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)

Looks a bit like the Stewie Shuffle to me – 1 step forward, 1 step back. Manu is not a test winger and this smacks of muddled thinking, ie. get 3 centres on at the same time – Burrell the line-taker, 12T the play-maker and Manu the force of nature. One lesson SL has still to learn – rugby needs 2 wingers (that’s right, count ‘em, 2).

Gutted for Cips but the rest looks ok, good to see a stronger bench, although if we have Wilson, Youngs and Ashton all on at the same time we’ll have more ball-droppers than, say, NZ. Or is this a ploy to get more scrum time?

bluestonevedder wrote:

ebop wrote:Glory. I'll guarantee it will be 100% dry.

Looks like someone else knows that the roof will be on   

Being completely ignorant of grounds over there does the pitch hold up better that the Millenium Stadium or suffer similar issues?

Unless Manu has a blinder and it starts raining tries and NZ tears. He could win on a technicality...

No 7&1/2 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

ebop wrote:Glory. I'll guarantee it will be 100% dry.

Looks like someone else knows that the roof will be on   

Being completely ignorant of grounds over there does the pitch hold up better that the Millenium Stadium or suffer similar issues?

No music concerts or motorcross events. Immaculate pitch and closest thing we have to a day game. Goal kicking can be tricky for those unaccustomed to it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

ebop wrote:Glory. I'll guarantee it will be 100% dry.

Looks like someone else knows that the roof will be on   

Being completely ignorant of grounds over there does the pitch hold up better that the Millenium Stadium or suffer similar issues?

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure myself. I don't remember it being poor during the WC.

Ha yes BSV, bet big on Engeeerland!!

Yeah I think the pitch is good 7.5, it always looks green but I don't know the details. I think they designed it so it got good sunlight. Which is relative, given Dunedin is named after Edinburgh, hence why the ancestors settled there as they don't like sun I gather.

Gee they have a roof! Its not all grass skirts, spears and shields down there then.

Haha like your thinking Barney.

Never been to a game there but from what I've seen the pitch has always been great. Could be wrong though-any mainlanders been?

Yup Glory that's how a roof works. Keep fishing though champ. You'll get a bite one day.

Manu on the wing-dunno about that. Savea's a big boy too who D's up well so it could backfire.

Jane was pants because he was a stopgap-14 is his position. The fact that Hansen picked him there instead of a rookie who plays 11 was a conservative choice indicating respect for the threat England pose.

We all know England pressurised NZ and forced some mistakes but not all of them-a number were unforced and that's what Hansen was criticising. If NZ won the physical battle in Auckland they still would have been close to England given their rubbish handling. I don't think it's as arrogant as some people on here are making out.

Gee they have a roof! Its not all grass skirts, spears and shields down there then.

Thanks kia, ebop and blue.

We all know England pressurised NZ and forced some mistakes but not all of them-a number were unforced and that's what Hansen was criticising. If NZ won the physical battle in Auckland they still would have been close to England given their rubbish handling. I don't think it's as arrogant as some people on here are making out..

Possibly directed at me Disney...

I was actually laughing that its an excuse everyone uses...credit is never given to the other side.

But it is a particularly well used excuse in NZ. If they prove that it was true this weekend then fair enough...but if its another close brutal encounter that goes a few points either way then i hope he doesnt use it again.

englandglory4ever wrote:Gee they have a roof! Its not all grass skirts, spears and shields down there then.

 Oh dear.

Steve Hansen admitted that Jane will never play at 11 again. Just couldn't jump off the other foot.

Savea is big. But he is fast!!!

Manu is fast as well isn't he?

A question for the saffas amongst us. It's about the ref. Does he know what a knock on is? Is he ok with shirt pulling? Does he know that when the opposition commit a professional foul on their own line to save a try he can use a yellow card? 

Finally, is he impervious to forward passes?

Acting like a Welsh Terrier there glory

Can't wait should be a cracking game, this is sooooo much better than last years Lions tour which was massively over hyped.  

Manu on the wing is giving me nasty deja vu of 2005 when Andy Robinson decided the APs form centre Ollie Smith was a good bet on the wing so Tindal and Noon could run on your Hodgson's flat passes.

I don't think the England back line will fire until Burns comes on and Manu moves back to the centre in the second half. Hope I'm wrong.

Thing we'll lose the battle in the loose to the more physical ABs (again). Hope I'm wrong about that as well.

England by 5pts

whocares wrote:Is this first time Tuilagi plays on the wing? Makes even less sense than having Fofana there. Guess you have to deal with injuries though. Good luck England   

i believe Manu played most of his age grade rugby on the wing (based on his brothers success there i presume) and SL first watched him playing U-20 for England on the wing. So he certainly has plenty of experience in the position, although clearly not at this level. it could pay off, especially if he crashes inside occasionally a-la North.

I'm not a huge fan of these changes either. I don't think Manu will be a problem on the wing in attack, but I can see him being exposed defensively.

All in all it just seems like an unneccesary change. Ashton is back to play right wing, move Yarde back to his favoured wing and keep your best back in his best position.

I'd be surprised if the scoreline was as close this time round.

Looking at the England selection I am not that impressed but do appreciate its worth a punt. Interesting times.

Only 2 concerns about Tuilagi on the wing
1) its not his best position
2) Kicking. I think he will be able to catch OK - but if the follow up is good he may get into trouble. He isnt going to be punting the ball back to the other end of the pitch

lostinwales wrote:Looking at the England selection I am not that impressed but do appreciate its worth a punt. Interesting times.

Only 2 concerns about Tuilagi on the wing
1) its not his best position
2) Kicking. I think he will be able to catch OK - but if the follow up is good he may get into trouble. He isnt going to be punting the ball back to the other end of the pitch

if manu catches wide i am sure he will spin first to brown and then manu chases Brown's kick. Brown has a huge boot.

actually i am quite excited about having brown and manu receiving the ball from NZ in the air - the counter attacking options available could be really exciting as both brown and manu almost always seem to beat the first man. if the other can get in position to receive an offload we could be in for some really exciting broken field breaks.

I'm more optimistic with this side than the 1st by quite a distance. Pack looks great, we have 9-13 who looked very good in the 6 nations and 2 wingers who should be a threat. Forward replacements look as good if not better than the starters in the main and Burns and Ashton offer something different if things are going pear shaped.

It's going to be bloody tough as we're away to NZ but I'm excited.

At least no one can accuse Stewie of not experimenting to find his best combinations. I am disappointed Courtney Lawes is not getting a run at 10, but maybe that is reserved for the third test.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Manu on the wing is giving me nasty deja vu of 2005 when  Andy Robinson decided the APs form centre Ollie Smith was a good bet on the wing so Tindal and Noon could run on your Hodgson's flat passes.

I don't think the England back line will fire until Burns comes on and Manu moves back to the centre in the second half. Hope I'm wrong.

Thing we'll lose the battle in the loose to the more physical ABs (again). Hope I'm wrong about that as well.

One good performance, and now all our hopes and prayers rest on Burns' shoulders? We played good rugby in the 6n, Farrell and Care in tandem are capable of getting a backline moving.

Manu on the wing I think will be quite effective from set pieces as we now have lots of strike options. But in general phase play I am not so sure he could get lost out there and put under pressure by the NZ kicking game.

The whole Lancaster selection seems a bit halfway house, as he drops Eastmond but retains Parling, either keep the players who performed well in T1 or pick your first choice team had the AP final not intruded on the tour.

A while ago I reach a new plane of enlightnement. I stopped worrying about selection and coaching etc, and just look for forward to the games. What will be will be.

The balance between keeping settled combinations and trying new ones is too difficult for me to get my head around so I just don't bother any more.

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Manu on the wing is giving me nasty deja vu of 2005 when  Andy Robinson decided the APs form centre Ollie Smith was a good bet on the wing so Tindal and Noon could run on your Hodgson's flat passes.

I don't think the England back line will fire until Burns comes on and Manu moves back to the centre in the second half. Hope I'm wrong.

Thing we'll lose the battle in the loose to the more physical ABs (again). Hope I'm wrong about that as well.

One good performance, and now all our hopes and prayers rest on Burns' shoulders? We played good rugby in the 6n, Farrell and Care in tandem are capable of getting a backline moving.

Manu on the wing I think will be quite effective from set pieces as we now have lots of strike options. But in general phase play I am not so sure he could get lost out there and put under pressure by the NZ kicking game.

The whole Lancaster selection seems a bit halfway house, as he drops Eastmond but retains Parling, either keep the players who performed well in T1 or pick your first choice team had the AP final not intruded on the tour.

The thing is with selection is that we don't see what happens in training. It might be that Lawes for instance looked knackered and needs a rest.

The whole Lancaster selection seems a bit halfway house, as he drops Eastmond but retains Parling,

I agree with this one....its a strange few selections on that basis.

Eastmond, Parling and Haskell all did great yet hes kept Parling (the one i would have swapped for Lawes) and dropped the other 2 completely...i cant work that one out.

Taylorman wrote:Good to see....Hansens not a happy chappy:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/10149256/All-Blacks-coach-Steve-Hansen-says-shape-up-or-ship-out

"If you turn around and say so and so shouldn't play because he played badly, we wouldn't have anyone on the park - that's how bad the performance was," Hansen said.

"We know some of the reasons we played poorly, and one of them was a lack of preparation time, so there's no point recreating that whole thing again by putting new faces in.

"It's about us working hard on our skill sets, understanding how we want to play and going out and delivering that.

"The group has faith in what we're trying to do; it's just a matter of getting it right on the night."

"There is an expectation of where the standards should be, and if they're not there they get told about it," Hansen said.

"There are not too many times All Black teams play poorly and don't respond in some fashion, but don't forget we're playing a very good side and they'll respond as well, and they'll improve."

too right!

and Manu at hookers not a bad idea either...

interesting article.

my takeaway is that this is a back-handed compliment to how competitive England were. If all the ABs had a bad game then the opposition must have been a major contributor to that.

could also be interpreted as there not being any individual AB last week who memorably outshone their opposite number, which i think is fair, apart from aaron smith who i thought had a great game and ben youngs who really didnt.

Its great that England to have so many options.

The thing is with selection is that we don't see what happens in training. It might be that Lawes for instance looked knackered and needs a rest..

Another very valid point of course....maybe Eastmond has picked up a minor knock...etc.

And Parling was barking out instructions throughout. As someones said previously with Hartley not there he has a big prescence. He played very well last week.

Lancaster's showing a lot of faith in Twelvetrees by bringing him back in after Eastmond's performance last week. His league form has been average, but let's hope for a repeat of the Burns selection last week, where the England coaches seemed to have worked some magic and instilled a flakey Gloucester back with confidence.

But I think Eastmond is very unlucky to lose his place, and, in common with everyone else apparently, I don't agree with putting Manu on the wing—I can see NZ going around him too easily when they have the ball or kicking in behind him and putting him under pressure. I'm not sure I've ever seen Manu kick... Having said that, maybe he'll be able to use his power to finish some of those half-chances that May has been unable to put away.

Obviously good luck to England.  Happy with the front row, the choice between Webber and Hartley was always going to be close.  Pleased for Brookes on the bench as he seems more solid in scrum than Thomas.

In the second row, I would have started with Attwood (because Launchbury looked a bit jaded) and Lawes because he has been one of England's best players this season both for England and for Northampton (very good in the Aviva final).

Back row is fine, with Vunipola on the bench which gives impact.

Farrell back for Burns gives a bit more solidity.

Big area of contention is mid-field and wing.  Tuilagi had great impact last week and I think should have stayed put.  Burrell has had a very impress season (and Aviva final) mainly playing inside centre.  A combination of Burrell and Manu would have been very interesting with Eastmond on the bench.  Perm the wings as required.

Hope it all works out, but a bit odd.

I think we have to treat this as an experiment. And it probably is the right thing to do to at least try out the center combo that did so well in the 6N. I dont think its an indication of where things are going long term.

With 4 potentially really good centers someone is always going to miss out, and assuming Manu is healthy it should always be 2 from 3.

Having Ashton on the bench does suggest that someone out of the 3 centers is going to come off earlyish.

If it is as I suspect an experimental set up then the most interesting selection should be next week, after the options have been tested and with (hopefull) everybody on tour available.

I think we have to treat this as an experiment. And it probably is the right thing to do to at least try out the center combo that did so well in the 6N. I dont think its an indication of where things are going long term.

LIW, this is what ive been saying above...i think lancaster is using this test to try a few things out where hes been able to...whilst staying with Parling due to his leadership qualities.

This has resulted in a little bit of a weird selection but its still a strong side, offering experience and ability, with plenty off the bench.

I really don't see this as an experiment barring Tuilagi on the wing, and to be fair we do need to get both wings nailed down soonish. I think he's picked a side to win.

I just think if he was really going for it he would have recalled Hartley, lawes, not played Manu on the wing...etc.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I think we have to treat this as an experiment. And it probably is the right thing to do to at least try out the center combo that did so well in the 6N. I dont think its an indication of where things are going long term.

LIW, this is what ive been saying above...i think lancaster is using this test to try a few things out where hes been able to...whilst staying with Parling due to his leadership qualities.

This has resulted in a little bit of a weird selection but its still a strong side, offering experience and ability, with plenty off the bench.

This our last chance really to try out some different options as if we lose on Saturday, the next texts up to the RWC become must win matches if we want to genuinely make a charge for the RWC next year.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

The thing is with selection is that we don't see what happens in training. It might be that Lawes for instance looked knackered and needs a rest..

Another very valid point of course....maybe Eastmond has picked up a minor knock...etc.

I certainly hope that's why he's on the bench. Credit to Parling he did very well in last week but Lawes ran a better line-out during the 6N than Parling had done up to that point. He also offers more around the pitch on an offensive basis. Having Lawes start with Attwood on the bench just offers better impact and tops up the physicality and carrying late on.

Haskell was always likely to miss out but in having Wood replace him and our usual lightweight second row it does limit the carrying options a bit more.

Good artillery on the bench in the form of Billy V and interesting to see Kieran Brookes make the bench in place of Thomas.

Not a fan of the Tuilagi wing experiment. For someone who has a fetish for full backs having a 11/13/14 combination who can't kick is somewhat odd. Tuiliagi's positioning on the wing could be exposed.

Trying out things seems a bit of a weird one when peopla are writing and saying that this is the most important series England has had in a long long time.

You boys have a great shot. IMO it's time to kitchen sink it.

disneychilly wrote:Trying out things seems a bit of a weird one when peopla are writing and saying that this is the most important series England has had in a long long time.

You boys have a great shot. IMO it's time to kitchen sink it.

Possibly but unless we win the series, (which is unlikely), everything will be forgotten come the RWC. The RWC is everything. Despite any hopes raised by the first test result, the quality of the performance is still the most important thing to come out of this series.

I also think a win in November is probably more important also. Show we have learned our lessons

If Lawes, Vunipola and Hartley had been available to come on after 60 minutes last week England may well have won. They may not have, obvioulsy, but it is hard to argue that they wouldn't have had more impact than the replacements we had coming on.

I think Lancaster recognises that this has been a weakness for the team and selecting an extremely strong bench helps him address it. We didn't lose out much in the forwards for the majority of the game last week but didn't have the impact from the bench at the end. This week he is backing the likes of Parling, Launchbury and Webber to repeat their performance, knowing they can give everything for an hour to be replaced by a strong bench.

Morgan, likewise, can give his all knowing that he is almost certain to be replaced by someone who will give NZ new problems.

The fact that Lawes, Hartley and Billy V won't be happy about being on the bench will hopefully mean they are all the more fired up.

People are saying that Haskelly is really unlucky. Wood is a top drawer player that is vital to the way England play and Lancaster is a big fan. As well as offering a carrying option and a lineout option he is a great foil for Robshaw at the breakdown. Probably one of the first 2 or 3 names on the teamsheet after the captain.

If it all works for England and the bench have a big impact, the problem will be trying to replicate that with different players if those you would consider first choice regain their starting positions.

England have only tried "Life without Lawes" once since the 6N and although the team looked good, the locks lacked the ball carrying of the 6N and I thought we missed the tackling presence of Lawes. Both Lunchbox and Parling are good tacklers and workhorses, but when it comes to tackling Lawes is in a different class. His mobility and his driving back the ball carrier in the tackle are what makes him one of the best locks in the world. I think that he also offers that bit more in the scrum now than Parling.

Not a decision I can understand, to me Lawes is a Parling Type II, bigger, quicker and more aggression but with all the abilities of the type I version.

formerly known as Sam wrote:I don't think the England back line will fire until Burns comes on.

Burns will only come on if the game is already won (as it was in 2012), or if Farrell is injured. Lancaster tends to give the Saracens man the whole game, which I'm sure is a factor behind Flood's move to France.

If Lancaster brings Burns on as a game changer, then he'll be breaking new ground as a coach if he does it early.

englandglory4ever wrote:Gee they have a roof! Its not all grass skirts, spears and shields down there then.

Thats just the latest of the ridiculous statements you have made in the past few days englandglory4ever.
How about the rugby game on Sat? What are your thoughts?

Still seems a bit odd/weird.  The interence being that Burrell is too good not to play but Tuilagi is too good to drop.  So why not play Burrell at inside centre (where he has played really well for the Saints) and Manu at outside centre where he was a constant threat last week.  Eastmond could sit on the bench and offer something different.

Is Lancaster running shy of pairing Burrell and Tuigali at centre?

It does seem that way.

As a neutral observer it does look like he is trying to shoehorn Tuilagi into the side at all costs, I have said that I think May is your week link but putting Manu on the wing IMO isn't the answer but then again is Ashton?

Agree on Launchbury he looked cream crackered and out of his depth physically. I'm hoping Slater puts in a good showing vs the Crusaders and earns a spot in the third test. We desperately need our pack to refind the ability to make ground ball in hand.

For the record I thought the backs were uncreative and a weakness during the 6N and thought last weekend a massive improvement.