Jones: I got RWC final selections wrong

You can outsmart yourself as a coach....Hansen did it, Eddie did it....Cheika was never smart enough to do it n Erasmus got it just right. This RWC will be remembered as the battle of the coaches. The top teams were evenly equipped, so using the right combinations for specific opponents was critical n keeping your playbook a secret as long as possible was an advantage.

Agree Sheek. The fundamentals of rugby has not changed.

Corne, Yes, SA & NZ understood the concept of pressure from their very early days, & and adopted the structures to ensure they weren't the ones being under pressure too often. Pressure will get to even the very best. Better to be giving it rather than receiving it, if you know what I mean!

The curse of John Mitchell? Like his time as an AB coach he started well then went downhill fast - the BaBas loss continues Eddie and his losing streak - the prematurely aged Mako Vunipola looked very average and out of condition from the start.

It was one of those games where everything that could go wrong, did go wrong. I think the Boks were in a great place as they'd had a comfortable trot since the first game; England made some selection errors (to the ones Jones mentioned I'd have added a preference for Lawes at '6' with Curry to '7' for this game); they lost their tighthead after 2 minutes so Cole had to go 78 minutes (probably affected his mind-set); and they were mentally a few percent off the pace following their AB win. It was a bit of a perfect storm, but that's the nature of knock-out games.

Not quite sure how a 4 point victory over Australia with their backs to the wall for the whole of the 2nd half is better than England's 24 point win in the QF, but there you go. England would have won fairly comfortably against Wales if they'd met in the final. In the last 7 matches England have won 5, and one of those defeats was in Cardiff when a Wales first team narrowly beat an England 2nd team in a RWC warm-up.

I think after the failings of wild under pressure passes in the first half, their confidence eroded quickly. England couldn’t recover from the pressure.

Agree

To me the difference was that Marx being so good may have stopped other coaches from sticking with Mbonambi. There was plenty of talking about why Marx wasn't starting. Rassie chose to give both hookers a lot of game time vs just sticking with one. Whether that was deliberate or a result of selection pressure (making the squad representative etc) who knows. But it did result in the Boks being able to adjust.

I, for one, would welcome Michael Cheika saying “I got Wallabies selections wrong”. Won’t undo endless painful Wallabies seasons of batpoo crazy, but would at least represent some faint hint of self-realisation; if not, after-the-fact, accountability. Hasn’t ever happened before, of course. And won’t now. As he goes raging into the bitter night, Cheiks remains emphatically, incomprehensibly assured of his own absolute wisdom; dragging anyone and everyone around him down the rabbit hole and casting blame as far from his own doorstep as possible. Outcomes and results be damned. I was right. About as different from what EJ has just said as is possible.

Yes. He had alluded to the concept that the results would have changed had he made better selections. Hardly controversial. He's saying that there was potentially better options, he failed to take. Cheika would be bowled down because he's "acceptance of blame" is always throwing blame elsewhere. Such as when he took blame once, but said he must have not communicated it well enough... i.e the players did the wrong thing actually.

I do think having Marx there is anything to do with Rassie though. He was one of the best hookers in the world before Rassie came back to SA.

Wales/Gatland spent 4 years focusing on developing some depth. It very nearly paid off. Game against Boks could have gone either way. When crunch time came for England the lack of depth was evident. That was the biggest difference between them and SA.

We will try to do likewise I am sure.

Missed nothing. He alluded to a different result possibility had he selected differently. Yawn. Takes away from an emphatic SA win for the ages and if Cheika had said similar he would be bowled down in this forum.

Yes that in itself 'isnt the reason they won'. In hindsight it suggests being online has a direct link to winning or losing, though I get having being more focussed could be a result. As is being able to relax when you should be relaxing, and focussing when you should be focussing might be seen as a better balance. I dont think the ABs or England were online ahile they were training for example...though, Jones does allude to that possibility...'the praise was everywhere'. Well not really, only when you went looking for it.

yeah was pondering 2003. England were slightly better than NZ, one and two points in it for the two meetings since 2000. There are a lot of non world cup instances though- Perth then Auckland and a couple more BC examples a few years ago. England beating NZ in 2012 then getting hammered 30-3 in the 6N a couple of months later. Ireland Chicago then at home. Usually its NZ turning the pressure up but clearly England struggled here to get onto the field with a similar mindset as pre the NZ game. Their two performances couldnt have been more different, same with NZ vs Ireland and England. This three match sequence is a unique and very difficult run from a psychological point of view.

wales beat aust by 4 points hardly a thumping, eng on the other hand gave a thumping to aust in the qf.

of course you must prepare for every match and always look forwards. Disagree re 2003. Aust lost in extra time against the best team in the world that year. Eng were better than NZ. Aust played just as well if not better against Eng as they did against NZ in the semi.

I think Rassie must take credit for keeping the Boks focused on the big prize. There was no hype, they were not permitted to tweet, twatter, howzit, or instagram.