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)

Remembering the doubts about SL's appointment way back when it is brilliant to see how his approach has won over so many both here and abroad. Yet the little nagging fears endure, as if we can't quite allow ourselves to believe when we know we should.

disneychilly wrote:

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

Agree, if we'd held on to about 5 or 6 passes that would normally had been taken, the gaps would have been there. The defence was only up to a point. Out wide it was poor and if passes stick and Savea provides mork bang in the backline the tries will come.

When considering Aaron Smith, Cruden, Conrad Smith, Ben Smith, Dagg and Cory jane that must have been one of the smallest and lightest international backlines fielded in years. And England still couldnt score through it.

Not sure if many will have seen this, but it's quite an interesting read (as are most of the rugby articles on the NZ Herald website). It's quite refreshing to see from a NZ perspective what they think of England as a team.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/gregor-paul/news/article.cfm?a_id=196&objectid=11270093

Quite scathing- especially of our large pack 'with all their wobbly bits', but Wynne Gray has come to our defence today in another good article:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11270732

I really don't like the term 'aerobic rugby'

Eddie

If i was Lancaster, id have a print out of that at every players station in the changing room just ready for when they walk into them. No need for a motivation speech after that.

Kiwi cocktail: one part jet lag, add 2 parts sour grape juice, stir for a bit, cool.

(c) NZ Herald, June 2014.

sickofwendy wrote:I really don't like the term 'aerobic rugby'

Neither do England.

I thought Morgan for his obvious size and shape was getting around a bit more than we are used to for that 'profile'. Perhaps the more frequent water stops along the route are helping. Its certainly an area the ABs will be looking to address.

But a little ironic that the tap kick caught them having one nap too many at a critical time. I'd expect more of the same this weekend.

This is one test that just cannot be missed.

I actually think Lancaster has England playing at a higher tempo than previous England sides - I don't think you can accuse him of seeking to be negative. The comments about the England conditioning also seem odd to me. It seems that the comment was really aimed at Morgan - but he had an excellent game in my view, and England seeking to dictate the pace of the game is hardly news. Every side tries to dictate the pace of the game, and I see England's tactics in ensuring the set piece happened on their own terms as no less cynical than the ABs trying to kill the ball at the ruck, or Nonu's Wendyball shirt pulling antics.

From an ABs perspective they just looked like a side playing their first match of the season. A little off the pace in the first half and some rusty errors throughout. They still won the match, which as McCaw rightly points out is the key thing. Yes, the gap between NH (England and Ireland in particular) and SH has narrowed slightly, but not the results. Until sides from the NH start actually winning matches in the SH, I don't think we should get too excited about the progress being made.

Gregor Paul was a bit condescending but amongst all the guff he had a point. Come on poms, sprint to the scrums would ya!

We would but your players keep obstructing us!

Oh and by the way....we're not the POHMS...  

if NZ had been so keen on multiple-phase play, and challenging England aerobically, how does that gel with them losing the battle at the breakdown statistically, and kicking 30% more than England? what part of constantly kicking the ball away is multiple-phase play?

i hadnt seen a team have a mini gathering before lineouts before, but i'll say one thing. that game had the cleanest lineouts and least scrum resets of any international game i have seen in a very long time.

given the large number of knock-ons and kicks that went into touch, the set-pieces, in contrast to the whingeing piece by gregor paul, were very quick and clean and allowed ball to be presented and moved fast.

Interesting reads... including the comments... For all those that think its the English who have a monopoly on myopic arrogance.   It would seem, the ref saved England from a bigger beating. Interesting to see that while England get audits in the NH for a more expansive game, it's still seen as shove it up your jumper in the SH.

Have to admit I didn't really notice the deliberate slowing down of set pieces, I was too absorbed in the contest, but a slap on the wrists if its true.

Be interesting Saturday, think we all expect both teams to improve, our set piece may be slow, but our phase play will be quicker with care at 9.

Quite funny that piece given our pack has been picked to get about rather than settle for an arm wrestle. Is Gregor Paul the Stephen Jones of the NZ rugby journalists?

Guys, we know when the wool is being pulled over our eyes like in the Gregor Paul article. Don't worry about that. Wynne Gray is an honest read.

quinsforever wrote:if NZ had been so keen on multiple-phase play, and challenging England aerobically, how does that gel with them losing the battle at the breakdown statistically, and kicking 30% more than England? what part of constantly kicking the ball away is multiple-phase play?

i hadnt seen a team have a mini gathering before lineouts before, but i'll say one thing. that game had the cleanest lineouts and least scrum resets of any international game i have seen in a very long time.

given the large number of knock-ons and kicks that went into touch, the set-pieces, in contrast to the whingeing piece by gregor paul, were very quick and clean and allowed ball to be presented and moved fast.

Interesting points quins...in terms of the breakdown, I think we'll see NZ go hammer and tongs this week to speed up the game.  The first 10-15 mins of the twickers game saw this happen, but NZ allowed England to get back into the game and slow the pace down a bit and they made an excellent comeback as a result.  NZ are used to physicality playing SA, so they can go up the gears here.  They needed a rocket and the first test was this.

In terms of kicking more than other sides, NZ are very effective at regaining possession from the kick and that's where they can up the pace - they don't kick for the sake of it, Aaron Smith has effectively taken over from where Fourie du Preez was in 2009 in terms of accuracy.  If they regain the kick, the defence is fractured and NZ have more space to run into and this, along with poorly kicked ball to them, is where they can up the pace and build multiple phases.  Of course, they can also build multiple phases from set piece too and turnovers.  You only need to see how clinical they were against Ireland when they got the ball 20 secs before fulltime and finished up scoring nearly 3 mins into extra time.

quinsforever wrote:if NZ had been so keen on multiple-phase play, and challenging England aerobically, how does that gel with them losing the battle at the breakdown statistically, and kicking 30% more than England? what part of constantly kicking the ball away is multiple-phase play?

i hadnt seen a team have a mini gathering before lineouts before, but i'll say one thing. that game had the cleanest lineouts and least scrum resets of any international game i have seen in a very long time.

given the large number of knock-ons and kicks that went into touch, the set-pieces, in contrast to the whingeing piece by gregor paul, were very quick and clean and allowed ball to be presented and moved fast.

Spot on!

funny thing about this test was we were on the wrong end of all the stats- possession, territory, 21-13 missed tackles, half the offloads etc etc- practically every stat imaginable...on top of that we were dropping passes, kicking more and aimlessly...and practically everyone was considered hopeless, not on par with their opposites collectively or individually...generally hopeless..all round...

so how on earth did we win this game? the ref? the players who actually took the field and caused such a gulf in the stats are actually not the best side that could have fielded?

I mean how much worse did the ABs have to actually be to lose that game...is there anything else we can do to make it easier perhaps?

Wow Taylorman, graciousness in victory eh?

Thats why the Kiwis have a bad name as fans....so you only just won the game because you were that horribly bad. Unreal!

What i like is that England are just quietly getting on with it...getting ready for this weekend with no fuss. And they'll prove it again that it was not the AB's playing badly.

Imagine if England win.....wow the excuses would be flooding out then wouldnt they....

GeordieFalcon wrote:Eddie

If i was Lancaster, id have a print out of that at every players station in the changing room just ready for when they walk into them. No need for a motivation speech after that.

Me too!

In a perverse way I think it would do the ABs as much good to lose this weekend as it would do England good. Winning when playing badly is often cited as a sign of a good team but the ABs would do well to be reminded that winning is not a right. For us a win would be an enormous confidence booster as the sqad continues to expand and improve.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Wow Taylorman, graciousness in victory eh?

Thats why the Kiwis have a bad name as fans....so you only just won the game because you were that horribly bad. Unreal!

What i like is that England are just quietly getting on with it...getting ready for this weekend with no fuss. And they'll prove it again that it was not the AB's playing badly.

Imagine if England win.....wow the excuses would be flooding out then wouldnt they....

No...England made us so horribly bad, in all facets of the game, but still couldnt get there...and prove what again? that they can completely dominate all facets of the game and still not get there? nothing was proven...think you're missing the point. It suggests that to win you have to do more than dominate every facet of the game...question is what will that be? At least that's what I'd be asking. Thing is, its not likely the stats will be that decisive this week...but yes they could win I agree.

sickofwendy wrote:I really don't like the term 'aerobic rugby'

I don't either. I think England's pack now is really mobile, and gets around the park.

I think Gregor Paul misunderstood the difference between blowing out of our a***s, and discussing tactics for a precise and effective set piece move.

NZ are the best team in the world for a reason, and it's actually a compliment to the ABs that England were dedicating so much on-field time to discuss their plans.

As for saying England are unfit for playing a different sort of game to the ABs, that's all a bit self-righteous and sanctimonious isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I love the All Blacks- I think the way they play the game, and the aura of mystique around the jersey is just brilliant. I just think this article is a case of sour-grapes.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Wow Taylorman, graciousness in victory eh?

Thats why the Kiwis have a bad name as fans....so you only just won the game because you were that horribly bad. Unreal!

What i like is that England are just quietly getting on with it...getting ready for this weekend with no fuss. And they'll prove it again that it was not the AB's playing badly.

Imagine if England win.....wow the excuses would be flooding out then wouldnt they....

It's only because they're worried GF. A shocking amount of attitude from some of the NZ public and press. I emphasize SOME there.

Do you think that if Joe Launchbury or Geoff Parling were unable to name a single NZ player they were facing, it would be termed anything other than typical English arrogance?

I have to say, in contrast to the South Africa tour, a lot of very poor attitudes have been exposed on this tour. Again I refrain from generalising too much here!

Taylorman wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Wow Taylorman, graciousness in victory eh?

Thats why the Kiwis have a bad name as fans....so you only just won the game because you were that horribly bad. Unreal!

What i like is that England are just quietly getting on with it...getting ready for this weekend with no fuss. And they'll prove it again that it was not the AB's playing badly.

Imagine if England win.....wow the excuses would be flooding out then wouldnt they....

No...England made us so horribly bad, in all facets of the game, but still couldnt get there...and prove what again? that they can completely dominate all facets of the game and still not get there? nothing was proven...think you're missing the point. It suggests that to win you have to do more than dominate every facet of the game...question is what will that be? At least that's what I'd be asking. Thing is, its not likely the stats will be that decisive this week...but yes they could win I agree.

Well there were chances for England where they messed up handing they wouldn't have normally so plenty to come. It wasn't as if NZ were comfortable throughout, plenty of scrambling about going on. I never thought we had a great chance last weekend because of our bench weakening us in the last 20. Think our bench will be much stronger so we should be able to finish stronger as well.

The whole "aerobic rugby" thing bemuses me. For starters, England have been doing something similar for a long time - Woodward used to make them play 90-100 minute games 13 vs 15 and occasionally 11 vs 15. NZ - and particularly McCaw - have been better at it recently, but it's not exactly exclusive to them.

Secondly, the England pack is not exactly short of 80 minute players. OK, Billy V and Morgan only have 60 minutes in them, but theirs is an impact role. Likewise, we generally have an impact lock on the bench, and it's rare these days for a TH to last 80 (though Sinckler looks to have that kind of engine). Marler and Webber went well over 70 minutes on Saturday (and lasted rather better than NZ's front row). And then in Launchbury, Wood and Robshaw we have four of the best engines in world rugby (counting both Robshaws, obviously); look at the work the three of them get through, game after game after game.

It's almost hilariously one-eyed to claim that England are massively behind the ABs in this respect. A bit, perhaps, because it's a less experienced team and they aren't as good at conserving energy when they can, but by no means a mismatch.

Your right Chjw

Taylorman
Finishing a game is an area where we really do have a bit of work to do. BUt its another part of the process. We'll work on it and will become much more efficient and clinical. Players like Eastmond were in their first test, and they will be all the better for this test...and the next two. We were also missing critical players like Danny Care..and Farrell.

When we click with that, i think we'll be a pretty difficult team to play.

What annoyed me about your post was this comment.

I mean how much worse did the ABs have to actually be to lose that game...is there anything else we can do to make it easier perhaps?.

Thats sheer arrogance, which has been displayed by a number of your countrymen...and one which i hope comes back to haunt you all.

on a technical note, question for the laws experts...

i noticed mike brown struggled to get to a few of the kicks which were hoisted high, as there were AB players standing their ground (not offside, they had chased the kick from onside positions) underneath the ball, making it very difficult to take a clean catch as he couldnt leap over people (not being superman and all). I noticed this also happened a couple of times for Dagg.

i dont think there's anything wrong with this technically. but is this likely to be a more frequent tactic for all teams now? they obviously dont want to take the tackler out in the air, but standing where the ball is coming down is likely to lead to defensive knock-ons or simply missed catches.

i guess its all about getting the distance right on the up and under. i also think england have gotten used to mike brown reigning supreme gathering catches so everyone just stood back and left him to it and the ABs outnumbers him 3 or 4 to 1 on several occasions. hope that the England team have a look at that.

Poorfour wrote:The whole "aerobic rugby" thing bemuses me. For starters, England have been doing something similar for a long time - Woodward used to make them play 90-100 minute games 13  vs 15 and occasionally 11 vs 15. NZ - and particularly McCaw -  have been better at it recently, but it's not exactly exclusive to them.

Secondly, the England pack is not exactly short of 80 minute players. OK, Billy V and Morgan only have 60 minutes in them, but theirs is an impact role. Likewise, we generally have an impact lock on the bench, and it's rare these days for a TH to last 80 (though Sinckler looks to have that kind of engine). Marler and Webber went well over 70 minutes on Saturday (and lasted rather better than NZ's front row). And then in Launchbury, Wood and Robshaw we have four of the best engines in world rugby (counting both Robshaws, obviously); look at the work the three of them get through, game after game after game.

It's almost hilariously one-eyed to claim that England are massively behind the ABs in this respect. A bit, perhaps, because it's a less experienced team and they aren't as good at conserving energy when they can, but by no means a mismatch.

Pretty sure Marler was on for the full 80. Didn't see the game but a match report had Mullen not used.

Good point made in the paper today, over the past year England have repeatedly failed to score in the last 20 mins of games or, when they have, they have still been outscored significantly in that period. Wales, Ireland and Scotland in the 6Ns, NZ and Aus in the Autumn internationals. Coming back into games and then conceding the lead late on (NZ in Autumn, France in 6N).

While we don't look to have a fitness issue, the stats would suggest we are nowhere near as effective in the last quarter of a game as we are earlier on.

GeordieFalcon wrote: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 Yarde
12 Eastmond
13 Tuilagi
14 Ashton
15 Brown

That's exactly the team i'd go for Geordie (only change is on the wings). I see no reason for enforced changes, or to play players who've obviously been run off their feet over the course of the season. Farrell and Vunipola should both be rested and then looked at for T3 if they're fit for it. Otherwise there's always the AI's which are far more important psychologicaly.

Also that team then means we have experienced returning players on the bench, which'll make a huge difference.

The only other change I'd potentially make is Cipriani to start. Bold I know but let's say Faz is crocked, he's then our second choice 10 until Ford is fit, and don't forget he's got 5 years of experience on Ford. He needs more game time, his past form is the best of any English 10 we currently have and it'd be amazing to get some of that back.

I reckon TM's cheesed off at the number of unforced errors NZ made-which were more conspicuous than England's unforced errors.

Gregor Paul's a Scot by the way.

Geordie your team's already difficult to play. Always has been. They can play whichever bloody way they want. Which at the moment is not only bloody good, but bloody good to watch. Of course I'm worried about England. I'm actually worried about SA more. But as another poster wrote we're used to SA's physicality and rush defence so we should know how best to counteract it.

This is where my beloved Hurricanes actually become quite important in the AB scheme of things. With a crap pack the sheer brilliance of the backs that drag them over the line on so many occasions comes about because they just don't get the chances other teams do-and have to be more clinical. So with a pack of world class players they get more chances. It only takes 20 seconds to score a try. One of Ben Smith's tries last year showed that-NZ defending for three minutes then scoring the first chance they got (in the same passage of play).

Side point-I'm in the Netherlands this weekend to see Pearl Jam-so just to preempt any notions of sour grapes I won't be on here regardless of the result. I was in midair the last game NZ lost too so I think I'm timing this well if we go down...

Taylorman wrote:funny thing about this test was we were on the wrong end of all the stats- possession, territory, 21-13 missed tackles, half the offloads etc etc- practically every stat imaginable...on top of that we were dropping passes, kicking more and aimlessly...and practically everyone was considered hopeless, not on par with their opposites collectively or individually...generally hopeless..all round...

so how on earth did we win this game? the ref? the players who actually took the field and caused such a gulf in the stats are actually not the best side that could have fielded?

I mean how much worse did the ABs have to actually be to lose that game...is there anything else we can do to make it easier perhaps?

Playing against 14 men perhaps?? As that's the only time you managed to score a try, indeed the only time you really came close as well. Unfortunately England had to play against 15 for the full 80 rightly or wrongly...

I'd say Kaino's butterfingers were rather close to the tryline Yappy...

Ahem, you mean Smith's non-try cause he was taken out by a Vinnie Jones impersonator.

Good point made in the paper today, over the past year England have repeatedly failed to score in the last 20 mins of games

I think thats more down to being clinical, efficient and skills than any fitness issues.

Geordie your team's already difficult to play. Always has been. They can play whichever bloody way they want. Which at the moment is not only bloody good, but bloody good to watch.

Disney, we're playing an interesting style of rugby thats effective....and we're imprioving all the time. Taylorman has correctly identified however that dominating possession stats and such is utterly meaningless if you cant get that ball across the tryline...and close games out. That is a glaring weakness of ours at the minute...and one that Lancaster and his chums must sort out pretty quickly.

Side point-I'm in the Netherlands this weekend to see Pearl Jam

So jealous...one of my personal favorite bands, one of the great bands of the world...and yet still very underrated by the music loving public. Mike McCready blasting out yellow leadbetter....doesnt get much better....
Have a great time!

jelly wrote:Good point made in the paper today, over the past year England have repeatedly failed to score in the last 20 mins of games or, when they have, they have still been outscored significantly in that period. Wales, Ireland and Scotland in the 6Ns, NZ and Aus in the Autumn internationals. Coming back into games and then conceding the lead late on (NZ in Autumn, France in 6N).

While we don't look to have a fitness issue, the stats would suggest we are nowhere near as effective in the last quarter of a game as we are earlier on.

It's down to our lack of leadership depth. Robshaw may have a big engine but he can't possibly be as effective in driving the direction of games in the last quarter. He's knackered by then, and focusing on maintaining his own standard of play. The same applies to Wood. Lancaster tended to substitute Hartley so he was off at that point, Danny Care too.

Either Robshaw needs more players around him who can be self-sufficient at the death, or we need replacements who can put a steady hand on the tiller late in the game.

With that in mind, there's a case for starting Hartley on the bench just for this match.

Realistically, though, all our players have just got to get smarter when it comes to playing the final stages.

Belarus , PJ in electric puha land. Como vives tío! What next week hanging with the orangutans in Borneo?   

The lack of scoring in the last quarter is for me not down to fitness but substitutes. The one area SL struggles in is when to bring on his bench and who indeed is on that bench. Other than England France two years ago, his changes have often stilted the team rather than add to it. Players like Morgan and Vunipola up front have added impact but overall the changes made didn't add to the performance. I sometimes feels he makes changes for the sake of making them rather than entertaining the idea that not all subs have to come in around the 60 minute mark. Like Care this season against France. Pull off your best attacking player because he's tiring. So's your captain but he's still out there. A fresh player does not always mean a more effective player.

Some of it has been that he hasn't had the bench options available, particularly in the backs, to make positive impacts. We're seeing more competition now and quality.

Totally understand with the being clinical-teams just HAVE to get better at this otherwise they lose games they shouldn't-hence my bringing up the Canes. England are building towards something special but so were NZ in 2006. I must admit all this talk about putting down markers for next year makes me chuckle. Because sometimes the proverbial just hits the fan and all that planning can just seem to amount to sod all. Last weekend gave you a great practice scenario and England did bloody well.

Rugby Fan if what you say about Robshaw is true then it IS a fitness issue-McCaw does it time and time again in the same position. Plus he's done it with a broken foot on the biggest stage of all. Robshaw needs to be as effective in the 80th minute as in the first.

Kia I'll say hi to Coromandel Sam for ya Nothing after Belarus mate-the missus' birthday is coming up

Pearl Jam eh?

Good Call.

disneychilly wrote:I reckon TM's cheesed off at the number of unforced errors NZ made-which were more conspicuous than England's unforced errors.

Gregor Paul's a Scot by the way.

Geordie your team's already difficult to play. Always has been. They can play whichever bloody way they want. Which at the moment is not only bloody good, but bloody good to watch. Of course I'm worried about England. I'm actually worried about SA more. But as another poster wrote we're used to SA's physicality and rush defence so we should know how best to counteract it.

This is where my beloved Hurricanes actually become quite important in the AB scheme of things. With a crap pack the sheer brilliance of the backs that drag them over the line on so many occasions comes about because they just don't get the chances other teams do-and have to be more clinical. So with a pack of world class players they get more chances. It only takes 20 seconds to score a try. One of Ben Smith's tries last year showed that-NZ defending for three minutes then scoring the first chance they got (in the same passage of play).

Side point-I'm in the Netherlands this weekend to see Pearl Jam-so just to preempt any notions of sour grapes I won't be on here regardless of the result. I was in midair the last game NZ lost too so I think I'm timing this well if we go down...

Ah enjoy! Let me know how it is. I'm seeing them in Milton Keynes in July and can't wait.

That fact illustrates perfectly you can't have everything in life bluestone.   

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:That fact illustrates perfectly you can't have everything in life bluestone.   

I don't follow Kia! Sorry, it's a bit late in the day. I'm drunk on sun.

Drunk on sun. Hmmm. I'm gazing out the window at the p!ssing rain in Dublin thinking in that case I could drive you home. Will try to look out for it in the Netherlands-if I remember what it looks like. Bluestone since Vedder is in your name I'd imagine you'd be seeing them

Won't make a difference in Belarus since I'll be looking at those sexy Soviet biatches...

Bluestone since Vedder is in your name I'd imagine you'd be seeing them

Wondering also if Crockett is worth the risk starting if Woodcock's misfiring. It's risky since refs either love him or hate him and he could get pinged off the park but he could put some acid on England that wasn't really there on Sat.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:The lack of scoring in the last quarter is for me not down to fitness but substitutes. The one area SL struggles in is when to bring on his bench and who indeed is on that bench. Other than England France two years ago, his changes have often stilted the team rather than add to it. Players like Morgan and Vunipola up front have added impact but overall the changes made didn't add to the performance. I sometimes feels he makes changes for the sake of making them rather than entertaining the idea that not all subs have to come in around the 60 minute mark. Like Care this season against France. Pull off your best attacking player because he's tiring. So's your captain but he's still out there. A fresh player does not always mean a more effective player.

I agree, but I don't put all the blame on SL's shoulders. Look at the subs England could call on in 2003 - Dorian West, Jason Leonard, Martin Corry, Lewis Moody, Kyran Bracken, Mike Catt, Iain Balshaw. Moody and Balshaw were a bit raw, but when you can bring on Leonard, Bracken, Corry and Catt you have enough experience that you're not going to lose control of the game. Leonard alone could have won that game in regulation time if Woodward had realised that Watson had no clue about the scrum.

Lancaster's starting XVs tend to give away a huge amount in experience to his opponents, his benches even more so (especially now that the likes of Flood have made themselves unavailable). Add to that that the bench, despite the number of caps, will generally have far less actual game time than the starters. Compare that with Saturday: Gray (first cap), Mullan, Thomas, Attwood, Johnson, Dickson (jetlagged), Cipriani (first cap under Lancaster), Pennell (first cap). In the 6N the benches were similarly inexperienced.

There's nothing much that can be done about it; it's a problem inherited from Johnson and his over-reliance on stalwarts in 2011, and it was exacerbated by having the likes of Croft out for long periods and some international retirements. Lancaster is fixing it by bringing through a much younger generation of players but it probably won't be until after RWC that we have a critical mass of players who really know and trust each other at international level, regardless of combinations. We may actually have been the strongest team in the world from 20-60 minutes in the last year - but we've taken too long to settle in the first 20, and lost our shape in the last 20.

It's telling that the crucial scores or errors in our losses in the last year have tended to come when we've had players out of position (or in Youngs's case, in the unfamiliar position of being a sub) - a man down on Saturday, so Brown was covering the openside and there was man over on the blindside; Youngs's wobbly throws in the AI and in Paris; a backline where almost everyone was out of position for the crucial score in Paris.

[quote="bluestonevedder"]

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:That fact illustrates perfectly you can't have everything in life bluestone.   

I don't follow Kia! Sorry, it's a bit late in the day. I'm drunk on sun. [/quote

Tell me about it. Well over 30 here.

Just joking with you. pearl jam good. Have to go to Milton Keynes to see them... Can't have everything.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:That fact illustrates perfectly you can't have everything in life bluestone.   

I don't follow Kia! Sorry, it's a bit late in the day. I'm drunk on sun. [/quote

Tell me about it. Well over 30 here.

Just joking with you. pearl jam good. Have to go to Milton Keynes to see them... Can't have everything.

30?? God, you must be so sun-drunk.

Yeh, Milton Keynes isn't the most luxurious of locations. I'm even camping there. I didn't know there were fields in Milton Keynes.

Poorfour. To be fair, youngs is just as capable of wobbly throws as a starter. Shame, big fan of his otherwise, but he's been a liability. Good to see webber get his chance.

Agree with the general thrust that subs haven't been Lancaster's forte to date. He might have had limited options but it looks like they're all scheduled, based on known fatigue levels of players, and don't always take into account the state of the game and the flow of the team. Youngs is a case in point, great in principle to bring on an energetic fresh set of legs... But if the opposition know they can kick to touch and get the ball back, those fresh legs are just ball chasing.

milkyboy wrote:Poorfour. To be fair, youngs is just as capable of wobbly throws as a starter. Shame, big fan of his otherwise, but he's been a liability. Good to see webber get his chance.

Agree with the general thrust that subs haven't been Lancaster's forte to date. He might have had limited options but it looks like they're all scheduled, based on known fatigue levels of players, and don't always take into account the state of the game and the flow of the team.  Youngs is a case in point, great in principle to bring on an energetic fresh set of legs... But if the opposition know they can kick to touch and get the ball back, those fresh legs are just ball chasing.

My point was more that the squad as a whole is inexperienced and the subs, perforce, even less so than the core players. So in comparison to a more mature squad, Lancaster is always going to have difficulty getting a fluid performance once the subs go on. He has made mistakes - e.g. taking Care off in Paris - but there's also a fundamental experience issue that no-one could solve overnight.