RWC final 19 - England v SA Match Thread - 02-11-2019 - Kick Off 09:00am

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

The big one. The Rugby World Cup Final.

ENGLAND

Elliot Daly; Anthony Watson, Manu Tuilagi, Owen Farrell, Jonny May, George Ford, Ben Youngs; Mako Vunipola, Jamie George, Kyle Sinckler, Maro Itoje, Courtney Lawes, Tom Curry, Sam Underhill, Billy Vunipola

Replacements: Luke Cowan-Dickie, Joe Marler, Dan Cole, George Kruis, Mark Wilson, Ben Spencer, Henry Slade, Jonathan Joseph

SOUTH AFRICA

Le Roux; Kolbe, Am, De Allende, Mapimpi; Pollard, De Klerk; Mtawarira, Mbonambi, Malherbe, Etzebeth, De Jager, Kolisi (capt), Du Toit, Vermeulen.

Replacements: Marx, Kitschoff, Koch, Snyman, Mostert, Louw, H Jantjies, Steyn

Venue: International Stadium, Yokohama
Referee: Jerome Garces
AR1: Romain Poite
AR2: Ben O'Keefe
TMO: Ben Skeen

Head to Head

42 Played 42
15 Won 25
25 Lost 15
2 Drawn 2

Recent Form

16 June 2012
Ellis Park, Johannesburg
36 – 27 to South Africa

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

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

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

12 November 2016
Twickenham, London
37 – 21 to England

9 June 2018
Ellis Park, Johannesburg
42 – 39 to South Africa

16 June 2018
Free State Stadium, Bloemfontein
23 – 12 to South Africa

23 June 2018
Newlands, Cape Town
10 – 25 to England

3 November 2018
Twickenham, London
12 – 11 to England

[Gooseberry]

I see the injury being put down as May's inability to skin Barrett. I'd say it's also a case of clever rugby.

How many times were Bridge and Reece bumped in to touch as England ran them, forced them, and pushed them off the park? Instant turnover ball. Must have happened at least 4-5 times in the NZ half, counter attacking from deep.

May keeps that in field he knows they will keep the pressure on, NZ's field is disorganised, and they'll recycle and still threaten points.

If he tries to take Barrett and Barrett gets to him (there was also B Barrett to beat I believe, no? so he'd still get tackled unless he can pass back inside) he's almost certainly bundled in to touch, it's turnover ball, and an instant release of pressure.

England's ability to keep NZ under sustained pressure won the game. May's decision to cut back inside was just another part of that - don't give the ball away cheaply.

Not sure it happened as many times in their own half as you state but it was definitely a premeditated to kick infield and offer the outside for NZ to run back in. The discussion the other day around kicking vs running and territory stats backs up just how effective England were at gaining ground even when allowing NZ the opportunity to run back from deep. 

Absolutely agree again about Mays cut back inside, the only downer was the lack of immediate support he had. 

England did a better job of keeping NZ under pressure than they did Aus, and I dont think the two scoreline really reflect the relative levels of dominance in both. Australia had a hell of a lot more ball than NZ did, but too often shot themselves in the foot doing daft things in their own 22. England were extremely ruthless in that game, and were pretty much gifted a try toward the end. The NZ game they let a few opportunities go begging, including the two that ended in overturned tries. 

the team with the best record against England over the past two years is now Scotland. Scotland! Maybe SA should look at how they play. Yeah maybe not!

[Gooseberry]

Yup. There suddenly seems a nice little group. Always helps when you're coming out on the right side of scoreboard but the calmness in response is impressive.

Its a lot easier to lead when you're winning and not Chris Robshaw

[Poorfour]

I see the injury being put down as May's inability to skin Barrett. I'd say it's also a case of clever rugby.

How many times were Bridge and Reece bumped in to touch as England ran them, forced them, and pushed them off the park? Instant turnover ball. Must have happened at least 4-5 times in the NZ half, counter attacking from deep.

May keeps that in field he knows they will keep the pressure on, NZ's field is disorganised, and they'll recycle and still threaten points.

If he tries to take Barrett and Barrett gets to him (there was also B Barrett to beat I believe, no? so he'd still get tackled unless he can pass back inside) he's almost certainly bundled in to touch, it's turnover ball, and an instant release of pressure.

England's ability to keep NZ under sustained pressure won the game. May's decision to cut back inside was just another part of that - don't give the ball away cheaply.

Not sure it happened as many times in their own half as you state but it was definitely a premeditated to kick infield and offer the outside for NZ to run back in. The discussion the other day around kicking vs running and territory stats backs up just how effective England were at gaining ground even when allowing NZ the opportunity to run back from deep. 

Absolutely agree again about Mays cut back inside, the only downer was the lack of immediate support he had. 

Both/and. We were all watching that expecting May to put his foot on the gas... and he didn't. Normally, he has an extra spurt of pace and you'd expect him to leave even a quick forward like Barrett flailing at nothing, but it never came. That being the case, it was clever play to take it back inside - and a shame that no-one had the wit to follow him. It didn't matter in the end, though.

[Guest]

You're wrong I'm afraid.

You're wrong and I'm not scared.

[Guest]

I see the injury being put down as May's inability to skin Barrett. I'd say it's also a case of clever rugby.

How many times were Bridge and Reece bumped in to touch as England ran them, forced them, and pushed them off the park? Instant turnover ball. Must have happened at least 4-5 times in the NZ half, counter attacking from deep.

May keeps that in field he knows they will keep the pressure on, NZ's field is disorganised, and they'll recycle and still threaten points.

If he tries to take Barrett and Barrett gets to him (there was also B Barrett to beat I believe, no? so he'd still get tackled unless he can pass back inside) he's almost certainly bundled in to touch, it's turnover ball, and an instant release of pressure.

England's ability to keep NZ under sustained pressure won the game. May's decision to cut back inside was just another part of that - don't give the ball away cheaply.

Not sure it happened as many times in their own half as you state but it was definitely a premeditated to kick infield and offer the outside for NZ to run back in. The discussion the other day around kicking vs running and territory stats backs up just how effective England were at gaining ground even when allowing NZ the opportunity to run back from deep. 

Absolutely agree again about Mays cut back inside, the only downer was the lack of immediate support he had. 

England did a better job of keeping NZ under pressure than they did Aus, and I dont think the two scoreline really reflect the relative levels of dominance in both. Australia had a hell of a lot more ball than NZ did, but too often shot themselves in the foot doing daft things in their own 22. England were extremely ruthless in that game, and were pretty much gifted a try toward the end. The NZ game they let a few opportunities go begging, including the two that ended in overturned tries. 

the team with the best record against England over the past two years is now Scotland. Scotland! Maybe SA should look at how they play. Yeah maybe not!

I'm sure it happened 3 times in their half during the game - there are 2 definites in my 'mind's eye', one each, and one I'm less certain of involving Bridge. Maybe one more that I'm forgetting/room for error, and add in Slade's tackle on Reece in to touch, and that's about 4-5. That's a lot for NZ - and a testament to England's fringe defence: it wasn't just a case of pushing hard and fast - they also hurt them when they went wide as well. Any joy for NZ in that wide channel and the dominance England had would have wiltered in the final 30 minutes, as NZ would then exploit it, England would cover, and then NZ start going back up the middle and pick them apart from anywhere and everywhere like they do to almost every other team.

And SA to take Scotland's tactics? Play dead for 38 minutes, still pretend you're dead at HT, and then let England falter? Can't see it somehow - but maybe...

[Guest]

Anyone a bit worried how English fans are perhaps feeling like they've already got a hand on the trophy? Could that get to the players?

This SA team will be tough. 2-2 last year, which, being realistic, is better than Scotland's record of 1 win and 1 Brexit-tax draw in 'reliable' terms i.e. as markers of future results.

This SA team is strong. If England fail to put them away - lots of physicality, lots of awkward kicking for territory - does the pressure get to England? Does expectation eat away at them? Are they nervous if SA are still in the game at 55, 65, 70 minutes on the clock?

I expect this to be a close game - maybe not quite like the Wales game, but similar. The closer the game gets the more I can see a SA'n upset here - and at this stage, it would be an upset. They were tipped pre tournamet and although haven't shone they're still in the final, only one major injury, and look relatively settled. Lots of mistakes in them, but they have power and brute force, as well as pace on the counter, and so they'll let England play and see what happens, while also trying to squeeze points out of them when they get in their half.

I do think one key missing ingredient is Dyjanti's suspension. Mapimpi has pace and will finish, but he doesn't have the step. Dyantji can scored 1 on 3s if the players are off balance. He could have been the difference. Will Kolbe be the game breaker in his absence? Hard to say.

Finals are rarely great games of rugby, and if that's the case again, it probably favours SA. How many times have England won those 'clutch' games in the last 2 years? In the last season? Their big wins have mostly been achieved by blowing the opposition away before 60 minutes. The only noticeable game, of course, was against SA...where it was SA'n big start with England clawing them back, with a big helping hand from the ref to win the game.

But still, some self congratulatory talk already from the English press - and the fans, understandably, are probably echoing it having thumped NZ. Nothing's won yet.

[Afro]

Sure I speak for most that I don't think we have any hands anywhere near the trophy. There's euphoria that we are there, having beaten the All Blacks, and that we have a decent chance to win, but I am very wary of the game ahead.

[LondonTiger]

Anyone a bit worried how English fans are perhaps feeling like they've already got a hand on the trophy? Could that get to the players?

Both teams have one hand on the trophy. I have not seen any fans believing it is a foregone conclusion. The team will ignore the press. Most of the congratulatory stuff I have read in the press has come from non-English:

Stephen Jones, Sam Warburton, Steve James, Andrew Merhtens, David Walsh.

[majesticimperialman]

I was reading this morning on how can England deal with Faf de clerk. 

We had this sort of talk before the NZ game. How will England deal with Beauden Barrett, Brodie Retalick, etc etc.

Well if any one watched the England New Zealand game i think you could cay England dealt with them very well.

Why, oh why do we have this sort of talk before a game. why do the not wait untill the game is over, and then say England could not deal with the pressure from???????? who ever it was?

[LondonTiger]

I was reading this morning on how can England deal with Faf de clerk. 

We had this sort of talk before the NZ game. How will England deal with Beauden Barrett, Brodie Retalick, etc etc.

Well if any one watched the England New Zealand game i think you could cay England dealt with them very well.

Why, oh why do we have this sort of talk before a game. why do the not wait untill the game is over, and then say England could not deal with the pressure from???????? who ever it was?

So what you are saying is not do previews?

[lostinwales]

Takes time and experience to form leaders, mostly

[LondonTiger]

And Leadership is much easier when you are winning.

[BamBam]

Miaow seeing things that aren't actually happening

[majesticimperialman]

LT.  

What i am saying the press talk up  some NZ player's and they did not do any thing spectacular.

[Scottrf]

New Zealand were excellent actually. Faf de Klerk, not so much.

[No 7&1/2]

Set up a new thread then miaow and we can discuss how you're wrong there.

[MightyQuin]

Plus Faf is quality and a bleedin nusisance.

[LondonTiger]

LT.  

What i am saying the press talk up  some NZ player's and they did not do any thing spectacular.

NZ were good, we were better.

In teh run up to the game the press are trying to tell all and sundry what to expect, who to look out for. We get all sorts of stories, including the campaign to get Ben Curry to the final. Of course some players are talked up, from both sides.

[LondonTiger]

Plus Faf is quality and a bleedin nusisance.

I still reckon he is Dimitri Szarzewski's mini me.

[No 7&1/2]

Love de klerk but he didn't have a great semi final. Was surprised he stayed on to be honest. Kicking was all over the place and I reckon englands back 3 would love to have some of those loose kicks.

[hugehandoff]

I don't think it matters a jot what us fans or the press think.....Eddie, his coaching team and the players will prepare well and will be mentally and physically ready. They won't fall for the complacency or peaking early trap.

[Guest]

Anyone a bit worried how English fans are perhaps feeling like they've already got a hand on the trophy? Could that get to the players?

Both teams have one hand on the trophy. I have not seen any fans believing it is a foregone conclusion. The team will ignore the press. Most of the congratulatory stuff I have read in the press has come from non-English:

Stephen Jones, Sam Warburton, Steve James, Andrew Merhtens, David Walsh.

Lots on twitter. There's a general mood that 'the winner will win from THIS side of the draw' etc. No doubt it'll change as the week goes on, but there's definitely a sense of coronation from more than just a few.

[Guest]

Miaow seeing things that aren't actually happening

Not so sure about the 'all muscle' part.

All 'hot air', maybe...

[Gooseberry]

I dont think Miaows wrong in saying most pundits and fans have England big favourites, the bookies certainly do.

As for affecting the team...less so youd hope.
We did see that pressure on the cricket team, they went in to that world cup red hot favourites and at home then stumbled through to some increasingly nervy wins to get to a final against the dark horse contender then really only managed to draw that to get the trophy. Pressure of expectation absolutely is a thing in sport.

But we havent seen any sign of that so far from england in this world cup. Theyve started strong and stayed strong, maybe caught cold early against australia but soon overcame them then stepped up a gear for New Zealand. No signs of pressure, no media hounding them, no stories of a split dressing room, no tuilagi coming out in the press saying hes better at 12 etc.

Maybe the difference is they didn't come in to this as favourites and have only just gained that with the win over New Zealand. The off the park stuff has been excellent too, jones decision to pick the squad early seems to be part of some excellent man management.

They are on a roll, together and ful of confidence. No players under pressure for spots. So far I just done see any cracks. Of course there will be nerves and pressure going into the final but not the levels off stress we have seen send good sides into meltdown before.

Think of it more as belief than expectation

[No 7&1/2]

'No signs of pressure, no media hounding them, no stories of a split dressing room, no tuilagi coming out in the press saying hes better at 12 etc.' Jones keeps giving the press something to write about. Expect to hear something overnight just to keep things ticking over.

[Cyril]

Rugby Supporters in ‘Getting Behind National Side’ Shocker!

I’m assuming Miaow has done a comprehensive analysis of Twitter. Who reads that guff anyhow, except those who want to discover what ‘gains’ Haskell has made or whether Heaslip has opened a new juice bar?

[Guest]

Comprehensive analysis of twitter? Alright, weirdo.

Na, just lots of comments popping up under stories about rugby. Lots of confidence. The air that England have to perform well and they're basically guaranteed victory. Plenty on here guilty of the same hubris in 2016/17.

Nothing new, happens all the time.

My question is - is this going to impact the players. This side is fallable - we saw that in the 6Ns v Scotland, we saw that in 2018. They're had their 'big one' and you'd expect this to be much more of an arm wrestle than NZ made it - with a very different tactical approach to take to win the game. Something more akin to a 6Ns match for England.

So my question is: is that pressure going to get to them second half? The weight of expectation that they themselves will feel, having just taken apart NZ?

Doesn't it all feel a bit too...'inevitable'...in the lead up to a RWC final?

All questions, none of which anyone wants to answer, really.

[No 7&1/2]

Oh. The personal insults have come out.

[Cyril]

Miaow, no I don’t think it will affect the players. The whole squad seems in a really good headspace. Not to say SA can’t win of course. They’re a good side. England, however, are strong favourites.

Twitter, like all social media, is not a great barometer. All that matters in in the camp. Being in Japan, away from all the hullabaloo of a home game is actually a help.

It’s ok though, I am a weirdo

[LondonTiger]

Everyone who has posted more than 100,000 words on here is a weirdo.

[No 7&1/2]

I've seen people do that in a single post.

[Guest]

Counting not your strong point, 7.5.

What is?

It's just the vibe I'm picking up Cyril. Not just media, not just twitter, but they are decent barometers. It's also how, if I were an England fan, I might be feeling - the sense that, having played so well, if England perform SA cannot compete.

But if rugby has shown anything it's that 'streaks' are rare things when hitting top form - it's more likely to be streaky doing what Wales and England have done in the last 4 years, grinding it out and riding their luck at times, while also still playing good rugby.

It's really all down to SA. England will be more like they were v Oz than they were v NZ I presume due to the time and preparation stakes, but the big question is - do SA have a big gameplan having played England 4 times last year, and knowing they'd likely face NZ or England in the final?

Hard to say.

[No 7&1/2]

Just a joke at the length of posts miaow. Mods seem to ignore your personal jibes so just thought I'd tease one back in regards your posting style.
It's all down to SA sounds a bit like your criticism that (some) england fans feels it down to england though? I nore you think that sa are likely to win. Where do you think this is likely to be won or lost?

[Guest]

Just phrases of speech 7.5, wouldn't get too hung up about 'all' etc. The 'all' in this instance is whether SA have a gameplan specifically for England, as England did for NZ, or whether they were preparing for NZ again (which would be my guess). Don't think it contradicts the idea of English fans expecting victory.

SA likely to win? Not sure. If based on the prediction thread I went for an outside shot in the hope of climbing the table/getting a perfect score. You never know. Most likely scenario is England by 6-10 points I'd think.

Where will it be won or lost? Fast starts first of all - do England have another sub-3 minute try in them? Will they go for shock and awe? I'd expect they will from the first set piece opportunity they get, but SA won't be as naive as NZ were to play in to their hands from kick off. If South Africa get a fast start it could be decisive - they're likely to just hoof it awkwardly downfield for England to field and run or kick it back. There is no tougher team to grind up the field - even by kicking it back and letting them kick it out to receive possession around halfway - than SA simply because of their size. They will be tough to break down and will slow it down, compete very well at the lineout (Wales threw everything to Tipuric and Moriarty (i think) at the front just to retain it), and might end up disrupting England at the set piece - if that happens, and SA have a lead to build on, it becomes a different game and one England might need to chase.

Aside from the obvious cliches - physicality, errors etc. - the areas where I think each team will profit is turnover ball for SA (and so scramble defence for England), and, by contrast, the phaseplays for England, particularly in midfield and outside the 13. I'm not really convinced by Am, and if Daly can come in to the line and add an extra body, Le Roux isn't a great last line of defence, nor are SA's wingers up to much either. That's 4 defensive players who have failings in some way - I think Am is big and strong but can be tricked in to biting in or just getting 'done' on the outside. With Tuilagi holding the inside defence and May/Watson/Daly hitting the line, England could carve SA up. Likewise, they might want to hang a few crossfield kicks on them as well, particularly Kolbe and Le Roux. For SA, it's obvious - turn over the ball, get it to the wingers in broken field asap, have Le Roux in there as the eyes, ears, hands, and boot supporting those runners and either receiving or giving the try scoring pass. Kolbe is electric and they look like they're relying on him to do what he did v NZ, but finish it off. Other than that - and I thnk they'll wait all game for an opportunity - it seems Faf has had his natural instincts curtailed (might just be a bluff) for the kicking game, so Pollard's gameplaying ability will be really tested. How he kicks from the tee might be crucial as well - he's had two immaculate performances in 4 years v Wales to knock us out, so if he repeats that, they stand a chance. Also, obviously, the bench late on: SA's bench is impressive, so is England's. It should be an 80 minute game. Could easily go to extra time.

[Taylorman]

I dont think Miaows wrong in saying most pundits and fans have England big favourites, the bookies certainly do.

As for affecting the team...less so youd hope.
We did see that pressure on the cricket team, they went in to that world cup red hot favourites and at home then stumbled through to some increasingly nervy wins to get to a final against the dark horse contender then really only managed to draw that to get the trophy. Pressure of expectation absolutely is a thing in sport.

But we havent seen any sign of that so far from england in this world cup. Theyve started strong and stayed strong,  maybe caught cold early against australia but soon overcame them then stepped up a gear for New Zealand. No signs of pressure, no media hounding them, no stories of a split dressing room, no tuilagi coming out in the press saying hes better at 12 etc.

Maybe the difference is they didn't come in to this as favourites and have only just gained that with the win over New Zealand. The off the park stuff has been excellent too, jones decision to pick the squad early seems to be part of some excellent man management.

They are on a roll, together and ful of confidence. No players under pressure for spots. So far I just done see any cracks. Of course there will be nerves and pressure going into the final but not the levels off stress we have seen send good sides into meltdown before.

Think of it more as belief than expectation

Fair to say that England are very firm favourites, theyve won every single match, including beating favourites and defenders NZ, with ease, why wouldnt they be?
South Africa lost to NZ, struggled initially versus Japan before putting them away then struggled versus a struggling Wales.
On that basis how can they not be firm favourites, practically nothing says they wont win this.
The only tangible thing I can think of is how England can regroup after the NZ win, and play a style that suits matching SA.
Eddie Jones said post match he's planned the NZ match for 2 and a bit years, so chances are, he has a week to plan for South Africa.
Thats the only thing remotely in SA's favour. That England havent done as much prep specifically for SA as they did NZ.
But in the course of planning for NZ they've created a side that should be capable of beating most sides, as they've showed so far.

Englands to lose. Simple as that. Nerves will play a part but lose this and it will certainly be seen as a choke. SA are not playing the best rugby at this tournament, maybe the second best...maybe.

By the way...good post GB, I think that captures the current situation well. SA are a good side, and will test England- as they should, they've got there the hard way, by winning unconvincingly, winning ugly. They'll be underdogs, and in sport that's a positive in many ways, sometimes the right ways. They could win, but they shouldn't.

[Guest]

Ok, so it's not just England fans...

[MightyQuin]

Hopefully an England win will put an end to Woodward banging on about 03.

[SecretFly]

Woodward in 2035:
"I remember when I was in the studio for the Great 2019 England win.  I remember it so clearly because really, my analysis of the first half was absolutely spot on.  And I heard later that Eddie Jones had the coverage on in the dressing room and shouted at his assistant coaches to shut up so that the players could listen to me.  I don't want to be immodest, but I think my analysis made the boys understand what they needed to do to regain the lead and push on.  
In truth, the 2019 win was probably my biggest achievement, even bigger than 03."

[Guest]

Hahaha.

That's one thing that's perhaps overlook, yeah. The 03 team might suddenly be getting a little worried about ther absolute guaranteed £10k+ a year from the after dinner circuit. Although not sure there are too many characters in this England team who would fit in - none leaping out? Perhaps Haskell can just use everyone else's stories and pretend he was in the squad.

[No 7&1/2]

It's not just englands who think england are favourites. You yourself have just said the likely result is 6 to 10 to england. That's all expect wrong to win means. Doesnt mean it's a certainty. I ho back to the fact if favourites at sport always won we would never watch it.
In terms of the breakdown the first 10 or so mins will be interesting to see how much either team push the ref. I feel with garces if you show him a good picture early he let's stuff go. Bot really that different from most refs. Shock and awe...well if you look at england generally when they have the ball they'll create chances. Whether that be from kick off or when they first get it. Quick starts are the first 20 min after all. I wouldn't really be bothered if we found ourselves behind at that point tbh. This pack will get field position to create chances.

[BamBam]

Hopefully an England win will put an end to Woodward banging on about 03.

Finally, a reason for everyone to support England

[Guest]

Difference between being favourites and expecting to win, 7.5.

[No 7&1/2]

Expecting something merely means its likely to happen. You've said you think its likely england are going to win in your opinion. Therefore you expect england to win. So no. Unless you mean something other than expect?

[No 7&1/2]

Would have preferred Owens to garces for the reason that we would have had back to back games with him rather than vice versa. Sa must have a slight advantage there.

[Guest]

There are degrees of likelihood/probability though, 7.5. This seems obvious enough...to most.

[No 7&1/2]

I'm finding it hard to respond to that tbh. Of course there is different likelihoods. I'd merely advise you to look up the meaning of expect.

[Cyril]

Hopefully an England win will put an end to Woodward banging on about 03.

Finally, a reason for everyone to support England

Indeed, in the words of SecretFly, “s’allabout de conta-nental, innit”.

At least I think that’s how he speaks

[Guest]

I'd advise you to grasp how 'more likely' is not the same as 'expect'. The pedant falls on his own sword...

[Cyril]

Miaow, you have stacked your opinions and predictions at every point in this World Cup to try and end up with ‘I told you so’.

At least mikey is honest.

[yappysnap]

It was interesting listening to the EngvNZ game with kiwi commentators. While they were generally very impressed with the English team, especially our backrow and Manu, they criticised Youngs quite heavily. In fact he was probably the only England player to be criticised by them.

They picked up on the fact he seemed tired pretty early in to the match, and struggled to keep up with the pace England wanted to play at, he was often late to rucks and caused a lot of issues for England by not being there to clear the ball quickly. They also mentioned his kicking was sometimes wonky and put England under pressure.

Going forward no9 seems the biggest area to work on, perhaps the final is a great opportunity for Spencer to show what he has got as Youngs, Heinz and Care all seem too old or just not good enough for this England team and where they want to be if they want to be the best.

[Sponsored content]