Rugby: Building up to Japan

[ljkeane]

Interesting game between New Zealand and South Africa today. Both sides were closer to full strength than last week and in the first half South Africa were fairly comfortably the better side. their line speed in defence really cased the All Blacks problems, but they weren't able to translate that superiority into many points and New Zealand, as they tend to do even if they're struggling, stuck in the game and managed to come away with a key try. Second half the All Blacks tried to up the tempo of their game to put pressure on the Springbok although it didn't lead to much in the way of clear opportunities South Africa did struggle to impose themselves in the way they did in the first half. Ultimately a draw was probably a fair reflection of the game overall although both tries were against the run of play.

The most significant moment of the game was Retallick going off injured though and apparently he's dislocated his shoulder. That's a big blow for the All Blacks.

The Australia Argentina game was pretty error strewn and both sides look to have similar issues. They're both capable of really good passages of play and can score some excellent tries but neither side seem capable of slowing it down and controlling a match. The Pumas scrum woes will present a big problem in a World Cup group with France and England too. 

[The Anti-Targ]

South Africa looked better for more of the game than the All Blacks, but the All Blacks defence really stood up. South Africa was celebrating a draw at the end, because they scored a great last minute try. But I think when cooler heads prevail the Spring Boks coach will be asking "How did we not win that game?" and the All Blacks coach will be saying "We were damned lucky not to lose."

[Which Tyler]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49150673

Tours of New Zealand, USA and Canada mooted

[ljkeane]

On 7/29/2019 at 8:34 PM, Which Tyler said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49150673

Tours of New Zealand, USA and Canada mooted

I didn't see this before. If they can get it to work it'd be great but I'd be a bit concerned about whether there's the depth in the women's game to allow proper tours, which is pretty much the point of the Lions.

A bit of shock result in Perth this morning with both the Wallabies and the All Blacks putting out what looked pretty close to first choice sides. Ok the red card was a big factor but Australia were the better side in the first half before the red card and you'd normally expect New Zealand to be able to keep themselves in the game even down to 14 but Australia pulled away fairly comfortably. That's a big boost for Australia and New Zealand's form will have to be a little concerning for them.

On the red card, it's pretty clearly a red by the laws so no concerns with the decision but a lot of the tv analysts weren't big fans of it being a red. A lot of the time I'm in that camp with slightly unfortunate high tackles but I have to say I don't have a lot of sympathy for Barrett. Ok, he maybe didn't mean to catch Hooper in the head/neck area but defenders dropping a shoulder on guys already being tackled on pick and goes is a bit of a shithouse thing to do anyway. 

[Which Tyler]

Wales will very well deserve their #1 status, and would be absolutely right to celebrate it.
They might not have beaten NZ, but they have beaten others who've beaten NZ.
You don't have to beat NZ to win the RWC, you need to beat them to reach the top of the rankings.

Beyond that, the rankings are, and always have been indicative rather than absolute. What they really say is the the top 3 are separated by less than home advantage counts for. In neutral ground, they'd be too close to call.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Ugh.

Luckily, the rematch is at Eden Park.

[Jeor]

Good game for Australia and a real morale booster, but the second Bledisloe match we're going to be eaten alive. The All Blacks almost never lose two in a row, and they're not about to start losing at a ground where they've been undefeated in however many decades.

On the positives, Australia look like having genuine attacking options even in the absence of Folau (his sacking being heralded as doom and gloom) and we appear committed to running out of our territory and not hoofing it upfield at the first sign of trouble.

[ljkeane]

6 hours ago, Jeor said:

On the positives, Australia look like having genuine attacking options even in the absence of Folau (his sacking being heralded as doom and gloom) and we appear committed to running out of our territory and not hoofing it upfield at the first sign of trouble.

Folau's obviously a very good player but losing him does seem to have allowed Australia to go with a better balance to the side. They've been looking to add a second play maker in the backline for a while, which pretty much means finding a way to get Beale into the side, the absence of Folau gives them an obvious opening at 15 and also allows them to pick their best 12 in Kerevi. They've beefed up the pack a bit too which they got some joy out of against New Zealand with a relatively small back 5 of their pack.

Good result for England against Wales today. I though Wales were the favourites with England picking far less of a first choice side but they played some good rugby to get the win. I'd be a little concerned that it followed a similar pattern to a lot of England's recent games, including the last time they played Wales, in that they were all over the opposition for periods of the game then they fall away and allow them back into the game.

In terms of individual performances the two stand out players were the first choice ones in Curry and Vunipola, Ludlam was also good alongside them but it might be a little too soon for him to make this World Cup. Heinz was ok and you'd think he'd probably have had to play his way out of the squad at this stage, I still think it should be Spencer going though.

[Which Tyler]

20 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Wales will very well deserve their #1 status, and would be absolutely right to celebrate it.

Well that didn't last long.

Happy enough for NZ to retain the #1 spot a little longer, but we'll have that shield thanks!

And that ranking shot will be up for grabs a fair bit over the next 3 weeks.

[Which Tyler]

England's RWC squad named (though there is room for Eddie to change his mind, however unlikely it seems). Possibility that Nowell is expected not to be fit in time, to be replaced by Spencer, but is too good to leave out if he does make it.

 

LHP: Mako Vunipola, Joe Marler, Ellis Genge
 HK: Jamie George, Luke Cowan-Dickie, Jack Singleton
THP: Dan Cole, Kyle Sinckler
 LK: Maro Itoje, George Kruis, Courtney Lawes, Joe Launchbury
 FL: Tom Curry, Sam Underhill, Lewis Ludlam
 #8: Billy Vunipola, Mark Wilson

 SH: Ben Youngs, Willi Heinz
 FH: Owen Farrell, George Ford
 CE: Manu Tuilagi, Jonathan Joseph, Henry Slade, Piers Francis
WG: Jonny May, Joe Cokanasiga, Jack Nowell, Ruaridh McConnochie
 FB: Elliot Daly, Anthony Watson

I'd happily sacrifice Francis and one of Nowell/McConnochie in order to have the correct number of THPs and SHs

[ljkeane]

2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

England's RWC squad named (though there is room for Eddie to change his mind, however unlikely it seems). Possibility that Nowell is expected not to be fit in time, to be replaced by Spencer, but is too good to leave out if he does make it.

I'd happily sacrifice Francis and one of Nowell/McConnochie in order to have the correct number of THPs and SHs

Some odd selections there.

Jones has been making odd choices with his scrumhalf selections for a while with not giving anyone other than Youngs or Care any game time then discarding Care but picking Heinz ahead of Spencer is still a strange choice. Spencer's exactly the kind of kicking scrumhalf he seems to want and he's better than Heinz.

McConnochie and Ludlam I'm sure would be fine if required to play but I don't really see the point of taking that many wingers, especially since both Daly and Watson can play there too and you'd think another proper 8 rather than Ludlum would make more sense. I'm not huge Francis fan anyway but if the plan is to have a ball carrying 12 then, again, you'd think having another one in the squad other than Tuilagi would be a good idea.

If Sinckler gets injured it's going to be a problem.

Also Anscombe is out of the World Cup. That's a blow for Wales. I thought it was strange they left him on after he seemed to tweak his knee on Saturday.

 

[Which Tyler]

13 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Some odd selections there.

Jones has been making odd choices with his scrumhalf selections for a while with not giving anyone other than Youngs or Care any game time then discarding Care but picking Heinz ahead of Spencer is still a strange choice. Spencer's exactly the kind of kicking scrumhalf he seems to want and he's better than Heinz.

McConnochie and Ludlam I'm sure would be fine if required to play but I don't really see the point of taking that many wingers, especially since both Daly and Watson can play there too and you'd think another proper 8 rather than Ludlum would make more sense. I'm not huge Francis fan anyway but if the plan is to have a ball carrying 12 then, again, you'd think having another one in the squad other than Tuilagi would be a good idea.

If Sinckler gets injured it's going to be a problem.

Also Anscombe is out of the World Cup. That's a blow for Wales. I thought it was strange they left him on after he seemed to tweak his knee on Saturday.

 

I think Danny Care must have said something - or screwed and dumped Eddie's daughter... or something.
He's playing better than ever, and immediately goes from being undroppable to not even making wider training squads. As for Spencer vs Heinz... I can see where Eddie's coming from (even if I disagree with him) - he's always liked having reliable back up - Wigglesworth has been his go-to player after Youngs & Care; and Heinz really is in the same mould as Wiggles in terms of being a reliable older head who simply won't panic, and who sees his job as getting the ball to the FH who can then decide what to do with it. Spencer an be better; but he can also be quite a lot worse; and isn't consistent enough to be reiably ahead of Wiggles for Sarries. Personally, I'd dtake any of Care, Robson & Spencer over Heinz, but if he's just after a calm head who can be trusted with following a game-plan; then I can see why 57 is prefered.

You really want 3 options in each of the uniquely specialist positions - LHP, HK, THP and SH - and he's decided not to for half of those. Ben Youngs fails an HIA and has a 6 days stand down, and we're starting Heinz with what? Ford as back-up?
I'm less worried at #8 where Mark Wilson has plenty of experience, including looking good at international level against top opposition.

With the options we have, we really, really don't need 4 centres and 6 back-3 players. If needed then Farrell or Daly can fill a short-term hole at centre, whilst JJ can fill in at wing if needed - so it seems really odd that we'd go with that, but leave ourselves bare at THP and SH.

I don't thing THE plan is to have a ball carrying IC; just "Plan A" and Im never a fan of Plan B being "Plan A but softer" I'd just use Farrell or Slade at 12 to make that play. I've gotta say, with Manu, Slade and JJ - you simply can't pick a bad pairing from the 3 of them; and no team would fancy seeing the third sitting on the bench looking antsy.

[ljkeane]

11 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Spencer an be better; but he can also be quite a lot worse; and isn't consistent enough to be reiably ahead of Wiggles for Sarries.

I don't think that's really the case anymore. You could have said that it the past but Spencer started both finals, he's pretty clearly the first choice Sarries scrumhalf now and you don't get there without being reliable.

I can see why Jones has had Wigglesworth as the steady, experienced option in the past but he's got 30 odd caps under his belt and has won multiple finals with Sale and Saracens. Heinz was the back up scrum half for the Crusaders and has been decent but not spectacular for a mid table Gloucester side.

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

I don't thing THE plan is to have a ball carrying IC; just "Plan A" and Im never a fan of Plan B being "Plan A but softer" I'd just use Farrell or Slade at 12 to make that play. I've gotta say, with Manu, Slade and JJ - you simply can't pick a bad pairing from the 3 of them; and no team would fancy seeing the third sitting on the bench looking antsy.

I'm fine with Plan B being using a distributor at 12 but Farrell and Slade can both do that if necessary. If Tuilagi picks up a knock before a key game but they want to keep him in the squad because they expect him to recover for later games then Plan A's out the window.

[Which Tyler]

10 hours ago, ljkeane said:

I'm fine with Plan B being using a distributor at 12 but Farrell and Slade can both do that if necessary. If Tuilagi picks up a knock before a key game but they want to keep him in the squad because they expect him to recover for later games then Plan A's out the window.

Yup, I'm fine with that.

Whilst if Cole/Sinckler picks up a knock before a key game our bench tighthead has never played tighthead, which technically means we can't actually put out a team (or have to sent someone home for the rest of the tournament because of a 6 day recovery)

If Youngs/Heinz picks up a knock before a key game, our bench SH has never played SH.

Both of those options are significantly worse than having to go with plan B in the midfield.

[ljkeane]

I don't think it's a choice between picking a reserve centre which means they don't have to change the entire gameplan if Tuilagi picks up an injury and a more balanced squad.

They should have picked a ball carrying 12 ahead of Francis and picked another tighthead ahead of one of the back 3 players. I don't think a 3rd scrumhalf is that important, I doubt they'd hang around if Heinz picked up a knock so it's only really Youngs you'd need to worry about and Ford covering 9 wouldn't be the end of the world. I think it's probably a risk worth taking. If you're that worried about it that you have to take less midfield players Tuilagi, Daly and Nowell can all play 13 so I'd lose Joseph.

[ljkeane]

A bit of disappointing decider for the Bledisloe Cup for the neutral and Australian viewers, I sure New Zealand fans are probably ok with it.

The Wallabies were a little unfortunate to go in to half time behind. The All Blacks started well but Australia probably should have been ahead when Mo'unga scored a fairly fortunate first try for New Zealand. The concerning thing for Australia is that as soon as they went 10-0 they got very frantic and really lost control of the match. It's not the end of the world to lose a match at Eden Park but going into the World Cup they really could have done without getting beaten so easily in the end.

From the All Black's point of view they still had some problems in the first half but they showed a lot more composure than they have recently and as soon they scented blood they pretty ruthlessly killed the Wallabies off. The Mo'unga, Barrett combination at 10/15 worked a lot better too and they'll be hoping Mo'unga hasn't done serious damage to his shoulder.

[The Anti-Targ]

I think the loss in Perth might have done the ABs some good. If they'd swept Australian and won the Rugby Championship they might have gone into the World Cup rather complacent. Still they've played more not so good games than good games in the last few months, so one good performance doesn't suddenly make everything OK.

[Which Tyler]

On 8/13/2019 at 10:30 AM, ljkeane said:

I don't think it's a choice between picking a reserve centre which means they don't have to change the entire gameplan if Tuilagi picks up an injury and a more balanced squad.

They should have picked a ball carrying 12 ahead of Francis and picked another tighthead ahead of one of the back 3 players. I don't think a 3rd scrumhalf is that important, I doubt they'd hang around if Heinz picked up a knock so it's only really Youngs you'd need to worry about and Ford covering 9 wouldn't be the end of the world. I think it's probably a risk worth taking. If you're that worried about it that you have to take less midfield players Tuilagi, Daly and Nowell can all play 13 so I'd lose Joseph.

Wait... You'd make room for your novice, 3rd choice IC by dropping your 1st choice OC and defensive leader?

 

And in what way is playing Francis at IC not changing the game-plan from Tuilagi there? Or are we talking at cross purposes there?

[Which Tyler]

Well, Wales reach #1 with that display; and it feels much less deserved after the hammer NZ handed Aus, and the fact that they only beat England because the ref doesn't know the laws (scoring a try from a quick penalty that couldn't be taken, with the clock stopped, and the whistle not blown)

[ljkeane]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

Wait... You'd make room for your novice, 3rd choice IC by dropping your 1st choice OC and defensive leader?

I mean, Slade's been pretty clearly ahead of Joseph for Eddie Jones for a while but, whatever, pick whichever outside centre you want. My point is if you want to lose a centre to find room in the squad for third scrumhalf you don't really need a reserve 13 when you've got 3 other guys in the squad who can cover there. I'd have replaced Francis with another ball carrying 12, probably Te'o but I suppose Devoto if they don't want to pick him, regardless.

Anyway, absolutely rubbish performance from England in Cardiff. The breakdown without Curry, Wilson and Underhill was terrible and as a consequence they got nothing going in attack. I suppose they were a little unlucky to lose down to the try off the quick penalty but, honestly, they were mostly lucky Wales were fairly disjointed in attack too.