But pretty much true. Eddie virtually admitted as much during an evening audience with him. From the word go he was targeting NZ in RWC 2019. It was the same in 2003 and both times it worked but maybe came a game too early.
I think the opening line of the vid summed it up well - he’s the master of the upset.
I wonder if he thought to himself (secretly) that he could afford to do that because England would have enough talent to beat whoever made it to the final from the other side of the draw without giving them as much focus as the All Blacks (certainly a year out I thought that might be his approach just looking at the way draw was likely to pan out)
Re 2019 semi, for all the talk about mental toughness or selections if you tell me that Read, Whitelock and Rettallick were all going to have poor games I think I will tell you its really unlikely that the ABs could ever win. Don't think I could fault Hansen for choosing any of them. I still think he was right with the Mounga/ Barrett combo despite how hysterical some people were after the game. The only chance to recall Ben Smith to the starting line up was the SA game, but the young wingers came through again so it was next to impossible after that. I would have had him on the bench but watching Jordie's goal kicking this year I can see what he was thinking. Also I see what he was thinking choosing S. Barrett but in a way he lost a confidence in what was initially an unconventional decision to play Ardie at 6/8 with Cane.
The playing too wide off the ruck and getting always hit behind the advantage line has already been covered in detail here,but it just seems to me the forwards weren't fully recovered from the previous week and weren't recovered mentally and physically for the onslaught. With the benefit of hindsight,the game was won by halftime against Ireland,perhaps even earlier subs in that game would of kept a bit of energy in the tank for the next bigger challenge. Some of our forwards aren't young bucks and gave a flat performance.
In hindsight a tough call probably needed to have been made and one of our stalwart locks shouldn’t have started. Scott Barrett was pretty good in that first half and he along with Cane would’ve been pretty handy with how the game was being played.
Given we barely competed at England’s LO ball, the loss of one of our 2 metre locks wouldn’t have mattered.
A. Smith was a workhorse I thought. He was taking on the big boys when our big guys were missing.
Sheesh, I thought his decision making left a lot to be desired. If I was Rattue I’d be demanding a public square explanation as to the box kick just outside our attacking 22 alone. And that wasn’t one of those platform was a problem issues. We were on attack and actually building.
I can remember watching mccaw do the voice over for the 2015 final, in a similar attacking situation early in the game , smith kicks it in behind them into the in goal, and the Aussies took it away with ease, looked like a similar stupid play.
Mccaw adds , that kick in behind them was planned , didn’t really come off .
Maybe smith was working to Instructions, , hard to fathom why , but When I saw it , I thought of the above.
Smith easily MOTM. His passing is pretty much rugby porn, and he makes everyone else's job easier.
Then Read and Goodhue I went for. Best game by Read in ages, and not many on here picking Jack to start, but he smashed it.
Hell of a team effort though.
Some harsh comments on Todd given what utter bullshit his card was.
@Billy-Tell well yeah, if your foot is on the line, you're outside the field of play right?
In touch and field of play are separate concepts. You can have one part of your body in the field of play and still be in touch. Howver if you are required to be outside the field of play then no part of your body can be inside the field of play. That's why they use separate terminology.
Well Ledesma will be ruing a few things right now, no doubt. They're going home because he made some less than sensible selections IMHO.
The coaching team for the USA are either shit at rugby or shit at man management - their gameplan should be simple: pound the fuck out of opposition 5m either side of the breakdown, and learn to maul. As long as the backs can tackle, you'll be competitive.
They've got some big units who can move at pace but from 10 out the ball skills are practically zero at this level. That won't come until the next decade has seen their domestic competitions grow, and kids starting to play from junior high upward.
And they need external influence in some of those coaching ranks, because just playing against each other will just create the same problem Australian rugby has: biggest kid wins.
Very easy to make the right call with hindsight, but I think if they had moved the kickoff forward three and a bit hours to 10:30 on Saturday morning Japanese time, then this game could have gone ahead and everyone would have got back indoors ahead of the typhoon arriving in Nagoya.
I would imagine, given the seriousness of the situation and the unpredictability of the typhoon, this was simply not possible. The authorities had to shut down the trains, and other utilities, the last thing on their minds was transporting rugby teams and their spectators to and from a ground in the middle of a typhoon warning zone