Eng v SA Match thread

[p/d]

Outplayed and out coached. Too many players disappeared and/or played poorly.

Credit to the Boks- physicality and intensity, very few errors and great defence.

This. No more needs to be said really. Better side won, no quibbles there. Just not sure how our coaching staff thought SA might play.

[Mellsblue]

Well done to South Africa - they thoroughly deserved their victory and their was only one team in it for most of the match.

South Africa’s pack outmuscled ours particularly in back 5 - England have relied on athletic but relatively light weight locks - I said this on more than one occasion but we need to find one of two players with the shear size and physicality of Ezebeth, de Jäger and Snyman - plus look at the mismatch in blindside flankers - du Toit 6’ 7” 18 stone plus - compared to Curry 6’1” and barely 16 stone. I’ll make an exception here for Underhill whose been immense. this tournament - he may not be England’s new Neil Back but he’s certainly our new Peter Winterbottom!

Are you seriously implying Curry isn't good enough? Because he isn't built like a lock?

I think his point about being out muscled is spot on, and it also told in the scrums. If you want to play SA with a lighter pack, you have to move them around, make no mistakes, and be absolutely nailed on with your tackling and intensity; with the ball that passage of play near their line showed what you can do with some quick feet and good hands. However, we weren’t accurate, we didn’t tackle with fervour consistently, and we made momentum giving mistakes; SA by contrast were relatively error free. Nerves played a big part.

Our pack was 20kg heavier.

[Oakboy]

Outplayed and out coached. Too many players disappeared and/or played poorly.

Credit to the Boks- physicality and intensity, very few errors and great defence.

This. No more needs to be said really. Better side won, no quibbles there. Just not sure how our coaching staff thought SA might play.

Yes, they did nothing that they don't normally do.

[jngf]

Much is made of the massive SA pack and their physicality, but the England pack outweighed them by 20 Kg (maybe most of down to Billy). So it not just a matter of bulk, it's how the players use it.

That’s just it - I think Billy and the props account for a lot of that bulk and the our second rows are comparatively short and lightweight (only Lawes is the height of SA blindside ) - In this match we need a bigger blindside than Curry in retrospect.

I simply don't get this SA are bigger than us theme, especially when it's not true. They were just better than us today.

As Puja said a couple of days ago, our team prob beats them more than 5 times out of 10. Today wasn't one of those days. We were terrible and didn't turn up, not at any point. They did and played their limited gameplan to perfection. Even WLR didn't have a shocker.

Hang on both SA starting locks were 6’8” and their blindside was 6’7” our starting locks were 6’5” (Itoje) and 6’7” (Lawes) - their blindside was 6’7” ours was 6’1” - so in the context of locks and blindside, which bit of them being bigger than us is not true?

[Banquo]

Much is made of the massive SA pack and their physicality, but the England pack outweighed them by 20 Kg (maybe most of down to Billy). So it not just a matter of bulk, it's how the players use it.

That’s just it - I think Billy and the props account for a lot of that bulk and the our second rows are comparatively short and lightweight (only Lawes is the height of SA blindside ) - In this match we needed a bigger blindside than Curry in retrospect.

And yet we lost the scrum battle. And yet the lighter Marler did better than the heavier Mako at scrum time. Maybe it’s not all about his heavy you are.

It’s how you apply the mass though, and they applied it better for sure. You could see the power going through the front rows. I wouldn’t have changed our team, but they did need to be right on it with full intensity from start to finish, and they simply weren’t; then SAs game will roll over you.

[Adam_P]

I will be mighty peeved if that is not Ben Youngs' final game for England. We really need a complete refresh at scrum half, been putting up with his passing for far too long now.

You could’ve posted this two years ago and still been spot on.

Very true, although I think we do have a greater number of very promising youngsters ready to step up now

[Banquo]

Are you seriously implying Curry isn't good enough? Because he isn't built like a lock?

I think his point about being out muscled is spot on, and it also told in the scrums. If you want to play SA with a lighter pack, you have to move them around, make no mistakes, and be absolutely nailed on with your tackling and intensity; with the ball that passage of play near their line showed what you can do with some quick feet and good hands. However, we weren’t accurate, we didn’t tackle with fervour consistently, and we made momentum giving mistakes; SA by contrast were relatively error free. Nerves played a big part.

Our pack was 20kg heavier.

I said outmuscled, are you disagreeing. But I should have been better informed when saying lighter pack by reference to the back row/back 5 say).

Even if you believe the stats btw. As I said, I would have played the same pack as Eddie, but they needed to play better.

[Beasties]

No one's arguing Banquo, mass does not equal attitude as you rightly point out.

[p/d]

Having flown the poor fucker ou, surely Spencer was worth 15 minutes. And which chump dropped out on the full?

[Beasties]

That’s just it - I think Billy and the props account for a lot of that bulk and the our second rows are comparatively short and lightweight (only Lawes is the height of SA blindside ) - In this match we need a bigger blindside than Curry in retrospect.

I simply don't get this SA are bigger than us theme, especially when it's not true. They were just better than us today.

As Puja said a couple of days ago, our team prob beats them more than 5 times out of 10. Today wasn't one of those days. We were terrible and didn't turn up, not at any point. They did and played their limited gameplan to perfection. Even WLR didn't have a shocker.

Hang on both SA starting locks were 6’8” and their blindside was 6’7” our starting locks were 6’5” (Itoje) and 6’7” (Lawes) - their blindside was 6’7” ours was 6’1” - so in the context of locks and blindside, which bit of them being bigger than us is not true?

Our pack was 920kg theirs was 900kg.

It's all about attitude and intensity. They mullered us on both counts.

[MrK]

The not wearing the runners up medal

Understandable, petulant or disrespectful ?

[Banquo]

The not wearing the runners up medal

Understandable, petulant or disrespectful ?

Yes

[jngf]

We need to review our second row balance - rather than looking at smallish locks like Ewels as the back up for our existing four imo it’s time we found our next guy with the size of Simon Shaw - Courtney said it all in the Dove advert ‘things aren’t always going to go to plan’

Also Curry and Hill together might be used a bit more selectively rather than the default regardless of opposition.

[p/d]

The not wearing the runners up medal

Understandable, petulant or disrespectful ?

All 3

[Spiffy]

No one's arguing Banquo, mass does not equal attitude as you rightly point out.

For England today, mass=mess

[fivepointer]

I simply don't get this SA are bigger than us theme, especially when it's not true. They were just better than us today.

As Puja said a couple of days ago, our team prob beats them more than 5 times out of 10. Today wasn't one of those days. We were terrible and didn't turn up, not at any point. They did and played their limited gameplan to perfection. Even WLR didn't have a shocker.

Hang on both SA starting locks were 6’8” and their blindside was 6’7” our starting locks were 6’5” (Itoje) and 6’7” (Lawes) - their blindside was 6’7” ours was 6’1” - so in the context of locks and blindside, which bit of them being bigger than us is not true?

Our pack was 920kg theirs was 900kg.

It's all about attitude and intensity. They mullered us on both counts.

Simply this. SA didnt win just because of their size and physicality. If we think it was a case of losing out due to one factor then we are going to blind ourselves to the very poor all round display we offered up.

[Mellsblue]

Wow. Japan’s crown prince looks like an ever bigger wet than yours.

*ours.

[p/d]

Shouldn’t let our backs off the hook, May aside they were dreadful.

[jngf]

I simply don't get this SA are bigger than us theme, especially when it's not true. They were just better than us today.

As Puja said a couple of days ago, our team prob beats them more than 5 times out of 10. Today wasn't one of those days. We were terrible and didn't turn up, not at any point. They did and played their limited gameplan to perfection. Even WLR didn't have a shocker.

Hang on both SA starting locks were 6’8” and their blindside was 6’7” our starting locks were 6’5” (Itoje) and 6’7” (Lawes) - their blindside was 6’7” ours was 6’1” - so in the context of locks and blindside, which bit of them being bigger than us is not true?

Our pack was 920kg theirs was 900kg.

It's all about attitude and intensity. They mullered us on both counts.

I agree about attitude and intensity - SA looked hungrier on the day - you are right our pack was heavier overall but I still maintain our locks and blindside were comparatively small compared to theirs and in this match that was a weakness.

[Mellsblue]

That’s just it - I think Billy and the props account for a lot of that bulk and the our second rows are comparatively short and lightweight (only Lawes is the height of SA blindside ) - In this match we needed a bigger blindside than Curry in retrospect.

And yet we lost the scrum battle. And yet the lighter Marler did better than the heavier Mako at scrum time. Maybe it’s not all about his heavy you are.

It’s how you apply the mass though, and they applied it better for sure. You could see the power going through the front rows. I wouldn’t have changed our team, but they did need to be right on it with full intensity from start to finish, and they simply weren’t; then SAs game will roll over you.

Exactement, Monsieur.
In hindsight, I would’ve started Marler and I would almost always start Kruis.....not that I think it would’ve made a difference to the end result.

[Oakboy]

Shouldn’t let our backs off the hook, May aside they were dreadful.

Where was Tuilagi for the first 20 minutes?

[Mellsblue]

I think his point about being out muscled is spot on, and it also told in the scrums. If you want to play SA with a lighter pack, you have to move them around, make no mistakes, and be absolutely nailed on with your tackling and intensity; with the ball that passage of play near their line showed what you can do with some quick feet and good hands. However, we weren’t accurate, we didn’t tackle with fervour consistently, and we made momentum giving mistakes; SA by contrast were relatively error free. Nerves played a big part.

Our pack was 20kg heavier.

I said outmuscled, are you disagreeing. But I should have been better informed when saying lighter pack by reference to the back row/back 5 say).

Even if you believe the stats btw. As I said, I would have played the same pack as Eddie, but they needed to play better.

Was replying to bolded bit. As previous reply, I do agree with you that weight has little to do with it.

[Which Tyler]

Shouldn’t let our backs off the hook, May aside they were dreadful.

Thought both wingers stoodnup well TBH.
They were just on their own in doing so

[jngf]

Was a single player worth more than 4/10?

Underhill would get a 7 from me and Billy had one of his better games today. Tuillagi was anonymous though when we really needed him to be carrying like a trojan

[Mellsblue]

Shouldn’t let our backs off the hook, May aside they were dreadful.

Where was Tuilagi for the first 20 minutes?

Watching those inside lose the forward battle and throw terrible passes in panic.