England v Argentina - 11th November

First topic message reminder :

Details

Date: Saturday 11th November
Time: 15:00 GMT
Location: Twickenham Stadium, Twickenham, Surrey
TV: Sky Sports
Radio: R5L


Officials

Referee: Marius van der Westhuizen (South Africa)
Assistant 1: Nigel Owens (Wales)
Assistant 2: Dan Jones (Wales)
TMO: Olly Hodges (Ireland)


Head to Head

10 Played 10
15 Won 4
1 Drawn 1
533 Total Points 298
27 Average Score 15



Recent Form

17th June 2017
Santa Fe
England 35-25

10th Juan 2017
San Juan
England 34-38

26th November 2016
Twickenham
England 27-14

9th November 2013
Twickenham
England 31-12

15th June 2013
Buenos Aires
England 51-26

8th June 2013
Salta
England 32-3


Teams

ENGLAND


Brown
Watson
Joseph
Slade
Daly
Ford
Youngs
Mako
Hartley
Cole
Kruis
Lawes
Robshaw
Underhill
Hughes

George, Genge, Williams, Launchbury, Curry, Care, Lozowski, Rokoduguni



Argentina

Me too

Interesting.. I'll take the try....but it did look well forward .

The kiwis and Aussies get away with that all time....

Poor Nigel ... tried to get it ruled out but no luck

Anyone else hear the TMO tell the referee at the beginning of that Argentine attack that the number 4 was knocked out cold? The referee played on anyway, just found it interesting given all the controversy over how concussions are handled.

Loz has certainly sparked things, he looks excellent.

Eddie won't be impressed with today's performance.

Think the old hair dryer treatment might be coming out....

The only highlights....

Underhill
Lozowski when he came on.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Anyone else hear the TMO tell the referee at the beginning of that Argentine attack that the number 4 was knocked out cold? The referee played on anyway, just found it interesting given all the controversy over how concussions are handled.

Yep

I'd throw in Hughes and Mako also GF. Hughes is really growing into an accomplished Int 8

Over all I don't think the Law Trials improve the game.

I think you've got to take a step back and say it's a setup who haven't really played together before. I hope he gives the vast majority another run out next week.

Scottrf wrote:How's it a yellow? He landed on his head. Yellow isn't an option.

I agree. Its either no pen - fair competition or red for landing on his head

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'd throw in Hughes and Mako also GF. Hughes is really growing into an accomplished Int 8

I'll give you Hughes. He was pretty strong.

But Mako spent more time playing at 10 and really struggled in the scrum. Still think Marler is a far better actual loosehead prop

Hoped to see more from Genge when he came on, he looked a bit lost. Hopefully hell get some more experience

I can't see Ford hanging on to the 10 shirt much longer with Lozowski and Smith playing so well.

Dull game, seems to be a trend that we are awful at the beginning of the season.

mid_gen wrote:I can't see Ford hanging on to the 10 shirt much longer with Lozowski and Smith playing so well.

Dull game, seems to be a trend that we are awful at the beginning of the season.

Can't see that happening, neither are anywhere close to fords passing game

I admire your loyalty to your club but Smith is nowhere near displacing Ford.

Farrell is the man for me though, so if anyone does force their way into the squad at 12 it will be Ford who misses out.

Mid-gen

"I can't see Ford hanging on to the 10 shirt much longer with Lozowski and Smith playing so well."

Why not exactly? Ford has an excellent record as England 10 and both tries today were attributable to his passing.

TJ wrote:

Scottrf wrote:How's it a yellow? He landed on his head. Yellow isn't an option.

I agree.  Its either no pen - fair competition or red for landing on his head

Absolutely. It was not a penalty in my view but if the ref thinks it was then it must be a red.

Annoying as that was, it was the refereering of the scrums that drove me mad. I have not seen ten minute scrums for about a year now.

I continue to be underwhelmed by Ford. He makes the odd decent pass but I don't think his overall game is up to snuff, our attack seems blunt and predictable in the midfield area, and he only really shines when he's got someone outside him to take the pressure off.

He also has a tendency to go missing when faced with an aggressive blitz defence.

I wouldn't get rid of him yet (we're winning after all)....but would like to see some other options. Farrell, Te'o, JJ would be my first choice midfield right now.

mid_gen wrote:I continue to be underwhelmed by Ford. He makes the odd decent pass but I don't think his overall game is up to snuff, our attack seems blunt and predictable in the midfield area, and he only really shines when he's got someone outside him to take the pressure off.

He also has a tendency to go missing when faced with an aggressive blitz defence.

I wouldn't get rid of him yet (we're winning after all)....but would like to see some other options. Farrell, Te'o, JJ would be my first choice midfield right now.

The odd decent pass..  You'll most of our tries are scored because of him.

Your not related to be shocked are you?

We looked like a team missing 3/4 of its crucial players. Farrell and Vunipola are irreplaceable. Teo is important. Itoje also a big player although there is adequate strength in depth there.

I think rustiness is a bit of an excuse. We probably miss those players more than Eddie Jones would let on.

Argentina were poor, fortunately for England.

I have not seen this game yet but genuinely think that Ford seems to bring more out of his back line than pretty much any England flyhalf in my lifetime, despite not actually seeming to do much.

It is difficult. Farrell has such a will to win and does have some exceptional skills but also weaknesses. If we had Farrell without Ford I think we would be very difficult to beat but not very exciting in attack

Ultimately the two complement each other very well.

catchweight wrote:We looked like a team missing 3/4 of its crucial players. Farrell and Vunipola are irreplaceable. Teo is important. Itoje also a big player although there is adequate strength in depth there.

I think rustiness is a bit of an excuse. We probably miss those players more than Eddie Jones would let on.

Argentina were poor, fortunately for England.

Teo has still only ever started one game for England (vs Italy) right?

For me Ford is the best at getting the backline going and putting them into try scoring places. The pass for the first try today was sublime. Ultimately you need a 10 who can put players into space and who can create space if you want to win test matches. Ford is the best you have for this by a long way.

Agree on Ford, perhaps people are forgetting out attack when he didn't play?

The thing about him is he makes things look pretty easy. His kicking from hand is excellent, his passing very good also. He gets stuck in on defence despite it not being a strength. The only thing I'd like from him is to threaten the line more, he's got decent gas....use it. Apart from that, I think he's ticking away quite well.

I was really impressed with Lozowski, he's certainly kicking on at Sarries. He really challenged the defence and has some serious gas when he gets going. I know it's early days but I think I prefer him over Slade at 12 and would like to see him given a shot this AI.

A 12. Lozwoski 13. Manu/Te'o midfield could be very interesting.

I'm not saying Ford is rubbish and needs to go, but I would dearly like to have a more complete player at 10.

Without a general like Farrell outside him he cannot impose himself on a game like the best 10s....as evidenced by our lacklustre display yesterday. We should have easily put a poor Argentina away.

mid gen. You haven't got one available tho. So yo have to go with what you have. Your choice is between two flawed players but I would take Ford as he is better at putting the backs into space

Well England was certainly a little ring rusty. well done for grinding out the win, but if Argentina had not missed those kicks at goal it could well of been a totaly different game.

So well done England for getting the win but need to play allot better next week against Australia though.

England reminded me of the way we played after coming back from all that World Cup conditioning.

I thought we were far to passive at the ruck, rarely attempting to counter either by poaching, counter rucking or simply disrupting/slowing down.

It was obvious that we had a predetermined approach that meant for the majority of the time we only put the tackler in the ruck and then splayed 14 players across the pitch waiting for the mistake. Bloody tedious.

Standard-fare for the first game of the season from England, we do seem to be slow-ish starters. Suppose it was to be expected from the number of changes/leaders missing. Still, the inaccuracy was a bit disappointing. As predicted though, I think we missed somebody to burst tackles and straighten the line.

Thought the yellow card was harsh too, I didn't even think it was a penalty to be honest. Just bad luck the way Brown landed.

Mind you, if they play like that next week against Skippy they will get a shoeing.

Anyone else a bit confused as to why Hughes was always out on the wing? Is it because he's quick and therefore they play him there in attack?

I was wondering where on earth Daly was half the time.

kingelderfield wrote:Over all I don't think the Law Trials improve the game.

IN what way? Scotland / Watson were still able to take steals at the ruck legally

I actually thought England did ok – 1st game of the series, a few changes in key positions needed bedding in, and a pretty green bench. And the Argies, although little cutting edge (and disgraceful goal-kicking), were pretty decent I thought – the play to their try was excellent.

And Guscott was disappointed – which is nice.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I actually thought England did ok – 1st game of the series, a few changes in key positions needed bedding in, and a pretty green bench.  And the Argies, although little cutting edge (and disgraceful goal-kicking), were pretty decent I thought – the play to their try was excellent.

And Guscott was disappointed – which is nice.

Not worried in the big scheme of things given where we are in the season. Have not watched the whole game yet but there are a lot of 'meh' performances. The chances of losing the game were almost nil.

I do like Underhill though. There was not much to his game yesterday, (and do wonder if the Curry's will offer more of an all round option), but just love the way he stands there looking for his next 'kill'. It is just the complete opposite of Harrison's early games.

mid_gen wrote:I'm not saying Ford is rubbish and needs to go, but I would dearly like to have a more complete player at 10.

Without a general like Farrell outside him he cannot impose himself on a game like the best 10s....as evidenced by our lacklustre display yesterday. We should have easily put a poor Argentina away.

I would like us to have 23 players at the level of the all blacks. But we haven't so is a point essentially argument

Players I was impressed with:

Underhill - tackled like an absolute demon.
Lozowski - made a real difference at 12 when he came on. Sparked the best attack of the game - that guy has serious pace. I expect to see him start against Samoa.
Hughes - developing very nicely. Was a good carrier and a constant threat. Great take for his try.
Ford - his passing is a joy to watch.
Lawes - although he made a couple of small errors, he was doing everything asked of him and then some. If he and Itoje play together next week, I'd expect a huge performance from both.

Players I was not impressed with:

Slade - Seemed to me he was trying too hard to make things happen. He threw a couple of ridiculous attempts at passes but did make up for it with his one for Roko's try. Hopefully just a bad day at the office for him. With a bit of luck he'll get another chance.
Joseph - his body language made me think he didn't want to be there. Maybe that was just a side-effect from simply defending rather than attacking, but when he was replaced by Lozowski and Slade went to 13 it all seemed to go a bit better.
Youngs - somebody REALLY needs to have a word with him about his obsessive box-kicking. Numerous times we were making good ground and rather than get it out of the ruck, recycle and go again and make more ground, Youngs instead box-kicks and the opposition regain the ball. I understand it from a defensive point of view in our own 22, but so many times near the halfway line? Do me a favour...
Daly - didn't have his usual spark. I think that his recent injury is still fresh in his mind and this was affecting his game.   he's a big game player so maybe the Australian match will bring out the best in him.

I also thought that Hartley was anonymous and Mako was too busy trying to be the 12 that Slade was having issues being. Rokodunguni (when he came on) looked a little bit lost - as if he couldn't actually believe he was on the pitch playing for England. Good to see him get his try but most of our wingers would've scored that.

Honourable mentions should go to Launchbury who did nothing wrong, Watson, who filled in ably at 15 following Brown's injury (how is he now?) and Robshaw, who of course did all the usual Richard Hill unseen stuff.

Everyone was rusty, but the first of the Autumn Internationals always sees NH teams creak a bit, especially if there's a bunch of new or fringe players in the match day squad. Next week *should* be better...

TJ wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:Over all I don't think the Law Trials improve the game.

IN what way?  Scotland / Watson were still able to take steals at the ruck legally

The law trials have been a step back. Without getting into silly arguments based on what one player did in one match against poor opposition, in general, defensive teams are abandoning the ruck as a competition. They are just spreading out with the result that there is less space than before.

I want the breakdown to be a competition. If there are people in World Rugby who want the attacking team to automatically get the ball perhaps they should look at league where extra space is created by having two less players. Better still they could just watch league and stop messing about with our game.

Watching the highlights back whoever said it was a red as tucalet pulled browns arm they were spot on. Didn't see it initially ad I was watching through fingers as to how brown landed.

My point being that it is still perfectly possible to go for the steal at the ruck. Or go for the counter ruck. Samoa were not poor.

I get your point but a good breakdown operator can still do it

England chose not to contest the ball their choice - it means opponents don't have to put guys in the ruck either. Play against a team going for steals then you still have to commit to the attacking ruck

I get your point and it has shifted the balance but Watson Marfo and Nel all showed that its possible to steal ball at the ruck.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Watching the highlights back whoever said it was a red as tucalet pulled browns arm they were spot on. Didn't see it initially ad I was watching through fingers as to how brown landed.

I'd hate to make that call but a yellow card was a cop out. Brown ended up head first into the turf because the Argentinian dragged him down. The question is how much control did Tucalet have over the situation given that he was competing for the ball (although he very definitely lost that battle). I cannot say.

HOw much control he had is irrelevant - its either a fair contest for the ball - no foul or a tackle in the air landing on head red card.

TJ wrote:HOw much control he had is irrelevant - its either a fair contest for the ball - no foul or a tackle in the air landing on head red card.

It is from the point of view of deciding which is which. The event is as you say either its nothing or a red card. You can argue he had a right to have his arm where it was when it got caught up with Brown. You can also argue that he might have been able to avoid pulling Brown over. It is difficult to determine.

yup - foul or not is a judgement the ref has to make

It was me, still believe it should of been a red. Looking at it again though I'm unsure if he gets his hand stuck between Brown and the ball as it's still there when Brown hits the deck. Having said it does look like there was a downward pulling movement that spun Brown around

I think most of us can agree it wasnt a straight forward decision. But the one thing it wasn't was a yellow card either way.

Scottrf wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:So Watson is full back.

Get used to that.

I thought it looked like Daly went to FB?

Edit. No perhaps not.

Elliot Daly definitely went to Full Back at first. It only lasted a couple of minutes and then he swapped with Watson. At that point I thought they were just going to keep swapping all game, but it never happened and Watson stayed there.

I wonder if Daly and Watson had a chat, Daly went to FB and a message came onto the bench for them to switch, or even vice versa? Maybe the message from the bench initially was Daly to FB and then they decided between themselves it was best the other way. Odd one I thought.

nathan wrote:It was me, still believe it should of been a red. Looking at it again though I'm unsure if he gets his hand stuck between Brown and the ball as it's still there when Brown hits the deck. Having said it does look like there was a downward pulling movement that spun Brown around

I'm of the same view, if it was any offence it was a red.

I'm not sure what the current wording of the laws and advisories are though, lose track. I thought the outcome was the deciding factor, rather than the intent? Or has it changed again....

Outcome is the deciding factor, the big question is whether there was an equal contest for the ball or at least a reasonable chance that the offending player could have won the ball.

In this case, I think it's a red if the interpretation is followed. There isn't an equal contest for the ball - he jumps later and although Tucalet gets hands on the ball it's only once Brown has both hands on it. He keeps pulling on the ball (which Brown does well to hold on to) and it's that that tips Brown past the horizontal. Tucalet lands first and on his feet and makes no effort to bring Brown down safely - in fact his primary concern is to steal the ball and he goes for the jackal once Brown is on the ground.

Tucalet has made contact in the air, taken a player past the horizontal and made no effort to bring him down safely. We are in an environment where players have strict liability for the safety of other players, and red cards are given (and upheld) when a player falls into a tackle and the tackler strikes his head. If World Rugby are serious about player safety, they have to treat this sort of incident with the same attitude.

It'll be interesting to see if Tucalet gets cited.