From an England Perspective - What Have We learned Today

First topic message reminder :

Well, first and foremost why the ABs are No.1 and likely to stay there.

What we must aspire to, to join them at the top.

We have strength in depth at loosehead, Marler played well and he is our 3rd choice.

T. Youngs needs to stay at Tigers for a bit until his throwing is consistent enough to play at this level, perhaps they could stretch him a couple of inches s well. Webber must get his chance.

Lawes and Launchberry are the best pairing at lock we have, Lawes was world class today. Parling is not an impact sub, Attwood or an equivalent is needed

Billy Vunipolo and Morgan are both very good 8s

Dickson is the way forward if we want a fast paced game, bringing forwards and backs into the game at pace.

Farrell can attack as well as kick, but needs to stop these lateral runs that go nowhere, much better 2nd half, tried to take it straighter

36 may have the 12 shirt again next year, if he plays like today and not last week.

Tomkins is not close to this level, yet at least. there are a least three better backs out there now, not including Manu. A failed experiment that needs to be stopped.

Ashton, played better, but still few runs following the ball carrier,  runs back against the flow when ball moving laterally.

Brown is top class

Foden can cover wing, but is a full back

We need more cover at 9, Youngs is not doing it anymore, he ha been found out I think.

Flood cannot hack it at this level.



We are getting there if we can keep up the intensity, but too many mistake and poor choice replacements.

I do agree that Tom Youngs' poor throwing lost us one of our advantages today. Having said that, the lineout which led to the final NZ try looked to be taken by us and then suddenly lost in the maul. Not sure you can pin that failure on him.

Mind you, he did then hamper our chance of a fightback by missing the next lineout when we were looking to attack. From that phase of play, we also got penalized and went eight points behind.

Might already have been mentioned but Tom Youngs throwing pretty much broke our back in that game.

The pack had put in a massive shift to get us two points ahead. We then fumble the restart which is bad enough but then fumble two lineouts in our own 22 on the trot that's unnaceptable at this level. Straight from that second mess of a lineout NZ score their try to retake the lead. Confidence is on the way down.

A few minutes later we have an attacking lineout in NZ's 22, a chance to restore momentum and generate some points and with that gain the lead again. And again the lineout is a cluster frack. A god awful cluster frack. From that we never look like endangering the NZ line.

Still don't think we could beat Wales with that team. There, I've said it.  

Wonder if you were also watching the BBC highlights just now yappysnap. We appear to have felt the urge to comment on the same point at the same time.

Well lots of criticism about certain young / inexperienced players after an 8 point defeat to the supposed best AB team ever.

So who would people want the criticised players replaced with in the January EPS?

TJ . You call Farrell limited yet you would be lucky to have a Scottish 10 half as good.

Doctor grey who would you have picked instead? Farrell's not perfect but he's a lot better than he's given credit for. He's unfashionable. He does what he does. Okay someone else might run England's back line better but the contenders all have their own flaws. For a 22 year old he's not been bad.

englandglory4ever wrote:Still don't think we could beat Wales with that team. There, I've said it.  

Your brave.
Get ready for the backlash

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well lots of criticism about certain young / inexperienced players after an 8 point defeat to the supposed best AB team ever.

So who would people want the criticised players replaced with in the January EPS?

Anyone for Tomkins - Daly, JJ, Trinder, my nan (actually has a better offload than Tomkins). Very average at Prem level, garbage at int. level.

englandglory4ever wrote:Still don't think we could beat Wales with that team. There, I've said it.  

I think we can, but I'd agree they're still ahead of us in most areas.

Yeah hood83 all those players are world class right? Same old moaning. Have you got anything positive to say about England? Or is it just gloating about Tomkins?

Tomkins didn't play well but you would think he burnt down an orphanage from your attitude towards him!

This is a young England team that competed with the Best ever All Black team, the number 1 team in the world and lost by 8 points.

I still feel that some players have to be taken too one side and given a good talking too.

Is it time to replace Toby Flood, with Freddie Burns?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well lots of criticism about certain young / inexperienced players after an 8 point defeat to the supposed best AB team ever.

So who would people want the criticised players replaced with in the January EPS?

Wait wait wait.

They're the best All Blacks team ever suddenly?

Hood,

Ok I accept Tomkins wasn't great...however of your list :

JJ isn't near the form he showed when he came on the scene, wish suggests he isn't that good
Daly who should have been there is playing FB
Your nan...well ive never seen her play so cant comment.


There is no other 13's who are playing consistently well and playing at 13. Eastmond? How is he playing. Im disappointed Lowe never got a chance I rate him highly but hes out for the season.

What other EQ'd 13 are playing week in week out to the reuiqred standard.

And if we play Burrell at 13 then we are doing what we keep criticising Lancaster for doing...playing players out of position.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well lots of criticism about certain young / inexperienced players after an 8 point defeat to the supposed best AB team ever.

So who would people want the criticised players replaced with in the January EPS?

Wait wait wait.

They're the best All Blacks team ever suddenly?

Not my words..thats the words coming from NZ pal!!!

beshocked wrote:TJ . You call Farrell limited yet you would be lucky to have a Scottish 10 half as good.

Doctor grey who would you have picked instead?  Farrell's not perfect but he's a lot better than he's given credit for. He's unfashionable. He does what he does.  Okay someone else might run England's back line better but  the contenders all have their own flaws. For a 22 year old he's not been bad.

Beshocked lets be honest Farrells not even the best flyhalf at Sarries. The point is the AB's didn't select DC for his defensive strenght but for his vision and ability to play what he see's. Farrell just does not have the vision or imagination to create. His game control is generally limited and his kicking from hand is average, honestly I think Twelvetrees with his limited 10 experience at Tigers and Gloucester would do a better job.

Lancaster is a crap coach so won't change Farrell, but it is obvious to anyone with a rugby brain that he is stifling the advancement of our game. Defence is not enough.

Kingelderfield not sure whether to laugh or cry at some of your comments.

You do know a fly half actually has to be able to place kick well to play for England.

You mean the vision like finding a gap and scoring a try?

I am now back from the game and here are my thoughts prior to watching a replay.

A real positive has to be Mike Brown at the back, the shirt is 100% his. The starting front row were great too, Marler did really well in particular.

Youngs throwing has already been mentioned but they really did kill the England momentum, I think he is a good player but those came at just the wrong time. A little more composure around that 60 minute mark and who knows.

In the backs Farrell was pretty good today I thought, as was 12trees. Tomkins didn't do anything specifically wrong, but I don't think he is the answer.

A bit of a concern for me is the fitness levels, the subs etc didn't help, but once a few things went against us, it seemed like we struggled to get into the game again, the rucking in particular became a little too passive for me.

A word on Joubert, I've no idea what it was like on tv, but in the crowd we thought he was letting a lot go, offsides and little things at the ruck etc.

All in all I'm a little frustrated, that game could have been won but some sloppiness meant we fell short. NZ showed why they are the best though, their outside backs in particular are just a class above ours.

beshocked wrote:TJ . You call Farrell limited yet you would be lucky to have a Scottish 10 half as good.

Doctor grey who would you have picked instead?  Farrell's not perfect but he's a lot better than he's given credit for. He's unfashionable. He does what he does.  Okay someone else might run England's back line better but  the contenders all have their own flaws. For a 22 year old he's not been bad.

YOu still don't get it.
I don't know who is the backup. Nor the backup to the backup.
Flood?
Burns?
Ford?
Myler?
Twelvetrees?
Jonny?

My mother?

Andy Goode?

But that does not mean we do not need improvement from Farrell if we want to get that RWC title..
These are separate discussions.

beshocked wrote:Kingelderfield  not sure whether to laugh or cry at some of your comments.

You do know a fly half actually has to be able to place kick well to play for England.

You mean the vision like finding a gap and scoring a try?

Did you see the AB's win by kicks today Beshocked?

beshocked wrote:...You do know a fly half actually has to be able to place kick well to play for England

It helps, but we haven't always handed over goalkicking duties to the flyhalf. Dusty Hare, Jon Webb and Simon Hodgkinson all took them while playing full back. The last full back England fielded who was capable of taking penalties was Delon Armitage. Like Halfpenny early in his career, Armitage was mainly known for long range efforts.

Doctor grey improvement is what we always want but you seem to have unrealistic ones.

Some England fans will never ever be satisfied by certain players. I have criticised twelvetrees but to be fair he did pretty well today.

You don't know who the back up is yet you are happy to point the finger and criticise.

England fronted up pretty well today. Certain players shouldn't be getting as panned as much as they are.

Well finally we found the solution to our midfield problem.

Some one who can defend, someone who can distribute, someone who can offload, someone who can still bosh it up the middle when required..........

Courtney Lawes!

Kingelderfield I didn't realise England were the ABs! Different team, different gameplan, different skillset oh and also far more experienced.

Of course the likes of Burns,May,Sharples and Trinder would have come in and beaten the ABs if picked right?

Rugby fan which English full back do you want kicking for us? Perhaps Mike Brown?

beshocked wrote:Doctor grey improvement is what we always want but you seem to have unrealistic ones.

Cut it out, lad. My expectations for a fly half is to get the backs moving. To have a touch of attacking creativity. To integrate into the attack. Farrell doesn't have it at the moment. It stuns me that you see what he does well but blind yourself to where he needs improvement in some basic skills for that level. Farrell is in a critical position here we need just that bit more all around play that many 10s have. Doesn't make him a bad guy. But he needs to work on his game.

Looky, mate. I'm done with this. Its good you like your players, but ever hear 'warts and all'? Comes from the 1600s and is true today.

England didn't lose the game because of Farrell. I thought he played quite well. Strong in defence, kicked all his goals. They had Tomkins at 13, he's limited. He is a gainline breaker only and no Conrad smith.

You can't spin the ball out wide if you get tackled and turned over immediately. He's learning and for a 22 year old he's doing ok. give him some targets... Joseph, tuilagi, yarde, wade, Watson etc and I think the options will improve and so will he.

England played purposely tight as they were getting a lot of success. After 20 mins the score up to Hartley going off was 19-3.. Their plan worked reasonably well against was is heralded as the most dominant rugby side in history. It's about winning not looking fancy and getting turned over a lot.

South Africa in Jozi played a wife game and scored 4 tries... But they let in 6 as this kiwi side know how to counter and punish. England simply didn't give them that option... It kept them in the game, at 60 mins put them ahead and had they not suffered key in game injuries it could have been a very different outcome.

Well said fa0019.

Doctor grey cut out what? That I feel you are being overly harsh?

Of course he has aspects of his game to work on but its 23 vs 23 if you include the benches.

Many other 10s have parts of their game to work on too.

Do you want Cipriani back? He is more attacking than Farrell.

It's as if you expect an England fly half to be just like Dan Carter. That's unrealistic

fa0019 wrote:England didn't lose the game because of Farrell. I thought he played quite well. Strong in defence, kicked all his goals. They had Tomkins at 13, he's limited. He is a gainline breaker only and no Conrad smith.

You can't spin the ball out wide if you get tackled and turned over immediately. He's learning and for a 22 year old he's doing ok. give him some targets... Joseph, tuilagi, yarde, wade, Watson etc and I think the options will improve and so will he.

England played purposely tight as they were getting a lot of success. After 20 mins the score up to Hartley going off was 19-3.. Their plan worked reasonably well against was is heralded as the most dominant rugby side in history. It's about winning not looking fancy and getting turned over a lot.

South Africa in Jozi played a wife game and scored 4 tries... But they let in 6 as this kiwi side know how to counter and punish. England simply didn't give them that option... It kept them in the game, at 60 mins put them ahead and had they not suffered key in game injuries it could have been a very different outcome.

geez what a spin...
So England controlled the game and lost cos they had injuries.
Geez thats a good one. I must have been imagining things as the Abs went though them like butter.
As opposed to the plethora of raids on the AB line- that bumbling fall on the line thing they call a try.
England lost because they couldnt score tries- simple as that. Last year they did, this year they didnt. You dont beat the ABs through controlling the game and not scoring tries- when did that ever happen? Was always going to be a matter of time before the tries came.

I love the way that the All Blacks have now become "the best All Blacks team ever" in several uk news outlets including the bbc. Anything to spin a moral victory from the defeat, eh?

I can't see that it's better to score 1 and concede 3 as opposed to score 4 and concede 6...especially since the Boks needed 4 to win the series anyway. Isn't 4/6 better by twofold than 1/3?? Or does maths work differently here?

Let's not forget that pitiful penalty milked by Ashton and the twickenham crowd, ironically for "obstruction"...

The all blacks are the best team in sporting history by the kiwis.. This is not a uk story but a kiwi one. And no you are miles off being the best sporting team ever. But the kiwis literally have nothing else so it's understandable that they grab on to this Schtick.

Nope. Sorry. It's the uk papers reporting this nonsense. It's a method of claiming some sort of victory by losing by only slightly more points than France did last week...which someone allows them to install themselves as favourites for whatever competition they've been saving themselves for since last decade.

"England's run of six straight wins at Twickenham - their best since 2003 - may have come to an end, but there was plenty to admire in the way they applied the pressure to a side many consider to be possibly the finest All Blacks side of all time."

BBC

mystiroakey wrote:The all blacks are the best team in sporting history by the kiwis.. This is not a uk story but a kiwi one. And no you are miles off being the best sporting team ever. But the kiwis literally have nothing else so it's understandable that they grab on to this Schtick.

Theres a challenge mysti...name one major, or other, sporting side who for over 100 years has the % winning rate of the ABs, which currently at 76.1%.
Or, who in the years of pro rugby a record of 83%. (92% at home).

Who is this side they are miles off?

Taylorman wrote:So England controlled the game and lost cos they had injuries.

England lost because New Zealand were better. Specifically, they had the skills to fashion three tries through superior attacking lines and handling.

I don't think England set out to play exclusively through the forwards. They hoped they could start as they did against Argentina but the All Blacks are a tougher nut to crack, and our passing was often poor. As we got into the game, we posed a greater challenge through the pack, and so we went that way. It's smart rugby to do what causes problems for the opposition.

We weren't undone by injuries. We were undone by our inability to keep it tight when had got our noses in front. Tom Youngs is taking flack but no-one thought that his selection on the bench was a bad move by Lancaster. After all, he was in the team which beat New Zealand last year. Last year, though, we created more with our backs.

mystiroakey wrote:The all blacks are the best team in sporting history by the kiwis.. This is not a uk story but a kiwi one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24950820

"England boss Stuart Lancaster" sees world champions New Zealand as the most dominant team in international sport.

Lancaster's men host the All Blacks at Twickenham and are the only side to have beaten them in the last 33 Tests.

"New Zealand have become probably the most successful team in world sport," said Lancaster of Saturday's opponents.

Prior to the game I may add! and yes it is a bit of a carlsberg moment!

Taylorman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:The all blacks are the best team in sporting history by the kiwis.. This is not a uk story but a kiwi one. And no you are miles off being the best sporting team ever. But the kiwis literally have nothing else so it's understandable that they grab on to this Schtick.

Theres a challenge mysti...name one major, or other, sporting side who for over 100 years has the % winning rate of the ABs, which currently at 76.1%.
Or, who in the years of pro rugby a record of 83%. (92% at home).

Who is this side they are miles off?

firstly we are talking about this team.. not the historic data which incorporate many different teams...

spain football , the win percentage means nothing- they experiment in friendlies - but dont lose games that mean something . also the sport is global. RU isn't, its niche

RDSguru wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:The all blacks are the best team in sporting history by the kiwis.. This is not a uk story but a kiwi one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24950820

"England boss Stuart Lancaster" sees world champions New Zealand as the most dominant team in international sport.

Lancaster's men host the All Blacks at Twickenham and are the only side to have beaten them in the last 33 Tests.

"New Zealand have become probably the most successful team in world sport," said Lancaster of Saturday's opponents.

Prior to the game I may add! and yes it is a bit of a carlsberg moment!

yep already commented on it prior to the game. He was asked because of the news story that KIWIS have been talking themselves up as the best ever team ever. He basically agreed with the story that has been going about. I dont blame SL for that- He is a rugby man.. He is blind to the reality's of this small sport

mystiroakey wrote:
firstly we are talking about this team.. not the historic data which incorporate many different teams...

spain football , the win percentage means nothing- they experiment in friendlies - but dont lose games that mean something . also the sport is global. RU isn't, its niche

and secondly

so you think this AB's is better than Spain?

come on spit out why and how ?

and to add some more objectivity , a game like today played out in football would have ended in a draw not a result.

mystiroakey wrote:He is blind to the reality's of this small sport

Aaaah.. hmmmmnnn  

Spain are gash at rugby.

It's exactly the fact that Spain has the luxury of experimenting in "friendlies" that makes them inferior.

NZ are expected to win every single match. No "building". No moral victories.
No "taking the positives". Win.win.win.

So much pressure.

Yet 80~% of the time they do just that.

Amazing.

Yes GE they are , like that matters though

Just waiting for the secondly....

there was no secondly..

firstly we have to understand what we are talking about(this team- not historic data)

then the post goes on to the points

RDSguru wrote:Just waiting for the secondly....

I imagine it'll be another relevant metaphor about football.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Spain are gash at rugby.

It's exactly the fact that Spain has the luxury of experimenting in "friendlies" that makes them inferior.

NZ are expected to win every single match. No "building". No moral victories.
No "taking the positives". Win.win.win.

So much pressure.

Yet 80~% of the time they do just that.

Amazing.

it is amazing- however spains achievement tops it by a long way imo

If NZ win the next RWC - talk to me lads- but then there is still the issues surrounding the size of the sport and lack of competition..

mystiroakey wrote:so you think this AB's is better than Spain?

come on spit out why and how ?

So in either 100 years or the last 20 Spain has a better winning record in matches that matter? Care to share what the figures are for Spain then? Or is just your'opinion'

Or what is your measure of the most successful sporting team is mere winning % isnt it (I mean...how silly is that...winning %-)

Mystri, you bang on about Spain football no end. I don't even think they're the best ever football side. You also say Spain lose friendlies because they experiment. That's weak. When do union teams experiment? In tests and they 'all' count. A loss is a loss.

By the way, the ABs don't talk themselves up to the media. You guys did about your chances. Rowntree said to the BBC that the ABs were there for the taking. Well, that was a bit hollow in hindsight. It's the same every time, we can beat the ABs blah blah blah.

Re: From an England Perspective - What Have We learned Today
by mystiroakey Today at 11:46 pm
If NZ win the next RWC - talk to me lads- but then there is still the issues surrounding the size of the sport and lack of competition..

Ah the "Clive Woodward" defence.

Thing is...Even he's given up on that one. He's just gone off like a malfunctioning pull-cord toy stuck on a quip about wilkinson from 2002.

ebop wrote:Mystri, you bang on about Spain football no end. I don't even think they're the best ever football side. You also say Spain lose friendlies because they experiment. That's weak. When do union teams experiment? In tests and they 'all' count. A loss is a loss.

By the way, the ABs don't talk themselves up to the media. You guys did about your chances. Rowntree said to the BBC that the ABs were there for the taking. Well, that was a bit hollow in hindsight. It's the same every time, we can beat the ABs blah blah blah.

GE the Abs were there for the taking. They scraped vs France and they scraped here. Had England had a better backline attack they might well have won it. A margin of 8 after being 20-3 up clearly indicates England could have won this. That they didnt was their own shortfall and testament to an accomplished AB side that can win matches they perhaps might otherwise lose- ugly I think its called.