18 reasons why England lost

Pending revision the provisional espn stats have it that they missed 18 tackles, mostly the forwards again. Thats pretty dire
The 16 turnovers conceeded probably didnt help either.
Or 2 scrums of their own lost
Or 2 lineouts they let get stolen

For once the stats backed up reality, SAs pack are bigger faster and nastier. Theres not a lot England can do to remedy that, niggleing over who should be loosehead wont change anything. Same for Hartley vs ....errr. Lawes mightve been nice to have along of course.

On the plus side Flood and Youngs have also proven what we already knew, they can get England scoring tries....despite the backline failing to get joseph and ashton any space to do whatever it is they are payed to do very often. Obviously strettle is a complete waste of space but we have to accept that Lancaster needs at least one sympathy pick in the side just to annoy the good players.

Fair enough summary, but on the plus side, under the weight of the massive pressure from the boks in the first half, I was really expecting England to fold (as a lesser team may have) and a rout to ensue. But credit must go to the England team for staying in the fight and bringing the game within reach with ten minutes to go....that kind of mental grit is a big positive that can be built upon.

For once Robshaw had a shocker, looking at the stats. Missed 4 tackles.

Robshaw missed 4 tackles in the match according to ESPN match stats.. that is truly awful.

ENG will have to see a captains performance in the 3rd test... if he plays like he did today and with Wood coming back you're going to start to wonder if he is the man to lead ENG full time.

Today he gave away 3 penalties, missed 4 tackles, was useless with the ball and did very little in the tight... very poor performance.

ChequeredJersey

totally agree, you can't have your captain putting in performances like that.

Steve Welsh Gifted SA a try in the first 2 mintues of the game.

A scrum 5 metres or so from the England line England put the ball in, ball comes straight out of the tunnel. Welsh directly in line and does not notice it.

Result try for Wilhelm Alberts (spelling).

Well we did reciprocate by giving you one on our oineout and another by not being bothered to react when you took a quick tap.

Yea, one bad game makes a bad player .

Robshaw was fine for me. He is constantly working and developing his game, as evidenced by his superb work at the breakdown in the last two tests. He is the man for England without doubt.

The reason England lost today was simply. We England was not good enough in the first 40 minutes. SA was to powerfull, all over the park England could not cope at all.

And besides that England had to play catch up rugby for most of the game. and you simply cannot afford to do that against a team like SA.

I think Robshaw is the right man to play for England and possibly to captain them and one poor game against 6 (IMO) very good ones is acceptable as long as it is a notable exception. I was just saying that for a player of his calibre and tackling ability it was a very poor display according to the stats. I still haven't watched the match though

i think england did well, with SA up 22-3 after 20mins i was expecting the Boks to go rampant, but fair play you kept in touching distance

fa0019 wrote:ChequeredJersey

totally agree, you can't have your captain putting in performances like that.

I dunno weve managed OK for most of the last decade like that

Joking aside yes Robshaw was bad but this is a continuation of a problem for the pack as a whole from the first test. the SA forwards can simply run through them and push them off the ball at will. Oner game is no reason to right him off but something fundamental does need to change in the forwards.
Its odd that England lack intensity given how much focus Lancaster and Catt put on this in their pre series interviews and given that playing in the Jeff is suppossed to be all about scrapping with no coasting ...whereas what weve seen from the AIs so far is the Magners teams coming out full of urine and vinegar and shocking their hosts.

majesticimperialman wrote:
And besides that England had to play catch up rugby for most of the game. and you simply cannot afford to do that against a team like SA.

You can't afford to of course but, then again, that decision is generally taken out of your hands against a team like SA.

Meaning, if you consider it risky to go behind heavily in a game against a team you consider dangerous then the likelihood is that the dangerous team are good enough to be putting you on that back foot anyway... regardless of whether you can 'afford' to be there or not. Catch 22

Yeah PSW, I find it really odd because I've never seen him miss that many tackles in a match. I still need to watch it though. So much sport to catch up from this week!

fa0019 wrote:Robshaw missed 4 tackles in the match according to ESPN match stats.. that is truly awful.

ENG will have to see a captains performance in the 3rd test... if he plays like he did today and with Wood coming back you're going to start to wonder if he is the man to lead ENG full time.

Today he gave away 3 penalties, missed 4 tackles, was useless with the ball and did very little in the tight... very poor performance.

If I remember rightly, one of the penalties was for holding on when the support didn't get there quick enough, and another was that one five yards from our line where the ball was clearly out and he did brilliantly to get in there and steal it, but neither Rolland nor Stuart Barnes spotted it. Missed tackles more of a concern but I've never seen him miss 4 before and I don't think I will again soon.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Yeah PSW, I find it really odd because I've never seen him miss that many tackles in a match. I still need to watch it though. So much sport to catch up from this week!

Possibly he missed four as he was the only member of the backrow actually trying to tackle. I think that will be the first match he's ever played in where his pack has been steamrolled by the opposition and he looked like he was really trying to do too much to cover for everyone else.

As you say it's only a worry if it happens again and the only reason I can see it happening again is if our pack get whupped like yesterday.

I'm not saying they definitely will, but you may find that the stats change once the working week starts. When they do the stats live they're prone to errors or mistaken identity, but they review the games at the beginning of the week and adjust them accordingly. I've often gone back to match stats and found them changed a fair bit, particularly if there are a few guys that look the same or are wearing similar headgear.

Robshaw did fine...and is putting himself in the picture of first few names on the team sheet...

As for the try that went through the scrum tunnel.

What the feic was Johnson doing....he saw it and did nothing!!!

I was chuffed when he was selected...but im really not sure he has shown the intelligence and game savy for this level.

Croft would have had that ball in his hands.

biltongbek wrote:Well we did reciprocate by giving you one on our oineout and another by not being bothered to react when you took a quick tap.

Yes but there's a difference between giving away soft points due to lack of concentration by the team etc (which is under their control) and incompetence (or worse) by the officials ....

Heaf wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Well we did reciprocate by giving you one on our oineout and another by not being bothered to react when you took a quick tap.

Yes but there's a difference between giving away soft points due to lack of concentration by the team etc (which is under their control) and incompetence (or worse) by the officials ....

I'll have to go look at the scrum law, not sure when a ball is demmed out the tunnel and when not.

majesticimperialman wrote:Steve Welsh Gifted SA a try in the first 2 mintues of the game.

A scrum 5 metres or so from the England line England put the ball in, ball comes straight out of the tunnel. Welsh directly in line and does not notice it.

Result try for Wilhelm Alberts (spelling).

oh dear oh dear oh dear! the level of F up that is you mind does make one wonder how you have access to the internet.

It wasn't out of the tunnel, young fed it through to the second row and it popped out the other side,

People are crying saying scrum should have been reset because the ball was not hooked backwards by any of the front row and may i add they are correct,
lets not forget thou that every scrumhalf feeds into the second row so every scrum must there fore be reset?

Then we look at why England had a scrum 5 on there own line...................well because they where getting battered and couldn't live with the intensity South Africa provided.

Also Madge your Welsh obsession shinning through i see, called steve walsh steve welsh!!! tool

The missed tackles were terrible, there were loads in the opening 20 minutes.

I think we need Andy Farrell to come in and coach defence. The attack is looking stronger with Catt coaching the attack and Flood getting the nod at 10. If Lancaster insists on a team of 3 (himself, Rowntree +1), then we'd need someone as good and well rounded as Wayne Smith. As he's ruled himself out, I think we need 4 coaches to cover all the bases.

Also Madge your Welsh obsession shinning through i see, called steve walsh steve welsh!!! tool
viewtothegym


Posts: 1051
Join date: 2011-07-25
Location: Wales


I guess because they both sound the same, it realy does not matter how you spell it right.

Not really im hardly going to call Johny Wilkinson Johny Pilkington because it sounds the same am i.

viewtothegym wrote:It wasn't out of the tunnel, young fed it through to the second row and it popped out the other side,

People are crying saying scrum should have been reset because the ball was not hooked backwards by any of the front row and may i add they are correct,
lets not forget thou that every scrumhalf feeds into the second row so every scrum must there fore be reset?

The try isn't a big debating point for me, people can argue that it set the tone, but ultimately SA were too powerful from the start and we weren't going to live with them the way we emerged.

In terms of the points you raise, it was out of the tunnel, it emerged in front of the TH prop's feet, which defines the tunnel. The feed was certainly crooked (not even worth stating, there hasn't been a straight feed in rugby for years), but it didn't go to the second row.

In reference to the need for resetting because the front row hasn't touched it, the laws only state that as being relevant if the ball emerges from the tunnel as effectively a scrum hasn't been completed. Issues with a crooked feed would obviously be a free kick and not a reset.

Face it view, your equally obsesssed about England, especially it's media. We couldn't live with SA the first 25 mins I agree. It was men v boys. SL's had this team for 6 months. If the same things happening in a year, thats the time to ask questions.

Meyer has had his team for two matches!
Excuses

They also just happen to be a fair bit better to start off with (for about the last decade) and have 3 times as many international caps. It usually takes at least a year or two for a coach to bridge that sort of distance to the SH sides, as a Welshman who has had Gatland in charge for 5 years is surely aware?

timhen wrote:

viewtothegym wrote:It wasn't out of the tunnel, young fed it through to the second row and it popped out the other side,

People are crying saying scrum should have been reset because the ball was not hooked backwards by any of the front row and may i add they are correct,
lets not forget thou that every scrumhalf feeds into the second row so every scrum must there fore be reset?

The try isn't a big debating point for me, people can argue that it set the tone, but ultimately SA were too powerful from the start and we weren't going to live with them the way we emerged.

In terms of the points you raise, it was out of the tunnel, it emerged in front of the TH prop's feet, which defines the tunnel. The feed was certainly crooked (not even worth stating, there hasn't been a straight feed in rugby for years), but it didn't go to the second row.

In reference to the need for resetting because the front row hasn't touched it, the laws only state that as being relevant if the ball emerges from the tunnel as effectively a scrum hasn't been completed. Issues with a crooked feed would obviously be a free kick and not a reset.

Just watched the game again on SuperSport, the ball came out in front of the flank's feet, definitely not in front of the TH's feet.

viewtothegym wrote:Meyer has had his team for two matches!
Excuses

They're better than us!

FerN wrote:

timhen wrote:

viewtothegym wrote:It wasn't out of the tunnel, young fed it through to the second row and it popped out the other side,

People are crying saying scrum should have been reset because the ball was not hooked backwards by any of the front row and may i add they are correct,
lets not forget thou that every scrumhalf feeds into the second row so every scrum must there fore be reset?

The try isn't a big debating point for me, people can argue that it set the tone, but ultimately SA were too powerful from the start and we weren't going to live with them the way we emerged.

In terms of the points you raise, it was out of the tunnel, it emerged in front of the TH prop's feet, which defines the tunnel. The feed was certainly crooked (not even worth stating, there hasn't been a straight feed in rugby for years), but it didn't go to the second row.

In reference to the need for resetting because the front row hasn't touched it, the laws only state that as being relevant if the ball emerges from the tunnel as effectively a scrum hasn't been completed. Issues with a crooked feed would obviously be a free kick and not a reset.

Just watched the game again on SuperSport, the ball came out in front of the flank's feet, definitely not in front of the TH's feet.

I also just watched it again on Sky and I think you are wrong, but in any case it is immaterial as the law specifically still classes behind the prop's feet as still in the tunnel.


20.7 WHEN THE SCRUM BEGINS

(c) If the ball is not played by a front row player, and it goes straight through the tunnel and comes out behind the foot of a far prop without being touched, the scrum half must throw it in again.

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/5/20/198/during-the-match/scrum/when-the-scrum-begins/#clause_198

mbernz wrote:They also just happen to be a fair bit better to start off with (for about the last decade) and have 3 times as many international caps. It usually takes at least a year or two for a coach to bridge that sort of distance to the SH sides, as a Welshman who has had Gatland in charge for 5 years is surely aware?

Our bacline has two thirds of the caps though.

Alberts has 10 caps after these two matches, Coetzee has 2 caps now, Etzebeth 2, Juandre Kruger 2, coenie oosthuizen 1, Daniel 2, Strauss 11, only beast, Bismarck, Jannie and Spies has 25 or more caps.

biltongbek wrote:

mbernz wrote:They also just happen to be a fair bit better to start off with (for about the last decade) and have 3 times as many international caps. It usually takes at least a year or two for a coach to bridge that sort of distance to the SH sides, as a Welshman who has had Gatland in charge for 5 years is surely aware?

Our bacline has two thirds of the caps though.

Alberts has 10 caps after these two matches, Coetzee has 2 caps now, Etzebeth 2, Juandre Kruger 2, coenie oosthuizen 1, Daniel 2, Strauss 11, only beast, Bismarck, Jannie and Spies has 25 or more caps.

Yes but quality counts aswell...

Alberts v Johnson - No competition
Bismark v hartley - No competition
Etzebeth v Botha - No Competition

etc
etc

biltongbek wrote:

mbernz wrote:They also just happen to be a fair bit better to start off with (for about the last decade) and have 3 times as many international caps. It usually takes at least a year or two for a coach to bridge that sort of distance to the SH sides, as a Welshman who has had Gatland in charge for 5 years is surely aware?

Our bacline has two thirds of the caps though.

Alberts has 10 caps after these two matches, Coetzee has 2 caps now, Etzebeth 2, Juandre Kruger 2, coenie oosthuizen 1, Daniel 2, Strauss 11, only beast, Bismarck, Jannie and Spies has 25 or more caps.

Which is still more than our pack. Only Hartley & Cole have caps that go into double figures. Like I said you're better to start off with and at least 2 or 3 of our pack are stopgaps that hopefully won't be there for very long.

mbernz wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

mbernz wrote:They also just happen to be a fair bit better to start off with (for about the last decade) and have 3 times as many international caps. It usually takes at least a year or two for a coach to bridge that sort of distance to the SH sides, as a Welshman who has had Gatland in charge for 5 years is surely aware?

Our bacline has two thirds of the caps though.

Alberts has 10 caps after these two matches, Coetzee has 2 caps now, Etzebeth 2, Juandre Kruger 2, coenie oosthuizen 1, Daniel 2, Strauss 11, only beast, Bismarck, Jannie and Spies has 25 or more caps.

Which is still more than our pack. Only Hartley & Cole have caps that go into double figures. Like I said you're better to start off with and at least 2 or 3 of our pack are stopgaps that hopefully won't be there for very long.

Are first choice players injured or do you not have better?

biltongbek wrote:

mbernz wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

mbernz wrote:They also just happen to be a fair bit better to start off with (for about the last decade) and have 3 times as many international caps. It usually takes at least a year or two for a coach to bridge that sort of distance to the SH sides, as a Welshman who has had Gatland in charge for 5 years is surely aware?

Our bacline has two thirds of the caps though.

Alberts has 10 caps after these two matches, Coetzee has 2 caps now, Etzebeth 2, Juandre Kruger 2, coenie oosthuizen 1, Daniel 2, Strauss 11, only beast, Bismarck, Jannie and Spies has 25 or more caps.

Which is still more than our pack. Only Hartley & Cole have caps that go into double figures. Like I said you're better to start off with and at least 2 or 3 of our pack are stopgaps that hopefully won't be there for very long.

Are first choice players injured or do you not have better?

Martin Johnson held onto the old players like Moody, Easter, Tindall, etc for too long and so England needed to have a massive clearout. There are a few injuries:

Lawes- 14 caps
Wood- 9 caps
Croft- 36 caps

Other than Croft, you can't really say they are that much more experienced.

Some injured and I would say some questionable selection with promissing guys still unfortunately on the fringes.

Botha shouldn't be there, Morgan has half a match in him at best and I'm pretty unconvinced about Parling & Johnson (I know some players develop late, but if you've failed to really impress before you're 28 you're unlikely to be top class).

Hopefully we'll see Lawes coming back from injury and partnered by the likes of Attwood/Garvey/Kitchener/Launchbury at lock; Wood & Croft back from injury for the flanks (Haskell fully back in the fold as well); Crane back from injury at 8 and players like Fearns & Gray stepping up in development.

mbernz,

Don't forget Robshaw for the flanks!

Zander wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

mbernz wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

mbernz wrote:They also just happen to be a fair bit better to start off with (for about the last decade) and have 3 times as many international caps. It usually takes at least a year or two for a coach to bridge that sort of distance to the SH sides, as a Welshman who has had Gatland in charge for 5 years is surely aware?

Our bacline has two thirds of the caps though.

Alberts has 10 caps after these two matches, Coetzee has 2 caps now, Etzebeth 2, Juandre Kruger 2, coenie oosthuizen 1, Daniel 2, Strauss 11, only beast, Bismarck, Jannie and Spies has 25 or more caps.

Which is still more than our pack. Only Hartley & Cole have caps that go into double figures. Like I said you're better to start off with and at least 2 or 3 of our pack are stopgaps that hopefully won't be there for very long.

Are first choice players injured or do you not have better?

Martin Johnson held onto the old players like Moody, Easter, Tindall, etc for too long and so England needed to have a massive clearout. There are a few injuries:

Lawes- 14 caps
Wood- 9 caps
Croft- 36 caps

Other than Croft, you can't really say they are that much more experienced.

Well dont forget that Lancaster chose to retire Easter early, ignore Borthwick ( ok thank god) and lost lost sheridan early due to injury and Stevens due to being sh1t now. And theres webber (injured) who wouldve been the second hooker. Then theres Haskell who isnt being played because he.... isnt. That accounts for a heck of a lot of experience when you add croft lawes and wood on as well.

Zander wrote:mbernz,

Do you rate Robshaw? Or would you rather Wood and Croft as England's two flankers?

Yeah, I think Robshaw has been doing pretty well on the whole and deserves his place at present. I'd start one of Wood or Croft with him when they become available. I have real doubts that the balance would work with both of them, but would be happy to trial it out one time, though I think it might work better against some sides than others. I'd probably err on the side of Wood over Croft because I think he brings a bit more breakdown ability and is still a cracking lineout option. I really hope Crane makes a strong return from injury, he was in great form before it, not flashy or pacy, but tough with a good engine and very good ability in the tight and at making the hard yards, which I think gives us real options in how our flanks play.

fa0019 wrote:Robshaw missed 4 tackles in the match according to ESPN match stats.. that is truly awful.

ENG will have to see a captains performance in the 3rd test... if he plays like he did today and with Wood coming back you're going to start to wonder if he is the man to lead ENG full time.

Today he gave away 3 penalties, missed 4 tackles, was useless with the ball and did very little in the tight... very poor performance.

Er what?

Moving on, SA were brilliant in the first half, but England did really well to hold on and come back.

As after the 1st Test we can't just run through this opposition, we need to keep the ball moving. Still, coaches and players are learning a lot.

The mistake at the first scrum by Walsh was absolutely terrible. That is a really simple rule, and things like that can have a bit impact on the momentum in a game.