New Zealand pundits claim it was Fatigue that cost the All Blacks the game?

by majesticimperialman Mon 10 Dec 2012, 5:06 pm

Just want to get your thoughts on what you think that cost the All Blacks too lose to England on Saturday?

Here is what has been written.

WELLINGTON: New Zealand rugby pundits on Monday blamed tiredness at the end of a long season for the All Blacks’ shock loss to England, also suggesting over-confidence contributed to the defeat.

Media were full of praise for England after they ended the world champions’ 20-Test winning sequence with a famous 38-21 victory at Twickenham, comparing them to Martin Johnson’s 2003 World Cup winners.

“England didn’t just ambush the No.1 side in the game at Twickenham... they ambushed the rugby world,” former All Black half-back Justin Marshall wrote in the Dominion Post.

The New Zealand Herald pointed out it was England’s biggest win over the All Blacks, surpassing a 13-0 result in 1936, and the New Zealanders’ second heaviest defeat ever, after a 28-7 loss to Australia in 1999.

While skipper Richie McCaw said after the game that a stomach bug in the tourists’ camp had not affected his team, the Herald’s Wynne Gray said it could not be ignored when searching for reasons behind the lacklustre display.

“The lack of sting from the start suggested illness which swept the team during the week had a severe impact,” he wrote.

“If the team wasn’t affected by illness, it was some lesson from England... they had a hunger that has not been apparent since the World Cup-winning group from 2003.”

Former All Blacks captain Stu Wilson said New Zealand had “nothing in the tank” in the final Test of a draining season.

“It was just one too far for our boys, who got second,” he told Radio New Zealand. “They were beaten by a very good side, a very young side, I might add, and we’re looking a bit old and weary.” In the lead-up to the game, New Zealand were touted as possibly one of the greatest rugby sides ever and Fairfax Media correspondent Toby Robson said some players had bought into the hype, to the frustration of coach Steve Hansen.

“Hansen is big on staying grounded, but his players were inflated with helium in the buildup to their final Test of the season,” he wrote. “His players got ahead of themselves and paid the price.”

Marshall dismissed suggestions illness and fatigue were behind the loss, saying the tourists were simply beaten by a better team.

“The All Blacks were out-thought, more than anything. England came with a game plan that we simply didn’t think they could deliver,” he wrote. “Maybe they even surprised themselves.”

After handing out rugby lessons to opponents for 20 straight Tests, Marshall said the New Zealanders had now been given one by England and rookie players who had until now only tasted success with the All Blacks should “suck it up”.

“The next major challenge in this part of the world will come in the 2015 World Cup and the likes of (Israel) Dagg, (Julian) Savea, (Sam) Whitelock and Aaron Smith will now know the sort of challenges they’ll be up against,” he said. -- AFP

Also would like to know if the Likes of McCaw, and Carter have played their last for the All Blacks during the loss?
Will either of them play any part IN 2015 Rugby World Cup?

Your thoughts please.

by Poorfour Mon 10 Dec 2012, 5:31 pm

If you only looked at the way the ABs played between 50 and 60 minutes and 70 and 80 minutes, you'd not have seen any signs of fatigue. Physically, they were still in it at the end.

Mentally, not so much. It's possible that they underestimated England. It's possible that the norovirus disrupted their tactical preparation more than their physical preparation. It's possible that they were just sufficiently tired from a long season that they couldn't respond to an unexpected intensity and style of play. Will we ever know? I doubt it.

I'm a firm believer that rugby - whatever the scoreline - is a game of very fine margins and that when a team, especially a good team, plays badly it is usually at least as much down to the opposition not allowing them to play the way they want as it is to the team's own failings. From a coach's perspective, rugby is about setting the opposition tactical problems that they can't solve.

In England's case it was this: Keep the ball in their half as much as possible. Hit hard through the forwards and force the ABs to commit more players to the breakdown (or around the fringes) than they usually do. When you have possession in a promising situation, get the ball to the centres quickly and run straight. Not rocket science, but executed with enough pace that the usual AB defensive cover wasn't in position. They were stretched, that created holes, England went through them. Defensively, they were stifled and England scrambled well enough to cover for (most of) their own mistakes and leave NZ with very few opportunities.

It was telling that when NZ scored their two tries to go 15-14, England didn't change anything tactically, just upped the intensity and workrate. The ABs couldn't solve that problem, and that's what cost them. Mentally tired? Possibly. Beaten at their own game? Seems more likely. Lancaster has assembled a team of players with big engines and a willingness to keep working to make things happen; they've now found just enough accuracy to make it stick.

What next? McCaw is taking 6 months off with the intent of being able to play in 2015. Carter probably has less need of that break. But be sure that if they don't last that long, or if their form slips, the ABs will have replacements for them.

Let's be clear. The ABs will be back, probably in the next game, and they almost certainly will be one of the top 2 sides in the world come 2015. They will go into the RWC with every expectation of making the final, unless they draw the French or Wayne Barnes somewhere in the knockout rounds ;-)

by **Biltong** Mon 10 Dec 2012, 5:36 pm

I think it was a bit if everything.

Over confidence
Fatigue
Virus
Mentally switched off
Etc.
Etc.

But at the end of the day, nothing of that really matters, England won the game by showing guts, determination, intensity and the hunger to win, plus of course some decent skills to beat the All Blacks.

You can apportion most of those blames to any team who loses a match.

by Guest Mon 10 Dec 2012, 5:39 pm

To me it all made sense, we expected a result similar to this,England are hosting the world cup.
Expect to see a few results like this in the next couple of seasons.
The RFU will make sure that public interest is maintained and support gathered from the band wagon glory fans up to 2015.

by Taylorman Mon 10 Dec 2012, 5:42 pm

Its one view and people are perfectly entitled to it.

The virus:
All week before the match the issue of whether the virus would affect the team and it is something that can't be measured in real terms.

My question here is....was the presence of a virus through almost the entire team during the week of a buildup ideal buildup for an International test match?

Fatigue:
After having won the World cup the previous year, going into 2012 as World champs. Contesting the Rugby championship and winning EVERY single match, retaining the Bledisloe cup, beating Ireland in a 3-0 home series, then going to the NH and winning the first 3 sides in excess of 20 points per match.

Every single match of the last 12 months NZ players had to pull out more than their opposites- because thats what it takes to keep winning. At no stage during the year did they allow their their heads to drop- unlike that of EVERY single other side who faced losses before the end of matches at some point during the year.

This post is another clearly designed to draw out more "Why dont kiwis just admit they got done and not raise excuses"

Well, Ive pointed out some facts above, and people are entitled to the views. This match was an upset, a shock- too BOTH sides and fans, so there is always a possibility that there are reasons for it.

And where did this come from?
"Also would like to know if the Likes of McCaw, and Carter have played their last for the All Blacks during the loss?"

What a ridiculous comment. Why would this match be the last for either?
Both were named as 2 of the 4 IRB players of the year, both having matches during the year that no single English player matched in this match.

Age, fatigue and an ability to not be able to compete with better NZ players will decide whether they will play again....Not...England.

by Guest Mon 10 Dec 2012, 5:45 pm

Whats your opinion on the matter ?Personal attack removed

by thebluesmancometh Mon 10 Dec 2012, 5:46 pm

I'm not touching this thread with a 10 foot pole!!!

by **Biltong** Mon 10 Dec 2012, 5:47 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:I'm not touching this thread with a 10 foot pole!!!

ah, come on bluesMan, just steer clear of your scientific theories and you'll be OK. Laugh

by Taylorman Mon 10 Dec 2012, 5:51 pm

The level of one offness of this match will be decide by the next 5 England matches. Not a lot of talk about how England will be targeted for this. All 5 sides will make England the priority at 6N time. They'll be able to get a feeling of what its like to be on a pedestal. Thats the reality here. And if I were Lancaster, that would be my primary concern- how on earth does the side back that up? Was it really what it was? I think these will answer the questions being asked in the OP- talk is cheap- like the AB match, England would do better answering it on the field.

by Guest Mon 10 Dec 2012, 5:53 pm

Also forgot to say the result came as no surprise after Owen Farrells shock nomination for IRB player of the year.

Expect lots of good things for England over the next couple of seasons,it's management and players will be the foremost in the public eye painted with a wholesome persona "the peoples team"
With Lancaster sitting in front of the fire place with his Northern honest accent reassuring us all.

by majesticimperialman Mon 10 Dec 2012, 5:54 pm

Also would like to know if the Likes of McCaw, and Carter have played their last for the All Blacks during the loss?"

What a ridiculous comment. Why would this match be the last for either?
Both were named as 2 of the 4 IRB players of the year, both having matches during the year that no single English player matched in this match.

Age, fatigue and an ability to not be able to compete with better NZ players will decide whether they will play again....Not...England.

I only mentioned this because i can remember When England beat the All Blacks in 2002 Carlos Spencer and Andrew Mertans was the Fly halves. England beat New Zealand by i think it was 1 or 2 points. Just after that Spencer lost his place in the All Blacks side.

Both Carter and McCaw are Legends of the game. McCaw, Best 7 in the game and Carter just the best 10 in the world.

But the fact (is ) NZ do not like too lose. Especialy to the likes of England.

by thebluesmancometh Mon 10 Dec 2012, 5:54 pm

Well IMHO the number of posters who were claiming a NZ win for weeks previous who U turned and called an England win later in the week says a lot.

by majesticimperialman Mon 10 Dec 2012, 6:02 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Well IMHO the number of posters who were claiming a NZ win for weeks previous who U turned and called an England win later in the week says a lot.

bluesman

I have simply just cut and posterd this post straight off the web site.

Just asking for your opinion thats all.

by thebluesmancometh Mon 10 Dec 2012, 6:08 pm

Well IMHO the number of posters who were claiming a NZ win for weeks previous who U turned and called an England win later in the week says a lot.

= my opinion.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 10 Dec 2012, 6:20 pm

Look if you thuink that fatigue didnt play a part in the way that game went youre seriously deluded. It would hardly be unique in history for that happeneing.

Im sure the same peopel who said that England were caught cold and underpreparerd by Australia will acknolwdge this.

Saying that aftigue was a factor does not preclude that England may have improved, may have played well, and may be a good side too. Of course all kinds of factors inluence performance on the day.

Its not excuse making to try and bring some relaity to the situation and put it in context. It was a one off game between a side that were really fired up and and on the ball and one who for the most part looked listless, bored, off the pace and wishing they could remember what their homes looked like.

The side themselves are rightly making no excuses, but the pundits are offering the more realistic appraisal. Their work rates and excution were sub par. That wasnt because of the price of custard or because Stuart Lancaster had selected Burns on the bench.

by Taylorman Mon 10 Dec 2012, 6:24 pm

majesticimperialman wrote:Also would like to know if the Likes of McCaw, and Carter have played their last for the All Blacks during the loss?"

What a ridiculous comment. Why would this match be the last for either?
Both were named as 2 of the 4 IRB players of the year, both having matches during the year that no single English player matched in this match.

Age, fatigue and an ability to not be able to compete with better NZ players will decide whether they will play again....Not...England.

I only mentioned this because i can remember When England beat the All Blacks in 2002 Carlos Spencer and Andrew Mertans was the Fly halves. England beat New Zealand by i think it was 1 or 2 points. Just after that Spencer lost his place in the All Blacks side.

Both Carter and McCaw are Legends of the game. McCaw, Best 7 in the game and Carter just the best 10 in the world.

But the fact (is ) NZ do not like too lose. Especialy to the likes of England.

Ahhh, so its England that determines who the ABs do and dont select. All makes sense now...
... how do you think the next match with the AB's will go? After your last win (and that was actually a good side)

2004- New Zealand v England 36-3
2004 New Zealand v England 36-12
2005- New Zealand v England 23-19
2006- New Zealand v England 41-20
2008- New Zealand v England 37-20
2008- New Zealand v England 44-12
2008- New Zealand v England 32-6
2009- New Zealand v England 19-6
2010- New Zealand v England 26-16

hmmm...we should be worried indeed..

by AlastairW Mon 10 Dec 2012, 6:54 pm

Unbunch your panties Taylor Rolling Eyes

, you're over next AI's and i'm sure you'll give 82K fans at HQ another great day out.

Honestly, hasn't this topic been chewed up and spat out enough times already?

by mystiroakey Mon 10 Dec 2012, 7:03 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:I'm not touching this thread with a 10 foot pole!!!

by yappysnap Mon 10 Dec 2012, 7:11 pm

Ouch, one loss and a massive sense of humour failure!!

Just be greatful that your boys didn't get that spanking from the Welsh Taylorman!

by englandglory4ever Mon 10 Dec 2012, 7:13 pm

I agree with the OP that nobody can really put their finger on why NZ were beaten so comprehensively by England. NZ are clearly the world's best team but go down to England. Where did it come from is what we are all asking except one Welshman. VTTG writes :-

"To me it all made sense, we expected a result similar to this,England are hosting the world cup."

He goes on :-

"Also forgot to say the result came as no surprise after Owen Farrells shock nomination for IRB player of the year."

Clearly WUMs of the sour grapes sort. I was wondering who would be the first Welshman to blink. Now we know.

by mystiroakey Mon 10 Dec 2012, 7:13 pm

Some decent thoughts from them pundits..

its abit of everything tbh.. I can admit that.. NZ wernt 100%- but then gonna be honest most teams are never 100%

but all that matters is that England have put themselves back on the Rugby world map..

After the dust has settled and the elation is over. The one aspect that i loved about this game was that it really was a quality game!

NZ shreaded us for two seperate 10 minute interavls. And england shreaded NZ in the 20 minutes in between(second half)

The first half was hard tough rugby., and if the second half went the same way and england had won 24-0 then i wouldnt have been as happy.

The second half was just a joy to watch.. And when NZ got to one behind - for a minute or two every fan in world rugby thought that it was gonna be a NZ rout!!- but it wasnt Smile

by majesticimperialman Mon 10 Dec 2012, 7:35 pm

I honestly thought that NZ was going to hand out a big lesson to England about the game of Rugby.

When Carter missed his 2 kicks at goal. I thought ok, he is having an off day with the boot. However he will make up for it with a dazzling display of running rugby. But it never came. He missed tackles, and all sorts.

Not the type of game you normaly see from a New Zeland team.

Was they (NZ) over confident?
Did they just think that if they just turn up let England get infront by a few points and then we will run riot and put 30+ points on them?

The best display by England in a long, long time.

by maestegmafia Mon 10 Dec 2012, 7:56 pm

I wonder if it had been Scotland beating NZ in their last game on tour rather than England, whether we would be hailing Scotland as having turned a corner, or the kiwis having an off day.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 10 Dec 2012, 8:07 pm

maestegmafia wrote:I wonder if it had been Scotland beating NZ in their last game on tour rather than England, whether we would be hailing Scotland as having turned a corner, or the kiwis having an off day.

What like when they beat Australia and anyone who pointed out they beat the seconds in awful weather got accessed of party pooping you mean?

On a related note lets not forget this is an all blacks side who shipped 3 tries to Scotland, not the one that put 60 on an Ireland team who were fatigued a world cip season

Whereas Wales of course were under prepared compared to Argentina

It is about meeting teams on the right day. That's why the paper rock scissors ranking system isn't as good as the irb one for all its flaws. Over a number of games we see where a team is....England have to do more to prove they really are up with the sanzars. ..just as Argentina and Wales proved to be overhyped in the long run.

Of course when Ireland stuffed Argentina that wasn't helped by the opposition having bust themselves ragged the week before and feeling like they'd proved enough over the past few months resulting in fatigue and lower effort taking over. It would just be wumming to suggest that

by ChequeredJersey Mon 10 Dec 2012, 9:09 pm

Are allegations of international rugby corruption and matchfixing not libellous?

by InjuredYetAgain Mon 10 Dec 2012, 9:12 pm

This claim is distinctly possible. I lost count of the number of games that we lost because the whole team were totally knackered. Sadly, this fatigue set in after about 15 minutes of every game and not at the very end of the season.

by yappysnap Mon 10 Dec 2012, 9:52 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:I wonder if it had been Scotland beating NZ in their last game on tour rather than England, whether we would be hailing Scotland as having turned a corner, or the kiwis having an off day.

What like when they beat Australia and anyone who pointed out they beat the seconds in awful weather got accessed of party pooping you mean?

On a related note lets not forget this is an all blacks side who shipped 3 tries to Scotland, not the one that put 60 on an Ireland team who were fatigued a world cip season

Whereas Wales of course were under prepared compared to Argentina

It is about meeting teams on the right day. That's why the paper rock scissors ranking system isn't as good as the irb one for all its flaws. Over a number of games we see where a team is....England have to do more to prove they really are up with the sanzars. ..just as Argentina and Wales proved to be overhyped in the long run.

Of course when Ireland stuffed Argentina that wasn't helped by the opposition having bust themselves ragged the week before and feeling like they'd proved enough over the past few months resulting in fatigue and lower effort taking over. It would just be wumming to suggest that

Agree with all of that

by emack2 Mon 10 Dec 2012, 10:00 pm

I as an All Black fan for over 60 years feel the losses as much as any ,I count losses not wins.BUT suffice it to say on the day THE best side won the media of both countries can spin it how they like but that was the Facts.
I have read with interest the comments about Conrad Smith,Dan Carter,and
McCaw.Fact is they they are THE best 7,10,and 13 in World Rugby and will certainly be about for several more years.WHEN they are replaced it will be when someone better is found,currently in NZ there are NONE better.
England had a good 6Ns last year,have had an indifferent tour of SA,and a
AI`s that was disappointing.
BUT had an exceptional win against an AllBlack side which on the day had no answers.
NOW they have to do it consistently in every match one at a time.
The Loss by the All Blacks will get there heads in place in 2009 they lost 4 games
there worst result.Since the 11 plus games a year started in 2003,in the ProEra they have played 203 games losing just 34.Since there last defeat by England 131 losing 18 of those since 2003 averaging 1or 2 a season.
This year the record is 12.5 out of 14 a 89 .5 % record is that Good or Great or Poor by there or ANY Standards.
In 2013 I expect the France series there will be at least one loss,that the 4Ns there will be at least one maybe more.Outside of that who knows?
BUT this year like many they were rebuilding after the RWC they have`nt got it all right yet.BUT they are getting there WHEN they do LOOK OUT!!!

by Taylorman Mon 10 Dec 2012, 10:52 pm

AlastairW wrote:Unbunch your panties Taylor , you're over next AI's and i'm sure you'll give 82K fans at HQ another great day out.

Honestly, hasn't this topic been chewed up and spat out enough times already?

True...hence another post on it...
TBH I'm looking forward to seeing how England progress from here.

Historically when the AB's get tripped up the side doing the damage usually goes on...to lose.

France in 99 and Oz in 2003 world cups, Oz in Hong Kong, Boks in 95-96 and 09 and Oz again after Brissy this year against France.

England in 13? Who knows...

Whether its because they raised their game for the one occasion then couldnt 'peak' again or got a flat AB side...who knows.

But rarely does beating the AB's ever turn into anything after that. In fact it all seems to go sour...

by nganboy Tue 11 Dec 2012, 12:11 am

I think that part of the problem is the view (regularly) of the ABs as an invincible machine. Understandable from a Scottish, Irish etc point of view because they haven't beaten them. BUT it is not true that they are invincible. They regularly lose about 20% of their games. Some people were talking about Hansens team being a great team but many were talking about it being very flawed as well. This year the end result is only 1 loss but it easily could have been 3 losses without any real change in the team and the quality of their play. Lots of stuff contributed to the average AB performance but they were just beaten by a better team on the day.

by blackcanelion Tue 11 Dec 2012, 1:47 am

The OP is, I think, based on a British summary of NZ journalism. From memory most of the journo's here (NZ) gave credit to England and, whilst bring up possible causes, thought it was churlish to use them as excuses.

It's such a big win following a very good year and bit it's not surprising kiwis want to try and analyze the loss and it's possible causes. We forget that this year saw one of the longest unbeaten runs, with some of biggest home losses ever to South Africa, Argentina, Wales, Scotland and Italy, Ireland biggest loss and Australia held scoreless. The defeat to England isn't in itself surprising (NZ has also struggled at times, it's the scale of the loss that's interesting.

Is it a one off (i.e.a perfect storm of preparation, desire and execution by England), Does it represent the glorious dawn of a new era for England? Does it represent the demise of a golden era in All Black rugby? Is it influenced by a long season and/or sickness? Or is it a combination of all of the above?

by Taylorman Tue 11 Dec 2012, 4:33 am

Yes and oddly the loss gives us kiwis something different to talk about. Discussing the merits of regular 20 point wins can only be so interesting. If theres one thing ABs and their fans love its what can be learned from a loss, because we love learning the game and you learn so much more from a loss. I think for some kiwis were almost relieved to lose this one, just for something different, more interesting to talk about...

Well...almost...

by emack2 Tue 11 Dec 2012, 7:07 am

NO team is invincible the All Blacks record back to about 1903 over 400 matches they have lost about 1 match in 4 [103]or a 75 % win rate.The Boks at just under 63% just over a third of theirs.
Australia,England,France,Wales averages varies between about 57% TO 51%.WIN just over one in two.
What does that prove in a one off match NOTHING,just writing off a side before a game is STUPID.
All it does is fire that team up,and go out and try and prove the pundits wrong.Incidentally the AB average since 1996 has reached nearly 82 % an improvement of nearly 7 per cent.England in the same period versus the AB`s about 0.67%.

by rainbow-warrior Tue 11 Dec 2012, 7:40 am

yappysnap wrote:Ouch, one loss and a massive sense of humour failure!!

Just be greatful that your boys didn't get that spanking from the Welsh Taylorman!

Yeah we know sense of humour failures don't we, especially after Wales thumped England in front of 82,000 Nigels last 6 Nations Whistle

by aucklandlaurie Tue 11 Dec 2012, 7:43 am

majesticimperialman wrote:I honestly thought that NZ was going to hand out a big lesson to England about the game of Rugby.

When Carter missed his 2 kicks at goal. I thought ok, he is having an off day with the boot. However he will make up for it with a dazzling display of running rugby. But it never came. He missed tackles, and all sorts.

Not the type of game you normaly see from a New Zeland team.

Was they (NZ) over confident?
Did they just think that if they just turn up let England get infront by a few points and then we will run riot and put 30+ points on them?The best display by England in a long, long time.

I dont understand why anyone would even think this, let alone ask it as a serious question....But just to answer it.

No New Zealand were not over confident, No they did not think they would just turn up and win....
To suggest it, means that you havent actually given yourself the opportunity to understand (not to mention appreciate) what the All Blacks do that makes them win a lot more games than they lose...

Down here we have a saying "Your only as good as your last game".... I think you will see some improvements the next time they play, as at the moment we are only as good as the record shows... We also have another saying " the only game that matters is the next one"..

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Tue 11 Dec 2012, 9:38 am

viewtothegym wrote:Whats your opinion on the matter ?Personal attack removed

I've given View a day off for a rather childish personal attack.

I note a fair few people on above being pretty snappy, lighten up a bit will you folks, it's nearly Christmas New Zealand pundits claim it was Fatigue that cost the All Blacks the game? 3602195817

New Zealand pundits claim it was Fatigue that cost the All Blacks the game? 3602195817

by HammerofThunor Tue 11 Dec 2012, 12:26 pm

Regarding the New Zealand game, of course fatigue played a part. It plays a part every year, but they usually still beat us. Quite often it seems that we're in contention for 60 mins before they pull away. That first half would have fit in any touring year (except the Carter missed kicks which would only have fit in 2008(?)) 12-6 would have been relatively normal. The 2 tries after half time, again relatively normal and would usually sign the end of the competition. All Blacks looked up for it and playing fine, then the most shocking thing of all happens, Barritt slides through a gap Shocked

All those years of shovelling the ball onto Tuilagi paid off and some one actually made use of the space. OK, no problem, just one try, then BAM one missed tackle on Tuilagi AND there was a support runner. Right now we have two tries, still got plenty of time, just need to force it a little BAM intercept. Game over, well **** that we're going to pound them for the last 10 minutes. The turning point of that game was the Barritt try. If that space hadn't opened up and Barritt hadn't forgotten his Saracens training they would have beat us the same way they usually do in England at the end of their season. By a reasonable and without hitting top gear. Not only did we need them to knackered, Poopie themselves (literally) we also needed a lot of luck (awknowledged by Robshaw after the game) and to play close to our best (in at least patches). I thought the kicking out of hand and some of the tackling was appauling, especially in the first half.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 11 Dec 2012, 12:47 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:I thought the kicking out of hand and some of the tackling was appauling, especially in the first half.

Thats what made the result even weirder, England were far from flawless.

by bluestonevedder Tue 11 Dec 2012, 1:38 pm

The NZ players themselves have said that they weren't fatigued or suffering due to the norovirus. They gave credit where it was due- England played well, and were the better team on the day. Everyone knows that the ABs always win a huge majority of their games, but this one just didn't go their way, for whatever reason.

If the All Blacks were suffering the effects of the norovirus, what happened during that 10 minute spell when they ran in those tries? The symptoms magically disappeared?

All credit to the ABs for their unbelievable win record up to that game, and for being so magnanimous in defeat. Their attitudes are those of true world champs. If only the world's media could behave with an ounce of their quality and calibre.

I'm not saying England are now world beaters, or ranking up there with the SANZAR teams, but they played a great game, and things seemed to gel for the first time in a long time. Just give some credit where it's due.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 11 Dec 2012, 1:46 pm

bluestonevedder wrote: what happened during that 10 minute spell when they ran in those tries? The symptoms magically disappeared?

No Englands defense did

by thebluesmancometh Tue 11 Dec 2012, 1:50 pm

Adrenalin zones Blue

by bluestonevedder Tue 11 Dec 2012, 2:03 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
bluestonevedder wrote: what happened during that 10 minute spell when they ran in those tries? The symptoms magically disappeared?

No Englands defense did

Very true!

by Poorfour Tue 11 Dec 2012, 2:04 pm

I'm not so bothered about the missed tackles and kicking from an England perspective. Most of the misses I saw were when a player was trying to cover an overlap situation, which is usually more a reflection on how well the opposition have worked than the player's own tackling. The kicking started a bit ropey but improved and did the job of pinning the ABs in their own half.

England are a long way from being the finished article, and they won't immediately start winning everything. But the quality of the performance will have given them a strong idea of what they can do if they put it all on the pitch.

The key for me is that this wasn't a narrow victory where the ABs being slightly off their game made the difference. This was a very solid win in which the ABs showed what they could do whenever England let their guard down.

The normal pattern of a game against the All Blacks is "remain in contention up until about 60 minutes, then get blown away in the last quarter" or even "tense opening, fall badly behind in the middle 40, score some consolation points." This was a very different game. England were clearly on top for over 50 minutes of play, and their response to the inevitable fightback was to do the same to them, only more so.

That qualitative difference, coupled with the coaching approach that Lancaster is following, gives me confidence that the England squad can learn to repeat that level of performance. The big question is how soon they can do it consistently.

by bluestonevedder Tue 11 Dec 2012, 2:04 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Adrenalin zones Blue

Ah yes, when I'm struck down with a bug and lying on the sofa all day, those sudden adrenalin bursts are really something to look forward to! Very Happy

by thebluesmancometh Tue 11 Dec 2012, 2:09 pm

if you have the same adrenalin surges lying on the sofa as the start of a rugby match you have a real problem, go see a doctor!!

Why is it some people really struggle to differentiate between professional sport and every day life?

by OzT Tue 11 Dec 2012, 2:13 pm

I think it's true of just about every side, when they lose. There's no excuses, they, the players and coach, will say that they lost that match due to the other side being better on the day. It's usually only fans and newspapers etc that tries to find other excuses for the loss.

by bluestonevedder Tue 11 Dec 2012, 2:14 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:if you have the same adrenalin surges lying on the sofa as the start of a rugby match you have a real problem, go see a doctor!!

Why is it some people really struggle to differentiate between professional sport and every day life?

It's those blasted 3D televisions now bluesman. Watching rugby on those really throws of your senses

by thebluesmancometh Tue 11 Dec 2012, 2:16 pm

You joke blue but you actually make a pretty good point, Ive been reading studies about new large and 3D TV's effect on viewer emotion, arousal and aggression levels.

by bluestonevedder Tue 11 Dec 2012, 2:20 pm

I'm guessing they all go through the roof? I think given a few more years and when the technology is perfected a little bit more, it really could be something special. As it stands at the moment, I'm not a huge fan of 3D movie/tv. I'm not sure if they use it to its full potential

by thebluesmancometh Tue 11 Dec 2012, 2:37 pm

I find it awkward at the minute, especially during sport!! Plus I get eye sore and annoyance at glasses etc...

Soo the holographic technology will be such where we can be sat in our armchairs in the middle of the ruck screaming 'hands in ref!' while we try to dislodge the ball from the fingers.

by Sponsored content