SF1 - Match Thread - ENGLAND v NEW ZEALAND - 26/10/19 - K/O 09:00 BST

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

Again, making these early for the sake of ease and consistency.

ENGLAND

Team:Daly; Watson, Tuilagi, Farrell (capt), May; Ford, Youngs; M Vunipola, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Lawes, Curry, Underhill, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Cowan-Dickie, Marler, Cole, Kruis, Wilson, Heinz, Slade, Joseph.

NEW ZEALAND

Team: Beauden Barrett; Sevu Reece, Jack Goodhue, Anton Lienert-Brown, George Bridge; Richie Mo'unga, Aaron Smith; Joe Moody, Codie Taylor, Nepo Laulala, Brodie Retallick, Sam Whitelock, Scott Barrett, Ardie Savea, Kieran Read (capt).

Replacements: Dane Coles, Ofa Tuungafasi, Angus Ta'avao, Patrick Tuipulotu, Sam Cane, TJ Perenara, Sonny Bill Williams, Jordie Barrett.



Venue: Yokohama
Referee: Nigel Owens
AR1: Romain Poite
AR2: Pascal Gauzere
TMO: Marius Joncker

[majesticimperialman]

Any one know who the officials are for this game?

[Cyril]

Ref: W Barnes
AR1: A Healey
AR2: SC Woodward
TMO: Technical failure. Please try again later.

I’m feeling more confident now.

[LondonTiger]

Any one know who the officials are for this game?

It was posted a few pages back, but I have updated the OP to reflect this.

[Guest]

Beauden is a fantastic attacking threat but a potential liability in defence (hmm that sounds familiar, who else has a FB like that?).

On that point, you often see him - and other surprising Kiwi payers - cropping up in the midfield or where you dont expect them, executing basics really well. But I did spot this in the highlights:









Pretty clear offence at the breakdown: https://youtu.be/e8O3GO-9YBQ?t=431

It's the speed of the game that allows the ABs to 'cheat'. If England slow NZ down where Ireland didn't, higher standards are necessary. With Nigel Owens as ref, you'd think that would be doubly hard for NZ now. But a clear sign that - if you put the ABs under pressure - those seemingly flawless basic skills have a breaking point, and you can exploit their mistakes.

[Guest]

[quote="Taylorman"]

The key will be the start. NZ had its best start in months as Smith confirmed they put a lot into getting that right. England didn’t start so well and didn’t get on top of territory 38% or possession 36% at all all match.


The one thing they did far better is to score more of scant possession, though the score line was inflated by two intercept tries, one from an absurdly advertised pass from Beale, like putting an up and under on his own player, the other at a critical period at the start.

How is that not also describing NZ's win v SA in the pools?

Simple enough - you adapt for the opposition. NZ understood the threat of giving Ireland the ball, so starved them of it, where usually they play rugby on the back foot and pick opponents off at pace on turnover ball. That's what England did v Australia.

NZ were also fortunate that the pressure got to Ireland and they bottled what they would usually execute - Sexton's kick to the corner that would likely have led to a drive and sustained possession on the goal line; and then Kearney coming inside instead of holding his width and being put through a glaring hole that the backs had created, instead he ran in to Sexton and Barrett scored on the intercept.

Not sure the point you're making is based in what actually happened in terms of events, rather it's more a sweeping, simplistic narrative that youve plucked from the most recent games.

[Guest]

Yes but when are they not? Look at the human efforts to pick results in this tournament, all generally biased towards their own sides as a starting point. Just because one human picks an upset doesn’t make them more accurate. More missed it.

Exactly. Not all opinions are equal. We're talking expertise, not the amalgamated predictions of something like 606...

[Heaf]

Beauden is a fantastic attacking threat but a potential liability in defence (hmm that sounds familiar, who else has a FB like that?).

On that point, you often see him - and other surprising Kiwi payers - cropping up in the midfield or where you dont expect them, executing basics really well. But I did spot this in the highlights:









Pretty clear offence at the breakdown: https://youtu.be/e8O3GO-9YBQ?t=431

It's the speed of the game that allows the ABs to 'cheat'. If England slow NZ down where Ireland didn't, higher standards are necessary. With Nigel Owens as ref, you'd think that would be doubly hard for NZ now. But a clear sign that - if you put the ABs under pressure - those seemingly flawless basic skills have a breaking point, and you can exploit their mistakes.

ABs in the side of a ruck and the officials don't spot it - pretty much business as usual

[Guest]

ABs in the side of a ruck and the officials don't spot it - pretty much business as usual

In the process of scoring a try as well.

He was so offside, he started from one side of the ruck, and ended up getting a front row seat for the try to be scored at the other.

[Taylorman]

Yes but when are they not? Look at the human efforts to pick results in this tournament, all generally biased towards their own sides as a starting point. Just because one human picks an upset doesn’t make them more accurate. More missed it.

Exactly. Not all opinions are equal. We're talking expertise, not the amalgamated predictions of something like 606...

Expertise like who for example? Name a human more expert than the algorithm to get more correct?

[Taylorman]

The key will be the start. NZ had its best start in months as Smith confirmed they put a lot into getting that right. England didn’t start so well and didn’t get on top of territory 38% or possession 36% at all all match.


The one thing they did far better is to score more of scant possession, though the score line was inflated by two intercept tries, one from an absurdly advertised pass from Beale, like putting an up and under on his own player, the other at a critical period at the start.

How is that not also describing NZ's win v SA in the pools?

Simple enough - you adapt for the opposition. NZ understood the threat of giving Ireland the ball, so starved them of it, where usually they play rugby on the back foot and pick opponents off at pace on turnover ball. That's what England did v Australia.

NZ were also fortunate that the pressure got to Ireland and they bottled what they would usually execute - Sexton's kick to the corner that would likely have led to a drive and sustained possession on the goal line; and then Kearney coming inside instead of holding his width and being put through a glaring hole that the backs had created, instead he ran in to Sexton and Barrett scored on the intercept.

Not sure the point you're making is based in what actually happened in terms of events, rather it's more a sweeping, simplistic narrative that youve plucked from the most recent games.

Listen to yourself. NZ are fortunate Ireland bottled it?
Oh, let’s devise a plan that’s specifically designed to make Ireland bottle it, and, hope we are fortunate that they do.oh look, our plan worked. I mean how lucky are we!

What a load of waffle. Sextons kick to the...would likely have... oh...shall we deal with what Ireland would have done if they weren’t so hopeless then shall we?

You are making an entire point based on what ‘normally would have happened’ even describing a play that never even got off the ground?

[Taylorman]

Simple enough - you adapt for the opposition. NZ understood the threat of giving Ireland the ball, so starved them of it, where usually they play rugby on the back foot and pick opponents off at pace on turnover ball. That's what England did v Australia.
.

The reason England beat Oz so easily was because Oz ran too basic attack with the huge amount of ball they were ‘given’ by England. England sat back and pressured their attack getting two intercepts and took the tries they did get on attack as well. England had little ball and territory and put over 150 tackles in to ozs 75 odd. So that couldn’t be more opposite to what NZ did.

Now in reading your post again, I’ll assume the what England did to Australia is the second part of your sentence, in which case you are nearer but still waffly.

If you’re going to say ‘that’s what someone did’ as a follow up paragraph, be clear about which of the two arguments you are referring to, because it makes it too ambiguous...waffly.

[Taylorman]

Bit harsh LT. I just think our pack is better and will allow more control over NZ than we've had in the recent past.

Really, the pack vs Ireland looked capable of being ‘controlled’? Good luck with that.

...

I didn’t see evidence the England pack looked capable of controlling the AB pack, at all.

I think where England will take heart and look to exert control will come in the defensive sets. You pointed out that England had 36% possession and 38% territory - well that means Australia had 64% possession and 62% territory and scored 1 try to show for it. It wasn't just Australia holding onto the ball in their own 22 refusing to kick, they were in the right area of the pitch, but couldn't do anything against England. We did it in the second test in 2016 and I think Eddie Jones likened it to rope-a-dope in boxing. That time England created the try that took them out of sight from another defensive turnover (robust tackle forcing an error from Australia), whereas this time the errors manifested themselves as intercepts.

Mako made 20/20 tackles. Underhill 20/22. George 18/18. Curry 17/18. Billy 16/16. Itoje and Lawes 15/15 each. Sinckler the lowest involvement at 10/11. The speed these guys come off the line, to be making 131/135 tackles as a starting pack is an absolute monster return. The NZ pack may stress England more with their better handling ability, but if England can get these big hits in behind the gain line then they can disrupt any pack. (NB: the 5 subs made 10/11 tackles, so there's not a lot of respite when the subs are made).

I don't think we'd ordinarily aim for 36% possession in a test match, and not one against New Zealand, who are the most dangerous team bal in hand. As you had your plans for Ireland, we had our plan for Australia, and I'd be surprised if we used the same tactics. But I would expect a degree of that kicking game, it's what's been successful for us the last 12 months and if the weather is forecast as bad as was shared on here, maybe we will look to play another lower possession game.

I believe none of the four AB loosies missed a tackle either but I haven’t checked. Pretty sure they made more meters. The one big difference England will find is it won’t be enough to defend by tackling all day. If all a side is going to do is run at you all day defending becomes easy. ABs will have England’s defence turned around, chasing backwards, chasing players from offloads, kicks etc. Tackling won’t do it.

England’s start vs Oz was poor, it can’t be this time as the Irish start confirmed. So in effect we both had one dimensional opponents, one who could only run into tackles all day, the other who feast of ball retention and defence, and ended up starved on both accounts.

England are not going to get anywhere near those numbers, which suggest very poor use of the ball. If the ABs are carrying that much ball, it’ll be a massacre. But as you say horses for courses, no way Farrells going to keep pushing the ball our way, which is why I think Ford will come back in, for more attacking options, with Farrell back to his flying up out of the line days.

[Guest]

Yes but when are they not? Look at the human efforts to pick results in this tournament, all generally biased towards their own sides as a starting point. Just because one human picks an upset doesn’t make them more accurate. More missed it.

Exactly. Not all opinions are equal. We're talking expertise, not the amalgamated predictions of something like 606...

Expertise like who for example? Name a human more expert than the algorithm to get more correct?

Now that's the part which is up for debate. Define that and we'll be getting somewhere.

[Guest]

Listen to yourself. NZ are fortunate Ireland bottled it?

Yes. There's no guarantee Ireland would buckle under the pressure they did. You certainly cannot bank on them making such fundamental errors like the two I referenced - one of which is very similar to a try NZ scored v the Boks.

I'd call that fortunate.

And please, calm down.

[Guest]

The reason England beat Oz so easily was because
.

You need to calm down a bit and read. NZ's tactics against SA in the pool were similar to England's v Oz in the QF. Including the way they scored. You're trying to create a dichotomy of 'NZ will do this' and 'England must do this' when, clearly, NZ have showed they won't necessarily do what you think. It's just picking a narrative/belief system based on the most recent events. Pointless, really, but just quite simple in pointing out the clear flaw in your perception that, perhaps, suggests the conclusions you draw aren't worth very much.

[Heaf]

ABs in the side of a ruck and the officials don't spot it - pretty much business as usual

In the process of scoring a try as well.

He was so offside, he started from one side of the ruck, and ended up getting a front row seat for the try to be scored at the other.

Let's hope Nigel does better next time ...

[Guest]

Definitely.

It also poses a challenge to England to force NZ to make those errors more glaringly in front of officials, and of course to perhaps meet fire with fire at times, instead of ice, and getting away with their own cynical offences.

I would suggest that would be risky given Itoje's propensity to be pinged, nd NZ's greater experience and getting away with technical offences.

[Scottrf]

Nigel doesn't really care about infringements.

[Taylorman]

The reason England beat Oz so easily was because
.

You need to calm down a bit and read. NZ's tactics against SA in the pool were similar to England's v Oz in the QF. Including the way they scored. You're trying to create a dichotomy of 'NZ will do this' and 'England must do this' when, clearly, NZ have showed they won't necessarily do what you think. It's just picking a narrative/belief system based on the most recent events. Pointless, really, but just quite simple in pointing out the clear flaw in your perception that, perhaps, suggests the conclusions you draw aren't worth very much.

And that, is just more fluff. If theres a point sticking up in the middle of the road. You would spend all day walking around it.

[Taylorman]

Yes but when are they not? Look at the human efforts to pick results in this tournament, all generally biased towards their own sides as a starting point. Just because one human picks an upset doesn’t make them more accurate. More missed it.

Exactly. Not all opinions are equal. We're talking expertise, not the amalgamated predictions of something like 606...

Expertise like who for example? Name a human more expert than the algorithm to get more correct?

Now that's the part which is up for debate. Define that and we'll be getting somewhere.

Define what? What a human is?

The algorithm will already be clearly defined. I dont need to re-define it, and neither is that needed. It is what it is. That's the whole point.

You just need to come up with a human that will pick better results. How hard is that?

[Guest]

The reason England beat Oz so easily was because
.

You need to calm down a bit and read. NZ's tactics against SA in the pool were similar to England's v Oz in the QF. Including the way they scored. You're trying to create a dichotomy of 'NZ will do this' and 'England must do this' when, clearly, NZ have showed they won't necessarily do what you think. It's just picking a narrative/belief system based on the most recent events. Pointless, really, but just quite simple in pointing out the clear flaw in your perception that, perhaps, suggests the conclusions you draw aren't worth very much.

And that, is just more fluff. If theres a point sticking up in the middle of the road. You would spend all day walking around it.

Or, you know, I pointed out the fundamental flaw in your 'reading' of the two teams...

[maestegmafia]

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/rwc-2019-japan/116764615/all-blacks-v-england-english-rule-a-combined-xv-with-new-zealand-ahead-of-rugby-world-cup-semifinal

15 Ben Smith (NZ), 14 Sevu Reece (NZ), 13 Manu Tuilagi (Eng), 12 Owen Farrell (Eng), 11 Jonny May (Eng), 10 Beauden Barrett (NZ), 9 Aaron Smith (NZ); 8 Kieran Read (NZ), 7 Sam Underhill (Eng), 6 Ardie Savea (NZ)(, 5 Brodie Retallick (NZ), 4 Maro Itoje (Eng), 3 Kyle Sickler (Eng), 2 Jamie George (Eng), 1 Manu Vunipola (Eng)

[Guest]

Classic Barnes. Taylor and Coles are comfortably better than George. Not really sure who would make a combined 15 tbh. So many different options to take.

[Armchairexpert]

As far as selection goes, my logic says keep the same team, maybe swap Lawes and Kruis and Nowell to the bench. But my logic also says, it’s Eddie Jones, he is going to throw a curve ball and I can’t work out what it is (which is rather the point of course). Could we see Genge on the bench? Or big Joe? Tactics wise he will do something to ruffle the kiwis, I think we might see a lot of drop goals (perhaps a reason for keeping Daly at fullback). I think the one NZ weakness is they are not use to being thrown off their game. It is usually just too comfortable.

[MightyQuin]

I’d go with something like:
Mako
George
Sincks
Itoje
Kruis
Curry
Underhill
Billy
Youngs
Ford
May
Faz
Manu
Watson
Daly

Finishers:
Cowan-Dickie
Marler
Cole
Lawes
Wilson
Heinz
Nowell
Slade

[Taylorman]

Yeah pretty sure Jones will bring Ford back. They need more attacking variation, they didnt need it against Oz.

If they leave it to Farrell, a poor Youngs will leave Farrell strangled by the NZ loosies and inside backs. Youngs is not up to this level and I think that will show. The loosie battle will be enthralling, as will the midfield.

[Guest]

What do you mean bring Ford back? That's the combined NZ-England team, isn't it...?

[Cyril]

I’d start with Marler over Mako, otherwise go with MightyQuin’s selection.

[maestegmafia]

Yeah pretty sure Jones will bring Ford back. They need more attacking variation, they didnt need it against Oz.

If they leave it to Farrell, a poor Youngs will leave Farrell strangled by the NZ loosies and inside backs. Youngs is not up to this level and I think that will show. The loosie battle will be enthralling, as will the midfield.

The backrow battle will be great to watch can’t wait. Front five too.

[Taylorman]

What do you mean bring Ford back? That's the combined NZ-England team, isn't it...?

Yeah well I didnt know what it was, never heard of half of them so obviously an attempt at 'humour' so I skipped past that.

[Cyril]

Miaow/Taylorman,

Could you two please stop spoiling these articles with your pathetic one-upmanship? If you want to argue constantly and score points against each other please just do it in private messages. It takes ages to scroll up and work out what the discussions are about when you two are just shooting shoite.

Mods, please sort this out?

[Taylorman]

happy to. Have foe'd him and wont be responding to any more of his posts.

[Rugby Fan]

Weather watch: pleasant day today, with temperatures as high as 25 degrees in some areas. Good for training. However, we'll get rain again from Thursday evening, with a big downpour on Friday.

Forecast for Saturday is currently cloudy, with occasional showers.

[Pie]

happy to. Have foe'd him and wont be responding to any more of his posts.  

Now playing the innocent....how very Kiwi lol

[George Carlin]

This thread has been good until recently.

Please can you 'foe' posters that you don't like or do what everyone else does in an office environment and just ignore them for the sake of everyone else. #WernhamHogg

[Taylorman]

Hard case, this week it’s Eddies turn to start yapping. First the ABs are the greatest, now his teams being spied on from the apartment blocks around him. Wonder what’s next.

Paranoia starting in a bit too early Eddie?

[No 7&1/2]

People are talking about eddie rather individual players. Job done.

[Old Man]

The games coaches play, hey?

[LondonTiger]

Hansen joining in with the yapping. Throw Gats into the mix and it reminds me of 606 posters.

[Taylorman]

People are talking about eddie rather individual players. Job done.

Yes that was Cheika’s usual plan leading into AB tests as well. Backfired most of the time cos he was usually carrying on afterwards as well for different reasons. Eddie does seem to be particularly Cheshire Cat like at the moment.

[No 7&1/2]

If you cant enjoy rugby ahead of a semi final it's time to get out of the game.

[Big]

People are talking about eddie rather individual players. Job done.

Yes that was Cheika’s usual plan leading into AB tests as well. Backfired most of the time cos he was usually carrying on afterwards as well for different reasons. Eddie does seem to be particularly Cheshire Cat like at the moment.

Eddie does it for all tests not just NZ. Win or lose I don't think it backfires as that is not the objective. If it is still keeping the media focused on the coach and not the players then it is working - certainly when it comes to the British media who love to build up and burn down. I'm sure I posted on another thread that I'm quite certain players will have been for drinks or done something else 'shocking' that journalists would have blown out of all proportion had Eddie not reliably fed the papers stuff to write about. You have to remember that our press take more joy tearing apart our own team than yours do.

As it is it's sort of job done for Eddie in terms of keeping the press happy in the longer term. If England lose the semi no one is surprised here and the tournament is viewed as a step in the right direction after the last two. Even if they lose badly (which I think is unlikely in the absence of an early red card or something like that) I think they'll benefit from Ireland having lost badly first and it will be viewed through the lens of "NZ are obviously on fire at the moment", rather than through the lens of "Eng should have put up more of a fight". On the flip side, if they pull off the win he's a hero for getting a world cup win against NZ whatever happens in the final.

[Taylorman]

He’s certainly had a colourful journey with this tournament, now coaching with instead of against John Mitchell...only a lot of time under the bridge has allowed that to happen. Then with the Boks, Japan. Be ironic if he won with England after trying so hard to beat them all those years ago.

Just shows how times have changed. Wonder if he’ll go full circle and go another round with Oz. Can still remember so clearly how they wanted rid of him.

[Scottrf]

For me it’s not job done unless we win the tournament. Putting up a good fight isn’t enough and I’m sure it isn’t for Eddie and the team.

[maestegmafia]

Thought the england fans might enjoy some lighthearted entertainment from the lads...

https://youtu.be/iCYWr7VXOa0

[Poorfour]

Bit harsh LT. I just think our pack is better and will allow more control over NZ than we've had in the recent past.

Really, the pack vs Ireland looked capable of being ‘controlled’? Good luck with that.

...

I didn’t see evidence the England pack looked capable of controlling the AB pack, at all.

I think where England will take heart and look to exert control will come in the defensive sets. You pointed out that England had 36% possession and 38% territory - well that means Australia had 64% possession and 62% territory and scored 1 try to show for it. It wasn't just Australia holding onto the ball in their own 22 refusing to kick, they were in the right area of the pitch, but couldn't do anything against England. We did it in the second test in 2016 and I think Eddie Jones likened it to rope-a-dope in boxing. That time England created the try that took them out of sight from another defensive turnover (robust tackle forcing an error from Australia), whereas this time the errors manifested themselves as intercepts.

Mako made 20/20 tackles. Underhill 20/22. George 18/18. Curry 17/18. Billy 16/16. Itoje and Lawes 15/15 each. Sinckler the lowest involvement at 10/11. The speed these guys come off the line, to be making 131/135 tackles as a starting pack is an absolute monster return. The NZ pack may stress England more with their better handling ability, but if England can get these big hits in behind the gain line then they can disrupt any pack. (NB: the 5 subs made 10/11 tackles, so there's not a lot of respite when the subs are made).

I don't think we'd ordinarily aim for 36% possession in a test match, and not one against New Zealand, who are the most dangerous team bal in hand. As you had your plans for Ireland, we had our plan for Australia, and I'd be surprised if we used the same tactics. But I would expect a degree of that kicking game, it's what's been successful for us the last 12 months and if the weather is forecast as bad as was shared on here, maybe we will look to play another lower possession game.

I believe none of the four AB loosies missed a tackle either but I haven’t checked. Pretty sure they made more meters. The one big difference England will find is it won’t be enough to defend by tackling all day. If all a side is going to do is run at you all day defending becomes easy. ABs will have England’s defence turned around, chasing backwards, chasing players from offloads, kicks etc. Tackling won’t do it.

England’s start vs Oz was poor, it can’t be this time as the Irish start confirmed. So in effect we both had one dimensional opponents, one who could only run into tackles all day, the other who feast of ball retention and defence, and ended up starved on both accounts.

England are not going to get anywhere near those numbers, which suggest very poor use of the ball. If the ABs are carrying that much ball, it’ll be a massacre. But as you say horses for courses, no way Farrells going to keep pushing the ball our way, which is why I think Ford will come back in, for more attacking options, with Farrell back to his flying up out of the line days.

You know what. I had a look at some stats. It's the darndest thing: Autumn International Stats

Possession England 38% - 62% New Zealand
Territory England 37% - 63% New Zealand.

Score 15-16.

It was a loss (though it very nearly wasn't [1]), but it was very far from being a massacre.

The All Blacks have improved since then, but so have England. 14 of New Zealand's players that day played on Saturday (3 in different shirts) vs 12(3) of England's. Significantly, 10/13 All Blacks in the pack that day were involved on Sunday, versus only 6/13 for England - and of the players who have come back into that side most of them are significant improvements on the players they've replaced (Mako, Marler, Cole and Curry), though you could argue about Billy vs Wilson on current form, Cowan-Dickie vs Hartley and whether it's better to have Lawes at 20 or Ludlam.

The ABs have improved their props, but most pundits seem to think that England have the edge in the front row, especially with Taylor and Coles slightly below par. Arguably the key backline change - Barrett replacing Mackenzie was enforced and weakens the side overall.

But the main point is that the most recent evidence - from both this game and the Australia one - is that England are well placed to absorb a lot of pressure and play without the ball for long periods without conceding.

----

[1] There's a fairly balanced report here, with a good statement of the facts: inews analysis of Lawes offside call

The thing that strikes me here is not whether the offside call was correct or not: measured from Ford it could have been called either way. It's also not incorrect that Joncker raised the question: he was (under the new directive) absolutely entitled to alert Garces to the potential offside.

But it's definitely an incorrect application of the TMO protocol. The on-field decision had been made: Garces had already given the try (I don't recall this being explicitly communicated, but the referee making the on-field decision of try or no try seems to have superceded the old "Any reason?/Try or no try?" questions). Joncker did not have a good enough basis for overturning the on-field decision, because he should only have done that if the offside was clear and obvious. Which - just from the number of times he reviewed the clip - it clearly wasn't.

One of the things that refs are now doing much more is openly talking through the process - Wayne Barnes does it particularly clearly. "These are the facts / the on-field decision was x / is it clear and obvious / we'll go with [the original decision / a different decision]". That should have happened in this case too.

Anyway, all water under the bridge. As Eddie said after the match, sometimes the game loves you, and sometimes it doesn't.

[Big]

Scott, I am sure that is correct - however I did say job done in terms of keeping the press happy. I've no doubt Eddie and the players want to win the tournament and won't be happy to lose, but my comment was purely with respect to keeping journalists busy/happy/and not trying to tear down players. This said in the context of Eddie's tendency to pre-match comments and the English press' previous history for tearing into the team for sometimes mundane stuff.

For myself I really don't care that much about who wins the tournament. If they go out and give it their best, and I get to see some decent rugby I'm happy that's job done in rugby terms as well. I stopped fussing about whether England win or lose a long time ago - life's too short.

[Guest]

Hansen joining in with the yapping. Throw Gats into the mix and it reminds me of 606 posters.

Yeah, but who's who?

[maestegmafia]

Scott, I am sure that is correct - however I did say job done in terms of keeping the press happy.  I've no doubt Eddie and the players want to win the tournament and won't be happy to lose, but my comment was purely with respect to keeping journalists busy/happy/and not trying to tear down players.  This said in the context of Eddie's tendency to pre-match comments and the English press' previous history for tearing into the team for sometimes mundane stuff.

For myself I really don't care that much about who wins the tournament.  If they go out and give it their best, and I get to see some decent rugby I'm happy that's job done in rugby terms as well.  I stopped fussing about whether England win or lose a long time ago - life's too short.

I agree, from a welsh perspective too it’s great to have made the quarterfinals and semis, whatever happens from here win or lose it is still great to have got this far. I think a year or eighteen months ago we would have been happy to have made it this far and I think England and South African fans would say the same.

Though now we are here the dream does exist that maybe england or wales could possibly win a rugby World Cup and have beaten all the Southern Hemisphere teams to get there. That would be some unanswerable win if it happens no matter what the odds say.

[LondonTiger]

Though now we are here the dream does exist that maybe england or wales could possibly win a rugby World Cup and have beaten all the Southern Hemisphere teams to get there. That would be some unanswerable win if it happens no matter what the odds say.

Hope you are not offended, but thi sis why if England were to win I want to face SA in the final. Should we lose I will want Wales to be meeting NZ.

Winning the World Cup having beaten the 3 SANZAR nations would be an amazing thing. It is a shame in a way that Argentina did not make the 1/4 finals v Wales - then there would have been the chance for Wales to beat all the other 6Ns and RC teams in the same year in competitive rugby matches.

[Sponsored content]