England v Argentina - 11th November

First topic message reminder :

Details

Date: Saturday 11th November
Time: 15:00 GMT
Location: Twickenham Stadium, Twickenham, Surrey
TV: Sky Sports
Radio: R5L


Officials

Referee: Marius van der Westhuizen (South Africa)
Assistant 1: Nigel Owens (Wales)
Assistant 2: Dan Jones (Wales)
TMO: Olly Hodges (Ireland)


Head to Head

10 Played 10
15 Won 4
1 Drawn 1
533 Total Points 298
27 Average Score 15



Recent Form

17th June 2017
Santa Fe
England 35-25

10th Juan 2017
San Juan
England 34-38

26th November 2016
Twickenham
England 27-14

9th November 2013
Twickenham
England 31-12

15th June 2013
Buenos Aires
England 51-26

8th June 2013
Salta
England 32-3


Teams

ENGLAND


Brown
Watson
Joseph
Slade
Daly
Ford
Youngs
Mako
Hartley
Cole
Kruis
Lawes
Robshaw
Underhill
Hughes

George, Genge, Williams, Launchbury, Curry, Care, Lozowski, Rokoduguni



Argentina

Exiledinborders wrote:

TJ wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:Over all I don't think the Law Trials improve the game.

IN what way?  Scotland / Watson were still able to take steals at the ruck legally

The law trials have been a step back. Without getting into silly arguments based on what one player did in one match against poor opposition, in general, defensive teams are abandoning the ruck as a competition. They are just spreading out with the result that there is less space than before.

I want the breakdown to be a competition. If there are people in World Rugby who want the attacking team to automatically get the ball perhaps they should look at league where extra space is created by having two less players. Better still they could just watch league and stop messing about with our game.

100%. Breakdown isn't in the game atm. It's like league except you don't get a turnover for phases. Knockons or kicking seem to be the only way possession changes.

Do the lions come straight back into then? For all Lawes didn't impose himself I thought Kruis was really poor. Possibility he may drop out altogether and we start with Itoje and Lawes with Launchbury on the bench.

I think to beshockeds great delight this will be the game george gets a start but I'd have Marler and Cole beside him. And push slade to 13 for Farrell. We're probably getting an enforced change at full back so depends whether may takes a wing spot.

100%. Breakdown isn't in the game atm. It's like league except you don't get a turnover for phases. Knockons or kicking seem to be the only way possession changes.

simply not true. Watch the scotland game. at least 5 steals in rucks by scotland without giving away massive numbers of pens and I bet you we take a few off NZ. Scotland score two tries off ruck steals and stopped one try by a ruck steal

Its Englands choice not to go for steals at the breakdown. I bet when Itoje comes back in he goes for it

It is very much a tactic to spread out. Underhill went for a couple of turnovers but just didn't get them.

TJ wrote:

100%. Breakdown isn't in the game atm. It's like league except you don't get a turnover for phases. Knockons or kicking seem to be the only way possession changes.

simply not true.  Watch the scotland game.  at least 5 steals in rucks by scotland without giving away massive numbers of pens and I bet you we take a few off NZ.  Scotland score two tries off ruck steals and stopped one try by a ruck steal

Its Englands choice not to go for steals at the breakdown.  I bet when Itoje comes back in he goes for it

Scotland played Samoa. Who cares what's possible against Samoa. Half decent teams just have players go off their feet to seal the ball, and changes mean you can't get over the ball before this happens.

Do we even want a game where most teams think it's better to not compete at the breakdown anyway?

So it's not the laws you have a problem with then scott? Just refs not playing to them.

TJ wrote:

100%. Breakdown isn't in the game atm. It's like league except you don't get a turnover for phases. Knockons or kicking seem to be the only way possession changes.

simply not true.  Watch the scotland game.  at least 5 steals in rucks by scotland without giving away massive numbers of pens and I bet you we take a few off NZ.  Scotland score two tries off ruck steals and stopped one try by a ruck steal

Its Englands choice not to go for steals at the breakdown.  I bet when Itoje comes back in he goes for it

Kind of agree.

Argentina are a different animal to Samoa at the breakdown so it's difficult to directly compare though.

I'd say Watson is better at the breakdown than any of the current England set-up. Itoje coming back will be interesting as he's got better technique than most England players and he'll have a go. I think Underhill can be extremely effective, but he just doesn't seem to want to go for things at the minute. When he did he was pinged straight away, possibly incorrectly too.

Nonsense. Both Glasgow and Edinburgh regularly take steals in the pro14. Going off your feet and sealing off is a penalty which most refs give quickly now

I bet you we take steals off NZ. I'll come back to this thread after the game.

what you need is a fast mobile backrower who can be first into the tackle area. Then you can take steals

No 7&1/2 wrote:So it's not the laws you have a problem with then scott? Just refs not playing to them.

Mainly refs not playing to them. But I'm not sure the actual law change is a good thing either.

Ta ~Sgt

TJ wrote:Going off your feet and sealing off is a penalty which most refs give quickly now

You cannot be serious. It happens incredibly frequently and is almost never a penalty.

Going off your feet is very rarely policed I find, sorry TJ.

Which law change has really affected going for an over the ball steal though. The only real bit making it trickier is the tackler can't stand up straight away and go for the ball. Other than that similar. Is it not just we are seeing more saracens style defence? Grants this had its own thread not so long ago.

Lawes looks like all those games have caught up with him - I would have rested him. Agree Kruis wasn't great.

I felt 4 of the front 5 weren't good enough.

Sure Mako's scrummaging is still dodgy but he added so much around the park. If the other front five played with similar dynamism/skill I think England would have been a bit more comfortable.

Mako made 20 tackles, that's impressive for any player.

Backrow went okay IMO but Underhill made some very nice eye catching tackles but I'd like to see from him in other aspects of the game. Robshaw went okay but he's not a big ball carrier, Hughes had a pretty good game and took his try well.


Midfield not good enough IMO. Joseph seems to have lost his mojo in the last few months for whatever reason. Slade didn't gel with Ford.

Youngs - didn't seem dynamic enough. Ford - mixed bag I'd say, some good passes but wasn't as comfortable with Slade (now perhaps that's just lack of familiarity).

Wingers - Rokodiguini didn't do too much when he came on and Daly lacked sparkle, Watson did get some good go forward from full back - perhaps lack of momentum prevented more effort here.

Bench -

I thought most didn't get the opportunity in an attacking position to really show what they can do with ball in hand as mostly on the backfoot.

I did think George put in a good defensive shift when he came on and looked more dynamic than Hartley though.

Lozowski made a nice line break and was probably the pick of the benches solely for that intervention.

Summary: Sarries players were good, others underwhelming.

I'd have to pick up the fact that Hartley had a very good game. You can acknowledge that even if you want george to start every game.

As i think on are you basing this on highlights?

Which law change has really affected going for an over the ball steal though

It used to be that you needed one player from each side to create a ruck. Now its just one in from the side in possession. So it used to be that if you were the first defender into the ruck but there was an attacking player in the ruck you could go for the ball. Now you have to be the first player to go for the ball before even one attacker has reached the tackle area. No doubt at all it has made it harder to go for steals and the timing of your attempt is even more critical but its still perfectly possible if you set up for steals.

England's lack of contention at the breakdown and subsequent fanning out in defence looked like a definite tactic to me. Probably in response to how quickly Argentina were moving the ball when we played them in the Summer.

If Australia pick the two big lads in the centre again this weekend, perhaps we will look to get a bit more joy out of the breakdown, since the ball isn't likely to get wide as often.

scottrf pretty sure Kruis is a Saracens player, he didn't play well.

I acknowledged Mako's dodgy scrummaging though his team mates didn't help and yes perhaps he took on too much of the workload that other players should have been doing but it's because England needed it.


Even you have to admit that it was Lozowski's line break which helped set up that 2nd try.

I felt the likes of Genge,Williams and Launchbury just didn't get enough time/opportunities off the bench.

no 7 & 1/2 pretty sure you say that about Hartley every game no?

Well no because I thought Hartley was his normal self - plodding around the field, doing a bit but not enough.

Also again leadership wise - England didn't seem to have enough dynamism/direction from him.

His lineout throwing was solid and that's generally something you can guarantee he can do but is that all you want from your hooker?

It was not a front five performance to be proud of.


It's like when you never admit Ford has had a bad game - to be honest as I said - it was a mixed bag - some nice deft passing but really felt like the absentee of Farrell didn't help.

Admittedly having Farrell as waterboy and the camera focusing on Farrell so much probably doesn't help as the players on the pitch have that additional pressure - knowing that any slip up Farrell will look to capitalise on.

I thought at one point Farrell might just shove Ford out of the way and take the kick himself!

From what I've heard he wasn't happy not starting.

Hartley is very consistent you're correct. Slightly bending the truth about ford there you're taking a very old comment about being bullied by Goode and inventing something else. Did yu watch the whole match or the highlights? I'd understand if it's the latter based on your judgement of hartley.

Consistent at the lineout yes. Solid at scrum time but no more than anyone else.

If set piece reliability is all you want from a hooker then sure he's not a bad option but I personally want more.

England IMO need a more dynamic player at hooker. England have got that but prefer to leave him on the bench.

No not at all - you believe Ford has never had a bad game. He got outplayed by both Goode and Sexton but in your own warped view he didn't.

I watched the whole game, yes.


It's not just about Hartley though. England need more dynamism and power throughout the team 1-23.


England were very fortunate, Argentina don't have a place kicker.

Defensively England in general were pretty good but playing too much rugby on the backfoot.

Do that vs the likes of Ireland,Australia and NZ and we'll lose.

The fortunate thing is that this wasn't a full strength England but England need to try and not rely overly on certain players.

That surprises me as he was much more visable in carrying and tackling during the game and if anything I thought you were going to be criticising the scrum. Vunipola s carrying was no where near where it has been.

I'd assume you'd like to see Itoje and Farrell to be rested again then do as to not over rely on them and see dunn on the bench in place of hartley. It's a game you don't consider us having to win.

As I said earlier I'd like to see the core of that team given another chance. I personally would bring back Itoje and Farrell. Not heard much about brown but I'm assuming he's going to be missing. Looked a bit painful the fall.

Finally just on ford it's possible for your opposite number to have a better game than you and still have not played badly, thanks for acknowledging you were twisting it.

Well Hartley was certainly visible when giving away a penalty I'll give you that....

Haven't seen the tackle stats but wouldn't surprise me if George made more in his small stint than Hartley - in either case he likely made more tackles per min.

Hartley's carrying wasn't anything special.

The scrum is as a collective and England were poor there - which is why I've blamed the front five.

Scrum isn't solely one players' responsibility though Mako is frequently scapegoated.

You are criticising Vunipola's carrying? He fixed the defence. His deft pass helped create the space for the first try.

Hartley doesn't seem capable of that.

England have to beat Australia yes.

True you can have a good game in defeat but it wasn't the case in those matches.

Someone should start a thread for Hartley v George discussions. That way other threads don't have to be derailed with the same stuff.

He was for me one of the better carrying options in the pack for engand. Actually better than mako on the day. Vunipola s passing was good but disappointed by him and Hughes who appeared under orders to play wider wouldn't you say?

Why is Australia a must win game? Thought the AIs were when you wanted experimentation? You calling for Hartley to actually start now as george is unproven? And you're right Goode didn't outplay ford.

What people are forgetting is that we've been poor with Farrell and Itoje in the team too - see 6 nations this year. If people think those 2 in the team will magically fix other deficiences, you might be disappointed.


cascough talking about the England-Argentina game specifically.

What changes would you make?

Were you happy with the front five?


no 7 & 1/2 better than Mako? Bloody hell. Would you have handed the MOTM award to Hartley too?


Yes Goode outplayed Ford but anyway that's old news. The only relevance is showing how deluded you are.

Well Hughes did have the power to score in the corner so it worked out in that circumstance.

Hartleys stats are a bit mediocre. 2 turnovers conceeded, 5 tackles made, 2 missed 7 carries for 17 m. Not awful,not fantastic

His carrying was actually better than vunipola s. We're you not disappointed by it? Yes the targeted him but he appeared more interested in making the very nice passes than the hard yards he normally goes for. With Hughes playing wider I thought we missed a strong carrier there.

Why is Australia now a must win game and are you now wanting to go back on giving george a start?

TJ wrote:Hartleys stats are a bit mediocre. 2 turnovers conceeded, 5 tackles made, 2 missed 7 carries for 17 m.  Not awful,not fantastic

Thank you for adding some factual information.

Now of course stats alone don't tell you the whole story but putting it into context - M.Vunipola made 20 tackles....


no 7 & 1/2 Vunipola's pass created the space for the first try. Of course Ford needs credit for his nice pass too but most forwards would just look for contact....

Sometimes a good pass can be much more effective than a good carry.

I think you'll find Argentina probably targeted Mako too - there was one incident that 3 Argentinians targeted him. When a team has to do that.....

Player Ratings from Sunday Times:

Brown 5
Watson 8
Joseph 5
Slade 5
Daly 6
Ford 7
Youngs 7
Hughes 7
Underhill 6
Robshaw 5
Kruis 6
Lawes 6
Cole 6
Hartley 5
Mako 8



Personally I do not feel any player deserved an 8 and would bump Mako down to 7 and Watson to 6. I would also knock a point of those given from Youngs and Kruis (and possibly Ford).

Yup you would target vunipola and yes his passing and tackling was good. Didn't think his carrying game was good enough especially seeing as we know what he can produce. I assume you'll continue to dodge questions on the newly found importance of winning AI s.

And in general nice passing from a prop and charging wing run from an 8 are great. ..If they hard yards are being made by the pack. I thought they got the balance wrong in what the coaches seemed to be asking the pack to do. Against aus I expect they will go for close in hard yards.

When a team is trying to shut you down the best thing to do generally is fix the defence and pass, as it creates space for others.

I think his carrying was good enough in this game. Think they showed the stats and he beat 3 defenders.

Of course you always look to win but experimenting is important too.

Not vs the Aussies though. It's about picking the right games.

Argentina were stiffer opposition than anticipated but also some England players didn't perform as well as we know they can.

Well I thought Hughes and Mako were doing their jobs well - just others in the pack needed to do more.

A pack can't rely on 1 or 2 carriers.

If Mako and Hughes didn't help create these opportunities we'd be in a worse position.

Of course it can't. Those 2 didn't pull their considerable weight for me though and that impacted the team. When you take out Itoje and Launchbury from that pack you start t lose a lot of options. Kruis was meh in everything and I do bang the drum that Lawes lacks for carrying at international level. Then 2 flankers who aren't known as primary carriers.

I would say the overall game can't be boiled down to the highlight package either. It's 80 min of graft.

I think that's very unfair - I thought Mako and Hughes were our best forwards.

We agree that the 2nd rowers weren't good enough - Lawes looked tired IMO and Kruis didn't play well.

Agree also that those flankers aren't primary carriers.

I felt in the circumstances Mako and Hughes took a lot of responsibilities on their shoulders. Perhaps too much.

As I already said Mako made 20 tackles - his shift was significant.

Agree it's not all about the highlights reel but tries and assists do matter.

played on Saturday and still haven't caught the highlights (why on earth do they play these games same time as club games ) but from what ive read it didnt sound brilliant.

been englands way recently, not playing well but still winning. going twickers Saturday so wouldnt certainly take the same. would presume farrell and itoje will be back in, but wouldnt imagine too many other changes

They took very little carrying responsibility. I'm surprised you thought it was good enough as you're normally keen on those carries.

Again not talking about anything other than carrying here.

I admit I haven't seen the carry stats but I'd be very surprised if Hughes didn't hit double figures in carries.

I thought they even showed the stats during the game and he was on at least 14 at the time, could be wrong.

M.Vunpola you might well be right but I am pretty sure he did beat 3 defenders.

Hughes had 15 carries and made 79 metres, more than anyone else on the pitch, including full backs.

Hughes - 15 carries 4 passes 79 m 1 clean break 2 defenders beaten 2 offloads. that looks might fine effort

I love a bit of stats me. they don't show everything tho

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/playerstats?gameId=291185&league=289234

Scottrf wrote:Hughes had 15 carries and made 79 metres, more than anyone else on the pitch, including full backs.

Ah, but how many were from the wing or tracking back for kicks?

Lawes and Hartley were the only ones who were making themselves available to carry for hard yards.

Going by the stats I was perhaps being a bit unfair on Lawes. Didn't realise the amount of tackles he made.

Other than that the stats don't really show that much different to what I saw.

Don't think they show the front five as an unit in a good light though Lawes was better than I thought.


[You are right, stats don't tell us everything - the replacements had to make a lot of tackles so no attacking stats for them.

Mako had a fine game and was given motm if I recall right. I thought his side of the scrum held up pretty well against a very good unit and he added more than any of our props do in the loose.

I'm happy for Mako to start if he replicate this kind of form. His scrummaging was solid, lets see what he can produce next week against an average Aus outfit.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which law change has really affected going for an over the ball steal though. The only real bit making it trickier is the tackler can't stand up straight away and go for the ball. Other than that similar. Is it not just we are seeing more saracens style defence? Grants this had its own thread not so long ago.

That is the biggest change. Effectively the tackler is out of the game as by the time they have got to their feet and got back onside and come back to get the ball a ruck will have been formed and they can no longer go for it.

The other change that benefits the attacking team is defenders no longer being able to kick the ball. Under the old rules a scrum half had to move the ball away for fear of a defender coming through and kicking it, now they can take their time.

The effect of the rule changes are:

1. specialist 'fetching' sevens are being replaced by tacklers and ball carriers an extra 6/8
   
2. teams are not committing to the ruck are spreading out leading to more tackles in midfield by the freed up back rowers and a higher injury rate
   
3. some teams e.g. Exeter are adopting an endless pick and drive approach which is dull to watch.
   

I fail to see why either the defending or attacking team should be given an advantage and just wish the administrators would stop fiddling with the game.

I still can't see why a traditional 7 would be replaced for that, I may be being slow but their role still seems to live with these new rules.

Teams that are setting up to make turnovers are still doing so. Some teams are choosing instead not to look to compete - they are helped in this by the change to how many people are needed for ruck to be called.

Thing is though England have not been a team that concentrates on turnovers for quite some time.

As to whether the law changes are making the game dull - that is usually said after a really dull game (ie England this weekend, Exeter vs Sale) and is then followed by a group of sparkling matches.

Exiledinborders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which law change has really affected going for an over the ball steal though. The only real bit making it trickier is the tackler can't stand up straight away and go for the ball. Other than that similar. Is it not just we are seeing more saracens style defence? Grants this had its own thread not so long ago.

That is the biggest change. Effectively the tackler is out of the game as by the time they have got to their feet and got back onside and come back to get the ball a ruck will have been formed and they can no longer go for it.

The other change that benefits the attacking team is defenders no longer being able to kick the ball. Under the old rules a scrum half had to move the ball away for fear of a defender coming through and kicking it, now they can take their time.

The effect of the rule changes are:

1. specialist 'fetching' sevens are being replaced by tacklers and ball carriers an extra 6/8
   
2. teams are not committing to the ruck are spreading out leading to more tackles in midfield by the freed up back rowers and a higher injury rate
   
3. some teams e.g. Exeter are adopting an endless pick and drive approach which is dull to watch.
   

I fail to see why either the defending or attacking team should be given an advantage and just wish the administrators would stop fiddling with the game.

Speak for yourself. Some of us like the tight stuff.

Thing is though, if teams aren't going to put numbers in the ruck, and you're not allowed to kick through anymore, that means it's uncontested clean ball for the 9 every time. It's interesting that earlier in this thread someone said that means the 9 can take his time. I have the opposite view. To me that means the 9 can be very, very quick. Even if the defence has fanned out and set, 2/3 lighting quick phases can plunge any team into disarray.

Lawes did OK, and some of the carrying was OK when he managed to get his body position right. Unfortunately the time he got stripped by the flyhalf was very visible. I think that is always a danger for him if he's too upright when he's caught.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I still can't see why a traditional 7 would be replaced for that, I may be being slow but their role still seems to live with these new rules.

It does. Watson had stormer of a game playing a classic 7 way