Well done England

First topic message reminder :

Well this game is still going when I write this but there's no way NZ can come back from a game that's already beyond them. NZ doesn't get too many defeats like this so when it does happen you have to tip your hat and commend the opposition performance. No excuses. The better side has won on the day.

I wrote a thread about applying pressure on this ABs side. England made a good start but I was worried that they didn't get points in the opening exchanges where England were dominating particularly at the breakdown. Indeed it was NZ that had the first opportunity for points. Carter missed two kicks but Farrell showed the importance of ticking the scoreboard over. 3 wonderful place kicks and a drop goal and England went into the shed at half time 12 - 0 up.

They started well as well and got another penalty. Then NZ responded and suddenly they looked good with the ball. 2 tries and it was 15-14 and England looked against the ropes. They showed character though and Manu had a big hand in getting England back on top. NZ started to fall off tackles and senior players like Carter who missed an important first up tackle and Read pushing a pass that got intercepted and the game was out of reach for NZ.

So England showed the importance of applying pressure and made this AB side look ordinary. I was impressed by Launchbury, Tom Youngs, Farrell and of course Tuilagi. But really you have to compliment the whole England effort. This will give them huge confidence going into the 6N next year and that will have an effect on their performance undoubtedly. France had a good autumn but now finishing the series on a high, you might say England go into the 6N with great belief.

For NZ the unbeaten year ends on a sour note. Make no mistake about it, this defeat will really hurt them. Poor old McCaw will probably not be able to relax in his sabbatical. This defeat will burn inside him. It was probably one performance one too many where mistakes caught up with them. I actually see this defeat as not necessarily a bad thing. Of course questions will be asked and as they should be. This NZ side responds well to disappointments. They despise losing. So a very challenging 3 match series against France awaits and a RC where Australia and SA should be stronger with injured players coming back.

So I salute the England performance. Well done. You deserved that victory and you looked a complete side out there today. NZ's season ends on a very sour note but I expect this side to come back from this experience. It's an important lesson to learn that if you don't do the basics well and don't get enough possession, you should get punished. It was good England capitalised out there today and it's great for world rugby. Now England has to build on this performance and go out with belief in themselves and play like world beaters again on a consistent basis. As for the NZ team, this was a disappointing performance today but hats off to this side from their performance overall this season. You were world champions and came out and played like that and even looked better than the side that won last year. But they are not a complete side and of course can be beaten. The aura was broken a little today but I have no doubt that the boys will come back stronger and hungrier next year. kia kaha

i wish the lions was a celt only thing- it hinders development and is patronizing

I wish it was a British only thing..like it mostly is

Irish players should be too busy wanting to impress their coach not Warren Gatland.

ok then scottish and welsh

I see the British press are dining out on it but things like this from Paul Ackford:

'The damage to the All Blacks is incalcuable." he wrote. "Reputations, even those as gilt-edged as Dan Carter's, were shredded, and there will be little to salvage from a performance in which only Conrad Smith and the wonderful Richie McCaw could hold their heads high." and comments that the Lions are gpoing to trounce Oz because of the one match just goes to serve that some have no idea.

Projecting a one off result out to the masses suggested that somehow a complete turnaround has happened overnight n all things rugby in the NH is absurd.

One thing is for sure. The ABs will go back to beating all and sundry next year with maybe the odd hiccup.

Why? Because they do it every year. As PJ was inferring, consistency doesnt happen overnight.

To put it into context. What England did on the weekend was what NZ did in 2012 to 7 tier one nation matches this year (scores above 17) most scores well in excess of what England did. In other words- 'we do it all the time'

NZ thrashed sides that England despite sometimes multiple attempts (in SA case 4) was unable to manage.

Ok to celebrate a fantastic win, but to project it out over any other result other than the match itself is 'just...plain...dumb...' and shows the learning curve will go on with that attitude.

To say carters reputation was damaged is ridiculous and I doubt many agree with that- that should translate to no NH players ever having one given the number of times the ABs have trashed them. But it doesnt does it.

This was one win, a very good win. But thats all it was.

"The damage to the All Blacks is incalcuable." he wrote. "Reputations, even those as gilt-edged as Dan Carter's, were shredded, and there will be little to salvage from a performance in which only Conrad Smith and the wonderful Richie McCaw could hold their heads high."

i am embarrased by that comment! jeasus! it was one game!!! like any off the kiwis are damaged long term or reputions shredded- hurt yes- gonna be tough due to the fact you have so long to wait!! but i pitty the next team that plays ya!!

Richie McCaw made the comment that England realy knocked them off their stride. A game that they did not expect England to play.

I still cannot believe not only that England beat the All blacks but to get the highest score against a team that had almost double the amount of caps that England had is just amazing.

England though should not get carried away too much and think that they are now world beaters. This is or should be used as a starting point for England to move on from.

The 6ns will tell how much England have or have not progressed. And then we will have a better idea of the strength in depth in the squad and the team.

This win though will give Stewart Lancaster a big headace come the 6ns, when all the injured players are back. The likes of Flood, Marler, Croft. to name but 3, who will still be in the squad and who will get dropped?

I would ignore everything Ackford says. He generally talks Poopie.

I was a nice win for the confidence boost to the players more than anything. No doubt it will be used as a club used by the media to beat the team/coaches with after the 6 nations.

you should know better than to read Paul Ackford though

Of course it doesn't damage Carter's or McCaw's reputation one bit. It might give teams the idea that having a huge guy run straight at Carter can get you somewhere, it might give other teams an idea of how to beat NZ (though the blueprint England used isn't exactly a revolutionary one, so not sure about this).

I'd even go so far as to call it a "great win", and certainly the best performance by a NH team since 2003, but ultimately it's only one game. Now if England produce this level of performance again in the 6N, that's when it gets interesting.

For now, as an England fan, I'm simply enjoying the fact that we hammered arguably the greatest team of all time, putting an end to a 20 match unbeaten run in the process. The next games being a long way away, I'm not going to worry about them yet (as a fan, I d@mn well hope Lancaster and co are thinking about them already).

We gotta give the starts to the players that played if fit- farrell and youngs over flood and hartly!

Taylorman wrote:I see the British press are dining out on it

Beating the All Blacks is a heady experience................................ I assume (being from Ireland I don't actually know...) Anyway, assume that it went a little then to some guy's heads, Taylorman Don't read too much into the elation. It'll settle.

It's also 'funny' that Smith's head can be held high but it was him pushing out of the line that resulted in Barritt's try which was the start of the end for the All Blacks. It certainly wasn't his best game (although he still showed he was sublime in attack with his involvement in the All Black tries).

No its not the rubbish they put out, I expected that, its the lack of analysis they draw from the experience of winning and how they did it. Sure its designed to sell money but for the purist who really wants to know what it means going forward, it comes across as dumb and naive.

How to best use it going forward is the challenge.

For the ABs it just gets tucked back into the little drawer for next time to bring out for when they meet again. Other than that its BAU...roll on to next year.

taylorman, you need to learn to ignore the more sensationalist press. Much like some of the awful NZ journos you have to tolerate.

As you get older I'm sure you'll learn what's worth reading.

Very interested to see the Kiwi reaction. It reminds me of how I felt after THAT game at Croke - don't like to be beat, but if it's going to happen, let it be to a side on fire.

The old cliche: Rugby was the biggest winner of that one.

SecretFly wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:PJ

You want to try being Welsh, I wanted 4/4 and got 100% what I wanted, just the exact opposite!!

When you look at performances too the Aus performance becomes that much more unbeleivable at twickers when comparing it to the rest of their games, they really did give every ounce and just pipped you guys so I wouldn't be too downheartened about that loss, the Kiwi game you just need to celebrate, but the SA defeat would be the dissapointment IMHO!

I love Welsh rugby Bluesman, Gareth is my favourite all-time player, Welsh rugby is where Bath found their inspiration for their 15 man game of the 80's and 90's and Wales games rarely fail to entertain, yesterday's game was a turgid exception, but you can't have everything.

I think both teams flatter to deceive at times, and both have great potential, as do Ireland and Scotland for that matter, the potential for great rugby is here, all around us, BUT, until our players get their heads around the level of accuracy and ruthless execution of go-forward ball that is required to consistently win at Test level, they will always play second fiddle to the big 3 in the SH. I think the first and biggest hurdle is to believe that you can produce that level of accuracy, but 100% pure belief is a big ask.

The SH countries regularly play each other, and are used to executing game plans with great accuracy and a high tempo as it's the only way they can stay in touch with NZ, all of our teams need to raise the bar in terms of expectation and minimum standards, and then and only then can we all move forward in pursuit of the top 3.

We all have to shake off the "plucky loser" mindset and stick it in the bin next to the "on our day" excuse, we all need to look at the SH teams and say very quietly, but very positively "Yeah, you're good, but so are we and we're coming to get you now."

It's the only way.

England beat the All Blacks on their own. They didn't need help from Wales, Scotland, Ireland or France. I really don't like this NH v SH thing that just grows and grows on these threads as the years go by.

We're all Individual Nations... France certainly regards itself as such and profits accordingly from running its house in its own way, plays to its own style and doesn't get bogged down looking across shoulders at the competition over across the English channel and the Irish sea. When they fight in the 6N you can bet they aren't overly anxious about the competition they face. Everything is designed to be as good a team as they can be (in world terms!) not playing to insular 6N galleries of "derby" affectionados.

Just because the rest of us all speak English and live close to each other doesn't mean we approach these things in some uniform pattern whereby if one of us fall, we all fall. That attitude of almost incestuous interest in each others failures or successes and judging our own achievements by them is what I feel is actually impeding all of us.

In that regard, I have to say this Lions tradition is also a thorn in the side of ambitions that should be retained for and given fully to National sides. When ambition to beat the best is often held back in hope of gaining a 'hallowed' Lions jersey then for me at least that's symbolic of the failure of these nations to stand up for themselves as individual entities.

Forget the mediocre balancing act that takes place each year between each other...look out into the world all the time..even during the 6N. Perform as you might like to perform against the very top sides... if that's England in any given year, then so be it - they're the target for that season or seasons. But if it's SA or NZ, then they should be the sides on the agenda when we plan to show what we can do in every 6N. If it's not the rugby that would unsettle the very top two or three sides then it simply isn't good enough - even though it's good enough to win a Grand Slam. If the standard isn't high enough to worry the top sides then cheering a Grand Slam is just delusion. There should be nothing 'we' about what we try to do as Nations. We're on our own..and I'd personally love that attitude to increase actually not dissolve away into the coziness of the Lions mentality.

#


Well, there you have it Fly, you don't agree with me, but then go on to pretty much say the same thing.

"England beat NZ on their own", but what you go on to say is that "we" should all play during the 6N the way "we" need to play against the big SH 3 in order to beat them?

So we all need each other, yes? We all need to improve on our accuracy during the only annual tournament we play in, with the sole purpose of looking South with intent to beat them? Yes?

So we aren't totally independent of each other are we?

We need to approach each 6N tournament with the intention of just playing better rugby, rather than beating the other 6N teams any which way we can to gain bragging rights in the local playground, we need to use the experience of a real tournament to hone our game plans, sharpen our skills and execution and nail down our game management, with the ultimate aim of improving our successes against the SH teams.

We agree on this 100% Fly, so why did you single out my post for attention?

England and France have the best records of victories against NZ, I don't know what the actual figures are for that, but I would be willing to bet that they have more victories over each other over the last 30 years than they've managed against NZ in the entire history of Test matches.

As an Englishman, I love beating France at anything, but in rugby terms, wins against France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales on the bounce does not come close to the (only recently) comparable contest of, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa - because that's what I would call a proper Grand Slam.

PJ thats the way we allways approach the 6n's - what are you talking about!

but its also how we approached this set of matches as well.

we are not no.1 and untill that time thats all we can do(unless its world cup time of course- the only time you play perentages!!)

PJHolybloke wrote:

Well, there you have it Fly, you don't agree with me, but then go on to pretty much say the same thing.

"England beat NZ on their own", but what you go on to say is that "we" should all play during the 6N the way "we" need to play against the big SH 3 in order to beat them?

So we all need each other, yes? We all need to improve on our accuracy during the only annual tournament we play in, with the sole purpose of looking South with intent to beat them? Yes?

So we aren't totally independent of each other are we?

We need to approach each 6N tournament with the intention of just playing better rugby, rather than beating the other 6N teams any which way we can to gain bragging rights in the local playground, we need to use the experience of a real tournament to hone our game plans, sharpen our skills and execution and nail down our game management, with the ultimate aim of improving our successes against the SH teams.

We agree on this 100% Fly, so why did you single out my post for attention?

England and France have the best records of victories against NZ, I don't know what the actual figures are for that, but I would be willing to bet that they have more victories over each other over the last 30 years than they've managed against NZ in the entire history of Test matches.

As an Englishman, I love beating France at anything, but in rugby terms, wins against France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales on the bounce does not come close to the (only recently) comparable contest of, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa - because that's what I would call a proper Grand Slam.

Holybloke, I simply used your points to reference mine. I didn't pick you out. You just said something that happened to speak to me about an issue that rattles me. We're all very edgy tonight! Dicey moods swinging around all this delight at winning. I'm happy too. How come so many people who have reasons to be happy are in biting mood?

And just on one of your points. No, we don't need each other to try to get to the standards we seek to have against the best. We need to play like the best sides play (more often).
I'll use Ireland as an example because i know them best. Back when they were reasonably ok as a side...they still had this tendency in the 6N to do enough and then settle into some kind of practice session, either scrum practice or lineout practice...but they seldom set out to play at a pace and an intensity that they would need to mimic if they wanted to get up to speed on SH opposition. If 3rd was enough, that was all they'd give on many occasions. Tell me England didn't often do the same in 6N. Tell me that 6N standard was often enough for England and they contained themselves accordingly.

Enough was enough against so-so opposition - save the energy for the better side. With Ireland against Italy it often became so frustrating it became comical. The "it'll do" approach. 13 - 15 ... 6 - 10; scrum muck - rubbish rugby. But good enough to beat Italy. It'll do for now. Wales next week, let's hold in the energy *yawn*. The joke was made of this "effort" when one of the years Ireland needed to score highly against Italy to get a chance of a Championship. I think France were in their way. I said to myself "we'll see now how serious this usual chat is about how tough Italy are to break down etc etc. And sure enough, the Irish released the hounds and scored highly with a incessant running game that the Italians couldn't live with. They didn't get enough points to get the title but I laughed openly at the cowpat attitude that was happy only to practice the better version of rugby if the chips were down.

No, we don't need each other, we need to get serious in isolation (gameplans and training and nutrition and skills etc) and impose it on each other as hard as we can - In Every Game. Do it to Italy every bit as much as we might attempt against the English. That's my rule. But no, don't take personal offence to what was merely me thinking outloud after being reminded of it by your words.

Fly

Theres on elittle flaw to your argument...

In britain every child follows the same pathway, every child is coached the same, and every child is nurtured the same, so every child in britain gets a similar level of skill aqcuirement.

We then play a 6N v each other, the junior elite teams all play each other at club and int level, we are all interlinked so we haave to all be strong before stepping out and competing regularly on the world stage which none of us can regularly.

Unless England are willing to leave the 6N, HC and only have their junior players playing an internation tournament or SH tournament England will always need Scotland and Wales, as they will always need England. Like it or not!!!

............... you're all missing my point though, Bluesman.

You seem to think I'm saying the 6N is pointless and we can all progress against the best (I'm going to start refusing to say the SH) without playing each other in the process? Of course we all "need" a competition - France too. But it's the attitude of the 6N as we play it that I continue to say we don't need .

Forget about what kids get taught and how we all make each other better. Ireland does not have to follow practices that Wales adopt for their kids/schools rugby etc. Scotland doesn't have to automatically try to have the massive forwards they perhaps feel they need to have a go at England's traditional strengths. That's conditioning that sees us look to each other and try to out fox each other - it isn't 'need'. Organising our structures more uniquely/selfishly to bypass the requirements we think we might need for each other and instead going straight for the real goal of being competitive with the best sides - that doesn't require sameness.

Indeed my point is proven in how differently Irish rugby is run from English rugby. The differences are already there in many areas and I simply say the attitude must go with it. Distinct development ideas that will suit us as Irish in trying to make ourselves more competitive with the best sides in the future should in truth lessen the importance of the 6N in itself and have it used more as a laboratory, a testing ground. I know any anti Lions words instantly gets the 'traitor' tag from the people who love it. But all this lovely oneness in developing together and bouncing off each other and then on the odd occasion playing with each other in some rough blueprint of supposed NH best practice (Lions) I'm increasingly losing interest in. This them (SH) verses us (Home Nations together) is and has been generally non-productive. It don't work - not for the Lions and not as a feed in to increased productivity by National sides (my main goal)

The goals of 6N are too shallow because the history of 6N is too strong. Trying to beat the best means you have to mimic them at every opportunity so that players become familiar with the increased skill levels at high tempo New Zealand levels. [Nobody mention the one-offs where we all show we can - I'm talking overall, in general.] We're happy with mediocrity in 6N because it's often good enough to get a Championship and it's certainly good enough to get one over on your yearly rivals in local bravado and put-downs.

When Ireland meets Wales, the players will be thinking only of those players and Welsh ability - of getting one over Wales - of getting one back. I say the emphasis should be on honing a game that might perhaps finally get a win against the All Blacks, or one that might bring about consistent Autumn runs against a selection of top world sides. Emphasise the 6N as testing ground for challenging the world's best sides not as a local fist-fight where less accurate and puposeful play might still just be enough to get one over the local enemies.

I'm saying a more selfish approach to our real individual National goals will not be accomplished by 'it'll do for now' efforts at 6N. We're helping each other sustain mediocrity. The 'we' has played out. 'We' need more French singularity and selfishness of thought. In other words, I don't want unity of purpose I want cold, callous self interest... not because I'm cold hearted but because I feel it's business and there is much too much incest involved in 'Home Nations' rugby.

Given where we've come from, I think it's an ok AI series - no more, no less.

Yes, we won the 6N the year before this one and we came second this time, but both sets of performances were flawed in different ways: this years was all about defence and a good win over Ireland. Last years was a cripple fight, if we're honest.

The RWC was a disaster in pretty much every regard. Since then we've had a pretty near complete change of coaching team. From that low base, I've been looking for steady improvement. I'm not unrealistic enough to expect that progress to be linear - there will be ups and downs as we go. Saturday was a definite up and the previous two were downs. That's how life works.

The interesting thing for those who are focusing on the results (1 out of 3) is that it wouldn't have taken much for us to get a pretty undeserved 3 out of 3. Certainly very little for us to get a maybe slightly generous 2 out of 3. So would those results have been unacceptable? If so, I think you're being very harsh. If you argue it would then be about the performances then I think you're moving goalposts.

I would argue it's about performances now, and the odd smattering of a really good result doesn't hurt. Our performances against SA improved as we went along during the summer. We were very much a team in transition, so 2 losses out of 3 wasn't unexpected at all. Our performances this AI have also seen continued improvement, even if the result against SA didn't favour us.

I say that's fairly consistent forward progress and more so than we saw under other regimes. When you look at how few caps our team has, I think they're doing ok. Not brilliantly, but ok.

As others have said, let's see how the 6N goes, bearing in mind there are always banana skins in that particular competition - look at our results from 00-02 for demonstrations.

The exciting aspect for England is that they are starting to build a genuine nice squad.

The full back conundrum is something to be envied. The 2nd row question looks to be settling nicely with Launchbury and Parling at last showing a balance much craved by England fans.

In the frontrow Cole and Corbisiero are genuine threats to their opposite numbers. T.Youngs has emerged as a decent option at 2.

The backrow is developing nicely.

Still question marks in the backs but with creditable options waiting for their opportunity it's looking good for England.

At fly half Farrell and Burns look like to fight for the 10 shirt though Flood can't be counted out.

Lots to be optimistic about.

England just need to kick on from this in the 6 nations.

Taylorman wrote:I see the British press are dining out on it

Please do not associate those f'kin vultures with the England supporters you find on this board. These short termist hacks puke out tabloid pish (and that includes the BBC and so called respectful broadsheets) and over exaggerated negative/positive rubbish routinley. They fly high on the backs of the same people they were sharpening their knives on the week before, and i believe they are utterly detrimental to England Rugby, there are less than a handful that i actually find insightful, balanced and eloquent with a medium/long term out look in wins like this.

Thanks kiakahaaotearoa, nice post

Cracking game of rugby, and I still can't quite believe it. Amazing weekend.

Thought every single player was brilliant, and for the first time in a long while, our forwards looked unbeatable.

Launchbury is certainly the find of the series, with Tom Youngs a close second. Both have been brilliant.

Backrow too is starting to look excellent. The balance of Wood, Robshaw and Morgan is starting to look a real threat.

Tom Wood is just pure and simple, absolute, resounding quality, and it's great to have him back.

I think I'm seeing a slightly differing Youngs to most, Launchbury I have to agree has been the NH player of the AI's and has been astonoshing but Youngs seems adequate but hasn't really done much to shine, although I have to admit he has done little wrong too.

Youngs has been ok without really worrying Hartleys spot but Launchbury has to be considered first choice now!!

AlastairW wrote:

Taylorman wrote:I see the British press are dining out on it

Please do not associate those f'kin vultures with the England supporters you find on this board. These short termist hacks puke out tabloid pish (and that includes the BBC and so called respectful broadsheets) and over exaggerated negative/positive rubbish routinley. They fly high on the backs of the same people they were sharpening their knives on the week before, and i believe they are utterly detrimental to England Rugby, there are less than a handful that i actually find insightful, balanced and eloquent with a medium/long term out look in wins like this.

and a for you sir!

I still can't believe this result, I honestly thought the best we were going to get would be a 10 point loss. Great atmosphere at the ground, celebrating with total strangers as we got that third try. Probably the best game in that regard that I've ever been to and I can see why some articles may come across as a bit OTT. if I'd had to write something afterwards it would have been no different!

Of course in the cold light of day there is still plenty to work on and this aggressive tempo needs to be carried into the 6N and beyond to mean anything. But at the time it was brilliant!

Whatever I write won't count for sod all as I haven't seen the game. Was on a transatlantic flight and got off in the USA where I was informed of the result and only got back this morning.

Any sour feeling in my gob is dissipated by hearing about how well and positively England played. Apparently they played a blinder and played rugby the way it should be played. Have said before differences in test rugby are a matter of inches and if you are a few off and the other team is firing then you can get spanked.

Hopefully it'll give Hansen and the team the kick up the backside it needs and reminds them of what they need to do if they want to continue those high standards they set for themselves.

Makes me want to watch the game in full-as painful as it will be for a Kiwi fan, well apparently the rugby was something special and at a level we should aspire to so like a guy in an S and M parlour I may actually be looking forward to it.

So well done England, hopefully you and others in the 6N can reach that level again if not surpass it. Sorry if what I wrote sounds hollow but I wanted to pay tribute to a team that I heard play astoundingly well.

Well done to DC too on the Player of the Year, think your mate Richie should have gotten it but either way the team will be proud of it.

It was indeed a good game disney. Especially the way England reacted after two quick tries scored against them. But much like France in 99, 07, SA in 95, Oz in 2003 you won't catch me watching them again! You need to take these things on the chin and say we were beaten by the better team on the day. But you don't have to unzip your fly and hump the ground with broken glass all over it and watch the bloodbath all over again!

In your case, having not seen the game, I do recommend watching it. Then filing it away and sealing it in the too painful to watch and harmful to health pile and move on to bigger and brighter things. kia kaha

As an England supporter, it is hard to know how best to gauge the performance. England have had good wins and seemed to be building before only to slip back into bad old ways at the first sign of trouble (the hammering by Ireland in the 2011 6N springs to mind).

But... even looked at in the cold light of day, there are reasons to believe that this is more than a glorious blip.

Firstly, it wasn't the usual narrow win against the SH. England won that match on pretty much every level, and did to the ABs what the ABs typically do to other sides: play straightforward rugby with enough intensity and accuracy that the opposition can't live with it. Even if the ABs were below par from their long tour and illness, I think they would still have struggled.

Secondly, it was a performance delivered by the whole team, playing in a consistent style that England had been trying to build towards for some time (certainly since the Fiji game). This was the first game in which it really clicked.

Thirdly, Lancaster used a very important phrase in his post-match interview that was largely overlooked in the analysis. He spoke about England sticking to their process. "Process" sounds like a buzzword, but what it actually means is that the coaches and squad have a clear vision of how they want to play, and their focus is on executing against it in every play of every game. If they execute the process well enough, the results will look after themselves.

Conor O'Shea (Lancaster's predecessor as Player Development lead at the RFU) has exactly the same thing in place at Quins. His mantra is "Win every minute"; he is more concerned about the way the players play than the result, which is why you sometimes see him serene after a loss and angry with the team after a win. Lancaster seems to be doing much the same thing.

Why is this important, particularly in conjunction with the win? Because it suggests that this England setup won't be knocked off balance as easily as Martin Johnson's was. They have a vision, they know that when the players execute it to the best of their ability it is enough to beat the best in the world, and the focus will now be on executing it consistently well to do that regularly. The analysis after a loss will focus on "where were we not executing well enough?" and not "it's all gone wrong, let's change everything". The analysis after a win will focus on "where were we not executing well enough?". It's a way to treat those two impostors both the same.

Was a great game and Ive watched it a couple of times since. I still put the difference down to the kicks in the first half and the crazy 10 minute spell immediately after the ABs threatened to come back and walk away with it.

The NZ defences were strangely absent, Conrad Smith, normally a model and consistent centre doing things I've never seen him do.

But the one offness of the event still lingers well after the match. For this match NZ were caught off guard, and England were without fear. They had nothing to lose and probably did things themselves they wouldnt normally do.

One off is more about the score or the result. Its about the mental approach to the game. In a rematch whether the same would happen again where the ABs would be all the wiser, the English perhaps not so fearless it would be an interesting game indeed.

For me thats the real difference between consistency and a one off. Im confident the ABs will go back to their 80% odd winning ways. Im not so confident England will alter their results on paper to the extent this match would suggest, the mental elements that were so useful in this match perhaps not as present in any subsequent matches.

Everyone playing England will be on guard and England themselves need to decide whether this was a one off and that the work required that was evident before this match is still worth pursuing, or, whether this match represents he way forward- a fearless and positive attacking England with no regard for whats in front of them.

I'd probably suggest a mixture, but more of the former. Great win it was, but still a one off until its backed up.

Let's not forget that NZ had got themselves up to play winning rugby game after game after game for 20 games on the bounce. England don't really know how it happened or what they did different to make it happen. They still can't believe it just like the rest of us.

The difference is NZ know exactly what it takes and what they have to do. So they will be back very quickly whereas England could well get beaten by Italy if they were the next team up.

englandglory4ever wrote:Let's not forget that NZ had got themselves up to play winning rugby game after game after game for 20 games on the bounce. England don't really know how it happened or what they did different to make it happen. They still can't believe it just like the rest of us.

The difference is NZ know exactly what it takes and what they have to do. So they will be back very quickly whereas England could well get beaten by Italy if they were the next team up.

Well, wouldnt go that far. The real point is how much 'good' did this do for the next 10 test matches for England rugby. That is the real value in the win, other than one wonderful day out. Will England be better, worse, or much the same if not for the win?

I don't know that the answer is obvious- all 3 are possibilities at the moment.