Summer Internationals 2025, Week 3

Of the matches on offer this weekend I did not watch SA v Georgia, although I intended to, nor Argentina v Uruguay, again I intended to. The first match coincided with a thunderstorm and a cracking headache. The result was spoiled and I had little desire to watch it. Argentina v Uruguay failed to record for some reason, and while I could probably find it, I’ve seen the result (I didn’t look until I realised I couldn’t watch and the SA result had been spoiled) so I’m not going to make an effort. I think it’s good that these games are being played and I want to support them in general.

Samoa v Scotland

When you fall back on the cliché “men against boys” it’s usually a description of a disparity in experience, such as the full strength SA side against a Welsh team with fewer caps than their front row on its own, or a David v Goliath matchup like Portugal v Ireland.

In this match the first impression, and one that remained as the match progressed, was much more literal. The Samoan blindside was about the same size as the Scottish 10. The Samoan tighthead was about the same build as the Scottish hooker, and Ashman is slimmer hooker, renowned for his mobility and play out wide rather than his size and scrummaging. Their 9 was about shoulder height on his opposite number.

Somehow Scotland didn’t run at a point a minute. There as a bit of sloppiness, some unlikely but great defence leading to interceptions by Samoa, a few times when the bounce of the ball literally went the wrong way and a lot of wide, really wide, tries that went unconverted. Scotland also ran out a pretty junior side after last week, some more experienced faces mixed in, but a lot of youngsters getting their first cap.

Overall Samoa got thumped off the park. Some 41-12 loses are worse than others and the young French team losing 43-17 looked a lot better than Samoa. I’m not claiming that the French were close to winning, but they competed in some parts of the game. Samoa chased around and whist they didn’t lose every scrum, lineout and breakdown they never looked secure in any phase of the game, unlike the Scots, who essentially always did. The Samoan points came, appropriately, from interceptions that older, more experienced players would not have thrown. I don’t begrudge them the points but when the half backs aren’t even starting URC games on a regular basis, you’re deep in the depth charts.

This was much more fun to watch than Argentina v England. Samoa might never have had a chance but were always willing and often played attractive rugby until they got properly shut down. The Scots seemed to enjoy being physically dominant and played a looser game than normal, whilst maintaining their high speed and high intensity. It made for an entertaining watch as a neutral.

New Zealand v France

This ended up as a 10-point margin of victory, but with five minutes to go les bleus still believed. Honestly it would have been against the run of the whole of the second half, France scored all their points in the first half and never really looked like adding to their total - that’s not entirely fair, there was a missed drop goal and a penalty kick - but they never threatened the goal line.

Nevertheless, the visitors went in ahead at halftime forcing the ABs to claw their way back into a lead. That they did is credit to them and their fringe players. That they needed to is credit to the French and the depth of their squad.

New Zealand will look at a few of this team and consider them in TRC matches. Maybe against the weaker teams, maybe as injury cover. Again in the November tests. For France, a few of the players have shifted around in the depth chart: Barré has moved down, but with a clear set of things to work on, Segonds has probably moved up as has le Garrec. I suspect we’ll see those with a few caps before this tour get more, some of those who debuted on this tour get games in November or next spring. Maybe off the bench, maybe as starters. But more of them will become regulars in 2028 and beyond. Both coaches happy.

Australia v British and Irish Lions

As has become a bit of a theme of this tour, this game splits into two parts, basically the first hour and the last 20 minutes. And yes, that’s essentially around the substitutes.

For the first hour the Lions were almost completely dominant. The only place where Australia stood up at all was in the scrums. Then Farrell went to the bench and the Lions intensity dropped. Shortly after that Schmidt joined in and the Wallabies seemed to lift. Those wearing green and gold-tinted glasses will tell you this was due to the subs playing better than those they replaced. I’m less sure, I think it was fresh players expanding into a less smothering play space as the Lions fell off the pace.

The Australians are hopeful that they can change some players and improve things. They’re ignoring the fact that there are certainly good options in all the positions that failed to deliver for the Lions off the bench in this match. I wouldn’t have picked Porter or Stuart, Schoemann and Bealham are there to go. I would have picked Chessum but he was poor, there are about a million Scots waiting to replace him. I’d also replace Keenan with Kinghorn, Keenan made too many mistakes for fullback. It didn’t cost the Lions in this game, but it’s the principle of the thing.

For the Wallabies I think it’s harder. Valetini, if fit, adds something. Dropping Suali'i adds something, he was frequently bad and for all he had one flashy moment and a few decent ones, they were too few and far between. I’d stick with Lynagh at 10. He was good on those occasions he got good ball, but they were few and far between. He made good choices often with bad ball most times too. Not error-free, but it was his first game a really good defensive opposition. Let him back it up and build some confidence.

USA v England

It feels odd to describe a 26-0 victory as disappointing but I think everyone except the USA fans will feel that way.

England left… honestly I lost count of how many tries out there. This was not, like NZ v France, great defence with players held up, nor was it like the Lions match with Jones' disallowed try. I’m not complaining about the decision, but it looked ok live, and I understand why BOK awarded the try. There were a couple of tough chances, a ball bouncing awkwardly and a knock on, that kind of thing, but simple technical errors like obstruction at the lineout giving away a penalty (and calling back a try). I think there were five tries called back for various reasons but it might have been more.

USA v Fijiana

This was probably the game of the weekend. In the men’s game a match between the 9th and 15th ranked teams (ironically on the men’s ladder Fiji and USA are 9th and 16th), Fiji and Spain would not be close under most circumstances. We would expect the Fijian men to brush aside the Spanish, or the Americans, and much like I said that England will be disappointed only winning 26-0 against USA men. Fiji would expect a 50-point victory.

In the women’s game, there’s a smaller really elite tier. England, Canada, France. Maybe NZ but they may have fallen back over the last few years as professionalism elsewhere has left them behind. There’s a good second tier, playing catch-up, NZ are here if they’re not in the elite tier still. Scotland, Ireland, Italy, USA, Australia, Wales, maybe Japan and South Africa. Then there are, gradually declining, the rest. This is mostly historical, or lack thereof. Women’s rugby, the W6N say, as a stable, elite, competitive sport has existed for less time than the men’s game has been professional. In many countries for far less time than that. Men rugby players mostly play from school onwards, are identified young and drafted into elite training groups at school, play international games at u16 level and upwards. Most women come from another sport and try rugby, get hooked. That is changing but it’s slow, and obviously takes time to work through.

And that makes the women's rankings less useful than the men’s. The top few are going to win big against anyone else, but the “lesser” teams are improving rapidly as their players transition from “ooh, lets give this a go” to “ok, I’ve got three years experience and I’m getting good at this.”

USA will be relieved to have won 31-24. With a few seconds to go Fijiana were hard in attack and eventually held up. This match was a study in contrasts. Fijiana played at their best when they pretended it was 7’s, not XV's, although they had a scrum that took the USA scrum to the cleaners regularly. USA played a more structured, traditional game. This made for an interesting clash of styles, one that we're starting to see the men move away from a bit.

I’m used to seeing, in the men’s game, the tier one nations crushing Fiji with their structured play. Fiji still have a great broken field game, France and New Zealand being their only rivals. Their rise up the standings is keeping that but not relying on it, they have a structured game too. Fijiana has a good scrum, better than USA's anyway. But the rest of their game is almost completely lacking in structure. Nevertheless, sometimes they were good enough to impose this on USA, forcing them to scramble like mad. Equally, at other times USA were able to impose their structured play on Fijiana. They found that easier to handle - they see it in most games after all - but USA were in control often enough that they managed to score just enough to win.