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

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?

Taylorman

Course it is, relative, subjective and just my opinion.

Your stats reveal just how poor they were by their own high standards that year, losing at home to England and in RWC.

Is it okay to say the ABs were poor or am i crossing some unwritten line that says a team cannot be poor?

I think truly great sides are those that carry the world #1 ranking into an RWC and win it. not sure how many there have been. prob NZ 87 (give them the benefit of the doubt as it was first RWC) and 2011. england 2003. Aus in 91? were SA #1 ranked at the time of either of their wins?

this is just my metric. combines highest consistency, with peaking at the same time as everyone else, and not choking in the knockout stages.

Scratch wrote:Taylorman

Course it is, relative, subjective and just my opinion.

Your stats reveal just how poor they were by their own high standards that year, losing at  home to England and in RWC.

Is it okay to say the ABs were poor or am i crossing some unwritten line that says a team cannot be poor?

Nope...no rule...just thought that year makes a good example of how sides are relative to eachother. NZ have really been the same every year for the last 20- there or abouts at 1 sometimes 2 rarely 3. And in 03 those results are really pretty good.

Englands spike in 2002-3 is probably the most significant shift in the pro era and possibly of all time.

To be consistently at 4 or 5 and sometimes going to 3 and 6 in good and or bad years for decades then shooting to 1 and playing like it for 2 solid years then disppearing back to the 4-5-6-3 routine almost as quickly is possibly one of sports wonders of the world. Can't think of another side thats done that- perhaps Wales in the 70's? but even they werent world no. 1.

I think there are probably similar comparisons in other sports but I can't think of any...(Perhaps Coach Maa's swimming team, the eastern bloc shotputters of the 70's, Lance Arms...na...just kidding... )

France's football team...

I think the Aussie Cricketers were as dominant in Cricket as the ABs are in Rugby for about 20 years - actually my personal feeling is that the Aussies were even more dominant in Cricket than the ABs in Rugby, but they fell over a few years back so the ABs certainly have the longest running record, unmatched as far as I know anywhere.

Taylorman wrote:Englands spike in 2002-3 is probably the most significant shift in the pro era and possibly of all time.

It was actually a longer spike than that. England were on a roll from 2000 and probably played their best rugby in 2001. They had a maddening ability to lose one match each year in the Six Nations for four years running, but won all their other games.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Englands spike in 2002-3 is probably the most significant shift in the pro era and possibly of all time.

It was actually a longer spike than that. England were on a roll from 2000 and probably played their best rugby in 2001. They had a maddening ability to lose one match each year in the Six Nations for four years running, but won all their other games.

Very true. Between the  beginning of the 6N in 2000 and 6N home loss to Ireland in 2004 they only lost 7 times in 52 games (and 2 of those losses were to the Barbarians with development teams)

W 21 Feb 2004 Scotland 13-35 England
W 15 Feb 2004 Italy 9-50 England
W 22 Nov 2003 Australia 17-20 England
W 16 Nov 2003 England 24-7 France
W 09 Nov 2003 England 28-17 Wales
W 02 Nov 2003 England 111-13 Uruguay
W 26 Oct 2003 England 35-22 Samoa
W 18 Oct 2003 England 25-6 South Africa
W 12 Oct 2003 England 84-6 Georgia
W 06 Sep 2003 England 45-14 France
L 30 Aug 2003 France 17-16 England
W 23 Aug 2003 Wales 9-43 England
W 21 Jun 2003 Australia 14-25 England
W 14 Jun 2003 New Zealand 13-15 England
W 09 Jun 2003 New Zealand Maori 9-23 England
L 25 May 2003 England 36-49 Barbarians
W 30 Mar 2003 Ireland 6-42 England
W 22 Mar 2003 England 40-9 Scotland
W 09 Mar 2003 England 40-5 Italy
W 22 Feb 2003 Wales 9-26 England
W 15 Feb 2003 England 25-17 France
W 23 Nov 2002 England 53-3 South Africa
W 16 Nov 2002 England 32-31 Australia
W 09 Nov 2002 England 31-28 New Zealand
W 22 Jun 2002 Argentina 18-26 England
W 26 May 2002 England 53-29 Barbarians
W 07 Apr 2002 Italy 9-45 England
W 23 Mar 2002 England 50-10 Wales
L 02 Mar 2002 France 20-15 England
W 16 Feb 2002 England 45-11 Ireland
W 02 Feb 2002 Scotland 3-29 England
W 24 Nov 2001 England 29-9 South Africa
W 17 Nov 2001 England 134-0 Romania
W 10 Nov 2001 England 21-15 Australia
L 20 Oct 2001 Ireland 20-14 England
W 16 Jun 2001 United States 19-48 England
W 09 Jun 2001 Canada 20-59 England
W 02 Jun 2001 Canada 10-22 England
L 27 May 2001 England 29-43 Barbarians
W 07 Apr 2001 England 48-19 France
W 03 Mar 2001 England 43-3 Scotland
W 17 Feb 2001 England 80-23 Italy
W 03 Feb 2001 Wales 15-44 England
W 02 Dec 2000 England 25-17 South Africa
W 25 Nov 2000 England 19-0 Argentina
W 18 Nov 2000 England 22-19 Australia
W 24 Jun 2000 South Africa 22-27 England
L 17 Jun 2000 South Africa 18-13 England
L 02 Apr 2000 Scotland 19-13 England
W 18 Mar 2000 Italy 12-59 England
W 04 Mar 2000 England 46-12 Wales
W 19 Feb 2000 France 9-15 England

Had rankings been introduced before late 2003, they would of been around 1 or 2 for most of that period I'd guess.

especially as losing to the BarBars doesnt cost you any IRB ranking points

andyi wrote:Had rankings been introduced before late 2003, they would of been around 1 or 2 for most of that period I'd guess.

Hmmm.  

IRB wrote:Several years' research went into developing the system, using an extensive database of international matches going back to 1871. All the weightings and values in the system were derived from detailed analysis of the results.

The system's reliability is assessed in a number of objective ways, including measuring its 'Predictive Accuracy'. If, over a period of time, the system tends to be good at predicting which side will win each match, then we can be confident that it is presenting an accurate and reliable picture of current strength, and responding appropriately to changes in form.

http://www.irb.com/rankings/explain/index.html

My understanding was the the rankings were calculated retrospectively from all results since 1871 so current form in the Big Bang was never taken into account.

Certainly rankings existed before 2013, but I'd always assumed that the mathematical basis of the calculations were resolved and 'set in stone'.

Personally I'd adjust them for competitive tournaments like the 6Ns, 4Ns et al to have greater weightings as with all RWC qualifiers rather than just RWCs.

Doubling the points exchanges just for RWC final stages does seem to somewhat strangle or stymie the efforts of Nations that have given their all to achieve their own goals in the early stages.

Simply just doubling RWC points exchanges in the final stages mathematically speaking appears to me what logic analysts might interpret as prejustifying the consequent; i.e. loading the dice to ensure that the result 'looks right'.

Are point exchanges doubled for 3rd/4th play-offs in the WC?

yep.
Seems to me that's a pretty pointless exercise when a parallel plate competition (with lesser points exchanges) could (if the IRB could afford to keep amateur players compensated for lost time) fill in the lengthening gaps towards the finals.

Portnoy you are spot on re "backfitting" as its known in my business. its the practice of coming up with a formula that would have had predictive value in the past. gives excessive confidence, and in financial circles is what causes bubbles and crashes. The IRB do seem to have done that a bit.

"IRB wrote:
Several years' research went into developing the system, using an extensive database of international matches going back to 1871. All the weightings and values in the system were derived from detailed analysis of the results.

The system's reliability is assessed in a number of objective ways, including measuring its 'Predictive Accuracy'. If, over a period of time, the system tends to be good at predicting which side will win each match, then we can be confident that it is presenting an accurate and reliable picture of current strength, and responding appropriately to changes in form."

Anyway, I'm not for dwelling on the minutiae of the IRB rankings.

This forthcoming year in my opinion is huge for both the ABs and England.
Certainly bigger than any Lions tour could ever be in that it will test the mettle of both the current World Champions (who are are ageing but with ooodles of upcoming talent) and a resurgent and hopefully full-strength England.

But as ever, I can only reiterate my fears for the worse so long as Andy Farrell is near the coaching team.

andyi wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Englands spike in 2002-3 is probably the most significant shift in the pra and possibly of all time.

It was actually a longer spike than that. England were on a roll from 2000 and probably played their best rugby in 2001. They had a maddening ability to lose one match each year in the Six Nations for four years running, but won all their other games.

Very true. Between the  beginning of the 6N in 2000 and 6N home loss to Ireland in 2004 they only lost 7 times in 52 games (and 2 of those losses were to the Barbarians with development teams)

W 21 Feb 2004 Scotland 13-35 England
W 15 Feb 2004 Italy 9-50 England
W 22 Nov 2003 Australia 17-20 England
W 16 Nov 2003 England 24-7 France
W 09 Nov 2003 England 28-17 Wales
W 02 Nov 2003 England 111-13 Uruguay
W 26 Oct 2003 England 35-22 Samoa
W 18 Oct 2003 England 25-6 South Africa
W 12 Oct 2003 England 84-6 Georgia
W 06 Sep 2003 England 45-14 France
L 30 Aug 2003 France 17-16 England
W 23 Aug 2003 Wales 9-43 England
W 21 Jun 2003 Australia 14-25 England
W 14 Jun 2003 New Zealand 13-15 England
W 09 Jun 2003 New Zealand Maori 9-23 England
L 25 May 2003 England 36-49 Barbarians
W 30 Mar 2003 Ireland 6-42 England
W 22 Mar 2003 England 40-9 Scotland
W 09 Mar 2003 England 40-5 Italy
W 22 Feb 2003 Wales 9-26 England
W 15 Feb 2003 England 25-17 France
W 23 Nov 2002 England 53-3 South Africa
W 16 Nov 2002 England 32-31 Australia
W 09 Nov 2002 England 31-28 New Zealand
W 22 Jun 2002 Argentina 18-26 England
W 26 May 2002 England 53-29 Barbarians
W 07 Apr 2002 Italy 9-45 England
W 23 Mar 2002 England 50-10 Wales
L 02 Mar 2002 France 20-15 England
W 16 Feb 2002 England 45-11 Ireland
W 02 Feb 2002 Scotland 3-29 England
W 24 Nov 2001 England 29-9 South Africa
W 17 Nov 2001 England 134-0 Romania
W 10 Nov 2001 England 21-15 Australia
L 20 Oct 2001 Ireland 20-14 England
W 16 Jun 2001 United States 19-48 England
W 09 Jun 2001 Canada 20-59 England
W 02 Jun 2001 Canada 10-22 England
L 27 May 2001 England 29-43 Barbarians
W 07 Apr 2001 England 48-19 France
W 03 Mar 2001 England 43-3 Scotland
W 17 Feb 2001 England 80-23 Italy
W 03 Feb 2001 Wales 15-44 England
W 02 Dec 2000 England 25-17 South Africa
W 25 Nov 2000 England 19-0 Argentina
W 18 Nov 2000 England 22-19 Australia
W 24 Jun 2000 South Africa 22-27 England
L 17 Jun 2000 South Africa 18-13 England
L 02 Apr 2000 Scotland 19-13 England
W 18 Mar 2000 Italy 12-59 England
W 04 Mar 2000 England 46-12 Wales
W 19 Feb 2000 France 9-15 England

Had rankings been introduced before late 2003, they would of been around 1 or 2 for most of that period I'd guess.

Yes I'd known it was around 50 games. Interestingly ABs last 59 is 54 wins for 4 losses since losing to the boks in 2009 which is similar and exceptional even for the ABs so the england run really was something. Must be frustrating not to maintain near those standards. Global rugby would be so different.

Taylorman wrote:

Scratch wrote:Taylorman

Course it is, relative, subjective and just my opinion.

Your stats reveal just how poor they were by their own high standards that year, losing at  home to England and in RWC.

Is it okay to say the ABs were poor or am i crossing some unwritten line that says a team cannot be poor?

Nope...no rule...just thought that year makes a good example of how sides are relative to eachother. NZ have really been the same every year for the last 20- there or abouts at 1 sometimes 2 rarely 3. And in 03 those results are really pretty good.

Englands spike in 2002-3 is probably the most significant shift in the pro era and possibly of all time.

To be consistently at 4 or 5 and sometimes going to 3 and 6 in good and or bad years for decades then shooting to 1 and playing like it for 2 solid years then disppearing back to the 4-5-6-3 routine almost as quickly is possibly one of sports wonders of the world. Can't think of another side thats done that- perhaps Wales in the 70's? but even they werent world no. 1.

I think there are probably similar comparisons in other sports but I can't think of any...(Perhaps Coach Maa's swimming team, the eastern bloc shotputters of the 70's, Lance Arms...na...just kidding... )

It was Sir Clive and Sir Jonny Taylorman

SCW created an environment where England could play 8 man, 10 man and 15 man rugby. And unusually they had a general at 10 and a great centre pair with finishers on the wing. He professionalized the game in a way no other coach could touch at the time. Their defense was outstanding; how they kept you out in that game is beyond me..think your try was from a kick chase. In the june defeat of 03 Jonny kicked everything. Even on the front foot and making ground he took a drop when a try was probably on. Kickers win games and Jonny was the master. England also had a monstrous pack, leaders at 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10, 13 etc.

Scratch...interesting. That exact description fits the AB side today- except for the droppies...we make up for those with even more tries, and the monstorous pack- we make up for that with mobility and skill- every forward can run with ball in hand, offload and tackle.

Despite what people say, no one has out packed the AB pack in the last 4 years other than the odd one off- Like England last year...

Taylorman wrote:Scratch...interesting. That exact description fits the AB side today- except for the droppies...we make up for those with even more tries, and the monstorous pack- we make up for that with mobility and skill- every forward can run with ball in hand, offload and tackle.

Despite what people say, no one has out packed the AB pack in the last 4 years other than the odd one off- Like England last year...

Exactly what i was thinking when i wrote the last post

Carter offers a tad more than Jonny in attack i think but defensively JW was probably stronger and that is how the ABs keep teams out, they are hard to beat and have an awesome defense. Perhaps unlike any other side though they use defense as an offensive tool and are so effective on the counter

England have put in their two finest performances vs the All Blacks in the last twelve months.

It is repeating that performance consistently that is the issue.

Losing to the ABs 4-0 would not make England a bad side, playing good teams regularly raises your game. England, win or lose, will be a better team after the series.

If England can keep their level of performance up to the level they reached last Saturday throughout the Six nations then I would predict a close series vs the ABs with a possible away win in NZ.

But if like last year England fail to repeat a performance of a consistent level, I can't see the series going well.

I would have thought England would win the first as Ireland this weekend will be the last test till June. But the Aviva final means thats not as likely...

Taylorman wrote:I would have thought England would win the first as Ireland this weekend will be the last test till June. But the Aviva final means thats not as likely...

Is the first test outside the IRB window...?

Good question, maes.

Don't the IRB sanction both tours and IWs?

Technically, I suppose, the Jeff final could be denuded of all England squad players.

When is the HEC final?

The Times article poster on another thread gave one version of how the schedule came to be:

https://www.606v2.com/t49640-another-scheduling-screw-up#2388171

It cuts both ways mate. It's perfectly valid to look at it. It's perfectly valid to consider it in context. Most if not all AB's fans gave the English team their dues directly after the match. In the post match assessment of course people are going to look at it. It's not a common occurrence (I can only think of 3 times in international fixtures that are public). When I was younger I trained regularly with international athletes and my experience was that the flu knocks you about and affects your performance during and immediately afterwards even at training. When we were doing skills based work in competition conditions performance dropped off. I can't see how it can excluded as a factor in rugby. We're talking about 2 days of vomiting and diarrhea. Whether it's the sole or deciding factor is debatable, but writing it off seems crazy to me. It's as good as any other reason. The people that have the best idea were in the AB's camp and they're not likely to talk.

Respect and arrogance doesn't mean not asking the questions. This is one of the biggest ever losses to the AB's, it's the only loss in over 2 years and it followed one of the rare times the majority of an international team has been really ill going into a match. It's not just the energy levels and physical implications, it's also the impact on preparation and the loss of 2 training days, personal preparation etc

To me it seems disrespectful and arrogant not to consider the impact. I don't think anyone's saying England didn't play well. You can say that they were better on the day and I don't think anyone debating that. At the say time you can wonder the impact of the Norovirus. In much the same way it's fair for Boks fans to discuss the impact of Bismarks red card, England's B team tour down under in late 90's, Australian injuries in there last few northern tours, etc. There we are, that's my rant.

I can think of 1 which i assume includes 95…what is the 3 rd one?

I think England vs SA pool game in 2007 world cup. Can't be sure I'd have to go back and look. My memory is that I heard they were sick prior to the game and then they got toweled. I think it might have slipped under the radar because England's form going into the tournament wasn't that great (or I could be wrong). I'm sure there were occasions pre satellite TV and internet.

Might have been the tour to SA earlier in the year, it might have been the 58-10 loss. I remember at least 1 player was admitted to hospital. I'll try and do some digging later.

I will probably get criticized for this but I am surprised NZ have anything to do with this norovirus stuff, in public at least…..post match analysis is one thing but as an impartial observer I find it quite undignified. Surely if you pull on the shirt you are saying you are fit, end of. It smacks of excuse making and that is not something i identify the All Blacks with. Fair play to England if that is the cad regarding 2007 there is little on record about it, but everyone and his dog knows about 1995 and last year. What NZ fans need to remember is that it is disrespectful to the team that beat them, fair and square on the day. I am thinking of SA more when i say that as that was, for me, one of the greatest and most meaningful games i have ever seen. We know how sensitive some NZ fans can be….need only mention devaluing and 1987 in the same sentence as an example of that, but i wonder if that sensitivity is extended to great opponents who, on a big day, just played better rugby and beat them.

Scratch wrote:I will probably get criticized for this but I am surprised NZ have anything to do with this norovirus stuff, in public at least…..post match analysis is one thing but as an impartial observer I find it quite undignified. Surely if you pull on the shirt you are saying you are fit, end of. It smacks of excuse making and that is not something i identify the All Blacks with. Fair play to England if that is the cad regarding 2007 there is little on record about it, but everyone and his dog knows about 1995 and last year. What NZ fans need to remember is that it is disrespectful to the team that beat them, fair and square on the day. I am thinking of SA more when i say that as that was, for me, one of the greatest and most meaningful games i have ever seen. We know how sensitive some NZ fans can be….need only mention devaluing and 1987 in the same sentence as an example of that, but i wonder if that sensitivity is extended to great opponents who, on a big day, just played better rugby and beat them.

I guess we're going to have to disagree. This happens all the time. All fans do it. It's essentially why sites like this exist. What would you prefer blind worship? 1995 and 2012 are precisely the kind of incidents we should be looking at and thinking about. It's a lot more clean cut than a lot of other discussions on here. A whole bunch of people got really sick, they played a game and they lost. Maybe illness might have impacted on the result. If you can't discuss them on here, where else would you discuss it. Or would you rather pretend it didn't happen or define legislation to make any discussion illegal.

I don't have a problem talking about 87. The fact the Boks didn't compete is always going to be question mark against that All Black side. Were they good enough to beat the Boks. It's a great question and it doesn't devalue their achievement one iota IMO. I'd have trouble taking any self respecting Bok fan seriously if he didn't wonder how their side would have fared in 87. They had some great players at the time DuPlessis, Gerber, Botha etc. Just to restate the majority of kiwi fans on here gave England their due, as noted by England supporters at the time. That's the way it should be. I also believe that you should be able to have honest discussion later. That is respectful and it's honest (well more than promoting self moderation of topic because it doesn't fit with 1 specific view).

I can see why people look at the norovirus last year and say that's the reason for defeat but in my eyes the game this year proved it wasn't about that. A similar performance up front but the one thing missing was Tuilagi causing havoc in midfield. I'm not saying it would have been the same scoreline had he been available but he was what was missing from the performance.

If you look at health statistics, Wales has one of the highest levels of deprivation in Europe and highest levels of sickness and ill health. This is evident in the Welsh national rugby team I feel, where we're down with an illness most times we play the big 3 SH teams...