All Blacks Struck by Norovirus

First topic message reminder :

http://soc.li/EquR5Kd

thebluesmancometh wrote:Have to dispute this, firstly I never called my process scientific, we got into a scientific debate because of incorrect terms and usage of the word.

The science bit started because you said you did what most scientists do and highlighted the stats that backed up what you thought. I called you on that and said bad scientists do that

Then regarding pundits and 'experts' they are selected and paid to air 'their opinions' because they are popular, not because they know anything. There are teams of Physiologists, Analysts and performance experts feeding them all the information they use to highlight whats going on, and even then it is dumbed down hugely!!! Any real expert of the game is involved within the game, the likes of Davies and Moore are entertaining and little else, they offer nothing to the game.

I disregard anything that can be explained with sound reasoning, and if you can find data that highlights my analysis is wrong be my guest. It is not a coincidence that my data has a direct relationship with data published by other websites, and thats why I base my opinion as I do.

You disregard anything that can be explained with sound reasoning? That explains a lot. Perhaps we need to try un-sound reasoning. How about the English victory was written in the stars. The position of Mars made it inevitable.

You data being distance traveled right? So other websites have similar distance traveled? Which ones? And even if they are right (the stats) it STILL doesn't mean anything when you have it for two games. One of which the All Blacks thrashed one team, the other when they were beat. The two games you should have compared were the ones against England and Australia. Both games had the All Blacks playing relatively poorly. Granted you'd expect them to be more fatigued in the English game due to it being at the end of the season but it would have been a better starting point.

Hammer

Mate you can keep stirring the pot all you like, a simple typing error doesn't make everything you proclaim truth.

I'm bored of repeating the same things over and over for you to ignore disregard and twist to your liking, when your ready to either prove your opinion, disprove my findings or at least make a point regarding the issue I'm not going to bother.

I don't have an opinion. I'm asking you to justify yours.

So far you've come up with stats from two very different games that are based themselves on limited information. You've then claimed that this proves the All Blacks were affected by the Noravirus during the game. This is backed up by the fact that D&V CAN affect sports people.

That's it. That doesn't prove anything to anyone (or at least shouldn't). If that's enough to convince you then fine, crack on. But don't expect to convince anyone else with just that.

This one is obviously going to run and run and run

.................................. as Cruden said to Weepu when on his way to the bathroom

I don't have to convince you, that isn't my aim, i have provided enough evidence to satisfy myself that I am right, I have reiterated the same thing over and over, believe what you want, take the data anyway that you want.

I know I am correct on this occasion, any virus will have a detrimental effect on a players performance, that is fact. To what degree is unknown, similar to the other reasons they lost, fatigue and Englands performance, but from a general view of the AI's, England were average until the last game, NZ sublime until the last game and consequential virus.

There is no such thing as a coincidence, how is it do you think I was able to claim England would win after reading about the virus? Was I lucky? Or did I put 2 and 2 together? Probably a bit of both in reality, and I wasn't the only one who changed their minds late in the week

thebluesmancometh wrote:I don't have to convince you, that isn't my aim, i have provided enough evidence to satisfy myself that I am right, I have reiterated the same thing over and over, believe what you want, take the data anyway that you want.

I know I am correct on this occasion, any virus will have a detrimental effect on a players performance, that is fact. To what degree is unknown, similar to the other reasons they lost, fatigue and Englands performance, but from a general view of the AI's, England were average until the last game, NZ sublime until the last game and consequential virus.

There is no such thing as a coincidence, how is it do you think I was able to claim England would win after reading about the virus? Was I lucky? Or did I put 2 and 2 together? Probably a bit of both in reality, and I wasn't the only one who changed their minds late in the week

We could have saved so much time if you had just said that in the beginning rather than pulling out loads of half-baked stats to justify an opinion based on gut feeling.

Just a heads up, avoid something called homeopathy. It may sound convincing but it's just water.

Water's the most convincing element I know of. I personally can't live without it.

Over-rated. oooh, look at me, I'm water, I expand when I change state from a liquid to a solid. Big whoop

it's the solid to a liquid that's the magic act, Hammer. As well you know

Hey at least it shrinks when it goes runny.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I don't have to convince you, that isn't my aim, i have provided enough evidence to satisfy myself that I am right, I have reiterated the same thing over and over, believe what you want, take the data anyway that you want.

I know I am correct on this occasion, any virus will have a detrimental effect on a players performance, that is fact. To what degree is unknown, similar to the other reasons they lost, fatigue and Englands performance, but from a general view of the AI's, England were average until the last game, NZ sublime until the last game and consequential virus.

There is no such thing as a coincidence, how is it do you think I was able to claim England would win after reading about the virus? Was I lucky? Or did I put 2 and 2 together? Probably a bit of both in reality, and I wasn't the only one who changed their minds late in the week

Many have talked about the ABs inconsistency throughout the year well before the AIs. We got close to losing against Ireland, could have lost to SA, drew with Aus and won some games with bursts of brilliance surrounded by minutes of averageness throughout the year.

nganboy wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:I don't have to convince you, that isn't my aim, i have provided enough evidence to satisfy myself that I am right, I have reiterated the same thing over and over, believe what you want, take the data anyway that you want.

I know I am correct on this occasion, any virus will have a detrimental effect on a players performance, that is fact. To what degree is unknown, similar to the other reasons they lost, fatigue and Englands performance, but from a general view of the AI's, England were average until the last game, NZ sublime until the last game and consequential virus.

There is no such thing as a coincidence, how is it do you think I was able to claim England would win after reading about the virus? Was I lucky? Or did I put 2 and 2 together? Probably a bit of both in reality, and I wasn't the only one who changed their minds late in the week

Many have talked about the ABs inconsistency throughout the year well before the AIs. We got close to losing against Ireland, could have lost to SA, drew with Aus and won some games with bursts of brilliance surrounded by minutes of averageness throughout the year.

The real proof will be how England fare in the 6N. If the AB's- this AB side- the best we could put on the field- were in fact at peak fitness then England should demolish the 6N. Based on the AB performance last year, odds would be up around 80% that the ABs would get a Grand slam with that side.

Therefore, beating the same side convincingly, should put England up in the 90's and the scores against the lesser sides Italy and scotland, should be at minimum in the 20's.

Simply put, if England go back to fluffing around, losing to Wales, Ireland or Scotland, then we'll know its more likely the AB's had an off day, than it is that England beat the no. 1 side at its best.

Simple I reckon...should be no ifs and buts...either this side is that good or it isnt.

Taylorman wrote:...Simply put, if England go back to fluffing around, losing to Wales, Ireland or Scotland, then we'll know its more likely the AB's had an off day, than it is that England beat the no. 1 side at its best.

Sport doesn't work that way.

England didn't lose to Southern Hemisphere sides from the last test against South Africa in Summer 2000 to the first match against NZ in 2004. By your metric, that means we should have won four Grand Slams during that period. We know that's not what happened.

Similarly, if France get beaten by Wales or Ireland in the Six Nations - two teams who have regularly lost to the All Blacks - that won't mean they will tour New Zealand with little chance of winning.

Certainly, good teams do have off days. Almost by definition, a losing side has had an off day but the opposition play a big role in bringing that about. The All Blacks weren't at their best on Saturday but they are still the top team in world rugby and sometimes opponents will rise to the challenge. One of their remarkable qualities is the ability to shake off such losses and re-establish a winning record.

Similarly, if France get beaten by Wales or Ireland in the Six Nations - two teams who have regularly lost to the All Blacks - that won't mean they will tour New Zealand with little chance of winning.

Er?? And England do what then? Are you telling me that a win every 10 yeras or so makes you better? Good old Nigel's always the hoot of the party what what

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...Simply put, if England go back to fluffing around, losing to Wales, Ireland or Scotland, then we'll know its more likely the AB's had an off day, than it is that England beat the no. 1 side at its best.

Sport doesn't work that way.

England didn't lose to Southern Hemisphere sides from the last test against South Africa in Summer 2000 to the first match against NZ in 2004. By your metric, that means we should have won four Grand Slams during that period. We know that's not what happened.

Similarly, if France get beaten by Wales or Ireland in the Six Nations - two teams who have regularly lost to the All Blacks - that won't mean they will tour New Zealand with little chance of winning.

Certainly, good teams do have off days. Almost by definition, a losing side has had an off day but the opposition play a big role in bringing that about. The All Blacks weren't at their best on Saturday but they are still the top team in world rugby and sometimes opponents will rise to the challenge. One of their remarkable qualities is the ability to shake off such losses and re-establish a winning record.

I don't think your logic holds up. Look I understand where you are coming from. I think if you are an English fan you want to celebrate a great win. So you should. Similarly many kiwi fans want to understand what they see as the poor performance of their team. A sickness that affected the whole team during the week is worth considering. We'll get a much better idea of where the teams are in 18 months time. I personally think this England team is very good.

England's win over nz was significant. On a different scale to the 2000~2003 team. This is one of the biggest losses nz have ever had. The side that played was at full strength. England's wins are great in that they were consistent. It corresponded with relatively week sides. The boks were the weakest they have ever been, the wallabies and the ab's changed coaching staff mid stream. For instance, the ab's trialled a lot of new players on their tour in 2002. Many never played again. The result was by nz a poor tour (2 wins, a draw, and a loss). The games we lost were close and could have gone either way.

The difference is that the last game was a comprehensive victory. Given the nature of the victory I'd expect England to at least go close to winning the six nations (as with this year) with some very big wins. If nz have a good year next year and England have an average year the questions about a one off victory, sickness, tiredness etc will raise their head.

I think the result of the weekend shows promise. Nothing more.

You have to look at things in context. England played 4 tests vs SA, 1 vs Australia and 1 vs New Zealand.

SA apart from 20 minutes here or there played conservative defence based rugby this year, the tour in June in South Africa showed England has the necessary physicality when the other team is off by only a little.

Compare the thrid test in June with the rest of the tour, in the first two tests South Africa at times annihilated the england pack with their itensity and physicality.

In the third test South Africa played with Marcelle Coetzee, Pierre Spies and Jaques Potgieter as a back row. England immediately showed that their forwards were ontop of that backrow.

Subsequently, Marcelle Coetzee was relegated to the bench, Jaques Potgieter was completely dropped and Pierre Spies who got injured might struggle to get his place back.

That shows if you pack lacks just a little in physicality the difference is huge.

Against Australia, england were too keen to go wide and found organised defence because they went too wide too early and didn't recognise when to go wide.

Against SA, it was pretty much the same thing, but SA had their preferred backrow back, and these guys stand back for no man.

When England met NZ, regardless of the virus, fatigue etc. They did two things well, they attacked the middle and waited for opportunities to go wide, they didn't just go wide for the sake of it.

Secondly the individuals went for the gaps, Barrit hit a beautiful line for the one try, Tuilagi had a little more space and could then break tackles, and the halfback (name?) made some telling breaks, instead of just passing, the English looked for the support runners. Something they haven't done all year.

So they have clicked in the last game of the year, now they must take that forward. It sounds easier than it is.

New Zealand may have won most of their matches, but did they click this year?

The answer is an emphatic no, they clicked in the second half of their match vs the Boks in Johannesburg, then they were sublime.

Now the problem with perfect rugby or clicking rugby is that it doesn't happen all that often.

It is something teams aspire to, to play the perfect game, but how often do we see a perfect game?

Test rugby is attrition, it is a battle of forward dominance, no matter whether you are the All BLacks, the Boks, or even Canada.

We only see perfect rugby once or twice a year from a team, England will now have the beleif and confidence that they can do it, the challenge now is to emulate that.

Theres really no such thing as a perfect game because its not measured in units. Its conjecture and opinion.

Some people thing forward dominance is a perfect game where some might think 100 nil is perfect.

The All Blacks have come nearer to whatever the definition is than most sides. The 60-0 versus Ireland was a more comprehensive victory over another tier one nation than any other side has come near this year.

The comparison with the English team of 2002-3 is interesting as I rate that team far superior to this side, purely because that were consistent, and that is the mark of a championship side, the ability to win again and again and again, regardless of the opposition, That side at its best stat won 40 from 43 matches. A one off win against this AB side is no comparison because of the losses they had the rest of the year.

This England performance wasnt as good as many of the performances the ABs have put in all year. What makes it a good performance is that they beat the AB's. They still let in 3 tries, kicked poorly on occasion etc. A good win but only special because they did what no one else could all year.

The challenge is to back it up and judging by this years results- they probably wont. In the 6N their expectations will be inflated by this and their opponents will be all the more motivated- after all- they beat the AB's.

Its a tough act to follow and England may find this out the hard way. The things that worked in those crucial few minutes just might not come as easily. Just depends which English side turns up.

Its about progress... will they go and beat all comers now they've beaten the best... of course not, they will lose the occasional game etc.

However I think what it will give them is confidence to flex their muscles a bit and go into tricky away matches in IRE and WAL thinking... if we can beat the ABs we can beat these guys away from home.

After ENG took on the ABs in 97 to a 26-26 draw they didn't win a 5/6Ns GS for another 6 years... thats how long it took.

Likewise, Henry, Carter & McCaw together needed 2 bites of the cherry to win the RWC.

Teams don't go from being one minute serial losers to another being serial world beaters... it takes time.

GS or not i think the 6N title should be their aim, get as many boys on the lions tour as possible. Blood some young guns vs. ARG and look for the series victory. That should be their aim for the year.

6N title should be their aim, get as many boys on the lions tour as possible

But thats everybodies aim, beating the AB's or not!!!

Any comparison of this team to the team of 2002/3 is an absolute joke, forced into the top rankings in the world, beating allcomers regularly, dominance in the 5N and a world cup compared to... an out of context win against NZ???

Also just to point out, Barrit is not a linebreaker in general, he is big, strong, and solid defencively without being elusive, to ghost past Smith who had a total brain fart is certainly a one off, and the fact that Jane couldn't catch him or Tuilagi (who is no speedster himself) was astonishing!!

The issue I have with the England game, and it was a very good performance, is that it still included proven limited players, Barrit, Parling, Youngs, Farrell, and Brown are all solid but nowhere near the best the NH has to offer let alone in the world or anywhere near their Kiwi counterparts.

For me England now enjoy the win, and so they should, but they now have to back that up in the HC and even more so in the 6N, I think France will be made favourites because of mindset alone (although I don't think the French will win it) England will have this large target on their backs now, where in previous years (this year included) they were very much under the radar (well as much as an England team could be)

Geez there’s a lot of nonsense on this thread. There’s not a (sane) English fan alive that thinks because we gave the ABs a right royal spanking that we’re suddenly a better side. Or have usurped them as the world’s best. Funny that, because there are quite a number of others who want to claim that England didn’t ‘deserve’ the victory. Reminds me of a certain side that never gets beaten, just doesn’t score enough points. If you think you can dampen our joy at beating the world’s best side – jog on. But most #1 sides in any sport get beaten occasionally. Next time we play the ABs, normal service will be resumed. However this is a developing side that is looking to RWC’15 – judge England after that.

I personally see our victory against the ABs in as positive a light, as I see our loss to Aus in a negative one.

actually impressed with Parling... he's beginning to grow on me as a player. His lineout calls are getting a lot better and with Wood now in the mix ENG have some variance which will keep opposition thinking.

Matfield was never massive in the loose or the breakdown... but he was as near perfect as you could get at lineouts.... if Parling can get close to that then ENG could do a lot worse.

I think the problem stemed with ENG playing Johnson and Botha with Parling... rather than Launchbury and Wood. If you're the only decent lineout option then you'll get figured out rather quickly.

It was a day when everything went right for England and not much went right for NZ. There are good signs that we were building towards that kind of performance - and the pack is looking increasingly competitive. We look like a tight and united team.

The danger is that we are only one injury to Tuilagi away from going back to being toothless in attack again.

FA

I agree with you, Parling looks much better now, but the complete article he is not. Matfeild may not have been monster around the park but he was no slouch, and was regularly destructive at the breakdown (mind you all SA's are destructive at the breakdown, it's how they marshall the breakdown)

Wood has definately taken a bit of pressure off at the lineout, but I think Launchbery and Lawes are the way forward, Parling is still behind them.

I think everyone will agree Botha looks good at running around like a headless chicken, big strong quick and useless!

Lost

I would worry if Tuilagi and Cole both got injured together, right now I think they are the heart and sould of the England team and IMO first names on the Lions teamsheet right now.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I think everyone will agree Botha looks good at running around like a headless chicken, big strong quick and useless!

I don't think he looks good even doing that Just a tempory player (good attitude apparantly).

Locks in 6N will be Parling, Lawes, Launchbury and...Palmer? Botha? Kitchener? Garvey? Attwood? Robson?

No sure. I can see it being Robson for the lineout thing (and Lancaster likes him). That's why Parling will remaining in the starting 15. He runs the lineout. I'm not sure who does at the other side but robson does at Quins. I think Kitchener runs the Leicester one when Parling is away.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I know I am correct on this occasion, any virus will have a detrimental effect on a players performance, that is fact. To what degree is unknown, similar to the other reasons they lost, fatigue and Englands performance, but from a general view of the AI's, England were average until the last game, NZ sublime until the last game and consequential virus.

Not partucularly sure that this is correct. For a fair few games over the All Blacks run they've had parts of games where they've been average and shown weakness. The big difference for me was Tuilagi bouncing off a few people, having a stormer of a game but having good support with him as well for the breaks.

NZ were still sublime in parts and were camped on our try line at the end so weren't exactly showing signs of major fatigue.

NZ will still beat this England team 9 times out of 10 so I don't know why some people are trying to play down a great win when on the whole the NZers have been very gracious in defeat.

I can see an argument for Parling, for now at least, he'll run the lineout (Wales certainly need someone to run theirs, all 4 of our locks are roamers not thinkers).

I like Attwood, and Garvey, maybe Attwood and Launchbury the way forward, will Lawes ever be smart enough at the set peice?

Also I was trying to work out the English engine room the other day, the scrum tends to creek when Parling/Palmer/Botha are involved together, I think Lawes technique is a bit ropy too (when tiring) but you could say that of all his game. Launchbury really impressed all round, his scrummaging looks good, he is a lineout option and very goods around the park, a real gem, not many locks like that around these days, I think he and Etzebeth are probably 2 of the best up and comers around!!!

What I don't like though is that he's playing int rugby at only 21, I know he's good and the WC is 3 years away but we have a tendancy in britain to blood the players, especially forward way too young.

Look at NZ in comparison, Romano has what 10 caps and is 26 yrs old, although he's only about a stone heavier his strength and abilities are far more advanced than Launchbury's.

We tend to look for teenage superstars, but most reports claim forwards peak in their late 20's and early 30's, especially locks and front rowers peak later again. Romano will be 29 come the world cup, and Launchbury 24, Romano will still be the more advanced player then, and when Launchbury is ready to outplay him 2 years later another 26yr old kiwi will be introduced who won't be far from Launchburys ability. I know this is all conjecture but do you see my point?

7+1/2

Although I don't want to keep reiterating my points, NZ performance and specifically areas of higher performance are in what are coined as adrenalin zones, post kick off, pre half time, post restart and pre full time, there are different sized zones in each of these 4 and the kiwis dominated these zones (except for the first which England were very good indeed, keeping in touch, not enough credit was given to England for the first 10/15 mins)

Only read the last page of the 7 blue so apologies that I missed your points.

I think you have a point on Lawes but not launchbury... if you're good enough you're good enough.

Lawes needs conditioning though, that is certain... Big in the tackle but not a great ball carrier and in fact a bit of a liability.

its not about being 6'6 and 120kg for a test quality lock.... the weight needs to be in the right areas and true, that takes time.

Youngsters IMO tend to put a lot of it on the shoulders and guns... whereas for locks I reckon they need to have a stronger core as their centre of gravity is higher and therefore can be tipped over easier than most.

When a player gets their first cap is sometimes due to fortune as much as their own quality. If you're a quality back a place can be found for you somewhere... but if you're a front five forward you have to wait until you are the very best in your position.

Take Juandre Kruger for instance. Aged 22 he was probably within the top 10 locks in SA for sure... but unfortunately he was 3rd best in his club until Matfield and Bakkies retired and moved on and had to wait near 4 years to get a club break. He moved to ENG, did a couple of seasons, came back, waited a little longer and within 4 months of his first real SR season he was a bok first choice.

Compare him to Etzebeth... if he was 3 years older he would probably have only been capped now... but a gap was open with the injury to Bekker at the Stormers in the first SR game of the season (his debut), he did so well in his first game he stayed in the team and with the exit of Russouw, Bakkies & Matfield their was a opportunity for the boks and he took it.

Don't get me wrong, they can perform, but generally it takes so much time for a tight 5 player to get to a plce where they are physically ready for int rugby, I really think the likes of Launchbury and Etzebeth would develop as well at club level.

When we look to redevelop for the next world cup we keep looking at teenagers instead of those a few steps along, look at Falatau for Wales, still in his early 20's and condemned as not being good enough, he needs time to develop. Aled Brew was another example, in the welsh team as a kid and exiled and told not good enough by 22, he is now at his best and playing exceptionally well in France at 26 and is considered a has been... 26!!!!!

Previous England set-ups have been criticised for not 'blooding' youngsters and continuing with old stagers past their sell-by-date.

Yes, young players need to be nurtured (especially forwards) but from my point of view Launchberry has arrived at just the right time for himself and England. He's just played several games against top-notch opposition and not just coped, but excelled. He was fast-tracked partially because of injury and lack of form in the 2nd row, but he looks like a real gem with physicality, composure and an impressively wide range of skills.

Some players can cope mentally and physically at a young age. There's no catch-all rule.

"I personally see our victory against the ABs in as positive a light, as I see our loss to Aus in a negative one."

agree- I also looked at the loss to SA in a kinda positively based on the performance!

but that would have meant nothing if we didnt turn iup next time

How old was Whitelock when he was first capped? 21 or 22. They play people when they're ready. The sometimes get it wrong. They usually get it right. Same as most good sides.

Sometimes we've missed that. I don't think Lawes was too early. He was fine in the beginning as was the only one of our forwards who performed against South Africa a few years ago when we were completely battered. He just seems to have had bad luck with injuries recently and has had chance to settle in and build up his form. BTW I noticed Launchbury getting pushed back plenty of times against England. If I'm honest I thought his tackling was great but everything else was just decent (which is fine against the best teams in the world and so young).

Doesn't Jones call the lineout at the Ospreys? I remember their lineout was pretty good. What about Charteris? Is he a 'lineout lock' just because he's 6'10" or does he have skills?

I think the whole virus thing has been done to death now. People have said what they're going to say and nothing more will come out of it (until McCaw's autobiography which someone already mentioned).

I think most of us would agree with the following:

1 - On Saturday England played very well (relative to their normal level), while New Zealand didn't.

2 - On paper, New Zealand are still a better team, and if there was a rematch this week they'd start as favourites. You wouldn't though get the 6-1 odds for England that Suasage apparently got last week.

3 - New Zealand are at the end of a very long sequence of games, through the RC and then AIs (plus a random extra match against the Aussies), and their performance appears to have dropped off during this spell.

4 - Having much of the squad affected by Norovirus a few days before the match won't have helped the preparations (in particular the chance to work on anything new specifically designed for this game), but no-one outside the ABs camp knows for sure if they were fully recovered by Saturday. Evidence from the ABs not changing their line-up away from their nominal best available XV and from post match interviews suggests that by Saturday any physical effects were probably insignificant.

5 - Norovirus did not make Carter miss two relatively simple penalty kicks in the first half. It was clear to me watching his approach to the ball that he's having some technical issues and has lost a bit of confidence.

6 - England are a promising young team, and in particular the forwards have stood up well to the physical challenges in the last couple of matches.

it boils down to some simple stuff.

NZ are the best.

Eng will become the best.

case closed

..and the ABs will now travel with a fully fitted, fully staffed, highly sanitised and security controlled, easily foldable Hotel - to all foreign venues.........................

Arrrr i see. Well its there own fault for staying in wales-

...so the Welsh were just off in their timing?

blackcanelion wrote:I don't think your logic holds up....England's win over nz was significant. On a different scale to the 2000~2003 team. This is one of the biggest losses nz have ever had

I wasn't looking to apply any logic. Quite the opposite, I was to trying (obviously very poorly) to point out to Taylorman the limitations of A>B>C logic when it it comes to sport.

England were a dominant team in Europe but successively missed Grand Slams by losing to Scotland (1999), Wales (2000), Ireland (2001) and France (2002). France claimed a Grand Slam in 2002, right in the middle of England's finest run. It happens to great teams. It doesn't happen as often to great All Black teams but that's one of the great strengths of New Zealand rugby. It did, of course, happen to them between 1991 and 2007 in a different context.

I can explain away each of those missed Grand Slams to myself (weather, poor decisions, fatigue and Serge Betsen in Wilkinson's face). We still lost, though, and I'd feel a bit odd saying England just had the occasional bad day at the office during their run, on account of the fact we kept beating Southern Hemisphere sides at the time.

I don't think for a moment that a one-off performance against New Zealand makes England a great team, let alone World Cup-winning prospects like Woodward's side, but I don't care for the kind of logic which holds that later losses put a team's victories into a clear perspective. The victories are what they are. You don't get to renegotiate your result because the side you lost to gets beaten later by a team you recently defeated.

Sport throws up odd situations all the time. I recall watching England's second Test against New Zealand in 2004. We'd been beaten soundly in the first Test but, in the second Test, we rediscovered our mojo. Then Simon Shaw got a red card after only ten minutes and New Zealand went on to win again. Would Wales have won if the officials had spotted Andrew Hore's red card offence at an even earlier stage in their match? Who knows. The ledger is all that matters. New Zealand fans, as I would do, take both wins unconditionally.

Regardless of what England manage to achieve in the rest of the season, I suspect the norovirus in the All Black camp will be remembered as much as the stomach bug which wiped out the England team in South Africa in 2007. In other words, hardly at all.

mystiroakey wrote:it boils down to some simple stuff.

NZ are the best and have been for a little while.

Eng will may become the best.

case closed

nganboy wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:it boils down to some simple stuff.

NZ are the best and have been for a little while.

Eng will nevermay become the best.

case closed

dunno about that rainbow no question they were the best in 2002 and 2003

Just because a bunch of players who represented England where good a decade ago doesn't mean it will just automatically happen again.

viewtothegym wrote:Just because a bunch of players who represented England were good a decade ago doesn't mean it will just automatically happen again.

Completely agree.

On the flipside, though, if someone dismissing England today is also on record doing the same ten years ago, then their views should be taken with a pinch of salt.

I haven't seen anyone on this forum doing so, but I can recall Spiro Zavos making the case that England would never win a rugby World Cup even as they had started to rack up an impressive series of wins.

viewtothegym wrote:Just because a bunch of players who represented England where good a decade ago doesn't mean it will just automatically happen again.

exactly which is why I changed it to may

may...never... pah!!

In the long run england will be the best again.. Very Happy =hopefully in our lifetime though!

True and the the AllBlacks maybe in 2013

Amazed this is still going, I would have thought everything that could be said would have been said by now.