It's not England, it's the big three

I was recently discussing with a colleague, who is English, that when it comes to playing rugby, England always seem to have the measure of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and the rest of us cannot even make them raise an eyebrow, he went on to say that it is because perhaps England seem to know how to play these three and that their way of playing is better suited to the top three nations.

Now this made me think, I was wondering why England always either beat the SH teams or give them a serious run for their money but usually struggle against the home nations, and the only thing I could think of was the big three from the SH always brick it when playing England, I think that the three nations see England as being their most difficult game and go into the game without as much confidence as they would against Wales or Ireland or Scotland, this is of course a big compliment from me for England, but I think the big three still hurt from the side that ruled the roost at the turn of the 21st century and they still have the same type of mind set as they did back then, of course, I could still be way,way way off with my trail of thought, but it is just something I wanted to pass on to the people on here to see if any of you agree with me. Do you think it is more to do with the mind set of the big three, or do you think England's style of play is much better suited to playing the SH nations ?

South Africa haven't looked in trouble against England for a very long time.

Good question. hard to say. i think it's also something to do with the mindset of England who believe they can win on any given day, no matter how improbable. same goes for France. how much of that is Eng + Fr and how much the credit they are given by the top3, hard to say.

Rugby Fan wrote:South Africa haven't looked in trouble against England for a very long time.

Didn't England win in South Africa a summer or two ago ?

LordDowlais wrote:I was recently discussing with a colleague, who is English, that when it comes to playing rugby, England always seem to have the measure of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and the rest of us cannot even make them raise an eyebrow, he went on to say that it is because perhaps England seem to know how to play these three and that their way of playing is better suited to the top three nations.

Now this made me think, I was wondering why England always either beat the SH teams or give them a serious run for their money but usually struggle against the home nations, and the only thing I could think of was the big three from the SH always brick it when playing England, I think that the three nations see England as being their most difficult game and go into the game without as much confidence as they would against Wales or Ireland or Scotland, this is of course a big compliment from me for England, but I think the big three still hurt from the side that ruled the roost at the turn of the 21st century and they still have the same type of mind set as they did back then, of course, I could still be way,way way off with my trail of thought, but it is just something I wanted to pass on to the people on here to see if any of you agree with me. Do you think it is more to do with the mind set of the big three, or do you think England's style of play is much better suited to playing the SH nations ?

You have a point , All 3 teams have at on point or another ,come over to Twickers and have been humiliated by the English . My own team the Boks in particular got whacked for 6 straight years at Twickenham from 2000-2006 including that infamous 53-3 spanking before finally breaking the duck. The Aussies have lost the last 3 out of 4 and of course the AB probably still have nightmares about last year .

LordDowlais wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:South Africa haven't looked in trouble against England for a very long time.

Didn't England win in South Africa a summer or two ago ?

nope .

Bullsbok wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:South Africa haven't looked in trouble against England for a very long time.

Didn't England win in South Africa a summer or two ago ?

nope .

Bulls is right. Best we've had is a draw.

Firstly, England have the best record against the SH.

Secondly, rugby is a simple game and more often than not is won upfront. England rarely have a pack that capitulate so SH teams have to ask questions all over the park to win (and usually do).

Against Wales, England and Scotland, (often, but not always) the pack is well beaten. The reason Wales has come (frustratingly) close to a SH win recently is because our pack has been more competitive.

It is rare that a team that can't at least manage parity up front finds enough impact elsewhere to win.

Cyril wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:South Africa haven't looked in trouble against England for a very long time.

Didn't England win in South Africa a summer or two ago ?

nope .

Bulls is right. Best we've had is a draw.

Ah yes a draw, 14 all wasn't it, and was there a little bit of controversy in the game as well ?

Also was it not just a one point game the las time SA came to Twickenham ?

They drew the last game. England like France have a game that can disrupt NZ at the breakdown. That is not to say they always do but they can. Ireland can occasionally bring that type of game but it's very seldom. Scotland and Wales can apply set piece pressure but not in my view pressure at the breakdown. Often the other three can be unlocked out wide which relieves the pressure of up front.

LordDowlais wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:South Africa haven't looked in trouble against England for a very long time.

Didn't England win in South Africa a summer or two ago ?

We haven't beaten them since 2006. Currently, that's our worst record against any team, although the drought against New Zealand was longer.

You are probably thinking of the draw we managed on tour in 2012. The Boks still did us later that Autumn, although we came close.

LordDowlais wrote:I was wondering why England always either beat the SH teams or give them a serious run for their money but usually struggle against the home nations

Do they really?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I was wondering why England always either beat the SH teams or give them a serious run for their money but usually struggle against the home nations

Do they really?

Well, the way they have a go at the SH sides, it seems to make you think if they brought that game to any of the home nations they would tune us all. 

i think Australia come to Cardiff next week expecting to win . its only Wales .

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:i think Australia come to Cardiff next week expecting to win . its only Wales .  

And given our record against them why not. It's up to us to prove otherwise.

The Aussie game v Wales is going to be fascinating....

Many a welsh fan on here is claiming the Lions was actually just the welsh team. If this is the case then they should have broken their psychological wall and should beat the aussies as i think they have a better team.

What will be going through their minds IF they dont get that win...??

GeordieFalcon wrote:The Aussie game v Wales is going to be fascinating....

When ever we seem to be in touching distance with these feckers we aleays seem to have a raft of injuries. 

5 Oz players out will help Wales. Or it might help Oz rally.

offload wrote:

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:i think Australia come to Cardiff next week expecting to win . its only Wales .  

And given our record against them why not.  It's up to us to prove otherwise.

exactly . it all mindset . its been close games but mentally they have that advantage .even with our injures i ll be absolutely gutted if we lose again to them .

yup. i think the aussies are definitely out for revenge cos they keep hearing how it was wales that beat them on the lions tour.

so i think their motivation is going to be pretty high.

and wales will be feeling pressured by the weight of their own expectations (media certainly, probably team too if warbs comments are to be believed).

i am really excited to watch the game. tough one to call.

LordDowlais wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:The Aussie game v Wales is going to be fascinating....

When ever we seem to be in touching distance with these feckers we aleays seem to have a raft of injuries. 

I think its the mental aspects that will be the big aspect as ive added to my post...have they overcome the "barrier"...if there was one..

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:5 Oz players out will help Wales. Or it might help Oz rally.

arent the players out for the scotland game?

RSA has been England's real nemesis. England came v close in last 2 matches but no cigar.
England have no fear of anyone anymore (notwithstanding the last game at the Millenium) but RSA are the ones who seem to hold the voodoo over England.

quinsforever wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:5 Oz players out will help Wales. Or it might help Oz rally.

arent the players out for the scotland game?

Yes, and they'll come back for the Wales game keen to make amends!

I think there are a number of reasons for England being more successful against the Big three.

They do have a vast number of players, so it helps with depth, where countries such as Wales, Scotland and Ireland have less players.

When you have less players you have a bigger challenge replacing like for like.

It definitely helps with being able to find bigger packs.

Psychology has to play a role though.

How else can Wales as an example be so competitive against England, yet not have the same cometitive adge against SA?

Biltong wrote: I think there are a number of reasons for England being more successful against the Big three.

They do have a vast number of players, so it helps with depth, where countries such as Wales, Scotland and Ireland have less players.

When you have less players you have a bigger challenge replacing like for like.

It definitely helps with being able to find bigger packs.

Psychology has to play a role though.

How else can Wales as an example be so competitive against England, yet not have the same cometitive adge against SA?

This is what I am trying to say Bil, I do not think that it is Englands psychology, I think it has more to do with the psychology of SA, Aus and NZ, I think they go into these games still thinking that they are playing the WC winning side of 2003 so they are not so confident as they would be when playing us Celts. I think they play England thinking they could lose, and when they play us they think they are going to win, always win.

I would hardly say Australia and NZ were bricking it against England. Both led by 7 and 14 points respectively yet England managed to pull back the deficit to lead in both matches. I know NZ went on to win but England came back at them in a way you would not expect other NH sides bar France to.

I think England's mindset is just as important - they showed themselves to be mentally tough. They know they can match the SH sides and the SH sides know it too.

Getting to the RWC 2007 final was another of those against all odds moments.

England of course have a good record in the rugby world cup.

Oh and everyone going on about South Africa. South Africa have a good recent record vs us but in the last match they beat us by 1 point and scored one of the most fortunate tries I have seen. It was hardly a thrashing.

You may be right LD, but when even this current England side is putting performances against the AB's like last year and this, then its not going to change the AB's physchology in the near future...

come on LD. you're like all the SH commentators saying Aus and NZ "were off their game today". Give England some credit. both for the way they raise their game against SH sides, and the mental preparation which is clearly a key aspect of that.

classic example for me would be england losing 36-0 vs SA in RWC 2007, then going back to basics, telling the coaches to go sit in the corner, and the players dug deep themselves and very nearly got a result in the final against SA. now if thats not deep down mental resilience i dont know what is. nothing to do with SA choking, that was all about england.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I was wondering why England always either beat the SH teams or give them a serious run for their money but usually struggle against the home nations

Do they really?

I don't think either statement is true. England don't always beat the SH teams and don't struggle against the home nations.

England at Twickenham is a tough game for every team. SA and NZ very seldom lose to England though.

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote: I think there are a number of reasons for England being more successful against the Big three.

They do have a vast number of players, so it helps with depth, where countries such as Wales, Scotland and Ireland have less players.

When you have less players you have a bigger challenge replacing like for like.

It definitely helps with being able to find bigger packs.

Psychology has to play a role though.

How else can Wales as an example be so competitive against England, yet not have the same cometitive adge against SA?

This is what I am trying to say Bil, I do not think that it is Englands psychology, I think it has more to do with the psychology of SA, Aus and NZ, I think they go into these games still thinking that they are playing the WC winning side of 2003 so they are not so confident as they would be when playing us Celts. I think they play England thinking they could lose, and when they play us they think they are going to win, always win.

Yes, but I think it has to do with the psychological approach of any team.

Some teams you beleive you can beat, others you don't have the same belief.

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I was wondering why England always either beat the SH teams or give them a serious run for their money but usually struggle against the home nations

Do they really?

I don't think either statement is true. England don't always beat the SH teams and don't struggle against the home nations.

England at Twickenham is a tough game for every team. SA and NZ very seldom lose to England though.

NZ might have beaten England last weekend, but I thought England were a far better side than NZ, they were just undone by a moment of brilliance from Nonu. Who ever posted above is right, I think it was Quins, the players do have to take a lot of credit, but these are the same players who will go to Murrifield and struggle, so perhaps it's a little bit of phsycology on both sides.

I believe that Wales have more motivation to beat England than any other side. It's to do with various factors like Wales having more believe that they will win, the rivalry from being next door neighbours and long history, a belief that Wales are man for man a better team.

It's a lot more daunting for Wales when they take on NZ - a side they haven't beaten in over 50 years. There's the expectation and pressure. Plus it doesn't have the same spice as an England match. Same with South Africa.

Plus Wales are also much more familiar with England and their style because they play them every year in the 6 nations.

The Welsh don't really know what tactics and gameplans work because they struggle vs the tri nations.

LordDowlais wrote:

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I was wondering why England always either beat the SH teams or give them a serious run for their money but usually struggle against the home nations

Do they really?

I don't think either statement is true. England don't always beat the SH teams and don't struggle against the home nations.

England at Twickenham is a tough game for every team. SA and NZ very seldom lose to England though.

NZ might have beaten England last weekend, but I thought England were a far better side than NZ, they were just undone by a moment of brilliance from Nonu. Who ever posted above is right, I think it was Quins, the players do have to take a lot of credit, but these are the same players who will go to Murrifield and struggle, so perhaps it's a little bit of phsycology on both sides.

I think it was a bit more than that mate...we pushed them hard but i think the quality showed in the end. Encouraging for England anyway...

LordDowlais wrote:posted above is right, I think it was Quins, the players do have to take a lot of credit, but these are the same players who will go to Murrifield and struggle, so perhaps it's a little bit of phsycology on both sides.

Yes but going to Murrayfield is a different challenge to playing the SH teams at a packed Twickenham...of course its psychological but its the same for every team. Every team wants it a bit more against the teams above them, maybe England just enjoy being the underdog

GeordieFalcon wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I was wondering why England always either beat the SH teams or give them a serious run for their money but usually struggle against the home nations

Do they really?

I don't think either statement is true. England don't always beat the SH teams and don't struggle against the home nations.

England at Twickenham is a tough game for every team. SA and NZ very seldom lose to England though.

NZ might have beaten England last weekend, but I thought England were a far better side than NZ, they were just undone by a moment of brilliance from Nonu. Who ever posted above is right, I think it was Quins, the players do have to take a lot of credit, but these are the same players who will go to Murrifield and struggle, so perhaps it's a little bit of phsycology on both sides.

I think it was a bit more than that mate...we pushed them hard but i think the quality showed in the end. Encouraging for England anyway...

Personally I was a bit disappointed by the England bench. Wouldn't say it was because of them that we lost but with the likes of Hartley,Launchbury,Dickson and Farrell going off I felt like England lost their shape and momentum.

The expectation was that were guys on the bench who could add a bit of spark but they didn't fire in my opinion.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:5 Oz players out will help Wales. Or it might help Oz rally.

Wales have three tightheads, three wingers and four centres out injured.

It is the concentration of injuries occurring in the same position, add to that the selection issues we have that Oz don't caused by foreign clubs and Wales are far worse off than the Bazzers when it comes to absent first choice players.

Thought Wales was the last match but it seems Scotland is. Different teams started at different times this year so it's confusing.

Wales can't worry about who they have out and need to focus on who they have in. It is a good point that England have more ability to cover injuries.

I don't think England psychologically scare NZ. There's certainly respect but not from 2003 but how they can disrupt NZ ball. England has never beaten NZ in a RWC match and 2 defeats in 10 years does not suggest a psychological issue. It seems more even in the last two years because England are on an upward trend. France has a higher strike rate against NZ albeit just and with a lot more tests but the last 10 matches has seen 2 French wins so the same as England. Respect is shown but I don't think the results show NZ paying them too much respect in the meaning it was intended in the OP. They are a threat but haven't been consistent enough to pose a constant threat or at least cause players to freeze up.

Fact is England usually lose to the SH3. They have the odd win but they do do better than the others, bar France, who do much better vs NZ and SA.
So, in the same way a regular 4 or 5 ranked side is able to tip up those ranked a couple of places above them, with the odd 10 year win vs 1, so are those ranked 6,7 able to tip up no.s 5 and 4 particularly where the margins are smaller and familiarity is greater. The others also probably raise their game more in the 6N where the AIs are definitely at the low end priority for the SH sides.

A better measure of the difference lies in the summer 3 match tours where of those so far neither France, wales, Ireland or england have won one. The SH sides are definitely up for those.

the better measure is RWC.

i have stopped following the tours as england seem to rest so many players for injury recovery etc that they are usually over before they start.

and this one in NZ looks likely to be no different.

RWC is the only thing that matters to me.

It's not you, it's me. Why do I think of that dumping technique with the OP?

I guess that's why SA are our greatest foe. Every match counts and every loss hurts because they believe they can win every game. No matter when it happens.

offload wrote:

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:i think Australia come to Cardiff next week expecting to win . its only Wales .  

And given our record against them why not.  It's up to us to prove otherwise.

offload. Wales will only beat Australia. If they play for the full eighty minutes. Not like last time when they was in front with 2 minutes or on the clock to go, when Kurtley Beal raced down the touch line and scored in the corner. to win the game.

80 minutes or not with uncertainty as to who is our best 10, Fox and Doc out, and the aussie hoodoo I am not sure wales can do it unless we completely dominate up front. Aus will be huge favorites.

Also not sure which players have to return to their clubs

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:It's not you, it's me. Why do I think of that dumping technique with the OP?

I guess that's why SA are our greatest foe. Every match counts and every loss hurts because they believe they can win every game. No matter when it happens.

Not every single time Kia. We lost 18-5 to SA in 2011 one of the reasons to get Dagg who had not played all year back in with a chance of the squad. Then he plays a match winning semi performance in the World cup. So its true to an extent, but not quite 100%. The SA loss doesnt grate as one of our all time hurts and in hindsight became 'a necessity'

ah i see it was one of those tactical losses that was actually a victory.

so that should extend your unbeaten run back even further then taylorman

quinsforever wrote:the better measure is RWC.

i have stopped following the tours as england seem to rest so many players for injury recovery etc that they are usually over before they start.

and this one in NZ looks likely to be no different.

RWC is the only thing that matters to me.

England do only seem to beat the SH3 in the AI's. World cup Englands never beaten NZ, SA only in a pool match and only Oz in a big one- a knockout. So althouigh its ok its hardly setting the world on fire.

Agree with its resources the team should have better internationals than they have, certainly better backs- one or two out and theyre really stretched. In 2003 England showed the side they can have, so the question is why does that remain an 'astounding' one off in comparison.

More questions for England than the others I'd say...

Taylorman wrote:

quinsforever wrote:the better measure is RWC.

i have stopped following the tours as england seem to rest so many players for injury recovery etc that they are usually over before they start.

and this one in NZ looks likely to be no different.

RWC is the only thing that matters to me.

England do only seem to beat the SH3 in the AI's. World cup Englands never beaten NZ, SA only in a pool match and only Oz in a big one- a knockout. So althouigh its ok its hardly setting the world on fire.

Agree with its resources the team should have better internationals than they have, certainly better backs- one or two out and theyre really stretched. In 2003 England showed the side they can have, so the question is why does that remain an 'astounding' one off in comparison.

More questions for England than the others I'd say...

They've beaten AUS in the KO stages of the 95, 03 and 07 world cups. I wouldn't say that was a one off...

taylorman, you just focus on the 1st test of the Eng tour then, as without 10-15 of england's squad available you should find that result deeply satisfying and significant.

RWC is the only date set in stone where there are no conflicts and where the unions haven't tried to milk money by staging extra internationals at the expense of player welfare. mate thats why the tours are devalued for england. hugely competitive domestic league week in week out and no central contracting.

RWC is the only level playing field.

It's taken me over an hour to write and rewrite this, in an attempt to deal with a touchy subject without causing offence. Futile I know, but I have at least tried, and will be supporting Wales this weekend.

When I was at Uni in Scotland a few years back you learned very fast that you did NOT go into a Scottish pub with a screen when England were playing any third party. It would be full of Scots absolutely howling their hatred of England. Literally. Howling.  My Scottish friends explained it wasn't personal, it was history. Which is true.

I'm told the attitude is similar in Wales and I've certainly seen people posting on here and the old 606 that England was always the most wanted win, that any season where England were beaten was a good season (no matter what the other results were) and asking why England supporters were surprised that all other supporters hated England so much.

Now, I'm too old and ugly to take it THAT seriously. I don't think we're on the verge of civil war or anything like that. My highest sporting achievement was to represent Scottish Students (once!) and I am proud to have achieved that level (just!) and proud to have represented Scotland. I understand that as the biggest country in these islands for 1500 fairly uncivilised years or so, England generally beat up the Scots, Welsh and Irish which creates hatred and that this has consequences to the present day (see Scottish Independence referendum, for example). Interestingly, the Irish seems to have fewer issues with England than Scotland and Wales these days (dunno why...), which may well imo have led to them doing better in recent years against the Aussies at least. They have, for want of a better phrase, the psychological space.

I mention all this because I don't think it's England or the Big 3. I think it's Wales. Until Wales want to beat the big three as much as they want to beat England they won't beat them. And even when they DO want to beat the Aussies as much as they want to beat England it will take a few years to get sorted out with tactics and preparation. As it happens I think this change has started to happen in the last few years and Wales WILL beat big 3 sides from time to time over the next few. The first might be this weekend. Hope so. They're a good bunch of lads.

The problem is imo entirely Welsh. This fortunately means the solution is in your own hands. I think you are starting to apply it.

Come on Wales!  

Still hurt to lose the last ever 3N Tman. Even though it turned out well for us.