England v South Africa, 12 November

First topic message reminder :

       
ENGLAND v SOUTH AFRICA
12 November 2016
14:30 GMT (UTC+0)
Twickenham Stadium, London

Live on Sky Sports 1

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Touch judges: [tbc]
Television match official: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

37 Played 37
12 Won 23
2 Drawn 2
23 Lost 12
592 Points 780

B. Recent Form

15 November 2014
Twickenham, London
28 – 31 to South Africa

24 November 2012
Twickenham, London
15 – 16 to South Africa

23 June 2012
Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, Port Elizabeth
14 – 14 Draw

16 June 2012
Coca-Cola Park, Johannesburg
36 – 27 to South Africa

9 June 2012
Mr Price Kings Park, Durban
22 – 17 to South Africa

27 November 2010
Twickenham, London
11 – 21 to South Africa

C. Teams

ENGLAND 

Mike Brown (Harlequins); Marland Yarde (Harlequins), Elliot Daly (Wasps), Owen Farrell (Saracens), Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby); George Ford (Bath Rugby), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers); Mako Vunipola (Saracens), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers); Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints); Chris Robshaw (Harlequins), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints), Billy Vunipola (Saracens).

Replacements: Jamie George (Saracens), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins), Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby), Nathan Hughes (Wasps), Danny Care (Harlequins), Ben Te'o (Worcester Warriors), Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby).

SOUTH AFRICA

Willie le Roux (Canon Eagles), Ruan Combrinck (Xerox Golden Lions), Francois Venter (Toyota Free State Cheetahs), Damian de Allende (DHL Western Province), JP Pietersen (Leicester Tigers), Patrick Lambie (Cell C Sharks), Rudy Paige (Vodacom Blue Bulls); Tendai Mtawarira (Cell C Sharks), Adriaan Strauss (Vodacom Blue Bulls), Vincent Koch (Saracens), Eben Etzebeth (DHL Western Province), Lood de Jager (Vodacom Blue Bulls), Willem Alberts (Stade Francais), Pieter-Steph du Toit (DHL Western Province), Warren Whiteley (Docomo Red Hurricanes).

Replacements: Bongi Mbonambi (DHL Western Province), Steven Kitshoff (Bordeaux), Lourens Adriaanse (Cell C Sharks), Franco Mostert (Ricoh Black Rams), Nizaam Carr (DHL Western Province), Faf de Klerk (Xerox Golden Lions), Johan Goosen (Racing 92), Lionel Mapoe (Kubota Spears).

beshocked wrote:Hartley captained a decent Saints side which got outclassed by Castres. It's not good enough. It suggests to me that Hartley is not yet up to full match fitness/ in good form. It's a captain's job to inspire the side. Lead by example. Castres are not a world class side, yet Saints made them look like world beaters with a result like that.

Whilst I agree with you that George should start on merit, I can't agree with the statement above in that I don't think you can lay the blame squarely at Hartley's door for Saints getting beaten by Castres. This is a team game. Even the great captains, in good sides, don't win every game and, as you point out, in this instance Hartley was coming back from injury (which is why I personally think George is due a start).

I think you are slightly overstating the role of the captain to suggest that Hartley should have been able to inspire Saints to win.

You can't really judge Hartley or Harrison from a game you didn't watch beshocked. You have no idea other than other peoples opinions on them, and you seem to be ignoring Jones'.

It was a big strong Castres side with some exciting individual back play from what I remember.

There seemed to be a distinct lack of handling skills from the Saints players which meant they never really built anything.

Munkian still plenty of quality players, should be enough to beat Castres.

How many AP games do you watch?

Anyway we are going off topic. Still think it's dangerous to make players undroppable. England are in a fortunate position where they have an in form hooker that can take over from an unfit one - it's not much of a risk but will Jones do it? Many think he won't.

People think it's a safe option to pick the experienced hooker who happens to be captain but it's not safe if he's not fully fit/ up to match fitness/in good form.

The "risky" option has even helped England win test matches off the bench.

FES of course leadership is important. I think leadership is key to winning games. Not crumbling, not buckling under the pressure.

Yes perhaps it's unfair to expect Hartley to inspire his team when he's back from injury but that's exactly why he should not start in the AIs.

Hartley is not ready to come back yet. A captain has to lead by example.

You're picking an unfit hooker on the bench, you're happy to risk that though? And have you watched Hartley at all? How are you judging form?

Is he a Saracens player ? > N0 > Dont pick him.

It's hard to judge Hartley's form when he's not had much gametime. When there's little form to go on you have to look at the results. The performance of the pack.

no 7 & 1/2 no I am not happy to risk it. I wouldn't want to play May,Wood,Attwood,Yarde or Harrison but the reality is that england might have to due to lack of options.

At hooker though England have a player whose been in my opinion outperforming Hartley consistently but because Hartley is captain, Hartley has kept him out. Now I can understand the reasoning behind having some continuity but George is the form hooker, Hartley is not fully fit. Now is the time to start George.

beshocked wrote:Anyway we are going off topic. Still think it's dangerous to make players undroppable. England are in a fortunate position where they have an in form hooker that can take over from an unfit one - it's not much of a risk but will Jones do it? Many think he won't.

FES of course leadership is important. I think leadership is key to winning games. Not crumbling, not buckling under the pressure.

Yes perhaps it's unfair to expect Hartley to inspire his team when he's back from injury but that's exactly why he should not start in the AIs.

Hartley is not ready to come back yet. A captain has to lead by example.

It is extremely dangerous to make a player undroppable, but I don't think Hartley needs to be "dropped" per se. I don't think he can be fully fit and hence I think it's unfair to just chuck him back in. I think this is a good chance for Jones to take a closer look at George, and I think he can quite easily do so by simply saying that Hartley needs another week or so before he's ready.

I don't feel particularly qualified to opine on the importance of one man in an international rugby team, but all the great sides strike me as having a number of leaders within the team, which is why I think the notion of one captain inspiring his team to victory is a bit twee. I'm not, of course, suggesting that leadership isn't extremely important. I get that.

I'd start Gorge too beshocked but don't pretend you know Hartleys form.

FES when Hartley is fit and in form he's been consistent for England but currently he's neither.

If Hartley was in form/fit he should start but he's not.

Or indeed if England had no other option than to start Hartley then maybe it could be an option but England are fortunate to have George.

I agree that all great sides have a number of leaders but the captain is deemed the most important leader.

munkian I think you are overstating the ability of Castres. They are not a side flying high in the Top 14, they are not a side chock full of internationals. Even if you come to the conclusion they were narrow favourites they should not be destroying Saints.

no 7 & 1/2 even if I had watched Castres vs Saints you would still disagree with my assessment, you'd be praising Hartley and Harrison's performances as world class in all likelihood. Just as you think that Kitchener was the best Leicester player on the weekend.

Didn't watch it beshocked, couldn't say. Your assessment is only based on team result though, which is no way to judge a player.

beshocked wrote:FES when Hartley is fit and in form he's been consistent for England but currently he's neither.

If Hartley was in form/fit he should start but he's not.

Or indeed if England had no other option than to start Hartley then maybe it could be an option but England are fortunate to have George.

So we are agreed then.....

funnyExiledScot wrote:

beshocked wrote:FES when Hartley is fit and in form he's been consistent for England but currently he's neither.

If Hartley was in form/fit he should start but he's not.

Or indeed if England had no other option than to start Hartley then maybe it could be an option but England are fortunate to have George.

So we are agreed then.....

Yes we are.

The reason being he's been out for a long time, just come back but on the losing side rather than the winning side like Farrell. Just say you rate George higher, you feel this is his chance but don't make up anything about form when you haven't watched him!

That would be fine to say rather than the reasons you give which you don't follow through ie 3 potential debuts against SA you would give despite saying no player should have a debut against such a team; just tell the truth with your reasoning!

no 7 & 1/2

You don't seem to be understanding the difference. Farrell has started the last 3 games, picking a man of the match award vs Toulon. Of course it's easier to come on into a winning team but Farrell has hit the ground running. He's proven he is now fully fit.

Hartley in contrast has not strung together 3 games as a starter. He didn't start vs Gloucester which was the last game.

I rate a fully fit in form George higher than a not fully fit out of form Hartley yes.

If Farrell's fitness was a worry then I would probably start Slade, it's not now though.

I've certainly watched George, I don't think any hooker is in better form.


I've never said no player should have a debut vs a side like SA. I've said it's not ideal. I do not want Hughes to start vs SA but there are a lack of options.

It is not the same as those who gleefully want new players thrown into the deep end. I don't want players to be out of their depth.

So don't mention form on Hartley because you can't say. Simply mention minutes on the pitch but say you're prepared to risk Hartley from the bench as Taylor, Youngs whoever don't impress you and it's a risk worth taking that Hartley may have to play 80 plus mins plus the fact you really rate George. Absolutely fine.

Saints have been Poopie this season, mainly due to their coaches, and also down to missing Hartley.

Judging any of their players on this seasons club form alone would see none picked, that's why Jones uses a bit more critical analysis then 'oh they lost a random game, well they must all be terrible without the ability to get better'.

What's Tommy Taylor been like in his first season for Wasps? I've only seen two games and thought he was struggling to have any input, probably still getting used to the new team.

Well I can say, he's been part of a Saints pack which got destroyed by Castres. Not my fault guv... I am only the captain, I am only at the heart of the pack. It's the other 7 blokes in the pack's responsibility... Backs are to blame too of course.

None of those options - Taylor,Youngs or an unfit Hartley would fill me with confidence but Hartley would be the best of the 3 IMO as all 3 are risky.

It's not just me rating George.

From a very partial viewing of the season to date, it seems to me like only about seven fit England players are undeniably in good form. One of those - Robson - isn't in the squad, and another - George - probably won't start. The others are Mako, Launchbury, Billy, Farrell and Roko.

There are more who are in good nick, without blowing your socks off. Marler, Cole, Robshaw, Hughes, Ford, Joseph, Teo, Slade and Brown among them.

Whether we can make a good fist of it this autumn seems mostly about getting this second group to step up to the standards being shown by the first lot. That will get is closer to what we showed last season, and make it easier to fit other selections around them.

So long as Jones persists with a six/two bench split, then we probably won't see someone like Te'o because that kind of bench only really make sense if Ford and Farrell start.

Wood seemed to be the only Saints forward throwing himself about against Castres.

Taylor has started pretty well for me yappy, couple of shakes in the lineout but generally very good.

beshocked you didn't watch the game so you're only judging on the result, similar to Kitchener. A players performance can be analysed and judged separate to the teams result.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Taylor has started pretty well for me yappy, couple of shakes in the lineout but generally very good.

beshocked you didn't watch the game so you're only judging on the result, similar to Kitchener. A players performance can be analysed and judged separate to the teams result.

Yupp - otherwise you'd assume every Faletau performance for the Dragons was poopie compared to our results.

Probable starting XV:

Marler, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes*, Robshaw, Harrison, Vunipola, Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, Joseph, Roku, Brown.
(* assuming EJ is correct on fitness)

Based on the players in the squad, I would personally start with Mako, George, Wood (at 7 and especially if Attwood plays) & Goode. However I have not just won 9 matches in a row.

In Eddie we trust?

I think he'll start with Mako but either way we still have a very strong team out there despite injuries.

Rugby Fan wrote:From a very partial viewing of the season to date, it seems to me like only about seven fit England players are undeniably in good form. One of those - Robson - isn't in the squad, and another - George - probably won't start. The others are Mako, Launchbury, Billy, Farrell and Roko.

There are more who are in good nick, without blowing your socks off. Marler, Cole, Robshaw, Hughes, Ford, Joseph, Teo, Slade and Brown among them.

Whether we can make a good fist of it this autumn seems mostly about getting this second group to step up to the standards being shown by the first lot. That will get is closer to what we showed last season, and make it easier to fit other selections around them.

So long as Jones persists with a six/two bench split, then we probably won't see someone like Te'o because that kind of bench only really make sense if Ford and Farrell start.

Actually Robshaw has been in pretty darn good form this season, and te past few matches Marler and Brown have too

I also think that playing Goode is madness

Didn't Marler get carded for being an idiot again ?

As did Mako.

I mean, he is still an idiot. He got carded this week for team offences, and last week for an inexplicable and indefensible decision after the opposition dropped their lineout man on top of him without any interference.

He did get away without a second yellow (red) for a needless shove on Lamb

ChequeredJersey wrote:He did get away without a second yellow (red) for a needless shove on Lamb

No such thing. shoving Lamb only worth a penalty if you do not do it hard enough.

England must be favourites for this match but with 12 games without a win v SA it wont be easy. England by 5.

GunsGerms wrote:England must be favourites for this match but with 12 games without a win v SA it wont be easy. England by 5.

Not so sure about that to be honest. If we was playing with the same team that beat Australia in the summer. then yes i might agree with you. But with so many injuries to key players. I just think it will be hard for England against SA first up.

It's not so much injuries to key players as focussed in 2 areas - lock and 7 - leaving us shorn even with our depth. Losing both Itoje and Kruis didn't faze me - add in Lawes as well and it looks much worse. Haskell being out is ok but all of his potential covering players inc Itoje out too - painful.


That a few players are in so so form is suboptimal but Int form =/= club form as a number of players stand as evidence for

Of the 6 nations sides only Italy have a worse recent record v South Africa. Surely this is England's most important match of the November series? Is a home loss acceptable for the number two ranked side in the world regardless of injury?

GunsGerms wrote:Of the 6 nations sides only Italy have a worse recent record v South Africa. Surely this is England's most important match of the November series? Is a home loss acceptable for the number two ranked side in the world regardless of injury?

I think we have to be aiming to win all 4 to be honest, and slightly disappointed if we don't. But it may be the most tense for the players. Whether that produces nerves or fire or both, who knows?

GunsGerms wrote:Of the 6 nations sides only Italy have a worse recent record v South Africa. Surely this is England's most important match of the November series? Is a home loss acceptable for the number two ranked side in the world regardless of injury?

Yes.

1.Vunipola 2.Hartley 3.Cole 4.Launchbury 5.Lawes 6.Robshaw 7.Harrison 8.Vunipola
9.Youngs 10.Ford 11.Yarde 12.Farrell 13.Joseph 14.Rokoduguni 15.Brown

16.George 17.Marler 18.Sinckler 19.Attwood 20.Hughes 21.Care 22.Daly 23.Goode

If Lawes is fit then that looks the most likely.

Hartley against Struass will be a great match up. Both captains against each other. If Hartley starts then I'd like to see George come on early enough to really put some fresh pressure on Strauss in the scrum.

Du Toit and Etzebeth starting, with De Jager on the bench will always be an excellent second row. Launchbury's going to need to be at his best.

Louw and Vermuelen are huge losses for South Africa. Especially with Harrison probably at 7 and Itoje/Kruis missing at the breakdown.

England's settled and experienced 9-10-12 should allow them to dominate field position.

GunsGerms wrote:Of the 6 nations sides only Italy have a worse recent record v South Africa. Surely this is England's most important match of the November series? Is a home loss acceptable for the number two ranked side in the world regardless of injury?

Does any top tier team go into a game with the view that a loss is acceptable? I doubt it, even against the All Blacks.

Beating South Africa for the first time in a very long time will be high on the priority list for Eddie and the squad. But we're just acknowledging that it looks a fair bit harder now with so many injuries focused on a couple of positions.

You've got to be able to deal with that if you want to be the best team in the world, but it's a tough ask this early in the team's development.

The Boks are equally capable of dominating field position,both sides have
shown abilities.In scrum/lineout,defence,goalkicking neither has shown
great attacking prowess through the backs.
When I talk about penalty shoot outs,I don`t mean in the soccer sense
of one after a draw in extra time.
Someone earlier talked of Farrells ability to take them in 3`s but this
has never been a Bok weakness and Lambie in particular ls as stated
equally adept.
Tries will be charge down/.intercept,rolling mauls by Boks most likely
at full strength England would be favourites ,but now?

I honestly think that with good ball we have more than enough ability to score tries through the backs

I don't agree that England have shown no attacking prowess in the backs

Just emack talking down England to justify supporting a team from the other side of the world. He sees tries not points as the benchmark.

I didn't see any South Africa games in the Rugby Championship this year, do they still play the same power based game as before? Because if yes then I wonder if Mako and Care will start? Against France in the last game of the 6N Jones had a certain plan against the french power tactics even though Marler & Ben Youngs had arguably been first choice up to that point.

king_carlos wrote:1.Vunipola 2.Hartley 3.Cole 4.Launchbury 5.Lawes 6.Robshaw 7.Harrison 8.Vunipola
9.Youngs 10.Ford 11.Yarde 12.Farrell 13.Joseph 14.Rokoduguni 15.Brown

16.George 17.Marler 18.Sinckler 19.Attwood 20.Hughes 21.Care 22.Daly 23.Goode

If Lawes is fit then that looks the most likely.

7 & 11 worry me the most in that selection. As a Saints fan I rate Harrison but I'm not sure he can do what EJ sees as the number 7's roll in this team.
I think I prefer an undercooked May on the left wing to Yarde who is predominantly a right wing and although exciting with ball in hand doesn't seem to make good in game decisions, something I think May has improved on. Plus May has the advantage of his kick off work. His game fitness didn't look bad against Saints on Friday (although the way Saints are playing then that isn't really a surprise).

Think the bench looks okay considering all the injuries.

LondonTiger wrote:Wood (at 7 and especially if Attwood plays)

In Eddie we trust?

Well, after wearing number 7 for most of his Saints career up to the start of this season Wood has been deployed exclusively as a 6 since this season started with Clark, Gibson and Harrison sharing the 7 jersey. So that would certainly fit with EJ's original plan to play a 6 at 7 such as Williams & Jones (unless your name is Chris Robshaw of course).

Funny thing about Saints defeat by Castres; Hartley must have played crap as Saints pack was overwhelmed, Harrison can't have been much cop either by the same reasoning.

What was EJ's description of Harrison's performance, something like, "that was the best performance by and England 7 I have seen this season, especially as he was on a losing side". Well if Harrison could put in the performance of the season for a 7, Hartley could have done well as well, even on a losing side.

Just because a side is beaten, thrashed even does not mean some players are not performing well; unless they are competing with a Sarries player that is, then it's a given they are playing rubbish

I just love people putting words in my mouth,since when have I ever
supported the Boks?I RESPECT the things they have achieved some
unequalled by ANY side.
The Bok gameplan seems to be play a forward dominated game something
they do well.A fully fit Kruis/Itoje or Lawes/Launchbery v Etzebeth/DuToit.
is one thing.Players carrying injuries another.
So far this season have seen few tries scored by backs creation as opposed
to scored by applied pressure.
Both teams seem at least to me to have the same game plan etc.before
would have bet heavily on an England win.Now it`s nearer 50/50.
Ireland may well win on Saturday with 3 starting Locks missing for NZ
pity I won`t see it have no Tv coverage.