Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Did you not hear the news from England a while back?
Springboks 2010 End Of Year Tour
- Thread starter Lee Grant
- Start date
- Status
PaarlBok
Rod McCall (65)
Pom team
England: B Foden (Northampton); C Ashton (Northampton), M Tindall (Bath), S Hape (Bath), M Cueto (Sale); T Flood (Leicester), B Youngs (Leicester); A Sheridan (Sale), D Hartley (Northampton), D Cole (Leicester), C Lawes (Northampton), T Palmer (Stade Francais), T Croft (Leicester), L Moody (Leicester, capt), N Easter (Harlequins).
Replacements: S Thompson (Leeds), D Wilson (Bath), S Shaw (Wasps), H Fourie (Leeds), D Care (Harlequins), C Hodgson (Sale), M Banahan (Bath).
England: B Foden (Northampton); C Ashton (Northampton), M Tindall (Bath), S Hape (Bath), M Cueto (Sale); T Flood (Leicester), B Youngs (Leicester); A Sheridan (Sale), D Hartley (Northampton), D Cole (Leicester), C Lawes (Northampton), T Palmer (Stade Francais), T Croft (Leicester), L Moody (Leicester, capt), N Easter (Harlequins).
Replacements: S Thompson (Leeds), D Wilson (Bath), S Shaw (Wasps), H Fourie (Leeds), D Care (Harlequins), C Hodgson (Sale), M Banahan (Bath).
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
A strong team from the Soap Dodgers.
Could be a good game.
Most interesting competition may be for the one liner to come from PdV post game. Regardless of result, it is bound to be a classic.
Could be a good game.
Most interesting competition may be for the one liner to come from PdV post game. Regardless of result, it is bound to be a classic.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
They are not going top lose this game because of feet and planes, but rather for practical reasons.
Game plan, lack of backline penetration, bad kicking (again) and a resurgent England side is why they will lose.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
It's just too easy to make money these days
dobduff11
Trevor Allan (34)
That was irritating to watch, Boks were superior in the physicality and set piece stakes. Dominated possession, suffocated England and didn't make too many errors.
Mvovo looked pretty electric when he got the ball. Bismarck was excellent, Juan Smith had a big impact on the game with his defence, didn't see him too much in attack though.
Mvovo looked pretty electric when he got the ball. Bismarck was excellent, Juan Smith had a big impact on the game with his defence, didn't see him too much in attack though.
Sandpit Fan
Nev Cottrell (35)
It certainly made mine:thumb after the lip I've been copping from poms the last week or so!
Couldn't help noticing the SA backline was really static, not much movement and people almost going from a standing start.
PB/Blue: Is this mostly due to Jacque Fourie missing in the centres? Obviously FDP gives them a lot of go forward, but this seemed pretty widespread.
Larno
Ward Prentice (10)
It's even better when have to put up with the arse spouted by the papers over here and when you live with three of the buggers.
You can almost taste the despondency.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Not a good day for England in London or Brisbane. They've had some good ones recently but this wasn't one of them.
England could not match the power game of the Boks, who were rebounding high after their low at Murrayfield.
They couldn't match the physical dominance nor the technical stuff. The Boks lineouts were imperious with MOTM BdP throwing straight and the usual suspects delivering the ball. The SAffers had an edge in the scrums too especially when CJvdL came on. They got a tight head and that lead to a try IIRR.
The score of 11-21 flattered England because CJvdL dished an intercept for a long range Pom try with two unmarked men outside him. That 10 point turnaround made England look better than they were - and in the first half Matfield cost them a try by going for it himself with others outside him, and Laws knocked it out of his hands as he was trying to touch down.
It looked like an intercept was the only way England were going to score a try. They got close to the Bok line a couple of times and battered away but in naval terms they did not have the power of shot; nor did they have the guile in the backs.
The other thing, as the Pom commentators were saying, was that England did not know how to win when they didn't have a majority of the ball. They had only one-third of the ball in the first half and though it was tied up at oranges one thought that the Boks would get a few points in the second half. After 10-15 good minutes of play refreshed from the break by England the Boks started dominating the physical contests again.
The conundrum for an Oz fan is: why did we not do better against England in the physical contests, and therefore other aspects of play, when we know how to deal with the Boks power better than they can.
That must be a relief for Boks fans all over the world: not that they won but, that they played well and won easily playing their traditional game. There weren't too many gaffes as against Ireland or Scotland and when they kicked the ball away they were generally good kicks.
England will go back to the drawing board for 6N. There were enough good signs in the autumn tests against NZ and Oz to show that they have taken some steps forward and have some good cattle, except for the lineout.
At their best they have been like they were making their comeback in the last RWC, but at their worst against Samoa and the Boks they were like they were at the start of the last RWC.
England could not match the power game of the Boks, who were rebounding high after their low at Murrayfield.
They couldn't match the physical dominance nor the technical stuff. The Boks lineouts were imperious with MOTM BdP throwing straight and the usual suspects delivering the ball. The SAffers had an edge in the scrums too especially when CJvdL came on. They got a tight head and that lead to a try IIRR.
The score of 11-21 flattered England because CJvdL dished an intercept for a long range Pom try with two unmarked men outside him. That 10 point turnaround made England look better than they were - and in the first half Matfield cost them a try by going for it himself with others outside him, and Laws knocked it out of his hands as he was trying to touch down.
It looked like an intercept was the only way England were going to score a try. They got close to the Bok line a couple of times and battered away but in naval terms they did not have the power of shot; nor did they have the guile in the backs.
The other thing, as the Pom commentators were saying, was that England did not know how to win when they didn't have a majority of the ball. They had only one-third of the ball in the first half and though it was tied up at oranges one thought that the Boks would get a few points in the second half. After 10-15 good minutes of play refreshed from the break by England the Boks started dominating the physical contests again.
The conundrum for an Oz fan is: why did we not do better against England in the physical contests, and therefore other aspects of play, when we know how to deal with the Boks power better than they can.
That must be a relief for Boks fans all over the world: not that they won but, that they played well and won easily playing their traditional game. There weren't too many gaffes as against Ireland or Scotland and when they kicked the ball away they were generally good kicks.
England will go back to the drawing board for 6N. There were enough good signs in the autumn tests against NZ and Oz to show that they have taken some steps forward and have some good cattle, except for the lineout.
At their best they have been like they were making their comeback in the last RWC, but at their worst against Samoa and the Boks they were like they were at the start of the last RWC.
Sandpit Fan
Nev Cottrell (35)
Well said that man. The poms looked a completely different team this weekend, with nervous passes (that one from Foden in particular) and handling errors abounding. The first half possession stats were quite amazing, I think 73% to the boks. Haven't seen the 2nd half stats.
The poms performance a couple of weeks ago reminded me of our 2003 RWC game against the Kiwis, where we just came out and belted them, one of our best performances for a long time I thought, but we very rarely repeat them.
Langthorne
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Have a look at that Springbok forward pack - a little different from the one the Wallabies played in the 3N. Bismark Du Plessis, Beast, Bakkies Botha (suspended at the time), Stegman, Smith (who was just coming back IIRC). Could the Wallaby pack for tonight's game deal with this Springbok pack any better than England did? I think they could even give the All Blacks a big challenge.
I have to agree that the Springbok backs weren't at the same level as the forwards though.
I have to agree that the Springbok backs weren't at the same level as the forwards though.
H
Hodgy
Guest
wow that was painful. We got our arses kicked all over the park, although frankly the Boks attempted a sum total of no backline moves in the whole game. Why would you though when you can kick to the corner and compete on our lineout or get us to kick it out so you can win the ball without opening your eyes. Not a bad reminder for the England team that whilst ambition to go wide is good, you have to build the platform first and sometimes booting the shit out of the ball a bloody long way is not the worst idea.
I think we learned something else about England today too, that they need the first XV on the field at the moment. I honestly think Croft is up there as one of the best 6's in the world and we miss so much without him on the field. Flood and Ashton were shadows of themselves whilst they were on the field after knocks early on too. I was under no illusion after the Aus game that England were the finished article, however, I have felt like at least we're trying stuff now and do feel like we're a better side now than we were in the summer or in the 6N. I hope we'll be able to continue to improve through the 6N next year. If I'm honest I think that the reason we look more ambitious now has precious little to do with the coaches and everything to do with the new personel being more ambitious, Ashton and Foden and indeed Laws outlook is infectious.
I think we learned something else about England today too, that they need the first XV on the field at the moment. I honestly think Croft is up there as one of the best 6's in the world and we miss so much without him on the field. Flood and Ashton were shadows of themselves whilst they were on the field after knocks early on too. I was under no illusion after the Aus game that England were the finished article, however, I have felt like at least we're trying stuff now and do feel like we're a better side now than we were in the summer or in the 6N. I hope we'll be able to continue to improve through the 6N next year. If I'm honest I think that the reason we look more ambitious now has precious little to do with the coaches and everything to do with the new personel being more ambitious, Ashton and Foden and indeed Laws outlook is infectious.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
We attempted about 50. None worked.
As per an earlier post, yes we miss FdP and Fourie - they are the brains of the backline. However, the real problem is the coaching. Dick Muir has been left wanting. There simply was no structure and when there is no structure player try to make something happen. Must have dropped 15 little stupid passes in the mifdielf and out wide by half time.
Anyhoo, the plan was never to run it in the backs anyway.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
And that has just boosted everyone else's chances for RWC.
I'm pretty sure that others will enjoy the schadenfreude next year at the RWC.
I'm pretty sure that others will enjoy the schadenfreude next year at the RWC.
- Status