Any early leaders for the RWC ...

First topic message reminder :

Now all the contenders have played a warm-up game (or for the SH big 4, a tournament).. Does anyone have any thoughts on who's most likely to lift the trophy at the end. What about players, any standout for the player of the tournament...

I know this is really early, but think getting initial reaction and seeing how it pans out can be fun in its own way, providing it stays as banter and doesn't turn nasty...

I'd agree. youngs is still the best for me at present. Like I said, I don't think you can judge scrums from Saturday, lineout went badly wrong but but for the squint throws it didn't look as if Youngs was under or over throwing for me but there'll be some hooker on here who knows better?

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Dont forget in 91 Australia (the champions) needed a last minute try to beat Ireland in the quarters too.

Who was that flanker that put you guys into temporary dreamland? What a game to be fair.

Gordon Hamilton. My hero that day was Ireland captain Philip Matthews. I was 11 years old watching from the terrace. I cried when Lynagh scored the winner.

Years later I was doing a course in NCI in Dublin and in the conferring ceremony Philip Matthews was the head of the university and gave me my qualification on stage. It was a great moment. I met him after at the reception and told him how much that game meant to me and that I cried at the final whistle. At that point he lent in and whispered "dont tell anyone but you werent the only one".

He really is a great man and a really good commentator and a real hero of mine.

People think NH rugby is much more competitive now but those late 80s to mid 90s years were for me the closest the 5N teams have got to the SH. Lions beat AUS in 89, almost beat NZ in 93, beat SA in 97... all in series away from home. France beat NZ and SA in test series in mid 90s, Scotland took NZ all the way in the away 1990 tour. Had Wales not lost so many to RL they too would have been strong.

no 7 & 1/2 these things happen sure but it's more likely to happen to a debutant.

Well he certainly looked out of hid depth when he made two mistakes which led to French tries..... Nowell wasn't good enough - I don't know why you're trying to defend it.

It's a deluded notion that you have - you think Nowell played well when he quite clearly didn't.

Nowell was on the pitch yes but his actions on it were detrimental to the team. Who knows perhaps Nowell would have been guilty for the 3rd try too?

It wasn't a settled team though was it? It was the first game of the 6 nations.

As shown in this match against France on Saturday the first team is not yet up to speed.

Burrell played far better than Nowell did. Not just in the France game but the whole tournament.

Start slowly and you're going to struggle.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Dont forget in 91 Australia (the champions) needed a last minute try to beat Ireland in the quarters too.

Who was that flanker that put you guys into temporary dreamland? What a game to be fair.

Gordon Hamilton. My hero that day was Ireland captain Philip Matthews. I was 11 years old watching from the terrace. I cried when Lynagh scored the winner.

Years later I was doing a course in NCI in Dublin and in the conferring ceremony Philip Matthews was the head of the university and gave me my qualification on stage. It was a great moment. I met him after at the reception and told him how much that game meant to me and that I cried at the final whistle. At that point he lent in and whispered "dont tell anyone but you werent the only one".

He really is a great man and a really good commentator and a real hero of mine.

People think NH rugby is much more competitive now but those late 80s to mid 90s years were for me the closest the 5N teams have got to the SH. Lions beat AUS in 89, almost beat NZ in 93, beat SA in 97... all in series away from home. France beat NZ and SA in test series in mid 90s, Scotland took NZ all the way in the away 1990 tour. Had Wales not lost so many to RL they too would have been strong.

I actually think the 97 Lions were lucky to win that series, they were completely outscored in tries, SA just couldn't convert a kick to save their lives.

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Dont forget in 91 Australia (the champions) needed a last minute try to beat Ireland in the quarters too.

Who was that flanker that put you guys into temporary dreamland? What a game to be fair.

Gordon Hamilton. My hero that day was Ireland captain Philip Matthews. I was 11 years old watching from the terrace. I cried when Lynagh scored the winner.

Years later I was doing a course in NCI in Dublin and in the conferring ceremony Philip Matthews was the head of the university and gave me my qualification on stage. It was a great moment. I met him after at the reception and told him how much that game meant to me and that I cried at the final whistle. At that point he lent in and whispered "dont tell anyone but you werent the only one".

He really is a great man and a really good commentator and a real hero of mine.

People think NH rugby is much more competitive now but those late 80s to mid 90s years were for me the closest the 5N teams have got to the SH. Lions beat AUS in 89, almost beat NZ in 93, beat SA in 97... all in series away from home. France beat NZ and SA in test series in mid 90s, Scotland took NZ all the way in the away 1990 tour. Had Wales not lost so many to RL they too would have been strong.

I actually think the 97 Lions were lucky to win that series, they were completely outscored in tries, SA just couldn't convert a kick to save their lives.

Yes and no... first test Lions were quite dominant. 2nd test very bizarre, SA couldn't kick and scored 3 tries to zero but SA threw the kitchen sink at the Lions all heart no head. 3rd test was a dead rubber like in 2009. Little fortuitous I agree for the 2nd test but if you win a series you can't really complain. The Lions were right up there with the boks. Its not like it was a one off match.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 these things happen sure but it's more likely to happen to a debutant.

Well he certainly looked out of hid depth when he made two mistakes which led to French tries..... Nowell wasn't good enough - I don't know why you're trying to defend it.

It's a deluded notion that you have - you think Nowell played well when he quite clearly didn't.

Nowell was on the pitch yes but his actions on it were detrimental to the team. Who knows perhaps Nowell would have been guilty for the 3rd try too?

It wasn't a settled team though was it? It was the first game of the 6 nations.

As shown in this match against France on Saturday the first team is not yet up to speed.

Burrell played far better than Nowell did. Not just in the France game but the whole tournament.

Start slowly and you're going to struggle.

A knock on and a bounce where the full back should have taken charge and cleaned up. He was about a 6 or 7 out of 10 that day. Ok debut, left the pitch with England winning. You don't think that team was settled and had played together before, fair enough. We'll never agree, given Ashton's form I understand the decision even if I'd have given him one last chance. If we're really saying giving a scrum away is a big mistake, dear me we'll have no one left.

Two errors which led to tries for the opposition.

You can say the full back should have cleaned it up but it was miscommunication. Both players at fault as someone (doesn't matter who) should have cleaned it up.

4/10 was his score.

Doesn't matter if he left the pitch with England winning because he had already done the damage to England's chances of winning the match.

It wasn't the only reason why Englan lost but when a player is guilty for two tries being scored there is no logical argument for saying he played well unless what he did on the pitch outweighed those.

You keep talking about his impact on the fightback - what he did he do of note? Just because he happened to be there doesn't mean he contributed in a meaningful manner.

Really? He gave a scrum away. I'm under the impression that there's quite a lot that can happen from that point, including a deflected kick through that bounces perfectly for the attacker in this case. Can't really place too much blame on a winger coming from his own wing to try and cover. He's not guilty for 2 tries is what I'm saying. When have I used the phrase impact on the fight back? I'm quite prepared to say he played ok after the initial onslaught though.

If we can only say whether a debut is a mistake after looking only at any tries or pens either way and not the players whole performance how can you say not giving Itoje 1 here is a mistake; we'd have to pick apart those points surely?

IF you want to debate HISTORY with me please feel free.Much is just a matter of opinion
Lions SHOULD have drawn with NZ 1959,should have beaten Boks 2009 they didn't.The
1990`s period for NZ was a very busy one and many of the top players couldn't make
themselves available.
An England team lost 2-0 to NZ in 1963,BUT only about 2 would have been first choice.
HAD genuine neutral Refs been available NZ would have shared or maybe won 1976 Bok
series,ditto the Cavaliers.
After the loss to Argentina ,SA are asking for the tactics of "The Front Row mafia"to be
reviewed when THEY wrote the book on the subject.
IF you check MANY of the results in RWC how many were down to the REF?according to
someone or other.England 1991 final,France 1995 SF,France 2007 ,QF,SA 2011 QF,
NZ 2011 final.
The effort of France beating Nz in 1999 and 2007 was such they didn't turn up
for there next matches.
IF Australia come second in there Group at least in theory we could have a rerun of
2011[IF NZ reach SF too]in effect there Final.THEN meet a NH side in the Final IF
you HAVE to have seeds for the Groups fine.AFTER THAT it should be random draw
so NO side has any idea they meet in knockout rounds.
England don`t suddenly become all powerful to powder puffs overnight,and the idea
of a RL Prop at centre after little experience?

No advantage of finishing top then and it's harder for fans to plan where to be. You could also end up with some of the quite weak teams going through. Those are the drawbacks for me.

no 7 & 1/2 yes a lot can happen but the sequence of event went that Nowell knocked on, the next play France scored a try. Was a mistake that led to a try for France.

It could have worked out a different way but it didn't. We are looking at what happened - not what could have happened.

I thought that Nowell would struggle before the match. I said that.

As for Itoje - we'll never know whether he would have had an impact because he hasn't been picked but I personally think it was a mistake to leave him out. That's speculation.

There is evidence of Nowell's mistakes - no speculation there.

emack2 wrote:IF you want to debate HISTORY with me please feel free.Much is just a matter of opinion
Lions SHOULD have drawn with NZ 1959,should have beaten Boks 2009 they didn't.The
1990`s period for NZ was a very busy one and many of the top players couldn't make
themselves available.
An England team lost 2-0 to NZ in 1963,BUT only about 2 would have been first choice.
HAD genuine neutral Refs been available NZ would have shared or maybe won 1976 Bok
series,ditto the Cavaliers.
After the loss to Argentina ,SA are asking for the tactics of "The Front Row mafia"to be
reviewed when THEY wrote the book on the subject.
IF you check MANY of the results in RWC how many were down to the REF?according to
someone or other.England 1991 final,France 1995 SF,France 2007 ,QF,SA 2011 QF,
NZ 2011 final.
The effort of France beating Nz in 1999 and 2007 was such they didn't turn up
for there next matches.
IF Australia come second in there Group at least in theory we could have a rerun of
2011[IF NZ reach SF too]in effect there Final.THEN meet a NH side in the Final IF
you HAVE to have seeds for the Groups fine.AFTER THAT it should be  random draw
so NO side has any idea they meet in knockout rounds.
England don`t suddenly become all powerful to powder puffs overnight,and the idea
of a RL Prop at centre after little experience?

Ref may have had a influence sure but no way England should have beaten AUS in 1991. France yes in 1995 albeit because the conditions were so poor even SA vs. Namibia would have been close. Normal day SA would have won the game. France 2007 maybe.... but all your examples doesn't show NH favour bar the 2007 match and Michelak's pass... but if you want to strike that one, strike all of them.

The NH have deserved every final they got to. It's just a shame that their return of 1 in 6 finals is so low. Had France been in the final in 2007 I think they would have sneaked it. They were unlucky too in 2011.

You did say he'd struggle and he didn't in fairness. His actual mistake was a knock on. Those things happen. If you want to say he was partially at fault for the 2nd ok maybe he should have taken charge rather than rely heavily on his full back. Given before that we had Ashton in there making mistakes in defence and maybe a little cowardice in his tackling technique I'm not sure it's an out and out mistake. It's not as if he was taking over from someone at the top of their game. Personally when I'm looking at a players performance I look at how he performed across the game. I'm not likely to blame someone so harshy for a knock on. You've said that Goode on the bench was a selecition error as well but there was no one else that's jumping to my mind to take over from him.

There comes a time when you try new players as the old ones aren't performing. Would Itoje have helped on Saturday, maybe, maybe Clifford would have been better?

Is it a mistake full stop to try new players in big games? Not so sure as Burrell played well.

For me the key is strength in depth. At least two players for every position who can slot into the team with little loss of quality or cohesion. Without that you will not win the WC.

Teams like scotland should be able to muster a first team to match most - so could cause an upset or two but thats all.
The winners will be NZ or Aus with England as an outside bet. No one else has the squad to do it.

no 7 & 1/2 it was a knock on which led to a try. It's a mistake that in the circumstances was a fatal one.

He did struggle - his first taste of international rugby was a knock on which led to a French try - England chasing the game from that time on - pouring more pressure on the team.

He was also guilty for the 2nd try - yes Goode could have helped him but someone should have cleared up the problem. We are talking about Nowell's performance.

Unfortunately it's the reality that one or two bad things by a player can overshadow the good. Games can be won or lost on very small margins like a knock on or one missed tackle.

You have to look at it psychologically too - England were away in France and were down two scores early on - it's bad for English morale, gets the French crowd going and meant England were fighting an uphill battle - sound familiar?

Burrell is different - proved his worth by playing well. That was a risk too but one which paid off.

Nowell was a risk which was a failure.

Perhaps Itoje would have been better but he hasn't been tried. Unfortunately I can only speculate but I said a few weeks before the AP final - let's see what Itoje would do and he played in the AP final.

You live and die by the sword - take a gamble and it pays off you can reap the rewards, take a gamble and it fails then you deserve the criticism.

Burrell was an example of a good debut, Nowell was an example of a poor one.

Lancaster should be praised for his risk on Burrell but equally should be criticised for picking Nowell.

Poor decisions should be acknowledged as well as the good.



Anyway back to the squad layout of England - Lancaster has limited his options by not looking at the likes of Ksevic and Itoje. It's a mistake in my opinion but I can understand why you would think it's not. Perhaps it wouldn't have paid off but looking at England's current predicament it could have.

With this loss of the first choice England side it does not leave Lancaster much room for change.

The positive for England is that the loss to France means that expectations are lower, there are no papering of cracks and hopefully the efforts to fix these cracks will be increased.

Well I'm sure we'll see Itoje soon enough. Not sure he's what people are crying out for as a 6 if they're after a strong carrier but he contests the breakdown well. Bit iffy on the lineout from time to time but he'll improve I'm sure.

Don't worry if we win against Ireland we'll be amazing in some peoples eyes.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Nowell was on debut and you expect him to be perfect?

It's an ongoing discussion biltong. I think you should judge a player on what he does rather than the overall outcome. If the resulting scrum from Nowell's knock on had been won by England for instance Nowell's mistake would have been lesser than the actual outcome (2 phases later a try) in beshockeds view. I think a knock on is a knock on. it doesn't help that he replaced Ashton.

Biltong no I didn't expect Nowell to be perfect. I just didn't want him to have a nightmare start to his international career which he did and put England right under the cosh straight away.

Is it too much to ask for someone's first taste of international rugby not to be a knock on which lead to a try to the opposition?

Every single knock on is not the same, every single missed tackle is not the same. Same with lineouts. Depends when,where, the situation etc.

Consequences are important. There are key turning points in matches.

E.g. as a team you could miss a lot of tackles but concede no tries or equally miss very little tackles but concede a few tries. Which is the better defence? If you can keep the opposition and try count down surely it's more important?

Statistically you could have amazing stats - 10 tackles made, just 1 miss but if the opposition scores through that one missed tackle it can offset the good you've done.

A loss or win can hinge on a few good moments.

When you look at the analysis you look at where things went wrong. A bit more composure from Nowell could have seen an England win. Though there were other things have could have gone right but Nowell's debut wasn't good.

Answer me this. If the knock on happens England win the scrum and the ball is cleared how does that affect the mistake by Nowell? Looking purely at the players performance.

As this was initially mistakes by Lancaster around selection, who should he have picked on the bench ahead of Goode?

no 7 & 1/2 didn't happen that way though did it?

Well if France didn't score a try from the next phase it wouldn't have been as important obviously. Nowell's mistake was exploited brutally by France - that's the point. A costly mistake is going to stand out more than a non costly mistake.

Context is important too.

Well he could have picked Ashton or Watson - both had their own risks but Lancaster was already gambling by picking Nowell and May.

But in the detail of the actual mistake, the mechanics of that one instance where you can measure how well that one player has done, that's how I would measure the players performance. Bad error you shouldn't make but to me it doesn't get worse or better when measuring the players performance. In the context of the match it's not ideal but then again when is it ever.

So you'd have had Ashton or Watson on the bench? Given i thought you'd just say you'd have had Ashton in ahead of Nowell was expecting something else to be honest. Big risk as you say as they apparently don't think Watson is ready for full back yet, though I suppose you could have pushed May back there.

Wasn't the real failure Launchbury's? Didn't he let the kick off sail through his arms when he was up to catch, completely unsighting Nowell and giving him about a second to make a catch?

You're like a broken record when it comes to Nowell beshocked purely because he kept Ashton out of the team. Chris Ashton would not have made the tackle that Nowell did on Picamoles later in the same game about 15m from the line 1 on 1, he would have waved him through like the big girls blouse he is, so it would have been about equal in terms of tries cost

And the second one was the full backs fault, he's the one running onto the ball so should make it his. Who was the full back? Alex Goode ?

no 7 & 1/2

I think that's flawed because as I said - not all tackles,knockons, penalties etc are the same.

Some are more costly than others. The mistake doesn't stay the same because the context is always different.

Not even all tackles are the same too. E.g. a try saving tackle.

I was talking about if the starters were May and Nowell - Ashton would have been on the bench as May and Nowell could have gone to FB.

Lancaster was rolling the dice anyway.

Nowell was one of the best English players on the pitch at the weekend, and only 8 caps to his name. Seems his baptism of fire did him the world of good

I don't quite understand how you can say Lancs was foolish to start a debutant in a pressure game, then praise him for starting another debutant (Burrell) in the same game. You're basing your opinion of Lancaster on the players performance, rather than Lancaster's decisions.

Being one of the best English players when most of the side were poor isn't really saying much is it?

Is arguably costing a GS worth it? Not in my opinion no.

How else are you meant to rate a player if not on their performance and impact on the match?

Burrell had a very positive debut, Nowell did not. Both could have been a failure but only one was.

You could question starting the likes of May,Burrell and Watson all as very inexperienced players in the backline - 1 out of 3 having a good game vs France - not a great return.

You dont rate a player on performance though only on highlights.

Nowell is England's best winger. A far better player than Ashton, Strettle or Goode.

May and Watson just behind the top 5, ready to change my opinion in a few months time.

Best Wingers in Europe:

1. Trimble
2. Huget
3. Liam Williams
4. North
5. Nowell

no 7 & 1/2 no I don't just watch highlights but I also do acknowledge when players make mistakes.

Certain players in your eyes can do no wrong. Ford and Nowell spring to mind.

the-goon good try at a WUM but not very subtle.....

Not true beshocked, you can see that I acknowledge errors all the time. I just look at them for what they are not how they eventually add up. Someone who drops 5 balls and their team mates clean up for them has still had a worse game than someone who drops 1 ball which leads on to a try for me. I can acknowledge that that instance was an important moment but overall I can also see he's made fewer mistakes or the same nature.

no 7 & 1/2 perhaps but that's a robotic way of looking at it IMO.

Not every knock on is the same. Some have bigger consequences than others which shape a match.

The one who dropped the 1 ball made the bigger mistake though because it led to a try. Your logic suggests that all errors are the same. They are not.

Many mistakes don't result in points. Sure they should be acknowledged of course but it's part of the bigger picture.

In that French game it wasn't just Nowell to blame for the loss to France I know that but his mistakes certainly didn't help. They did contribute to the loss.

There are many ifs and buts - Farrell could have and probably should have kicked over at least one of the penalties he missed, T.Youngs should have nailed his lineouts, Launchbury shouldn't have poorly positioned himself for the 3rd try but we are looking at what England could have done better.

The underlying feeling from me though was that I felt that England should have won the game and Lancaster should have taken responsibility.

It's about adapting too. I don't think Lancaster has done enough of that.

The errors are the same but the result/outcome isn't is what I'm trying to get across. If you're a coach analysing who you want to pick you wouldn't be looking at the 5 errors which didn't lead to anything and think that's the player I want in the team over the guy who made 1 error.

I think you also have to look at how expected the result was before the error being made. If you make a bad kick which is an obvious risk, it's a worse mistake than one which is basically a shot to nothing. If you miss a tackle as the last man* it's worse than trying to press early knowing you have cover behind. So therefore the results are important, because they are a reflection of the situation in which the error was made.

Scottrf wrote:I think you also have to look at how expected the result was before the error being made. If you make a bad kick which is an obvious risk, it's a worse mistake than one which is basically a shot to nothing. If you miss a tackle as the last made it's worse than trying to press early knowing you have cover behind. So therefore the results are important, because they are a reflection of the situation in which the error was made.

You can have lots of 'fun' with this kind of thing though, because you have to also weight the incidents for difficulty as well as importance. The guy who missed the tackle early on when there were back ups and where the pitch was crowded and before the attacker got much momentum up will often get less grief than the guy who missed the final touch tackle on the flying juggernaut wide out on the wing where there is nowhere to hide.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 no I don't just watch highlights but I also do acknowledge when players make mistakes.

Certain players in your eyes can do no wrong. Ford and Nowell spring to mind.

the-goon good try at a WUM but not very subtle.....

I'm deadly serious, some controversial calls in there, but international rugby is so different to club now.
I will concede that North and Trimble are there more on Rep than anything else. In 2014 Trimble was easily the best wing in Europe, his 30 min against Wales showed what Ireland missed in their attack when he was off. Fantastic player. Attack, Defence, high ball, all top notch. I will also concede some green tinted glasses on him being nr1, but he is worthy of the top 3.
North we all know well, has been injury plagued but still what a player.

Williams is the form outside back for me, has been great for Wales and the Scarlets. For me the real threat Wales have in the back 3, Wales will seriously miss if he isn't fit for the RWC.

Huget is a complete wing, has kept France in games all on his own at times.

As for Nowell, I just like the guy. Not overly flash but great basic skills, great tackler, makes yards all the time and has a nose for the line. Cracking player. England's best winger. He is a guy that if you give him a role, he just does it, and well. Joe Schimdt would love him.

Watson and May still haven't convinced me yet, but their time will come, that list will be different in 2 months. International wing play is far more than being on the end of tries.

beshocked, you clearly don't like Nowell cause he replaced Ashton, and Goode was at fault for the 2nd try. The FB should take control there, but it was a lucky/unlucky bounce, it happens. I wouldn't be harsh on either to be fair. Both players played their part in getting England back into a winning position, those are the qualities I would look at more.

lostinwales wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I think you also have to look at how expected the result was before the error being made. If you make a bad kick which is an obvious risk, it's a worse mistake than one which is basically a shot to nothing. If you miss a tackle as the last made it's worse than trying to press early knowing you have cover behind. So therefore the results are important, because they are a reflection of the situation in which the error was made.

You can have lots of 'fun' with this kind of thing though, because you have to also weight the incidents for difficulty as well as importance. The guy who missed the tackle early on when there were back ups and where the pitch was crowded and before the attacker got much momentum up will often get less grief than the guy who missed the final touch tackle on the flying juggernaut wide out on the wing where there is nowhere to hide.

Yeah you actually have to watch the game rather than look at stats. It's difficult.

the-goon

That's where you are wrong. My thing against Nowell is that I thought that Lancaster picking him was a mistake - haven't seen any evidence to suggest I was wrong. On the contrary there is evidence that it was a mistake.

Nowell is a more complete player than he was last year. In his current form I don't mind seeing him in the England team.

I don't care if it's the full back or the winger - someone should have caught the ball. Nowell could have stopped the try but didn't.

I want England to field the best team and win the match. England did not do that vs France - you have to look at what went wrong.