RugbyRebels

fivepointer wrote:

Beasties wrote:

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.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: 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.

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.

Should curry not be 7 and the other fella 6?

Which Tyler wrote:

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

Thought both wingers stoodnup well TBH.
They were just on their own in doing so

Sorry, yes Watson went well.

Felt for the pack today. Well beaten but to have backs cough up easy ball to only find themselves packing back down again.

.....and Flats, stop fishing for the ‘bus’ excuse

At least we don't have to see Johnson trying to use it for making political hay.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

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

Mr Mwenda wrote:At least we don't have to see Johnson trying to use it for making political hay.

Shouldn’t you be swimming by now

paddy no 11 wrote:Should curry not be 7 and the other fella 6?

Lipstick on a pig.

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:

Banquo wrote:

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.

Mellsblue wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:At least we don't have to see Johnson trying to use it for making political hay.

Shouldn’t you be swimming by now

Still wallowing at present. Bags're packed.

Come SCW!!!! No mention of ‘galvanising’ leader, the missed kick at a key point and the missed tackle for the second try?

No, just blame the forwards

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.

Another terrible thing is the predictability of Stephen Jones’ write up.

p/d wrote:Come SCW!!!! No mention of ‘galvanising’ leader, the missed kick at a key point and the missed tackle for the second try?

No, just blame the forwards

The player ratings I’ve seen have Faz as a hapless victim of those around him. Not entirely unfair tbh.

jngf wrote:

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

WTF? You make our performance against the Bok look good, and yet beat the ABs with ease. Wankers.

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

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

Buggaluggs wrote:WTF? You make our performance against the Bok look good, and yet beat the ABs with ease. Wankers.

Exactly.

Buggaluggs wrote:WTF? You make our performance against the Bok look good, and yet beat the ABs with ease. Wankers.

The beauty of the game

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.

p/d wrote:

Puja wrote:

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.

You know what? You thumped Aus and the ABs away from Twickenham in the space of a month. It ain't all bad.

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.