‘Frustrating’ loss spurs England on
16 Jun 2012
Stuart Lancaster says England experienced mixed feelings of frustration and pride following Saturday’s defeat and still believe they can finish the series with a victory.
On Saturday, the Boks downed England 36-27 to take an unassailable 2-0 lead in the three-Test series. The South Africans will have an opportunity to whitewash the tourists next week, although the England coach remains hopeful of claiming one consolation win.
The Boks led 25-10 at half-time before England fought back to trail by just 31-27 in the last 10 minutes. Lancaster commended his charges for never giving up, but lamented the poor first-half performance.
‘We gave them too much of a start,’ he said. ‘I was delighted with the attitude we showed to come back, and at 31-27 the game was about small margins. But ultimately we couldn’t give them such a start. We left ourselves with too much to do.
‘Frustration is the overriding emotion in the dressing room, but there is a mixture of pride and frustration given we did so well to fight back. To win an international game you need a high percentage of technical accuracy and unfortunately that percentage wasn’t high enough.’
Lancaster believes that there was enough in England’s performance in Johannesburg to suggest the tourists are capable of winning in Port Elizabeth. The final Test will be staged next Saturday.
‘In some areas we were better than last week, and in others we weren’t. Our scrum began to take control at the end and our attack caused them problems. But then they also did well when they attacked us.
‘We’re going to give it a good crack in PE. We’ve come a long way since the start of the Six Nations. If there wasn’t a belief we could win, well it would be a big mountain to climb.’
Lancaster also hinted that there would be changes to the starting side for the next clash in Port Elizabeth.
‘At the start of the tour, we said we wouldn’t play the same team from start to finish, and we’ll probably hold to that,’ he said.
England will also play a tour match against the Northern Barbarians in Potchefstroom next Tuesday.
By Jon Cardinelli, in Johannesburg
17 Comments
16 Jun 2012, 21:46 pm
Today showed yet again that the altitude effect is highly overrated.
Most of our Boks players are not regulars at altitude either!!
16 Jun 2012, 22:34 pm
@willievz(willievz)-1: Very much agreed. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Bok’s two most successful venues are in fact at sea level. Look at the Bulls too. They have a better record against the Sharks and Stormers away from home than at altitude! SA only has moderate altitude anyway, anything over 5000 is considered high, well above that in SA. This isn’t Mexico where altitude has a noticeable impact, the kind of impact that tourists claim in SA; Mexico has roughly 20,000 feet aboce sea level. It takes around 20-39 minutes before it starts to kick in for touring footballers, who do a fair bit more running than rugby players! So I rest my case. Altitude is overrated and just an excuse, given that most of our best players do not play at or live at altitude further destroys the credibility of the altitude bleaters.
16 Jun 2012, 23:49 pm
@Alucard(Alucard)-2:
@willievz(willievz)-1:
Love how you guy have decided that between yourselves…
Perhaps the effect was dampened by that mere fact there were many players from the coastal regions amongst the Boks, yet i would not expect alucard to consider this point as he has proven himself to be rather ignorant….
17 Jun 2012, 00:30 am
@ossewa(ossewa)-3: Have you actually done research into the effects of altitude and human performance? I personally have. And with what have I proven to be rather ignorant? As far as has been the case, most people have been well beneath me. I don’t see many people researching anything. None of my critics here or elsewhere have been able to produce one piece of evidence to refute any statement I have ever made. That makes you, along with them, rather stupid and, to be honest, scarcely intelligent enough to be considered human. Now, unless you are willing to, for the first time in your life, have the balls to do some research and actually debate information like an adult instead of just bleating insults, you will always be a pathetic little sheep. The ball is in your court.
17 Jun 2012, 05:10 am
@Alucard(Alucard)-4:
The ammount of horsesh!t that you utter is amazing, i wont be wasting my time researching whether or not alitude has an effect on performance….everybody knows it does you bl00dy idiot!!!
17 Jun 2012, 05:21 am
@Alucard(Alucard)-2:
Correct… and anyone (as the English have been) can train with altitude masks as MMA fighters and mountain climbers currently do…
17 Jun 2012, 09:51 am
I have played enough rugby in my life to know that playing at altitude if you are not used to it does make it more difficult. I think the point can be argued many ways but our players (whether from the coast or highveld) do play at altitude throughout the year and they do become accoustomed to it. The English never play at altitude, so a once off test in the year will make have a noticable impact, surely. But like you said, the fact that two thirds of the bok team are coastal players probably minimizes the advantage. Besides, just ask the Ausies, they swear by the fact that altitude gives the opposition an advantage.
17 Jun 2012, 09:57 am
Mr Lancaster, the boks were better than the English, by a mile. They just took their foot of the pedal due to inexperience. PE should see a very different bok starting 15 (building towards the rugby championship) but the English have no chance imo.
17 Jun 2012, 10:09 am
I would also be frustrated if my country lost 9 in a row to the same Team….
17 Jun 2012, 11:04 am
@Alucard(Alucard)-2:
I don’t really like smug pseudo intellectual types who have no feel for the game as yourself.
You actually debunked your own theory on altitude having no real effect on performance, by stating that the Bulls have a better away record against the Stormers and Sharks.If it dawned on you that training at high altitude, as the Bulls and many athletes do, then moving to sea level gives you an enhanced performance because of the higher concentration of red blood cell buildup.
Thankyou for reminding us of Mexico, where the high altitude of Mexico City had a huge effect on sprinting,throwing and jumping events at the 1968 Olympics, but Mexico City is 7300 feet above sea level not 20,000 feet as you say.
17 Jun 2012, 11:43 am
@Te Rangatira(Te Rangatira)-10:
Like I said earlier…alucard is a litlle ignorant so dont expect to get your point across to him….and be careful he has internet so he is a researcher!!!
And if i can add insult to injury….he says that altitude had did not benefit the Boks and then says that most of the Boks dont live at altitude or play at altitude….if this was true, then obviously those players wont be able to use altitude to their advantage….anyhow half of the team are Bulls so they are used to altitude….
@Alucard(Alucard)-4:
Once again….you are a BL00DY IDIOT!!!!
17 Jun 2012, 13:05 pm
the english football team trained with same altitude masks in preparation for the 2010 soccer world cup as they were based in Rustenburg & had @ altitude…it wouldn’t be far-fetched for their rugby team to used the same system…
17 Jun 2012, 13:53 pm
@Alucard(Alucard)-2:
@Alucard(Alucard)-4:
Your posts and statements are laughable to say the least. It is full of factual errors (Mexico’s altitude and Bulls away record against Stormers for example) while the broad assumption that the impact of altitude on sportsmen are “overrated and an excuse” is simplistic and meaningless and contrary to the results of just about every scientific studies in this field.
The downplaying of the impact of altitude on sportsmen in Jhb is something that you probably picked up by reading FIFAs propaganda in clamping down on any talk about altitude in South Africa before the 2010 Football world cup. During that time local Scientists were told to refrain from speaking about it in order to ensure that all cities in SA had equal chances of hosting teams during the tournament. It was a matter of economics ruling over science.
Fact is at elite level a difference of even 1% in the performance of any single player based on the effects of altitude can mean the difference between winning and losing. Scientific studies have shown that endurance and repeat sprint performances falls off by between 7- 14% per 1,000m altitude gain- that is massive and makes nonsense of your “overrated and an excuse” assumption.
17 Jun 2012, 14:00 pm
@Robzim(Robzim)-13: The Count is the man in the mirror. He sees the world backwards in every way.
17 Jun 2012, 14:08 pm
@stormer in a teacup(stormer in a teacup)-14:
lol, Dracula, i did not even notice
18 Jun 2012, 01:30 am
Alucard, read the article and click on the X in the
right top corner of your screen. I’m tired of reading
your BULLSH!T. Really.
18 Jun 2012, 02:52 am
@SexyTime(SexyTime)-16:
He makes these challenges and then goes into hiding or to other articles….what a loser!!!
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.