RugbyRebels

Everything Mikey has said. I’d add that every time I’ve seen him play for Bath and England he’s looked bloody powerful.

Wimpy lineout nerd. Classic.

Beasties wrote:I really don't think you have to do much more analysis than the glaring fact that we simply didn't turn up. Quite why that was I have no idea and I'm sure no one inc Eddie knows why either. Obv there's gonna be a huge amount of head scratching in the coming weeks but I'll say it again, our team beats theirs 6 times out of 10. I don't buy the idea that they are a more powerful team than us, why doesn't someone ask NZ that question?

What they do have is a more basic gameplan than us which may have been one factor of many on the day, and they executed it well, as did we in the semi. I don't think there's that much wrong with our team other than the baffling non-appearance on the day. It needs a bit of tinkering rather the engine and gearbox taking out. I'm not keen on Eddie continuing but I can see the logic in keeping him on, I'd just want it to be four years not two. He's achieved a lot (inc that semi performance) but I do wonder how his relationship with the players will be in the coming years.

The question is why we didnt turn up. How can a team hit the heights one week and then fail to deliver the next? That intrigues me and its something we need to understand.
I think its reasonable to ask what Jones did in the week and how he managed the team. Maybe he missed a trick or two, maybe he didnt get his messaging right. And just maybe his players collectively failed to handle the occasion. It can happen despite the very best preparation.
His record cannot be gainsaid. Its very impressive and this England team have come on a great deal under his management.
If things start to unravel over the course of 2020, then we will have to look elsewhere, but i think he's earned the chance to take the team forward.

fivepointer wrote:

Beasties wrote:I really don't think you have to do much more analysis than the glaring fact that we simply didn't turn up. Quite why that was I have no idea and I'm sure no one inc Eddie knows why either. Obv there's gonna be a huge amount of head scratching in the coming weeks but I'll say it again, our team beats theirs 6 times out of 10. I don't buy the idea that they are a more powerful team than us, why doesn't someone ask NZ that question?

What they do have is a more basic gameplan than us which may have been one factor of many on the day, and they executed it well, as did we in the semi. I don't think there's that much wrong with our team other than the baffling non-appearance on the day. It needs a bit of tinkering rather the engine and gearbox taking out. I'm not keen on Eddie continuing but I can see the logic in keeping him on, I'd just want it to be four years not two. He's achieved a lot (inc that semi performance) but I do wonder how his relationship with the players will be in the coming years.

The question is why we didnt turn up. How can a team hit the heights one week and then fail to deliver the next? That intrigues me and its something we need to understand.
I think its reasonable to ask what Jones did in the week and how he managed the team. Maybe he missed a trick or two, maybe he didnt get his messaging right. And just maybe his players collectively failed to handle the occasion. It can happen despite the very best preparation.
His record cannot be gainsaid. Its very impressive and this England team have come on a great deal under his management.
If things start to unravel over the course of 2020, then we will have to look elsewhere, but i think he's earned the chance to take the team forward.

Nerves.

Plain and simple. The biggest game of their lives and they bottled it.

We weren’t on our game. SA were and were good enough to exploit our weaknesses.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:

Beasties wrote:I really don't think you have to do much more analysis than the glaring fact that we simply didn't turn up. Quite why that was I have no idea and I'm sure no one inc Eddie knows why either. Obv there's gonna be a huge amount of head scratching in the coming weeks but I'll say it again, our team beats theirs 6 times out of 10. I don't buy the idea that they are a more powerful team than us, why doesn't someone ask NZ that question?

What they do have is a more basic gameplan than us which may have been one factor of many on the day, and they executed it well, as did we in the semi. I don't think there's that much wrong with our team other than the baffling non-appearance on the day. It needs a bit of tinkering rather the engine and gearbox taking out. I'm not keen on Eddie continuing but I can see the logic in keeping him on, I'd just want it to be four years not two. He's achieved a lot (inc that semi performance) but I do wonder how his relationship with the players will be in the coming years.

The question is why we didnt turn up. How can a team hit the heights one week and then fail to deliver the next? That intrigues me and its something we need to understand.
I think its reasonable to ask what Jones did in the week and how he managed the team. Maybe he missed a trick or two, maybe he didnt get his messaging right. And just maybe his players collectively failed to handle the occasion. It can happen despite the very best preparation.
His record cannot be gainsaid. Its very impressive and this England team have come on a great deal under his management.
If things start to unravel over the course of 2020, then we will have to look elsewhere, but i think he's earned the chance to take the team forward.

Nerves.

This was the issue, not the size disparity - Eng have beaten SA comfortably in the past, Jap managed it too.
I'm certain if Eng had just scraped through vs NZ his head would ruled his heart and Marler/Kruis would have been in - but how could he change anything after last week ?..
The painful part for EJ would have been his double gamble for TH (only 2 on the plane, one of whom was not in his prime, not the match squad for most of the season and not normally an 80 min. man at this level..whither Williams..), for KS to navigate his form, fitness and temperament to stunning effect to the final and then crash after 2 mins. in the final must have jolted the whole team.
Not sure how isolated the team was to the usual media hype, Royal letters etc but the attitude and focus should have been indistinguishable from last week.
( They done good to this point, let it be said)

Tigersman wrote:I would say this RWC is a big success.
People was talking about this team being a Quarter final team pre competition.

England IMO was never going to beat that fired up Boks team, and we don't have the personnel to do so currently in England.
We don't have forwards with the size and the power yet.

Itoje (6ft 5, 18 stone 2) v Etzebeth (6ft8 19 stone 5)
Lawes (6 ft 7, 18 stone 2) v LdJ (6ft9 19 stone 10)
Underhill (6ft 1, 16 stone 10) v Kolisi (6ft 2, 16 stone 7)
Curry (6ft 2, 17 stone 1) v PsdT (6ft 6, 18stone 13)
Vunipola (6ft 3, 20st 7) v Vermeulen (6ft 4, 18st 6)

That was where the game was lost.
Now Eddie made a mistake picking Mako and Lawes ahead of Marler and Kruis.

But regardless England currently don't have the size in the pack IMO.

Now NZ can beat SA normally without size yes, BUT no way could NZ have beaten SA in that final also.

The promising thing is we do have players with that size coming up
Isiekwe (Who needs to start more for Saracens or move IMO), Hill, Dombrandt, are all big lads who are very athletic also for example.

I personally don't feel England ever had the right player base to beat that South African pack on the day, regardless of the coach.

Where did these figures come from and how did England manage to have a 20 Kg weight advantage in the pack? Somebody, somewhere is telling porkies.
Hard to believe that Curry is over 17 st. Or that Pieter Steph, who may be 6ft 6, but is a bit of a bean pole is really just one pound short of 19st, and significantly heavier than Vermulen.
As for heights - good lifting/timing is probably more important in the lineout that absolute height.
Also there were no complaints about England's physicality when they humped a bigger New Zealand pack in the semi final.
The bottom line is that England were bullied by a Springbok pack of roughly the same size who were able to apply their power better, and were just more up for it on the day.

Spiffy wrote:

Tigersman wrote:I would say this RWC is a big success.
People was talking about this team being a Quarter final team pre competition.

England IMO was never going to beat that fired up Boks team, and we don't have the personnel to do so currently in England.
We don't have forwards with the size and the power yet.

Itoje (6ft 5, 18 stone 2) v Etzebeth (6ft8 19 stone 5)
Lawes (6 ft 7, 18 stone 2) v LdJ (6ft9 19 stone 10)
Underhill (6ft 1, 16 stone 10) v Kolisi (6ft 2, 16 stone 7)
Curry (6ft 2, 17 stone 1) v PsdT (6ft 6, 18stone 13)
Vunipola (6ft 3, 20st 7) v Vermeulen (6ft 4, 18st 6)

That was where the game was lost.
Now Eddie made a mistake picking Mako and Lawes ahead of Marler and Kruis.

But regardless England currently don't have the size in the pack IMO.

Now NZ can beat SA normally without size yes, BUT no way could NZ have beaten SA in that final also.

The promising thing is we do have players with that size coming up
Isiekwe (Who needs to start more for Saracens or move IMO), Hill, Dombrandt, are all big lads who are very athletic also for example.

I personally don't feel England ever had the right player base to beat that South African pack on the day, regardless of the coach.

Where did these figures come from and how did England manage to have a 20 Kg weight advantage in the pack? Somebody, somewhere is telling porkies.
Hard to believe that Curry is over 17 st. Or that Pieter Steph, who may be 6ft 6, but is a bit of a bean pole is really just one pound short of 19st, and significantly heavier than Vermulen.
As for heights - good lifting/timing is probably more important in the lineout that absolute height.
Also there were no complaints about England's physicality when they humped a bigger New Zealand pack in the semi final.
The bottom line is that England were bullied by a Springbok pack of roughly the same size who were able to apply their power better, and were just more up for it on the day.

Beaten 1 to 15. Pack was bullied, technically and physically, the backs compounded the issue with an error strewn performance, their playmakers played ours off the park and when we needed experience and leaders to deploy damage limitation we were found wanting.

Yes we exceeded our expectations but at the end of it we crumbled, in a dramatic and worrying way. Not quite as disappointing as the 40 mins v Scotland but a bloody tough watch nonetheless

p/d wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Tigersman wrote:I would say this RWC is a big success.
People was talking about this team being a Quarter final team pre competition.

England IMO was never going to beat that fired up Boks team, and we don't have the personnel to do so currently in England.
We don't have forwards with the size and the power yet.

Itoje (6ft 5, 18 stone 2) v Etzebeth (6ft8 19 stone 5)
Lawes (6 ft 7, 18 stone 2) v LdJ (6ft9 19 stone 10)
Underhill (6ft 1, 16 stone 10) v Kolisi (6ft 2, 16 stone 7)
Curry (6ft 2, 17 stone 1) v PsdT (6ft 6, 18stone 13)
Vunipola (6ft 3, 20st 7) v Vermeulen (6ft 4, 18st 6)

That was where the game was lost.
Now Eddie made a mistake picking Mako and Lawes ahead of Marler and Kruis.

But regardless England currently don't have the size in the pack IMO.

Now NZ can beat SA normally without size yes, BUT no way could NZ have beaten SA in that final also.

The promising thing is we do have players with that size coming up
Isiekwe (Who needs to start more for Saracens or move IMO), Hill, Dombrandt, are all big lads who are very athletic also for example.

I personally don't feel England ever had the right player base to beat that South African pack on the day, regardless of the coach.

Where did these figures come from and how did England manage to have a 20 Kg weight advantage in the pack? Somebody, somewhere is telling porkies.
Hard to believe that Curry is over 17 st. Or that Pieter Steph, who may be 6ft 6, but is a bit of a bean pole is really just one pound short of 19st, and significantly heavier than Vermulen.
As for heights - good lifting/timing is probably more important in the lineout that absolute height.
Also there were no complaints about England's physicality when they humped a bigger New Zealand pack in the semi final.
The bottom line is that England were bullied by a Springbok pack of roughly the same size who were able to apply their power better, and were just more up for it on the day.

Beaten 1 to 15. Pack was bullied, technically and physically, the backs compounded the issue with an error strewn performance, their playmakers played ours off the park and when we needed experience and leaders to deploy damage limitation we were found wanting.

Yes we exceeded our expectations but at the end of it we crumbled, in a dramatic and worrying way. Not quite as disappointing as the 40 mins v Scotland but a bloody tough watch nonetheless

Yup Spiff and yup p/d.

I've not watched the game back but my impression was that Youngs box kicking consistently went 10-15m too far, every single time. When you're desperately trying to get a toehold in a game wtf could he not see some adjustment was needed just to get a challenge in? It was far from the only aspect of crap execution but was exasperating enough on its own at the time.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:

Beasties wrote:I really don't think you have to do much more analysis than the glaring fact that we simply didn't turn up. Quite why that was I have no idea and I'm sure no one inc Eddie knows why either. Obv there's gonna be a huge amount of head scratching in the coming weeks but I'll say it again, our team beats theirs 6 times out of 10. I don't buy the idea that they are a more powerful team than us, why doesn't someone ask NZ that question?

What they do have is a more basic gameplan than us which may have been one factor of many on the day, and they executed it well, as did we in the semi. I don't think there's that much wrong with our team other than the baffling non-appearance on the day. It needs a bit of tinkering rather the engine and gearbox taking out. I'm not keen on Eddie continuing but I can see the logic in keeping him on, I'd just want it to be four years not two. He's achieved a lot (inc that semi performance) but I do wonder how his relationship with the players will be in the coming years.

The question is why we didnt turn up. How can a team hit the heights one week and then fail to deliver the next? That intrigues me and its something we need to understand.
I think its reasonable to ask what Jones did in the week and how he managed the team. Maybe he missed a trick or two, maybe he didnt get his messaging right. And just maybe his players collectively failed to handle the occasion. It can happen despite the very best preparation.
His record cannot be gainsaid. Its very impressive and this England team have come on a great deal under his management.
If things start to unravel over the course of 2020, then we will have to look elsewhere, but i think he's earned the chance to take the team forward.

Nerves.

Very likely, though the history of sport is littered with teams who hitting a real high point one week fail to reach those same heights just a week later, and this is especially critical in a sport such as rugby which is do dependent on emotion during play

I think Jones might have a point we don't know why, we may never know. I was unsure about even putting the players into training with the upcoming physical test of SA, but I wouldn't like to claim with hindsight that'd have made any difference

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:
The question is why we didnt turn up. How can a team hit the heights one week and then fail to deliver the next? That intrigues me and its something we need to understand.
I think its reasonable to ask what Jones did in the week and how he managed the team. Maybe he missed a trick or two, maybe he didnt get his messaging right. And just maybe his players collectively failed to handle the occasion. It can happen despite the very best preparation.
His record cannot be gainsaid. Its very impressive and this England team have come on a great deal under his management.
If things start to unravel over the course of 2020, then we will have to look elsewhere, but i think he's earned the chance to take the team forward.

Nerves.

Very likely, though the history of sport is littered with teams who hitting a real high point one week fail to reach those same heights just a week later, and this is especially critical in a sport such as rugby which is do dependent on emotion during play

I think Jones might have a point we don't know why, we may never know. I was unsure about even putting the players into training with the upcoming physical test of SA, but I wouldn't like to claim with hindsight that'd have made any difference

Been having a bit of a reflection on the game today after the emotion has died down.

Overall I think South Africa were a bad match up for us (and Erasmus got the upper hand on Eddie and Co):

- They knew we didn't want defensive lineouts so they hung 3/4 players back in the backfield which made us play in our own half / 22 in order to try to commit men before finding grass.

- The scrum issues made that much worse because then every time we knocked on in our own half we were looking at conceding 3 points so it meant we had to play very safe "one out" rugby. Whether Erasmus got lucky here with Sinck's injury is impossible to tell but overall I think they were super focussed on the scrum to force us into this style of play.

- The conservative rugby we played really plays into South Africa's hands and they just smothered us at the breakdown (they'd also had Garces as ref twice in the tournament so were well attuned to towing the line to his more liberal style). Marx coming on also helped them hugely in this effort.

- We lost the aerial battle so weren't able to use box kicking as an exit route.

This left us playing largely in our own half with very safe rugby and slow ruck speed - essentially playing the game at South Africa's pace, and caught between two stools.

This was exacerbated by poor execution - Youngs throwing to touch off our set play, Ford kicking out on the full, Farrell passing to the floor behind our sticks, Billy's pass off his scrum charge and Lawes with his dumb early pen and poor hands at the lineout. There were two particular momentum swinging moments in the game for me - our failure to score a try from our 20+ phase assault on their line (again, there were elements of poor execution) and going into half time 6 rather than 3 points down. These to me strike me as a team frustrated that their game plan is not working rather than nerves.

Eddie said he had been looking at horses for courses but then I wonder if he changed his mind after the NZ game - I definitely think this would have been a game for Marler, Kruis and Wilson to start.

A really bold move by Eddie would have been to have brought off Mako and Lawes in the first half for Marler and Kruis so we could at least get parity in the scrum and then play more adventurous rugby (but without Sinckler we would have had Billy as our sole ball handling forward in the midfield pod). Regardless I think we should have varied our kicking game a bit and challenged at the lineout more as another way to force the Boks to commit fewer men to the backfield.

Eddie is clearly brilliant at devising a game plan (as shown by the tactical domination of Oz and NZ) but I think a major development area for the next World Cup cycle is developing the players to be able to adjust the plan during the game in reaction to an event Eddie can't have planned for (e.g. the scrum issues).

SixAndAHalf wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Nerves.

Very likely, though the history of sport is littered with teams who hitting a real high point one week fail to reach those same heights just a week later, and this is especially critical in a sport such as rugby which is do dependent on emotion during play

I think Jones might have a point we don't know why, we may never know. I was unsure about even putting the players into training with the upcoming physical test of SA, but I wouldn't like to claim with hindsight that'd have made any difference

Been having a bit of a reflection on the game today after the emotion has died down.

Overall I think South Africa were a bad match up for us (and Erasmus got the upper hand on Eddie and Co):

- They knew we didn't want defensive lineouts so they hung 3/4 players back in the backfield which made us play in our own half / 22 in order to try to commit men before finding grass.

- The scrum issues made that much worse because then every time we knocked on in our own half we were looking at conceding 3 points so it meant we had to play very safe "one out" rugby. Whether Erasmus got lucky here with Sinck's injury is impossible to tell but overall I think they were super focussed on the scrum to force us into this style of play.

- The conservative rugby we played really plays into South Africa's hands and they just smothered us at the breakdown (they'd also had Garces as ref twice in the tournament so were well attuned to towing the line to his more liberal style). Marx coming on also helped them hugely in this effort.

- We lost the aerial battle so weren't able to use box kicking as an exit route.

This left us playing largely in our own half with very safe rugby and slow ruck speed - essentially playing the game at South Africa's pace, and caught between two stools.

This was exacerbated by poor execution - Youngs throwing to touch off our set play, Ford kicking out on the full, Farrell passing to the floor behind our sticks, Billy's pass off his scrum charge and Lawes with his dumb early pen and poor hands at the lineout. There were two particular momentum swinging moments in the game for me - our failure to score a try from our 20+ phase assault on their line (again, there were elements of poor execution) and going into half time 6 rather than 3 points down. These to me strike me as a team frustrated that their game plan is not working rather than nerves.

Eddie said he had been looking at horses for courses but then I wonder if he changed his mind after the NZ game - I definitely think this would have been a game for Marler, Kruis and Wilson to start.

A really bold move by Eddie would have been to have brought off Mako and Lawes in the first half for Marler and Kruis so we could at least get parity in the scrum and then play more adventurous rugby (but without Sinckler we would have had Billy as our sole ball handling forward in the midfield pod). Regardless I think we should have varied our kicking game a bit and challenged at the lineout more as another way to force the Boks to commit fewer men to the backfield.

Eddie is clearly brilliant at devising a game plan (as shown by the tactical domination of Oz and NZ) but I think a major development area for the next World Cup cycle is developing the players to be able to adjust the plan during the game in reaction to an event Eddie can't have planned for (e.g. the scrum issues).

I still think the early exchanges, which fuelled SA's self belief, clearly demonstrated England's nerves- game plan working or otherwise isn't apparent over one or five passages of play. The poor execution in those 10 minutes or so set the tone (you reference knock-ons and poor passes, and Lawes failing to even attempt to roll away); it was obvious we were going to struggle the whole game based on that period. I think the occasion simply got to us, and its hard to rattle a side like SA once they have their tails up- we didn't have the tools to do so, esp once the scrum was getting hammered.

I do get that it might have been different had we come away with 7 rather than 3 after Garces madly long advantage (as he explained it anyway!), but they had the wood on us all game in the loose and the scrum, and nerves played a big part in giving the SA even more belief that their claustrophobia plan would work, and a big part in falling behind on the scoreboard early, basic errors leading to penalties/scrums (which was the same as penalties ). Maybe starting Marler et al might have made a difference, but that's hindsight- we were aiming to play a faster game from the outset, but self sabotaged a bit from the outset, and that was enough.

Yep. Easy to say we could have picked the tight 5 for set-piece dominance but I wonder if NZ’s selection of Barrett at 6 against us put more of a doubt in EJ’s mind on that sort of approach? It was roundly viewed as a mistake to go with the bigger, slower, set-piece player after doing their thing so well in the previous game.

Managed to get back to some sort of normality now.

For me - there has been a discernible difference in one or two performances over the past couple of years.

I am discounting the dead cat bounce Eddie brought about and whitewash of OZ away (all good stuff btw).

There have been a handful of games, notably against Ireland a couple of times and the All Blacks where the performance was such that no team in the world would have lived with us.

For me - my reaction after the semi-final was not so much about the beating history whole all blacks aura thing - we've done that before. it was the level of performance in general play.

In these handfuls of games we've witnessed:
Immense line speed in defence closing running options for the opposition.
A palpable uplift in the weight of tackle knocking opposition players backwards far more than you would expect.
An increase in leg power/drive/power running of individual players in contact.
A general faster-paced game (I know everyone slags off Young's ponderance).
Very aggressive, head-on dominant tackling, repeatedly demoralising the opposition.
A kick chase, kick pass game that worked.

Apart from the kick chase/pass point - when I type it all down like that I'm tempted to say the reasons for that game not being reproduced (traditionally) would be blamed on being overtrained to near match day and leggy or emotionally/mentally wrong on match day.

I’m still of the view that England were underpowered in the back 5 of the scrum compared to their bok counterparts (Billy and Underhill excepted) - the glaring mismatch was between Du Toit and Curry (6 inches in height and nearly 4 stone in bodyweight) - and whilst I’d be happy to see UnderCurry continue it would be with Underhill moving to blindside and focussing on what he does well big hits and big powerful carrying with Curry reverting to openside to focus on his natural strengths of being a linkman supporting the backs.I simply don’t agree that he’s the ‘bigger’ carrier of the two from seeing how they’ve both played this tournament. That’s taking nothing away from how successful they’ve been as a combo - it’s just with this role swap they could progress a further level upwards imo.

Mikey Brown wrote:Yep. Easy to say we could have picked the tight 5 for set-piece dominance but I wonder if NZ’s selection of Barrett at 6 against us put more of a doubt in EJ’s mind on that sort of approach? It was roundly viewed as a mistake to go with the bigger, slower, set-piece player after doing their thing so well in the previous game.

I would say Barrett at 6 was far less convincing and less mobile ( and much less adept at the breakdown) than the similarly sized Piet Steph Du Toit and that the England selectors may have overlooked this in, in keeping Curry at 6?

I feel you’re looking at this like a game of top trumps again. It’s not 15 simultaneous 1-on-1 battles over who is taller/heavier.

I sort of get where you’re coming from with them having a big aggressive pack but so do we. We smashed NZ in the forwards. Ireland aren’t statistically a very big pack but they’ve done similar to many bigger teams than them.

For the record I don’t see Curry’s best position as 6. But the flankers simply swapping shirts wouldn’t have changed a thing on Saturday.

Mikey Brown wrote:I feel you’re looking at this like a game of top trumps again. It’s not 15 simultaneous 1-on-1 battles over who is taller/heavier.

I sort of get where you’re coming from with them having a big aggressive pack but so do we. We smashed NZ in the forwards. Ireland aren’t statistically a very big pack but they’ve done similar to many bigger teams than them.

For the record I don’t see Curry’s best position as 6. But the flankers simply swapping shirts wouldn’t have changed a thing on Saturday.

Plus, we can't outpower South Africa. We do not have 19-20st locks sitting around doing nothing, certainly not any of international quality, and aching after them doesn't help when they don't exist. Rather than selecting a playing style and bemoaning the fact that none of our players fit it, it would make more sense to play to what we have.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I feel you’re looking at this like a game of top trumps again. It’s not 15 simultaneous 1-on-1 battles over who is taller/heavier.

I sort of get where you’re coming from with them having a big aggressive pack but so do we. We smashed NZ in the forwards. Ireland aren’t statistically a very big pack but they’ve done similar to many bigger teams than them.

For the record I don’t see Curry’s best position as 6. But the flankers simply swapping shirts wouldn’t have changed a thing on Saturday.

Plus, we can't outpower South Africa. We do not have 19-20st locks sitting around doing nothing, certainly not any of international quality, and aching after them doesn't help when they don't exist. Rather than selecting a playing style and bemoaning the fact that none of our players fit it, it would make more sense to play to what we have.

Puja

I take your point but given the statistical size advantage of the English rugby playing population I’m a bit surprised we haven’t been able to breed one or two big ones reaching the requisite standard

Have you been to South Africa?

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote: Plus, we can't outpower South Africa. We do not have 19-20st locks sitting around doing nothing, certainly not any of international quality, and aching after them doesn't help when they don't exist. Rather than selecting a playing style and bemoaning the fact that none of our players fit it, it would make more sense to play to what we have.

Puja

I take your point but given the statistical size advantage of the English rugby playing population I’m a bit surprised we haven’t been able to breed one or two big ones reaching the requisite standard

What statistical size advantage? Also, even if it does surprise you, it's still a fact that we haven't got any. Better to play the hand we have than bemoan the one that we'd like to have.

Puja

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote: Plus, we can't outpower South Africa. We do not have 19-20st locks sitting around doing nothing, certainly not any of international quality, and aching after them doesn't help when they don't exist. Rather than selecting a playing style and bemoaning the fact that none of our players fit it, it would make more sense to play to what we have.

Puja

I take your point but given the statistical size advantage of the English rugby playing population I’m a bit surprised we haven’t been able to breed one or two big ones reaching the requisite standard

What statistical size advantage? Also, even if it does surprise you, it's still a fact that we haven't got any. Better to play the hand we have than bemoan the one that we'd like to have.

Puja

Ewers

p/d wrote:

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:
I take your point but given the statistical size advantage of the English rugby playing population I’m a bit surprised we haven’t been able to breed one or two big ones reaching the requisite standard

What statistical size advantage? Also, even if it does surprise you, it's still a fact that we haven't got any. Better to play the hand we have than bemoan the one that we'd like to have.

Puja

Ewers

You mean the Zimbabwean?

Stom wrote:

p/d wrote:

Puja wrote:
What statistical size advantage? Also, even if it does surprise you, it's still a fact that we haven't got any. Better to play the hand we have than bemoan the one that we'd like to have.

Puja

Ewers

You mean the Zimbabwean?

That’s the fella. And then there is his sidekick down at Exeter and the big fella at Sale. Always Brad to tighten up the 12 berth.

That's not a statistical size advantage, it's a selection bias.