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).

I thought Wood was terrible, particularly his scrummaging. His technique is awful his arse is a foot above his shoulders.

No surprise our scrum massively improved when Hughes came on and actually pushed.

nathan wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

stub wrote:

trebellbobaggins wrote:That was not a penalty from Hughes, he couldnt have got away whilst in the air and he was careful as he came down.  This ref is terrible.

Bad decision.

Agreed, Hughes dipped his shoulder into Goosen's head, which was worse than what Stander got a red for. The officials had a shocker in general missing Johnny May's foot in touch as he touched down, Brown's knock on, and the forward pass for Goosen's try.

hate to say it but the two people you quoted were saying it wasn't a penalty, you then agree with it and explain why you think it should of been a penalty? As for the foot in touch, you have to be about the only person talking about it?

Stub said it was a "Bad decision" and I agreed.

The May try isn't being talked about as it didn't go to the TMO, but even on my freeze frame his toe is clearly on the line as he grounds the ball. It was also hilarious that Farrell then took the conversion from almost 5m in from touch! Wouldn't have made any difference to the result England were deserved winners.

May wasn't in touch.

Are you sure you're watching the same game? Either that or a new telly/specs are required

May was comfortably in play

It's ok. South Africa owed us one try (preferably World Cup winning) that was ruled in touch despite demonstrably not being.

mid_gen wrote:I thought Wood was terrible, particularly his scrummaging. His technique is awful his arse is a foot above his shoulders.

No surprise our scrum massively improved when Hughes came on and actually pushed.

Wasn't George on by that stage? Generally helps having a hooker who is as big as a prop (probably bigger than Marler) in the middle to push.

I wonder if the choice of second rows is effecting the scrum as well. The scrum under Lancaster at the RWC wasn't great when using Lawes, Launchbury and Parling as the locks. Perhaps we need some more ballast in the second row?

The stupid thing from Hughes was that he grabs Goosen on the way down. If he keeps his arms high and out the way he makes himself look a lot more innocent. Penalty was about right.

The Great Aukster wrote:

nathan wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

stub wrote:

trebellbobaggins wrote:That was not a penalty from Hughes, he couldnt have got away whilst in the air and he was careful as he came down.  This ref is terrible.

Bad decision.

Agreed, Hughes dipped his shoulder into Goosen's head, which was worse than what Stander got a red for. The officials had a shocker in general missing Johnny May's foot in touch as he touched down, Brown's knock on, and the forward pass for Goosen's try.

hate to say it but the two people you quoted were saying it wasn't a penalty, you then agree with it and explain why you think it should of been a penalty? As for the foot in touch, you have to be about the only person talking about it?

Stub said it was a "Bad decision" and I agreed.

The May try isn't being talked about as it didn't go to the TMO, but even on my freeze frame his toe is clearly on the line as he grounds the ball. It was also hilarious that Farrell then took the conversion from almost 5m in from touch! Wouldn't have made any difference to the result England were deserved winners.

You did but then wrote that he dipped his shoulder into his head. He didn't.

HongKongCherry wrote:Are you sure you're watching the same game? Either that or a new telly/specs are required

May was comfortably in play

Probably one of those ABE TVs - ideal for cycloptic vision...

Just watching the game again. With the Lawes try I think Brown would have scored it had Lambie not scooped it back into his thigh.

Yeah think he would. Would have been interesting to see the decision had Lawes not got there; deliberate knock on?

Brown was definitely tackled before he'd made contact with the ball - which ironically is one reason his hands went past it. I would have hoped for at least a penalty if the try hadn't been allowed.

What's this nonsense about May being in touch? Just watched the try again, not a chance was he in touch. Lawes' try was lucky and I would probably been pissed off if it had been given against England, but it wasn't a knock on.

Why would you have been p'd off?  It was a perfectly valid try ... and I've no idea what TGA is looking at when he says May's foot was in touch.  The only thing he got right was the forward pass that Garces bizarrely let go .. although the officials clearly had a problem with spotting those for some reason as there was another obvious one later when we kicked deep into their 22 and they threw a long pass that must have gone about 2 yards forwards.

Who Wade captain once Hartley went off??

mid_gen wrote:I thought Wood was terrible, particularly his scrummaging. His technique is awful his arse is a foot above his shoulders.

No surprise our scrum massively improved when Hughes came on and actually pushed.

Agreed, we really can't afford to keep playing Wood over Hughes.

Farrell, yappy.

Heaf wrote:Why would you have been p'd off?  It was a perfectly valid try ... and I've no idea what TGA is looking at when he says May's foot was in touch.  The only thing he got right was the forward pass that Garces bizarrely let go .. although the officials clearly had a problem with spotting those for some reason as there was another obvious one later when we kicked deep into their 22 and they threw a long pass that must have gone about 2 yards forwards.

I'd have been pissed at the sheer jammyness of it, there looked like there SHOULD have been something wrong with it.

Hood83 wrote:

mid_gen wrote:I thought Wood was terrible, particularly his scrummaging. His technique is awful his arse is a foot above his shoulders.

No surprise our scrum massively improved when Hughes came on and actually pushed.

Agreed, we really can't afford to keep playing Wood over Hughes.

I didn't see the game live only the highlights, but I thought Woods was quite good, not showy, but always there, m=tackling, clearing out etc. as well as with ball in hand.

The papers I have read and the player scores seem to agree as he is quoted as 7 -7.5 in the three I looked at.

Stats say 13 tackles in 60 minutes more tackles than anyone else in less time. 4 runs for 14 m shows he was making ground, 1 penalty against.

No one played badly really, Yarde made a few mistakes didn't reallt get mucdh ball and will be under threat.

Heaf wrote:Why would you have been p'd off?  It was a perfectly valid try ... and I've no idea what TGA is looking at when he says May's foot was in touch.  The only thing he got right was the forward pass that Garces bizarrely let go .. although the officials clearly had a problem with spotting those for some reason as there was another obvious one later when we kicked deep into their 22 and they threw a long pass that must have gone about 2 yards forwards.

The point being made was about poor officiating.

It was a perfectly valid try because the referee said it was, without any recourse to the TMO - end of story. The footage in freeze frame showing May's toe in touch is irrelevant to the point that the referee should have realised it was far too close to call in real time and he should have asked the TMO to have a look.
The Hughes penalty incident is worth mentioning because it is inconsistent with the CJ Stander red card which was given for a similar offence. If anything the Hughes incident was worse, so how can similar incidents range on a scale from an arguable penalty to a red card?

Because the ref and assisstants all have more than 1 eye?

Pity there's none of them on here then...

Anyhow..

Jones rated it as a 6 out of 10 performance. There's certainly a lot of room for improvement but there were some great moments where things seem to properly click. (Like the May try)

6 out of 10 perhaps a bit harsh.

Cumbrian wrote:

Heaf wrote:Why would you have been p'd off?  It was a perfectly valid try ... and I've no idea what TGA is looking at when he says May's foot was in touch.  The only thing he got right was the forward pass that Garces bizarrely let go .. although the officials clearly had a problem with spotting those for some reason as there was another obvious one later when we kicked deep into their 22 and they threw a long pass that must have gone about 2 yards forwards.

I'd have been pissed at the sheer jammyness of it, there looked like there SHOULD have been something wrong with it.

It's ok we lost a match to SA through one of those tries before as well!

Jones bluffed SA over the weekend- he's been going on about a power game and the Boks picked a pack to overpower it but then he did what we hoped he would and moved the pack about, tired them with Launchbury, Robshaw and Wood's (and others) workrate and it paid dividends later in the match. Tactically the man is astute. Hope he has similar plans for the other sides. Ie. Don't try to take on Fiji in a running rugby contest from the start - it doesn't workP

Hood83 wrote:

mid_gen wrote:I thought Wood was terrible, particularly his scrummaging. His technique is awful his arse is a foot above his shoulders.

No surprise our scrum massively improved when Hughes came on and actually pushed.

Agreed, we really can't afford to keep playing Wood over Hughes.

Wood was played to tackle and that is what he did. He tackled more than anyone else. As the game progressed Hughes was brought on to carry which was tactically sound. I am not sure he actually did much when he came on though.

[quote="Exiledinborders"]

Hood83 wrote:Wood was played to tackle and that is what he did. He tackled more than anyone else. As the game progressed Hughes was brought on to carry which was tactically sound. I am not sure he actually did much when he came on though.

Im not a particular fan of either, but I agree. Wood did what was asked of him, tacked everything very effectively. I didn't think Hughes really got into it, he didn't play badly but had an unremarkable debut.

Only thing I recall of Hughes was the charge down / late tackle penalty.

Wood I think is a bit of a taller version of Robshaw - workrate and involvement in all aspects but without a stand-out strength. I'm still to be convinced that the pair of them work particularly well together, but should be competing for the 6.5 shirt .

As for May's try, I've just re-watched, and TGA is clearly wrong - his left foot is well off the ground, and his right foot 9under his body) only slides into touch well after the ball has been grounded.

TBF you've seen the two of Wood and Robshaw, when in form and used well, work well together! For much of Lancaster's early reign!

Watching the match again - there is literally no doubt at all about the finish - May is in no way in touch and that was fairly clear.

Let's be honest, only the Aussies will have a chance of stopping us go the year unbeaten. Are any of the injured list likely to return by then?

don't underestimate Argentina!

Yes Argentina will be tough opposition for sure.

Argentina looked crap yesterday playing the crappest Wales team in a long time.

As long as the players are patient and we aren't sucked into fight, which'd suit them, we should win comfortably.

Just read that all players came through unscathed and are ready to train Monday

That is fantastic news.

yappysnap wrote:Argentina looked crap yesterday playing the crappest Wales team in a long time.

As long as the players are patient and we aren't sucked into fight, which'd suit them, we should win comfortably.

Booooooooooooooooooooo

But true, sadly

I must say I was very impressed with the maturity from Lawes line-out calling. Up against that SA line-out many callers would have tried to call the majority to themselves and struggled to trust the jumpers around them, particularly when Launchbury is only a solid jumper. Lawes identified that the Boks were marking him and mixed his calls well, trusting his second row partner.

Hartley looked as short of match sharpness as you'd expect. It will be an interesting decision for Jones whether he gives his captain game time to get sharper vs Fiji or lets George have a start. George certainly looks the better hooker at the moment.

If Yarde gets another start on the right wing against Fiji then he'll certainly get his defence tested by Nadolo.

king_carlos wrote:I must say I was very impressed with the maturity from Lawes line-out calling. Up against that SA line-out many callers would have tried to call the majority to themselves and struggled to trust the jumpers around them, particularly when Launchbury is only a solid jumper. Lawes identified that the Boks were marking him and mixed his calls well, trusting his second row partner.

Hartley looked as short of match sharpness as you'd expect. It will be an interesting decision for Jones whether he gives his captain game time to get sharper vs Fiji or lets  George have a start. George certainly looks the better hooker at the moment.

If Yarde gets another start on the right wing against Fiji then he'll certainly get his defence tested by Nadolo.

Is that what we're calling 80%* of ball thrown to the front nowadays? To be fair, if it aint broke, etc. though it shows IMO how poor SA were at adapting that they never even tried to counter it (that and letting Youngs dummy his way through twice - after nearly doing so in the first half).

*made-up statistic, but probably not far off. At half-time we'd thrown 6 or 7 to the front, and I think 2 to the middle and 1 to the back, and second half didn't feel different.

Seen the highlights now - thought England were excellent. A monkey off your back.

MfC

Conditions were pretty greasy though, so calling mostly front lineout ball was sensible just to ensure relatively easy possession, especially with Hartley short of recent match practice.

DH

To be clear, there's no criticism implied of England's choice to go almost exclusively to the front, as implied by my "if it aint broke, etc.". As you say, it made sense with the greasy conditions, Hartley being a little undercooked, and especially with SA not challenging it at all. I merely pointed out that I don't feel a description of it as being "varied calls" by Lawes was entirely accurate.

As to the game itself, England won, and won handsomely, without ever looking like they were playing in top gear. That is itself a good sign. I think Jones will want to hammer the point that when you have an opponent down you should really keep on kicking them, as there's no doubt that England rather relaxed in the last 30 minutes or so. Still, got the monkey of SA off our backs, keep the streak going, not a bad day's work.

Individually, thought Launchbury, Robshaw and Billy from the pack were excellent. Youngs and Ford controlled the game well, while Daly had a useful debut. Don't think any England played played particularly badly TBH.

For Fiji, it's a tough call on Hartley vs George. I'd quite like to see George start a game sooner rather than later to see what he can do from the start, but Hartley needs game time also. Maybe start George and sub him quite early in the second half? I'd be loather to make too many other changes given the injury absences, but Hughes starting ahead of Billy could also be worth a look at.

England must start George vs Fiji, it would be overly conservative to do otherwise. There is little to no risk in starting the in form George.

Hughes at no 8 too. Picking him vs his country of birth would add extra incentive I am sure.

England must do this to continue to develop the overall squad to waste this golden opportunity would IMO be foolish.

1.Marler
2.George
3.Sinckler
4.Launchbury (c)
5.Lawes
6.Robshaw
7.Wood
8.Hughes

9.Care
10.Farrell
11.May
12.T'eo
13.Joseph
14.Rokodigiuni
15.Goode

16.Genge
17.Taylor
18.Cole
19.Attwood
20.Beaumont
21.Robson
22.Slade
23.Daly

I would rest Mako,Hartley,Billy,Youngs, Ford and Brown. The reasoning is that England must use the overall squad and keep squad members fresh. Plus it prevents injuries when England do not need more.

This combo would also mean you have Quins frontrowers and Tigers frontrowers working together.

Don't think Beaumont or Robson are in the squad and Farrell being the only remaining vice captain would pick up the arm band.

Too many changes, it's not going to happen BS.

I think George will start.

The backs will be the same except on the bench.

Could be wrong though, but I think Eddie wants continuity.

Farrell as captain?

Pretty sure Beaumont is in the squad but I would call up Robson anyway.

I actually agree a lot with Sir Clive! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3932568/Eddie-Jones-needs-23-defeated-South-Africa-ensure-eight-replacements-start-England-against-Fiji.html

Not all of course but with his desire to start George and Hughes notably.

Yapper too many changes really? It's not exactly that bold really.

There would be some continuity - Lawes-Launchbury, Wood-shaw, bringing back Care-Farrell combo, giving Road runner another go. Marler is hardly a new player.

What's Farrell done to you? Beaumont was dropped out as was injury cover I believe.

He was there on matchday though - handing out tracksuits and being a general helper.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What's Farrell done to you? Beaumont was dropped out as was injury cover I believe.

No 7 & 1/2 I will not disclose that information but I'll just say I am justified in not believing he is England captain material.

I respect Farrell's playing ability and goal kicking but as an individual I don't think I ever will.

Beaumont is in the squad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37968740

Not sure he is according to this.

Farrell dissed your request for an autograph then.