Englands Summer Tour of NZ - The rugby

First topic message reminder :

NZ tour squad

England squad flying on May 27 (30)
Props
Joe Marler (Harlequins), Matt Mullan (London Wasps), Kieran Brookes (Newcastle Falcons), Henry Thomas (Sale Sharks), David Wilson (Bath Rugby)

Hookers
Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs), Joe Gray (Harlequins), Dave Ward (Harlequins), Rob Webber (Bath Rugby)

Locks
Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby), Joe Launchbury (London Wasps), Geoff Parling (Leicester Tigers), Ed Slater (Leicester Tigers)

Back rows
James Haskell (London Wasps), Tom Johnson (Exeter Chiefs), Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby), Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby), Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)

Scrum halves
Danny Care (Harlequins), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Fly halves
Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby), Danny Cipriani (Sale Sharks)

Centres
Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby), Manusamoa Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers), Henry Trinder (Gloucester Rugby), Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby)

Wings
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby), Marland Yarde (London Irish)

Full backs
Mike Brown (Harlequins), Chris Pennell (Worcester Warriors)

Prem Final - 31st May (Sarries v Saints)

England v Baa Baas - 1st June

New Zealand v England (First Test)- 7th June
New Zealand v England (Second Test) - 14th June
Crusaders v England - 17th June
New Zealand v England (Third Test) - 21st June.

With Wood unavailable and with Garvey, my preferred 'BIG 6' option, injured and persona non grata, I would select Tigers Slater to start. He has had the season of his life and though 6 is not his preferred position he has played there on many occasions for Leicester.

As an aside it strikes me that both these players, Garvey and Slater, are the equal of the soon to convert Sam Burguess.....but thats another story.

Injury permitting;

Marler
Webber/Ward
Wilson
Attwood
Launchbury
Robshaw
Morgan
Slater
Care
Cipriani
Yarde
Twelvetress/Eastmond
Tuilagi
May - I have really issues with May and this selection will probably brake him......
Brown/Watson

not sure, help me...Brookes maybe?
Ward/?
Sinckler
Kitchener
Haskell
Youngs
Burns
Watson/Sharples/Eastmond

Maybe not 'White Orcs on Acid' but there's alot of players with a lot to prove in this selection which makes for a very interesting T1, assuming they're all still standing come 7th June......

Let's get some perspective. This is not 'back to square one'. How many players in kingelderfield's first test squad have not been part of the senior England setup? Two. Slater and Cipriani, plus three or four forwards on the bench. The big issue is that we will have an untried 10/12 axis, but we've been there before.

The situations isn't ideal, but England will be fielding a pack who have played together and the core of whom have given the ABs trouble before, and they have several players in the back division who would trouble any side - Care, Tuilagi, Brown, arguably Yarde.

The weakest area will be midfield defence and I expect the squad to leak more points than is ideal. But I think they have a good chance to put some points on the board of their own. It'll still be a loss, but it could be competitive.

It's not going to be a step back either. The pack we put out should definitely compete well and the backs look pretty exciting. Everyone has written that 1st team off, what are they going to lose?

Poorfour wrote:Let's get some perspective. This is not 'back to square one'.

How many key combinations will we be fielding in that first Test with experience of playing together at international level?

Probably only one - the second row pairing. Front row, back row, half backs, midfield and back three will, in all likelihood, never have started a Test together, and probably will never have been on the field together in an international.

It's one thing to slot in a new combination when the team structure is largely stable, quite another to have such a degree of unfamiliarity across the whole side. In a first up match. Away. Against the All Blacks.

If our front line hookers don't come through and, say, Ward or LCD misses his jumpers all day, then we are not going to learn as much about how well the other combinations are going. You can make the same point about all the other positions.

I'll be fascinated to see how it goes, and backing England all the way, but I suspect the coaches are only too aware of the nature of the challenge they have been handed.

Relax everyone.

I think this tour will be a backwards step but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Throughout the last few years Lancaster has shown he likes to play the same team with minimal changes, only really allowing other players experience from the bench (and that has been reduced after that game).

Now we are forced to try out new combinations, blood new players and make the more experienced guys step up into leadership roles they may not usually assume when the likes of Wood, Hartley and Farrell are around.

If nothing else the prep for this tour has shown us just how quickly a squad can be depleted. Now that could easily happen again come RWC next year, I think we'll be in a far better position for having had to play every EQ player in the land then if Lancaster had been able to just select his first choice + 3 or 4 others for the tests.

Win or lose this is a good thing. It doesn't matter if we beat the AB's, what matters is experience, handling the pressure and using this tour to build a wider EPS of quality players rather then a very good first XV and a drop in talent after that.

Those are true those points yappysnap and of course assuming NZ keeps its proud home consecutive streak intact. However, I certainly hope the young players don't go in with that safety mat mentality that it doesn't matter if they lose the match because of the circumstances. They should take a leaf out of the French rookies' book last year in the first test who showed up some of the incumbents who played later how to perform with hunger to prove yourself and pride in the shirt.

They should see this as an opportunity to show they are worthy of a place and that will in turn provide motivation for the incumbents to prove their worth when they return. If the score turns into a blowout, psychological damage can occur. Then if injuries occur to the incumbents and the next tier have to step in, they take with them that psychological baggage.

There is never the attitude win or lose is a good thing. There may be positives to take out from defeats such as there are lessons to learn even when you win but going into a match thinking it doesn't matter what happens, we're up against it, does indeed matter. Even when the odds are stacked against you, nobody's going to give you leeway. You have to find it within you to overcome adversity.

What do people here think Lancaster might have done given a more forgiving schedule?

Do you think he would have played his strongest, most settled side first, then change things up for second and third when everyone had a chance to train together. That might have made sense, given that most think New Zealand will be rusty in their opening match.

Or do people think he's so conservative, and the All Blacks so strong, that he'd have been tempted to play his strongest team in all three games, leaving only the Crusaders run out for other players to start?

I don't think Lancaster's conservative at all. Ideally he would have wanted to keep a settled team, Ashton and Yarde coming back in and introducing Watson, someone like Fraser and Ford (but for injuries) from the bench with the view to giving them a start later in the tour.

If you are to test youngsters, you can only do it in 1s or 2s. A chap like Watson perhaps at wing... as long as he has settled first team players around him. Not at front five though, not at halfback.

Put your best and strong XV possible out vs. NZ. The RWC is one year out, they have to be making a statement in their backyard if they have any aspiration of lifting the trophy.

Grab a win away and they can say, we've taken a scalp in your backyard.... when you come to ours, we will be stronger and you will be weaker.

Get 3 pastings away and it will smash all the confidence in the players.

Will go as far to say if they lose 3 zip they won't win the RWC in 2015.

Really? The way the draw is set up we may not even meet NZ at all.

Blimey the doom and gloom mongers are out today.

fa0019 wrote:If you are to test youngsters, you can only do it in 1s or 2s. A chap like Watson perhaps at wing... as long as he has settled first team players around him. Not at front five though, not at halfback.

Put your best and strong XV possible out vs. NZ. The RWC is one year out, they have to be making a statement in their backyard if they have any aspiration of lifting the trophy.

Grab a win away and they can say, we've taken a scalp in your backyard.... when you come to ours, we will be stronger and you will be weaker.

Get 3 pastings away and it will smash all the confidence in the players.

Will go as far to say if they lose 3 zip they won't win the RWC in 2015.

Utter tosh

England could lose all three matches and still have a fair chance of 2015 success.
Losing all 3 tests does not mean that confidence will be knocked to the point that a WC succewss in 2015 isn't possible.

This tour will be disjointed in that all three tests are away from home, there will be players missing due to injury and some players will be unavailable initially due to domestic commitment.

The WC is a different prospect. Its a year away, injured players will hopefully be available and it's being played in England. Furthermore, the WC does not pit England against NZ three matches in a row.

For the most part in this first test i think we can be competitve.

Players like Yarde are inexperienced...but hugely impressive. And not soft so they'll be up for it physically.

We may be missing Lawes...but in Attwood we have a guy who is also beginning to find his potential and is a towering physical presence...useful against the AB's.

The front row should be fine. Wilson and Marler were the props for the 6n. Hooker...well im a huge fan of what Buchanan offers but hes not likely to be match fit. Ward has been very impressive but his key aspect is his close in work and breakdown skills. Against probably the best side in the world in that aspect thats not a bad skill to bring to the table.

10 & 12 are the critical points as mentioned above.

Ciprinai has played alot of club rugby and the only one in the squad who has played S15 rugby. He has also shown a new maturity in his personal and on field attitude.

12 is the key aspect then. And defence. If Twelvetrees is there we should be fine...but what if its Eastmond. Cipriani Eastmond doesnt offer much phyiscality.

Don't think it's that simple FA, particularly your last statement. I more agree with your statement about winning a test in the backyard and even then with an important qualification.

England have much to gain in confidence and belief if they claim a scalp in NZ. No team has done it since SA in 2009. It's an imposing record. Depending on the manner of the defeats, England can console themselves that teams like SA and Australia have been incapable of securing a win in NZ either so I don't see it as shattering their RWC aspirations. Similarly, a defeat for NZ can be used as a positive in a motivational sense. One might argue the 2013 year was set up by the 2012 defeat against England. It's very difficult to impose consecutive defeats on NZ.

A great deal depends on how prepared they are for it mentally. If players can win a few individual battles regardless of the overall results then there is still things they can take from the games.

You want to come out of the game thinking well, if x and y was in place and we worked a bit on z then we could have turned the result around

The only way this team will grow is getting a SH scalp.... in the SH.

No European team will be able to win the RWC without being able to beat all teams, home or away.

I'm not saying a 2003 12 games in a row streak is required but they need to have to confidence to be able to say they can beat the best, any time, any where not simply by saying, oh if so and so gets injuries, if we have our best players available and the rub of the green come match day we may be able to sneak a victory.

Its a mentality thing.

Even though England are playing all their games at home in the world cup and may not even play NZ? They know they can beat NZ at home already.

For the team that will probably start the first test...these played or were impact bench players for the majority of the 6n.

1 Marler
2
3 D.Wilson
4 Launchbury
5 (Attwood - off the bench)
6
7 Robshaw
8 (Morgan - off the bench)

9 Care
10

11 (Yarde - Didnt play 6n but guarenteed would have)
12 Twelvetrees
13 (Tuilagi - Didnt play 6n but guarenteed would have)
14 May
15 Brown

So we have a skeleton of a familiar side. A few players to be brought in

England already has that from 2012 against NZ. Against SA in a hypothetical final, they might have a mentality thing as their defeats run longer. Against NZ away is not the objective for 2015. (I much prefer this hypothetical final   ) Knowing they can beat them at home is sufficient.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Even though England are playing all their games at home in the world cup and may not even play NZ? They know they can beat NZ at home already.

If they have even a doubt in their head they can only beat the ABs at home then they won't even win at home. Forget the 2012 match, the team that wins will have to put in back to back performances and probably beat 3 sides of the 3N, ENG & FRA to lift the trophy. That requires a strong side with ultimate self belief who can win under all circumstances.

So lads. Big problems having so many starters in the HC and AP finals. We have to expect injuries somewhere.

But do we have any chance first game?

FA,

If England was sending a first choice team for the entire tour i would agree that at least 1 victory was essential.

However the first test is not going to be full strength by quite a way. Here we are looking for a good performance.

In the second two tests we may already be 1 test down...so i would hope to win 1 out of the two.

But again it depends on injuries of which we have an ever increasing list.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Even though England are playing all their games at home in the world cup and may not even play NZ? They know they can beat NZ at home already.

If they have even a doubt in their head they can only beat the ABs at home then they won't even win at home. Forget the 2012 match, the team that wins will have to put in back to back performances and probably beat 3 sides of the 3N, ENG & FRA to lift the trophy. That requires a strong side with ultimate self belief who can win under all circumstances.

Just can't agree with that at all. Even if it were true England could win the WC without ever playing NZ. I'd go as far as offering up England of 2007 as an example or France in the last. Both could have won without conquering all before them previously.

GeordieFalcon wrote:FA,

If England was sending a first choice team for the entire tour i would agree that at least 1 victory was essential.

However the first test is not going to be full strength by quite a way. Here we are looking for a good performance.

In the second two tests we may already be 1 test down...so i would hope to win 1 out of the two.

But again it depends on injuries of which we have an ever increasing list.

I agree Geordie

They can't win the 1st test in all probability. But they can put in a massive performance and then get a scalp in the last 2.

Get a win and I think this team will go forward leaps and bounds in their own self belief, forward enough to realistically win the RWC.

mystiroakey wrote:So lads. Big problems having so many starters in the HC and AP finals. We have to expect injuries somewhere.

But do we have any chance first game?

Absolutely we do.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Even though England are playing all their games at home in the world cup and may not even play NZ? They know they can beat NZ at home already.

If they have even a doubt in their head they can only beat the ABs at home then they won't even win at home. Forget the 2012 match, the team that wins will have to put in back to back performances and probably beat 3 sides of the 3N, ENG & FRA to lift the trophy. That requires a strong side with ultimate self belief who can win under all circumstances.

Like the England team in 2007 that made the final and nearly won it? Like a France team in 2011 that lost to Tonga and almost won the final as well? From where did they get their belief or confidence? Not from those respective year's results that's for sure. Like the first test, you approach a match believing you can win. The RWC is the same. What happens before is irrelevant to a large extent. Nothing is deserved. Everything is earned.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Even though England are playing all their games at home in the world cup and may not even play NZ? They know they can beat NZ at home already.

If they have even a doubt in their head they can only beat the ABs at home then they won't even win at home. Forget the 2012 match, the team that wins will have to put in back to back performances and probably beat 3 sides of the 3N, ENG & FRA to lift the trophy. That requires a strong side with ultimate self belief who can win under all circumstances.

Just can't agree with that at all. Even if it were true England could win the WC without ever playing NZ. I'd go as far as offering up England of 2007 as an example or France in the last. Both could have won without conquering all before them previously.

has any team as thus actually won the RWC though??? Sure a few teams have surprised many by getting to the final with 1 or 2 decent above expectations performances... but come the final the favourites have won.

Perhaps 95 was the only surprise yet in reality it probably wasn't. Take out Lomu and that team was probably back on par with the rest. NZ had lost a home series the year before, SA were at home, NZ were sick and SA were in good form. SA always had a plan for Lomu and in what 10 matches he never scored a try against them. He simply wasn't as effective as he was against others (although the holes he made for teammates were still there), still the great one mind.

The best team in the final always win.

I do think there is quite a difference between WC rugby and paying a three test tour.

The mentality is different.

Englands team of 2007 wasnt maybe the best...and was aging but it had some serious characters, which came out in the knock out environment. Player like Regan at hooker. Physical etc but also confident and a pest.

John Smit said Regan spoke to him more in one game than his wife had in ten years.
Thats world cup mentality.

I would imagine if you look through a history of the world cup winners they would all have strong characters like that.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Even though England are playing all their games at home in the world cup and may not even play NZ? They know they can beat NZ at home already.

If they have even a doubt in their head they can only beat the ABs at home then they won't even win at home. Forget the 2012 match, the team that wins will have to put in back to back performances and probably beat 3 sides of the 3N, ENG & FRA to lift the trophy. That requires a strong side with ultimate self belief who can win under all circumstances.

Just can't agree with that at all. Even if it were true England could win the WC without ever playing NZ. I'd go as far as offering up England of 2007 as an example or France in the last. Both could have won without conquering all before them previously.

has any team as thus actually won the RWC though??? Sure a few teams have surprised many by getting to the final with 1 or 2 decent above expectations performances... but come the final the favourites have won.

Perhaps 95 was the only surprise yet in reality it probably wasn't. Take out Lomu and that team was probably back on par with the rest. NZ had lost a home series the year before, SA were at home, NZ were sick and SA were in good form. SA always had a plan for Lomu and in what 10 matches he never scored a try against them. He simply wasn't as effective as he was against others (although the holes he made for teammates were still there), still the great one mind.

The best team in the final always win.

Not sure france got the win in 2011 from memory?

I don't think managing a win in NZ will make us the best team out there either way.

To be the best you need to win regularly and convincingly. From now to RWC there just isn't enough time for us to manage that realistically.

So instead we'll use this tour for experience, measure our selves against the best at home and keep planning, win or lose means nothing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Even though England are playing all their games at home in the world cup and may not even play NZ? They know they can beat NZ at home already.

If they have even a doubt in their head they can only beat the ABs at home then they won't even win at home. Forget the 2012 match, the team that wins will have to put in back to back performances and probably beat 3 sides of the 3N, ENG & FRA to lift the trophy. That requires a strong side with ultimate self belief who can win under all circumstances.

Just can't agree with that at all. Even if it were true England could win the WC without ever playing NZ. I'd go as far as offering up England of 2007 as an example or France in the last. Both could have won without conquering all before them previously.

has any team as thus actually won the RWC though??? Sure a few teams have surprised many by getting to the final with 1 or 2 decent above expectations performances... but come the final the favourites have won.

Perhaps 95 was the only surprise yet in reality it probably wasn't. Take out Lomu and that team was probably back on par with the rest. NZ had lost a home series the year before, SA were at home, NZ were sick and SA were in good form. SA always had a plan for Lomu and in what 10 matches he never scored a try against them. He simply wasn't as effective as he was against others (although the holes he made for teammates were still there), still the great one mind.

The best team in the final always win.

Not sure france got the win in 2011 from memory?

Not about performance on the day. France played better than expected, NZ a lot worse... yet NZ, the superior side won.

England could have easily won in 91 too, but they didn't.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Even though England are playing all their games at home in the world cup and may not even play NZ? They know they can beat NZ at home already.

If they have even a doubt in their head they can only beat the ABs at home then they won't even win at home. Forget the 2012 match, the team that wins will have to put in back to back performances and probably beat 3 sides of the 3N, ENG & FRA to lift the trophy. That requires a strong side with ultimate self belief who can win under all circumstances.

Just can't agree with that at all. Even if it were true England could win the WC without ever playing NZ. I'd go as far as offering up England of 2007 as an example or France in the last. Both could have won without conquering all before them previously.

has any team as thus actually won the RWC though??? Sure a few teams have surprised many by getting to the final with 1 or 2 decent above expectations performances... but come the final the favourites have won.

Perhaps 95 was the only surprise yet in reality it probably wasn't. Take out Lomu and that team was probably back on par with the rest. NZ had lost a home series the year before, SA were at home, NZ were sick and SA were in good form. SA always had a plan for Lomu and in what 10 matches he never scored a try against them. He simply wasn't as effective as he was against others (although the holes he made for teammates were still there), still the great one mind.

The best team in the final always win.

Not sure france got the win in 2011 from memory?

Not about performance on the day. France played better than expected, NZ a lot worse... yet NZ, the superior side won.

England could have easily won in 91 too, but they didn't.

If it's not about performance in the final what you're saying is the team who scores the most points always wins (kinda a given). The best team doesn't always win the WC. The superior team doesn't always win every game. Losing 3 0 in NZ will not mean England won't win the world cup.England could have won it in 2007, France could have in 2011; both without dominating. The fact that they didn't doesn't over rule the fact that they could have.

yappysnap wrote:I don't think managing a win in NZ will make us the best team out there either way.

To be the best you need to win regularly and convincingly. From now to RWC there just isn't enough time for us to manage that realistically.

So instead we'll use this tour for experience, measure our selves against the best at home and keep planning, win or lose means nothing.

It also gives Lancaster an idea of his strength in depth.

A good performance from any of the new guys in the 1st test could see their stock rise considerably.

And the likes of Johnny May have a bit to prove to alot of the English fans. What better way than playing a blinder in NZ.

course they could have.

I always felt however that champions, however bad they play/perform, find a way to win. In any sport.

I'd agree with champions ie league based format. The cream always rises to the top when you play sides over a number of months home and away. WC is a cup competition though and the best side on the day doesn't always win. Of course if that happens in the KO stage you're done.

You sound like a GE apologist.   

Me? To be fair NZ are consistently the best side in the world so if it were true the best side always wins they'd have a few more cups in the cabinet. Or I could be a sleeper account for him...

other than 2007 when should they have won when they didn't?

87 - won
91 - AUS were superior
95 - SA at home, 50/50 match.
99 - AUS were superior
03 - ENG were superior
07 - agreed
11 - won

They should have got to the final in 99 and perhaps even 03 but otherwise I think only 2007 was the time they were the best and didn't win... and then a final vs. SA is never a foregone conclusion. Choked in the past yes, but not to a point where they should have won and didn't.

Choking means that they are a strong favourite and didn't win ie bottling it. To be fair we're moving ever further from the fact England could lose 3 tests away in NZ by 3 points, not play NZ at all in the WC and still win the whole thing at home. 3 losses will categorically not mean that England stand no chance of lifting the cup. No matter what we won't be heading into the tournament as favourites but if it were always the favourites who won cups we wouldn't bother watching at all.

NZ are indeed consistently among the top sides but that doesn't mean they're the top side in any given match. If you don't play well enough in a match, your credentials don't matter, and if the other team plays better - and that does mean scoring more points - they deserve to win. There hasn't been an unworthy cup winner yet and there won't ever be one. That is why I agree with you that it doesn't matter much your past record even though obviously previous form can help with momentum and confidence: it's still not a guarantee.

I also agree a cup competition is different to a series. I think it's regrettable NZ don't get to play 3 tests in SA but whichever the format the winners are never undeserved.

Agree completely.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Agree completely.

 
I'm afraid that the assertion that England will not win the WC if they lose these three tests is bovine faeces.

Jimpy wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Agree completely.

 
I'm afraid that the assertion that England will not win the WC if they lose these three tests is bovine faeces.

Aiming that at the wrong person.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Agree completely.

 
I'm afraid that the assertion that England will not win the WC if they lose these three tests is bovine faeces.

Aiming that at the wrong person.

  I know.... I was agreeing with you...

Oh. Then good.   

Re: player combos, Lancaster will have had this squad together for 3 full weeks prior to the test. OK, some of that will have been disrupted by travelling but he's shown in the past that with that kind of preparation time he can pull together an effective team.

I do wonder with Eastmond if his disciplinary record with Bath will effect his international opportunities. Lancaster doesnt have much time for that kind of general idiocy, although he is happy to deal with people who have sorted themselves out.

Is Eastmonds issues not just about frustration of not playing regularly.

I was under the impression he wasnt getting regular gametime...or am i wrong?

Brown says he'll be fit. Good news

That is good news indeed.