RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1)
-
@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
-
@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?
-
Not starting Cane would be precisely the lynching rope i am looking for if it goes tits up
-
@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).
-
@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).
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@Snowy said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@mariner4life said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
who do the neutrals go for this weekend?
My guess:
I don't think Wales will want us in the final if they manage to win (so not neutral anyway)
Saffas aren't generally on our side, but maybe some support as usual from tanned ones
Aussies and Irish will all be conflicted. Probably ABE.
French likely with us (in spite of my comments on here about them and their referees).
Scots with us.
PI's with us (I would hope).The best bit will the Japanese fans who more than likely will be with us too.
Gonna be fun.
Wales are firmly in the ABE camp - there' a lot of disquiet on social media about people (i.e. the "British" media) forgetting they also have a big match this weekend.
-
@Siam said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@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...
Or, it was a bad read by Sevu, but an equally bad read by Kearney who failed to run into the space that Sevu left open
-
@Bovidae said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@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.
Yes, but then are both of our main lineout targets. Additionally, Lawes is more a lock / 6 in style of play
-
Lawes is an awesome player, but I dont rate Itoje at all, like a lazier version of Ali Williams.
-
if true , the big change in the side is Pat T for Todd , a significant bulking up ,
the rest is changing up who starts and who finishes , maybe they see this game as a better one to close with the two 7s rather than start ?
I get the argument for Cane starting over Ardie , particularly with Ardie not being used in that role much recently , and ardie does seem more of the impact type,
Does that mean Pat comes on and plays lock , with 2 7s operating ? then we get smaller again ?
-
@mariner4life said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
who do the neutrals go for this weekend?
The dirty cynical cheating #1 side going for a threepeat of World Cups?
or the English?
The old 'fights, injuries and the ref"?
If you were playing Sunday, then England. Assuming of course that we beat SA on the Saturday.
But we're not, so...
England.
And destiny is in our own hands.
-
@Nepia said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@mariner4life said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Catogrande said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@DMX Interesting your view on the Barret v Mo'unga discussion. I've never felt that Barrett was a fantastic fly half - and I realise that this may lead to me being virtual lynched on here, but to me he does not seem to fit too well for some of the key duties of a 10. His kicking game is a bit off, his game management is not up there with the likes of say Carter, BUT he is without doubt a fantastic, almost freakish, rugby player and has to play. I can see the argument for having him at 10 as he is so good that you want to get the ball to him as often and as quickly as possible, but I think I agree with you that the extra space he gets at 15 is perhaps more suited and allied to that, you have a bloody good 10 in Mo'unga to bring a little more control to the game.
A very nice problem to have.
Off to dig a trench and search for my tin hat...
man, i am with you. I got lynched for saying Barrett was a poor 10 but a fantastic rugby player. The Hurricanes faithful are a little sensitive.
I'm actually wondering where @Catogrande has been for the past 12-18 months for the this discussion.
I usually ignore your parochial inter-provincial shitfights
-
@Catogrande said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Nepia said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@mariner4life said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Catogrande said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@DMX Interesting your view on the Barret v Mo'unga discussion. I've never felt that Barrett was a fantastic fly half - and I realise that this may lead to me being virtual lynched on here, but to me he does not seem to fit too well for some of the key duties of a 10. His kicking game is a bit off, his game management is not up there with the likes of say Carter, BUT he is without doubt a fantastic, almost freakish, rugby player and has to play. I can see the argument for having him at 10 as he is so good that you want to get the ball to him as often and as quickly as possible, but I think I agree with you that the extra space he gets at 15 is perhaps more suited and allied to that, you have a bloody good 10 in Mo'unga to bring a little more control to the game.
A very nice problem to have.
Off to dig a trench and search for my tin hat...
man, i am with you. I got lynched for saying Barrett was a poor 10 but a fantastic rugby player. The Hurricanes faithful are a little sensitive.
I'm actually wondering where @Catogrande has been for the past 12-18 months for the this discussion.
I usually ignore your parochial inter-provincial shitfights
Inter-franchise thank you very much!
