RWC final 19 - England v SA Match Thread - 02-11-2019 - Kick Off 09:00am

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

The big one. The Rugby World Cup Final.

ENGLAND

Elliot Daly; Anthony Watson, Manu Tuilagi, Owen Farrell, Jonny May, George Ford, Ben Youngs; Mako Vunipola, Jamie George, Kyle Sinckler, Maro Itoje, Courtney Lawes, Tom Curry, Sam Underhill, Billy Vunipola

Replacements: Luke Cowan-Dickie, Joe Marler, Dan Cole, George Kruis, Mark Wilson, Ben Spencer, Henry Slade, Jonathan Joseph

SOUTH AFRICA

Le Roux; Kolbe, Am, De Allende, Mapimpi; Pollard, De Klerk; Mtawarira, Mbonambi, Malherbe, Etzebeth, De Jager, Kolisi (capt), Du Toit, Vermeulen.

Replacements: Marx, Kitschoff, Koch, Snyman, Mostert, Louw, H Jantjies, Steyn

Venue: International Stadium, Yokohama
Referee: Jerome Garces
AR1: Romain Poite
AR2: Ben O'Keefe
TMO: Ben Skeen

Head to Head

42 Played 42
15 Won 25
25 Lost 15
2 Drawn 2

Recent Form

16 June 2012
Ellis Park, Johannesburg
36 – 27 to South Africa

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

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

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

12 November 2016
Twickenham, London
37 – 21 to England

9 June 2018
Ellis Park, Johannesburg
42 – 39 to South Africa

16 June 2018
Free State Stadium, Bloemfontein
23 – 12 to South Africa

23 June 2018
Newlands, Cape Town
10 – 25 to England

3 November 2018
Twickenham, London
12 – 11 to England

[lostinwales]

Did Ireland turn up to the RWC?

No, they were a spent force a year ago relying on Sexton. Who is done IMHO.

Yes an Ireland team from 2018 would have been a much tougher prospect. I know they seem to have fallen away with Sexton's form but a year ago their pack was one of the best in the game.

[TightHEAD]

Irrelevant.

Not really, clearly NZ didn't have to get into 4th gear against them.

[No 7&1/2]

If england had had new zealnds tournament? In the sense that we had to play their games? You're welcome to look back at my posts on the relative packs but I've bee pretty consistent on my opinion of their back row for a while. And on whitelock.

[Scottrf]

Faf De Klerk is the biggest threat to England. Nullify his game and we will win. He's tricky and abrasive and gets the whole SA show on the road. England will need to mark him very closely.

Nah he's been desparately poor. Don't know why they haven't looked at Reinach much.

[Scottrf]

If england had had new zealnds tournament? In the sense that we had to play their games? You're welcome to look back at my posts on the relative packs but I've bee pretty consistent on my opinion of their back row for a while. And on whitelock.

Would have been a draw against England.

[Guest]

Irrelevant.

Not really, clearly NZ didn't have to get into 4th gear against them.

Yes they did. They were almost faultless in their first half demolition of them. Ireland were poor but they weren't that poor. Their showing against Scotland proved that. Either way, my point still stands - if England had performed similarly you wouldn't call them 'meh'. NZ are held to higher standards.

[Scottrf]

NZ played very well in the semi. No other team would have stayed within 30 (although they did need some help).

[Guest]

If england had had new zealnds tournament? In the sense that we had to play their games?

If England had blown away a team of Ireland's ability in the QFs after topping the group and beating a team of SA's ability first up, then yes, I don't believe you would call them 'meh'. After all, you were still claiming England were the best team in the world during their losing streak. NZ losing at the weekend doesn't make them a worse team - England just got it right on the day, and prep for that began a long time ago.

[Scottrf]

If england had had new zealnds tournament? In the sense that we had to play their games?

If England had blown away a team of Ireland's ability in the QFs after topping the group and beating a team of SA's ability first up, then yes, I don't believe you would call them 'meh'. After all, you were still claiming England were the best team in the world during their losing streak. NZ losing at the weekend doesn't make them a worse team - England just got it right on the day, and prep for that began a long time ago.

Australia 47-26 NZ
England 40-16 Australia
England 19-7 NZ

England #1
NZ #3

[Old Man]

If england had had new zealnds tournament? In the sense that we had to play their games?

If England had blown away a team of Ireland's ability in the QFs after topping the group and beating a team of SA's ability first up, then yes, I don't believe you would call them 'meh'. After all, you were still claiming England were the best team in the world during their losing streak. NZ losing at the weekend doesn't make them a worse team - England just got it right on the day, and prep for that began a long time ago.

Australia 47-26 NZ
England 40-16 Australia
England 19-7 NZ

England #1
NZ #3

Why ignore the NZ36-0 OZ?

[Guest]

Come on Scott, that's meaningless in the grand scheme of things. At least, it's not definitive.

I could pick at Wales beating England twice this year, South Africa beating them twice last year, NZ beating England away from home, in England, last year as well.

I've argued that this NZ team is weak...by NZ standards...for a while. We're all saying the same thing, just finding a way to disagree. Had this England team not dropped off the face of the earth in 2017 there would be an argument to make as them being the best team in the world, but they did, so, for me, they're not...yet at least. They'd need to keep that up after the RWC, win or lose, to take that mantle. That, and the level of performance skillset is what I'm trying to express. NZ'ers are obviously better all round rugby players than anywhere else..

[No 7&1/2]

I do tend to judge players and teams over a longer period true. I'm not judging New Zealands pack solely on the england game. Like I've said there'll be a few quotes on here from me about their back row and locks bar rettalick: though I am liking the look of Tuipulotu.

[protea438]

Englands got to win the 6 Nations first

[Scottrf]

Come on Scott, that's meaningless in the grand scheme of things. At least, it's not definitive.

I could pick at Wales beating England twice this year, South Africa beating them twice last year, NZ beating England away from home, in England, last year as well.

I've argued that this NZ team is weak...by NZ standards...for a while. We're all saying the same thing, just finding a way to disagree. Had this England team not dropped off the face of the earth in 2017 there would be an argument to make as them being the best team in the world, but they did, so, for me, they're not...yet at least. They'd need to keep that up after the RWC, win or lose, to take that mantle. That, and the level of performance skillset is what I'm trying to express. NZ'ers are obviously better all round rugby players than anywhere else..

Know what else is meaningless? NZ talk. Belongs in the 3rd/4th place playoff thread.

Best team is the winner of the World Cup. That's the aim for every team, so you're the best if you're successful.

[MightyQuin]

A combined XV would be a pretty even split. The AB’s would still edge it but they aren’t better players across the board.

We’ll see how both teams look again at Twickenham next year, before we rule it a one off win. They avoided us for so many years under Eddie and you can see why. Bring it on.

[MightyQuin]

Also, we left a lot of points on the pitch on Saturday and were by no means flawless. I’m expecting a better performance against SA.

[lostinwales]

A combined XV would be a pretty even split. The AB’s would still edge it but they aren’t better players across the board.

We’ll see how both teams look again at Twickenham next year, before we rule it a one off win. They avoided us for so many years under Eddie and you can see why. Bring it on.

Won't be the same next time around. Wasn't what would have been expected a week ago, but based purely on Saturday's game you'd take the NZ scrum half, Barrett at 15 and could argue the toss over the centres. That is it. The rest is England. Include subs and there would be more, e.g. Savea would be in poll position for the bench

[Afro]

When do the announce the ref and ARs etc?

[TightHEAD]

Irrelevant.

Not really, clearly NZ didn't have to get into 4th gear against them.

Yes they did. They were almost faultless in their first half demolition of them. Ireland were poor but they weren't that poor. Their showing against Scotland proved that. Either way, my point still stands - if England had performed similarly you wouldn't call them 'meh'. NZ are held to higher standards.

I haven't said they were 'Meh'.

They were more than enough for a very poor Irish team who's only achievement was beating a very bad Scottish team.

But against a well organised team NZ were lacking, as they were in the Rugby championship. The cracks have been appearing since the Lions tour and Hansens only movement was putting the worlds best 10 to FB. lol

The Lions would have beaten them with a more expansive game.

[LondonTiger]

When do the announce the ref and ARs etc?

Tomorrow morning local time, so during the night for UK.

[LondonTiger]

Best team is the winner of the World Cup. That's the aim for every team, so you're the best if you're successful.

Whoever wins out of England and South Africa will be the winners of the World Cup & will top the world rankings. They will have every right to call themselves the best team in the world - and then be shot at come 6Ns/RC.


The more interesting one is if the game goes to penalties. Then if NZ have beaten Wales by 16+ they will regain the No1 ranking spot

[Guest]

Come on Scott, that's meaningless in the grand scheme of things. At least, it's not definitive.

I could pick at Wales beating England twice this year, South Africa beating them twice last year, NZ beating England away from home, in England, last year as well.

I've argued that this NZ team is weak...by NZ standards...for a while. We're all saying the same thing, just finding a way to disagree. Had this England team not dropped off the face of the earth in 2017 there would be an argument to make as them being the best team in the world, but they did, so, for me, they're not...yet at least. They'd need to keep that up after the RWC, win or lose, to take that mantle. That, and the level of performance skillset is what I'm trying to express. NZ'ers are obviously better all round rugby players than anywhere else..

Know what else is meaningless? NZ talk. Belongs in the 3rd/4th place playoff thread.

Best team is the winner of the World Cup. That's the aim for every team, so you're the best if you're successful.

Na, can't agree with that. The winner is the winner and that's all that counts, yes. But 'best' means something different when looking at everything.

And the chat was relevant to the topic, it veered off - as it usually does - in to becoming my team good, X team bad.

The question I asked - and I'll ask again - is about big performances.

Do SA have on in store for England? And can England avoid the fate of many teams that fail to back up big one off performances like the NZ game was?

[Scottrf]

Na, can't agree with that. The winner is the winner and that's all that counts, yes. But 'best' means something different when looking at everything.

And the chat was relevant to the topic, it veered off - as it usually does - in to becoming my team good, X team bad.

The question I asked - and I'll ask again - is about big performances.

Do SA have on in store for England? And can England avoid the fate of many teams that fail to back up big one off performances like the NZ game was?

Just feels like you've been trying to play down England's World Cup. Claimed Fiji>Argentina, talked on and on about a missed game when we'd have had an easier World Cup if we lost it, downplayed a battering of Australia (who were within a score of Wales), now clinging on to NZ being the best but just underperformed (irrelevant). What do we have about SA?

[Soul Requiem]

The best team wins the world cup, other fixtures are in comparison meaningless, New Zealand can go on to win the next 4/5 games but they lost the one that really matters.

[Guest]

A combined XV would be a pretty even split. The AB’s would still edge it but they aren’t better players across the board.

We’ll see how both teams look again at Twickenham next year, before we rule it a one off win. They avoided us for so many years under Eddie and you can see why. Bring it on.

Won't be the same next time around. Wasn't what would have been expected a week ago, but based purely on Saturday's game you'd take the NZ scrum half, Barrett at 15  and could argue the toss over the centres. That is it. The rest is England. Include subs and there would be more, e.g. Savea would be in poll position for the bench

1. Mako
2. Coles/Taylor
3. cannot pick this one, Laulala is class as well and Sinckler too inconsistent still.
4. Retallick
5. Itoje
6. Curry
7. Underhill
8. Vunipola - but only because Read is over the hill.

9. Smith
10. Farrell - cannot pick this between the two starting 10s. If Mo'unga stays in NZ he should surpass Ford.
11. May
12. Tuilagi
13. Goodhue
14. Watson
15. Barrett (think you can do better than either him or Daly tbh)

16. Coles/Taylor
17. Marler
18. Sincker/Laulala - whichever doesn't start, but Taavao-Matau over Coles either way.
19. Lawes
20. Cane/Savea
21. TJ Perenara
22. SBW
23. Jordie Barett - only just ahead of Joseph though.

This, to me, tells me NZ got their selections wrong more than anything. And yes, they were underpowered up front. The SA game showed that as well - and the experiment to run England ragged clearly did not work.

[No 7&1/2]

I'd have to go with miaow a world cup win doesnt mean you're the best in the world. It's a cup comp. Like saying the fa cup will always give you the best football team in england or wales.

[Soul Requiem]

I'd have to go with miaow a world cup win doesnt mean you're the best in the world. It's a cup comp. Like saying the fa cup will always give you the best football team in england or wales.

I don't think football teams spend four years building towards the FA cup nor is it the premier competition in club football.

[Guest]

Na, can't agree with that. The winner is the winner and that's all that counts, yes. But 'best' means something different when looking at everything.

And the chat was relevant to the topic, it veered off - as it usually does - in to becoming my team good, X team bad.

The question I asked - and I'll ask again - is about big performances.

Do SA have on in store for England? And can England avoid the fate of many teams that fail to back up big one off performances like the NZ game was?

Just feels like you've been trying to play down England's World Cup. Claimed Fiji>Argentina, talked on and on about a missed game when we'd have had an easier World Cup if we lost it, downplayed a battering of Australia (who were within a score of Wales), now clinging on to NZ being the best but just underperformed (irrelevant). What do we have about SA?

Nope. All those points are fair and relevant. Fiji looked better than Argentina - a 14 man Argentina side? Definitely. Missed games show this has, unfortunately, been anything but a 'fair' tournament in terms of equal footing. Don't think I downplayed the Australia game at all - you're now in to the realm of perceiving bias and motivation where there is none.

Honestly, it's not about England. Trust me, it really isn't. I like the way they rugby. I'm 'clinging' on to nothing - it's just the same old hubris whenever England do well in anything: they've just beaten the ABs and so, now, in a one off game - which all credit to them, this takes NOTHING away from them - you want to denote them with the title of best rugby players in the world. Which isn't true.

They'll likely win the one that matters - the actual trophy. But are they a better team than the ABs, as was pertinent to the point and one you have decided to fight over? For me, no. As I said. Play 10 times an NZ get the better of them. If SA and England play 10 times, I think it would be closer, with England just ahead - the results are 2-2 in 2018, 3 games in SA, 1 in England. All of them good contests. That's my opinion, you're not changing that as it's not based on others' views or trying to get a reaction. If you want to die on that hill, I'm telling you, it's not worth it. I haven't suggested half the things you have suggested I have and are attributing emotion and motivation that is entirely your own.

[Scottrf]

If England played Fiji this tournament they'd have won just as easily as they did vs a 14 man Argentina. Fiji are poor.

[Soul Requiem]

Your including games that really do not matter Miaow.

[Guest]

I know, right now, it feels like all that matters if the RWC, and the final is more important than any at that, but that isn't the case.

[LondonTiger]

The question I asked - and I'll ask again - is about big performances.

Do SA have on in store for England? And can England avoid the fate of many teams that fail to back up big one off performances like the NZ game was?

The honest answer is: I don't know & I don't know.

South Africa's best performance in 2019 will have been the match in Wellington, yet even then they required a last minute try and conversion to secure the draw. Meanwhile England have been getting progressively better this tournament, and there is definitely room for improvement after Saturday. Ignoring the Youngs "try", a few scores went begging due to sloppiness - players obstructing, passes going to ground.

[Soul Requiem]

I know, right now, it feels like all that matters if the RWC, and the final is more important than any at that, but that isn't the case.

It really is though and you're only backtracking because you've called so many games wrong.

[Guest]

If England played Fiji this tournament they'd have won just as easily as they did vs a 14 man Argentina. Fiji are poor.

Doubt it. Argentina offered nothing. Fiji clearly showed their quality from the first minute v Australia and Wales. I believe this Fijian team would have pushed France and Argentina right to the wire.

To put things in perspective, Fiji were 4th seeds - with the likes of Namibia, the USA, and Russia. Given that they beat Canada in the warm ups 38-13, beat France in the autumn in France...it's quite clear they were the toughtest 4th seeded team. And this was the best Fijian 15s side that's played the game - they came prepared, they were tough, and although they got their preparations horribly wrong for Uruguay, they were tougher opponents than Argentina proved to be.

That's hardly contentious. Would you rather face the absolute tanks of the Fijians, even if you know they'll gas after 60 minutes of absolutely smashing it and running everything, or would you play the turgid, ill disciplined, and underpowered Argentinians? It's not as if Fiji would smash Argentina, but to call Fiji poor? Not having that, that's a shocking call. They were probably the best team not to qualify for the knockouts after Ireland.

[Guest]

I know, right now, it feels like all that matters if the RWC, and the final is more important than any at that, but that isn't the case.

It really is though and you're only backtracking because you've called so many games wrong.

What am I backtracking on and what have I called wrong?

[LondonTiger]

I know, right now, it feels like all that matters if the RWC, and the final is more important than any at that, but that isn't the case.

Right now it is all that matters.

Winning team will be World Champions (and that will be in the history books forever) and World Ranked No 1 (Yeah I know, no-one really cares but it is an indicator). For a short time at least the winners are entitled to call themselves the best.

[Soul Requiem]

I know, right now, it feels like all that matters if the RWC, and the final is more important than any at that, but that isn't the case.

It really is though and you're only backtracking because you've called so many games wrong.

What am I backtracking on and what have I called wrong?

Almost every single game, you have an inability to accept you were wrong so are now trotting out all this nonsense about teams really being better just because they are, results matter not perception.

[Scottrf]

Argentina weren’t tough opponents because they played England (with 14) They were within a couple of points of France, who pushed Wales to the wire with 14 men.
Better team than Fiji.

[LondonTiger]

13. Goodhue

Sorry but Lienert-Brown is a better 13 than Goodhue, even if Hansen tried to fix the issue of SBW being past his best (and deeming Crotty to be underpowered) by moving him to 12.

[Guest]

The question I asked - and I'll ask again - is about big performances.

Do SA have on in store for England? And can England avoid the fate of many teams that fail to back up big one off performances like the NZ game was?

The honest answer is: I don't know & I don't know.

The honest and fair answer. I'm the same.

Feels like the last week - England SHOULD win, just like NZ should have won, because we've just seen them at their most potent and that looks terrifying for any opposition. But SA? With tricks up their sleeves, a world class tactician, and without having really fired their shot yet? Who knows. Either they have a big tactical performance in them, or they're back to relying on kicking and playing on the back foot, trusting their physicality and speed on the counter attack.

[No 7&1/2]

Still a cup comp soul. You can be better than another 9 times out of ten and lose and be out. I've seen boro beat Chelsea when they were at their peak. Just meant boro beat them on the day.

[Soul Requiem]

Still a cup comp soul. You can be better than another 9 times out of ten and lose and be out. I've seen boro beat Chelsea when they were at their peak. Just meant boro beat them on the day.

There is no comparison at all, club football is all about money and what is best for the bank balance. International rugby is a four year cycle building towards the world cup.

[Guest]

13. Goodhue

Sorry but Lienert-Brown is a better 13 than Goodhue, even if Hansen tried to fix the issue of SBW being past his best (and deeming Crotty to be underpowered) by moving him to 12.

Hmm. Not so sure. I like what Goodhue brings - raw attacking ability. Linert Brown looks good at the basics but he's no Conrad Smith. You could pick Laumape as well as the counter to Goodhue's attacking prowess, with a different skillset - mainly bulk. But just like Farrell and Crotty are probably a better ballplaying 12s than Tuilagi, I'd still go for the latter, and that's why I'd pick Goodhue. Could have a long test career ahead of him. But horses for courses. Probably both get in ahead of an English 13 - though not by much, I rate Joseph highly.

South Africa's best performance in 2019 will have been the match in Wellington, yet even then they required a last minute try and conversion to secure the draw. Meanwhile England have been getting progressively better this tournament, and there is definitely room for improvement after Saturday. Ignoring the Youngs "try", a few scores went begging due to sloppiness - players obstructing, passes going to ground.

Also I keep forgetting that it was a draw this year, and the win came last year.



You have to ask the question - can SA get it right now, where they're in the middle of the rebuilding process? Can't help but feel Erasmus helped them massively in the short term, and in 2-3 years time they should be peaking and, by the Lions tour, could be the best side in the world (their depth is terrifying) - but are they in that awkward middle phases? Lots of good results in 2018, but tailed off a bit towards the end, and haven't set the world alight just yet.

Who knows what's coming, as you say.

Almost every single game, you have an inability to accept you were wrong so are now trotting out all this nonsense about teams really being better just because they are, results matter not perception.

Examples, mate, or I'm just going to ignore your point. Have one more go if you want?

[No 7&1/2]

I acknowledge that some see or are starting to see the wc as the be all and end all. I cant move beyond it being a knock out comp so ultimately wont always give you the best team at the end.

[Afro]

Enough now. Every topic descends into you said, he said argument.

Please bring conversation back on topic, which is the game on Saturday

[Guest]

Argentina weren’t tough opponents because they played England (with 14) They were within a couple of points of France, who pushed Wales to the wire with 14 men.
Better team than Fiji.

France thought/knew they had the game won and didn't keep and up the standards, and ofc Argentina had a mighty comeback. QFs were quite different - we clearly saw the best French performance in that first half that we have for a while, perhaps years even. Physical up front and nice hands out wide. They just couldn't keep it going.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here?

You made the claim I'm trying to devalue England's win by raising lots of points - many of them untrue. The Fiji point is by and large irrelevant. Wales and Australia had a tough group - as did Japan/Ireland/Scotland. England, NZ, SA had a less tough group - in the end, England's pathway has, through no fault of their own, been the easiest of any team in the tournament, as they avoided playing the second seed and had an extended break before the knockouts knowing they would top the group.

Why are you banging on about Fiji!? Honestly? Were they poor? Really? Some of the tries they scored, some of the rugby they played - poor? That's poor from you if you think so.

[Guest]

Fair call Afro.

[Soul Requiem]

I acknowledge that some see or are starting to see the wc as the be all and end all. I cant move beyond it being a knock out comp so ultimately wont always give you the best team at the end.

Interested to know of a single world cup where the best team hasn't won, I can't think of one aside from perhaps 1995 but that was more the Lomu factor than anything.

[BamBam]

2003 and maybe 2019 obviously

[No 7&1/2]

Are there any calls other than injuries to make? de Allende obviously poses a similar big running risk as Australia did but given the midfield defended so well vs NZ and the ford farrell partnership working so well in attack would they switch away from this now. Can't see any other changes they'd be tempted to make but this is Eddie Jones!

[Sponsored content]