England going forward

[jngf]

By Statistical size advantage - which I could have admittedly explained better - I was referring to population of rugby players per nation not that English players are physically bigger per capita - which compared to say Saffas French/Basques and Polynesians - they obviously aren’t - though I was hoping there were a couple of monsters coming through the academies at least.

[Banquo]

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.

IMO, they don't play in the straitjacketed you way you categorise 6's and 7's; Curry packs down at 6, but still links a lot more than Underhill, whilst carrying more (and previously I think you or someone else said Underhill's carrying wasn't very good....mind, its hugely improved in the last year, well done Eddie); Underhill consistently puts in a lot more tackles than Curry, including the trademark big hits. So what has changed in their roles since 'swapping numbers' ? Not too much, other than Curry carrying more, and being used more in the lineout. Underhill is used more selectively and to great effect as a carrier. I think they are used in a quite sophisticated way, and slightly differently depending on oppo. That said, we weren't sophisticated enough v SA, and got done on the tackle line in both attack (all game) and defence (sporadically all game, when Faf wasn't kicking).

Where I do have some sympathy with your big, bigger, biggest argument is the power going through the SA props come scrum time- the role of flankers can be underestimated in this.

[Epaminondas Pules]

By Statistical size advantage - which I could have admittedly explained better - I was referring to population of rugby players per nation not that English players are physically bigger per capita - which compared to say Saffas French/Basques and Polynesians - they obviously aren’t - though I was hoping there were a couple of monsters coming through the academies at least.

Munga, Martin, Tuima, Clement, Ilione all big lads in the lock / back row. Though more importantly ball players! Tuima arguably the least rounded, but biggest of the bunch. Though why we want monsters is a little beyond me. Size is good but not the be all and end all.

[Timbo]

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.

Good analysis both of you, and broadly matches up with my views on the game.

My question; given the scrum, the refereeing style, Sinks early injury, their aerial dominance and given the way the teams matched up in the physical exchanges, what could we have done tactically to get into the game? (Once the game has started, rather than selections).

[Puja]

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.

Good analysis both of you, and broadly matches up with my views on the game.

My question; given the scrum, the refereeing style, Sinks early injury, their aerial dominance and given the way the teams matched up in the physical exchanges, what could we have done tactically to get into the game? (Once the game has started, rather than selections).

Not knocked on would've been a good start. Move Watson/Slade to full-back once it became clear that Daly was being targetted and not having a good day. Stop kicking the ball back to SA and instead use slow ball to get everyone set and start working their defence with set plays like you would off a scrum - Ford taking to the line with a choice of two heavy runners on the pop and Farrell lurking. Once it became clear that they were waiting for runners off 9, have runners off 10. Use the kick pass if they get narrow, especially putting May up on Kolbe. Cut to short lineouts to obviate their height advantage (like we did against NZ).

Basically, take a deep breath, calm the f*ck down and play to where our strengths lay, rather than trying to force things and giving them another scrum to get a penalty from.

Puja

[Banquo]

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.

Good analysis both of you, and broadly matches up with my views on the game.

My question; given the scrum, the refereeing style, Sinks early injury, their aerial dominance and given the way the teams matched up in the physical exchanges, what could we have done tactically to get into the game? (Once the game has started, rather than selections).

Not knocked on would've been a good start. Move Watson/Slade to full-back once it became clear that Daly was being targetted and not having a good day. Stop kicking the ball back to SA and instead use slow ball to get everyone set and start working their defence with set plays like you would off a scrum - Ford taking to the line with a choice of two heavy runners on the pop and Farrell lurking. Once it became clear that they were waiting for runners off 9, have runners off 10. Use the kick pass if they get narrow, especially putting May up on Kolbe. Cut to short lineouts to obviate their height advantage (like we did against NZ).

Basically, take a deep breath, calm the f*ck down and play to where our strengths lay, rather than trying to force things and giving them another scrum to get a penalty from.

Puja

Some or all of that. But really our problem, outside the scrum, was the tackle line in both attack and defence (a lot of what you describe ball in hand is only doable off quick ruck ball, and you only get that if you get over the tackle and hopefully gainline); from an attacking point of view, the passage of play that lead up to the siege on their goal line was a clue- our carriers were briefly crossing the gainline consistently by smaller more mobile players using footwork to get to shoulders/arms, rather than full on, and mixing that up with offloads at the tackle line; unfortunately when we got within a couple of yards of the line we fell back into running into walls, alongside Youngs 'dither and delay' . But I think it showed we could outwit the physical overpowering we were getting rest of game. The other bit we've kind of forgotten, is that SA attacked a bit more cleverly than against Wales, mixing it up and not simply kicking (they kicked 24 times v us, 40 times v Wales) and generally outwitting our tight defence to give their half backs more time to drive us back, or the likes of De Allende to pick his lines, and we weren't able to slow down ball as much as they did to n us, and after about an hour when the scrummaging had taken its toll, they found it even easier to get and keep quick ball; think we should have adapted our defence to maybe make sure our big guys were matched to theirs, and let Curry and Underhill roam about and selectively disrupt- even to the point of ceding the tackle line and trying to isolate the carrier....and possibly try more counter-rucks. Frankly though, its too painful to watch back, so it may be we were trying these things in defence, but was too excited to pick up at the time. Anyway, it didn't seem like we were trying different stuff in the first half, barring the 'siege'.

[p/d]

I might not be remembering correctly but didn’t NZ take an absolute battering in the first quarter v SA. Plus Pollard missed his first kick at goal.

Not sure if SA confidence disappeared but NZ weathered the storm, adapted and had SA big men chasing shadows.

In our defence I think we were caught cold by SA whilst NZ were well prepared and - having faced them twice - knew what was coming.

[padprop]

Couple things I'd like to chip in on:

The scrum issues for me be summarised pretty easily, the beast is an attacking scrummager and Mako is not. We saw that SA were happy to keep the ball in for 10+ seconds because they knew that Mako was going to cause their tighthead no issues, which let the beast take his time in giving Cole a torrid time. As soon as Marler came on the dynamic completely changed, as he started attacking Malherbe and then Koch, and it became a neutral contest, with Marler winning some penalties.

I haven't rewatched the game but I reject the idea that outside the scrum we were overpowered. I don't think the saffas got much hay in their carries in the forwards and we had a period towards the end of the second half of making some good yardage.

The scrum built the lead and as soon as we were six points behind we should have started going for the corner, as it was clear we were never going to win the game in a penalty kick ping-pong match with their scrum dominance. But alas, we would kick the 3, end up in our half, struggle to get out, concede a scrum penalty and rinse repeat.

[padprop]

Also did anyone realise we had 4 outside centres on by the end of the match? That must be a record.

[SixAndAHalf]

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.

Good analysis both of you, and broadly matches up with my views on the game.

My question; given the scrum, the refereeing style, Sinks early injury, their aerial dominance and given the way the teams matched up in the physical exchanges, what could we have done tactically to get into the game? (Once the game has started, rather than selections).

This comes with a heavy dose of hindsight but I think I would have made the changes of Marler and Kruis for Mako and Lawes in the first half (perhaps with a cheeky wink to Marler to go down with an injured calf in the final quarter...)

The loss of Mako's handling alongside losing Sincks would be painful but perhaps you could bring George into the middle of the field pods to compensate?

With a more competitive scrum we could have varied our play and taken more risks - chip kicks to keep them honest in terms of linespeed and taking more risks in contact with offloads. We could have tried to keep the ball alive a bit more (a la the first try vs NZ) as soon as a ruck was formed they were able to slow the ball down (mainly legally in my opinion).

I don't know if we needed a competitive scrum to do this but when we did have the ball we would have also benefitted from a player running a hard / cutback line to keep their defence honest - a lot of our play was just going side to side.

[JellyHead]

Good analysis both of you, and broadly matches up with my views on the game.

My question; given the scrum, the refereeing style, Sinks early injury, their aerial dominance and given the way the teams matched up in the physical exchanges, what could we have done tactically to get into the game? (Once the game has started, rather than selections).

I wanted them to swap Manu and Farrell. The way their defense was flying up any running from 12 would have had a wave through.

[Beasties]

Couple things I'd like to chip in on:

The scrum issues for me be summarised pretty easily, the beast is an attacking scrummager and Mako is not. We saw that SA were happy to keep the ball in for 10+ seconds because they knew that Mako was going to cause their tighthead no issues, which let the beast take his time in giving Cole a torrid time. As soon as Marler came on the dynamic completely changed, as he started attacking Malherbe and then Koch, and it became a neutral contest, with Marler winning some penalties.

I haven't rewatched the game but I reject the idea that outside the scrum we were overpowered. I don't think the saffas got much hay in their carries in the forwards and we had a period towards the end of the second half of making some good yardage.

The scrum built the lead and as soon as we were six points behind we should have started going for the corner, as it was clear we were never going to win the game in a penalty kick ping-pong match with their scrum dominance. But alas, we would kick the 3, end up in our half, struggle to get out, concede a scrum penalty and rinse repeat.

This. Mako's not the poor scrummager he used to be but as you say he doesn't really trouble anyone especially. He does seem to struggle still against THs who are happy to drop every scrum, thereby giving the ref free reign to start the tombola. The problem though was that if you take Mako off you've then lost two of your big ball carriers (Sinckler gone) so how do you remedy that? Marler did actually carry well when he came on so it worked out luckily in that regard.

Although I've never been a massive fan of Cole I was really surprised at just how he was being dominated over and over again. I'm guessing Lawes was behind him (not rewatched yet) and that that was one of the things Eddie got wrong on the day.

[Banquo]

I might not be remembering correctly but didn’t NZ take an absolute battering in the first quarter v SA. Plus Pollard missed his first kick at goal.

Not sure if SA confidence disappeared but NZ weathered the storm, adapted and had SA big men chasing shadows.

In our defence I think we were caught cold by SA whilst NZ were well prepared and - having faced them twice - knew what was coming.

..what, like we hadn't seen them play before (and how they've played for years)?

[Banquo]

Couple things I'd like to chip in on:

The scrum issues for me be summarised pretty easily, the beast is an attacking scrummager and Mako is not. We saw that SA were happy to keep the ball in for 10+ seconds because they knew that Mako was going to cause their tighthead no issues, which let the beast take his time in giving Cole a torrid time. As soon as Marler came on the dynamic completely changed, as he started attacking Malherbe and then Koch, and it became a neutral contest, with Marler winning some penalties.

I haven't rewatched the game but I reject the idea that outside the scrum we were overpowered. I don't think the saffas got much hay in their carries in the forwards and we had a period towards the end of the second half of making some good yardage.

The scrum built the lead and as soon as we were six points behind we should have started going for the corner, as it was clear we were never going to win the game in a penalty kick ping-pong match with their scrum dominance. But alas, we would kick the 3, end up in our half, struggle to get out, concede a scrum penalty and rinse repeat.

Take a look at carrying yardages for one- that's partly why we were struggling to get out of our half. We did hang on in defence for an hour up front, but even then they were getting better quality ball which allowed them to dictate the pace.

Good insight on the scrummaging tho.

[Banquo]

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.

Good analysis both of you, and broadly matches up with my views on the game.

My question; given the scrum, the refereeing style, Sinks early injury, their aerial dominance and given the way the teams matched up in the physical exchanges, what could we have done tactically to get into the game? (Once the game has started, rather than selections).

This comes with a heavy dose of hindsight but I think I would have made the changes of Marler and Kruis for Mako and Lawes in the first half (perhaps with a cheeky wink to Marler to go down with an injured calf in the final quarter...)

The loss of Mako's handling alongside losing Sincks would be painful but perhaps you could bring George into the middle of the field pods to compensate?

With a more competitive scrum we could have varied our play and taken more risks - chip kicks to keep them honest in terms of linespeed and taking more risks in contact with offloads. We could have tried to keep the ball alive a bit more (a la the first try vs NZ) as soon as a ruck was formed they were able to slow the ball down (mainly legally in my opinion).

I don't know if we needed a competitive scrum to do this but when we did have the ball we would have also benefitted from a player running a hard / cutback line to keep their defence honest - a lot of our play was just going side to side.

..or diagonally backwards; we got no change in the carry, apart from when we briefly used some footwork from the forwards to attack gaps rather head down carrying. Very hard to go forwards if the pack aren't um, going forwards.

[Mellsblue]

Couple things I'd like to chip in on:

The scrum issues for me be summarised pretty easily, the beast is an attacking scrummager and Mako is not. We saw that SA were happy to keep the ball in for 10+ seconds because they knew that Mako was going to cause their tighthead no issues, which let the beast take his time in giving Cole a torrid time. As soon as Marler came on the dynamic completely changed, as he started attacking Malherbe and then Koch, and it became a neutral contest, with Marler winning some penalties.

I haven't rewatched the game but I reject the idea that outside the scrum we were overpowered. I don't think the saffas got much hay in their carries in the forwards and we had a period towards the end of the second half of making some good yardage.

The scrum built the lead and as soon as we were six points behind we should have started going for the corner, as it was clear we were never going to win the game in a penalty kick ping-pong match with their scrum dominance. But alas, we would kick the 3, end up in our half, struggle to get out, concede a scrum penalty and rinse repeat.

Take a look at carrying yardages for one- that's partly why we were struggling to get out of our half. We did hang on in defence for an hour up front, but even then they were getting better quality ball which allowed them to dictate the pace.

Good insight on the scrummaging tho.

I saw a stat the other day that sums it up:
Eng’s average gain per carry was the lowest in RWC history. The previous lowest was Wales v SA in the semifinal.....

[Banquo]

Couple things I'd like to chip in on:

The scrum issues for me be summarised pretty easily, the beast is an attacking scrummager and Mako is not. We saw that SA were happy to keep the ball in for 10+ seconds because they knew that Mako was going to cause their tighthead no issues, which let the beast take his time in giving Cole a torrid time. As soon as Marler came on the dynamic completely changed, as he started attacking Malherbe and then Koch, and it became a neutral contest, with Marler winning some penalties.

I haven't rewatched the game but I reject the idea that outside the scrum we were overpowered. I don't think the saffas got much hay in their carries in the forwards and we had a period towards the end of the second half of making some good yardage.

The scrum built the lead and as soon as we were six points behind we should have started going for the corner, as it was clear we were never going to win the game in a penalty kick ping-pong match with their scrum dominance. But alas, we would kick the 3, end up in our half, struggle to get out, concede a scrum penalty and rinse repeat.

This. Mako's not the poor scrummager he used to be but as you say he doesn't really trouble anyone especially. He does seem to struggle still against THs who are happy to drop every scrum, thereby giving the ref free reign to start the tombola. The problem though was that if you take Mako off you've then lost two of your big ball carriers (Sinckler gone) so how do you remedy that? Marler did actually carry well when he came on so it worked out luckily in that regard.

Although I've never been a massive fan of Cole I was really surprised at just how he was being dominated over and over again. I'm guessing Lawes was behind him (not rewatched yet) and that that was one of the things Eddie got wrong on the day.

Plus you have two props having to do an hour and near 80 minutes.

[Banquo]

Couple things I'd like to chip in on:

The scrum issues for me be summarised pretty easily, the beast is an attacking scrummager and Mako is not. We saw that SA were happy to keep the ball in for 10+ seconds because they knew that Mako was going to cause their tighthead no issues, which let the beast take his time in giving Cole a torrid time. As soon as Marler came on the dynamic completely changed, as he started attacking Malherbe and then Koch, and it became a neutral contest, with Marler winning some penalties.

I haven't rewatched the game but I reject the idea that outside the scrum we were overpowered. I don't think the saffas got much hay in their carries in the forwards and we had a period towards the end of the second half of making some good yardage.

The scrum built the lead and as soon as we were six points behind we should have started going for the corner, as it was clear we were never going to win the game in a penalty kick ping-pong match with their scrum dominance. But alas, we would kick the 3, end up in our half, struggle to get out, concede a scrum penalty and rinse repeat.

Take a look at carrying yardages for one- that's partly why we were struggling to get out of our half. We did hang on in defence for an hour up front, but even then they were getting better quality ball which allowed them to dictate the pace.

Good insight on the scrummaging tho.

I saw a stat the other day that sums it up:
Eng’s average gain per carry was the lowest in RWC history. The previous lowest was Wales v SA in the semifinal.....

maybe that's a clue and some kudos to SA. Wales solution was to double down on kicking - 41 to SA's 40.

[Digby]

It's why I wasn't entirely joking when pondering after the event if Cockanasiga might not have been a better option at 12. Some teams are happy to play to try and speed up play and then use that speed to win the contact, we want to win the contact before we play, and thus SA are a tricky prospect for us. Granted losing Sinckler really hurt our carrying options and made it easier for SA to look after Billy and Mako

[p/d]

Kudos to SA indeed. But the knock-ons, kicks out on the full and blocking was all our skill set .... not to mention deliberately passing to the crowd when 12 million people could see there was no player to pass to

[p/d]

It's why I wasn't entirely joking when pondering after the event if Cockanasiga might not have been a better option at 12. Some teams are happy to play to try and speed up play and then use that speed to win the contact, we want to win the contact before we play, and thus SA are a tricky prospect for us. Granted losing Sinckler really hurt our carrying options and made it easier for SA to look after Billy and Mako

The Coka WC journey is an interesting one full stop. If Pre tournament you knew we had to face SA, you would have put money on him being in the 23

[Mellsblue]

The entire back three journey is an interesting one. From dropping Daly in the deep end at fullback a year after proving he’s a world class wing, and then sticking with him despite obvious and fundamental flaws, through to the makeup of the World Cup squad.

[Mikey Brown]

It's why I wasn't entirely joking when pondering after the event if Cockanasiga might not have been a better option at 12. Some teams are happy to play to try and speed up play and then use that speed to win the contact, we want to win the contact before we play, and thus SA are a tricky prospect for us. Granted losing Sinckler really hurt our carrying options and made it easier for SA to look after Billy and Mako

The Coka WC journey is an interesting one full stop. If Pre tournament you knew we had to face SA, you would have put money on him being in the 23

If only we’d known before the tournament that Nowell was an injury doubt and not worth wasting 2 (!) squad spaces on.

[Digby]

It's why I wasn't entirely joking when pondering after the event if Cockanasiga might not have been a better option at 12. Some teams are happy to play to try and speed up play and then use that speed to win the contact, we want to win the contact before we play, and thus SA are a tricky prospect for us. Granted losing Sinckler really hurt our carrying options and made it easier for SA to look after Billy and Mako

The Coka WC journey is an interesting one full stop. If Pre tournament you knew we had to face SA, you would have put money on him being in the 23

If only we’d known before the tournament that Nowell was an injury doubt and not worth wasting 2 (!) squad spaces on.

Without doubt Cockanasiga has some defensive issues. But it feels like a shot we never fired to not have him involved. Although in advance of the game I wouldn't have been remotely thinking stick him at 12, that's only a thought with hindsight when things across the board couldn't have gone much worse, so why not to something daft.

[Scrumhead]

It's why I wasn't entirely joking when pondering after the event if Cockanasiga might not have been a better option at 12. Some teams are happy to play to try and speed up play and then use that speed to win the contact, we want to win the contact before we play, and thus SA are a tricky prospect for us. Granted losing Sinckler really hurt our carrying options and made it easier for SA to look after Billy and Mako

Why on Earth would we have played Cokanasiga at 12?! Sorry, but that is a laughably naive suggestion.

I appreciate that he has the physical attributes to potentially perform that role on paper, but to ask a player to take on a role they’ve never played at senior level in a World Cup final would have been a colossal, not to mention ridiculous gamble.

We didn’t lose the game because we didn’t have a big crash ball 12. As it happened we had very little attacking ball full stop, so he would have spent more of the game being targeted for his unfamiliarity with the defensive positioning needed at 12.