2nd RWC 2023 semi-final England v South Africa

First topic message reminder :

Having just watched that awesome match with France and seeing the SA players, with family, parade around the ground I can't help feeling that our main hope of not being thrashed lies in their complacency. They will go in as massive favourites and rightly so. England will be fighting for their very lives to avoid humiliation and this often brings out the best in teams. I don't think it will be enough, but it might help keep the score to below 45.

Realistically do we have a prayer?

Libbok to start the final?

Geordie wrote:Last scrum was a huge incorrect call...

A lot of them were, the ref decided early that England were at fault so doubled down on it.

Duty281 wrote:

Wayne Barnes can breathe a sigh of relief...

The two SH refs that took the semi finals were pretty mediocre. Not sure why they are getting such big games. Barnes is streets ahead of both as is Nika Amashukeli. O'Keefe is the better of the two but Raynal is there on the sidelines and is a better ref.

Heaf wrote:SA clearly driving across for that last pen - typical clueless SH ref. Also several pens not given before the last knock-on. Ref just keeps shouting no until the damage is done instead of giving the pen. Robbed!

We got plenty of calls too. Nature of the game.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Geordie wrote:Last scrum was a huge incorrect call...

A lot of them were, the ref decided early that England were at fault so doubled down on it.

I think Sinckler conceded one penalty after a lot of Bok whining and then the ref went with it from then on. At one the  Boks went to their knees almost straight on and he called a reset. He was very poor in that aspect of the game but pretty good elsewhere to be fair to him.

RDW wrote:Gutting for England - they were in complete control

Scrums changed it. Ref was very lenient to the Bok scrum, but that's what refs do when they see that one team supposedly has an advantage.

Very lenient is putting in politely - he was absolutely in their pocket

Well, England completely negated the Boks, they niggled, baited, tackled, interfered, pressured the Boks into submission.

They slowed the game down to a crawl, kicked a boatload and kicked points. The boks looked shocked, it was as if they didn't know how to cope with England.

It has to be said it was brilliantly done by England, they came out with a hellavu lot of energy and it was clear they were up for it.

SA didn't look sharp, they will feel they escaped here.O'Keefe was Frak pedantic

formerly known as Sam wrote:At least three penalties to England before than knock on.

100% definitely a not rolling away at the end. Any other situation he’s giving it.

Great performance by England but unfortunately didn’t adapt to scrum getting away from them. Tried to hold on to the lead and play territory.

Tough one to take. They played very well and largely shut down a terrific Boks team. It was a better performance than most gave them a hope of producing.

9 points up with a 5m attacking lineout was the chance to finish it off. Sadly, they weren't ruthless enough.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Geordie wrote:Last scrum was a huge incorrect call...

A lot of them were, the ref decided early that England were at fault so doubled down on it.

I think Sinckler conceded one penalty after a lot of Bok whining and then the ref went with it from then on. At one the  Boks went to their knees almost straight on and he called a reset. He was very poor in that aspect of the game but pretty good elsewhere to be fair to him.

Unfortunately that one aspect cost England the game ...

Once again shows, that this game is simply impossible to ref correctly. Rugby is in huge trouble.

Well I hope the Kiwis smash them all over

Heaf wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Geordie wrote:Last scrum was a huge incorrect call...

A lot of them were, the ref decided early that England were at fault so doubled down on it.

I think Sinckler conceded one penalty after a lot of Bok whining and then the ref went with it from then on. At one the Boks went to their knees almost straight on and he called a reset. He was very poor in that aspect of the game but pretty good elsewhere to be fair to him.

Unfortunately that one aspect cost England the game ...

And attack? Chances deep in their half with line-out and we neither threatened with a maul or set piece move. Yes it's raining shed loads but we never looked like scoring a try again.

Gotta love the post match interviews with Siya. He’s such a nice bloke!

I thought another contentious call was Le Roux's mark, when he appeared to have started a run and only belatedly called the mark after being tackled.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Geordie wrote:Last scrum was a huge incorrect call...

A lot of them were, the ref decided early that England were at fault so doubled down on it.

I think Sinckler conceded one penalty after a lot of Bok whining and then the ref went with it from then on. At one the  Boks went to their knees almost straight on and he called a reset. He was very poor in that aspect of the game but pretty good elsewhere to be fair to him.

Unfortunately that one aspect cost England the game ...

And attack? Chances deep in their half with line-out and we neither threatened with a maul or set piece move. Yes it's raining shed loads but we never looked like scoring a try again.

That's a fair comment. Chances were pretty sparse for both teams, but SA did get the only try of the contest.

Siya is the kind of bloke you would commit crimes for without even questioning it.
He's everything a leader should be

There were a number of contentious and 50/50 calls in this match, I think debating who got the better deal out of O'Keefe is not going to benefit anyone.

Heaf wrote:SA clearly driving across for that last pen - typical clueless SH ref.   Also several pens not given before the last knock-on.   Ref just keeps shouting no until the damage is done instead of giving the pen.   Robbed!

No they weren't there was so much that went against South Africa from the ref especially the first half, England were offside so much in the kick chase, there was a clear no release in some of the penalties. England deserved to win but the ref didn't rob them.

NZ might be narrow favourites for the final, but SA keep finding a way to win despite being behind for large stages in the QF and SF. That said, SA only win the World Cup every twelve years.

neilthom7 wrote:

Heaf wrote:SA clearly driving across for that last pen - typical clueless SH ref.   Also several pens not given before the last knock-on.   Ref just keeps shouting no until the damage is done instead of giving the pen.   Robbed!

No they weren't there was so much that went against South Africa from the ref especially the first half, England were offside so much in the kick chase, there was a clear no release in some of the penalties.  England deserved to win but the ref didn't rob them.

And the ref didn't let the Boks get away with being offside? There was several kicks where the forwards made no effort to retreat from an offside position.

Ref was pretty consistent outside the scrum bar the last 2 mins which he refused to ref.

England had their chances but didn't make key moments count so I don't want to lay the loss at the ref's door.

The sub of Martin certainly seemed to weaken our scrum, more so than Sinckler replacing Cole.

England went the distance but ultimately came up short. Our attack is too blunt and despite the lead I always felt SA would hit a purple patch. They are a top class team and mullered our scrum in the second half. I'm not feeling hard done by any any official as I thought they were good. Well done SA.

Duty281 wrote:NZ might be narrow favourites for the final, but SA keep finding a way to win despite being behind for large stages in the QF and SF. That said, SA only win the World Cup every twelve years.

If we don't win next week that is what I will,console myself with

On a different tack - what is Billy V doing in the squad

Yoda wrote:England went the distance but ultimately came up short. Our attack is too blunt and despite the lead I always felt SA would hit a purple patch. They are a top class team and mullered our scrum in the second half. I'm not feeling hard done by any any official as I thought they were good. Well done SA.

The attack isn’t blunt, it’s non existent.

The sole point scoring threat is kick, defend and hope for penalties. I don’t remember us running three phases. Great performance but seriously one dimensional.

Heaf wrote:On a different tack - what is Billy V doing in the squad

I think his substitution onto the field was the one that hurt England the most.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Once again shows, that this game is simply impossible to ref correctly. Rugby is in huge trouble.

Exactly. I think England sealed off a lot, which wasn’t called once. Obviously it’s not going to get highlighted here, but it’s my opinion. 

Tuilagi giving away that penalty is pretty huge now, for something he didn’t need to do.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:

Heaf wrote:SA clearly driving across for that last pen - typical clueless SH ref.   Also several pens not given before the last knock-on.   Ref just keeps shouting no until the damage is done instead of giving the pen.   Robbed!

No they weren't there was so much that went against South Africa from the ref especially the first half, England were offside so much in the kick chase, there was a clear no release in some of the penalties.  England deserved to win but the ref didn't rob them.

And the ref didn't let the Boks get away with being offside? There was several kicks where the forwards made no effort to retreat from an offside position.

Ref was pretty consistent outside the scrum bar the last 2 mins which he refused to ref.

England had their chances but didn't make key moments count so I don't want to lay the loss at the ref's door.

The sub of Martin certainly seemed to weaken our scrum, more so than Sinckler replacing Cole.

I'm merely pointing out there were a bunch of calls against South Africa when someone is basically accusing the referee of cheating against the English which was not the case. You see no issues with the ref for anything except the ones he called against England at the end, it's fine, your English and don't you think that possibly you aren't seeing the other stuff cos you don't want to.

The ref was Poopie, but he was equally Poopie for both teams. England lost because they didn't have the attack to win it. They put everything in, they should be praised for it but this idea that the referee cost England that game has to be stopped because it's just not true.

king_carlos wrote:Tough one to take. They played very well and largely shut down a terrific Boks team. It was a better performance than most gave them a hope of producing.

9 points up with a 5m attacking lineout was the chance to finish it off. Sadly, they weren't ruthless enough.

Like we've said though KC...Borthwick is making improvements...and it will continue. All these teams have4 year cycles efc under their belt.

But we Need the prem to develop a few positions fir us.

Geordie wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Tough one to take. They played very well and largely shut down a terrific Boks team. It was a better performance than most gave them a hope of producing.

9 points up with a 5m attacking lineout was the chance to finish it off. Sadly, they weren't ruthless enough.

Like we've said though KC...Borthwick is making improvements...and it will continue. All these teams have4 year cycles efc under their belt.

But we Need the prem to develop a few positions fir us.

That’s probably the peak though, not sure we can get any better with such a negative way of playing the game.

Duty281 wrote:

Heaf wrote:On a different tack - what is Billy V doing in the squad

I think his substitution onto the field was the one that hurt England the most.

Agree...and SB will know that.

A few players need to go. Oh for Dan cole to be 5 years younger . We in trouble at tighthead.

As I said months ago.
Steward should have been moved to 12 and Ludlam should have always been in the 23.

Scottrf wrote:

Geordie wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Tough one to take. They played very well and largely shut down a terrific Boks team. It was a better performance than most gave them a hope of producing.

9 points up with a 5m attacking lineout was the chance to finish it off. Sadly, they weren't ruthless enough.

Like we've said though KC...Borthwick is making improvements...and it will continue. All these teams have4 year cycles efc under their belt.

But we Need the prem to develop a few positions fir us.

That’s probably the peak though, not sure we can get any better with such a negative way of playing the game.

Do you not think that's them working the bascis...and now they will start to look to bring and attack in efc?

They didn't have a lot of time to work on an attacking structure whilst they're also fixing all the set piece fitness and defensive issues that Jknes left.

neilthom7 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:

Heaf wrote:SA clearly driving across for that last pen - typical clueless SH ref.   Also several pens not given before the last knock-on.   Ref just keeps shouting no until the damage is done instead of giving the pen.   Robbed!

No they weren't there was so much that went against South Africa from the ref especially the first half, England were offside so much in the kick chase, there was a clear no release in some of the penalties.  England deserved to win but the ref didn't rob them.

And the ref didn't let the Boks get away with being offside? There was several kicks where the forwards made no effort to retreat from an offside position.

Ref was pretty consistent outside the scrum bar the last 2 mins which he refused to ref.

England had their chances but didn't make key moments count so I don't want to lay the loss at the ref's door.

The sub of Martin certainly seemed to weaken our scrum, more so than Sinckler replacing Cole.

I'm merely pointing out there were a bunch of calls against South Africa when someone is basically accusing the referee of cheating against the English which was not the case.  You see no issues with the ref for anything except the ones he called against England at the end, it's fine, your English and don't you think that possibly you aren't seeing the other stuff cos you don't want to.

The ref was Poopie, but he was equally Poopie for both teams.  England lost because they didn't have the attack to win it.  They put everything in, they should be praised for it but this idea that the referee cost England that game has to be stopped because it's just not true.

Didn't say anything about cheating - just wrong and bottled giving pens in the last couple of mins ...

Christ. Hard luck to England. Didn’t see that at 15-6.
Can hold their heads high on that one.

On the other side of the coin, well done the Boks.

Sets it up for a good final.

Geordie wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Geordie wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Tough one to take. They played very well and largely shut down a terrific Boks team. It was a better performance than most gave them a hope of producing.

9 points up with a 5m attacking lineout was the chance to finish it off. Sadly, they weren't ruthless enough.

Like we've said though KC...Borthwick is making improvements...and it will continue. All these teams have4 year cycles efc under their belt.

But we Need the prem to develop a few positions fir us.

That’s probably the peak though, not sure we can get any better with such a negative way of playing the game.

Do you not think that's them working the bascis...and now they will start to look to bring and attack in efc?

They didn't have a lot of time to work on an attacking structure whilst they're also fixing all the set piece fitness and defensive issues that Jknes left.

No I don’t. Jones started by fixing the defensive basics but we never played like that.

Do you think the scrum suffered due to George playing the full 80 again? Why didn't borthwick trust the replacement hooker?

carpet baboon wrote:As I said months ago.
Steward should have been moved to 12 and Ludlam should have always been in the 23.

Why on earth would you move Steward to 12 when he's so dominant in the air, complete waste of his strengths.

carpet baboon wrote:Do you think the scrum suffered due to George playing the full 80 again? Why didn't borthwick trust the replacement hooker?

Not sure but the lineout definitely did.

It has to be said, the Springboks weren't able to reach the heights of last weekend mentally of physically, hopefully they can now reset, else they stand no chance against New Zealand

Soul Requiem wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:As I said months ago.
Steward should have been moved to 12 and Ludlam should have always been in the 23.

Why on earth would you move Steward to 12 when he's so dominant in the air, complete waste of his strengths.

Agreed..once we start working properly on our attack Steward is a huge asset there.

Will be interesting to see how Borthwick approaches next week's game. Winning is important of course bit it could also be an opportunity to start looking to the future and how they can develop their game.

In terms of the spectacle I hope England do try and test out their attacking game more...!

RDW wrote:Will be interesting to see how Borthwick approaches next week's game. Winning is important of course bit it could also be an opportunity to start looking to the future and how they can develop their game.

In terms of the spectacle I hope England do try and test out their attacking game more...!

My prediction would be Smith back at fullback if he's fit to get a second playmaker on. Arundell on one wing. Maybe Steward on the other. Wouldn't be surprised if Lawrence started in the centres as well.

3rd place playoff is such a weird, fairly nothing game though. There have been years when losing semi-finalists have had senior players on their way out that simply didn't want to play in it. They felt the semi was their final hurrah and didn't want to get up and go again.

I could feasibly see them starting Marler, George and Cole again off the back of how well they did today. I could also see Rodd, Dan and Stuart getting a chance, cos, well, it's the third place playoff. It's impossible trying to predict.

It's a bit like when the Premiership started having playoffs but the title was still decided by who topped the table in the regular season. So they were just utterly pointless KO games. All the grind of KO rugby with none of the tension. A dream combo.

Old Man wrote:It has to be said, the Springboks weren't able to reach the heights of last weekend mentally of physically, hopefully they can now reset, else they stand no chance against New Zealand

I think sometimes the history of world cups has shown the importance of having an easier draw or run of games. If SA wins this world cup this might have been their toughest ever run of games. For example in my view NZ have had two tough matches, they have won one and lost one whereas SA have had four tough games, won three (two by a point) and lost one. Definitely a tougher run for me and Id like to see them take the final.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:It has to be said, the Springboks weren't able to reach the heights of last weekend mentally of physically, hopefully they can now reset, else they stand no chance against New Zealand

I think sometimes the history of world cups has shown the importance of having an easier draw or run of games. If SA wins this world cup this might have been their toughest ever run of games. For example in my view NZ have had two tough matches, they have won one and lost one whereas SA have had four tough games, won three (two by a point) and lost one. Definitely a tougher run for me.

If Imam honest I don't think the Springboks will be able to overcome NZ based on the two different runs to the final. NZ played their first tough match six weeks ago, they will be much fresher mentally and physically less fatigued.

It looks that way alright doesnt it, however, I hope SA win as I feel up to now they deserve it more.

I'm still trying to work out the Le roux 'mark' call being given aswell...

I missed the game due to being in hospital since Wednesday for some pretty significant surgery. Trying to watch now, but:
It's around 3:00
and
I don't recognise the team in white.  Who are they?  They look like they actually want to win.  

I guess I will try watching later in the morn.  The hospital leadership asked if I would record my observations from a patient pov. Just for the hospital records and to recall my own observations
https://www.606v2.com/t71266-so-what-happens-when-a-doc-who-knows-better-requires-major-surgery#4112863

England did far better than most thought and could even have won it. Ref made calls for either side which everyone can argue about but that's pointless. I don't think Eng were robbed.

Lawes, Steward, Earl and Martin(yes him) were excellent. Mitchell best game for England I reckon. Itoje getting back to his best form as well. Cannot understand subs though, Billy made things worse and why not give Dan last 10-15 mins. George had a good game but running on empty at end. Sinckler definitely confirmed as not player he was unfortunately.

I think England will beat Argentina for 3rd but might depend upon player mindset as going so close to getting to final be tough to take.

Geordie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Heaf wrote:On a different tack - what is Billy V doing in the squad

I think his substitution onto the field was the one that hurt England the most.

Agree...and SB will know that.

A few players need to go. Oh for Dan cole to be 5 years younger . We in trouble at tighthead.

Yep this exactly.

We now move on to next RWC cycle and it's going to be interesting who is binned, who retires and who can make into squad.