Yes we know it’s not the “official” window until this Saturday, but there is no denying that this weekend, and the England/South Africa match in particular, gave us plenty to think about as we chewed over our Sunday post action brunch this morning, as well as a few heated debates. So much so we felt we had to put pen to paper as to what had us agreeing to disagree this morning ahead of the November Internationals kicking into top gear this coming Saturday.
So here are the five key points that struck us after this weekend’s proceedings.
So let’s get the elephant out of the room first – that Farrell tackle
First and foremost whatever you may think, and believe us this caused some heated debate this morning over breakfast, that incident alone did not win or lose the Test match. South Africa lost the match by leaving at least ten points out on the park, which had they capitalised on would have meant that whatever the officials decision in the 82nd minute, it would have been inconsequential to the result. Sadly the Springboks were left clutching to a 50/50 call going in their favor to win a Test match. It was an unfortunate end to what had been a fascinating and intense Test match, even if the quality on offer from both sides was perhaps somewhat lacking at times.
As for the actual tackle, like we say it is 50/50. We had a look at the multiple replays of it that appeared on YouTube this morning. We are really struggling to see much attempt at wrapping by Farrell’s right arm which leads many to think he led with the shoulder. However, his saving grace does seem to be that the contact does fall appreciably below Esterhuizen’s shoulder. For that he can be grateful that the Springbok comes in at a towering 6’4/1.94 metres. A smaller player and that shoulder would have gone straight to the head and then none of us would be having this debate as Farrell would have seen at least yellow. Consequently, we would argue it was done without malice but lacked in technique, execution and timing but as a dangerous tackle per se it can, as the officials deemed, be given the benefit of the doubt and the rest is history. Like we say, it is sad that such a fascinating and intense match will likely be remembered for that final act rather than the titanic, albeit poorly executed by both sides, struggle that it was.
Bottom line, difficult call but in itself did not win or lose the game! There were far more telling factors that ultimately influenced the result. So time to move on!
South Africa have only themselves to blame for throwing the game in the first half, despite completely dominating possession
Now that we’ve dealt with that sideshow tackle at the end of the match, it is our firm belief that South Africa lost this match in the first half despite being the dominant side. As predicted they owned the exchanges in the tight five in the first forty minutes, although their back row was not as effective as we thought it would be – more on that later from an English perspective. It was while England were defending a five metre South African attacking lineout with 14 men that South Africa really threw the game. The fact that Marx missed the mark on three occasions on the English five metre line, one of which saw only 14 English defenders, was critical. South Africa’s driving maul was, as expected, clearly wearing down the English defences and it was only a matter of time before at least one five-pointer was in the bag for the Springboks. The fact that they came away with none is simply not good enough at Test level despite some heroic English defence. Furthermore on that 5 metre lineout with 14 English defenders, South Africa not only threw away possession but also conceded a three-point penalty which saw England get their first points on the board. Coach Rassie Erasmus will know that at this level, if you are really serious about being World Cup contenders, you simply cannot afford such kinds of lapses in concentration.
Where was Malcolm Marx?
As we said in the preview, the South African Hooker is prone to misfiring badly in the lineout, but his presence in other areas of the game is so huge that it can sometimes negate a poor performance on the throw ins. However, even that didn’t materialise yesterday. Marx was far too quiet and only effected 1 turnover, whereas on a good day five turnovers seem to be his standard fare coupled to some bullocking runs to get South Africa into the opposition half. We saw little if any of that yesterday, and that coupled to his nightmare performance at the lineout and two vital kicks missed by Pollard meant that South Africa lost a key component of the formula that makes them so devastatingly effective and difficult to play against. Had all of this worked for them South Africa would have been at least 15 points ahead of England at the 82nd minute, making the final act of the game completely and utterly inconsequential.
England seem to have found their back row
England can feel well pleased with their performance yesterday, although they will be disappointed that they were unable to garner any points from crossing the South African whitewash, and instead had to rely on the boots of Owen Farrell and Elliot Daly to get them on the scoreboard. However, for us the key finding of yesterday was that they seem to have found a back row that works. Tom Curry is worth his weight in gold but was ably replaced by Zach Mercer. Meanwhile Mark Wilson put in a highly respectable shift at number eight despite his lack of Test experience. Brad Shields was solid and may play better against his New Zealand counterparts next weekend who he is more familiar with.
It was hard to really find the spirit in the other two matches this weekend – even though they may have been invaluable warm ups for the action to come
In both the Wales/Scotland and Ireland/Italy games it was hard to find that November flavor. Certainly there was plenty of emotion in the Wales/Scotland game and it was the more entertaining of the two contests, and both players and fans alike warmed to the cause generated by the presence of Doddie Weir in whose honor it was being held. However, it was still hard to get the feeling that these were relevant November internationals.
In the Wales/Scotland game, both sides will feel pleased with their exercises in depth development. Wales blend of experience and youth was clearly the dominant side, meaning that Wales have plenty to draw on for two tough encounters with Australia and South Africa this month. Scotland may have faltered at times, but there is plenty of raw talent there in their younger charges that just needs more exposure, something that Saturday’s outing will have benefitted enormously.
As for the Ireland/Italy game, we are not sure that Italy really learnt anything from the experience. Ireland on the other hand, will feel confident that their second/third string team were comfortable enough to make an emphatic statement in Chicago that Ireland has plenty of talent to work with to build a complete World Cup squad. What impressed us the most was how well Luke McGrath answered his country’s call at scrum half, and we want to see him get a similar opportunity against Argentina this Saturday in Dublin. It still may not be enough to get Ireland through their assignment with New Zealand should Conor Murray still not be available in a fortnight’s time, but it will be a huge stepping stone in addressing what is the last missing link in Ireland’s World Cup preparations.
And as for this guy, we’ll let the video do the talking.
Enjoy and we’ll be back for the official start of November’s feast of Test Rugby!
As we mentioned in our plug for them on our TV/Internet Listings page, our favorite source of rugby analysis the 1014 and Steve and Gareth are back on YouTube. Their breakdowns and fascinating analysis and in-depth (but never dry) use of statistics provides the best insight into International Rugby currently out there. We’ll be ending all our posts this month with a link to their YouTube content, so get over there, subscribe and make sure you give them a big thumbs up so we can continue enjoying their remarkable content. In the meantime here’s their excellent look at depth in the Six Nations teams.
2 thoughts on “The Lineout’s five pointer from the opening weekend of the November Internationals”
Regarding your assessment on The Tackle. So, you believe that 1) Farrell led with the shoulder, but 2) because the contact point was on the chest and thus not high, it was a legal albeit clumsy tackle.
That is not what the laws state. The height of the contact point is not the issue. It is whether the tackler led with the shoulder, and whether there were any arms involved (wrapping).
This is indeed what Gardner looked at (and presumeably saw): ‘I see enough evidence of wrapping’. Therefor he didn’t issue the penalty. Not because of the height of the shoulder charge on the carrier’s body.
In your own analysis, you agree there were no arms involved, and it was led by the shoulder. Which means you agree this was not a legal tackle.
The issue is not the effect it had on the scoreboard. Rather, consistency in the application of the laws.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marnus we fully agree with your statement “The issue is not the effect it had on the scoreboard. Rather, consistency in the application of the laws.” On further reflection, we are coming more to the conclusion that it was indeed an illegal tackle, but also feel that momentum and also Esterhuizen turning at the last second when Farrell was already committed to the tackle in a particular direction may have also made it inevitable that he ended up leading with the shoulder. Still doesn’t excuse it and also Farrell does have a history of borderline shots at key moments in big games. But as you rightly point out the lack of consistency in how such infringements are being interpreted is seriously detracting from the quality of the game at Test level and is an area that has to get addressed by World Rugby as a top priority. Thanks for your input, much appreciated.