New Zealand v England 3rd test & the 2nd test review

First topic message reminder :

1000 posts and the 2nd test thread is blocked time to move onto the 3rd test in Hamilton.

What are England's chances of securing a win?
Could NZ win convincingly?
Will it be close again?
Who will play?
How much will the referee affect the game?

Let the banter begin..................

Oh, and feel free to discuss test's 1 and 2.

I am a big fan of Twelvetrees but I really think he looks underpowered against SANZAR opposition. The decision to change the midfield from first to second test was completely bizarre because I thought that Eastmond and Tuilagi looked as rounded a midfield pairing as I've seen England have for years.

The change was not vindicated and I think that SL has to go back.

The Burns/Farrell question is much more finely balanced. In terms of the series, this game doesn't matter, so I cannot think what is to be lost by giving Burns the game time. We know what Farrell can do.

A misgiving I have about Hansen is that he has his favourites and that has precedence over form. Cruden is the incumbent and Hamilton being his home ground along with Messam, I think Hansen won't make any bold changes. We saw him last year play Dagg into some form. You get the feeling, to varying degrees McCaw and Jane are not at their best but the lack of faith in players like Todd and injuries to Piutau and Cane see Hansen plump for the tried and tested rather than introduce a new player. Conrad Smith out is a big blow so will he keep Fekitoa on the bench and give Crotty a hit out or promote Fekitoa to the starting team and keep Crotty as a safety net.

Contrast that with SL, who through necessity and in some positions is still finding his best combination has selected a lot more players. It's true that Hansen has the expectation from the NZ public of winning every game and once again the issue of the winning streak perhaps lends itself to conservatism. sL has the luxury of not having to be in a must win situation, as the performance has been good enough not to focus too much on results. Hence the boldness in selecting a formidable bench and putting Tuilagi on the wing. With the series sewn up I think it's likely SL will experiment some more with his selections and be a lot bolder than Hansen.

The problem with this approach is that injuries are part of the game. It's a difficult balance to strike introducing players in form with no track record but performances like Ben Smith's suggest there's a lot to be gained by doing that. It's true that SL has a tough decision with his selections simply because he has an abundance of options: Haskell or Wood, Eastmond or 36, Tuilagi or Burrell, the front row etc. that depth is a double edged sword because it's difficult to build combinations which you might argue NZ has because of the familiarity between the players. However, England have the advantage of being able to call upon a wide pool of players who have had valuable time at test level. In a RWC, that experience at test level comes in handy because injuries are inevitable. Selecting a player and not having a drop off in performance is a huge advantage. Hansen has introduced a lot of players since 2011 but they've found their way into the squad and there aren't many players outside that squad who can easily make the step up. It comes down to experience and familiarity vs a wide pool of players who won't give a drop off in performance. Both have their advantages and disadvantages but it's clear from this series that neither side is lacking in motivation and given the makeup of the England squad, you have to tip your hat to SL for achieving that.

George Carlin wrote:The Burns/Farrell question is much more finely balanced. In terms of the series, this game doesn't matter, so I cannot think what is to be lost by giving Burns the game time. We know what Farrell can do.

Farrell may be injured, and it sounds like Care never really recovered from his jarred shoulder. We might have had two crocked half-backs at the weekend.

George Carlin wrote:I am a big fan of Twelvetrees but I really think he looks underpowered against SANZAR opposition. The decision to change the midfield from first to second test was completely bizarre because I thought that Eastmond and Tuilagi looked as rounded a midfield pairing as I've seen England have for years.

The change was not vindicated and I think that SL has to go back.

The Burns/Farrell question is much more finely balanced. In terms of the series, this game doesn't matter, so I cannot think what is to be lost by giving Burns the game time. We know what Farrell can do.

Agree with you there GC.

Unfortunately for all his knowledge SL has his favourites, so we'll probably have a very similar backline to T2 unless injuries force his hand.

Farrell will always play every minute of every game unless it's in the bag where the sub will then get 5 mins. It's an odd strategy but has been going for about 2 seasons now.

I'd prefer Eastmond and Burns to both be starting as well. If Care and Farrell were injured for T2 (and they played like they may have been, and there were strong rumours about Farrell in the weeks before) then that's just idiotic from the coaches. There's no benefit to rushing experienced players back, we know how good they are, let them get some decent rest rather then the Lions effect.

The only changes I'd like to see is Ashton in for Burrell and Lawes for Parling assuming everyone comes through the week uninjured. Possibly Eastmond to the bench for Burrell as he covers wing as well.

Conrad Smith and Dagg out ,Smith maybe until AI`s big blow cover experienced wise very
thin.Nonu to 13?Crotty to 12 Ferkitoa of the bench Read may play but bench would be
sensible given lack of game time.

Wouldn't like to see Read start. Messam on home ground is last chance saloon. This backrow hasn't gelled and if Read returns, Kaino looks a better physical threat at 6.

No need to change positions Alan. Nonu at 12 and Fekitoa at 13 or Crotty at 13 starting and Fekitoa on bench. The Crudeness will probably start again like Messam on his home ground and eke more gains out of him before bringing on Barrett. It's a missed opportunity to see Barrett start but no doubt Hansen is eying the RC and wants Cruden firing by then. Ben Smith should retain his fullback spot and Jane starts by default.

Being in good Super form is not necessarily a guarantee of test form just as being short of form is not a guarantee of poor test form but there are often parallels. Returning players from injury or heavy workloads appears to be a lot more difficult to judge.

I was massively critical of Twelvetrees in the 2nd test and still stand by that.

Regardless of being rusty...having not played...he just made far to many mistakes...poor decisions and rash passes.

I want to see what Eastmond can offer again in the final test alongside Manu

Hartley comes back in...i think his breakdown work is a key feature of his game and something we missed on Saturday.

IF launchbury is really shattered...then it might be a great opportunity to see how a more robust player can do. I would bring Attwood in who will add much needed carrying power to the pack.

Burns - I would start Burns...think he has shown he has the attacking skills required at this level.

1 Marler
2 Hartley
3 Wilson
4 Attwood
5 Lawes
6 Wood
7 Robshaw
8 Billy Vunipola

9 Care
10 Burns
11 Yarde
12 Eastmond
13 Tuilagi
14 AShton
15 Brown

I just wouldn't want as many as 6 changes. I think we've got a squad of players who are all very good but it's not doing them favours in constantly changing the change so much. Let them settle.

But 7 1/2

The changes for the 2nd test didnt work. Ie Manu on the wing.

Farrell just looked lacking. Twelvetrees was just lost
Whilst both Morgan and Vuniopola offer great carrying Billy gives you more close in. We lacked that on Saturday.

Launchbury has looked quiet...and id like to see us give Attwood a run out..with some aggression and power.

We also fell short by a point after scoring 3 tries. If we're really picking indivdual performances apart you could probably throw Haskell in there, say that Brown has been underperforming as well. I just think that what you gain from switiching these players on an indivdual basis you lose from the builing of partnerships and understanding. Remember this was the fabled 2nd test where NZ get into their stride and wipe the floor with us!

Lets not hide behind the scoreline.
 
We should have been miles away in the 2nd half. And im not over reacting. We were blown away when they turned on the style.
 
My point is that we had the dominance in the first half...and we butchered several efforts. This is not a one off...we have done it in most games.
 
Certain personell in the backs divison are not good enough...namely mr Twelvetrees. And im also debating if Mr Farrell gives us what we need.

Can't agree.

Thats the idea of a forum  

But we simply leave too many points on the pitch.

Ha! I'd agree we've missed out on some opportunites but so have NZ in this series and they are the best in the world. I think a few lessons have been learnt here, we know our pack, Yarde looks good, even playing badly by his standards Brown looks good. We have issues at back up for Care in my opinion, still think Lancaster will want to give Ford the chance at nailing the 2nd 10 spot, and Wade is still the spark we desperately need to try. 12 and 13 in the medium term either of the 4 choices here could work for me.

Just don't want a host of changes and think a similar team could go one step better albeit followed by a string of people saying NZ didn't really care as they'd won the series already!

i think england would have won if they had kept the ball up their jumpers. the ABs could only slow the maul's progress by infringing at the side or pulling it down. its very telling that in the espn stats, england tried more offloads than NZ. exciting to watch, but given the apparent maul dominance, more than a little naive and over-ambitious in my opinion.

NZ rarely try and force opportunities from nothing, they wait for gaps to appear after multiple phases or broken up kick tennis type situations. England need to learn from this. use the maul to suck in players, draw penalties and generally keep real pressure on, then there will just be more gaps everywhere else as time goes on, so less need for super-risky offloads.

i also couldnt believe how long the ref would let the ball be held up and not call maul. ridiculous imo. yes farrell's was a YC, but realistically 9 out of 10 refs would have called that a maul about 5 secs before it went to ground.

quinsforever wrote:i think england would have won if they had kept the ball up their jumpers. the ABs could only slow the maul's progress by infringing at the side or pulling it down. its very telling that in the espn stats, england tried more offloads than NZ. exciting to watch, but given the apparent maul dominance, more than a little naive and over-ambitious in my opinion.

Yes. But then Hansen goaded them into it with his pre-game comments. I'm surprised Lancaster took the bait (and maybe the players decided for themselves they'd meet the challenge) but that's what New Zealand will do. They've done it a few times to Wales too if my memory serves me well. Talked about how much they admire the free running Welsh and how they looked forward to that kind of game. Wales fall for the compliments and curtains.

The English forwards were stuffed come 50 minutes. Maybe reverting to a stick it up the jersey approach is your best bet. Maybe a sympathetic NH ref will also allow a go-slow approach to everything.

Just in: Hansen feels that if England really cut lose with the offloading game in the third test, his boys would really be stretched
... but he hopes the English don't hear him say that, and that's why he's mad as hell with his people for released his statement to the media with his approval.

ebop you have been reading too much gregor paul in the nzherald. at what point did england try to slow the game down? if anything it was the NZ forwards consistently coming around the side, mccaw and kaino, who were trying to slow the game down.

you need to watch what is in front of you, not trot out tired old aphorisms from years past which no longer apply.

england are a very dynamic, dangerous team. there is nothing wrong with focusing on an area of clear dominance in order to get a result. it does p1ss me off a little to hear arrogant kiwi comments that unless you play in the style of NZ, it's 2nd class rugby. rugby is a game, with rules, and a scoreline. not fupping style-points!

Just don't want a host of changes and think a similar team could go one step better albeit followed by a string of people saying NZ didn't really care as they'd won the series already!

 
I agree with you there mate...the AB's will be spittig fire to get the 3-0 series win now...to whitewash the Poms.
 
I appreciate not making too many changes,...but i think they are changes that enhance the team.
 
Webber has been good...but Hartley offers more.
 
Manu needs to be right in the mix...keeping the NZ on their toes all the time.
 
The irony about the 12 spot is that i was concerned about Eastmonds size being an issue defensively....yet its Twelevtrees who is the weaklink there.
 
Billy carries better in heavy traffic than Morgan does. And at the moment we need that.
 
Launchbury...well he's one of the first names on the sheet...however if he is looking a little jaded then we can judge Attwood and Slaters performances against the Crusaders and promote one of those. Attwood gives a different physical option to Launchbury and more carrying.

I'd just like to go back and say even if we do end up losing 3 0 these type of conversations mean Lancaster is well on his way to his main aim. Strength in depth all over.

If we do manage to win the last test by 7 or more it means we can claim an overall win right?   

well in the last 4 encounters that means we are ahead overall too

GeordieFalcon wrote:Lets not hide behind the scoreline.
 
We should have been miles away in the 2nd half. And im not over reacting. We were blown away when they turned on the style.
 
My point is that we had the dominance in the first half...and we butchered several efforts. This is not a one off...we have done it in most games.
 
Certain personell in the backs divison are not good enough...namely mr Twelvetrees. And im also debating if Mr Farrell gives us what we need.

Hang on, England played one of the best 40 minutes of rugby in living memory. We also scored 3, excellent, tries away from home against the ABs. Yes we lost, but that's because the ABs raised their game, and we didn't have the experience to deal with it. What chances did Twelvetrees butcher in the first half? I'd say Care was the back who had the worst game. Butchering chances is what everybody does. NZ are just the side who do the least of it. I've seen so many England performances where we didn't create any chances to butcher. Now the Farrell/Twelvetrees combination is created chances against the best team in the world, but they get no credit for this.

Twelvetrees hadn't played for 5 weeks. I thought his decision-making was fine, but there was certainly some poor execution. He had an excellent 6 Nations. He needs to improve his consistency, but until Devoto and Stephenson are ready, Twelvetrees is the most rounded option at IC. Devoto might be an option by the 6 Nations. Eastmond is clearly another option, and if he gets a chance I will watch him with interest.

I don't think you can compare the defensive performances of Eastmond and Twelvetrees across the 2 Tests. Twelvetrees was facing a side playing at a different level.

Quins, you mentioned a couple of posts above mine that you guys would have won if your pack had stuffed it up their jumpers. I like the new England and I like the cut of SL's jib. I just made a point that the English forwards were stuffed come 50 mins. Evidence from T2 suggest you guys don't quite have the nous, combinations and aerobic capacity to play the ABs at our pace. So stuff it up your jersey (like what you suggested) to give yourselves a better chance. It'll bore the tears out of everyone but it may be your best bet in NZ. Also, cut back on aimless kicks back to the ABs when fatigue sets in.

A comment on butchering points. Aaron Smith butchered a try by not passing to Messam but instead went inside. Conrad Smith butchered a try by throwing a pass to Messam over his head and into touch. That's two near certain tries we left on the park.

Dave,

I lost count how many times Twelvetrees passes went to ground rather than to the man it was intended for. He made one good break and looked clueless what to do.
His decisions when to offload and when not to was exceptional bad...giving away possession so many times...and one leading to the try.

Theres times ive defended him when he's put in a decent shift...but he was truly poor on Saturday ...and at times when hes in there but he's puts me on edge always waiting for a mistake or a missed tackle etc.

Hang on, England played one of the best 40 minutes of rugby in living memory.

A bit excessive also...we did very well and took the game to the AB's...but not the best half in living memory. But i was encouraged we created chances (despite of Twelvetrees) though we left many on the pitch.

Wasn't it Twelvetrees who passed to Brown for his try?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Lets not hide behind the scoreline.
 
We should have been miles away in the 2nd half. And im not over reacting. We were blown away when they turned on the style.
 
My point is that we had the dominance in the first half...and we butchered several efforts. This is not a one off...we have done it in most games.
 
Certain personell in the backs divison are not good enough...namely mr Twelvetrees. And im also debating if Mr Farrell gives us what we need.

Agree and that's the general consensus of our panel here tonight. England were effective in that first 20 and the rolling slower stuff we had no answer to. Had the Tuilagi chance or a couple of other chances been taken and had england resumed with the same play in terms of discipline they probably would have won. Its when the phases start to increase beyond 4 or 5... that's when the game loosens up and when England cannot live with a firing nz side.and that's largely what happened. Same happened with the boks last year at Ellis. The boks competed in that space for long periods but the more they did the more the ABs came back with.
Ben Smiths tackle and overall performance was one of the best from an AB and turned this match on its head.
More of that discipline...backs combining with forwards close in as with the Yarde try...that's where England's game is at its best in its efforts vs the higher ranked countries.

I think its worth remembering it is the end of our season, there is a lot of tired and battered bodies out there.

Not an excuse for the lose, but still!

Scratch wrote:T man…care to predict the score this weekend…..should be at least a 50 point margin don't you think

Nah...think the boks won't get more than a 45 diff. You should be more confident scratch.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Wouldn't like to see Read start. Messam on home ground is last chance saloon. This backrow hasn't gelled and if Read returns, Kaino looks a better physical threat at 6.

No need to change positions Alan. Nonu at 12 and Fekitoa at 13 or Crotty at 13 starting and Fekitoa on bench. The Crudeness will probably start again like Messam on his home ground and eke more gains out of him before bringing on Barrett. It's a missed opportunity to see Barrett start but no doubt Hansen is eying the RC and wants Cruden firing by then. Ben Smith should retain his fullback spot and Jane starts by default.

Being in good Super form is not necessarily a guarantee of test form just as being short of form is not a guarantee of poor test form but there are often parallels. Returning players from injury or heavy workloads appears to be a lot more difficult to judge.

For the reasons I mentioned earlier fekitoas too raw to start at 13 vs a very strong midfield. Crotty should start even though fekitoas the future. Crotty knows the drill and has been running with the Sanders for a while now. I'd start Barrett as well kia purely because he deserves a shot. He probably won't though, continuity important and cruden needs another run. Not a popular choice with kiwis here but I'd have fekitoa on for Jane. Its not the done thing as per the tuilagi , Cullen experiments but I see this differently. At 22 he's got a long way to go and for now just get him out there in a fairly safe environment with b smith crotty, savea and nonu around him. He's too young to be corrupted by being out of position. Use the energy and give him time in the jersey. Too exciting a prospect to not have him playing. ...but crotty and fekitoa it will be to cover 13...just wishful thinking cos i just want to see him out there. Jane is one lucky chappy.

Ah i dont go with the end of season thing either Scrupy. The AB's dont use it in the AI's.

Im sorry if im sounding moaning and overly critical, Im just keeping my feet on the ground.

We have improved beyond recognition under Staurt Lancaster and are certainly one of the strongest teams in the world now...id say there are 5-6 that are there and pushing each other close...Ireland v AB's proved that.

Our pack is good, our backs in general are ok and our overall style is pretty good.

But this team is totally honest...and i think the fans need to be also. We still need to find that creative touch to the side...a clinical efficiency that the SH teams have and we as yet simply dont...though its improving (ill not deny that).

We did have several chances that we left on the pitch on Saturday and the AB's, Australia and SA would not have missed them.

Decent realistic ratings I feel from the NZ Herald from the second test

I think Tman it's a combination of not having genuine replacements like Jane and not wanting to expose raw talent. Piutau only started when Jane got injured. He was used sparingly before that enforced change and the same appears to be happening with the likes of Barrett and Fekitoa. It's a conservative approach because Messam and Cruden haven't been at their best and we've seen the impact of positive change with Dagg and Ben Smith. Obviously you don't want to chop and change too much because fickleness is a dirty word and solid combinations are the ideal but only if those solid combinations perform consistently. It's a difficult balance to strike but for me Hansen is erring on the side of caution and though we don't know boldness will always pay off, it'd be nice to see good form and bad form treated more objectively.

Yeah i agree fairly honest and realistic ratings.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Dave,

I lost count how many times Twelvetrees passes went to ground rather than to the man it was intended for. He made one good break and looked clueless what to do.
His decisions when to offload and when not to was exceptional bad...giving away possession so many times...and one leading to the try.

Theres times ive defended him when he's put in a decent shift...but he was truly poor on Saturday ...and at times when hes in there but he's puts me on edge always waiting for a mistake or a missed tackle etc.

Hang on, England played one of the best 40 minutes of rugby in living memory.

A bit excessive also...we did very well and took the game to the AB's...but not the best half in living memory. But i was encouraged we created chances (despite of Twelvetrees) though we left many on the pitch.

There were passes which hit the ground, I'd imagine 3 or 4 over the 80 minutes. He also created a try, and when England were playing well in the first half his distribution was a key aspect of this.

The off-load which led to the try was the right thing to do. If it comes off England score and probably win the game. Also, there didn't appear much risk so deep in the New Zealand half. The off-load was far more likely to be lead to a try for us than for the opposition. The Abs identified it was on and executed very well - that's why they are the best side in the world at the moment. If, as happens 9 times out of 10, nothing comes of the fluffed offload it is quickly forgotten, as it wasn't an easy thing to execute. Twelvetrees should still have done better though.

Anyone playing in the centres would have missed tackles in that game. I'd go with the ratings above - Twelvetrees was far from the worst English back on the pitch but he's now become a bit of a target on internet forums.

As to how good a performance, when's the last time we were a missed and-off from being 17-3 up at half-time in the second test in New Zealand? Given the location and the opposition I think that is the best 40 minutes of rugby England have managed in the last decade.

Only disagree with the Webber rating, i'd give him a 7 or else bump his opposite number down to 6 to match him.

Geoff Parling "Find of the tour"????

Yeah i chuckled at that one Sarge   

As the time for experiments is running out I would use this 3rd test to do just that. Attwood and Lawes in the 2nd row. Parling on the bench and give a knackered Joe a rest. We have yet to see Attwood have a proper outing alongside quality players against top opposition. Worth a go. Then Burrell and Manu in the centres. I think 36's time is up for now and whilst Eastmond was very good I want to see if these 2 big lumps can play together - it has to be worth finding out.

But as the England coaches don't want to play with two big lumps in the centres, is it worth finding out? They've done that before, and made their mind up they want a distributor there. Also, as SCW pointed out, Burrell just isn't going to run through Nonu. If it isn't Twelvetrees at IC it will be Eastmond.

SL must make changes. New starters should be

Lawes for Parling,
Vunipolar for Morgan,
Yarde for Manu on the right wing,
May on the left wing,
Either Burrell and Manu or eastmond and Manu in the centres.

36 and care made too many errors. Both gave the ball away too easily. They will get better so should not be hung out to dry.

I know that he might be a liability defensively against savea but Ashton knows how to score tries,he has the knack of being in the right place right time.
He will thrive in this side

sickofwendy wrote:I know that he might be a liability defensively against savea but Ashton knows how to score tries,he has the knack of being in the right place right time.
He will thrive in this side

And at least he's a natural winger as opposed to a converted centre shoe horned into the side.

Could Ashton play in the centre with Manu on the wing, just to keep NZ guessing.

sickofwendy wrote:I know that he might be a liability defensively against savea but Ashton knows how to score tries,he has the knack of being in the right place right time.
He will thrive in this side

To be fair to Ashton, he doesn't need to be up against savea, to be a defensive liability. He's a model of consistency on that front. That said, given the tackles we missed last week he can slot in seamlessly... and you're right... he certainly Knows where the try line is.

Did anyone else notice that he didn't splash down when he scored
His defence might have improved,only one way to find out

yappysnap wrote:Only disagree with the Webber rating, i'd give him a 7 or else bump his opposite number down to 6 to match him.

Agree wholeheartedly there yappy!

Am I the only one who felt Webber was out most impressive player along with Parling prior to being subbed?

I thought in a pack effort lacking the physicality and intensity we've seen of late he was one of the few offering that very presence. Strong carrying, solid at set piece, aggressive presence in defence and decent handling touches to move the point of contact well. At full fitness Hartley is still the better option but he's far from that.

milkyboy wrote:

sickofwendy wrote:I know that he might be a liability defensively against savea but Ashton knows how to score tries,he has the knack of being in the right place right time.
He will thrive in this side

To be fair to Ashton, he doesn't need to be up against savea, to be a defensive liability. He's a model of consistency on that front. That said, given the tackles we missed last week he can slot in seamlessly... and you're right... he certainly Knows where the try line is.

I was one of his biggest detractors when he was kept in the side for so long in terrible form. However he was asked to go away rediscover his best form and improve on his positioning and tackling. All of which on club form he seems to have done.

Whether it will convert back to the International stage is of course not guarantee but with Wade and Nowell injured plus May and Tuilagi not nailing down the spot he's earnt a chance in this last test.