Englands Tour of NZ - The Politics

First topic message reminder :

This thread has become a political thread so we'll make it that.

Well Burrell most likely wont be available for the 1st test anyway (ignoring the minor saints stutter of late) but for the second test he should be back in.

Surely the shirt is his to lose, and despite who Manu is...Manu should be on the bench to win the shirt back. Just think it sends out the wrong message if Manu just walks back in and takes the shirt after the team has looked so much better....and Burrell has played excellent.

Forgive my ignorance, but how many games has Manu had back from injury and how is he looking and who does he partner in the centres and in what position?

My worry for England would be even if he's fit and ready and in some kind of form, enough forward strides were made in the 6N to persist with the 36 and Burrell combination and Manu is an ideal impact player to bring on in the last quarter of the game. The problem I envisage if SL changes the centre pairing again is that time will be needed again to adjust to the new combination and with a likely Nonu Smith combination facing them, NZ will look to exploit any rustiness that might be between that new pairing.

Sometimes returning players after a long injury lay off can be more disruptive than continuing with the status quo.

Yappysnap I think it's because Burrell seems to have better distribution than Tuilagi but also runs great support lines.

no 7 & 1/2 would hardly say there is more continuity in the backline. Just more balance. Plus more confidence.

I still wonder what would have happened vs Wales last season if Manu had not dropped a potential try scoring pass early on.

The whole team is playing with far more confidence than last season. They seem to be far more mature. Each player has been feeding off the confidence and form of others. Makes them a tougher side to beat. Beating Wales seemed to be an impossible task yet this time round England did it relatively comfortably.

Do you not think there is more continuity? I think Care and Farrell have been constants (can't remember when the last time was when we started the same half backs so often), we have a number 1 inside centre choice who's seen as a long term option rather than stop gap (at least by the manager), and a nailed down 15 for the 1st time since Foden. Certainly more balance to our play in general but I think confidence also comes with knowing what is expected of you and what you can expect of others.

beshocked wrote:Yappysnap I think it's because Burrell seems to have better distribution than Tuilagi but also runs great support lines.

no 7 & 1/2 would hardly say there is more continuity in the backline. Just more balance. Plus more confidence.

I still wonder what would have happened vs Wales last season if Manu had not dropped a potential try scoring pass early on.

 I still wonder what would have happened if we had Brown at Full back not on the Wing, Goode and Ashton both dropped and replace with players who are fast, can score tries and can tackle. mix in a better balanced pack and who knows.

 Just wondering does Burrell play mainly 12 for Saints or 13?

 
TBH when I did my teams after the 1st test I forgot about Burrell, I mean I want to see Watson start on the wing instead of Wade/May that I had TBH.


 something like this for a 2nd test backline would do me
 9.  Care
10. Farrell
11. Yarde
12. 36
13. Burrell
14. Watson
15. Brown

21. Youngs
22. Ford
23. Manu

 But it is harsh on players like Nowell, But then again what happens if Manu plays a blinder in the 1st test which he will start if Burrell is in the final. The way this tour has been done they are so many things that can happen.

Welly who would you have had on the wings? Plus having all those 3 things you say - do those wingers exist in England?

Can't really argue with that backline.

no 7 & 1/2 I would hardly say 5 games in a row is that much continuity but that's just me. Certainly not when you compare to the centres of Ireland as an example.

I would say that Barritt-Manu had more games together than Care-Farrell but it didn't really work as a partnership for whatever reasons.

Care-Farrell had more going for it from the 1st game than Barritt-Manu did after numerous games together.

beshocked wrote:Welly who would you have had on the wings? Plus having all those 3 things you say - do those wingers exist in England?

Can't really argue with that backline.

  TBH Yarde and May should've more game time in that 6n (I know they not all 3 but we should've used more options) the team by the time it got to wales was just so unbalanced the pack wasn't right the back line wasn't right.
 Wales torn us apart even with if we had gotten the missed try it still wouldn't have changed much, Croft shouldn't have been in that squad it just wasn't a right balance for it (and I love Croft) it was poor tactics and management that game and really the whole of that 6N, this time the team was more balanced and I think given more time with the squad it would still be balanced with Tualigi in it. just my thought.

 Anyway it is nice to have depth in the backs for once.

I would say that Barritt-Manu had more games together than Care-Farrell but it didn't really work as a partnership for whatever reasons

Beshocked, i think thats because neither are particularly creative...whereas despite his criticism Twelvetrees did show some spark and Burrell also showed some.

Manu for me is a weapon...a missile.....not the trigger.

You need a player to use that weapon...to trigger it.

Burrell or Twelvetrees at 12 with Manu would be interesting. But for the minute the 2nd test should be 12 Twelvetrees and 13 Burrell. With Manu off the bench. Move Burrell to 12 and manu at 13.

Of course Leicester could find form and Burrell might be avilable for the 1st test and Manu might not be.
But then Farrell and Cares form would help aswell.

Welly Yarde had barely scored any tries last season. May has not proven himself to be a try scoring threat yet. I agree with most of your post though.

Geordiefalcon you are right Twelvetrees has shown some spark. You are right Manu is a weapon. Would be great from the bench. I agree Twelvetrees-Burrell have done enough to be starters at the moment.

Burrell has the skill to unlock defences, Manu is just a lump that finds a hole now and then.

Both styles can be effect if used correctly but I'd start with Burrell and use Manu as an impact sub when defences start to tire

Scrumpy wrote:Burrell has the skill to unlock defences, Manu is just a lump that finds a hole now and then.

Both styles can be effect if used correctly but I'd start with Burrell and use Manu as an impact sub when defences start to tire

One of the reasons Manu is so effective is that lots of people think that. He is a lot more than that. I hope we get a chance to test the different center combos out properly. As brilliant as Burrell has been I would not at all be surprised to find the best combo is 36/Manu.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I would say that Barritt-Manu had more games together than Care-Farrell but it didn't really work as a partnership for whatever reasons

Beshocked, i think thats because neither are particularly creative...whereas despite his criticism Twelvetrees did show some spark and Burrell also showed some.

Manu for me is a weapon...a missile.....not the trigger.

You need a player to use that weapon...to trigger it.

Burrell or Twelvetrees at 12 with Manu would be interesting. But for the minute the 2nd test should be 12 Twelvetrees and 13 Burrell. With Manu off the bench. Move Burrell to 12 and manu at 13.

Of course Leicester could find form and Burrell might be avilable for the 1st test and Manu might not be.
But then Farrell and Cares form would help aswell.

I think you're right. I may be the only person who actually doesn't rate Manu's basic skills at all, I don't think they're anywhere near international quality for a 13, but he can be mighty useful, in fact sometimes unplayable. His inclusion for me is actually a really big problem. You can't discard his attributes, but you can't exclusively play to them either, and to my mind he's not really developed. Is he best as a super-sub?

Welly wrote:

beshocked wrote:Yappysnap I think it's because Burrell seems to have better distribution than Tuilagi but also runs great support lines.

no 7 & 1/2 would hardly say there is more continuity in the backline. Just more balance. Plus more confidence.

I still wonder what would have happened vs Wales last season if Manu had not dropped a potential try scoring pass early on.

 I still wonder what would have happened if we had Brown at Full back not on the Wing, Goode and Ashton both dropped and replace with players who are fast, can score tries and can tackle. mix in a better balanced pack and who knows.

 Just wondering does Burrell play mainly 12 for Saints or 13?

 
TBH when I did my teams after the 1st test I forgot about Burrell, I mean I want to see Watson start on the wing instead of Wade/May that I had TBH.


 something like this for a 2nd test backline would do me
 9.  Care
10. Farrell
11. Yarde
12. 36
13. Burrell
14. Watson
15. Brown

21. Youngs
22. Ford
23. Manu

 But it is harsh on players like Nowell, But then again what happens if Manu plays a blinder in the 1st test which he will start if Burrell is in the final. The way this tour has been done they are so many things that can happen.

Burrell plays 12 for Saints although he did play 13 in his early days. He has dome amazingly well to adapt to a different position and play as well as he did. I would be interested to see Stephenson ( remember that name, he could be a stunner) at 12 and Burrell at 13 just to see what happens

i think they all need to be tried on this NZ tour...

12 Twelvetrees
13 Burrell

12 Twelvetrees
13 Manu

12 Burrell
13 Manu

Agree with the above post. Get the feeling I rate Manu more than the average English fan though. As said earlier he may not be the guy to create the openings, but is their anyone better at taking advantage of ones created for him, or half openings... Or making an opening when there isn't one there? What I like about him is it strikes me he has decent game awareness, when he's made breaks he's often made the right decisions and good timing of the pass to make those openings count.

Fully fit and and assuming decent form, he'd be one of the first names on the team sheet for me. That said, Burrell's done really well, and like others I'm not sure whether they're too similar to play together.  I think given burrell's form and the lack of anyone demanding inclusion for the wing spots I'd be surprised if we didn't see Manu given a lomu role at some point soon.

Milkyboy, I am not sure Manu's kicking game is good enough for a SL style wing. He like players that can play anywhere across the back three

It is nice to have a positive selection issue in the Centres for once.  

Might be right about his kicking game. Playing guys out of position just to get the best individuals on the park doesn't usually work. Just have a feeling he may be tempted to try it. If not as scrumpy says its nice to be worried about who to leave out for a change rather than scraping around for someone to chuck in and hope.

Clearly the solution with Manu is to teach him to control the ball at the base and then play him at 8.

[ducks for cover]

Poorfour wrote:Clearly the solution with Manu is to teach him to control the ball at the base and then play him at 8.

[ducks for cover]

He spends too much time in rucks as it is... Interesting comments recently about his acceleration and speed over short distances? cant quite remember what exactly they said but he is quite a step up on everyone else in the team apparently

lostinwales wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Clearly the solution with Manu is to teach him to control the ball at the base and then play him at 8.

[ducks for cover]

He spends too much time in rucks as it is... Interesting comments recently about his acceleration and speed over short distances? cant quite remember what exactly they said but he is quite a step up on everyone else in the team apparently

you only had to see his try in the 6nations to realise what he can do in the right place. It was a position we had been in plenty of times before but nothing came of it. But with his strength and speed it looked like childs play

You'd have to hope that the emergence of Burrell would spur Manu to develop his game, a la Nonu. Up until now, England haven't really had the strength in depth to be able to leave Manu out, as NZ could with Nonu.

Ideally i would have him Manu at 13. He's so destructive ball in hand. With 36 or Burrell at 12.

But i just feel we are trying to make the squad competitive. The midfield looked better than it has for years and lets be honest.....should we be rewarding strong performances (like that of Burrell) by being ....erm ....DROPPED!

What signal does that send out.

First 3 games i thought it was an easy choice to drop 36. But then last two games he was brilliant. So not sure any more.

How can we incorporate all of them.

Maybe stick ManU on the wing.

We cant incorporate them all...i guess the right answer is use them against the appropriate opposition.

Its just nice that we actually have options now.

It's starting to remind me of the late 90s, when de Glanville was captain, so England had Carling as starting 13 and Guscott as the original supersub. They'd generally labour their way through 50-60 minutes, and then Guscott would come on and cut the opposition defence to shreds.

It was only later that I appreciated the work the starting backline had done in softening up the defence for Jerry to do his thing. Manu's a different player to Guscott, but the effect could be the same. The way to stop him is to commit early and not give him time to accelerate, so coming on fresh against a tiring defence - as in Italy - he will make holes if they are even slightly misaligned. Just don't expect him to mix it up and bring the wings into the game (unless they are tracking his breaks).

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ideally i would have him Manu at 13. He's so destructive ball in hand. With 36 or Burrell at 12.

But i just feel we are trying to make the squad competitive. The midfield looked better than it has for years and lets be honest.....should we be rewarding strong performances (like that of Burrell) by being ....erm ....DROPPED!

What signal does that send out.

I agree about the Burrell message. It does send the wrong signal when the guy has played really well and out of position as well. At international level though there's not a whole load of room for sentiment.

My view is that Manu is still the best 13 we have available. I wouldn't object to see a Ford/Burrell/MT line-up however. Identifying Manu as the weak link in attack just doesn't really strike me as being particularly true. I don't think we can look at the way the backline has played this tournament and say that's because Manu isn't there.

Besides which if he kept stopping the ball in the outside channel all the time we'd see hundreds of tries scored by the wingers with him out. That's just not happened.

Further, it completely overlooks both the emphasis and other personnel changes we've seen in attack. The incision and pace that Care has instilled, Farrell's willingness to take on the line and the ever-increasing influence of Twelvetrees at first and second receiver are the driving factors behind the better backline play.

Bringing Manu back into this line-up would give it a point of difference. Yes there's been far too much restriction and reliance on MT getting over the line before anybody bothers to play, but that's changed.

Chjw131 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ideally i would have him Manu at 13. He's so destructive ball in hand. With 36 or Burrell at 12.

But i just feel we are trying to make the squad competitive. The midfield looked better than it has for years and lets be honest.....should we be rewarding strong performances (like that of Burrell) by being ....erm ....DROPPED!

What signal does that send out.

I agree about the Burrell message. It does send the wrong signal when the guy has played really well and out of position as well. At international level though there's not a whole load of room for sentiment.

My view is that Manu is still the best 13 we have available. I wouldn't object to see a Ford/Burrell/MT line-up however. Identifying Manu as the weak link in attack just doesn't really strike me as being particularly true. I don't think we can look at the way the backline has played this tournament and say that's because Manu isn't there.

Besides which if he kept stopping the ball in the outside channel all the time we'd see hundreds of tries scored by the wingers with him out. That's just not happened.

Further, it completely overlooks both the emphasis and other personnel changes we've seen in attack. The incision and pace that Care has instilled, Farrell's willingness to take on the line and the ever-increasing influence of Twelvetrees at first and second receiver are the driving factors behind the better backline play.

Bringing Manu back into this line-up would give it a point of difference. Yes there's been far too much restriction and reliance on MT getting over the line before anybody bothers to play, but that's changed.

Fair point re we don't know how Manu would have done. But we do know what he can and can't do, or so far what he has and hasn't done. He hasn't picked lines as well as Burrell, and his passing hasn't been as good. It doesn't follow that our wingers would score hundreds of tries without him, it follows that they'll be more involved, which I think they have been, and which I think has benefitted the team.

I'd like to see how Manu plays at 13 with the game we're trying to play. But I don't think there's any great indication he will not a) seek contact and b) pass very little. I guess we'll see. He's too good not to be used in some way, but I do not believe he's going to turn into a Nonu, sadly. In which case I think we need to see him as he is, an exceptional battering ram. Would absolutely love to be proven completely wrong about him.

Same question I posted on the Welsh tour thread yesterday. How would you rate an English tour victory this summer? My take is would arguably be highest point yet for English rugby. I'd put it above the 2003 world cup victory.

Me reasoning? Winning a tour down under is a big ask. Victory would put the current English side in the same company as the '37 boks, 71 Lions and '86 Wallabies.

blackcanelion wrote:Same question I posted on the Welsh tour thread yesterday. How would you rate an English tour victory this summer? My take is would arguably be highest point yet for English rugby. I'd put it above the 2003 world cup victory.

Me reasoning? Winning a tour down under is a big ask. Victory would put the current English side in the same company as the '37 boks, 71 Lions and '86 Wallabies.

nah WC is better- because it was in the SH and we were the best and had beaten NZ a couple of times before as well.

We are far off that. 

In a way it would be a greater acheivment because we arnt expected to win- but in regards to a performance level we arnt that 2003 team compared to the rest

Fair enough. I'd argue winning a world cup is easier than a test series in NZ. The same goes for winning a one off game in NZ. I would have been confident the AB's would have gone on to win a home series in 2003 (even given the preceding results).

yes but you are arguing what's the greater acheivment- England were the no.1 team in the world- that is the greatest achievement backed up with wins against every side and a RWC- we had something like a 90% win ratio over 3 years leading up to it.

you can try and argue ifs and buts - but england were rightfully the best team in the world at the time. it wasn't a fluke win.


and we beat you home and away just before the win- so your speculation that NZ would have won a series is very speculative- england were 1 nil up in wellington anyway

mystiroakey wrote:yes but you are arguing what's the greater acheivment- England were the no.1 team in the world- that is the greatest achievement backed up with wins against every side and a RWC- we had something like a 90% win ratio over 3 years leading up to it.

you can try and argue ifs and buts - but england were rightfully the best team in the world at the time. it wasn't a fluke win.


and we beat you home and away just before the win- so your speculation that NZ would have won a series is very speculative- england were 1 nil up in wellington anyway

That it's valid point and argument. I'd still put a tour win down here above it. I'd still argue it potentially puts the England team up there with a handfull of the all time great teams.

Hood83 wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ideally i would have him Manu at 13. He's so destructive ball in hand. With 36 or Burrell at 12.

But i just feel we are trying to make the squad competitive. The midfield looked better than it has for years and lets be honest.....should we be rewarding strong performances (like that of Burrell) by being ....erm ....DROPPED!

What signal does that send out.

I agree about the Burrell message. It does send the wrong signal when the guy has played really well and out of position as well. At international level though there's not a whole load of room for sentiment.

My view is that Manu is still the best 13 we have available. I wouldn't object to see a Ford/Burrell/MT line-up however. Identifying Manu as the weak link in attack just doesn't really strike me as being particularly true. I don't think we can look at the way the backline has played this tournament and say that's because Manu isn't there.

Besides which if he kept stopping the ball in the outside channel all the time we'd see hundreds of tries scored by the wingers with him out. That's just not happened.

Further, it completely overlooks both the emphasis and other personnel changes we've seen in attack. The incision and pace that Care has instilled, Farrell's willingness to take on the line and the ever-increasing influence of Twelvetrees at first and second receiver are the driving factors behind the better backline play.

Bringing Manu back into this line-up would give it a point of difference. Yes there's been far too much restriction and reliance on MT getting over the line before anybody bothers to play, but that's changed.

Fair point re we don't know how Manu would have done. But we do know what he can and can't do, or so far what he has and hasn't done. He hasn't picked lines as well as Burrell, and his passing hasn't been as good. It doesn't follow that our wingers would score hundreds of tries without him, it follows that they'll be more involved, which I think they have been, and which I think has benefitted the team.

I'd like to see how Manu plays at 13 with the game we're trying to play. But I don't think there's any great indication he will not a) seek contact and b) pass very little.  I guess we'll see. He's too good not to be used in some way, but I do not believe he's going to turn into a Nonu, sadly. In which case I think we need to see him as he is, an exceptional battering ram. Would absolutely love to be proven completely wrong about him.  

There's been plenty of debate about the effectiveness, or lack of it, of the English wingers on this thread. How much you think that is down to their play or the opportunities provided to them seems to split opinion, but it doesn't suggest at face value, that Burrell has been setting them up with defence splitting passes. Personally, I think the one poor element in the English back play, was the amount of lateral running from the centres that took place resulting in wingers getting the ball in tight spaces against lots of cover.

I'm not being critical of 36 who improved during the 6n or Burrell who was the pleasant surprise for England, they did lots of good things, and ran lots of good lines... but we did butcher a fair few opportunities by age old English traits of not straightening up  and committing the defender.  I don't think our wingers showed too much but don't think they got much to work with. They may have got less ball but more opportunities linking up with manu's breaks or quickly (hopefully) recycled front foot ball after he'd battered into the opposition.

Of course, that's just conjecture. I'm not saying thats what would have happened, just an alternative take. I'd just like to see how Manu does in a side with care setting a fast tempo and an ever improving Farrell or ford prompting attacks. All things being equal we 'll have a better idea how best to utilise him in the Lancaster system after this tour.

we could end up winning the series and it could be undervalued. just like our last win v you. almost every non english fan has put that loss down to you being ill. the excuses will come flooding out. You can't take  away a RWC win..

ChequeredJersey wrote:Was Kelleher that good a scrum half though? That was when that was your area of weakness. Even Cowan has scrum half caps for NZ...

that good? no. probably not., But then neither is Care as halfbacks go. Neither sets the stage on fire but the way I look at it is would Danny Care have got 50 tests for the AB's. Seriously doubt it, even if we only did have Marshall and Kelleher.

mystiroakey wrote:we could end up winning the series and it could be undervalued. just like our last win v you. almost every non english fan has put that loss down to you being ill. the excuses will come flooding out. You can't take  away a RWC win..

Dunno, 2011 it seems more that Joubert was poor than the AB's were good, (or it was Lawrence- depending where you come from) 2007 it was Barnes. 2003 and 99 you're probably right. 95 it was Suzie, and 91 and 87, well the boks werent there... so your side isnt alone in the excuse model Mysti...

mystiroakey wrote:we could end up winning the series and it could be undervalued. just like our last win v you. almost every non English fan has put that loss down to you being ill. the excuses will come flooding out. You can't take  away a RWC win..

Very true. To be fair I asked for opinions so I shouldn't be debating the point.

Here are some thoughts on climbing the mountain that is touring downunder.
* It's statistically the hardest country to get a victory in.
* The current side haven't lost a game at home in 30 matches.
* They won 11 of every 12 matches at home in the professional era (8 losses in the last 17 years).
* British sides have won 8 of 79 matches they've played in NZ (6 of those by the Lions).
* England have won two matches in NZ (1974 and 2003).

That said for me this is potentially the most complete British side that's come here. I personally think they have a chance of taking the series if things go their way. I really like what the Lancaster's coaching team is doing with this side. Really looking forward to the tour.

blackcanelion wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:we could end up winning the series and it could be undervalued. just like our last win v you. almost every non English fan has put that loss down to you being ill. the excuses will come flooding out. You can't take  away a RWC win..

Very true. To be fair I asked for opinions so I shouldn't be debating the point.

Here are some thoughts on climbing the mountain that is touring downunder.
* It's statistically the hardest country to get a victory in.
* The current side haven't lost a game at home in 30 matches.
* They won 11 of every 12 matches at home in the professional era (8 losses in the last 17 years).
* British sides have won 8 of 79 matches they've played in NZ (6 of those by the Lions).
* England have won two matches in NZ (1974 and 2003).

That said for me this is potentially the most complete British side that's come here. I personally think they have a chance of taking the series if things go their way. I really like what the Lancaster's coaching team is doing with this side. Really looking forward to the tour.

Hek, who is that side...ohhh.

I agree re Lancaster, and despite all those wins it doesn't feel like the home wins vs the NH sides have been all that convincing. Its usually been in bogs of rain and truth is when a side really takes it to us sometimes we just have no answers. Lancaster will be chomping at the bit to take on this side. He made special trips to learn from them so will that much more ready than probably any coach to come here from the NH. He's adopted a lot of the play already- the fast opening last match looked so much like the AB's style.

So he must also have an idea of how to combat the style as well.

Whats going for the AB's is this is Hansen's ONLY boogie side- he will not forget coming off Twickenham that day for a very long while yet.

Interesting the kiwi fans are giving us a better chance than the English fans. In principle, a side that came second in the 6N shouldn't be holding out too much hope for success in New Zealand. This England side is heading in the right direction though (south in this instance!). They have enough about them to be competitive  and I'm really looking forward to it.

As the figures show though, plenty of good sides have headed to New Zealand with high hopes and come home empty handed

I dont really think they know what to expect and are a bit wary of us and more so than any other team coming there. We beat all the teams bar France when we went to sleep and the kiwis have done that as much as most so that probably has no bearing. We are the only recent team to beat them and also come close last time. But i think the biggest reason they are a bit scared is because of the way we are playing.. We are playing a much better version of the game..

yeah probably mysti, it cetainly aint because of 2012. thats dead and buried. Its about ticking more boxes..chances are the scrum and lineout will be ok, the goalkicking is good, theres some pace in the English game and theres 'some' sparkle in the backline with the types of Brown.

Going for NZ is there are no superstars in the England side, none that will make the all time xv of either the NH or even England, where we have 2 believed to be the best ever, the world player of the year and some very talented players to boot.

So England wont do it with individuals...like 03 the strength is in the side as a whole, with injection from a good goalkicker and a reliance on key moments.

If England don't turn up as one united side, their chances will be dismal at best.

Its refreshing when all black fans liken aspects of englands play to that of their own. Its a work in progress, but we're a damn sight more pleasing on the eye these days.

We're always the team the other 6N teams are out to beat (from a nationalistic perspective if not always a rugby one). Its a different psychology against Southern Hemisphere sides (not that they don't hate us too!). We're just another game to them, but should have a challenger mentality... And not a 'beaten before we get on the pitch' challenger mentality.

Be interesting to see how we cope.

Brown and care could come out of this tour as superstars - dont think they cant- because they can.. 

But one thing you will not get from this england team is any kind of 'not showing up' . SL learns and has a united side- There will be no 60-0 drubbing like you did v Ireland after they came close to beating you. 

To be fair to ireland you wouldnt be able to do that under there new coach either. But our guys are improving they will be wanting this more than any fan and as much and if not more than any kiwi. Brown, Care, Farrel, Burreal, Manu , Lawes, Lauchnebury want to be the best. They will fight for there lifes..

Players like Ford and ben youngs will be wanting to also show what they can do. We really do need a back up to care and Youngs(will he be fit by then) will want that second spot at worst..

Care was really slow and labouring when he first came into the england fold- Brown was nothing special either. Both came back after a break and are know arguably the best two talents in the NH. That is what england has in its locker. Players coming back different beasts.

Burrel's form will also seriously be worrying Manu as well. If Manu doesn't turn up - his place is gone to him.. Its great to have these problems.

England are not in the same category as France to kiwis because for some reason France have had by far the better of us than any NH side...by a considerable margin. 1979 Eden park, Nantes 1986, 1994 and the try from the end of the earth, 1999 and 2007 world cups and even a series win in NZ (one each but won on points), and an unlikely close final in 2011.

But England certainly are next. Compared to the others and like France theyve pinched us enough to be a concern.

If Lancaster is relying on pace being a strength then we are in for some exciting matches. I'm still not convinced with Farrell in that he plays within himself, is more safe than significant, percentage rather than breakthrough. history shows that 'safe' 10's dont cut it in NZ.

How Farrell plays this tour is critical to the result.

Taylorman They have played a lot more times against you though. so it really is as simple as that mate. 

France to England arnt much of a team in fairness- we may have lost the last game - but they can never turn up against us. Wales and Ireland are allways in recent history much more threatening.

perhaps...since 1970 theyve won 11 from 42, england 6 from 28, so a better hit rate, but in key match ups- World cup time theyve also won two majors, where England havnt won yet.

And its also the way theyve won...2012 was special, but France won several like that, tries from all over the place- mostly from their own half...leaves an impression on you.

France have also had more games against us for some reason Tman and that is due to how many times France tours NZ and with more than one match.

Much depends on the cycles. Touring France was for a while more difficult than touring England. Both teams have had their high profile wins against NZ and that crucially gives them more belief against us than the likes of Wales and Ireland, who haven't been able to climb that summit either ever or for quite a while. But neither side has ever managed more than two consecutive victories against NZ so that makes a series extremely difficult to secure.

On our home turf, we are vulnerable in the early games due to rustiness and France's B side last year pushed us the closest. England have a nothing to lose mentality in that first test that might actually be liberating and will encourage them to attack NZ. SL has some selection issues that are on the one hand positive and on the other hand potentially harmful as it might not make it clear to him what the best overall balance of the side should be.

France's winning percentage vs NZ is 21%, England's is 19%. Not a lot in it really, except France have got a couple of wins in really big games.

France do seem to have played NZ a fair bit more though.

not a massive difference though is it.

And in your wc loses england have gone furthar than you and france when they beat you. So I am not sure how your logic works that they did better!