England vs South Africa November 15th 2014

First topic message reminder :

Courtney Lawes is a doubt, since he is going through concussion protocols. That would see Kruis start and Kitchener on the bench, unless Lancaster wants to do something funky with Clark. Luther Burrell not in contention, and Stephen Myler still out with a hamstring problem. Haskell is there.

England team to face South Africa:

Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Anthony Watson (Bath)
Brad Barritt (Saracens)
Kyle Eastmond (Bath)
Jonny May (Gloucester)
Owen Farrell (Saracens)
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Dylan Hartley (Northampton)
David Wilson (Bath)
Dave Attwood (Bath)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton)
Tom Wood (Northampton)
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)

Replacements

Rob Webber (Bath), Matt Mullan (Wasps), Kieran Brookes (Newcastle), George Kruis (Saracens), Ben Morgan (Gloucester), Ben Youngs (Leicester), George Ford (Bath), Marland Yarde (Harlequins)

South Africa

15 Willie le Roux,
14 JP Pietersen,
13 Jan Serfontein,

12 Jean de Villiers,
11 Bryan Habana,
10 Pat Lambie,
9 Cobus Reinach,
8 Duane Vermeulen,
7 Schalk Burger,
6 Marcell Coetzee,
5 Victor Matfield,
4 Eben Etzebeth,
3 Jannie du Plessis,
2 Adriaan Strauss,
1 Tendai Mtawarira

Replacements:

16 Bismarck du Plessis,
17 Trevor Nyakane,
18 Coenie Oosthuizen,
19 Bakkies Botha,
20 Teboho “Oupa” Mohoje,
21 Francois Hougaard,
22 Handré Pollard,
23 Cornal Hendricks

England have gone without a win in their last eleven Tests against the Springboks. Their best recent result was a draw in Port Elizabeth in June 2012. The match on Saturday will be almost eight years exactly since England's last victory. England have lost their last four Twickenham encounters.

This is the third time Lancaster has taken England through a round of Autumn Internationals. In 2012, his team beat New Zealand. In 2013, it was Australia. He has never beaten South Africa; his record reads one home loss, two away losses and one away draw.

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:Bok camp is very quiet, we aren't getting any feedback from them or the coach, not even on SA media.

That can mean a lot of different things, I just hope Meyer does not over react and bring back Morne Steyn.

I think he is going to make a premature judgement on Hougaard and Reinach as he is already prejudiced against them in NH conditions.

I hope he sees Hougaard's performance for what it was, an inexperienced player playing his first match in Europe at halfback.

Are you sure about that?

I recall him playing in the 2009 tour and beyond at SH.

From ESPN he played SH vs.

Italy in 2009 away,
Wales at 2010 away,
Scotland at 2010 away (remember that game BB???)
He also played vs. Saracens remember in 2009.... got hammered too, a couple of box kick charge downs and got smashed... by the liefling van loftus!!!!!

He knows the score, Meyer knows the score, we know the score. How many times should the bok management give him to realise he's not a SH.

Meyer chooses him because he has blou bleod. Its that simple.

That's four years ago FA.

It was just a retort to your assertion BB that the Ireland game was his first taste of NH rugby as a SH. This is his 3rd tour as a SH in Europe.

He's been on 2 tours to Europe as a SH and tested in both. How many more allowances should we give him?

Test rugby is pretty simple... either you're good enough, or you're not. At SH he isn't. I'd play him on the wing, I'd start him on the wing but trust him to kick and give his 10 as much time as possible to clear his lines... not a chance.

This has been the issue surrounding him for years... years. Its like groundhog day.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:What are his faults? Slow distributor?

Seems to be he has a better all round game than the others.

Very slow distribution and perhaps the worst kicking 9 I know of. He's not a SH to be fair. He's a winger.

His kicks are non existent because they are so bad.... in this I were the England coach I would put as many men on the OH as possible so that Hougaard is forced himself to kick. NOt only is he slow but they are not of the best quality.

He is spritely I'll give him that, can see a gap better than Pienaar or Du Preez. But his fundamental skills do not match up to test requirements. He's a luxury player, one that requires a dominant pack to give him space and a OH comfortable with test rugby and ball to hand kicking.

He's the sort of player you have in your team/bench who can cover wing/SH. A bit like Austin Healey... although to be fair Austin had a very good kicking game.

Wow, cant say I agree. His box kicking is very good. Maybe not Fourie DuPreez good but sure thats all DuPreez did most of the time. His passing can be a bit slow but it is generally very good. He is a bit of a NH SH in all fairness in the mould of Murray and Philips.

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:I have no idea what to expect from the Boks, they can give you a performance like they did against NZ and OZ where they blitz 3 tries in 20 minutes, or they can give you an incompetent performance like last weekend, or Salta, or Perth, or Nelspruit, you just don't know

The OZ match at Newlands was simply because they brought on Bakkies, Bissie & Schalk in the last 25 and AUS ran out of steam. I don't think SA can do this to England in different conditions. Play Bissie off the bench and I can guarantee you, England will win at a canter. He is that important with Louw injured.

It will be more like the Ireland match but I think the England pack is probably stronger. SA need to take everything they get, every penalty in their half needs to be attempted at goal.

It reminds me of 2010 when Scotland surprisingly beat a SA 1.5 XV. The next week they played a full strength team vs. ENG and smashed them to pieces. However its a little different. Their are no more players to bring in, none that are better at least. They can change the side a little but I think the players they have do not suit the conditions... chaps like Hougaard, Pollard (he's played SA grounds only, he needs time to adj.) and Mahoje. Schalk is no longer a 80 min man so I think Whiteley should be given a run.

Matfield and Jannie look serious weaknesses in the side but their are simply not enough players to bring in and replace them.

England aren't fortunate to have their first XV so that helps and I think they themselves need to make changes to their midfield and OH combination to win.

I think there are better players out there.

Mohoje has a very low work rate. Matfield still has surprising mobility but isn't the most physical.

I was surprised in Newlands when he played the last 15 minutes at flank, he did more in that 15 minutes than he did in the previous 65 minutes.
I would put Schalk on as a starter in place of Mohoje, then add Kriel and Whiteley to the bench.

If Schalk tires take him off.

Jannie is getting old, but Meyer will not replace him with Redelinghuys he will most likely rather swop him with COenie if he is going to make any changes, which in my book is an even bigger mistake.

I would drop Hendricks, he has been too quiet and I worry about his defence and aerial capability.

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:Bok camp is very quiet, we aren't getting any feedback from them or the coach, not even on SA media.

That can mean a lot of different things, I just hope Meyer does not over react and bring back Morne Steyn.

I think he is going to make a premature judgement on Hougaard and Reinach as he is already prejudiced against them in NH conditions.

I hope he sees Hougaard's performance for what it was, an inexperienced player playing his first match in Europe at halfback.

Are you sure about that?

I recall him playing in the 2009 tour and beyond at SH.

From ESPN he played SH vs.

Italy in 2009 away,
Wales at 2010 away,
Scotland at 2010 away (remember that game BB???)
He also played vs. Saracens remember in 2009.... got hammered too, a couple of box kick charge downs and got smashed... by the liefling van loftus!!!!!

He knows the score, Meyer knows the score, we know the score. How many times should the bok management give him to realise he's not a SH.

Meyer chooses him because he has blou bleod. Its that simple.

That's four years ago FA.

It was just a retort to your assertion BB that the Ireland game was his first taste of NH rugby as a SH. This is his 3rd tour as a SH in Europe.

He's been on 2 tours to Europe as a SH and tested in both. How many more allowances should we give him?

Test rugby is pretty simple... either you're good enough, or you're not. At SH he isn't. I'd play him on the wing, I'd start him on the wing but trust him to kick and give his 10 as much time as possible to clear his lines... not a chance.

This has been the issue surrounding him for years... years. Its like groundhog day.

mate he was 20 21 years old then, should be drop Pollard because he struggled last weekend?

Why does Lancaster feel the need to have to start Farrell even at 12.

 Would rather BT started 12.

 Or how about we play Barritt @ 12 (like he normally does) and Joseph @ 13 (like he normally does).

 I do want to see Ford start but rather now he starts against Samoa and Aus than SA

 But WHY FAZ @ 12 is being talk about shocks me.

I think Lambie is better suited to the conditions.... and I think you have to look at Hougaard and Pollard as a pair.

Pienaar and Du Preez are out. So its either Hougaard or Reinach. Both are too similar. Apples for apples.

That means you have to look at Pollard or Lambie. Even Steyn in fact but that would be harsh on Lambie.

I think Steyn would be the best but I doubt Meyer will drop both Pollard and Lambie. Lambie is better suited to the conditions. Durban teaches you that. He's a seasoned pro.

In the end its about combinations. Unfair on Pollard as he shouldn't be dropped but sometimes injuries causes you to make difficult decisions. I think Lambie is best suited. Not the best kicker though... 70-75% man at best.

Welly wrote:Why does Lancaster feel the need to have to start Farrell even at 12.

 Would rather BT started 12.

 Or how about we play Barritt @ 12 (like he normally does) and Joseph @ 13 (like he normally does).

 I do want to see Ford start but rather now he starts against Samoa and Aus than SA

 But WHY FAZ @ 12 is being talk about shocks me.

One of the reasons is because pundits like Woodward think it is a great idea.

Also I think there is a real fear in trusting Ford with the goal-kicking, and then this desire for two kicking options out of hand.

In the end though it really comes down to fear.

LondonTiger wrote:

Welly wrote:Why does Lancaster feel the need to have to start Farrell even at 12.

 Would rather BT started 12.

 Or how about we play Barritt @ 12 (like he normally does) and Joseph @ 13 (like he normally does).

 I do want to see Ford start but rather now he starts against Samoa and Aus than SA

 But WHY FAZ @ 12 is being talk about shocks me.

One of the reasons is because pundits like Woodward think it is a great idea.

Also I think there is a real fear in trusting Ford with the goal-kicking, and then this desire for two kicking options out of hand.

In the end though it really comes down to fear.

 Your right but then what is the point in having Ford if you can't trust him?

 Farrell isn't a 12 at AP level let alone at test level.

 Lancaster is at some point going to have to use other options than Farrell to kick at some point better now than the WC.

 For me if he plays Farrell at 12 and loses that's sums up his coaching career with England's backline he may add the odd player as new caps but generally he has his core players and would rather move them around then trust someone else. he has done it with Goode, Brown, Foden, Manu, Flood (he always came on at 12).

 Either go for the win and accept the blame if we lose or try something different and see how it goes. As for me a loss whilst having a centre partnership of Barritt and Farrell (just to have him there) when we could have put someone like Joseph or even Slade there who play centre regularly in the AP is unacceptable.

If Meyer selects Steyn I will literally shyte myself.

LondonTiger wrote:

Welly wrote:Why does Lancaster feel the need to have to start Farrell even at 12.

 Would rather BT started 12.

 Or how about we play Barritt @ 12 (like he normally does) and Joseph @ 13 (like he normally does).

 I do want to see Ford start but rather now he starts against Samoa and Aus than SA

 But WHY FAZ @ 12 is being talk about shocks me.

One of the reasons is because pundits like Woodward think it is a great idea.

Also I think there is a real fear in trusting Ford with the goal-kicking, and then this desire for two kicking options out of hand.

In the end though it really comes down to fear.

England love playing OHs at centre. That way they can play a more expansive 11 man game.

Well we did have to learn the "kicking the hell off the ball" tactic from someone.

and the high kick is called a Garryown for a reason.

....................well it was called rugby 'football' at one point so someone just went with the concept and ...kicked the hell out of a ball.

Indeed it was, and even before that it took a privileged englishman to cheat and pick the damn ball up

LondonTiger wrote:Indeed it was, and even before that it took a privileged englishman to cheat and pick the damn ball up

No surprises there.

LondonTiger wrote:Well we did have to learn the "kicking the hell off the ball" tactic from someone.

and the high kick is called a Garryown for a reason.

you can blame Munster for that.

Eastmond back in training and Mike Catt intimating that the backline will be unchanged.

GunsGerms wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Well we did have to learn the "kicking the hell off the ball" tactic from someone.

and the high kick is called a Garryown for a reason.

you can blame Munster for that.

thanks, and we do

LondonTiger wrote:Eastmond back in training and Mike Catt intimating that the backline will be unchanged.

Big mistake if so.

Farrell has never..... never been a steady distributer on his own. Never dealt with the responsibilities of hand to ball kicking well on his own.... he's always needed a Hodgson, a Goode, a Twelvetrees etc to help him by.

I mean I saw Eastmond clear the lines if I'm not mistaken.... he looked less confident than a prop doing the same thing.

TBH what we do is largely irrelevant.

If SA come and play well, they will win - irrespective of our performance. Now to get the best out of Eastmond you really need someone liek Ford at 10 - but no way on earth will England (or any england coach in history) ever select Ford and Eastmond against a South Africa XV.

LondonTiger wrote:TBH what we do is largely irrelevant.

If SA come and play well, they will win - irrespective of our performance. Now to get the best out of Eastmond you really need someone liek Ford at 10 - but no way on earth will England (or any england coach in history) ever select Ford and Eastmond against a South Africa XV.

You should be more confident. I think there is little diff between England and SA now. I think both teams are now in a place where they should win their home games against each other. SA aren't playing well and that won't go away overnight. They beat NZ last month, well England were only 3 points shy come the end and playing in the Highveld in spring is a lot different to playing in Europe in late autumn.... it suits different players.

SA are missing their first choice 3,5,6,7 and 9. Their pack replacements are simply not of the same calibre. England have their injuries too but you have to look to win your home games.

Really? SA had Strauss, Botha and Burger on the bench v Ireland. Thems some gud replacements Fa.

Adrian Strauss in particular is a very talented hooker IMO.

South Africa'a gameplan just does not suit England. Lancaster is trying to bring in a high tempo game - except our players do not have the basic skills to deliver it to anything like the level needed to win a WC.

The South african power game - if delivered well will smash us. We could play out of our skins, yet still be beaten. Fail to deliver the power game then we could be poor and still win.

All I know is the is a very good chance Ireland will overtake England in the IRB world rankings on Saturday and finally be recognised as the best team in the NH as they should be.

I was rooting for England last weekend but purely for the rankings Im with SA this week.

GunsGerms wrote:All I know is the is a very good chance Ireland will overtake England in the IRB world rankings on Saturday and finally be recognised as the best team in the NH as they should be.

I was rooting for England last weekend but purely for the rankings Im with SA this week.

Out of interest why should they be? Because they are 6N holders... which they won on points diff i.e. not conclusive.

LondonTiger wrote:South Africa'a gameplan just does not suit England. Lancaster is trying to bring in a high tempo game - except our players do not have the basic skills to deliver it to anything like the level needed to win a WC.

The South african power game - if delivered well will smash us. We could play out of our skins, yet still be beaten. Fail to deliver the power game then we could be poor and still win.

But they're not that powerful without Flip (and 38yr old Matfield in place), without Alberts (and Mahoje in place), without Louw (and Coetzee in place), without Malherbe (with Jannie in place).

JDV is no longer a physical threat to worry significantly about, Serfontein isn't great going forward.

The power game is not what it used to be... at least with the injuries they have.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:All I know is the is a very good chance Ireland will overtake England in the IRB world rankings on Saturday and finally be recognised as the best team in the NH as they should be.

I was rooting for England last weekend but purely for the rankings Im with SA this week.

Out of interest why should they be? Because they are 6N holders... which they won on points diff i.e. not conclusive.

It is conclusive. They won fair and square. Fa you sound a tad bitter.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:All I know is the is a very good chance Ireland will overtake England in the IRB world rankings on Saturday and finally be recognised as the best team in the NH as they should be.

I was rooting for England last weekend but purely for the rankings Im with SA this week.

Out of interest why should they be? Because they are 6N holders... which they won on points diff i.e. not conclusive.

It is conclusive. They won fair and square. Fa you sound a tad bitter.

Na, I love you guys

Was just saying I don't think one is stand out better. I'd back either at home to win at the moment. Think England will struggle in this 6Ns for instance as they are away to Ireland and Wales. Fingers crossed Scotland can actually put in some performances for a change!

because Im Irish Im biased.

I dont think Ireland will win the 6 nations. Everyone will want to beat them.

How much improvement do you think can realistically should be expected from an unchanged England? I am not saying that England will be unchanged but if they are how much better should they be having had a decent hit out against the ABs? The ABs are notoriously more vulnerable in their first match and are significantly improved in their second. We saw this in the Rugby Championship against the Aussies. So how much better can England play if left unchanged? Maybe a reason to leave as is and if it does not work then re-select for Samoa and Australia?

GunsGerms wrote:because Im Irish Im biased.

I dont think Ireland will win the 6 nations. Everyone will want to beat them.

Everyone always wants to beat them. Isn't that the point?

Match up of playing styles.

We all know that England play a physical way with emphasis on strong set piece and not too much risk taking. This style has worked well against the Aussies whenever their forwards have failed to stand up to England. When they have stood up their backs are normally too good, but for England these tactics are sensible.

But against NZ it rarely works as they physically match up to England and again alround have better players who take far more of their chances.

Against SA it has also rarely worked as SA love the physical side of the game.

6Ns there are successes, but as Grand Slams are rare it shows that you only need 1 side to match up physically for England to found wanting.

Looking at all that it is clear that Lancaster is trying to evolve England's style to do more ball in hand and be more attacking, but injuries and a lack of talent is getting in the way. Getting close to the RWC my question is this?

1. Should England push on with a more attacking game and pick players who will best do that?

or  2. should we revert to type and pick the most physical side we have and hope to keep the scoreboard ticking over by whatever means possible?

or 3. vary the tactics completely according to the opposition, which may be difficult?

Option 1 will deliver better results long term i.e. not in time for this RWC whereas option 2 may keep us more competitive in the short term? Option 3 has the obvious best balance, but can England deliver to this?

Roko out - another winger bites the dust. I'm beginning to understand why Stewie prefers FBs, they don't break as often.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Roko out - another winger bites the dust. I'm beginning to understand why Stewie prefers FBs, they don't break as often.

'Yarde called up as cover'

England forwards are under powered - a bit lightweight. They need more dog in them. Farrell is steady in many ways but his game management is poor when England need him to get a grip on the game. I can only see another brave loss. Let's face it England were down and out against NZ when the score was14 v 24.

Why do you think they are underpowered?

Do you think Lancaster is missing Twelvetrees?

I think it's more a case of Lancaster's missing try scoring experience in the forwards, without linebreaks and go forward from them then it's always going to be tough for the backs.

Kaino's run for the AB's, Read's offloads, their props finding space on the run. It just makes life a lot tougher for the defenders.

I agree they're missing someone outside of Vunipola to bring the ball forward. I'd prefer Morgan also. He makes more yards and more often. Vunipola seems to try and smash people and whilst he often gets the better of the contact, Morgan seems to play with more brains, uses his power yes but runs clever angles, lines and doesn't simply go to bosh the opposition out the way.

Vunipola is still a test newby so its understandable, its probably ingrained from schools rugby where he was no doubt the same size from 14 and could run through tackle after tackle after tackle.

My question for Lancaster would be... how much more time is he going to give Farrell to show that he can run the show on his own? He was clearly out of his depth on his own vs. NZ. He didn't have his usual bosh players around him, he didn't have a second receiver... it put an awful amount of expectation on him and he crumbled.

England in the 2nd half suffered due to lack of territory, in part caused by Farrell's poor game management. With all his eggs in the England basket I'm sure he can run the show, most of the 5 or 6 England OHs could. But at OH you have to perform regardless... not just when you have a superior pack, in good conditions etc etc.

hugehandoff wrote:Match up of playing styles.

We all know that England play a physical way with emphasis on strong set piece and not too much risk taking. This style has worked well against the Aussies whenever their forwards have failed to stand up to England. When they have stood up their backs are normally too good, but for England these tactics are sensible.

But against NZ it rarely works as they physically match up to England and again alround have better players who take far more of their chances.

Against SA it has also rarely worked as SA love the physical side of the game.

6Ns there are successes, but as Grand Slams are rare it shows that you only need 1 side to match up physically for England to found wanting.

Looking at all that it is clear that Lancaster is trying to evolve England's style to do more ball in hand and be more attacking, but injuries and a lack of talent is getting in the way. Getting close to the RWC my question is this?

1. Should England push on with a more attacking game and pick players who will best do that?

or  2. should we revert to type and pick the most physical side we have and hope to keep the scoreboard ticking over by whatever means possible?

or 3. vary the tactics completely according to the opposition, which may be difficult?

Option 1 will deliver better results long term i.e. not in time for this RWC whereas option 2 may keep us more competitive in the short term? Option 3 has the obvious best balance, but can England deliver to this?

Or Option 4 - all of the above bearing in mind Option 3. Naturally keep the attacking mindset there with as much physicality as possible up front... whilst making subtle adjustments to the tactical approach depending on the opposition. The rest is up to player availability and performance on the day... and a little bit of luck, etc. There's not much more they could do than that, is there?

You have a great understanding of the tactical subtleties required for each opponent, handoff.
You are completely spot on for each opposition scenario I believe. (if this happens... then you should have nothing to worry about)

Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer is set to make at least four changes to his starting XV for the big clash against England at Twickenham, reports JON CARDINELLI in London.

Last week, Meyer said that Pat Lambie would receive a start at some point on the four-Test tour to Europe. Many believed that Lambie would replace Handré Pollard in the fixtures against Italy and Wales, but it’s now emerged that Lambie is likely to front England.

Cobus Reinach is also set to replace Francois Hougaard at No 9. Hougaard had a shocker against Ireland in Dublin, and that performance will cost him his place in the XV. Reinach and Lambie ran with the starting side during the field session in London on Tuesday afternoon.

Another significant change on the cards is at hooker, with Adriaan Strauss promoted ahead of Bismarck du Plessis. JP Pietersen is also expected to start on the right wing, and ran with the starting side on Tuesday.

Lock Eben Etzebeth (flu) and Marcell Coetzee (hamstring) took no part in the session, but should be ready for the match this Saturday. If Coetzee doesn’t recover from his ailment, Schalk Burger will start at openside flank and Nizaam Carr will be included on the bench.

Coenie Oosthuizen spent much of the session running with the starting side. Jannie du Plessis pulled up with what appeared to be a buttock strain. If the injury is deemed serious enough to rule Du Plessis out, then Oosthuizen will start at tighthead.

The match-day 23 will be announced on Wednesday afternoon.

Probable Bok XV – 15 Willie le Roux, 14 JP Pietersen, 13 Jan Serfontein, 12 Jean de Villiers (c), 11 Bryan Habana, 10 Pat Lambie, 9 Cobus Reinach, 8 Duane Vermeulen, 7 Teboho Mohoje, 6 Marcell Coetzee, 5 Victor Matfield, 4 Eben Etzebeth, 3 Jannie du Plessis, 2 Adriaan Strauss, 1 Beast Mtawarira.

Brian Ashton tried to create a more attacking and flair minded England when he was in charge, but the players failed to deliver. He then picked the biggest lumps possible, whilst also trying to get them to play what is in front of them. There was a distinct change in his approach and England managed to turn a corner and make that final in France. Just wondering if SL will follow a similar path and decide to go with his most physical team and then try and develop a more complete approach for the Japan RWC?

Biltong wrote:Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer is set to make at least four changes to his starting XV for the big clash against England at Twickenham, reports JON CARDINELLI in London.

Last week, Meyer said that Pat Lambie would receive a start at some point on the four-Test tour to Europe. Many believed that Lambie would replace Handré Pollard in the fixtures against Italy and Wales, but it’s now emerged that Lambie is likely to front England.

Cobus Reinach is also set to replace Francois Hougaard at No 9. Hougaard had a shocker against Ireland in Dublin, and that performance will cost him his place in the XV. Reinach and Lambie ran with the starting side during the field session in London on Tuesday afternoon.

Another significant change on the cards is at hooker, with Adriaan Strauss promoted ahead of Bismarck du Plessis. JP Pietersen is also expected to start on the right wing, and ran with the starting side on Tuesday.

Lock Eben Etzebeth (flu) and Marcell Coetzee (hamstring) took no part in the session, but should be ready for the match this Saturday. If Coetzee doesn’t recover from his ailment, Schalk Burger will start at openside flank and Nizaam Carr will be included on the bench.

Coenie Oosthuizen spent much of the session running with the starting side. Jannie du Plessis pulled up with what appeared to be a buttock strain. If the injury is deemed serious enough to rule Du Plessis out, then Oosthuizen will start at tighthead.

The match-day 23 will be announced on Wednesday afternoon.

Probable Bok XV – 15 Willie le Roux, 14 JP Pietersen, 13 Jan Serfontein, 12 Jean de Villiers (c), 11 Bryan Habana, 10 Pat Lambie, 9 Cobus Reinach, 8 Duane Vermeulen, 7 Teboho Mohoje, 6 Marcell Coetzee, 5 Victor Matfield, 4 Eben Etzebeth, 3 Jannie du Plessis, 2 Adriaan Strauss, 1 Beast Mtawarira.

If that's the team, I'll say it now. England will win.

No Bissie. That's loco. That leaves Coetzee all on his own. Reinach... I mean I like him but England won't worry about him. His game isn't suited to NH rugby.
Oosthuizen at 3. Again, loco. The guy is a top class loosehead, a club level tighthead.

Some great players but I do not fear that Boks 15

hugehandoff wrote:Match up of playing styles.

We all know that England play a physical way with emphasis on strong set piece and not too much risk taking. This style has worked well against the Aussies whenever their forwards have failed to stand up to England. When they have stood up their backs are normally too good, but for England these tactics are sensible.

But against NZ it rarely works as they physically match up to England and again alround have better players who take far more of their chances.

Against SA it has also rarely worked as SA love the physical side of the game.

6Ns there are successes, but as Grand Slams are rare it shows that you only need 1 side to match up physically for England to found wanting.

Looking at all that it is clear that Lancaster is trying to evolve England's style to do more ball in hand and be more attacking, but injuries and a lack of talent is getting in the way. Getting close to the RWC my question is this?

1. Should England push on with a more attacking game and pick players who will best do that?

or  2. should we revert to type and pick the most physical side we have and hope to keep the scoreboard ticking over by whatever means possible?

or 3. vary the tactics completely according to the opposition, which may be difficult?

Option 1 will deliver better results long term i.e. not in time for this RWC whereas option 2 may keep us more competitive in the short term? Option 3 has the obvious best balance, but can England deliver to this?

Bomber is already publicly salivating at the prospect of getting Sam Burgess into the squad. Seems pretty clear that he will go for a big, physical player with great defense in all open play positions, over a smaller more creative player. It might be the way to go for us as we dont seem to have the team fluency (which is arguably more important than individual flair) that centrally contracted teams with twice the number of caps have.

So who are the England doubts?

Roko - Leg Injury
Lawes - Concussion
Eastmond - Sickness
Hartley - Concussion (i may has misheard that one)

If Lawes is out i would prefer Kitchener alongside Attwood than Kruis.
He's a huge guy and can give the physicality alongside Attwood that will give us plenty of Engine room oomhp. PLus he is in great form...both him and Attwood.

And both offer plenty carrying ability to aid whoever starts at 8.

both farrell and ford played alongside Joseph in the u20 RWC. maybe its time to give him a go.

Roko is out, wood will probably play but is an injury query, the others look like they will almost certainly play

quinsforever wrote:both farrell and ford played alongside Joseph in the u20 RWC. maybe its time to give him a go.

Are you suggesting
10 Ford
12 Farrell
13 Joseph

I've also heard that Eben and Coetzee are also doubts. Eben has the flu well a cold at least and Coetzee has a hamstring problem.

This worries me.

Eben needs to be fighting fit at all times to be on top of his game. Coetzee is the boks main poacher. Even 1 or 2 steps backs renders his game ineffective. The last 2 players you want at even 95% fit.

If they are both injured I think it will be a sheer crisis.

I dont think it will be a crisis. SA have great depth.