RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1)
-
@bayimports said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
No idea of the reasons guys**, just passing on the oil.** Prediction has been spot on so far though, I personally would have Cane playing if fit
Too late, in 5 years time we'll be discussing this as the @bayimports dropped Cane.
@Nepia said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@bayimports said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
No idea of the reasons guys**, just passing on the oil.** Prediction has been spot on so far though, I personally would have Cane playing if fit
Too late, in 5 years time we'll be discussing this as the @bayimports dropped Cane.
Bloody Hawkes fans
-
I'm apoplectic
-
hasnt it always been if they are carrying a niggle, they start so you can control thier gametime better.
My guess is, they have determined SB suits whatever plan they intend playing v England.
SB probably carries a bit better than Cane does, so expect he's there for that? SB is a good defender, but doesnt make as many tackles and obviously doesnt hit as hard.
@taniwharugby said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
hasnt it always been if they are carrying a niggle, they start so you can control thier gametime better.
My guess is, they have determined SB suits whatever plan they intend playing v England.
It does change the dynamic of the substitutions though because for Paddy T to come on then one of BBBR or Whitelock must be subbed, or both if SB moves to lock (VERY unlikely). It is possible that Ardie could end up at no.8 if Read's calf isn't 100% and SB remains at 6.
-
No idea of the reasons guys, just passing on the oil. Prediction has been spot on so far though, I personally would have Cane playing if fit
@bayimports said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
No idea of the reasons guys, just passing on the oil. Prediction has been spot on so far though, I personally would have Cane playing if fit
So would I. I'd clone him if I could so he could take more positions - every team would give up running the ball and would kick to our famed counter attack.
-
-
@bayimports said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
No idea of the reasons guys**, just passing on the oil.** Prediction has been spot on so far though, I personally would have Cane playing if fit
Too late, in 5 years time we'll be discussing this as the @bayimports dropped Cane.
@Nepia said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@bayimports said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
No idea of the reasons guys**, just passing on the oil.** Prediction has been spot on so far though, I personally would have Cane playing if fit
Too late, in 5 years time we'll be discussing this as the @bayimports dropped Cane.
He's not dropped... his role has been changed!
-
@canefan said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Kirwan said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@canefan not really, he was watching it on the big screen and thought he saw Reese touch the ball. The TMO had a screen a few inches away and corrected him, they worked together to make the right call.
I remember hearing the exchange, nigel asked if the black player touched the ball during the tackle, the TMO said more than once that he had only to finally correct himself. I dont think he ever thought Reece had touched it but his language was poor. Right decision in the end
Re the BB try I'm pretty certain the law was you're not offside if the ball rebounded off a player that was not playing at the ball.
Reece was attempting a tackle and it initially appeared that the ball may have bounced forward off his head. (Obviously it didn't it as he hit Sex Toy's elbow and the ball went backward off green.)
My query, which is now a moot point but I'm still interested, is if it had hit Reece's head would Mo'unga be offside as Reece did not play at the ball.
My understanding is he would not have been offside. But my understanding may be either out if date, mistaken or both.
Maybe I should ask @Damo.
@booboo said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@canefan said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Kirwan said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@canefan not really, he was watching it on the big screen and thought he saw Reese touch the ball. The TMO had a screen a few inches away and corrected him, they worked together to make the right call.
I remember hearing the exchange, nigel asked if the black player touched the ball during the tackle, the TMO said more than once that he had only to finally correct himself. I dont think he ever thought Reece had touched it but his language was poor. Right decision in the end
Re the BB try I'm pretty certain the law was you're not offside if the ball rebounded off a player that was not playing at the ball.
Reece was attempting a tackle and it initially appeared that the ball may have bounced forward off his head. (Obviously it didn't it as he hit Sex Toy's elbow and the ball went backward off green.)
My query, which is now a moot point but I'm still interested, is if it had hit Reece's head would Mo'unga be offside as Reece did not play at the ball.
My understanding is he would not have been offside. But my understanding may be either out if date, mistaken or both.
Maybe I should ask @Damo.
The real story in that try is some outstanding reading on defence by Sevu. The irish had us on toast with an overlap when Sevu raced in and hot it perfect. 14 point play as it turned out
But I digress...
-
The plan has to be attack their strength, outmuscle them up front and fuck with their heads
-
The plan has to be attack their strength, outmuscle them up front and fuck with their heads
@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
outmuscle them up front
oh, well if THAT'S the plan, then obviously you don't include Cane...
-
@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
outmuscle them up front
oh, well if THAT'S the plan, then obviously you don't include Cane...
@mariner4life said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
outmuscle them up front
oh, well if THAT'S the plan, then obviously you don't include Cane...
Part of that I meant set piece ,
I guess it had to be a toss up between he and ardie , ardie running off the back may have swayed it ? both will play,
They must’ve liked the wAy this trio closed
-
Also balances out the bench I guess with Todd missing
-
Hmmm. Why change a good thing? But Hansen has been on the money so far.
Who do we think’s supplying the oil? Nails the loose forwards but can’t give us the whole team...Physio? Grounds man? Hairdresser? Russians?
-
Can Poms boss ABs in forwards? No bigger than Boks who didn't manage it. Doubt they'll get any scrum momentum. They will look to disrupt our lineout albeit the back row vs Oz won't help there. Key for them is Vunipola bros, whose footwork in contact often unlocks defences. In backs without Ford not much flair, but St. Owen is good at manipulating space IF he gets front foot ball. Expect their kick chase to be highly organised, so running from own half needs to be approached with caution. If ABs get fast ball it will be a long night for Eddie.
@pakman said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
Can Poms boss ABs in forwards? No bigger than Boks who didn't manage it. Doubt they'll get any scrum momentum. They will look to disrupt our lineout albeit the back row vs Oz won't help there. Key for them is Vunipola bros, whose footwork in contact often unlocks defences. In backs without Ford not much flair, but St. Owen is good at manipulating space IF he gets front foot ball. Expect their kick chase to be highly organised, so running from own half needs to be approached with caution. If ABs get fast ball it will be a long night for Eddie.
I may be proved wrong on Saturday, but I'm less concerned about their defensive lineout than I would be against, say, the Irish or the Boks. Lawes and Itoje aren't exactly massive blokes and their USPs are their efforts around the park, rather than at the set piece. People seem to forget Retallick's MOTM efforts at Twickers last year where he picked off a a few English lineout throws in key attacking positions (and made Itoje a spectator for most of that game).
-
@pakman to be fair in the whole I’d say the Boks forwards did get the better of ours / especially first 20. They just forgot to score points.
@MajorRage said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@pakman to be fair in the whole I’d say the Boks forwards did get the better of ours / especially first 20. They just forgot to score points.
I've seen this a lot, but I felt that, although they had a lot of the ball, they didn't do a great deal with it, got stuck playing between the 10m line and the 22, and reverted to kicks from Faf and De Klerk as a result in order to break down our defensive line. The "forgetting to get points" things is a bit misleading, as I don't recall them having any gilt-edged opportunities to actually do so (save for Pollard's missed penalty).
-
@Machpants said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Hooroo We may give penalites on their ball, but we have not lost a scrum for the last 130 or so times, so I'm not fussed.
I need this. This helps.
I think our backs can destroy them and in the loose I am happy, just a bit worried about the tight and the potential of having to defend mauls.
@Hooroo said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Machpants said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Hooroo We may give penalites on their ball, but we have not lost a scrum for the last 130 or so times, so I'm not fussed.
I need this. This helps.
I think our backs can destroy them and in the loose I am happy, just a bit worried about the tight and the potential of having to defend mauls.
Our maul defence was excellent against the Irish and has been able to handle the Boks fairly well recently (IMO, the Boks are easily the mauling side in world rugby). They will try it on, and they may even score from 5m out (as these mauls are incredibly difficult to defend), but I don't see them walking us up field 20-30m at a time.
-
@pakman said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
Can Poms boss ABs in forwards? No bigger than Boks who didn't manage it. Doubt they'll get any scrum momentum. They will look to disrupt our lineout albeit the back row vs Oz won't help there. Key for them is Vunipola bros, whose footwork in contact often unlocks defences. In backs without Ford not much flair, but St. Owen is good at manipulating space IF he gets front foot ball. Expect their kick chase to be highly organised, so running from own half needs to be approached with caution. If ABs get fast ball it will be a long night for Eddie.
I may be proved wrong on Saturday, but I'm less concerned about their defensive lineout than I would be against, say, the Irish or the Boks. Lawes and Itoje aren't exactly massive blokes and their USPs are their efforts around the park, rather than at the set piece. People seem to forget Retallick's MOTM efforts at Twickers last year where he picked off a a few English lineout throws in key attacking positions (and made Itoje a spectator for most of that game).
@junior said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
I may be proved wrong on Saturday, but I'm less concerned about their defensive lineout than I would be against, say, the Irish or the Boks. Lawes and Itoje aren't exactly massive blokes
Lawes is 2 m+ but the AB lineout will have more options (e.g., Read vs Vunipola) and height. Barrett would give yet another target.
People seem to forget Retallick's MOTM efforts at Twickers last year where he picked off a a few English lineout throws in key attacking positions (and made Itoje a spectator for most of that game).
Yep. I hope we attack England at the lineout. Aussie pinched one.
