Englands Tour of NZ - The Politics

First topic message reminder :

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

So, because a different team, playing a different sport in a different country suffered a humiliating collapse, and because New Zealand have better video analysis, the ABs are going to turn a 9 point aggregate deficit into an 80+ point aggregate advantage over the course of 3 games?

The rugby players and coaches on both sides are pretty much the same as last time, so that can't be the decisive factor. I wouldn't argue against NZ having better players right now; but the gap is not as wide as anyone would have expected two years ago. Jury's out on the coaching (Hansen's been very impressive but he had a far a higher base to start from. I think what Lancaster has done so far is comparable given the relative inexperience of his players).

And let me jog your memory. It was already apparent from the previous Ashes series, and previous tours, that England were fragile away from home and cracks were appearing in both their batting and bowling lineups. It was also apparent that Australia were getting their act together through the first series, and would be far more serious contenders at home.

The rugby team, on the other hand, have been looking more coherent in each game, despite having had to replace half the backline with rookies.

I'm merely pointing out that recent history is no accurate predictor of the future.

There are many parallels between the England cricket team and England rugby team.

Most notable is form away from home - the welsh massacre and the French capitulation for example.

Many parallels indeed. Many parallels.

The repetition of "many parallels" three times in a post says to me that you're losing your grip...

Ad Hominem

Wikipedia wrote: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Wikipedia

However, the article goes on to point out that

Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.

and cites Mandy Rice-Davies' "Well he would, wouldn't he?" as an example.

I don't think it's irrelevant or fallacious to point out that you seem to have run out of even spurious points to make. So while that's arguably an ad hominem argument, it's justified on the basis of calling into question the competence of the individual arguing.

As a more direct example, in China it would be losing face to directly admit that you didn't have an answer to a question. So if I were to challenge you on the parallels between two teams and there were none, pretty much the most negative response a Chinese person would give would be "there are many parallels." Repetition would only emphasise the point. The lack of specifics would lead me to understand that there were none for you to give.

I don't know if you have any Chinese ancestry. If so, I apologise if I have made you lose face.

The competence? Last time I checked I got every 6N prediction spot on until those infuriated by my superior knowledge and predictive systems banned me to prevent a clean sweep. Reminds me if how half the All Blacks get unusual IRB sponsored bans every time NZ visit the NH!

Many parallels. Many parallels.

HammerofThunor wrote:Taylorman, do the NH ever play the SH teams in their peak period? That's reserved for the 6 nations, in the same way yours is for the Championship. You want the primary annual comp moved to the end of the season or as a warm up competition?

Edit: isn't the World Cup in you peak part of the season? It's in a terrible place for use.

Yes I was going to say that at the same time. I cant ever recall the AB's playing a test in Jan to almost May. Probably the 72-73 tour?

I think that makes a huge difference and explains some of the NH vs SH anomalies- The NH sides are strongest in Feb, March and need to carry that form on into the Southern tours, where we are strongest July to September and try to hang on through the AI's. Both hemispheres use the Summer/ AI's to kick off their seasons...and yes I think the world cup is pretty much the right time for us- maybe a month or two later than ideal but not bad- ends end of October

Indeed during touring days relative success was effected by timing of tours for example 1967 All Blacks were
home for xmas unbeaten.
1963-4 All Blacks were in mid tour at that time,the 1953-4 side met Cardiff in there 6th game Cardiff had
already played 16 games that season.
England win versus the All Blacks roughly once in 10 years 2013 included,an AB side getting over a virus
attack.Still matched them try for try they lost to the better side on the day being unable to claw back
the Penalty count.
In 2014 England relied on trying to dis rupt the AB`s it worked to a point BUT there scrum/lineout overall
was poor.What irony there first try came from an dis intergrating scrum destroyed by the AB shove .
During the period Read was in the bin Penalties clawed back the NZ lead and briefly overall lead.The
only time the England Scrum looked like being dominant Nonu was on the Flank and that one had to be reset.
England under Lancaster have been very succesful v NH sides but patchy v SH sides what he is doing is
creating great depth in squads.Something SCW failed to do post 2004.
NZ are notoriously slow starters and many current AB`s are showing lack of form in Super series Romano,
Carter and McCaw are injured.
AB depth is legend and very few sides win in NZ BUT the First Test will be Englands best chance.

World Cup confrontations are about as level a playing field as you are going to see, since teams are coached to peak specifically for the tournament.

On that front, England look distinctly second best. We lost at Twickenham in 1991 with one of out strongest teams, against a New Zealand side now widely regarded as past its best. The 1995 match felt like the dictionary definition of a spanking. I remember nothing about 1999 which suggests there weren't many positives.

On other matters, it's odd that anyone would suggest this English team is fragile away from home. The very first thing Lancaster did when he took over was win his all the away matches in his first Six Nations, something we hadn't managed since 2003.

There is one scenario for the upcoming tour I'd be curious to see.

The selection for the first Test will necessarily include players who are second choice. What if that team wins? Or course, it's a very big if, and not a widely expected scenario, but it would create a conundrum for Lancaster.

Does he let them play again or does he make changes and field his first choice? If his first choice goes out and then loses the second Test, what would his strategy be for the third?

Regardless of who plays that final game, if we went down to a second defeat then it could end up being a strangely unsatisfactory tour despite meeting an unofficial target of one Test win (three losses would be a disappointment no matter how they came about).

GloriousEmpire wrote:The competence? Last time I checked I got every 6N prediction spot on until those infuriated by my superior knowledge and predictive systems banned me to prevent a clean sweep. Reminds me if how half the All Blacks get unusual IRB sponsored bans every time NZ visit the NH!

Many parallels. Many parallels.

You either got the win or lose you big big hero, you really do think you are some sort of super hero after this don't you. Little things please little minds and all that. THEN you try and compare cricket teams to rugby teams, what's that all about??? Superior knowledge my ass

Rugby Fan wrote:World Cup confrontations are about as level a playing field as you are going to see, since teams are coached to peak specifically for the tournament.

On that front, England look distinctly second best. We lost at Twickenham in 1991 with one of out strongest teams, against a New Zealand side now widely regarded as past its best. The 1995 match felt like the dictionary definition of a spanking. I remember nothing about 1999 which suggests there weren't many positives.

On other matters, it's odd that anyone would suggest this English team is fragile away from home. The very first thing Lancaster did when he took over was win his all the away matches in his first Six Nations, something we hadn't managed since 2003.

There is one scenario for the upcoming tour I'd be curious to see.

The selection for the first Test will necessarily include players who are second choice. What if that team wins? Or course, it's a very big if, and not a widely expected scenario, but it would create a conundrum for Lancaster.

Does he let them play again or does he make changes and field his first choice? If his first choice goes out and then loses the second Test, what would his strategy be for the third?

Regardless of who plays that final game, if we went down to a second defeat then it could end up being a strangely unsatisfactory tour despite meeting an unofficial target of one Test win (three losses would be a disappointment no matter how they came about).

Nearest we came to something like that was the baby blacks in 86 where we shelved all the AB's that went on the disastrous cavaliers tour for a test as punishment. That sprung an unlikely win vs France with 13 players either debuting or new AB's- Kirwan one...

So even though our next crop is likely to be fairly good, there are still big gains from this sort of selection if the players take the challenge- the nothing to lose concept can have a huge impact on the right type of player/ mindset...

emack2 wrote:Indeed during touring days relative success was effected by timing of tours for example 1967 All Blacks were
home for xmas unbeaten.
1963-4 All Blacks were in mid tour at that time,the 1953-4 side met Cardiff in there 6th game Cardiff had
already played 16 games that season.
England win versus the All Blacks roughly once in 10 years 2013 included,an AB side getting over a virus
attack.Still matched them try for try they lost to the better side on the day being unable to claw back
the Penalty count.
In 2014 England relied on trying to dis rupt the AB`s it worked to a point BUT there scrum/lineout overall
was poor.What irony there first try came from an dis intergrating scrum destroyed by the AB shove .
During the period Read was in the bin Penalties clawed back the NZ lead and briefly overall lead.The
only time the England Scrum looked like being dominant Nonu was on the Flank and that one had to be reset.
England under Lancaster have been very succesful v NH sides but patchy v SH sides what he is doing is
creating great depth in squads.Something SCW failed to do post 2004.
NZ are notoriously slow starters and many current AB`s are showing lack of form in Super series Romano,
Carter and McCaw are injured.
AB depth is legend and very few sides win in NZ BUT the First Test will be Englands best chance.

Can't see that as in the 1st test we'll have a considerably weaker team. I don't think you're being fair about the 2012 win either as it was England's tries which put NZ under pressure along with the ability of Farrell to put over some pens rather than miss like his opposite number. It was a late try against 14 (with the match already won) which gave NZ a small bit of respectability in that match lets not forget.

I think NZ finished strongly when Lancaster emptied the bench. If Vito hadn't bombed an easy try I still maintain NZ would've won. It was an off day for NZ in terms of handling and goal kicking. Too many guys returning from injury and the norovirus.

Yup. Of course. At least you were supporting England that day GE.

Yeah, Vito's 20-point try could have been a turning point.

Well, NZ were running rampant in the last quarter, scored two quick tries and England were in disarray.

Vunipola had come on, given away two penalties and then been binned for persistent slowing of the breakdown (he wasn't as subtle as his replaced counterpart), and NZ had a roll on.

Now the final margin was only 17 points - very similar to the reverse scoreline in 2013 in fact.

Vito (or was it messam?) bombed a sure try with a few minutes left, but NZ were cutting England open at will by that stage.

If he'd dotted down instead of dropping it, then aside from probably being the try of the year, NZ would've been just one try and a penalty from snatching a draw.

We've seen from the Ireland game this year that NZ have the composure to score after the hooter and deep into injury time.

I believe NZ could easily have gained another score against 14 men and we would've had a nail biter of a last play.

Shame the game was affected so heavily by the pre-match circumstances of poor food hygiene and unprecedented and bizarre IRB judicial activity or it could've been a classic.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:We will win a game in NZ, and I wager that even if we did lose a game 30-0, Kiwi heads would be more likely to roll than English ones when we do that

Are you including the Crusaders match in your carefully worded wager? Or a game of forcing back or some non-related rugby game? Did you have that one drafted up by a lawyer CJ?   

Ah, gosh , you caught me!

But seriously I think we can and will win one match. It's a big call but I've been galled into it

England may beat the crusaders assuming the crusaders rest their All Blacks.

No chance of a test win though unfortunately.

I really think it would be good for NZ to lose one now - the unbeaten run is getting to be a mill stone.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well, NZ were running rampant in the last quarter, scored two quick tries and England were in disarray.

Vunipola had come on, given away two penalties and then been binned for persistent slowing of the breakdown (he wasn't as subtle as his replaced counterpart), and NZ had a roll on.

Now the final margin was only 17 points - very similar to the reverse scoreline in 2013 in fact.

Vito (or was it messam?) bombed a sure try with a few minutes left, but NZ were cutting England open at will by that stage.

If he'd dotted down instead of dropping it, then aside from probably being the try of the year, NZ would've been just one try and a penalty from snatching a draw.

We've seen from the Ireland game this year that NZ have the composure to score after the hooter and deep into injury time.

I believe NZ could easily have gained another score against 14 men and we would've had a nail biter of a last play.

Shame the game was affected so heavily by the pre-match circumstances of poor food hygiene and unprecedented and bizarre IRB judicial activity or it could've been a classic.

I like your logic. Following this, we actually won the World Cup in 2007 as well and the 2013 6N

"No chance"- let's come back to this after the tests

I didn't say NZ did win - I'm merely saying the game wasn't the masacre that England fans like to make believe.

NZ were rampant in the last twenty and just made crucial and uncharacterised errors in the third quarter that let in some soft tries. DC throwing an intercept pass and Conrad smith missing a couple of first up tackles. NZ also generated a host of penalty chances in the first half which DC missed most of.

Days when so much goes so wrong for NZ are very rate indeed. (In fact statistics show it happens about once every ten years). It's therefore easy to see that this was more a case of NZ playing well below par and losing than England doing much in the way of being special.

Cling onto it as you will - that's your prerogative - but I don't want you to live in false hope.

You loved it back when you were an England GE. Since you've turned into a Kiwi you've become very bitter!

Gloriousempire not a massacre but a convincing win. 38-21 is a 17 point win.

Actually you scored one consolation try near the end of the game against 14 men - nothing more.

You let the game go when you were hit by a 3 try salvo.

Final margin was only 17 points.  

Must be interesting to have such a deluded view point. For most fans if their side lost by 17 points they would say they were well and convincingly beaten on the day.

It's your way though to pull as many excuses out of your bottom as you can.

Excuses? No. England won on the day.

But it wasn't an overwhelming crushing performance that is made out by many fans. If you analyze the game then NZ structurally and tactically did well - but execution on the day was about 15% lower than normal statistically (aggregate over kick average, handling errors and missed tackles).

Id say NZ can afford to drop their game by around 7-11% and expect to beat England. But 15% is just too much at that level.

Gloriousempire the way I see it - NZ could not recover from England's 3 try salvo.

NZ did not do structurally or tactically well - you lost by 17 points.

The composure from NZ was not there. Key NZ players failed to stem the side.

Carter did not have his kicking boots whereas Farrell did.

England were 15-0 at half time. NZ were forced to chase the game - did well to hit back with two quickfire tries but then England hit back even harder with 3 which broke NZ hearts.

England succeeded in rattling NZ which resulted in uncharacteristic errors. I agree NZ were not at their best but this was partly due to their opposition who were in a combative mood.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Excuses? No. England won on the day.

But it wasn't an overwhelming crushing performance that is made out by many fans. If you analyze the game then NZ structurally and tactically did well - but execution on the day was about 15% lower than normal statistically (aggregate over kick average, handling errors and missed tackles).

Id say NZ can afford to drop their game by around 7-11% and expect to beat England. But 15% is just too much at that level.

The ABs at <80% of their season's potential would struggle against England 86% of the time. However you have to take into account that with England playing to 109% of their season's standard during the game in question, then that percentage would fall nearer the 75% mark.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Excuses? No. England won on the day.

But it wasn't an overwhelming crushing performance that is made out by many fans. If you analyze the game then NZ structurally and tactically did well - but execution on the day was about 15% lower than normal statistically (aggregate over kick average, handling errors and missed tackles).

Id say NZ can afford to drop their game by around 7-11% and expect to beat England. But 15% is just too much at that level.

The ABs at <80% of their season's potential would struggle against England 86% of the time. However you have to take into account that with England playing to 109% of their season's standard during the game in question, then that percentage would fall nearer the 75% mark.

I 89.7% agree with that

GloriousEmpire wrote:I didn't say NZ did win - I'm merely saying the game wasn't the masacre that England fans like to make believe.

NZ were rampant in the last twenty and just made crucial and uncharacterised errors in the third quarter that let in some soft tries. DC throwing an intercept pass and Conrad smith missing a couple of first up tackles.  NZ also generated a host of penalty chances in the first half which DC missed most of.

Days when so much goes so wrong for NZ are very rate indeed. (In fact statistics show it happens about once every ten years). It's therefore easy to see that this was more a case of NZ playing well below par and losing than England doing much in the way of being special.

Cling onto it as you will - that's your prerogative - but I don't want you to live in false hope.

Dan Carter threw the intercept pass against Scotland. It was Reid against England. I agree with Beshocked. Looked a pretty typical game. England kicked a few penalties, Carter missed a few he normal would have nailed and England got a bit ahead at half time. Start of the second half, All Blacks fire it up and get a try pretty quick...oh dear, the "we were ahead for 60 minutes" Welsh victory on the cards). Then Carter missed a tackle on Tuilagi, which allowed him to get ahead of the other defenders, Ashton on his shoulder...try. The next try no-one could have forseen, Brad Barritt actually ran through a gap when Smith rushed up on Tuilagi, couple of offloads...try. All Blacks try to force it a bit, Tuilagi intercepts...try. Then it was pretty much too late, England defended, and cheated (got yellow), but there was too much left to do.

beshocked wrote:Gloriousempire the way I see it - NZ could not recover from England's 3 try salvo.

NZ did not do structurally or tactically well - you lost by 17 points.

The composure from NZ was not there. Key NZ players failed to stem the side.

Carter did not have his kicking boots whereas Farrell did.

England were 15-0 at half time. NZ were forced to chase the game - did well to hit back with two quickfire tries but then England hit back even harder with 3 which broke NZ hearts.

England succeeded in rattling NZ which resulted in uncharacteristic errors. I agree NZ were not at their best but this was partly due to their opposition who were in a combative mood.

Agreed. Also, what about the penalty try that should have been awarded for the trip on Freddie Burns 5m out?

Hammerofthunor just to correct you there.

Brad's try was the first. I think that shocked NZ a bit. The break came from a flat pass from Farrell who delayed it nicely with Nonu rushing at him. Smith flew out of the line.

The 2nd was another pass from Farrell to the rampaging Tuilagi who ran through Carter as you say with the supporting Ashton scoring. 3rd was the interception.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well, NZ were running rampant in the last quarter, scored two quick tries and England were in disarray.

Vunipola had come on, given away two penalties and then been binned for persistent slowing of the breakdown (he wasn't as subtle as his replaced counterpart), and NZ had a roll on.

Now the final margin was only 17 points - very similar to the reverse scoreline in 2013 in fact.

Vito (or was it messam?) bombed a sure try with a few minutes left, but NZ were cutting England open at will by that stage.

If he'd dotted down instead of dropping it, then aside from probably being the try of the year, NZ would've been just one try and a penalty from snatching a draw.

We've seen from the Ireland game this year that NZ have the composure to score after the hooter and deep into injury time.

I believe NZ could easily have gained another score against 14 men and we would've had a nail biter of a last play.

Shame the game was affected so heavily by the pre-match circumstances of poor food hygiene and unprecedented and bizarre IRB judicial activity or it could've been a classic.

Running rampant at that part of the game? cant have been feeling much effect from the norovirus then....

And by the same token, you could argue that England could easily have won the 2013 game. The ABs' 10 points in the 4th quarter were well taken - but England were in scoring position before Tom Youngs' throwing undid all the territorial advantage the forwards had won.

The ABs' two early tries were well finished but the initial breaks were definitely helped by defensive errors from Ashton. Given that Ashton's not likely to be involved and Nowell has had time to bed in, I wouldn't expect that defensive softness to be repeated.

Youngs making a hash of it at the end with a dodgy throw is very possible, but you'll do well to score 30 points off it.

Best thing for me in that match was that when NZ ramped things up at the start of the 2nd half, having been held scoreless in the 1st, England managed to respond so well.

Yes we were on the rack in the last few minutes, but the game was won and won well by that stage.

It may be a long time before we manage something like that again, but on that day we did.

For a long time, I believed England's loss to New Zealand at the 1995 World Cup was a crushing defeat.

However, the score in that match was 29-45, which is a sixteen point difference. Reading this thread, I now realize I have been unnecessarily pessimistic. If New Zealand's 17 point defeat in 2012 was almost a win, think how much closer England must have been to qualifying for the 1995 World Cup final.

England outscored New Zealand in the second half and New Zealand lost all shape in defence, letting in four tries.

Blimey, what a fool I've been. It wasn't an ignominious defeat, and fodder for pizza commercials. Thanks to the new style of analysis presented on this forum, it clearly was a damn close run thing, and New Zealand were probably relieved to come away with the win.

Rugby Fan wrote:For a long time, I believed England's loss to New Zealand at the 1995 World Cup was a crushing defeat.

However, the score in that match was 29-45, which is a sixteen point difference. Reading this thread, I now realize I have been unnecessarily pessimistic. If New Zealand's 17 point defeat in 2012 was almost a win, think how much closer England must have been to qualifying for the 1995 World Cup final.

England outscored New Zealand in the second half and New Zealand lost all shape in defence, letting in four tries.

Blimey, what a fool I've been. It wasn't an ignominious defeat, and fodder for pizza commercials. Thanks to the new style of analysis presented on this forum,  it clearly was a damn close run thing, and New Zealand were probably relieved to come away with the win.

I appreciate the point of this article, however, the thing is people like to portray the AB's as an unstoppable point scoring machine.

I see them (at least historically) as a team who sleep walk through half their games ('play defensively') and then turn things on big time for a short spell to blow the opposition away. We had a lot of 2nd half victories which were nice for moral but ultimately pointless seeing as NZ had already scored a bucket full and switched off again. It was nice, just once, to turn the tables.

Nice one Rugby Fan.   

Lowest wit it may be but I found it amusing.

At least you can say England have earned the right to say on their day they can beat anybody.   

It's not sleep walking. I believe they play on phases. Absorb/territory/assault.

It's quite clear if you look when the kicking predominantly happens.

Shhhh GE. You're giving away state secrets. Don't get me to do my Liam Neeson impersonation:

So a 17 loss is almost a draw........I'm really liking that thinking being a Falcons fan, not such a bad season after all.

I'm reminded of:

Megamind wrote:He would win some, I would almost win others.

beshocked wrote:Hammerofthunor just to correct you there.

Brad's try was the first. I think that shocked NZ a bit. The break came from a flat pass from Farrell who delayed it nicely with Nonu rushing at him. Smith flew out of the line.

The 2nd was another pass from Farrell to the rampaging Tuilagi who ran through Carter as you say with the supporting Ashton scoring. 3rd was the interception.

My mistake. Shame the partnership between Barritt and Tuilagi couldn't continue into the 6 Nations, just as they were getting used to each other Manu gets injured.

Taylorman wrote:Nearest we came to something like that was the baby blacks in 86

Wales stumbled across a fine team at the 2003. I don't recall England playing a second string only to see them shine. The closest we've come is when Lancaster took over, culled a lot of the old guard and fielded a very inexperienced side in 2012. That was his choice, though.

It would be nice for England fans if they could beat NZ just once when there weren't huge mitigating factors. Until then I have NZ at a 30 point spread.

Has anyone been watching Tom Stephenson at Saints? Incredibly exciting prospect at 12 - I can't remember an English IC who I think has looked better at 20 years of age. I can foresee him pushing Burrell out to 13 by next season, and then going on to challenge Twelvetrees. I wonder if SL is thinking of fast-tracking him into the wider squad this summer?

GloriousEmpire wrote:It would be nice for England fans if they could beat NZ just once when there weren't huge mitigating factors. Until then I have NZ at a 30 point spread.

Just to clarify. If New Zealand don't beat England in all three games, with an overall combined points difference of 30+, then you'll leave and never come back?

DaveM wrote:Has anyone been watching Tom Stephenson at Saints? Incredibly exciting prospect at 12 - I can't remember an English IC who I think has looked better at 20 years of age. I can foresee him pushing Burrell out to 13 by next season, and then going on to challenge Twelvetrees. I wonder if SL is thinking of fast-tracking him into the wider squad this summer?

I agree that he could soon push Burrell out to 13 although George Pisi will take some shifting from the 13 shirt at Saints. Think the NZ tour will come too soon for him, especially as he missed the few last weeks through injury. He is certainly a talent but personally feel he needs to establish himself in the first 15 for Saints and get a significant run of games before he appears on England's radar. Unless there is a rash of injuries at center for England then I think any international recognition will come after the WC.

Rugby Fan wrote:For a long time, I believed England's loss to New Zealand at the 1995 World Cup was a crushing defeat.

However, the score in that match was 29-45, which is a sixteen point difference. Reading this thread, I now realize I have been unnecessarily pessimistic. If New Zealand's 17 point defeat in 2012 was almost a win, think how much closer England must have been to qualifying for the 1995 World Cup final.

England outscored New Zealand in the second half and New Zealand lost all shape in defence, letting in four tries.

Blimey, what a fool I've been. It wasn't an ignominious defeat, and fodder for pizza commercials. Thanks to the new style of analysis presented on this forum,  it clearly was a damn close run thing, and New Zealand were probably relieved to come away with the win.

Rugby fan, did you watch the match? England scored two late tries to hugely flatter the scoreline. The were completely blown away in the first half, physically and mentally. Sure, they rallied at the end but only after the AB's were already thinking about the final with 20 to go, a 25-3 half time score....
"For England to outscore New Zealand 26-20 in the second half was creditable, despite a sense that All Black minds moved on to the final once the outcome of this match was in the bag. Few teams can boast of scoring four tries in half an hour against New Zealand, but even that couldn't restore England's pride."

Plus that zinny drop goal from 45 meters was just outrageous. I doubt well see vunipola or Morgan muster such a thing.

Defs won't but Brooke was arguably a contender for the greatest 8 of all time, no shame in not being as good as he!

HammerofThunor wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It would be nice for England fans if they could beat NZ just once when there weren't huge mitigating factors. Until then I have NZ at a 30 point spread.

Just to clarify. If New Zealand don't beat England in all three games, with an overall combined points difference of 30+, then you'll leave and never come back?

I hope not because New Zealand won't and it would be sad to lose GE altogether