RWC 2023 Fixtures and results

[WhitecapTiger]

SA best have a plan a plan for their back up hookers as there may be trouble coming for Mbonambi

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... s-mic.html

What the Daily Mail fails to point out is that in Afrikaans

"White Kant" pronounced similarly to what Curry heard, means "White Side" in English, which is exactly what a SA player may shout to alert teammates to a turnover.

I think Curry probably believed he was called the insult, I also think it was probably a misheard/misunderstood phrase, though not ruling it out.

Certainly with the similarities of the phrase with a innocent explanation, the citing panel will need cast iron proof that what Curry heard could not be interpreted as "White Side" for him to be cited

Ut also depends on the context. If it was during a breakdown that’s one thing, but what if it was said when the ball was dead?

Context would be everything, was there any eye contact, was there any direct interaction between the two? Think Hartley in 2013 final and his comment, whilst looking at Wayne Barnes but claiming to be talking to/about OTY.....

Also, if creating possible defences, look at the other side and wouldn't 'white' in Afrikaans be 'Wit' and pronounced slightly differently? Making it slightly easier to differentiate from the English equivalent. If Mbonambi refused to shake hands with curry at end, as is reported in various outlets, was this because he knew he'd said something 'bad', or, was he upset that Curry had misinterpreted his Afrikaans instructions to his team mates and mentioned this to the Ref....if the latter, why not just explain the misunderstanding?

A lot of noise in stadium too, if it was a break in play there was probably some inane tune blaring over the PA system.

Guess we'll never really know as I doubt anything further will be said or done.

[wigworth]

It often gets under my skin to read the negative posts about the England team and its captain, Owen Farrell. Why the English are so prone to spout such criticism is beyond me and even when praise is due it is often tongue in cheek, ‘faint praise’.
Last night, the Springboks played to the level that England allowed them to play. That was due to a truly outstanding performance from an exceedingly committed English team led by the patriotic warrior that is Owen Farrell. Similarly, in the group stage, Argentina were outplayed by an inspired performance led admirably by George Ford. They, too, performed only at the level allowed by England.
Is it the case that only Tigers or ex Tigers can win positive comments from these sad people ?

So it was the same SA that played against France and the same Argentina that played against Wales? Sorry but regardless how good England were in both games I can’t get on board with that I’m afraid. Even the most basic of eye tests comparing the SA games tells you they were nowhere near the level of intensity that they were last week. And it’s not hindsight either,myself and others said pre game that England have a chance if they play to their best and SA are leggy and still suffering from the France game. And that’s exactly what happened,to a tee,unfortunately England just couldn’t get over the line

Touch a nerve with you? You seem very on edge to always defend SA at any opportunity.

[Scott1]

It often gets under my skin to read the negative posts about the England team and its captain, Owen Farrell. Why the English are so prone to spout such criticism is beyond me and even when praise is due it is often tongue in cheek, ‘faint praise’.
Last night, the Springboks played to the level that England allowed them to play. That was due to a truly outstanding performance from an exceedingly committed English team led by the patriotic warrior that is Owen Farrell. Similarly, in the group stage, Argentina were outplayed by an inspired performance led admirably by George Ford. They, too, performed only at the level allowed by England.
Is it the case that only Tigers or ex Tigers can win positive comments from these sad people ?

So it was the same SA that played against France and the same Argentina that played against Wales? Sorry but regardless how good England were in both games I can’t get on board with that I’m afraid. Even the most basic of eye tests comparing the SA games tells you they were nowhere near the level of intensity that they were last week. And it’s not hindsight either,myself and others said pre game that England have a chance if they play to their best and SA are leggy and still suffering from the France game. And that’s exactly what happened,to a tee,unfortunately England just couldn’t get over the line

Touch a nerve with you? You seem very on edge to always defend SA at any opportunity.

Not at all,just speaking the truth. I just think it’s nonsense that people really believe that that was a prime SA last night. It was a week before,it was a prime France too. Not sure whether it’s a defence mechanism to try and excuse how bad a loss it was,all things considered. Basically we lost because of a scrum,that is the only thing that SA brought to the table that they were at their best at

[fentiger]

Basically we lost because of a scrum,that is the only thing that SA brought to the table that they were at their best at

Indeed, although from the moment Sinckler appeared on the scene any chance we had of competing at scrum time disappeared!
He always has the demeanour of someone with a huge chip on his shoulder. Still think Coley should have had ten more minutes

[Scott1]

Basically we lost because of a scrum,that is the only thing that SA brought to the table that they were at their best at

Indeed, although from the moment Sinckler appeared on the scene any chance we had of competing at scrum time disappeared!
He always has the demeanour of someone with a huge chip on his shoulder. Still think Coley should have had ten more minutes

Yes definitely

[chewbacca]

Well we went further that I expected us to. I think we frustrated SA and stopped them playing as they wanted to. Well done England one scrum penalty away from a final. A semi-final appearance should ensure the continued tenure of the coaching team allowing SB to develop the side over the next 4 years.

[wigworth]

So it was the same SA that played against France and the same Argentina that played against Wales? Sorry but regardless how good England were in both games I can’t get on board with that I’m afraid. Even the most basic of eye tests comparing the SA games tells you they were nowhere near the level of intensity that they were last week. And it’s not hindsight either,myself and others said pre game that England have a chance if they play to their best and SA are leggy and still suffering from the France game. And that’s exactly what happened,to a tee,unfortunately England just couldn’t get over the line

Touch a nerve with you? You seem very on edge to always defend SA at any opportunity.

Not at all,just speaking the truth. I just think it’s nonsense that people really believe that that was a prime SA last night. It was a week before,it was a prime France too. Not sure whether it’s a defence mechanism to try and excuse how poor a loss it was,all things considered

Literally nobody but you is try to push that point, all they have said it SA were in general poor. Most seem to be of the opinion that the conditions and England's game plan were the reason for it, which it not unreasonable in the slightest especially given the subs SA made early in the game, they themselves must very clearly have felt they had no control of the game with the starting players they had on the pitch. Not that the subbed SA players really added much aside from Pollard giving a more reliable boot, ironically it was England's subs that most impacted the game, albeit in a negative way for England.

The what the previous weeks performance has to do with this match is rather pointless, unless you can prove that there is strong autocorrelation in performances week to week (which there isn't), what happened last week has no bearing what type of performance happens this week. Variance is the much better metric to use to use to explain differences in week to week performance and that performance by SA yesterday is well within the bounds of what is normally to be expected from them.

From my eyes it looked like France felt like they could beat SA by staying true and playing their own style of rugby, which was in the most part pretty successful against them, to SA's credit they played far less of the rugby but did manage to hang in the game well and capitalise on France's errors ruthlessly. England obviously realised they do not have the beating of SA if they try to outplay them like France were capable of therefore they must effectively go negative and nullify what SA will want to do in the game. This something I don't think France did at all, they seemed much more content to play their own game and let the chips fall where they may thinking they would be too much for SA. Surely there can be no greater compliment to England's game plan than SA subbing so many of their players off so early as they were by in the most part ineffective especially for what many like to call world class players. Long story short , SA were good against France because France allowed them to be whereas England were hell bent on not allowing them to play.

As an aside I would like to give credit to England's defence this tournament which I feel has been severely under looked as one of the key reason they did as well they did, not allowing anyone to really put them in a hole which they probably couldn't get out of if they had to go out and score 2+ try's to get back into a game.

[Scott1]

Touch a nerve with you? You seem very on edge to always defend SA at any opportunity.

Not at all,just speaking the truth. I just think it’s nonsense that people really believe that that was a prime SA last night. It was a week before,it was a prime France too. Not sure whether it’s a defence mechanism to try and excuse how poor a loss it was,all things considered

Literally nobody but you is try to push that point, all they have said it SA were in general poor. Most seem to be of the opinion that the conditions and England's game plan were the reason for it, which it not unreasonable in the slightest especially given the subs SA made early in the game, they themselves must very clearly have felt they had no control of the game with the starting players they had on the pitch. Not that the subbed SA players really added much aside from Pollard giving a more reliable boot, ironically it was England's subs that most impacted the game, albeit in a negative way for England.

The what the previous weeks performance has to do with this match is rather pointless, unless you can prove that there is strong autocorrelation in performances week to week (which there isn't), what happened last week has no bearing what type of performance happens this week. Variance is the much better metric to use to use to explain differences in week to week performance and that performance by SA yesterday is well within the bounds of what is normally to be expected from them.

From my eyes it looked like France felt like they could beat SA by staying true and playing their own style of rugby, which was in the most part pretty successful against them, to SA's credit they played far less of the rugby but did manage to hang in the game well and capitalise on France's errors ruthlessly. England obviously realised they do not have the beating of SA if they try to outplay them like France were capable of therefore they must effectively go negative and nullify what SA will want to do in the game. This something I don't think France did at all, they seemed much more content to play their own game and let the chips fall where they may thinking they would be too much for SA. Surely there can be no greater compliment to England's game plan than SA subbing so many of their players off so early as they were by in the most part ineffective especially for what many like to call world class players. Long story short , SA were good against France because France allowed them to be whereas England were hell bent on not allowing them to play.

As an aside I would like to give credit to England's defence this tournament which I feel has been severely under looked as one of the key reason they did as well they did, not allowing anyone to really put them in a hole which they probably couldn't get out of if they had to go out and score 2+ try's to get back into a game.

Credit to England of course but you can definitely use a teams previous performance as a measuring stick ,absolutely! And like I said SA were a notch ,or several notches below ,depending on what facet of the game you are talking about,to last weeks performance. A simple eye test tells you that. And it wasn’t just me who said that we needed to be at our best and SA needed to have an off day for the game to be close, it was 2 or 3 other posters. And that’s exactly what happened. I don’t get this “allow them to play” nonsense. I’m just talking about simple rugby fundamentals,speeed,intensity,power,pace,set piece ,breakdown,rucking etc. And it’s a fact that in these areas SA were a yard below what they were last week,myself and others have been saying all week that the France game would’ve took a lot out of them. And that proved the case ,imo anyway

[wigworth]

Not at all,just speaking the truth. I just think it’s nonsense that people really believe that that was a prime SA last night. It was a week before,it was a prime France too. Not sure whether it’s a defence mechanism to try and excuse how poor a loss it was,all things considered

Literally nobody but you is try to push that point, all they have said it SA were in general poor. Most seem to be of the opinion that the conditions and England's game plan were the reason for it, which it not unreasonable in the slightest especially given the subs SA made early in the game, they themselves must very clearly have felt they had no control of the game with the starting players they had on the pitch. Not that the subbed SA players really added much aside from Pollard giving a more reliable boot, ironically it was England's subs that most impacted the game, albeit in a negative way for England.

The what the previous weeks performance has to do with this match is rather pointless, unless you can prove that there is strong autocorrelation in performances week to week (which there isn't), what happened last week has no bearing what type of performance happens this week. Variance is the much better metric to use to use to explain differences in week to week performance and that performance by SA yesterday is well within the bounds of what is normally to be expected from them.

From my eyes it looked like France felt like they could beat SA by staying true and playing their own style of rugby, which was in the most part pretty successful against them, to SA's credit they played far less of the rugby but did manage to hang in the game well and capitalise on France's errors ruthlessly. England obviously realised they do not have the beating of SA if they try to outplay them like France were capable of therefore they must effectively go negative and nullify what SA will want to do in the game. This something I don't think France did at all, they seemed much more content to play their own game and let the chips fall where they may thinking they would be too much for SA. Surely there can be no greater compliment to England's game plan than SA subbing so many of their players off so early as they were by in the most part ineffective especially for what many like to call world class players. Long story short , SA were good against France because France allowed them to be whereas England were hell bent on not allowing them to play.

As an aside I would like to give credit to England's defence this tournament which I feel has been severely under looked as one of the key reason they did as well they did, not allowing anyone to really put them in a hole which they probably couldn't get out of if they had to go out and score 2+ try's to get back into a game.

Credit to England of course but you can definitely use a teams previous performance as a measuring stick ,absolutely! And like I said SA were a notch ,or several notches below ,depending on what facet of the game you are talking about,to last weeks performance. A simple eye test tells you that. And it wasn’t just me who said that we needed to be at our best and SA needed to have an off day for the game to be close, it was 2 or 3 other posters. And that’s exactly what happened. I don’t get this “allow them to play” nonsense. I’m just talking about simple rugby fundamentals,speeed,intensity,power,pace,set piece ,breakdown,rucking etc. And it’s a fact that in these areas SA were a yard below what they were last week,myself and others have been saying all week that the France game would’ve took a lot out of them. And that proved the case ,imo anyway

Hahaha I don't know what to say, if you think there is strong autocorrelation in week to week performances in sports you would be the richest man in the world inside of a single sports season betting on games. That is what I was trying to explain with variance, SA were at the top end performance of what you could expect from them last week against France but that performance last weekend has no predictive ability on what sort of performance they were likely to put in against England, if you can prove it does it I would suggest not sharing it on a public forum as you have found a way to print money.

[Scott1]

Literally nobody but you is try to push that point, all they have said it SA were in general poor. Most seem to be of the opinion that the conditions and England's game plan were the reason for it, which it not unreasonable in the slightest especially given the subs SA made early in the game, they themselves must very clearly have felt they had no control of the game with the starting players they had on the pitch. Not that the subbed SA players really added much aside from Pollard giving a more reliable boot, ironically it was England's subs that most impacted the game, albeit in a negative way for England.

The what the previous weeks performance has to do with this match is rather pointless, unless you can prove that there is strong autocorrelation in performances week to week (which there isn't), what happened last week has no bearing what type of performance happens this week. Variance is the much better metric to use to use to explain differences in week to week performance and that performance by SA yesterday is well within the bounds of what is normally to be expected from them.

From my eyes it looked like France felt like they could beat SA by staying true and playing their own style of rugby, which was in the most part pretty successful against them, to SA's credit they played far less of the rugby but did manage to hang in the game well and capitalise on France's errors ruthlessly. England obviously realised they do not have the beating of SA if they try to outplay them like France were capable of therefore they must effectively go negative and nullify what SA will want to do in the game. This something I don't think France did at all, they seemed much more content to play their own game and let the chips fall where they may thinking they would be too much for SA. Surely there can be no greater compliment to England's game plan than SA subbing so many of their players off so early as they were by in the most part ineffective especially for what many like to call world class players. Long story short , SA were good against France because France allowed them to be whereas England were hell bent on not allowing them to play.

As an aside I would like to give credit to England's defence this tournament which I feel has been severely under looked as one of the key reason they did as well they did, not allowing anyone to really put them in a hole which they probably couldn't get out of if they had to go out and score 2+ try's to get back into a game.

Credit to England of course but you can definitely use a teams previous performance as a measuring stick ,absolutely! And like I said SA were a notch ,or several notches below ,depending on what facet of the game you are talking about,to last weeks performance. A simple eye test tells you that. And it wasn’t just me who said that we needed to be at our best and SA needed to have an off day for the game to be close, it was 2 or 3 other posters. And that’s exactly what happened. I don’t get this “allow them to play” nonsense. I’m just talking about simple rugby fundamentals,speeed,intensity,power,pace,set piece ,breakdown,rucking etc. And it’s a fact that in these areas SA were a yard below what they were last week,myself and others have been saying all week that the France game would’ve took a lot out of them. And that proved the case ,imo anyway

Hahaha I don't know what to say, if you think there is strong autocorrelation in week to week performances in sports you would be the richest man in the world inside of a single sports season betting on games. That is what I was trying to explain with variance, SA were at the top end performance of what you could expect from them last week against France but that performance last weekend has no predictive ability on what sort of performance they were likely to put in against England, if you can prove it does it I would suggest not sharing it on a public forum as you have found a way to print money.

Didn’t say it was a predictive ability,doesn’t seem to be sinking in at all sadly. I’m comparing THIS SA performance to LAST WEEKS SA performance and a simple eye test tells me that they were leggy and shopworn. Now that is not surprising considering the level of intensity,speed of game and brutal collisions in the France game. Were SA feeling the after effects of that? 100%! And it was easy to see during the game,and it was called by myself and others all week and pre game. And your point has backfired on you spectacularly because the under par team actually won this game! That says a lot about Englands performance and someone trying to be clever! The last I’ll say on it ,well done to both teams,a C minus SA squeaked past an A England,and did it with just one tool out of their bag

[thebearisstilldeano]

Lest we forget.

Lost by a point.

Three points gifted to a poor kicker because our Captain talked back to the referee and got the penalty 10m closer.


The Faz fan boys should reflect on those numbers. But no one will, because we are such great losers and nothing will change because nothing changed before.

[wigworth]

Credit to England of course but you can definitely use a teams previous performance as a measuring stick ,absolutely! And like I said SA were a notch ,or several notches below ,depending on what facet of the game you are talking about,to last weeks performance. A simple eye test tells you that. And it wasn’t just me who said that we needed to be at our best and SA needed to have an off day for the game to be close, it was 2 or 3 other posters. And that’s exactly what happened. I don’t get this “allow them to play” nonsense. I’m just talking about simple rugby fundamentals,speeed,intensity,power,pace,set piece ,breakdown,rucking etc. And it’s a fact that in these areas SA were a yard below what they were last week,myself and others have been saying all week that the France game would’ve took a lot out of them. And that proved the case ,imo anyway

Hahaha I don't know what to say, if you think there is strong autocorrelation in week to week performances in sports you would be the richest man in the world inside of a single sports season betting on games. That is what I was trying to explain with variance, SA were at the top end performance of what you could expect from them last week against France but that performance last weekend has no predictive ability on what sort of performance they were likely to put in against England, if you can prove it does it I would suggest not sharing it on a public forum as you have found a way to print money.

Didn’t say it was a predictive ability,doesn’t seem to be sinking in at all sadly. I’m comparing THIS SA performance to LAST WEEKS SA performance and a simple eye test tells me that they were leggy and shopworn. Now that is not surprising considering the level of intensity,speed of game and brutal collisions in the France game. Were SA feeling the after effects of that? 100%! And it was easy to see during the game,and it was called by myself and others all week and pre game. And your point has backfired on you spectacularly because the under par team actually won this game! That says a lot about Englands performance and someone trying to be clever! The last I’ll say on it ,well done to both teams,a C minus SA squeaked past an A England,and did it with just one tool out of their bag

You are interpreting what I am saying incorrectly, I never said SA were below par only that there performance against England was well within the normal range of performances you can expect from them to play, it is not a wild outlier game. You are the one who seems very sure that it was the performance last week that was the cause of what you just called a below par performance from SA. I am not saying this at all in fact I don't think this is the case and the SA coaches in the week didn't think it was the case either as in the media sessions this week they did not even credit the France game as the most physically demanding game they played in the tournament, that honour went to Tonga. You are of course entitled to your own opinion on why SA were in your words below 'par' and I early await your valuable insight on this upcoming weeks game. Are they still tired? Will they be below par again? Are you at all concerned Ben O'Keefe isn't reffing this game?

[wigworth]

Lest we forget.

Lost by a point.

Three points gifted to a poor kicker because our Captain talked back to the referee and got the penalty 10m closer.


The Faz fan boys should reflect on those numbers. But no one will, because we are such great losers and nothing will change because nothing changed before.

Will Freddie reflect on this poor kick and subsequent knock on that led to the scrum? Will Billy reflect on his knock on? Will George reflect on his missed throws? Will every other England player who made a mistake in the game? Of course they will and I am sure they will all regret all of it, pillorying one player who most have an axe to grind with for no real reason at this point as Rugbygramps said before has just turned into tiresome online bullying.

[longlivethecrumbie]

Will George reflect on his missed throws?

But boy was one of them one of the most numerous of not straights! I don't think even the most biased hooker would try and claim it was straight

[wigworth]

Will George reflect on his missed throws?

But boy was one of them one of the most numerous of not straights! I don't think even the most biased hooker would try and claim it was straight

Yeah I don't think I have seen a stinker of a throw that bad since age grade rugby.