jngf wrote:
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.
...it was a huge part of it. We were nervy, and previous issues re surfaced. But you can’t deny that we were heavily done at the scrum, which was power, made no headway in the carry, and ceded the gain line. I think you do have to look at how to combat that sort of physicality whilst maintaining the good stuff; I do think last weeks intensity and our own physicality would have made a better contest.
But you are right at hinting there are other things to look at.
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.
I didn’t say little to do with it to be clear- good big in beats a good little un is a cliche for a reason. It’s applying mass that is the issue, and nullifying it.
I know you were replying to the bolded bit; mind Marx added 20kg net himself- but I cocked up how I phrased it.
Never mind the bulk/power issue. Yes - SA forward domination set up the platform for the win, but their backs were much sharper than their England counterparts too. The Boks overpowered Egland, but played the better rugby too when it was on.
Banquo wrote:
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.
I didn’t say little to do with it to be clear- good big in beats a good little un is a cliche for a reason. It’s applying mass that is the issue, and nullifying it.
I know you were replying to the bolded bit; mind Marx added 20kg net himself- but I cocked up how I phrased it.
Kolbe might disagree with you
In future pull a Diggers and refuse to use punctuation so as to create enough ambiguity that you can later claim you meant something else
Spiffy wrote:Never mind the bulk/power issue. Yes - SA forward domination set up the platform for the win, but their backs were much sharper than their England counterparts too. The Boks overpowered Egland, but played the better rugby too when it was on.
That’s cause and effect tho for me. Our half backs were pony, and Twas ever thus when the pack is being duffed up, esp for Youngs.
Mellsblue wrote:
Was replying to bolded bit. As previous reply, I do agree with you that weight has little to do with it.
I didn’t say little to do with it to be clear- good big in beats a good little un is a cliche for a reason. It’s applying mass that is the issue, and nullifying it.
I know you were replying to the bolded bit; mind Marx added 20kg net himself- but I cocked up how I phrased it.
Kolbe might disagree with you
In future pull a Diggers and refuse to use punctuation so as to create enough ambiguity that you can later claim you meant something else
Oh I’m a fan of smaller players in that context,but it’s a different context.
paddy no 11 wrote:Should curry not be 7 and the other fella 6?
From observing them both in this tournament Underhill has a much stronger carrying game and defence, whilst Curry has the edge on linking. Think they are both good jackals. Underhill’s more explosive over the first 30 yards so I would say on balance probably yes. Also think Underhill has more of the power needed to be a back up 8 than Curry.
Scrumhead wrote: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
BillyV gave them the opening 3 points with a terrible pass to no-one and very rarely imposed himself on the game. Agreed Manu was anonymous, but how often was he actually passed the ball?
Scrumhead wrote: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
BillyV gave them the opening 3 points with a terrible pass to no-one and very rarely imposed himself on the game. Agreed Manu was anonymous, but how often was he actually passed the ball?
Puja
Manu was shovelled shit.
We had 3 key playmakers unable to adapt and an fb not worthy of the 15 shirt
Where do we go from here? Freezing on a big-match day is not unusual in the Jones era, for example. Preparation, selection, game-plan, lack of on-field leadership etc. all need serious consideration as a new four-year cycle begins.
The SF performance indicated potential achievement standards. The final showed serious flaws.
jngf wrote:
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
BillyV gave them the opening 3 points with a terrible pass to no-one and very rarely imposed himself on the game. Agreed Manu was anonymous, but how often was he actually passed the ball?
Puja
Manu was shovelled shit.
We had 3 key playmakers unable to adapt and an fb not worthy of the 15 shirt
And they were playing behind a pack being shat on.
Oakboy wrote:Where do we go from here? Freezing on a big-match day is not unusual in the Jones era, for example. Preparation, selection, game-plan, lack of on-field leadership etc. all need serious consideration as a new four-year cycle begins.
The SF performance indicated potential achievement standards. The final showed serious flaws.
You don’t panic, but it does show the issue of having just the one target in mind over a four year period and whether the players have the cajones to match the pressure. For this World Cup we did actually have enough good players to win it ( overall standard of player not that high imo) but key issues resurfaced under pressure, with chickens coming home to roost, plus a bit of a set piece fail.
