Englands Tour of NZ - The Politics

First topic message reminder :

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

Taylorman wrote:Rugby fan, did you watch the match? England scored two late tries to hugely flatter the scoreline.

As Kia pointed out, sarcasm is called the lowest form of wit, so it's my fault if you've missed my point.

Though, Oscar Wilde is the one who said that and, apparently (and believably) he was being sarcastic!

ChequeredJersey wrote:

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

I appreciate your logic, he is not yet completely lost and anyway every court needs its jester.

Well get on it people. Tell your players to fold like a deck of cards in all three games and get those fingers hovering on the report button for the inevitable prophecies of invincibility from GE and the subsequent regrets for not having 'killed him off' when you had the chance.

Its clear to me he is saying a 30 pt spread over 3 games.

That would be the even money handicap anyway.

He just won't admit it until it happens.

There is no way NZ will win all 3 games by 30 plus.

It would be a complete capitulation and the end of a lot of careers if NZ were to beat us by 30 points in each game.

Even on the 'no management' shambles of 2008 tour, the results were: 37-20 and 44-12. Playing in that second Test was the much vaunted front row of T Payne, L Mears and M Stevens. Backed up by S Borthwick and T Palmer. The centres were the cream of the crop with J Noon and M Tindall.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Rugby fan, did you watch the match? England scored two late tries to hugely flatter the scoreline.

As Kia pointed out, sarcasm is called the lowest form of wit, so it's my fault if you've missed my point.

well we can agree on that one, if that was sarcasm, then it sure looked liked hard work...and a lot of words...so not quite there.... so how about we give it a bare pass....perhaps...half...wit.

Chjw131 wrote:It would be a complete capitulation and the end of a lot of careers if NZ were to beat us by 30 points in each game.

Even on the 'no management' shambles of 2008 tour, the results were: 37-20 and 44-12. Playing in that second Test was the much vaunted front row of T Payne, L Mears and M Stevens. Backed up by S Borthwick and T Palmer. The centres were the cream of the crop with J Noon and M Tindall.

A better analogy is the 2004 tour. Equal decade ago and England with high expectations after a season with a successful coach.

As far as history bears out, "great" English sporting teams usually achieve one thing and then need to be rebuilt.

Scw's swan song was winning the RWC by beating essentially Australia.

Lancaster's mountain was probably beating NZ at twickenham.

Now I expect the difficult second album to come lancaster's way.

The truth is that the SH teams adapt and move on more quickly whilst the Hone nations tend to march to the same tune for a long while - even after it's gone out of fashion. They still play tom hark at twickenham after all.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:It would be a complete capitulation and the end of a lot of careers if NZ were to beat us by 30 points in each game.

Even on the 'no management' shambles of 2008 tour, the results were: 37-20 and 44-12. Playing in that second Test was the much vaunted front row of T Payne, L Mears and M Stevens. Backed up by S Borthwick and T Palmer. The centres were the cream of the crop with J Noon and M Tindall.

A better analogy is the 2004 tour. Equal decade ago and England with high expectations after a season with a successful coach.

As far as history bears out, "great" English sporting teams usually achieve one thing and then need to be rebuilt.

Scw's swan song was winning the RWC by beating essentially Australia.

Lancaster's mountain was probably beating NZ at twickenham.

Now I expect the difficult second album to come lancaster's way.

The truth is that the SH teams adapt and move on more quickly whilst the Hone nations tend to march to the same tune for a long while - even after it's gone out of fashion.  They still play tom hark at twickenham after all.

GE you're so ignorant of the bleedin obvious.......

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:It would be a complete capitulation and the end of a lot of careers if NZ were to beat us by 30 points in each game.

Even on the 'no management' shambles of 2008 tour, the results were: 37-20 and 44-12. Playing in that second Test was the much vaunted front row of T Payne, L Mears and M Stevens. Backed up by S Borthwick and T Palmer. The centres were the cream of the crop with J Noon and M Tindall.

A better analogy is the 2004 tour. Equal decade ago and England with high expectations after a season with a successful coach.

As far as history bears out, "great" English sporting teams usually achieve one thing and then need to be rebuilt.

Scw's swan song was winning the RWC by beating essentially Australia.

Lancaster's mountain was probably beating NZ at twickenham.

Now I expect the difficult second album to come lancaster's way.

The truth is that the SH teams adapt and move on more quickly whilst the Hone nations tend to march to the same tune for a long while - even after it's gone out of fashion.  They still play tom hark at twickenham after all.

Well you should make up your mind about Lancaster then GE. One minute youre praising his efforts to rock the establishment to look for innovation and improvement then youre putting him back in his box. Is posting here a mood thing?

I think Lancaster is about as good as it gets as a new coach, and hes been 'against the grain' from the start. He was even chosen on a whim, a caretaker coach and that served to buck the trend and prove them wrong- maybe theyve set a trend here- pick a care taker coach to absolve almost all responsibility and hope they succeed under that insecurity.

Although Lancaster will be hoping for upsets in the club finals to reduce the damage on his first test side he also wont be resting on his laurels. He'll be looking for ways to make the most of the opportunities of the first test. Massive underdogs and hopefully he'll realise the only way to approach it with young guns to to attack full on- have no fear as youngsters go these days...

I have no idea what I think Taylorman. Thoughts arrive and are compelling. I think allowing yourself to hold contradictory views and being comfortable with your inner conflicts is essential in order to prosper in the contemporary world, which is itself a dichotomy, wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in an enchilada.

Perhaps it's that Lancaster, despite is obvious strengths and successes is inherently constrained by a conservative organisation for whom success in rugby terms is merely one facet of a corporate entity who have competing agendas which preclude a concentrated results based approach.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I have no idea what I think Taylorman. Thoughts arrive and are compelling. I think allowing yourself to hold contradictory views and being comfortable with your inner conflicts is essential in order to prosper in the contemporary world, which is itself a dichotomy, wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in an enchilada.

Perhaps it's that Lancaster, despite is obvious strengths and successes is inherently constrained by a conservative organisation for whom success in rugby terms is merely one facet of a corporate entity who have competing agendas which preclude a concentrated results based approach.

yeah agree with that. We don't really know but it does appear he's been cut a bit of slack with his obviously faster tempo game and picking guys like Care, Brown, Tuilagi etc - all of whom carry some risk somewhere. Perhaps the hangover from the glory years has taken some time to realise that 2003 was not a template for future sides?

2003 was all about the one RWC- GE talking about this tour will be like the 2004 is either a wum or he has finally lost it- we are still at the start of the building process and the upward curve that could continue for a long long time. This time we may not be quite good enough for 2015 - but i expect a semi minimum and then 2019 a final minimum.

Just seen the line:

'Scw's swan song was winning the RWC by beating essentially Australia' which was no doubt designed as a put down to denigrate their achievement.

Interesting it wasn't mentioned that we also beat South Africa in the group stages and France in the semi's so we beat everyone bar NZ in terms of the top teams at that time. Hardly England's fault that NZ weren't good enough to beat Australia, a team England ultimately dispatched.

Why worry about the details if they don't support your argument hey!

Watching the HC game, Bomber has to make a U turn and get steffon armitage back into the eps.

Breadvan wrote:Watching the HC game, Bomber has to make a U turn and get steffon armitage back into the eps.

Not sure I would agree. For Armitage to feature you have to build the back row around him, with real grafters to cover for the large periods he goes missing. He did some fantastic stuff today - but was hugely dependent on Rossouw, Smith and Lobbe doing the hard work.

mystiroakey wrote:2003 was all about the one RWC- GE talking about this tour will be like the 2004 is either a wum or he has finally lost it- we are still at the start of the building process and the upward curve that could continue for a long long time. This time we may not be quite good enough for 2015 - but i expect a semi minimum and then 2019 a final minimum.

England are perpetually "building" though aren't they? They never seem to be built. I wonder why not? Everyone else manages it!

Who is everyone else then.

Only nz and england have managed it for me?

Those Are the only two teams that have been the best by a long way before. We need to this time follow the nz model of allways rebuilding. allways getting better . not like 2003.

! Wow. What a world of delusion you do live in.

Got to you did I.

And I am even being nice about your team. The problem is that I am shoing up your ridiculas logic.

If you think England are like the 2004 side . you are crazy but I know you are wumming

I really don't think Armitage is as good as everyone thinks he is. Saull would look world class at Toulon. He's a good player but not good enough to mess around the team and bend rules for

LondonTiger wrote:

Breadvan wrote:Watching the HC game, Bomber has to make a U turn and get steffon armitage back into the eps.

Not sure I would agree. For Armitage to feature you have to build the back row around him, with real grafters to cover for the large periods he goes missing. He did some fantastic stuff today - but was hugely dependent on Rossouw, Smith and Lobbe doing the hard work.

this. launchbury and lawes are exactly the second row pairing with workrate mobility and tackling that can allow S Armitage to roam, steal and run. Kind of like billy v does - he spends as much time at 1st or second receiver in open play as our centres.

i think SL should change his rule at the beginning of next season, too late for anyone to move to france, but with a whole season to see if Steffon fits into the england backrow setup.

CJ, he's not good enough to bend the rules, he's good enough to change the rules. And i'm obviously a Robshaw fan. But Steffon Armitage could help win us a world cup and i am willing to make any and all compromises to increase the chances of that by even 1%. Plus its not as if we have too much strength in depth in the back row compared to the second row.

ChequeredJersey wrote:I really don't think Armitage is as good as everyone thinks he is. Saull would look world class at Toulon. He's a good player but not good enough to mess around the team and bend rules for

did u watch the match today? Steffon Armitage turned over the ball or won penalties on at least 6 separate occasions. Against a side (effectively) that made life very hard for England.

No, I've been stuck moving out of my student house and now travelling to London but one game won't change my mind. That Toulon pack is arguably te best in the world, for a specialist player it's essentially a cake walk. For England, he'll have to change the way he plays and if he can that's fine but he has to come back and follow the rules for selections like anyone else. And then in order for it to be worth it we'd have to change our approach to the breakdown and entire pack dynamic and utterly destroy our progress through consistency. It would be a huge error, all the evidence shows that integrating new players takes time and new gameplans take even longer

if integrating new players takes time then why didnt we vary up the back row and several other key positions at all during the AIs and 6Ns other than through injury?

i think its definitely worth it. watch the game if you get a chance, steffon armitage was a one man turnover and carrying crew. billy v doesnt really win turnovers, he carries. steffon armitage did both. merits consideration in my opinion.

I hope Farrell doesn't see a repeat of his kicking performance against Ulster down in New Zealand.

quinsforever wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I really don't think Armitage is as good as everyone thinks he is. Saull would look world class at Toulon. He's a good player but not good enough to mess around the team and bend rules for

did u watch the match today? Steffon Armitage turned over the ball or won penalties on at least 6 separate occasions. Against a side (effectively) that made life very hard for England.

I thought he managed barely half that number - especially as the commentators kept crediting him with turnover work that was actually done by Basteraud.

Rugby Fan wrote:I hope Farrell doesn't see a repeat of his kicking performance against Ulster down in New Zealand.

Ford was awful too.

Carter on holiday
Cruden broken thumb
It's down to Barrett and Taylor / Slade to do the job at 10.
Surely NZ on the back foot relying on our 3rd / 4th choice first fives. With no decent hookers to back up Coles who is a new boy himself NZ are in trouble.

Barrett is in bloody good nick though

Armitage is never going to make the England squad again. He chose France and in a sense snubbed Lancaster so he's bombed out.

Wood, Robshaw, Callum Clark - tall, athletic, yet still physical flankers who are good alround rather than absolutely mastering one skill is what he prefers....

Were Armitage playing that way in the Jeff he would undoubtedly get a look in, but the reason he's not there is policy and that is good enough reasoning in itself.

If you pick Armitage then you give the green light to a lot of players to go over-seas and that's not good for English domestic rugby I don't think. Control is lost and that in itself can be decisive.

Armitage could be the best player in the world and it wouldn't be worth breaking the rule.

nganboy wrote:Carter on holiday
Cruden broken thumb
It's down to Barrett and Taylor / Slade to do the job at 10.
Surely NZ on the back foot relying on our 3rd / 4th choice first fives. With no decent hookers to back up Coles who is a new boy himself NZ are in trouble.

Will Mealamu not be in the squad competing with Coles for the 2 shirt, or backing him up at least? Injured at the moment but just a 'low-grade calf strain' from what I've read - should be back early enough to prove form and fitness surely?

Cruden is a big blow with Carter already on sabbatical, but Barrett is a bloody good player in good form. Undoubtedly puts more pressure on the young man stepping up as NZ's first choice 10 for a three test series but if there's a guy with the talent to rise to it he's got to be one of them! Having a largely full strength backline around him with Snake back will help no end as well.

9.A Smith
10.Barrett
11.Savea
12.Nonu
13.C Smith
14.B Smith, Piutua or Jane
15.Dagg or Smith even if he doesn't find SXV form?

How old is Mealamu now. He seems to have been around so long...

GeordieFalcon wrote:How old is Mealamu now. He seems to have been around so long...

He's 35 Geordie and yeah he has been around ages! Still playing well though and given this looks like it could be Coles first series as first choice hooker he'd probably be a better option for the bench than another rookie. Andrew Hore was the third hooker in the squad during the Autumn internationals it's fair to remember!

The key position for the AB's to bring some depth through I'd say. Not that I've been keeping up with SXV well enough to know who would be next in line. Any updates on that from someone better informed would be great!

This will be the time when Barrett steps on to the world stage - similarly to the way DC arrived from Nowhere in 2005, when SCW was predicting a huge lions advantage at 10 due to the loss of Spencer and the failure of Macdonald at 10.

I have no fears. The scrum is now an irrelevance and Coles is better around the pitch than his counterpart.

Even if Barrett too, falls to injury I'm sure we can fetch the old badger back from a fishing trip wherever he is, the legend that is Tom Taylor or even U20 World Cup winner Anscombe.

Barrett is a real attacking talent but an extremely suspect defender. He'd certainly be tested with Tuilagi running down his channel.

I seem to recall him having the most missed tackles in super rugby last season?!?

He is very dangerous in all other respects though, and will have better defenders to help him than he does with the Hurricanes

GloriousEmpire wrote:This will be the time when Barrett steps on to the world stage - similarly to the way DC arrived from Nowhere in 2005, when SCW was predicting a huge lions advantage at 10 due to the loss of Spencer and the failure of Macdonald at 10.

I have no fears. The scrum is now an irrelevance and Coles is better around the pitch than his counterpart.

Even if Barrett too, falls to injury I'm sure we can fetch the old badger back from a fishing trip wherever he is, the legend that is Tom Taylor or even U20 World Cup winner Anscombe.

Are you saying he's a better hooker than Hartley at the moment? Because despite his disciplinary issues I would have to disagree.

Ignore that...I misread it...

ChequeredJersey wrote:He is very dangerous in all other respects though, and will have better defenders to help him than he does with the Hurricanes

Agree. He's on fire at the moment and his regular and successful starting, strong goalkicking (7/7 last match now at 86% and 20 points in each of the last 3 (or 4? matches) will have him in better form than Cruden if he's out for 7 weeks.

Its still only sxv and he hasnt started much for the AB's but he's also never let a side down. Like Goldie said he's one of those players that things seem to happen around. Possibly the most deceptive player for speed around- still can't fathom how he ran down a flying Le Roux last year.

Defence is abysmal, in fact non existent and yes that's where to attack. But on D the AB's just have to move him around a bit so he's not taking the first runner...easily done if they do it right.

Different in style to Cruden and a small question mark around his ability to run a match but his regular starts at 10 is taking care of that.

Will NZ play their full strength team in the first test and go for a big scoreline to get the psychological advantage?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Will NZ play their full strength team in the first test and go for a big scoreline to get the psychological advantage?

Absolutely, they've got to make it seem like an insurmountable obstacle. Is Cruden going to be out of the first Test? It'll be interesting as to who starts at 6 as well, if it's Kaino I think we'll need to bring in a more physical 6 to the BR.

Let's see who we even have available first

Thats the question...who will we have available?

ChequeredJersey wrote:Let's see who we even have available first

Of course. Bath haven't quite made the mark in some key games so far this season so even if they're top 4 I can't see them making the final. At the moment in all likelihood it's a Saracens v Saints final.

Quins went well in the SH against Stade but seem to lack the muscle to compete with the likes of Saints and Sarries. Tigers also put in a good performance against Clermont. Youngs' box kicking was excellent even if he did miss a couple of opportunities to go through the hands. Slater impressed again. It's looking interesting in the boiler room for sure.

Chjw131 wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Let's see who we even have available first

Of course. Bath haven't quite made the mark in some key games so far this season so even if they're top 4 I can't see them making the final. At the moment in all likelihood it's a Saracens v Saints final.

Quins went well in the SH against Stade but seem to lack the muscle to compete with the likes of Saints and Sarries. Tigers also put in a good performance against Clermont. Youngs' box kicking was excellent even if he did miss a couple of opportunities to go through the hands. Slater impressed again. It's looking interesting in the boiler room for sure.

Ben Youngs is steadily but very noticeably coming back to form. Not at his best again by any means but a world of difference from the player we saw for the first half of the season. Will be a huge boost if he can come back to his very best to really challenge Care. We've often spoken of those two battling for the shirt and pushing each other to improve but rarely have we seen both performing consistently well at the same time.

That scrum-half battle could be made doubly important if Farrell is missing for the first test as having at least one but likely two top quality SH's available for the first test (depends on final obviously) would really relieve some pressure on Ford.

If the table stays as it is with 1.Saracens 2.Northampton 3.Leicester 4.Bath then the possible finals are:

Saracens vs Saints
1.Marler 2.Youngs/Webber 3.Wilson 4.Launchbury 5.Attwood 6.Haskell 7.Robshaw 8.Morgan
9.Care/Youngs 10.Ford 11.Yarde/May 12.Twelvetrees 13.Tuilagi 14.Wade/Nowell 15.Brown

Saracens vs Tigers
1.Marler 2.Hartley 3.Wilson 4.Launchbury 5.Attwood 6.Wood 7.Robshaw 8.Vunipola/Morgan
9.Care/Youngs 10.Ford 11.Yarde/May 12.Twelvetrees 13.Burrell 14.Wade/Nowell 15.Brown

Saints vs Bath
1.Marler 2.Hartley 3.Thomas/Brookes 4.Launchbury 5.Slater/Parling/Kitchener 6.Haskell 7.Robshaw 8.Vunipola/Morgan
9.Care/Youngs 10.Farrell 11.Yarde/May 12.Twelvetrees 13.Tuilagi 14.Wade/Nowell 15.Brown

Tigers vs Bath
1.Marler 2.Hartley 3.Thomas/Brookes 4.Launchbury 5.Lawes 6.Wood 7.Robshaw 8.Vunipola/Morgan
9.Care/Youngs 10.Farrell 11.Yarde/May 12.Twelvetrees 13.Burrell 14.Wade/Nowell 15.Brown

Obviously some selections are personal preference such as Haskell and Brookes. Gives an idea of the various permutations and options we could see from the current table though.

In an odd way Bath in the final could almost be more dangerous than the other sides with far more key players due to the absence of Wilson with Cole already out! As unfashionable as many still view him Farrell would be a big loss on his own as well though IMO.

Yep interesting selection permutations for sure. I'd like to see Haskell back at 6 again, he gives us a good work-rate, good competition on the floor and carries well in open space.

It's more likely though that Johnson will come straight in at 6. He's probably a better carrier than Hask but similar on the floor and general work rate. He's pacier but for me lacks physicality in the tackle which Hask does add. That will be important against NZ.

Brookes certainly looks to be coming on well, despite his rather absurd ban. Thomas though didn't disgrace himself in any of his performances and is far likelier to start of the two.

I'd like to see Fearns or Garvey tour but neither seems likely.

I too would rather see Haskell over Tom Johnson. I think Haskells physicality could be useful in NZ. But how has his form been?

Henry Thomas actually didnt disgrace himself at all, and actually reminds me of Marler. A prop who is fantastic in the loose and carrying etc...but maybe not a huge scrummager. However Marler is coming on leaps and bounds now, and is becoming a complete prop...and i can see the same happening with Thomas

GeordieFalcon wrote:I too would rather see Haskell over Tom Johnson. I think Haskells physicality could be useful in NZ. But how has his form been?

Henry Thomas actually didnt disgrace himself at all, and actually reminds me of Marler. A prop who is fantastic in the loose and carrying etc...but maybe not a huge scrummager. However Marler is coming on leaps and bounds now, and is becoming a complete prop...and i can see the same happening with Thomas

Once Thomas moves to Bath I can see his scrummaging improving dramatically, he has the strength for it. It will take time but i'm sure he'll follow Marler's path.

That's the rub with Haskell. I haven't seen the Amlin game but he's looked a bit off colour in a struggling Wasps team so far. But he's pretty much always performed for England and he'd be a good substitute for Woodshaw.

Chjw131 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I too would rather see Haskell over Tom Johnson. I think Haskells physicality could be useful in NZ. But how has his form been?

Henry Thomas actually didnt disgrace himself at all, and actually reminds me of Marler. A prop who is fantastic in the loose and carrying etc...but maybe not a huge scrummager. However Marler is coming on leaps and bounds now, and is becoming a complete prop...and i can see the same happening with Thomas

Once Thomas moves to Bath I can see his scrummaging improving dramatically, he has the strength for it. It will take time but i'm sure he'll follow Marler's path.
That's the rub with Haskell. I haven't seen the Amlin game but he's looked a bit off colour in a struggling Wasps team so far. But he's pretty much always performed for England and he'd be a good substitute for Woodshaw.

Well Gold seems to working his magic with Catt, so imagine what he can do with Thomas.