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

by kingelderfield Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:37 am

First topic message reminder :

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?

by Cyril Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:48 pm

disneychilly wrote:I have met some Kiwis who are like that Cyril so I do apologise on the behalf of those who aren't-but not enough to validate your generalisation.

No need to apologise mate. All nations have that (I'm sure during England's brief period at the top we did the same). I'm just all for respect where respect is due.

by ChequeredJersey Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:02 pm

Cyril wrote:Can't you just acknowledge that sometimes the other side is better?

It's not always refs/tiredness/illness/poisoning/can't be bothered cos we're too good etc

That's the way it's perceived sometimes. Other dominant sides in other sports don't seem to have this 'bad loser' reputation.

I'm not saying it's all NZ fans but there is a pattern.

To be fair there is always a large group in these cases who do. Rafa and Roger and Novak fans who blame injury, slow courts etc for every loss. SA cricket fans who can't accept being outplayed. Barca fans doing the same. When you know how fantasticly someone can play, you will always ask questions when it doesn't happen. It's natural

by Cyril Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:04 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
Cyril wrote:Can't you just acknowledge that sometimes the other side is better?

It's not always refs/tiredness/illness/poisoning/can't be bothered cos we're too good etc

That's the way it's perceived sometimes. Other dominant sides in other sports don't seem to have this 'bad loser' reputation.

I'm not saying it's all NZ fans but there is a pattern.
To be fair there is always a large group in these cases who do. Rafa and Roger and Novak fans who blame injury, slow courts etc for every loss. SA cricket fans who can't accept being outplayed. Barca fans doing the same. When you know how fantasticly someone can play, you will always ask questions when it doesn't happen. It's natural

Fans rather than the team or the individual. Sure it's natural (but wrong).

by Taylorman Thu Sep 05, 2013 2:06 am

Cyril wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
Cyril wrote:Can't you just acknowledge that sometimes the other side is better?

It's not always refs/tiredness/illness/poisoning/can't be bothered cos we're too good etc

That's the way it's perceived sometimes. Other dominant sides in other sports don't seem to have this 'bad loser' reputation.

I'm not saying it's all NZ fans but there is a pattern.
To be fair there is always a large group in these cases who do. Rafa and Roger and Novak fans who blame injury, slow courts etc for every loss. SA cricket fans who can't accept being outplayed. Barca fans doing the same. When you know how fantasticly someone can play, you will always ask questions when it doesn't happen. It's natural
Fans rather than the team or the individual. Sure it's natural (but wrong).

Its a topic thats easily misconstrued as arrogance, disrespect when its not meant that way, not that I care which way you wish to interpret it.

What I'm saying is the motivational factors are different from that of any other side.

For instance, England plays NZ what are the motivational factors:

- Havnt beaten them in 9-10 years, and only 7 from 35
- NZ are ranked no.1 and have been for ages
- They havnt lost to anyone else since prior to the world cup- including Wales, Ireand and Scotland for a very long time, if ever.
- We're at home, Twickers, our headquarters
- We havnt won the 6N or nbeaten the Boks this year

What are NZ's motivational factors?

- theyre not number 1, (or 2, or 3)
- theyre not world champs
- this isnt the wcup, or Rugby Chmpship
- they lost to the boks where we didnt
- Its at Twickers (theres one)

So there isnt a lot in terms of the opposition in which to 'hang' the motivational cap on.

But there are these:

- We are the AB's, no.1.
- We 'never' lose
- We're unbeaten for the year

and probably a few more.

But the real difference is the AB's need to look internally to find the motivation on a regular basis when we dish it out on a plate to others with the rewards on offer...yet still...we manage to repel them.

Sorry if you see it as not recognising the other teams performance or ability but thats not my point here. Yes England put us to the sword that day, and did it well. But it remains a one off and both teams went back to the status quo immediately after it.

If you can explain why that is nearly always the case when the AB's lose I'd be happy to hear it, because 'better on the day' just doesnt do it. It means youre saying England can get up and play like that on one day, but 'choose' not to carry that form on for any more? Really? Why would they do that?

by Guest Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:35 am

Fair points Tman

We expect to win every game, every single game, home and away. Sure we get nervous playing some teams away (1 team, sometimes 2 teams), but deep down, we think we will win. That mentality is handed down from generation to generation. It's ingrained and thanks to the Internet, everyone gets to hear us say this over and over and over again. Arrogant? If you met me, you'd realise I'm not arrogant by nature, but this is how I/we think about the ABs.

This is probably how the ABs think. But I'm not an AB so wouldn't know. But surely this is the attitude of champions. Ever met a Man U fan? Boy they are hard work, much worse than the average AB fan I reckon.

Lastly, England 2002-03, they had it, the fans had it. The boks have it but there seem to always be question marks. We have question marks from time to time. But the question marks seem to somehow solve themselves through luck (new players) and/or management (credit to the NZRU).

Actually, this is the last point, rarely can a team put out a better man-for-man side than the ABs. This also adds to the furore when we lose. Go through the England team that beat the ABs, and ask, which England players would make the ABs? What ABs would make the England team? It's illogical that an inferior team on paper will beat a greater one. But that's sport, maybe the better team 'on the day' won. I can admit that, a couple of England players in particular made the difference, on the day. Well done, deserved win, but the ABs will target England in England as the must win game of the season, and we 'don't' lose at home to the NH, so it's 4-0 to the ABs IMAH.

by Guest Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:31 am

Well, that was a load of old bollox:)

by Taylorman Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:46 am

Its just an exercise in analysis how sides get motivated. Honk Kongs what stood out for me. I could physically see Henry struggling to find ways to find reasons to motivate a side that had won everything- other than actually winning it I couldnt think of a reason either. How these coaches manage that is what I'm interested in.

One way I've thought of is to play the newer guys, those who havnt been through the wars as much recently, winning the ones we really did have to win.

2002-3 I honestly believed England had the better side- thats because they had such credibility as a side. They went 40 out of 43 wins straight include 15 straight against SH sides or something like that.

ANYONE that does that deserves everything they get...and more. Just didnt see our losses then were comparable to say, the Hong Kong one or England last year.

by blackcanelion Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:56 am

I think evrybody gave credit to England for the game they played and no one is doubting they were better on the day.

It's not unusual for fans and commentators to raise issues when making judgements for the future. Here's some examples:

Australia loses to Scotland in Australia in 2012. Many people would concede it meant little in the assessment of the Australian Test side, due to the team that played, the fact that another test was scheduled 4 days afterwards.

Argentina struggled in Europe in 2012. Many educated fans know that Argentina (as well as many of the tier 2 nations) weren't able to full strength field teams due European club commitments.

Wales were knocked out by France in 2011 world cup. The game effectively ended with a red card. Many people would concede that the game told us little about the two nations going forward.

England toured down under in 1998 with a very weak side. They got hammered. No one's suggesting this reflected the strength of the top side.

So you have a team which rarely loses that falls by a record score following a major team illness. The status quo seems to have returned this year. It's still early days. if the AB's go through the RC unbeaten and beat England surely it's a worthwhile question?

By the way how many sides have had an illness knock almost the entire team down in the lead up to a rugby test?
I can think of the 1995 world cup team and last years team to play England for the AB's.

by Cyril Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:36 am

I still see a very different side to the attitude coming from the players/coaching staff compared to the fans.

Why is it only NZ teams that get ill en masse I wonder? Serious question.

by **Rugby Fan** Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:26 am

Taylorman wrote:...Yes England put us to the sword that day, and did it well. But it remains a one off and both teams went back to the status quo immediately after it...

blackcanelion wrote:...The status quo seems to have returned this year...

To me, those comments reveal that you both are still slightly missing the point. The status quo is not for the All Blacks to win all the time. No team does that in any competitive sport, and New Zealand doesn't even hold the record for the longest winning streak by a major international rugby side. The status quo for New Zealand includes them losing, as well as sometimes not being the top dog in world rugby. Those losses don't require any special explanation, they happen.

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:37 am

We share the record with England and SA Rugby Fan for consecutive victories. 17 I think. Unless you feel Cyprus is a major international side.

And you're right that those losses don't require any special explanation. If they keep recurring, then that's the time for assessing where the teams are at.

by andyi Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:41 pm

I think its more a case of expectation than arrogance. Graphiclly it's easier see what that is based on:

England play the AllBlacks 4 times this season, whats your prediction? - Page 3 Nz-eng10

England play the AllBlacks 4 times this season, whats your prediction? - Page 3 Nz-eng10

England play the AllBlacks 4 times this season, whats your prediction? - Page 3 Nz-eng11

England play the AllBlacks 4 times this season, whats your prediction? - Page 3 Nz-eng12

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:58 pm

I'm collecting those bar codes for that competition as well...

by **Rugby Fan** Thu Sep 05, 2013 2:25 pm

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:We share the record with England and SA Rugby Fan for consecutive victories. 17 I think.

I tend to put records in the professional era in a different class, where the Boks stand clear. Nevertheless, we are talking about the All Blacks historical record, so you are quite right to bring up your run in the sixties.

Funnily enough, it was England who ended that Boks run at Twickenham, just as they ended New Zealand's chance of setting a new unbeaten streak (the draw with the Wallabies had already ended the winning streak with a draw).
It's one of my faint regrets as an England supporter that Woodward agreed a pair of friendly Tests with France as a World Cup warm-up in 2003. The deal was to play a second string against the other's first team. Our seconds came agonizingly close to winning but went down at the death.

It didn't matter at the time, and Woodward says the preparation was invaluable for the squad as a whole. Nevertheless, there's part of me that wishes we'd gone on to claim that record from the Boks. A win there, added to victories onthe Summer tour and at the Cup, would have seen us with a streak of something like 23 or 24.

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu Sep 05, 2013 2:32 pm

I think the World Cup was more important than the record winning streak. The latter is merely the cherry. I think these records do get in the minds of players though as well as fans. As Taylorman said, they can be used as tools of motivation when it's difficult to learn lessons from winning all those games consecutively.

I don't subscribe to the theory that you learn more from your defeats than from your victories but from a motivational point of view, losses are worth their weight in gold. They add that little intensity or spark to a fixture that can make a team more determined.

by disneychilly Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:28 pm

Cyril wrote:I still see a very different side to the attitude coming from the players/coaching staff compared to the fans.

Why is it only NZ teams that get ill en masse I wonder? Serious question.

The probability of that happening in NZ has gone up one thousandfold after the reintroduction of Georgie Pie.

But it was still so damn good...

by Cyril Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:34 pm

disneychilly wrote:
Cyril wrote:I still see a very different side to the attitude coming from the players/coaching staff compared to the fans.

Why is it only NZ teams that get ill en masse I wonder? Serious question.
The probability of that happening in NZ has gone up one thousandfold after the reintroduction of Georgie Pie.

But it was still so damn good...

Care to explain Smile

by GloriousEmpire Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:45 pm

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I think the World Cup was more important than the record winning streak. The latter is merely the cherry. I think these records do get in the minds of players though as well as fans. As Taylorman said, they can be used as tools of motivation when it's difficult to learn lessons from winning all those games consecutively.

I don't subscribe to the theory that you learn more from your defeats than from your victories but from a motivational point of view, losses are worth their weight in gold. They add that little intensity or spark to a fixture that can make a team more determined.

Which makes England one of the most determined teams around, surely. Punching well below their weight usually.

by Taylorman Fri Sep 06, 2013 1:11 am

Cyril wrote:
disneychilly wrote:
Cyril wrote:I still see a very different side to the attitude coming from the players/coaching staff compared to the fans.

Why is it only NZ teams that get ill en masse I wonder? Serious question.
The probability of that happening in NZ has gone up one thousandfold after the reintroduction of Georgie Pie.

But it was still so damn good...
Care to explain

Is Georgie pie back? Where?

by **Rugby Fan** Fri Sep 06, 2013 2:03 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:Which makes England one of the most determined teams around, surely. Punching well below their weight usually.

The only way you can hold that opinon is if you believe that every English loss is the result of some coaching, selection or health failure. If we were punching our weight, then our defeats would just be a normal distribution.

But hang on, surely there's only one team in world rugby which is allowed to call a loss an underperformance...

by Taylorman Fri Sep 06, 2013 2:17 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:Which makes England one of the most determined teams around, surely. Punching well below their weight usually.
The only way you can hold that opinon is if you believe that every English loss is the result of some coaching, selection or health failure. If we were punching our weight, then our defeats would just be a normal distribution.

But hang on, surely there's only one team in world rugby which is allowed to call a loss an underperformance...

Finally he gets it... thumbsup

by Hood83 Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:03 am

Taylorman wrote:Yes but Spain and rafar havnt been doing that for 100 years. Rafar is in a sport where there are more controllable items- hes one on one and hes either better as an individual or not. Hes great, just a different sort of great.

My point was the sheer number of variables. The number of players, the complexity of the rules, the weather, the styles of the opposition and probably many more, all of it which generally succumbs to the AB's on any given day.

Hood83:

Taylorman - I think the point is, why do have to do that equation? Why do you have to say to yourself 'Well if we played next week, we'd beat them' - of course, but that doesn't need to mean a spectacular fall in AB standards, it could just mean a spectacular raising of ours. . It's not a question of whether a team is better, it's whether they're better on the day, if it's about percentages I wouldn't watch us play you much. Players won't ALWAYS play to their strengths ALL the time, that's sport, that's why you have upsets.

Most success is as much about the consistency with which someone/a team can hit their peak than it is the difference in the absolute peaks of two competitors surely?

Yes it is that and my point is that sometimes the reason for a one off win is just as much a contributor by the favourite side getting 'tired' of winning- despite NEVER admitting the fact, and tired meaning 'drained of the expectation to keep winning' as well as the constant facing of every single side raising their game to THE best performance of the year, cos admit it or not, playing and beating the AB's is considered a crowning achievement for a season, regardless of anything else- consider Englands season last year- not a lot in it other than that.

Whereas we went thru Ireland 3-0, the entire RC 6-0 and all but the last game.

You dont think at least something in it that left the AB's tank a little empty by that stage? And I'm sure youre not suggesting that at the point of the England game the AB's had hit their peak? After having won every trophy on offer?

Oh God absolutely, I think that's definitely a possibility, it's just a problem if you don't sometimes but ALWAYS think the factor is your team getting tired of winning. Apologies if this has all been discussed later in the thread, I'm too lazy to go through all the posts!

by disneychilly Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:24 am

Maccas has reintroduced it in select restaurants TM. I think mostly around Jafaland and the Tron. Going for a quick drive on the wknd eh?

by GloriousEmpire Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:03 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:Which makes England one of the most determined teams around, surely. Punching well below their weight usually.
The only way you can hold that opinon is if you believe that every English loss is the result of some coaching, selection or health failure. If we were punching our weight, then our defeats would just be a normal distribution.

But hang on, surely there's only one team in world rugby which is allowed to call a loss an underperformance...

Not at all. What an oddly illogical assertion. I believe England win far fewer matches than they should for a whole variety of reasons. Underpinning it all is a paralysing arrogance which yields an unwillingness to progress. This is endemic from top brass to grass roots and there is no better example than the trumpet tooting and tub thumping that followed England's last victory. According to the media and several players and managers England had become proxy world champions and the greatest team to walk the earth, naye always had been and this victory was merely a vindication that a decade of failure was merely an unfortunate set of circumstances. An argument all too pAinfully similar to the famous welsh "on their day" moral victory.

by No 7&1/2 Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:12 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:Which makes England one of the most determined teams around, surely. Punching well below their weight usually.
The only way you can hold that opinon is if you believe that every English loss is the result of some coaching, selection or health failure. If we were punching our weight, then our defeats would just be a normal distribution.

But hang on, surely there's only one team in world rugby which is allowed to call a loss an underperformance...
Not at all. What an oddly illogical assertion. I believe England win far fewer matches than they should for a whole variety of reasons. Underpinning it all is a paralysing arrogance which yields an unwillingness to progress. This is endemic from top brass to grass roots and there is no better example than the trumpet tooting and tub thumping that followed England's last victory. According to the media and several players and managers England had become proxy world champions and the greatest team to walk the earth, naye always had been and this victory was merely a vindication that a decade of failure was merely an unfortunate set of circumstances. An argument all too pAinfully similar to the famous welsh "on their day" moral victory.

lol. Quotes to back this theory up?

by kiakahaaotearoa Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:25 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:Which makes England one of the most determined teams around, surely. Punching well below their weight usually.
The only way you can hold that opinon is if you believe that every English loss is the result of some coaching, selection or health failure. If we were punching our weight, then our defeats would just be a normal distribution.

But hang on, surely there's only one team in world rugby which is allowed to call a loss an underperformance...
Not at all. What an oddly illogical assertion. I believe England win far fewer matches than they should for a whole variety of reasons. Underpinning it all is a paralysing arrogance which yields an unwillingness to progress. This is endemic from top brass to grass roots and there is no better example than the trumpet tooting and tub thumping that followed England's last victory. According to the media and several players and managers England had become proxy world champions and the greatest team to walk the earth, naye always had been and this victory was merely a vindication that a decade of failure was merely an unfortunate set of circumstances. An argument all too pAinfully similar to the famous welsh "on their day" moral victory.
lol. Quotes to back this theory up?

There's your evidence mate. Hug

by No 7&1/2 Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:39 am

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:Which makes England one of the most determined teams around, surely. Punching well below their weight usually.
The only way you can hold that opinon is if you believe that every English loss is the result of some coaching, selection or health failure. If we were punching our weight, then our defeats would just be a normal distribution.

But hang on, surely there's only one team in world rugby which is allowed to call a loss an underperformance...
Not at all. What an oddly illogical assertion. I believe England win far fewer matches than they should for a whole variety of reasons. Underpinning it all is a paralysing arrogance which yields an unwillingness to progress. This is endemic from top brass to grass roots and there is no better example than the trumpet tooting and tub thumping that followed England's last victory. According to the media and several players and managers England had become proxy world champions and the greatest team to walk the earth, naye always had been and this victory was merely a vindication that a decade of failure was merely an unfortunate set of circumstances. An argument all too pAinfully similar to the famous welsh "on their day" moral victory.
lol. Quotes to back this theory up?
There's your evidence mate.

I thought the poster was from New Zealand so just saying something like that doesn't make it true does it? The vast majority of posts that aren't p*** takes about England are generally that we've been rubbish for 10+ years bar the odd season or victory. I don't think enjoying beating the best team in the world deservedly on the day equals arrogance as I think a lot of people are expecting a backlash come the Autumn and aren't expecting a repeat of the margin of victory. As for proxy world champs I'm not sure any fans of Aus, Eng or Wales can feel truely confident of coming through that group at the moment can they?

by kiakahaaotearoa Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:52 am

Only having you on, mate.

In his way, our NZ friend is giving England a compliment. Given his track record, that's the best you'll get out of him.

That's a hell of a RWC group. Frankly I'm jealous. Take Australia out and put NZ in and that'd be the ideal group for me. Good, hard challenge that sets up the tournament perfectly and on edge right from the first whistle.

by No 7&1/2 Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:58 am

Ah. That's the benefit of supporting the All Blacks though as you're pretty nailed on to go through whatever. I'd prefer games against Georgia, Portugal, USA and a toughie against Scotland once we're already qualified. We'd still probably go through in 2nd place.

by kiakahaaotearoa Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:31 am

Another soft pool for us in 2015. Looks like France or Ireland in the quarter finals playing at the MS. That gives me the heebie jeebies more than England and Wales in the same pool!

by Big Fri Sep 06, 2013 3:45 pm

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: Another soft pool for us in 2015. Looks like France or Ireland in the quarter finals playing at the MS. That gives me the heebie jeebies more than England and Wales in the same pool!

I doubt the Aussies would mind swapping either! Their track record against England (especially in world cups) won't exactly fill them with confidence, and they may not be too keen on playing Wales if the Lions tour gets them over the mentally block they've kept hitting in Australia matches.

by kiakahaaotearoa Fri Sep 06, 2013 3:49 pm

Indeed. Which makes me feel happier about being in our pool and watching the pre-knockout fireworks.

by kingelderfield Tue Nov 19, 2013 8:00 pm

kingelderfield wrote:
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.

How did you're predictions stack up?

Does the twickers game embolden a young english side, or does the appalling disparity between our forwards and backs annoy the hell at of me! (its time for your medicine my lord; ed)

Should I pray for some twickermanium enlightenment or should I just shoot the dog?

Sort it bomber or the dog gets it................

by Scratch Tue Nov 19, 2013 8:05 pm

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: Another soft pool for us in 2015. Looks like France or Ireland in the quarter finals playing at the MS. That gives me the heebie jeebies more than England and Wales in the same pool!

And an almost certain semi v SA, though with Pool A being the one to watch, Eng/Aus or Wales too

by Jhamer25 Tue Nov 19, 2013 8:22 pm

I've always hoped that one day New Zealand would run out of fuel but the fact is they are the best team in the World and have been for the past 5 years with very little losses in there site.

I can't remember when they lost at home in new Zealand. Anyway of England play like they did last Saturday but from the start of whistle they could win at Twickers.

To be optimistic 3-1

But likely 4-0

The fact is it would likely be 4-0 against any team though but good luck to them.

by Scratch Tue Nov 19, 2013 8:36 pm

England last won in June 2003 in NZ

Jonny kicked all the points

I expect NZ to win

by blackcanelion Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:55 pm

Scratch wrote:England last won in June 2003 in NZ

Jonny kicked all the points

I expect NZ to win

Too true. Very few people remember the wind changed direction and the AB's faced the unusual situation of playing into the wind in both halves. The interesting point was Spencer had a horror day with the boot and missed at least 4 shots at goal.

It'll be interesting. A lot will depend on the squad England send down. I see they're playing the Crusaders.

by Scratch Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:03 pm

blackcanelion wrote:
Scratch wrote:England last won in June 2003 in NZ

Jonny kicked all the points

I expect NZ to win
Too true. Very few people remember the wind changed direction and the AB's faced the unusual situation of playing into the wind in both halves. The interesting point was Spencer had a horror day with the boot and missed at least 4 shots at goal.

It'll be interesting. A lot will depend on the squad England send down. I see they're playing the Crusaders.

mmm sounds like excuses….i'd like to offer you a tissue but its definitely too windy

joking apart I think if Tuilagi and the likes of Yarde, Foden and Wade are in the side, there is no doubt an English pack of Corbs, Hartley, Cole. Lawes, Launch, Wood, Robshaw and Billy or Ben can provide the platform. England will need to commit fewer men to the breakdown but there pack is more than capable of putting NZ on the back foot as they have just shown. Only NZ seem able to break the packs win games backs decide by how much rule, and at home they will be a hard task master

The real issue is the 9/10 combo, I think Youngs is the man to exploit pack supremacy and would like to see options for Farrell at 10

by nganboy Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:22 pm

It wasn't the wind the problem was Martin Johnson not letting his scrum give in when it was short of players. I can sort of remember being jolly disappointed that we didn't get a push over try or two.

by blackcanelion Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:32 pm

Cyril wrote:Can't you just acknowledge that sometimes the other side is better?

It's not always refs/tiredness/illness/poisoning/can't be bothered cos we're too good etc

That's the way it's perceived sometimes. Other dominant sides in other sports don't seem to have this 'bad loser' reputation.

I'm not saying it's all NZ fans but there is a pattern.

The answer is yes. The caveat is that we are like all other fans in that we look at losses and analyse them. We're still learning from the masters.

We complain about refs. So others. Just look at most Lions tours, the boks semifinal in 2011. Every year the English press and fans will lay into at least one ref. We are no different. We'll complain about Barnes world record lowest penalty count against any side in international rugby and we'll bemoan the differences in styles. Given that we come off the worst in penalty counts (with out a clear methodical statistical pattern) more than other major sides it's not surprising. Boks fans have the same issue with yellow cards.

We'll look at illness/poisoning. It's happened twice. I suspect other sides will as well if and when it happens to them.

by Exiledinborders Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:34 pm

nganboy wrote:It wasn't the wind the problem was Martin Johnson not letting his scrum give in when it was short of players. I can sort of remember being jolly disappointed that we didn't get a push over try or two.

I think that match where we were down to thirteen men and still held out was the point when I became confident we would win the World Cup.

by Scratch Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:34 pm

What he said: Yes
What he mean't: No

by Exiledinborders Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:38 pm

The first game is a washout as England will only be able to field a second string team for that game. We might win one of the remaining games.

by DeludedOptimistorjustDave Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:00 pm

To be honest these next few games will only be a one way street for NZ!
And Englands objective will be avoiding for want of a better word grape! with a silent G.
Best just aim to keep the score low as possible so you can at least talk about letting them off the hook.

by blackcanelion Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:01 pm

Scratch wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:
Scratch wrote:England last won in June 2003 in NZ

Jonny kicked all the points

I expect NZ to win
Too true. Very few people remember the wind changed direction and the AB's faced the unusual situation of playing into the wind in both halves. The interesting point was Spencer had a horror day with the boot and missed at least 4 shots at goal.

It'll be interesting. A lot will depend on the squad England send down. I see they're playing the Crusaders.
mmm sounds like excuses….i'd like to offer you a tissue but its definitely too windy

joking apart I think if Tuilagi and the likes of Yarde, Foden and Wade are in the side, there is no doubt an English pack of Corbs, Hartley, Cole. Lawes, Launch, Wood, Robshaw and Billy or Ben can provide the platform. England will need to commit fewer men to the breakdown but there pack is more than capable of putting NZ on the back foot as they have just shown. Only NZ seem able to break the packs win games backs decide by how much rule, and at home they will be a hard task master

The real issue is the 9/10 combo, I think Youngs is the man to exploit pack supremacy and would like to see options for Farrell at 10

If I was an England fan I'd be really upbeat. I can't help feeling the development of the game is starting to bear fruit. The size and quality of the athletes coming through is impressive. Especially when you consider the products of the most recent under 21 sides haven't come through yet. You're right pace and size. It's that combination that I fear. We can still out skill England, but the bigger and faster they become the more difficult it will be. The potential kind of reminds me of the great Bok sides of yester year. Huge forward packs that would steam roll you, an accurate kicker and super quick backs that would put the nail in the coffin when the opposition tired or got desperate. I suspect next year might be a year to early. I also wonder how many players will actually make the tour.

by kingelderfield Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:12 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:The first game is a washout as England will only be able to field a second string team for that game. We might win one of the remaining games.

I disagree, only players from the aviva finalists will be missing. So given our genuine strenght in depth I see this as an opportunity for others to press their case.

Obviously the fact that its in 8 months time rather dictates the defacto blackwash.....

Anyway anyway......would have been a rather interesting jape to play the first hand in New York or California - I hear the the AB's have got their commercial noses snuffling around stateside, another time perhaps?

by Taylorman Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:18 pm

Yeah not having the full squad from day one completely disrupts the tour. Assuming NZ overcomes the English second side. The club players all fly in and BL has the dilemma of dropping those players who really prformed and trained well in the first, hoping that those arrivals pick up from scratch.

Complete loss of continuity for the first two tests and by the third the ABs are always humming with the two outings so thats the reality.

I'm glad we don't compromise the jersey the way others allow it...

Club or country...go figure...

by Scratch Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:18 pm

If England can make up for their offensive weakness behind the pack with a defense like the 2003 side put on, and slot their kicks i suppose anything is possible. But NZ were poor in 03 and i agree that for england it is at least a season too early.

It is a hell of a pack though with strength in depth from 1-8. So much potential for success next summer will be determined by their showing in the 6 Nations

by Taylorman Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:00 am

Scratch wrote:If England can make up for their offensive weakness behind the pack with a defense like the 2003 side put on, and slot their kicks i suppose anything is possible. But NZ were poor in 03 and i agree that for england it is at least a season too early.

It is a hell of a pack though with strength in depth from 1-8. So much potential for success next summer will be determined by their showing in the 6 Nations

Poor in 2003 is a relative term...

NZ played 14 won 12 lost 2. Scored 602 points for, 202 against for an average 43-15 win, 6 tries to 1 average.
Lost only to England (by 2) and Aus by 12.Of the top 3 beat SA 3 times and Oz 2.

What country other than NZ would consider that 'poor'

England Played 17- won 16 lost 1 (France). Scored 644, 201 against at an average of 38-12 win, 4 tries to 1.
Of the top 3 beat Oz twice, NZ and SA once.

In that year NZ scored more points and tries per test, beat more of the top 3.

This in the best year by a country mile by England.
Its not a bad year for the AB's compared to most, but the only real diff between the two sides was the World cup win.

How much the better side were they? The 2 point win they had over NZ sounds about right but when one side is described as poor, and one as Lengendary, one of the best ever...I think a little context is needed.

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:07 am

blackcanelion wrote:
Scratch wrote:England last won in June 2003 in NZ

Jonny kicked all the points

I expect NZ to win
Too true. Very few people remember the wind changed direction and the AB's faced the unusual situation of playing into the wind in both halves. The interesting point was Spencer had a horror day with the boot and missed at least 4 shots at goal.

It'll be interesting. A lot will depend on the squad England send down. I see they're playing the Crusaders.

i actually very recently treated myself to watching the whole match on youtube. hadnt notice before but i think there was also some seismic activity at half time that meant new zealand were playing uphill both halves Smile

dallaglio was a monster. he played like a man possessed. never seen domination by an 8 like that before or since. was the match of his life. even down to 13 men it was England who scored 3 points to zero. wasn't beautiful but it was certainly epic. spencer did kick horrendously although it was mighty windy. wilkinson was freakishly good. was just one of those days where everything went england's way. i seem to remember wilko kicked a drop off his left and one off his right too. gosh, was that really 10 years ago...

by Sponsored content