Rugby World Cup 18 Sep - 31 Oct 2015

Great defense by Wales

Wales win. Big upset especially with Wales's injury problems..

Beat England, the crowd, the crowd and some pretty pisspoor refereeing.

Bruising encounter.

Decent refereeing (it can't be crap refereeing every match, surely?). But penalties conceded by England cost them - they could never establish a properly decisive lead.

Match decided by an inspirational crosskick from the Welsh left wing. Though it "only" brought scores level, it made all the difference also to morale levels on each side, at that point in the game.

Farrell was an excellent choice for England - the team however tired badly in the last 20 minutes. Whoever backed this lot to win the cup, needs a reality check. ...

So, England now need to beat Aus to progress. Good luck with that.

Wales carrying a lot of injuries. Long-term, might be a worry. They won't all wilt like the old foe!

The refereeing was atrocious.

Stuart Lancaster is going to cop the blame for his 10-12-13 selection, that much is obvious from comments in various online papers etc. IMO that will be quite wrong.

Farrell, Burgess and Barrett were selected to keep the monster Welsh centres, Roberts and S. Williams subdued. That task was achieved with relative ease - Roberts only made one break of real significance and Burgess took care of him. The only other clear-cut opportunity for a Welsh try in open play (bar the one they scored obviously) was Liam Williams haring down the sideline, stopped by a superb Farrell cover tackle.

No, the reason we lost was through sheer rank indiscipline. Too many penalties given away in kickable positions, which were duly punished. Farrell's kicking was faultless - and although George is a fine kicker, his range is about 10 yards shy of Owen's, so that selection was justified on that basis alone in such a tight game.

I've seen, in various interweb comments on different sites, no end of "daddy's boy" comments with regard to Andy Farrell supposedly bullying Stuart Lancaster into selecting  Owen. I've also heard it in face to face conversations. One or two had the look of a landed fish when I asked if they also believed that Farrell Snr had bullied Warren Gatland into making his lad a British Lion a couple of years ago .

taipan wrote:I just can't take a player called Wigglesworth seriously.

I played junior cricket against a guy with that surname. I had the same thought as you did

So every game is sudden death for England now. They'll still beat us.

JGK wrote:

taipan wrote:I just can't take a player called Wigglesworth seriously.

I played junior cricket against a guy with that surname.  I had the same thought as you did  

There was a Shield cricketer called Ian Wrigglesworth!

JGK wrote:So every game is sudden death for England now. They'll still beat us.

If they don't they'll be out of the group stage at their own world cup!

Ironically the only other team to share that ignominy was Wales in 1991 although they only jointly hosted that one.

Who will win between Australia putting shitty 2nds on the pitch or sun browned Uraguay who have ssexy women supporting them.

Growler wrote:Stuart Lancaster is going to cop the blame for his 10-12-13 selection, that much is obvious from comments in various online papers etc. IMO that will be quite wrong.

Farrell, Burgess and Barrett were selected to keep the monster Welsh centres, Roberts and S. Williams subdued. That task was achieved with relative ease - Roberts only made one break of real significance and Burgess took care of him. The only other clear-cut opportunity for a Welsh try in open play (bar the one they scored obviously) was Liam Williams haring down the sideline, stopped by a superb Farrell cover tackle.

No, the reason we lost was through sheer rank indiscipline. Too many penalties given away in kickable positions, which were duly punished. Farrell's kicking was faultless - and although George is a fine kicker, his range is about 10 yards shy of Owen's, so that selection was justified on that basis alone in such a tight game.

I've seen, in various interweb comments on different sites, no end of "daddy's boy" comments with regard to Andy Farrell supposedly bullying Stuart Lancaster into selecting  Owen. I've also heard it in face to face conversations. One or two had the look of a landed fish when I asked if they also believed that Farrell Snr had bullied Warren Gatland into making his lad a British Lion a couple of years ago .

A lot of sense there, Growler, methinks.

And for example, I seem to have said n times that - admitted it can be difficult to individualise achievements or demerits in the scrum, and hard-working as he may be in attempting to tackle, feed - Dan Cole is a permanent liability, a penalty waiting to happen. He fails to learn.

Before next lines - well battled throughout, esp in last quarter. The lesser pressure of being the away team actually helped clear their focus, I think.

There's another thing occurred to me shortly afterwards. It's easy to be wise after the event, and thus easy in retrospect to fall on Robshaw for the decision to go for the win instead of securing the draw. (Which Farrell would almost certainly have achieved - 100% kicking record, calm head, incl from more difficult situations. Same as Biggar.)

So, tho this is a decent report, I don't agree with that bit. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/27/chris-robshaw-gamble-england-failings

I think there are indeed question marks over Robshaw now, but not so much for that decision itself.

I've long backed Robshaw for his battling qualities, leading by example, his burrowing, his metres gained, his tackles. Despite his evident lack of pace for his position.

However, given last night's cauldron, you needed a captain in either of these categories (possibly both). Either the passionate inspirer - OConnell, to an extent Warburton, there have been many. The "Henry V" type, who rouses & raises his team when they are flagging, or suffering fatigue. Or else (or also) a clear-minded, shrewdly planning brain, who can follow plans as far as useful, but can read play, and calculate with some accuracy what the team needs to do now. The David Sole type, if you like. And the type Robshaw has tended to, when England have won.

If you go for the corner with three minutes or so to go (not sure what Ford was introduced for at that point, btw), you have to have a clear head, and tactical nous. If you really order the throw to the front of the line-out, what is the first thing you need to ensure your forwards do - or rather, don't let happen?

And Robbo clearly didn't work it out. And in the cauldron of the last 20 mins, he seemed to preside over England waning. And if on top of that, he's not fast enough to demand the ball and crash through himself, his place becomes debatable.


On the refereeing, briefly again. For my sins, I was condemned to the ITV Wales commentary - with the passionate but fair Wales ex-scrum half Andy Moore, and .... wait for it .... Eddie Butler. Who is as two-eyed and generous when it comes to England as an Alex Salmond (except when in the Westminster bars ), or a Sinn Fein supporter.

If - as is clearly the point raised - the ref had been in any way favourable to England ("Wales beat blah-blah,, blah-blah, the ref ..."), you can be sure Butler would have been on to it. He and Moore both warmed to the referee (and said so).

If you manage to pull off the double of being triumphal and embittered, you don't see it that way. But you are in a minority.


One thing IS tangentially valid, amid all that "Wales beat everyone" nonsense.

Wales had ample support, but were magnificently defiant against the "Swing Low" majority. The "we'll show them" underdog position suited them admirably. Warburton roared, etc. The really telling thing is that England's brains seemed overtaxed and scrambled by the pressure towards the end. Losing B Vunipola and Lawes (early) clearly was a couple of body blows. But they shoudl still have been in a position to win it.

Does anyone recall my mentioning (day before the tournament) a "home disadvantage" for England? The pressure, the expectation clearly got to them, as too often with England - and Robshaw, for one, seemed unable to put it together. (I'd favour Farrell - or later perhaps Burgess - to replace him as captain.)


Cracking match, anyway. I wonder how many are out of the WC after that battle?

Growler wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

Bradman wrote:God I hate it when Cheika does inventive things with the team.

Better that than having Lancaster and Farrell calling the shots.

Reports today suggest that George Ford is going to be replaced by Owen Farrell for the Wales game and that the injured Joseph is to be replaced by Sam Burgess.

So, if the reports are accurate then at the first sign of Ford not producing a dazzling attacking display Lancaster loses his nerve and he gets canned.

Never mind the fact that he was playing behind a pack that was being schooled by the Fijians in the tight, that no forward was delivering any go-forward ball or offering up an effective running option and that he had to deal with the clodhopper that is Brad Barritt outside him. It's all George's fault apparently.

Farrell came on in the Fiji game once Fiji had begun to run out of juice and Launchbury, Brookes and the Vunipolas had come on to add some much needed dynamism to a hitherto anaemic pack. Even then he hardly set the game alight. As the saying goes 'it's not what you know, it's who you know', so having daddy as Lancaster's no.2 surely helps him in selection discussions.

Get ready for some seriously dull rugby on Saturday as both sides just try to smash into each other until one of them breaks. NZ (and Aus too) must be laughing at how retrograde our coaches are.

Come on L2, tell me you're not serious. If that's really the case, then it could be said that George only got called up for the 6 nations (ahead of Cipriani) when Farrell got injured because his father Mike happens to be head coach at Bath, and is a long-standing mate of Andy Farrell.

Of course it's not true. DC was unlucky not to make the final 31 IMHO, but Owen Farrell certainly isn't there due to nepotism. Anyhow, even if he is, considering that  (I didn't realise this until somebody else told me) he's 4th on Englands all-time point scoring list, he's hardly been a passenger has he ?

In what's quite likely to be a tight game, Lancaster has understandably opted for the better defender and goal kicker. Farrell has better range, and I'd back him over George from the touchline too. Whilst it's true enough that the subs came on against tiring Fijiians, Mike Browns second try came purely from Owen Farrell offloading a pass in the tackle, which I think did set the game alight for the final 10 minutes, with us ultimately getting the bonus point.

You're correct Growls - I wasn't being 100% serious, although I do not think it can be that easy to be objective as a coach/selector if your son is one of the players. You run the risk of either being unfairly harsh in an attempt to show no bias, or on discussions around who to pick at 10 you overtly step away from that debate and leave it to others, or if you're really smart you convince others around you over the course of various meetings and chats of the merits of a certain tactical approach to a game which you know would best suit your son rather than his rival. All that said, I genuinely reckon Farrell Snr isn't machiavellian and plays it with a straight bat.

You're right it could be said that George only originally got called up due to Cipriani's injury - or you could say his picking was way overdue and Lancaster should've picked him much, much sooner as he was far and away the most potent looking fly-half in the Aviva. I'd tend to the latter - Lancaster to me is inherently conservative. The DC omission is a further reflection of that. DC could've scored 50 points per game in the warm-ups, he was never going to get picked. Lancaster and co don't trust him, he's not 'one of their types of player'. To be fair, DC is not necessarily someone I'd rely on to slot a goal or make a match saving tackle.

Farrell kicked extremely well at goal last night - so you could rightly argue his selection was justified. Again, I'd maybe look at it slightly differently. We went into the game with the mindset of it's going to be tight and that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. We played bash rugby and lost. The likes of NZ don't look at an opponent and go 'Shit it's going to be tight let's play a deensive, narrow game and look to squeak it on penalties'. They back their approach and key personnel to work, whatever the circumstance. We didn't - we lost.

embee wrote:

Probably old ...but I liked it

Heehee.

Nice one.

Sounds like a Jean de Villiers is out with a broken jaw.

I guess this post will probably be of most interest to Growls and Pete as you guys seem to be heavily involved in England stuff.

10-12-13 issue. Growls you think the blame will unfairly go their way and they did a great job in nullifying Wales's bashers. Yes they largely did that bit - but there's more to it than just tackling everyhing that comes your way. Barritt and Burgess did absolutely bugger all with ball in hand. Any line breaks? Any passes of any attacking intent? Burgess kicked out of hand twice - both were risible efforts. And our wings, who are serious attacking weapons, were mostly relegated to bystander status. Did they ever come off their wings and try to track the ball in the middle - nope (I'm guessing they were ordered to stay out wide). Farrell didn't exactly set the backline alight with his play either (although with those two clunkers outside him he has some sort of excuse).

Indiscipline at the breakdown. As you rightly call it Pete - it's an enduring problem for England, specifically for Cole. But Cole almost ends up playing as a number 7, as we lack a real breakdown dog. Lancaster refuses to pick Armitage (Europe's best player for 2 years, is that right?) so Wood and Robshaw play together and neither of them can do that necessary job. Our approach to the breakdown yesterday seemed to be as few men committed to it as possible and fill the defensive line to take away any space for Wales to attack. For the first half it worked commendably, as Wales just kept running into us. Once they'd had a chance to chat at half time they figured out that they should pick up the speed at the breakdown, picking and driving to gain terrritory inside, figured ways around it when Burgess and Barrit got caught too narrow and also used little chips to turn us.

Wales were by far the better team in the 2nd half and deserved the win. Lots of commentary about the Robshaw call and England mistakes - but not much credit seems to be given to Wales figuring England out and then taking it to them.

Bizarre call of the night is, having gone in with the big boys approach, Burgess was subbed for Ford ater 65-ish mins with only a 7 point lead and Wales gaining in confidence. Or was Burgess injured?

Will be interesting to see which way Lancaster goes for the Aus game. If we employ that tactical appraoch again then we will be beaten again.

Final point - I thought it was poor of Lancaster to throw Robshaw under the bus in his post-match interview. That was a touch unappetising - or perhaps I'm just being unfair on Lancaster as I obviously don't think much of him. Does it show?

taipan wrote:Sounds like a Jean de Villiers is out with a broken jaw.

Yep - I guess that's good from your point of view right?

Kriel and De Allende then.

When I saw them in the Rugby Chamionship, first time I'd heard of either of them, against NZ they looked awesome to me. De Allende powerful, yet also able to bounce off tackles and make people miss. Kriel the rapier. They looked bloody great to be honest and I thought 'Oh ******, SA have a serious midfield combo here'.

But they lack experience I suppose - so maybe not this WC but for the next few years they could be pretty special to watch and lead your team to great success.

PeterCS wrote:

Growler wrote:Stuart Lancaster is going to cop the blame for his 10-12-13 selection, that much is obvious from comments in various online papers etc. IMO that will be quite wrong.

Farrell, Burgess and Barrett were selected to keep the monster Welsh centres, Roberts and S. Williams subdued. That task was achieved with relative ease - Roberts only made one break of real significance and Burgess took care of him. The only other clear-cut opportunity for a Welsh try in open play (bar the one they scored obviously) was Liam Williams haring down the sideline, stopped by a superb Farrell cover tackle.

No, the reason we lost was through sheer rank indiscipline. Too many penalties given away in kickable positions, which were duly punished. Farrell's kicking was faultless - and although George is a fine kicker, his range is about 10 yards shy of Owen's, so that selection was justified on that basis alone in such a tight game.

I've seen, in various interweb comments on different sites, no end of "daddy's boy" comments with regard to Andy Farrell supposedly bullying Stuart Lancaster into selecting  Owen. I've also heard it in face to face conversations. One or two had the look of a landed fish when I asked if they also believed that Farrell Snr had bullied Warren Gatland into making his lad a British Lion a couple of years ago .

A lot of sense there, Growler, methinks.

And for example, I seem to have said n times that - admitted it can be difficult to individualise achievements or demerits in the scrum, and hard-working as he may be in attempting to tackle, feed - Dan Cole is a permanent liability, a penalty waiting to happen. He fails to learn.

Before next lines - well battled throughout, esp in last quarter. The lesser pressure of being the away team actually helped clear their focus, I think.

There's another thing occurred to me shortly afterwards. It's easy to be wise after the event, and thus easy in retrospect to fall on Robshaw for the decision to go for the win instead of securing the draw. (Which Farrell would almost certainly have achieved - 100% kicking record, calm head, incl from more difficult situations. Same as Biggar.)

So, tho this is a decent report, I don't agree with that bit. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/27/chris-robshaw-gamble-england-failings

I think there are indeed question marks over Robshaw now, but not so much for that decision itself.

I've long backed Robshaw for his battling qualities, leading by example, his burrowing, his metres gained, his tackles. Despite his evident lack of pace for his position.

However, given last night's cauldron, you needed a captain in either of these categories (possibly both). Either the passionate inspirer - OConnell, to an extent Warburton, there have been many. The "Henry V" type, who rouses & raises his team when they are flagging, or suffering fatigue. Or else (or also) a clear-minded, shrewdly planning brain, who can follow plans as far as useful, but can read play, and calculate with some accuracy what the team needs to do now. The David Sole type, if you like. And the type Robshaw has tended to, when England have won.

If you go for the corner with three minutes or so to go (not sure what Ford was introduced for at that point, btw), you have to have a clear head, and tactical nous. If you really order the throw to the front of the line-out, what is the first thing you need to ensure your forwards do - or rather, don't let happen?

And Robbo clearly didn't work it out. And in the cauldron of the last 20 mins, he seemed to preside over England waning. And if on top of that, he's not fast enough to demand the ball and crash through himself, his place becomes debatable.


On the refereeing, briefly again. For my sins, I was condemned to the ITV Wales commentary - with the passionate but fair Wales ex-scrum half Andy Moore, and .... wait for it .... Eddie Butler. Who is as two-eyed and generous when it comes to England as an Alex Salmond (except when in the Westminster bars ), or a Sinn Fein supporter.

If - as is clearly the point raised - the ref had been in any way favourable to England ("Wales beat blah-blah,, blah-blah, the ref ..."), you can be sure Butler would have been on to it. He and Moore both warmed to the referee (and said so).

If you manage to pull off the double of being triumphal and embittered, you don't see it that way. But you are in a minority.


One thing IS tangentially valid, amid all that "Wales beat everyone" nonsense.

Wales had ample support, but were magnificently defiant against the "Swing Low" majority. The "we'll show them" underdog position suited them admirably. Warburton roared, etc. The really telling thing is that England's brains seemed overtaxed and scrambled by the pressure towards the end. Losing B Vunipola and Lawes (early) clearly was a couple of body blows. But they shoudl still have been in a position to win it.

Does anyone recall my mentioning (day before the tournament) a "home disadvantage" for England? The pressure, the expectation clearly got to them, as too often with England - and Robshaw, for one, seemed unable to put it together. (I'd favour Farrell - or later perhaps Burgess - to replace him as captain.)


Cracking match, anyway. I wonder how many are out of the WC after that battle?

I'm with you on the reffing Pete - I thought it was largely OK and didn't unfairly penalise either side.

As for commentary, you didn't miss much on ITV 'England'. It was 80 minutes of non-stop chatter. McLaren and Morgan they are not.

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

taipan wrote:Sounds like a Jean de Villiers is out with a broken jaw.

Yep - I guess that's good from your point of view right?

Kriel and De Allende then.

When I saw them in the Rugby Chamionship, first time I'd heard of either of them, against NZ they looked awesome to me. De Allende powerful, yet also able to bounce off tackles and make people miss. Kriel the rapier. They looked bloody great to be honest and I thought 'Oh ******, SA have a serious midfield combo here'.

But they lack experience I suppose - so maybe not this WC but for the next few years they could be pretty special to watch and lead your team to great success.

As much as I didn't want JdV there as he is well past his sell by date, you don't want to see players from any team injured out. Unfortunately Meyer decided on him 4 years back and he is becoming more and more stubborn. IMHO Strauss should have been captain but the love affair with Bismarck du Plessis precluded that. Ironically it looks like Bismarck has inredeemably blotted his copybook which will only add to the twis in the team.

I see Jan Serfontein is being flown over. Another Meyer favourite and a Bull to boot. (See Growls, still no Lions). There are serious question marks about the defence of both De Allende and Kriel so won't be surprised to see Serfontein starting even though he has been injured most of the season.

taipan wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

taipan wrote:Sounds like a Jean de Villiers is out with a broken jaw.

Yep - I guess that's good from your point of view right?

Kriel and De Allende then.

When I saw them in the Rugby Chamionship, first time I'd heard of either of them, against NZ they looked awesome to me. De Allende powerful, yet also able to bounce off tackles and make people miss. Kriel the rapier. They looked bloody great to be honest and I thought 'Oh ******, SA have a serious midfield combo here'.

But they lack experience I suppose - so maybe not this WC but for the next few years they could be pretty special to watch and lead your team to great success.

As much as I didn't want JdV there as he is well past his sell by date, you don't want to see players from any team injured out. Unfortunately Meyer decided on him 4 years back and he is becoming more and more stubborn. IMHO Strauss should have been captain but the love affair with Bismarck du Plessis precluded that. Ironically it looks like Bismarck has inredeemably blotted his copybook which will only add to the twis in the team.

I see Jan Serfontein is being flown over. Another Meyer favourite and a Bull to boot. (See Growls, still no Lions). There are serious question marks about the defence of both De Allende and Kriel so won't be surprised to see Serfontein starting even though he has been injured most of the season.

Interesting stuff taips.

JdV was a great player, brave and committed - but you're right in that he is past his best. I presumed that after he'd knackered his leg that he'd be done and was amazed to see him make the WC team. A combo of Meyer's conservatism and desire to have some experience at the heart of the midield?

Bismarck does seem to have been the weak link for quite a while. I used to think he was physically one of the most imposing hookers in the game but not for quite a while. Did he have a serious injury at any point that weakened him or is it just a gradual decline in strength and form?

Re: De Allende and Kriel - are the question marks on their defence centred on their heart/ability or their organisational nous/experience?

You'd have liked the commentary on the English channel at yesterday's game. For a while they were talking about Meyer and saying he is one of the calmest coaches on the sideline (with no sense of irony intended as far as I could tell). Whenever I see shots of him in the coaches box I think he's so tense that he will have a seizure or heart attack. There was a film from the 80s called Scanners - where peoples heads blew up - I think that might happen to Meye on camera one day.

Good that Willie Le Roux is back - he is so good in attack it is a genuine pleasure to watch. And him, JP and Habana seem to gel very well as a back 3.

With Bismarck it is probably age, but I have never really rated him as his basic hooking skills weren't the greatest. His lineout throwing has never been good, and I don't think he was the greatest scrumager. We was awesome in the loose but that was offset by the penalties he conceded and the numerous cards. The Bok lineout was far better yesterday with Strauss and in the modern game it is a primary source of possession.

De Allende/Kriel is maybe inexperience but there is no backline organizer in the class of Jacque Fourie. Fourie made De Villiers look better. Since Fourie retired De Billiers had a tendency to jump of the line looking for interceptions and left holes for the opposition to exploit.

Yesterday was JP's best game for years.

taipan wrote:With Bismarck it is probably age, but I have never really rated him as his basic hooking skills weren't the greatest. His lineout throwing has never been good, and I don't think he was the greatest scrumager. We was awesome in the loose but that was offset by the penalties he conceded and the numerous cards. The Bok lineout was far better yesterday with Strauss and in the modern game it is a primary source of possession.

De Allende/Kriel is maybe inexperience but there is no backline organizer in the class of Jacque Fourie. Fourie made De Villiers look better. Since Fourie retired De Billiers had a tendency to jump of the line looking for interceptions and left holes for the opposition to exploit.

Yesterday was JP's best game for years.

Never noticed Bismarck's weakness as a thrower - but perhaps that was masked by having Matfield to aim at! Likewise at the scrum - perhaps others around him covered his deficiencies, as for many years your pack has been up there as among the best in the scrum.

And yes, Fourie was indeed immense.

http://www.rugby365.com/article/62075-player-ratings-proud-performance

Player ratings from a match last year.

From memory Bismarck lost the first three throws when he came on.

Aust thrash Uraguay with their 2nd XV. Some terrible ball handling at times but understandable as there was a lot of pressure on these guys for places in the starting lineup against England. One positive is that Cooper's lousy kicking should lose him his place.

I noted Cooper has not improved in the slightest. Kicked poorly, passed poorly and was generally invisible. Well, that was in the 1st half - then I went to bed.