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.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

When I ask the same question of the backline after 10? The answer is a resounding No.

Thats an interesting comment Taylorm.

Whilst i wouldnt class it as one of the best ever backlines it was most definately one of the best in the world at the time and through that period.

When you have a backline that contains Matt Dawson, Johnny, Will Greenwood, Jason Robinson, Josh Lewsey etc then its a pretty impressive one.

And to argue against that is a little bit one eyed i would say.

You missed the context in which it was meant then. In terms of 15 man rugby was that backline as much of a contributing factor as the pack was in terms of the success of the era? If your answer to that is yes then I would suggest that is a little naive.

Taylorman wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

When I ask the same question of the backline after 10? The answer is a resounding No.

Thats an interesting comment Taylorm.

Whilst i wouldnt class it as one of the best ever backlines it was most definately one of the best in the world at the time and through that period.

When you have a backline that contains Matt Dawson, Johnny, Will Greenwood, Jason Robinson, Josh Lewsey etc then its a pretty impressive one.

And to argue against that is a little bit one eyed i would say.

You missed the context in which it was meant then. In terms of 15 man rugby was that backline as much of a contributing factor as the pack was in terms of the success of the era? If your answer to that is yes then I would suggest that is a little naive.

But you started off by saying that none of the backline were among the best bar Wilkinson. Greenwood and Robinson would definitely be among those considered.

Against the top sides it was 10 man. Not really look at the results against everyone and there were tries scored.

No tries in final, dealt with already.

Backs against the wall England would turn to their forwards whereas NZ would open up more, suggesting that NZ would put more focus on a 5 man game.

Sometimes it's better just to give that team credit. 1-15 and beyond bloody good 15 man rugby.

like I said...how you perceive 10 and 15 man rugby is in the eye of the beholder. For me England in that era were based fundamentally (being the key word) on that pack and Wilko, but also had very good backs. No point picking holes in the literals, thats just how I see it. To me, that isnt 15 man rugby. To you it might be, so we agree to differ. And thats fine.

Ah fine. In that case no one plays 15 man rugby. We'll leave it at that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Lions thing for me was that you should bring together a team of the best players in the British Isles and mold a style and good spirit etc. What was decided was to base it upon the Welsh gameplan which obviously meant most of the Welsh team were suited to start. So tactics were an issue but moreso from the fact they came first then the team rather than building something unique. But we won so hey ho!

Indeed, similar to 2005. The only difference being the result. But it's easier to justify an approach when you win than when you lose. Sure the Lions could've played more dynamically in the first two tests like they did in the 3rd test just as England could've played a more 'total' approach in 2003. The question is did they need to as they won?

I don't think the result matters in justification. Both sets of coaching staff did much to put off the fans and that shouldn't be what the Lions is about for me. You could say that it had something to do with the fact both head coaches were leading their respective nations at the same time and that caused issues as well and opened the idea of bias more clearly as well. The Lions team is a different beast that normal international rugby.

The England team at the turn of the century could get into an arm wrestle when they needed to win but that was far from their default setting. Put it this way I'd be delirously happy if the current team had that backline now, even discounting 9 and 10 from that we would be sitting extremely pretty at the moment. I think it's become even more popular to recite the 10 man line as a comfort to some other teams of the time.

For sure you haven't really solved the centre issue. Similarly, I could think of a player like Stirling Mortlock and how Australia were lost without him similar to Greenwood. Maybe those players aren't the first on the world class centres list outside those countries but that in no way diminishes the importance of that player for those respective teams. Mike Brown has a way to go to eclipsing the brilliance of Robinson, despite how well he's performed and there have been plenty of names on the wings for England in recent times but Cohen and Lewsey were so effective but again outside England I would contend those are not the first names that would spring to mind as all-time wing greats. Wilkinson, however, is a name that springs to mind at 10 and I think that was the point Tman was making. These world class / world greats are always subjective lists. How to differentiate between Cullen, Hastings and Blanco who were my fullback heroes and do they make everyone's world great lists?

taylorman you do no know your arse from your elbow as far as england rugby is concerned.

here are the stats courtesy of espn statsguru for england 2000-2003 compared to NZ in the last 3 years.

to summarise:
england scored more tries per game
england's margin of victory was significantly greater per game
england conceded less points per game

and all that with only 10 players. wow, they must have been really tired by the end of 2003   


Overall Figures England 2000-2003
Team Span Mat Won Lost Draw % For Aga Diff Tries Conv Pens Drop
2000-2003 47 42 5 0 89.36 1801 633 +1168 199 151 144 24

Overall Figures New Zealand 2011-2014
Team Span Mat Won Lost Draw % For Aga Diff Tries Conv Pens Drop
2011-2014 42 38 3 1 91.66 1424 624 +800 165 121 114 5

Taylorman wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

When I ask the same question of the backline after 10? The answer is a resounding No.

Thats an interesting comment Taylorm.

Whilst i wouldnt class it as one of the best ever backlines it was most definately one of the best in the world at the time and through that period.

When you have a backline that contains Matt Dawson, Johnny, Will Greenwood, Jason Robinson, Josh Lewsey etc then its a pretty impressive one.

And to argue against that is a little bit one eyed i would say.

You missed the context in which it was meant then. In terms of 15 man rugby was that backline as much of a contributing factor as the pack was in terms of the success of the era? If your answer to that is yes then I would suggest that is a little naive.

The pack was a big factor no doubt, but without being Naive yes i do think the backs played as much of a contributing factor...i dont think your giving them enough credit for how much influence they had.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Lions thing for me was that you should bring together a team of the best players in the British Isles and mold a style and good spirit etc. What was decided was to base it upon the Welsh gameplan which obviously meant most of the Welsh team were suited to start. So tactics were an issue but moreso from the fact they came first then the team rather than building something unique. But we won so hey ho!

Indeed, similar to 2005. The only difference being the result. But it's easier to justify an approach when you win than when you lose. Sure the Lions could've played more dynamically in the first two tests like they did in the 3rd test just as England could've played a more 'total' approach in 2003. The question is did they need to as they won?

I don't think the result matters in justification. Both sets of coaching staff did much to put off the fans and that shouldn't be what the Lions is about for me. You could say that it had something to do with the fact both head coaches were leading their respective nations at the same time and that caused issues as well and opened the idea of bias more clearly as well. The Lions team is a different beast that normal international rugby.

The England team at the turn of the century could get into an arm wrestle when they needed to win but that was far from their default setting. Put it this way I'd be delirously happy if the current team had that backline now, even discounting 9 and 10 from that we would be sitting extremely pretty at the moment. I think it's become even more popular to recite the 10 man line as a comfort to some other teams of the time.

For sure you haven't really solved the centre issue. Similarly, I could think of a player like Stirling Mortlock and how Australia were lost without him similar to Greenwood. Maybe those players aren't the first on the world class centres list outside those countries but that in no way diminishes the importance of that player for those respective teams. Mike Brown has a way to go to eclipsing the brilliance of Robinson, despite how well he's performed and there have been plenty of names on the wings for England in recent times but Cohen and Lewsey were so effective but again outside England I would contend those are not the first names that would spring to mind as all-time wing greats. Wilkinson, however, is a name that springs to mind at 10 and I think that was the point Tman was making. These world class / world greats are always subjective lists. How to differentiate between Cullen, Hastings and Blanco who were my fullback heroes and do they make everyone's world great lists?

Obviously they don't. People who you probably should consider as all time greats from that team? For me Johnson, Hill, Wilkinson and Robinson. There were more world class players in the team but they wouldn't really be considered in the highest upper reaches of the game. If that's the basis for a 10 man game what about the current NZ team. McCaw, Read possibly (though not yet for me), Carter, C Smith? I wouldn't be talking about the rest as yet (it may change as there's some youngsters). Similar sort of spread.

Cullen and Hastings?...kia...please..no comparison...I had the pleasure of watching Hastings at Eden park no.2 in 1984 for University against Grammar- he was awesome...

NZ clearly doesn't have the licence for the 15 man game and I would argue they are more pragmatic than Aus. Last RC they kicked more than any other team. NZ do use there forwards to create space for the backs or use them quickly at turnover ball as do all teams. NZ with Fox or Merthans at 10 would kick extensively for field position and employ drop goals and bang over countless penalties.

The main difference is that NZ have full belief that they will score by going for the try. It has nothing to do with ten man or 15 man rugby. Other teams would have less confidence in their own abilities to score a 5 and make the choice NZ made last week which was actually the players choice not the teams. Perhaps RM would've elected the 3.... Luckily as NZ is a great team and do the basics best these choices often come off.

Unfortunately reputations stick and most are false. Teams get known for certain traits rightly or wrongly. 10 man vs 15 man is a load of tosh no matter how you try to spin it. Style of play changes due to laws, the coach at the time and players available.

Example 1: SA at the 99 RWC had played amazing running (15 man as people here like to call it) leading to the tournament and it was based on having Honiball at 10. He got injured and there was not a like for like replacement so de Beer came in which completely changed the style the Boks adopted. Similarly NZ at the last RWC with Carter getting injured. Having a wizard at 10 helps.

Do you have the breakdown of those specific countries both sides faced during that period quins?

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.

7.5 I am of the opinion that there are very few world class players because I think it's a term that should be reserved for the very elite so I would agree with you that this current NZ side has only a couple. What they do well is play well together as a team which is what the 00-03 side had as well as their characteristic. We all like to get caught up in the my side is better than your side debate but that is only natural.

Quins, it'd be nice to see a game break down of where those tries came and against which teams. Homework for you.   

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:7.5 I am of the opinion that there are very few world class players because I think it's a term that should be reserved for the very elite so I would agree with you that this current NZ side has only a couple. What they do well is play well together as a team which is what the 00-03 side had as well as their characteristic. We all like to get caught up in the my side is better than your side debate but that is only natural.

Quins, it'd be nice to see a game break down of where those tries came and against which teams. Homework for you.   

do your own homework.   

 I prefer copying yours. That was the arrangement. Cue Back to the Future music...

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:7.5 I am of the opinion that there are very few world class players because I think it's a term that should be reserved for the very elite so I would agree with you that this current NZ side has only a couple. What they do well is play well together as a team which is what the 00-03 side had as well as their characteristic. We all like to get caught up in the my side is better than your side debate but that is only natural.

Quins, it'd be nice to see a game break down of where those tries came and against which teams. Homework for you.   

the only person denigrating the england side of 2000-2003 is the one-eyed taylorman. and whats worse is he actually clearly doesnt know anything about them. no-one has denigrated the ABs current side. this is about the "10-man rugby" description of England's 2000-2003 team, used by "some" kiwi commentators to make themselves feel better about being well beaten during that era.

Well it's easy to get defensive. I hear this NZ side has peaked, can only win RWCs at home, choke in the big matches, have a powder puff pack comments. These are designed like you say to deflect criticism of their own team's inability to beat them. It happens just as a small minority wax lyrical abvout their own teams when they're on top and fail to take any criticism. But I wouldn't class Tman as one-eyed but I would shy away from the 10 man tag simply because of the negative baggage associated with it but does set piece platform for the backs sound any better? To me it does but maybe to you it doesn't.

It comes down to the fact the list of things he gave as saying it was a ten man game were wrong yet he just moves the explanations on. Pretty evident he didn't see that team much. Doesn't matter what terminology is used.

Can i just add a personal feeling of mine aswell...that this discussion is bringing up.

The thing is even if we had played 10 man rugby through that period then i still wouldnt have been bothered as its rugby union...its supposed to have big narly forwards etc .

All this 15 man rugby talk is becoming too much like rugby league for my liking...ie all bodytypes the same, everyone does the same job...props and wingers etc.

quinsforever wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:7.5 I am of the opinion that there are very few world class players because I think it's a term that should be reserved for the very elite so I would agree with you that this current NZ side has only a couple. What they do well is play well together as a team which is what the 00-03 side had as well as their characteristic. We all like to get caught up in the my side is better than your side debate but that is only natural.

Quins, it'd be nice to see a game break down of where those tries came and against which teams. Homework for you.   

the only person denigrating the england side of 2000-2003 is the one-eyed taylorman. and whats worse is he actually clearly doesnt know anything about them. no-one has denigrated the ABs current side. this is about the "10-man rugby" description of England's 2000-2003 team, used by "some" kiwi commentators to make themselves feel better about being well beaten during that era.

Ye, thats the obvious question one would ask kia...
Italy: 30
Canada: 12
USA: 8
Romania: 20
Uruguya: 17

Thats 87 of your 147 tries quins- fantastic. Yes I have no problem agreeing they played 15 man rugby vs those sides. I mean, who wouldnt?

In 13 matches vs the SH 3 they scored 21 tries. In one 7 versus SA.

So 14 tries in 12 matches vs the top 3.

How many of that 14 were by the backs Quins (I mean while youre rolling out these ever so convincing numbers).

Even we outscored England 5 tries to 3 in that period- so were they 15 man against us?

oh, and in those 14 matches England scored 50 penalties to 12...50!

15 man rugby....all i can see out of that is wilko, wilko, wilko...

hard to play 15 man rugby with only 13 players on the pitch...yet we still humped you that way at home

I looked at the scrum.com site yesterday. From memory a lot of tries against teams like Romania, Georgia, Italy, etc. I'm not sure anyone said they couldn't score tries. It's more a case of reverting to the forward pack, driving set play, and kick for territory whenever they were really challenged. SCW's England had an extremely well drilled and powerful forward pack, with a number of truely world class players. The team were great defensively, and had a fantastic kicker. They're probably the best side I've seen at manipulating the pace of game through off the ball work at the tackle/ruck. They had a useful backline which they used intermittently when under pressure.

I guess from my perspective, and I watched 80-90% of the games they played, was that they were essentially still very hidebound. I couldn't say the same about the current team. I'm guessing most teams go through phases. We've only really rediscovered attacking rugby in my adult lifetime and needed Australia and France to show us the way. I remember rugby commentators believing we had, back in the 70's and early 80's. Which seems laughable looking back now. I'd watch the current English side as a neutral, over the 2000 mob, any day of the week. That's not to say the side 15 years ago wasn't effective.

quinsforever wrote:hard to play 15 man rugby with only 13 players on the pitch...yet we still humped you that way at home

50-12...wilko, wilko, wilko...

thats the way it looked then, and now...well...thats the way it still looks then.

15 man rugby...pfff

lets be honest. NZ kick the ball more than any team in world rugby. and that is only possible as a tactic with the modern rules about isolated players having to release very quickly or concede penalties. it means having the ball in your own half is generally a liability. this didnt used to be the case.

i actually find the amount of kicking NZ do to be really unattractive and a real weakness in the modern rules.

but i'm sure you all think kicking the ball away so much is an integral part of 15-man rugby.

my point is, rules change, and teams can only play using the rules applicable at the time, and against the teams in front of them at the time.

Taylorman wrote:

quinsforever wrote:hard to play 15 man rugby with only 13 players on the pitch...yet we still humped you that way at home

50-12...wilko, wilko, wilko...

thats the way it looked then, and now...well...thats the way it still looks then.

15 man rugby...pfff

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Wow, 87 tries against tier 2 countries highlights a bit of a cruel streak which is not very cool IMO. Stat padding by the looks, tut tut. For the record Quins, I do think your team back in the early 2000s was very good at what it did. But not very enterprising from what I saw.

Do you think 10 years on people will be doing this to NZ? Look at 2011 final. Woeful and could only score a try with a prop. Not very enterprising from what I saw!

quinsforever wrote:lets be honest. NZ kick the ball more than any team in world rugby. and that is only possible as a tactic with the modern rules about isolated players having to release very quickly or concede penalties. it means having the ball in your own half is generally a liability. this didnt used to be the case.

i actually find the amount of kicking NZ do to be really unattractive and a real weakness in the modern rules.

but i'm sure you all think kicking the ball away so much is an integral part of 15-man rugby.

my point is, rules change, and teams can only play using the rules applicable at the time, and against the teams in front of them at the time.

yes, now we are on a different subject. I agree, I dont like the kicking either, and yes the reason for doing it is to create attacking momentum. The kicks can be regathered in a way that puts the attack immediately on the back end of the opposition. If the ball is regathered it has the effect of a player having already run through the defence- ie they are now behind the ball carrier, with less players between them and the line.

If we dont regather it has the effect of putting the opposition under pressure- dropping it etc.

But as far as the coaches are concerned they know they're not going to run through better defences these days so it also provides a variation of attack. Wayne Smith predicted this would happen well before it even did.

But I'm getting tired of it and something needs to change. At least its not the never ending ping pong that use to happen- we kicked it so its contested first time.

i dont think NZ currrently are enterprising. kick, yawn, kick, yawn, mccaw offside round the side, penalty, kick, yawn, some lucky handling and obstruction...try...

It's funny quins but that's the impression alot of us in the NH have. Must be true.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you think 10 years on people will be doing this to NZ? Look at 2011 final. Woeful and could only score a try with a prop. Not very enterprising from what I saw!

As you've done, we get tripped up by our one offs, the chokes etc, and that's fine, but it is usually against the flow. We always get straight back on the bike and carry on where we left off. We cant win em all, and we already win more than our fair share.

Speaking of impressions, Savea left an impression on Yarde in the weekend. Even left one on big Manu.

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you think 10 years on people will be doing this to NZ? Look at 2011 final. Woeful and could only score a try with a prop. Not very enterprising from what I saw!

As you've done, we get tripped up by our one offs, the chokes etc, and that's fine, but it is usually against the flow. We always get straight back on the bike and carry on where we left off. We cant win em all, and we already win more than our fair share.

You rely too much on your backs. Real 7s rugby...yadda yadda yadda. I can't be bothered anymore. If you're not willing to give other teams their fair dues it's up to you.

quinsforever wrote:i dont think NZ currrently are enterprising. kick, yawn, kick, yawn, win...mccaw offside round the side, penalty, kick...win...., yawn, some lucky handling and obstruction...try... win...

there fixed that for you...boring I know...

Well done England vs Saders...way too good.  

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:Yeah, I was wondering how taylorman managed miss that interplay between Dallaglio, Wilkinson and Robinson resulting in a try in the final.

I guess he didn't watch it

I did actually watch it Cyril though just the once, and unlike for others it wasn't one of those 'JFK' moments for me, so yes the memory's a little hazy.

I've noticed. It does explain quite a lot of your comments. Fair dues to you though, most people don't admit it when they're winging it

I think many NZ fans would agree with you quins about the kicking and level of enterprise. I think we have a pretty average team right now. Few in my opinion are great ABs. Woodcock is old, S Whitelock is very good but not great, McCaw was great but is past his best, Read is excellent if well but not yet a great, Carter is past it, Cruden and Barrett have potential but have yet to reach the highest level, Nonu is good but limited, C Smith is excellent but probably a year past his peak. The back three are a mixed bag of good but none are great. I expected us to lose a game or two last year - we didn't but got very close to it. I expect us to lose a couple this year. I don't think we will be better this year than last year. And I'd be very surprised to win the WC next year without a few new forwards stepping up to the plate. (can't see who they might be either).

But to say we have been winning with a mix of cheating and luck is also a bit silly in my opinion. Its a side with a lot of skill and experience who are getting the best out of what they have. Professionalism has slowly and will continue to reduce the gap between the top teams. There's an excellent piece on the improvement of baseball and the disappearance of the .400 batter in Stephen Jay Gould's "Life's Grandeur" which about general improvement in sport reducing the impact of naturally gifted individuals.

I don't remember England of the 2000 odd era being an exhilarating team to me. They smashed and dominated teams up front before unleashing the backs. I like that. The Crusaders have done that for years (when they were winning the Super tournament) with pretty average players 11-15 (in general Kia, in general). The ABs did that too mostly in the late 80s. That type of play is only boring when its happening to your team and you are losing to it.

The Hurricanes are an exciting team and they never win the big ones!

England are building an impressive defensive team with enough runners and ball players to beat anyone on a given day. This combination is what top teams have always had in my opinion and not the other way around.

I'm not saying England will win it yet but given the trajectories of the teams around the world and that fact that they will play at home (and I assume every game at HQ) surely England are at least joint favourites for the WC.

Actually just had a thought Sonny Bill Williams coming back into the ABs may change the team for the better but the tight five no actually the front row are the real problem for NZ.

To be fair it's a while ago. He watches a lot of rugby like me. Do you remember how many tries were scored in the 99 final? I watched it but it doesn't stand out in the memory. If you want an example of a one eyed fan then our friend in the virtual wilderness is an example.

I think we're getting bogged down in semantics. Wilkinson was the playmaker for England just as Carter but in different ways as was how the team functioned but you can't have a rugby team where players are not contributing. For example if you consider Halfpenny is wasted at the back and not entering the line that is your prerogative but he is contributing to the team's defence. If at the end of a game Wales don't win because they don't accumulate points then you question those tactics. You may well have your own preferences but there are different ways to skin a cat. Not all can do it like Lomu did in 95.

Something in this thread has gone terribly wrong.....

For the record England had a patch when they were running tries in for fun, but always managed to slip up in one game in the 6N. The last year or so going into the 2003 WC they did change how they played, much more into a safety first 10 man style game - and they stopped losing. They became adept at finding ways to win regardless.

But that didnt mean that their backline wasnt very good.

They were, for an all too short period, probably the most dominant England team we have produced in any major sport in the last few years.

I can now understand why there is a different perception of the 2000- 2003 side between the two hemispheres.

In the SH we didnt get or watch a lot of the non SH matches, and those matches England were clearly in full 15 man swing with a huge number of tries being scored up in the NH. Not just versus the easy beats but they were scoring 4, 5 and 6 tries against the 6 nations sides as well on a regular basis.

What we only really saw were the matches vs the SH3.

Between 2000 and 2003 England won 12 of the 13 matches vs SH sides. That in any ones language is a pasting.

When looking at the England scores and the number of tries the numbers are as follows:

using just the England score and number of tries scored  and (points from tries, points from kicks) then the diff between kicks and tries.

England v South Africa 13-18   1 try  (5, 8) 3
England v South Africa 27-22   0 try (0, 27) 27
England v Australia 22-19   1 try (5, 17) 12
England v South Africa 25-17   1 try (5, 20) 15
England v Australia 21-15   0 tries (0, 21) 21
England v South Africa 29-9   1 try (5, 24) 19
England v New Zealand 31-28   3 tries (15, 16) 1
England v Australia 32-31   2 tries (10, 22) 12
England v South Africa 53-3   7 tries (35, 17) -18
England v New Zealand 15-13   0 tries (0, 15) 15
England v Australia 25-14   3 tries (15, 10) -5
England v South Africa 25-6   1 try (5, 20) 15
England v Australia 20-17   1 try (5, 15) 10

Of the 13 matches only 2 had England scoring more from tries than kicks.
9 of the matches had more than 10 points scored from kicks than tries.

So as far as SHers are concerned the results clearly dont reflect that the matches have been won through what we know as 15 man rugby. Teams that win often playing 15 man rugby win by tries far more than kicks and while England clearly did that while playing in the NH its just as clear they did not win by our interpretation of 15 man rugby.

It suggests they were spending most of the matches winning penalty shots at goal rather than scoring tries.

No 7&1/2 raised an interesting question from within Alans post in that he was struck by the thought that England was not 15 man rugby.

So while that view was reinforced test match after test match in the NH through a huge number of tries being scored, the opposite was being viewed in the SH. England were largely winning their matches by kicking goals, scoring no more than 1 try a match over 13 matches.

That in our language suggests 10 man rugby. Low to No tries, heaps of penalty kicks.

This exercise done out of my own curiosity of course, but for me it fully explains the perception that both the NH and SH have of that side. England fans saw the side scoring truckloads of tries, SH sides didnt.

Clearly that shows that the SH teams are cheating barstewards that will keep giving away penalties instead of playing fair and letting the tries in.

HammerofThunor wrote:Clearly that shows that the SH teams are cheating barstewards that will keep giving away penalties instead of playing fair and letting the tries in.

who let the dogs out? amazing what well thought out, clear and concise logic does to some people...  

The fact that they conceded so many penalties though may give you an indication of whether they felt there was a threat in conceding tries. It comes back to how many of the games you actually watched rather than just looking at the stats.

Your logic is completely flawed. You've taken the scoring methods, tries and penalties, and used to that to fit your preconceived view. That is flawed.

That exact same information can be used to support another view. England played "15 man" rugby but their SH opposition would concieve penalties rather than let in tries. This is common practice for teams under pressure.

You should always look for things that disprove your theory, not ones that back it up.

No. I interpret it as...England could score tries against easy beats, they needed a points kicking genius to win versus the SH sides.

Whatever it was...it certainly wasnt 15 man rugby. When you win regularly playing 15 man rugby- nothing stops you...the ref, the opposition, luck...nothing.

Theres a team like that around here somewhere...now wher are they.

And how about I pluck one of the matches out of the bag:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/jun/15/rugbyunion.newzealandrugbyunionteam

Ron Palenski
The Observer, Sunday 15 June 2003 01.17 BST

If England raise a glass or two for their master goalkicker, Jonny Wilkinson, in thanks for the 15-13 win against New Zealand in the rugby international in Wellington, a jeroboam or two should be raised for the forwards. It was Wilkinson's four penalty goals and one drop goal that gave England the points for just their second Test win on New Zealand soil, but it was the forwards who primarily held the All Blacks at bay.

Magnificently led by their captain, Martin Johnson, the England eight were reduced to six at one stage when both Neil Back and Lawrence Dallaglio were sent to the sin bin, but still the thin and getting thinner white line held true. The All Blacks scored the only try of the match, but they had chances for more, especially during a frenetic nine minutes of the second half when Bath centre Mike Tindall was press-ganged into forward service.

All I see is 'forwards' 'penalties' and 'wilko'...that aint 15 man rugby...

sorry but if you can't accept the obvious you carrying on analysing the game and wonder why your sides losing when you think they're gonna win.

no idea...

Taylorman wrote:No. I interpret it as...England could score tries against easy beats, they needed a points kicking genius to win versus the SH sides.

Whatever it was...it certainly wasnt 15 man rugby. When you win regularly playing 15 man rugby- nothing stops you...the ref, the opposition, luck...nothing.

Theres a team like that around here somewhere...now wher are they.

And how about I pluck one of the matches out of the bag:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/jun/15/rugbyunion.newzealandrugbyunionteam

   Ron Palenski
   The Observer, Sunday 15 June 2003 01.17 BST

If England raise a glass or two for their master goalkicker, Jonny Wilkinson, in thanks for the 15-13 win against New Zealand in the rugby international in Wellington, a jeroboam or two should be raised for the forwards. It was Wilkinson's four penalty goals and one drop goal that gave England the points for just their second Test win on New Zealand soil, but it was the forwards who primarily held the All Blacks at bay.

Magnificently led by their captain, Martin Johnson, the England eight were reduced to six at one stage when both Neil Back and Lawrence Dallaglio were sent to the sin bin, but still the thin and getting thinner white line held true. The All Blacks scored the only try of the match, but they had chances for more, especially during a frenetic nine minutes of the second half when Bath centre Mike Tindall was press-ganged into forward service.

All I see is 'forwards' 'penalties' and 'wilko'...that aint 15 man rugby...

sorry but if you can't accept the obvious you carrying on analysing the game and wonder why your sides losing when you think they're gonna win.

no idea...

That's the issue though. You can't remember the the games, doubt you watched them, a number of impressions were wrong. Now you're picking out one game to 'prove' your point. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're wumming.

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.

Fine. I'll pick the 2011 final to prove that NZ are a ten man team. They weren't a ten man team which is why I can't accept the possibility they were. I watched the games, you're quoting stats.

As a "kind of " nuetral on this thread....I honesty dont believe we were a 10 man team...HOWEVER if that is how it is then i honestly dont care.

It seems that unless you play an all singing all dancing rugby league style game any win is sub standard and thats the attitude that really pi$$es me off, and most NH fans.

If New Zealand got beat off England it doesnt matter becuase we played that boring NH style game so the win is de valued.

I dont care how we win...i love big packs, rolling mauls, mud, blood. Thats rugby!

If we win that way great...

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.     

Let's not go too far