England play the AllBlacks 4 times this season, whats your prediction?

I've always thought there was a lot of hogwash written and said about lasts autumns result. I don't think it was by any means a fluke, but more one of those games that the game of rugby throws up from time to time, and definitely a result that could so very easily confuse the picture as to where the respective teams are actually at.

Now, that a side, this year we have the privilege of the repeat game at Twickenham, plus the absolutely crucial end of year tour (the final summer programme before the world cup) to New Zealand with a further 3 tests matches to be played.

Obviously there is plenty of rugby to be played before the summer matches, though only 12 weeks before the Twickenham game (Nov 16th), so an awful lot can and will change. However barring Lancaster’s resignation which ever I am beginning to doubt, HOW DO YOU predict these 4 results?

I'm going to go for home wins all round (1-3) though would love to dream of a series win in the summer.

What do you think?

4-0 to the All Blacks. Wonder if you'll get the fans of other teams coat-tailing NZ's success over England?

NZ will be champing at the bit to make it 4-0. This Twickenham test will be the main focus for them as revenge will be very much on their minds. No shortage of motivation there and the ABs invariably get the result in those circumstances.

England have won two tests in NZ. The game in 73 was like 2012 in that it was out of the blue and it took the best ever NH team to knock NZ over on their own patch. We can slag Spencer's goalkicking all we like but the herculean effort to hold us out with 6 forwards merited victory on its own. It embarrassed us and galvanised England to the extent that they knew they were the best side in the world at that point.

England played a blinder last year, and that will give them huge confidence. They know they can win. NZ know that they'll have to pull out all the stops as Twickenham is one of the hardest grounds to win. If they do that and play to their potential they should win. I feel NZ has evolved slightly from last year-Aaron Smith for one will be better for that experience-while England regressed unfortunately with Wales providing a great blueprint on how to neutralise their threats.

I expect one cliffhanger in NZ where they don't implement their game plan. But 10 point plus victories for the other two. But all in all if NZ prepare well enough, then I think they should sweep. But it will be a tough ask.

I could easily see 4-0, but I think the Twickenham game offers the biggest chance of an upset.

Other teams need to make their own way.

Like the Welsh did with the English, Irish and Scottish lions victory you mean?

peace and love bambam

   

Like 'Celtic' teams coat tailing Leinster or Munster for HC wins over Aviva prem teams?

Oh yeh......4-0 NZ win. Like to see a close game at twickenham but dammit they're just go good.

Breadvan wrote:Like 'Celtic' teams coat tailing Leinster or Munster for HC wins over Aviva prem teams?

Oh yeh......4-0 NZ win. Like to see a close game at twickenham but dammit they're just go good.

I don't recall that happening. So don't make up bull. I do however, recall England and Scotland fans latching on to the coat-tails of Australia for a really long time, probably because either of those two can't beat Wales. Show some humility lads or I might be tempted to support NZ against you.

BamBam wrote:Like the Welsh did with the English, Irish and Scottish lions victory you mean?

It was no coincidence that the team that contained the most Welsh got the biggest victory. Try supporting the Lions ethos every our years because you're coming across as bitter and twisted.

Happened all the time on 606 saint. Humility? Lol. Engs win in 2003 was 10 yrs ago yet in the space of 5 months, the mentioning a certain scoreline of 30-3 has surpassed Eng fans bragging about that ten fold.

If any NH team can beat NZ this season it's England.

2-2 at would be a hopeful score but 3-1 is more likely, always to good to test yourself against the best and NZ are by far the best out there at the minute with SA at 2 and England a competitive 3rd.

I don't think it would be a huge shock if we took 1 test off NZ, we destroyed them for 40mins at Twickers.

The win last year against the ABs showed just how important Corbs & Morgan are to England. Launchbury was also at his best before his form tailed off a bit towards the end of the season ( in part I believe due to injury).
England this year will have added depth in the squad (Attwood,Eastmond) and also pace out wide with the introduction of Yarde,Wade.

However, the ABs have also improved & are the stand out performers at the moment.
I believe England can take a scalp at HQ again this year though.
1-3.

I agree that England stand the best chance in the NH this Autumn.

It was a great England performance and there are no excuses from NZ. A loss is a loss. What the match meant in a wider context depends much on the upcoming matches. NZ went through the RC unbeaten and England was the only loss of the year. The previous win for England was in 2003 in NZ. England is capable of beating NZ but history suggests only on a few occasions.

NZ will be motivated to return the Hillary Shield to NZ. If England can win at home and / or get a win in NZ (a series win might be pressing it using history as a guide) then that will send a powerful message to the rugby world that England are a force to be reckoned with. However, NZ will be wishing to put a stop to any suggestion their number one status is in doubt.

We have France England and Ireland (with a b squad in Japan) so it's the ideal preparation for the RWC for the younger players. I predict a NZ win in November as we bounce back well from disappointments and will wait till next 6n to see the direction Lancaster is taking.

Breadvan wrote:Happened all the time on 606 saint. Humility? Lol. Engs win in 2003 was 10 yrs ago yet in the space of 5 months, the mentioning a certain scoreline of 30-3 has surpassed Eng fans bragging about that ten fold.

I think there's a bit of a difference between 10 years and 5 months...

The Saint wrote:

Breadvan wrote:Happened all the time on 606 saint. Humility? Lol. Engs win in 2003 was 10 yrs ago yet in the space of 5 months, the mentioning a certain scoreline of 30-3 has surpassed Eng fans bragging about that ten fold.

I think there's a bit of a difference between 10 years and 5 months...

I'm sure you'll still be mentioning it in 10 years times, oh and lets not beat around the bush. You will clearly be supporting New Zealand.

Anyhow,

It will be interesting to see how Lancasters new plan of attacking will evolve.

England play NZ once this season surely in November 2013 expect NZ 1-0 they will be really targeting that game.England touring in Nz NEXT year AllBlacks are notoriously slow starters
so MAY be caught cold.DC on his sabbatical so Crudon if fit will be officiating but England will
be at the end of there season nearly.4-0 NZ

True, We'll be without Carter...surprised he's turning this one down actually.

By then we'll have ample cover at 10- we seem to have about 8 of them.

I think we could lose 1 of the 4 certainly no more but not the twickers one- all stops will be out for that one.

June is not the strongest time of the year for the AB's and sides like Ireland, France and Scotland have pushed us at times so that first or second test could be tricky. Regardless we'll win the third...

I just don't want England whining about it being the end of a long season when June rolls around. If they beat us (or Ireland or France neither of which I'd like to see since I'm going to both games) tiredness is not an excuse.

I'm not bothered by Cruden at 10 in June. England at times struggle to deal with unorthodox players and structures so it could be a blessing rather than a hindrance.

Both non-wins last year came from disrupted preparations (Hansen's Dad passing away and norovirus). So it's showed that preparation is key and even if it's a little off other teams can capitalise-they've coped with adversity with injuries but it seems getting combinations etc right when the whole team and/or coach is not available for part of the week can lead to NZ coming unstuck.

"I just don't want England whining about it being the end of a long season when June rolls around. If they beat us (or Ireland or France neither of which I'd like to see since I'm going to both games) tiredness is not an excuse."

I find it ironic that you say you want no excuses from the English regarding tiredness yet state the novo virus distributed your preparation for your "non-wins".

I think you mean defeats

nathan wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Breadvan wrote:Happened all the time on 606 saint. Humility? Lol. Engs win in 2003 was 10 yrs ago yet in the space of 5 months, the mentioning a certain scoreline of 30-3 has surpassed Eng fans bragging about that ten fold.

I think there's a bit of a difference between 10 years and 5 months...

I'm sure you'll still be mentioning it in 10 years times, oh and lets not beat around the bush. You will clearly be supporting New Zealand.

Anyhow,

It will be interesting to see how Lancasters new plan of attacking will evolve.

And thats the rub, so far Lancaster and his team of coaches have not really offered a convincing argument to suggest they know how to progress from this point. Many will refer to his selectorial development as proof of the 'Lancaster myth' but that does not stand any real scrutiny.
Basically as I see it the players are getting reasonable too good coaching at their clubs but then not the same quality with England and its Lancaster at the top of the pile that is the weak link. If you compare Lancaster to any of the other head honchos leading the other major playing nations then you'll appreciate the point. Gatland, Hansen, link etc. they're a different class, a cut above.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"I just don't want England whining about it being the end of a long season when June rolls around. If they beat us (or Ireland or France neither of which I'd like to see since I'm going to both games) tiredness is not an excuse."

I find it ironic that you say you want no excuses from the English regarding tiredness yet state the novo virus distributed your preparation for your "non-wins".

I think you mean defeats

Actually one was a loss and the other a draw which for some people is a non-defeat.  

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"I just don't want England whining about it being the end of a long season when June rolls around. If they beat us (or Ireland or France neither of which I'd like to see since I'm going to both games) tiredness is not an excuse."

I find it ironic that you say you want no excuses from the English regarding tiredness yet state the novo virus distributed your preparation for your "non-wins".

I think you mean defeats

Yes but at least he didnt say it was at the end of a long season... 

Some thoughts:

Pros: at least one win for England. England under Stuart Lancaster have been competitive. 19 games: 13 wins, 5 losses and a draw. They've only really been dominated by Wales (1x) and South Africa (2x) away from home. They had a big, big win over NZ last time they played them.

NZ can be vulnerable to European sides if they select understrength sides (e.g. England 2002), have significant injury issues (e.g. France 1999, 2007 & 2009), illness (England 2012), or strike a unique refereeing performance (France 2007). There's a fair chance Carter and C Smith will be on sabbaticals for at least some of the games. Hansen also has to develop his squad. I'm expecting new players to be blooded in both tours. This is a relatively hard European tour (France, England & Ireland) at the end of a long season so I'm expecting injuries.

There's also a positive potential based on the Lions performance in Australia and the the under 20 side this year. So a glass half dull would say win over NZ at Twickenham and a win away.

Cons: If we were to assess Steve Hansen's all blacks today we'd call them one of the world great teams. 19 games for 17 wins, 1 loss and a draw. All, bar one win being by more than a converted try. The loss is looking increasingly influenced by a bout of novo virus.

Add to this the talent coming through from a series of good under 20 sides. NZ's record in the professional era is very good. They have won 92% of their home games, with just 8 losses in 18 years. They are currently in one of histories longest unbeaten runs at home. Their overall record against 6 nations sides is similar. England's wins are few and far between and usually by narrow margins. History suggests a full strength All Black team will probably beat England.

There's a lot of water to go under the bridge until the end of the year, so who knows. NZ could fall apart by then and England could be on the surge.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"I just don't want England whining about it being the end of a long season when June rolls around. If they beat us (or Ireland or France neither of which I'd like to see since I'm going to both games) tiredness is not an excuse."

I find it ironic that you say you want no excuses from the English regarding tiredness yet state the novo virus distributed your preparation for your "non-wins".

I think you mean defeats

As others mentioned NZ had one loss last year Pooly-so in this case your use of the plural is wrong. Sorry fella but you're looking for arrogance in that sentence where there is none. You might want to check your mathematics also before attempting such a smug riposte.

Ironic? Hardly. The world you would be looking for is hypocritical. However neither apply. The preparation was what I was mentioning-or lack thereof. Doesn't matter what affected it-Hansen's dad dying or getting crook-just that it was affected and is probably something that NZ needs to work on.

Defeat/defeats, the term "non-defeat" implies arrogance imo.

I've never been on the end of the the infamous NZ rugby arrogance (as we hardly ever beat you) but I've seen it from a few posters in this thread.

Well we think we're the best rugby nation. But arrogance for me is believing you're above your station. I think the ABs are the best team in the world-no more, no less. I feel the results back up the view hence my view not being arrogant. Kiwis saying they're the greatest thing since sliced bread-that's arrogant as test rugby is a game of inches. We have a hell of a lot of cliffhangers too-not every game is a walkover-but we win more than any other sports team. You don't need to smash people every time, just be those inches in question ahead. England showed what can be done if you play well and NZ don't.

I used non-win as draws were included. Apologies if that implied arrogance-thought it saved me some keystrokes too.

disneychilly wrote:Well we think we're the best rugby nation. But arrogance for me is believing you're above your station. I think the ABs are the best team in the world-no more, no less. I feel the results back up the view hence my view not being arrogant. Kiwis saying they're the greatest thing since sliced bread-that's arrogant as test rugby is a game of inches. We have a hell of a lot of cliffhangers too-not every game is a walkover-but we win more than any other sports team. You don't need to smash people every time, just be those inches in question ahead. England showed what can be done if you play well and NZ don't.

I used non-win as draws were included. Apologies if that implied arrogance-thought it saved me some keystrokes too.

Most Kiwi posters were at pains to downplay the significance of the Norovirus, I thought to their credit. I actually thought that such a freak result it must have been something to do with the bug, but it's shame this is now being brought up by you guys. I thought the initial response was classy.

You'll forgive us English if we're a little chippy about the arrogance thing, we had a couple of years of knowing we were the best team in the world, but were told this was arrogance. A lot. The result is we're a bit quick to highlight it if we think we see it in others.

Oh, and it'll be 4-0 ABs. king is right, Lancaster is a weak link as far as I'm concerned.

The problem for any team against NZ is that it will be an upset if NZ loses. Even SA these days when they beat NZ it is nothing more than a blip.

That is the sad state of affairs in Rugby Union.

To be honest I find that quite pathetic.

I don't quite get the criticism of bringing up the norovirus as it was NZ's preparation being affected under the microscope, and how that could be perceived as a weakness. What affected the prep was irrelevant-and I felt I made a point to move away from the norovirus itself as a catalyst for the poor performance. Throwing intercept passes and rushing out of the defensive line can't be blamed on being sick.

Think people got wound up at some people claiming that England 2001-03 was the best side ever etc. It was the first ever world beating NH side and the best ever in that regard but in their haste and jubliance people dismissed the achievements of other teams e.g. the 1937 Springboks.

Biltong the be all and end all for us as far as a one off test match goes is a Boks test on the veldt. It's the only scenario where NZ have a losing record and as much as part of me would love to change that, another part of me would be disappointed for SA rugby that the guys in charge of such a great rugby nation would let it come to that.

disneychilly wrote:I don't quite get the criticism of bringing up the norovirus as it was NZ's preparation being affected under the microscope, and how that could be perceived as a weakness. What affected the prep was irrelevant-and I felt I made a point to move away from the norovirus itself as a catalyst for the poor performance. Throwing intercept passes and rushing out of the defensive line can't be blamed on being sick.

Think people got wound up at some people claiming that England 2001-03 was the best side ever etc. It was the first ever world beating NH side and the best ever in that regard but in their haste and jubliance people dismissed the achievements of other teams e.g. the 1937 Springboks.

Biltong the be all and end all for us as far as a one off test match goes is a Boks test on the veldt. It's the only scenario where NZ have a losing record and as much as part of me would love to change that, another part of me would be disappointed for SA rugby that the guys in charge of such a great rugby nation would let it come to that.

On the first point. I agree, perfectly fine to bring it up as far as I can see, unless you've previously down-played it. Fair enough if you were trying to move away from it, but I'm not sure how saying the preparation was affected is going to be taken as anything but an excuse for the performance. If it has no influence on the game, I don't see its relevance. Maybe I'm just getting my wires crossed.

There's always something like this about England claiming we were the best side ever etc etc. Sorry, I don't buy it. We didn't, or at least the vast majority of people didn't, I'm not even sure the papers were that bold (a few red tops aside). Maybe you had some boorish Barbour wearers try that line with you, so you have my sympathies, but we get this retrospective guff all the time, most of completely fabricated.

Sorry, clearly it's a pet peev, don't mean to hijack this thread. I think Biltong's right, any win in any situation against the ABs has become an upset. The rest of us need to pull our socks up.

Yup-living in north London didn't help. Neither did Clive Woodward. He was probably the worst culprit with that scenario.

It comes in swings and roundabouts-from 98 to 04 was the worst NZ era I've seen. Soft forward packs, people being played out of position, politics and reactive teams instead of proactive. Just hope the cycle either stops now and picks up again in 2015 or keeps going until the end of that year...

The idea of the one offness is regularly confirmed more by the opposition sides we lose to more than the ABs themselves. For instance, we never saw anything that resembled the England side again after that win over the ABs last year, culminating in a crashing defeat to Wales only a matter of several weeks later. Meanwhile the AB's picked up where they left off- I'm not suggesting the effects of Hansens dilemma, the end of a long season where all trophies have been won, nor the norovirus were contributing factors but the evidence of the results from both sides up to and since the match 'lends' itself to at least something not being 100% in the AB camp. I make no excuses, those are simply the facts.

Same with the AB extended period of not winning the world cup. Every side that won the World cup bar 91 lost their vey next test to the AB's- again...just the results.

This current side will take some beating, it is strong in more areas than usual and has real depth. The ongoing threat of the one off will always be there but in terms of being dominated over any period (say defined as 2 tests or more) there isnt a current side capable of this just yet. We dont know the current strength of the Boks so we're always reserved on that one but in recent years, as Biltong says, theyre mainly blips, SA having more share of them than anyone else, and I think that will continue this year. They dont seem to be as strong in as many positions technically, or tactically as a unit.

disneychilly wrote:Yup-living in north London didn't help. Neither did Clive Woodward. He was probably the worst culprit with that scenario...

When did Woodward claim his team was the best side ever? I don't believe he did. He might have said they were the best ever to represent England but that's very different to saying they were the best international side in rugby history.

I think New Zealand supporters are justified in having the the highest expectations but it's an odd sort of mental gymnastics which sees a loss purely in terms of how your team failed.

I come at this as an England supporter. When we do get a run of victories, it's common to hear that we shouldn't really celebrate because, with our money and playing resources, we should be winning all the time. That's pretty much the same as saying that every England loss should also be regarded purely in terms of some kind of coaching, playing, or health failure.

Neither blanket statement makes any sense as an analysis of sport. It reminds me a little of the complaint basketball owner Mark Cuban made against ESPN, specifically when Skip Bayless highlighted the failures of LeBron James without ever considering what the opposition did to counter him.

Rugby fan, it is true what you say.

But you have to look at it in context as well, I find that when the Boks win or lose, I look at what they did right and wrong, immaterial of what the other team has done.

Yes the other team has an influence on the game.

But the internal analysis is about us.

England won and they looked very impressive in their win. Nothing can take that away from you guys.

NZ does lose some games. They dont lose many particularly in the north. France and England recently have recorded wins to go along with defeats against Australia and SA. If teams play well they can beat NZ but NZ doesnt always have to play well to win. Our best RC wins came in the RC against Argentina and SA at altitude.

This is a special NZ team at the moment. They have a phrnomenal strike rate. We Kiwis are well aware that thos run wont last forever. We are beatable though so to keep that success rate against tge teams we've faced is a great a achievement because it's hard to be so consistent.

The way I see it come November the pressure is on England to prove that last year was not a one off. They are at home and should go into the match believing that they should win. Regardless of the result albeit more so if NZ lose the pressure will be on NZ to defend their incredible recent home record. 3 tests against England is a tough prospect but those are the challenges NZ loves. I wouldn't be surprised if England won a test just as I wouldn't have been against Ireland and France. These 3 test series are great and they're the challenge we need and embrace.

We Kiwis love to beat England but the same goes for all teams who have tasted success against NZ. The aura is broken for those teams even though they know how difficult a win is. The motivation is different for the teams who haven't beat NZ but the fans always demand the same. Losing hurts but it's always good for refocusing the players and serving the fans a reminder of how good they have it.

My thoughts on seeing this is that playing four times in one season against the same test side really seems like overkill. I'm going to struggle to be excited about that series as a neutral. Although I suppose after this year it will be a long time before England go back to NZ.

Obviously the odds are very much in favour of a 4-0 win but there could be an upset. It's most likely to come in Twickenham again. To be honest I don't see it because after England won last time out that'll be the one game on tour New Zealand are most pumped to win. They'll be desperate to set the record straight as they see it with a win at Twickenham. Every time a NH team tours NZ in the summer I always think it will be 3-0 because our season is now so long and demanding. The ultimate challenge in test rugby is beating the All Blacks on their home turf, and you need your full deck of players in top condition to do it. Normally not the case after a long, bruising NH season. I'd expect them to be missing guys with injuries and New Zealand to be fresh so... best chance of a win in NZ is if you catch them cold in the first test. Still think it will be 4-0.

It's not overkill for us as the Twix game is at the end of our season and the June series is at the beginning of our next one. At the end of our Super marathon we're itching our feet for test rugby.

What might be overkill is Wales' 4 tests coming up against Oz. Or am I drunk and just make that up?

Rugby fan SCW was the first team,to take the no expense spared route,with specialist
forward,fitness,backs,kicking coaches,travelling first class etc.SCW actually said judge
me by my RWC success then promptly lost IT a NZ Coach would have been sacked and
were.VERY Good Coaches [Hart,Wyllie to name too]England with all there resources really
SHOULD do better.10 years of indifferent results doesn't make up for a period of good ones.
Wales over a period recently achieved 3 Grand Slams in 5 years with much fewer resources.
England beat NZ roughly once every 10 years [1973,83,93,02-.3.13]seldom by more than a few points.NZ have lost one match in Nov series since 2008,in two series without conceding a try.
England had a great victory 2012,which was fine but when the England fans wound up the Welsh fans last year.They really were asking for it when Wales hammered England in 2012.
I am as big an England and Scotland fan ,second only to my beloved AllBlacks,but that really was asking for it.
NZ count there losses not there wins,when they lose go back to basics and fix the problem.
Arrogance doesn't come in to it the record book says it all 3 out of every 4 or more matches won.Boks fans are the same but in my opinion a lot of recent losses is self inflicted picking
players out of touch with SH rugby[i.e France based ones]

1-3 to the Men in Black. Not sure whether the win will be home or away but think we can squeeze one out when NZ slightly underfire and we play very well. I'd be shocked if we won the series.

I'm still not convinced England have got the right balance in their team.

Victories under Lancaster have generally come because the players have worked hard for each other. While that's to the credit of the coaching team. I don't think our game plans have been very good and that weakness is exposed in our losses.

The win over New Zealand was built on us being able to field probably our best pack at the time. Against Australia, we had Marler, Youngs, Cole, Palmer, Parling, Johnson, Robshaw, Waldrom. The eight for the All Blacks had four changes: Corbisiero, Youngs, Cole, Launchbury, Parling, Wood, Robshaw, Morgan.

On top of that, Farrell showed great poise with the boot, our defence was solid enough and Tuilagi played a blinder.

The stars could align again but, as discussed on another recent forum thread, you would expect a back three of Goode, Brown and Ashton to be far more brutally examined in any future encounter.

Lancaster will, we hope, ring the changes there but he'd have to be lucky and find a combination which quickly clicks for the Autumn Test.

Who knows how we'll be set as we go on tour. England face France and Scotland away in the opening rounds of the Six Nations which won't be points in the bag by any means. A failure in the tournament would see us heading to New Zealand in desperate need of an overhaul.

Goode, Brown and Ashton won't be the back 3 though. I'd bet on it being Brown, Wade, Ashton

If Foden comes good again he owns the 15 jersey. England have a much better back 3 with him playing. I'd probably leave out Ashton too, but definitely have Wade in there.

I like to focus on what the ABs did win or lose because that's the part that the ABs can affect. We can't control what the opposition do but we can control what we do. If we say we need to do better at the break down that means the opposition did better than us and that simply we need to do better next time.
I don't see the big deal in it.

4-0 to the ABs. If we can make those wins tough and give them a few frights the. I think thatll be progress.

For all of our sakes, I hope England win the game at twickers. If they do that, its twice, it gives everyone confidence and we can put this norovirus story to bed (for the record Im not sure, I think it affected the NZ performance, but England would have won on their performance regardless).

Lancasters plans need to mature, especially in attack and I would imagine we shall see Twelvetrees help bring that along at 12, Manu at 13 with Brown/Foden back at FB and some actual wingers on the wings. If Corbisiero is fit, Cole is firing and they have Morgan at 8 & Wood at 6 with another in the backrow, I dont see why not, they have the potential to do it it just needs a gameplan to utilise that and for them to hit their straps.

The players are there, I'd agree with rugby fan the blaance seems a little off at the moment, but there's plenty of time to see who can rememdy that in the lead up to the AI's.

Can see a whitewas for NZ down south mind.

Hood83 wrote:

disneychilly wrote:Well we think we're the best rugby nation. But arrogance for me is believing you're above your station. I think the ABs are the best team in the world-no more, no less. I feel the results back up the view hence my view not being arrogant. Kiwis saying they're the greatest thing since sliced bread-that's arrogant as test rugby is a game of inches. We have a hell of a lot of cliffhangers too-not every game is a walkover-but we win more than any other sports team. You don't need to smash people every time, just be those inches in question ahead. England showed what can be done if you play well and NZ don't.

I used non-win as draws were included. Apologies if that implied arrogance-thought it saved me some keystrokes too.

Most Kiwi posters were at pains to downplay the significance of the Norovirus, I thought to their credit. I actually thought that such a freak result it must have been something to do with the bug, but it's shame this is now being brought up by you guys. I thought the initial response was classy.

You'll forgive us English if we're a little chippy about the arrogance thing, we had a couple of years of knowing we were the best team in the world, but were told this was arrogance. A lot. The result is we're a bit quick to highlight it if we think we see it in others.

Oh, and it'll be 4-0 ABs. king is right, Lancaster is a weak link as far as I'm concerned.

No ones questioning England on the day. They played great rugby and fully deserved their win. This is more about putting it in perspective. It's the one loss the AB's have had and it's big. The AB's were very good last year and seem to be the same this year. In general England have performed well since the world cup. The games looking a bit out of synch. Could be a one off fantastic performance, could be that a an illness that limited preparation to 2 days had an affect. The point being I wouldn't use use it as a basis for predicting the for games in Nov/June.

I rate England and South Africa as teams on the up. They are both solid and the results are starting to come.

Comfort wrote:For all of our sakes, I hope England win the game at twickers. If they do that, its twice, it gives everyone confidence and we can put this norovirus story to bed (for the record Im not sure, I think it affected the NZ performance, but England would have won on their performance regardless).

Lancasters plans need to mature, especially in attack and I would imagine we shall see Twelvetrees help bring that along at 12, Manu at 13 with Brown/Foden back at FB and some actual wingers on the wings. If Corbisiero is fit, Cole is firing and they have Morgan at 8 & Wood at 6 with another in the backrow, I dont see why not, they have the potential to do it it just needs a gameplan to utilise that and for them to hit their straps.

The players are there, I'd agree with rugby fan the blaance seems a little off at the moment, but there's plenty of time to see who can rememdy that in the lead up to the AI's.

Can see a whitewas for NZ down south mind.

Not sure how it helps my sake but know what you mean

yeah ngan, it must get real lonley at the top  

blackcanelion wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

disneychilly wrote:Well we think we're the best rugby nation. But arrogance for me is believing you're above your station. I think the ABs are the best team in the world-no more, no less. I feel the results back up the view hence my view not being arrogant. Kiwis saying they're the greatest thing since sliced bread-that's arrogant as test rugby is a game of inches. We have a hell of a lot of cliffhangers too-not every game is a walkover-but we win more than any other sports team. You don't need to smash people every time, just be those inches in question ahead. England showed what can be done if you play well and NZ don't.

I used non-win as draws were included. Apologies if that implied arrogance-thought it saved me some keystrokes too.

Most Kiwi posters were at pains to downplay the significance of the Norovirus, I thought to their credit. I actually thought that such a freak result it must have been something to do with the bug, but it's shame this is now being brought up by you guys. I thought the initial response was classy.

You'll forgive us English if we're a little chippy about the arrogance thing, we had a couple of years of knowing we were the best team in the world, but were told this was arrogance. A lot. The result is we're a bit quick to highlight it if we think we see it in others.

Oh, and it'll be 4-0 ABs. king is right, Lancaster is a weak link as far as I'm concerned.

No ones questioning England on the day. They played great rugby and fully deserved their win. This is more about putting it in perspective. It's the one loss the AB's have had and it's big. The AB's were very good last year and seem to be the same this year. In general England have performed well since the world cup. The games looking a bit out of synch. Could be a one off fantastic performance, could be that a an illness that limited preparation to 2 days had an affect. The point being I wouldn't use use it as a basis for predicting the for games in Nov/June.

I rate England and South Africa as  teams on the up. They are both solid and the results are starting to come.

If that IS the point then I agree with you, just think it's easier to say we don't often beat you so not sure it says too much until we've played each other a bit more. My only gripe is when we 'put things in perspective' it's called whingeing or excuse making. But hey-ho, there's the chip on my shoulder.