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)

Biltong wrote: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.

The breakdown tactics were really odd where we seemed to change tact from flooding it with numbers which had disrupted NZ well in our previous three test with them to a plan of keeping numbers on the fringe. Maybe a reaction to how easily sides have made yards on the pick and go against us.

The Tuilagi chance against Smith was very poor with a seeming breakdown of communication between Brown who cut inside and Manu who stayed out and tried to get his hands free for the offload.

I can't get away from the feeling we either need another big carrier in the pack to get over the gainline or a backrow with real pace to provide more support when exploiting half breaks.

doctor_grey wrote: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.  

sounds like wales in aus in 2012....and look where we are now....as for that edge, Eastmond and Manu in midfield.

Do to teams what SA just dod to wales, and what greenwood suggests, bosh x 50 + hit midfield.

Question is...did england field their best side today or try and field too many centres because the selectors can't decide on a game plan

in my view England tried to out New zealand the All Blacks when they should stick to drudgery and try and destroy their pack

doctor_grey wrote: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.
 

I look at it differently. I think England snatched a very respectable score from the jaws of a possible humiliation. We are struggled for 25 minutes in the second half because we kicked poorly and the ABs were outstanding. 15 points down could easily have become 30, but instead we scored two good tries.

DaveM wrote:

doctor_grey wrote: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.
 

I look at it differently. I think England snatched a very respectable score from the jaws of a possible humiliation. We are struggled for 25 minutes in the second half because we kicked poorly and the ABs were outstanding. 15 points down could easily have become 30, but instead we scored two good tries.  

a phyrric defeat then, the close score line will disguise the monumental man sausage up that selecting your go to hammer is on the wing

he needs space to move and is not so quick to do a cuthbert on an SH back 3.

Thoughts,Lancasters comment about the Squad preparation of only 5 days is as valid
as Hansens last week.
NZ improved on most areas that were lacking last week,and you can expect better
from them next.Cruden is still short of game time,Dagg is injured and won`t start next
week,ditto Read.
McCaw is also only just back from injury,BUT he no longer plays the traditional 7 role
getting more involved in the graft.Read does that and Vito at 8 with Messam benched
is a better bet.
Interesting that England want a 5/8 style at 12,and NZ are going for the standard NH
combo of Cruncher/Creator at centre.
Tualagi is good at 13 BUT must learn to pass to his wing rather than go alone otherwise
move him to 12.Then use him a crash ball  option to set up second phase possession.
s

Whilst I think Tuilagi will be moved to 13, I don't think it's completely certain. He went ok on the wing, the problem was Burrell played poorly at 13 and so Manu's influence was really missed. Given how Twelvetrees and Burrell improved as the 6 Nations went on, I don't think it is impossible the same group of backs will start next week.

Here are some interesting quotes from the BBC. SL:

"Scoring three tries in Dunedin is not a bad return so we are moving in the right direction but we didn't quite finish the deal," said Lancaster.

"It's decision-making at the highest level that we need to look at." "The backline created a lot of opportunities. The frustration for us is not finishing the opportunities.

"There were one or two errors in our game which presented them with opportunities. But overall the positives far outweigh the negatives."

Then Hanson:

"We certainly played better than in the first Test but we needed to because England were a lot better, too," said Hansen.

"It was a great Test match. The ball was thrown around and everyone would have left satisfied with what they saw.

"England have always been a team we enjoy playing, particularly of late because they've been real contests. They're right up there."

So, the coaches don't think England are too bad. Now, if Care can play better, and England kick to touch at appropriate times, there is still more to come even with no changes to the side.

I'm sure England fans will be gutted but that was a strong performance.  NZ were as good as I've seen them in the 3rd quarter.  SL has certainly built a strong squad but he persists in playing some players out of position.  He doesn't need to as there is depth in most positions.  England might have won today with a flying right wing. At this level it's not enough to just do OK.

Tuilagi is one of the quickest in the England squad - if he wasn't quick he would have been caught earlier. Smith's defence was excellent and he had a good angle on Manu. After running that far a player will always be vulnerable to an excellent tackle - Tuilagi just missed his fend.

DaveM wrote:Tuilagi is one of the quickest in the England squad - if he wasn't quick he would have been caught earlier. Smith's defence was excellent and he had a good angle on Manu. After running that far a player will always be vulnerable to an excellent tackle - Tuilagi just missed his fend.

a fend was the wrong choice, he should have checked and stepped the inside shoulder...a winger woudl have known that

Idon t think many if any wingers would ve scored that chance great defending.

Smith was always behind him, and Tuilagi had run a long way. There was no obvious way for Tuilagi to change direction that Smith couldn't have covered. I think a fend was the only real option. It was brilliant defending.

DaveM wrote:Tuilagi is one of the quickest in the England squad - if he wasn't quick he would have been caught earlier. Smith's defence was excellent and he had a good angle on Manu. After running that far a player will always be vulnerable to an excellent tackle - Tuilagi just missed his fend.

he's quick over 10m. patently not quick over 50+.

and as scratch said he needed to step inside hard at pace to shake smith, which is presumably why brown stayed inside as then manu would have been able to continue or pass. the pass to brown was not on initially as there was an AB in between.

He is quick over 50+ metres, which is why it was only the last covering defender who got to him a few yards from the NZ line, despite the fact he started from our try line.

If he'd stepped inside he'd just have been caught be Smith earlier. With the angle Smith had on him, and no nearby support he had no option but to fend in my opinion. It's not like we're talking about a second row, Tuilagi is an OC who is used to being out in that channel and who has broken the line and run into space dozens of times in his international career - I don't see why a wing would have been any better equipped to deal with the situation.

DaveM wrote:Smith was always behind him, and Tuilagi had run a long way. There was no obvious way for Tuilagi to change direction that Smith couldn't have covered. I think a fend was the only real option. It was brilliant defending.

or a nudge ahead...his fend was surprisingly poor

I have taken time to reflect before posting.

I was disappointed with the selection, you don't keep your best players for the last 20 minutes.  

The selection of Manu on the wing was an error on SLs part, although an understandable one. Burrell was a shadow of the player we saw in the 6N he should have made the change much earlier.

36 was obviously way off the pace; is England's training all walk throughs, if not it should have been apparent and he should not have been anywhere near the 23.

Parling is a good player, a Lion, but is not in the same class as Lawes once a match gets going, he tackles well, but goes backwards in the tackle. We need players that will put the opposition on the back foot, not give them 2m every time they come into contact.

Brown looks completely knackered, best 15 in the UK (without kicking taken into account Scratch) but he has had a long season and needs a rest, bring back Foden for the next game.

Massively impressed with Webber. Could not pick between him and Hartley, I think that Ton Youngs maybe 3rd choice now.

From what I saw in the Ba Baas game, I would like to see Robson promoted up to the senior squad. Youngs doesn't do it for me any more, he seems to have stood still when everyone else has adapted to a faster game. Care, Robson and Dickson all play a game built on pace and momentum.

Am I alone or did anybody else think that Wood had a very good game today, he seemed to be everywhere, not flash, not carrying far but cleaning out, tackling and supporting. Not as good as Hill, but the nearest we have seen for the last few years

Scratch wrote:

DaveM wrote:Smith was always behind him, and Tuilagi had run a long way. There was no obvious way for Tuilagi to change direction that Smith couldn't have covered. I think a fend was the only real option. It was brilliant defending.

or  a nudge ahead...his fend was surprisingly poor

On his wrong hand, he fends off with his right hand. He should have played left wing, not right.

DaveM wrote:Smith was always behind him, and Tuilagi had run a long way. There was no obvious way for Tuilagi to change direction that Smith couldn't have covered. I think a fend was the only real option. It was brilliant defending.

it was brilliant defending from the MOTM   

doctor_grey wrote: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.  

Doc the pivotal moment in the match was when Tuilangi and Brown messed up a certain try.

The heads dropped and the AB's recognised the moment, before the English managed to regroup they had conceded three tries.

One major disappointment was the breakdowns for England, that was the poorest performance from a top tier team in quite some time.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Scratch wrote:

DaveM wrote:Smith was always behind him, and Tuilagi had run a long way. There was no obvious way for Tuilagi to change direction that Smith couldn't have covered. I think a fend was the only real option. It was brilliant defending.

or  a nudge ahead...his fend was surprisingly poor

On his wrong hand, he fends off with his right hand. He should have played left wing, not right.

phuck me lancaster really dropped a bollock on that one

I had expected him to start on the left-wing. he's scored a few tries in that corner. But he's a top class player, and I'm sure he can fend with both hands.

Biltong wrote:

doctor_grey wrote: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.  

Doc the pivotal moment in the match was when Tuilangi and Brown messed up a certain try.

The heads dropped and the AB's recognised the moment, before the English managed to regroup they had conceded three tries.

One major disappointment was the breakdowns for England, that was the poorest performance from a top tier team in quite some tie.

Biltong, I agree that was the pivotal momnent - but it should have been that moment when Tuilagi and Brown said "bugger it, we did it once we will get it right next time, and this time right up their bum." and go back out there and play balls-to-the-wall Rugby. If England are to compete with the best they simply cannot allow a team to run in 3 tries in 20 minutes. We need players stronger mentally and emotuionally to allow that to happen. Not 100% sure this group of choir boys (plus Brown who is crazy) in the starting XV are the group to do it.

Also, who taught these blokes how to ruck on the weekend? Should be fired.

Are we really saying an international centre can only hand off with one hand and doesn't know when to step inside or not?

People are getting way too analytical here. Smith corner flagged him and had the angle coming from the side and behind that makes him favourite to make the tackle. Had smith missed him, he'd have been very disappointed. It seems its because it's tuilagi and he was playing on the wing we have to comment on it, as if it would gave been different if he'd been playing centre. It came from broken play when the ball went through nonu's legs, it could have fallen to anyone.

What smith did really well was get back to his feet and compete, but I think its a bit ott to get that excited by the tackle. If he'd made it on yarde, we'd be discussing brown's support play...

....You could make an argument that tuilagi should have run towards the posts, drawn smith and popped it to brown, but that would have opened him up to more covering defenders. For me, the fault lies with brown... It's his responsibility to get into a position to take a pass from the runner.

doctor_grey wrote:
Biltong, I agree that was the pivotal momnent - but it should have been that moment when Tuilagi and Brown said "bugger it, we did it once we will get it right next time, and this time right up their bum." and go back out there and play balls-to-the-wall Rugby.  If England are to compete with the best they simply cannot allow a team to run in 3 tries in 20 minutes.  We need players stronger mentally and emotuionally to allow that to happen.  Not 100% sure this group of choir boys (plus Brown who is crazy) in the starting XV are the group to do it.  

 

But England are competing with the very best. NZ are world champions and world record setting, and they are at home. If they play exceptionally well the will probably run in 3 tries in 20 minutes against anyone. England ran in two tries in 10 minutes against the ABs today. There is no lack of mental and emotional strength - the way they struck back at the end instead of crumbling shows that.

Regarding Tuilagi I thought he put the fend to tie in Smith but free himself for the offload...and then Brown wasn't there. Might be misremembering though.

Manu put the hand off in but Smith pushed his arm down to make the tackle. Brown should of done more to be there but it was a great bit of play from Smith.

There could be lots of if's and but's, but at the end of the day it was a great bit of skill from smith.

Taylorman wrote:

Tonight is really about 3 things from last week:
- the dry pitch
- the ability of the same ABs to improve their accuracy and intensity-move up a level.
- the impact of the incoming players for England

Possibly a 4th is on the wing- Saveas return, and Manus repositioning there.

Still think it ultimately came back to the above. All four made a telling difference, the first two definitely favouring the ABs, the last two failing or England. Blame BL all you want but the key to this loss from England's point of view was the inability of the incoming players to provide the impact they were meant to. Which of the selected outplayed those dropped from the first week? None that I can see. So not only did they lose continuity, they lost key functionality.

Manu turned out to be a failed selection but only because the so called better players failed to live up to their abilities. BL did his job, the arriving players didnt, and from posters on these boards there was almost universal opinion that this was a stronger side, bar the Manu selection.

Quins I think mentioned that professionals used to this level should be able to walk in and play the required levels, where I argued the ABs proved that theory wrong last week.

If theres any blame, its the incoming players not performing well enough.

but it wasnt unfamiliarity with club vs national team systems, which was your point. in the case of care and 36 it was clearly match-sharpness. their mistakes were individual errors not unfamiliarity with "systems"...kicking ball dead, kicking straight out twice in 5 mins, knocking on from back of driving maul, running into own player, offload turnover leading to NZ try.

way to completely misquote t-man. i said nothing about levels, only sytems, which was your point. care and 36 were not at the right level. that was their issue. was nothing to do with struggling to transition from club to national team systems.

DaveM wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
Biltong, I agree that was the pivotal momnent - but it should have been that moment when Tuilagi and Brown said "bugger it, we did it once we will get it right next time, and this time right up their bum." and go back out there and play balls-to-the-wall Rugby.  If England are to compete with the best they simply cannot allow a team to run in 3 tries in 20 minutes.  We need players stronger mentally and emotuionally to allow that to happen.  Not 100% sure this group of choir boys (plus Brown who is crazy) in the starting XV are the group to do it.  

 

But England are competing with the very best. NZ are world champions and world record setting, and they are at home. If they play exceptionally well the will probably run in 3 tries in 20 minutes against anyone. England ran in two tries in 10 minutes against the ABs today. There is no lack of mental and emotional strength - the way they struck back at the end instead of crumbling shows that.

England ARE competing with the best.  England ran in 2 tries in virtual garbaaage time, not  the meat of the match like the ABs.  We want to supplant the ABs as the very best, right?  That is the real goal.  They have been the gold standard, with a few rare exceptions, and have been so for about the last 100,000 years.  We simply cannot allow those three tries.  Cannot.  England needed to turn up the gas, not play like bloated with gas.  

Those three tries are the exact kind of ability which puts the ABs ahead.  It's not physical.  It is emotional and a level of self-confidence we need to achieve and retain and reinforce in every match.  I agree with most peeps here, England have the personnel.  But going back to my point, who in this team of church mice has the character, personality, and rock-solid-when-the-chips-are-down leadership to drag the team back to playing dead up Rugby?  I really want to know.  Who?

quinsforever wrote:way to completely misquote t-man. i said nothing about levels, only sytems, which was your point. care and 36 were not at the right level. that was their issue. was nothing to do with struggling to transition from club to national team systems.

Really...well heres your quote:

Have read some comments here that NZ will have suffered from players still having their "franchise" systems in their head so would have struggled to re-adapt to AB rugby. This is lame. This is typical of the AB fans and players who think the result only depends on the ABs. Professional rugby players live and breathe systems, moves and combinations. And the ABS had 900 caps vs Englands 280 or thereabouts. That tells you everything you need to know about which side should have had more fluency in combinations all over the park.'

Professional rugby players live and breathe systems, moves and combinations. The incoming players are professionals, they were involved in finals rugby so were obviously living and breathing successful systems, moves and combinations. Our franchises have different systems, moves and combinations- familiarity with the AB ones was the point.

How lame is the excuse now? When in one week our -same- guys make rapid improvement purely from more time together- familiarity. Where your so called professionals come in and do squat. And it isnt just Care and 36. Its Farrell and Burrell and whoever else.

Lame? who's lame? clutch at straws all you want but I would admiy that I was wrong if I were you, or say nothing, Because that would suggest you dont know what youre talking about...but hey...feel free to clutch at straws...

HammerofThunor wrote:Regarding Tuilagi I thought he put the fend to tie in Smith but free himself for the offload...and then Brown wasn't there. Might be misremembering though.

You're right there, on the slow-mo you can see he gets his hand free to offload the ball but there's no one around. What's worse is that not only had Brown run the wrong way but other then him there were only 5 NZ players closing in on that breakdown and after them 1(!) England player. That is a terrible indictment of set up of the team.

Taylorman wrote:

quinsforever wrote:way to completely misquote t-man. i said nothing about levels, only sytems, which was your point. care and 36 were not at the right level. that was their issue. was nothing to do with struggling to transition from club to national team systems.

Really...well heres your quote:

Have read some comments here that NZ will have suffered from players still having their "franchise" systems in their head so would have struggled to re-adapt to AB rugby. This is lame. This is typical of the AB fans and players who think the result only depends on the ABs. Professional rugby players live and breathe systems, moves and combinations. And the ABS had 900 caps vs Englands 280 or thereabouts. That tells you everything you need to know about which side should have had more fluency in combinations all over the park.'

Professional rugby players live and breathe systems, moves and combinations. The incoming players are professionals, they were involved in finals rugby so were obviously living and breathing successful systems, moves and combinations. Our franchises have different systems, moves and combinations- familiarity with the AB ones was the point.

How lame is the excuse now? When in one week our -same- guys make rapid improvement purely from more time together- familiarity. Where your so called professionals come in and do squat. And it isnt just Care and 36. Its Farrell and Burrell and whoever else.

Lame? who's lame? clutch at straws all you want but I would admiy that I was wrong if I were you, or say nothing, Because that would suggest you dont know what youre talking about...but hey...feel free to clutch at straws...

yes, i agree, your point was indeed lame. your point about club vs national "system familiarity" being an issue is completely disproven. the only thing that mattered was match-sharpness. care and particularly 36 had been out for a while, one with injuries. if you had watched the game this would be obvious to you. nothing to do with club vs national team "systems", as if its some kind of foreign language. your point was, and still is, lame.

NZ played better for many reasons, but all those dropped passes in the first test were nothing todo with unfamiliarity with systems. In fact, NZ's win today was significantly to do with the choice of rather tired or rusty personnel that went into the England squad, all of whom have much GREATER familiarity with england;s systems having played all the 6nations matches together, compared to this who played the first test.

stick to comments about your own team rather than trying to defend your lame excuse by reference to an England squad you clearly are not familiar with.

have you ever played rugby taylorman?

in your wise view, would you say familiarity with "systems" is more important than familiarity with "players" in key combinations around the park?

let me give you a clue, most of the tries scored today came from broken field play, hence were a result of "combinations" and "players" not "systems".

only someone who hasnt really played could try to defend your lame point.

yappysnap wrote:

You're right there, on the slow-mo you can see he gets his hand free to offload the ball but there's no one around. What's worse is that not only had Brown run the wrong way but other then him there were only 5 NZ players closing in on that breakdown and after them 1(!) England player. That is a terrible indictment of set up of the team.

What's it got to do with the set up of the team? All that's happened is that England were on the back-foot, Tuilagi unexpectedly broke away, and did so with pace, the only England player close enough for a pass ran the wrong way, and England ended up slightly outnumbered at the resulting breakdown (where some brilliant play secured the turnover).

doctor_grey wrote:
England ARE competing with the best.  England ran in 2 tries in virtual garbaaage time, not  the meat of the match like the ABs.  We want to supplant the ABs as the very best, right?  That is the real goal.  They have been the gold standard, with a few rare exceptions, and have been so for about the last 100,000 years.  We simply cannot allow those three tries.  Cannot.  England needed to turn up the gas, not play like bloated with gas.  

Those three tries are the exact kind of ability which puts the ABs ahead.  It's not physical.  It is emotional and a level of self-confidence we need to achieve and retain and reinforce in every match.  I agree with most peeps here, England have the personnel.  But going back to my point, who in this team of church mice has the character, personality, and rock-solid-when-the-chips-are-down leadership to drag the team back to playing dead up Rugby?  I really want to know.  Who?

So if the ABs and scored two tries instead of England in the last 10 minutes, and I'd come on here and said you can ignore them as it wasn't in the meat of the game, what would you have said? England scored two excellent tries. The ABs did not want to concede those tries, but England worked them nicely. Most England sides over the last 10 years could not have done that, and certainly not way to the ABs.

Your statement about England simply not allowing those tries is meaningless in my view as it implies that good sides never have bad things happen to them through shear force of will, when that just isn't the case. The Abs were sensational in that period, and when the best side in the world has a purple patch they will score tries against anyone. I'm sure this England side is capable of scoring 3 tries in 20 minutes against the ABs, whether the ABs choose to allow it or not.

And of course we want England to be the best in the world, but 3 years ago the English national side was a shambles and a laughing stock. We've changed virtually the entire side, and as a result we have an inexperienced group that will peak for the 2019 WC. The fact that they are properly competing with the ABs (arguably one of the very best sides in rugby history) away at this stage in our development is amazing, and is frankly well ahead of schedule. That's why I don't see this as a particularly important series, apart from as an opportunity to measure our progress and to expose our young players to the most intense and challenging rugby culture in the world.

The 2003 side peaked in the 12-15 months leading up to the tournament, had some of the all-time great English players, and was far, far more experienced than this group, but they were making mistakes until about a year before the WC. You are being far too harsh on this group - there is no evidence of mental weakness that I can see.

quinsforever wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

quinsforever wrote:way to completely misquote t-man. i said nothing about levels, only sytems, which was your point. care and 36 were not at the right level. that was their issue. was nothing to do with struggling to transition from club to national team systems.

Really...well heres your quote:

Have read some comments here that NZ will have suffered from players still having their "franchise" systems in their head so would have struggled to re-adapt to AB rugby. This is lame. This is typical of the AB fans and players who think the result only depends on the ABs. Professional rugby players live and breathe systems, moves and combinations. And the ABS had 900 caps vs Englands 280 or thereabouts. That tells you everything you need to know about which side should have had more fluency in combinations all over the park.'

Professional rugby players live and breathe systems, moves and combinations. The incoming players are professionals, they were involved in finals rugby so were obviously living and breathing successful systems, moves and combinations. Our franchises have different systems, moves and combinations- familiarity with the AB ones was the point.

How lame is the excuse now? When in one week our -same- guys make rapid improvement purely from more time together- familiarity. Where your so called professionals come in and do squat. And it isnt just Care and 36. Its Farrell and Burrell and whoever else.

Lame? who's lame? clutch at straws all you want but I would admiy that I was wrong if I were you, or say nothing, Because that would suggest you dont know what youre talking about...but hey...feel free to clutch at straws...

yes, i agree, your point was indeed lame. your point about club vs national "system familiarity" being an issue is completely disproven. the only thing that mattered was match-sharpness. care and particularly 36 had been out for a while, one with injuries. if you had watched the game this would be obvious to you. nothing to do with club vs national team "systems", as if its some kind of foreign language. your point was, and still is, lame.

NZ played better for many reasons, but all those dropped passes in the first test were nothing todo with unfamiliarity with systems. In fact, NZ's win today was significantly to do with the choice of rather tired or rusty personnel that went into the England squad, all of whom have much GREATER familiarity with england;s systems having played all the 6nations matches together, compared to this who played the first test.

stick to comments about your own team rather than trying to defend your lame excuse by reference to an England squad you clearly are not familiar with.

All good quins...stick to your naivety...then wonder why your teams don't win down here. At least BL is willing to learn. Fact is the incoming players were supposed to 'better' this team. They didnt. That was because they weren't up for this level. That was clear. BL would have been better sticking with last weeks team but felt obliged to pick the 'better' incoming players.

In hindsight those 'familiar' with recent AB test matches in NZ should have been picked. That was always BL's conundrum.

Hansen on the other hand said why change when time together was all they needed.

You'll note that you started the lame excuse theory about the AB's, yet one week later they're all clicking ten times better, so if theres anyone that should stick to their own team, its you...you got it all wrong re the ABs. And thats why theyre up there and youre not.

Can't be bothered with discussing thjis with you any longer as clearly ego, rather than seeing what is in front of you is more important.

Good luck next week. You'll need it.

Quins? Ego? Never   

He could almost be a Kiwi.

On a long haul flight so need to watch the match but it sounds gutting.


Six nation starting 15 with maybe the odd change next week please. More to come after I watch more than the last 10 mins I got in Melbourne on my connection

Have to win next week. Question is do we bring back players from last week? Let people prove that they can do better? Coming within 1 point, even if it's from 2 tries in the last 10 means there are big positives and we shouldn't undersell how few teams come and win here even when the ABs don't fire, but we need a win on this tour really and conceding 3 quick tries is never good.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Have to win next week. Question is do we bring back players from last week? Let people prove that they can do better? Coming within 1 point, even if it's from 2 tries in the last 10 means there are big positives and we shouldn't undersell how few teams come and win here even when the ABs don't fire, but we need a win on this tour really and conceding 3 quick tries is never good.

Absolutely. This is a good side. What hurt it was the selection conundrum that BL, and the team, faced. What I noticed was that those guys our media spoke to- Haskell etc were in total support of those replacing them, even though they played well the week before and were probably hurting or frustrated inside. Takes a heck of a lot to incorporate that sort of team spirit into a side.

They would have got away with it versus other sides but as we know the AB's will punish anything loose once they get their own patterns going.

Next week the ABs will have their tails up and now BL faces the same conundrum again. Pity we didn't get the same squad from the beginning. Things might be very different.

But as far as English sides go 'eeeeeeeeasily' the best side to tour here, given 03 wasnt a tour... NZers have really taken to this side well.

Who the hell is BL?

HammerofThunor wrote:Who the hell is BL?

I think he means Bomber Lancaster? But it is T man so he could mean a random Samoan publican.

DaveM wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
England ARE competing with the best.  England ran in 2 tries in virtual garbaaage time, not  the meat of the match like the ABs.  We want to supplant the ABs as the very best, right?  That is the real goal.  They have been the gold standard, with a few rare exceptions, and have been so for about the last 100,000 years.  We simply cannot allow those three tries.  Cannot.  England needed to turn up the gas, not play like bloated with gas.  

Those three tries are the exact kind of ability which puts the ABs ahead.  It's not physical.  It is emotional and a level of self-confidence we need to achieve and retain and reinforce in every match.  I agree with most peeps here, England have the personnel.  But going back to my point, who in this team of church mice has the character, personality, and rock-solid-when-the-chips-are-down leadership to drag the team back to playing dead up Rugby?  I really want to know.  Who?

So if the ABs and scored two tries instead of England in the last 10 minutes, and I'd come on here and said you can ignore them as it wasn't in the meat of the game, what would you have said? England scored two excellent tries. The ABs did not want to concede those tries, but England worked them nicely. Most England sides over the last 10 years could not have done that, and certainly not way to the ABs.

Your statement about England simply not allowing those tries is meaningless in my view as it implies that good sides never have bad things happen to them through shear force of will, when that just isn't the case. The Abs were sensational in that period, and when the best side in the world has a purple patch they will score tries against anyone. I'm sure this England side is capable of scoring 3 tries in 20 minutes against the ABs, whether the ABs choose to allow it or not.

And of course we want England to be the best in the world, but 3 years ago the English national side was a shambles and a laughing stock. We've changed virtually the entire side, and as a result we have an inexperienced group that will peak for the 2019 WC. The fact that they are properly competing with the ABs (arguably one of the very best sides in rugby history) away at this stage in our development is amazing, and is frankly well ahead of schedule. That's why I don't see this as a particularly important series, apart from as an opportunity to measure our progress and to expose our young players to the most intense and challenging rugby culture in the world.

The 2003 side peaked in the 12-15 months leading up to the tournament, had some of the all-time great English players, and was far, far more experienced than this group, but they were making mistakes until about a year before the WC. You are being far too harsh on this group - there is no evidence of mental weakness that I can see.

Dave, baby, we will have to agree to disagree.  England lost the match when those three tries were scored.  It is not even a comeback to score a 'colsolation try after time expired.  It is just a hair more than a meaningless exercise.  

When I mentioned the meat of the game, I meant that was the time when the game was on the line.  Scoring a try when time has expired is the ultimate gar-baaage time score.  How about if those two tries were scored things were in douibt?  That could have changed the game.  That is also what makes a top level team.  

Your response about my comment regarding England not allowing those three tries sounds defeatist to me.  The ABs are the best.  If we want England to be the best we stop those tries.  Ces't tout.  To answer your question, if the ABs had scored two additional tries when the score was already 28-13, of course I would see them as running up the score in gar-baaage time.  On the other hand, it the match was within a few points, it wouldn't be gar-baaage time, would it?  

And do I see mental weakness in this England team?  Perhaps one or two players.  But that wasn't my question.  I asked about who has the leadership and/or the bloody-minded attitude to to grab the team by the balls and demand this stops now.  Then lead from the front to do so.  I think this may indeed be the difference between the ABs and us.

doctor_grey wrote:

DaveM wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
England ARE competing with the best.  England ran in 2 tries in virtual garbaaage time, not  the meat of the match like the ABs.  We want to supplant the ABs as the very best, right?  That is the real goal.  They have been the gold standard, with a few rare exceptions, and have been so for about the last 100,000 years.  We simply cannot allow those three tries.  Cannot.  England needed to turn up the gas, not play like bloated with gas.  

Those three tries are the exact kind of ability which puts the ABs ahead.  It's not physical.  It is emotional and a level of self-confidence we need to achieve and retain and reinforce in every match.  I agree with most peeps here, England have the personnel.  But going back to my point, who in this team of church mice has the character, personality, and rock-solid-when-the-chips-are-down leadership to drag the team back to playing dead up Rugby?  I really want to know.  Who?

So if the ABs and scored two tries instead of England in the last 10 minutes, and I'd come on here and said you can ignore them as it wasn't in the meat of the game, what would you have said? England scored two excellent tries. The ABs did not want to concede those tries, but England worked them nicely. Most England sides over the last 10 years could not have done that, and certainly not way to the ABs.

Your statement about England simply not allowing those tries is meaningless in my view as it implies that good sides never have bad things happen to them through shear force of will, when that just isn't the case. The Abs were sensational in that period, and when the best side in the world has a purple patch they will score tries against anyone. I'm sure this England side is capable of scoring 3 tries in 20 minutes against the ABs, whether the ABs choose to allow it or not.

And of course we want England to be the best in the world, but 3 years ago the English national side was a shambles and a laughing stock. We've changed virtually the entire side, and as a result we have an inexperienced group that will peak for the 2019 WC. The fact that they are properly competing with the ABs (arguably one of the very best sides in rugby history) away at this stage in our development is amazing, and is frankly well ahead of schedule. That's why I don't see this as a particularly important series, apart from as an opportunity to measure our progress and to expose our young players to the most intense and challenging rugby culture in the world.

The 2003 side peaked in the 12-15 months leading up to the tournament, had some of the all-time great English players, and was far, far more experienced than this group, but they were making mistakes until about a year before the WC. You are being far too harsh on this group - there is no evidence of mental weakness that I can see.

Dave, baby, we will have to agree to disagree.  England lost the match when those three tries were scored.  It is not even a comeback to score a 'colsolation try after time expired.  It is just a hair more than a meaningless exercise.  

When I mentioned the meat of the game, I meant that was the time when the game was on the line.  Scoring a try when time has expired is the ultimate gar-baaage time score.  How about if those two tries were scored things were in douibt?  That could have changed the game.  That is also what makes a top level team.  

Your response about my comment regarding England not allowing those three tries sounds defeatist to me.  The ABs are the best.  If we want England to be the best we stop those tries.  Ces't tout.  To answer your question, if the ABs had scored two additional tries when the score was already 28-13, of course I would see them as running up the score in gar-baaage time.  On the other hand, it the match was within a few points, it wouldn't be gar-baaage time, would it?  

And do I see mental weakness in this England team?  Perhaps one ofr two players.  But that wasn't my question.  I asked about who has the leadership and/or the bloody-minded attitude to to grab the team by the balls and demand this stops now.  Then lead from the front to do so.  I think this may indeed be the difference between the ABs and us.

You've hit the nail on the head there at the end doc.  When the AB's are down, somebody within their side pulls them through by leading form the front and dragging the others with them.  They do it time and again, and it's not always the same person.  It is no fluke that they churn out win after win after win.  We do not yet have this.  We have a young group, and we lack some of that mental steel that the AB's have.  The potential is there, but we have to firstly be more clinical, and secondly we have to have that inner belief that they have.  For me we never looked as if we truly believed we would win this game, and when the AB's ramped it up after half time, we froze and never managed to really get started again.

yeah meant SL, too many times referring to Bryce Lawrence...  

With 47 players waiting around to see what he does for next week love to be a fly on the wall. I guess the only certainty is Manu wont be on the wing. Not for his wing effort. Hes too valuable in midfield.

SL needs to select those who have only already played in tests one or two, whether start or bench, pick the best from those two tests, that suits the position, and gameplan and go with it. For the first time he will at least have a full 23 who are familiar with being here, playing the AB's etc and are just hungry for another go. Thats what test 2 gave the ABs- another chance that they could improve.

Throughout the game I was concerned at some of the antics of Corey Jane,Next week I would like to see Fekitoa given go on the right wing.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Throughout the game I was concerned at some of the antics of Corey Jane,Next week I would like to see Fekitoa given go on the right wing.

agree Laurie. Jane just seems to have slipped back in without really having to perform. In the two tests he's not done a lot, and was one of many good Canes backs prior to the series.

I think Hansen will try a thing or two next week because that's in his nature. Barrett deserves a shot at start. His consistency all year demands recognition. Nonu could do with a rest perhaps with Fekitoa going in there, or at 13. He and Nonu doesnt cover all the bases but or sheer power in the midfield? Why not. Time we bashed a few over I reckon. Give Conrad a break.

Yeah, seemed like everything Jane touched last night ended up giving possession away and he played like the team did in the first test. Wasn't it his fumble that caused the tuialagi break away. He needs a rest out of the squad IMO to re-focus. Which is odd as I've always thought he reserves his best work for the ABs.

Yes but remember he had a whole year off ebop. And for a winger over 30 thats a lot of rugby to catch up. Then he came back into a canes side that had its backline humming like rarely seen in the sxv it was such a purple patch. A couple of good runs on the end of a line in such a destructive mode gets him straight back into the ABs with the demise of Piatau and savea. He needed time to really put the hard hours in before this series, and it shows.