Comments on: Autumn Internationals 2014: England vs South Africa player ratings

By: Don P

Don P — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:47:54 +0000

Staggy
I was being specific. As I recall, Coles was unattached, on the ground & Hartley (who has a history) pulled him back without the ball. Yr comments are general. What about Hore? What about Neil Back? All ancient & don’t justify the incident reffed to.

Egg Chaser
Ditto 1st sentence. Was it legal to do so when Coles was not attached & trying to get back to his side of the play? Esp if ‘Hartley shouldn’t of tugged his shirt’.

By: Staggy

Staggy — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:44:45 +0000

Don, you were making a reasonable point until you had a go at Hartley for a tug. If that was illegal, the ABs should have had about 20 penalties against them. They are masters at disrupting attacking players with tugs and hits and don’t even get me started on blocking kick chasers. The SAs would have been reduced to 2 men if the ref started enforcing that as well. Not as subtle as the kiwis admittedly. All teams do it, you just have to accept that hookers have a bit of an attitude problem the world over, especially kiwi hookers, lest we forget Hore!

By: Werner

Werner — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 03:10:01 +0000

Not so sure if I totally agree with the SA replacements comment; “they all continued the (boring by now) theme of relentless physicality.” Yes, if England won, it would have been a fair comment indeed…

By: Abz

Abz — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:35:13 +0000

Hartley definitely deserved a yellow in that maul. Whoever says that Vermeulen should’ve gotten a yellow doesn’t know the rules as he tried to sack the jumper immediatly after he touched ground, which is perfectly legal. Hartley was stupid and you can see he stepped on Vermeulen’s leg on purpose, which is illegal.

By: Egg Chaser

Egg Chaser — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:46:14 +0000

It’s a fair point.

I would say that the incident last week was actually addressed by the officials who deemed the matter to be an aggravater which caused Coles to lash out, but that it didnt interfere with play to an extent that it gave the other team an unfair advantage….yes Hartley shouldn’t of tugged his shirt, but the ruck was formed and the ball already won.

In this incident however,it was a rolling maul and interference with it garnered the opposing team an unfair advantage, and whilst last week’s incident was noted, Walsh did not even think to consider the aggravating factors as Owens did last week, which might’ve mitigated or even reversed the decision.

I’d already said i thought Walsh had a decent game but for this decision in my opinion; so i cant really be accused of ref bashing or sour grapes….but from an Englishman’s perspective… it was a penalty certainly, but not a card. Having said that, hindsight is a wonderful thing, the decision has been made and England lost.

By: Benjit

Benjit — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:55:55 +0000

No idea what you’re talking about Don, I have been a regular critic of SL and was being critical in my post above? Care to elaborate?

By: Don P

Don P — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:44:13 +0000

For me, again, I think too many here are for just shuffling the deck chairs. Shooting the messengers. Sure Ford, or the EXP Cipriani (!?), e.g., are able to play a fundamentally different, or ‘attacking’, game from Farrell (this is nothing new however, Farrell has always been a club player of limited ability & esp so for In’tal level), but really, in midfield & in the fwds there’s too little variation in attack. Fwds, e.g., Billy V, take the ball frontally into contact instead of varying their running lines, slightly inwards, to the inside shoulder of the tackler. This makes it harder for the oppo to effect his tackle. Or what about even offloading accurately & the RIGHT time, i.e., just BEFORE making contact? Also the ball needs to be relentlessly quicker for the attackers to run on to, backs or fwds. And the backs from 1/2 to centres, or even wings, ought to vary their play with wrap arounds, or have the f back running directly behind say, the inside centre, who whips it straight back to the former, taking the latter’s line into a confused defender who is suddenly confronted with a ‘new’ attacker. The wings & f back ought to enter the line more often too. The kickers need to land the ball with an attacking wide man arriving on a defender’s door step at the same time as the ball – IF it should be kicked in the 1st place! All this must be done at speed & ideally in or nr the oppo 22. And the fwds must win the br down en mass. If they can’t do this, then this has to be addressed in coaching yesterday. Why doesn’t SL just study what they teams whom he loses to do & do what they do (lotta do’s I know), but better? His ‘vision’ must surely be fading even for him by now? What is this vision anyway? Pride, discipline (Hartley?), out with exp? AND HE SAYS HE WON’T DEVIATE?! Oh & the players need to straighten their attack; unlike Attwodd who butchered a cert on Sat.

PS: I know I’ve advocated Atters before. Plenty ballast, lineout ability, puts himself about etc, but at Int’al level? He ought to have been better coached to run an inside, not an outside line. Down to you know who? But perhaps like Thatcher, SL’s not for turning… & look what happened to the Iron Lady in the end. She got rust! Ah well on to Samoa for some relief… perhaps.

By: Don P

Don P — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:07:24 +0000

Egg Chaser
Did you see the same incident as almost everyone else seems to have? Hartley stamped on the guy. It’s a yellow under the rules. That’s it, whether you or I or anyone else likes it. In the good ol’, bad ol’ days the Saffa would have had the skin flayed of his limb, but not now. Besides, last week, would you still have binned Coles, the AB hooker, for ‘lashing out’ (with minimal contact @ best) after he’d been illegally pulled back when he had no ball & was trying to get back into the NZ side of the ruck… by, funnily enough, Hartley? Both, technically, ought to have been binned under current rules for that incident… or neither? Depending on the severity of the ‘misdemeanour’? But you can’t have it both ways… or when it goes agin yr team.

By: Don P

Don P — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:49:55 +0000

Benjit
In a prev blog you said I was complacent about the ABs. Yr opinion, not mine BTW, but I’ve been pretty consistent regds England under Lancaster. Now, not only yr pundits, but yr fellow bloggers here are querying the England H. coach. It’s largely about his coaching & not ‘playing’ a better skilled game @ speed (of thought as well as deed). E.g., If Attwood had run left to the defender before offloading instead of RIGHT, he would NOT have butchered a CERTAIN try… with a 2(?) man over lap! That’s surely something that should be coached over & over til these fwds ARE familiar with taking the right option. With some it’s an instinctual thing, but not for most & esp not for some English fwds. This HAS to be turned around…. for England’s sake. The oppo won’t always be reduced to 14 when yr team bulldozes a weakened ‘D’ pack. I think you (& others) only ‘hear’ criticism, instead of considering whether it has any merit or not. Besides it’s good for the SH if England lose agin them prior to the WC? But I am interested in the who, what, how, when, where & why’s of what happens in a game, so maybe my views are put into a slightly diff context for you now.

By: Don P

Don P — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:31:09 +0000

Big Dia
Incl the gaff when Habana was clearly out when he caught that ball?! England went on to score from the resultant line out when SA were down to 14. Works both ways. IMO, as prev stated elsewhere, the TMO should CONTROL the game in so far as he can override mistakes or replay events that the ref misses. However, try getting anyone to approve this. Besides I reckon Owen v the ABs was a bit naff too when, e.g., he pinged NZ when they clearly shunted the English scrum. Or when they’d won a ruck 10 hrs earlier & he then pinged them again. What?! Penalising an attacking team? Surely not. Like I say; ‘Works both ways’.

By: Dr Boo

Dr Boo — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:27:44 +0000

For better or worst we should drop Care for starting the next 2 games and have Youngs and Dickson starting & on the bench.

I’m not sure about everyone else but was this much worst or on par with our awful 2013 6 nation performance because it seems so. Also i am beginning to think that Twelvetrees added balance to our team.

By: Pablito

Pablito — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:51:42 +0000

I did watch the le Roux break several times and each time, I am more and more sure that Vunipola made a massive mistake – but yes it was a fabulous off-load.

Vunipola did go forward on occasion but it was all so formulaic – get ball, run straight at tackler. Morgan is far more imaginative with his carrying and mixes it up much more. BV for the bench vs Aus and he can run at knackered players in the last 20

Whether or not Watson is in development, he made a couple of high ball clangers that puts him out of contention for the moment (at least in my eyes).

Re Slade. No point in trying to replicate Manu cos, at least till Burgess comes in, you can’t. The closest is Burrell but he’s not that close. So why not try something different – a man with quick feet who can make lots of breaks at 12 and a ball player outside him to bring the back 3 into the game?