Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Argentina player ratings vs England | Rugby World Cup 2023

MARSEILLE, FRANCE - SEPTEMBER 09: Emiliano Boffelli of Argentina looks dejected during the Rugby World Cup France 2023 match between England and Argentina at Stade Velodrome on September 09, 2023 in Marseille, France. (Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

An ill-disciplined and error-riddled Argentina started their World Cup campaign disastrously in Marseille, losing to an England side that had their full complement players for only the opening few minutes of the match.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Pumas went into the match probably as favourites following England’s poor August, and their chances increased significantly when Tom Curry was red carded in the opening minutes of the match. However, a high penalty count and a blunt attack meant they not only lost to England, but lost convincingly given the circumstances, as George Ford kicked all 27 points in a 27-10 win.

It was not a good day for Michael Cheika’s men, with few being able to hold their head high.

Here’s how the Argentina players rated:

15. Juan Cruz Mallia – 5
Went off early following Tom Curry’s yellow card tackle before coming back on, and had a varied performance under the high ball. Was not a game for outside backs really, which was expected.

14. Emiliano Boffelli – 6
Opened the scoring with a long range penalty, but his howitzer of a right boot was off target a few minutes later. Handled the aerial onslaught from England well, and looked the most comfortable of the Argentine back three handling bomb after bomb.

13. Lucio Cinti – 5
Failed to take a deft chip kick-off from Santiago Carreras in the first-half, although it was not the easiest of takes. Covered a sniping run from Alex Mitchell which could have put Jonny May in for a try. A quiet display, which after a pretty shambolic loss, means he comes out in credit compared to some of his teammates.

12. Santiago Chocobares – 6
Perfectly weighted 50:22 gave Argentina their best attacking platform of the first-half with a five metre lineout. Showed plenty of grit and physicality up against a Manu Tuilagi who was on song. A basic knock-on foiled a great attacking platform for his side in the second-half, but withheld some brutal hits from his opposite man.

11. Mateo Carreras – 4
Loose kick on the full when Argentina had space in the England back field which led to England drop-goal in what was a fairly uneventful first-half for him. Found himself put under pressure aerially, but did look lively on the few occasions he got ball in hand.

ADVERTISEMENT

10. Santiago Carreras – 4
Yellow carded early on for a needless late tackle on opposite man Ford, although it did not prove too costly as the Pumas only conceded three points. Attempted a long-range drop goal of his own to rival Ford, but was well wide, which sums up how he was outplayed by his counterpart.

9. Gonzalo Bertranou – 4
Failed to put England’s back three under pressure with his kicking game and was outplayed by Mitchell in what was a game that needed to be controlled by halfbacks.

Points Flow Chart

England win +17
Time in lead
55
Mins in lead
5
69%
% Of Game In Lead
6%
34%
Possession Last 10 min
66%
3
Points Last 10 min
7

1. Thomas Gallo – 5
A mixed bag from Gallo. Came close to scoring the first try of the match, but fell short before gifting England a needless penalty when Argentina would have wanted to be camped in their half. Little did he know that he would come closest to scoring for his side that half. Carried hard through the heart of England’s defence nevertheless, but had the ball ripped from his hands on occasion, which no prop wants to experience. Gave away the first scrum penalty of the match as England’s scrum began to gain ascendency. Returned to the field with renewed energy.

2. Julian Montoya (c) – 5
Was caught holding on when his side were hammering England’s line, but equally got through a heap of tackles. Lineout was almost perfect but faltered in the second-half as he ultimately embodied his side’s implosion, unfortunately leading the charge as the Pumas completely lost their discipline.

ADVERTISEMENT

3. Francisco Gomez Kodela – 4
Did not have the bluster of his front-row teammates, but equally was not as error-prone.

4. Matias Alemanno – 4
Knock on in his own half gave England a great attacking chance which they failed to capitalise on, but a quiet performance ended at half-time when he was replaced.

5. Tomas Lavanini – 5
Caught holding on when Argentina had a good attacking position in the first-half, but was generally solid, albeit not a typically dominant performance. Left the field before the game really started to unravel for the Pumas.

6. Pablo Matera – 6
Some standout moments for the former captain- both good and bad. Won a crucial turnover in the first-half when England were building some fluidity in their attack, but equally took Freddie Steward out in the air which set England up for their third drop-goal of the match. Argentina’s strongest carrier in the pack comfortably, and was held up over the line when the game was already lost. Offside penalty gave England their first points of the second-half, as the penalties started to mount up.

7. Marcos Kremer – 6
Strong defensive display across the 80 in what was quite a turgid affair up front at times, and tried his best carrying but to little avail. Did not have a blemish on his disciplinary copybook, which was quite a feat in that match.

8. Juan Martin Gonzalez – 4
Struggled to assert himself in a very quiet first-half with ball in hand, only making one metre, but was industrious in defence. Was hooked with 20 minutes to go after conceding a penalty but can hardly be blamed as that was a quite a common occurrence.

22m Entries

Avg. Points Scored
2.4
5
Entries
Avg. Points Scored
1.4
5
Entries

Replacements:
16. Agustin Creevy – 5
Entered the fray once the rot had already set in, and like the rest of the bench failed to make any impact.

17. Joel Sclavi – 2
Conceded a penalty within moments of coming on and then went off injured.

18. Eduardo Bello – 5 
Helped settle the Pumas’ scrum, but England had the upper hand up front by the time he joined the action for the final 30.

19. Guido Petti Pagadizabal – 5
Made an immediate impact with a break after taking the kick-off for the second-half, but was quiet thereafter.

20. Pedro Rubiolo – 4
Unfair to judge some of the of the substitutes’ performances as it must have felt like a hiding to nothing for some of them.

21. Rodrigo Bruni – 6
Scored Argentina’s only try of the match, although a consolation, which was a positive.

22. Lautaro Bazan Velez – 4
Very little action when he came on.

23. Matias Moroni – 4
Covered for Mallia early on, but equally did not see a lot of action.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

G
GrahamVF 11 minutes ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

"has SA actually EVER helped to develop another union to maturity like NZ has with Japan," yes - Argentina. You obviously don't know the history of Argentinian rugby. SA were touring there on long development tours in the 1950's

We continued the Junior Bok tours to the Argentine through to the early 70's

My coach at Grey High was Giepie Wentzel who toured Argentine as a fly half. He told me about how every Argentinian rugby club has pictures of Van Heerden and Danie Craven on prominent display. Yes we have developed a nation far more than NZ has done for Japan. And BTW Sa players were playing and coaching in Japan long before the Kiwis arrived. Fourie du Preez and many others were playing there 15 years ago.


"Isaac Van Heerden's reputation as an innovative coach had spread to Argentina, and he was invited to Buenos Aires to help the Pumas prepare for their first visit to South Africa in 1965.[1][2] Despite Argentina faring badly in this tour,[2] it was the start of a long and happy relationship between Van Heerden and the Pumas. Izak van Heerden took leave from his teaching post in Durban, relocated to Argentina, learnt fluent Spanish, and would revolutionise Argentine play in the late 1960s, laying the way open for great players such as Hugo Porta.[1][2] Van Heerden virtually invented the "tight loose" form of play, an area in which the Argentines would come to excel, and which would become a hallmark of their playing style. The Pumas repaid the initial debt, by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park, and emerged as one of the better modern rugby nations, thanks largely to the talents of this Durban schoolmaster.[1]"


After the promise made by Junior Springbok manager JF Louw at the end of a 12-game tour to Argentina in 1959 – ‘I will do everything to ensure we invite you to tour our country’ – there were concerns about the strength of Argentinian rugby. South African Rugby Board president Danie Craven sent coach Izak van Heerden to help the Pumas prepare and they repaid the favour by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park.

147 Go to comments
J
JW 6 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

147 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Ex-Wallaby explains why All Blacks aren’t at ‘panic stations’ under Razor Ex-Wallaby explains why All Blacks aren’t at ‘panic stations’
Search