England XV vs New Zealand First Test

First topic message reminder :

1. Joe Marler (Harlequins)
2. *Rob Webber(Bath)        Dave Ward (Harlequins)
3. Dave Wilson (Bath)
4. Joe Launchberry (Wasps)
5. Dave Attwood (Bath)
6. Tom Johnson (Exeter)
7. Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)
8. Ben Morgan (Gloucester)

9. Danny Care (Harlequins)
10. Danny Cipriani (Sale)
11. Jonny May (Gloucester)
12. *Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester) Kyle Eastmond (Bath)
13. Manu Tuilagi (Leicester)
14. Marland Yard (Harlequins)
15. Mike Brown (Harlequins)

16. Dave Ward (Harlequins)        Joe Gray (Harlequins)
17. Matt Mullan (Wasps)
18. Henry Thomas (Bath)
19. Ed Slater (Leicester)
20. James Haskell (Wasps)
21. Ben Youngs (Leicester)
22. Freddie Burns (Leicester)
23. Kyle Eastmond (Bath)        Henry Trinder (Gloucester)

*Injury concern...

Thoughts?

Ok. I have calmed down.

Well done nz for the last play of the game. At the end of the day. It wasn't there fault Owen made some bad decisions on there behalf. But when it mattered they made the play and won the game.

Let's not rise to welsh wums, we know we gave NZ one hell of a game when we were predicting 20 point defeats before the game.

We have more players to pick from next week, the likes of Hartley and Lawes will make a difference.

Wow did I really just see that?

New Zealand, on their own near-inconquerable fortress, struggling to overcome a largely second-string England?

Just superb from England; the favourites for the next World Cup without a shadow of a doubt from me. Their depth is absolutely superb, and the preparation is second-to-none. Robshaw makes me proud of my race, an absolute born leader with the heart of a lion. Burns was immense. Eastmond and Tuilagi showed flashes of brilliance. The line-out was near-flawless, and the scrum demolished New Zealand on occasion.

A win in New Zealand for Lancaster's lads now becomes, for my reckoning, a probability rather than a possibility on this tour.

It could have been even better for England today, but they near gifted the game to New Zealand with several sloppy errors which need to be eradicated, as well as the try-scoring chances that were butchered. The world champions can also count themselves somewhat lucky to not have at least one fellow in the bin over the course of the game.

Just wonderful from England - missing Corbisiero, Hartley, Cole, both Vunipola's, Wood, Lawes, Care, Farrell, Burrell, Foden, Nowell, Twelvetrees - and they nearly pinch a win in the fortress...and can count themselves unlucky not to.

The next World Cup winners have shown their face once again. Well done England.

Well done NZ, good match.

At least we can finally put to bed the idea that Eastmond is too small for international rugby.

I nearly screamed when I saw Marler get that ball with no supporting players near him, Why? Why? WHY? The boys just threw it away.

BamBam wrote:Let's not rise to welsh wums, we know we gave NZ one hell of a game when we were predicting 20 point defeats before the game.

We have more players to pick from next week, the likes of Hartley and Lawes will make a difference.

It looks like the main offender has just been given a holiday.. So no problem   

no Woodward, I like Manu and Eastmand in the middle

Is it me or do England look a lot more balanced with an attacking 10? I rate Farrell but I really feel he has a limited game that nullifies Lancasters tactics.

I think Care should be in B. Youngs who looked to tire pretty quickly. I think Burns playing showed what we're missing in the backs when Farrell plays.

Anyway back to the game.

Very impressed with the English backrow, Brown is a very good player, Tuilangi seems to give the AB defence a lot of problems, Burns did well, You need Lawes back.

Well done New Zealand. It takes real composure to hold it together and take your chances when under serious pressure for 80 minutes like that.

But England will take a huge amount from the game. A makeshift team with one third of the caps of their opponents led the ABs at 70 minutes, in their own backyard, and with no help whatsoever from the referee. England are very close to having a system where players can slot in without disrupting the team dynamic.

Webber, Haskell, Youngs, Burns, Eastmond, Yarde all staked strong claim. May looked better. Brown had a bit of an off day under the high ball, as did Launchbury (I think) on the restarts. Robshaw once again went toe to toe with Richie McCaw, and once again came out with reputation enhanced.

Oh frak it. Tired of being diplomatic. Owens was appalling today; I have never seen him anywhere near that bad. He bottled two clear AB yellow cards. I thought he was also harsh on Yarde - the replay showed that he was on his feet and had both hands on the ball before the NZ support arrived. How can that not be holding on by Retallick?

Who's reffing next week?

Biltong wrote:Anyway back to the game.

Very impressed with the English backrow, Brown is a very good player, Tuilangi seems to give the AB defence a lot of problems, Burns did well, You need Lawes back.

Yeah the Lawes/Launchberry partnership is our best combination. Really thinking we should drop Farrell to the bench.

I read Austin Healey's player comparisons in the Telegraph the other day and I must admit I thought he was being optimistic but at the end of the day, he wasn't far wrong.

I wouldnt envy having the job of selecting the English team for next week.

Nice to see the English fans are exhibiting the class that so obviously is lacking by someone else. Fair play guys.   

Duty there's no doubt England have depth. Depth is not saying we have names on paper that can perform but demonstrating that you can do so. Today's game means that England have a large squad to pick from who can perform at this level and that is what you need to have to perform well at a World Cup, to absorb the injuries and add impact when you need it. Morgan is a player who normally comes on after Vunipola but what a game he had as well as Robshaw. Burns was another standout for me and that little whipper-snapper outside him. It's certainly encouraging for England to have so many resources available to them. I understand your support for your team but that last statement of yours is symptomatic of the English media so many like to jump on.

NZ are a side capable of short turn arounds in performance. Their pride took a battering today and I expect the fact that England will be bolstered next week will see intensity lift in training and preparation for this week and England will unlikely face such a error-prone performance twice in a row. Both sides will be motivated so next week's match will be a cracker.

I think it's going to be an interesting tour. England should make a few changes for the second test and be stronger for it. I thought they played well today and had their opportunities. So all to play for going forward.

I'm not sure what to make of the All Blacks. We're missing 4 world class players (Carter, Read, and Savea). Add Piatau and Cane to mix. I don't think they aren't coming back this series. I'm not sure either Jane or Dagg are near form and Barratt, for all his positives may be a liability under the high ball. We've got limitations we haven't had to face for a few years. Obviously we should improve, but the series should be interesting.

Great to see we're starting to build some depth with players being able to slot in.

Does anyone know why Gatty didnt take Robshaw on the Lions tour.

TJ wrote:

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:

No9 wrote:You have the worlds best ref, yet you still complain.

Stop the whinging guys...

Absolutely.  Open your other eye,

less of the wums please.

Its not a Wum - I opened this thread to read some analysis.  Most of the posts I saw were desperately one eyed comments slagging of the ref.  I didn't see the pull back as I missed the first few mins.  Owens is the best ref in the world and as ever didn't miss much, didn't " bottle it" as people were complaining.  When you are second best and then blame the ref for getting beaten then its a very poor show

It's reasonable to have some frustration at fairly clear-cut inconsistencies that made it a lot harder for England to win the game. Owens is a good ref, and probably didn't make many mistakes today, but the ones he did make were significant.

I think cries of "sore loser" are wrong too - it's not like English fans are trying to cover for a disappointing performance or scoreline.

Lawes/Launchbury worked really well in the 6N but with Launchbury looking so under powered today I do wonder if we'll maybe see a change there. Parling will probably take the bench spot after his excellent line out work (though he looked fatigued in the loose for me). Not sure what the other option is though and Lancaster does back the tried and tested in his squad.

I just feel the ABs were able to get of the hook by turning to their big ball carriers in times of pressure and they would make the telling couple of metres to give Smith the front foot ball to dictate territory or use the backs. England didn't have that and often saw attacks in the 22 fizzle out because we couldn't keep that momentum. Our defensive clearances were also pressured as our forwards couldn't secure a little go forward to offer security for the kicker.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Does anyone know why Gatty didnt take Robshaw on the Lions tour.

Not trying to be facetious but due almost solely to Wales' whopping of England in the final game of the Six Nations. Prior to that match Robshaw was viewed by many as almost definite to tour and a front runner for the captaincy. After that match he was thrown out the reckoning in many peoples minds. Still wrongly in my opinion but it's a debate for another thread!

Another fantastic performance by him today however.

By memory Parling impressed me the last time I saw him play, would like to see him partner Lawes.

formerly known as Sam wrote:
I just feel the ABs were able to get of the hook by turning to their big ball carriers in times of pressure and they would make the telling couple of metres to give Smith the front foot ball to dictate territory or use the backs. England didn't have that and often saw attacks in the 22 fizzle out because we couldn't keep that momentum. Our defensive clearances were also pressured as our forwards couldn't secure a little go forward to offer security for the kicker.

I was absolutely begging for Morgan to get his hands on the ball a bit more in those situations. When he carried he was brilliant but would have loved for him to really search for the opportunity to do it in those areas when we desperately needed to regain some momentum.

On the "two knock" incidents, I thought Owens had it right, yes the ball might have travelled backwards, but it came out of the front of the hand, while the hand was facing the opposition goaline?

So who do you go for
 Webber or Hartley
 Parling/Launchbury or Lawes
 Haskell or Wood
 Morgan or Vunipola
 Youngs or Care/Dickson
 Burns or Farrell
 Eastmond or 36/Burrell
 Tualigi or Burrell
 
For me
 1) Marler
 2) Webber
 3) Wilson
 4) Lawes
 5) Launchbury
 6) Haskell
 7) Robshaw
 8) Morgan
 9) Care
10) Burns
11) May
12) Eastmond
13) Tuilaigi
14) Yarde
15) Brown

16) Hartley
17) Mullan
18) Sinckler (will be Thomas don't know why)
19) Parling/attwood
20) Vunipola/Wood
21) Dickson
22) Farrell
23) Burrell/Foden

England can beat any team in the world at home, where the World Cup is next year, aren't frightened or cowed by any team, their preparation is 2003-esque, they have fantastic depth, they have a multitude of superb players, they can win a game through the pack or via the backs, the scrum is getting better, the line-out is smooth, they have the quality and intensity to get the better of any team at the breakdown, and they have a wonderful goal-kicker to net the chances when they come.

I'm not sure if they will, but England should start as favourites for me.

king_carlos wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Does anyone know why Gatty didnt take Robshaw on the Lions tour.

Not trying to be facetious but due almost solely to Wales' whopping of England in the final game of the Six Nations. Prior to that match Robshaw was viewed by many as almost definite to tour and a front runner for the captaincy. After that match he was thrown out the reckoning in many peoples minds. Still wrongly in my opinion but it's a debate for another thread!

Another fantastic performance by him today however.

I threw that question in there mainly because I really rate Robshaw. he is the hardest working forward in Northern Hemisphere rugby. and tonight just confirmed my opinion.

aucklandlaurie wrote: On the "two knock" incidents, I thought Owens had it right, yes the ball might have travelled backwards, but it came out of the front of the hand, while the hand was facing the opposition goaline?

But it hit his hand and went backwards, not forwards so for me they were not knock ons.

king_carlos wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:
I just feel the ABs were able to get of the hook by turning to their big ball carriers in times of pressure and they would make the telling couple of metres to give Smith the front foot ball to dictate territory or use the backs. England didn't have that and often saw attacks in the 22 fizzle out because we couldn't keep that momentum. Our defensive clearances were also pressured as our forwards couldn't secure a little go forward to offer security for the kicker.

I was absolutely begging for Morgan to get his hands on the ball a bit more in those situations. When he carried he was brilliant but would have loved for him to really search for the opportunity to do it in those areas when we desperately needed to regain some momentum.

That's one area I thought we missed Billy V, we saw in the HC final he will keep offering himself to carry in the tighter areas over and over again, I think Morgan could have done a little more there although he did have a good game everywhere else

Welly wrote:So who do you go for
 Webber or Hartley
 Parling/Launchbury or Lawes
 Haskell or Wood
 Morgan or Vunipola
 Youngs or Care/Dickson
 Burns or Farrell
 Eastmond or 36/Burrell
 Tualigi or Burrell
 
For me
 1) Marler
 2) Webber
 3) Wilson
 4) Lawes
 5) Launchbury
 6) Haskell
 7) Robshaw
 8) Morgan
 9) Care
10) Burns
11) May
12) Eastmond
13) Tuilaigi
14) Yarde
15) Brown

16) Hartley
17) Mullan
18) Sinckler (will be Thomas don't know why)
19) Parling/attwood
20) Vunipola/Wood
21) Dickson
22) Farrell
23) Burrell/Foden

About right I reckon, although I think some of the more established players will come in instead.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Does anyone know why Gatty didnt take Robshaw on the Lions tour.

Not trying to be facetious but due almost solely to Wales' whopping of England in the final game of the Six Nations. Prior to that match Robshaw was viewed by many as almost definite to tour and a front runner for the captaincy. After that match he was thrown out the reckoning in many peoples minds. Still wrongly in my opinion but it's a debate for another thread!

Another fantastic performance by him today however.

I threw that question in there mainly because I really rate Robshaw. he is the hardest working forward in Northern Hemisphere rugby. and tonight just confirmed my opinion.

He was obsessed with Lydiate

from a Tigers pov i thought Burns and Youngs worked well together.

bc I thought it was wrong to blame Dagg for a lot of his errors and being in Barrett on as a fullback. Some of those passes from Nonu et al were shockers. Ok, you expect players at that level to take them, but I think Cruden was not at his best and particularly on the counter attack kicked too many balls away instead of running it back. I still think he needs a few more games to get back to his best and test rugby is not an environment to do that. Maybe he felt Cruden's goal kicking was going well but Dagg was not the only one with a high error rate.

Based on the strength of this game, I think Kaino would be better off at 6 and Vito at 8. We lacked pace at the back and Read's absence would be better nullified by a more dynamic Vito. However, Hansen tends to be a loyal man and like the Ireland 2nd test, he won't change too much and will tell players like Messam this is last chance saloon for you so go out there and do some damage at the breakdown. Our intensity was way off and only came too late at the end of the match when we sniffed a try.

Jane for me had an anonymous match and it shows what we miss with Savea out. He had Dagg release him on the outside in the first half but didn't have enough pace to get past the cover and I didn't see his fend all day today. Tuilagi put 2012 into perspective and it wasn't novovirus today making him get those easy yards. We have to tackle him round the legs hard and get him to ground. Part of the problem is that NZ weren't nearly as effective as getting up forward in the defensive line and even when England were going backwards they could still get forward momentum in those hits. Too often NZ allowed Tuilagi to build up momentum and weren't effective in the first up tackle.

That intensity at the breakdown must return next week as we cannot allow England to dictate terms and control the game at the pace they're comfortable at. Credit to a very effective England defence and their go forward in attack today from both their forwards and their backs. SL says England are trying to model themselves on NZ play. It seems we have one or two things to learn from them.

Cumbrian wrote:
About right I reckon, although I think some of the more established players will come in instead.

 Yeh I think that, but I wouldn't do it personally.

nathan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: On the "two knock" incidents, I thought Owens had it right, yes the ball might have travelled backwards, but it came out of the front of the hand, while the hand was facing the opposition goaline?

But it hit his hand and went backwards, not forwards so for me they were not knock ons.

but dont you create the knock on by having your hand in front of the balls direction of travel?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

nathan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: On the "two knock" incidents, I thought Owens had it right, yes the ball might have travelled backwards, but it came out of the front of the hand, while the hand was facing the opposition goaline?

But it hit his hand and went backwards, not forwards so for me they were not knock ons.

but dont you create the knock on by having your hand in front of the balls direction of travel?

I thought it was if it hits you and then which way the ball travels, forward or backwards.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Does anyone know why Gatty didnt take Robshaw on the Lions tour.

Not trying to be facetious but due almost solely to Wales' whopping of England in the final game of the Six Nations. Prior to that match Robshaw was viewed by many as almost definite to tour and a front runner for the captaincy. After that match he was thrown out the reckoning in many peoples minds. Still wrongly in my opinion but it's a debate for another thread!

Another fantastic performance by him today however.

I threw that question in there mainly because I really rate Robshaw. he is the hardest working forward in Northern Hemisphere rugby. and tonight just confirmed my opinion.

I think it had very little to do with the Cardiff match. Despite the result, Robshaw's personal performance and stats were as good as they were against NZ. The match reduced the pressure on Gatland to take him, but I think Gatland had made up his mind long before. For one thing, he prefers specialist openside; secondly, he seems to select on the basis of "players who best fit the Gatland game plan" rather than "design a game plan to fit the players" (which I personally think is against the spirit of the Lions, but hey, he won aseries that way); finally, he is tremendously loyal to his Welsh players (which resulted in Warburton and Lydiate touring when short of fitness).

Short answer: Robshaw's face didn't fit Gatland's game.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

nathan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: On the "two knock" incidents, I thought Owens had it right, yes the ball might have travelled backwards, but it came out of the front of the hand, while the hand was facing the opposition goaline?

But it hit his hand and went backwards, not forwards so for me they were not knock ons.

but dont you create the knock on by having your hand in front of the balls direction of travel?

It's almost as if Owens had confused the knock-on law with the forward pass law.

Maybe, he was wrong though at the end he could of let Cruden take the conversion as the English appeared to charge early...Only joking.

Poorfour wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

nathan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: On the "two knock" incidents, I thought Owens had it right, yes the ball might have travelled backwards, but it came out of the front of the hand, while the hand was facing the opposition goaline?

But it hit his hand and went backwards, not forwards so for me they were not knock ons.

but dont you create the knock on by having your hand in front of the balls direction of travel?

It's almost as if Owens had confused the knock-on law with the forward pass law.

Yes, and that is the crux of the issue, How can" forward" be something in a pass, yet something again when the ball comes off the hand in other instances?

nathan wrote:from a Tigers pov i thought Burns and Youngs worked well together.

Yes. Very worried for the rest of us next season. Though if Brown / Yarde can gel (some signs today) it will help a bit.

Typical first up NZ performance,they will get better and surprised Cruden started given lack of gametime.Brave performance by England and frankly this was the one to win for them.
Might be a mistake to make massive changes England,NZ side well below strength too
Hansen has to feed in new guys without upsetting balance of team is it 1991 or 2006
again?

Congratulations on the win NZ.  Not the highest quality match, but certainly a tense one.  

England fronted up well in a lot of ways, but ultimately they should be angry at themselves for how they finished that match off and the poor decision making (as someone pointed out above, Marler being given the ball in that position towards the end was horrendously foolish and deserved to be punished by the try that followed). They need to use that anger to focus for next week because the ABs will be much better than that next time out and losing 3 tests (however close) will be considered a failure now, because that first test was there for the taking if they'd stayed more composed.

Also, can we make sure that the forwards carry balls at all times during training this week, because a number of them appeared to have brought shovels rather than their hands.

Come on Alan, NZ well below strength too?! Read and Savea out. Ok our most attacking weapons but two against England's twelfty is not in the same ball park!

handling from both sides was very poor. both will improve, England will however improve there first team by more.

its going to be a killer game next week. I know people dont want to hear this., But England and the all blacks are very close to par in regards to full squads.

SL hasn't really put a foot wrong- every game(bar 2 blips- wales and then a minor one one in the last minutes v France) we have improved game on game. It really does seem to be building up to the RWC.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Come on Alan, NZ well below strength too?! Read and Savea out. Ok our most attacking weapons but two against England's twelfty is not in the same ball park!

]
Too weird

an Englishman bigging up the all blacks and a kiwi bigging up england. I am confused  

Well done to New Zealand, that was a foolhardy call by Cruden at the end. Regardless of the try the three should've been taken in my opinion. NZ always seem to retain that clinical edge when a chance is on and they exploited it mercilessly.

Massive credit to our lads for an overall superb display. I thought the backrow were excellent and pretty well balanced. I really liked the midfield combination as well and with more time I think it could settle very well.

Can we all just have a combined round of applause for Freddie Burns as well. He's copped some huge flak from all quarters and rightly so for some poor form. He was outstanding this evening in all departments and that takes serious minerals.

emack2 wrote:Typical first up NZ performance,they will get better and surprised Cruden started given lack of gametime.Brave performance by England and frankly this was the one to win for them.
Might be a mistake to make massive changes England,NZ side well below strength too
Hansen has to feed in new guys without upsetting balance of team is it 1991 or 2006
again?

lol, you had two players out. We had around 20!

I think both teams can have legitimate reasons as to why things didn't quite click (NZ rustiness and a few absentees), England (lots of absentees). It makes next week fascinating, I'm already looking forward to it.

I'd echo what others have said above re: carrying from the forwards. Morgan did well at times but there wasn't much directness in the running. Most of the gainline stuff came from good handling (bar Davy Wilson) and Tuilagi.

I think we'll see Tom Wood, Owen Farrell, Courtney Lawes back into the fray for the next Test. Possibly Care if he's fit.

First up hits on Manu are tough, Kia. Often teams look to double up on him to nullify his running threat but when you have a live wire with the footwork and passing ability of Eastmond at 12 it makes it very difficult to concentrate on the big man. Manu enjoyed considerably more space and one on one attacking opportunities today than is usual for him in an international fixture. That is a positive endorsement of Eastmond.