RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote: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.

Banquo wrote:

Danno wrote:

jngf wrote: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.

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote: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.

Beasties wrote:

jngf wrote:

Spiffy wrote:
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.

Mellsblue wrote:

jngf wrote:

Spiffy wrote:
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.

Mellsblue wrote:

Adam_P wrote: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.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Danno wrote:
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.

jngf wrote:

Beasties wrote:

jngf wrote:
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?

MrK wrote:The not wearing the runners up medal

Understandable, petulant or disrespectful ?

MrK wrote:The not wearing the runners up medal

Understandable, petulant or disrespectful ?

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

Beasties wrote:

jngf wrote:

Beasties wrote: 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.

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

Beasties wrote:

jngf wrote:

Beasties wrote: 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.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

jngf wrote:
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.

p/d wrote:Shouldn’t let our backs off the hook, May aside they were dreadful.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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.

p/d wrote:Shouldn’t let our backs off the hook, May aside they were dreadful.

Scrumhead wrote:Was a single player worth more than 4/10?

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote:Shouldn’t let our backs off the hook, May aside they were dreadful.

Where was Tuilagi for the first 20 minutes?