[June Tests 2018: 1st Test] South Africa vs. England (09/06/2018)

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Those two things are not really positional... as a winger he does both.

Bit of an over-simplification, bit like saying a 9 should be able to play 10 because both pass and kick.

As a fullback you do largely the same things but from a different area of the pitch. Will undoubtedly take some getting used to.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Bit of an over-simplification, bit like saying a 9 should be able to play 10 because both pass and kick.

As a fullback you do largely the same things but from a different area of the pitch. Will undoubtedly take some getting used to.

Coming forward to catch a high ball is the same for a winger as it is for a FB.
Dotting the ball down in goal is the same for a FB as it is a Winger. He didn't completly miss the ball because he's not used to playing FB (which he isn't, in any case).

Those two areas are close to exactly the same for both positions. Positioning, defence and decision making are different. Let's not pretend he's an inexperienced FB either.

It's definitely not like comparing the kicking/passing technique of halfbacks, which are fundamentally different.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Bit of an over-simplification, bit like saying a 9 should be able to play 10 because both pass and kick.

As a fullback you do largely the same things but from a different area of the pitch. Will undoubtedly take some getting used to.

Let's maybe leave that to Wasps though, not sacrifice international performance for it

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Coming forward to catch a high ball is the same for a winger as it is for a FB.
Dotting the ball down in goal is the same for a FB as it is a Winger. He didn't completly miss the ball because he's not used to playing FB (which he isn't, in any case).

Those two areas are close to exactly the same for both positions. Positioning, defence and decision making are different. Let's not pretend he's an inexperienced FB either.

It's definitely not like comparing the kicking/passing technique of halfbacks, which are fundamentally different.

Quite a few times when he came forward for high balls he didn't get there in time; that will be because as a winger he's not used to be as deep as he is at fullback so misjudged it. It's very similar but not the same.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Let's maybe leave that to Wasps though, not sacrifice international performance for it

That's not going to happen while le Roux's around though.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Quite a few times when he came forward for high balls he didn't get there in time; that will be because as a winger he's not used to be as deep as he is at fullback so misjudged it. It's very similar but not the same.

Aye positionally, the catch is still the same, technically.

Which is the point I'm making.

The dot down isn't different - his simply ****** it up.

 

[spartan32]

Haven't read all the posts yet but for me these are the highlights/lowlights

Faf de Klerk was great in that game. May have got away with a few things but that's a 9s job. Made Young's look totally anonymous. Arguably made the difference for SA

England's defence is nothing short of a tatal shambles, but not as bad as their game control. At 24-3 up in the 1st 15 mins we should have been playing for territory and completely controlling the pace of the game, and given the number of playmakers and kickers we had on the pitch that should have been easy. But instead we go to peices and hand the game back to SA. Simply unexceptable at this level.

Brown did really well and I think it's fair to say he's given his critics the finger in a big way.

Jones not having suitable lock cover has been shown to be the total disaster it was expected to be. Hope he's learnt his lesson for next week.

Curry seemed all at sea to me, but apparently stats had him as the top tackler on waiter side. The question is was he tacking the right people, because he never seemed to be where he was needed?

The refing was very suspect indeed and certainly favoured the Saffers. Right down to the TMO forcing Farrell to stop his kick to check Itojes try that was clearly completely fine. But England can't really use that as excuse.

England are still total shite at the breakdown. Even with a pack made up of nearly all back rowers and a NZ wunder kid.

Mays try was pretty good. Jones needs to find more ways to unlock that unbelievable pace and get that kids scoring more tries.

Daley wins DOTD.

In summary both teams have a fair amount to work on, but SA should be rightly pleased with their no quit effort. Many teams would have crumbled after the soaking they got early on. I have no idea what England need to do, but whatever it is it needs to happen fast or this series could spell the end of the dream.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Haven't read all the posts yet but for me these are the highlights/lowlights

Faf de Klerk was great in that game. May have got away with a few things but that's a 9s job. Made Young's look totally anonymous. Arguably made the difference for SA

England's defence is nothing short of a tatal shambles, but not as bad as their game control. At 24-3 up in the 1st 15 mins we should have been playing for territory and completely controlling the pace of the game, and given the number of playmakers and kickers we had on the pitch that should have been easy. But instead we go to peices and hand the game back to SA. Simply unexceptable at this level.

Brown did really well and I think it's fair to say he's given his critics the finger in a big way.

Jones not having suitable lock cover has been shown to be the total disaster it was expected to be. Hope he's learnt his lesson for next week.

Curry seemed all at sea to me, but apparently stats had him as the top tackler on waiter side. The question is was he tacking the right people, because he never seemed to be where he was needed?

The refing was very suspect indeed and certainly favoured the Saffers. Right down to the TMO forcing Farrell to stop his kick to check Itojes try that was clearly completely fine. But England can't really use that as excuse.

England are still total shite at the breakdown. Even with a pack made up of nearly all back rowers and a NZ wunder kid.

Mays try was pretty good. Jones needs to find more ways to unlock that unbelievable pace and get that kids scoring more tries.

Daley wins DOTD.

In summary both teams have a fair amount to work on, but SA should be rightly pleased with their no quit effort. Many teams would have crumbled after the soaking they got early on. I have no idea what England need to do, but whatever it is it needs to happen fast or this series could spell the end of the dream.

Best post I have seen. Literally agree with everything here.

 

[Nudger]

With the penalty count at 14 3 it's ni on impossible to win

 

[ratsapprentice]

Brown did really well and I think it's fair to say he's given his critics the finger in a big way.

Except he was massively caught for pace in defence. It was predicted to be a big problem, and lo....

Jones not having suitable lock cover has been shown to be the total disaster it was expected to be. Hope he's learnt his lesson for next week.

I don't think the bench makeup was the problem - it was his decision to make the sub 30 odd minutes into the game. Not that it was a good idea not having proper cover, mind...

Curry seemed all at sea to me, but apparently stats had him as the top tackler on waiter side. The question is was he tacking the right people, because he never seemed to be where he was needed?

In what way was he all at sea? He made 19 tackles... that's at least 19 times he was in the right place to make a tackle. I mean, it's listed as a tackle if your tackling the guy with the ball... if not the guy with the ball, who should he be tackling?
He had one very good break in the second half. He put decent pressure on at the ruck a couple of times, but no successful steals.

The refing was very suspect indeed and certainly favoured the Saffers. Right down to the TMO forcing Farrell to stop his kick to check Itojes try that was clearly completely fine. But England can't really use that as excuse.

I don't know whether I'd say suspect. Very, very strict at the breakdown, but that's a problem for both NH/SH sides when given new refs.

England are still total shite at the breakdown. Even with a pack made up of nearly all back rowers and a NZ wunder kid.

They had three backrowers, 4 when Isiekwe was subbed. I wouldn't have played Shields as a lock, for the same reason I don't consider either Itoje or Isiekwe flankers.
But it was hardly a pack made up of "nearly all back rowers".

I have no idea what England need to do, but whatever it is it needs to happen fast or this series could spell the end of the dream.

Reducing the massive penalty count seems a fairly obvious one to work on...

 

[spartan32]

Except he was massively caught for pace in defence. It was predicted to be a big problem, and lo....



I don't think the bench makeup was the problem - it was his decision to make the sub 30 odd minutes into the game. Not that it was a good idea not having proper cover, mind...



In what way was he all at sea? He made 19 tackles... that's at least 19 times he was in the right place to make a tackle. I mean, it's listed as a tackle if your tackling the guy with the ball... if not the guy with the ball, who should he be tackling?
He had one very good break in the second half. He put decent pressure on at the ruck a couple of times, but no successful steals.



I don't know whether I'd say suspect. Very, very strict at the breakdown, but that's a problem for both NH/SH sides when given new refs.



They had three backrowers, 4 when Isiekwe was subbed. I wouldn't have played Shields as a lock, for the same reason I don't consider either Itoje or Isiekwe flankers.
But it was hardly a pack made up of "nearly all back rowers".



Reducing the massive penalty count seems a fairly obvious one to work on...

I'll tale the Curry comment. 19 tackles is a lot and maybe the general crapness of the team as whole buried him some what.

When playing a team who are famed for their abrasive forwards play and love of set piece to not have adequate cover in 2nd row is a complete farce. And Jones didn't, so the make up of the bench was clearly an issue. Further more he had Solomona on the bench and brought him on with minutes left and no chance to make any impact at all. What was the point on having a back on the bench who you clearly don't trust enough to bring on with enough time left on th clock. Especially a guy like Denny who is a try scoring machine and can make try's happen from anywhere.

As for the refing. It wasn't strict, it was just poor. Makos yellow was a joke, especially given the fact that May was taken in the air as part of the same run of play and nothing was done. Mako should have been a penalty at most, and Faf defo dived big style to draw the penalty.

Anyway it's all said and done now. I agree that we need to seriously drop the penalty count, but my fear is that will lead to us becoming even more stand off at the break down and less effectual across the board.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I agree the makeup of the bench was an issue, but the point is it didn't have all that much to do with our poor play.

It wasn't a disaster - having no lock cover is always bad idea. It depowered our scrums, sure, and I think the pack would have been better if Shields replaced Robshaw.
But I don't think it was "disastrous".

I also agree that Mako shouldn't have been a YC - play on, for me. But the massive penalty count was down to strict reffing - it wasn't suspect, just harsh.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I thought Mako's card was really harsh because Itoje should have been carded earlier on in the game and they didn't even look at it. Really late charge down and hit Faf across the neck with his elbow, and he stayed down for a phase for 2 after. Mako's was basically a kiss and a cuddle in comparison.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

But the massive penalty count was down to strict reffing - it wasn't suspect, just harsh.

I disagree on this, harsh against us but not against the Saffas. VDK was a mile offside when he disrupted our ball and us getting penalised for a ruck infringement when we had nobody in the ruck wasn't harsh refereeing, it was outright awful refereeing. Add to that George being penalised despite rolling away as soon as he could and SA frequently diving off their feet and sealing off but never once being penalised. The bit that sticks in my mind is a Saffa lying on the wrong side of the ruck rolled into the supporting player causing him to trip before joining the ruck and then we get penalised for holding on after our support was blocked. The same happened against Wales in the 6N, they block our support from arriving and we get penalised.

I worry we have built up such a reputation as being **** poor at the breakdown that we are now being penalised when the opposition do something wrong there because the assumption is we are just **** there. We need to sort it out and it's ******* infuriating how successive coaches ignore it. The breakdown is the MOST common set piece in the game, sort it the **** out!

 

[ratsapprentice]

The breakdown is the MOST common set piece in the game, sort it the **** out!

Not to be pedantic, but it's not a set-piece.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Not to be pedantic, but it's not a set-piece.

Semi-set piece then. It's not "loose" play and it is an aspect of the game almost as common as tackling and yet we happily ignore it whilst getting our knickers in a twist over scrums.

 

[ratsapprentice]

It's part of loose play - just as much as running or passing is.

And I don't think anyone's ignoring it.

 

[User1245]

I didn't get an opportunity to give my 2 cents before the match but I thought England were going to take it by about 10 points in a low scoring game. I thought we just had too many new faces and combinations to beat a team that although have been in a slump, they've at least for the most played together before. For example I can't recall Faf and Pollard playing together before, back 3 definitely haven't, DDA and Am may have had parts of a game or 2, locks haven't, etc, etc. Just all seemed too new to work.

Bar the first 20 minutes which looked like another record loss was on it's way, I thought we were the Springboks of old. Bruising forward dominance followed by our backs filling in the gaps.

Players were standouts:
Nkosi
Snyman (SA lock factory continues)
De Klerk
Vermulen
Le Roux

Players were good:
Bongi
Pollard
Kolisi
DDA
Dyantyi
Kitsoff
PS du Tiot

Players who were average but didn't play themselves out of jersey:
Am (put in a lot of non flashy graft after his initial mistakes)
Mostert
Du Preez
Beast
Louw

I'd like minimal changes in the next match. PS du Tiot for Mostert is probably the only change for now.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

It's part of loose play - just as much as running or passing is.

And I don't think anyone's ignoring it.

It's hardly "loose" play considering the area around the ruck is deemed to be the "tight" area. Rucks are a break in play and all that differs is how long it is. As an aspect of England's game it has been woefully neglected in every aspect, from protecting our own ball at the ruck to a complete inability to regularly slow the ball down and a reluctance and poor ability to get turnovers. It's no coincidence that England have been under the cosh because we keep letting the opposition play at whatever speed they want with minimal interference whilst letting them interfere in the speed we play all too often. When you have someone like the SA 9 who is constantly taking the ball quickly and running, you need to do something to slow it down. I saw more than 1 ruck where we massively outnumbered the SA players and yet they just stood off an allowed them to put in 1 defender and get the ball out with zero pressure. Had they dived it there would have been a good chance of a turnover or at least slowing it down but they didn't, they stood back and watched.

Too much of England's gameplan is passive, waiting for the opposition to do something and trying to react. The issue is the players don't have the rugby brains or are being constrained so they can't react. It's all too robotic with little to no emphasis on playing what is in front of them and instead blindly following what they have been trained to do. It's why we keep getting beaten out wide, we have a narrow defence and the players simply don't react when it is clear the ball is being passed straight to the wing.

It's like a lot of England tactics are contradictory and the worst of both worlds. We send in isolated runners to keep as many players on their feet as options but then allow the ball to be slowed down so much it doesn't matter. We have lots of players on their feet but then repeatedly do a 1 out pass to the nearest isolated forward who just crashes into contact. We spread our defence out rather than getting stuck in at the ruck but also keep it extremely narrow so our wings are constantly exposed. We box kick regularly but have minimal chase, we have 2 distributors yet rarely distribute wide, our outside defence will rush up but our inside defence will stand still and wait for the opposition to run at them. We are like a multiple personality team trying to play 2 styles at once and thus failing at both. Our players are too small to play a tight bashing game but too slow and constrained to play a wide game.

 

[Pom in Exile]

I think Daly was trying the dab the ball down, when in reality it was easier to slide and smother.

I felt like it was the other way around, inexplicable error from a guy who doesn't make many tbf to him.