England,Stuart Lancaster,RWC and all that

First topic message reminder :

England has more players,money,resources than any other in the world.
IF money mean`t every thing they should be IRB No.1 always.I have
followed the recent tour avidly reading every thing here,papers,planet
Rugby etc.
Been amazed by comments good,ignorant,arrogant,and plain stupid.
Stuart Lancaster as head of the England Coaching/Management/Selection
team.
Has thru his knowledge Coaching Academy,and A team management
experience built a Squad plus a Wider training Squad of depth.
He has moved away from the RWC winning formula of 10 man Rugby
to a more balanced game.
In the last 2 years forget the rubbish about points difference/try count
that has been JOINT 6Ns wiinners,beaten Aus,NZ and drawn with SA.
THAT is a very fine record and better at this stage then SCW`s.
He has ruled out players not in the Uk so he has access to them
all the time.
Like all who follow SCW`s team he is in it`s shadow BUT unlike
SCW.He hasn't[yet?] jumped ship when things go wrong leaving 10
years of losses behind.
The tour of NZ was complicated by Club commitments and injuries
Nz of course had similar problems.
The success or failure of a Touring side doesn't mean it s a bad one
or not.e.g. 1965/70 Boks and 1966/71 Lions.C.Meads rated the former
over the latter better in each case but the results reversed.
Nz at the basic level are probably the worlds best at basics pass,kick,
tackle,let the ball do the work.They play simple rugby the basics at
a pace to suit them.
England beat them on average once every 10 years it doesn't follow
that every time the will win or lose.
What is your bench mark a tournament once every 4 years or your
overall progress at Age Group,A level,7`s,Women,Club etc.?
IF you accept that NZ are THE bench mark then yes the rest are
catching up.
A few years ago NZ ruled age Group,Womens,7`s,and Mens
except at RWC.Now other teams are winning some of these
BUT it doesn't follow NZ at any level are inferior.
It is simplistic to say NZ will go into freefall as there Senior
players drop out.There will always be replacements not
instant successes but they will get there.
Nz are and always have been a team not individuals winning
or losing now doe`snt mean they will lose next time.
The result of the current series or AI`s /RC means nothing
next week,month,or next year.
Other sides count there wins v NZ,NZ count there losses and
use them as motivation for next time.
Englands aim should be not a RWC next year but gaining
and retaining excellence EVERY Game.
WHEN all the selections fall into place England will again be
as they were.Under Rowell,Cooke,and Woodward.
BUT more important when a player drops out for whatever
reason there`s a replacement.

Taylorman wrote:I picked that game randomly and I have illustrated very clearly why the SH perceive that English side to have been a 10 man side- your very issue raised.

So if you cant 'get' that, then its a lost cause, because its so obvious its no longer worth discussing. Credited you for more than that earlier.

I now know that not only did you not believe they were not a 10 man side, you cannot accept the remote possibility that they are. So if there was any wumming, it started with you.

There was a very telling quotation from Martin Johnson at the time. I think we can agree that he knows more about this than us lot, and probably more than several of us put together. It went something like this:

Inteviewer: "Why do England kick so many penalties rather than scoring tries?"
Johnson: "It's not England who are conceding the penalties. If the opposition will let us play, then we'll play. If they kill the ball illegally, we have a kicker who will punish them for it."

The point - which I think only Thunor has touched on in this debate - is that it takes two to tango. The results against NH teams and (intermittently) South Africa show that England were very capable of playing full court rugby. But I credit the SH teams with enough good sense to know that if they let England get the ball to their backs, there was a threat there as well. So the SH teams did the sensible thing and stopped it getting there, often illegally. And because England had a guy who could put the ball over consistently from halfway, they did the sensible thing as well.

Just reminding you how good you have it at present and not forget about our WOMD. We don't want to engage in that kind of warfare. It doesn't serve any of us any good.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I think this thread has demonstrated we're all missing the grey one. All this pent up aggression shows there's no outlet to vent out frustrations from both sides.     

yes there is...its called Saturday. Its not pent up Kia. Ive worked out something for myself about the England side that I never really worked through before so that was the thinking there.

Whether anyone gets it or not isnt the point.

Poorfour wrote:

Taylorman wrote:I picked that game randomly and I have illustrated very clearly why the SH perceive that English side to have been a 10 man side- your very issue raised.

So if you cant 'get' that, then its a lost cause, because its so obvious its no longer worth discussing. Credited you for more than that earlier.

I now know that not only did you not believe they were not a 10 man side, you cannot accept the remote possibility that they are. So if there was any wumming, it started with you.

There was a very telling quotation from Martin Johnson at the time. I think we can agree that he knows more about this than us lot, and probably more than several of us put together. It went something like this:

Inteviewer: "Why do England kick so many penalties rather than scoring tries?"
Johnson: "It's not England who are conceding the penalties. If the opposition will let us play, then we'll play. If they kill the ball illegally, we have a kicker who will punish them for it."

The point - which I think only Thunor has touched on in this debate - is that it takes two to tango. The results against NH teams and (intermittently) South Africa show that England were very capable of playing full court rugby. But I credit the SH teams with enough good sense to know that if they let England get the ball to their backs, there was a threat there as well. So the SH teams did the sensible thing and stopped it getting there, often illegally. And because England had a guy who could put the ball over consistently from halfway, they did the sensible thing as well.

No...the point is...thats what 10 man rugby captains say.

No...the point is...thats what 10 man rugby captains say.

Excellent insightful arguement...   

We were better than I thought Geordie. We actually beat them with 10 men not 13!

Cant argue with that 7.5

Saturday's for the players. 3-0 or 2-1 won't make a difference to the fans, be they from England or NZ. We're all politicians at heart. Always pursuing our own interests and looking to eliminate or discredit our main rivals. It's just that shome do it less obviously than others.

quinsforever wrote:and while i'm at it, here is the link to the tryscorers for England 2000-2003

http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=tries;spanmax2=31+dec+2003;spanmin2=01+jan+2000;spanval2=span;team=1;template=results;type=player

to summarize
cohen 25
greenwood 23
robinson 16
lewsey 13
luger 13
healey 10
balshaw 9
dallaglio 9
tindall 9
worsley 7
moody 6
back 5
dawson 5
hill 4
wilko 4
catt 3
regan 3
west 3
abbott 2
gomarsall 2
greening 2
hodgson 2
kay 2
lloyd 2
shaw 2
thompson 2
walder 2
and several who scored 1 apiece

so, to conclude, England's backs scored 143 tries in 47 matches vs 15-man NZ scoring 121 tries in 42 matches...let me spell it out for you. England's backs scored more tries per match than the entire 15 man NZ team, comparing arguably each sides best 3-year period.

you're welcome.

You cannot compare to different era's and two different teams in this manner.

Firstly you have to look at the opponents each team played.

New Zealand plays in the RC against two teams that are regularly in the top three, hence a bigger percentage of their opponents are tougher opposition.

You then need to look at the teams' relative strengths at the time.

They played under different laws.

Etc.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No...the point is...thats what 10 man rugby captains say.

Excellent insightful arguement...   

hey..tried insightful earlier- got the same garbage thats spouting here. But nevertheless its true. Youre missing the point. Winning largely by penalties only over 12 matches does not reflect the efforts of a 15 man rugby no matter how the penalties are awarded. It aint 15 man rugby. It might be what you call it, but it aint here, and I think we recognise it a little bit better than you do.

Sad that you cant even recognise the difference. That is clearly a gameplan based on forcing the opposition into errors and then kicking the goals. Over and over and over again. It is a reliance on penalties, not a consequence of them.

No i do get it totally Taylorman.

You like rugby league. If any victory doesnt resemble that then its devalued rubbish and not worthy. Im surprised the 2003 WC hasnt actually been wiped from the records...in disgust.

We're never going to agree on it other than saying our 10 men were better than your 15   

yeah I know...its been a bad couple of weeks. Oh well. Enjoy the Crusaders win. well done. Our best ever sxv side beaten by Englands seconds...pretty good really.   enjoy...

Donald was better than Wilkinson. The stats prove it. The former had 100 % success in all RWCs and Johhny only had just over 60 % (17 / 28).   

Taylorman wrote:yeah I know...its been a bad couple of weeks. Oh well. Enjoy the Crusaders win. well done. Our best ever sxv side beaten by Englands seconds...pretty good really.   enjoy...

Surely you mean your best ever sxv side beaten by England's second X ?   

What I don't get is that 10 man rugby is meant to mean some sort of insult? You do what it takes to win.

Referees may penalise maybe 1 or 2 professional fouls a game but in reality their are in every match, probably closer to a dozen.
Teams are happier to give away a penalty because teams know that a 70-80% shot at 3 points is far better than a kick to the corner now that the whistle has been blown and the defence has been able to re-organise.

How many times does a ref show a yellow card in the first 20 mins for a professional foul? Hardly ever.... its often for persistent penalties but that doesn't mean they weren't meant.

Before the penalty was committed the defensive line is probably stretched and a try is close to scoring... once the penalty is given and play is reset the line is once again strong meaning a break in it is unlikely.

Thats modern day rugby.

Looking at stats is a little obtuse though in terms of who scored the try. Wales batter teams up front and then once space is achieved they roll it to Jamie Roberts to score... doesn't mean its running rugby though just because a back scored.

Nevertheless, you can't say England are not an entertaining team, make for an entertaining match.

What would people have rather seen last weekend? ENG vs. NZ or AUS vs. FRA?

AUS vs. FRA are billed as 2 of the most adventurous sides out there. ENG are a borefest right??? I will keep watching borefest rugby if thats the case.

fa0019 wrote:What I don't get is that 10 man rugby is meant to mean some sort of insult? You do what it takes to win.

Referees may penalise maybe 1 or 2 professional fouls a game but in reality their are in every match, probably closer to a dozen.
Teams are happier to give away a penalty because teams know that a 70-80% shot at 3 points is far better than a kick to the corner now that the whistle has been blown and the defence has been able to re-organise.

How many times does a ref show a yellow card in the first 20 mins for a professional foul? Hardly ever.... its often for persistent penalties but that doesn't mean they weren't meant.

Before the penalty was committed the defensive line is probably stretched and a try is close to scoring... once the penalty is given and play is reset the line is once again strong meaning a break in it is unlikely.

Thats modern day rugby.

Looking at stats is a little obtuse though in terms of who scored the try. Wales batter teams up front and then once space is achieved they roll it to Jamie Roberts to score... doesn't mean its running rugby though just because a back scored.

Nevertheless, you can't say England are not an entertaining team, make for an entertaining match.

What would people have rather seen last weekend? ENG vs. NZ or AUS vs. FRA?

AUS vs. FRA are billed as 2 of the most adventurous sides out there. ENG are a borefest right??? I will keep watching borefest rugby if thats the case.

I agree and wasnt putting England down in terms of the style. What I was arguing was they werent playing to a 15 man style- at least in the SH. If it wins then why not? But thats different from not even knowing the difference.

The phrase "Northern Hemisphere easybeats" probably isn't one to use when France got the better of New Zealand at the 1999 World Cup, managed a 42-33 victory a year later, and also drew in 2002. That was a poor run by New Zealand's standards.

That same French team also beat Australia in 2001, something New Zealand couldn't manage that year, even at home. They also went on a good run against South Africa, winning in Johannesburg in summer 2001 before backing it up with consecutive wins during the Autumn international seasons.

That was a very good French team, and I'd go as far as to say they caused us more trouble than any Southern Hemisphere side during England's peak years.

Specifically, they were the first team to work out a strategy to nullify our strengths.

Australia and South Africa just gave away penalties and, therefore, points. The 2001 Autumn international against Australia was a particular joke. The referee could have given half a dozen yellow cards for Wallaby professional fouls but only gave one to Owen Finegan, who could have seen red for doing the same thing when he came back.

I recall Woodward being furious with Paddy O'Brien for his leniency but he was also frustrated that his England team weren't getting a crack at the All Blacks, who had decided to skip Twickenham for the second successive year.

In case it needs restating: England didn't play New Zealand for fully three of their peak years. You can't count the tries if teams don't meet. All we could do was beat the teams who were beating New Zealand.

Back to France. England had become used to playing expansively well behind the gain line. That's how we scored so freely in 2001. In 2002, France decided on a version of low risk rugby combined with a defence which basically lived offside. They aimed Serge Betsen at Wilkinson, with the aim of disrupting our distribution. It worked. Wilkinson spent most of the match getting up after being tackled, while referee Andre Watson forgot his whistle for the day.

Australia didn't have the pack to mimic the French strategy but South Africa thought they did. However, their version of getting at Wilkinson was launching Jannes Labuschagne at him after the ball had gone, earning a red card.

I can still remember be more worried about France at the World Cup than any other side. They had beaten us most recently and looked in good form. As it turned out, they had shown their hand in 2002 and we knew how to counter it. In desperation, they went offside more, drawing yellow cards and penalties.

I don't think England do play 15 man rugby to be honest in the sense of how its described.

They score a lot of their points via penalties

Look at them vs. the boks since 2012 against the big 5 teams (3N & ENG +FRA)

Both have played 13 matches, ENG have scored 280 points vs. 292 for the boks so very close there. But the Boks have scored 30 (tries per game 2.31) vs. 21 for ENG (tries per game 1.62).

Its as much to your individuals as it is the players at your disposal. England have chaps like Yarde, Tuilagi etc who are very open yet if they have a chap like Farrell running the show it limits them somewhat, but Farrell brings a lot to the table that is lacking in other altenatives such as Burns and Cipriani (i.e. Defence) so Lancaster forgives a little attacking for a better chance of winning (or at least thats the logic).

England are more conservative but its just a style of play in the end. If they manage to win on Saturday coming I think they will be a very difficult team to stop come 15 months time.... regardless of who they put out. In 2003 they wouldn't have beaten or got close to the ABs had they played with such reserves before... then they went out with a full first team and just scrapped through. Their depth is much stronger IMO now.

But they need soemthing from this tour.... another gallant loss doesn't really help them much. Its about belief that they can go to the toughest place in the world to tour and come out with a victory of some sorts. When they next meet at HQ they will be in the mental driving seat if the above occurs. Without a victory they will still be at that... "on our day" phase (where Wales has been for permanently for 8 years).

On about the 00-03 team rather than now. Current team is under development but Lancaster has concentrated more on his forwards as a platform before developing his backs more. Arguably has been a much more forward orientated team with a smaller set of forwards less focused on the set piece ironically.

To my mind, Taylorman's point that we just interpret 15 man rugby differently is the key here. I'm only talking for myself I realise but mainly I see 15 man rugby as - do we try and use our backs, do we try and score tries but with them and with the pack, do we try, at least occasionally to have backs and forwards offloading to one another etc. As such I think the England team from 2001-03 was playing 15 man rugby, by my interpretation.

However, the way T-man describes it is different. England, and all other teams, to my mind, still talk about the pack as a separate entity. I don't really see NZ do this, maybe I miss it, but it feels more like they make less distinction between the two.

15-man rugby is meant perjoratively to anyone who doesnt do it. so as such it is meaningless and nothing more than an excuse being readied in case of defeat.

they are labels created by the media, and bought into by fans, to make them feel more smug.

people who believe 15-man rugby to be the apogee of rugby style, also think mccaw has never been offside, ever.   

FFS it's their last little dig, the 'even when you win, you only won by playing anti rugby and we are still better' ploy that they always trot out when someone questions their supremacy. And because you are english you can't possibly understand what they even mean because 'down here we think about it differently'. And of course England were only good back then because NZ were rubbish for a while, they let you have the top spot, and wasn't that nice of them you should be grateful.
What NZ fans sometimes fail to recognize in their uber arrogant 'we play attractive rugby you don't' attitude is that 15 players take to the field on each side.

Yeah I don't 100% disagree, I occasionally infer a touch of all that. But hey, they usually beat us, if we want them to wax lyrical about our game and our players we'll just have to beat them regularly I suppose.

Tune in on Saturday...

I wouldn't, that genius Taylorman has predicted that NZ will put a cricket score on Englnd this tour so, QED, that must happen on saturday.

If it does it will be because England only played with 10 men, obviously.

If England win, which they might, then i can't wait to see what his reasoning will be but i imagine it will have something to do with the ref/the food/the price of tea in china/not enough Islanders players.

It won't be anything to do with England that's for sure. Cos teams don't "beat" the ABs.

Scratch wrote:I wouldn't, that genius Taylorman has predicted that NZ will put a cricket score on Englnd this tour so, QED, that must happen on saturday.

If it does it will be because England only played with 10 men, obviously.

If England win, which they might, then i can't wait to see what his reasoning will be but i imagine it will have something to do with the ref/the food/the price of tea in china/not enough Islanders players.

Thanks scratch, but genius is a tad bit too far. I predicted at some point the ABs would fire and England wouldnt be able to stay with them. Well that happened, and it happened in a way that wrapped up the series in a 20 minute spell. That it didnt blow out to a bigger margin was all credit to England.

This week there are changes- Farrell is out and burns will be in and targeted more than T1.
Read looks to have trained well and looks like he'll take part.
Conrad is out so England have an opportunity to take advantage with Manu surely to be back there. I would expect the more experienced Crotty to be selected as I don't think Hansen want to expose Fekitoa to that just yet. Might be wrong but as you've said I never am.

So in terms of the result? Cricket score? Not likely, but its still possible. Our guys are now jumping at the bit, they're getting their timing right, the passions right up there where we need it and this match is now about future proofing for next year...'we just want to let England know we're still around' kind of thing.

England's expectations for this tour have been dented somewhat and for them its all about character, as it was after the AB onslaught. SL now has a squad he can pick from players that have played. He got a lesson in selection 101 in test 2 and will be all the better for it, but his side needs to come up with something special as the ABs are now primed to go on.

A Read, Kaino, McCaw back 3 will be something for kiwi fans to savour if it happens, the old guard finally back.

Expectations for this tour dented? Don't think so. Not yet anyway. So far it's been closer to what I hoped than what I feared. It's been a doglegged mess of a tour and I'm not going to think we can't beat the ABs even if we get a tonking at this point - and the players know that they had a chance to beat the ABs and blew it.

they still have a chance...in terms of familiarity with the Abs this is their best chance. Then again its the sort of test where the ABs just do not want to spend to long in that 'we could lose this' zone as they have been in the last two.

They'll be aiming to use what they've learned and get the points/ tries in early. The motivation really is to send the home 3-0 and send a message to all really.

I still think we need our gettysburg loss nearer to the world cup to be in the right space for it. England could be in a better position than us. Nothing motivates like a loss and the AI's we just might cop it.

Just wondering, is there a point in time when a developing team has 'finally' developed? Isn't saying that a team is developing, a bit of an excuse? I'm just curious what further developing needs to occur before England are the finished article. I'm looking forward to seeing this fully developed masterpiece, hope it doesn't dissapoint.

I have a theory that it takes 6 years to fully develop a World Cup winning side. Give or take. And then they go over and get worked out and have key personnel retire which is why no country has ever one twice on the trot. Mind you, if anyone can buck this trend NZ can.

And this England side might disappoint. There are no guarantees in sport. But I like the way things have gone the last couple of years.  

Teams should be always developing. Continuously.

ebop wrote:Just wondering, is there a point in time when a developing team has 'finally' developed? Isn't saying that a team is developing, a bit of an excuse? I'm just curious what further developing needs to occur before England are the finished article. I'm looking forward to seeing this fully developed masterpiece, hope it doesn't dissapoint.

The reason England are described as developing is that Lancaster cleared out the a majority of the players who had been there under Johnson - Johnson's RWC squad had been over-reliant on stalwarts of 2003 (Tindall, Moody, Wilko) who were all the wrong side of 30 and had contributed to the cultural issues in the England camp.

As a result, he started again with some very inexperienced players. Robshaw, for instance, had one cap prior to Lancaster, and Wood had about 7. Along the way, for a variety of reasons, he's had to blood a lot of new players. From memory, all of the following earned their first caps under Lancaster (or at least were on fewer than 10 when he started):

LH - Joe Marler, Mako Vunipola
HK - Tom Youngs, Joe Gray
TH - Henry Thomas, Kieran Brookes
LK - Joe Launchbury
BR - Billy Vunipola, Tom Johnson, Phil Dowson
FH - Owen Farrell, Freddie Burns, George Ford
CE - Brad Barritt, Billy Twelvetrees, Kyle Eastmond, Luther Burrell
WG - Marland Yarde, Jack Nowell, Jonny May
FB - Alex Goode

In addition, he's lost several experienced players (e.g. Flood), had others unavailable for long periods (e.g. Wood, Corbisiero, Croft) and been forced to look at at least 4 very different backlines through injury and unavailability.

If you look at winning RWC squads, they have all tended to have around 600-700 caps across the XXIII, with a decent number of 50-cap players, a few near 100 and then room for a handful of late-breakers. England simply have not had time to build up to that level of experience and probably won't get there before the RWC. If you look at the cap-count of England's games since Lancaster, I don't believe they have ever played another international side with fewer caps than they had (at full strength, anyway. Last year's depleted Argentina sides may be an exception) and it's often the case that the opposition bench has more caps than the starting XV.

You could dismiss this as meaningless statistics, but I think the effect of experience showed in the last two tests. When NZ were under the cosh, they had the experience to find an answer. When England were, they didn't. I would say - based on England's play over the other 130 minutes or so - that was more down to experience than any intrinsic quality gap. We also saw it with Woodward's England - they would string together some good results then encounter a team whose tactics they couldn't adapt to and succumb to a loss. It wasn't until 2003 that they had all the answers.

To answer your original question - when will England be ready - if you look at how Lancaster is bringing the graduates from the U20s through into the main squad, realistically we should reach a point in 2017 where there is a core squad with the requisite level of experience and new players coming through regularly. If the quality of the current academy output is borne out, England could be a very difficult side to beat.

Taylorman wrote:

Scratch wrote:I wouldn't, that genius Taylorman has predicted that NZ will put a cricket score on Englnd this tour so, QED, that must happen on saturday.

If it does it will be because England only played with 10 men, obviously.

If England win, which they might, then i can't wait to see what his reasoning will be but i imagine it will have something to do with the ref/the food/the price of tea in china/not enough Islanders players.

Thanks scratch, but genius is a tad bit too far. I predicted at some point the ABs would fire and England wouldnt be able to stay with them. Well that happened, and it happened in a way that wrapped up the series in a 20 minute spell. That it didnt blow out to a bigger margin was all credit to England.

This week there are changes- Farrell is out and burns will be in and targeted more than T1.
Read looks to have trained well and looks like he'll take part.
Conrad is out so England have an opportunity to take advantage with Manu surely to be back there. I would expect the more experienced Crotty to be selected as I don't think Hansen want to expose Fekitoa to that just yet. Might be wrong but as you've said I never am.

So in terms of the result? Cricket score? Not likely, but its still possible. Our guys are now jumping at the bit, they're getting their timing right, the passions right up there where we need it and this match is now about future proofing for next year...'we just want to let England know we're still around' kind of thing.

England's expectations for this tour have been dented somewhat and for them its all about character, as it was after the AB onslaught. SL now has a squad he can pick from players that have played. He got a lesson in selection 101 in test 2 and will be all the better for it, but his side needs to come up with something special as the ABs are now primed to go on.

A Read, Kaino, McCaw back 3 will be something for kiwi fans to savour if it happens, the old guard finally back.

er no you didn't you predicted the all blacks woul dhammer the english in at least one fo the tests and they haven't

and englands expectations have been far from dented.

there has been disappointment not embarssment, and learning not the anticipated first test destruction that your claim was based on that NZ would put a cricket score on them

you are a total revisionist Tman, you change your argument more often than the ABs change their excuses for losing world cups, or whines about how the game is played down there and not up here.

as for your Conrad is out Manu is back so England can exploit it comment, that sums your attitude up.....you think you only face exploitation when weakened, the arrogance is showing again, same old story.

I woudl expect England to come out for a final showdown this weekend and i hope they teach you boys a lesson.

Scratch wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Scratch wrote:I wouldn't, that genius Taylorman has predicted that NZ will put a cricket score on Englnd this tour so, QED, that must happen on saturday.

If it does it will be because England only played with 10 men, obviously.

If England win, which they might, then i can't wait to see what his reasoning will be but i imagine it will have something to do with the ref/the food/the price of tea in china/not enough Islanders players.

Thanks scratch, but genius is a tad bit too far. I predicted at some point the ABs would fire and England wouldnt be able to stay with them. Well that happened, and it happened in a way that wrapped up the series in a 20 minute spell. That it didnt blow out to a bigger margin was all credit to England.

This week there are changes- Farrell is out and burns will be in and targeted more than T1.
Read looks to have trained well and looks like he'll take part.
Conrad is out so England have an opportunity to take advantage with Manu surely to be back there. I would expect the more experienced Crotty to be selected as I don't think Hansen want to expose Fekitoa to that just yet. Might be wrong but as you've said I never am.

So in terms of the result? Cricket score? Not likely, but its still possible. Our guys are now jumping at the bit, they're getting their timing right, the passions right up there where we need it and this match is now about future proofing for next year...'we just want to let England know we're still around' kind of thing.

England's expectations for this tour have been dented somewhat and for them its all about character, as it was after the AB onslaught. SL now has a squad he can pick from players that have played. He got a lesson in selection 101 in test 2 and will be all the better for it, but his side needs to come up with something special as the ABs are now primed to go on.

A Read, Kaino, McCaw back 3 will be something for kiwi fans to savour if it happens, the old guard finally back.

er no you didn't you predicted the all blacks woul dhammer the english in at least one fo the tests and they haven't

and englands expectations have been far from dented.

there has been disappointment not embarssment, and learning not the anticipated first test destruction that your claim was based on that NZ would put a cricket score on them

you are a total revisionist Tman, you change your argument more often than the ABs change their excuses for losing world cups, or whines about how the game is played down there and not up here.

as for your Conrad is out Manu is back so England can exploit it comment, that sums your attitude up.....you think you only face exploitation when weakened, the arrogance is showing again, same old story.

I woudl expect England to come out for a final showdown this weekend and i hope they teach you boys a lesson.

This is the latest thing I said on the AB's in terms of 'hammer'  Scratch:

"A lot of us fans don't know them all. We don't follow NH club rugby so other than the normal bigger names through the 6N and only the Rugby channel takes in the club games- extra subscription here. We're kept busy by a deluge of Superxv and thats more than enough as it takes up the entire weekend across the 3 countries.

But you can bet the AB's will know them all, its their job after all. Smith had a dedicated process of video screening, analysis etc and no doubt that will continue.

So its different for us fans, we don't have a tangible need to know about the opposition to the nth degree- some will. and some follow the NH games for the kiwis playing.

I think we know enough as fans, and likewise, how much do you know about the form of our players? The majority are in stunning form in all honesty which makes the number of errors even more out of place. Thats will be because of the test environment, more pressure from the English and the fact they havnt played together recently- all battling each other more recently.

But thats also why we think they'll cause a blowout, because when they do click England just wont have the right answers. England would do well to prevent this happening but such is their current form across the board I cant see it happening. At some point during the next two matches the AB's will go into overdrive."

Did they go into overdrive- yes- enough to win the series.
Did England do well to stop it happening- No. But they did limit the score

And there is still one of the 2 left.

For me, I'll think this test will be more convincing than the other in terms of the score, but perhaps not in terms of that purple patch that wrapped up the series.

Not sure where to post. Lines of overweight middle aged men, hunched over their computers sallying forth to do battle over national pride. It gets the blood up.

The English and their allies have sallied forth onto the plain, bifocals glittering in late evening lamplight. The Kiwis have adopted a defensive position, as they deal with tendonitis from repeated charges. The neutrals have drifted off to sleep, or wandered down the pub.

There's the clash of emotional barbs, thinly disguised as the thrust and slash of objective arguments. The valiant protagonists battling on despite wounds to the egos. The forum deafened by the bash and crash of the mouse and keyboard, and cries of the triumph and offense with every message sent.

I'm guessing it'll be one of those things we disagree on. Kiwis will view the English team of 1999-2003 with mixed feelings. A very good side, but not necessarily a complete side that is up there with the great opponents our past (e.g. 37 Boks, '72 Lions, '86 Wallabies etc).

We do have a perceived view of pre Lancaster professional England as a very good but somewhat limited side. There is also a belief that they hit form at time when the SH sides all slumped for different reasons. I'm not sure debate on here's going to change that.

Obviously, they are worthy world cup winners and the number 1 side in the world by the end of 2003. Obviously many English fans over the age of 35 will see them as one of, possibly, the greatest team(s).

I'm quite happy to enter the debate, but could we keep the personal comments to a minimum? Just a thought.

blackcanelion wrote:Not sure where to post. Lines of overweight middle aged men, hunched over their computers sallying forth to do battle over national pride. It gets the blood up.

The English and their allies have sallied forth onto the plain, bifocals glittering in late evening lamplight. The Kiwis have adopted a defensive position, as they deal with tendonitis from repeated charges. The neutrals have drifted off to sleep, or wandered down the pub.

There's the clash of emotional barbs, thinly disguised as the thrust and slash of objective arguments. The valiant protagonists battling on despite wounds to the egos. The forum deafened  bash and crash of the mouse and keyboard, and cries of the triumph and offence with every message sent.

I'm guessing it'll be one of those things we disagree on. Kiwis will view the English team of 1999-2003 with mixed feelings. A very good side, but not necessarily a complete side that is up there with the great opponents our past (e.g. 37 Boks, '72 Lions, '86 Wallabies etc).

We do have a perceived view of pre Lancaster professional England as a very good but somewhat limited side. There is also a belief that they hit form at time when the SH sides all slumped for different reasons. I'm not sure debate on here's going to change that.

Obviously, they are worthy world cup winners and the number 1 side in the world by the end of 2003. Obviously many English fans over the age of 35 will see them as one of, possibly the,  greatest team(s).

I'm quite happy to enter the debate, but could we keep the personal comments to a minimum? Just a thought.

Fair enough...I've tidied mine up a bit. Not so sure it will be reciprocated...couple of days and its all over...sure went quick...
Anyway, at no time did I say they weren't a great team, my issue was the style of play. In looking at it further I was actually more impressed in that versus the NH they were playing outrageous 15 man rugby- 17 tries in one world cup match and then in the SH they were able to 10 man it and win here. For a side to be able to adapt and still win both ways like that is unreal- probably a first over the number of matches anyway.

Anyway, suggesting they were 15 man in these parts seemed to open some wound...anyway...over it now...fair point bc.

Sure doesnt help the Canes chances with Conrad out either...thats a blow.

I've found this an interesting exchange. I don't think everyone who has labelled that England team as a 10-man rugby side has intended it as an insult. It's nonetheless revealing that all the definitions offered up of that style either don't fit Woodward's England, or else fit a lot of other teams who never get get called out for 10 man rugby anything like as much. Taylorman touched on this when he noted that some do seem to make the claim merely as a means of dismissing that England side.

Blackcanelion makes a similar point:

blackcanelion wrote:...I'm guessing it'll be one of those things we disagree on. Kiwis will view the English team of 1999-2003 with mixed feelings. A very good side, but not necessarily a complete side that is up there with the great opponents our past (e.g. 37 Boks, '72 Lions, '86 Wallabies etc)...

I think some New Zealanders seem to subscribe to this version of history:

- New Zealand usually has the measure of England
- New Zealand don't lose to England at World Cups, winning in 1991, 1995 & 1999.
- New Zealand probably would have beaten England if they'd played them more, after all, the 2002 loss at Twickenham was only a second-string side but they could have won the game
- New Zealand should have won in 2003 but for a kicking off-day. England gave away penalties which, usually, would have lost them the game.
- When the World Cup holders came to New Zealand a few months after the tournament, they lost both games easily.
- England only won the World Cup because they didn't face New Zealand. The All Blacks blew it against Australia.

Now, I think that's just a fairy tale die-hard fans tell themselves to avoid dealing with the fact England were the dominant side in world rugby at that time.

It's impossible to know, but I'm reasonably certain that if the All Blacks had faced England at Twickenham in 2000 and 2001, they'd have certainly lost one match and probably both.

Their best chance of winning would have been 2000, but that's the year England won in South Africa when New Zealand couldn't; we also beat the Australian team who had defeated New Zealand home and away. Not conclusive evidence, but it certainly makes it harder to argue in favour of New Zealand coming away victorious.

In 2001, the All Blacks were still losing to Australia and struggling against France. England beat both sides comfortably. Again, by no means conclusive, but it doesn't lend much backing to a New Zealand win either.

As far as back play goes, I agree with everyone else singing Jason Robinson's praises, but would point out that he didn't play for England in 2000 and only featured briefly in 2001. Our most prolific back three consisted of Healey, Balshaw and Cohen. Those players don't get much credit in New Zealand only because the All Blacks didn't face them together. As we've discovered, for some New Zealand supporters if it didn't take place in an All Black game, then it never happened.

I don't think England would have beaten New Zealand easily if we'd faced them in the World Cup final. We were profligate, and made heavy work of teams we had been used to beating regularly in that tournament. We did, however dominate France, the one team who had caused us real problems and I think we would have approached a match with New Zealand in a similar fashion. New Zealand also had problems with France, and the loss to Australia in the Cup showed that pressure could get to them. England would have won, because there was no better team in the world at applying and dealing with pressure than England in 2003.

Of course, we can't know. We all choose to fill the gaps in the historical record with whatever speculation suits our world view. One thing we can all agree on is that if the two sides had met more often, we surely wouldn't be having this exchange now.










-

Nice posts bc and RF but less of this middle-aged overweight description.

To be fair RF, points 1, 2 and 5 are not versions of history but indisputable fact. What meaning you can gather from them is questionable. For example, before 2011 Oz had a 100 PC record over NZ but it didn't pan out to be a guarantor of continuity. The rest is speculation and I for certainly don't subscribe to the theory that NZ would've won in 2003 had they made the final. Would've loved to have seen the match but we weren't good enough on the day just like in 91, 95, 99 and 07.

I suspect some NZ fans would pay England more dues if they had RWC matches like France. I hear the mocking laughter of some saying how could you lose to that lot. Fair enough as teams like England or Wales generally like their chances against France but the fact is those defeats in 99 and 07 stick out in terms of painful defeats along with 99. Add to that a series win and our last loss at Eden Park and you forget about how many other times we beat them, those wounds linger and fester.

Let's imagine NZ had faced England in 2003 in that final and we lost in similar fashion to the test in NZ. I would reckon for some, and I stress some, England would go up in their assessment due to the psychological damage they would have inflicted. I agree that is a very narrow-minded vision of how teams stack up but there is certainly an element of that in the media and among fans. however, I don't think that's peculiar to NZ fans or media.

It's not just RWC defeats that stand out. Consecutive losses stand out more than one-off defeats. Australia had a grip over the Bledisloe in the Eales era and those defeats are harder to take than the defeats in 91 and 03. The problem with England, as you point out, is that there are very few opportunities like this series to have consecutive games against England. That again leads to the temptation for some to dismiss losses as one-off incidents as for most times that's what they are. Have a few consecutive losses like SA in 2009 and that stands out in the collective memory more. SA and Ireland fans have the same debate over how many times they face SA and how many of those tests have been in SA.

At the end of the day, both sets of fans argue if there were more tests they'd have more wins. Understandable but speculating on what might have happened is masturbatory fantasy. You may get your quick fix but ultimately it's unsatisfying as no one wants to hear about your Palme D'Or trophies.

I don't really have a problem with whether we would have won or lost against England in the 2003 final because I sat there and watched a completely ineffective NZ side get shut out by Oz.

With 30 minutes to go I knew we werent going to win and I never feel like that these days, and havnt for years. We kept trying to pull rabbits out of the hat but the Aus roling defence just kept shutting us down. After that semi I was of a clear opinion that theres no way we deserved a shot at the final.

I had hoped Aus would win having beaten us and the ANZAC thing but I just wasnt interested, such was the pathetic display in that semi.

The other thing that stands out about the 03 side is where did it come from, where did it go, and what did it give England rugby in terms of its future.

Yes the side was built on things like SCW's side getting beaten by 70+ in Oz and the 6 years it took to build the side but what then?

Its like it came and went and theres no evidence left to prove it even existed other than the replays and memories.

Was it just a matter of England striking gold with the caliber of players all there at he same time? If not then why can't the process that built that side be replicated? Its one of the wonders of the rugby world that the team came, conqueured and then completely disappeared, leaving no legacy other than the era itself. What was actually learned from that era and put into place for the long term?

On the bright side it does appear that SL is doing something similar. Its a young side slowly building momentum over the last two years and although theyre having some teething, its clear theyre on an upward tangent. The level of progress in those two years- slow but sure- but more importantly consistent, suggests theyve every chance at next years World cup.

They do need to do something to replace that isolated era in their history that stands out like a beacon in the winds of time.

Was it just a matter of England striking gold with the caliber of players all there at he same time? If not then why can't the process that built that side be replicated? Its one of the wonders of the rugby world that the team came, conqueured and then completely disappeared, leaving no legacy other than the era itself.

This has been discussed on many ocasions TM. Its generally agreed Wooward played his best team with little concern for the following years.

Add in all the retirements on mass and a little bit of bad luck wit injuries and we have struggled to fill a void.

Lancaster certainly seems to be addressing that issue aswell as building a strong side for now. This is why i firmly believe we are in good hands with him and he should stay on after the WC...

yes interesting how Lancaster came in as caretaker coach and 'grew' on people. Why was he only taken on as caretaker initially? general lack of experiene or was someone else in line that wasnt yet available? Perhaps they should appoint any new coach as caretaker for a short term as it motivates them to do something well quickly.

There is a train of thought that its only now that we are seeing the benefits of the 2003 RWC, in that the youngsters it would have inspired are the young professionals we have now. I dont know.

At the time we had a number of exceptional individuals and a manager who, although often since seeming to have a difficult relationship with reality, really did make sure that no stone was left unturned in terms of developing his team.

We did have real problems with the management of the emerging professional game at the time, and any tangible legacy that SCW might have left was lost. Its only on the last few years that a proper working relationship between the clubs and the RFU, the development of the academies and incentive payments for playing EQ players have started to bear fruit.

yes that relationship is critical. It is for us. Where we have almost a perfect pyramid as a structure- kids ans schools at the bottom, going up into clubs, ITM, sxv and the ABs at the top. The only chinks being the Haymans and Evans that leave for the NH before their time and the handful that play sxv and for their pacific country- Leiua and Nadolo.

Other than that we get it all, and we need it all.

England and the other 5N have the clubs isues, Oz have an entire missing tier of club rugby- to be addressed this year, and SA have an army of desserters before their time, so we're lucky in that respect, not sure for how long though.

Yeah TM, i think it was general lack of experience...but hes showing the right calls at the moment.

LIW, yes i think we're certainly experiening that but i also think there was a whole generation that were excellent players that really missed out because of Woodward aswell.
Its all just personal opinons in the end though.

I like what lancaster is doing. I even like that if he has an idea he's not afraid to try it. Wood at 8, Tuilagi on the wing etc. If it doesnt work trial is over but at least hes satisfied he's done it.

At the moment the only thing the team is missing is that clinical finishing...taking chances when they're on. That will come though.

I thought it was because Johnson left in November 2011(?) and they needed someone to run the team for the 6 Nations 2012. Instead of trying to rush someone in, they put the Saxons coach in. He applied for the full job and got it (over Mallet?).

Things are going well between club and country in England at the moment. I'll be interesting to see what happens after the World Cup when the current deal comes to an end.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah TM, i think it was general lack of experience...but hes showing the right calls at the moment.

LIW, yes i think we're certainly experiening that but i also think there was a whole generation that were excellent players that really missed out because of Woodward aswell.
Its all just personal opinons in the end though.

I like what lancaster is doing. I even like that if he has an idea he's not afraid to try it. Wood at 8, Tuilagi on the wing etc. If it doesnt work trial is over but at least hes satisfied he's done it.

At the moment the only thing the team is missing is that clinical finishing...taking chances when they're on. That will come though.

Definitely a lost generation of players, partly down to lack of development, maybe partly down to the number of foreign players we had in the AP at the time and maybe also a more lean time in terms of talent. There are a few we lost due to injury or worse (Stuart Abbott possible example of the former, Nick Duncombe definitely for the latter)

TM

You ask a good question regarding where the England team of the early 00s came from and went. Woodward was certainly a key character - he was able to get his way with the RFU for long enough to build the team he wanted and was thoroughly professional in looking for the best specialsits to help. Add in that we had some very good players and the success was understandable.

Why it went away so quickly? SCW was aiming at the 03 RWC and probably went htere with a team slightly past their peak, but with very little of a plan of succession. Add to that the disputes he had regarding player release (something Rob Andrew eventually sorted out about 5 years later) plus the loss through injury of Woodman, Thomson and WIlkinson (effectively, for 4 years), who would have been the core of the on-going team and you can see why there were issues through 2007 and even 2011.

As for experience (or inexperience), in last year's 6Ns game against Ireland, the entire English starting XV had about 20 fewer caps than two Irish players between them (ROG and BOD). Lancaster has done a reasonably good job in juggling the requirements of building a team and some squad depth, possibly helped by injuries to the likes of Cole and Manu T forcing him to give chances to players like Wilson and Burrell.

TM, SL had been pretty successful with the Saxons and was well established in the RFU and it's structures at a personal level but he hadn't the experience that most fans were clammering for at international level. There was no-one in the market who seemed to fit the bill and we needed someone quickly to take charge for the 6N so he was given that limited remit initially. By the end of that tournament he had taken the initiative with his well known back to roots, strong disciplinary attitude and accent on youth. He was probably costing a lot less as well. All in all he played a blinder and deserved the permanent post. He hasn't let us down and it's been a joy to watch him develop as a coach almost as much as his players.

He's close to having created a reliable core group but continues to add to a wider reservoir of players who can genuinely compete for inclusion and provide the depth needed to keep the momentum going even when large numbers of players are unavailable.

I genuinely believe he is creating an environment that can continually refresh the squad so we don't have that gap as one generation ages and we wait for the next one to develop.

It's 9 out of 10 right now for me and if he delivered the RWC then it would be a 10.