[2018 November Tests] England v South Africa (3/10/18)

[Ragey Erasmus]

Having a lighter pack isn't such an issue if you play to deal with that. Unfortunately Jones' makes England play tactics that a team with a dominant pack would use in situations where we really aren't dominant. He chooses a lightweight pack playing heavyweight bashing rugby.

Speed can nullify a lot of the weight and even turn it against them. Unfortunately Their are glaciers that move faster than youngs can pass and the team as a whole refuse to ever accept they are 2nd best in the scrum, no matter how badly they get destroyed. We ALWAYS keep the ball in.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Are you guys seriously considering playing Rhodes?? He was a penalty machine when he was in SA and he was a bit mediocre. One thing he did well was tackling, even if his hits was sometimes a bit high/late.

The only benefit that he might bring is that he might understand our lineout calls in Afrikaans.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Underhill and curry are plenty physical,
They're not gonna excel in running into brick walls but we shouldn't be sending our backrowers exclusively into brick walls anyway

No, but they'll have brick outhouses running straight AT them.

Physical dominance is still a part of the game and its one where we've been badly lacking. Underhill's a dominant tackler at club level, will that translate against some of the biggest beasts around?

- Itoje is probably our most physically gifted lock and Kruis is one of the biggest, but in terms of sheer grunt, both of them are significantly lacking vs their SA counterparts. .

It's for exactly that reason why I've always argued that Itoje should be in the back row. His athleticism means he can excel in the GP and against weaker international teams - Scotland, Wales... - but will he come out on top going Mano a Mano with Etzebeth? A good big one against a good little one and all that.

Daly can be an extra playmaker in attack and join the line with more skill than Brown ever could.

Very true. But I know who my house would be on under a high ball with Marx and his mates on the chase.

 

[MarkyH]

Brown is still a monster under a high ball, and always breaks the first tackle I'll give him that

 

[TRF_Olyy]

No, but they'll have brick outhouses running straight AT them.

Physical dominance is still a part of the game and its one where we've been badly lacking. Underhill's a dominant tackler at club level, will that translate against some of the biggest beasts around?

I'd put money on yes.
They're both big lads and very physical in the contact area, it's not like we're considering putting Cipriani there.

I would put good money on Underhill being significantly more physical in the tackle at the international level than Robshaw.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I'd put money on yes.
They're both big lads and very physical in the contact area, it's not like we're considering putting Cipriani there.

I would put good money on Underhill being significantly more physical in the tackle at the international level than Robshaw.

You would?

According to Xsypher's stats they're both 6' 1 and 16 stone. That's micro by today's standards, same height as Farrell and only a few pounds heavier. They're conceding stones to the big Saffers.

You'd easily win the Underhill v Robshaw money. But I'd bet on Jonny May beating me in a sprint. Neither are great benchmarks for world class rugby.

 

[Jakedood]

You would?

According to Xsypher's stats they're both 6' 1 and 16 stone. That's micro by today's standards, same height as Farrell and only a few pounds heavier. They're conceding stones to the big Saffers.

You'd easily win the Underhill v Robshaw money. But I'd bet on Jonny May beating me in a sprint. Neither are great benchmarks for world class rugby.

Its not always about size, technique is a vast leveller. Underhill drives from such a low position with tremendous power in his tackles.

Faf de Klerk is a great example, he weighs 80kg, yet he hits like a steam train if you're too high in the contact. Weight doesn't always signal useful power too, or explosive power. Underhill and Curry have a lot of explosiveness, and it'll be great to see that translate to international stage. Curry in particular looked very very solid in the tackle v SA in the summer

 

[BluenoseKelv]

We aren't going to win a physical battle against South Africa, no chance Williams is the only one in the pack who probably stands a chance. So pile the backs with ball carriers and speed and go Hepburn, Hartley, Williams, Itoje, Kruis, Rhodes, Morgan, Curry to at least try and hold our own at set pieces. Then hit them with the finishers later on.

 

[Mr Ruggleby]

I'd put money on yes.
They're both big lads and very physical in the contact area, it's not like we're considering putting Cipriani there.

I would put good money on Underhill being significantly more physical in the tackle at the international level than Robshaw.

I think I need to stress again that in terms of individual assessment, I think both Curry and Underhill are excellent players.

That being said, neither of them offer a ball carrying threat against an organized international defense and neither of them can be considered overly physical compared to the players they are going up against. I can only think of two international teams that have successfully employed two "small" flankers. One is Australia and one of those "small flankers" was David Pocock who is 6ft and 18st! They also played most of their games in conditions that were very different to Twickenham in November. The other team is Scotland in this last 6 nations vs England with Barclay (6'3, 16st) and Watson (6'1, 16st) and that was a performance that they have not really managed to replicate again, against a team significantly less physical than SA and in a game in which the breakdown was refereed quite differently to any other games had been in that tournament/season.

They are both great players, I would have one or the other as my first choice 7, but there is not going to be a place for both of them in a pack that doesn't include both Vunipola brothers to make up for the lack of ballast.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I mean Curry already played three tests vs the Boks, didn't look out of his depth (many said he was our best forward), and looks a bit bigger now than he did then. Remember him putting in some dominating hits and holding some of these mythical south African juggernauts up in choke tackles.

People are too obsessed with numbers and not how players actually play.


Morgan at 8 provides the running-down-blind alleys carrying.

 

[Mr Ruggleby]

I mean Curry already played three tests vs the Boks, didn't look out of his depth (many said he was our best forward), and looks a bit bigger now than he did then. Remember him putting in some dominating hits and holding some of these mythical south African juggernauts up in choke tackles.

People are too obsessed with numbers and not how players actually play.


Morgan at 8 provides the running-down-blind alleys carrying.

A good pack is about balance though. Yes, Curry was excellent on tour - he should start at 7. We can afford one player in the pack who doesn't carry well into traffic or who is more of a technician than a bruiser at the breakdown. It's when you start adding more and more players who have very specific roles that they have to be deployed in to work well that you get into trouble. Test matches can get hectic and you can't expect Ben Morgan to be there taking every 3rd carry for the first 50 mins until the game opens up. Similarly, when we attack and you've got four phases in a row with Marx, then Kolisi, then Vermuelen, then PSDT all getting over the ball, you need big lumps to clear them effectively. Again, I hope I'm proved wrong, but I expect Saturday to be Exhibit-A in why winning collisions is right next to set piece as the most important aspect of international rugby. (unless of course you're the All Blacks in which case - being good at both is a prerequisite to taking the field).

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Who are you putting at 6 then?
The only English player I can think of who fits your description is Fearns

 

[Mr Ruggleby]

Who are you putting at 6 then?
The only English player I can think of who fits your description is Fearns

Based on available resources I'd go for Rhodes over Shields and Mark Wilson. All of them are in the 110-115kg range and between 6'3-6'6. I'd give Rhodes the edge in the Lineout, Defense and general nastiness, Shields is a bit quicker and has a slight edge at the breakdown in attack and Wilson is probably the biggest nuisance defensively at the breakdown and is also quite a gritty carrier. Given that I think I'd pick Rhodes for this one with Shields on the bench. It's not exactly the dream team but it's our best chance of not getting bullied off the park IMO.

 

[BPM]

I agree with your assessment of their relative strengths. However, despite the advantage Rhodes offers in the lineout, I'm concerned that he gives away a lot of cheap penalties which we're already infuriatingly guilty of and he is also prone to acts of thuggery that I wouldn't associate with Wilson or Shields. On a risk/reward basis, I think the balance is off.

Wilson is my preference, but given that we need more lineout presence, I'd be inclined to compromise and go with Shields.

We're also talking up the SA lineout on the strength of their locks, but for all of Marx's obvious abilities, lineout throwing isn't his strongest suit.

 

[spartan32]

There seems to be a total obsession with size. Are we all forgetting that the Saffers were turned over by Japan, the smallest team in international rugby?!

I know the Saffers have come a long way since then but the point is that a well executed game plan can make up for physical deficiencies. And England have some amazing kicking options from hand and the tee, we have incredible pace in our back three, assuming Manu can stay fit for more than ten minutes we have a real wrecking ball in the centres to keep the Saffer defence honest and create chances.

We just need to do like the Japanese and keep the heavy Saffer lumps moving back and forth and they'll soon tire. And if we start being pushed back we put the boot in and play territory. Sensible game management is what's needed. If we had used it while in SA in the first test we would have sown that game up and undoubtedly won that series.

Not to say that the set piece doesn't worry me
Somewhat. We need to get the ball out of that scrum and away from those line outs pronto, else it could be a very long afternoon.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Swear people won't be happy until we field 5 2nd rows as the 2nd/back row
You can never succeed at international level without 5 lineout specialists who all weigh >18st and are 7ft tall

 

[BluenoseKelv]

There seems to be a total obsession with size. Are we all forgetting that the Saffers were turned over by Japan, the smallest team in international rugby?!

I know the Saffers have come a long way since then but the point is that a well executed game plan can make up for physical deficiencies. And England have some amazing kicking options from hand and the tee, we have incredible pace in our back three, assuming Manu can stay fit for more than ten minutes we have a real wrecking ball in the centres to keep the Saffer defence honest and create chances.

We just need to do like the Japanese and keep the heavy Saffer lumps moving back and forth and they'll soon tire. And if we start being pushed back we put the boot in and play territory. Sensible game management is what's needed. If we had used it while in SA in the first test we would have sown that game up and undoubtedly won that series.

Not to say that the set piece doesn't worry me
Somewhat. We need to get the ball out of that scrum and away from those line outs pronto, else it could be a very long afternoon.

In all fairness our backs are more than a match for SA if we have the right combination. To do that however we need to hold off that bruising pack as much as possible. I think Rhodes offers the better option of doing that.

 

[Scotty]

Swear people won't be happy until we field 5 2nd rows as the 2nd/back row
You can never succeed at international level without 5 lineout specialists who all weigh >18st and are 7ft tall

Totally agree a third line out option should be a bonus, when you pick the best 6s and 7s and not a must. discounting genuine flankers because they arnt as good a jumper is stupid.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Swear people won't be happy until we field 5 2nd rows as the 2nd/back row
You can never succeed at international level without 5 lineout specialists who all weigh >18st and are 7ft tall

Less about the line out, although that's a big bonus, and more about the physicality. Big blokes simply hit harder - boxing weight categories acknowledge that. Underhill may be one of the hardest pound for pound tacklers, but won't rank quite as high in absolute terms. He's probably competing with Curry for the 7 shirt.

I don't want all behemoths, far from it, but power has its place, especially up front. As ever the ABs had it sussed, They've been feted as the best ever yet the Itoje sized big hitting Kaino was a fixture at 6 for years, and just as integral to the team as the silkier skills of Read and McCaw. Squire's of similar dimensions. Itoje will be our answer at 6 when the rest of you cotton on.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Less about the line out, although that's a big bonus, and more about the physicality. Big blokes simply hit harder - boxing weight categories acknowledge that. Underhill may be one of the hardest pound for pound tacklers, but won't rank quite as high in absolute terms. He's probably competing with Curry for the 7 shirt.

I don't want all behemoths, far from it, but power has its place, especially up front. As ever the ABs had it sussed, They've been feted as the best ever yet the Itoje sized big hitting Kaino was a fixture at 6 for years, and just as integral to the team as the silkier skills of Read and McCaw. Squire's of similar dimensions. Itoje will be our answer at 6 when the rest of you cotton on.

Big blokes are generally slower and tired quicker too. Size plays a big role but technique is extremely important and I'd say we should be more worried about the pretty poor technique of some of our players rather than their size. Hughes vs De Klerk shows what lots of extra weight used badly does against less weight but all of it used correctly.