England v New Zealand - Test 2 (14 Jun 2014)

First topic message reminder :

NEW ZEALAND v ENGLAND
Forsyth Barr Stadium, Dunedin
Saturday 14th June, KO 19:35 local, 08:35 BST

TEAMS
New Zealand
1: Woodcock, 2: Coles, 3: O Franks, 4: Retallick, 5: Whitelock, 6: Messam, 7: McCaw (c), 8: Kaino, 9: A Smith, 10: Cruden, 11: Savea, 12: Nonu, 13: C Smith, 14: Jane, 15: B Smith
Bench: 16: Mealamu, 17: Crockett, 18: Faumuina, 19: Tuipulotu, 20: Vito, 21: Perenara, 22: Barrett, 23: Fekitoa
England
1: Marler, 2: Webber, 3: Wilson, 4: Launchbury, 5: Parling, 6: Wood, 7: Robshaw (c), 8: Morgan, 9: Care, 10: Farrell, 11: Yarde, 12: Twelvetrees, 13: Burrell, 14: Tuilagi (what was he thinking?), 15: Brown
Bench: 16: Hartley, 17: Mullan, 18: Brookes, 19: Lawes, 20: Vunipola, 21: Youngs, 22: Burns, 23: Ashton

OFFICIALS
Referee: Jaco Peyper (SARU)
ARs: Nigel Owens (WRU) & Jérôme Garcès (FFR)
TMO: George Ayoub (ARU)

disneychilly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

disneychilly wrote:As opposed to the well oiled performance of the rest of the All Blacks?

Maybe they werent allowed to play like a well oiled team

They were well stifled, but the amount of unforced errors NZ committed indicated that they were guilty of shooting themselves in the foot as much as England were of pulling the trigger.

I think both teams made a huge number of errors that possibly they usually wouldn't have. Obviously for England the handling was very poor and not what we've come to expect. Mike Brown's knock on on the ABs' try line stands out, mainly because Brown is usually such a safe pair of hands. Wilson was appalling at catching too. Guys like Nonu and Dagg had nightmare games, but I fully expect them to rebound next week.

The point is it was fiercely contested and close game by two teams not quite firing on all cylinders. I think this Saturday the game will be equally evenly contested, but with better execution across the park.

I think both teams are chomping at the bit for round 2

lostinwales wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Yarde didn't get much chance in attack, but I thought his defence was very strong. Even the yellow was a necessary evil.

Really?

I think he defends far too narrow - NZ just didn't exploit it - they wont make the same mistake a second time.

Its entirely possible they will, or at least try to, as they are a smart team. However I do believe England will continue to apply a great deal of pressure and the AB's wont have many chances to force the result of the game.

England defend narrow. That is Farrell senior's defensive setup. They defend narrow and the outside backs push up to try and cut off attacks. It has risks but overall it works.

Not arguing, just wanted to point out that whatever the AB's try to do, there will be another team out there aiming and able to stop them. I know there is a history with the AB's just making a couple of tweaks and then turning close games into slaughter but it is not a given by any means.

I think the ABs haven't been able to go wide as often as they want against England because the English line speed is fast enough to put pressure on them close in. If they can think a way past that then they will cause trouble - but the try on Saturday (and really one of only two decent breaks) came as a result of two English errors in the middle and then breaking inside from the scrum to create a blindside overlap with Brown covering for Yarde. It was ruthlessly executed but typical only in that they got a try when they really needed one...

This is my selection:

1 Marler
2 Hartley
3 Wislon
4 Lawes
5 Attwood
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan

9 Care
10 Farrell
11 May
12 Burrell
13 Tuilagi
14 Yarde
15 Brown

Bench:

Waller Webber Thomas Parling Vunipola  Youngs Burns Eastmond

Selections would be subject to fitness and some chooses are very close (e.g. Hartley over Webber and Wood over Haskell).

However the second test should be used as a "shoot out" for the final test (without seemingly weakening the side).

Burrell has played very well this season at inside centre particularly in the Aviva final.  Very hard to drop Eastmond but he should be used as a bench option.

Though I chose Thomas as a the back-up to Wilson, I would still like to know of the progress of Brookes and Sinckler?

I would bring Lawes and Attwood in, as Launchbury looked a little jaded and Lawes is more dynamic than Parling.  Parling to the bench just to retain a line-out option.

For England, key players are Marler and Wilson as they need to play all three tests.

May just over Ashton as the test was an improvement on the six nations, and his defend might just be a little better.

Manu should STAY in the centre.

Agree that Manu should certainly remain at centre. He is not explosively quick and his positional sense will not cope with the All Blacks at full steam. I think he'd be pretty quickly exploited out on the wing. Yarde makes the odd positional error, but he's much quicker and can cover better.

Tuilagi had a storming game in the centres - why move him??

Re: Twelvetrees vs Eastmond - I thought Eastmond's performance at 12 was as good as anything we've seen from Twelvetrees in an England jersey so far, and I see no need to parachute in Twelvetrees in his place. Different players obviously, but I'd give Eastmond's scorching footwork and accelaration another run alongside Tuilagi. Burrell should go on the bench - he'd make a pretty handy impact sub.

Lots of close calls going on, but for me it is all about winning the 2nd test and not about about fairness or players being picked because they do/do not deserve to be dropped due to AP final or good 1st test performances. It is all about who can give us the best chance for the next test. For me that is:

Marler
Webber (Hartley on bench as Webber played well and deserves to stay on form as well as being in NZ longer)
Wilson
Attwood (add grunt as Launchbury appeared below par)
Lawes (bad luck on Parling but Lawes can run the lineout and adds more toughness around the park)
Haskell (deserves to stay on form as well as being out there for longer than Wood. Acclimatisation must help)
Morgan (deserves to stay on form as well as being out there for longer than Vunipola)
Robshaw (Captain so no option although if he was injured I would be happy to play Haskell at 7 with Wood at 6).
Care (more spark than Youngs)
Farrell (close call as Burns did very well)
Yarde
Burrell (tough on Eastmond, but want to see if the 2 big units can play together)
Tuilagi
Ashton (no brainer over May)
Brown

Bench
Waller, Hartley, Sinckler, Launchbury, Vunipola, Dickson, Burns

Big call to change both locks
How much game time have lawes/attwood had as a combination?
Sinkler/brookes?im hoping if one or both are training better than Thomas they will bench as we need to cap more t/h before the WC.
Eastmond and his dancing feet has to be involved somewhere.
I've said before he is the perfect 23 but only if we manage to get him the ball.if we lose a winger early I wouldn't fancy his chances against savea and the other option would be brown to wing and burns to full back which I don't like at all.
I don't envy Lancaster at all
So many tough choices this week
How many other than robshaw brown and the props are nailed on to start

Lots of selection headaches for sure, which is a sign of England's development. And I would be happy with many different outcomes. Wendy - you mention bloodying more TH props before the RWC which I agree with, but that is another reason to try Burrell and Tuilagi or some of the other selections. If he keeps Eastmond I am not complaining as does offer something different.

And Cips looked good when he came on!

Although it's something they've definitely considered, I don't think Tuilagi will start on the wing.  It coming up so prominently this week looks very much like a result of media led questioning in the pursuit of column inches and on the back of Woodward's restated selection of him there, just as it was the last time it got so much coverage and didn't manifest.  However, I wouldn't be surprised to see Tuilagi go to the wing towards the end of the match dependent on who they want to give the bench shirts to, which I suspect will include a centre.

For me the key Lancaster quotes on this issue over the last couple of days are:

“That has been discussed in selection. We have not done that yet but that is certainly part of one thing that could happen."

"He would be a significant threat off phase play. But, equally, there is all the aerial work that is part of the equation and that would challenge him. Defensively, though, he would be fine. He understands the system. But all options are open.”

My selection would be:

Marler
Webber - I'd be just as happy with Hartley, more so for his leadership, but think Webber's performance should be rewarded
Wilson
Launchbury
Lawes - Parling was v.good, but I think we'll need the extra energy and defensive pressure Lawes gives us, plus how he allows Launchbury to play
Wood - the harshest call, but Haskell visibly tired and had to be replaced, when really we need to be refreshing our 8; Wood has the better engine
Robshaw
Morgan

Care
Burns - another performance rewarded, though I'm concerned for the 2nd test we may need the extra physicality and control Farrell brings
Yarde
Eastmond - the pace of his play as a running playmaker brought notable improvements to the fizz in the backs outside him
Tuilagi
Ashton - we needed better support for our midfield breaks, on recent form I think Ashton can provide this
Brown

disneychilly wrote:Burns played and kicked bloody well but didn't really offer a running threat-think Farrell runs a bit more so would have Burns on the bench.

I understand why you came to that conclusion about Burns running game based on the first test, but historically it's probably been the best aspect of his game and why he first came to prominence.  That we saw nothing from him in that regard on Saturday was curious and I suspect down to it being his first big game start and him concentrating on what England have asked him to develop in his play to be a bankable international FH rather than just an exciting one.  I would hope and expect to see more of his running game in the coming weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2EWEfQML9k

Anyone know when teams are announced?

Poorfour wrote:Let's see what kingelderfield thinks, and then hope Lancaster does the opposite. I think Bomber has earned a lot of credit as a selector today.

Gosh, aren't we droll.

This 2nd test is primary about selection, so lets see how that goes now there are real choices available?

Very well thanks,you?

see who survives the midweek training and who looks the hungriest. pick them. and but let everyone know that selection for the final match is 100% wide open too.

apart from my boys robshaw, care and brown obviously

Here's my initial T2 wash from the other thread. On reflection I'd swap Eastmond and Burrell and so we'd start with our 'Nuclear option' at centre.

Re: England XV vs New Zealand First Test
by kingelderfield on Sun 08 Jun 2014, 5:22 pm

The issues are;

Next test side/bench?

And does OFarrell walk on water into the side?

Marler
Webber
Wilson
Launchbury
Lawes
Robshaw
Morgan
Wood
Youngs
Cipriani
Ashton
Eastmond / Now Burrell
Tuilagi
Yarde
Brown

Mullan
Hartley
Sinckler
Attwood
Vunipola(really really tough call on BrandH)
Care
Burns
Burrell. Now Eastmond

Bummer, Peyper is the ref for T2.

What's wrong with Peyper King, has he had some clangers for you guys? Can't recall what his style is like.

Poorfour wrote:

I think the ABs haven't been able to go wide as often as they want against England because the English line speed is fast enough to put pressure on them close in. If they can think a way past that then they will cause trouble - but the try on Saturday (and really one of only two decent breaks) came as a result of two English errors in the middle and then breaking inside from the scrum to create a blindside overlap with Brown covering for Yarde. It was ruthlessly executed but typical only in that they got a try when they really needed one...

There was a fair bit of analysis here on that this week and although the English did get up quick they also left huge holes out wide that were exploited poorly by the AB's, poor kicks (such as Dagg being beaten to the line from the kick through), kicks when should have passed etc. Brown wasn't covering out wide either. This is something the AB's usually do well so expect that area to be exploited much more with the firmer and dryer covered ground this week.

Savea back will also make a big difference. Form wise hes in supreme form as long as his injury is fully healed.

The passes at the heads were out of character and again Dunedin will help with that.

After watching the match again there's still a lot to be said for the England effort and this week will be good one that's for sure.

Don't know about Cruden this week either. On one hand he kicked 5 from 5 penalties and sparked the winning try (something if done against the ABs would be cause for hero status) but he's now had 3 outings (2 partials with the Chiefs) and is still showing the rusty side of play.

Barrett perhaps at 10 with Savea back and Conrad around brings back the capital connection to an extent (I dont include TJP in that connection- he's been a pain if anything- still smarting around like a clown). No harm in resting Cruden- he's the incumbent, had his chance and hes just not ready.

It's not unfair to suggest that media and fans on both sides expected last week to be a much easier win for the All Blacks.

What do forum members think the average expectation is for this weekend? Perhaps there isn't any such thing. At one end, the All Blacks are expected to be slicker, benefiting from the return of Savea, and Dunedin's roof. New Zealand have often weathered a strong first Test only to dispatch the opposition wth ease the following week. I see many refer to that pattern but I can't tell whether this is a genuine expectation.

By and large, few on the English side expect to be blown away. We'd be mightily disappointed if it happened, and also surprised. We may have hoped we'd win last week, but expected to lose. We certainly don't expect to win the second Test but our hopes of doing so seem grounded in something a little more concrete (why does that conjure an image of David Wilson's handling?).

On club form, only a few of the Aviva finalists have impressed so it's not obvious to us on the outside that swapping them all in wholesale will improve the team. Then again, Lancaster got a good return from Parling and Burns, who were both seen as loyalty picks, so perhaps we'll see whether pulling on an England shirt does help other players.

ebop wrote:What's wrong with Peyper King, has he had some clangers for you guys? Can't recall what his style is like.

Uncommunicative liitle man issues.....

Basically I didn't think he was particularly empathetic and would therefore favour the SH style of play / application of laws in business as usual kind of way.

Rugby Fan wrote:We certainly don't expect to win the second Test but our hopes of doing so seem grounded in something a little more concrete (why does that conjure an image of David Wilson's handling?).

I know many comments are meant jokingly but I hope for big Davey's sake that his carrying from that test doesn't become most peoples overriding memory of his ability ball in hand. Both for England and Bath he's shown some sublime touches ball in hand for such a big man.

T2 is Bombers most important selection examination to date and in some ways provides a rehearsal for WC selections (large squad, week on week games etc.)

He rarely plays form over shirt/loyalty and this will create issues unless he is able to adapt his thinking e.g; OFarrell has had a difficult end of season and has shown a limited game in high pressure finals rugby.

He would not be my choice but I imagine 'a word in your ear Stewie' from Dad and his name will be on the team sheet.

As above in my selection I have taken Burrell to start with Tuilagi, you cannot do this with Farrell at 10 simpley because he lacks the creativity to realise their threat. Only Cipriani, especially given the way Sale play direct running short ball centrres, and Burns have the vision and skills to forfill the plan.

What, if anything, can Lancaster do to impress you king? The fact you keep up the rubbish about Farrell being chosen due to his dad is laughable. If Farrell is 100% fit he is easily the best fly half we have. There's a selection choice here in the fact he can choose his best side or give Burns or Cipriani some chance to gain more experience. Farrell has shown a great deal of creativity in both his club and international shirts but don't let what's actually happening get in the way.

kingelderfield wrote:

ebop wrote:What's wrong with Peyper King, has he had some clangers for you guys? Can't recall what his style is like.

Uncommunicative liitle man issues.....

Basically I didn't think he was particularly empathetic and would therefore favour the SH style of play / application of laws in business as usual kind of way.

My take is the opposite. I think he's as beneficial referee from south of the equator that England could hope for as far as style. They're likely get a tempo they like. I'm not sure they've had him as a ref since the world cup, where as New Zealand is more familiar with him. Here's my take on his refereeing of major nations since the cup.

2012
Australia v Scotland (June)
Fiji v Scotland (June)
Samoa v Scotland (June)
Argentina v new Zealand
Ireland v Argentina (November)

2013
Scotland v Italy
New Zealand v Australia
Argentina v New Zealand
France v New Zealand (November)
Scotland v Australia (November)

2014
France v Italy

So NZ more familiar. But plenty of controversy in some past games from a SH perspective.

King,

I think your being a bit harsh on Owen Farrell (dont forget he has beaten the AB's not many other FH's get to say that...certainly not a 21/22 year old).

I also think you need to open your eyes on Lancaster. He's doing a very good job.

Its officially Test 2 but after a good warm up game this is the real first test. England would not have played that team if they had had the choice. I expect the next England team to be 20% better and should have enough to win. Hopefully they won't be on the wrong end of some dodgy ref decisions either. Its swings and roundabouts so two bad refs in succession is unlikely.

Key players for England are Danny Care, Lawes, Burrell and 12Ts. Webber v Hartley is too close to call. With these returning and Launchbury having a better game will improve England's performance no end. Cna't wait for the NZ village green dance to finish and the game to begin.

englandglory4ever wrote:Its officially Test 2 but after a good warm up game this is the real first test. England  would not have played that team if they had had the choice. I expect the next England team to be 20% better and should have enough to win. Hopefully they won't be on the wrong end of some dodgy ref decisions either. Its swings and roundabouts so two bad refs in succession is unlikely.

Key players for England are Danny Care, Lawes, Burrell and 12Ts. Webber v Hartley is too close to call. With these returning and Launchbury having a better game will improve England's performance no end. Cna't wait for the NZ village green dance to finish and the game to begin.

I think everyone involved, including the England camp, has said that if they're 20% better they'll lose in the weekend. I'm sure Hansen will agree with you about the refereeing.

I'm a Kiwi and I don't like Peyper either. Was at the Stade de France last year and NZ got crucified at the offside line-wrongly-I could see them all on and with great line speed but they got hammered. Peyper's positioning was very wanting then and I haven't seen too much impressive stuff from him in other matches. Hope he turns it around for both sides sake.

blackcanelion wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Its officially Test 2 but after a good warm up game this is the real first test. England  would not have played that team if they had had the choice. I expect the next England team to be 20% better and should have enough to win. Hopefully they won't be on the wrong end of some dodgy ref decisions either. Its swings and roundabouts so two bad refs in succession is unlikely.

Key players for England are Danny Care, Lawes, Burrell and 12Ts. Webber v Hartley is too close to call. With these returning and Launchbury having a better game will improve England's performance no end. Cna't wait for the NZ village green dance to finish and the game to begin.

I think everyone involved, including the England camp, has said that if they're 20% better they'll lose in the weekend. I'm sure Hansen will agree with you about the refereeing.

Why? Are you saying the AB's will be 40-50% better?

Does that mean you also think it wasnt that Englands young pretenders really took the game to the AB's as they have in the last 3 games they've played...its the fact the AB's were poor?

He's saying there's a lot more than 20 per cent improvement from both sides.

The ABs were poor, by their own high standards, but England contributed significantly to forcing NZ into making mistakes.

It's very simple. Unless NZ shade the breakdown and find a way past England's fast, organised defence, NZ are ALWAYS going to find this England squad tough to play against.

Makes my morning every time I read that NZ play Test rugby in a vacuum and the result only depends on how well they play. Really brings it home to me how painful even the idea of not being the best must be for NZ fans.

kingelderfield wrote:T2 is Bombers most important selection examination to date and in some ways provides a rehearsal for WC selections (large squad, week on week games etc.)

He rarely plays form over shirt/loyalty and this will create issues unless he is able to adapt his thinking e.g; OFarrell has had a difficult end of season and has shown a limited game in high pressure finals rugby.

He would not be my choice but I imagine 'a word in your ear Stewie' from Dad and his name will be on the team sheet.

As above in my selection I have taken Burrell to start with Tuilagi, you cannot do this with Farrell at 10 simpley because he lacks the creativity to realise their threat. Only Cipriani, especially given the way Sale play direct running short ball centrres, and Burns have the vision and skills to forfill the plan.

I agree with kingelderfield sort of. Farrell Jr looks mentally and physically drained. He's not been fully fit for the last month or so (his foot has been crocked for that time) yet foolishly the coaches have continually picked him. Injured before the game vs Toulon, hobbled off vs Saints - not ideal preparation for a tour to NZ. For the player's welfare he shouldn't be playing.

Personally I would leave most of the 1st test team in but have some of the more experienced players on the bench. Morgan should certainly start. Billy is another player who looks physically drained. No point throwing in tired players for the sake of it.

Thats ok then....

You'll know more about the sarries lads beshocked.

If thats the case then i agree.

But this England management has its head screwed on and will make the right decisions i think.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Its officially Test 2 but after a good warm up game this is the real first test. England  would not have played that team if they had had the choice. I expect the next England team to be 20% better and should have enough to win. Hopefully they won't be on the wrong end of some dodgy ref decisions either. Its swings and roundabouts so two bad refs in succession is unlikely.

Key players for England are Danny Care, Lawes, Burrell and 12Ts. Webber v Hartley is too close to call. With these returning and Launchbury having a better game will improve England's performance no end. Cna't wait for the NZ village green dance to finish and the game to begin.

I think everyone involved, including the England camp, has said that if they're 20% better they'll lose in the weekend. I'm sure Hansen will agree with you about the refereeing.

Why? Are you saying the AB's will be 40-50% better?

Does that mean you also think it wasnt that Englands young pretenders really took the game to the AB's as they have in the last 3 games they've played...its the fact the AB's were poor?

Lancaster has said that he expects NZ to improve by more than 20%. Pretty sure he thought England would have to be 40-50% better to have a chance of winning. Ties in with Hansen as well.

I agree about Farrell and billy v. Would leave Farrell out completely from this test and give his ankle more time. Would put billy v on the bench. Morgan thoroughly deserves his starting spot, and giving billy v the chance to have a huge 20 mins when we really need it sounds good for England and him. NZ subs won the match for them. We need at least the same impact from ours if the match is close.

To be honest Quinsforever I wouldn't have either on the tour. If other players like Twelvetrees or Burrell aren't fully fit they shouldn't be there either. Players need time to fully recuperate.

It's not like the players in the 1st test disgraced themselves.

I totally agree beshocked. This is the last chance for proper rest before RWC2015. Anyone with even a hint of a niggle should have been allowed the summer off, especially after the scheduling snafu of club finals and first test.

It's up to the England set up to decide whether they are fit or not though. If they are they add a great deal to the team even with Morgan and Burns looking good in their absence.

blackcanelion, you expecting a stroll in the park on Saturday or will England be able to muster the 40% extra?

Plus it allows England to build their depth and try out players/combinations. E.g. Eastmond and Yarde. Try out Cipriani at 10. Give Burns an opportunity.

Nothing to gain from playing a crocked Billy (Twelvetrees or Vunipola) or Farrell.

My only arguements against huge changes is about the signal it sends out.

You want a stable settled 1st team. BUT you also want those outside the 1st team to know that if they put a quality performance in then they have a chance at the shirt. Thats called competition that keeps people on their toes.

For Example: Eastmond showed up very well, offered creativity at 12, and that his lack of size doesnt mean he s a liability at this level. Now we need to see him again to judge if that was a one off, or if he is the real deal.
To simply replace him with an not 100% fit Twelvetrees would be sending out the wrong signal.

There is no need to play players at less than 100% fitness, or whatever the normal leeway for fitness is but there is a question of what Lancaster wants from this tour. If it's to blood more depth it's the same squad; if it's to pick up wins players from the finals and those recovering from injury are going to be included.

Geordiefalcon I agree. Keep changes to a minimum would be what I would do.

quinsforever wrote:The ABs were poor, by their own high standards, but England contributed significantly to forcing NZ into making mistakes.

It's very simple. Unless NZ shade the breakdown and find a way past England's fast, organised defence, NZ are ALWAYS going to find this England squad tough to play against.

Makes my morning every time I read that NZ play Test rugby in a vacuum and the result only depends on how well they play. Really brings it home to me how painful even the idea of not being the best must be for NZ fans.

Haha Quins I reckon the first thing NZ must do to find that way past England's defence is to remember how to catch and pass

You've got a point about it being painful but I'm sure that's in the players too which motivates them to stay at the top. Must work to an extent otherwise they wouldn't have the record they have. Our opinions don't matter. I'm sure most of the other Kiwis on here are, like myself, enjoying the last ten years (save 2009) at the top of the tree and hoping that when we get displaced it'll be by a team playing some great rugby. SA and England stand out as the two most likely. We'll still get p*ssed off though

I think i would be looking to play something like:

1 Marler
2 Webber
3 Wilson
4 Launchbury
5 Lawes
6 Haskell / Wood ? Undecided
7 Robshaw
8 Morgan

9 Care
10 Burns

11 May
12 Eastmond
13 Tuilagi
14 Yarde
15 Brown

Bring in a couple of key players - Lawes (has become one of the best SR's in the world in my eyes)and Care for his direction and creativity...and decide on Wood or Haskell at 6 (Haskell played very well)

Maybe have a look at Ashton...possibly off the bench.

But give the rest another go.

and hoping that when we get displaced it'll be by a team playing some great rugby. SA and England stand out as the two most likely.

Thats something i didnt think id see...

Ha! DC pull ya head in mate

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's up to the England set up to decide whether they are fit or not though. If they are they add a great deal to the team even with Morgan and Burns looking good in their absence.

blackcanelion, you expecting a stroll in the park on Saturday or will England be able to muster the 40% extra?

I'm your classic fence sitter. Pretty ambivalent at the moment. Thought the 1st test would probably be close (but open to any idea). Probably the same gutless call for the second.

Really respect Lancaster. The same goes for a bunch of the English players. There's good depth, some real power and pace there as well. There's a good blend of experience with players all having been part of the English set up. I'm not sure if they are there yet. Mind you the world cups next year not this year. They are certainly streetwise and have the rugby worlds biggest propaganda machine behind them (the only real thing I find irritating). I wonder if Lancaster will give the others a go and then select his best side in the final test (tempting but I think not). I think they'll go well.

Not sure what to make of NZ. We are slow starters (I looked at the last 8 years 1st tests on scrum.com, three quarters of the match reports said NZ looked rusty and struggled). We also have depth, age and injury issues. The ex players and current team have all run down the display so I think they'll improve. England will as well. There's the nub of it. I think it will come down to who controls the pace of the game. If NZ can move the England pack around the field for multiphase possession and put in a good kick chase game then I think it will be NZ, possibly comfortably. If England can control the fringes, put pressure on the set piece and get Tuilagi and whoever starts at 8 hitting the midfield then it could be a long day for the AB's. Same goes if either McCaw or C Smith are injured.

There we go, flip flopping everywhere.

Flip flopping uncertainty is where I think a lot of us are at until T2 has run it's course. Yup, we're liking Lancaster and it's funny to say that, but it is so. It's the head down attitude. Can't even think of any memorable sound bites from the man. Just going about things. Match that with endeavor on the field from his players and you got a stealth attitude that we relate with.

It's good we have a testing series for a 4n where SA and Australia are looking in good nick. Frankly playing that badly deserved a loss. But at least NZ exerted their own pressure and kept out England. England are proving effective at being disruptive and accumulating points which is a useful combination but so far both sides have yet to fire properly and each side is keen to click. I'm not sure whether reinforcements are a blessing or a curse for England. Much depends on how they're used.