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?

Fair call laurie. For my mind I didnt think it was knocked on at all if its the one I'm thinking about. The player continuing to run on gave the perception that the ball was knocked forward...from memory. I thought it was harsh at the time.

Rugby Fan wrote:

TJ wrote:...This is simply my opinion. - revised from earlier thanks to seeing the replay when I was a little more awake

I don't think your view is unreasonable but I think you were unfair to suggest the only people who would disagree are one-eyed Englishman. The New Zealand commentators explicitly said they thought the All Blacks were lucky not to see yellow, while they also thought Owens got the knock-on decisions wrong. Meanwhile, on Twitter, Craig Chalmers was one high profile non-English player to make the same observation. Ian McGeechan in the Telegraph says New Zealand should have seen yellow twice.

I think it's naive to assume that non English rugby enthusiasts aren't biased in games against the AB's.

I think what you are saying is that the AB's were lucky that Nonu wasn't yellow carded and that there were a couple of knock on's called that shouldn't have been. I'm not going to disagree with you. I think there's a case to be made in all cases.

However there's a big leap to say NZ got the better of the refereeing. I'm not an Owens fan. This game hasn't changed that. There were plenty of missed English infringements (just ask my 7 and 10 year olds). The question becomes how does this refereeing compare with other games he's refereed and was he consistent.

My personal opinion is he didn't want to give cards. There were opportunities to on both sides if he'd wanted to. Yardes was probably the worst of these in that it was the most obvious and the most likely to get a card (the more players in the ruck the less likely IMO). NZ could have been carded at the other end. It was a hard fought match and strictly speaking both sides could have been penalised every other move, and multiple cards could have been given. My thoughts were Owens tried to keep the game moving in terms of infringements.

Knock ons are one of those things. Drop the ball, 4 times out of 5 the ref will give a knock on, particularly the further he is from the action.

blackcanelion wrote:...I think it's naive to assume that non English rugby enthusiasts aren't biased in games against the AB's.

That's why I also mentioned the New Zealand commentators

blackcanelion wrote:.I think what you are saying is that the AB's were lucky that Nonu wasn't yellow carded and that there were a couple of knock on's called that shouldn't have been

I only pointed out to TJ that he was being unfair to suggest that only one-eyed Englishmen would see it that way. Nothing more.

Rugby Fan wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:...I think it's naive to assume that non English rugby enthusiasts aren't biased in games against the AB's.

That's why I also mentioned the New Zealand commentators

I think that's a reflection of the difference between NZ and UK commentators. I watched the game with Harrison and Barnes (always nice to listen to someone else). Whilst I enjoyed the experience they don't tend to be as broad minded as say the SA commentators. I've listened to the NZ commentators and read the papers since. My take is the same as it was before.

NZ commentators will tend to point out things when they think the AB's get lucky calls, I don't feel the same is true from UK journalists or commentators . It's pretty obvious that Nonu and Barrett(?) could have been treated harder and that some of the calls for knock ons weren't the best. It's obvious that these calls going the other way could have influenced the result. There's a big jump to say much else. Owens missed quite a few calls going the other way. You could argue that if he'd been on the ball, we probably wouldn't be discussing the potential yellow for Nonu because NZ would have been in possession in the English half at the time.

In terms of not releasing and holding players back. These are both actions that can result in cards, but can just as easily go unpunished. I can remember a fairly recent end of year tour (2008 I think) when taking out NZ support runners was epidemic. few if any penalties where given and no cards.

Having said the above there is a certain bias towards home sides by refs (the studies suggest there is). Here's the breakdown of cards since the last world cup:
England 8 yellow (2 at home)
Australia 16 yellow (5 at home) & 1 red (away)
Argentina 18 yellow (6 away)
Lions 0
France  6 yellow (2 at home) & 2 red (home)
Ireland 8 yellow (2 at home)
Italy 11 yellow (8 at home) and 1 red (away)
New Zealand 13 yellow (3 at home)
Scotland 9 yellow cards (3 at home) & 1 red (away)
South Africa 14 yellow (4 at home) & 1 red (away)
Wales 16 Yellow (9 at home)

Even by just looking at the numbers it's pretty obvious that there's probably a trend here for the home team.

That probably comes out the wrong way. I thought England played well. They'll be kicking themselves because they had opportunities to win the game and I'd be wondering "what if" if I was in your shoes as well. I think it bodes well for the future. England under Lancaster have been competitive in every game (I think) and have some good talent coming through. Next test should be interesting.

Posted this elsewhere but from our News bulletin...Interesting question posed here tonight..are the English our new arch enemies? One could say over the past 3 tests with any nation England has been our toughest- and the only to win one. hmmm...

After we win the next Taylor. You won't be asking the question. You will know..

king_carlos wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

emack2 wrote:In the squad first choice probably,Carter,Romano,Brother Grimm,Piatau,Read,Savae,Cruden
not match fit.
Hey Mysti play it for me,THAT result was exactly what  I expected a close game a rusty side
versus one with nothing to lose.
Most June AI`s NZ are vulnerable,you think you`re hard done by.I don`t expect the SH
Super franchises are to chuffed with possible injuries to players at business end of there
season.

So, you are saying the problems for the Super XV teams are now just starting somewhat to equalise those of the Premiership clubs?  
Can't speak for every club, but Saints play 39 matches this season.

theres only 52 weeks in a year Doc. 39 for one team in any season is ridiculous. Over how many comps is that? I suppose an Aucklander playing sxv and the ITM cup might play 28 or so but even then not many play both tournaments. just sounds like theyre squeezing every cent out of the public.

Over the course of 4 tournaments T-Man. Technically you could argue 3 as Saints played the pool stages of the Heineken Cup (European 1st tier) but only qualified for the knockout stages of the Amlin challenge cup (European 2nd tier) rather than Heineken Cup quarter finals.

This is close to a max due to Northampton being involved in play-offs and finals etc but for Saints thier season was made up of:

Aviva Premiership (English Clubs) - 22 games in regular season + semi final and final (Saints won) - 24 games in total

Heineken Cup (European 1st tier) - 6 pool games (qualified for Amlin challenge quarter finals) - 6 games total

Amlin Challenge Cup (European 2nd tier) - quarter final, semi final and final (Saints won) - 3 games total

LV Cup (Anglo-Welsh Cup) - 4 group games, Semi-final and final (Saints were runners up) - 6 games total

The above is Saints 2013/14 season which adds up to 39 games.

I can excuse anyone for questioning the total though given that the number of games European clubs play is insane for a contact sport. In my opinion it's the main contributor to the sheer number of injuries which are blighting NH rugby at the moment.

Thanks for laying it out like that, mate.  Frankly, it's nuts.  The sheer number of matches ends up destroying players.  And ends up ruining the product on the pitch.  This is why the June Internationals have devolved into a farce.  The players are out on their feet, and have to travel half way across the world - for more Rugby.  And the pre-season at the clubs start in less than two months!

American footballers have squads of 60 odd, and have about half the year off without internationals..

Australian NRL goes for 26 weeks. Throw in the state of origin and the odd international it still adds up for a long off season relative to union.

I take it NRL is a huge game in Aus like NFL is in the states which is almost completely club based . NFL players are on close to footballers money, there is so much money domestically in the game.

Rugby unlike other sports has a constant struggle between international and club and there isnt huge money in the game . I suppose it is really pushing the players boundaries.

But that is also why this test proved England's threat for next years world cup. Injuries will play no excuse for England. We have depth

I honestly cannot speak highly enough of Lancaster. England were in a very poor state when he took over and he has turned them into one of the best sides in the world by getting them to play a very entertaining style of rugby whilst also cutting down the indiscipline.

The backline yesterday looked far more balanced and seemed to really worry that AB's. Its amazing how much difference having an attacking fluid 10 makes to that very dangerous England backline. Farrell and Twelvetree's will have some work to do and are both more than capable of doing it but I really like attacking dangerous 10's in this setup. Cips was also pretty impressive for his short cameo.

Owens had a very off game by his standards and sadly the incorrect decisions were mainly at very important times for England. Not saying that he cost England the win but I do feel that England were the better team overall yesterday.

It wasn't just the fact that Owens bottled the cards that was frustrating - it was the fact that he didn't even talk to NZ about either of them. Both were cynical penalties in dangerous attacking positions, and he didn't even warn NZ that they were pushing it. Ridiculous.

That said, England still should have managed the last 10 minutes later. Not kicking the ball downfield when we were playing with 14 men within our own half was a bit dim, for example.

Lancaster does seem to have the knack of getting the team to gel in a short space of time. With any other coaching staff we've had since I've been supporting (20-odd years), a team missing that many players would have just been pummelled. The midfield in particular, however talented Burns and Eastmond are, had disaster written all over it, but they held up very well. No line breaks through that channel for NZ that I can remember.

Been a big supporter of Twelvetrees, but I'd give Eastmond another shot. Stick Burrell on the bench and Tuilagi and May can cover wing and full back. They'll probably stick with the front row as well.

thomh, at the halfway restart, Owens explained to Fekitoa that he was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he thought the England player was up off the ground and so felt entitled to hold on. He did warn him though. Owens was speaking to the players about previous incidents throughout the match so he might well have spoken to Nonu. I'd have to watch the replay. Personally, I think if Nonu had pulled a shirt on a back rather than a forward it could've been seen differently by Owens. I don't know why, nor should that make any difference, but that is my suspicion. I saw a jersey pull against NZ in NZ by an Argentinian and we lost a bonus point as a result of a play that might well have netted a try so I feel your pain and rage!

I like the idea someone had of retaining most of the players but putting a more effective bench with the return of players. That would be a bold statement to NZ.

As for England the new bogey team, it does appear that way. France hasn't beaten NZ in quite a few games and England seem to disrupt our play at the breakdown. Hansen and co need another plan for this England team because it's becoming a habit.

Looks like Savea and Read might be back this weekend. Dagg might be doubtful. Apparently he's been carrying an injury.

Well thts interesting - the stats http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/207949.html show England with th4e upper hand - not my impression watching the game.

That is great news about Savea. That could mean Smith at fullback, Savea on the left and Jane on his preferred right wing. Read back so soon worries me. I say put Vito in at 8 and move Kaino to 6 and don't risk him. It's tempting but there are definite options there so I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.

With a day to reflect on it, the loss still hurts but in the grand scheme of things the result is hugely positive for England.

Positives:
1) Strength in depth. Here's an England XXIII of players who weren't involved. It gets a bit thin at TH and lock, but 15 of those 23 have performed well in senior internationals:
15. Foden 14. Ashton 13. Burrell 12. Twelvetrees 11. Nowell 10. Farrell 9. Care
1. Corbisiero 2. Hartley 3. Cole 4. Slater 5. Lawes 6. Wood 7. Kvesic 8. Vunipola
16. Youngs 17. Vunipola 18. Sinckler (or Brookes) 19. Kruis 20. Crane (or Wallace) 21. Young 22. Ford 23. Goode
England will probably still be light on the optimal number of caps in the core squad come 2015, but it looks to me as if they will have the best overall squad.

2) Systems. Yet again, Lancaster has had to field combinations who have barely trained together, let alone played together before. Yet again, they have performed well. For the first time I can recall, England have a system that works and allows players to slot in at short notice. And, as a result of the scheduling, more players know the system and know to trust it, and each other, at the highest level. If it's true that the NZRFU forced this piece of scheduling, I can only say "thanks" and "are you sure it was such a good idea?"

3) Defence. The All Black onslaught came at the start of the second half, and it went away largely empty handed. It took a series of England mistakes and a (justified) yellow card for the ABs to breach the tryline.

4) Belief. England know they can go toe to toe with the ABs in their own backyard and push it all the way.

5) Hunger. And, having not got it over the line, their immediate response was frustrration and a commitment not to let it happen again.

6) Equality. If they can maintain that match the AB's level of performance over the rest of the tour (because it will undoubtedly go up), they will have lost any underdog tag that they might have had. They will face any other team as equals, which changes the expectations on both sides.

Negatives
1) Composure. Still not quite there under extreme pressure (never, ever switch off for a penalty until the tee is on the pitch. Especially in NZ) . Is there time to develop it?

2) Playing the ref. It's hard to see what England could have done differently, but they were on the wrong end of too many calls, and the All Blacks weren't. Why? Hard to say. Even at their peak England have tended to win despite the rub of the officiating green (or yellow, or pink) - epitomised by the 2003 final itself.

3) Irreplaceables. England still don't have a comparable replacement for Robshaw (by the way, how did Steffon go against the Boks?), and on current form they don't have one for Care either.

4) Attack. Wasn't fully functioning yesterday, but that's hardly surprising given the conditions, and it was hampered on two occasions (one missed by the ref) by the hand of Nonu.

mystiroakey wrote:After we win the next Taylor. You won't be asking the question. You will know..

Theyre coming together nicely thats for sure. The ABs wont get any worse in terms of the unforced errors and poor tackle rates so both sides will no doubt improve for the next game. We'd have to think that we've had our scare and being the AB's expect a huge step up in both accuracy and intensity this weekend. Theres no more conjecture, the threat is real and thats right where we want the AB's.

Two years ago Ireland gave us a similar scare, and the ABs responded with a resounding response that ireland couldnt match. Sure, Irelands not England but the scenarios the same.

Looks like Savea will be back, maybe Read as well.

How Lancaster deals with those seconds who played well will be interesting.

You won't get a 60 pt to in over us mate. Our players believe they are better than you. We have real belief just like you always do.  

England don't normally produce that many unforced errors either.

You may scrape the next two,  but that is the worst I expect

Fair enough. But that is not the best I expect!

And it's not the best I expect either.

Does anyone have the workload stats between Robshaw and McCaw? I honestly felt that Robshaw outplayed McCaw yesterday.

mystiroakey wrote:You won't get a 60 pt to in over us mate. Our players believe they are better than you. We have real belief just like you always do.  

England don't normally produce that many unforced errors either.

You may scrape the next two,  but that is the worst I expect

I'd expect one of the next two to be a runaway win, because that virtually always happens on northern tours to NZ. England havnt proved consistent enough to win over several tests, the recent 3 6N confirming that. If they can't be consistent there, they're less likely to be here.

This is now familiar territory for the Abs. They know whats required to beat England more clearly than last week. Belief is only part of the equation.Getting the right level of intensity, accuracy and execution is something the ABs do well, better than most anyway.

Nachos Jones wrote:Does anyone have the workload stats between Robshaw and McCaw? I honestly felt that Robshaw outplayed McCaw yesterday.

Robshaw looked better in the carry thats for sure. Mccaw did more of the tight work, but certainly Robshaw impressed. Still cant understand why he wasnt Lions captain last year.

Only Kaino had one more tackle. McCaw got one turnover but didn't have the impact Robshaw had in the loose.

I know Nonu pulling on Haskell's shirt has been mentioned but if you watch the replay, Robshaw made the surge up the middle because Nonu was taken out. Two wrongs don't make a right of course.

To me the creativity on attack came not from the backs but from the loose forwards. Robshaw was a big part of that. He had a great game. The problem with McCaw is that he is playing more a 6 style of play but unfortunately Messam went missing yesterday and when that happens, there's no momentum at the breakdown.

Taylorman wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:Does anyone have the workload stats between Robshaw and McCaw? I honestly felt that Robshaw outplayed McCaw yesterday.

Robshaw looked better in the carry thats for sure. Mccaw did more of the tight work, but certainly Robshaw impressed. Still cant understand why he wasnt Lions captain last year.

I think that he was not selected because he is not the kind of player that Gatland likes. I must admit to not rating him highly at first as well but with every game I cant help but admire him more and more. Natural leader and his work rate is immense.

Nachos Jones wrote:Does anyone have the workload stats between Robshaw and McCaw? I honestly felt that Robshaw outplayed McCaw yesterday.

Pos     T/A Pts K/P/R MR CB DB OL TO Tack LO Pen Y/R

F McCaw 0/0 0 0/1/8 6 0 0 0 0 12/3 0/0 0 0/0
F Robshaw 0/0 0 0/8/10 61 1 2 1 0 7/0 1/0 1 0/0


http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/207949.html

Edit - unfortunatly it losses its formatting when posted

Taylorman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:You won't get a 60 pt to in over us mate. Our players believe they are better than you. We have real belief just like you always do.  

England don't normally produce that many unforced errors either.

You may scrape the next two,  but that is the worst I expect

I'd expect one of the next two to be a runaway win, because that virtually always happens on northern tours to NZ. England havnt proved consistent enough to win over several tests, the recent 3 6N confirming that. If they can't be consistent there, they're less likely to be here.

This is now familiar territory for the Abs. They know whats required to beat England more clearly than last week. Belief is only part of the equation.Getting the right level of intensity, accuracy and execution is something the ABs do well, better than most anyway.

I understand you will admit a morale loss if all 3 games are close wins. That is the level you are used to at home. But expect it at best. Take the wins as positives, I will back that over the 3 games you will by less than 25.

Where is Ge lol. He promised us 3 30pt wins minumum. And he is never wrong..

I like your spirit oakey. I think he revised that to a 30 point spread after the 3 games. I like your odds better.

Thanks TJ

It'll will be interesting to see how the belief things plays out. That was a scratch England side and yet the ABs didn't look better either as a team or, importantly, as individuals. England played without fear in what is the hardest venue in the world. Now with so many top class players available next week there is no reason to start fearing now.

SL has done a superb job. He's won the respect of pretty much everyone who knows anything about rugby. Yes England now have more depth of talent than at possibly any time in our history, but France have plenty of talent too, and look at the mess they are in.

Take the 888 oakey.
We all know you really want to... and I wouldn't blame you for doing so. Great odds... go for it!

Having had a day to reflect upon it, I'm feeling more and more partial to the idea (based on many personal experiences watching the Wallabies play the ABs in 3 match series so many times) that yesterday's match was a massive wake up call for NZ (and I mean wake up call).

Sure, England are in a good place at present. They'll have to maintain, or more likely - surpass the level of intensity they exhibited on the field yesterday when they travel to Dunedin. What I was most impressed with, however, was this real manifestation of the "mind shift" to play a special brand of rugby (Lancaster has it spot on!) and come close to pulling it off. Full marks for that.

However, they then lose some marks for poor finishing, unforced/forced errors and failure to cross the line. The ref didn't help but they had several opportunities to put the game away and were unable to deliver the knockout blow.

The All Blacks are masters of taking the most out of a game like yesterday and making sure every base will be covered the following week. I haven't seen a performance like that for a while at Eden Park. Their intensity of play will have to increase in Dunedin and they too will have to hone their finishing skills - which are usually on another level to most.

I can see a convincing AB win - 4-6 tries to 1-2 tries for Test 2.

I just can't see the England firepower in the backs (of course some big boppers were missing). The forwards did a splendid job (given the missing players there too) and there were some exciting forays through the AB midfield... but those attacks seemed to get closed off pretty quickly or the move broke down for whatever reason. Credit to the ABs scrambling defence. They realised the desperate situation they were in and they'll be very keen to ensure they don't get in a similar situation again next weekend. They'll want to amass points on the scoreboard to take the pressure off.

Even with some England players coming back and a couple of ABs returning for the next encounter - I still say the ABs have a greater scope for improvement and know how to seal "another series win" better than anyone.

I think Lancaster may just be the best c oach in rugby right now. He has done a few things that were desparatly needed.

1) made a team out of a bunch of individuals
2) created strength in depth by blooding players some of who should have had more caps before he was appointed.  He has cleared away the dead wood
3) created a system where players can slot in easily so injuries and withdrawals don't disrupt the patterns
4) instilled belief into the team - they really believed they could win that game

That's a SH media post if there ever was one Lb.

I will be 17 hours behind and in mexico during that second game. I have no idea if I will be able to watch it. But I expect England to shock NZ again from the off. Then I expect NZ to go militant in reaction. Then start of the first half I expect it to be a grind and the last 20 will mean key subs. In England's case every player will be fighting for his place.

Some people feel as though NZ edge passion. Not the case. We couldn't make great impact subs yesterday. But we will be able to next week.

Watched the game again. I actually think we (England) were relatively average in many areas of the game, not to say we shouldn't be chuffed so many inexperienced players stepped up, but there is huge room for improvement. I'm not as qualified as Kiwi posters to dissect the AB performance, but it was poorest I've seen in a while. I'd like to think we contributed to this but a lot of it looked like rustiness to me. Also, if Read and Savea come back next week, those two for me will make a bigger difference than us getting back, say, Lawes, Burrell/Twelvetrees, Care and Hartley

As I say, don't want to take away from what we did well but a few things that worried me/I think we need to improve on:

Youngs - Is not close to Care. He is still too slow to get the ball out and to get it away. In slight defence of him, I thought some of our clearing out wasn't clean enough.

Breakdown - The Kiwi commentators were commending us but 1. I thought Smith managed to get the ball out pretty quickly for the ABs and I don't think we really threatened to turn them over, and 2. As others including GE have said, we may win the breakdown but it seems to be by committing a LOT more players to it. I think this has a knock on effect with our...

Carrying - Morgan was good, surprisingly perhaps Robshaw looked decent, but our other forwards didn't make much ground. Aside from BV and perhaps Attwood, I'm not sure who else we have who can make yardage. Our forwards were either a) taking it very static, I think a consequence of so many committed to the breakdown, then getting back to their feet for a slow, rumbling recycle, or b) taking it with an AB right on them, or c) running away from what little support was left. Our carrying game was poor, and we need to get the balance right between securing our own ball and having forwards ready to hit the line at pace, both close in to the ruck and one out. If we are going to try and truck round the fringes, I hate to say it, but we need to go in pods. If we do we need to be smart about getting McCaw et al out of the way quickly so we can go again around the fringes. The ABs are masters at making forward attacks round the fringe a mess to recycle. I think Rowntree has a lot of work to do in this area of coaching. One thing I did like was Robshaw's two sneaks up the guts, intelligent play.

Defence - Yes we scrambled well, but their big ball carriers got over the gain-line more than ours (minus Tuilagi). Retallick and Kaino stopped our guys dead (i actually thought Messam was better than people have said as well). For us, only Morgan and Haskell seemed capable of hitting players running at pace and knocking them back. The other issue was our narrowness. So far it's worked, but I fear the ABs are going to work out a way a round this. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few kicks to wingers if Savea is back as well. Was a bit worried by May's positioning, he seemed to be slow to turn and get back on a few occasions.

Creativity - There's not a lot of invention off first phase.

mystiroakey wrote:That's a SH media post if there ever was one Lb.

I will be 17 hours behind and in mexico during that second game. I have no idea if I will be able to watch it. But I expect England to shock NZ again from the off. Then I expect NZ to go militant in reaction. Then start of the first half I expect it to be a grind and the last 20 will mean key subs. In England's case every player will be fighting for his place.

Some people feel as though NZ edge passion. Not the case. We couldn't make great impact subs yesterday. But we will be able to next week.

Just my observation, mate. Based on real results and expectations over the years.

Don't forget - England won't be the only team with players fighting for their place. Expect the unexpected maybe?

I think Ashton will be a key player next game if he starts. Right back on the top of his game.

We have to go Yarde/Ashton, May is a constant worry

Barney McGrew did it wrote:England 2^nds did unbelievable well but I’m not going to get ahead of myself – we still lost.

One thing that makes the ABs stand out is their technical excellence across the park. On Sat they made far more handling errors than normal (some forced I know, but still). Given this is one of their strong points, it’s for certain that they’ll up that part of the game as the series goes on. Can England stay with them?

Owens had a few brainfarts, true, but did they really rob England of the game – don’t think so.

England didn’t score a try – to beat NZ you have to score tries. We need a more creative centre combo.

As for the returning players – do we actually know what our 1^st team is? Even in the pack, which I thought had been nailed, who actually played themselves out of selection? Depth is great – but we need to know what our centre pairing is, the wingers are still up for grabs, and the perennial argument over Farrell’s ability to get the back-line playing with more creativity still lingers? Oh and Cips looked excellent, even for the 10 minutes or so he had.

And God help us if Robshaw gets injured.

Barney. What was wrong with the try we scored first half?

aucklandlaurie wrote:Heaf, Coupla things:
 
Thanks for the invitation to view the incident again but I will decline, but I will explain why.
 
 To now watch replays  does not replicate the position that Nigel Owens was in during the  hurly burly of the game, it only shows what a television camera saw, and probably one in an elevated position to boot. Owens is at ground level running around with possibly many players run across his line of sight. he can only see, interpret, apply and explain what he sees in the split second.
 
 We dont want to see the game the game stopped so that every posible knock on is reviewed from the angle,height of a camera which is 99% percent of the time different to that of the man with the whistle.
 
I have been on this forum (606v2) for a number of years now and in all those years will not find me criticising a referee for calling or not calling a knock on.

Thanks Laurie, I get what you're saying it's just that there were a few bizarre calls and the Burns one was so odd it really stood out and Owens even said it had gone backwards and yet still called the knock on - that's the real puzzler. The fact that so many people are talking about it shows how strange it was.

Linebreaker wrote:Take the 888 oakey.
We all know you really want to... and I wouldn't blame you for doing so. Great odds... go for it!

Having had a day to reflect upon it, I'm feeling more and more partial to the idea (based on many personal experiences watching the Wallabies play the ABs in 3 match series so many times) that yesterday's match was a massive wake up call for NZ (and I mean wake up call).

Sure, England are in a good place at present. They'll have to maintain, or more likely - surpass the level of intensity they exhibited on the field yesterday when they travel to Dunedin. What I was most impressed with, however, was this real manifestation of the "mind shift" to play a special brand of rugby (Lancaster has it spot on!) and come close to pulling it off. Full marks for that.

However, they then lose some marks for poor finishing, unforced/forced errors and failure to cross the line. The ref didn't help but they had several opportunities to put the game away and were unable to deliver the knockout blow.

The All Blacks are masters of taking the most out of a game like yesterday and making sure every base will be covered the following week. I haven't seen a performance like that for a while at Eden Park. Their intensity of play will have to increase in Dunedin and they too will have to hone their finishing skills - which are usually on another level to most.

I can see a convincing AB win - 4-6 tries to 1-2 tries for Test 2.

I just can't see the England firepower in the backs (of course some big boppers were missing). The forwards did a splendid job (given the missing players there too) and there were some exciting forays through the AB midfield... but those attacks seemed to get closed off pretty quickly or the move broke down for whatever reason. Credit to the ABs scrambling defence. They realised the desperate situation they were in and they'll be very keen to ensure they don't get in a similar situation again next weekend. They'll want to amass points on the scoreboard to take the pressure off.

Even with some England players coming back and a couple of ABs returning for the next encounter - I still say the ABs have a greater scope for improvement and know how to seal "another series win" better than anyone.

I bet you (and I'm putting money on winning the next match) we win a test

formerly known as Sam wrote:England need to improve that pack. The reserves weren't up to scratch with Johnson anonymous and Gray's sole contribution being that final penalty. Desperately need to upgrade the carrying capabilities of those forwards particularly the tight five who weren't up to scratch in the the loose.

Best backs performance we've seen for England for years! Please keep that midfield on situ and just bring back the on form Care. Farrell and Twelvetrees haven't offered anything like Burns and Eastmond did today. Manu seems to thrive on the gain line play of Eastmond and Burns as well.

Luckily I think we have a decent Hooker and a couple of backrows and a lock to come in...

aucklandlaurie wrote:Heaf, Coupla things:
 
Thanks for the invitation to view the incident again but I will decline, but I will explain why.
 
 To now watch replays  does not replicate the position that Nigel Owens was in during the  hurly burly of the game, it only shows what a television camera saw, and probably one in an elevated position to boot. Owens is at ground level running around with possibly many players run across his line of sight. he can only see, interpret, apply and explain what he sees in the split second.
 
 We dont want to see the game the game stopped so that every posible knock on is reviewed from the angle,height of a camera which is 99% percent of the time different to that of the man with the whistle.
 
I have been on this forum (606v2) for a number of years now and in all those years will not find me criticising a referee for calling or not calling a knock on.

I think you have missed the point. If Owens had said to Robshaw I thought it went forward then fair enough. No one is perfect and you are right the ref is not always in the perfect position. The problem is that he knew it went back and acknowledged this to Robshaw. He then said it was irrelevent.

I think what has happended is that Owens unlike every other ref in the world is confusing the IRBs guidance on forward passes (i.e. It is the direction of the hands not the ball that counts) with knock-ons.

to the AB fans - I'm not sure this series will follow the usual pattern of the ABs figuring out their opponents culminating in a thrashing.

Firstly, don't underestimate how far below their best England were. Not just missing players - we were also rusty, both as a unit and individually. England getting a lot of praise for a really gutsy showing but that performance was well down on some of our six nations showings I thought. Care will make a huge difference and, well though Burns played, Farrell might give us a more clinical edge in the oppo 22.

Second, your coaching team keep failing to figure us out - sure you have won the last two matches, but you haven't properly controlled either game.

Finally, I believe Lancaster's team has only once lost by a double digit margin (Wales 2013), and that includes 3 games against NZ and a full tour of SA. Ok, that may not sound super impressive, but some of the XVs taking the field have been really Poopie. Lancaster makes his teams difficult to thrash. Look how they hung on in the first 15 mins after half time yesterday.

Anyone seen this sort of analysis on the RFU site? Haven't got around to watching the video which explains it yet...

http://www.rfu.com/rbssixnations/match-day-live/7450/hub/statistics?view=effectiveness

Rugby Fan wrote:Anyone seen this sort of analysis on the RFU site? Haven't got around to watching the video which explains it yet...

http://www.rfu.com/rbssixnations/match-day-live/7450/hub/statistics?view=effectiveness

Looks like it shows a scary over reliance on Tuilagi and Morgan as ball carriers, which would be how I saw the game as well.

Yeah, in the last 3 games against the ABs England have had one comfortable win, and two narrow defeats. England are a good team, very well coached with good individuals. I'm not sure it's obvious New Zealand are just about to pull away. Sure they might, but equally if England win it will be very easy to point to yesterday's game and say you could see it coming.

Care will improve us, Lawes, Vunipola and Hartley will add significant physicality and carrying to the match day 23, and I don't believe Brown will play that badly again. England also have the option of adding in one or both of the best centre combination from the 6 Nation, and/or our first choice FH and a relatively in-form Ashton. And if you want a real wildcard I think the AB's might find Sinkler has quite a lot of impact too if he comes on with 15 to go (if he develops over the next 18 months he could easily be the starting TH in the WC as he's an amazing talent).

I thought it was interesting that the ABs struggled to cope with Tuilagi just as much as most NH sides do. Vunipola will be interesting to watch whether he starts or is an impact sub, as NH sides can't really cope with him either.

Manu seemed to really enjoy playing outside Burns and Eastmond, I guess with two dangerous attacking players inside him it kept the defence a lot more honest, giving him more space. With Care back that can only get better.

And just how good was Kyle Eastmonds break in the second half. If we had support runners that would have been sexual.