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

It a funny I actually thought Hartley had a good game . I even mentioned it during the game.
I felt like Mako was too busy trying to be our fly half .

Going back to the turnover discussion...it's a shame Curry got injured. Hes a country mile better than Underhill at the breakdown and is very good at getting turnovers.

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I still can't see why a traditional 7 would be replaced for that, I may be being slow but their role still seems to live with these new rules.

It does. Watson had  stormer of a game playing a classic 7 way

Against a pretty poor side. Samoa are ranked sixteenth in the world. He is unlikely to get much joy against a top side.

cascough wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which law change has really affected going for an over the ball steal though. The only real bit making it trickier is the tackler can't stand up straight away and go for the ball. Other than that similar. Is it not just we are seeing more saracens style defence? Grants this had its own thread not so long ago.

That is the biggest change. Effectively the tackler is out of the game as by the time they have got to their feet and got back onside and come back to get the ball a ruck will have been formed and they can no longer go for it.

The other change that benefits the attacking team is defenders no longer being able to kick the ball. Under the old rules a scrum half had to move the ball away for fear of a defender coming through and kicking it, now they can take their time.

The effect of the rule changes are:

1. specialist 'fetching' sevens are being replaced by tacklers and ball carriers an extra 6/8
   
2. teams are not committing to the ruck are spreading out leading to more tackles in midfield by the freed up back rowers and a higher injury rate
   
3. some teams e.g. Exeter are adopting an endless pick and drive approach which is dull to watch.
   

I fail to see why either the defending or attacking team should be given an advantage and just wish the administrators would stop fiddling with the game.

Speak for yourself. Some of us like the tight stuff.

Thing is though, if teams aren't going to put numbers in the ruck, and you're not allowed to kick through anymore, that means it's uncontested clean ball for the 9 every time. It's interesting that earlier in this thread someone said that means the 9 can take his time. I have the opposite view. To me that means the 9 can be very, very quick. Even if the defence has fanned out and set, 2/3 lighting quick phases can plunge any team into disarray.

I too like the tight stuff.  But uncontested rucks are about as exciting as uncontested scrums.

I watched Exeter recently and they got up above thirty stages as one point. God it was dull stuff.

I bet Aus go for and take steals against England. I bet Scotland go for and take steals against NZ

Its just nonsense to say rucks have become uncontested. some teams have chosen not to contest rucks but other teams have adapted to the law and continue to go for steals

TJ wrote:I bet Aus go for and take steals against England.  I bet Scotland go for and take steals against NZ

Its just nonsense to say rucks have become uncontested.  some teams have chosen not to contest rucks but other teams have adapted to the law and continue to go for steals

Alright. I think it's bad for the game that so many teams feel it's beneficial to not contest the ruck.

Instead of looking for a few examples of where teams gets steals lets ask if the balance is right.

We have heard Gustard and Farrell talking about having as many people on their feet as quick as possible and in the defensive line for years. Not sure it's the new.rules.affecting England's play. You've also seen when it's obviously on players still go for it. Give it until after 6ns.

Maybe I'm a bit biased too from mainly watching Saints who don't have anyone who can compete until January.

TJ wrote:I bet Aus go for and take steals against England.  I bet Scotland go for and take steals against NZ

Its just nonsense to say rucks have become uncontested.  some teams have chosen not to contest rucks but other teams have adapted to the law and continue to go for steals

And Ireland won a few big ones (you can tell by the amount of backslaps a player gets from his teammates) during the SA game. I didn't notice any new rule changes taking away any of the greed to get in there.

TJ wrote:I bet Aus go for and take steals against England.  I bet Scotland go for and take steals against NZ

Its just nonsense to say rucks have become uncontested.  some teams have chosen not to contest rucks but other teams have adapted to the law and continue to go for steals

Why have many teams decided not to contest rucks?  I suggest that it is because their analysis says it is no longer beneficial. I suggest that the better coaches such as Mark McCall done the sums and have adapted. They calculate that the odd steal is no longer worth the price in penalties and potential defenders wasted in usually futile attempts to win the ball.

Scotland may well go for turnovers. They may even get a couple. How many penalties will they give up as a result? How many tries will the All Blacks score because the Scottish back line is under resourced?

One thing's for sure, the ruck is officiated even worse than it was before, at least from my viewing. Referees seem confused by the new laws as well and can't tell when the ruck is formed or when it isn't. I wish World Rugby would realise almost every time they change the game they make it even more complicated.