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.

Wow, we actually agree.
Bullsbok...yes what you said.

Newspaper reports that we can expect Farrell and Barritt outside Ford. This has "just enough of a success against Samoa to make coaches think it's worth persevering with when it definitely isn't" written all over it.

Bullsbok wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Coles kicked out, Hartley walked over someone who had been warned. I think it's harsh.

It turns out Vermuelan tried to pull down the maul legal and fell under . Hartley did not walk we all so the incident he deliberately stepped on his knee after he knew full well he was there because he slapped this thigh .He could have EAsily chosen to step over him but he didnt.

Agree completely. Should have been a pen to England.

Actually I also agree. The fairest solution would be England penalty for Vermuelan and yellow for Hartley for being an idiot. Same as last week yellow to Coles and Pen all blacks for Hartley holding a man off the ball.

Not sure you can or should yellow card a player for stepping on someone otherwise you woudln't have a player left after a couple of rucks.

Biltong wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Because the the results from previous games have no impact on the next ones. The very recent ones have some baring on current form and performance but that's it. It's like rolling a dice and saying "I rolled a '6' last time so I'm probably not going to roll a '6' this time".

Playing rugby is a tad different to rolling dice.

The one result will bring random results, England vs NZ is hardly random.

Thats right its not. So if you are saying that despite beating the AB's the results will inevitably turn back to the status quo. If you believe that then why the talk of the gap closing when we are challenged or beaten? You honestly believe that if a side beats the ABs they are in no better a position to beat them again, or, beat a lesser side, than they are if they lose? What's the point of winning then if it cannot be a guide to how they will go?

You tell us Taylorman

You're more used to winning than any of us.  Where do a winning side go when they reach the top and had'ta stop and that's what's botherin' me?



All the other sides can go two ways - up or down.  New Zealand can only go one way.... and the rest of us are busy trying to clear a road for them in that direction, bless us.

thomh wrote:Newspaper reports that we can expect Farrell and Barritt outside Ford. This has "just enough of a success against Samoa to make coaches think it's worth persevering with when it definitely isn't" written all over it.

Yep. That's my fear

Bullsbok wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Coles kicked out, Hartley walked over someone who had been warned. I think it's harsh.

It turns out Vermuelan tried to pull down the maul legal and fell under . Hartley did not walk we all so the incident he deliberately stepped on his knee after he knew full well he was there because he slapped this thigh .He could have EAsily chosen to step over him but he didnt.

Agree completely. Should have been a pen to England.

Actually I also agree. The fairest solution would be England penalty for Vermuelan and yellow for Hartley for being an idiot. Same as last week yellow to Coles and Pen all blacks for Hartley holding a man off the ball.

In both cases the penalties would be reversed (for foul play) anyway.

SecretFly wrote:You tell us Taylorman

You're more used to winning than any of us.  Where do a winning side go when they reach the top and had'ta stop and that's what's botherin' me?



All the other sides can go two ways - up or down.  New Zealand can only go one way.... and the rest of us are busy trying to clear a road for them in that direction, bless us.

Well I think they still continue to go up, by setting higher standards for themselves. They look internally for improvement and last weeks test versus Scotland is one way of making the side stronger. Putting the whole next level under pressure at test level is a luxury others aren't in a position to do.

Its a cliche but the re-inventing themselves, setting new trends...all that sort of thing, keeps them ahead. We're blessed in that way. Thankfully the team never takes that for granted...us fans might but the team never does.

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Because the the results from previous games have no impact on the next ones. The very recent ones have some baring on current form and performance but that's it. It's like rolling a dice and saying "I rolled a '6' last time so I'm probably not going to roll a '6' this time".

Playing rugby is a tad different to rolling dice.

The one result will bring random results, England vs NZ is hardly random.

Thats right its not. So if you are saying that despite beating the AB's the results will inevitably turn back to the status quo. If you believe that then why the talk of the gap closing when we are challenged or beaten? You honestly believe that if a side beats the ABs they are in no better a position to beat them again, or, beat a lesser side, than they are if they lose? What's the point of winning then if it cannot be a guide to how they will go?

We spoke earlier of being over optimistic. I think that is where bucking the trend comes in.

Although you need to keep your feet on the ground and realise beating the Al Blacks once is not bucking the trend, the realisation of having to continue to improve can change the status quo.

The fact is New Zealand is currently on an incredible high, at some point someone is going to beat them more than once.

Like SA did in 2009, but then instead of realising they must evolve from there SA didn't, NZ did and took back the dominance the next year.

That applies to any team wanting to beat the AB's, you have to start somewhere, but then the hard work starts to stay ahead. It hasn't happened yet, and whoever is going to do that will need a special team that evolves faster than what the AB's do.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

thomh wrote:Newspaper reports that we can expect Farrell and Barritt outside Ford. This has "just enough of a success against Samoa to make coaches think it's worth persevering with when it definitely isn't" written all over it.

Yep. That's my fear

I was reading Farrell and Burrell at 12/13.


It seems thy have planned to try Ford/Farrell at 10/12 against Samoa for some time. concussion to Eastmond seems to have aided that. Talk will be mentioned that this was how they lines up for the U20s - but that is completely misleading as at age group rugby you cannot afford to leave any stars out and will shoe horn them in. Should be different for the full team.


For various reasons we have not been given a chance to see what Ford can do for England. He should be given the next two tests to try and prove himself - but without the comfort blanket of Farrell to kick the goals. Ford can either step up - or he cannot - and a messy compromise like this helps no-one.

LondonTiger wrote:Ford can either step up - or he cannot - and a messy compromise like this helps no-one.

Would you have Farrell on the bench? If not, who would be your reserve backs?

I'm not completely averse to Farrell at 12 for this game, provided it's a temporary solution, but giving Ford a pairing of both Farrell and Barritt as his outside options seems a bit pointless. Burrell runs great hard and straight lines at inside shoulders, and given Ford's ability to take the ball to the gain line, occupy defenders and throw late flat passes I think Burrell would be a great choice at 13.

Rugby Fan wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Ford can either step up - or he cannot - and a messy compromise like this helps no-one.

Would you have Farrell on the bench? If not, who would be your reserve backs?

I would probably bring Youngs in - ford has some familiarity with him, move Barritt to 12 and bring Burell in. Rest of the backs stay the same. Bench would have Care, Farrell and Yarde

GeordieFalcon wrote:

markb wrote:I was at the match, so waited to comment on this thread till I read through it whilst watching the recording.

Reading through it's astonishing how selective people's praises and criticisms are based on their current favourites and pariahs.  Wood for example got an absolute drubbing from some in this thread, yet for me it was Attwood that most disappointed (his same number and same type of penalties barely got a mention on here in comparison to Wood's).  He had a good game last weekend, but this he had hands like shovels and terrible awareness with ball in hand that butchered a great try opportunity.  It's moments like that that make the biggest difference against the top sides, Launchbury is much better on the ball and still first choice with Lawes when fit.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Haskell can do in the side next weekend, but still don't see it fully addressing the balance of the backrow, he's another 6.5 whose game is primarily openside orientated and it still means we're missing extra carrying.  I do wish Ewers was in the squad apart from yet another 6.5 like Clark, I guess Exeter not being in the Champions this year can't be helping his chances.

Really?

Haskell is a 6 for me, who is adaptable and can do alot of different roles. He had a slump after his world trip, but has come back on fire this season.

Also when you have two monsters like Hughes and Johnson in the Wasps back row you need someone who can do the other fetching jobs...its a compliment to Haskell that he has been asked to play that role...and can do it well.

In NZ we saw the difference he made in the tackle area...much more physicality than Wood.

As for everyone suddenly disliking Wood. Its not a case of that. Its about disliking the balance of the current back row. For many people Robshaw and Wood are very similar types of players and that isnt working.

Haskell has primarily been playing the openside role since towards the latter part of his time in France (around 2010), through his Japanese and NZ stint and for all the time he's been back with Wasps.  Johnson is actually very adept at the breakdown, he makes a lot of steals for Wasps, he's played across the backrow for Wasps and when at the Cheetahs.

I quite agree that Haskell is more physical, it's why I said I was looking forward to him being in the side, but he's still another flanker hybrid, the tackling and physciality attributes of a 6 (but not the big carrying or lineout specialist sort) and breakdown attributes of a 7 (but not an out-and-out fetcher or a link man).  If he's going to be playing with Robshaw and Morgan/Vunipola that still means we're missing attributes and balance from what you ideally want.  To be honest though, I don't think we've got players for the perfect balance and it's always going to be a case of picking the right group to do a job for that week, with a big limiting factor in how we get to use the bench because Morgan and Vunipola can't last a whole match at good effectiveness.  The group that I want Lancaster to be mixing and matching between would be Ewers, Wood, Haskell, Robshaw, Kvesic, Morgan and Vunipola.

I've got no problem with people commenting on Wood's failings, just when they don't apply the same criticisms to all players.  Whoever a particular poster's bete noire is gets full barrels, but that week's favourites' exact same mistakes or worse are ignored.  Similarly when a favourite does something it's praised to the roof, but players they're not so keen on with identical or better contributions get ignored or conditioned. It's one of the reasons that I value opinions on this forum less and less, some posters have really gone downhill over the last couple of years, becoming more and more parochial or increasingly commenting based on their preconceived decisions and agenda opposed to giving frank views about what actually unfolds.

thomh wrote:I'm not completely averse to Farrell at 12 for this game, provided it's a temporary solution, but giving Ford a pairing of both Farrell and Barritt as his outside options seems a bit pointless. Burrell runs great hard and straight lines at inside shoulders, and given Ford's ability to take the ball to the gain line, occupy defenders and throw late flat passes I think Burrell would be a great choice at 13.

I have to say I don't see the point of Faz at 12 unless we are setting Ford up to fail, its going to be hard to put Farrell and Barritt into gaps with nice flat passes, I'm just not convinced either are that sort of player.

I'd go Ford, Barritt and Burrell which I think has far more balance. No other top team in the world is currently playing the 2 FH's tactic I don't think and I can't see any real reason to do that here.

markb wrote:...It's one of the reasons that I value opinions on this forum less and less...

I haven't really followed your posting history but I value the contribution you just made on England's rugby chances, and hope you'll keep doing so. You can't really do up voting or down voting in this kind of forum, so its tempting to think everyone must always be spoiling for a fight. That's certainly the tone of some of the posts but I suspect there are more of us who just want to share some thoughts and get to know how others see the world.

Rugby Fan wrote:

markb wrote:...It's one of the reasons that I value opinions on this forum less and less...

I haven't really followed your posting history but I value the contribution you just made on England's rugby chances, and hope you'll keep doing so. You can't really do up voting or down voting in this kind of forum, so its tempting to think everyone must always be spoiling for a fight. That's certainly the tone of some of the posts but I suspect there are more of us who just want to share some thoughts and get to know how others see the world.

I agree with you, some may be facetious our spoiling for a fight, but most want to share their thoughts and have a constructive conversation

Rugby Fan wrote:

markb wrote:...It's one of the reasons that I value opinions on this forum less and less...

I haven't really followed your posting history but I value the contribution you just made on England's rugby chances, and hope you'll keep doing so. You can't really do up voting or down voting in this kind of forum, so its tempting to think everyone must always be spoiling for a fight. That's certainly the tone of some of the posts but I suspect there are more of us who just want to share some thoughts and get to know how others see the world.

That's very kind of you sir.  I doubt you would have noticed me before, I don't get on here much.  I don't want to create a love-in here, but you've always been a poster whose opinions I've particularly respected and found balanced, in fact you've always stood out for me since what I think was your (quite long) debut on here.

Oi, get a room you two.

Regarding Haskell...did we not move away from 6 and 7 a while ago? Unless everyone in the squad fit into traditional roles then the idea of any fitting a mold becomes a bit pointless doesn't it? Haskell fits well into the flankers we're setting ourselves. Him, Wood and Robshaw, although different, can probably each be replaced by another without needing changes elsewhere. Therefore, given his recent form, I really want him in the playing squad to 'fit in', rather than relying on the same two every game.

The biggest issue in our backrow is we lost Cole and didn't compensate in anyway. Unless you have tradiaition roles in every position (which we don't have) its all about balance across the pack, not in each position, or even row.

markb wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

markb wrote:...It's one of the reasons that I value opinions on this forum less and less...

I haven't really followed your posting history but I value the contribution you just made on England's rugby chances, and hope you'll keep doing so. You can't really do up voting or down voting in this kind of forum, so its tempting to think everyone must always be spoiling for a fight. That's certainly the tone of some of the posts but I suspect there are more of us who just want to share some thoughts and get to know how others see the world.

That's very kind of you sir.  I doubt you would have noticed me before, I don't get on here much.  I don't want to create a love-in here, but you've always been a poster whose opinions I've particularly respected and found balanced, in fact you've always stood out for me since what I think was your (quite long) debut on here.

yappysnap wrote:

markb wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

markb wrote:...It's one of the reasons that I value opinions on this forum less and less...

I haven't really followed your posting history but I value the contribution you just made on England's rugby chances, and hope you'll keep doing so. You can't really do up voting or down voting in this kind of forum, so its tempting to think everyone must always be spoiling for a fight. That's certainly the tone of some of the posts but I suspect there are more of us who just want to share some thoughts and get to know how others see the world.

That's very kind of you sir.  I doubt you would have noticed me before, I don't get on here much.  I don't want to create a love-in here, but you've always been a poster whose opinions I've particularly respected and found balanced, in fact you've always stood out for me since what I think was your (quite long) debut on here.

You seem in need of a Doctor

LondonTiger wrote:I would probably bring Youngs in - ford has some familiarity with him, move Barritt to 12 and bring Burrell in. Rest of the backs stay the same. Bench would have Care, Farrell and Yarde

Wouldn't have a problem with that.

HammerofThunor wrote:Regarding Haskell...did we not move away from 6 and 7 a while ago? Unless everyone in the squad fit into traditional roles then the idea of any fitting a mold becomes a bit pointless doesn't it? Haskell fits well into the flankers we're setting ourselves.  Him, Wood and Robshaw, although different, can probably each be replaced by another without needing changes elsewhere.  Therefore, given his recent form, I really want him in the playing squad to 'fit in', rather than relying on the same two every game.

The biggest issue in our backrow is we lost Cole and didn't compensate in anyway.  Unless you have tradiaition roles in every position (which we don't have) its all about balance across the pack, not in each position, or even row.

Agree with that last bit. We lost Cole and Launchberry who both do a lot on the deck. Marler and the other front row guys carry and tackle well but just don't cover there. It was noticeable on the weekend how the SA pack all worked at securing turnovers.