Tactics against big 3 SH teams

The SH teams will shortly embark on the November tour. The NH coaches will have watched the RC and thought about the best way to counter these teams. Is it right though to judge the teams on what the coaches have seen?

Looking at the games played in the middle of the tournament will most likely mirror the conditions in Europe. It's all very well to look at the Ellis Park match or the Dunedin match last Saturday and judge the team on that. Wales has the stadium that closes its roof but the condition of the pitch is invariably poor. Add in rain or dew from the cold and we are likely to see more games played in trying conditions.

That may be welcome news because SA and Australia showed that NZ is not the only team comfortable at playing a high tempo game that opens up. Yet playing that way will ensure defences open up and points are easy to come by.

If you play an attritional game, you close those gaps as defensive lines are harder to break. That has suited teams like Scotland and Ireland have proved adept at playing this game but is that the best chance of success. SA are opponents who have discovered a more varied attack but they have proven comfortable in arm wrestling games. Australia might be seen as the best hope of engaging in a set piece contest but they have proven in the past that they are useful at minimizing their weaknesses. NZ are uncomfortable when you flood the breakdown and close out the space in midfield but going in with a defensive mindset only bears fruit a couple of times out of about 20.

So is variety the way to go or lumping your eggs into one basket? The poor showing against SH sides in general can be attributed to the former or the latter. Australia seem the likely candidate this year as the target win. But will Schmidt or Lancaster be thinking defence or attack or both will win out against NZ?

If the conditions are trying I think it's tempting to say do the basics right, minimize errors and try to force mistakes from the opposition. But is this being too defensively minded? Is saying we'll make fewer errors the same as we'll do more things right? I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the team meetings or training sessions to know what the plan of attack is.

What do you think the best tactics are for playing Australia, SA and NZ respectively this autumn?

Ireland v Australia

Ireland have to take Australia on in the set piece - slow the pace down and dominate territory. The Australian backs have too much pace and skill for us to be drawn into a loose game. Genia and Cooper will cause mayhem if they get time and space so our back row will need to bully and pressurise them like they did in 2011.  

Ireland v NZ

Now this is a problem - NZ are more physical, fitter, faster, more skilful, tougher, younger.... in every area are vastly superior.

What we can't do is give them counterattacking ball - we need to commit numbers into the breakdown and try and frustrate them on their own ball. O'Brien and Best caused them problems on the deck last summer.

I honestly cannot see a way we can beat them, unless they are well under par and see this as damage limitation exercise unfortunately.

Dominating possession is key but even then NZ are undefendable right now. If we do kick we need to be pin point and target Savea - Smith and Dagg are deadly on the counter. We must take our points, don't turn over ball and hope for the best....

For Australia you need to target the set phases, you need to use mauls and keep the ball close, hit the rucks hard and they will struggle.

For SA it is all about the breakdown, if you niggle them there and frustrate them they get flustered.

for NZ, ah well, you might as well go hell for leather as they are going to score 3-4 tries anyway.

A defensive game plan against them won't get you far.

Nice rodders. Those tactics under Kidney seemed to work the best with Christchurch being a prime example but don't you think Schmidt will or should be a little more adventurous?

England proved what you can do against NZ if you play with intensity and minimal errors for 80 minutes.

Sure NZ have played some great rugby recently in the RC but let's not get carried away and act as if there's no chance.

There is always a chance, but to beat them you need to score tries.

since the world cup NZ has played 24 matches, scoring 84 tries, near enough 4 per match.

The match they lost against England, England scored 3 tries, the draw last year against Australia was tryless.

After over a hundred consecutive tests of scoring at least one try.

No one is claiming NZ are unbeatable Cyril. One can forgive rodders' pessimism having never experienced a win whereas you are just coming off a win.

But more informative is to see how England won and why they lost all their others going back to 2003. I think you have to be more attack minded and like BB says have the mindset to go out and win the game and not just contain.

England found success at the breakdown and through the centre channel. NZ will look to improve in that area but with Conrad Smith out why not target that area. Why not still flood the breakdown area? Look for ways to dominate but also to score points. NZ is no different to other teams. Pressure on the scoreboard leads to mistakes and when the score goes out beyond a try so too can NZ composure break if they think they're getting too far behind. Of course that means keeping them out but it also means ticking the scoreboard over.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Nice rodders. Those tactics under Kidney seemed to work the best with Christchurch being a prime example but don't you think Schmidt will or should be a little more adventurous?

Well he might yeah, get us to try and take the ABs on with the short passing game. The breakdown will be key, it is a strength of ours but also unfortunately a bigger strength for NZ. Both are technically very good at the ruck but it's the judgement to commit numbers or not which is the crux.

I'd be happy to see us take the game to NZ but I think ultimately it will see us fall on our sword as our skill levels are so far behind - we might get 3 but the ABs will get 6-7.

One things for sure, whatever the tactics, it would take the greatest performance in Irish rugby history to pull off a victory. I just don't think we have the firepower this time but you never know... Cardiff did just beat Toulon...

Having watched a few of the 4N games its hard to see a weakness to attack.  Competing at the breakdown and stealing slowing the ball must be key as is a fast line speed and denying them space.  I fear however the skills are so good that this would merely lead to space out wide for them to exploit.

For england I suspect the best way would be to make it a slow game with lots of set pieces.  Get 'em into an arm wrestle
 For scotland - clone the ginger tackle monster and set him loose!  In all seriousness it has to be starve them of the ball and don't kick it away all the time.  

On a related topic I was suprised how conventional a game they played.  No fancy backs moves to create space.  No scissors, run arounds, trick plays at all.  why? Mind you it was all done with fantastic intensity and pace.

rodders wrote:Ireland v Australia

Ireland have to take Australia on in the set piece - slow the pace down and dominate territory. The Australian backs have too much pace and skill for us to be drawn into a loose game. Genia and Cooper will cause mayhem if they get time and space so our back row will need to bully and pressurise them like they did in 2011.  

Ireland v NZ

Now this is a problem - NZ are more physical, fitter, faster, more skilful, tougher, younger.... in every area are vastly superior.

What we can't do is give them counterattacking ball - we need to commit numbers into the breakdown and try and frustrate them on their own ball. O'Brien and Best caused them problems on the deck last summer.

I honestly cannot see a way we can beat them, unless they are well under par and see this as damage limitation exercise unfortunately.

Dominating possession is key but even then NZ are undefendable right now. If we do kick we need to be pin point and target Savea - Smith and Dagg are deadly on the counter. We must take our points, don't turn over ball and hope for the best....

How about picking a team that will compete with them, and not going for the same old same old.

Cyril wrote:England proved what you can do against NZ if you play with intensity and minimal errors for 80 minutes.

Sure NZ have played some great rugby recently in the RC but let's not get carried away and act as if there's no chance.

 Exactly! Follow England's example:

1) lose for ten straight years
2) wait until the last test of the longest season in history
3) ensure opposition had ecoli poisoning during week
4) ensure opposition is missing key players through dubious IRB suspension intervention
5) ask referee to pretend game is played under 2005 interpretation of ruck law rather than current set
6) if possible at least two key players should be carrying injuries

7) win
8) ensure the insufferably smug Clive Woodward is on hand to smirk his way through TV coverage and remind us all he won a World Cup once repeatedly 

In short:

A) wait for planets to align
B) brag about it - forever

GE, please could you leave this thread alone and wreck some other ones (on a different forum perhaps).

Are they more physical, fitter, faster etc???

Surely with professional rugby this shouldn't be the case anymore?

Defending takes a lot more out of you then attacking, if you have more possession it can be perceived as having fitter individuals as they will tire less. NZ also kick quite a bit, more then the other sides in the RC this year which again helps if you dominate the kicking territorial battle.

8Studs wrote:

rodders wrote:Ireland v Australia

Ireland have to take Australia on in the set piece - slow the pace down and dominate territory. The Australian backs have too much pace and skill for us to be drawn into a loose game. Genia and Cooper will cause mayhem if they get time and space so our back row will need to bully and pressurise them like they did in 2011.  

Ireland v NZ

Now this is a problem - NZ are more physical, fitter, faster, more skilful, tougher, younger.... in every area are vastly superior.

What we can't do is give them counterattacking ball - we need to commit numbers into the breakdown and try and frustrate them on their own ball. O'Brien and Best caused them problems on the deck last summer.

I honestly cannot see a way we can beat them, unless they are well under par and see this as damage limitation exercise unfortunately.

Dominating possession is key but even then NZ are undefendable right now. If we do kick we need to be pin point and target Savea - Smith and Dagg are deadly on the counter. We must take our points, don't turn over ball and hope for the best....

How about picking a team that will compete with them, and not going for the same old same old.

Agreed. It is pathetic to accept we cannot beat NZ. They can be beaten but it will require an incredible performance and a very well drilled cohesive team.

To come close we need to:

Change our defensive systems. We tend to concede a crazy amount of ground by allowing teams to attack wide using a drift defence. It hasnt worked well. We need to rethink our defense and put the NZ backs under more pressure and give them less time and space.

Beat them up. Teams like SA and England have had some success v NZ by simply outmuscling them in the forwards. Easier said than done as they probably have the best drilled pack in the world.

Breakdown battle. Win it as we did in test 2 of the summer tour and we have a better chance of closing on a win.

Mentality. Need to stop making excuses and being afraid to play rugby against them. Show no fear as Munster did the last time they played them or as Ireland did in the great 1992 24 - 21 match in Carysbrook or the blistering game in 2001 where Ireland lead 21-7 at one point. Obviously the summer tour in 06 and the second test in 13 are other examples of when Ireland showed no fear and lead until the last quarter in both of those games.

Lots of other factors.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Cyril wrote:England proved what you can do against NZ if you play with intensity and minimal errors for 80 minutes.

Sure NZ have played some great rugby recently in the RC but let's not get carried away and act as if there's no chance.

 Exactly! Follow England's example:

1) lose for ten straight years
2) wait until the last test of the longest season in history
3) ensure opposition had ecoli poisoning during week
4) ensure opposition is missing key players through dubious IRB suspension intervention
5) ask referee to pretend game is played under 2005 interpretation of ruck law rather than current set
6) if possible at least two key players should be carrying injuries

7) win
8) ensure the insufferably smug Clive Woodward is on hand to smirk his way through TV coverage and remind us all he won a World Cup once repeatedly 

In short:

A) wait for planets to align
B) brag about it - forever

Why don't you give us another rendition why you think home advantage is infact a disadvantage and how winning the RWC is more difficult? Doesn't sound like a chip on NZ's shoulder at all!!!

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Cyril wrote:England proved what you can do against NZ if you play with intensity and minimal errors for 80 minutes.

Sure NZ have played some great rugby recently in the RC but let's not get carried away and act as if there's no chance.

 Exactly! Follow England's example:

1) lose for ten straight years
2) wait until the last test of the longest season in history
3) ensure opposition had ecoli poisoning during week
4) ensure opposition is missing key players through dubious IRB suspension intervention
5) ask referee to pretend game is played under 2005 interpretation of ruck law rather than current set
6) if possible at least two key players should be carrying injuries

7) win
8) ensure the insufferably smug Clive Woodward is on hand to smirk his way through TV coverage and remind us all he won a World Cup once repeatedly 

In short:

A) wait for planets to align
B) brag about it - forever

Hell, I have heard some excuses and nonsense in my time, but yours just get better and better all the time.

I think GE is again getting worried that England may do a repeat job on them.

You have nothing to fear except fear itself rodders. Unfortunately for teams who haven't beaten NZ that fear becomes crippling. Contrast that with a team like France who fear NZ but can channel that fear to raise their performance. If you can score 3 tries then do so. Don't worry about what the opposition can do to you but what you can do to the opposition. Uncle Sam army recruitment mentality and like the devout Michael Jones once said it's better to give rather than receive.

Intensity, ultra aggression and speed.

ie At rucks...dont just step over....clear the rucks out like a demented banshee wiping out anything in your way.

Ball in hand - In the tight...dont slow down into the tackle...speed up into the tackle hitting the defence as hard as possible. make it as hard as possible for the tackler/s - this will give us an attacking maul...or go down to a ruck..see above.

In the open, hit the gaps AT PACE with support options on either side.
If it breaks down...and the player is tackled...revert to above..support players clear out as aggressively and nastily as possible.

Defence, hit them hard as f$5k until the whistle blows.

Simple

GE's post  

The best of the lot

I'd like to see Wales come out swinging at SA, I want forwards carrying the ball with purpose, coming at angles from outside to in at pace, sucking in the bok defenders (so much easier said than done) then we can get our runners out wide in some space, the boks backline dont look anything special defensively apart from JDV, I'd like to see Engelbrecht/Le Roux targetted.

In defence I'd like to see much of the same with more of an emphasis on 'ripping' the ball in tackle, the boks look very vulnerable to the '2 pass and go' counter-attacking ritual at the moment, they're attack minded and its that switch back to defense they can really be hurt, we've got the players who can hurt any team in the world on the counter so I'd liek to see us really play for those opportunities, that brings risks in itself with SA.

I'm hoping Wales are forced to develop their backplay over the autumn, missing Roberts/Cuthbert takes away a lot of physicality, Philips could well be missing too should Gatland take a dim view of his recent activities.

I'd like to see some of the younger backs given a go against Tonga, Corey Allan/Owen Williams/Liam Williams & Rhodri Williams.

I'd settle for that.

A win against Argentina is a definite and oh, I demand we beat Australia, for godsake, can we just beat them already

Yes you need to demand that..

You need to kill hoodo.

Just like us english need to demand a win against you lot in the next 6 nations!

Just like the kiwis will want to also demand a win v us english!

but tbh i cant see the kiwis beating us. I think GE has killed the AB's karma..

We have a Kiwi monkey on our back and hes invited his little ozzy chum to play along. It aint cool.

Against SA I think Wales have a couple of options.

There are 2 schools of thought concerning the backrow. A guy like Lydiate is required for his tackling. But... SA are vunerable at the breakdown as shown by Scotland and players like Warburton and Tipuric combined could exploit this.

Thats without mentioning the South African Elephant we've not dealt with in half a century.....


I'd buy a win to be honest  

Biltong wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Cyril wrote:England proved what you can do against NZ if you play with intensity and minimal errors for 80 minutes.

Sure NZ have played some great rugby recently in the RC but let's not get carried away and act as if there's no chance.

 Exactly! Follow England's example:

1) lose for ten straight years
2) wait until the last test of the longest season in history
3) ensure opposition had ecoli poisoning during week
4) ensure opposition is missing key players through dubious IRB suspension intervention
5) ask referee to pretend game is played under 2005 interpretation of ruck law rather than current set
6) if possible at least two key players should be carrying injuries

7) win
8) ensure the insufferably smug Clive Woodward is on hand to smirk his way through TV coverage and remind us all he won a World Cup once repeatedly 

In short:

A) wait for planets to align
B) brag about it - forever

Hell, I have heard some excuses and nonsense in my time, but yours just get better and better all the time.

I don't think there are any inaccuracies there.

Comfort wrote:We have a Kiwi monkey on our back and hes invited his little ozzy chum to play along. It aint cool.

In some ways it must be quite daunting for any team to breakdown such a record.

You look up to some of the greats of the game; JPR, Edwards, John, Bennett, JJ, Quinnell, Windsor, Price etc..... all of whom played together and none of them achieved a win vs. the ABs in a Welsh jersey. If so how can these guys do it???

The current AB team is one of the most dominant in history. The challenge for anyone is beyond everest.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Cyril wrote:England proved what you can do against NZ if you play with intensity and minimal errors for 80 minutes.

Sure NZ have played some great rugby recently in the RC but let's not get carried away and act as if there's no chance.

 Exactly! Follow England's example:

1) lose for ten straight years
2) wait until the last test of the longest season in history
3) ensure opposition had ecoli poisoning during week
4) ensure opposition is missing key players through dubious IRB suspension intervention
5) ask referee to pretend game is played under 2005 interpretation of ruck law rather than current set
6) if possible at least two key players should be carrying injuries

7) win
8) ensure the insufferably smug Clive Woodward is on hand to smirk his way through TV coverage and remind us all he won a World Cup once repeatedly 

In short:

A) wait for planets to align
B) brag about it - forever

Nothing new here, please move on  

The problem is half the teams are beaten before they leave the changing rooms. The mental aspects are huge when playing the AB's.

The Chess masters speak,before drawing conclusions from the 4 NS look a little deeper.
Currently the Scrum and Breakdown areas are penalty heavens every one the Ref.
Can ping either side at EVERYONE for some offence or other both Cane and Hooper
were most penalised in the Breakdown area.
Who`d be a Ref.he has to decide on what he sees,TMO and Line Judges help but it`s his decision.He doesn't have endless slo mo`s biased tv pundits have when criticising his
every decision.
Keep the scoreboard ticking,minimise your own mistakes don`t do silly things make sure
your basics are right..
Judge Australia on the last two games this year not the 4Ns,recognise there set piece is
ok,not the mistake ready to happen of yore.
Realise they have backs that can burn you and goal kickers on a par with the best also
breakdown area is there strength.
South Africa have the set piece.the goal kicking,the breakdown,the defence,and at last
now have backs willing to run.
New Zealand have the basics right,defence,setpiece,break down,backs,counter attack
goal kicks etc.Maybe lacking in Drop Goal expertise seldom use them.
Play your own game instead of second guessing them last year isn`t this SH sides
have analysing and fixing things too.
England can expect one thing NZ will target that Match big time as a revenge mission.
Last year England deservedly won scoring 3 tries BUT don`t forget they were matched
try for try.IF England get a big lead early they may well do it again BUT they will have
to play for 80 minutes plus flat out to do it.
France and Ireland as well as England may well gain a win versus the AB`s they are
due for a couple of losses.BUT will be looking for the perfect year a clean sweep and
are showing impressive depth of players.
The Boks will be looking to carry on there impressive record versus NH sides.
Australia have a virtual 5Ns to play and it will be a very good idea there final standing
in the IRB this year.
A couple of losses by NZ could see SA or England back at IRB number one.

FA, the way I look at it, we've got a coach who's the first Lions winning coach in 16 years, the bulk of the welsh team made the Lions squad and most of those players played very well in high pressure situations. They've won back to back 6nations and got to the semi-final of the world cup, this IS the best group Wales have ever had imo, we had star players back then, we have a professional setup who know how to succeed now. Results will come with development, looking back to our inconsistencies even 3/4 years ago, theres been a huge shift since Gatland took over in player mentality.

Fingers crossed, onwards and upwards, as an Irish friend of ours says, BELIEVE!

As you say though, it never gets any easier against the top teams, its why they consistently stay at the top, we need to knock them off their perch, they're not going to slowly climb down for us!

Always good to see someone bitter about an English victory that happened nearly a year ago. I'm glad a lot of people dislike England - just makes me feel more privileged.

I'm not the majority, I'm one of the few, and the English few at that - and that's the best few to be.

England, I love you.

Comfort wrote:FA, the way I look at it, we've got a coach who's the first Lions winning coach in 16 years, the bulk of the welsh team made the Lions squad and most of those players played very well in high pressure situations. They've won back to back 6nations and got to the semi-final of the world cup, this IS the best group Wales have ever had imo, we had star players back then, we have a professional setup who know how to succeed now. Results will come with development, looking back to our inconsistencies even 3/4 years ago, theres been a huge shift since Gatland took over in player mentality.

Fingers crossed, onwards and upwards, as an Irish friend of ours says, BELIEVE!

As you say though, it never gets any easier against the top teams, its why they consistently stay at the top, we need to knock them off their perch, they're not going to slowly climb down for us!

I agree Comfort.. its about time for this group of players. I don't see them getting any better potentially... but I do see them realising potential and knocking over the best teams.... especially at home. But potential and reaching it are two very different things.

Duty281 wrote:Always good to see someone bitter about an English victory that happened nearly a year ago. I'm glad a lot of people dislike England - just makes me feel more privileged.

I'm not the majority, I'm one of the few, and the English few at that - and that's the best few to be.

England, I love you.

 i truly think England lost their dislike title . you due one to beat Wales . i just want to beat Australia this year and and Ireland in six nations . everything else is a bonus . 

Duty281 wrote:Always good to see someone bitter about an English victory that happened nearly a year ago. I'm glad a lot of people dislike England - just makes me feel more privileged.

I'm not the majority, I'm one of the few, and the English few at that - and that's the best few to be.

England, I love you.

   Amen pilgrim

Vs NZ last year we had the intensity and the low error count which are both huge. We also had a player capable of amazing things have a truly great game. Unfortunately Manu is crocked this time around

We can beat the kiwis! we can do it! we have done it, we can again!!

tigerleghorn wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Cyril wrote:England proved what you can do against NZ if you play with intensity and minimal errors for 80 minutes.

Sure NZ have played some great rugby recently in the RC but let's not get carried away and act as if there's no chance.

 Exactly! Follow England's example:

1) lose for ten straight years
2) wait until the last test of the longest season in history
3) ensure opposition had ecoli poisoning during week
4) ensure opposition is missing key players through dubious IRB suspension intervention
5) ask referee to pretend game is played under 2005 interpretation of ruck law rather than current set
6) if possible at least two key players should be carrying injuries

7) win
8) ensure the insufferably smug Clive Woodward is on hand to smirk his way through TV coverage and remind us all he won a World Cup once repeatedly 

In short:

A) wait for planets to align
B) brag about it - forever

Nothing new here, please move on   

i figured out why the big chip. its because in spite of hating english rugby and most things english, GE is stuck here for some unknown reason. can imagine that would be pretty upsetting.  

I dont think he hates it here quins, I think he hates himself for liking it!!

lostinwales wrote:Vs NZ last year we had the intensity and the low error count which are both huge. We also had a player capable of amazing things have a truly great game. Unfortunately Manu is crocked this time around

Then we look to others like Brown, Yarde, Wade, Ashton, Twelvetrees who are each capable of some great stuff to stand up and make things happen.

quinsforever wrote:

tigerleghorn wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Cyril wrote:England proved what you can do against NZ if you play with intensity and minimal errors for 80 minutes.

Sure NZ have played some great rugby recently in the RC but let's not get carried away and act as if there's no chance.

 Exactly! Follow England's example:

1) lose for ten straight years
2) wait until the last test of the longest season in history
3) ensure opposition had ecoli poisoning during week
4) ensure opposition is missing key players through dubious IRB suspension intervention
5) ask referee to pretend game is played under 2005 interpretation of ruck law rather than current set
6) if possible at least two key players should be carrying injuries

7) win
8) ensure the insufferably smug Clive Woodward is on hand to smirk his way through TV coverage and remind us all he won a World Cup once repeatedly 

In short:

A) wait for planets to align
B) brag about it - forever

Nothing new here, please move on   

i figured out why the big chip. its because in spite of hating english rugby and most things english, GE is stuck here for some unknown reason. can imagine that would be pretty upsetting.  

Who get's the sympathy vote? GE or his poor neighbours?

He's probably as timid as a mouse away from the keyboard bless him.

tigerleghorn wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

tigerleghorn wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Cyril wrote:England proved what you can do against NZ if you play with intensity and minimal errors for 80 minutes.

Sure NZ have played some great rugby recently in the RC but let's not get carried away and act as if there's no chance.

 Exactly! Follow England's example:

1) lose for ten straight years
2) wait until the last test of the longest season in history
3) ensure opposition had ecoli poisoning during week
4) ensure opposition is missing key players through dubious IRB suspension intervention
5) ask referee to pretend game is played under 2005 interpretation of ruck law rather than current set
6) if possible at least two key players should be carrying injuries

7) win
8) ensure the insufferably smug Clive Woodward is on hand to smirk his way through TV coverage and remind us all he won a World Cup once repeatedly 

In short:

A) wait for planets to align
B) brag about it - forever

Nothing new here, please move on   

i figured out why the big chip. its because in spite of hating english rugby and most things english, GE is stuck here for some unknown reason. can imagine that would be pretty upsetting.  

Who get's the sympathy vote? GE or his poor neighbours?

He's probably as timid as a mouse away from the keyboard bless him.

I bet he's a closet luvvie of all things British though... has the commorative Charles & Diana china sets the lot.

Despite GEs charm England and Lancaster really do have to confront why they were able to pull the only win out of the bag over a side which both before and since the match has completely dominated every other side, then go on to play some really average to poor rugby against much lesser foe. That match should have been a launchpad for better things and yet there's no real explanation for the form after the AB match.
Did they really rise that much that day yet do nothing remotely like it either side before and since?

Is it that inconceivable that the ABs just may not have been 100% that day given the form of both sides since. Perhaps it is...but the ABs sure will be expecting, and have every right to expect to be up against a side vastly superior to anything else they have met in the last two years. Will that be the case?

Well currently stroppy because despite buying a new house in zone one london it's apparently impossible to get Sky TV or broadband internet installed. I may as well be living in a third world country. It's ridiculous. Not to mention the state of the circle line. It's a total failure of management, just constant, ubiquitous and all consuming that gets me down.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well currently stroppy because despite buying a new house in zone one london it's apparently impossible to get Sky TV or broadband internet installed. I may as well be living in a third world country. It's ridiculous. Not to mention the state of the circle line. It's a total failure of management, just constant, ubiquitous and all consuming that gets me down.

I heard it's gonna get a lot worse where you live. perhaps you should consider a move back to NZ?.........please  

Taylorman wrote:Despite GEs charm England and Lancaster really do have to confront why they were able to pull the only win out of the bag over a side which both before and since the match has completely dominated every other side, then go on to play some really average to poor rugby against much lesser foe. That match should have been a launchpad for better things and yet there's no real explanation for the form after the AB match.
Did they really rise that much that day yet do nothing remotely like it either side before and since?

Is it that inconceivable that the ABs just may not have been 100% that day given the form of both sides since. Perhaps it is...but the ABs sure will be expecting, and have every right to expect to be up against a side vastly superior to anything else they have met in the last two years. Will that be the case?

i have no doubt, on any given day, England could cause an upset against NZ. Its not likely, but just like last year, its a possibliity. to be honest last year i think the win surprised england more than anyone else! and the 6N campaign flattered to deceive as a few tight wins were unconvincing (good win vs france though i thought) and the team buckled when things didnt go their way against wales (scrum decisions initially) and then the game got really away from them - classic inexperience imho.

this is definitely not a world-beating england side, but if they play with real intensity and intent, in a one-off contest i can see them getting a result. but i wouldnt expect any victory to highlight anything other than the best that england can play. truly great international teams know how to win ugly too, not just when they are having a great day.

"s it that inconceivable that the ABs just may not have been 100% that day given the form of both sides since."


taylor man you forgot the deal we had lad!!

quinsforever wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Despite GEs charm England and Lancaster really do have to confront why they were able to pull the only win out of the bag over a side which both before and since the match has completely dominated every other side, then go on to play some really average to poor rugby against much lesser foe. That match should have been a launchpad for better things and yet there's no real explanation for the form after the AB match.
Did they really rise that much that day yet do nothing remotely like it either side before and since?

Is it that inconceivable that the ABs just may not have been 100% that day given the form of both sides since. Perhaps it is...but the ABs sure will be expecting, and have every right to expect to be up against a side vastly superior to anything else they have met in the last two years. Will that be the case?

i have no doubt, on any given day, England could cause an upset against NZ. Its not likely, but just like last year, its a possibliity. to be honest last year i think the win surprised england more than anyone else! and the 6N campaign flattered to deceive as a few tight wins were unconvincing (good win vs france though i thought) and the team buckled when things didnt go their way against wales (scrum decisions initially) and then the game got really away from them - classic inexperience imho.

this is definitely not a world-beating england side, but if they play with real intensity and intent, in a one-off contest i can see them getting a result. but i wouldnt expect any victory to highlight anything other than the best that england can play. truly great international teams know how to win ugly too, not just when they are having a great day.

Perhaps though most fans would believed their side play with a real intensity and feel on the day in a one off contest they're capable of getting a result. It just doesn't explain the events with anything tangible. Get your point though. This AB side is certainly a great side and would stack up against any in history as a comparison. Every great side wins ugly and this one is no different. But they all inevitably lose as well...even at their best. The 1924 side is the only side that can truly claim the invincible title.

mystiroakey wrote:"s it that inconceivable that the ABs just may not have been 100% that day given the form of both sides since."


taylor man you forgot the deal we had lad!!

I know but so too did the English side since the match....we expected a little better as did you probably. Let's hope this years match is just as exciting..you do know that match is THE one the boys are wanting... phew. If they get up and do it again then that would be memorable for sure.

Well dont be stating that England have no chance the night before this time