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)

GeordieFalcon wrote: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.

Well it came from not seeing the stats till a couple of days after the game. And 14 men over 10 minutes does account for the domination of stats in almost every area over 80 as yappy is suggesting. England were caught napping, not short.

Not saying England wont win this week but my point was they'll not win based on domination of the stats alone. They'll need something else. The returning players may provide a better bench but the risk is it may not provide them with a better side than last week, the returning players walking straight into the test arena to face an AB side with so much improvement to make based on those stats, let alone catching the ball.

Reliance on the returning players performing at higher levels than last weeks team first up is the biggest risk facing either side. Familiarity with recent test rigour could prove more important, the returnees not knowing what has hit them.

The other point with the stats is if the ABs had the dominance in all those areas- line breaks, offloads, opposition missed tackles etc that England had, it would have been a whitewash- that is perhaps the real difference between the two sides- the ability to make the gains mean something on the scoreboard, the one stat that matters most.

Hard to say how effective those fatigue level subs are in keeping key players at 100% for subsequent games (or even longer) though. Will be interesting to see the subbing strategy in the final game of the tour, when that won't be a major concern. Will the likes of Care stay on for 80 then?

The one thing I hope the English wont be saying after this weekend is 'Geez we should have stuck with the same team as last week'...yet I feel thats one of the most likeliest outcomes.

Taylorman wrote:The one thing I hope the English wont be saying after this weekend is 'Geez we should have stuck with the same team as last week'...yet I feel thats one of the most likeliest outcomes.

Not convinced. The returnees will have more experience playing together, and all are coming off the back of some massive club games that were probably approaching test match intensity. Whilst the stand-ins might have exceeded many people's expectations, I still think Saturday was England's poorest performance for a while - probably since the first half of their 6N opener against France. We dropped a ton of balls (Wilson and Brown managed 3 each?), rarely built a head of steam up front, and were very hesitant in scoring areas. We also badly missed Care. That's a lot of things that could be improving this week. And the ABs will be another week older...

From a NZ point of view, I think the next test is huge. There must be some doubts creeping in after a series of tough experiences against England, and if they can't prove those doubts wrong now on home soil then there have to be serious concerns about their ability to do so at Twickenham in 2015.

Poorfour wrote:

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.

your point was pretty clear and I think it's a valid one.

 I do think the rugby world is a bit infatuated with impact subs. Packing the bench with 'game changers'. Great if you need to chase a game but not so great if you need to close it out. I wince when care and Hartley get taken off.

I'd prefer my replacement hooker to be a rock solid line out thrower, my replacement prop to only come on if the scrum is actually struggling, and for him to be a scrummager not a ball player. But I guess I'm a bit old fashioned. There's a limited number of replacements and a lot of scenarios to cover. I'd like to see Lancaster play the game not the training stats a bit more. But hey, this is a minor criticism, the guy is doing a great job.

Interesting point about fatiguing them for future games and risking injury... Moreso I 'd say on tour with back to back tests than in say the 6N

Having watched the match several times and enjoyed it thoroughly the media hype never
impressed me[before or after].
England incoming players from what have read several are carrying injuries and some have
not been in form at club level.
Most who played on Saturday deserve another start one thing about the last two games
between these sides.As Lancaster himself said you don`t beat the AB`s by playing 65mins.
It was/ is assumed that NZ would win easily last sat.from past experience this one is the
one to win.
Also it is assumed that had first choice England team started on the performances they
would have won.
THAT was a real test match with both sides giving there all hope the rest are the same.
As an AB supporter would like better cover at Lock and SH experience not rookies
if the wheels come off.Donnelly and Ellis ,plus Ben Franks would be my choice rather
than trying a rookie.
Interesting A.Smith being subbed for a rookie 9 at a vital point in the game with C.Smith
he was the stand out AB.

Here is (from memory) the list of scores and assists from the 6N. All place kicks (not listed) were Farrell.

vs France:
Tries: Burrell, Brown
Assists: B Vunipola X 2
Drop: Care

vs Scotland
Tries: Burrell, Brown
Assists: Care, Nowell
Drop: Care

vs Ireland
Try: Care
Assist: Brown

vs. Wales
Tries: Care, Burrell
Assist: Twelvetrees

vs Italy
Tries: Brown x2, Farrell, Nowell, M Vunipola, M Tuilagi, Robshaw
Assists: Burrell, Care, Farrell x2, Brown, Twelvetrees, Ford

Brown aside, all of our gamebreakers / finishers from the 6N were at home / in the stands on Saturday. Getting some of those guys back might, I suspect, make more difference than some people are expecting it to. Brown too - he's been injured, and was not at his best.

Obviously I'm not being very balanced here, but I fancy that the rest of you are underrating England for the second week in a row

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.

I'm surprised you think that. As an England supporter after the game I felt we made more and at bigger moments. Off the top of my head Brown, Eastmond and Youngs were probably the three biggest ones, then there were the incidents with Wilson, Launchbury, May and Marler, plus the two debated knock-ons. The stats certainly show we conceded more turnovers, 18 to your 12, the large bulk of which were in open play.

Taylorman,

You keep saying that if the AB's had the dominance of all those stats then it would be a whitewash etc etc.

The other way to look at it however is (whilst I don't have the actual stats) id suggest in the last three games now England have had the advantage in the majority of these areas...bar the actual clinical finishing....

Its like whilst they respect the AB's....they really don't care about the famous AB aura...

Is it possible that when we finally click in that area of our game, which we showed glimpses of in the 6n....it could in fact be the AB's on the receiving end of a couple of hammerings?

last 3 matches, england have outscored NZ  by 75 to 71 points in aggregate.

as you say Geordie, when we are as clinical against NZ as we have recently been against other opposition, well, who knows what could happen!

I actually can't wait for Saturday. I think England will win this one with something to spare. They only need to play with the precision they had against Wales and it'll be in the bag.

Wi11 wrote:Here is (from memory) the list of scores and assists from the 6N. All place kicks (not listed) were Farrell.

vs France:
Tries: Burrell, Brown
Assists: B Vunipola X 2
Drop: Care

vs Scotland
Tries: Burrell, Brown
Assists: Care, Nowell
Drop: Care

vs Ireland
Try: Care
Assist: Brown

vs. Wales
Tries: Care, Burrell
Assist: Twelvetrees

vs Italy
Tries: Brown x2, Farrell, Nowell, M Vunipola, M Tuilagi, Robshaw
Assists: Burrell, Care, Farrell x2, Brown, Twelvetrees, Ford

Brown aside, all of our gamebreakers / finishers from the 6N were at home / in the stands on Saturday. Getting some of those guys back might, I suspect, make more difference than some people are expecting it to. Brown too - he's been injured, and was not at his best.

Obviously I'm not being very balanced here, but I fancy that the rest of you are underrating England for the second week in a row

Don't you think these stats are pointless. The English backline had the same starting lineup for every match in the 6 Nations. Given that the backs scored and set up most of the tries you'd expect the stats above. I'm not debating whether England's going to have more strike power in the second test. Just pointing out this isn't really useful evidence.

Good to see the confidence of the England supporters. Its good to believe in your team. Hope you're not setting us up for a fall.

I always felt we'd be competitive in this series, because I think we're good enough to compete against anyone. But we're not the finished article yet, as the 6N showed, and our kiwi friends are right to point out that only 1 stat matters. Typically they do more with the possession they have and take their chances, so all things being equal, we'll have to dominate the stats  to have a chance of winning.

Both sides will be better this week. The fact that England have more better players to come back doesn't translate to likely victory, just to a likely very competitive game again.

A lively debate occurring here so heres a few thoughts,throwing stats about proves
little.So over 3 games England have been more clinical in there finishing ?outscored
7 tries to 4.Lost two of the last three between them,one versus a team getting over
a nurovirus attack.[who matched them try for try].
In the Professional era NZ with the exceptions of 1998 and 2009 average losing 2
matches a year.
They are the ONLY RWC side to have gone almost undefeated for 3years post RWC
[1987 and 2011]and have lost only one match since 2011.
England on the other hand have a54 % record since SL has taken over and hasn't
many SH scalps on his belt.
It may well be the AB`s have peaked,that England will win there remaining 3
games versus them.
That they will lose badly in the 4Ns,and will not retain the RWC.
BUT do you really think this years results will effect them NEXT YEAR
if history teachs anything a losing year is followed be several winning ones
NO ONE underestimates what England has achieved but don`t get carried away
until you regularly beat the Boks too.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Taylorman,

You keep saying that if the AB's had the dominance of all those stats then it would be a whitewash etc etc.

The other way to look at it however is (whilst I don't have the actual stats) id suggest in the last three games now England have had the advantage in the majority of these areas...bar the actual clinical finishing....

Its like whilst they respect the AB's....they really don't care about the famous AB aura...

Is it possible that when we finally click in that area of our game, which we showed glimpses of in the 6n....it could in fact be the AB's on the receiving end of a couple of hammerings?

well I said that once yes. Reason being the ABs don't lose with an advantage of the stats England had. I mean they hardly lose anyway but even when they win the stats are not always that compelling.

The difference is that we do more with the ball, and the potential for this weekend is that we will do much more with the ball, because we usually do.

I'm not saying England won't win, they could (or should I say should logically if they're playing the same AB side with the extra option of inserting a half a dozen better players).

I just dont think they will, the reason being that the Abs have got a short, sharp kick up the a*^%e and in a week will get their accuracy and intensity to the level they need to win, perhaps with the addition of Savea and Read- both who from memory have done well versus England recently. I don't believe England will improve that significantly from last week, more.. more of the same.

I guess we know we wont be facing the same side this weekend, but you can be sure England wont be playing the same side either, even if they do have the same names.

I am not sure that England were less clinical than the ABs. We took points from pretty much all our visits to the AB 22, and that those points were penalties and not tries was as much down to the AB's willingness to kill the ball illegally and Nige's inability to find his pocket as anything else. As Martin Johnson once said, it's not us that's giving the penalties away. If we kick a lot of pens,, it's because teams give us a lot of them.

The real difference the two teams on Saturday was focus. Youngs switched off and gave a turnover, the team switched off and created a chance for a quick tap; the rest was a clinical exploitation of 14 against 15.

Again. a lot of that is down to experience. The ABs had roughly 3 times as many caps and that does make a difference. I no longer see that much difference in the quality of the teams or the individuals (and crucially, neither do the England players). What I do see is a greater awareness of what a given situation demands. The ABs have it across the park, England have it in pockets.

I expect the ABs to up their game on Saturday. I don't expect them to have it all their own way; I expect England to raise their game, too, and to continue to put pressure on across the park for long periods. The crucial difference will be that England will make unforced errors but will have to force them in the ABs. If the England scramble defence and set piece are enough to limit the damage from their own errors, and they can force the ABs to overcommit somewhere - and then use the space that creates - then they have a chance. Otherwise, I expect it to be higher quality but essentially similar to last Saturday - a tense game decided by a couple of critical lapses in concentration on England's part.

I guess that means that Lancaster should be picking his side based on T-CUP (to use an old Woodwardism - Thinking Correctly Under Pressure) more than physical attributes. That would suggest Wood for Haskell, Vunipola for Morgan (if Billy is fully fit), Care for Youngs (didn't think I'd ever say that, but right now it's true) and... I am not sure beyond that. Whatever combinations hold up best in training, I guess.

disneychilly wrote: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.

I think you are right. As a player, Robshaw can maintain his performance levels for a full match. As a captain, I think he's often running on empty in the closing stages. In that sense, it's a concentration issue, or a lack of match awareness.

He is getting better but he doesn't have the innate rugby nous of a McCaw, or our last good captain, Martin Johnson. To be fair, few people do. However, if we are going to claim some big scalps on a consistent basis, and have a chance of winning a World Cup, then we are going to need a few calm, wise heads in the squad to counterbalance the relative lack of experience.

I've made the point before and, realistically, there's no-one to parachute in. It's Robshaw, Wood, Hartley and the half backs who need to have their wits about them. Haskell has a lot of caps but doesn't strike me as someone who can rally a team. I might have suggested Dan Cole but we don't really know what shape he'll be in. I think our locks can do a job and I was interested to hear Tigers fans talk up Slater but he doesn't seem to be in the leading pack.

So if you're right, Rugby Fan, what's missing between Quins and England? Robshaw has led Quins to so many last minute victories and held out against so many last minute onslaughts that I can't count them. It's unlikely to be a question of fitness; everything suggests that he is as fit a player as England have; and he's regularly mentally sharp for Quins.

Is it something missing in the rest of the team? I go back to the SA game in the 2012 AIs. With 2 minutes or so to go, he took 3 points when a try would have won it. That's what I'd have expected Quins to do - SA's kickoffs were wonky, and the English scrum was dominant - there was a good chance of winning a scrum on half way from the KO, and from that a kickable penalty.

What happens? The ball's on its way straight out, and Mouritz Botha tries to take it and fluffs it. Robshaw copped a lot of flak for that, but most regular Quins supporters could see - and agree with - the thought process.

So what's missing? Are England short of enough leadership across the squad? Or of an understanding between squad members? Or just of experience?

englandglory4ever wrote:I actually can't wait for Saturday. I think England will win this one with something to spare. They only need to play with the precision they had against Wales and it'll be in the bag.

true...Wales of course being similar to NZ. Lets just hopes it not the 2013 vs wales precision...

I think we're now going round and round on the same thing. Both teams are quietly going about their prep, the ABs talking about accuracy and intensity rather than selection. England more of the same. It almost feels like the prelude to a Bok match which does suggest we should be just as wary...

Taylorman wrote:I think we're now going round and round on the same thing. Both teams are quietly going about their prep....

Maybe that's because there ain't much left to say that hasn't been said already?
No idea what to expect on Saturday except for very intense physical play. I would normally have thought the ABs should attack the England backs over and over. But then I would never have predicted Burns would stand up like a real Rugby player last weekend. Maybe the uncertainty makes the matches more interesting?

Poorfour wrote:... I go back to the SA game in the 2012 AIs. With 2 minutes or so to go, he took 3 points when a try would have won it. That's what I'd have expected Quins to do - SA's kickoffs were wonky, and the English scrum was dominant - there was a good chance of winning a scrum on half way from the KO, and from that a kickable penalty....

I don't think Robshaw was gambling on SA putting the ball straight into touch, he assumed England could gather the ball and have one more chance to score. If you remember, the major problem is that Robshaw let himself get caught up in a debate with Farrell, which wound the clock down even further. Farrell felt they had the field position to go for a winning try and so should tale that chance rather than bet on taking the kick and engineering another scoring chance.

I don't know what decision Robshaw would go for today but he fell between two stools back then. It highlights the problem that the players don't always seem to be on the same page towards the end of a match. Poor execution is one thin but poor decision making has been more of an issue for us.

I go back to that winning drop goal in 2003. It was all part of a regular drill and everyone knew his role. I don't get the sense that we have anything like that in the last 20 minutes. Having drills may cut out spontaneity but they certainly help when your lungs are aching and it would be good to let muscle memory take the reins for a moment or two.

I don't know about Quins but I've laways had a sense that Evans plays a big role in steering the ship towards the end. That's not to take anything away from Robshaw, it's just an indication of how every captain needs some decent lieutenants.

Sounds like its about familiarity, and belief. Quins opting for a try is a lot different from opting for a try in the dying seconds vs the Boks in SA when you havnt been winning.

Cruden opting for a try was purely about belief. The team thought a try was on out to the right where a penalty with 5 to go wasnt 'good enough' to seal the win had England got back and won their own penalty.

Mind you, helped by 14 and if you watch the replay there's hardly a soul out there for England before they start scrambling.

Those sorts of things will happen this weekend. The ABs will have a go because they've done it many times and won because of it. Farrell has said in his arrival interview 'we're not scared of anyone'- all well and good but theres a difference between that and running a near certain penalty with 5 to go.

If Lancaster's inevitable replacements perform anything like the 3rd team did they will smash NZ who are creaking and have clearly peaked too early. A bit of clinical finishing and the rub of the green and the Blacks will have egg on their faces.

Ha! That's a beaut post scratch my friend.

Yes, and its interesting how 14 players join the tour to take the side from a 3rd to a 1st...wheres the second team (plus 1) hiding? dramatic effect perhaps scratch?

Nick Easter is good value

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16016_9344887,00.html

I like his take on Jonny May: "seems to cause havoc in both teams when he sets off on one of those mazy runs"

He's right you know. NZ have peaked against the SH teams and Wales have bottomed out against them at just the right time...

All Black team announced to morrow morning at 0445 hrs.

Hansen appears to be a morning person...

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Hansen appears to be a morning person...

You'll have to get up very early in the morning to get one over on him...

...so expect Lancaster to slip in with a team announcement at 4.40. ;-)

Taylorman wrote:Sounds like its about familiarity, and belief. Quins opting for a try is a lot different from opting for a try in the dying seconds vs the Boks in SA when you havnt been winning.

Cruden opting for a try was purely about belief. The team thought a try was on out to the right where a penalty with 5 to go wasnt 'good enough' to seal the win had England got back and won their own penalty.

Mind you, helped by 14 and if you watch the replay there's hardly a soul out there for England before they start scrambling.

Those sorts of things will happen this weekend. The ABs will have a go because they've done it many times and won because of it. Farrell has said in his arrival interview 'we're not scared of anyone'- all well and good but theres a difference between that and running a near certain penalty with 5 to go.

I actually saw Cruden's move as the opposite at the time - a lack of belief in his ability to make the kick. But i'll defer to you on how he normally approaches things, it may be me transferring some of the reasons for England's brainfarts on to others. I'd have to watch again but it felt like a good few of his team mates were surprised as well.

Scratch wrote:If Lancaster's inevitable replacements perform anything like the 3rd team did they will smash NZ who are creaking and have clearly peaked too early. A bit of clinical finishing and the rub of the green and the Blacks will have egg on their faces.

This cannot end well Scratch...  

Strictly speaking seeing as the guy bringing the kicking tee was on the pitch aren't you supposed to have to take the kick? I may be wrong here but sure I've heard that before.

I expect NZ’s reaction this weekend to be remarkably similar to the second game v Australia in 2008. Watch out folks.

Scratch wrote:If Lancaster's inevitable replacements perform anything like the 3rd team did they will smash NZ who are creaking and have clearly peaked too early. A bit of clinical finishing and the rub of the green and the Blacks will have egg on their faces.

How on earth can you say that they peaked too early, they waited until the 78th minute to score the match winning try

Hood83 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Sounds like its about familiarity, and belief. Quins opting for a try is a lot different from opting for a try in the dying seconds vs the Boks in SA when you havnt been winning.

Cruden opting for a try was purely about belief. The team thought a try was on out to the right where a penalty with 5 to go wasnt 'good enough' to seal the win had England got back and won their own penalty.

Mind you, helped by 14 and if you watch the replay there's hardly a soul out there for England before they start scrambling.

Those sorts of things will happen this weekend. The ABs will have a go because they've done it many times and won because of it. Farrell has said in his arrival interview 'we're not scared of anyone'- all well and good but theres a difference between that and running a near certain penalty with 5 to go.

I actually saw Cruden's move as the opposite at the time - a lack of belief in his ability to make the kick. But i'll defer to you on how he normally approaches things, it may be me transferring some of the reasons for England's brainfarts on to others. I'd have to watch again but it felt like a good few of his team mates were surprised as well.

Cruden got the call outside from Barrett and Smith that there was lots of space. His goal kicking was fine up until then. Psychologically a try was mentally much more of a blow than a penalty. Brave but it came off. If it hadn't, then we'd be calling it madness.

Taylorman wrote:Yes, and its interesting how 14 players join the tour to take the side from a 3rd to a 1st...wheres the second team (plus 1) hiding? dramatic effect perhaps scratch?

I'd say it's something like this in SL's mind:

Marler - 2nd, though possibly first now
Webber - was 3rd behind Youngs and Hartley, may now be second
Wilson - was 2nd behind Cole, maybe first now
Launchbury - 1st
Parling - 2nd perhaps behind Lawes?
Haskell - 2nd but was about 5th until recently behind all sorts of players it seems. Not sure that was ever fair though
Robshaw - 1st
Morgan - 2nd, but close call with BV

Youngs - 2nd behind Care
Burns - 4th behind Farrell, Ford and Myler
Eastmond - 3rd behind 36 and Burrell
Tuilagi - 1st
Yarde - 1st i think, maybe 2nd behind Ashton
May - 2nd, I think he'd have Wade instead probably
Brown - 1st

So really it's 1st and 2nd with one or two who'd be well down the pecking order. Probably not a 3rd team.

Rugby Fan wrote:Nick Easter is good value

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16016_9344887,00.html

I like his take on Jonny May: "seems to cause havoc in both teams when he sets off on one of those mazy runs"

Easter's point about the ABs rucking and ours is spot on. It is still something that winds me up that we don't do better. Our age grade players are getting better. Personally I feel there are occasions where the ABs are simply obstructing, but I'm not sure on the rules. I also think they used to be far worse. But I really wish we rucked well past the ball.

Rugby Fan wrote:Nick Easter is good value

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16016_9344887,00.html

I like his take on Jonny May: "seems to cause havoc in both teams when he sets off on one of those mazy runs"

Yeh, good read and astute analysis. May is definitely in the 'I don't know what effect they have on the enemy, but by god, they frighten me' category

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Scratch wrote:If Lancaster's inevitable replacements perform anything like the 3rd team did they will smash NZ who are creaking and have clearly peaked too early. A bit of clinical finishing and the rub of the green and the Blacks will have egg on their faces.

 How on earth can you say that they peaked too early, they waited until the 78th minute to score the match winning try

  

Hood83 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Sounds like its about familiarity, and belief. Quins opting for a try is a lot different from opting for a try in the dying seconds vs the Boks in SA when you havnt been winning.

Cruden opting for a try was purely about belief. The team thought a try was on out to the right where a penalty with 5 to go wasnt 'good enough' to seal the win had England got back and won their own penalty.

Mind you, helped by 14 and if you watch the replay there's hardly a soul out there for England before they start scrambling.

Those sorts of things will happen this weekend. The ABs will have a go because they've done it many times and won because of it. Farrell has said in his arrival interview 'we're not scared of anyone'- all well and good but theres a difference between that and running a near certain penalty with 5 to go.

I actually saw Cruden's move as the opposite at the time - a lack of belief in his ability to make the kick. But i'll defer to you on how he normally approaches things, it may be me transferring some of the reasons for England's brainfarts on to others. I'd have to watch again but it felt like a good few of his team mates were surprised as well.

I just went by his own words. He said he was fully confident of the kick then heard the call to the right, and went. And if you look at the England players out to the right when the call was made there was only one in ideal position, the rest mostly resigned to waiting for the kick.- that they scrambled enough there was a huge credit to them. But it does highlight that at no time can you just turn your backs to the ABs. If its possible they will try it.

its not good to have to end our last two tests by pulling something completely against the grain out of the bag but it does reflect a confidence that in the context its done with that separates them from the rest.

But it also suggests reliance on it on too many occasions means at some point there'll be no more rabbits in the hat left, and that the real gains lie in the first 50 minutes rather than the last two. But its still a major weapon to pull out if needed- that belief I mean.

The most surprising thing for me in the whole test was the sheer number of dumb passes and catches across the same players who for several weeks before have been sublime in that respect. My view is simply that if they simplify things, trust their instincts more and just play, they'll improve 100%.

They looked strangely out of sorts and whether its the test vs sxv environment, the pressure of England or whatever, they are fully capable of running England off the park, and thats what we will be looking for this week- a huge improvement in accuracy and execution. Its all there, they just need to get it out onto the field.

Hood83 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Yes, and its interesting how 14 players join the tour to take the side from a 3rd to a 1st...wheres the second team (plus 1) hiding? dramatic effect perhaps scratch?

I'd say it's something like this in SL's mind:

Marler - 2nd, though possibly first now
Webber - was 3rd behind Youngs and Hartley, may now be second
Wilson - was 2nd behind Cole, maybe first now
Launchbury - 1st
Parling - 2nd perhaps behind Lawes?
Haskell - 2nd but was about 5th until recently behind all sorts of players it seems. Not sure that was ever fair though
Robshaw - 1st
Morgan - 2nd, but close call with BV

Youngs - 2nd behind Care
Burns - 4th behind Farrell, Ford and Myler
Eastmond - 3rd behind 36 and Burrell
Tuilagi - 1st
Yarde - 1st i think, maybe 2nd behind Ashton
May - 2nd, I think he'd have Wade instead probably
Brown - 1st

So really it's 1st and 2nd with one or two who'd be well down the pecking order. Probably not a 3rd team.

I'd argue that possibly Burns is ahead of Myler now. Going on domestic form Myler is still very much out in front but is pretty much untested on the international stage. Burns' international performances have been excellent (49 points in 4 caps). I think Burns and Ford will be competing for the second spot, and putting an awful lot of pressure on Farrell.

Wilson is close to overtaking Cole as well. Cole's defence and turnovers at the breakdown are huge, but Wilson just offers more around the park (when he catches the blydi thing), and his scrummaging is on a par now.

I agree with you on everyone else. Haskell would be my preferred reserve 6 now, since his performance on Saturday was immense and he brings a real physical edge.

Extra note;

I would start Morgan this Saturday again. I keep watching his charge from the base of the scrum on our 5m and it's excellent. He really shifts his weight around the park. I love the way he bursts through Aaron Smith without slowly down one iota.

Taylorman wrote:well I said that once yes. Reason being the ABs don't lose with an advantage of the stats England had. I mean they hardly lose anyway but even when they win the stats are not always that compelling.

Ha TM there is an exception to that rule-a certain game we all remember and which I refer to as "The Debacle"

I dunno for me I reckon that while NZ will be a bit better in the pack England with its reinforcements will still hold an edge and harry the ABs. Credit must go to Aaron Smith here as he has learnt to get the ball out when under pressure-he was among the best on the night. But I think that NZ may be more clinical with their passing and handling thus being able to create more pressure on England. I think they only reached five phases once or something (recall reading it somewhere). That's no way to build the pressure. Without a release valve fatigue sets in earlier too.

Side note I hope the crowd's better. Hate it when a couple of mentally derelict yobbos ruin it for everyone else and give NZ supporters a bad name. In a perverse way it's a compliment to how much of a threat England is but it doesn't make it right by any means. Walking out of the Irish NZ test last year we chatted a bit with some Irish folk-they were just gutted and so p!ssed off but they treated us really well. So cheers to Ireland, and sorry to England that it seems some compatriots aren't singing off the same hymn sheet.

Possibly because we can't sing.

yeah Disney the other thing is kiwis are resisting (I clearly am struggling!) in treating England as the true foes we have seen in the Boks and -some time ago now- the Wallabies. Fact is England's last 3 versus us is better than anyone- Boks included.

Vs Eng-Lost by 17 and won by 8 and 5, the last in the closing minutes.
vs Boks- won by 16,14 and 11 and two of those were in SA.

For decades we've always said player base, population blah blah wise England is the richest resourced country for rugby around, and should be regular top 3. They are still having the odd problem with the 6N sides, at least enough to keep them walking it.

But have to agree theres substance to this side, and its genuinely showing signs of getting stronger...depth, increasing scope of play (width), VERY good coaching and selection and most of all, steadily improving results.

Although we (well me at least) are probably in denial, a win on Saturday would probably confirm this beyond all doubt. Mainly because after last weekend, this coming test is not the sort of test we would normally lose.

We have had our scare, we have the players, the alarm bells are ringing and in the last 2-3 years we've won every one of those types of tests, because we've backed up strongly after a scare- last years eden park then Joburg a good example. We went to Joburg knowing exactly how huge the challenge was, and overcame it. This week is the same. Everythings on the table. If we dont bring it, we lose.

Simple as that.

Taylorman wrote:yeah Disney the other thing is kiwis are resisting (I clearly am struggling!) in treating England as the true foes we have seen in the Boks and -some time ago now- the Wallabies. Fact is England's last 3 versus us is better than anyone- Boks included.

Vs Eng-Lost by 17 and won by 8 and 5, the last in the closing minutes.
vs Boks- won by 16,14 and 11 and two of those were in SA.

For decades we've always said player base, population blah blah wise England is the richest resourced country for rugby around, and should be regular top 3. They are still having the odd problem with the 6N sides, at least enough to keep them walking it.

But have to agree theres substance to this side, and its genuinely showing signs of getting stronger...depth, increasing scope of play (width), VERY good coaching and selection and most of all, steadily improving results.

Although we (well me at least) are probably in denial, a win on Saturday would probably confirm this beyond all doubt.  Mainly because after last weekend, this coming test is not the sort of test we would normally lose.

We have had our scare, we have the players, the alarm bells are ringing and in the last 2-3 years we've won every one of those types of tests, because we've backed up strongly after a scare- last years eden park then Joburg a good example. We went to Joburg knowing exactly how huge the challenge was, and overcame it. This week is the same. Everythings on the table. If we dont bring it, we lose.

Simple as that.

Nice post Taylorman   

Yup-good on you TM. Test rugby's always been a game of inches. NZ is never miles ahead of everyone-every single NZ side has been beatable. Just like England in 03, Aussie in 99-01, South Africa for the whole 50 odd year period where they didn't lose a series (incredible that). England are starting to put together consistency and quality and that's making them a bloody good side. I still see SA getting the plaudits this year more than anyone else-but England is right up there and Australia are always good enough to beat anyone.

This sounds stupid but what NZ do better than anyone is score points i.e. be clinical. A lot of teams are in with a genuine shot but bang bang two tries and 14 points-you'll find what was a three point tight affair ends up as a 20 point shellacking on the scoreboard due to a team's fitness and accuracy finishing off chances. They were not clinical at all-as the unforced errors indicate-save for the last five. England could very well win, but you could have a demoralising scenario where England dominates NZ more than say last week but NZ's improvement in accuracy means that the All Blacks win by a larger margin.

I think what SH people are in denial about is that the England team is showing a multifaceted threat, as well as playing a brand of rugby that is enjoyable to watch. They should always stick to their forward strengths-they'd be stupid not to-but they are starting to transfer the backline creativity and offloading you see in the Heineken Cup into the test arena which is great for them and great for rugby. You can see from the fighting talk on here that here is a team to get behind and believe in, as they believe in themselves.

I don't think SH people are in denial. I think most people see England as having depth, some real strengths and a threat. I also think the rate Lancaster and see England as a youthful team that's improving. I not sure anyone doesn't think they'll be a major threat next year. I'd say mot people view Meyer ans South Africa the same way, whilst Mckenzie is starting to shift people's view of the wallabies. Not sure we're Ireland and Wales sit nz perceptionwise.

I think most kiwis want the ab's to win every game, and believe they probably will. However that's not the same as being unbeatable. There's a number of close run games over the last few years.

England are in with a chance this weekend. That's what's great about test rugby. The niggle at the bottom of your stomach, that uncertainty about how your team will go. Love it.

Yeah good post TM.

I think the AB's will edge another close one this weekend...Read and Savea are huge players to have back.

For the first time in a long time...there is real pressure on the AB's (from a side outside the SH) and its just nice for us England fans to see that its England that is the team putting the pressure on.

With regards to our lineup...the more i hear i think he'll recall 4 players:

Lawes - So harsh on Parling, but Lawes & Launchbury is the young developing combo that is pushing on World Class. He wont leave them out. And Lawes is just on fire at the moment aswell. Retallick will remember his name  

Care - Could be the difference between a loss and a win

Twelvetrees - If he's 100 % fit i think his extra size and more importantly his kicking will see him selected. His kicking is critical to relieving pressure in our own half.

Wood - Despite Haskells performance, i think Wood is possibly the 2nd name on the team sheet after Robshaw, and while he gives you the grunt he also offers essential lineout that sees him recalled.
Him, Robshaw and Launchbury almost operate like 3 flankers in there together.

blackcanelion wrote:I don't think SH people are in denial. I think most people see England as having depth, some real strengths and a threat. I also think the rate Lancaster and see England as a youthful team that's improving. I not sure anyone doesn't think they'll be a major threat next year. I'd say mot people view Meyer ans South Africa the same way, whilst Mckenzie is starting to shift people's view of the wallabies. Not sure we're Ireland and Wales sit nz perceptionwise.

I think most kiwis want the ab's to win every game, and believe they probably will. However that's not the same as being unbeatable. There's a number of close run games over the last few years.

England are in with a chance this weekend. That's what's great about test rugby. The niggle at the bottom of your stomach, that uncertainty about how your team will go. Love it.

Personally i'd be hesitant about that at the moment. We do in certain positions.....however in many other positions we have lots of untested kids. Thats lots of numbers of players....not strength in depth.

I do however trust that lancaster will give those kids the experience when its required.