Eng v SA Match thread

[Digby]

This hasn't been a great week for people asking questions of the historian

[Mikey Brown]

Don't agree with all of it but there's some interesting bits and pieces in here as always.



And yes, the bit about Youngs did make me laugh.

[p/d]

SCW has nailed it. Nowt to do with a lightweight back row but going to the WC with powder puff props known for their ball handling rather than scrummaging- added to which we were One light in numbers - then sending Cole & Marler to do a Laurel and Hardy routine at a mid week press conference.

Oh, and than damn coach trip. Apparently Owen looked rushed and in a state of confusion at the coin toss

Build Eddie up, until we lose.

[Puja]

SCW has nailed it. Nowt to do with a lightweight back row but going to the WC with powder puff props known for their ball handling rather than scrummaging- added to which we were One light in numbers - then sending Cole & Marler to do a Laurel and Hardy routine at a mid week press conference.

Oh, and than damn coach trip. Apparently Owen looked rushed and in a state of confusion at the coin toss

Build Eddie up, until we lose.

Sinckler is a powder puff prop not known for his scrummaging ability?

Puja

[p/d]

SCW has nailed it. Nowt to do with a lightweight back row but going to the WC with powder puff props known for their ball handling rather than scrummaging- added to which we were One light in numbers - then sending Cole & Marler to do a Laurel and Hardy routine at a mid week press conference.

Oh, and than damn coach trip. Apparently Owen looked rushed and in a state of confusion at the coin toss

Build Eddie up, until we lose.

Sinckler is a powder puff prop not known for his scrummaging ability?

Puja

Perhaps not quite what the legend that is Clive said. But in his words..............

I defer to my scrummaging guru with England, Phil Keith-Roach, in all things when it comes to scrummaging. He is the most knowledgeable person in that area and was my scrum coach in 2003.

Phil had been warning me for a long time that England were going down the wrong route at scrum time in placing too much emphasis on ball-handling props at the expense of hardcore scrummaging props.

He had looked at the World Cup draw and concluded that if England were going to be champions they would have to beat South Africa. That worried him.

He told me the Boks would pick three complete international front rows, with the six props all being the most powerful scrummaging props available. He was right. Furthermore, they backed that up by picking four world-class locks, all of them powerful scrummagers.

Phil was invited to make his views known to Eddie but somehow his message didn’t get through. England were a long way down the route of basing their pack on all-singing, all-dancing running props — Kyle Sinckler, Ellis Genge and Mako Vunipola.

The hardcore scrummagers —particularly Harry Williams and Nick Schonert — gradually disappeared from the equation.

England then made the tactical decision to go with five props not six, believing Joe Marler could cover both tighthead and loosehead. On top of that came key injuries.

Dylan Hartley was an immensely strong scrummaging hooker whose value as a player was constantly underestimated and when he failed to recover from his knee injury that changed the balance and scrummaging ability significantly. Meanwhile, Mako had been injured all summer and was short of match fitness. He looked fast enough around the park but pure scrummaging strength only comes after a run of games.

It was a precarious situation for England accentuated by taking just five props.

Look at that 31 now and the minimal roles played by Rory McConnochie, Jack Nowell and Joe Cokanasiga and you wonder why at least one of those was not sacrificed for the more pressing need of another frontline tighthead prop.

England got this badly wrong and they need to have a rethink with their front-row strategy.

Against many teams in the world you can get away with it and your mobile props look terrific running around but against a team like South Africa you will get found out.

Regardless of him being injured after a couple of minutes, the Boks had already targeted Sinckler, who they believe is a moderate scrummager. He might yet develop into a much stronger scrummaging unit but he is not the complete package yet.

[Puja]

SCW has nailed it. Nowt to do with a lightweight back row but going to the WC with powder puff props known for their ball handling rather than scrummaging- added to which we were One light in numbers - then sending Cole & Marler to do a Laurel and Hardy routine at a mid week press conference.

Oh, and than damn coach trip. Apparently Owen looked rushed and in a state of confusion at the coin toss

Build Eddie up, until we lose.

Sinckler is a powder puff prop not known for his scrummaging ability?

Puja

Perhaps not quite what the legend that is Clive said. But in his words..............

I defer to my scrummaging guru with England, Phil Keith-Roach, in all things when it comes to scrummaging. He is the most knowledgeable person in that area and was my scrum coach in 2003.

Phil had been warning me for a long time that England were going down the wrong route at scrum time in placing too much emphasis on ball-handling props at the expense of hardcore scrummaging props.

He had looked at the World Cup draw and concluded that if England were going to be champions they would have to beat South Africa. That worried him.

He told me the Boks would pick three complete international front rows, with the six props all being the most powerful scrummaging props available. He was right. Furthermore, they backed that up by picking four world-class locks, all of them powerful scrummagers.

Phil was invited to make his views known to Eddie but somehow his message didn’t get through. England were a long way down the route of basing their pack on all-singing, all-dancing running props — Kyle Sinckler, Ellis Genge and Mako Vunipola.

The hardcore scrummagers —particularly Harry Williams and Nick Schonert — gradually disappeared from the equation.

England then made the tactical decision to go with five props not six, believing Joe Marler could cover both tighthead and loosehead. On top of that came key injuries.

Dylan Hartley was an immensely strong scrummaging hooker whose value as a player was constantly underestimated and when he failed to recover from his knee injury that changed the balance and scrummaging ability significantly. Meanwhile, Mako had been injured all summer and was short of match fitness. He looked fast enough around the park but pure scrummaging strength only comes after a run of games.

It was a precarious situation for England accentuated by taking just five props.

Look at that 31 now and the minimal roles played by Rory McConnochie, Jack Nowell and Joe Cokanasiga and you wonder why at least one of those was not sacrificed for the more pressing need of another frontline tighthead prop.

England got this badly wrong and they need to have a rethink with their front-row strategy.

Against many teams in the world you can get away with it and your mobile props look terrific running around but against a team like South Africa you will get found out.

Regardless of him being injured after a couple of minutes, the Boks had already targeted Sinckler, who they believe is a moderate scrummager. He might yet develop into a much stronger scrummaging unit but he is not the complete package yet.

His point is generally good, but undermined by the risible suggestion of Harry Williams as a "hardcore scrummager". I can only imagine what Mtawarira would have made of Williams. Lunch, possibly.

Schonert's a better shout, but hampered by the fact that he's a good scrummager, not great, yet deeply average elsewhere. It's like jngf's pining for a 20st behemoth lock - if we had great scrummagers that were ignored, then fair enough, but we picked what we had and, while I agree that we should have had a third tighthead, bringing Harry f*cking Williams to Japan would not have changed the final one whit.

Puja

[loudnconfident]

Sinckler is a powder puff prop not known for his scrummaging ability?

Puja

Perhaps not quite what the legend that is Clive said. But in his words..............

I defer to my scrummaging guru with England, Phil Keith-Roach, in all things when it comes to scrummaging. He is the most knowledgeable person in that area and was my scrum coach in 2003.

[deleted]

Regardless of him being injured after a couple of minutes, the Boks had already targeted Sinckler, who they believe is a moderate scrummager. He might yet develop into a much stronger scrummaging unit but he is not the complete package yet.

His point is generally good, but undermined by the risible suggestion of Harry Williams as a "hardcore scrummager". I can only imagine what Mtawarira would have made of Williams. Lunch, possibly.

Schonert's a better shout, but hampered by the fact that he's a good scrummager, not great, yet deeply average elsewhere. It's like jngf's pining for a 20st behemoth lock - if we had great scrummagers that were ignored, then fair enough, but we picked what we had and, while I agree that we should have had a third tighthead, bringing Harry f*cking Williams to Japan would not have changed the final one whit.

Puja

That's a big "regardless" <emph mine>. Losing KS 2 minutes in was a serious blow. I wonder how many other teams would have handled that, esp. against SA who concentrated on scrummaging? And SA did'nt smash Wales (or any other team with an entire front row) in the scrum, did they?

[Beasties]

Eddie wouldn't even have picked Williams for the final anyway. And we didn't lose the final because Cole isn't the player he was. It was a factor yes but SCW seems to be ignoring the rest of the shitstorm.

[p/d]

Eddie wouldn't even have picked Williams for the final anyway. And we didn't lose the final because Cole isn't the player he was. It was a factor yes but SCW seems to be ignoring the rest of the shitstorm.

It's just typical Clive. Just another article that gave him the opportunity to mention 2003

This is what he wrote before the game..

'The packs are well matched at scrum-time and they possess the two best lineouts in the tournament. But I believe England have the edge in the back row, both with the tackling of Sam Underhill and Tom Curry and the forwards' collective ability to win turnover ball.'

[morepork]

SCW is just such a lazy cliche of a commentator/critic.

[Banquo]

Sinckler is a powder puff prop not known for his scrummaging ability?

Puja

Perhaps not quite what the legend that is Clive said. But in his words..............

I defer to my scrummaging guru with England, Phil Keith-Roach, in all things when it comes to scrummaging. He is the most knowledgeable person in that area and was my scrum coach in 2003.

Phil had been warning me for a long time that England were going down the wrong route at scrum time in placing too much emphasis on ball-handling props at the expense of hardcore scrummaging props.

He had looked at the World Cup draw and concluded that if England were going to be champions they would have to beat South Africa. That worried him.

He told me the Boks would pick three complete international front rows, with the six props all being the most powerful scrummaging props available. He was right. Furthermore, they backed that up by picking four world-class locks, all of them powerful scrummagers.

Phil was invited to make his views known to Eddie but somehow his message didn’t get through. England were a long way down the route of basing their pack on all-singing, all-dancing running props — Kyle Sinckler, Ellis Genge and Mako Vunipola.

The hardcore scrummagers —particularly Harry Williams and Nick Schonert — gradually disappeared from the equation.

England then made the tactical decision to go with five props not six, believing Joe Marler could cover both tighthead and loosehead. On top of that came key injuries.

Dylan Hartley was an immensely strong scrummaging hooker whose value as a player was constantly underestimated and when he failed to recover from his knee injury that changed the balance and scrummaging ability significantly. Meanwhile, Mako had been injured all summer and was short of match fitness. He looked fast enough around the park but pure scrummaging strength only comes after a run of games.

It was a precarious situation for England accentuated by taking just five props.

Look at that 31 now and the minimal roles played by Rory McConnochie, Jack Nowell and Joe Cokanasiga and you wonder why at least one of those was not sacrificed for the more pressing need of another frontline tighthead prop.

England got this badly wrong and they need to have a rethink with their front-row strategy.

Against many teams in the world you can get away with it and your mobile props look terrific running around but against a team like South Africa you will get found out.

Regardless of him being injured after a couple of minutes, the Boks had already targeted Sinckler, who they believe is a moderate scrummager. He might yet develop into a much stronger scrummaging unit but he is not the complete package yet.

His point is generally good, but undermined by the risible suggestion of Harry Williams as a "hardcore scrummager". I can only imagine what Mtawarira would have made of Williams. Lunch, possibly.

Schonert's a better shout, but hampered by the fact that he's a good scrummager, not great, yet deeply average elsewhere. It's like jngf's pining for a 20st behemoth lock - if we had great scrummagers that were ignored, then fair enough, but we picked what we had and, while I agree that we should have had a third tighthead, bringing Harry f*cking Williams to Japan would not have changed the final one whit.

Puja

In the clips PSDT was packing behind Mtawarira, but this might have been because those were to the left of the pitch and thus packing down on the blind side as it were. Did anyone spot whether he was always packing down behind the loose-head? He would add a lot of pressure going through Mtawarira, and would certainly confirm their plan was always to attack the tight head hard.

[twitchy]

I wish we had won the WC if only because we wouldn't have to hear from woodward again.

[p/d]

I wish we had won the WC if only because we wouldn't have to hear from woodward again.

You are probably too young to remember, but back in 2003 he lead us to a WC win then dropped off the radar. I believe he came out of retirement and wrote a book about his journey, titled: 'The Unsung Hero'

[Mikey Brown]

SCW has nailed it. Nowt to do with a lightweight back row but going to the WC with powder puff props known for their ball handling rather than scrummaging- added to which we were One light in numbers - then sending Cole & Marler to do a Laurel and Hardy routine at a mid week press conference.

Oh, and than damn coach trip. Apparently Owen looked rushed and in a state of confusion at the coin toss

Build Eddie up, until we lose.

Sinckler is a powder puff prop not known for his scrummaging ability?

Puja

I really thought that was p/d voicing his own opinion there and he's just gone a bit KK.

Am I imaging it or was a lot of the talk throughout the RWC that The Beast was a spent force?

[p/d]

Don't agree with all of it but there's some interesting bits and pieces in here as always.



And yes, the bit about Youngs did make me laugh.

I actually think the guy - annoying voice aside - nailed it.

The; 'world class coaches, and Cheika' made me laugh