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

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Give NZ space and you look as though you have 15 Ashtons on the field.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Give NZ space and you look as though you have 15 Ashtons on the field.

milkyboy wrote:I wouldn't argue that giving NZ space is suicide, but I'm not sure I completely buy into this traditional values rugby stuff. When you have the ball, you need to play whatever style of rugby you believe will get you the most points... With the obvious caveat that you don't risk giving the ball back cheaply. At the moment, England are a threat with the ball in hand, but too many poor decisions result in chances not being taken and half chances being over-pressured into mistakes.

England have tried chucking the ball around for years but usually to static 'runners', and our support play has been way behind the top sides. This set of players are better at it, but not to the level of the very best. The game management comes down to individuals taking risks under pressure and trying moves that either their skill level, or more often, the specific situation doesn't warrant.

Personally I don't think that means you stop trying. I think it means you take confidence from the chances created and hope that team work and experience improves your conversion rates.

Top class sport turns on very small margins. We were mullered yesterday on an unfamiliar backline's defensive skills and organisation. Tries were walked in off first phase ball. It had f-all to do with the brand of rugby.

There's nothing wrong with England playing expansive rugby, but it's picking the time and place. I think the side lacks a bit of leadership on general.. Panic set in through the whole side in the first half yesterday, when some cool heads were needed.

A better side than us, with way more experience playing at home beat us in some competitive games. So, on the back of that, we go back to grunt rugby?

No thanks, I like what we're trying to do, the more we try it, the better we'll get.

milkyboy wrote:I wouldn't argue that giving NZ space is suicide,

ebop wrote:Do English clubs play like how SL wants England to play, in general? Thanks for the riveting series by the way, best for a long time for us:)

ebop wrote:Do English clubs play like how SL wants England to play, in general? Thanks for the riveting series by the way, best for a long time for us:)

milkyboy wrote:Wasn't there talk that England were going to contribute to the purchase of burgess and have some say in his position... Then they decided they couldn't/shouldn't so bath are looking at playing him in the back row, not inside centre?

Rugby Fan wrote: If all teams played roughly the same way, then you'd have a fairly dull competition. Part of the enjoyment is watching one team's rugby culture and style take on another.

Rugby Fan wrote:

ebop wrote:Do English clubs play like how SL wants England to play, in general? Thanks for the riveting series by the way, best for a long time for us:)

It doesn't work that way.

I recall Biltong saying recently that he wants South African teams to take a leaf out of New Zealand's book and adopt uniform practices in Super Rugby to assist the national side.

You can't do that in England and you probably wouldn't want to either. The English and French leagues are self contained. If all teams played roughly the same way, then you'd have a fairly dull competition. Part of the enjoyment is watching one team's rugby culture and style take on another.

It makes things tricky for a national coach. At best, England might be able to get a club to play someone in their preferred position. In practice, not even that can be guaranteed. If Lancaster wanted Leicester to play Tuilagi on the wing, I doubt if they would. Lancaster would probably have liked Eastmond to have seem more action but it's up to Bath. Bath will also decide how to use Sam Burgess, regardless of what the England coaches might like.

Neutralee wrote:Anyone else very disappointed in brown, he had 1 good game in the 6n and was lauded as world class but has done nothing to back it up

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Indeed. It's getting the blend right and being able to adapt in a game and having at your disposal a wide ranging arsenal. SA will probably try for a blend of the Eden Park and Ellis Park tests against NZ. Opening up too much undid them in Joburg and trying to be too confrontational - regardless of the yellow card fiasco - was able to be withstood by NZ. It's knowing when to try things out wide and when to keep it up close. I was impressed by the offloading of the loose forwards by England and Launchbury in the last test showed with his offload to Youngs that type of play can break the defensive line without that much risk. But you have to be able to control the pace of the game well and that's what England did well in the first test as well as being able to be creative on attack. As the series progressed, however, England were less in control of how they wanted to play the game and the 20 mins in the second test and 40 minutes in the first took the game away from them. That wasn't so much their attack but, rather, their defence that fell away during those moments.

emack2 wrote:I`m not aware of the NH club scene except at a peripheral level but the workload is horrendous.What you DON` T do is send players to NZ when fatigued or carrying injuries

Historically you may catch NZ cold in the 1st match of a series,the 2nd they will
be stronger,the 3 rd often a blowout.
Englands side in my opinion in the First test played so well because they had no
pressure on them.Everyone[except maybe myself] expected a blow out,they were
out to prove personal points.They deserved to be considered as starting players,
playing 15 men not Supermen.In that they succeeded as to the hype about RWC
markers that was irrelevant.#
Next year the team squads may be very different,a more conservative game plan
adopted.Certainly you can expect 4Ns games to be sacrificed for the so called
holy grail[a practice which frankly stinks].Injurys of course will be a factor too.
Expectations of Home advantage being great on SH sides in Nh doesn't cut
much ice.
England may well fail to proceed from there group it`s that close.Wales record
v England is always about equal.Australia always seem to get it up for RWCs
and is played under SH rules i.e bonus points.
It may well come down to how the sides go against the other sides in the group
to decide it it`s that close.
Nz have the easiest Group and should win it as usual and will be under cooked.
This year and next Nz will lose matchs almost certainly every runends sometime.
and 6-0 3/4 Ns in the 3 of the last 4 is highly unlikely.
France recently have been so poor who can judge Australia on it and SA have had
mixed fortunes too.
ALL will be better come August and injuries and cover will decide the 4Ns again

Taylorman wrote:
The World cup scheduling looks to suit the SH sides more doesnt it? It looks like its smack in the middle of a period England et all arent playing. Is that about right- September next year? Thats normally when we're in the middle of the RC so thats gota suit I suppose.

Linebreaker wrote:I stopped reading after "a bridge too far". However, I'll take your word for it, mate.   

Boy am I glad this series is done and dusted. So much analysis, commentary and post match reviewing but still the usual result.

Let's face it - we all (players, coaches, fans and pundits) always underestimate the fitness and street smarts of the kiwi when it's backed into its cosy swale. And we always get a ferocious peck which sends us reeling back to camp. Yepgood!

Taylorman wrote: The World cup scheduling looks to suit the SH sides more doesnt it? It looks like its smack in the middle of a period England et all arent playing. Is that about right- September next year? Thats normally when we're in the middle of the RC so thats gota suit I suppose.

SecretFly wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:I stopped reading after "a bridge too far". However, I'll take your word for it, mate.   

Boy am I glad this series is done and dusted. So much analysis, commentary and post match reviewing but still the usual result.

Let's face it - we all (players, coaches, fans and pundits) always underestimate the fitness and street smarts of the kiwi when it's backed into its cosy swale. And we always get a ferocious peck which sends us reeling back to camp. Yepgood!

Top post for this thread.  

HammerofThunor wrote:So you think having the WC after a full season is better than towards the end of your season? If the WC was in March it would be a shed load better for the NH teams (if not the clubs in mid season, although it affecting them this year by delaying their season).