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)

Hello,

This is my first post here.

I've read a lot of comments and there are an extremely large amount of knowledge of the game here, so thought I'd actually sign up to chat about some issues.

I don't have a dog in the fight, and have no agenda on result or performance, so hope my comments are not dismissed.

For all the areas in which were won/lost I think 2 major issues were key, the breakdown (and new Zealand's ability to win it by any means necessary) and the seasons timing.

Nz are the more settled, comfortable and less pressured team individual player wise, and I expect them to be stronger than England, that said when was the halts time there was such big pressure (or any) on England to win in nz? That has to be a good sign for them!

Also to use the old adage 'only the scoreboard counts' then 2 tests and 6 points separate both teams, that on the basis of what I've seen is about right.

Sadly for both teams it's a bit like going to a night club, taking a really hot girl home then waking up to your 2nd cousin, mixed feelings but ultimately not happy,

yappysnap wrote:So perhaps next week:

Marler
Webber
Flatman
Lawes
Launchberry (fitness?)
Haskell
Robshaw
Vunipola
Care
Farrel
Yarde
Eastmond
Tuilagi
Ashton
Foden

Hartley, Brookes, Mullan, Attwood, Morgan, Youngs, Burns, Brown

Yep dave flatman the retired bath loosehead in at tighthead for me too, he's looked very keen on the ITV rugby show and reckon he could do a great job  

Notch wrote:Funny to say that king, because I think the All Blacks also blew a few tries. Especially the one where Aaron Smith had Messam free on his right and didn't give it! Ah, it was so frustratingly unlike them! And then Conrad Smith put a pass into touch with Messam free in that corner again. Just wasn't the clinical edge we've come to expect from NZ.

But they did enough to win. One of the best test matches of the season for me as a neutral.

True true. NZ still left some points on the pitch.

I was thinking more though of the chances where we had the ball wide 10 metres out with 3 on 2's and let alone not getting across the whitewash but manage to not look particularly threatening! In those situations you should be forcing big defensive plays such as Ben Smith tackle on Manu to stop a try. Much of the time we are not though. We simply seem to stretch the defence from one touchline to the other without creating gaps.

Agreed it was another engaging test between two top sides throwing everything at each other!

aucklandlaurie wrote:
So does it go:
B.Smith, Beaudie Barrett, Israel Dagg with Charles Piutau chugging up the rear?

No way - Barrett is a first five! and should be starting next week.
Its turning into a 'canes backline (once Nonu returns to Wellington)

sirtidychris wrote:

yappysnap wrote:So perhaps next week:

Marler
Webber
Flatman
Lawes
Launchberry (fitness?)
Haskell
Robshaw
Vunipola
Care
Farrel
Yarde
Eastmond
Tuilagi
Ashton
Foden

Hartley, Brookes, Mullan, Attwood, Morgan, Youngs, Burns, Brown

Yep dave flatman the retired bath loosehead in at tighthead for me too, he's looked very keen on the ITV rugby show and reckon he could do a great job  

Well done STC, you passed the test   

Neutralee wrote:Hello,

This is my first post here.

I've read a lot of comments and there are an extremely large amount of knowledge of the game here, so thought I'd actually sign up to chat about some issues.

I don't have a dog in the fight, and have no agenda on result or performance, so hope my comments are not dismissed.

For all the areas in which were won/lost I think 2 major issues were key, the breakdown (and new Zealand's ability to win it by any means necessary) and the seasons timing.

Nz are the more settled, comfortable and less pressured team individual player wise, and I expect them to be stronger than England, that said when was the halts time there was such big pressure (or any) on England to win in nz? That has to be a good sign for them!

Also to use the old adage 'only the scoreboard counts' then 2 tests and 6 points separate both teams, that on the basis of what I've seen is about right.

Sadly for both teams it's a bit like going to a night club, taking a really hot girl home then waking up to your 2nd cousin, mixed feelings but ultimately not happy,

Welcome Neutralee!

The breakdown point is an interesting one with England seeming to slightly abandon their usual practice of flooding it with numbers for a more reserved approach. In attack especially we didn't provide our scrum half with the protection needed allowing NZ to come straight through the middle of the ruck and wreck the quality of delivery to the backline.

Also agree about only the scoreboard counts. Our last 3 test against NZ have all been relatively close with both sides having opportunity to do more. However it's the sign of a good side if they can produce the big play when required which the ABs almost always do.

Conrad Smiths quality in attack and defence once again shone through today. He's a real key player for NZ to nurse towards the RWC.

I think the midfield was such a huge problen in this game. We fave away so much possession through rash passes and decisions, missed chances. We should have scored a couple in the first 20-30 mins that we missed. The Abs wouldn't have missed them.
Twelvtrees has to tale a huge amount of criticism for that as the passing centre nearly every pass he threw went to ground.

Tackling of the whole team wasn't great...to many tines the blacks just walked passed players like they weren't there.

But, these are tweaks that can be corrected next week with only a couple of personnel changes. And a rocket up the backside from the defence coach.

I predicted a loss in this game. ..but I actually think we'll win the last one. And not because the Abs have won the series and will drop the intensity bit because we aren't far away. .it's all down to clinical finishing....making the right decisions and being brutally efficient in try scoring opportunities.

The Abs don't do fancy Dan in those situations...they make sure they score!!

Hi king

I have to agree, Conrad smith was superb today, and Burrell and yarde/tuilagi were highlighted as a weak point.

Yarde and Burrell are exceptional attacking players but aren't going to have the nous to outthink or play a man of smiths experience when he get s the ball with a platform. Manu GUI
Ago on the other hand has the physical advantage to intimidate.

I feel a bit for twelve trees, he seems to be getting all the flack for the static midfield, but for me last weeks midfield had more penetration not because they worked for it, but because they had a platform from burns, Farrell was just too static.

SecretFly wrote:Only issue now is that England have thrown everything at the ABs these last two games on the downward slope of a long season and holidays to get to... ABs still came out winners (just!) of both as they ratchet up their machine for the Rugby Championship.  Two opposite ends of a season doing battle.

So third game.  Will England have the fire in the belly to push for the line one more time or will the ABs have blown off whatever cobwebs are left on their systems, and put an 80 together that could punish England?

I was trying to work out the ending of this entertaining game - an ending which seemed strange to me.  England were typically England and came back for more.  I admire that attitude.  But ABs floundered and lost focus almost immediately when they knew there wasn't time enough for England to slice through the 8 points.  Job done before the game ended.  Minds closed down, which meant that yes, they defended their line notionally but they were fully prepared to take another hit of 7 points as long as it wasn't 8.

That attitude banboozles me as a competitive person but it also intrigues me because they are so clinical in that very thought.  Enough was enough.  They'd won - game over.  Close down the machine till next time.  Don't overheat it.  No pride required to keep England from scoring again.  Victory was victory - all one point.

So that attitude kinda makes me think they were content with the performance, they'd more fully assessed their machine and they're happy with the progress - all one point of it - and that they intend rising the performance a notch again next time.  Those ABs, they do keep you thinking and wondering what they're thinking.

Not at all its always the same. People think its the AB's and that they are switched on all game. Now if the opposition make mistakes they are all over it, but time after time I see them sit back for most of a game but switch on the afterburners for a few minutes at some point to take the game out of reach then settle back again.

I remember watching these games back in the Carling era - and you might find that England had won a half from which we would try and take encouragement, but the result was seldom in doubt.

The great thing about the England win a couple of years ago was that when the AB's did try turning on the afterburners we managed to respond in kind.

Still, the gap between the two teams is as narrow as it has been for the last 10 years, and there should be more to come. November should be fun.

Twelvetrees just doesn't have the consistency required, he has the potential to make our back line tick over really nicely and to be fair did some decent things today but overall too many errors

i agree 36 needs to be dropped, i don't think i've ever seen much good from him and he's had a fair few games now. He's just not doing what he is being put there for.

Can't believe people are ragging on Parling. 18 tackles today. A street clear of anyone else on either team. I'd start him and Lawes.

Scrumpy wrote:I think the result reflects where england are at present, a one point defeat in NZ is disappointing but at the same time nothing to be sniffed at for a NH team, if anything I think SL selections cost us, Manu isn't a international winger.

Summer Mid term report:
Showing real signs of progress but loss of focus at crucial times needs to be worked on, other wise it's been a good 1st half. Well done.

This is the 2nd time I've agreed with you, I must be losing it!

Last week gave us an air of confidence we perhaps didn't deserve and today the 2nd half showed the difference in class. England have improved enormously in the last few years and whilst disappointed by the loss I am hugely encouraged that we're fast becoming one of the top sides. We have a very young side and they will be better for this loss.

That's the key thing Nathan. Barrit was criticized foe not being creative and Twelvtrees has been brought infor that but he's not doing it and his tackling rucking etc is far worse than Barrits so we're losing out. He needs to get back playing for Gloucester and improve. I do believe he has what it takes but not yet.

Is it Farrell the issue? Maybe.

But the midfield needs a serious look at...10-12-13

I'd start Manu at 13 and give Eastmond another go for the last test

maverickmak wrote:Can't believe people are ragging on Parling. 18 tackles today. A street clear of anyone else on either team. I'd start him and Lawes.

Did make me laugh hen someone said he should never play for England again. This a week after he had a stand out game aswell.

Neutralee

I think much of it comes back to the breakdown. NZ we far better there and continually got quick ball which allowed them to attack with numbers and flood the wide channels as they do so well.

When they had ball in the first half the backline created opportunities and broke the line. As we've seen so often they then fell apart and lost their shape and direction in the opposition 22.

I feel a bit for Twelvetrees too. The offload the led to the breakaway try shouldn't have been thrown but at the same time his break in the first half was extremely similar to Eastmonds last week but has gone almost unnoticed it seems!

1.Marler
2.Webber - Thought he was our best player prior to being taken off
3.Wilson
4.Launchbury - Another who is looking tired at the end of a long season. Might consider starting Parling
5.Lawes
6.Wood
7.Robshaw
8.Vunipola

9.Care
10.Burns - Farrell looks exhausted and starting him for another test wont do him or the team much good IMO

11.Yarde
12.Twelvetrees
13.Tuilagi
14.Ashton
15.Brown

16.Hartley
17.Waller - Harsh on Mullan but think we should have a look at what Waller is capable of
18.Brookes
19.Parling
20.Morgan
21.Youngs
22.Farrell
23.Foden - Brown looks tired as well and we will need a replacement for him if he struggles again.

I'd like to see something such as that for the third test.

GeordieFalcon wrote:That's the key thing Nathan. Barrit was criticized foe not being creative and Twelvtrees has been brought infor that but he's not doing it and his tackling rucking etc is far worse than Barrits so we're losing out. He needs to get back playing for Gloucester and improve. I do believe he has what it takes but not yet.

Is it Farrell the issue? Maybe.

But the midfield needs a serious look at...10-12-13

I'd start Manu at 13 and give Eastmond another go for the last test

I'd agree with the latter, i certainly think Manu needs to be in the centres and not on the wing. For me it's between Eastmond and Burrell for the other spot.

I understand Burrell's done well in club rugby this year at 12, but today at 13 he contributed nothing with the ball and missed tackles without it. I don't get to see them in training like the coaching staff, but if you take it on tour form, you'd try eastmond over Burrell at 12 next week.

Mullan and brookes showed some spirit when they came on
Did well in that last scrum
Would like both to get a bit more game time next week

I don't think we need be over the top here. Congratulations to NZ they really hammered the advantage home in that third quarter and put us under huge pressure. Very impressive stuff from them. I suddenly had shades of SA 2012 T2 but thankfully that dissipated!

There were a couple of aspects I wasn't overawed with from England. Firstly, the defence wasn't nearly as aggressive as it has been. From the off there were meters made for NZ. We also seemed to lost control of our tactics for periods in that second half.

Still they pulled it back to a one point ball game and played to the end. We showed some invention and were good in some facets of play.

Our ball carrying from the forwards needs to be better. Parling put in a super shift but he does upset the balance of carrying with neither him nor Joe being much good in that department. It's like having two Borthwicks...

Manu didn't work on the wing much like Geogre North looked better for Saints in the centre. Burrell wasn't nearly as incisive from 13.

36 played well at times and not at others. He's a good player but he's not yet making himself indispensable and that's a problem. I certainly think Eastmond, on his last showing, deserves a shot for this final Test.

Farrell looked fecked out and frankly didn't impress me. He's had a Lions tour and some very hard finals, he needs a proper rest. Burns looked far better last week and their defence as a mid-field last week was far better than today's showing.

It was always going to be a challenge to re-integrate players who've played a lot of rugby and some of them looked tired today.

As far as the bench goes Hartley added precisely naff all and why Webber was removed is beyond me? Whay Davy Wilson was still playing at 76 minutes is another question.

Lawes looked good and probably should've started as did BV. Morgan went fine but wasn't imposing. Burns didn't even make it on the field!

It's a learning curve all round I think, both for the players and hopefully SL!

Who plays v crusaders
Maybe
Goode
May
Trinder
Barritt
Foden
Cipriani
Dickson
Waller
Gray
Thomas
Slater
Attwood
Johnson
Kvesic
Morgan
Subs
Ward,Catt,sinkler,paterson(cough)Haskell,youngs,Myler,Ashton

Problem with Parling to my mind is he makes a lot of tackles, which is great, but they always end up well behind the gainline, so the opposition is allowed to build momentum.

We do lack carrying capability with that team no doubt. I'd have Haskell and BV with Lawes in for Parling and Attwood on the bench. Problem is that when Read comes back in we'll need forwards with an engine as well, because he will be everywhere! I think the ABs are 10% better with him in, he's that good.

Yeh interesting that last week we worried defensively with our 10 and 12 channels, but we were far more secure than today in midfield.

We may have ended up closer on the scoreboard but I never really had a clue how we were going to win this match once the second half started. Last week, by contrast, I had a good idea how we might.

It's unfortunate that two of our best players of the Six Nations - Care and Brown - are off colour on this tour. Nevertheless, we've got to find ways of winning when not all our players are having a good game. New Zealand manage to do this and Australia often do too.

It's a painful result today but I'm already looking forward to the third Test, not least to see what it tells us about our coaches.

I think Lancaster has a few big calls to make next week in the backs, Farrell was poor today, Twelvetrees added nothing and was way off the mark and Manu didn't work on the wing.

As a neutral I think a back line of Care, Burns, Eastmond Manu, Yarde (really impressed today), Ashton (least he's a natural winger) and Brown is your best bet at the moment.

The pack are looking good with a good few options in the 2nd row and backrow.

Who is reffing the last game?

SecretFly wrote:Who is reffing the last game?  

I think it's Garcès. They're rotating the team of 3.

Last time we came here it was a 17 point margin and a 32 point margin (EDIT: And I thought that was going to happen today). Baby steps

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:Twelvetrees just doesn't have the consistency required, he has the potential to make our back line tick over really nicely and to be fair did some decent things today but overall too many errors

6 weeks out thrown into the biggest game of the year.....dogs horlix selection for me. Should have been;

Youngs/Care
Cipriani/Burns
Ashton
Burrell/Eastmond
Tuilagi
Yarde
Brown (today should be his last game of the tour as looks knackered as do others)

How many more games will Lancaster bomb?

For all our potential we need a top draw special coach who can do more than just the basics of due process. We need a coach who understands contemporary selection with an achievable winning game plan.

Lancaster’s selections are fixated and doom us to failure.

Farrell and 36 why? Because he has already decided this is our long term strategy and therefore is not prepared to open his eyes to the reality in front of him.
Neither should have been selected today for obvious reasons.

Tuilagi on the wing......nothing more to say really.

Tactical failures;

Limited use of our maul
poor ruck defence, how many times were we turned over by counter rucking?
Slow to release the bench when it was obvious players were shot. Surely at the end of the season players will become exhausted sooner than in earlier season games?

What lessons will be learnt;

Hopefully the players will realise that it is they alone who have the on field authority/responsibility to decide if we win or lose.

The players will hopefully now know that this is not the greatest All Black side ever and is beatable.

Tuilagi is WASTED as a test wing.

Lancaster is at his limit.

... And yet somehow we were unlucky to lose the first test and managed to be ahead at half time in this one. Amazing to think what we could do with a coach who knew his 'arris from his elbow.

maverickmak wrote:Can't believe people are ragging on Parling. 18 tackles today. A street clear of anyone else on either team. I'd start him and Lawes.

Parling definitely made a lot of tackles today, but you may find that total changes when the stats are reviewed on Monday.  When the stats are produced during the match the analysts don't pause or rewind to confirm everything, so quite often a restricted view of a player or a fast sequence of events leads to actions being wrongly attributed, particularly when players have similar identifiers like Parling and Wood had today.

I think Lancaster might just be the best coach working in test rugby right now. To call for his head after these two games is somewhat premature.

People are ragging on everyone. Understandable, we just lost by a point away from home to the best side in the world.

Seriously, the way they over-ran us after half time was worrying. Parling (partly because he's not lawes and partly because the lineout malfunctioned) and the backs are getting the blame, but the pack got blown away in that period. We barely touched the ball for 20 mins, lost all the contacts.

The poorly selected rubbish backs still managed 3 tries on far less possession than they normally have. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't great but some of the reaction is knee jerk and Ott.

milkyboy wrote:People are ragging on everyone. Understandable, we just lost by a point away from home to the best side in the world.

Seriously, the way they over-ran us after half time was worrying. Parling (partly because he's not lawes and partly because the lineout malfunctioned) and the backs are getting the blame, but the pack got blown away in that period. We barely touched the ball for 20 mins, lost all the contacts.

The poorly selected rubbish backs still managed 3 tries on far less possession than they normally have. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't great but some of the reaction is knee jerk and Ott.

Correct.  To the critics and doubters - stop trying to always be world beaters and you never know, you just might become world beaters.  But the eternal impatience of some English fans does always go into overdrive after games such as these: "Why are we not the Best yet????????!!!!!!  Lancaster is holding us back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We should be Number One."

Lancaster is the bit by bit expert that is quietly getting you there or thereabouts.  He's planning for a WC bid, at home in England.  These games will be invaluable to him, and his team are certainly in the same competitive league as New Zealand and the other SH three.  But no, that's seen to be still underperforming in the eyes of some. Not enough.  

What coach would bring the x factor then?  What coach would blend it all together seamlessly and take England to the next level...just before the WC?

There were two major issues I noticed.

England's breakdown play was headless, the players seemed to hit the rucks but no plan to achieve a required effect.

The AB forwards seemed to clear the rucks at will, a few times it looked like England had control at a breakdown only to be completely cleaned out and turned over.

Tuilangi looked lost at wing, you could see he wasn't used to finishing from outside, the try he flopped with Brown (for some unknown reason) who ran away from Tuilangi made no sense.

Tuilangi is used to have defenders in front of him, he wants to bash through them, does not have enough pace for the wing and his play so close to the line was completely clueless.

TJ wrote:I think Lancaster might just be the best coach working in test rugby right now.  To call for his head after these two games is somewhat premature.  

No he's not and though I realise nothing can be done untill after the WC, let's be clear he is not a winner and should be replaced post haste thereafter.

Who is better? Tell you what - I would happily have Lancaster in charge of Scotland indeed I was a bit disspointed England kept him on after the caretaker stint.

I think Lancaster has proven himself, England is playing more expansive rugby and changing the style to a faster game isn't going to come overnight, however he has made a few selection errors thus far.

The primary role of an international head coach is about environment and enabling not tactics. I've certainly been of the opinion that Lancaster has performed a minor miracle in that department with England, having to overcome some very specific English problems. He's a really shrewd operator when it comes to driving, motivating and enabling the players.

What I had thought he could do with was a recognised attack coach to add some tactical impetus but frankly the way that the coaches have them playing so far I don't think that's necessary right now.

It takes time and experience to put together a side that wins at the highest level consistently and this side aren't there yet. They are however, expanding their play and seem to be developing far more in the way of awareness.

For a side that's still the most inexperienced in international rugby they're doing incredibly well. Given more experience they will become a formidable side, just not yet. That's credit to all the coaching staff including General Farrell.

Biltong wrote:I think Lancaster has proven himself, England is playing more expansive rugby and changing the style to a faster game isn't going to come overnight, however he has made a few selection errors thus far.

That's the nub of it I think. He has selected some appalling benches and he's made some odd decisions but I don't think there's a coach in history who hasn't been accused of incorrect selection for virtually every game.

He relies on some players or attributes too much. Parling is an example. Yes he's a leader. Yes he can run an excellent lineout. Yes he makes a lot of tackles. It is evident however, that there are better locks out there in some areas where some feel England need a boost. Lancs relies on Parling because he feels he does what he wants him to do, is reliable and adds to the team as a whole in the way an Attwood/Lawes may not.

To my mind leaders tend to find their feet in teams at different times. Sometimes it is better to play the more talented player regardless of who's waiting to re-take their place. Replacing Webber for example was very odd. Perhaps his stats had dropped off but he was one of England's best forwards on the pitch. Replacing him with Hartley for his leadership did not work and that's a lesson in itself.

Really concerned by our approach to rucks in that game. Was it a tactical thing to not attempt turn overs or had NZ figured us out? Seemed like the backrow and locks weren't bothering to try.

Excellent game, and when you look at England's record against NZ and the fact many people were predicting a thrashing I think we deserve a lot of credit. England were the better side in the first half and in the last 10 minutes. Incredibly impressive from New Zealand in the second half though. But that passage of play will have done a huge amount for the relatively inexperienced England players who were on the receiving end.

Twelvetrees was definitely mixed, but you could see in the first half what SL wants in terms of shape. We moved the ball nicely, and his break was very similar to Eastmond's. He was right to try the offload in the second half after running a nice line as it would have led to a try for England. Unfortunately he didn't execute. Like Care (who was surprisingly poor - if Ben Youngs plays like that he gets absolutely slated), he did look underdone, but I expect both will start next week.

Tuilagi defended really well, but had less influence on the game than last week and Burrell didn't play well, and so I expect he'll be moved back to 13 and Ashton will start. The only other changes I expect to the starting line up are Lawes for Launchbury and Vunipola for Morgan (with the displaced players dropping to the bench).

I thought Farrell was fine. As a team we have to sort our kicking out. If we do so then we can win next week, which would be a huge achievement.

Some interesting calls for the Crusaders' game. Foden or Goode at FB? Will Watson get a start? Does Barritt play at IC or OC (if Eastmond starts then I'd expect him at OC as otherwise with Cips at FH and Eastmond at 12 we'll be very lightweight if Trinder is at 13). If Eastmond doesn't start then it suggests he will do next weekend, and then it will be Barritt and Trinder in the centres.

It will be interesting to see who plays 8: Johnson, Haskell and Kvesic are all contenders. I'd expect the 3 of them to be the backrow. I'd also expect Paterson to start at lock to run the line-out alongside Attwood, with Slater on the bench. I wonder if Thomas or Sinkler will start at TH? Presumably Gray will be the starting hooker.

Not really a Farrell fan, too limited for me on attack. Doesnt mix his options enough for this backline, which has some good go forward players. Other than that agree DaveM. I don't think criticism of BL is justified here. Manu yes, an experiment that went wrong.

Remember BL was dealt some difficult cards with the fragmented tour party. And he banked on newcomers vs those seconds that performed. Those that replaced Burns, Youngs, Haskell, Manu etc didnt add significant enough value as 'superior' players and that was their job- so its not all BL's fault.

NZ took the other approach, why start again with new players when another week together is really what they needed. Made easier though where most of our top side were already playing.

I don't think anything major needs to be done. We just need to fine tune the starting line up. Lancaster made some errors in selection and some of us called that but he also put a squad together that can really take the game to the ABs in NZ.

Bring In Slater at 4 and Eastmond and a proper winger in the backs with Manu at 13 and I think we'll do fine.

Agree to a letter taylorman, you can't play a creative guy alongside a kicking option and expect him to create, but in reality nz's continuity was as always going to make them better.

Mccaw looks to be getting slower but like the rest he got better second half. Just wonder if we can afford to keep relying on experience over pace at 7. Our back row wont outbox the Bok's back 3, they need to outrun them as well.

For England Manu will go back to 13 and Ashton should return. One more week together will also help the English but I don't believe as much as the AB's. We've generally worked England out and the intensity and accuracy has returned. More work there will serve to increase that 20 minute period of excellence to maybe 30 or 40.

Lot of work for England to do and in some ways BL is back to square one selection wise.

It was pleasing the scrum dominance Brookes and Mullan achieved at the end. Having another TH who can scrummage will be particularly helpful.

Can't say enough about Ben Smiths performance. The tackle/ turnover of a stunned Tuilagi turned the match on its head. Last year our best back by far in the RC finally gets his first start in his best position. Saveas presence was felt, and Nonu stepped up from last week. Cruden is still slow to return, Barrett more effective when on. Breakdown was huge, the English seem to commit less than last week for some reason.

Gents,
After watching the match then taking an unsettled nap, I had had time to reflect on England's effort. Yes, once again England played pretty well. Once again, we found a way to snatch defeat from the possible jaws of victory. Yes, the ABs are world champs, and worthy ones, too. Obviously. But a half time lead and then 3 tries in the blink of an eye? Have we merely climbed back to the position of England as noble, proud brass-it-out good losers? Screw that.

To me, from the time we were born behaviours become reinforced. How do we break this losing down south mentality? If we truly want to say England have that maniacal winner-take-all edge that is needed to be the very best, where will it come from? Who will it come from? Is there anyone on the team we had on the pitch who really has that? Not sure.