[RWC2019][Pool B] Round 3 - England vs. Argentina (05/10/2019)

[Rich Taff]

First side to qualify for the knock outs
Only side in the competition with maximum points
Joint highest points for in the competition
Best points difference in the competition
Just scored six trys against a tier 1 opponent

I think our creativity is fine and momentum 'appears' to be building nicely.

That's fine. I'm posting my views, feel free to post your own.
First side to qualify - slightly dependent on scheduling, don't you think?
Only side with maximum points - have played Tonga, USA and a very poor Argentina.
Join highest points for - see previous.
Best points difference - see ermm...pre-previous?
Just scored six try's against a tier 1 opponent - I don't feel that Argentina can truly be considered a tier 1 nation on their showing over the last couple of years. I'd put them in upper 2's along with Italy.
I feel there is a genuine lack of creativity, and very little increase in momentum.
Don't get me wrong, I have tipped England before the start of the tournament due to the extreme conditions and the depth of the squad. I just don't feel they're showing anything that hasn't been seen (and countered) before.

 

[Rich Taff]

Well I'll tell you what's the matter with Argentina, and it's something we SH posters discussed at length during the RC, and it's the Jaguares didn't rest their players enough. So their season is at the moment extremely long, plus during the shortened RC they did minimal changes between games so their core group, who are all in Japan, played every game.

But Lavanini is a total moron, that's his 8th red card or something like that.

Wasn't aware of that with the games played. I'm not sure on player numbers, but surely Argentina can provide more than just a first XV for the Jaguares? I'd worry if that's not the case.

regarding Lavanini, the guy appears to be a bit dull in that case. It wasn't a 'I'm gonna keeeeel you!' tackle. It just seemed to be very badly timed/executed.
Hasn't he signed for an English club team for next year?

 

[Jimbo]

I feel there is a genuine lack of creativity, and very little increase in momentum.
Don't get me wrong, I have tipped England before the start of the tournament due to the extreme conditions and the depth of the squad. I just don't feel they're showing anything that hasn't been seen (and countered) before.

Assuming there is some master tactics yet to be displayed, please explain why England would want to demonstrate it and give teams a chance to come up with a counter plan when clearly these master strokes have so far not been needed as they have maximum points?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

That's fine. I'm posting my views, feel free to post your own.
First side to qualify - slightly dependent on scheduling, don't you think?
Only side with maximum points - have played Tonga, USA and a very poor Argentina.
Join highest points for - see previous.
Best points difference - see ermm...pre-previous?
Just scored six try's against a tier 1 opponent - I don't feel that Argentina can truly be considered a tier 1 nation on their showing over the last couple of years. I'd put them in upper 2's along with Italy.
I feel there is a genuine lack of creativity, and very little increase in momentum.
Don't get me wrong, I have tipped England before the start of the tournament due to the extreme conditions and the depth of the squad. I just don't feel they're showing anything that hasn't been seen (and countered) before.

I disagree that England lack creativity as we have shown it plenty of times in the past. However you are correct in that we seem to be severely lacking it here in the world cup, which in a way is more worrying. We looked good coming into the 2015 world cup and then just completely switched off. I'm not feeling confident that we won't sleepwalk our way into a game against a bigger team. If we decide to actually turn up and be sharp, I'd say we are able to compete even with NZ but the frequency with which England have played like zombies devoid of any thinking and just completely shut down means we cannot say with confidence that will happen.

England feel like they have taken the mantle of "which side will turn up?" from the French with how inconsistent we can be. The whole hidden gameplan argument doesn't sit too well with me as we have heard that multiple times from the Irish when Ireland have looked clueless. It also doesn't excuse making very basic errors.

 

[mania]

Wow. Lavinini gets done for a head high. Now there's a surprise. That's what happens when you start a liability. It's was really only a matter of time before he cost his team. Can't believe Ledesma trusted him.

 

[Zed]

Haven't gone through the entire thread, but discussed this game with a few English friends.
I though this was England's poorest performance by a long way. Youngs didn't help. He looked like Aled Davies, slowing everything down.
They seemed totally incapable of actually changing the game plan to account for the opposition going down to 14 men. They continued to play short pass run it up the middle rugby, with no apparent creativity.
So far, they've done all that was needed of them to win each game, not looking in any danger of losing, but not looking like they have much more up their sleeve.
I'm starting to think they may have been overcoached.
This lack of creativity will (in my opinion) severely hamper any chance they have of getting past a tier 1 nation in the knockout stages.

Also, what has happened to Argentina? I thought they were were supposed to be doing well in the super 12 (as the Jaguars(sp?)). They were absolutely awful, look like they've gone backwards 4 years instead of forwards from last world cup.

(Just re-read this and noticed how many times I used the word 'they'. That's not good grammar )

Yeah "overcoached" is a good phrase to use, that's what I was thinking. Rather than using their initiative and adapting, they seem to be following their gameplan rigidly. 20+ points up, in the Argies half, 15mins to go, why box kick and/or kick for territory. England looked so dangerous whenever their outside backs got the ball from phase play. I still think England will beat France and then us in the quarters. But unless they change their gameplan they won't get close to beating the ABs or Boks. If they give away that much possession to a potent side like the ABs, they'll be slaughtered. They need to knock the box kicks on the head.

 

[Rinkadink]

Assuming there is some master tactics yet to be displayed, please explain why England would want to demonstrate it and give teams a chance to come up with a counter plan when clearly these master strokes have so far not been needed as they have maximum points?

I'm not sure there are any secret masterplans but in theory you would want the players to be able to execute said plans and more likely systems as second nature, it's much easier to revert to simple kick+chase than it is switching 1331 to 312 to 242 to whatever pod system you're using/made up and the variations from that.

I guess it boils down to the question; does the opposition analysis and their ability to counter outweigh the failures to execute/familiarity?

 

[Goodey]

Maybe the reason England are playing the way they are is because it's worked really, really well?

Despite playing in the hardest group they have the best points difference in the tournament and joint most tries.

That's a stat that won't last past today because we haven't had the chance to play one of the amateur teams, while the teams we're supposed to be inferior to get to play them twice.

Take the last page and a half in isolation. Does it sound like a team that has won all its games by 30? It sounds like a team that is losing.

It's not even like there's evidence England minnow bash and then struggled to score points against top teams. In the last year we have scored 30+ against Ireland (twice), Wales, South Africa and Australia. There's only two games in the last two years where we failed to score a try, and one of those was a win.

What's the big problem? Do big wins and scoring loads of tries only count if they're done in a manner you approve of?

 

[Zapphod]

Assuming there is some master tactics yet to be displayed, please explain why England would want to demonstrate it and give teams a chance to come up with a counter plan when clearly these master strokes have so far not been needed as they have maximum points?

I agree I don't think any of the top 4-5 teams are showing their hands, at this stage all they need to do is get through pool play with as fewer injuries as possible.

I am not even sure many are worried about who they are playing in the next round as they have all played each other and lost to each other.

 

[Which Tyler]

And on to France:
Injuries aside, I'd suggest the same team as I suggested for yesterday.

1. Genge
2. George
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje
5. Kris
6. Ludlam
7. Underhill
8. Wilson

9. Heinz
10. Ford
11. May
12. Tuilagi
13. Joseph
14. Nowell
15. Watson

16. Cowan-Dickie, 17. MVunipola, 18. Cole, 19. Lawes, 20. Curry
21. Youngs, 22. Slade, 23. Daly


Rationale:
Mako would start IF he'd had more gametime yesterday
Marler needs a rest, especially after picking up a knock. QF is more important for him than this dead rubber.
I so wish we had a better option than Cole, ideally a 3rd THP in Japan (only ever needed 2 of Slade, Francis, Nowell and McConnochie)
Curry has played 240 minutes in 3 matches so far. My instinct is to start and aim to replace him, but I'd rather not risk him having to play another 80.
Billy still needs a rocket, and possibly a rest; his, ****le gives a public excuse (as does rotation TBH)

Heinz is simply playing better than Young's
Farrell needs a rocket based on the RWC so far, and after yesterday, needs to go through RTP protocols. Again, the QF is more important for him than a dead rubber.
As ever, I wish Slade had 50 club matches at IC under his belt. At least Manu has been training there for England for the last year or so. Francis simply isn't one of our top 4 centres and shouldn't even be at the RWC
Nowell did enough to overtake Coka
Harsh to put Daly to the bench after his first good game at FB, but... he's still not a FB, and it's be even harsher to drop Watson. He and Curry are our only players to have played every minute so far

 

[bushytop]

Maybe the reason England are playing the way they are is because it's worked really, really well?

Despite playing in the hardest group they have the best points difference in the tournament and joint most tries.

That's a stat that won't last past today because we haven't had the chance to play one of the amateur teams, while the teams we're supposed to be inferior to get to play them twice.

Take the last page and a half in isolation. Does it sound like a team that has won all its games by 30? It sounds like a team that is losing.

It's not even like there's evidence England minnow bash and then struggled to score points against top teams. In the last year we have scored 30+ against Ireland (twice), Wales, South Africa and Australia. There's only two games in the last two years where we failed to score a try, and one of those was a win.

What's the big problem? Do big wins and scoring loads of tries only count if they're done in a manner you approve of?

Ludicrous

 

[ncurd]

Honestly I'm not worried about England performances so far. Hell I probably wouldn't worry about being lackluster against France.

Mainly because firstly England look barely like getting out of second gear. Yesterday when they wanted to turn it on they did.

Secondly and more importantly I've always felt this England side have bad games in them. Might as well have four when they don't matter and you win at a canter or a dead rubber against France. I'm way more confident in England string together 3 good performances in a row than I was 7.

 

[Grizwald]

No wonder the English press are doom mongers......

I'm not saying England will go on to lift the WC but when they won it in 2003 they didn't put in arguably any stellar performances usually being just efficient enough to win. We're in the QF where its knock out rugby and anything can happen.

I'd fancy our chances against anyone, minus maybe the All Blacks who put in a good performance but are currently been given a game against Namibia and have rhe potential to be going into the knock out stages undercooked.

At the same time France keep saying they are targetting the next World Cup so are capable of throwing caution to the wind and beating England next weekend.

 

[Nubiwan]

My first post on here in about a year I reckon.

I missed the match yesterday as I was working, and no chance I am getting up at some ungodly hour to watch it. My mate told me the score when I got in to work. Have to say, I was impressed when he told me it was 39-10 to England. Going into the World Cup, I felt Argentina could have given England a real test, in light of their recent performances in Super Rugby. They certainly deserved more from the France match too, in my opinion. Just falling short while dominating the last 40. So the result had me feeling upbeat about England's RWC prospects. A resounding defeat, it appeared.

I just watched the highlights, and have to say, the result makes more sense to me knowing England were only up against 14 men for over an hour. You can talk all you like about English tactics, flair and creativity, but all those things change, and the pressure is not the same, when you are up against a depleted outfit. 7 man packs and more spaces in the midfield to exploit. Red card basically condemns Argentina, and the contest is effectively over at international level.

I am getting many friends tell me how England will do well at this World Cup, and they do have the optimal draw for the quarter final, but I still do not see enough there to threaten the ABs, and lately the boks. Be made up they do, but feel a little robbed of one of the games of this group with that red card.

Nothing England can about the draw, and red cards, and so they keep on winning, but I hope they keep grinding, as they must, to get any RWC joy. On paper, for me, the ABs are still 20 points better than anyone, and have more skilled players throughout any 15 they field.

The starting front 5 of England yesterday, compared to what the ABS have, just isn't up to scratch. ****, England have yet to face either Wales or Australia, and I'd say there'll be a few tight sphincter moments against either of these sides, let alone talking of them in the final.

Farrell needs to get his kicking boots on ......

 

[TommiG88]

My first post on here in about a year I reckon.

I missed the match yesterday as I was working, and no chance I am getting up at some ungodly hour to watch it. My mate told me the score when I got in to work. Have to say, I was impressed when he told me it was 39-10 to England. Going into the World Cup, I felt Argentina could have given England a real test, in light of their recent performances in Super Rugby. They certainly deserved more from the France match too, in my opinion. Just falling short while dominating the last 40. So the result had me feeling upbeat about England's RWC prospects. A resounding defeat, it appeared.

I just watched the highlights, and have to say, the result makes more sense to me knowing England were only up against 14 men for over an hour. You can talk all you like about English tactics, flair and creativity, but all those things change, and the pressure is not the same, when you are up against a depleted outfit. 7 man packs and more spaces in the midfield to exploit. Red card basically condemns Argentina, and the contest is effectively over at international level.

I am getting many friends tell me how England will do well at this World Cup, and they do have the optimal draw for the quarter final, but I still do not see enough there to threaten the ABs, and lately the boks. Be made up they do, but feel a little robbed of one of the games of this group with that red card.

Nothing England can about the draw, and red cards, and so they keep on winning, but I hope they keep grinding, as they must, to get any RWC joy. On paper, for me, the ABs are still 20 points better than anyone, and have more skilled players throughout any 15 they field.

The starting front 5 of England yesterday, compared to what the ABS have, just isn't up to scratch. ****, England have yet to face either Wales or Australia, and I'd say there'll be a few tight sphincter moments against either of these sides, let alone talking of them in the final.

Farrell needs to get his kicking boots on ......

Welcome back, but August wasn't a year ago muhaha

 

[Nubiwan]

In light of my patent disappointment of being robbed of a contest in this game, surely a better option for rugby fans would be to see your man sent off yesterday, and serving a ban/fine etc., but for his team to serve a 10-15 minute sin bin, and not have to play the rest of the game with 14 players.

Say what you like about how good or bad either side was going in yesterday, but the red card really put paid to the spectacle. With 15, I reckon Argentina can compete with England and give them a few problems. Not your standard opposition. With 14, it's damage limitation for the Pumas. I don't think we'd have seen a 29 point spread at 15 aside, and as a result, we are no further along knowing just how good this English side are. Is?

At international level, how many times are we robbed of great contest because a player either had a brain fart, or simply misjudged a tackle, to be sent off? Too many I say, and cite SBW seeing red in the last Lions series. Sure there are plenty others.

Not sure I can end a sentence with "are". So, I did it again.

 

[Nubiwan]

Welcome back, but August wasn't a year ago muhaha

Did I? Holy ****! Too many head injuries.

Ok it was July........

First meaningful then.....?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I don't really think there's much to say about yesterday, England got their 4 tries and coasted in from there, if they really wanted to focus and score 50 they could have. It was a good performance that qualified you for a QF but doesn't mean a thing beyond that and it was clear the players and coach knew that. From here you could react like Ireland did to beating Scotland (a performance I'd rate similarly to yesterday fwiw) and be out following two mediocre performances, you could build momentum and go all the way, or, most likely somewhere in between. Beating a 14 man Argentina won't be given a second's thought at the end of it all, nor should it.

Ultimately I think you're right not to be taking a huge amount of confidence from the games you've won, they don't indicate that you're going to win this thing and the only team capable of causing you a scare beat themselves for you, but equally there's no reason to say you can't win it, running up big scores is a New Zealand thing, they're the best at playing heads up, unstructured rugby, it really helps them put away minnows but tier 1 teams on the top of their game nullify it and force them to use their many other weapons.

 

[Nudger]

I'm going to be controversial.

but against France I would like to to see Faz Manu and JJ.

Me too

 

[Nubiwan]

Did an Englishman go unpunished inthe opening phases for tackling a man in the air? What gives Nigel Owen? Plain as day. Did it even go to review? Is it even cardable, or just a pen! I don't know any more.