England v South Africa, 12 November

First topic message reminder :

       
ENGLAND v SOUTH AFRICA
12 November 2016
14:30 GMT (UTC+0)
Twickenham Stadium, London

Live on Sky Sports 1

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Touch judges: [tbc]
Television match official: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

37 Played 37
12 Won 23
2 Drawn 2
23 Lost 12
592 Points 780

B. Recent Form

15 November 2014
Twickenham, London
28 – 31 to South Africa

24 November 2012
Twickenham, London
15 – 16 to South Africa

23 June 2012
Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, Port Elizabeth
14 – 14 Draw

16 June 2012
Coca-Cola Park, Johannesburg
36 – 27 to South Africa

9 June 2012
Mr Price Kings Park, Durban
22 – 17 to South Africa

27 November 2010
Twickenham, London
11 – 21 to South Africa

C. Teams

ENGLAND 

Mike Brown (Harlequins); Marland Yarde (Harlequins), Elliot Daly (Wasps), Owen Farrell (Saracens), Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby); George Ford (Bath Rugby), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers); Mako Vunipola (Saracens), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers); Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints); Chris Robshaw (Harlequins), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints), Billy Vunipola (Saracens).

Replacements: Jamie George (Saracens), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins), Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby), Nathan Hughes (Wasps), Danny Care (Harlequins), Ben Te'o (Worcester Warriors), Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby).

SOUTH AFRICA

Willie le Roux (Canon Eagles), Ruan Combrinck (Xerox Golden Lions), Francois Venter (Toyota Free State Cheetahs), Damian de Allende (DHL Western Province), JP Pietersen (Leicester Tigers), Patrick Lambie (Cell C Sharks), Rudy Paige (Vodacom Blue Bulls); Tendai Mtawarira (Cell C Sharks), Adriaan Strauss (Vodacom Blue Bulls), Vincent Koch (Saracens), Eben Etzebeth (DHL Western Province), Lood de Jager (Vodacom Blue Bulls), Willem Alberts (Stade Francais), Pieter-Steph du Toit (DHL Western Province), Warren Whiteley (Docomo Red Hurricanes).

Replacements: Bongi Mbonambi (DHL Western Province), Steven Kitshoff (Bordeaux), Lourens Adriaanse (Cell C Sharks), Franco Mostert (Ricoh Black Rams), Nizaam Carr (DHL Western Province), Faf de Klerk (Xerox Golden Lions), Johan Goosen (Racing 92), Lionel Mapoe (Kubota Spears).

It's not just about blooding players though, it's also about assessing what you can get away with and resting/managing other players. I think you only pick players who you think may be able to/need due to injury to transition into the starting XV fairly soon but if that doesn't cover many players then your squad depth is in massive trouble before you even start

And then I do think you need to rotate a little between AI matches - it's overly simplistic to think that a 23 best selected for one opponent is the same as one best for another

beshocked wrote:
Repeatedly pick Billy and Hartley then when they inevitably get injured, struggle to fill the gaps at hooker and no 8 as usual - worked wonders in the RWC....

Have to learn from previous mistakes, not repeat them.

Surely the issue at 8 at the RWC wasn't the lack of experienced backup but Lancaster's unwillingness to use it until it was far too late? Easter was clearly in better form than Morgan even before Billy's injury but was massively underused.

At Hooker, with hindsight maybe George should have had some earlier gametime but the squad as a whole were so short of experience that it would have had a price.

ChequeredJersey wrote:It's not just about blooding players though, it's also about assessing what you can get away with and resting/managing other players. I think you only pick players who you think may be able to/need due to injury to transition into the starting XV fairly soon but if that doesn't cover many players then your squad depth is in massive trouble before you even start

Yes, but I consider it nigh on impossible to blood enough players to have great depth down to 3rd choices.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:It's not just about blooding players though, it's also about assessing what you can get away with and resting/managing other players. I think you only pick players who you think may be able to/need due to injury to transition into the starting XV fairly soon but if that doesn't cover many players then your squad depth is in massive trouble before you even start

Yes, but I consider it nigh on impossible to blood enough players to have great depth down to 3rd choices.

I think it's an unrealistic goal to have experience in every position right now, but over the course of an RWC cycle it can happen - as long as you start with a reasonably experienced squad. We are probably a bit short now will be close by 2019 and it should be sustainable thereafter as long as we have some All Black style continuity of selection.

England aren't far off the required depth in the pack - a bit light at hooker but we're struggling at lock and 7 not because of lack of depth but because there are 3 injured international class locks and 5 injured contenders for the 7 shirt (six if you double-count Itoje).

Tom Wood isn't the long term answer, but when he's your 7th choice (after Harrison), it's a bit odd to complain about lack of depth.

By the same token, I suspect that Eddie is not bringing through Robson and other candidates in the backs because he already has more change to the squad than is consistent with the performance he wants. If we had more stability elsewhere, he might have experimented more.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:It's not just about blooding players though, it's also about assessing what you can get away with and resting/managing other players. I think you only pick players who you think may be able to/need due to injury to transition into the starting XV fairly soon but if that doesn't cover many players then your squad depth is in massive trouble before you even start

Yes, but I consider it nigh on impossible to blood enough players to have great depth down to 3rd choices.

Why? We already have 2nd choice depth everywhere bar 12 and 6, and with Wood we have it at 6 anyway. It's fairly pessimistic to think we can't get one more, especially as SA and NZ manage it

Considering the complaint was lack of depth which was Morgan, Vunipola and then Easter wasn't deemed as sufficient depth. If that's the standard we need to beat, yes it's nigh on impossible. Easier now than 4 years ago granted due to the strength of the 'core' team.

Chequeredjersey exactly it's about continuing to build the squad.

no 7 & 1/2 you call it dropping, whilst I would call it resting/rotating.

Easter was 37 last year.

Poorfour playing Easter more wouldn't have made any difference.

Morgan,Vunipola,Easter wasn't sufficient depth because Morgan was crocked off the boil, Easter was too old and slow so basically England only really had 1 decent no 8.

You say Wood is 7th choice but after Haskell most of the options were unproven. Big drop from Haskell to the next contender.

I would say 3 good selections in each spot is where you want to get to yes.


England need to try other options at 12. They can't say - oh Farrell is doing fine let's just leave him.

If Farrell is injured that means a new unproven 12 must be thrown in the deep end plus Ford will have to take kicking duties before he's ready.

If Morgan/Vunipola/Easter wasn't sufficient depth, then surely we need to have more than 3 selections in each spot, to cover catastrophic injuries?

Do we then try and blood 4th/5th/6th choices in games too, just in case the first 3 all get crocked?

Was more on about whether we get anything or really build depth by blooding a player for 3 games and then resting or rotating if you want to use those words.So are you now suggesting you need more than 3 deep in strength as Bam suggests? How much experience does a player need before they are proven strength; I'd say it'd be going on to about ten caps or so. Hence I think it's very very difficult to get that depth and maintain a winning record.

And yes I would say we do need a 12. Personally Farrell has done fine but not really excelled at 12 (take goal kicking out and focusing on the role of 12). The latest current stop gap waiting for a Slade, Mallinder further down the line hell even Te'o to come in and take it by the scruff of the neck.

Let's say hypothetically proven strength is IMO:

LH: Mako,Marler
HK:Hartley
TH:Cole
Lock:Lawes,Kruis,Launchbury
Flanker:Haskell,Robshaw
No 8: Billy
9: Care,Youngs
10: Ford,Farrell
Wing: Nowell,Watson
13:Joseph,Manu
15:Brown

Rest of the squad have more to prove. That shows where we need to increase depth.

I haven't put Farrell as a proven 12 because I only really see him as a stop gap. He's a proven goal kicker which Ford isn't though.

England need one more than one goal kicker too. Players like Daly and Slade must prove themselves at kicking at international level too.

Some players could easily get there but need more gametime.

Beshocked ... you forgot Itoje

I would more or less agree with that bar a couple more. Now my view is also the same where we now need more time from the bench and some starts. Where we start to diverge is how realistic it is to get depth (proven, so like I say maybe around 10 caps?) down to 3rd, maybe even 4th or 5th choices, for a just in case scenario. There just isn't the game time available.

To end on agreement I too would like to see some debuts against SA and Fiji, not because of the need for depth ASAP but some playerrs are deserving.

If I was going to do a similar list of players that I would be confident in stepping up and putting in performances close to those of the above, it would go something like..

LH - Mullan
HK - George
TH - Hill
Lock - Itoje obviously missing, no one else
Flanker - Clifford
8 - Hughes
SH - Robson
10 - no one
12 - Slade
13 - Daly
Wing - May, Roko
FB - No one

Yes there's a fair few out there I'd be confident of their abillity to perform well at international level.

For the people wondering how much players et playing for England itt's been announced as 20k a match now.

Clifford wasn't exactly pulling up trees when he was playing for Quins at the start of the season. For me he still has to prove international quality - despite a number of appearances off the bench.

Agree with you propdavid london.

Bambam it's good to have confidence but all those players you mention bar perhaps Itoje have an awful lot to prove. Some more than others of course.

Most of those players need more game time.

May is the one player on that list whose more experienced yet so far has not delivered. Sure he's done a handful of good things in 19 tests. 6/19 is not good enough. Strike rate of just below 32% is not good enough.

Both May and Goode IMO are drinking in the last chance saloon.

I am not going differentiate Goode and May that much. Goode also has a lot to prove. He's achieved more than May but still not enough to escape criticism.

The biggest difference between the two is that May has had chance after chance whilst Goode's opportunities have been limited because Brown has been fit and constantly picked. Goode is repeatedly given poison chalices.

Will be interesting to see what happens in the AIs in regards to the fortunes of those two players.

Oh I definitely agree they need more game time, but those are the ones I would have confidence in, guess its a matter of opinion

We'll never agree on Goode/May, but I genuinely can't think of any way in which Goode has achieved more than May for England

You got Sky yet beshocked or will it be more based on whether we win and their stats?

As a neutral I'd consider Goode a top tier club FB but not one I'd want in my national team.

BamBam wrote:Oh I definitely agree they need more game time, but those are the ones I would have confidence in, guess its a matter of opinion

We'll never agree on Goode/May, but I genuinely can't think of any way in which Goode has achieved more than May for England

May got his nose broke in THAT French match which lead to Goode playing out of position on the wing and looking poor. Hmmm

Bambam well of course you wouldn't.

Anyway I'll say something positive - I want May to play well.

no 7 & 1/2 winning and stats are more important than your criteria (I still don't really know what it is). It's not the only criteria I use but of course they are important.

No I don't have sky but I might still watch a game or two.

Munkian you are not a neutral.

lostinwales it's not easy to look good when you are forced onto the wing in the first game of the 6 nations early on, having to play with a debutant wing when your team is already struggling on the scoreboard from the first minute. It's no surprise communication was non existent for the 2nd try.

Stats are more important that watching! Can't agree beshocked, they help form judgments but we're not playing baseball. Hope you ctach some games anyway.

Oh you changed it after my post. No you use guess work as well obviously. Brown was the guy moved to the wing in that match Goode, at full back. Communication is of course key, especially when you're struggling. Notice that Burgess is getting a load of stick for the NZ match at the weekend as he didn't rally, lead or communicate what the team needed to do in that last 5 to 10 min.

I added a response to lostinwales, nothing more.

Goode was on the wing when the try was scored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpi5JBXFk1A

I said they are more important than your criteria, whatever that is. You generally win games when you score tries, make try assists, steal lineouts, win turnovers, make line breaks, kick goals,make lots of tackles,offloads etc.

Do your basics well and you will more often than not win.

I agree that not everything is down to statistics. Of course there has to be context. You can make a lot of metres but it's easier for some players to do so.  Leadership is also something that is not statistical. Also if you play weaker opposition it's easier to make metres etc.

There's lots of thing to factor in.

Even though I differ on some things I do not differ on everything. My team selection is generally not dramatically different to anyone else's.

The main difference I would say between us is that you sometimes claim players have done well in losing causes when I don't. You can of course be on the losing side and play well but more often than not because you are on the losing side you haven't played well enough. You can also be on the winning side and be indifferent.

As a team perhaps, but not as a player in regards winning.

Yes your team is similar, surprised me you were going with a potential 3 debutants as I said, espeically against SA.

I mean the last point is spot on, you don't or can't judge a player effectively when they end on the losing side.

Goode was out of position then as he was playing full back. He was mopping up with Nowell.

No youtube policy where I am but when he came on Goode was at full back.

Well my view is that May has always looked dangerous and offers a target that makes kicking long much more profitable, because he can cover so much distance so quickly. He's had his issues but he's also worked at them and was a better player when he was last playing for England than when he first played.

As for Goode I agree with Munkian. He is also a smart player and when the game works in the right way he can be very effective. But I don't believe that that happens too often in internationals. Not that its always that important at FB but I don't think his defense is that good and the jinking running game he uses that works at club level just does not against international defenders. His kicking and passing game is of course very good. He just doesn't cause the kinds of problems that Brown can (although he is on the wane) or Foden could

He might have been a good international fly half but that isnt going to happen now (and at least we have a few options at FH)

No 7 & 1/2 whatever you say Goode was on the wing when France scored their 2nd try. He's not the quickest as we know and there was a mismatch in terms of pace.

Brown was taken out of the defence by Huget's kick.

France targeted a weakness in that 2014 game and profited. It's what a team should look to do. Stick the knife in and twist.

If I was South African there are areas I would look to attack.

Potential 3 debutants because there is no choice - you seem to have difficulty with my viewpoint - I don't particularly like seeing debutants start but there's a necessity for it due to the circumstances.

You can judge a player in a losing side. Losing does not make a player free of judgement.

Another problem I find with you is that you think it's okay when a player underachieves does not exploit weaknesses. If player X is lining up against someone less fancied or someone who has had to be drafted in quickly/ is on their debutant they should do better.

That's certainly my opinion.

I really think Goode could be great for England if given the chance ie a run of games. Issue is Brown has been very good for us, generally doesn't get injured and Goode hasn't had the opportunity through an injury, suspension etc. He's also now being chased down by Haley and possibly Watson or even Nowell.If his chance doesn't come soon you can imagine he'll be one of those nearly men.

beshocked wrote:France targeted a weakness in that 2014 game and profited. It's what a team should look to do. Stick the knife in and twist.

If I was South African there are areas I would look to attack.

Potential 3 debutants because there is no choice - you seem to have difficulty with my viewpoint - I don't particularly like seeing debutants start but there's a necessity for it due to the circumstances.

You can judge a player in a losing side. Losing does not make a player free of judgement.

Another problem I find with you is that you think it's okay when a player underachieves does not exploit weaknesses. If player X is lining up against someone less fancied or someone who has had to be drafted in quickly/ is on their debutant they should do better.

That's certainly my opinion.

Grubber kicks towards the full backs you mean? I wouldn't have said that that was a particularly weakness for Brown or Goode.

Yes of course you can judge players on a losing side, by doing it fairly on what they have done or haven't done. Kitchener in point, you didn't rate him as he didn't do the basics well. I just disagree as I didn't note any mistakes from him in the basics. Not really sure what weaknesses he needed to exploit of Hamilton and Rhodes? Again he was the best Leicester forward, still think he would be the best bench option for SA, def over Ewels and Beaumont but there you go, he isn't rated, or doesn't fit with what Jones is looking for.

Yes, I'd say Brown was taken out of the game by the deflected kick. Bounce of a rugby ball and all that.

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 whatever you say Goode was on the wing when France scored their 2nd try. He's not the quickest as we know and there was a mismatch in terms of pace.

Do you mean he was stood on the wing, or was playing wing?

Agree Goode could be a nearly men which is why I think him and May are in last chance saloon.

The difference being that May will likely be starting whilst Goode will struggle for gametime because Brown is not injured but Nowell and Watson are.

lostinwales I believe if you mixed Goode and May you would have the perfect international player but both have their flaws IMO. Goode hasn't had a fair go under Jones though.

Maybe Goode is indeed not good enough but I am not going to write him off just yet, just as I am not writing off May just yet. If they show improvements then they could work for England as long term options.

Bambam look I haven't watched the match back in detail. I just know that Goode was on the wing when France scored the try. At that point of attack/defence that's where Goode was positioned.

no 7 & 1/2 I believe that if you win your individual H2H or at least get parity then you'll help your team towards victory. You can obviously win your H2H and everyone else lose theirs but if you do your best and hold your head up high you can't ask for more. Kitchener and Slater should be outperforming the less fancied combo of Rhodes and Hamilton, especially if they have England aspirations.

Kitchener was as I said the best Leicester forward, you wouldn't disagree? He didn't make any mistakes, and from what he actually did he did it well. Like I said I'd personally prefer having him available in the upcoming game ahead of Ewels, Beaumont and Attwood.

The May thing is interesting as the improvements he needed was decision making and he was making great strides there, particularly the 'crabbing' which he was most criticised for. I assume you mean his defence ie getting beat initially for pace by a mere scrum half and try scoring.

beshocked wrote:Bambam look I haven't watched the match back in detail. I just know that Goode was on the wing when France scored the try.  At that point of attack/defence that's where Goode was positioned.

no 7 & 1/2 I believe that if you win your individual H2H or at least get parity then you'll help your team towards victory. You can obviously win your H2H and everyone else lose theirs but if you do your best and hold your head up high you can't ask for more. Kitchener and Slater should be outperforming the less fancied combo of Rhodes and Hamilton, especially if they have England aspirations.

So you've been slating May/Nowell for 2.5 years based on one viewing of the game when you're quite possibly intoxicated

All makes sense now

No I don't think he was.

We'll see what May can do if picked. Let's see if he has indeed progressed. Flaws were poor finishing,poor defence, poor decision making and crabbing across the field. Lots to fix but May does have good raw pace.

Bambam I've watched extended highlights since watching the game. It is the key moments which matter most.

To be honest I blame Lancaster more than Nowell. Nowell was the scapegoat.

It's when I completely lost all respect for Lancaster. He did not acknowledge his own folly.

Who was then beshocked (best forward for Leicester)? Why did he impress? What's impressed you in regards Ewels and Beaumont as well?

May hasn't a poor defence, finishing. Decision making ie crabbing much improved. It does come down to his strike rate for you then.

beshocked wrote:Bambam well of course you wouldn't.

Anyway I'll say something positive - I want May to play well.

no 7 & 1/2 winning and stats are more important than your criteria (I still don't really know what it is). It's not the only criteria I use but of course they are important.

No I don't have sky but I might still watch a game or two.

Munkian you are not a neutral.

lostinwales it's not easy to look good when you are forced onto the wing in the first game of the 6 nations early on, having to play with a debutant wing when your team is already struggling on the scoreboard from the first minute. It's no surprise communication was non existent for the 2nd try.

More so than you old boy.

My lasting memory of Goode in an England shirt is when threw his toys out of the pram with Tipuric when he tried to charge him down.

Good to see you're now acknowledging your blaming of Nowell and May was wide of the mark btw. Strange to see your team for SA echoing the 'mistakes' you were so critical of Lancaster for though!

I thought Genge was the most impressive. Seemed to be one the Leicester forwards most willing to take on the Saracens defence. His scrummaging still needs work but the potential is there.

Ewels and Beaumont are young. They are simply the next in line too due to injuries.

It also comes down to not being able to finish either, not just strike rate.

May does have a poor defence but another chance is fair with injuries being what they are.


no 7 & 1/2 it's hardly echoing mistakes Lancaster made - England do not have options now. Lancaster had options.

Blame on May and Nowell wasn't wide of the mark. They still contributed to the loss to France, of course they did but Lancaster made the decision to select both.

When Genge came on he certainly carried well initially but lost the ball in contact at least twice possibly 3 times from memory? I agree he has the makings of a strong scrummager, reminds me very much when Cole came in and put pressure on to start. Having been critical of Kitcheners basics and having the upper hand on his opposite number I simly can't see why you feel Genge was better.

I assume with the Ewels Beaumont next in line comment it's from Jones' picking them not what you would consider yourself?

What does May have to improve on in defence? This stems from him being beaten by a 9 for pace doesn't it?

Genge gave Leicester some impetus and forward momentum that Kitchener did not. You are right he did not keep the ball all the time but he asked more questions than Kitchener did. You are not going to beat Saracens by being passive.


Have to trust Jones' judgement in some areas yes.

Beaten by more than one 9 defensively.

No 7&1/2 wrote:When Genge came on he certainly carried well initially but lost the ball in contact at least twice possibly 3 times from memory? I agree he has the makings of a strong scrummager, reminds me very much when Cole came in and put pressure on to start. Having been critical of Kitcheners basics and having the upper hand on his opposite number I simly can't see why you feel Genge was better.

I assume with the Ewels Beaumont next in line comment it's from Jones' picking them not what you would consider yourself?

What does May have to improve on in defence? This stems from him being beaten by a 9 for pace doesn't it?

I'd disagree that he was beaten for pace given that he did run down Matawalu short of the England line (when the Fijian effectively had a head start). He was beaten initially but then that is a particular strength of Matawalu and May is one of many that he's made look stupid on occasion. Just look at the Scottish threads from when he played up North.

beshocked wrote:I thought Genge was the most impressive. Seemed to be one the Leicester forwards most willing to take on the Saracens defence. His scrummaging still needs work but the potential is there.

Ewels and Beaumont are young. They are simply the next in line too due to injuries.

It also comes down to not being able to finish either, not just strike rate.

May does have a poor defence but another chance is fair with injuries being what they are.


no 7 & 1/2 it's hardly echoing mistakes Lancaster made - England do not have options now. Lancaster had options.

Blame on May and Nowell wasn't wide of the mark. They still contributed to the loss to France, of course they did but Lancaster made the decision to select both.

How exactly did May contribute to the loss? unless its under the category 'should of had a harder nose'.....

Early injury meant England were forced into a reshuffle which meant a full back was on the wing.

An injury can contribute to a loss. Billy and B.Young's injuries were likely crucial in losing to Wales in the RWC.

The player themselves aren't to blame for the injury but it would be wrong to say they aren't important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSHhHYmhD1I

This is another 9 having fun with May....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYEfy1BQ8cs

Last try, May overpowered in a 1 v 1 by an Italian.