Englands Summer Tour of NZ - The rugby

First topic message reminder :

GeordieFalcon wrote:Hows his lineout work going?

 Master at it prob the best jumper in Leicester including Parling imo, commands it so well.

 Well I think that anyway.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why do we need to ignore the NZ game; because it doesn't fit into the idea Lancaster can't do the job?! Damn fine game thouroughly deserved but if you want to discount it because NZ were under strength or anything like that you should at least do the same whenever Lancaster has had to field an under strength side e.g. against Wales. Although I'm sure if he'd chucked a 20 year old debutant in B Vunipola in we would have won...

Haven't read back so not sure how the Wales 2013 selection came up but Vunipola was also injured at the same time as Morgan so wasn't an option regardless of his inexperience.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why do we need to ignore the NZ game; because it doesn't fit into the idea Lancaster can't do the job?! Damn fine game thouroughly deserved but if you want to discount it because NZ were under strength or anything like that you should at least do the same whenever Lancaster has had to field an under strength side e.g. against Wales. Although I'm sure if he'd chucked a 20 year old debutant in B Vunipola in we would have won...

Haven't read back so not sure how the Wales 2013 selection came up but Vunipola was also injured at the same time as Morgan so wasn't an option regardless of his inexperience.

Fair enough, know he got injured during the tournament but didn't know if he was available for Wales, thought I'd give king the benefit of the doubt.

Fair do's to Stewie, he's picked a half decent Saxons side plus a couple of bolters in Burns & Eastmond. I'm reasonably confident that we'll stay around 20 points of the ABs (in the 1st half anyway).

Parling??? Are you kidding me?

Attwood should have started ....bad call there Stuart.

I disagree with you dismissing my opinion as "revisionist", ke. I think if you go back through my posts you'll find I've been pretty consistent in my opinion of Lancaster from the beginning.

What is revisionist is rewriting history. Billy V wasn't fit to play in Cardiff. If I remember correctly he had a niggling injury that was expected to clear up each week and didn't. Lancaster simply didn't have a specialist 8 in the squad. Personally, in his position I'd have called up Easter for that one game and had done with it, but what he chose to do was to see whether Croft, Wood and Robshaw would make an effective back row. They didn't; end of experiment. It was worth finding out, though, and it's considerably less daft than, say, Woodward's decision not to play Wilkinson at 10 in an RWC knockout game because it came to him in a dream.

If we are going to discount the win against the All Blacks, in the interest of balance you have to discount the Cardiff game by the same amount. Walsh's refereeing of the scrum in that game was atrocious and had an undue influence on the game; not only did it severely limit England's primary possession, it also provided Wales with a steady stream of points.

I'd also say that Lancaster has rocked the boat far more than any England head coach since Clive Woodward. It would have been very easy for him to carry forward the bulk of Johnson's squad and play it safe as a caretaker coach, but he dropped anyone who would be unlikely to make 2015 and began the process of bringing in a generation of players who will mostly still be around for 2019. That squad won 4 games in the 6N and only lost to Wales courtesy of a breakaway try (wasn't it, um, notable heavyweight Lawes who was dispossessed for that?) and (again) some dubious refereeing by Mr Walsh.

I don't think you can dismiss what he's done around culture as media spin. The culture in the England camp was a major contributor to what went wrong at RWC 2011. It had to change. It has, and you can see some definite effects. For the first time in a decade, players are coming back to their clubs from England duty and playing better than they were playing before, rather than suffering an "England hangover" of some sort.

It seems to me that you have an idee fixe that Lancaster should never have been chosen and you're not letting the evidence get in the way of that opinion. His win ratio to date has been as good over his first 27 games (in which he's been building a squad) as Woodward's was from 1999-2002 (60 games, with a far more mature squad). It's been better than Robinson, Ashton or Johnson ever managed. What's more, it's been done with an inexperienced squad. England under Lancaster have never fielded a squad that has had more caps than its opposition, except possibly against the weakened Argentina sides in last year's tour.

It remains to be seen whether and when that start will translate into tournament wins, but he's certainly done enough to deserve the chance to see his plan through.

By the way, I'd also have been happy to see O'Shea get the job, but he didn't want it.

Ok Kingy ill have a go at this....

Well to start with his very appointment was highly questionable. The RFU was/is a dysfunctional organisation and they, unable to either persuade another English/AP or other appropriately able international candidate looked in house and gambled on the reserve team coach who happily is an RFU man who won't rock the boat a'la SCW and tell them what a bunch of dossers they are - because he is indebted to them for his position.

Why? He was the Saxons coach, and obviously his methodical approach to his job got the RFU's attention?

Lancaster is a naturally methodical down to earth individual who isn't overly imaginative or sophisticated in his vision of how we should play, but has a bad case of playing to the home counties media with his particularly vulgar patronising whimsy (my mother would probably write something like 'some school teacher with a stupid grin wouldn’t stop phoning me till I gave him a line of tripe to confirm to you what a pratt he is').

Rugby doesnt have to be massively over imaginative. What do the AB's do best...the basics and their intensity. Its not rocket science. Lancaster has brought a great deal of that approach through his tenure.

He has also brought a feel good factor to the England Camp. Its obvious players want to be involved, a total change from previous management camps.

I also think he's got alot of respect from other top nations now...something we havent had for a long time.

He has been weighed down by his initial reliance on Saracen based players (as a short term ploy acceptable much like Gatland did with his selection of almost the entire Ospreys team) when he should have moved on much sooner and has been fatally over shadowed by Andy Farrell and the selection of his son to play the baby Jesus. This decision alone is staggeringly bad, not necessarily the selection of Owen, but the complete failure to understand how the coach selecting his son is controversial beyond belief. This decision alone is an outright fail.

Saracens play as a unit, very much like the AB's and very much like Lancaster wants England to play like. He wanted England to be stripped completely and learn the basics again...something the Sarries lads are good at. No surprise then he picked a few of their players...aside from them being one of the top sides in the country.

As the team has progressed he has changed personnel as appropriate.
As for young Owen, Lancaster has to be praised for his work with Owen Farrell. Whilst many of us criticsed him for the selection, Farrell has come through to be a very good international 10 (and still a work in progress).

His none too prescient selection of bean pole forwards to face South Africa was not unexpectedly smashed from the field. He then famously selected Farrell and Barritt in the most self forfilling expression of failure since his predecessor and incredibly continued to do so. Three sixes when Billy Vunipola was primed to explode the millennium stadium, selecting Ashton till time forgot or at least till Wade was injured, fallbacks for goal posts and Barritt on the bench.

He has made mistakes, no doubt (show me a coach who hasnt), however he has also in general reacted well to those mistakes. He is learning as a coach and has tried things out with the team.
He realised that simply having beanpoles in there wont work. Thus he changed it.

Barritt and Farrell were part of his methodical approach - basics and defence first. He has now moved on with Twelvetrees there as England put the next phase in motion...more attack as witnessed in the 6n.

Post script - please don't mention losses to sides depleted by illness and fatigue - one in 10 year victories happen but mean nothing - no one ever mentions the two losses in the previous weeks do they?

.

Which losses? We lost once in the 6n...to France after a dodgy first ten minutes...and even then should have won the game. Likewise a bad start stopped us probably beating the AB's again...two years in a row. Show me another NH side who is close to that.

Lancaster isnt perfect....but he is doing just fine. Im not convinced we'll win this WC...but i would like him to stay in charge as i think 2019 would be a definate one to win.

There is that aspect of joined up thinking with Lancaster. He was always building for the future rather than the next tournament.

Not everything that has happened since he took over has worked, and you could say he is lucky coming into his role when the AP academy system is really starting to bear fruit, but the overall trend is going up and up. When Steve Hansen talks about England being the most improved international team its only half BS.

England play as a team, they play their hearts out for each other, something which is absolutely typified by their captain Robshaw. They have also gone from being a very tough team to breakdown to one that is genuinely dangerous ball in hand. They play a high tempo game that puts a great deal of pressure on all of their opponents.

Of course teams like the AB's are better equipped to deal with pressure than others, and it will go wrong from time to time, but lets face it we have some real causes for a little optimism for the first time for 10 years

No 7&1/2 wrote:

BamBam wrote:@SkySportsNews: England team : 15 Mike Brown, 14 Marland Yarde, 13 Tuilagi, 12 Kyle Eastmond, 11 Jonny May, 10 Freddie Burns, 9 Danny Care 1 Joe Marler, 2 Rob Webber, 3 David Wilson, 4 Joe Launchbury, 5 Geoff Parling, 6 James Haskell, 7 Chris Robshaw, 8 Ben Morgan

Eng bench: Gray Thomas Mullan Attwood Johnson Youngs Cipriani Pennell

Parling   

Sucks to start with a Lion.

That was a bit reactionary, I know. My slightly more measured analysis from the other thread

BamBam wrote:

Parling frustrates me as we have seen the lack of physicality when he is partnered with Launchbury against Wales, but looking at it again we now have Webber, Haskell and Morgan starting rather than Youngs, Croft and an out of position Tom Wood, with the new starters being more physical than any of the latter 3

Still would have liked Attwood to start ahead of him, especially given the club connection with Webber for lineouts

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Gutted nobody took that bet last week.

Parling was always going to start this game with Lawes and Wood not there. His leadership is seen as vital, the lack of leadership within this group did have to be addressed particularly with Hartley out as well.

The salient point is whether that 'leadership' is worth having an under-powered locking unit. That is I think why he's brought Haskell back in. Partly for his leadership and partly his physicality.

It still wouldn't have been my choice to go with Parling. On the bench maybe but against the likes of Retallack, Messam and the hugely impressive Kaino it's a big ask from a light-weight lock pairing. That's before the vast figure of Tuipolotu makes an appearance from the bench.

Having Attwood there would've given a nice balance of carrying and stopping power.

You'd think the lineout would suffer more without Parling there especially missing Wood though. Parling and Launchbury have been ok as a pairing before. It's understandable why he's gone with him in my opinion.

I agree. Attwood, Launchbury, Robshaw, Haskell just wouldn't offer enough line-out options (only Launchbury as a primary jumper). That means Parling pretty much had to start IMO.

Poorfour wrote:I disagree with you dismissing my opinion as "revisionist", ke. I think if you go back through my posts you'll find I've been pretty consistent in my opinion of Lancaster from the beginning.

What is revisionist is rewriting history. Billy V wasn't fit to play in Cardiff. If I remember correctly he had a niggling injury that was expected to clear up each week and didn't. Lancaster simply didn't have a specialist 8 in the squad. Personally, in his position I'd have called up Easter for that one game and had done with it, but what he chose to do was to see whether Croft, Wood and Robshaw would make an effective back row. They didn't; end of experiment. It was worth finding out, though, and it's considerably less daft than, say, Woodward's decision not to play Wilkinson at 10 in an RWC knockout game because it came to him in a dream.

If we are going to discount the win against the All Blacks, in the interest of balance you have to discount the Cardiff game by the same amount. Walsh's refereeing of the scrum in that game was atrocious and had an undue influence on the game; not only did it severely limit England's primary possession, it also provided Wales with a steady stream of points.

I'd also say that Lancaster has rocked the boat far more than any England head coach since Clive Woodward. It would have been very easy for him to carry forward the bulk of Johnson's squad and play it safe as a caretaker coach, but he dropped anyone who would be unlikely to make 2015 and began the process of bringing in a generation of players who will mostly still be around for 2019. That squad won 4 games in the 6N and only lost to Wales courtesy of a breakaway try (wasn't it, um, notable heavyweight Lawes who was dispossessed for that?) and (again) some dubious refereeing by Mr Walsh.

I don't think you can dismiss what he's done around culture as media spin. The culture in the England camp was a major contributor to what went wrong at RWC 2011. It had to change. It has, and you can see some definite effects. For the first time in a decade, players are coming back to their clubs from England duty and playing better than they were playing before, rather than suffering an "England hangover" of some sort.

It seems to me that you have an idee fixe that Lancaster should never have been chosen and you're not letting the evidence get in the way of that opinion. His win ratio to date has been as good over his first 27 games (in which he's been building a squad) as Woodward's was from 1999-2002 (60 games, with a far more mature squad). It's been better than Robinson, Ashton or Johnson ever managed. What's more, it's been done with an inexperienced squad. England under Lancaster have never fielded a squad that has had more caps than its opposition, except possibly against the weakened Argentina sides in last year's tour.

It remains to be seen whether and when that start will translate into tournament wins, but he's certainly done enough to deserve the chance to see his plan through.

By the way, I'd also have been happy to see O'Shea get the job, but he didn't want it.

Fair response.

Note to self - Never lets the facts get in the way of your argument - actually I'd forgotten re BV's injury (someone did bring it to my attention earlier this year) - and accepted Walsh did his worst, however that game and our retreating form of the time shouldn't be so easily dismissed. Ultimately our limited game plan was our down fall and hopefully we'll never see such an unbalanced 10/12 again (which incidentally is why I want to see MT play 12 with KE 13 more than not this Saturday...by the by)

I've always felt far too much is made of the AB win. Of course there are absolute positives to take from it but, the simple fact that we do not destroy every other side each time we play confirms to me that that was just one day alone, and though I really do think we have world dominating potential it is obvious we have plenty of ground yet to travel.

Lancaster’s' undeniable achievement is culture and on that I applaud him. The media, expensively graffitied Twickenham walls and car park posturing is all BS to supposedly announce and inculcate the residual culture. I can do without the propaganda.

Let’s be clear culture does influence how a team plays on the field, however game plan and player identification/selection and coaching are far more important and so we will need more than proficiency to take us to the next level.

Does Lancaster really have a plan to achieve this?

Our style of play has developed but tbh this has been driven by AFarrell's aggressive defence and thus not by any exponential evolution of 15 man rugby - if you think otherwise then I suggest you honestly review our profligate attacking performance. I accept what I am referring to is the way we play here in England and so am realistic as to what the English coach can change, however the best coaches understand and deliver this.

For all OFarrells development he is still and always will be the wrong 10 to realise this sides potential, he just doesn’t have the vision or the skill set and if you want to quote me all his mazy running plodding forays as evidence then I ask you how many where converted into tries? The fact is he has performed moderately well behind a good pack of forwards - others would have done better given his '& son' opportunity. He will always revert back to type as his recently fatigued performances have evidenced.

Lancaster has said it and it is true, we should look at the AB's as a guide to our development, but honestly do you think he can deliver? I would happily swap Hansen but do you think New Zealand would take the one time Director of Leeds Carnegie?

Ultimately winning is what matters and me liking the bloke is neither here nor there. We have the depth of squad to win a WC but never has this been achieved by such an inexperienced coach.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:At international level I d agree.

Ceretainly worked for Johnston, the other rfu appointed internationally experienced..........come off it Lancaster is so inexperienced it scares me.

Back with a keyboard so more than a sentence again! You were just praising Mallinder for handling a game against Argentina over a decade ago with such aplomb (honestly didn't know he'd had anything to do with it) yet he'd had less than a year as a coach so I don't think Lancaster is inexperienced in comparison.

The point is he and Diamond have gained experience and success at the highest level so would now make a decent duo if they reprised the act - was that not obvious?

You want O'Shea after complaining Lancaster's England team lacked grunt, something I think we can point out at Quins to greater effect.

O'shea is all over Lancaster as a coach. He has achieved winning success and develops players enabling them to over perform as well as producing a game plan of modern 15 man rugby.

Thanks goodness Lancaster ignored all the nepotism calls and did start Farrell as we now have one of the best fly halfs in the world who's just getting better.

No he's not. He's a limited defensivly strong 10 who kicks the hide of the ball instead having the ability create space and scoring opportunities.

Why do we need to ignore the NZ game; because it doesn't fit into the idea Lancaster can't do the job?! Damn fine game thouroughly deserved but if you want to discount it because NZ were under strength or anything like that you should at least do the same whenever Lancaster has had to field an under strength side e.g. against Wales. Although I'm sure if he'd chucked a 20 year old debutant in B Vunipola in we would have won...

OK BV was unfit, but if he'd have been fit then it would have been the right option.

What about the losses the two previous weeks - why did we lose those and win against the AB's? - why don't you ever bang on about those losses?

Ironically although I think Lancaster is v good I don't really think we're going to beat the best team in the world away at one of their strongest grounds yet you do!

I've said 'I have a feeling' and that it'll be 5/10 points either way - I didn't say we would catorgorically win did I?

True, 5-10 suggests it could go either way. Still more optimistic than I am though!

That feeling is hope and there's nothing wrong with that. It's unlikely to be a high scoring affair and my 'feeling' is that it will be a similar affair to the French rookie 1st test last year. England will be in it but NZ will score when it matters to make the victory look comfortable enough.

Pure speculation from both sides but I have no problem with both sides thinking they can win. It's not up to us after all. It's the players who decide and to be honest I'd rather hear an England fan say we could sneak this rather than the defeatist if we can keep within 10 points I'll be happy statement.

I expect 3 wins for NZ against England. When do I ever accept a loss before the game is played? Never. After it happens but never before. I get more wound up over NZ's shaky wins than their losses, though obviously the defeats hurt a lot. Recently those losses or draws are few and far between but if you want to lay claims at being the world's best, that's the attitude you have to have because that's the attitude of the top teams. SA haven't beaten NZ under Meyer but you can bet the players go into the game thinking they can win. Nothing wrong with the fans taking the same attitude.

I think we can win but an awful lot has to land in our favour for it to happen in the first test so it's extremely unlikely.

So the form lock in the AP isn't In the squad but his club mate who's not fit and can't get in the team starts. Doesn't bode well.

formerly known as Sam wrote:So the form lock in the AP isn't In the squad but his club mate who's not fit and can't get in the team starts. Doesn't bode well.

It's pretty clear that Lancaster is favouring familiarity with England's systems over current form. Given that perforce he's having to bring in 5 or 6 players who didn't play a major role in the 6N, it's pretty sensible to focus on players who know how the team works. If it were a question of having to replace Lawes in a settled side, then the case for Slater would be much stronger, but as it is Lancaster is having to put together a radically changed team (for the 4th time in his tenure) and wants to make as much use of players who know each other as he can.

Plus, he knows how people have been going in training, and we don't.

Pure speculation from both sides but I have no problem with both sides thinking they can win. It's not up to us after all. It's the players who decide and to be honest I'd rather hear an England fan say we could sneak this rather than the defeatist if we can keep within 10 points I'll be happy statement.

Kia,

I think Lancaster deserves some plaudits for this mental switch in the England fans. We geuninely think we have a side that is capable of beating the best now, even with a weakened side in fort New Zealand.

Personally i dont expect a win this 1st test, but i do expect us to run you close and give a good account of ourselves.

The good thing aswell is that this is not an arrogant, disliked England side, its one that works it a$$ of and is modelling itself on your AB's. High intensity, getting the basics right.
We just need to continue the improvements in attack that we saw in the 6n. And if required a few personnel switches.

Poorfour wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:So the form lock in the AP isn't In the squad but his club mate who's not fit and can't get in the team starts. Doesn't bode well.

It's pretty clear that Lancaster is favouring familiarity with England's systems over current form. Given that perforce he's having to bring in 5 or 6 players who didn't play a major role in the 6N, it's pretty sensible to focus on players who know how the team works. If it were a question of having to replace Lawes in a settled side, then the case for Slater would be much stronger, but as it is Lancaster is having to put together a radically changed team (for the 4th time in his tenure) and wants to make as much use of players who know each other as he can.

Plus, he knows how people have been going in training, and we don't.

Thats a very valid point, that most of us ignore...at club level with our own clubs aswell.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Pure speculation from both sides but I have no problem with both sides thinking they can win. It's not up to us after all. It's the players who decide and to be honest I'd rather hear an England fan say we could sneak this rather than the defeatist if we can keep within 10 points I'll be happy statement.

Kia,

I think Lancaster deserves some plaudits for this mental switch in the England fans. We geuninely think we have a side that is capable of beating the best now, even with a weakened side in fort New Zealand.

Personally i dont expect a win this 1st test, but i do expect us to run you close and give a good account of ourselves.

The good thing aswell is that this is not an arrogant, disliked England side, its one that works it a$$ of and is modelling itself on your AB's. High intensity, getting the basics right.
We just need to continue the improvements in attack that we saw in the 6n. And if required a few personnel switches.

Can i just say I DO expect us to get a bit of a tonking first up and lose all 3 tests - sorry Geordie and Kia!   

Parling in as I expected
Looking forward to seeing eastmond play a proper test match,he's desperate to play.
Burns is possibly the weak link but must be showing something in training possibly relieved to have left kings holm.
Good to see webber start as he deserves it,when did gray last play ?
Hoping the haskshaw combination works well.
Pennell being named on bench ahead of trinder indicates we won't see Manu shifted to wing but possibly brown.
Attwood,youngs and hopefully cipriani to provide impact but that all depends on England having some possession.

Hood,

I can certainly understand your way of thinking. I just.think they have a system now that allows for people to come in and they know their jobs. Of course there's alot of personnel changes. I guess we'll find out how well it works when Saturday comes.

RFU video cleverly titled - 'Measured Eastmond ready for All Blacks' - makes it sound like they've prepared a very small coffin.

http://www.rfu.com/news/2014/june/news-articles/051614_eastmond_news

That photo highlights the size difference.

If Eastmonds good enough, then great but he's going to be tested like he never has before. And he's going to have some huge powerful guys aiming straight for him.

Another hammer blow we desperately couldn't afford has been struck with Care ruled out of the 1st test.

The unavailable - some would be included at full strength, some may not be first choice but would be involved in this massively weakened side for T1:

1. Corbisiero and Mako Vunipola
2. Hartley and Tom Youngs
3. Cole
4.
5. Lawes
6. Wood and Croft
7.
8. Billy Vunipola

9. Care
10. Farrell and Ford

11.
12. Twelvetrees and Barritt
13. Burrell
14. Wade, Nowell and Ashton
15. Foden, Goode and Watson

I'm a big Ben Youngs supporter and late in the season he finally came back into some form for Tigers. However given how the attack played off Care in the 6N, combined with the fresh 10/12 axis we are already contending with, I'd argue this is the worse loss of the lot.

Also slightly ironic (if admittedly arbitrary) that the only two wingers remaining in the squad are also both our left wings!

Is Ward injured? Surprised at Gray getting the bench spot considering he's been out most of the season....only just came back with a bench appearance. Ward deserves a cap with his performances this season.

mid_gen wrote:Is Ward injured? Surprised at Gray getting the bench spot considering he's been out most of the season....only just came back with a bench appearance. Ward deserves a cap with his performances this season.

Gray has been around the England setup longer and is a far better thrower; I think Lancaster is (understandably) wary of Ward "doing a Youngs" off the bench. Gray was actually in pretty good form when he came back, but did a knee just as he was primed to take over from Ward as Quins' starter. Clearly it wasn't as bad as it looked.

Apparently Gray has been 'hugely impressive' in training according to SL, and it was a tough choice between him and Ward for the bench spot.

Still though, I think I would prefer Ward's breakdown nous off the bench, especially against McCaw.

Yeah Gray has the solid hooker skills.

Ward has been outstanding...but i want to see Buchanan really smashing it up next season for Quins.
By the way thanks Quins for providing ALL your hookers for the England cause.

Don't worry about McCaw, HaskShaw will have put him firmly in his place long before the replacements are used   

BamBam wrote:Don't worry about McCaw, HaskShaw will have put him firmly in his place long before the replacements are used   

  

HaskShaw

  

With a 2'4? Hackshaw Jim Duggan...

Ha, that would be brilliant kiakahaatearoa

GeordieFalcon wrote:

HaskShaw

  

Ok that was bad .. but I am on my phone   

Brandshaw, surely?

Hey we will have a back row of..:

Morghasshaw   

That's verging on what the commentator will sound like as Morgan completes his hattrick.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Hey we will have a back row of..:

Morghasshaw   

For some reason, when I said that it pretty much came out s 'Smorgasbord'.

Haskell and Morgan would be a copyright breach for Canterbury. Morgan de Toi don't make very good rugby shirts.

We are going to win tomorrow Kia!

Oh yes we are- same odds as the last time we won. My 20 quid is on... Now its your turn to tell me we have zero chance.

The planets must align.

Good on you oakey! I certainly won't tell you you've got no chance as there wouldn't be any point in playing sport if we already knew the results, but I'm confident that the boys in black can do the job and reasonably comfortably if not overly convincingly by the end of the game.

Always nervous though first game up. 2013 means nothing as Hansen said. It's all about starting off 2014 well.

You are not playing Ball... damm

Seriously we dont have much chance. The all blacks are the best team in sport. If we can get 1 win it will be as good as any other series victory. The odds are heavily stacked against us, and you wont take us for granted either which makes it even harder

I don't think they take any team for granted, hence their record. It's a huge challenge no doubt, but by no means unsurmountable. It will require the best out of this England squad, which may be asking too much of a lot of new faces but that is what they'll have to do to beat NZ at home.

Getting key players back for the second test like Care and the club finalists will help but let's see how the first test pans out before we start getting ahead of ourselves. One game at a time...

Healy is either high, deluded or deliberately trying a wind up!

Never read such nonsense before...lukily Eng are missing some players or he would have them to win by 50 points. The funniest is Morgan over Jerome Kaino.....

The analysis of the packs is a joke, talk about underrating the NZ pack....or overrating the Eng pack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/10879296/New-Zealand-v-England-Austin-Healeys-head-to-head-analysis-in-pics.html

Ok...what would happen in the crazy scenario that this England side actually pulled off a miracle and won playing some good rugby. (i dont think it will happen,just a what if? )

Would lancaster still recall all the A teamers for the second test...or would he give this crop another go?

Wouldn't be surprised if we lost. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be upset if we lost, even by a single point.

It's still a relatively strong team.

Front row: Marler and Wilson are our second choice props and played well during the Six Nations, no worries there. Webber is a good 3rd choice hooker, possibly better than Tom Youngs anyway. I don't think this is the strongest area for New Zealand and I think we should be really competitive here.

Second row: Launchbury and Parling are an established combo, although we do miss a bit without Lawes. People talk about this "understrength" pairing and that Wales game, but I think that was a problem with the pack as a whole. 3 months before this pairing was in a team that beat the All Blacks. If Parling is back fit and firing in training (must be to get the nod here), then this pair will go well.

Back row: Haskell is a perfectly fine blindside with 50 caps and experience playing in New Zealand, while Morgan and Billy Vunipola are probably at the same kind of level. Glad Robshaw is there to bring that lot together, but all in all not a bad pack.

Half-backs: Care has been on another level this year, and will be a huge lose. However Youngs is a perfectly good scrum half who is coming out of a bad patch. He should be looking to really seize this opportunity. The same can be said of Freddie Burns. Again, a good player who has had a rough season, but you can bet he wasn't happy at Gloucester with one eye on the exit. A chance to start in New Zealand before moving to one of the biggest clubs in England should light a fire under him.

Centres: Little vs Large at 12 is perhaps unfair on Eastmond, who's no doormat and would have been up against people as big as Nonu on a weekly basis when he played league. I don't think Cruden and Nonu is the strongest defensively so I'd also back our running 10 and 12 to try to make things difficult for them, albeit offering a different threat. It's good to see Tuilagi back in the 13 shirt who can really make things happen, and at worst is a good "out-ball", if we just need to recycle possession over the gain line.

Wings: Yarde has impressed me and I think he managed a few tries since his return at the end of the season. May is one I have been impressed with at club level, although I wasn't overly impressed with him during the Six Nations. Hopefully he can step it up this test.

Full-back: Mike Brown. End of analysis.

Mix of both but he would be dancing considering the depth at his disposal....

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ok...what would happen in the crazy scenario that this England side actually pulled off a miracle and won playing some good rugby. (i dont think it will happen,just a what if? )

Would lancaster still recall all the A teamers for the second test...or would he give this crop another go?

You'd have to give this crop another go, possibly with a few tweaks if individual players don't do well.

If you then lose the second test you can bring back more of the "A teamers" for the series decider.

If you then win the second test you've won a series in New Zealand and I think you have some new "A teamers".

Conversely, if you win and make a load of changes and then lose the next two tests, you look a bit silly for changing a winning team only to lose the series.