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?

It'll be 4-0 to the All Blacks as most have said. Maybe do ok in the AI but the biggest impact the virus will have is the blowback. I think'll we'll get crucified. And then the usual beating in the Summer. I'm also not sold on Lancaster at all but we'll see how things have progressed (or not).

I'm not yet sold on Lancaster either and can easily see a 4-0 for New Zealand.

However, we do have a fantastic bunch of players coming through and the younger players that we have are slowly building up a respectable amount of experience. With that in mind I'd say that if Lancaster get's the selection and team tactics right we should be good enough to beat New Zealand on a bad day - and with 4 games I'd expect at least 1 where they are not on top of their game for whatever reason. So, I would expect 3-1 IF Lancaster can get the coaching and tactics right.

4-0. England are not capable of repeating an ambush.

Taylorman wrote:4-0. England are not capable of repeating an ambush.

Think that just about sums it up. I think the Twickenham game MAY be within one score, but it'll be the only one.

[quote="Taylorman"]4-0. England are not capable of repeating an ambush. [/quote]

You could be right there. But then again it depends on how the Abs play in the Twickers game i guess.

But like every body knows the Abs will be looking for revenge for the beating they took last year. They dont like losing to any team. But losing too England once will have been bad enough, but Losing twice. Will not be tolerated by either the NZRFU Or the NZ people.

If England are to win one of the 4 it will more likely be no. 2 or 3 in June 14 (is it?) when the AB's are at their most vulnerable in terms of preparedness, combinations working etc. England are good enough to tip any side over that isnt quite ready, they just wont get the AB's if they are.

Neither Oz nor SA could do what England did to the AB's last year with more attaempts and it remains Hansens only loss/ the AB's only post world cup loss.

If England repeat the win at Twickers this year then that would really be some feat, especially going by their last match...

Good to see some NZ fans only think they'll lose if they're off-form, not ready or have something else wrong with them.

It must be weird to only see rugby from the perspective of your own side.

I didn't even realise the ABs had norovirus when we lost to England. I thought it was just because we were tired after a long season and shag had his mind on his father. Well there ya go, norovirus huh, bet that wasn't fun. Tuialagi smashed us, he played well.

Same old, same old.

Thought you'd enjoy that Cyril, hey, it's just the way we are:)

Cyril wrote:Good to see some NZ fans only think they'll lose if they're off-form, not ready or have something else wrong with them.

It must be weird to only see rugby from the perspective of your own side.

To be fair though - losses to England generally have something like that going on. I would guess (because I can't remember every game) that
1 - ABs don't lose to England very often
2 - ABs don't lose to England very often after playing a great game
3 - England have not often played an average game and beaten ABs
4 - ABs have beaten England while not playing particularly well
5 - When England have beaten the ABs they have struggled to repeat it.

So all this suggests to me that ABs are better and will usually win unless England play out of their skin or NZ don't play well. Rather than blame the ref for a loss I'd rather blame ourselves

Note we have lost to SA,Aus and France despite playing well.

Well, the last time we beat you at all was 2003, and that time we did win back to back victories and outplay a good New Zealand side but it was the best ever English team. In between then I don't think it's even really been very close

 ...more or less confirming his point. The best England side of all time beat NZ by 2 and 3 points. Average NZ sides regularly beat England comfortably.

Regardless, it makes the Twickers match this year all that much appealing- especially if the AB's win all before then- last years loss sticking out like a huge bubble just waiting to be burst!

Taylorman wrote: ...more or less confirming his point. The best England side of all time beat NZ by 2 and 3 points. Average NZ sides regularly beat England comfortably.

At the risk of repeating myself, this isn't very useful. The idea that, ceteris paribus, an All Black team will always beat any opposition, or even just England, so any loss must be analyzed solely in terms of what went wrong for New Zealand, is a daft way of looking at a contest.

There will always be dominant performers in sport. When losses come, we will certainly wonder what went wrong with Brazil, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Michael Phelps, Carl Lewis, or pick your own giant. However, it'll also be right to credit the victor. After all, they did actually set out to win too.

It's fair to give the All Blacks the status of favourites on a regular basis but sport is full of examples of people rising to meet a challenge, not just idols developing feet of clay. In a head-to-head contest, the other side isn't only hoping to do a Bradbury, they set out to perform and place the favourite under pressure.

When England defeated New Zealand at Eden Park in 1973, captain John Pullin was in no doubt about the reason. Just minutes after the final whistle went, he was telling the post-match interviewer "I think they were under the impression we were going to run it all the time, which we never really intended to do. The idea was for the back trio to get in amongst it, and help upset the rhythm of the All Blacks if we could".

That's exactly what happened. It's no good saying that the All Blacks could have countered the tactic if they'd expected it. It wasn't an accident England played the way they did: they knew New Zealand wouldn't expect it. The better team won. It wasn't a vintage England side, despite the fact they had also claimed a win at Ellis Parl the year before. It was, however, capable of beating any opponent with the right tactics and execution.

Meanwhile, at the same time, one of the finest Northern Hemisphere sides ever - seventies-era Wales - couldn't manufacture a win over the All Blacks even as they had the measure of England. Perhaps they should have, just as Ireland's golden generation ought to have managed a victory, but they didn't.

The idea that England have just been fortunate to come up against the All Blacks on a series of off-days insults the intelligence. England have beaten the All Blacks when they've been able to knock them off their stride and outplay them. We've actually done that more times while not top dogs in Europe than when we are.

Conversely, Woodward's side can't be dismissed because they only beat New Zealand by a handful of points. Their great achievement was winning home and away when the All Blacks were in no doubt about the threat England posed. They brought their best counter, and it wasn't good enough, even with a two-man advantage.

There's no shame in acknowledging your own team has been outplayed. I can understand why, as an England supporter, I've had to make my peace with that conclusion more often than a New Zealander, but it really shouldn't be so alien to the followers of the silver fern.

That's a good post RF. Nothing is given in sport. The NZ team is very good at maintaining consistency and not slipping in standards. In recent years we've kept an eye on Wales with their very good set piece but England, like SA, have a game that can unsettle us so we're always conscious of the threat England poses. The fact that we haven't lost to England more times is testament to that preparation. Something us Kiwi fans are susceptible to forgetting when you look at only the results.

"Brazil, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Michael Phelps, Carl Lewis"...think you'll find their wins vs non wins rate far pales in comparison to the AB's.

Not disagreeing with your point, but rugby is such a game, with so many variables, that it just should not be dominated to the degree that the AB's do, week after week, year after year, decade after decade. Its such a significant margin for a sport this size in this day and age that wins these days are justifiably arguable as one offs.

For the losses we had suffered over the past 10 years, chances are the ABs would have turned the results around had they been played the very next week. Exceptions would be for me the 2003 England side and the 2009 Bok side.

Last years I believe one week later the ABs would have turned that win around, despite the margin. Why the difference between that and the 2003 side? Because all around the match last year the side that managed to get up and beat the ABs performed nowhere near that level, nor did the ABs drop as low. But the England 02/03 side backed up again and again all around the NZ wins against everyone else. Take the 2007 French...done 61-10 6 weeks earlier in NZ, then lost limply after beating NZ in the quarter. If given that match a week later theres no way the French would have won again.

Suggesting that a side was a better team than the ABs yet performing rubbish comparatively before and after the win, is just as good an argument as the ABs 'cant win em all' and to keep on winning endlessly is too great for any one side. 'Losing' releases the pressure on a side. These days the ABs lose one, then go on to win the next 15, lose another, then another 10+.

Sure the opposing side was better on the day...but the reasons are perhaps not as obvious.

I agree with your main ideas Taylorman but your comment about wins vs non wins etc for Woods, Brasil, Federer is a little selective wouldn't you say.

Perhaps you're right but for instance Football is a much much more competitive sport then rugby... perhaps 20 ultra competitive sides compared to what 5 in rugby.
Given there are so few competitive nations in rugby, those with distinct superiority seem god like.... AUS at rugby league for instance surely has a better record then the ABs in union wouldn't you say???

The ABs in modern day history are right up their in that category... but before that your history isn't standout... it was just one of a trio of teams at the top (the boks, the Lions and the ABs... the records up to pro rugby are near identical.. in fact the boks had a superior record).

Taylorman wrote:"Brazil, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Michael Phelps, Carl Lewis"...think you'll find their wins vs non wins rate far pales in comparison to the AB's.

Not disagreeing with your point, but rugby is such a game, with so many variables, that it just should not be dominated to the degree that the AB's do, week after week, year after year, decade after decade. Its such a significant margin for a sport this size in this

Teams should not be compared with individuals in terms of win ratios. Individuals are by definition less consistent than a bunch of them who are picked in large pool of players on form. plus they fade away so cannot maintain a great win ratio through their entire carreer.
Last rugby union is not a global game yet so the comparision with football / soccer is not really relevant. maybe cricket would be more adequate.
finally I feel that the ABs have been dominating the game because they always have something new to propose and a capacity to re invent themselves so that they always maintain their lead against the chasing pack.

Rugby fan... of course they can. To discount the possibility is also preposterous. The nobel thing is to always acknowledge the opposition and take any loss on the chin. But it's also foolish not look at context.

The '73 team you mentioned is a great example. A great win. Full credit to the team. A useful predictor of future form probably not. The win probably saved the side from being crowned the worst team to ever visit NZ at the time. They arrived in NZ and promptly proceeded to lose all three provincial matches going into the test. They were relatively well beaten by Canterbury and Wellington (by the standards of the day). England also lost to Fiji and Australia that year and ended the calendar year with 3 wins from 8 games. The All Blacks had selection issues that year and lost to the Junior All Blacks at about the same time. Wasn't the AB's finest hour and highlights issues all black fans from the time still talk about. It's not like the judgement was made on a one off game.

Agree with the comparisons...I just didnt pick those names...perhaps poor examples. Oz league is in a similar position I agree but the number of opponents that have comparable professional leagues are significantly less than rugby, which is if anything increasing- as is the ABs winning %. I'd be surprised if any 5 year period were better than the current one in terms of numbers played as well as the %.

You'd have to wonder if 're-inventing' themselves is at the heart of why the ABs are always finding themselves on top because thats an astounding statement in modern day sport.

Personally I still think its primarily the distractions of the other main nations- SA politically, Football and weather in the UK and Ireland, and other sports for Oz.

Those are constants that have been with those countries for'ever' and I believe the contrast with our lack of significant distractions provides the main basis of any gap that exists.

fa0019 wrote:
The ABs in modern day history are right up their in that category... but before that your history isn't standout... it was just one of a trio of teams at the top (the boks, the Lions and the ABs... the records up to pro rugby are near identical.. in fact the boks had a superior record).

On the button. Probably the Springboks in the 30's are the historical comparison with current AB's.

Anything before the 50's was really a nice piece of history and matches were few and far between. Travel, working conditions, ground and gear quality were so much different. I think we can be thankful we (boks and the ABs) have such good records from those days as they stand us up well today, but they have little to do with the game today.

They just showed the 73 baabaas try as a tribute to Cliff Morgan who filled in the commentary that day.

As good as the try was the one hand offload from Tom David to Quinnell around the tackle was fantastic, a bullet of a pass...

That try was helped by tackling that would be embarrassing in a touch rugby game.

Yes it was also helped by being one of the worst AB sides to tour...not that they actually lost a test in the UK though...

Taylorman wrote:Anything before the 50's was really a nice piece of history and matches were few and far between. Travel, working conditions, ground and gear quality were so much different. I think we can be thankful we (boks and the ABs) have such good records from those days as they stand us up well today, but they have little to do with the game today.

Fair enough. Not going to disagree with you. You can't compare eras easily. The same will be true in another 50. Presumably rugby will be bigger by then and we may have faded from the scene. Fortunately I'm likely to have alzheimers and will be living in the past.

yeah I still think the 87 side was the greatest ever AB side- being young, from Auckland, the first World cup, the emergence of JK and M Jones from my same playing region and era- exciting times. Nothing can beat that in my mind...ooops......looks like I already have alzheimers bc...

Probably was. But there will always be that element of doubt given SA's isolation.

Moot point on the NZ SA thing. Both teams had brilliant records-they differ in that NZ had a better win percentage vs all comers and losing to less teams while SA won the head to head battle vs NZ itself. Hence NZ being completely obsessed with the SA rivalry. I'm sure they'll want to chip away at the record in SA too as it's the only losing record they have. Ellis Park is the hardest place to win statistically for them though-well aside from anywhere where it's a WC semi.

Its also the frequency of playing thats altered things. There were 64 years in the amateur era between SA and NZ- 37 tests played, 20 won by SA and 2 drawn.

In 50 of those 64 years the sides didnt meet because of the frequency of tours and world events so they were averaging just over half a test a year.

In the pro era its 43 matches (30 won and 13 lost) in the 17 years of the pro era which is 2.5 tests a year on average- we've played at least 2 every year- the comparison a completely different dynamic.

Wales were also up on NZ for 60 odd years at 3-3 in 67 but have since lost 23 straight. We've retained our Irish and Scotland record and are increasing the %'s between both SA and Oz- at least since 2010.

So although some think that the gap is closing the stats confirm its actually increasing. Again, an amazing thought considering the pressure of Pro rugby these days.

Taylorman wrote:"Brazil, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Michael Phelps, Carl Lewis"...think you'll find their wins vs non wins rate far pales in comparison to the AB's.

Not disagreeing with your point, but rugby is such a game, with so many variables, that it just should not be dominated to the degree that the AB's do, week after week, year after year, decade after decade. Its such a significant margin for a sport this size in this day and age that wins these days are justifiably arguable as one offs.

For the losses we had suffered over the past 10 years, chances are the ABs would have turned the results around had they been played the very next week. Exceptions would be for me the 2003 England side and the 2009 Bok side.

Last years I believe one week later the ABs would have turned that win around, despite the margin. Why the difference between that and the 2003 side? Because all around the match last year the side that managed to get up and beat the ABs performed nowhere near that level, nor did the ABs drop as low. But the England 02/03 side backed up again and again all around the NZ wins against everyone else. Take the 2007 French...done 61-10 6 weeks earlier in NZ, then lost limply after beating NZ in the quarter. If given that match a week later theres no way the French would have won again.

Suggesting that a side was a better team than the ABs yet performing rubbish comparatively before and after the win, is just as good an argument as the ABs 'cant win em all' and to keep on winning endlessly is too great for any one side. 'Losing' releases the pressure on a side. These days the ABs lose one, then go on to win the next 15, lose another, then another 10+.

Sure the opposing side was better on the day...but the reasons are perhaps not as obvious.

How about Nadal then, Career winning percentage of 84.36% vs the All Blacks 75.75%, a winning HTH against every top 30 player and losing percentages to only 5 players ever. He can still lose and it be due to the other player playing well.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote: ...more or less confirming his point. The best England side of all time beat NZ by 2 and 3 points. Average NZ sides regularly beat England comfortably.

At the risk of repeating myself, this isn't very useful. The idea that, ceteris paribus, an All Black team will always beat any opposition, or even just England, so any loss must be analyzed solely in terms of what went wrong for New Zealand, is a daft way of looking at a contest.

There will always be dominant performers in sport. When losses come, we will certainly wonder what went wrong with Brazil, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Michael Phelps, Carl Lewis, or pick your own giant. However, it'll also be right to credit the victor. After all, they did actually set out to win too.

It's fair to give the All Blacks the status of favourites on a regular basis but sport is full of examples of people rising to meet a challenge, not just idols developing feet of clay. In a head-to-head contest, the other side isn't only hoping to do a Bradbury, they set out to perform and place the favourite under pressure.

When England defeated New Zealand at Eden Park in 1973, captain John Pullin was in no doubt about the reason. Just minutes after the final whistle went, he was telling the post-match interviewer "I think they were under the impression we were going to run it all the time, which we never really intended to do. The idea was for the back trio to get in amongst it, and help upset the rhythm of the All Blacks if we could".

That's exactly what happened. It's no good saying that the All Blacks could have countered the tactic if they'd expected it. It wasn't an accident England played the way they did: they knew New Zealand wouldn't expect it. The better team won. It wasn't a vintage England side, despite the fact they had also claimed a win at Ellis Parl the year before. It was, however, capable of beating any opponent with the right tactics and execution.

Meanwhile, at the same time, one of the finest Northern Hemisphere sides ever - seventies-era Wales - couldn't manufacture a win over the All Blacks even as they had the measure of England. Perhaps they should have, just as Ireland's golden generation ought to have managed a victory, but they didn't.

The idea that England have just been fortunate to come up against the All Blacks on a series of off-days insults the intelligence. England have beaten the All Blacks when they've been able to knock them off their stride and outplay them. We've actually done that more times while not top dogs in Europe than when we are.

Conversely,  Woodward's side can't be dismissed because they only beat New Zealand by a handful of points. Their great achievement was winning home and away when the All Blacks were in no doubt about the threat England posed. They brought their best counter, and it wasn't good enough, even with a two-man advantage.

There's no shame in acknowledging your own team has been outplayed. I can understand why, as an England supporter, I've had to make my peace with that conclusion more often than a New Zealander, but it really shouldn't be so alien to the followers of the silver fern.

Excellent post

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Taylorman wrote:"Brazil, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Michael Phelps, Carl Lewis"...think you'll find their wins vs non wins rate far pales in comparison to the AB's.

Not disagreeing with your point, but rugby is such a game, with so many variables, that it just should not be dominated to the degree that the AB's do, week after week, year after year, decade after decade. Its such a significant margin for a sport this size in this day and age that wins these days are justifiably arguable as one offs.

For the losses we had suffered over the past 10 years, chances are the ABs would have turned the results around had they been played the very next week. Exceptions would be for me the 2003 England side and the 2009 Bok side.

Last years I believe one week later the ABs would have turned that win around, despite the margin. Why the difference between that and the 2003 side? Because all around the match last year the side that managed to get up and beat the ABs performed nowhere near that level, nor did the ABs drop as low. But the England 02/03 side backed up again and again all around the NZ wins against everyone else. Take the 2007 French...done 61-10 6 weeks earlier in NZ, then lost limply after beating NZ in the quarter. If given that match a week later theres no way the French would have won again.

Suggesting that a side was a better team than the ABs yet performing rubbish comparatively before and after the win, is just as good an argument as the ABs 'cant win em all' and to keep on winning endlessly is too great for any one side. 'Losing' releases the pressure on a side. These days the ABs lose one, then go on to win the next 15, lose another, then another 10+.

Sure the opposing side was better on the day...but the reasons are perhaps not as obvious.

How about Nadal then, Career winning percentage of 84.36% vs the All Blacks 75.75%, a winning HTH against every top 30 player and losing percentages to only 5 players ever. He can still lose and it be due to the other player playing well.

A better comparison would be the Spanish football team who have a superb record since 2006.

3 major global/continental tournaments won and losing finalists in last years confed cup to a Brazil team at home.
Competitive record (no friendlies) of 55-6-5 since 2006 losing less than 10% of games.
Includes 36 games unbeaten in all fixtures between 2006 and 2009 including 15 straight wins.
All that in a more globally competitive sport than Rugby.

Impressive really!!

Taylorman wrote:"Brazil, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Michael Phelps, Carl Lewis"...think you'll find their wins vs non wins rate far pales in comparison to the AB's.

Not disagreeing with your point, but rugby is such a game, with so many variables, that it just should not be dominated to the degree that the AB's do, week after week, year after year, decade after decade. Its such a significant margin for a sport this size in this day and age that wins these days are justifiably arguable as one offs.

For the losses we had suffered over the past 10 years, chances are the ABs would have turned the results around had they been played the very next week. Exceptions would be for me the 2003 England side and the 2009 Bok side.

Last years I believe one week later the ABs would have turned that win around, despite the margin. Why the difference between that and the 2003 side? Because all around the match last year the side that managed to get up and beat the ABs performed nowhere near that level, nor did the ABs drop as low. But the England 02/03 side backed up again and again all around the NZ wins against everyone else. Take the 2007 French...done 61-10 6 weeks earlier in NZ, then lost limply after beating NZ in the quarter. If given that match a week later theres no way the French would have won again.

Suggesting that a side was a better team than the ABs yet performing rubbish comparatively before and after the win, is just as good an argument as the ABs 'cant win em all' and to keep on winning endlessly is too great for any one side. 'Losing' releases the pressure on a side. These days the ABs lose one, then go on to win the next 15, lose another, then another 10+.

Sure the opposing side was better on the day...but the reasons are perhaps not as obvious.

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?

andyi wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Taylorman wrote:"Brazil, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Michael Phelps, Carl Lewis"...think you'll find their wins vs non wins rate far pales in comparison to the AB's.

Not disagreeing with your point, but rugby is such a game, with so many variables, that it just should not be dominated to the degree that the AB's do, week after week, year after year, decade after decade. Its such a significant margin for a sport this size in this day and age that wins these days are justifiably arguable as one offs.

For the losses we had suffered over the past 10 years, chances are the ABs would have turned the results around had they been played the very next week. Exceptions would be for me the 2003 England side and the 2009 Bok side.

Last years I believe one week later the ABs would have turned that win around, despite the margin. Why the difference between that and the 2003 side? Because all around the match last year the side that managed to get up and beat the ABs performed nowhere near that level, nor did the ABs drop as low. But the England 02/03 side backed up again and again all around the NZ wins against everyone else. Take the 2007 French...done 61-10 6 weeks earlier in NZ, then lost limply after beating NZ in the quarter. If given that match a week later theres no way the French would have won again.

Suggesting that a side was a better team than the ABs yet performing rubbish comparatively before and after the win, is just as good an argument as the ABs 'cant win em all' and to keep on winning endlessly is too great for any one side. 'Losing' releases the pressure on a side. These days the ABs lose one, then go on to win the next 15, lose another, then another 10+.

Sure the opposing side was better on the day...but the reasons are perhaps not as obvious.

How about Nadal then, Career winning percentage of 84.36% vs the All Blacks 75.75%, a winning HTH against every top 30 player and losing percentages to only 5 players ever. He can still lose and it be due to the other player playing well.

A better comparison would be the Spanish football team who have a superb record since 2006.

3 major global/continental tournaments won and losing finalists in last years confed cup to a Brazil team at home.
Competitive record (no friendlies) of 55-6-5 since 2006 losing less than 10% of games.
Includes 36 games unbeaten in all fixtures between 2006 and 2009 including 15 straight wins.
All that in a more globally competitive sport than Rugby.

Impressive really!!

Probably. I picked Rafa because it's over his whole career and requires no cherry picking at all

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?

I wouldn't mention tiredness at all as a Kiwi TM. We enjoy spanking the NH at the end of our season so much partly because we can tell them to shove the tiredness excuse where the sun doesn't shine. We got done and norovirus isn't worth 17 points IMO.

We lost in 2003 or 2002 with a composite side. It doesn't matter who played though. It goes down as a loss. The thing that pleases me is that we are quick to turn around results and not make a habit of it. It takes special sides like the French touring team or Eales' Wallabies or SA to inflict consecutive defeats on us. England can be proud of their victories over us but I'm sure they'd like to build winning momentum over us. 4 matches on offer and none of this we need to be competitive BS. We need to win the series and show what England is truly capable of. Unrealistic you might say but what really is the difference between winning one match and winning the next one after? The mental and attitudinal aspects are the key.

Warburton said he wanted to win every AI match last year. Good on him. Wales lost to Nz, Oz and Samoa but the attitude was right. Shows that you need to bring your game as well as the mental one to consistently perform but often against NZ I see a poor approach that leads to a poor performance.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Warburton said he wanted to win every AI match last year. Good on him. Wales lost to Nz, Oz and Samoa but the attitude was right. Shows that you need to bring your game as well as the mental one to consistently perform but often against NZ I see a poor approach that leads to a poor performance.

and Argentina.

Something told me there were four. Makes their turnaround after Ireland all the more impressive though.

They couldn't go on losing forever.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Warburton said he wanted to win every AI match last year. Good on him. Wales lost to Nz, Oz and Samoa but the attitude was right. Shows that you need to bring your game as well as the mental one to consistently perform but often against NZ I see a poor approach that leads to a poor performance.

Interesting comment. A number of teams seem to go into panic mode when playing New Zealand and frankly often look beaten before they even start. While you highlight Warburton as having the right attitude I do wonder - right words perhaps but the team arguably lack the mentality to back it up, and that applies to their games against any of the SANZAR teams. So many times in recent years they've done all the work, played some good rugby and got themselves in a good position to win then had a meltdown and blown it. Playing against us on the other hand they can keep their composure even when behind on the score board and under pressure.

funnily enough I re-watched the Wales vs NZ Ai from last year, the amount of unforced errors Wales made was shocking. There was a number of errors due to NZ pressure too, but the unforced ones really stood out, simple passes spilled and balls kicked dead from a penalty, also poor choices to go for a lineout instead of points numerous times early in the game (easier to say in hindsight).

The difference was (shock, horror) NZ just did not make those errors, and they capitalised when Wales did.

That was the main difference, execution of core skills in a high pressure enviroment, so whilst the words from Warburton may have been correct (and I think he's one of the few players in Wales who genuinely believe they can win every game) I cant help but think the aura of the all blacks and that monkey on their backs had an affect on them.

I'd agree with what Big says to be fair! It seems to be the same against SA/Australia in recent years, its like the rugby equivalent of selective erectile dysfunction.

Please feel free Comfort then to stop by the How to face up to history thread.

The way I see it, the composure you and Big speak of comes from the experience of winning. Even when you're behind, the belief is there that you can prevail. You score when it counts. But you don't get that composure unless you have past experiences on which to call.

Wales seem to have a mental block against the SH sides but those unforced errors come when you're trying too hard because you feel you need to force your hand or do something special instead of concentrating on executing the basics right.

It's a vicious circle. Teams like NZ win the majority of their games and so have greater experiences of doing the right thing at the right time and are able to draw on those experiences. If you lose more times than not, the fewer experiences of doing the right thing are available to you. Just like good poker players can dig themselves out of difficult situations when they shouldn't be able to do. They take the game out of the equation and use their experience and skill to gain an edge.

What I can never fathom is the statement I'll be happy if we can hold them to less than 10. The ball has yet to be kicked in anger and you're already conceding that defeat is inevitable even in a hypothetical word. That's like imagining a hypothetical world where you can choose any actress or well known amazing beauty and saying, I'll be happy if I can indulge in frottage. Well hang on, if I can have this hypothetical set up why not think big. Instead of being content rubbing myself up and down her, why not contemplate full carnal, sinful pleasure? It's a hypothetical context after all and anything's possible. Teams know what they're up against but have you ever wondered why some men aren't intimidated by the best looking women in clubs and end up pulling them? Because they walk right up to them and do the basics right with confidence. Show no fear. The IRB have imposed limits on the opposition approaching the NZ players while they're dancing but there's no reason why they can't simply walk up to them afterwards, propose banging them senseless and doing just exactly that. Think big and you can grow big. Think small and you will stay impotent.

kia, are you saying that (in the words of The Streets song) the NH go up to the SH thinking:

I'm not trying to pull you
Even though I would like to
I think you are really fit
You're fit But my gosh don't you know it

Not exactly in those words but I think you've got the gist of it mate.

disneychilly wrote:I wouldn't mention tiredness at all as a Kiwi TM. We enjoy spanking the NH at the end of our season so much partly because we can tell them to shove the tiredness excuse where the sun doesn't shine. We got done and norovirus isn't worth 17 points IMO.

I know what you mean and tiredness isnt an apt description. In recent years Ive see the ABs on such long strings of victories, only to lose one, then recommence winning again as though the loss signalled a restart.

In the Hong Kong loss, the W's draw and the England match they all had one common factor- nothing other than the win was at stake. We don't get to have a last loss as motivation yet every other side has that when facing us- most have many some have 20+!

This year thankfully we have England to use that redemption feeling.

My point is its a unique position to be in from a motivational sense and sometimes, particularly when every single match is potentially the biggest match of someones life in the opposition side. Its a great position to be in I admit but also has its own uniqueness in terms of the motivation factor- something other sides simply have never known.

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.

I expect England to win every game we play. That's not being arrogant, just my mindset. I don't doubt our players do too, but they often underestimate how much the opposition want to win too. Especially in GS deciders. 2011 (Dublin) and this year in Cardiff are games I was really disappointed with, in terms of attitude.

I'll always give due credtit to a team that have deserved to beat us though... and ref bashing is not on the agenda.

I do think England have a chance of a win in NZ - probably the 1st test - if we don't have too many guys undergoing corrective surgery. A recurring issue after an AP season.

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.

We're not always miles better than everyone. We're generally a little bit better all of the time. And in a test match that little bit almost always gets you the win. We're just versatile enough so that we have the ammo to win in any situation. Once out of every four tests this isn't the case though.

Hound mate you hit the nail bang on the head with regards to why NZ don't do well at WCs for their standards. Underestimating how much the opposition want to win-that emotional trigger that Henry spoke about-has helped undo us in the past. From a NZ point of view hopefully we've learned to harness and use our own emotions from the last WC as well as neutralise emotions of other teams.