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)

maybe that's next week's experiment cb... certainly one i'd like to see.

Think its a whole different strategy with manu at centre, i presume he doesn't pass much (not just because he's a greedy so and so)... because the stock play is for him to bang a hole, suck extra defenders in and hope to exploit the next phase from the front foot. With him on the wing that's still an option, but so too is spreading the play a bit, the defenders have to think about what burrell might do too, and yarde might get a pass. No doubt we'll see manu coming off his wing too.

I have my doubts but think its a worthwhile experiment, but if it backfires and we get stuffed there'll be no shortage of i told you so's, particularly with the series gone. As other's have said, i think lancaster is looking further ahead than this series.

Just an idea...but maybe Lancaster sees it like this:

Burrell has a mix of power,size and actually pretty good skills

Manu's carrying is crazy but does he lack a little passing, creativty skills at this level?

Theres no secret Lancaster has an admiration for NZ,who play with a second 5/8's.
Twelvetrees is big, creative (maybe lacks consistancy at the moment) and offers an excellent kicking game...and is the only one that fits the attribute they require for a 12.

Burrell has the better skills set than Manu...but Manu's carrying is probably more devastating than May etc...so he must play.

Maybe they see him more like his brother Alex...who was one of the best wingers in the world on his day.

I have my doubts but think its a worthwhile experiment, but if it backfires and we get stuffed there'll be no shortage of i told you so's, particularly with the series gone. As other's have said, i think lancaster is looking further ahead than this series..

The thing is Lancaster likes to try things. He tried Wood at 8 with Croft and Robshaw.

Whilst it failed miserably...that was one thing MOST fans were saying...would it work? Maybe the final v Wales wasnt the game to try it...but due to injuries he went for it.

Similar here...whilst its a huge game its one thats worth trialing something like this.

If it fails...then nothing is lost and at least Lancaster can then put to bed something he has been thining about for about a year or more....

I guess trying it is not he problem its whether he will change things if its not working.

lostinwales wrote:

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

Totally disagree with the RWC being everything. EVERY test is important. Yes the WC is the most special tournament of all but to reduce a test series like this to an experiment is not only folly but disrespectful to the test match status of games. I don't like weakened teams and would rather see less Tests than bigger squads. What if England win every game between now and next November but lose against Wales and Australia? They add to the legacy of the England jersey. Look at Graham Henry-an 85% win ratio, yet he was two points shy of being classed as a massive failure. The reverse with the debacle in 2007. The NZRU stuck with him as they knew he'd achieved a lot regardless of Cardiff-the players thought so and it was a very wise decision.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I have my doubts but think its a worthwhile experiment, but if it backfires and we get stuffed there'll be no shortage of i told you so's, particularly with the series gone. As other's have said, i think lancaster is looking further ahead than this series..

The thing is Lancaster likes to try things. He tried Wood at 8 with Croft and Robshaw.

Whilst it failed miserably...that was one thing MOST fans were saying...would it work? Maybe the final v Wales wasnt the game to try it...but due to injuries he went for it.

Similar here...whilst its a huge game its one thats worth trialing something like this.

If it fails...then nothing is lost and at least Lancaster can then put to bed something he has been thining about for about a year or more....

Apart from a rare opportunity to beat the ABs on their home turf, keep alive a series in NZ and achieve something that happens to England about once every 10-15 years.....

A series win in NZ would be massive for English rugby. Lancaster should be playing his absolute best side in this fixture in my view, and if he thinks there is a better combination of players available to him for this game that he is ignoring, then he's making a mistake in my view.

A bit disappointed that Lawes is on the bench. Hopefully that's fired him up a bit. Wouldn't fancy being the NZ guy to have the ball in my hands at the 50min mark when he comes on.

I think Burrell needs to have a strong game to justify the moving of Tuilagi to the wing.

Don't really understand Ashton on the bench. Is Foden injured? Yea Ashton might be a better wing than Foden, but I'd have Foden at fullback over Burns any day.

I agree with GF and milky. Tuilagi on the wing seems to be something Lancaster has been wanting to try out since the 6N and Burrell emerging as a good option at OC, so with all fit and available for this one he's trying it. It may not work, it may be a disaster, but a year from the WC is a better time to be trying it than 2 weeks before surely?

The rest of the team makes sense. Feel sorry for Haskell and especially Eastmond, but SL wants to recreate the flanker and centre partnership that by and large worked very well in the 6N.

The one I'm worried about really (and surprisingly) is Farrell, who's looked knackered in his last few Sarries outings. Still, I would hope SL hasn't picked him unless he's been showing in training that he's ready. While I liked a lot of what Burns did in the first Test, I also feel some of our lack of composure in their 22 could be put down to him...

I am slightly dismayed at this selection.  I am a big fan of Bomber, but for me he has got this one wrong.  Manu is not a winger and Twelvetrees form does not warrant inclusion.  Burrell and Manu in the midfield, Aston on the wing and Eastmond in the 23 jersey covering the whole backline would be a better bet for me.

disneychilly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

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

Totally disagree with the RWC being everything. EVERY test is important. Yes the WC is the most special tournament of all but to reduce a test series like this to an experiment is not only folly but disrespectful to the test match status of games. I don't like weakened teams and would rather see less Tests than bigger squads. What if England win every game between now and next November but lose against Wales and Australia? They add to the legacy of the England jersey. Look at Graham Henry-an 85% win ratio, yet he was two points shy of being classed as a massive failure. The reverse with the debacle in 2007. The NZRU stuck with him as they knew he'd achieved a lot regardless of Cardiff-the players thought so and it was a very wise decision.

I entirely agree with this. I hate this constant devaluing of Test matches with people claiming to be building towards the World Cup. It's also misguided. You build towards a WC by winning matches, creating momentum and allowing your best combinations to develop as a unit.

while I agree with the sentiment that every Test match is important, it's also a lot about building towards the WC, and at some point if you have something you want to give a try (e.g. Tuilagi on the wing), you have to try it somewhere, so when do you try it? for me this is as good an opportunity as any, and probably the first time Lancaster has actually had the chance to give Tuilagi on the wing a go.

Make no mistake, England are setting out to win this Test, so not sure about all the talk of "devaluating", etc.

Yeah but you guys have Scotland and Italy in the Six Nations. No disrespect to either but if you wanted to try something do it against a side that maybe isn't as equipped to cut you to pieces. Winning a series in NZ could well be harder than winning the World Cup. And if things don't come off, the Blacks will prey off mistakes like no other side in world rugby does.

If you don't pick your best available side for a Test match because you deem something else more important, then in my view you devalue that match. I'm talking more generally than about this specific game.

Lancaster may well feel that Tuilagi is indeed the best winger available to England, and that he's a better winger than Chris Ashton. Given the comparative experiences and performances of the players in their respective position, I personally find that view indefensible and believe that Lancaster is "experimenting" with little to suggest that the experiment will work, and that this is not the best side England could field against the ABs.

but surely you'll learn more from the experiment against NZ than against Scotland or Italy (no disrespect)? For instance, Wood did well for a decent chunk of the game against Scotland in 2012 at n°8, but didn't go well at all against Wales. Tuilagi would probably go well on the wing against Italy as they won't test him there very much, but will we learn anything from it?

Also for me the 6Ns is probably a little late to still be doing experiments. England should go into the 6Ns looking to play their best team in every game IMO and give the combinations as much time as possible to settle.

pledgeX wrote:Don't really understand Ashton on the bench. Is Foden injured?  Yea Ashton might be a better wing than Foden, but I'd have Foden at fullback over Burns any day.

I suspect one of the reasons for Burns is that Lancaster might think there's a chance both Farrell and Twelvetrees might need replacing, so he needs a genuine 10/15 option on the bench. Alex Goode, who has filled that role before, missed training earlier so perhaps wasn't considered. That leaves it down to Burns or Cipriani, and we know the pecking order there.

Ultimately we are still putting out a very strong side that "should" really take the game to NZ.

We will also see if it was New Zealand playing so badly...or if it was indeed England playing very well.

A pack which for my money was better than NZs last week is improved by the addition of Wood, the bench improved with Lawes, Hartley, Brookes and Vunipola added. The first choice 9-13 who got better and better in the 6Ns. A roll of the dice on our most dstructive runner on the wing who a fair few people have said doesn't pass and could be tried there.

I am bemused by how much criticism there is.

... Looks a decent side and a decent bench to me, we all have our favourites but I just see it as a good sign that there's genuine competition for places across the park...

...Except maybe wingers. Which is one of the reasons why he's trying Manu there. As Chelsea said, this is the first chance he's had to try it, only takes an injury to one of them and he might not get another.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Burrell at 12 and Manu at 13 next week. I don't think trying things is devaluing anything... He's trying to establish his best combinations when everyone is fit. Hardly like its a b team he's chucking out. I'm really looking forward to it.

The interviews with Lancaster in the papers today have shed a bit of light on the matter. He wanted Billy V, Lawes and Hartley in the squad but felt that they would add more impact coming off the bench (and there's a hint that this is a response to England's weak "last 20 minutes") problem. It also adds to the strength in depth - if by RWC time we have a first XV and bench who are equally capable of starting or subbing, we'll be in a very good position.

As for Tuilagi on the wing, the point's been made that he played all his age grade rugby on the wing. Now admittedly he stopped playing age grade stuff in his late teens, but it's not as if he's never played there, and Lancaster will have been part of the coaching setup. The lack of a proven kicking game is a risk, but the pattern is worth trying, and worth trying against top class opposition because if it works it will be worth sticking with. It's a shame for Eastmond, but he will get other chances.

Wasn't Sinckler a back at age grade level? Perhaps he should be played there. Hartley was a prop at age grade and it was only when he moved to Saints that he was moved to hooker. Tom youngs was a centre. Players play all sorts of positions when they're U18. Doesn't mean you play them there in a ful international against the All Blacks when you have a specialised player for that position on the bench.

If tuilagi is picked to play wing now it should be because he is suitable to play there now. I don't mind him being tried out there (although I wouldn't) but the fact he played there when he was 18 doesn't mean diddly...IMO

Also, if he wanted to try it out, he could have done it against Italy. It didn't seem that Burrell was injured when he came off.

cb wrote: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?

I don't think he sees Burrell as creative enough for him at 12. Ergo 36 steps back into the fray. I find it difficult to justify not having Eastmond on the bench. After his performance last week he offers a real threat and covers almost all the backline positions.

For once Lancs will be going into a game without a clutch of fullbacks. In fact if Brown goes down early we're pretty fecked.

Press conference here had Lancaster saying the midfield pairing went well in the 6N while Tuilagi was injured and he wants to give that a chance yet keep Manu on the field. Our Engage show pointed out that Tuilagi had been the wrecking ball in all the last 3 encounters vs NZ so see this as a huge risk, as will most kiwis I'd say.

So its a cake and eat it too solution BL has gone for. He's banking on Manus natural abilities to be effective regardless of his position. Not bad thinking (but the sort of selection he could get crucified for if it backfires), just untested. Manu has proven he can bust through the AB midfield more than once, 36 and Burrell havnt, and the 6N aint the ABs.

We have been bitten badly by this sort of thing before- particularly playing 15's at Centre- Cullen and Mils in key World cup matches. But its out there, hes got his reasons.

Quite glad this backline wasnt available last week, it would have monstered our much smaller backs. Savea tips the scales slightly but our loosies are going to have to get amongst the backs to cut down the bigger midfield.

Lawes looks like BL's card under the table selection for impact late in the game.

It's going to be an interesting Test all round really. Robshaw sounding very determined in interview. I think we'll through the kitchen sink at them for 70 minutes but might just over-do it on the energy during that time. Could leave us vulnerable in the last 10.

Whatever the outcome of the Test it's going to be interesting next week as well. Lose and does Lancs make some experimental changes? Win and does he give some knackered out players a rest or push them on for another game which would be high risk?

HammerofThunor wrote:Wasn't Sinckler a back at age grade level? Perhaps he should be played there. Hartley was a prop at age grade and it was only when he moved to Saints that he was moved to hooker. Tom youngs was a centre. Players play all sorts of positions when they're U18. Doesn't mean you play them there in a ful international against the All Blacks when you have a specialised player for that position on the bench.

If tuilagi is picked to play wing now it should be because he is suitable to play there now. I don't mind him being tried out there (although I wouldn't) but the fact he played there when he was 18 doesn't mean diddly...IMO

Also, if he wanted to try it out, he could have done it against Italy. It didn't seem that Burrell was injured when he came off.

+1

Age grade rugby is a little be kinder to players out of position, NZ in NZ aren't known to be forgiving.

Taylorman wrote:
Press conference here had Lancaster saying the midfield pairing went well in the 6N while Tuilagi was injured and he wants to give that a chance yet keep Manu on the field. Our Engage show pointed out that Tuilagi had been the wrecking ball in all the last 3 encounters vs NZ so see this as a huge risk, as will most kiwis I'd say.

So its a cake and eat it too solution BL has gone for. He's banking on Manus natural abilities to be effective regardless of his position. Not bad thinking (but the sort of selection he could get crucified for if it backfires), just untested. Manu has proven he can bust through the AB midfield more than once, 36 and Burrell havnt, and the 6N aint the ABs.

We have been bitten badly by this sort of thing before- particularly playing 15's at Centre- Cullen and Mils in key World cup matches. But its out there, hes got his reasons.

Quite glad this backline wasnt available last week, it would have monstered our much smaller backs. Savea tips the scales slightly but our loosies are going to have to get amongst the backs to cut down the bigger midfield.

Lawes looks like BL's card under the table selection for impact late in the game.

Manu has only played against you guys twice for this England side. In the AIs it was 36 and Tomkins...

Lawes, in my limited view at least, doesn't add much in the way of impact from the bench. He puts in some big tackles and carries at times but he's the sort of player that does it a few times across 80 minutes and not repeatedly in a short space of time. It may be that he's a bit knackered this being his first full season of rugby for some time.

I'd rather have seen Attwood on the bench even if Lawes was tired. He certainly offers more in the way of impact in the scrum, tackle and on the carry.

Lawes looks like BL's card under the table selection for impact late in the game.

I think id be more concerned at Billy Vunipola coming on than Lawes. Lawes is a beast...defensive monster, fast becoming a lineout king, etc...however Billy is just a wrecking ball with an incredible work rate for a big guy. The AB's would be better keeping a check on him at 50-60 mins.

In fact Hartley, Lawes and Billy coming on at say 60 minutes is a big impact.

yappysnap wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Wasn't Sinckler a back at age grade level? Perhaps he should be played there. Hartley was a prop at age grade and it was only when he moved to Saints that he was moved to hooker. Tom youngs was a centre. Players play all sorts of positions when they're U18. Doesn't mean you play them there in a ful international against the All Blacks when you have a specialised player for that position on the bench.

If tuilagi is picked to play wing now it should be because he is suitable to play there now. I don't mind him being tried out there (although I wouldn't) but the fact he played there when he was 18 doesn't mean diddly...IMO

Also, if he wanted to try it out, he could have done it against Italy. It didn't seem that Burrell was injured when he came off.

+1

Age grade rugby is a little be kinder to players out of position, NZ in NZ aren't known to be forgiving.

+2

I'd echo the Italy point when his wing switch had been mooted before. Further, even though it's now an academic point it was another good time to give someone other than Farrell a go in the FH shirt. Had GF not been injured late on he'd have started his first Test last weekend!

Chjw131 wrote:

Manu has only played against you guys twice for this England side. In the AIs it was 36 and Tomkins...

thats true- can't recall him last year- or anyone in that one- remember the other two distinctly.. Manu is probably the most effective midfielder vs the ABs with JDV recently...and they move him out...

Agree with your bench. The AB's have been clearly told shape up or ship out and although we have our own power subs- Barrett possibly the most effective sub ever- certainly ours, we need to be well ahead by the 60 minute mark this time. We've used all our last minute rabbits, none left in the hat.

Taylorman wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Manu has only played against you guys twice for this England side. In the AIs it was 36 and Tomkins...

thats true- can't recall him last year- or anyone in that one- remember the other two distinctly.. Manu is probably the most effective midfielder vs the ABs with JDV recently...and they move him out...

Agree with your bench. The AB's have been clearly told shape up or ship out and although we have our own power subs- Barrett possibly the most effective sub ever- certainly ours, we need to be well ahead by the 60 minute mark this time. We've used all our last minute rabbits, none left in the hat.

I don't think that's surprising. I think Tomkins stats for the three games he played were 3 passes? Possibly it was 2? The only try I can recall was a Launchbury dive over from a scrum.

I actually think it'll be very close until the last 10 but I don't see this group having the collective energy to take it to 80+ minutes unless we're well ahead come 60.

HammerofThunor wrote:Wasn't Sinckler a back at age grade level? Perhaps he should be played there. Hartley was a prop at age grade and it was only when he moved to Saints that he was moved to hooker. Tom youngs was a centre. Players play all sorts of positions when they're U18. Doesn't mean you play them there in a ful international against the All Blacks when you have a specialised player for that position on the bench.

If tuilagi is picked to play wing now it should be because he is suitable to play there now. I don't mind him being tried out there (although I wouldn't) but the fact he played there when he was 18 doesn't mean diddly...IMO

Also, if he wanted to try it out, he could have done it against Italy. It didn't seem that Burrell was injured when he came off.

Sinckler was a fullback for most of his teens - so if Lancaster wants an 18 stone back who can shift and knows the defensive pattern, he has more than one option. Oh, and Kyle can kick...

Chjw131 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

Manu has only played against you guys twice for this England side. In the AIs it was 36 and Tomkins...

thats true- can't recall him last year- or anyone in that one- remember the other two distinctly.. Manu is probably the most effective midfielder vs the ABs with JDV recently...and they move him out...

Agree with your bench. The AB's have been clearly told shape up or ship out and although we have our own power subs- Barrett possibly the most effective sub ever- certainly ours, we need to be well ahead by the 60 minute mark this time. We've used all our last minute rabbits, none left in the hat.

I don't think that's surprising. I think Tomkins stats for the three games he played were 3 passes? Possibly it was 2? The only try I can recall was a Launchbury dive over from a scrum.

I actually think it'll be very close until the last 10 but I don't see this group having the collective energy to take it to 80+ minutes unless we're well ahead come 60.

Its pointing to another close match certainly but there is still potential for a blow out if our guys play anything as a side like they all have individually. That wouldnt surprise me at all. Despite not performing well last week, this AB side is packed with game breakers.

The other scenario is all this enthusiasm gives England the type of start they got in 2012 or even worse the one the Irish got on us last AI's- 3 tries in rapid time.

In other words I dont think the scores are going to go up in slow trading of penalties this time. Hansen has demanded our guys play rugby and after last week theyll all be out to prove a point. So I think this is going to be hectic, punishing and fast- the way it should be, particularly on this pitch, meaning anythings possible.

The more I think about it the more appalled I am by this backline selection.

The greatest ever English outside centre and probably currently the best in world rugby and stewie dicks him on the wing.....yer right, NOT.

This was our 1st and best opportunity to play Burrell and Tuilagi together in the biggest game of the year but dear old stewie ducked it big time.

And when did 36 play last? no worries we'll just stick him strait in because 4 months ago on a different side of the planet he didn't make Farrell look so bad.

Very annoyed but not surprised.

As for Farrell, well I thought there was some very sensible points made about player fatigue and injuries in this thread yesterday, but hey what do we know....

Tuilagi and Savea. both on the wing, both of Samoan heritage, both destructive runners, makes this the standout feature of this match, though amongst many. Care and Smith possibly the best 2 9's around, the experience of Smith and Nonu vs the fresh pair of Burrell and 36, the two fullbacks, full of running.

Up front there will be battles but its the backlines that excite me for this one. So much to prove.

Of course you're annoyed, kingelderfield. You're annoyed by Lancaster's very existence, and you'll continue being annoyed until he is replaced. I doubt that even a Grand Slam would alter your opinion.

"The greatest ever English outside centre and probably currently the best in world rugby" is a bit over the top.

He's a big lad who's very hard to stop in a straight line, but he's got a long way to go to show that he's better than Guscott at his peak, or whichever one of Greenwood / Catt / Tindall was playing OC at any given point in 2003.

As for the best in the world right now, Conrad Smith has lost a little pace but is still the most complete 13 for my money. Actually, in terms of all round skill set, I think Burrell is better. Manu does his thing, and he does it very well, but a defence that knows what it's doing can close down his running (I've watched Quins do it repeatedly) and he doesn't have enough experience yet to have a good Plan B.

Playing him on the wing is an experiment and it might not work, but if it does it will be very useful to have as an option. And it doesn't rule out the option of Burrell and Tuilagi playing in the centres later in the game.

As for Twelvetrees, yes, he hasn't been fit. But the plan has always been to have a second five-eighths style player, and Twelvetrees is currently the only one who fits the bill. We've seen how Burns and Eastmond played last week after a long time on the sidelines, so I think we can trust that the coaches would only have picked him if they think he's ready

yes thats a point. Lancaster may even have told 36 to rip it up for 20mins then sub off, and revert Manu to the Centres. On paper its a very good backline, theres certainly a lot of positives.

This is not some experiment nor is he "trying" things out. SL has picked what he believes is the strongest and best team to beat Nz. Yes the new boys tried hard last week but the core of England was and is the side that wreaked havoc on Wales. 

Last week Webber never put a foot wrong and fully deserves a second chance. As apparently is the same with Parling. May has always looked vulnerable so no surprise there.

This new configuration could take England to a whole new level of power and skill if it clicks. "if" .

The bench is equally impressive. This will be no walk in the park for either side but I have never been so confident of an England win as I am at the moment. Fingers crossed.

Hopefully the ref won't get in the way either.

Gunner wrote:

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?

Crikey gunner. All jokes are ridiculous aren't they. You need to lighten up a bit. Smile sometimes its good for you.

englandglory4ever wrote:

Gunner wrote:

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?

Crikey gunner. All jokes are ridiculous aren't they. You need to lighten up a bit. Smile sometimes its good for you.

Would a joke not have to be funny to smile?

Yeah not pleased with Manu on the wing. I should confess that I actually have previously suggested he moved there at club level as I felt his basic skills, especially passing, were really not up to scratch at 13. BUT - despite his bluntness he has an impact at 13. I do not think he is a better 13 than Burrell, his running lines and passing, even his offloads are poorer...but he is more effective.

Also think Lawes really should have come in, and as well as Morgan went, I think BV is marginally better. I guess we'll see.

Have to admit, and this will go down badly, but now starts a month where I barely notice rugby. All about the footie!

englandglory4ever wrote:

Gunner wrote:

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?

Crikey gunner. All jokes are ridiculous aren't they. You need to lighten up a bit. Smile sometimes its good for you.

Shields? what are they for? All attack here...the highlanders wear the skirts still though...

Hood83 wrote:Yeah not pleased with Manu on the wing. I should confess that I actually have previously suggested he moved there at club level as I felt his basic skills, especially passing, were really not up to scratch at 13. BUT - despite his bluntness he has an impact at 13. I do not think he is a better 13 than Burrell, his running lines and passing, even his offloads are poorer...but he is more effective.

Also think Lawes really should have come in, and as well as Morgan went, I think BV is marginally better. I guess we'll see.

Have to admit, and this will go down badly, but now starts a month where I barely notice rugby. All about the footie!

I would've like to have seen Lawes from the start, him and Lunch were getting some superb reviews in the 6N together and it's not the same with Parling there.

I actually think Morgan is the better all round player now that he's improved his defence. He also has blistering pace over 15-20m for such a huge bloke. BV is a star in the making but Morgs has better ball skills at the moment.

I don't know about no FB cover either, if there's one position one would like covered it's FB in the backs. There was surely a better case for Foden over Ashton in that regard. Even Watson.

Taylorman wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

Gunner wrote:

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?

Crikey gunner. All jokes are ridiculous aren't they. You need to lighten up a bit. Smile sometimes its good for you.

Shields? what are they for? All attack here...the highlanders wear the skirts still though...

And THAT is a classy response, more classy than was deserved.

Hood83 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

Gunner wrote:

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?

Crikey gunner. All jokes are ridiculous aren't they. You need to lighten up a bit. Smile sometimes its good for you.

Shields? what are they for? All attack here...the highlanders wear the skirts still though...

And THAT is a classy response, more classy than was deserved.

its great though...everyone's just getting a little jumpy that's all...good to see. Quite an impressive stadium by our meager standards (stadia wise) and good to know we are guaranteed at least one dry game. Weathers been terrible the last week here.

What has happened to Parling?

Why is Lawes not starting?

Biltong wrote:What has happened to Parling?

Why is Lawes not starting?

Parling's starting; Lancaster is barely holding Lawes, Hartley and Vunipola back, straining at the leash until he releases them in the 50th minute.

Poorfour wrote:

Biltong wrote:What has happened to Parling?

Why is Lawes not starting?

Parling's starting; Lancaster is barely holding Lawes, Hartley and Vunipola back, straining at the leash until he releases them in the 50th minute.

  

  

Hansen! Where are you!...there you are... 

   ooooh...you dont say?            hmmm        let me see       yummy...       

 

Lancaster may just want a killer edge in the last 20.

One thing the likes of Aus and NZ are good at is sneaking the win…if you unleash a wave like Hartley, Lawes and Billy with fresh legs at 60 minutes then it could be enough to put NZ away if the game is close

I think it's a really exciting selection. If it comes off England will be sensational. If it doesn't, well it's just another lost series in New Zealand. The home WC is the most important thing right now.

Having said that, whilst it might not work, SL has picked this side because he thinks it will. Again, it's worth remembering that the coaches watch these guys in training every day. They know who is playing well, and they get to try things out and see if they look like they will work.

For Tuilagi to the wing to work the improvement he offers over May has to outweigh what we lose from having Burrell instead of Tuilagi at 13.

Well England's wings have struggled for a while, and whilst it is not clear how good Tuilagi's kicking game is, he has all the other ingredients to be a sensational wing. He will affect the way NZ defend, and he should create space for other players. He will also come looking for work in the midfield, and he wont do the sideways running which May has tended to favour.

As for centre, I think Burrell is a better 13 than a 12, and he was the best 13 in the 6 Nations. He is a superb athlete in his own right and his game is more rounded than Tuilagi's.  I think SL wants a Twelvetrees or an Eastmond at 12, rather than a Burrell, although I'd imagine he would be prepared to move him there during a game. SL wants enough distributors to get the ball to Tuilagi, Yarde and Brown in dangerous positions, and with 36 and Burrell in the centres he has that.

I can't wait to see whether this works. On paper I think this is the most exciting English backline I've ever seen.

I don`t know if it has been mentioned before but except for a couple of Scrums,NZ won the
second half and the game.Scrum penalties or the euphemism "winning a penalty"implies
sharp practice by the Front row mafia to earn it.
Two penalties were awarded for "Illegal Wheeling" law states Scrum goes more than 90
degrees reset.Also it specifies what is or is not illegal wheel both can be done by either
side to try and con the ref.[it depends on the ref etc.
Scrum[NZ]improved when subs came on and there Scrum was getting the upper hand
towards the end.
The mind games being played are pointless it is only ever 15 versus 15 against any
team.The one who makes the least mistakes wins.
What happened in 1905 or last weekend is irrelevant this week is a brand new game.

emack2 wrote:I don`t know if it has been mentioned before but except for a couple of Scrums,NZ won the
second half and the game.Scrum penalties or the euphemism "winning a penalty"implies
sharp practice by the Front row mafia to earn it.
Two penalties were awarded for "Illegal Wheeling" law states Scrum goes more than 90
degrees reset.Also it specifies what is or is not illegal wheel both can be done by either
side to try and con the ref.[it depends on the ref etc.
Scrum[NZ]improved when subs came on and there Scrum was getting the upper hand
towards the end.
The mind games being played are pointless it is only ever 15 versus 15 against any
team.The one who makes the least mistakes wins.
What happened in 1905 or last weekend is irrelevant this week is a brand new game.

Sometimes, not always. I also think the 2nd half was still a pretty close affair tbh