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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Yeh sport's really hard to follow in 3D- too much action too quickly for it to keep up almost.

You reckon holographic technology in sprot would lead to refs viewing the game in hologram form too?? It would give a different perspective on the game!

I can remember watching the AB's pound England for the last 25 years or so(mostly, the draw when Jamie Joseph did his best to wreck Kyran Bracken's career was an exception)

So many times the same thing happens. Things competitive but quiet for a spell, then you hit a 10 minute period when the AB's really turn it on and they score , say, 20 points or so. And then they shut up shop. So you get the 'we were so heroic and won the 2nd half' arguments which ignore the fact that the AB's were far enough ahead that they didnt have to chase points.

Its not just us - the same thing happened to Wales just a few weeks ago.

The fun (and rare) thing about the England game was that not only did we respond really well to that period when the AB's upped their tempo and ran in 2 tries, but that by the end of the game the situation was reversed. The AB's were all over us at the end but by then it just didnt matter.

It was a one off - it wasnt perfect. It was very encouraging, and the character shown in that response to the 2 NZ tries is a huge bonus. The quality and intensity of the game made it memorable for lots of good reasons. Most of us would have been very happy just holding the AB's scoreless in the first half (even allowing for DC's off day kicking)

A holographic referee would at least stop him from getting in anyones way, and maybe sit with his arms crossed beneath the scrum engagement, and the entry angles into the depth of a ruck would be incredible, if not a little blue from the refs POV.

majesticimperialman

I don't want to detract from England's great win over the All Blacks, but the New Zealand Herald reported it as the third worst defeat, not the second as you say.

The New Zealand Herald listed the defeat by Bennie Osler's South Africa in 1928 at Durban as the second worst. The Springboks' margin of victory was the same as England's, ie 17 points, but by winning 17-0 they nilled the All Blacks which England didn't.

England's win by 38-21 was listed by the paper as the All Blacks' third worst defeat in the account of their worst five losses.

I tell you what theyd be knackered if theyd bothered reading all this repetitive guff

Its times like these we really miss the kind of measured assessment AWOP used to deliver on England rugby.

What I find funny is that everyone from or involved in both teams have been nothing but gracious in the aftermath of this result - Hansen, McCaw and the kiwis magnanamous in defeat and Lancaster and England respectful (and seemingly a bit shocked!) in victory.

And yet we still get all this tut.

Lancaster knows the stars aligned for him that day and will be doing everything in his power to keep his players' feet on the ground in the run-up to the 6 Nations. But he will also be encouraged by the performances of some of his youngsters.

Hansen knows his team had a massive off-day and that players such as McCaw, Carter and Smith didn't go from awesome to average overnight. But he will also be slightly concerned at what - in any circumstances - was an unprecedentedly bad performance from his side.

These men don't make excuses. Fans make excuses.

Adam wrote:What I find funny is that everyone from or involved in both teams have been nothing but gracious in the aftermath of this result - Hansen, McCaw and the kiwis magnanamous in defeat and Lancaster and England respectful (and seemingly a bit shocked!) in victory.

And yet we still get all this tut.

Lancaster knows the stars aligned for him that day and will be doing everything in his power to keep his players' feet on the ground in the run-up to the 6 Nations. But he will also be encouraged by the performances of some of his youngsters.

Hansen knows his team had a massive off-day and that players such as McCaw, Carter and Smith didn't go from awesome to average overnight. But he will also be slightly concerned at what - in any circumstances - was an unprecedentedly bad performance from his side.

These men don't make excuses. Fans make excuses.

Exactly Adam. Can't agree more

Adam wrote:Lancaster knows the stars aligned for him that day and will be doing everything in his power to keep his players' feet on the ground in the run-up to the 6 Nations.

Oddly I don't think it is the players that Bomber has surrounded himself with that are a particular issue. He's a level headed bloke, and from an interview that Auntie put out, Tom Wood he seems like an equally level headed fella, as is Robshaw, and most of the players. Hence such a blank canvas 11 months back to surround himself with players that fit a certain mindset as well as having the on field skills.

It's the press that require a pint of that ju-ju. They're the ones that are more likely to flop around like a landed fish from negative to positive in the short term.

Great post though, and reassures me that most fans on this board are better than all the journo's stuck together.

The next few Games will be important for Stuart Lancaster and England,his record to date is inferior both to Ashton`s and Martin Johnsons.
Hopefully they will kick on with a 6Ns Grandslam BUT nothing is a given on form
France would be favourite.
The AllBlacks the usual breastbeating and cries of drop every one rings loud and clear in the media.
Suddenly theres a magic formula beat the ABs forward rough them up and they will cave in.THAT at least is the latest thing seems i`ve heard it before somewhere.2009 was it or 2011 final 3Ns match.
I also remember the answers in 2010/11/12 one loss does`nt mean total disaster.
The one thing that does puzzle me the ABs used The Blitz tactic at the Breakdown.In the first Bledisloe with great success then cast it aside the backrow operated as a unit then blasting everything aside.
To read the NZ Press you would think NZ had lost most of it`s matches this year instead of the regulation one or two.

HammerofThunor wrote: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 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.

This is exactly how I see how it went. Despite the fatigue and noro thing my point all year is that tests these days are more about key moments than momentum, possession or territory.

Most sides match the ABs for both territory and possession, Scotland an example of a side that often dominates it but does little with the ball.

The ABs know this and are easily the best at creating those key moments on a consistent basis. 15-0 to 14-15 in less than five minutes- who else can do that. This match England had 3-4 key moments of heir ow- and the difference is they made them count.

Winning the scrums, lineouts and breakdowns does not guarantee tries- successful linebreaks when done with precision can do.

Smith made a wrong decision with Barrit, and he doesnt often do that- try. Carter fell off Tuilagi- and he doesnt often do that- try.

Unfortunately coaches do not put as much effort into finding ways, players that not only have the pace and skills to beak the line, but the license and freedom to do it. The ABs are doing this all he time. Attack is king, but because they know that, hey also know the value of a good defence- and that let them down. They suffered what hey had been doing to others.

How much focus would have been spent on scrums, lineouts and breakdowns, compared to planning and rehearsing moves, and incorporating the linebreak into the heart of the side rather than rely on it as a nice to have output from gaining possession. Yet it is those breaks, not the combined effort of the fundamentals that provided both the win, and the margin. Many teams have had as much ball and opportunity this year against he ABs- but none have attacked like that.

Yes the set piece and ball retention is important, but so is the ability to take the ball and run with it. Wasnt that WW Ellis point all those years ago?

Taylorman wrote:How much focus would have been spent on scrums, lineouts and breakdowns, compared to planning and rehearsing moves, and incorporating the linebreak into the heart of the side rather than rely on it as a nice to have output from gaining possession. Yet it is those breaks, not the combined effort of the fundamentals that provided both the win, and the margin. Many teams have had as much ball and opportunity this year against he ABs- but none have attacked like that.

The thing is, the linebreaks were possible because England had used the fundamentals to create space. Forcing NZ to commit to rucks and securing quick ball creates a situation where Smith has to choose between Barritt and Tuilagi, or where Carter has to face a full-speed Manu and McCaw is out of position for the cover tackle. You integrate linebreaks into the heart of the side by coaching players to be able to recognise when it's on and when they need to work harder to create those opportunities. That's what Catt is there to do, as I understand it, and the combination of Farrell's organisation and Catt's vision seems to be starting to work.

The next few Games will be important for Stuart Lancaster and England,his record to date is inferior both to Ashton`s and Martin Johnsons.
Hopefully they will kick on with a 6Ns Grandslam BUT nothing is a given on form
France would be favourite.

emac2

I would like to believe that England can kick on from this win against the All Blacks. Will they win a Grand Slam in the 6ns? I hope so.

But the point i am trying to make is that in Stewart Lancaster they have a coach that is very much grounded. He will not get too caried away with this win, and he will not let the players get to carried away either.

The 6ns will be a facinating time for England.

I guess the only thing we can do is wait and see.

It will also be interesting in what players will be involved in the EPS. And what players will be dropped.

Poorfour wrote:

Taylorman wrote:How much focus would have been spent on scrums, lineouts and breakdowns, compared to planning and rehearsing moves, and incorporating the linebreak into the heart of the side rather than rely on it as a nice to have output from gaining possession. Yet it is those breaks, not the combined effort of the fundamentals that provided both the win, and the margin. Many teams have had as much ball and opportunity this year against he ABs- but none have attacked like that.

The thing is, the linebreaks were possible because England had used the fundamentals to create space. Forcing NZ to commit to rucks and securing quick ball creates a situation where Smith has to choose between Barritt and Tuilagi, or where Carter has to face a full-speed Manu and McCaw is out of position for the cover tackle. You integrate linebreaks into the heart of the side by coaching players to be able to recognise when it's on and when they need to work harder to create those opportunities. That's what Catt is there to do, as I understand it, and the combination of Farrell's organisation and Catt's vision seems to be starting to work.

Perhaps in that particular match but if those particular breaks had been squashed as they normally would have been by even the average AB defence would have this year then England wouldnt have the margin they did.

I just dont think theres enough of it- in 90% of tests this year the ability to make clean breaks have been sadly lacking- and it IS for lack of trying because more often than not percentage and territory options far outweigh the need to take on the line with a view to breaking it rather than 'pushing it back a little'. saw it right through the Rugby championship and most of these AI's- the Home union sides particularly devoid of ideas on attack until this match which stood out like a beacon.

thebluesmancometh wrote: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.

Arousal... What you been watching

I read a poster on another forum say that anyone who honestly thinks England suddenly came good over a week since their dismal performance against SA, should put their next months wages on England doing the same as they did to the ABs to every team the ABs beat this tour when England meet them next in the 6 Nations.

maestegmafia wrote: dismal performance against SA

No, it wasn't dismal Maest - There were a lot of positives to be taken from it, if you think it was dismal then you've been reading hacks, not watching the actual game. You'll need to look a lot closer to home for that dismal performance you speak of. Glass houses and all that.

NZ pundits and fans alike can come up with all the excuses they want. But you can be assured that the NZ management and players will be sitting down and analysing that loss and playing it repeatedly over in their minds and looking at ways to amend for that loss because every loss is felt. It does happen but no one wants to see it happen regularly and that's why they strive for the impossible.

We get a reputation in NZ of making excuses. I can see that because it burns in us if our supremacy is questioned. But usually the management are quick to congratulate the opposition and take the defeat on the chin. (They may write books later as a justification )

England dealt a blow to the AB legacy in that match. That will get the midnight oil burning to rectify that blip and restore that cloak of invincibility because many times against many teams that's what the ABs seem to be wearing and it does have a psychological effect and that makes it easier for the players.

So England won and they won very well. Hats off to them and nothing can take away their convincing victory over NZ. That's all we need to focus on. Let's see in one year's time (invariably the two sides will meet next autumn for this cash cow which will be even easier to sell out now!) how both sides perform then and how their performances stack up over the year 2013. But that is in the future and you're only as good as your last game so soak up the plaudits England in the meantime.

Yep it really wasnt dismall. It was a very evenly matched game- infact (and not being biased) England possibly had the better day. The conditions were bad and the handling was bad from both sides. SA got over the line with a slice of luck, determination and experience in beating England recently.

The game was a massive step up from the aus game.

In the 6n's England improved every game in equal measures,

In the SA tour again we improved in equal measures,

and again in the AI's england improved in equal measures.

England need to some how start of the series in a better way, but it truely is a testement of england at the mo that the longer the team is together the better we become

I think the real telling of this match will be how well England play in the 6N.

maestegmafia wrote:I read a poster on another forum say that anyone who honestly thinks England suddenly came good over a week since their dismal performance against SA, should put their next months wages on England doing the same as they did to the ABs to every team the ABs beat this tour when England meet them next in the 6 Nations.

This was the culmination of a steady burn from a v young team, not a 'sudden' result. AB do not do 'sudden' either. England beat no1 and had previously got within 1 point (the pinball try) in 160 minutes of rugby home & away with the no 2 in IRB.
Still keep all your fingers & toes crossed Maes this was just a one off.
And feel free to put your month wages on a 'sudden' England implosion for the 6N if you really believe the 'other poster'.

I dont really agree Damage- As I stated england have got better after a few games each tour/6n's/AI this year.
But we havent started of rampant.. However the fact that everything is more settled and the form has improved over all with minor dips. tells me that England are the team to beat anyway..

I fully expect us to finish the 6n's strong..

Going by logic- we may not start brilliantly, but we should end very well..

If we can start rampant then we have truelly turned the corner- but If we dont I wont be saying that england only beat NZ through the Kiwis fatigue. More that england get better the longer they are toghether- which in fairness is the key to winning tournies and stuff

damage_13 wrote:I think the real telling of this match will be how well England play in the 6N.

+1

It was a great performance and result but it's done and this is now what matters. Do factors that affect the ABs' performance have any bearing on this?

damage_13 wrote:I think the real telling of this match will be how well England play in the 6N.

+1

It was a great performance and result but it's done and this is now what matters. Do factors that affect the ABs' performance have any bearing on this?

That's more +2 Chequered.

Well maybe I really agreed with his statement

No but the irish were pretty tired by the end of the last 6 nations

The next game after he last game is always going to be the most telling one.

Damage - agreed - 6N will be a very interesting marker for where England have got to / are going. I think the curve remains upwards, as the capcount / average age remain 'young' and still maturing.
Plus there were enough silly & naive errors which can be worked upon and eliminated. This all speaks to me of continuing improvement for this talented young England squad.

I didn't mean to sound dismissive of the way England have been getting better. They have, but I think the experience is a massive boost for this young team and now they need to go into the 6n with confidence, focus and belief that if they play heads up rugby and remain aggressive in defence they can take anyone on.

I hope there are no injuries to set us back, but the depth of the training squad should see everyone singing from the same song sheet, especially now we have seen WHAT happens when we play our plan correctly.

Incidentally I think we let the All Blacks in in the second half due to shoddy tackling which is gold dust to the way NZ play. The first 10-15 mins we had forgotten the great tackling we did in the first half and went back to vaguely waving our arms at the oppositions shoulders and chest.

and boy, wasn't it fun to watch T.Youngs do his best Tommo impersonation.

Arousal... What you been watching

Damage
'yes' on tackling.
The way that Splash slapped away at the rapidly vanishing back of (Reed ?) for the 2nd NZ try, was truly pathetic.
One of the fixable 'errors' I referred to, although Splash has no excuse of inexperience to explain that one away. He just has to nail them.

Blueman,
I think he may have been watching the England 'best bits' highlights.
Or horror movie for non England 6N fans.

gregortree, whilst Ash was guilty at that, there were quite a few lame tackles where the first tackler failed to latch on properly.

I also thought the penalty on Farrell right before the 2 AB tries for tackling the AB's scrum half when he had picked up the ball from the ruck was a bit iffy, but think that we got more out of the game from getting back on top after those 2 tries than we would have done otherwise.

maestegmafia wrote:I read a poster on another forum say that anyone who honestly thinks England suddenly came good over a week since their dismal performance against SA, should put their next months wages on England doing the same as they did to the ABs to every team the ABs beat this tour when England meet them next in the 6 Nations.

The bitterness of this comment is embarrassing. This whole “the result is meaningless if they don’t go on an smash the 6N’s” is rubbish, really – we still handsomely beat the All Blacks....I think it’s a sufficiently rare achievement to deserve celebration in its own right, and anyone who says otherwise is either joyless, Welsh or both.

Also, you're wrong: it was the performance vs Australia, not vs South Africa, that was the most disappointing of the Autumn. The Aussies stepped-up, but going into that game England would have looked at it as a massive opportunity and a game they 'should' win. And this will be the challenge in the 6 Nations....how will this inexperienced side approach games where they are favourites - not 'nothing-to-lose' affairs, but occasions where the pressure is really on to get a result. Frankly, I think we will find it tough. But even if we do struggle in the 6 Nations, we still put one up the All Blacks, and that's why your post is rubbish.

Oh, a poster on another forum. Well, that must be right.

England didn't suddenly come good over a week. You could see what they were trying to do in the Fiji match; they got outfoxed in the Australia game, and got most of it right in the SA game (look at the stats) but were undone by a try that owed at least as much to luck as skill and some poor decision making (including Botha's inability to let the ball go out from the kick off).

It was a surprise that it all came together quite so quickly, and did so against the ABs, but it didn't come out of nowhere. It wasn't a surprise that England make mistakes; the entire squad that started the Australia match had only about twice as many caps as Jason Leonard has all on his own. That is, by any measure, an inexperienced side.

I can pretty much guarantee that England won't produce a string of repeat performances against the 6N sides. For one, it will take time to produce that level of performance consistently. What we need to look for is whether they can keep doing it in patches. For another, the sides in the 6N play differently to NZ. We have seen time and again that Scotland and Italy in particular are capable of forcing a tight game on opponents of all qualities (OK, not NZ, but Australia over the summer). England don't yet have the range of options in their gameplan to be able to respond to every type of game.

All I'm really saying is two things:
1) If the ABs were off their game, much of that was down to England not letting them play their game,
2) There are enough signs in the way England approached the game and the manner of the result to suggest that this isn't just a one-off, but the start (emphasis on start, there) of possible journey to a sustained level of performance.

Poorfour
Agree with a lot of that.

One other thing to comment on is that the players available for the England team generally improved over the course of the AI series. If I remember correctly, we only lost Flood and Marler to injury over the course of the 4 weeks (and some would have argued for Farrell or Burns on form anyway, and Marler is really only Corbs's back up), while getting Corbisiero and Wood back for the SA game and Lawes back in the squad for NZ.

Add to that Lauchbury proving himself from the bench against Aus and then with two cracking performances against the Boks and NZ and Morgan being rotated into the side ahead of Thomas the Tank, and the pack in particular was much improved by the end of the series.

Of course for the 6Ns we have to hope for similar luck with a lack of injuries if we are to build on these foundations - I think we've suddenly gone from a side where only 2 or 3 players were clearly first choice to one where 8 or 9 are. Still room for improvement - can Barritt build on his good performance in attack v the ABs, or should SL look at finding a more creative player (12trees?) there? Is the balance of the back 3 right? What do we do when Foden returns to the squad?

So plenty of encouragement, but a team and squad that is still something of a work in progress. We'll have bad days still, but there certainly seems to be some optimism for continued development in the short to medium term looking ahead to 2015.

Stop it !
You'll scare the neighbours.

Once every 10 years approx.England beat the All Blacks only in2002/3 were they expected to.This one was a great one because of the size of the victory,and the way england have been trying to play.Under Johnson and Lancaster a more fluid game.
Only the media seems to have gone over the top.,most fans have accepted that.
THE best team on the day one.People were saying they would judge Lancaster on the AI results.2 from 4 must try harder seems to be the message the 6Ns is another story.
There any side on its day can beat the other one game at a time maybe a grand slam maybe not thats the future.
What can the AllBlacks take from it,a 89 .5% win average plus the statutory loss or two.The hysteria will die down,matches analysed and mistakes corrected.
The squad has taken on 10 or so newcomers,some will be back next year some not.
They have a few players coming back of injury too that will be under consideration,pity Tom Taylor did`nt get a run he looks promising.
One has to say overall that they coped better this year than post 2004 and 2008 but it is true they did`nt lose to many players as in those years.
Jimmy Cowan was a total journeyman at 9,his passing his worst feature BUT
like most journeyman did the basics well.
A 9th forward the best 9 going backwards in NZ maybe theWorld you don`t get 50 AB caps for nothing.
On Saturday he would have excelled,for those tearing into Aron Smith remember
it`s his first year with a handful of caps give him time.
Kerr-Barlow we have`nt seen enough of to form an opinion maybe Perenara could get game time next year backing up Smith as well?

Adam wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I read a poster on another forum say that anyone who honestly thinks England suddenly came good over a week since their dismal performance against SA, should put their next months wages on England doing the same as they did to the ABs to every team the ABs beat this tour when England meet them next in the 6 Nations.

The bitterness of this comment is embarrassing. This whole “the result is meaningless if they don’t go on an smash the 6N’s” is rubbish, really – we still handsomely beat the All Blacks....I think it’s a sufficiently rare achievement to deserve celebration in its own right, and anyone who says otherwise is either joyless, Welsh or both.

Also, you're wrong: it was the performance vs Australia, not vs South Africa, that was the most disappointing of the Autumn. The Aussies stepped-up, but going into that game England would have looked at it as a massive opportunity and a game they 'should' win. And this will be the challenge in the 6 Nations....how will this inexperienced side approach games where they are favourites - not 'nothing-to-lose' affairs, but occasions where the pressure is really on to get a result. Frankly, I think we will find it tough. But even if we do struggle in the 6 Nations, we still put one up the All Blacks, and that's why your post is rubbish.

+1

I wish Ireland could play NZ after they got a stomach bug. I am sure it didnt help alright but its impossible to quantify how much it did or didnt effect the ABs on the day. Therefore, it is just one of those things and probably not worth mentioning.

Be great if Ireland played England at Twickenham.. could be an entertaining match.

gregortree wrote:Be great if Ireland played England at Twickenham.. could be an entertaining match.

Its in Landsdowne though and we all remember what happened the last time the imminent "grand slam champions" came to Dublin for the 6 nations . More of the same please ha ha!!!

Ok Guns, may I print the TShirts now ?

maestegmafia wrote:I read a poster on another forum say that anyone who honestly thinks England suddenly came good over a week since their dismal performance against SA, should put their next months wages on England doing the same as they did to the ABs to every team the ABs beat this tour when England meet them next in the 6 Nations.

maes. I am not sure i would go that far to be honest. This was a big win for England and it was a Big Loss for the All Blacks.

Will England produce that kind of game again in the 6ns?

It would be nice to think so, but England will take one game at a time. And hope win each game they play.

majesticimperialman wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I read a poster on another forum say that anyone who honestly thinks England suddenly came good over a week since their dismal performance against SA, should put their next months wages on England doing the same as they did to the ABs to every team the ABs beat this tour when England meet them next in the 6 Nations.

maes. I am not sure i would go that far to be honest. This was a big win for England and it was a Big Loss for the All Blacks.

Will England produce that kind of game again in the 6ns?

It would be nice to think so, but England will take one game at a time. And hope win each game they play.

But then again anyone who was confident that NZ were better than England before the match shouldve put their money where their mouth was....

england v ireland in ireland- game on . 60/40 england (but honestly when do we win there !!!!)

surely wales are much better than the games they been playing- they are probally saving up thee big performance fir us,


france- well - are they back at the top of there game!!??- how does anyone know-- very similar to england in that respect!!

scotland- allways one of englands hardest games!!

the only game i am sure of is italy!!

France under Sant Andre are beginning to look the real France and Freddie Michelak is pulling the strings.Very underated player is Freddie and with Super Rugby experience knows the SH game well too.

emack2 wrote:France under Sant Andre are beginning to look the real France and Freddie Michelak is pulling the strings.Very underated player is Freddie and with Super Rugby experience knows the SH game well too.

Michelak is just flavour of the month again for now. He is a good player but has been in and out of the team because he has his weaknesses.

Firstly he is pretty small for an OH so his D isnt great.
He can be flaky, mercurial at times, unreliable at others.

Personally I think Francois Trinh Duc is the best fly half in France. He is brilliant with ball in hand attacking the line, second only to Carter if you ask me plus he is big and strong and his defense is good. He cant kick but that doesnt matter in France as the 9 usually does all the kicking anyway.

See I've never seen FTD do anything to impress me at Test level. Michalak for me