as a result unlocked a strong Irish defense on the day. It seperated the two sides that day.

England will start winning again if they can come up with some clever plays like this rather than relying on plan A all the time.

Worth mentioning that Farrell's goal kicking was probably better in the 6 nations too. cant remember how he did v SA though.

GunsGerms wrote:Ok to be fair I only saw the first half and the last 10 mins. However, both teams made lots of mistakes in the first half. It was easliy the worst half of rugby in the November internationals so far. There were lots of knock ons and fairly predictable rugby from both teams and some aimless kicking particularly from SA. It doesnt matter that it was wet.

In the second half SA got another yellow card. Didnt see the incident but a two cards from two games surely is something SA will be disapointed with. Didnt see much from either of these teams to suggest they will be finalists next year.

To be honest if SA played the way they played against England against Ireland again I think they would have lost again.

Whether you believe SA were poor or not, they took the lead early in the first half by 14 points, Victor Matfield the culprit for pulling down a maul and got carded.

Habana got screwed by the touchie after he took a ball in touch with his foot planted firmly outside the line of touch.

We kicked our goals, played for territory, and controlled the match well until the yellow card where we conceded a try against a ten man maul and a try that should never have been

Countered with a maul try of our own with seven men on the field, Lambie secured the match with a cleverly taken drop kick which gave us the lead by 8 with five minutes to go.

We played the game smartly except for Victor Matfield who has become a liability that just Meyer seems intent on taking to the RWC.

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Ok to be fair I only saw the first half and the last 10 mins. However, both teams made lots of mistakes in the first half. It was easliy the worst half of rugby in the November internationals so far. There were lots of knock ons and fairly predictable rugby from both teams and some aimless kicking particularly from SA. It doesnt matter that it was wet.

In the second half SA got another yellow card. Didnt see the incident but a two cards from two games surely is something SA will be disapointed with. Didnt see much from either of these teams to suggest they will be finalists next year.

To be honest if SA played the way they played against England against Ireland again I think they would have lost again.

Whether you believe SA were poor or not, they took the lead early in the first half by 14 points, Victor Matfield the culprit for pulling down a maul and got carded.

Habana got screwed by the touchie after he took a ball in touch with his foot planted firmly outside the line of touch.

We kicked our goals, played for territory, and controlled the match well until the yellow card where we conceded a try against a ten man maul and a try that should never have been

Countered with a maul try of our own with seven men on the field, Lambie secured the match with a cleverly taken drop kick which gave us the lead by 8 with five minutes to go.

We played the game smartly except for Victor Matfield who has become a liability that just Meyer seems intent on taking to the RWC.

The weather I think dictated the game. Both sides looked a little poor. SA were very smart, very controlled, victory never really looked in doubt as England under Farrell simply look impotent.

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Ok to be fair I only saw the first half and the last 10 mins. However, both teams made lots of mistakes in the first half. It was easliy the worst half of rugby in the November internationals so far. There were lots of knock ons and fairly predictable rugby from both teams and some aimless kicking particularly from SA. It doesnt matter that it was wet.

In the second half SA got another yellow card. Didnt see the incident but a two cards from two games surely is something SA will be disapointed with. Didnt see much from either of these teams to suggest they will be finalists next year.

To be honest if SA played the way they played against England against Ireland again I think they would have lost again.

Whether you believe SA were poor or not, they took the lead early in the first half by 14 points, Victor Matfield the culprit for pulling down a maul and got carded.

Habana got screwed by the touchie after he took a ball in touch with his foot planted firmly outside the line of touch.

We kicked our goals, played for territory, and controlled the match well until the yellow card where we conceded a try against a ten man maul and a try that should never have been

Countered with a maul try of our own with seven men on the field, Lambie secured the match with a cleverly taken drop kick which gave us the lead by 8 with five minutes to go.

We played the game smartly except for Victor Matfield who has become a liability that just Meyer seems intent on taking to the RWC.

The weather I think dictated the game. Both sides looked a little poor. SA were very smart, very controlled, victory never really looked in doubt as England under Farrell simply look impotent.

Of course the weather dictated the game, go back to the early rounds in the RC, we played exactly the same.

We played great rugby in the 6 nations. and we have also under SL been improving upin our discipline..

so I am gutted that we have turned into this forward maul style team that lacks discipline that gives away every close game.

We had the lions share of possession and territory - but we just kept making stupid mistakes v SA.

mystiroakey wrote:We played great rugby in the 6 nations. and we have also under SL  been improving upin our discipline..

so I am gutted that we have turned into this forward maul style team that lacks discipline that gives away every close game.

We had the lions share of possession and territory - but we just kept making stupid mistakes v SA.

Mystir, in wet conditions Meyer plays non rugby. if you go to our RC games in the wet, we play with 30-40% possession and let the other team play with the ball. Meyer's belief is you are prone to errors when you play expansive rugby and it showed again this past weekend.

SA is super lucky to have Bismark and Strauss. To me the two best hookers around and I have no issue with who starts between them.

SA showed flashes of back line magic on the weekend, obviously Reinach's score comes to mind and the little blindside move before Lambie's first 3 pointer.

If teams can get through the first 20m against England at Twicks then most of the match is won. Beyond that period where they are running around with tempo, chests out etc, they currently offer little. Still dangerous because of their strong pack and set piece play but will not be a team to take the opposition apart.

Comments along the lines of England would have won 'if' they had one or two players available, or small improvements in small areas of England's play would have resulted in two wins against NZ or SA are a joke. Please consider that SA and NZ had players missing, didn't play their best (small improvement here and there?) etc. maybe they could've won by more? In both games I didn't feel England were going to win. They remain a competitive but limited team. Their backrow needs tweaking and 10 as well as 12/13 remain major issues.

Same issues I have with all Robshaw's post match presentations. Always England who let the opposition get ahead or win. Never that the opposition played well / better. Some honesty would do this England team well, face some realities and adapt / change accordingly

GunsGerms wrote:Look at the move they use v Ireland in the 6 nations Fa. Not only was it quite clever it was executed very well and as a result unlocked a strong Irish defense on the day. It seperated the two sides that day.

England will start winning again if they can come up with some clever plays like this rather than relying on plan A all the time.

Worth mentioning that Farrell's goal kicking was probably better in the 6 nations too. cant remember how he did v SA though.

Was this the Care try from their own half. Wasn't first phase though and more to do with Robshaw drawing the space no and have strong enough hands to turn and pop it up for Brown.

Hardly a backline move. It was probably a few phases in with backs spread out. Watching the video now Brown burst through a hole between Murray and Best, its a broken field of play. Opportunistic excellence yes, backline move - not in the slightest.

I don't think there is anything wrong with Farrell's place kicking mind as you said. Ford missed one that the end but was rushed and I don't think he had time to even get a tee (WTF was that about by the way where is the tee guy???).

It is simple but effective. Doesnt have to be complicated. It is something that Harlequins do a lot. I think it was pre planned. Looked like it to me.