Planet Rugby Forum

Given the core of the team is from a Sarries squad which isn't exactly known for getting ahead of itself, I can't believe complacency will be an issue.

It’s a World Cup final and any team who’s managed to make it that far deserves absolute respect. It would be outright mental for us to have any complacency.

I think we should be confident that if we can replicate the level of performance from the NZ game, we have an excellent chance. The players will know that they need to be on their game. SA have beaten us recently enough and comfortably enough for us to know it will be tough.

pjm1 wrote:

ovalball wrote:

pjm1 wrote:snip

I think all the ratings have gone way OTT - if we had 4 '10s' and no one below 6.5 - we'd have scored more than 1 try and just 19 points. Reduce them all by between 0.5 and 1 - and it'd be a better reflection of the performance.

Not necessarily... the performance and scoreboard can often disagree. The ratings (for me) are about performances. The Kiwis themselves have broadly agreed that Youngs' try should really have stood and from a performance perspective, that is relevant (and the only place it is, frankly).

For me, that was the best I've seen England play since 2002. If a once in 17 year performance doesn't deserve a handful* of 10s then what does?

* Jeremy Beadle sized handful, obviously.

Nah - performance means very little if you don't score points. We could have won that game by 20+ points - but we didn't convert visits to their 22 into points often enough. It was a terrific performance, one of the best I've seen from an England side - but we still have to be realistic about the fact that we didn't fully capitalise on much of the great work we did.

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/rugby-u ... -Cup-final

England player ratings vs New Zealand – Rugby World Cup semi-final
Elliot Daly – 7

Slick work in attack and defence from the England full-back.

Anthony Watson – 8

Quicksilver display with strength on top as he made metres with every carry.

Manu Tuilagi – 8

Saves his most memorable for the All Blacks. Early try and midfield go-to man.

Owen Farrell – 7

George Ford – 8

Took over the kicking duties from Farrell without missing a beat.

Ben Youngs – 7

Posed threat around the ruck and varied England's attack well. Not just a box kicker.

Mako Vunipola – 8

His return from injury has added another towering pillar to the England pack.

Jamie George – 5

Horror moment with overthrow on own 5m line for Ardie Savea try.

Kyle Sinckler – 6

Limped off with calf injury after all-encompassing game often as close-range stand-off.
Soldiered on after first-half leg knock when others would have quit, giving heroic lead.

Jonny May – 6

Hobbled off after game of limited opportunities although excellent in the air.

Courtney Lawes – 8

Power-packed contribution and useful lineout option for England.

Maro Itoje – 9

An octopus in the maul, Itoje was a colossus in a tremendous England pack.

Tom Curry – 7

Fizzed around like a knock-off firework disrupting New Zealand's attack.

Sam Underhill – 9

Another 'try' disallowed against the All Blacks but the tackling machine was at his thunderous best.

Billy Vunipola – 8

Best performance of the World Cup. A real handful for the All Blacks.

blindcider wrote:Also I couldn't believe that the ABs didn't put more high bombs on Daly which for me was a tactical error that the Saffers won't make

If memory serves May stepped in to take several high balls and his fitness for the final will be crucial if England are to diffuse the South African kicking game. Against Wales I was surprised by the utter randomness of Faf de Klerk's box kicking though which in itself will cause a huge amount of uncertainty for both sides.

I have visions of England getting killed on the gain-line with our players throwing themselves with increasing desperation against an immovable Jaapie wall until they've nothing left to defend the inevitable South African onslaught. So I hope we're able to progress with our off-loading game and with a little more composure than against New Zealand where our backs in particular often forced the pass.

RodneyRegis wrote:England player ratings vs New Zealand – Rugby World Cup semi-final
Elliot Daly – 7

A bit undermarked IMHO. I thought Daly's first touch with the outside break really set the tone and he had a sound attacking game. On defence his positioning was pretty flawless as he helped to squeeze out New Zealand incursions.

Jake, I’m assuming Nowell is still broken if the discussion is JJ vs Coko.

Gospel wrote:

RodneyRegis wrote:England player ratings vs New Zealand – Rugby World Cup semi-final
Elliot Daly – 7

A bit undermarked IMHO. I thought Daly's first touch with the outside break really set the tone and he had a sound attacking game. On defence his positioning was pretty flawless as he helped to squeeze out New Zealand incursions.

I dunno, that first touch was great but that was it for his running game. 13 metres all day.

ovalball wrote:

pjm1 wrote:

ovalball wrote:

pjm1 wrote:snip

I think all the ratings have gone way OTT - if we had 4 '10s' and no one below 6.5 - we'd have scored more than 1 try and just 19 points. Reduce them all by between 0.5 and 1 - and it'd be a better reflection of the performance.

Not necessarily... the performance and scoreboard can often disagree. The ratings (for me) are about performances. The Kiwis themselves have broadly agreed that Youngs' try should really have stood and from a performance perspective, that is relevant (and the only place it is, frankly).

For me, that was the best I've seen England play since 2002. If a once in 17 year performance doesn't deserve a handful* of 10s then what does?

* Jeremy Beadle sized handful, obviously.

Nah - performance means very little if you don't score points. We could have won that game by 20+ points - but we didn't convert visits to their 22 into points often enough. It was a terrific performance, one of the best I've seen from an England side - but we still have to be realistic about the fact that we didn't fully capitalise on much of the great work we did.

Agreed... but we did. We won and won well. So looking beyond that further - for me - means focusing on the individual (or unit) performances. Regardless of whether we capitalised on all of our chances (which we didn't), for me the performances of Itoje, Underhill, Ford and Curry (in that order) were exemplary. You could argue Curry needs to get notched down a touch because it was his obstruction which caused a non-try, but otherwise I don't think those four players could have done more in that game. That players outside couldn't quite get over the whitewash with the ball they served up was not because of any shortcomings in their games.

How refreshing is it to be arguing over whether a couple of players are deserving of 10s or not, after having basically thrashed the ABs in a RWC semi final?! I could get used to this

JM2K6 wrote:

Gospel wrote:

RodneyRegis wrote:England player ratings vs New Zealand – Rugby World Cup semi-final
Elliot Daly – 7

A bit undermarked IMHO. I thought Daly's first touch with the outside break really set the tone and he had a sound attacking game. On defence his positioning was pretty flawless as he helped to squeeze out New Zealand incursions.

I dunno, that first touch was great but that was it for his running game. 13 metres all day.

I said attacking game. He played his part as an extra distributor with four passes and an offload.

Just checking the stats and wow, Daly was barely present in attack. Fewer carries than any other starting player except Underhill. Four passes in the entire match. Made his tackles though

The Saffers are very likely to target him. Fingers crossed.

Gospel wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Gospel wrote:

RodneyRegis wrote:England player ratings vs New Zealand – Rugby World Cup semi-final
Elliot Daly – 7

A bit undermarked IMHO. I thought Daly's first touch with the outside break really set the tone and he had a sound attacking game. On defence his positioning was pretty flawless as he helped to squeeze out New Zealand incursions.

I dunno, that first touch was great but that was it for his running game. 13 metres all day.

I said attacking game. He played his part as an extra distributor with four passes and an offload.

Those are bad numbers. We had the majority of possession. His opposite number made 26 passes.

I really don’t get the rampant overconfidence (albeit largely from non English people within which I suspect there is a minority overplaying it in order to smack us down if we lose). Our recent record against the saffers is dismal, we’re vulnerable under the high ball and they deliver aerial bombardment, and they just beat a team we were well beaten by in our last competitive game against them. I think we’re justifiably slight favourites, but this will be a narrow nasty low scoring affair.

croyals wrote:I really don’t get the rampant overconfidence (albeit largely from non English people within which I suspect there is a minority overplaying it in order to smack us down if we lose). Our recent record against the saffers is dismal, we’re vulnerable under the high ball and they deliver aerial bombardment, and they just beat a team we were well beaten by in our last competitive game against them. I think we’re justifiably slight favourites, but this will be a narrow nasty low scoring affair.

Beat the All Blacks and you become the big favourite....

I fully agree with your last sentence, Slight favourites is fair. I think it'll be close but I have no confidence on which way it will drop and reckon it will be closely fought.

Although to play devils advocate haven't England won 3 of the last 5 against the saffers and they recently lost to the team England just played off the park?

JM2K6 wrote:

Gospel wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Gospel wrote:

RodneyRegis wrote:England player ratings vs New Zealand – Rugby World Cup semi-final
Elliot Daly – 7

A bit undermarked IMHO. I thought Daly's first touch with the outside break really set the tone and he had a sound attacking game. On defence his positioning was pretty flawless as he helped to squeeze out New Zealand incursions.

I dunno, that first touch was great but that was it for his running game. 13 metres all day.

I said attacking game. He played his part as an extra distributor with four passes and an offload.

Those are bad numbers. We had the majority of possession. His opposite number made 26 passes.

How many of those were inside his own 22 after fielding a kick?

Saint wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:
Those are bad numbers. We had the majority of possession. His opposite number made 26 passes.

How many of those were inside his own 22 after fielding a kick?

Yeah, comparing Apples and Oranges there - Barrett came into first/second receiver a fair bit and the ABs were trying to play out of their 22 a lot.

Still, when you see Watson play like that under the high ball and carrying through the traffic, I do wonder why he isn't rated as a fullback. Slade seems to be the backup fullback in the 23, so presumably EJ just wants a bit of pace and a massive left boot and everything else is secondary!

Saint wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Gospel wrote:I said attacking game. He played his part as an extra distributor with four passes and an offload.

Those are bad numbers. We had the majority of possession. His opposite number made 26 passes.

How many of those were inside his own 22 after fielding a kick?

Don't know. But if the question is intended to portray the idea that Barrett doesn't slot into 10 on a regular basis then I dunno what game you were watching. NZ kicked 24 times, England 32. Not so much a difference that explains how Daly did almost nothing with the ball despite playing both wing and fullback during the game, and how Barrett got heavily involved. It's laughable to call 4 passes and 4 runs for 13m a "sound attacking game" or an extra distributor - Sinckler made twice as many passes

I'm not complaining about him, because England were brilliant, but he was basically an irrelevance past that first break.

So Heinz is out and Ben Spenser flown in...

Cards in the final: 1 yellow each and a Saffa red.

Here. First.

JM2K6 wrote:Those are bad numbers. We had the majority of possession. His opposite number made 26 passes.

They're only bad numbers if Daly wasn't offering himself in attack which he clearly was. His opposite number was Beauden Barrett who was NZ's principal distributor after the scrum-halves. It's like comparing apples and oranges given NZ's patterns of play.

Joost wrote:

Saint wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:
Those are bad numbers. We had the majority of possession. His opposite number made 26 passes.

How many of those were inside his own 22 after fielding a kick?

Yeah, comparing Apples and Oranges there - Barrett came into first/second receiver a fair bit and the ABs were trying to play out of their 22 a lot.

Still, when you see Watson play like that under the high ball and carrying through the traffic, I do wonder why he isn't rated as a fullback. Slade seems to be the backup fullback in the 23, so presumably EJ just wants a bit of pace and a massive left boot and everything else is secondary!

Eddie's always maintained that the idea of Daly playing at full-back is what he brings to the side as auxiliary distributor. He's essentially an outside-outside-centre. I thought he did everything asked of him against New Zealand. South Africa will arguably be an even sterner test though because of how much contested kicking they do and it's sod's law Faf and WLF will be on the money in the final.

Gospel wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Those are bad numbers. We had the majority of possession. His opposite number made 26 passes.

They're only bad numbers if Daly wasn't offering himself in attack which he clearly was. His opposite number was Beauden Barrett who was NZ's principal distributor after the scrum-halves. It's like comparing apples and oranges given NZ's patterns of play.

I don't think it's clear he was offering himself in attack at all. If he was, he'd have gotten his hands on the ball more often, and done far more than just 4 passes and 5 (not 4, sorry) runs for a grand total of 13 metres. That's fewer involvements AND fewer metres than any other starting back on either side in the entire match, despite playing the full 80. He really did not do much at all on attack.

Jake wrote:Hearing that, subject to fitness, one/two changes for England on bench.

1. Spencer if WH doesn't recover
2. Coko in for JJ.

Is the same hearing that rocked my world earlier?

For JoeC to get as far as the bench both May and Nowell would have to be too crocked to consider and PROBABLY Slade too

In other news, the Sale Springboks ran in some cracking tries in their demolition of the Not Nots at the weekend:

https://sport.bt.com/highlights-london- ... 4405993496

I'm concerned about the SA scrum, they monstered the Welsh scrum, which we certainly haven't achieved in our last few games. So we have the dilemma of (1) starting our stronger scrummaging props and losing running/ball handling, then bringing them on to cause havoc against a tiring defense in the last 20 or (2) starting our running/ball handling props to impose ourselves in the loose and go for damage limitation in the scrums.

Maybe option (2) with Kruis starting to provide more solidity in the scrum?

JM2K6 wrote:

Gospel wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Those are bad numbers. We had the majority of possession. His opposite number made 26 passes.

They're only bad numbers if Daly wasn't offering himself in attack which he clearly was. His opposite number was Beauden Barrett who was NZ's principal distributor after the scrum-halves. It's like comparing apples and oranges given NZ's patterns of play.

I don't think it's clear he was offering himself in attack at all. If he was, he'd have gotten his hands on the ball more often, and done far more than just 4 passes and 5 (not 4, sorry) runs for a grand total of 13 metres. That's fewer involvements AND fewer metres than any other starting back on either side in the entire match, despite playing the full 80. He really did not do much at all on attack.

Well other than the fact he opened up NZ brilliantly in the opening minute beating ALB on the outside and giving Watson a sublime pass in the move and opening up the flank for the score.

Personally speaking, I reckon being one of the main architects of the killer blow when tries were at a premium is doing a shitload in attack.

Gospel wrote:

Joost wrote:

Saint wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:
Those are bad numbers. We had the majority of possession. His opposite number made 26 passes.

How many of those were inside his own 22 after fielding a kick?

Yeah, comparing Apples and Oranges there - Barrett came into first/second receiver a fair bit and the ABs were trying to play out of their 22 a lot.

Still, when you see Watson play like that under the high ball and carrying through the traffic, I do wonder why he isn't rated as a fullback. Slade seems to be the backup fullback in the 23, so presumably EJ just wants a bit of pace and a massive left boot and everything else is secondary!

Eddie's always maintained that the idea of Daly playing at full-back is what he brings to the side as auxiliary distributor. He's essentially an outside-outside-centre. I thought he did everything asked of him against New Zealand. South Africa will arguably be an even sterner test though because of how much contested kicking they do and it's sod's law Faf and WLF will be on the money in the final.

I guess Slade makes more sense as a fullback when you put it like that, though surely Alex Goode would make even more sense if you wanted a fullback who's a distributor and you're not too worried about the high ball/last-ditch defence.

Speaking of the high-ball, there were quite a few misjudgements under it in the Saffa/Taff game (Mapimpi got nowhere near it a few times and Moriarty badly misjudged a kick-off) - looked like the players were struggling to pick the ball under the stadium lights and the game will presumably be on at the same time this weekend (in the same stadium) - little bit of a worry, given what we know the Saffas will try and do.

SA will definitely give us an aerial bombardment, but Faf’s kicking hasn’t been especially good this tournament. A number of his box kicks yesterday went more or less straight up in the air for no distance.

I’m more concerned about the set piece. I don’t think we’ll have the dominance in the scrum or lineout this week we had against the All Blacks.

Joost wrote: I guess Slade makes more sense as a fullback when you put it like that, though surely Alex Goode would make even more sense if you wanted a fullback who's a distributor and you're not too worried about the high ball/last-ditch defence.

Speaking of the high-ball, there were quite a few misjudgements under it in the Saffa/Taff game (Mapimpi got nowhere near it a few times and Moriarty badly misjudged a kick-off) - looked like the players were struggling to pick the ball under the stadium lights and the game will presumably be on at the same time this weekend (in the same stadium) - little bit of a worry, given what we know the Saffas will try and do.

Please tell me you want Alex Goode shipped out. I mean we really have missed that hop skip and a jump into a blind alley for the last 18 months.

Jake wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Gospel wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Those are bad numbers. We had the majority of possession. His opposite number made 26 passes.

They're only bad numbers if Daly wasn't offering himself in attack which he clearly was. His opposite number was Beauden Barrett who was NZ's principal distributor after the scrum-halves. It's like comparing apples and oranges given NZ's patterns of play.

I don't think it's clear he was offering himself in attack at all. If he was, he'd have gotten his hands on the ball more often, and done far more than just 4 passes and 5 (not 4, sorry) runs for a grand total of 13 metres. That's fewer involvements AND fewer metres than any other starting back on either side in the entire match, despite playing the full 80. He really did not do much at all on attack.

Well other than the fact he opened up NZ brilliantly in the opening minute beating ALB on the outside and giving Watson a sublime pass in the move and opening up the flank for the score.

Personally speaking, I reckon being one of the main architects of the killer blow when tries were at a premium is doing a shitload in attack.

Come on. He made a half break and offloaded to his wing. Good on him, but let's not over-egg it.

Spyglass wrote:I'm concerned about the SA scrum, they monstered the Welsh scrum, which we certainly haven't achieved in our last few games. So we have the dilemma of (1) starting our stronger scrummaging props and losing running/ball handling, then bringing them on to cause havoc against a tiring defense in the last 20 or (2) starting our running/ball handling props to impose ourselves in the loose and go for damage limitation in the scrums.

Maybe option (2) with Kruis starting to provide more solidity in the scrum?

The SA scrum was very good indeed and probably won them the game. I hope Eddie sticks to his guns though and doesn't change the side. If things go south we can stiffen the eight whereas for Wales they lost a fair amount of grunt when they rang the changes.

ManInTheBar wrote:

Joost wrote: I guess Slade makes more sense as a fullback when you put it like that, though surely Alex Goode would make even more sense if you wanted a fullback who's a distributor and you're not too worried about the high ball/last-ditch defence.

Speaking of the high-ball, there were quite a few misjudgements under it in the Saffa/Taff game (Mapimpi got nowhere near it a few times and Moriarty badly misjudged a kick-off) - looked like the players were struggling to pick the ball under the stadium lights and the game will presumably be on at the same time this weekend (in the same stadium) - little bit of a worry, given what we know the Saffas will try and do.

Please tell me you want Alex Goode shipped out. I mean we really have missed that hop skip and a jump into a blind alley for the last 18 months.

God no, but if you gave me the choice of him or Henry Slade there...

Joost wrote:

ManInTheBar wrote:

Joost wrote: I guess Slade makes more sense as a fullback when you put it like that, though surely Alex Goode would make even more sense if you wanted a fullback who's a distributor and you're not too worried about the high ball/last-ditch defence.

Speaking of the high-ball, there were quite a few misjudgements under it in the Saffa/Taff game (Mapimpi got nowhere near it a few times and Moriarty badly misjudged a kick-off) - looked like the players were struggling to pick the ball under the stadium lights and the game will presumably be on at the same time this weekend (in the same stadium) - little bit of a worry, given what we know the Saffas will try and do.

Please tell me you want Alex Goode shipped out. I mean we really have missed that hop skip and a jump into a blind alley for the last 18 months.

God no, but if you gave me the choice of him or Henry Slade there...

I'd prolly have Slade and Eddie DEFINITELY would

Jake wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Gospel wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Those are bad numbers. We had the majority of possession. His opposite number made 26 passes.

They're only bad numbers if Daly wasn't offering himself in attack which he clearly was. His opposite number was Beauden Barrett who was NZ's principal distributor after the scrum-halves. It's like comparing apples and oranges given NZ's patterns of play.

I don't think it's clear he was offering himself in attack at all. If he was, he'd have gotten his hands on the ball more often, and done far more than just 4 passes and 5 (not 4, sorry) runs for a grand total of 13 metres. That's fewer involvements AND fewer metres than any other starting back on either side in the entire match, despite playing the full 80. He really did not do much at all on attack.

Well other than the fact he opened up NZ brilliantly in the opening minute beating ALB on the outside and giving Watson a sublime pass in the move and opening up the flank for the score.

Personally speaking, I reckon being one of the main architects of the killer blow when tries were at a premium is doing a shitload in attack.

Cool, not like we haven't mentioned that repeatedly or anything. Now, about the ~80 minutes more he played...

Joost wrote:I guess Slade makes more sense as a fullback when you put it like that, though surely Alex Goode would make even more sense if you wanted a fullback who's a distributor and you're not too worried about the high ball/last-ditch defence.

Speaking of the high-ball, there were quite a few misjudgements under it in the Saffa/Taff game (Mapimpi got nowhere near it a few times and Moriarty badly misjudged a kick-off) - looked like the players were struggling to pick the ball under the stadium lights and the game will presumably be on at the same time this weekend (in the same stadium) - little bit of a worry, given what we know the Saffas will try and do.

Slade worries me in defence as much as Daly does though for different reasons. The former does seem to slip at the worst moments. Faf's kicking was all over the shop against Wales. He was either hitting it 10m or 30m seemingly at random.

Gospel wrote:

Joost wrote:I guess Slade makes more sense as a fullback when you put it like that, though surely Alex Goode would make even more sense if you wanted a fullback who's a distributor and you're not too worried about the high ball/last-ditch defence.

Speaking of the high-ball, there were quite a few misjudgements under it in the Saffa/Taff game (Mapimpi got nowhere near it a few times and Moriarty badly misjudged a kick-off) - looked like the players were struggling to pick the ball under the stadium lights and the game will presumably be on at the same time this weekend (in the same stadium) - little bit of a worry, given what we know the Saffas will try and do.

Slade worries me in defence as much as Daly does though for different reasons. The former does seem to slip at the worst moments. Faf's kicking was all over the shop against Wales. He was either hitting it 10m or 30m seemingly at random.

Yeah, agreed. It seems really weird to me to replace a dodgy fullback with a dodgier one - I may think Watson is a lesser player when he switches but he would make the most sense to play there. Slade has even less experience at fullback than Daly.

Scrumhead wrote:SA will definitely give us an aerial bombardment, but Faf’s kicking hasn’t been especially good this tournament. A number of his box kicks yesterday went more or less straight up in the air for no distance.

I’m more concerned about the set piece. I don’t think we’ll have the dominance in the scrum or lineout this week we had against the All Blacks.

Agreed, I'll be happy if we get parity in the set piece and are able to impose our game in the loose

Margin_Walker wrote:
Come on. He made a half break and offloaded to his wing. Good on him, but let's not over-egg it.

I can't over-egg the creation of a try in the first minute of a RWC SF, however much I want to.

Jake wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:
Come on. He made a half break and offloaded to his wing. Good on him, but let's not over-egg it.

I can't over-egg the creation of a try in the first minute of a RWC SF, however much I want to.

Wouldn't even say that was the key creative moment in the try; Sinckler's offload was the moment that really opened the black gates

Jake wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:
Come on. He made a half break and offloaded to his wing. Good on him, but let's not over-egg it.

I can't over-egg the creation of a try in the first minute of a RWC SF, however much I want to.

you're giving it a damn good go.