• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Springboks v England - Test #1

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Sports Talk
87 Posts 28 Posters 5.1k Views
Springboks v England - Test #1
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • CatograndeC Offline
    CatograndeC Offline
    Catogrande
    replied to Rancid Schnitzel on last edited by
    #75

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @catogrande said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @machpants @Rancid-Schnitzel

    You do have to wonder if Eddie was just so desperate to get Sheilds on the field come what may. I felt beforehand that his squad selection was unbalanced and this came home to bite us. We lost a game we should have had tied up at half time.

    Was he actually playing that bad?

    IMO no, he was doing ok, but no doubt Eddie will have some stats to back up his decision. The bigger issue for me though is that you go in with a rookie and then have no specialist back up on the bench.

    Rancid SchnitzelR 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • H Offline
    H Offline
    hydro11
    replied to Wreck Diver on last edited by
    #76

    @wreck-diver said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    England looked at the score board at 3-23 and said job done and stopped playing. SA went shit we need to start playing. Apparently when Billy came back everything would return to normal. He was totally ineffectual, but he will get 8 out of 10 from S Jones tomorrow in the Times

    A little simplistic I think. England's problem was that South Africa were able to control the ball from about the 20th minute to the 40th minute. South Africa scored a try and then Robshaw gave away a stupid offside penalty when they were about to get the ball kicked back to them. Daly also kicked it out on the full. England basically gave South Africa 20 minutes with the ball on a great running track. It was poor game management from England.

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • Rancid SchnitzelR Offline
    Rancid SchnitzelR Offline
    Rancid Schnitzel
    replied to Catogrande on last edited by
    #77

    @catogrande said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @catogrande said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @machpants @Rancid-Schnitzel

    You do have to wonder if Eddie was just so desperate to get Sheilds on the field come what may. I felt beforehand that his squad selection was unbalanced and this came home to bite us. We lost a game we should have had tied up at half time.

    Was he actually playing that bad?

    IMO no, he was doing ok, but no doubt Eddie will have some stats to back up his decision. The bigger issue for me though is that you go in with a rookie and then have no specialist back up on the bench.

    Just saw the highlights. It was the other lock Itoje who farked up royally on the first try.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to Rancid Schnitzel on last edited by
    #78

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @catogrande said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @catogrande said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @machpants @Rancid-Schnitzel

    You do have to wonder if Eddie was just so desperate to get Sheilds on the field come what may. I felt beforehand that his squad selection was unbalanced and this came home to bite us. We lost a game we should have had tied up at half time.

    Was he actually playing that bad?

    IMO no, he was doing ok, but no doubt Eddie will have some stats to back up his decision. The bigger issue for me though is that you go in with a rookie and then have no specialist back up on the bench.

    Just saw the highlights. It was the other lock Itoje who farked up royally on the first try.

    Itoje did a lot to help England lose that game.

    CatograndeC 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • CatograndeC Offline
    CatograndeC Offline
    Catogrande
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #79

    @crucial said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @catogrande said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @catogrande said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @machpants @Rancid-Schnitzel

    You do have to wonder if Eddie was just so desperate to get Sheilds on the field come what may. I felt beforehand that his squad selection was unbalanced and this came home to bite us. We lost a game we should have had tied up at half time.

    Was he actually playing that bad?

    IMO no, he was doing ok, but no doubt Eddie will have some stats to back up his decision. The bigger issue for me though is that you go in with a rookie and then have no specialist back up on the bench.

    Just saw the highlights. It was the other lock Itoje who farked up royally on the first try.

    Itoje did a lot to help England lose that game.

    Yeah. He needs to take a deep breath and be a little more self aware.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • BovidaeB Offline
    BovidaeB Offline
    Bovidae
    wrote on last edited by
    #80

    The story is that Shields will be starting at lock in the 2nd test. Comical Eddie.

    CatograndeC 1 Reply Last reply
    6
  • MachpantsM Offline
    MachpantsM Offline
    Machpants
    wrote on last edited by
    #81

    He did lock

    For the Canes

    FOUR years ago!

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CatograndeC Offline
    CatograndeC Offline
    Catogrande
    replied to Bovidae on last edited by
    #82

    @bovidae @Machpants Launchbury declared fit, so you'd have to think he and Itoje would start.

    MiketheSnowM BovidaeB 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnow
    replied to Catogrande on last edited by MiketheSnow
    #83

    @catogrande said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @bovidae @Machpants Launchbury declared fit, so you'd have to think he and Itoje would start.

    If Eddie wants any chance of avoiding 6 in a row

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to MiketheSnow on last edited by
    #84

    @mikethesnow said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @catogrande said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @bovidae @Machpants Launchbury declared fit, so you'd have to think he and Itoje would start.

    If Eddie wants any chance of avoiding 6 in a row

    Six? According to Eddie one didn’t happen

    MiketheSnowM 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • BovidaeB Offline
    BovidaeB Offline
    Bovidae
    replied to Catogrande on last edited by
    #85

    @catogrande Lucky for England then. Sensible Eddie.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • MachpantsM Offline
    MachpantsM Offline
    Machpants
    wrote on last edited by
    #86

    The defeat to the barbarians was fake news, all those tries were alternative facts

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnow
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #87

    @crucial said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @mikethesnow said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @catogrande said in Springboks v England - Test #1:

    @bovidae @Machpants Launchbury declared fit, so you'd have to think he and Itoje would start.

    If Eddie wants any chance of avoiding 6 in a row

    Six? According to Eddie one didn’t happen

    Started by Woodward.

    It was a capped match no? If so, it counts.

    Non-capped match? It still counts. It was the Baa Baas ffs

    1 Reply Last reply
    0

Springboks v England - Test #1
Sports Talk
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.