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

First topic message reminder :

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 ?

very diplomatic cowshot.

i agree that england are still the auld enemy for everyone apart from italy in the 6N.

its a strong reason why playing 6N is better preparation for england than anyone else, because every team's physicality and intensity seems to jump at least 1 gear when they play england.

i do think that being the auld enemy every 6N does to some degree help mentally toughen the english players in a way that is not true for every other side.

I think Psychology plays a part but I think the OP overstates the way in which England are competitive with the SH and also overstates their difficulties against the 6N sides. 6N side also raise their game against England. Its the one they all want to win.

this is an england team that has been comprehensively rebuilt since Lancaster took over. he has some very good players a few of whom should have a lot more caps. They have grown into a team and now look to have the consistency that a real top team needs. Because they have been rebuilding they have been vulnerable at times - like the mugging wales gave them.

I expect to see a strong england side for years to come. this could be a team to challenge the ABs and SA regularly. Need a decent 10 tho.   

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

Apart from last time they played and the draw before that, yes...

I think England's style of play and their strengths have something to do with it. England's game over the last 40 odd years has revolved around a big, muscular dynamic forward pack and good set piece. They manage to strangle their opponents at times. They also flop over the ball more than any side I know. It's something that gets penalised down here and I don't think we deal with it that well.

England: Top Floppers! Kiwi Admits England Superiority In An Area of Rugby! Shock Horror! Exile him to Australia like Walsh!!  

fa0019 wrote:

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...

The ('astounding') one off clearly refers to Englands 'run' of wins from 2002-3. they were clearly the best in the world, number 1 and world champions, consistent for a run of about 40 matches where they hardly lost.

That they havnt managed to get within a million miles of that before or since makes it an astounding one off in that respect.

Great sides have if anything consistency and a pattern of winning- the 95 side (whipped by the ABs next match) and 07 (demolished by SA in pool play) had nothing like that. That by definition makes those two results one offs.

i think Read, mealamu and nonu showed their mastery of flopping, collapsing mauls and not releasing tackler on sat.

quick learners. not world no 1 for nuffink.

chuckle. I just love the idea of Lancaster, all serious face in a selection meeting: "Yes we know he's got pace, skill, fitness and guile. But can he flop? That's what scares the ABs..."

prob for NZ was they only had a couple of floppers so they got noticed and pinged for it. eng crowded the breakdown and everyone flopped together so joubert got confused and prob thought it was a collapsed maul...

quinsforever wrote:i think Read, mealamu and nonu showed their mastery of flopping, collapsing mauls and not releasing tackler on sat.

quick learners. not world no 1 for nuffink.

I'd say they are very much apprentices. There are probably hundreds of players ahead of them playing club rugby in Europe every weekend. All teams push the limits where they are allowed to. I think Europe the initial contact is less policed than down under. Hence you get tacklers not releasing, and supporting their body weight and non tacklers in offside positions (we've started to adapt to this and are playing more like our northern friends) and on offense players piling over the ball carrier , going off their feet or obstructing. The AB's aren't angels we've we are coming out of an era of relatively strict refereeing of the this part of the breakdown (as per the IRB clarification 1 2010).

comedy. the reality is that the team who are on the back foot instinctively infringe more. it's a completely natural reaction. and for the middle 50 minutes of saturday's game, the kiwis, committing less men to the ruck, were on the back foot and the infringements were piling up faster than beer cans at a fraternity party.

You've got to be so on top of what the refs will allow you to get away with these days and quite often there's a different emphasis North and South. I wish the breakdown could be simplified because both sides infringe at every breakdown and by and large the supporters see only the other side's infringements. The end result is you get supporters who don't watch or comment on the game, just the ref, and always negatively.

One thing for sure: The ABs know how England pressured them at the breakdown and are certain to have a method to deal with it at next time. And it won't just be more bodies. There will be something else too. Interesting to see what, and how Lancaster deals with it. I'll be disappointed in him if we have nothing new. And in all seriousness we need to know whether we can flop the way we did last week in NZ come the summer. If not, it's just suiflop.

quinsforever wrote:comedy. the reality is that the team who are on the back foot instinctively infringe more. it's a completely natural reaction. and for the middle 50 minutes of Saturday's game, the kiwis, committing less men to the ruck, were on the back foot and the infringements were piling up faster than beer cans at a fraternity party.

Going to have to disagree with you on the first sentence. If you look at the rucks there's a Poopie load of infringing going on. You could have penalised England out of it if you'd chosen to. That's the reality of rugby from children's level through to international. Refereeing is a subjective skill. The reality is the AB's have to adjust to referee. there's no point in complaining about it (that's different from acknowledging the issue). There's is an issue. It clear from the pattern of penalty counts and cards from the games so far this November (The Ireland Samoa and Wales v Argentina games are the only games where the penalty/free kick count haven't been in favor of the home side).

Obviously an independent spell checker going on there....

My analysis would be that the initial idea that England always either beat them or give the 3 SH teams a good run to be a bit over the top but essentially correct. In exactly the same way as France do quite well some of the time against the higher ranked teams so does England (which does slightly better).
I also think its not suprising that teams go into a game against a higher ranked team with less confidence than when playing a lower ranked team

blackcanelion wrote:

quinsforever wrote:comedy. the reality is that the team who are on the back foot instinctively infringe more. it's a completely natural reaction. and for the middle 50 minutes of Saturday's game, the kiwis, committing less men to the ruck, were on the back foot and the infringements were piling up faster than beer cans at a fraternity party.

Going to have to disagree with you on the first sentence. If you look at the rucks there's a Poopie load of infringing going on. You could have penalised England out of it if you'd chosen to. That's the reality of rugby from children's level through to international. Refereeing is a subjective skill. The reality is the AB's have to adjust to referee. there's no point in complaining about it (that's different from acknowledging the issue). There's is an issue. It clear from the pattern of penalty counts and cards from the games so far this November (The Ireland Samoa and Wales v Argentina games are the only games where the penalty/free kick count haven't been in favor of the home side).

i agree with most of that. but joubert is a SH and SR referee. and NZ are very familiar with him. so i don't buy that his subjectivity was what caused the problems. the issue for NZ imho was the breakdown battle was quite different from what they are used to and they made more basic mistakes than they would normally. i think that was down to pressure and the very deliberate 8 man rugby employed by England.

NZ also kicked the ball a boatload. does that work really well in the SH? only works well here when its really wet and windy. although SA did a number on wales with the kick/chasing.

quinsforever wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

quinsforever wrote:comedy. the reality is that the team who are on the back foot instinctively infringe more. it's a completely natural reaction. and for the middle 50 minutes of Saturday's game, the kiwis, committing less men to the ruck, were on the back foot and the infringements were piling up faster than beer cans at a fraternity party.

Going to have to disagree with you on the first sentence. If you look at the rucks there's a Poopie load of infringing going on. You could have penalised England out of it if you'd chosen to. That's the reality of rugby from children's level through to international. Refereeing is a subjective skill. The reality is the AB's have to adjust to referee. there's no point in complaining about it (that's different from acknowledging the issue). There's is an issue. It clear from the pattern of penalty counts and cards from the games so far this November (The Ireland Samoa and Wales v Argentina games are the only games where the penalty/free kick count haven't been in favor of the home side).

i agree with most of that. but joubert is a SH and SR referee. and NZ are very familiar with him. so i don't buy that his subjectivity was what caused the problems. the issue for NZ imho was the breakdown battle was quite different from what they are used to and they made more basic mistakes than they would normally. i think that was down to pressure and the very deliberate 8 man rugby employed by England.

NZ also kicked the ball a boatload. does that work really well in the SH? only works well here when its really wet and windy. although SA did a number on wales with the kick/chasing.

We'll have to agree to differ. The only peer reviewed research I've seen done on rugby refereeing showed a bias towards home sides. You have to add to that what ever criteria the IRB are using this summer, and fact that many of the techniques England used was different to super rugby. NZ's only similar experience is France in June and Argentina leading into this tour. When the Lions toured in June they struggled in the first two tests and the refs were criticized. The reality was the penalties were predictable (I did before the series). It's the same issue.

For me the onus is on the AB's to adjust, and they did.The majority of the penalties against them came in the second quarter. I agree that they were more likely to concede penalties when defending, but that doesn't nullify my argument in terms of English technique at the breakdown and at times in the past (e.g. post 2003) they've been penalised for essentially doing what do now.

Here's a take on it from the Herald's Scottish Journo.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11159105

Home sides get the rub of the green from refs - been shown in a variety of sports. No doubt about his at all.

blackcanelion...think I've got the same one. Right pain in the proverbial...

I'd say the home side tending to get the rub of the green from the ref hasn't just been a problem this November. If it is a problem and not a natural part of home advantage (assuming as I do that refs are actually doing their best).

If it isn't part of Home advantage then either we must only allow equal numbers of Home and Away supporters at matches or play all important games at a neutral venue. Or - if it's possible - simplify the breakdown somehow so there is nothing to cause an issue...

nganboy: I'd certainly agree that we always give a run for the money a bit ott. Fairly often would probably be more accurate. But also, there are sides that have a style that just mismatches in their favour when set against your own: Ireland had it for a few years over England a while back, and England had it against France a little before that, and the ABs always seem to have a twitchiness playing France they don't against anyone else - not even the Boks. And all of that is despite the relative rankings.

i definitely agree there is a home side advantage. especially at big, full, noisy stadiums. not sure i would want to remove it though. as long as the referees are doing their absolute level best and are consistent through the game in interpretation than sides that listen can adjust. and i think NZ are the worlds bet at adjusting. as well as winning.

I had all the penalty records a few years  and for some teams it did even out. It didn't for NZ or Argentina from memory. The current count for AB's since 2011 is 2:1 (i.e. for every game they get an advantage there are two that the opposition do). I've ignored all the results where the counts are within 25% of each other.

I think the reason the AB's overcome this is their ability to score tries. Most sides are largely dependent on the referee to win (i.e. the boot wins the game). Take that favor away and they struggle. It's the ability of the AB's to limit the influence of the ref through a variety of attacking options that's their strong point. I think South Africa, Australia and Wales are currently showing signs of this as well.

I think our (Wales) game is more suited to playing Australia who themselves are not huge up front thatn the other two.

That said we do still IMO have a mental obstacle to overcome when playing the SH sides.

The Lions side that beat them in the summer WAS NOT WALES is was the Lions that said a lot of players likely to play next weekend were on the tour so hopefully that may go some way to addressing the mental obstacle.

I love this article it's like the fat man telling some other slightly fatter men how he looks like Brad Pitt compared to them  
Well done England for not getting as hammered as frequently as the rest of us by the SH boys!
Every crumb of hope eh!

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:I love this article it's like the fat man telling some other slightly fatter men how he looks like Brad Pitt compared to them  
Well done England for not getting as hammered as frequently as the rest of us by the SH boys!
Every crumb of hope eh!

Thats the best analogy ive ever seen on 606   

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:I love this article it's like the fat man telling some other slightly fatter men how he looks like Brad Pitt compared to them  

Whereas Wales keep telling everyone who'll listen that they look like Brad Pitt, but they haven't pulled since 2008.

Its not about England.

Its about certain sides that only seem to raise there games v England(Wales,Ireland,Scotland)

Rugby is a game that invokes passion. Passion is a key factor when playing one off games.

remember that its not just the Sanzar teams that England perform better against , its also France

Bullsbok wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:I love this article it's like the fat man telling some other slightly fatter men how he looks like Brad Pitt compared to them  
Well done England for not getting as hammered as frequently as the rest of us by the SH boys!
Every crumb of hope eh!

Thats the best analogy ive ever seen on 606   

It is undoubtedly an amusing analogy in itself. Unfortunately it suggests to me that DelD has missed the point...