By RinTin
#64136
ale shark wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2023 6:56 pm
RinTin wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2023 1:07 pm

I believe Steve Borthwick very nearly masterminded one of the greatest wins in our history given the odds stacked against us.

I think that’s a bit generous, it was a game plan that might have worked one in ten attempts and the conditions were in our favour. We didn’t win.

In a low scoring game of limited chances it was obvious (to me anyway) that SA would take whatever limited chances they got and England were never likely to score a 5-7 pointer.

If England try and play that way in every 6N match then they’ll finish in the bottom half again.
This is the point though, that game plan wasn't for any other team. It was purely one to take on the Springboks on a damp pitch. Don't play in middle third, chase every kick relentlessly, fly out of the line in defence while keeping wingers deep, look for space behind all the time. All of it was designed to attempt to beat SA. Very nearly worked from a team thumped by Ireland and France, beaten by Fji, Wales and Scotland all in the last 8 months. A team given no chance if we're being honest.

On the try front I still blame Nick Mullins for jinxing Jamie George when we had the lineout on their 5m line. The man talks non stop, but all he is was doing in that build up was talking about our last wc try vs SA, how many we scored total, our forward power... The man is a curse. Our best chance gone.
By SimonG
#64138
Yareet wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2023 3:49 pm
SimonG wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2023 3:30 pm
Yareet wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2023 2:29 pm


Apologies, you’re right that I wrongly assumed your meaning about our resources.

So I’ll ask instead.

Given our resources, what would an acceptable World Cup have been in your opinion?
Accepted.

Given the way we were playing leading up to the competition an acceptable World Cup for me would have be one where we learned to have confidence in ourselves and started playing to try to make things happen and not just to stifle the opposition. if we had done that then where we exited the competition would have been irrelevant to me. We would have at least started the journey to do what the best sides in the world do.

Making the semi-finals via a very easy group playing as we did means we haven't progressed at all in my opinion and does little for the game in this country. Kids will look at France and New Zealand and be inspired to play like them. How many kids will be inspired to play like England?
For what it’s worth, the U9s I coach don’t really care how the game is played. They do know who was in a semifinal and who wasn’t but they’re not really discussing the merits of a fast-paced, offloading game v a pragmatic kick fest.

Likewise, (and this is only personal experience) I grew up watching rugby in the 90s. I was desperate to be the next Mickey Skinner and couldn’t care less that England weren’t playing like France - mainly because we were beating the French.

So I’d argue that kids are more inspired by success than they are style of play.

Which also ties in with a fundamental contradiction of sport. As fans, we are paying to be entertained. If the product isn't something we want to watch (as it seems to be your case with the current England setup), we vote with our feet.

But the players and management are incentivised to win. There are no style points in rugby - but there are bonuses for winning. The aim must be to ensure that you score more points than the oppo. Your preference seems to be that England do so by aiming to score (forgive me if I've misunderstood) but I can understand what a new coaching team on a wet night in a knockout game will plump for restricting the oppo from scoring instead.

We also played a key pool game with only 14 men. Again I can understand why we opted for pragmatism.
At half-time at my rugby club we have lots of little ones running around on the pitch who I'm sure care very little about the style of play as well. Many of the older ones however talk about how good France and New Zealand are and how enjoyable Uruguay and Romania were to watch. They don't seem to talk with any enthusiasm about England at all.

But I'm looking at the RWC as a whole (and what was going on up to it) rather than just a one-off semi-final or a rainy night when you are one man down (when Ford was magnificent only be dropped). Of course tactics will change from game to game but we have been unrelentingly negative for months (years?) and this RWC showed little sign that anything will change so I remain singularly unimpressed.

So we will just have to agree to disagree here as I notice many are also doing with you on the Quins board!
RinTin liked this
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#64139
I'm with Rin Tin re:2003. Up to the tournament we were pretty damn near perfect, but stuttered a fair bit in it. We needed to recall Catt to the side to be Johnny's safety blanket and restore his confidence after a scare against Samoa, we then struggled in the QF against Wales. I agree in general that that team could play many different styles of Rugby, but still our biggest strength was the "White Orcs" of the pack, and we used it heavily. We were clearly the best in the world at that time, but the tournament almost came too late.
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#64140
ale shark wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2023 7:50 pm
I try and reserve judgment on Borthwick until after the 6N where he’ll be free to pick his own squad.
Same.

There were limited signs that he could change, we played basically an attacking style for the whole of the first half against Fiji, before regressing to conservatism in the second. A big improvement on our 10 minute bursts at either end of the game. What bugs me most about the "Kick the leather off it" approach isn't that it's dull, I didn't find it dull in that semi final, it's that it's generally ineffective. The best teams kick a fair bit, but they run a fair bit too. England when they run look more effective to me than when hoisting box kicks constantly. The difference in the semi was that we didn't just kick for the sake of kicking, we had a plan to the kicks and executed well.
By DavenportSharky
#64152
I feel that Jones had run out of steam and Borthwick was brought in too late to give it his best shot. He was further hampered by the rule restricting the number of changes he could make for the 6 Nations.
I think when he was appointed at the Tigers he inherited a good squad who were playing well below their potential under hopeless coaches like Murphy. To his credit he got them playing to their potential sufficiently to win the Premiership. How much was down to his own coaching skill and tactical nous I’m not sure. He did not have much else on his CV when he went to Twickenham.
He decided (in error) to take with him Sinfield (great bloke but 2 seasons in union) and Wigglesworth ( minimal coaching experience and never a particularly attacking minded scrum half). Between them a ridiculous lack of rugby union coaching at the highest level. He then picked an incredibly conservative selection of players many of whom were in decline including players he knew from Tigers who nobody else would have selected (Youngs,Cole etc). That squad has been together 5 months now! The 6 Nations performances were forgiveably bad but the warm up matches were if anything worse and national patience ran out. There are always setbacks and the red cards and the odd injury played a part. The draw had been incredibly lucky. We will never be that lucky again. Basically we needed to beat 2 of the top nations in the world to win the World Cup. The performances in the group were hardly any better but were enough to beat second rate opponents (Argentina were completely off form). The incredibly fierce physical quarter final meant that some of the Boks had not recovered fully before the semi ( Etzebeth for example). The wet conditions nullified the difference in skill and ambition to suit England. SA made selection errors. They should have started Faf and Pollard. I think that if they had started the Ox and Kock then the England scrum would have been destroyed from the word go and yellow cards etc would have followed. Margins are often small in union. An inch of a foot in touch, a kick hitting a post, a referee misjudging an offence. England could have won that match but it would have been a bad result for the tournament and for rugby in general. I think the final should have been any 2 from 4 and that has happened if not the 2 that I would have preferred.
Where Borthwick goes from here is a mystery. I think he needs to change his lieutenants-Farrell, Wiggy, Sinfield. He needs to chance his arm with some of the exciting prospects and it will pay off long term. If we lose to France and Ireland yet score 3 tries in each then for me that’s fine. If we serve up the same dross as we have seen lately then he can expect his P45.
ale shark liked this
User avatar
By Yareet
#64154
DavenportSharky wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2023 2:11 pm
I feel that Jones had run out of steam and Borthwick was brought in too late to give it his best shot. He was further hampered by the rule restricting the number of changes he could make for the 6 Nations.
I think when he was appointed at the Tigers he inherited a good squad who were playing well below their potential under hopeless coaches like Murphy. To his credit he got them playing to their potential sufficiently to win the Premiership. How much was down to his own coaching skill and tactical nous I’m not sure. He did not have much else on his CV when he went to Twickenham.
He decided (in error) to take with him Sinfield (great bloke but 2 seasons in union) and Wigglesworth ( minimal coaching experience and never a particularly attacking minded scrum half). Between them a ridiculous lack of rugby union coaching at the highest level. He then picked an incredibly conservative selection of players many of whom were in decline including players he knew from Tigers who nobody else would have selected (Youngs,Cole etc). That squad has been together 5 months now! The 6 Nations performances were forgiveably bad but the warm up matches were if anything worse and national patience ran out. There are always setbacks and the red cards and the odd injury played a part. The draw had been incredibly lucky. We will never be that lucky again. Basically we needed to beat 2 of the top nations in the world to win the World Cup. The performances in the group were hardly any better but were enough to beat second rate opponents (Argentina were completely off form). The incredibly fierce physical quarter final meant that some of the Boks had not recovered fully before the semi ( Etzebeth for example). The wet conditions nullified the difference in skill and ambition to suit England. SA made selection errors. They should have started Faf and Pollard. I think that if they had started the Ox and Kock then the England scrum would have been destroyed from the word go and yellow cards etc would have followed. Margins are often small in union. An inch of a foot in touch, a kick hitting a post, a referee misjudging an offence. England could have won that match but it would have been a bad result for the tournament and for rugby in general. I think the final should have been any 2 from 4 and that has happened if not the 2 that I would have preferred.
Where Borthwick goes from here is a mystery. I think he needs to change his lieutenants-Farrell, Wiggy, Sinfield. He needs to chance his arm with some of the exciting prospects and it will pay off long term. If we lose to France and Ireland yet score 3 tries in each then for me that’s fine. If we serve up the same dross as we have seen lately then he can expect his P45.
Out of interest, who would you have had at 3 v SA? By all accounts, Cole did pretty well against one of the world's best looseheads. Sinckler did not.

Had England won RWC23, they would have had to beat SA and NZ so I agree that draw meant we would only have needed to beat 2 of the top teams. But how many top teams have NZ or SA beaten? One each so far? Maybe two for SA if you include Scotland.

Sinfield is reported to be gone. I have a vague memory that Wiggy was originally earmarked as Skills coach but whoever was supposed to be Attack turned them down - I may be misremembering. Felix Jones is coming over from SA as something. He's been a "defensive consultant" for SA but replaced an Attack coach...
DavenportSharky liked this
By RinTin
#64155
I've heard Gustard is coming back in as defence coach.
By ageinghoody
#64165
ale shark wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2023 7:50 pm
I try and reserve judgment on Borthwick until after the 6N where he’ll be free to pick his own squad.
I suspect (hope?) that this is the point where Borthwick can breathe a sigh of relief, put the last few months behind him and start the task for which he was actually hired.

So far he's basically been a caretaker, making the best he could out of what he inherited. Only from now does he have full responsibility for what eventuates. I can't believe for a moment that he (or any realistic candidate) would have accepted the job under any other conditions!

I think that rebuilding project may take somewhat longer than the half a domestic season that you suggest!

Clive Woodward effectively asked for two years when taking on the role in 1997.

I'd suggest that that's a fair period to judge a new international coach's performance. Any less and the temptation will be to stick with "same old" rather than risk any experimentation blowing up in your face with no time to recover.

It also means that any replacement after that time doesn't find themself in the same situation Borthwick did when he took over.

Of course as we know, after making a rod for his own back and saying he should be judged on the 1999 World Cup, SCW survived after being "kicked" out of that one - by SA.
By DavenportSharky
#64168
Yareet wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2023 2:37 pm
DavenportSharky wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2023 2:11 pm
I feel that Jones had run out of steam and Borthwick was brought in too late to give it his best shot. He was further hampered by the rule restricting the number of changes he could make for the 6 Nations.
I think when he was appointed at the Tigers he inherited a good squad who were playing well below their potential under hopeless coaches like Murphy. To his credit he got them playing to their potential sufficiently to win the Premiership. How much was down to his own coaching skill and tactical nous I’m not sure. He did not have much else on his CV when he went to Twickenham.
He decided (in error) to take with him Sinfield (great bloke but 2 seasons in union) and Wigglesworth ( minimal coaching experience and never a particularly attacking minded scrum half). Between them a ridiculous lack of rugby union coaching at the highest level. He then picked an incredibly conservative selection of players many of whom were in decline including players he knew from Tigers who nobody else would have selected (Youngs,Cole etc). That squad has been together 5 months now! The 6 Nations performances were forgiveably bad but the warm up matches were if anything worse and national patience ran out. There are always setbacks and the red cards and the odd injury played a part. The draw had been incredibly lucky. We will never be that lucky again. Basically we needed to beat 2 of the top nations in the world to win the World Cup. The performances in the group were hardly any better but were enough to beat second rate opponents (Argentina were completely off form). The incredibly fierce physical quarter final meant that some of the Boks had not recovered fully before the semi ( Etzebeth for example). The wet conditions nullified the difference in skill and ambition to suit England. SA made selection errors. They should have started Faf and Pollard. I think that if they had started the Ox and Kock then the England scrum would have been destroyed from the word go and yellow cards etc would have followed. Margins are often small in union. An inch of a foot in touch, a kick hitting a post, a referee misjudging an offence. England could have won that match but it would have been a bad result for the tournament and for rugby in general. I think the final should have been any 2 from 4 and that has happened if not the 2 that I would have preferred.
Where Borthwick goes from here is a mystery. I think he needs to change his lieutenants-Farrell, Wiggy, Sinfield. He needs to chance his arm with some of the exciting prospects and it will pay off long term. If we lose to France and Ireland yet score 3 tries in each then for me that’s fine. If we serve up the same dross as we have seen lately then he can expect his P45.
Out of interest, who would you have had at 3 v SA? By all accounts, Cole did pretty well against one of the world's best looseheads. Sinckler did not.

Had England won RWC23, they would have had to beat SA and NZ so I agree that draw meant we would only have needed to beat 2 of the top teams. But how many top teams have NZ or SA beaten? One each so far? Maybe two for SA if you include Scotland.

Sinfield is reported to be gone. I have a vague memory that Wiggy was originally earmarked as Skills coach but whoever was supposed to be Attack turned them down - I may be misremembering. Felix Jones is coming over from SA as something. He's been a "defensive consultant" for SA but replaced an Attack coach...
I agree that good tight heads are rarer than hens teeth at present but I did argue for Nick Schonert earlier in the year
Thinking about the SA selection, I was surprised that they didn’t go with Wiese at 8. I also think Kwagga Smith has looked more effective than Kolisi. I do think that Getya Kitsoff has looked less impressive than in recent years. He has given a lot of penalties away and doesn’t look the same threat.
It’s an interesting point about the number of great sides you need to beat to win one. I would have expected Argentina to be more of a threat but I was disappointed in their overall performance.
Could we have LCD starting hooker with Creevy on the bench this weekend?
User avatar
By Flumpty
#64173
DavenportSharky wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:13 pm

Could we have LCD starting hooker with Creevy on the bench this weekend?
It'll be a big ask for Creevy if he's playing in the Bronze game on Fri night ?
User avatar
By Yareet
#64175
DavenportSharky wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:13 pm
Yareet wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2023 2:37 pm
DavenportSharky wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2023 2:11 pm
I feel that Jones had run out of steam and Borthwick was brought in too late to give it his best shot. He was further hampered by the rule restricting the number of changes he could make for the 6 Nations.
I think when he was appointed at the Tigers he inherited a good squad who were playing well below their potential under hopeless coaches like Murphy. To his credit he got them playing to their potential sufficiently to win the Premiership. How much was down to his own coaching skill and tactical nous I’m not sure. He did not have much else on his CV when he went to Twickenham.
He decided (in error) to take with him Sinfield (great bloke but 2 seasons in union) and Wigglesworth ( minimal coaching experience and never a particularly attacking minded scrum half). Between them a ridiculous lack of rugby union coaching at the highest level. He then picked an incredibly conservative selection of players many of whom were in decline including players he knew from Tigers who nobody else would have selected (Youngs,Cole etc). That squad has been together 5 months now! The 6 Nations performances were forgiveably bad but the warm up matches were if anything worse and national patience ran out. There are always setbacks and the red cards and the odd injury played a part. The draw had been incredibly lucky. We will never be that lucky again. Basically we needed to beat 2 of the top nations in the world to win the World Cup. The performances in the group were hardly any better but were enough to beat second rate opponents (Argentina were completely off form). The incredibly fierce physical quarter final meant that some of the Boks had not recovered fully before the semi ( Etzebeth for example). The wet conditions nullified the difference in skill and ambition to suit England. SA made selection errors. They should have started Faf and Pollard. I think that if they had started the Ox and Kock then the England scrum would have been destroyed from the word go and yellow cards etc would have followed. Margins are often small in union. An inch of a foot in touch, a kick hitting a post, a referee misjudging an offence. England could have won that match but it would have been a bad result for the tournament and for rugby in general. I think the final should have been any 2 from 4 and that has happened if not the 2 that I would have preferred.
Where Borthwick goes from here is a mystery. I think he needs to change his lieutenants-Farrell, Wiggy, Sinfield. He needs to chance his arm with some of the exciting prospects and it will pay off long term. If we lose to France and Ireland yet score 3 tries in each then for me that’s fine. If we serve up the same dross as we have seen lately then he can expect his P45.
Out of interest, who would you have had at 3 v SA? By all accounts, Cole did pretty well against one of the world's best looseheads. Sinckler did not.

Had England won RWC23, they would have had to beat SA and NZ so I agree that draw meant we would only have needed to beat 2 of the top teams. But how many top teams have NZ or SA beaten? One each so far? Maybe two for SA if you include Scotland.

Sinfield is reported to be gone. I have a vague memory that Wiggy was originally earmarked as Skills coach but whoever was supposed to be Attack turned them down - I may be misremembering. Felix Jones is coming over from SA as something. He's been a "defensive consultant" for SA but replaced an Attack coach...
I agree that good tight heads are rarer than hens teeth at present but I did argue for Nick Schonert earlier in the year
Thinking about the SA selection, I was surprised that they didn’t go with Wiese at 8. I also think Kwagga Smith has looked more effective than Kolisi. I do think that Getya Kitsoff has looked less impressive than in recent years. He has given a lot of penalties away and doesn’t look the same threat.
It’s an interesting point about the number of great sides you need to beat to win one. I would have expected Argentina to be more of a threat but I was disappointed in their overall performance.
Could we have LCD starting hooker with Creevy on the bench this weekend?
I’d have no issue with Sharky except I’m not sure he’s the future. As I mentioned elsewhere, all the usual suspects at 3 are over 30.

It may be therefore that Borthwick opts for a stopgap until a c25-28-year old puts his hand up.
By DavenportSharky
#64177
Flumpty wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2023 7:03 pm
DavenportSharky wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:13 pm

Could we have LCD starting hooker with Creevy on the bench this weekend?
It'll be a big ask for Creevy if he's playing in the Bronze game on Fri night ?
Oh dear. Of course!! The week after??
Flumpty liked this
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#64179
Re Cole & Sinckler. Cole had Martin behind him and Kitshoff in front of him.

Many clubs (cough) employ Saffers in their squads who both gain experience here and replace EQ players.
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#64191
England v Argentina 27/10/2023 20:00 ko

Image
Last edited by Lord Elpus on Wed Oct 25, 2023 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By Olyy
#64192
Really excited for the return of the Kamikaze Twins

Surprised that Manu is starting again tbh - I'd have thought they'd have given Lawrence a start seeing as it's the last game
Hopefully Ford gets double digit minutes

Bev on the bench as well, good to see him finally involved again

Back 3 is...bizarre, but based on our gameplans over the last year they won't see the ball much so just there for kicking and chasing
By RinTin
#64195
Please don't break Manu.

TC 50th cap. Second youngest Englishman to reach this after Wilko I believe.
Flumpty liked this
By Olyy
#64196
Lord Elpus wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2023 12:51 pm
I'm surprised no George Martin.
I think he might be injured - he certainly looked pretty battered when he went off last week
But yeah, he'd be a starter for me if fit
By ale shark
#64200
Olyy wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2023 12:45 pm
Surprised that Manu is starting again tbh - I'd have thought they'd have given Lawrence a start seeing as it's the last game
Is it not likely to be Manu’s last game?

I think it’s time England moved on.
ledzepsfr liked this
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#64205
I would have expected some sort of announcement, similar to Ben Youngs if that were the case. I agree it is time to move on but perhaps for next year, or just 6N Manu in the squad wouldn't be a bad idea, though unfavourable for Sale , of course.
User avatar
By Yareet
#64207
poyntonshark wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2023 1:49 am
I would have expected some sort of announcement, similar to Ben Youngs if that were the case. I agree it is time to move on but perhaps for next year, or just 6N Manu in the squad wouldn't be a bad idea, though unfavourable for Sale , of course.
I wonder if they’re spacing out the announcements. On the recent BBC podcast, Youngs talks about Marler retiring …. again.

I can imagine there might be a few announced over the next few days.

Plus, I seem to remember some of the 03 squad not confirming until weeks later - almost as a precursor to the 04 6N.
By Bucks1861
#64208
Tom Curry incident. Not once, but twice and brushed under the carpet.

I for one applaud the RFU for this positive stance.

“ And within minutes of World Rugby confirming their decision, the RFU released their own statement which read: “The RFU fully support Tom Curry in raising the racially abusive behaviour he experienced whilst playing for England against South Africa. During the match between England and South Africa on Saturday 21st October 2023, Tom Curry reported to the referee that he had been racially abused by Mbongeni (Bongi) Mbonambi.

“The subsequent World Rugby investigation were informed by Tom Curry that he had also been the victim of the same abuse, from the same player, in the autumn Test 2022. World Rugby have today announced their decision not to bring charges in respect of either incident.

The RFU are deeply disappointed by the decision taken by World Rugby. The decision not to put the evidence before an Independent Disciplinary Panel has denied the disciplinary process the opportunity to hear Tom Curry’s voice and to independently assess his account of these serious events, together with the other available evidence.

“In their continued full support of Tom, the RFU together with the England squad, condemn the disgusting abuse he and his family has received on social media as a result of him having had the courage to put unacceptable behaviour that has no place in society or on the rugby field, in the public eye.
Oh Danny Boy liked this
By ageinghoody
#64214
Unless my memory is playing tricks on me a lack of corroborating evidence wasn't considered a defence when Denny Solomona was accused of homophobic abuse.

But then, having criticised that process, am I saying that this case should be treated the same way? :doh:

Whatever, the situation shouldn't be left to fester, and surely there's no shortage of potential intermediaries between Sale and the Boks.
chris1850 liked this
User avatar
By Yareet
#64221
ageinghoody wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2023 3:56 pm
Unless my memory is playing tricks on me a lack of corroborating evidence wasn't considered a defence when Denny Solomona was accused of homophobic abuse.

But then, having criticised that process, am I saying that this case should be treated the same way? :doh:

Whatever, the situation shouldn't be left to fester, and surely there's no shortage of potential intermediaries between Sale and the Boks.
If your memory is playing tricks then so is mine.
User avatar
By Flumpty
#64223
With the Denny "incident", the disciplinary group was independant.

With the TC "incident" the disciplinary comittee are the same people who are running the tournament and who want the "incident" to go away as quickly as possible.
Yonah, ageinghoody liked this
By Halifaxshark
#64248
Very impressed with the communication of the ref in the England v Argentina game.
By ale shark
#64249
Halifaxshark wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2023 8:42 pm
Very impressed with the communication of the ref in the England v Argentina game.
Other than the blatant forward pass for their try? What’s the point in officiating the rest of the game properly if you’re happy to totally overlook that? Couldn’t care less about the result but come on! It’s as blatant as a drop forward, you can’t selectively ignore it.
Bucks1861 liked this
By Halifaxshark
#64250
I posted this before that, I mean more the way he is communicating between the teams.
User avatar
By Flumpty
#64251
Manu didn't look like he was moving freely whan he came off.
By Olyy
#64252
First 15 minutes or so made me think we'd turned a corner under Borthwick

Following 65 was utter dross

Hopefully Manu not too bad, Tom was limping when coming off the pitch too (though I think you could knock a few lumps out if him with a sledgehammer and he'd play the next day)
Creevy getting a lot of treatment at the end too - looked like they were looking at his ribs, hopefully not a crack/break
Last edited by Olyy on Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
By ale shark
#64253
Halifaxshark wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:43 pm
I posted this before that, I mean more the way he is communicating between the teams.
Yeah, wasn’t arguing, just fed up with the selective enforcement of one of the fundamental laws of the game. It supposedly had a TMO review as well. Totally discredits the sport at the highest level. Imagine if that is given tomorrow.
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#64254
I could forgive the ref for letting play go on, the ball clearly travelled forward, but that's not the law anymore. I have no such forgiveness for the TMO, just about the clearest forward pass you could wish to see and he says it's OK. I don't begrudge Argentina the score they "deserved" it, but you may as well throw NFL Hail Marys if that kind of pass is to be allowed.
User avatar
By SSR
#64255
Could someone explain to me what Arundell's role was ?
Every kick chase he just got to about 5 metres of the ball then stopped. Was his
role just to get near and hope for a wayward ball came his way?
Even Flats made comments about how he should have been working harder to get involved.
Sadly looks over-hyped. Hope he grows in France in a different environment. We need
some speedy wingers.
Thought the backrow were immense.
Not a match to remember, just hope our boys are not broken . Tom looks a mess.
User avatar
By Major Bloodnok
#64257
ale shark wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2023 8:59 pm
Halifaxshark wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2023 8:42 pm
Very impressed with the communication of the ref in the England v Argentina game.
Other than the blatant forward pass for their try? What’s the point in officiating the rest of the game properly if you’re happy to totally overlook that? Couldn’t care less about the result but come on! It’s as blatant as a drop forward, you can’t selectively ignore it.
Compare and contrast with O'Flat's disallowed try last week.
By LJK
#64258
Yup, think Tom Curry will have to have a rest enforced on him...what a warrior! Manu took a big hit and stayed down for a while towards the end and then subbed, and yes Creevy also looked in trouble in the last minutes. Think likely we will be without them for a few weeks.
It was a dreadful 2nd half, so slow. Thought the refs were supposed to be getting scrums formed up quicker under the new regs. Some were taking ages last night with no 'hurry up' from the ref. and constant water boy attention. poor advert for the game to non regulars and so lets hope tonight provides a worthy final, as it should and could be.
Oh Danny Boy, Olyy liked this
By ageinghoody
#64259
I could have done without the constant overdramatic demands to the ref that the TMO recheck just about every tackle!

At least that's how it seemed to me over the five or so final minutes.
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#64260
There was an injury break towards the end of the game where practically every player left standing made some form of complaint/appeal to the ref. The question I asked to the chat group I was in at the time was "Can he not tell them all to shut the F$#k up?"
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#64261
Arundell's role was to watch Manu not passing to him.

When England play the officials are always substandard. The second forward pass in the Argie try was right in front of Brace who has plenty of anti-English form. The TMO was Whitehouse who is a known shocker as far as England are concerned.

Dan was lucky not to be carded after his try.

3 7's in the backrow is way underpowered.
User avatar
By Flumpty
#64262
poyntonshark wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2023 1:09 pm
There was an injury break towards the end of the game where practically every player left standing made some form of complaint/appeal to the ref. The question I asked to the chat group I was in at the time was "Can he not tell them all to shut the F$#k up?"
He should have done that a while before, via the Capt, then pinged the first whiger that whined at him afterwards.

This is the downside of having a chatty ref, who is happy to talk/semi coach the players.
By Olyy
#64303
Some very questionable calls in SA's favour during the final - Kwagger's late late turnover being the biggest, but probably just about deserved the win
PSDT had a monumental game, easiest MOTM award anyone's ever had to give out

NZ with Razor in charge is going to be a force again
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#64305
I thought NZ lost it through a couple of uncharacteristic poor calls - and the related missed kicks.

Smith could have got nearer the sticks for his try instead of the swan dive and Barrett's long range effort I said at the time go for touch. Chances from the lineout ; try or closer penalty shot.

NZ much the better side when numbers were equal.
By DavenportSharky
#64310
I still find it extraordinary how weird the Bok selection was throughout the tournament. Taking 4 scrum halves and only 2 hookers. One is injured so calls up Pollard ( who to be fair was excellent- went from bench v Sale in Prem Cup to WC final in a month). Relies on ex hooker to remain fit. In semi with rain forecast goes for flamboyant 9/10 and benches Faf and Pollard. In final goes for a 7-1 split on the bench. It worked but only just.
By ale shark
#64313
Word Rugby got the final it deserved. Refereeing by committee simply has to stop if they want the sport to exist in 10 years time.
ageinghoody liked this
By eBike
#64315
I have to agree with Ale Shark, the constant breaks in play while both packs have a Book Club Meeting are killing the game. Too much is made of "communication" at the expense of continuity and momentum.

I wish I could remember which ref once clearly said something along the lines of "You're not the captain, I don't need to hear from you anymore !". Something that needs to be reiterated to all front rows.

As for the frequent pauuuuuuuses :brickwall: while the TMO looks for some reason to stop the game here's a thought. Rather than simply stop the match clock while players swig and spit why not rewind it to the time the time actual triviality occurred and restart it when play resumes. Eventually.
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#64316
It shouldn't need the ref. to sy "Time off" - the TMO's team should stop the clock when the ball's not in play.
By ageinghoody
#64318
Lord Elpus wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2023 6:15 pm
It shouldn't need the ref. to sy "Time off" - the TMO's team should stop the clock when the ball's not in play.
The final wouldn't have finished yet! :lol
By Olyy
#64337
Pictures of Rodd and Ford in training yesterday - wonder if those two will filter straight back in (due to having less game time) while Manu (potential broken hand), Creevy (potential rib injury) and Curry (looks like he's been hit by a bus) will have a week or two off before coming back
By Shark in Exile
#64346
Saw Bevan and Tom, ( along with a few others from the England team), return from the RWC at Heathrow on Sunday.
Both said they will be back training on Monday and want to be back playing for us asap.
Olyy liked this
Team vs Quins

Is it worth giving Gus, Bedlow, Ernst and RDP a we[…]

Sale Boys with England

Afterthought! Maybe Gus Warr isn't meeting up […]

With regard to social media it seems to me there w[…]

I know some decry Sanderson's mind-based approac[…]