Overview
Since I started playing and following rugby a few years ago I have wanted to get into rugby "analytics" and look at more stats. Unfortunately, there seem to be very few publicly available Rugbypass has some solid stats that I would like to get my hands on, but I have yet to be able to scrape their website, and don't know what their sources are. The leagus themselves also have some data, but each league posts different stats and in different formats. That is before you get to the international level where there is seemingly no set website with any database of statistics. Because of that, I unfortunately don't have any useful data, so I had to track what I could myself.
I have had some thoughts and discussions about what I think would be important to track, and the feasability of tracking that data, but I will discuss that at the end, or in a different article. For this, I just want to focus on the games, and the data I got from each game, along with my thoughts from the games themselves. For each of the games in November, I went phase by phase tracking whether or not they made meters on that phase, the number of passes, how the phase/possesion ended (penalty won, kick, turnover, knock on, held up, in touch, forward pass, try, end of half/game, maybe another one or two that I'm forgetting), whether they got a linebreak or not, and the number of offloads. I also started possesions off of "set piece" (scrum, lineout, kick return) at zero to emphasize teams that took advantage of non-standard defenses, during broken play, or when there were significantly fewer players in the line.
Results
I watched every single Autumn Nations series game this fall, between two tier 1 nations, and want to share all of the charts that I tracked and my thoughts on the game. I know I'm late getting this out, but I've been busy this week and wanted to put some effort into my write ups and all of the charts. This is more of an analysis article instead of a statistical article, so something new for me, but I want to share my thoughts with the world. (Also, my text editor of choice for this was the side of the google sheet that the chart is on so that I could reference it as I was typing, so I'm sure there are numerous typos and gramatical mistakes. Unfortunately this article is over 13,000 words long, and I don't have the attention to detail to comb over all of them at 1 in the morning right now)
An incredibly underwhelming test. Low scoring and stop start for the first half, then the ABs bench came on, after Ireland fought through a red card and made all the diiference. Ireland somehow look both undercooked and unprepared, and sloppy and tired in this game. I mean it is an old and used system that rugby is moving away from towards a more kicking and broken play attack compared to the incredibly structured and intricate system that Ireland has been running. Also the age of this team is not to be looked past, I know they have some younger guys coming in, but Aki has been around the block, I don't think he can go as long as he used to. Both Furlong and Porter have a LOT of minutes and scrums in their legs. JGP is obviously still zippy and incredibly smart and snapping passes, but he no longer has Sexton outside of him to help support in the playmaking duties. Obviously Predergast plays that similar taking the ball to the line, draw in defenders and hit the right man style, but he just isn't as crisp as Sexton. Not a major diss, very few are, but some of his passes just don't quite go to hand, or he doesn't hit the best option. Crowley is a much different player, who objectively doesn't fit the Leinster/Ireland system as well, but has his strengths and the ability to just pull a game out of the fire, but this isn't a discussion on the Irish 10 shirt. This was a game where Ireland would try to run through a lot of phases, but would make an early mistake, or be forced to kick off the back foot after a few phases of not going anywhere. The All Blacks also weren't clicking as well on attack, but they did enough to get a comfortable win over an incredibly sloppy Irish team in an incredibly sloppy atop-start game. Their defense was quite solid, and they had more creative and innovative set play pieces. Obviously easier to do when you can actually win your own ball on lineouts, unlike Ireland. Also this was my first game tracking, so some of the stats were a bit different and I didn't track as much of the "side stuff" (knocks, kicks etc) as my main goal was the big chart of phases and passes in the middle.
This game shows the difference in how England was last year vs how they are now. Last year they were still a relatively young team figuring out the new system, particularly the blitz defense but now they're another year battle hardened. They were able to just shut the door completely on a very depleated Australian side that just couldn't fire any shots. After a brutal Lions series, right into a rugby championship, now to the Autumn nations series, they've not had time to rest and get healthy and actually train together. It doesn't help that they are also just coming out of a rebuild, are already lacking a lot of depth in key positions, and had to drop even more of their top guys who were playing overseas as this was technically an out of window test. You could clearly tell a lot of the guys who were left were drained. Their big ball carriers were not getting meters the longer the game was going on, and their backs just didn't have any creativity in them. They just kept shoveling passes out aimlessly, which might work at lower levels, but cartainly not against an international defense as well drilled as this England team. I really wish the Aussies didn't have as long of a tour as they do and they could go back to their summer, rest up on the beaches and get ready for a new season under Les Kiss, with a new flyhalf running the show as well. Meanwhile for England this was just a good dominant win. They have clearly improved the blitz defense greatly and now know how to finish out games as a team without letting the opposition back into it, like they did last year against these Aussies. A very useful skill to have coming up against the All Blacks in a few weeks, and heading into a world cup in a few years. Then on attack, they didn't have the flashiest game of all time, but Mitchell hung some incredible box kicks which England either regathered in the air, or attacked the breakdown ferociously. They also kicked accurately and on front foot ball making the Aussies have to scramble and retreat even further and put their somewhat inexperienced back 3 in a blender.
I mean this was just complete and utter domination from the Boks. Start to finish, it looked like the number one team in the world vs a team outside the top 10. Siya scored in the 3rd minute, and Libbok scored in the 79th, and South Africa's other 7 tries came relatively evenly spaced out between those two. Credit to Japan for their try as well, they barely had any offense, but they capitalized on a few Bok penalties with a few quick taps which resulted in Yazaki diving over for I belive his first international try. One of many to come I feel, he looked rather impressive, and was probably Japan's best back, calm under pressure while consistently being driven back, and didn't seem to fear going against the Boks. Also all of their back 3, and Sam Greene coming on at 10 were very quick and shify and could make guys miss in a phone booth. However, the Boks were just so structured and focued that even if they got around one guy they would usually be enveloped by a few others in green and gold. Also Charlie Lawrence was incredibly fun to watch, may not be the best playmaker in the world, but he runs hard and runs like a bowling ball, and looks like he truly cares deeply about his team. But unfortunateley despite some solid backline performances, they just couldn't get anything going because aside from Warner Dearns, and either 8 man (Leitch and Makisi) none of their forwards were providing go forward ball at all, they were just getting bullied by the SpringBoks pack both in open play, at scrum time, though they did manage a scrum pen or two on their own feeds, and especially at lineout time and in mauls. Now looking at the Boks, this is how you want to see a top team play against a team outside the top 10. They rarely ran high phase counts, not because they were sloppy and turning the ball over, but becuase they were incredibly oportunistic and would take advantage of any gaps in the Japanese defense and punish them with tries or linebreaks. Most of their losses of possesion either came from knocks or forward passes, or early in a series before either team could get an attacking/defending line set. Their offense, when they got set could just cut Japan to bits. You can't give Sascha Feinberg-Mgnomezulu an inch of space, and you have to come up flat against him, otherwise he will ghost through your tackles, behind a guy a step too far forwards, just outside of a guy facing a few degrees too far inwards, he can read those gaps like a magician. However, you also have to come up out of your line quickly to presure them because otherwise they're getting the ball to De Allende or Kriel in the midfield coming on at pace who can easily break tacckles and smash through a line, or get the ball out to thw wing with Kolbe in space who is incredibly dangerous. Though I think he sometimes tried doing a bit too much this game, cutting back in and around all of his forwards a few times and loosing a decent amount of meters, he still set up a few tries in this game, one for SFM off a kick, one for Arendse coming off his wing, he's still quite good. The Boks didn't try anything insane in this game but they didn't have to, just play solid rugby and take advantage of any slight weaknesses in you opponents game, and that's exactly what they did, nothing too fancy, just consistently making the right play, hitting the right strike runner, playmakers knowing when to keep and when to go, simple but effective and impressive. Obviously made a bit easier by consistently having go forward ball, their forwards almost never got tackled before the gainline, and if they did they weren't getting driven back like they were doing to the Japanese forwards. Good win for the Boks, and on to the next.
You could tell this was a cagey, intense game from the start. Neither team tried anything too audacious for a while, a lot of kicks and one off runners and simple plays to start. Neither team wanted to make the first mistake, and both sides understood the weight of this game. Whether self inflicted, or pushed by media narratives, this was probably billed as the biggest test of this window, only rivaled by maybe Ireland-New Zealand, but this being the first time these two sides had faced off since the 2023 QF, this was made into a big occasion. Despite all that, not much was actually on the line, both sides are comfortably in the first pool for the 2027 world cup, though France might have been desperate to shake their boogeyman and get a big W over the boks, could be massive if they clash again in a knockout in 2027. That being said, France did open the scoring early with Peneaud on broken play after a kick, which is usually not France's game, but Peneaud can be a game breaking winger in many ways. However, France would continue to try and play this way, beat South Africa at their own game, kicking and not playing incredibly expansive rugby with flair like they normally do, all the way to copying the bomb squad. That right there is where I think France lost the game, they tried beating Rassie and the Boks at their own game, and their own game from 2023 nontheless. Since then the Boks have been rapidly expanding and playing more "Tony Ball" with a far more diverse playbook and better depth and strike plays. Meanwhile, France has all of those things, and the typical French flair, we saw come out a little towards the end of the first half, and into the second, but it seemed stiffled, as if they were told not to do it in favor of playing a more controlled conservative gameplan. Especially after the red card at half, I feel like France went into their shell a bit and said "hey, they have 14 guys, if we just don't do anything stupid and play it safe we'll eventually score against the Boks" and sure, that would probably work against about 90% of international teams, however, the Springboks are not 90% of international teams, they still played their game, put in some massive shots on defense, still flew up out of the line and managed to limit any chances of Peneaud or LBB to even get the ball in the first place, then France never wanted to do anything audacious like throw a 40 meter skip ball or try a kick pass to get the ball to their game breakers. I knew as soon as they put Lucu on for Legarrec, they weren't going to win that game. Lucu is an incredible general, but will play the system to a a tee, Legarrec will at least ocasionally try something daft. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but to beat the Boks, without Dupont, they needed to try something outrageous, but instead they kept try and failing to apply pressure and squeze the game out of the Boks. Instead they got the game squeezed out of themselves, and the Boks, did kind of revert back to their 2023 selves a little bit and just played simple crash it up rugby. Kick it back and win the kicking battle, which they were always going to do against France, take any penalties you can to gain meters and fire a shot when you get close and safe. The Boks really only fired 2 or 3 shots in the entire second half, but they converted on basically all of them, and that's all they really needed to squeeze the life out of France. On another note, what the Boks did with Esterhuizen in the scrum was incredible to watch. Willingly going down a man on the opposing team's feed because you know you can hold them off and going up a man on attacking scrums to try and win a pen is te exact opposite of what I would expect 95% of coaches to do. They know they can feed the ball and get it out quick on their own scrum and want to use the space created out wide by having the most amount of backs out there. Then they'd need everyone on the opposing team's feeds to not give away a pen, but not Rassie and the Boks, they're just built different. I know it wasn't France's top choice props, but neither were the Boks' guys, and they still were attacking on scrum time. I don't think it would have mattered if France had had Antonio and Gros, and Aldrit at 8.Though they may have helped France have more gainline success and put them on front foot ball a bit more, but I just feel like the Boks defense was so spirited it would have been brutal for any dream team of forwards to carry through. The last thing this game made me think about is how almost unbeatable South Africa is. Just looking at populations and how popular rugby is, France, England, and South Africa should be the top 3 teams. Obviously New Zealand has to be up there, but they don't have as massive a population to draw from as the other 3 nations. If the Boks just tore apart France like this, while having 14 men and not playing to their best most expansive capabilities, they seem almost unbeatable. Though I do really really like where England is headed, Borthwick is doing an incredible job over there, and they have the potential depth to rival South Africa, though they're not nearly as battle hardened as of yet. The next time those two face off it should be a belter.
What a comeback. Scotland had shots to fire, and this game easily could have been the one for them. Looked to be a blowout early with NZ pressing and Scotland conceding a few pens, getting a YC warning. NZ was just bashing down the door, had their moments of flare, but not your stereotypical ABs backline performance. Offensive shapes seemed kind of blunted early even, despite the early points. Scotland just seemed to not be able to hold it together, and were getting pushed back, and it seemed like even the Lorde linebreak -> Roigard try would be too much to overcome. Then suddenly their attack started clicking. Tuipilotu and Hutchinson were bashing people for gainline, and Wee Darcy had a few great breaks, including the incredible one that led to his knock on. That one was the killer for Scotland I feel, their third time getting over the line without scoring, this one coming from their beset finisher after he made just an incredible play to get there. Then the other times they got held up, were mostly just good defensive plays dragging the Scots over, or letting someone through unsupported and just falling under him. Then the killer was DMac with his insane finish in the corner over Kinghorrn. I hate to simplify such a complicated game back down to just two plays and two players, but I feel like the difference between these two teams can be exemplified by the difference in Wee Darcy and DMac's finishes. Darcy made an incredible play to get oh so close to the line and dropped the ball just before dotting down. DMac got the ball easier but made an insane individual play to finish the try. Scotland always gets so close to finishing but just finds ways to loose it. New Zealand remains cool calm and collected and trusts in their players for individual moments of brilliance to get them through the game. Obviously that strategy has been less reliable for them now with the rise of the Boks and other teams comparable to NZ's skill, but it was enough for them to survive another year against the Scots. Two more points on the game, the momentum compltely shifted after DMac's 50/22 in the 72nd(?) minute, and after that New Zealand's attack looked much crisper and sharp and led to more scores and better flow. And finally, the New Zealand scrum is incredibly interesting to me, they seem to hold their own against almost any pack in the world, even against the Boks they weren't getting blown off the ball, but they can't then push the opposition pack when it is a weaker one like Scotland's especially without Fagerson.
Looking at just the scores this is a comfortable win for the Irish, but comparing how they got to the score and how the Boks got to their score vs the Japanese a week earlier is two entirely different games. Obviously wins and playing better in sports don't follow the transitive property, much less beating teams by how much, but just watching the game does not give me confidence in Ireland. Obviously their lineout was absolutely woeful, honestly shockingly how horrific it was. That being said, that wasn't the worst of my issues. For most of this game their attack was just not clicking, it wasn't particularly fast, it was very sloppy and it never seemed to push the Japanese. They ran through the phases and got the ball around but never really seemed to do much with it. The outcome of the game was far from determined for the first hour. If Japan could score one more time to bring the game to within a score, they easily could have taken the momentum and ran with it. Now of course in the last 20 minutes the benches came on and we truly got to see the difference in where these two nations are at. Ireland was able to bring on both Prendergasts, a front row where the quality didn't drop all that much, and a British and Irish Lion in Jack Conan. Meanwhile Japan was bringing on a lot of younger, less experienced players where there was a noticeable quality drop off. Ireland was then able to click, Prendergast ran the offense smoothly in the last few minutes, their nicest play of the game was probably the switch play between him and Tommy O'Brien that led to a try. I don't mean to turn this into a Prendergast/Crowley debate, but I do think in this game, Prendergast came off the bench and greatly improved Ireland's attack and shape. I see why Farrell likes him so much, his willingness to take the ball up to the line and make the pass at the last second is very useful to his intricate shapes he wants Ireland running. It keeps defenders guessing until the last second when he can still run, pass, or kick, which teams also have to greatly respect his boot. His ability to kick long spirals or just have short grubbers or up and unders is impressive. Meanwhile Crowley is more of a calm 10 who can always hit the right passing option and reads a defense well from afar, runs the Munster backs like a good general, who also isn't afraid to run the ball himself, and usually backs himself against anyone. Now in this game in particular, I think Prendergast had a lot more help around him, they were both getting a lot of go farward ball from their forwards, who could bully the Japanese pack, but Prendergast was using the O'Briens a lot more, and Crowley seemed to always be going towards Stockdale's side, who I think had a rather poor game. Obviously the yellow card tackle was embarassing, getting bumped like that, regardless of the fact that it was a card, just a poor tackle. Then on offense he seemed to be a step behind, or just slightly out of synch with the rest of the backline, but then when he did get the ball he would try to do too much to hopefully retain his newly refound spot. Which ultimately led to the knock on in goal, which was a nice play to get there, but an unfortunate finish. In terms of other Irish lads who don't have much experience, I think both Timmony and Farrell played very well, both carried hard, Timony got the break and try, Farell was used as a strike runner punching holes in the Japanese backline a few times. Cian Prendergast also played pretty well coming off the bench, but as with the rest of the Irish forwards, he was usually bigger and stronger than his opposite man, and they were able to take advantage of that and get good meters from almost any forward carry. Ultimately they were just too much for the Japanese, whose only counter is to play incredibly fast and get the ball to the wings, which works sometimes, but gasses yourselves out just as much as your opponents, and can be shut down with less effort by a more structured team. Japan has some dangerous players out wide, as shown both this week and last week, and they want to get the ball to them as often and as quickly as they can, but there really isn't much nuance in their game and how they go about doing it, other than speed. I can see what they're building, and think they could be dangerous with a slightly better pack, and a touch more structure to their backline, and they could compete for a round of 16 spot and potential upset to get to q QF at the 2027 World Cup.
These Aussies seem to just have nothing left. Their big ball carriers,like Bobby V just can't seem to get any go forward, they're not winning collisions, they're notbusting tackles, especially as the game wore on, you could tell they were wearing down more than the Italians who were trying to keep the pace up with Varney delivering rapid and accurate service to his men. Obviously no Skelton or Wright hurt the Aussies a lot, they lost another huge ball carrier and another electric playmaker in the backs, which they look like they really need. Suali'i shows flashes of incredible talent, but his best intl game 'smight still be the English one from last year. Though I don't think that is entirely his fault because it seems like all any of Australia's flyhalves can do is use him as an extra forward pod to run crash lines. There was very little subtelty in the way they used him, and it wasn't even getting the ball in space, so many of their set plays, aside from a nice little switch in the 65th min and another nice set piece in the 73rd were just one or two out to Suali'i running a hard direct line. That might work at lower levels were Suali'i is that much more powerful and quick than his opponents, but this is test rugby. Any midfielders or even back three players at this level can tackle just about anyone in a one on one situation 90+% of the time. They really look like they could use another playmaker organizing guys and getting the ball away more directly. It looked like they were just passing aimlessly, ang loosing a lot af territory with no eventual goal in mind at the end. The Italians just contained them out wide relativel easily because they were telegraphing where the ball was going, and weren't getting it there incredibly quickly. Then they could just chop down any of the Aussies tired ball carriers if they were running one off crashes. Definately respect to tthe Italians for taking the opportunities presented to them, Varney played an incredible game getting the ball out to where it needed to go, Brex had some big hits on defense and is an incredibly smart ballplayer offensively. Italy's overall attack wasn't super creative or aggressive but it was very opportunistic, taking advantage of any gaps the Aussies gave them to get a few linebreaks, getting some intercepts and good possesion off of turnover ball, and just methodically marching downfield with pens and kicks and taking points when offered, beautifully simple and effective gameplan that worked incredibly well.
Probably the most interesting game of the autumn nations series so far. Yes including the France-SA, and certainly including the Ireland-NZ game. These two teams play probably the most polar opposite styles of any two relevant nations. Fiji obviously plays with their Fijian flair, so many offloads with varying levels of success, but high risk high reward and certainly lots of excitement. England plays a debatably exciting game, I personally really enjoy watching them play, their defensive system is getting a lot better after a year of playing the more aggressive blitz system, seeing their flankers and midfielders either firing up and eviscerating someone or coming up hard the drifting out and shutting down a wide ball. Those split second decisions are good and both outcomes are generally exciting. Then their offensive system is also getting better, obviously their playing for possesion and kicking often is not everybodies cup of tea, but in terms of "actions per phase" they have to be the top. They very rarely have aimless offense, its either not a good attacking position and they're gonna kick it almost immediately, or they will take advantage of broken play and get a linebreak or try, or they'll have solid attacking play and can will run a few phases, but very rarely have long possesions with lots of phases. They either get a few phases of go forward ball until a knock on/turnover or linebreak, or they don't get go forward ball and they kick it. However, they do have one thing in common, potentially the 2 freakiest athletes at each respective position in the world. Obviously South Africa is up there as well, but man, guys like Tuisova, Ravatumunda, or Ravouvu for Fiji are just freaks, then IFW, Lawrence, CCS for England are also insane. Even in the tight 5, Fiji might have the quickest props in world rugby, and they almost certainly have the best ball handling. One of their tightheads made a rather smooth offload during this game. But gettinig into the game, Fiji played their style from start to finish, and England played their style from start to finish. To start they started going blow for blow with Fiji taking the lead, but England's offense was clicking, they had some smooth attacks that cut through the Fijian defense and they just remained calm the whole game. England has played in a lot of tight games like this and you could tell that a lot of their guys weren't worried about potentially having to come back, they were able to just slowly suffocate Fiji, especially after the benches came on, and their offense would continue chipping away. You could also tell most of Fiji's recent games came from the Pacific Nations cup where they weren't challenged as much, both in close games, and in terms of organization and strategy. You could tell their athletes could run with England, but England just had slight advantages at set piece and certainly in coaching and strategy. Almost every lineout England would take, form a maul and start a godd push for 2-3 meters that would then immediately get stopped by Fiji before England would spin the ball out. The game was over when England took a 2 score lead (I think) then Kuruvoli knocked the ball on over the line. That ruined Fiji's momentum, you could tell their defense was less spirited and less structured, especially after their bench came on. They clearly don't have the depth of a top end side and their bench players are also far less experienced. Then England's bench is barely a drop off from their starters, if at all, and they have just the same experience as the starters, except Pollock of course, but he gets an exception, being a Lion and whatnot. The last few minutes of the game were just peak England, just completely shutting down any Fijian attacks. Conceding just 2 pens and 0 linebreaks in the last 9 Fijian possessions, Fiji's best chance was a solid maul, no Fijian flare could get through. England scored another quick try thourgh Itoje during that time to completely seal the game.
Poor Wales. Their offensive axis is at best uncomfortable playing with each other, not very experienced at the test level, or at worst just simply not up to the tier 1 test rugby standard. There were so many aimless passes, passes not going to hand, and passes going to the wrong runner (in my opinion) Obviously Jac Morgan was talismanic for them, he is an insane ball carrier so aggressive, busts tackles, and drove much of Wales' offense. Aside fom him, Wales two highlights wee probably that their props were able to largely hold their own at scrum time, and LRZ showed flashes of skill. cominig off the bench. He has the pace and a good amount of strength to be a world class winger, but you could also tell he hadn't played rugby in a minute, some of his kicks were weighted just a bit off, and he seemed a step slow on reading some plays on offense, but that could also just be because he has barely ever played with anyone inside of him. Also, while I really like Blair Murray in the back 3, he is an incredibly exciting open field runner and is great at creating and taking advantage of broken fields, he is just not an international quality fullback. His weakness under the high ball is what the English media thinks Marcus Smith's is. Any team that will play them can take advantage of him back there. He's also not even a particularly great defender back there at full back, so I would try to just shift him over to wing and find someone else to play 15. Now moving to Argentina, I don't really know how much you can glean from this. Benitas Cruz and Piscatelli looked smooth as a 9/10 axis, could be great for their future, and was very nice for them to build depth at crucial positions against a legitimate opponent that still wouldn't challenge them, especially surrounded by a lot of their top backs. Their attack was absolutely humming they often didn't need to run that many phases to get a line break and cut through the Welsh defense with a smooth play. Was also nice I'm sure to have very good front foot ball, their forwards were very good ball carriers, particularly Kremer, he seemed to bust so many tackles and almost every time he got the ball it took multiple Welshmen to bring him down. This was just a mismatch of a game that was simply never in doubt. Wales spirits further crushed with a massive game against a semi-floundering Japan the following week. Also this is the one other game the chart and data might not be fully accurate. I accidentally started tracking an Argentinian possesion for Wales around the 60th minute, and was not sure when I flipped sides, so I fixed that, but a few other possesions may also be incorrect.
Potenial game of the series here, England officially "announcing" to the world that they are here and ready to compete. Then another crack in the armour of the all blacks invinsibility. Obviously this isn't the prime 2015 All Blacks team that England just beat, but it was still only their 9th or 10th win all time against the ABs. And this was England playing the way they want to play, and not luckily squeaking out a win over the ABs. They absolutely deserved this win, as being the better team in this game. England was just consistent the whole game, running a few phases, if they get a break or see an opportunity they would go on the attack, otherwise they felt perfectly comfortable resetting and getting into a kicking battle. Or of course, the two drop goals just before the first half by George Ford, they ran a few phases, he felt the offense start to stagnate, so he went to the pocket and chipped 3 points over, and I think those two DGs gave England the momentum needed to come out in the second half and shutt the Boks down. That was one of the more impressive defensive performances I've seen in my (relatively short) time watching rugby. Not only did the Boks only score 1 try for the whole second half, they also only had one or two breaks, and mainly moved up the field when England conceeded penalties, not by their great attack, though they were still running up the phase counts when they had the chance. But in response to those, England were able to cool the blitz down a touch, settle back and absorb the pressure until they were able to regroup and go on the attack again. And yes, I think England uses their defense as an attacking weapon, obviously they have a lot of jackal threats in their baack 5, they also have a lot of pretty active props, and very smart defenders in their back line who can put in shots that push the attacking side back and allow the jackal threats to get over the ball before the retreating offense. Then their whole offense is built around taking advantage of broken play, off kick chase/reception, giving IFW space, or Ford a little bit of extra time to hit the right runner, it's a pretty simple system that takes good athletes and is working increadibly well for them. They were able to just chip away at the New Zealand defense, all it takes is one kick that they receive and they'll punish with a try. I know New Zealand hasn't been the best under the high ball in the autumn/TRC, but they played well enoug this game with Jordan, Carter, and Leicester cleaning up a lot of ball, but with how often England kicks, it is unreasonable to expect any back 3 to take all of them perfectly. Which that takes me to my analysis of the ABs in this game, for whom, I don't really have that much, unfortunate loss, their attack looks sluggish and lacking in creativity and individual brilliance, but to be fair, England makes every team's attack look uncreative and lacking individual brilliiance, though I know the expectations for the ABs are higher, but in this new landscape of professional rugby, we'll see how much longer they can maintain the expectation to always be at the top.
All of the props to Italy in this one, they were in it with a shout until the 70th minute, which is certainly more than you could say about either of their games against South Africa from this summer tour, and also a lot better than most teams who have faced this Boks side could say. And it wasn't even just South Africa making mistakes and just pounding the Italians right on their doorstep just not being able to get across the line, no, Italy was able to hold their own against the Boks power and win some scrum pens, win some collisions on and off ball, and play somewhat even with them. They also played an incredibly opportunistic brand of rugby, which they have been also season, taking any and all points offered to them to keep the scoreline close, then fire some shots late with their ballers in the back line. Obviously the Boks having 14 men again hurt them, but they weren't able to strangle the game away like they did against France because Italy just kept chipping away, getting good distance on any penalty kicks, playing a solid territorial game and being able to front up against the Boks kick chase and high ball game.Lynaugh, Iaone, and Capuazzo in particular were able to really get up their and snatch balls from the Boks that even France wasn't able to last week. Italy, despite chasing the game, never really played like they were chasing the game, other teams would try reaching, going for that extra meter and allowing one of the Boks' jackal threats to get over the ball, trying to kick for a bit of extra distance and missing touch off a pen, or just always going for the corner and eventually losing a lineout instead of taking the points when offered. Obviously, most teams, as Italy showed today, cab't beat the Boks taking 3s instead of 5s, but they were at least able to keep it a lot closer, and nullify a lot of the Boks attacking weapons. It also obviously helped that they were able to front up against the Boks' usual scrum dominace so they could also play less afraid of knocking the ball on or anything. Now a brief analysis of the Boks. yep still the springBoks, they played a dominant territory game, never really running many phases, wiht Pollard pulling the strings, for the first 60+ mins, then Libbok came on was able to open the game up, run the ball some more and get the Boks to score some more tries to seal it. Another solid game for Ethan Hooker at 12, I could easily see him being in the 23 jersey at a world cup if the Boks need to overpower a team and go 7/1. Also, shout out Porthen, he probably has a long career ahead of him, but he's still a ways back of TDT and Louw in my opinion. Now a brief discussion of the Italian autumn since this was their last tier 1 game. I have no issues with this team only playing 2 games against good oposition then giving a game to a lower tier 2 side in Chile. They got their big win vs the exhausted Aussies and pushed the Saffas harder than anyone thought they would. I think they do have a very solid tight five, a lot of cohesion frrom all the Benneton guys with some additional star dust sprinkled in from guys like Capuazzo. Then they play a more controlling, slow tempo game that keeps them in it until the last 20 where they hope their stars can fire more shots and take the game in a shorter timespan. That's how they beat Australia, and that's how they played the Boks. It's a lot harder to dominate a team, and control the game for a full 80 than it is to do the same for 20 minutes, which, as an underdog, if you can actually keep it close for the first 60, I love that strategy, try to shrink the true amount of gametime because there will be higher variance in smaller sample sizes. Obviously that still usually isn't going to work out against the Boks, their start players are still better than the star players from just about any other country, so they can just wait Italy out and say, oh now you need to start playing rugby to come back, we'll just start cutting your defense to peices and playing incredible scramble defense anytime Italy got anything going.
Another whelming victory for the Irish in my opinion, better than last week, yes, but again, I think the scoreline flatters them a bit. The first few minutes were very good, and they started out with some good attacking shape that ended in the two Hansen tries. Which, while I agree with Hansen that he didn't have to do much to score any of his tries, scoring only those 3 tries would have left me without much confidence as an Irish fan. Which I thought that was going to happen againfor a while in this game, after the 3rd try, Ireland's attack started to stangnate again, their shapes were breaking down, and shockingly, unlike the last few weeks, they were relying on pens and lineouts to march down the field, with 100% lineout success and stealing a good amount of Aussie ball. This led to them having a lot of the possesion throughout the game, and a lot of points where you felt the Aussies were going to get something going just in time for them to knock it on or lose a lineout. However, they didn't do much with this possesion for most of the game, relying on a Prendergast drop goal to push them up, and a pen a few mins later to all but seal the game. Then, once again, the IRish bench was able to come on and dominate in the last 20 mins, continuing to dominate possession, but this time getting a few more breaks and busting more tackles and just being able to march down the field on a poor and exhausted Aussie defense. It was nice to see the Irish depth humming against another tier 1 nation, they're going to need more than just the starting 15 to compete at the next world cup, especially with the age profile of some of those guys. Now for Australia, this season just needs to end ASAP, their forwards are still losing a lot of the power and drive they have, their playbook is dwindling and looking less and less creative,with their attack trying to use a dull butter knife as a blunt hammer. Without their best flyhalves, and Tom Wright at full back, this team is lacking in creativity and punch, you'll see a flash here or there followed by a bunch of pick and go's or 1 out crash runners. Their attack looks like my school's attack where basically everyone is out of shape and has minimal rugby experience (they are playing slightly better competition though...). The Irish were able to get up, make another tackle or two, then wait for the Aussie mistake that would lead to a jackal or knock on, or even an Irish mistake that led to a lineout, whcih Ireland was dominant in today. It also felt like O'Conner didn't have much of a pulse over the game, for the first 50-60 mins (20 possesions) the aussies only initiated kicks 9 time, in the same timespan, England would probably initiate 25+ kicks. Not saying everyone needs to play like England, but there were times where there was clearly nothing happening from an Aussie attack perspective, but they didn't want to kick away possesion, so they ran a few more phases going backwards on one off runners, or just shovelling balss out to the wing without any subtlety and allowing Ireland to come up and smash Daugunu or Potter. Then they would be forced to kick off the back foot and allow Ireland to pin them back again. That was best case, assuming they didn't turn the ball over somehow, and give Ireland great attacking field. Yes, I've been saying basically the same thing about the Aussies after all of their games, but it's true, they need time off to get healthy, learn a more expansive playbook, since I'm assuming Kiss will continue to play a similar style to Joe's Wallabies instead of trying to again overhaul the way the team plays a year out from a world cup, and get motivated to put in some big shots again. It would have been nice for them to play at least one easier fixture, take the Tonga or USA game from Scotland, or schedule a final match against Spain or Portugal in some nice weather before heading back to Australian summer. But instead they get France next week...
Another one of my favorite games of the series this autumn. Both teams just peak sillines, Fiji chucking the ball about as they do, keeping plays alive and sustaining possesion. France also offloading a good bit and getting back to their game after last weekend vs South Africa. They got to work with their system and slowly chip away at the Fijians while being able to capitalize and fire shots and punch through when they were given opportunities. Once again for Fiji, they fired some shots and were able to stay in the game for a while, but later in the game France pulled away as the Fijians tired and the benches came on. I don't think this would have surprised anyone, either neutrals or as fans of either of the teams. I also think this would have been an enjoyable game for both fans, Fijians got to see their team run around and fire shots on a top team, and the French got to watch said Fijians fire shots but I don't think would have ever felt stressed about loosing. That being said for France, I don't think there is much more analysis to do, they won a game they were expected to win, congrats. Maybe I would feel a little worried moving forwards about the defense, they could punch holes through the Fijian defense, but also gave up a lot to the Fijian attack as well. They weren't able to completely strangle the opposing team like a South Africa or Engalnd could, where it seems like the opponent gets nothing but consolation or garbage time tries. Then for Fiji, I would be optomistic that you were within shouting distance of a legitimate top team, even if it was not their day. Hopefully with the Drua in super rugby they can continue to build better depth to go with their high end freak athletes. Their starters have proven 2 weeks in a row now that they can hang with world cup hopefuls, but then they get blown away in the last 20. If they can build a but more cohesion and depth to survive the last 20, which seems to have always been their issue, but now with the Drua that could be changing, and that could allow them to potentially go further at the next WC. I like what they are building and would continue playing their standard chuck it about game with insane athletes but work on building depth. They play such a unique style that I think a lot of teams would struggle to defend it, which could lead to shocks in big games, which is what they will always be going for.
Almost poor poor Wales. Thanks to a penalty kick after the 80th minute they get to largely escape a pool of death at the next WC. There were also some small signs of improvement for Wales in this game, I've always liked Edwards at flyhalf for them, glad to see they're sticking with him, and he's starting to improve, there were a few places where he called a nice strike play and they were able to get some running meters, they also loved a good pop pass as forwards heading into contact, which, while predictable, changes the angle of attack slightly, and allowed some of their guys to find soft shoulders or not fully set defenders and they were able to get a few extra meters. Obviously it's Japan, and their attack was still not perfect, but there were a lot more flashes than we saw against Argentina, or against Japan in the summer I feel like. But bringing in Edwards and Sherratt at basically the same time I think is an incredibly wise decision, gives them time to grow and develop together before the next WC where they can hopefully make some noise, like bringing in a new coach and QB combo in the NFL, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but works a lot more than throwing a young kid out there with a lame duck head coach just waiting for the end of the year to get fired, Or bringing in a new coach to try and save a season and totally change up the system with guys who don't want to and don't have time to learna full new structure in the middle of a greulling professional season. Obviously for Wales, this is the result you needed, even if it doesn't spark much confidence, they were able to grind out a home win despite not everything going their way, they made some mistakes early, played a tight close to their chest game, without trying to do too much throughout, even when trailing, and were able to win the last pen to knock one over the posts to steal the game at the death. That was also a great kick from Evans, I feel like they were milimeters from having to go for the corner there and go for a try. After the second try, when Edwards was kicking, in the middle of his run up you see him take his eyes off the ball, look up to the posts and glance back down to find the ball. As someone who has taught myself to kick for the most part, that is only something I would ever do when I first started kicking, and was unconfident about how I lined the ball up and took my steps. I feel like it is almost imperative that you keep your eye on the ball, and exactly where you want your foot knuckle to strike on the swing through for your entire run up. I've never seen a professional kicker before, have not just his eyes, but his whole head move on a kick before, idk if Edwards does that every time or there was just something odd about this kick, but I wanted to point that out. Also, one last thing on Wales, it's nice to see LRZ out there again, but I agree with what I heard Squidge say, that he tries doing too much himself, even when it's not on, a little chip over the top, or making one too many steps and getting isolated, or a grubber through that just went straight out, most of his mistakes didn't really get punished, but they would against better sides, and I feel like it shows he has been playing more of an individuals game the last 2 years. Now moving onto Japan, I see how they got over a kilometer of running in. They would accept kick battles from Wales because both teams were playing a relatively tight, cagey match for a while, neither team wanted to make a big mistake, but then after a few kicks back and forth, someone in Japans back three would decide to end the kicking battle, not by kicking it out and surrendering a bit of territory, but by running it straight, or not that straight maybe because they are all incredible shify, but running it through traffic and making some defenders miss, before inevitably getting swallowed up by the Welsh defense. Then Japan would play quick, but again, they don't have much of a shape on attack other tan moving the ball quick, and getting it wide.. qucikly. I think another issue of playing so fast is it physically limits the number of options they can have, their first strike runners aren't big enough or powerful enough to take multiple Welsh defenders off their feet so there's always another guy in line to just soak up the next attack, and even when they get it out wide, they don't have a dual threat kicker in the mid field to hold the Welsh back three back, so the can fire up and usually make the tackle as the passes are going out because they don't have to worry about a kick through. Japan is still just relying on moments of individual brilliance to get breaks and score tries, which isn't a great system for them as they generally don't have the most brilliant players, though they do have some electric talents in the back line, so do basically all of the other tier one sides, and they all have better defensive structure, so any indiviual from Japan would need to break multiple tackles, or step multiple guys to get a break usually. Though they do have a better chance at this happening than most teams because of how fasat they play, it gives their wingers more opportunities to get that break, even if any individual attempt is less likely than it would be in a more structured attack. As I said after their last game, if they can introduce a bit more subtlety and complexity to their attack and not lose too much speed, this team could be dangerous at the next WC, but I think that would be an incredible challenge for them, and they likely end up 3rd in their pool and a round of 16 knock out.
Oh Jesus, poor Scotland man... Just a total capitulation to be honest. Argentina didn't even start that slow, they weren't doing much on attack, but their defense was holding solid for a while, really only giving up a break or two that led to the first two tries. Scotalnd was playing rather opportunistic rugby, Ashman with the second try, and a quick one to start the second half. At that point, while the game didn't feel like a 21-nil drubbing, I don't think anybody would have predicted Scotland to lose. If not just because it was a relatively cagey match, Scotland capitalized on a few chances off penalties, and Argentina had some solid possession towards the end of the first half, but couldn't get across the line, and didn't generate much else. Then shortly after, Kinghorn got carded and it all started going off the rails for Scotland. I don't think Argentina started playing all that differently, but Scotland took their foot off the gas just a bit on defense, stopped putting in the big shots, and coming up as fast, and Argentina took advantage. That is just the fine margians at elite sport. You need to stay on your game for the full 80 minutes to win a top level test match (sorry Wales). Argentina was able to start capitalizing on Scotland's mistakes midway thru the second half, and you could really start to feel the momentum tipping. Then they brought on their bench and Scotland just couldn't compete. Bringing on Matera and Santi Carreras just sealed Scotland's fate. Finn kicked their penalty goal to go back up double digits, but at that point the onslaught had already been happening, it was just a matter of time before Argentina scored again, then again to take the lead, and Scotland just had nothing to say about it. Finn probably had his worst game of the season, he kicked rather well, both from hand, and from the tee, but Scotland's attack was somewhat stagnant, and he wasn't driving it like he usually does. He seemed to be playing a more basic and less audacious game than he normally does, and was also more predictable in trying the skip pass instead of hitting the short line or taking it himself. That gave los Pumas a much easier time on defense to either swing wide and smash the winger as soon as they caught the ball (best case for Finn) or get an intercept like they did at least once in this game. I would be interested in seeing how big of an impact playing with the Lions had on Finn, he was able to pull the strings on an offense where every player was a genuine attacking threat that could bust a game open if left alone, vs Scotland, where he is THE guy, and the players outside of him are less dynamic, and rely generally on himdoing more himself to create holes vs just the system and talent of the Lions. Sure Townsend subbing Finn could be criticized, he was still probably their best chance at chasing that game, even though almost nothing had been creatted so far, but I don't hate the idea of him trying to blood a new 10 in a high pressure situation, instead of just coming on (or maybe starting) when already up 50+ on a team ranked 10+ spots lower than them. Which that is something else I want to touch on with Scotland, that I know many others have as well, but I think part of the reason they lose almost all of the big games they play in, is because they never get to play in them. They are either playing a team ranked well above them, like NZ, or France/Ireland in the 6 Nations, where they can play stress free, and fire shots and still likely lose, but in a tight, spirited game. Or they're playing USA or Tonga or Chile and beating up on them, which I do think is helpful to those nations to see where they need to improve, but ideally there would be other options to play aside from Scotland. But those games also provide nothing to Scotland, they don't let players chase tight games with stakes on the line, or close out those tight games after making a few mistakes, and regathering. Making a mistake in a game like Tonga can just get cleaned up by someone in the back 3, or if it isn't, then we're still up by 50, oh well... So when these oportunities do come around to play tight games vs non-English teams, Scotland players capitulate and let mistakes continue to compund, where Argentina, who plays similar level of opponents in Australia all the time, and has some expectations vs the Boks and ABs now, will continue to play their game and chip away without ever getting too stressed in these tight games. And Argentina was able to do this. They didn't even have to go on any insane drives, just hit the rght holes and consistently get gainline for the last 20 mins to drive Scotland back, play on front foot ball, and continually chip away at the scoreline, and the Scottish resolve, until they were able to get a somewhat comfortable victory.
Just a wild game, obviously all of the cards and scrum pens, and complete lack of discipline from both sides, but I think this was Ireland's best attacking game of the fall. Obviously they gave up the try on South Africa's first attacking set and were chasing the game the wole time, so they probably wanted to fire more shots, but they also had more creativity, and FAR better execution throughout the game, than they had in any of their other games this autumn. Starting with the series that led to the SFM hit on O'brein, that I think probably should have been a yellow, if not just for its stupidity, and maybe that changes the outcome of the game, but having seen how South Africa played the last few weeks down a man, I don't think that would have changed the outcome in the slightest. Then Ireland had another very nice attacking set killed off by the James Ryan red card. Obviously that was incredibly stupid and a clear red card, but also totally unnecesary, and if he had cleaned Marx out legally, the try would have stood, and I think this could have changed the outcome of the game, Ireland would have been under less pressure to chase the game, and still got to keep their best scrummaging lock. There were signs of the toal domination that would occur later before that red card, but I think that was the beginning of the end for Ireland, South Africa was able to feed a scrum, win pen advantage, play a phase or two and hope to break through, and if not, then they would take the scrum pen, or one of the other pens Ireland conceeded. After a few times through the Boks got the Prendergast card, then the Reinach try, then the Crowley and Porter cards followed by the penalty try, which probably should have just occured on the last possesion that ended in the Porter yellow I feel, it was obvious and inevitable that Ireland just couldn't hang at all. During that time though, Ireland did get another nice attaking set down two men that ended in the Sheehan try. That was probably the high point of the game for Ireland, they still had their good shape and some power still to get the Sheehan over after cutting through the Boks defense a bit and taking advantage of the penalties they were also conceding. Then in the second half, the scrum dominance continued, with Predergast clawing back two penalty kicks because the attack was just not going anywhere and all the forwards were visibly gassed. You could tell all of the scrums were taking everything they had out of them, and they just had nothing left to give in attack, their legs looked sluggish and dragging instead of being choppy and quick and they just got met behind the gainline and swallowed up by the Boks aggressive defense. Prendergast also mised at least one kick, which felt bad at the time, but not even that bad because everything felt kind of inevitable, maybe it was because I wasn't watching this game live (I had to work) and knew what would happen that I knew those missed kicks weren't the biggest issue. Then from the 60th minute to the 80th minute really not much changed, Ireland played a very spirited defense and were coming up and chopping the Boks down and not giving them ground, but then on offense, they couldn't get any go forward ball, then would try to fire a shot, but playing on the back foot, a lot of players weren't set, or would run a sluggish or incorrect line and the Boks would swallow them up again. Though they did get a few nice phases here and there, which is probably more than I could say for the starters vs either Japan, Australia, or of course New Zealand. South Africa just chipped away at them, winning their scrum pens and keeping them deep in their own half while chasing the game, and never really had to fire a shot, though I feel like even the Boks fans would never have been worried, even if Ireland had scored another try or two, they could have just responded with a try of their own, with either SFM or Libbok having the ability to cut through a defense in a split second that neither really showed off this game. Thoguh SFM did have his one try slicing behind the back of an Irishman who came up too fast and punishing them, as he seems to do almost every game now. It was nice to see him play a more controlling game, just patiently playing territory and not risking anything and waiting for Ireland to make mistakes, very mature of him, instead of rushing through something and trying to force a play that wasn't on, because that wasn't what this game called for, though I'm sure if this game did call for that, he would have been the man for the job, an absolutely electric 10 and still potentially getting better.
Favorite game of the autumn so far, both teams wanted to chuck the ball around, keep it in play and play high phase counts, was very much a shot for shot game for a while, Australia fired the first shot through Faessler after some solid attacking play, then France fired right back and so on for a while until LBB sealed it with his second of the game, off a hilarious step and just pure gas that nobody could touch in the 71st minute. That boy is a freak, he could have easily had a hat trick with just pure pace, gassed Aus out wide for his second, had a litlle kick through that he chased and dotted down for his first, and got another break early that he could have walked in himself, but he passed it in to get an easier kick for Ramos. Who, speaking of Ramos, I feel like he didn't have his best game, missed twice from the tee I think, and was relatively quite offensively, but I suppose not everyone can stand out offensively, and when LBB and Depoortaire had the games they had, both with almost hat tricks, France needed someone else in the back line to just hold things together and get the ball to the stars. Which France has a lot of, especially with Dupont coming back for the 6Ns, I think France could have 100% possession over time and still have some insane ball playing stars feel left out between LBB and Peneaud, Ntamack and Ramos, Dupont, and now Depoortaire and Goourges looked great in his small stint. France might have the best and deepest backline in the world, especially with hopefully a full season of Dupont, the only positions that the French have that you couldn't argue are the best in the world are Moefanna at 12 and now Depoortaie at 13. And both of those guys, and the rest of their back line are all relatively young. Ramos and Peneaud are the oldest guys in that list at 29 and 30, still well within a solid age profile for 2027. and that's all without mentioning Jalibert, or France's absurd depth of scrumhalves built through the top14. Now speaking of scrumhalves, back to the game, Lucu and his stupid yellow card that was absolutely deserved and was punished for a minute, but ultimately I don't think that impacted the game at all, though it was funny seeing Ramos play some 9 in Lucu's interim. After he got back he controlled the French attack smoothly and effeciently, as he did for basically the entire time Dupont was hurt. Now they can settle back into their standard gameplan of Dupont doing outrageous shenanigans for 60+ mins then Lucu coming on to seal the game in the last 20, or Le Garrec if they still might need to chase the game. I think France is in a good spot, especially if they can continue to blood new talent in the pack and get a settled tight 5 before the next world cup, they will be right back up near the top of the chasing pack, with South Africa alone at the head. Then some breif notes on Australia, this was probably their best game of the fall, Edmed didn't do much and they will really look to get Gordon more time or Lynaugh back for the summer series in 2026, but Ikitau, Sualii, Peitsch and Jorgo all had great games, and showed that they could be the backline of the future for the aussies, another group of largely young guys who are still building on each other towards 2027 and 31. Their pack was still looking tired and not getting much go forward ball, aside from Angus Bell, who cut through the French defense like an international level for his try. Overall they had more spark this game and was another positive sign for them moving forward, I know all of the losses can be tough to see, but they got some wins earlier so hopefully their young guys aren't too beaten down like some of the Welsh guys are, and there are positive signs in attack moving forward once they get more healthy and get more time under one coach for long term.
Quite a fun game to be my last one to watch of the series, both teams just wanted to chuck the ball around and play running rugby. Wales wanted to fire shots whenever they got the chance, it was just a free hit for them in this game, any attack they could muster would be a bonus, and hopefully they could hold out on the ABs for long enough to remain competetive, which they did for a while, to an extent. They weren't exactly putting in big shots and pushing the ABs back when they were on attack, but Wales was more just absorbing pressure, waiting for the dam to break and the flood of ABs tries to start. From just after half through a bit after 60 minutes, I don't think Wales had the ball for more than a phase or two. Not because the ABs were playing some dominant kicking and possesion game, they were basically just running phases and hands, but they kept pushing Wales back, getting over the line 3 times, the first two tries getting called back under TMO for a knock on in the lead up and a player held up over the line before finally crashing over and breaking Wales' spirits. There was also a yellow card to follow shortly after, but even though Wales never got back up to 15 men (another yellow hit as soon as the first expired) they still fired a few shots and got some good looks in offensively, again, better than they looked over the summer, and certainly better than they looked just earlier this month against Argentina. Overall, I would come out of this feeling positive as a Wales fan, they stood up to the Boks attack, still what should be one of the best attacks in the world, and fired some shots offensively, Rogers with his hat trick is insane, great for him, and LRZ finished a nice try, and had another nice run or two, though again he isolates himself and doesn't use his teammates. Also, on their second try, Edwards looked away from the ball on the kick again, but he didn't on his other conversions, which I just don't understand. Now moving on to the ABs, a comfortable win that they were never really sweating, but there were some overall signs of worry,. Ideally you want to be more lethal against Wales, if you're going to play running attacking rugby, you better score a lot and score often. Or if your going to sit back and play opportunistic rugby and wait for Wales to make mistakes you really shouldn't be allowing them to score many points, much less a hat trick from one winger. Some decent skills in ball handling, but no incredible attacking plays, they did enough that I would be releived if I was Razor, but I don't think this game took any pressure off him to perform next summer. Though I suppose that is the job he signed up for when becoming the ABs head coach. It will be interesting to see how he develops this team, if he can bring along some more of his guys before the 27 WC and develop a more creative or punishing attack, which should be possible with all the talent that is already there, and Richie coming back soon.
Most boring England game of the fall, and I think this is how they would play every game if they could, were largely suffocating Argentina, just kicked the ball whenever they didn't get territory and would wait for their chase or counter rucks. Normally they tweak their style based on the opponent, but here they were able to play their game with a rotated squad and still win despite late pressure from the Argies. Was a good job by Borthwick to build squad depth, Ojomoh looked great, as a late call in, Slade looked really nice, good kicking from hand, and made some solid attacking plays, cut through the Argentina defense a few times and made a nice offload or two. I know he's rather hated by the English fanbase, but I think he is perfectly capable of making the 33 man squad for the next world cup. That's not a lock, but I don't think he would be out of place at all. Then the front row and pom squad had another successful week, winning most of their scrums and pushing los pumas on their feeds. Obviously the last phase of defense isn't great, they just kept bleeding meters and conceded a pen the first time they went for a jackal and were kind of lucky to steal that lineout to seal it. But aside from that they held los pumas to their fewest number of breaks this autumn, and largely contained an offense that aside from the first 40 mins against Scotland, had been scintilating for most of the Autumn and TRC. Though los pumas didn't have a bad game, I think they were a bit tired and looked uncreative for most of this game, kicking the ball away a lot, and getting sucked into that style of game which will always favor England. That may not sound like a compliment, but the fact that they were able to play probably their worst attacking game against one of the best defenses in the world, in their last game of the season and still put up 23 points and be a lineout away from probably winning, is quite impressive. They have been game to game more consistent this autmn, which if they continue that, I like where they're heading, and of course on the other side of the field I also have made it well known that I really like where England is heading and think they may be the second best team in the world heading into the next WC. Back to this game though. this was not that entertaining of a game, lots of kicks, not a lot of breaks, Argentina wasn't firing any shots early until it was too late into the second half, and England has a much better know how on closing out games than Scotland does. Both Albonorz and Santi Carreras looked good again this week, for los pumas, and George Ford was playing his normal controling game again to near perfection, minus the missed DG in the second half after los pumas started chasing. Then of course there was the Currey hit and controversy. I don't know what happened in the tunnel after the game, nor do I particularly care, however, I don't think that hit was egregious at all, just unfortunate for Mallia, A. he was fully commited to the hit before the kick, B. I would expect every flanker, from the international stage to may incredibly low level of rugby to commit to that hit even if they know the flyhalf is gonna kick it, and C. The argies were hitting Ford just as late during most of the game, I don't see there being anything in that hit, penalty only, if that.
Now there was also the Wales-South Africa game that I didn't track or watch. I was spending time with familty during the game and tracked the score as it went along and didn't feel the need to go back and rewatch it afterwards. The score was more lopsided than most T1 vs T2 games we saw this autumn, with a similarly rotated squad put out by the Boks. As it was outside of the test window, a lot of the top players weren't avaiable, which clearly impacted Wales a lot more. I don't want to sit through tracking a Welsh B side just get caved in by an incredible Boks side. Then with the big Etzebeth "controversy" (gouging) at the end, that took away any of the headlines and all of the discussion about the actual game, which is realistically what I care about the most.
I also want to quickly go through a winner, loser, and biggest "draw" of the series. Biggest winner goes to England! They showed they can beat the top teams with an impressive controlling win over the ABs. They're clearly building something with a young squad and a solid structure in play which can be incredibly dangerous come 2027. They've also shown remarkable consistency with even their worst performance, vs Argentina probably, still resulting in a win over a top 6 side that took a miracuous comeback to be as close as it was. 11 Ws in a row doesn't hurt either. The only other team close to them was South Africa, beating France with 14 men and the domination vs Ireland were impressive. They probably had the most impressive autumn tour, but we knew they were an incredible team, England still had some questions floating around them.
The biggest loser of the autumn, unfortunately, has to go to Scotland for me. I don't want to necessarily give them the loss, because they are the same team they've always been. Just finding ways to lose games that any other tier 1 team would win. Both of their big matches were games that they absolutely dominated for the better part of a half, but just couldn't put together a full game like England or the Boks, or even Ireland can. Now they've always been the "lovable losers" or team that just can't get over the hump, so why am I calling them the loser of the series now? Because this team should be different!!!! They are once again WASTING a golden generation of Scottish rugby players. Finn Russel wasn't as good this series as he was with the Lions, but he's arguably the greatest 10 in Scottish history. Tuipilotu was back in the midfield, obviously Jones was out, but Tuipilotu has been the heartbeat of this team. Even getting one of those wins, either the ABs monkey off their back, or figuring out how to finish a game against the Argies would have saved them from this, but alas. I did want to give Ireland this award for a similar performance, losing to both teams above them, and getting utterly embarrassed by a team better than you, but winning the two games against inferior opponents. But at least their two wins came against tier one teams, vs Scotland beating an embarrassing USA team, and Tonga in a buy game. Which I appreciate they did, but having 2 tier 2 games in a month seems a bit much and like it's not going to help them in 2027 when the big games hit.
Finally, the biggest "draw", or team that I just don't know about, of the autumn, was Australia. They had a decent year, but just played too much big rugby for a team that is lacking in depth. They needed a short and sweet tour vs like Scotland, Italy or maybe Ireland, and a Portugal or Spain then to head back to the beach. Unfortunately they drew the building wagon that is England, a pissed off French side, AND an Ireland side looking to crush the haters questions. They were missing a lot of their top talents, and even those who remained had just played so many minutes, lots of games, and not a lot of time getting subbed out, that they weren't winning collisions that they normally could. Obviously the loss to Italy stings, but I would just regather from this fall and move on like it didn't even happen. The only other contender for this was Wales, in the opposite sense almost. The Aussies were consistent throughout, just clearly tired and dragging, while the Welsh were incredibly promising, then devastating the next week. The win against Japan alone almost put them in the biggest winners pool because they needed that to get a 2nd seed at the next world cup. But then the record breaking loss to the Boks allmost dropped them to the losers category, though I do give them a slight pass for that one as that was their second side basically. Then the Argentina and All Blacks games were polar opposites as well, just an utter drubbing at the hands of the Argies, but then they at least fired some shots against the mighty All Blacks, even if they couldn't handle the pass and handling for the full 80.
Data
Literally just all tracked myself.