[2014 EOYT] England vs South Africa

[Grizwald]

Clive Woodward talking a lot of sense in the post match commentary.

Samoa game being first-as it used to be in these Autumn tours (weakest/pacific team)? Would have been better but that's just clutching at straws....

The coaching staff really need to come under fire for this, plenty of talent to choose from it's just not being managed.

Someone said we need to decide 2 out of Robshaw/Wood/Success. Agree 100% with this I've come to like Robshaw a lot put but he and Wood are just too similar, and Robshaw being captain doesn't seem to give any other options a chance to look at unless he gets injured.

 

[Noodle]

you English guys see this from an English pov too much. "Farrell is the wrong pick", well he may've been initially 3 years ago, but now he's the guy with all the miles on him, he's the guy who's been through all those good 6N campaigns for England, he's been the dude taking the goal kicks, playing the full 80's, wearing the starting 10 when Eng beat the AB. Lancaster took a bet on him some years ago and he's certainly shown some good performances.

Us ? We've been trying out THIRTEEN different hb pairs. Just under Saint-André in 3 years we've had Plisson, Trinh-Duc, Beauxis, Talès, Lopez, Michalak (if I'm not forgetting someone..). Us fans are desperate for some stability. I understand there's a just point in between both 'extremes', while your situation isn't "extreme" though, actually quite regular.

And about the defeat: yeah it's a loss but England had good things to show. They took advantage the fk out of being up 15 vs 14 men and scored 2 tries with brutal intensity and pace. They looked very sharp and scored with ease on their last try to yet again stick to the score late in a game against top opposition.
Overall the attacking was flat out bad, but there were very high points. Scrum went well, own lineouts...but overall England just aren't on NZ or SA's level, but is that even to be expected ?? NZ, out of the question, but even SA ? Why should England be as good ?? What good reason ?

If he plays badly, why should they play him? Who cares how many games he has played if he is bad?

 

[Wendigo7]

I hate to say I told you so but, I said this would happen...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

One of the most telling things with Farrell is that they kept him on for a good 5 minutes after he injured himself. He was clearly struggling A LOT but they only took him off when he physically couldn't get back into his defensive position.

you English guys see this from an English pov too much. "Farrell is the wrong pick", well he may've been initially 3 years ago, but now he's the guy with all the miles on him, he's the guy who's been through all those good 6N campaigns for England, he's been the dude taking the goal kicks, playing the full 80's, wearing the starting 10 when Eng beat the AB. Lancaster took a bet on him some years ago and he's certainly shown some good performances.

Us ? We've been trying out THIRTEEN different hb pairs. Just under Saint-André in 3 years we've had Plisson, Trinh-Duc, Beauxis, Talès, Lopez, Michalak (if I'm not forgetting someone..). Us fans are desperate for some stability. I understand there's a just point in between both 'extremes', while your situation isn't "extreme" though, actually quite regular.

And about the defeat: yeah it's a loss but England had good things to show. They took advantage the fk out of being up 15 vs 14 men and scored 2 tries with brutal intensity and pace. They looked very sharp and scored with ease on their last try to yet again stick to the score late in a game against top opposition.
Overall the attacking was flat out bad, but there were very high points. Scrum went well, own lineouts...but overall England just aren't on NZ or SA's level, but is that even to be expected ?? NZ, out of the question, but even SA ? Why should England be as good ?? What good reason ? They've shown they can compete and that's the point I think. (yes, obviously England needs to be better at home a year away from the WC, I know..).

England fans looking at the England team from an England point of view? Shock horror!
What France does with their side is of no significance whatsoever.

 

[Peat]

you English guys see this from an English pov too much. "Farrell is the wrong pick", well he may've been initially 3 years ago, but now he's the guy with all the miles on him, he's the guy who's been through all those good 6N campaigns for England, he's been the dude taking the goal kicks, playing the full 80's, wearing the starting 10 when Eng beat the AB. Lancaster took a bet on him some years ago and he's certainly shown some good performances.

Us ? We've been trying out THIRTEEN different hb pairs. Just under Saint-André in 3 years we've had Plisson, Trinh-Duc, Beauxis, Talès, Lopez, Michalak (if I'm not forgetting someone..). Us fans are desperate for some stability. I understand there's a just point in between both 'extremes', while your situation isn't "extreme" though, actually quite regular.

And about the defeat: yeah it's a loss but England had good things to show. They took advantage the fk out of being up 15 vs 14 men and scored 2 tries with brutal intensity and pace. They looked very sharp and scored with ease on their last try to yet again stick to the score late in a game against top opposition.
Overall the attacking was flat out bad, but there were very high points. Scrum went well, own lineouts...but overall England just aren't on NZ or SA's level, but is that even to be expected ?? NZ, out of the question, but even SA ? Why should England be as good ?? What good reason ? They've shown they can compete and that's the point I think. (yes, obviously England needs to be better at home a year away from the WC, I know..).

I should probably reply to this after more thought, but...

England's resource level means the expectation will always be "Challenge the best". The size of our player, the amount of money we can chuck at player development, it gives us a big edge that we expect to see used.

And with all due respect, that wasn't the best. I think the South Africans (where are they?) would be the first to say they had some major injuries, have some big issues, and made some big mistakes. South Africa were there for the taking - and we couldn't manage it. And the reasons we couldn't manage it were the same reasons we have been losing big games and blowing tournaments for three years. Lancaster has had enough time to develop a team capable of meeting expectations and he's not doing it.

Do you think this is unfair? I'd say South Africa's level of performance made that game very winnable and England blew it.

And because it happened due to things we've seen time and again, talk of positives makes for cold comfort.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Cant wait to watch this game and talk you all down about Farrell.

Seriously we will agree on this. Because even if we mostly agree to disagree about fly-half selection, we can pretty much all agree that when your starting 10, who wasn't in form anyway, is having a shocker, and you've got a pretty exciting guy on the bench who could turn it around and needs the experience anyway.... it's a no brainer, some would say, to get your reserve 10 on the field sooner rather than later. Not Lancaster, though.

 

[Peat]

Seriously we will agree on this. Because even if we mostly agree to disagree about fly-half selection, we can pretty much all agree that when your starting 10, who wasn't in form anyway, is having a shocker, and you've got a pretty exciting guy on the bench who could turn it around and needs the experience anyway.... it's a no brainer, some would say, to get your reserve 10 on the field sooner rather than later. Not Lancaster, though.

Didn't they try to get him onto the field only for Fazlet to go "No mate" ?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Didn't they try to get him onto the field only for Fazlet to go "No mate" ?

Yes which had me outraged but this was already around the 60 minute mark and already wayyyyy to late.

 

[Crapspray]

Didn't they try to get him onto the field only for Fazlet to go "No mate" ?

I thought that was because the lineout was set and play was about to restart, not Farrell being petulant.

 

[Jbobo]

Wales haven't beaten SA for 60 years ? Australia once in 28 and almost 70 years since they beat NZ so I can't really see where you are coming from ?

England have beaten Wales once since 2011, how about that?

Plus we beat the Springboks in 1999. Do the maths.

Also, in regards to where the three teams (Eng, Ire, Wal) are in the pecking order. This -

I'll give you a chance to watch Wales v Fiji and then revisit that assessment.

 

[Arms In]

England have beaten Wales once since 2011, how about that?

Plus we beat the Springboks in 1999. Do the maths.

Scotland have a win against the Springboks from 2010. England and Wales have to look back further. England and Wales can both stay humble.

 

[Maverick1987]

England have beaten Wales once since 2011, how about that?

Plus we beat the Springboks in 1999. Do the maths.

That once was the last time though ..... If you want to start hand picking information you haven't beaten us for 1 year and 9 months . See we can all make things sound better if we try

Anyway enough of the bull****

My team for Australia would be

1. Marler
2. Webber
3. Wilson
4. Lawes
5. Attwood
6. Haskell
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan
9. ???????
10. Ford
11. Yarde or May (don't really mind)
12. Eastmond
13. Burrell
14. Roko/Watson (again don't mind)
15. Goode .... Haha jokes Brown obviously

16. Hartley
17. Mullan
18. Brookes (has impressed me no end)
19. Kitchener
20. Kvesic/Fraser
21. ???????
22. Myler
(Hopefully Farrell is injured and they can bring in Cipriani)
23. Depends on who is selected on wings

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I wouldn't have mentioned Wales if I'd known you guys would take it and run with it like a golden retriever!

Frankly both sides are in dire positions right now and up-manships regarding who hasn't beaten who in 40 years will not help those problems.

 

[Maverick1987]

I wouldn't have mentioned Wales if I'd known you guys would take it and run with it like a golden retriever!

Frankly both sides are in dire positions right now and up-manships regarding who hasn't beaten who in 40 years will not help those problems.

Agreed consider it forgotten by me ..

 

[Jbobo]

Erm, i didn't read your post Henry. The arrogance on this thread is hilarious. Trust the English to make this all about Wales when they get their Arses handed to them.

Almost certainly worse with a whole front row injured our best breakdown player, 2 centres a 2 locks and our best fly half day somewhere in sale ? If Wales had that many injuries they would lose to Japan again .....

Not be losing to the best 2 teams in the world by 5 points collectively .

Wales haven't beaten SA for 60 years ? Australia once in 28 and almost 70 years since they beat NZ so I can't really see where you are coming from ?

That once was the last time though ..... If you want to start hand picking information you haven't beaten us for 1 year and 9 months . See we can all make things sound better if we try

Anyway enough of the bull****

You're the one who started with the hand picked 'information' you utter twonk.

Dry your eyes boys

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Erm, i didn't read your post Henry. The arrogance on this thread is hilarious. Trust the English to make this all about Wales when they get their Arses handed to them.

Dry your eyes boys

Not helpful. My post actually suggested we're worse than you guys, but in any case it was a comparison made in jest.

 

[Jbobo]

Not helpful. My post actually suggested we're worse than you guys, but in any case it was a comparison made in jest.

Read my posts. I said look at how Wales played today, I would not say we're better than England right now and certainly not Ireland.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

On topic please.

 

[j-dawg]

England were shi!t, SA were shi!t the ref was shi!t.

Here, endeth the discussion.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Bottom line, we have to compete properly at the breakdown and we have to execute properly. We cannot win purely by trying to play territory or by defending for long periods and hoping to kick enough penalties to outside the Boks.

Bingo. Perfect analysis of what England did wrong before the fame even kicked off