Bokke v Engerland Test 3
-
@mikethesnow said in Bokke v Engerland Test 3:
From a mate
'This win will cause England issues because Cipriani is never going to be their number 1. They aren’t as bad as they were made out to be but then again they weren’t as good as they were meant to be 2 years ago.'
Yeah, but on the positive side, the win takes a wee bit of pressure off Comical Eddie and increases his chances of taking England thru to RWC2019.....
-
Things we learned; Jantjies can't play at this level.
-
@antipodean I don't think we learned that as much as had it confirmed
-
Well, it was a win. Moving on...
-
Aach! No, I can't leave it there. What was the difference between what happened in Test Nos1&2 to what happened in 3?
First and foremost the England pack produced a much more committed performance. Did the SA pack lack a bit of impetus in comparison to the firs two tests? I'm not sure, but England were much more committed. Also England were a lot better at the breakdown.
However whilst much improved in both areas the real difference for me was the mental discipline. In the first two tests, time after time we would build pressure or territory and then release that pressure with some stupid ill discipline or an unforced error. Seemingly we cut that out and transferred that particular bugbear on to SA. They were the ones this week that were compounding silly errors and ill discipline to relieve the pressure. Step forward as No1 perpetrator Mr Jantjies (honourable mention to Mr Galant).
Small margins I think between determining who won and who lost. Not enough class in either team to be definitive.
-
England won the Third Test for the same reason Wales beat SA in DC
It was a far weaker SA 15
-
@mikethesnow I dunno so much Mike, for sure there was a big drop off between Pollard and Jantjies and Le Roux was missed also. The main guys that were so dominant in the first two tests in Vermeulen and De Klerk were still there, the front row were not noticeably weaker and they still had the two bloody great lumps locking the scrum. Back row the same. One change on the wing and it certainly wasn't lost there. Centres? Meh.
As for the bench, well I'll just lay this quote here from earlier in the thread:-
"Finishers may well determine this match, and if that's the case then SA by a ball hair"
-
@mikethesnow Really??? How much weaker. Exact same pack bar for the hooker and some changes in the backs. Stop this myth of South Africa being screwed. They are a mid level team on par with Scotland
-
@catogrande said in Bokke v Engerland Test 3:
@mikethesnow I dunno so much Mike, for sure there was a big drop off between Pollard and Jantjies and Le Roux was missed also. The main guys that were so dominant in the first two tests in Vermeulen and De Klerk were still there, the front row were not noticeably weaker and they still had the two bloody great lumps locking the scrum. Back row the same. One change on the wing and it certainly wasn't lost there. Centres? Meh.
As for the bench, well I'll just lay this quote here from earlier in the thread:-
"Finishers may well determine this match, and if that's the case then SA by a ball hair"
Nail on head, Pollard and Le Roux.
Hindsight is 20 20 vision and Erasmus should have started both.
The outcome may have been different.
England without Farrell are an entirely different proposition for example.
-
@rebound said in Bokke v Engerland Test 3:
@mikethesnow Really??? How much weaker. Exact same pack bar for the hooker and some changes in the backs. Stop this myth of South Africa being screwed. They are a mid level team on par with Scotland
Who said they were screwed?
SA without Pollard and Le Roux starting is weaker.
That's irrefutable from where I'm writing.
-
@mikethesnow said in Bokke v Engerland Test 3:
@rebound said in Bokke v Engerland Test 3:
@mikethesnow Really??? How much weaker. Exact same pack bar for the hooker and some changes in the backs. Stop this myth of South Africa being screwed. They are a mid level team on par with Scotland
Who said they were screwed?
SA without Pollard and Le Roux starting is weaker.
That's irrefutable from where I'm writing.
Agreed and also agree with your point in re England with or without Farrell but this does not make a far weaker XV. To be fair if any coach/fan/one eyed Kiwi suggested that their team lost because one or two blokes weren't playing they'd be rightly laughed out of court.
England were without the Vunipolas, Joseph, Watson, Lawes, Cole, Hartley (both the last probably just as well, but...), so not the strongest side. Not that that is relevant but (again).
Just as an aside here is the SA side that played in DC and the side that played in Cape Town.
15 Curwin Bosch, 14 Travis Ismaiel, 13 Jesse Kriel, 12 André Esterhuizen, 11 Makazole Mapimpi, 10 Elton Jantjies, 9 Ivan van Zyl, 8 Dan du Preez, 7 Oupa Mohoje, 6 Kwagga Smith, 5 Pieter-Steph du Toit (Captain), 4 Jason Jenkins, 3 Wilco Louw, 2 Chiliboy Ralepelle, 1 Ox Nché
W Gelant (Bulls); S Nkosi (Sharks), J Kriel (Bulls), A Esterhuizen (Sharks), A Dyantyi (Lions); E Jantjies (Lions), F de Klerk (Sale Sharks); T Mtawarira (Sharks), C Ralepelle (Sharks), F Malherbe (Stormers), RG Snyman (Bulls), F Mostert (Lions), S Kolisi (Stormers), PS du Toit (Stormers), D Vermeulen (Unattached).
Not really a good comparison.
-
@catogrande said in Bokke v Engerland Test 3:
@mikethesnow said in Bokke v Engerland Test 3:
@rebound said in Bokke v Engerland Test 3:
@mikethesnow Really??? How much weaker. Exact same pack bar for the hooker and some changes in the backs. Stop this myth of South Africa being screwed. They are a mid level team on par with Scotland
Who said they were screwed?
SA without Pollard and Le Roux starting is weaker.
That's irrefutable from where I'm writing.
Agreed and also agree with your point in re England with or without Farrell but this does not make a far weaker XV. To be fair if any coach/fan/one eyed Kiwi suggested that their team lost because one or two blokes weren't playing they'd be rightly laughed out of court.
England were without the Vunipolas, Joseph, Watson, Lawes, Cole, Hartley (both the last probably just as well, but...), so not the strongest side. Not that that is relevant but (again).
Just as an aside here is the SA side that played in DC and the side that played in Cape Town.
15 Curwin Bosch, 14 Travis Ismaiel, 13 Jesse Kriel, 12 André Esterhuizen, 11 Makazole Mapimpi, 10 Elton Jantjies, 9 Ivan van Zyl, 8 Dan du Preez, 7 Oupa Mohoje, 6 Kwagga Smith, 5 Pieter-Steph du Toit (Captain), 4 Jason Jenkins, 3 Wilco Louw, 2 Chiliboy Ralepelle, 1 Ox Nché
W Gelant (Bulls); S Nkosi (Sharks), J Kriel (Bulls), A Esterhuizen (Sharks), A Dyantyi (Lions); E Jantjies (Lions), F de Klerk (Sale Sharks); T Mtawarira (Sharks), C Ralepelle (Sharks), F Malherbe (Stormers), RG Snyman (Bulls), F Mostert (Lions), S Kolisi (Stormers), PS du Toit (Stormers), D Vermeulen (Unattached).
Not really a good comparison.
England were without the Vunipolas only from the second test. And their replacements played as least as well if not better.
SA played the majority of the match without Pollard and Le Roux - the main SA playmakers in the previous tests - and their replacements played worse.
The SA DC is vastly inferior to the Test SA side and that's why Wales beat them.
-
@mikethesnow Yeah the Vunipolas missing for the last test was sort of my point in that, yes SA were down two of their more important players (and that was about it), but so were England. So I don’t really buy that England only won ‘cos SA played a weaker XV. Of course it didn’t help them that Jantjies was dogshit, but that wasn’t the reason SA lost IMO. The side Wales played in DC was significantly inferior right across the park but in defence of your boys it was nowhere near a Wales first XV either. I don’t think anyone can read too much into that game really.
-
Marler's performance in the 3rd test proved to me he should have started ahead of Vunipola anyway.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@bovidae said in Bokke v Engerland Test 3:
Marler's performance in the 3rd test proved to me he should have started ahead of Vunipola anyway.
I'd agree, but there are not many that would have said that beforehand. Mako was the No1, No1 by a long shot going in to the tour. He was pretty poor in both the first and second tests though. Particularly discipline wise.
-
@catogrande Maybe the imminent birth of first child was on his mind - he probably should have stayed home
-
@mikethesnow really how much weaker. The pack where they lost the game was the same. Can't see what difference 2 flaky backs makes to the resulting this game
