Englands Tour of NZ - The Politics

First topic message reminder :

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

when did you beat us in the Cricket- every game was a draw wasn't it.

I will take that all day long in the Rugby...

mystiroakey wrote:if you saw the way the kiwis were hitting us final 10 mins its pretty clear the Kiwis were not physically wanting.

can everyone stop blaming the virus and get on with life

i cant remember when England got a moral win in any sport of any game

the trouble with a total destruction of the ABs is that England didn't kick on.
NZ went on to win every single match against better foe, and still sit unbeaten to this day since that day. England went on to lose 30-3 less than 12 weeks later. The ABs would not have lost to that Welsh side by anywhere near that margin that day, and probably would have won it.

We can forget the virus...but really? England actually are that much better than the ABs...never to be seen again?

We all knew Englands win was just a win and not an indictaion of who the better side was.

Sl's only bad performance ever was that Wales result. Will any other team beat us by 27 pts again with this SL team.

I doubt it , and yes we have kicked on and its been an unpward curve from the start with the odd minor blip..

Taylorman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:if you saw the way the kiwis were hitting us final 10 mins its pretty clear the Kiwis were not physically wanting.

can everyone stop blaming the virus and get on with life

i cant remember when England got a moral win in any sport of any game

the trouble with a total destruction of the ABs is that England didn't kick on.
NZ went on to win every single match against better foe, and still sit unbeaten to this day since that day. England went on to lose 30-3 less than 12 weeks later. The ABs would not have lost to that Welsh side by anywhere near that margin that day, and probably would have won it.

We can forget the virus...but really? England actually are that much better than the ABs...never to be seen again?

It's a sad reflection on NZ that they can never concede defeat there always has to be an excuse, even when the rest of the world watched a royal stuffing against England.

What gets me is how they won by 27? England had thrashed NZ and could lose by 8 and still win the title.

makes no sense...

its one game and its very much about the NH(welsh) passion and on the day GS england situation(messed it up before in recent history)

its also about the team not reacting or being able to react to the reffing of the particular game..

How did Chelsea beat arsernal by 6 goals the other day??

it happens..

rainbow-warrior wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:if you saw the way the kiwis were hitting us final 10 mins its pretty clear the Kiwis were not physically wanting.

can everyone stop blaming the virus and get on with life

i cant remember when England got a moral win in any sport of any game

the trouble with a total destruction of the ABs is that England didn't kick on.
NZ went on to win every single match against better foe, and still sit unbeaten to this day since that day. England went on to lose 30-3 less than 12 weeks later. The ABs would not have lost to that Welsh side by anywhere near that margin that day, and probably would have won it.

We can forget the virus...but really? England actually are that much better than the ABs...never to be seen again?

It's a sad reflection on NZ that they can never concede defeat there always has to be an excuse, even when the rest of the world watched a royal stuffing against England.

We conceded defeat alright rainbow. What gets me is no one goes on to assert anything from it- in fact, in brings heartache. England didnt win the 6N, France never kicked on from their famous wins to win again.

How about someone...beat NZ and for once go on to better things...they dont. They end up worse...2003 perhaps the exception...as usual.

Taylorman wrote:What gets me is how they won by 27? England had thrashed NZ and could lose by 8 and still win the title.

makes no sense...

It makes as much sense as England failing to win more than one Grand Slam during the same period they beat every Southern Hemisphere team they played.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:What gets me is how they won by 27? England had thrashed NZ and could lose by 8 and still win the title.

makes no sense...

It makes as much sense as England failing to win more than one Grand Slam during the same period they beat every Southern Hemisphere team they played.

no doubt because of the french.

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:What gets me is how they won by 27? England had thrashed NZ and could lose by 8 and still win the title.

makes no sense...

It makes as much sense as England failing to win more than one Grand Slam during the same period they beat every Southern Hemisphere team they played.

no doubt because of the french.

No not really- celt passion final game and this time around going  to sleep 10 mins v the french(but this time it was our own doing- our own bad subs and OF being injured and no one organizing the backs.

Really...2002-2003...
England played 26, won 24. Both losses to France.

I am talking about englands no GS's in recent years. We have bottled jobbed the final game a couple of times.

Taylorman wrote:no doubt because of the french.

Not really. We blew four Grand Slams in all under Woodward, losing to a different team each year.

1999 - Wales
2000 - Scotland
2001 - Ireland (I rate that as the best season I've seen an England team play)
2002 - France

The French loss was a bit of a worry because Betsen got after Wilkinson in a way no-one else had done. In the end, it was handy because it helped us handle them better a year later.

The Irish one was after the Lions wasn't it? With a load of players missing due to injury after it.

Taylorman wrote:Really...2002-2003...
England played 26, won 24. Both losses to France.

Only the 2002 Six Nations match really counts. The other loss was a World Cup warm-up. It was a pair of matches where the two sides had agreed beforehand to play their second team away from home against the other's first team. The idea being to give the bit-part players in the squad some game time. It wasn't inevitable we'd lose but it was always going to be hard against a French side which had beaten the first XV a year before.

I wish we hadn't made that agreement. We didn't lose by much, but if we'd won, we would have gone on to post a record run of international wins which would have been very hard to beat.

HammerofThunor wrote:The Irish one was after the Lions wasn't it? With a load of players missing due to injury after it.

Yes, the match was delayed because of foot and mouth. Irish players went on Tour as well but there's no doubt England were flat.

Taylorman wrote:What gets me is how they won by 27? England had thrashed NZ and could lose by 8 and still win the title.

makes no sense...

I can explain it in 3 words, two of which are "Steve" and "Walsh".

I think if you accept you can lose by a bit, you immediately risk losing and once the other team takes the match away from you they can rack up a score.

Poorfour wrote:

Taylorman wrote:What gets me is how they won by 27? England had thrashed NZ and could lose by 8 and still win the title.

makes no sense...

I can explain it in 3 words, two of which are "Steve" and "Walsh".

does the other one begin with C.

Look Wales deserved it ..

I put it down to bottle, passion, one off

Like England vs NZ every decade, eh oakey?   

If we played you more than a couple of times a decade then yeah I might agree!!

In the professional era, it's almost every year. And usually at Twickenham. More than a couple per decade. Just take out the RWC years:

16 November 2013 Twickenham, London 22 – 30 New Zealand 2013 Autumn International
1 December 2012 Twickenham, London 38 – 21 England 2012 Autumn International
6 November 2010 Twickenham, London 16 – 26 New Zealand 2010 Autumn International
21 November 2009 Twickenham, London 6 – 19 New Zealand 2009 Autumn International
29 November 2008 Twickenham, London 6 – 32 New Zealand 2008 Autumn International
21 June 2008 AMI Stadium, Christchurch 44– 12 New Zealand English tour of New Zealand
14 June 2008 Eden Park, Auckland 37– 20 New Zealand
5 November 2006 Twickenham, London 20 – 41 New Zealand 2005 Autumn International
19 November 2005 Twickenham, London 19 – 23 New Zealand 2005 New Zealand rugby union tour of Britain and Ireland
19 June 2004 Eden Park, Auckland 36 – 12 New Zealand 2004 England rugby union tour of Australasia
12 June 2004 Carisbrook, Dunedin 36 – 3 New Zealand
14 June 2003 Westpac Stadium, Wellington 13 – 15 England 2003 England rugby union tour of Australasia
9 November 2002 Twickenham, London 31 – 28 England
9 October 1999 Twickenham, London 16 – 30 New Zealand 1999 Rugby World Cup Pool B
27 June 1998 Eden Park, Auckland 40 – 10 New Zealand 1998 England rugby union tour of Australasia and South Africa
20 June 1998 Carisbrook, Dunedin 64 – 22 New Zealand
6 December 1997 Twickenham, London 26 – 26 draw 1997 New Zealand rugby union tour of Britain and Ireland
22 November 1997 Old Trafford, Manchester 8 – 25 New Zealand
18 June 1995 Newlands, Cape Town 45 – 29 New Zealand 1995 Rugby World Cup Semi-final

so you win 1 in 5.

ok thats not bad.. well done..

you watching the dutch trying to take you out in the t20????

Up The ORANGE!!

Only razzing you mate.

Yeah that's quite a challenging total. One of those Dutch bowlers is fast! I'd have thought they would have all been mellow round the wicket.

You should win mate... Great final two overs to restrict them to 151- it could have been 170 and it would have been squeeky bum time!!

Mcculum really is one of the best players in this format.

It was inexcusable not to win against SA with so few needed in that last over. The best we can hope for is that they beat you today. Frankly I like my chances better against SA in the knockouts as they always seem to conjure up ways to lose in the knockout rounds. Much like a certain rugby team I know.   

Yes but the fact DL hasnt been adjusted for this format is just as inexcusable mate.. You got that win of us. Which wasnt strictly fair mate!

blackcanelion wrote:

'03 was one of the games that the AB's probably would have won 9 times out of 10. We're often a bit dodgy first up and certainly had more than enough chances to put it beyond doubt. Whether it be Spencer not taking easy points on offer with the boot, or Marshall pulling a hamstring with the line open and players outside him to burn, it was just one of those games.

equally you could argue NZ's try (accounting for more than half their points) came from a blatant offside from a kick, while Dickinson spent most of the game pinging England off the park while conveniently ignoring NZ stamping on their counterparts hands/heads...

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:In the professional era, it's almost every year. And usually at Twickenham. More than a couple per decade.

That's the point I was making right at the beginning. We've had two periods in the last 25 years when England have been good. 1988-1995 (with a dip in the middle) and 2000-2003. That's around twelve years in total, and we played the All Blacks only five times over the course of them. We won three and lost two.

We don't know what would have happened if we had played you more over those years. We might have lost in 2000/2001 and perhaps that would have derailed our 2003 World Cup bid. Personally, I think we would have won because we were playing better rugby then than in 2002/2003.

I'm less confident about the 1988-1995 vintage. On the one hand, we were still overawed by the All Blacks through not facing them much. We might easily have lost all additional fixtures. Then again, England were playing a confident brand of rugby up until Scotland put us to the sword at Murrayfield in 1990. If we'd met in the Autumn of 1989, it's possible England could have pulled off a win just like 2012 (if not by the same margin).

In 1992, England were fairly hard-nosed about getting the Grand Slam. We had lost a World cup final, so had a few demons to exorcize. We might have wanted to prove a point against the All Blacks that year, and been able to do it. Who knows? It's a strange feature of our encounters that we don't usually beat you when we are reigning Home, Five or Six Nations champions. We weren't champions in 1935, 1973, 1983, 1993, 2002 or 2012. The only time we've beaten you as title holders is in 2003.

What is undeniable is that New Zealand have been more than a match for us over the history of our sport. It's also undeniable that England didn't really get close to New Zealand in the run of games from our World Cup win to Lancaster's appointment. We ought to have been better, but weren't.

Lancaster's team is not yet capable of hitting the highs of Woodward's team but it looks like we are at least back to being competitive again. That gives us the ability to win matches against anyone. We might yet be capable of more and this tour will shed some light on that matter.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

'03 was one of the games that the AB's probably would have won 9 times out of 10. We're often a bit dodgy first up and certainly had more than enough chances to put it beyond doubt. Whether it be Spencer not taking easy points on offer with the boot, or Marshall pulling a hamstring with the line open and players outside him to burn, it was just one of those games.

equally you could argue NZ's try (accounting for more than half their points) came from a blatant offside from a kick, while Dickinson spent most of the game pinging England off the park while conveniently ignoring NZ stamping on their counterparts hands/heads...

I'm saying they had plenty of opportunities to win comfortably within the game and most times AB teams in that situation take them. That obviously includes the referee. You're right the ref could have picked something else to focus on. In this instance Dickenson was pretty clear about what he wanted. That was the tacklers to role away and not obstruct. England were pretty desperate to slow down NZ ball fair means or foul. From memory England were heavily pinged in the 2004 or 2005 6 nations for ruck offenses. NZ were pretty bemused by ruck rulings last November. It's one of those things all teams have to adapt to. There was a fair amount of niggle from both sides (e.g watch where Dellaglio puts his hands after Howlett scores).

mystiroakey wrote:Yes but the fact DL hasnt been adjusted for this format is just as inexcusable mate.. You got that win of us. Which wasnt strictly fair mate!

Whenever that comes into play, it's obviously not fair. But the opportunity was to go 2 from 2 and we missed out on the box seat. This match against Holland is worryingly close to the wire.

That's fair enough Rugby Fan. But imagine if we played England as often at home as we do away. That would probably widen the gap further. But overall it's 1 in 5. The professional era suggests that rate is widening. We're always on edge when we play England. Same for any team that has beaten us. But we always fancy our chances, just as we do against any team that has beaten us. We always expect to win. Fair play though when you do beat us.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:That's fair enough Rugby Fan. But imagine if we played England as often at home as we do away.

You'd almost certainly have more wins. But there might well be more losses too. I'd like to have seen games against you in 1992 or 1993. We didn't tour anywhere in 1992 but won every match that year. In 1993, it was the Lions, albeit an England-heavy side. Then again, touring was still a fairly shambolic affair. No-one bothered to tell Geoff Cooke about the Argentina trip in 1990 and many senior players didn't go. If we had toured New Zealand in the same spirit then it would have been cricket scores.

A series anytime in 2000, 2001 or 2002 would have been tasty too. Instead we had South Africa, many players off with the Lions again the following year, and Argentina in 2002.

It's a shame there aren't more series. These one-off games don't really do it for me. Much prefer 3 test series. Bragging rights assured if you win those. Such a shame we don't tour SA for that very reason anymore.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: Such a shame we don't tour SA for that very reason anymore.

I think a NZ tour of South Africa might have greater appeal to a TV audience in the North than a Rugby Championship. The time zone would suit us too.

It would have greater appeal to a TV audience anywhere. Which is a sad reality when you think about it. Don't get me wrong, I love NZ SA tests but the home away format always leaves you wanting more, as opposed to Bledisloe tests of late.

If the Tigers aren't in the Aviva final, Ed Slater must go with England. He's really growing into the captains role. Looks like he's been working on his breakdown work today.

I think England could field Lawes-Launch, Slater-Attwood and even Kitchener-Kruis, and it wouldn't weaken them noticeably. And that is before you include Parling, who is excellent, by may well find it very difficult to get back into the XXIII. Awesome depth.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:It's a shame there aren't more series. These one-off games don't really do it for me. Much prefer 3 test series. Bragging rights assured if you win those. Such a shame we don't tour SA for that very reason anymore.

couldnt agree more. but unfortunately the international calendar is so jam-packed, and pre-booked, because all the Unions want to get as much money as they can. viz Aus always playing 5 matches in the NH in Autumn, and Wales playing one outside the window.

Tours to the SH should be epic events for england, yet they are frequently spurned by tired, overplayed senior players.

Personally, i would prefer no AIs, and a meaningful summer tour in the years between RWCs to the SH. with matches against regional/provincial sides too. A month long affair and not just a 2 or 3 test showcase. that's still plenty of matches playing for england each year (10-12, same as now), and with the EPS arrangement of max 30 games, the England players would get a bit more rest during their main Sept-Apr season.

this year's tour to NZ is already robbed of significance to me by the moronic clash with the AP final.

To start with get rid of the Lions. unless its an NH v SH lions..

i'm with you there strokey. Lions always should have been kept an amateur thing. Massive pissups, good fights, real bonding on tour of players against adversity, but without the commercial imperative.

it's impossible to craft a team that is much greater than the sum of its individual parts in the space of a few weeks.

I've long thought the Lions should be let go or even if not that we should have two new hemispherical competitions of 16 sides each to run instead of or at the same time of the Lions tours.
Something like the soccer European or African nations. These new competitions will enable further expansion of the international game to include sides that are never in the running to qualify for the WC.
Separate to this I would be happy to see England leave the Lions set up to the Celtic nations, controversial perhaps but I just think it is an anachronistic hang over from the amateur game.

I've argued before on here that the Lions mostly acts as a hindrance to the development of the individual international sides.

As far as England are concerned:

1989 - Mostly decent. This tour helped make the England pack a fearsome unit and saw the emergence of Guscott. However, it also gave McGeechan, Telfer and his Scots a keen idea of how to turn us over at Murrayfield in 1990 and cemented Andrew ahead of Barnes in the flyhalf pecking order.

1993 - We'd have been better off touring on our own. We played New Zealand so infrequently around this time.

1997 - We got Johnson as a captain out of this one (eventually) but not much else. Our own concurrent tour of Argentina was disrupted by Lions injury call-ups and whoever arranged the post-Lions fixture with Australia ought to have been shot.

2001 - Another year we should have toured as England or rested. We beat Australia on our own before and after the series, so losing as the Lions taught us nothing. Robinson's class was confirmed but Balshaw came back with shattered confidence.

2005 - Another tour we'd have been better off missing. Some of our players were hanging on when we might have been better served by their retirements. Dallaglio even decided to stick around for the next World Cup since he went home early from this one. Wilkinson should never have travelled, given he was still struggling with injuries.

2009 - Another missed chance to build some team continuity, with some playing Argentina and others with the Lions. Vickery's swansong ended up tarnishing his reputation. Nice to see Croft playing well, err...that's it.

2013 - Actually not too bad for England. Most of our Lions were knackered so we got to see other players step up. Robshaw got a rest, which was probably no bad thing.

In recent years, certainly since 2005, I think Ireland and Wales would both have been better served taking on Southern hemisphere opposition on their own terms rather than with the Lions.

Well said rugby fan...a lot to absorb but plenty of food for thought there. Ireland and Wales have actually been the more frequent tourists here of the 4.

Croft reportedly won't play at all this season so won't make the tour. Tigers also reckon that Parling is still two games away from coming back. That doesn't leave him a whole lot of time to make the tour.

In their places? For me I'd select Kruis or Kitchener for the tour to compliment Attwood, Lawes, Launchbury and Slater.

For Croft, well that's anybody's guess. I'd personally pick Fearns to tour with Robshaw, Wood, Kvesic, Haskell and maybe Wallace.

We're looking strong, even very strong, in the second row, however our front and back rows, props and flankers specifically, look quite weak.

Hooker looks ok, even if Webber is still injured, as there appears to be a number of youngsters coming through, but its really our Props that are a concern. Maybe this tour is the time to give some younger Props an opportunity, otherwise Wilson and Marler are going to be starting every test (especially as having watched a number of NZ SXV games where their props appear large and mobile).

Chjw131 wrote:Croft reportedly won't play at all this season so won't make the tour.

Really? He was doing light warm-ups with the squad at the Exeter game a couple of weeks ago. He probably shouldn't tour though. Best to give him a proper pre-season.

I can't see England getting within 30 points to be honest.

I think a few truths will come home to roost.

Chjw131 wrote:Croft reportedly won't play at all this season so won't make the tour. Tigers also reckon that Parling is still two games away from coming back. That doesn't leave him a whole lot of time to make the tour.

In their places? For me I'd select Kruis or Kitchener for the tour to compliment Attwood, Lawes, Launchbury and Slater.

For Croft, well that's anybody's guess. I'd personally pick Fearns to tour with Robshaw, Wood, Kvesic, Haskell and maybe Wallace.

Where are the Croft reports coming from Chjw131? A setback in his rehad wouldn't be hugely surprising given the nature of the injury though.

I accept many don't want him back in the side due to how well the Robshaw/Wood partnership has performed but personally I'd be interested in seeing him in this pack. I still feel one of the few things it's really missing is a forward with real pace to support breaks as the likes of Messam, Hooper, Tipuric etc can do.

For what we may lose between Wood and Crofts respective skill sets in some areas I think we could gain more in others put it that way!

Second row - Launchbury, Lawes, Attwood, Slater, Kitchener, Parling, Kruis

Blindside - Wood, Croft, Haskell, Johnson, Garvey, Fearns
Openside - Robshaw, Fraser, Kvesic, Wallace - Admittedly not but between the later 3. Probably harsh on Wallace on form.

For what it's worth above is how I view the second row and flanker pecking orders. Given injuries and players missing for the first test many of those could get the chance to travel - Clark will almost undoubtedly get the nod ahead of Garvey and Fearns though (possibly even Haskell too).

It really does highlight how highly I rate Robshaw that I'd be relatively happy seeing any of the blindsides there starting with him at 7!

GloriousEmpire wrote:I can't see England getting within 30 points to be honest.

I think a few truths will come home to roost.

Just as long as you don't make any excuses should NZ lose

My predictions are rarely wrong - infuriatingly so, I believe. As I recall it I copped a ban to prevent me going 100% by some who find the accuracy of my views exhausting.