• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[RWC2019][The Final] England vs. South Africa (02/11/2019)

Someone I was listening to on podcast (can't rememeber which) made the point that some of England's handling errors, although apparently unforced, probably stemmed from the added pressure that any mistake which led to a scrum ulitimately led to 3 points.
Later on in the game I felt England's errors were forced by SA pressure. Earlier in the game the errors certainly seamed to come England inaccuracy rather than SA pressure.
 
Ja, I'd also say NZ weren't on top form. Soo many mistakes from them that maybe weren't forced per se. That said you have to give England kudos for at least a portion of that though- I mean even the non-direct mistakes due to the pressure England put NZ under. In the same manner IMO you have to give SA some credit for England's not being in top gear.
 
Ja, I'd also say NZ weren't on top form. Soo many mistakes from them that maybe weren't forced per se. That said you have to give England kudos for at least a portion of that though- I mean even the non-direct mistakes due to the pressure England put NZ under. In the same manner IMO you have to give SA some credit for England's not being in top gear.
I don't disagree. I give a huge amount of credit to the work SA did create pressure especially at the scrum everyone predicted SA to have the upper hand don't think anyone predicted them to be utterly dominant.

Its the early errors I'm focusing on mainly that allowed SA to start creating the pressure, which the AB's didn't seam to have and before the disparity at the scrum became so apparent (reality it takes until about the third until you truly realise the mismatch).



Completely side note: Did anyone feel Garces was allowing SA too much time at the scrum to get a penalty? I say this because in recent years if the ball is available to the SH I've seen many a collapse or stood up scrum not be blown and the game just carry on. You play the ref on the day and all that and it doesn't excuse England getting beasted but I thought WR were trying to stop scrums become penalty generating machines in these situations.
 
Did anyone feel Garces was allowing SA too much time at the scrum to get a penalty?
I know very little about the scrum, but weren't SA keeping the ball in the second row and waiting for the penalty, avoiding the "Use eet"?

It irritates me to see the scrum half bend down to put the ball in, fanny around and then come up with a shrug of the shoulders... GET IT IN!
 
I know very little about the scrum, but weren't SA keeping the ball in the second row and waiting for the penalty, avoiding the "Use eet"?

It irritates me to see the scrum half bend down to put the ball in, fanny around and then come up with a shrug of the shoulders... GET IT IN!
1st part I'd have to watch again but I do believe I've seen refs see through that one.

On second the ref tells them when to put in now, if they fanny about it's either a penalty or reversed. Never seen it enforced and most of time fannying is because the ref hasn't told them to put in.
 
Completely side note: Did anyone feel Garces was allowing SA too much time at the scrum to get a penalty? I say this because in recent years if the ball is available to the SH I've seen many a collapse or stood up scrum not be blown and the game just carry on. You play the ref on the day and all that and it doesn't excuse England getting beasted but I thought WR were trying to stop scrums become penalty generating machines in these situations.

It's a shame Eddie did not give a detailed post match analysis of where he thought it went wrong. I can understand why he might not want to do this.

Before the final Eddie made a point about preparing for the referee, which suggests either he got it wrong or Garces was told to tighten up or changed his referring.

I also felt those scrums were holding the ball too long. Clever tactic on the day.
 
Hasn't O'Gara just come out and said England should've made an excuse to take Cole off and go uncontested in the scrums?
Nope. He said they could have done it if they were being cynical and then praised them for not doing it. He did say that some would have called it 'smart' to do that but it was clear he wouldn't have thought of it that way.

Hence clickbait gutter journalists jumping on it and writing articles full of complete bull***t about it.
 
Nope. He said they could have done it if they were being cynical and then praised them for not doing it. He did say that some would have called it 'smart' to do that but it was clear he wouldn't have thought of it that way.

Hence clickbait gutter journalists jumping on it and writing articles full of complete bull***t about it.
Yeah, I haven't read his exact words on the subject, but suspected as much..... I've just watched a bit of his interview, and unless it was cut down, he never mentions he wouldn't OR praises England for not doing it... He does say "You have to find a way to win no matter what it takes. If you get in trouble, you've got a World Cup winners' medal."

Could you imagine the uproar of that happening in a final?
 
Last edited:
Completely side note: Did anyone feel Garces was allowing SA too much time at the scrum to get a penalty? I say this because in recent years if the ball is available to the SH I've seen many a collapse or stood up scrum not be blown and the game just carry on. You play the ref on the day and all that and it doesn't excuse England getting beasted but I thought WR were trying to stop scrums become penalty generating machines in these situations.
100% this. I said the same during the game. He seemed determined to allow SA as much time as they needed to get a penalty. SA became aware of it and decided (sensibly) that they were never going to use the ball from the scrum, instead hold it until Garces inevitably blew for a pen.
 
Wow, a week since the World Cup ended. This is nuts. I am having serious withdrawal issues. :eek:
 
I understand the idea that knocking Japan out of their own World Cup and winning the trophy, avenges the past in Brighton.... BUT, that game will always be seen as the moment Japan told the rugby world they mean business, not anymore a team guaranteed to gift you 5 points even before a ball gets kicked. I remember the NZ 1995 thrashing like it was yesterday, with Dad telling me to change the channel saying it was one sided. "Nothing else on" I said.

Anyways, well damn done South Africa. Love to visit your country some day and my South African friend is loving it. Best team in the whole tournament.

After Eddie Jones's comments about Wales and Warren Gatland, and the fact I would have been putting up with wind-up sessions from the former Swindon Branch staff members at work, since I am Welsh, I am glad you won!.
 
Been a week but still feeling the same, thought we were gutless, spineless and frankly embarrassingly pathetic.
Typical England in any sport, get to the important games and bottle it.
I am still disgusted, and could not give a **** about the next gutless performance these asshats serve up..
 
Why did that ref even get the final, when everyone seemed to know he was rubbish.
That's no excuse for englands joke performance but that ref was and is crap as most supporters commented way before the final..
 
1st part I'd have to watch again but I do believe I've seen refs see through that one.

On second the ref tells them when to put in now, if they fanny about it's either a penalty or reversed. Never seen it enforced and most of time fannying is because the ref hasn't told them to put in.
It's very common In Super rugby if you have a dominant scrum to keep it in until you get the penAlty. refs can only let it play on when it collapses if it's already at the base. I don't know whether or not that was the case.

The springboks did seem to play the ref better. Plus 20000 South Africans, with the petition potentially having an impact.
 


The one with BOD and the one with Ronan o Gara are just as sour. But this one in particular really smacks of patheticness.

The real fun is at the end. Around 16min.



BOD and O Gara were just as crap. Does no one like them either?

The biggest thing that ticks me off is after England beat NZ everyone went mad. Oh best performance ever. Could this be the best England team? World Class. Bla Bla Bla. Then we do exactly the same to England in the final and this is the reaction. We lost once this entire year, yet it's as if we were handed everything on a platter and aren't really the best team. Bunch of sour grapes from everywhere.

Not everywhere buddy. Haven't read the last 50 or so pages on here, to be fair, but from what I've seen people are congratulatory toward the Boks, and most credit the Boks for England not playing so well. Also, the pre tournament poll here had more than 50 percent of pundits predicting the Boks to win the cup, which suggests people don't think it's luck. And the Boks definitely played a more attractive brand than ireland.
 
Wow, a week since the World Cup ended. This is nuts. I am having serious withdrawal issues. :eek:
It goes through a tail end of a month, a whole of the following month and then the tail start of the month after that.

It lasts longer than the football one for sure, even if you do count the breaks in the pool stages (you get no no-match days in the football one during the group/pool phase).

Still missing it though, let's have the qualifiers back to how they used to be; the top 3 all go through automatically, everyone else has to qualify through regional groups.

It gives us World Cup rugby to watch on the TV in the meantime at least, even if it is a qualifier.

The way it is now, the home nations just play Quilter Internationals, which just feels pointless and we have to wait another four years for any sort of World Cup games.
 

Latest posts

Top