My Dad's bigger than your Dad

First topic message reminder :

Date: Saturday 10th November 2018
Time: 15:00
Location: Twickenham Stadium

Referee:       Jerome Garces (France)
Assistant 1:  Jaco Peyper (SA)
Assistant 2:  Marius Mitrea (Italy)
TMO:            Marius Jonker (SA)




Teams


England

[size=42]15 Elliot Daly (Wasps, 22 caps), 14 Chris Ashton (Sale Sharks, 40 caps), 13 Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 14 caps), 12 Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors, 14 caps), 11 Jonny May (Leicester Tigers, 38 caps), 10 Owen Farrell (Saracens, 62 caps) co-captain, 9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 78 caps), 1 Ben Moon (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap), 2 Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints, 94 caps) co-captain, 3 Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins, 14 caps), 4 Maro Itoje (Saracens, 23 caps), 5 George Kruis (Saracens, 26 caps), 6 Brad Shields (Wasps, 3 caps), 7 Sam Underhill (Bath Rugby, 6 caps), 8 Mark Wilson (Newcastle Falcons, 5 caps).[/size]
[size=42]Finishers[/size]
[size=42]16 Jamie George (Saracens, 29 caps), 17 Alec Hepburn (Exeter Chiefs, 3 caps), 18 Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs, 12 caps), 19 Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby, 7 caps), 20 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 65 caps), 21 Danny Care (Harlequins, 82 caps), 22 George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 48 caps), 23 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 27 caps).[/size]




New Zealand

1. Karl Tu'inukuafe (10)
2. Codie Taylor (39)
3. Owen Franks (104)
4. Samuel Whitelock (106)
5. Brodie Retallick (72)
6. Liam Squire (21) 
7. Ardie Savea (32)
8. Kieran Read - captain (115)
9. Aaron Smith (80)
10. Beauden Barrett (70)
11. Rieko Ioane (21)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (50)
13. Jack Goodhue (5)
14. Ben Smith (74)
15. Damian McKenzie (20)

16. Dane Coles (57)
17. Ofa Tuungafasi (23)
18. Nepo Laulala (14)
19. Scott Barrett (26)
20. Matt Todd (15)
21. TJ Perenara (52)
22. Richie Mo'unga (5)
23. Ryan Crotty (42

On the Honest Rugby Chat podcast, Ali Stokes argues that at least some of Farrell's missed tackles led to positive outcomes for England.

I think, in the end, unless someone goes through all eleven of Farrell's misses, and identifies which were blunders, and which were decent calls, then you can't categorically say what kind of day he had in defence.

Incidentally, Stuart Barnes says when the broadcaster asked why Hartley had been subbed, they were told it was tactical. The story about a thumb injury came later, which makes Barnes wonder whether that was conjured up so it didn't look like a bad decision.

Rugby Fan wrote:Incidentally, Stuart Barnes says when the broadcaster asked why Hartley had been subbed, they were told it was tactical. The story about a thumb injury came later, which makes Barnes wonder whether that was conjured up so it didn't look like a bad decision.

Eddie's delivery post-match wasn't exactly convincing either. He was one step away from covering his mouth with his hand and mumbling 'Thumb problem' while loudly clearing his throat.

Taylorman wrote:

alcoombe wrote:There may have been procedural questions about the TMO's influence, but on the decision itself, it was a marginal call that I wouldn't have been surprised to go either way.

I'm far more annoyed at England not electing to kick to goal from the penalty on the 15m line to take the lead back to 5 when NZ were not looking like scoring a try.

And in refereeing terms I was more perturbed by the free rein given to the ABs to lay all over the ball in England's closing attacks after the TMO decision.  Not at all helped by Care over-egging the situation.  His heavy theatrics never help the ref to make the correct call.  Point it out clearly, don't flail around like a footballer.

Interesting that the crowd cheered when he decided to attack. Is it hindsight that its the wrong decision or are people genuinely split on it? No point joining in on the thrill of seeing your team going for it then mocking them later for not scoring which I think some do.

i was in the crowd and groaned as did my mate next to me (both forwards). i could kind of understand the first one being further towards touch but the second was very kickable. in fact for someone like farrell it was a gimme

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:...The 1014 guys break down his defensive failures in their review of the game.

They certainly called him out but only gave one decent example of a problem. They are knowledgeable guys, so I'd trust them to see more than me but it was more a general observation that he was shooting out of the line.

It's unlikely that any defensive system would give a player licence to miss so many tackles, so I'd be keen to see some more specific analysis. Ben Kay's analysis of our second half lineout failure has already shown that it might be too simplistic to say we just screwed up, so I wonder whether Farrell's apparent failing also isn't as straightforward.

Think you'll find that analysis in the AB camp where if he's going to do that as part of a plan, they'll expect it, and will make use of it, such as immediately occupying the space behind him in a way that creates go forward ball. The 1014 guys were calling him a turnstyle. That can't be good in anyones books.

By the way on their Lions review they pointed out the number of his missed tackles and chalked it down to him being given free reign to shoot out of the line. However, for me his defense on the Lions tour was much worse than last Saturday in particular how much ground the ABs gained through his channel particularly in the first test.

Taylorman wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:It worked better than the current fiasco.

No it didnt, not even close. If a complex sport like rugby were to drop replays in its decision making chaos would break lose, sports like tennis and cricket would laugh at the caveman approach, as would its fans. Youd get crystal clear, no issue groundings being denied because it wasnt seen. Rugby would be ten times the farce it is now. Tens of millions would see a valid try scored, and one, the only one that matters, doesnt. Imagine a world cup final being decided in the last minute on that basis.

But we have the TMO and they still get it wrong very regularly.  In the South Africa game Farrell's tackle would be called a penalty by the vast majority of refs. In the last game Sky have shown pretty after the event that Lawes was just onside. Similar errors could happen now in a RWC Final.  One difference is that spectators are more likely to be forgiving of a ref who makes a wrong decision without the benefit of cameras than they are of refs who make the wrong decision after having seen video footage.

As for other games they are different games. Take tennis. The technology is used to make one type of relatively simple decision. Was the ball in or out. The technology is quick and the decision is objective and final.  In cricket it is a little more complex but the technology is used to make relatively simple decisions of fact e.g. is the bowler's foot over the line. Because the decisions that will be taken are known in advance there is a camera positioned especially to provide the correct angle e.g. in line with the crease.

In Rugby the technology is being used in a completely different way. In essence technology is not making decisions of fact but video is used to allow the referee/TMO to referee the incident a second time using often imperfect and sometime contradictory camera angles.

Taylorman wrote:No chance replays are goingbanywhere soon.

You are right there. That would involve World Rugby admitting their mistake. They have introduced law change after law change in the last few years and the result is a less entertaining game. They have never reversed a decision yet.

Exiledinborders wrote:...One difference is that spectators are more likely to be forgiving of a ref who makes a wrong decision without the benefit of cameras than they are of refs who make the wrong decision after having seen video footage...

Unfortunately, Exiled, we have concrete evidence that's not true.

Joubert's late penalty call in the Scotland vs Australia quarter final was made with no TMO referral, and that kicked off one of the biggest stinks the game has ever seen.

https://twitter.com/CharlieFelix/status/1062310411725344769

Tweet from Charlie Morgan says he's looking at Farrell's defence on Saturday. He's still writing the piece but already says Farrell comes out well.

A journalist from England writes something positive about Farrell? To be honest you are fairly unlikely to find English journalists be overly critical of Farrell.

Because he's class. Still saw plenty of ratings saying Barrett was better which from the game on saturday mystified me.

Collapse2005 wrote:A journalist from England writes something positive about Farrell? To be honest you are fairly unlikely to find English journalists be overly critical of Farrell.

It's a journalist who is looking at each of the tackles Farrell was ruled to have missed. Don't know if I'll agree with his conclusions, but that sounds to me like a minimum requirement to decide what kind of day he had in defence.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because he's class. Still saw plenty of ratings saying Barrett was better which from the game on saturday mystified me.

I did not think that either Farrell or Barrett played that well on Saturday to be fair but I would say that Farrell was slightly better with ball in hand but Barrett better at kicking. Not really a surprise that people may have thought that Barrett was better.

Did he miss touch with penalties 2 or 3 times? I appreciate this may count as kicking well for him.
I did laugh when he decided to run away from underhill rather than risk people saying he missed a tackle though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Did he miss touch with penalties 2 or 3 times? I appreciate this may count as kicking well for him.
I did laugh when he decided to run away from underhill rather than risk people saying he missed a tackle though.

He didn't run away from Underhill he was just completely wrong footed and fooled by Underhill, it completely deserved to be a try. I would say that defense is generally one of Barrett's great strengths.

Yep, No 7 & 1/2 is doing Underhill a massive disservice with that comment.

It was a world class finish by Underhill, who made a world class player look bemused. It was the quality of Underhill, not Barrett running away from him.

Jees it was tongue in cheek but points out that people are giving Barrett too much love based on his flair and general performance rather than the performance on saturday. Any other fly half would be getting a kicking for missing those touches.

eirebilly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because he's class. Still saw plenty of ratings saying Barrett was better which from the game on saturday mystified me.

I did not think that either Farrell or Barrett played that well on Saturday to be fair but I would say that Farrell was slightly better with ball in hand but Barrett better at kicking. Not really a surprise that people may have thought that Barrett was better.

We got a lot of takes on Barrett where hes doing so much off the ball, one where hes tackling, returning to his feet, tacking immediately again, then again. Did a lot of work unnoticed. One interesting stat was Ben Smiths average of 12meters ‘per carry’ which for that match was huge, few getting to run more than a few meters, Smith defied about seven tacklers in one run, carving up meter after meter as tacklers fell off.

I know Daly would have got it in the neck had he been in that position as opposing full back.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Jees it was tongue in cheek but points out that people are giving Barrett too much love based on his flair and general performance rather than the performance on saturday. Any other fly half would be getting a kicking for missing those touches.

Wrong. You havent analysed his game to make that comment reliably. Youre doing exactly the same yourself in the negative. Overall Barrett had a very good game, as did DMac.

McKensie grew into it after a pretty shaky start. Still think that Barrett is a better fullback.
Barrett was massively poor but a blind.eye is turned towards him.

I'll accept I have reviewed his performance. Was it 2 or 3?

Barrett was alright, nothing special. 5 games and still no tries v England which is meant to be his competitive advantage. If you negate his running threat he lags a bit behind all other top out halves.

He's a fabulous rugby player off the cuff. Not sure he's a fly half. He gets away with it for New Zealand to an extent but sure they have a better 10 somewhere. At half time I was glad him and McKensie weren't playing vice versa.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's a fabulous rugby player off the cuff. Not sure he's a fly half. He gets away with it for New Zealand to an extent but sure they have a better 10 somewhere. At half time I was glad him and McKensie weren't playing vice versa.

McKenzie isn't an out half either in my opinion. Mo'unga is the only out half New Zealand have at the moment. That said Stephen Donald is still playing in Japan.

Collapse2005 wrote:Barrett was alright, nothing special. 5 games and still no tries v England which is meant to be his competitive advantage. If you negate his running threat he lags a bit behind all other top out halves.

You keep making poor logistical points that mean nothing. What is the requirement that Barrett score against England? Why is that so high on your agenda? Barrett was sub in four matches back when carter and cruden were the starting 10. This was his first start, a low scoring rain drenched test. He dudnt score. So what?

Heres who Sexton hasnt scored against, much.
Played England 11 times, 10 starts, not one try. Sure that tips your player embarrassment meter?
Played Wales 11 times, 9 starts, not one try. Embarrassing.
Played Scotland 8 times, 7 starts, no tries...oh dear its getting worse.
Played NZ 11 times, 9 starts, no tries, no surprises there.
Played oz, the so called easy beats, ten starts, one miserable try.

I wont put Barretts trues against those sides up because it would just embarrass him.

So if youre going to put meaningless stats up, check your own players first. Because if Barretts england stat is poor, Sextons are a national disgrace. And should be dropped.

Think before you post. You lose all context with your selective little jibes. Youre like throwing a stone at the local grocery and running away. One of the poorest analysts on this site.

Sexton is the best 10 in the world though.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Barrett was alright, nothing special. 5 games and still no tries v England which is meant to be his competitive advantage. If you negate his running threat he lags a bit behind all other top out halves.

You keep making poor logistical points that mean nothing. What is the requirement that Barrett score against England? Why is that so high on your agenda? Barrett was sub in four matches back when carter and cruden were the starting 10. This was his first start, a low scoring rain drenched test. He dudnt score. So what?

Heres who Sexton hasnt scored against, much.
Played England 11 times, 10 starts, not one try. Sure that tips your player embarrassment meter?
Played Wales 11 times, 9 starts, not one try. Embarrassing.
Played Scotland 8 times, 7 starts, no tries...oh dear its getting worse.
Played NZ 11 times, 9 starts, no tries, no surprises there.
Played oz, the so called easy beats, ten starts, one miserable try.

I wont put Barretts trues against those sides up because it would just embarrass him.

So if youre going to put meaningless stats up, check your own players first. Because if Barretts england stat is poor, Sextons are a national disgrace. And should be dropped.

Think before you post. You lose all context with your selective little jibes. Youre like throwing a stone at the local grocery and running away. One of the poorest analysts on this site.

It obviously means a lot to you based on how defensive you are getting. Sexton's game doesn't rely on scoring tries, Barrett's does because he doesn't fulfil the role of an out half that well otherwise. 1 try in 5 games v England, 0 from 3 v the Lions and 1 from 4 v Ireland is quite poor for someone who is hailed as a try scoring revelation, no?

Maybe he isn't as great as you think?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sexton is the best 10 in the world though.

Agreed although he was quiet v Argentina.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Barrett was alright, nothing special. 5 games and still no tries v England which is meant to be his competitive advantage. If you negate his running threat he lags a bit behind all other top out halves.

You keep making poor logistical points that mean nothing. What is the requirement that Barrett score against England? Why is that so high on your agenda? Barrett was sub in four matches back when carter and cruden were the starting 10. This was his first start, a low scoring rain drenched test. He dudnt score. So what?

Heres who Sexton hasnt scored against, much.
Played England 11 times, 10 starts, not one try. Sure that tips your player embarrassment meter?
Played Wales 11 times, 9 starts, not one try. Embarrassing.
Played Scotland 8 times, 7 starts, no tries...oh dear its getting worse.
Played NZ 11 times, 9 starts, no tries, no surprises there.
Played oz, the so called easy beats, ten starts, one miserable try.

I wont put Barretts trues against those sides up because it would just embarrass him.

So if youre going to put meaningless stats up, check your own players first. Because if Barretts england stat is poor, Sextons are a national disgrace. And should be dropped.

Think before you post. You lose all context with your selective little jibes. Youre like throwing a stone at the local grocery and running away. One of the poorest analysts on this site.

It obviously means a lot to you based on how defensive you are getting. Sexton's game doesn't rely on scoring tries, Barrett's does because he doesn't fulfil the role of an out half that well otherwise. 1 try in 5 games v England, 3 v the Lions and 4 v Ireland is quite poor for someone who is hailed as a try scoring revelation, no?

Maybe he isn't as great as you think?

No, its just another example of your poor ability to analyse. All youve done is look for the few, and there are only a few, sides hes hasnt scored against.

Well done guns. Anyway. You write whatever makes you happy. You and 7.5 think the same. Happy to leave the real analysis to others. All good.

So was it twice or 3 times he missed kicking for touch Taylor?

You would get a better kick out of a cup of chamomile tea than you would from Barrett on a good day. Take the tries away and he is normal enough.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So was it twice or 3 times he missed kicking for touch Taylor?

Think you missed my point. Do...your...own...analysis, instead of making bland, nothing comments. Can you not count how many times barrett kicked the ball out? You have to ask me?

One thing he didnt do was blast his kick off into the stands on the full as farrell did. That was funny. One thing he also didnt do, is miss a goal kick, as sexton, farrell and gulp, halfpenney from in front!

Yet here we are, talking about barretts kicking or ability to svore tries against england, when others did worse.

Really poor points, poor analysis. Poor summaries. Lift your own game rather than taking meaningless, poorly constructed little pot shots.

Collapse2005 wrote:You would get a better kick out of a cup of chamomile tea than you would from Barrett on a good day. Take the tries away and he is normal enough.

Yep, take his four tries vs oz away and you go from the best individual test performance of the year to a nothing one. Good point. I think. Have some more of that tea. It suits ya.

Sooooooooo. What's the answer Taylor? And I do appreciate that Barrett kicked you to victory and wasn't at his worst on saturday.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:You would get a better kick out of a cup of chamomile tea than you would from Barrett on a good day. Take the tries away and he is normal enough.

Yep, take his four tries vs oz away and you go from the best individual test performance of the year to a nothing one. Good point. I think. Have some more of that tea. It suits ya.

Australia the side that have won 3 games from 11 this year. Wow, well done.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:You would get a better kick out of a cup of chamomile tea than you would from Barrett on a good day. Take the tries away and he is normal enough.

Yep, take his four tries vs oz away and you go from the best individual test performance of the year to a nothing one. Good point. I think. Have some more of that tea. It suits ya.

Australia the side that have won 3 games from 11 this year. Wow, well done.

Yep, one of em Ireland. Embarrassing I know. Should have been five but Ireland scraped in the other two. Worst side oz played obviously. Didnt think youd wanna bring that up but hey. I mean imagine losing to oz? Whew.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:You would get a better kick out of a cup of chamomile tea than you would from Barrett on a good day. Take the tries away and he is normal enough.

Yep, take his four tries vs oz away and you go from the best individual test performance of the year to a nothing one. Good point. I think. Have some more of that tea. It suits ya.

Australia the side that have won 3 games from 11 this year. Wow, well done.

Yep, one of em Ireland. Embarrassing I know. Should have been five but Ireland scraped in the other two. Worst side oz played obviously. Didnt think youd wanna bring that up but hey.

3 wins from 11 games vs 9 wins from 10 games. I know which record Id prefer. One slip up with a weakened side v Australia isn't the end of the world.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:You would get a better kick out of a cup of chamomile tea than you would from Barrett on a good day. Take the tries away and he is normal enough.

Yep, take his four tries vs oz away and you go from the best individual test performance of the year to a nothing one. Good point. I think. Have some more of that tea. It suits ya.

Australia the side that have won 3 games from 11 this year. Wow, well done.

Yep, one of em Ireland. Embarrassing I know. Should have been five but Ireland scraped in the other two. Worst side oz played obviously. Didnt think youd wanna bring that up but hey.

3 wins from 11 games vs 9 wins from 10 games. I know which record Id prefer. One slip up with a weakened side v Australia isn't the end of the world.

Yeah, it is. Shouldnt have lost the third to end up with a worse points differential. Not good. The rest were bunnies, and not NZ so no, not an impressive year at all.

Lol NZ lost at home to a team ranked 7th a team they beat 57-0 the prior year.

Collapse2005 wrote:Lol NZ lost at home to a team ranked 7th a team they beat 57-0 the prior year.

Happens. We nearly lost to Ireland after beating them 60-0.

(60-0. Geez, the day we get anywhere near even half that, think we’ll give up) 60 nil. I mean 60!...nil!

Geez.

Id say less than half the guys that started that day are in the current squad. It was too long ago to meant that much to this team.

Collapse, I ask this sincerely, no malice intended, just a genuine question.

In what way do you think you can hold the moral high ground when it comes to a peeing contest with the All Blacks ?

I mean, come on, it's like a pauper making fun of a king. We would all love to be where New Zealand stand in the rugby world. You have just mocked Taylorman for New Zealand losing to a team that they beat 57-0 the year prior.

Seriously ?

When any team from the NH beats South Africa by 57 points, and nils them in the process, then and only then can you make a statement like you just have.

Ireland are the best in the NH, the world rankings states that as a matter of fact, but lets be honest, no other country is anywhere near the All Blacks and no other country has ever achieved what they have over the last decade.

They have won the last two world cups, their franchises walk the super 14, I cannot remember the last time they did not win a rugby championship, and I cannot remember the last time they lost whilst playing a game up here, 2012 was it ? Against England, and when was the other loss ?

Come on man, show some humility.

Off your knees Dowlais, its quite unbecoming

Rankings don't give you definitive list of which sides are best necessarily. I still think england and Ireland are better.

LordDowlais wrote:Collapse, I ask this sincerely, no malice intended, just a genuine question.

In what way do you think you can hold the moral high ground when it comes to a peeing contest with the All Blacks ?

I mean, come on, it's like a pauper making fun of a king. We would all love to be where New Zealand stand in the rugby world. You have just mocked Taylorman for New Zealand losing to a team that they beat 57-0 the year prior.

Seriously ?

When any team from the NH beats South Africa by 57 points, and nils them in the process, then and only then can you make a statement like you just have.

Ireland are the best in the NH, the world rankings states that as a matter of fact, but lets be honest, no other country is anywhere near the All Blacks and no other country has ever achieved what they have over the last decade.

They have won the last two world cups, their franchises walk the super 14, I cannot remember the last time they did not win a rugby championship, and I cannot remember the last time they lost whilst playing a game up here, 2012 was it ? Against England, and when was the other loss ?

Come on man, show some humility.

Let me ask you two questions.

Would you rather lose to SA (ranked 7th) at home or lose to Australia (ranked 3rd) away?

Would you rather a grand slam in the 6 nations or win the rugby championship without a clean sweep against lower ranked sides?

"A pauper making fun of a king" Lol.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Rankings don't give you definitive list of which sides are best necessarily. I still think england and Ireland are better.

Than who ? New Zealand ?

Talk about delusion.

You do realise that New Zealand just beat England in their own back yard don't you ? And before you go on about Underhill's try, just remember back to the 6N and apply the same logic to a perfectly good try that was disallowed to Wales.

Convenient you talk about rankings not being accurate when it suits you mind.

Yeah. I think that ireland are a touch better than new zealand now.
Don't get me wrong I think england should have won at the weekend but I think it would have been much easier should we have had vunipola genge Launchbury vunipola or hughes or simmonds Watson amd Joseph.

What about underhill try? Which wales decision are you complaining about?

And you'd be hard pressed to find me saying the rankings are completely accurate at any stage. I've been pretty vocal on here saying they're not.

Collapse2005 wrote:Would you rather lose to SA (ranked 7th) at home or lose to Australia (ranked 3rd) away?

I wouldn't rather either, but what kind of question is that ? Going back to 1908 Ireland have never nilled South Africa and the most points they have ever put on them is 38 last year. I must have missed something because Ireland are not all conquering sweeping all before them aside.

Collapse2005 wrote:Would you rather a grand slam in the 6 nations or win the rugby championship without a clean sweep against lower ranked sides?

You are talking as if a grand slam is the norm for Ireland, it's not as if any other nation has achieved that lately.

The way you go about yourself on here, you would swear that Ireland are some sort of juggernaut that cannot be stopped.

Look at the history of the 6N, Ireland's record is more comparable to Scotland than anyone else's and Ireland's record at the World cup is embarrassing to say the least. You have never got passed the quarter finals.

You and no 7 & 1/2 are both delusional if you think you can compare your countries rugby achievements with New Zealand and think they are comparable.

We nearly lost to SA the very next week after that 57-0 win so the logic guns is trying to use doesnt wash. How relevant is last years 57-0 to this years loss, a logic he rolls out for little ol ireland regularly.

Truth is sides perform much more erratically these days. Ireland and NZ are the only consistent winners the others all over the place.

But within that consistency the margins are inconsistent, though not something guns could ever cone up with. Hes too busy focussing on important things like how many tries barrett scores v england, likehow poor barretts kicking is after the only 100% performance on the weekend. You know, the wider context, Important things.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah. I think that ireland are a touch better than new zealand now.

We'll soon find out.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't get me wrong I think england should have won at the weekend but I think it would have been much easier should we have had vunipola genge Launchbury vunipola or hughes or simmonds Watson amd Joseph.

All if's and but's. I reckon New Zealand would have smashed England if it were not for the monsoon conditions, but there we are.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What about underhill try? Which wales decision are you complaining about?

The try we think should have been awarded for Underhill, and the try that should have been awarded for Steff Evans. For the record, I am not complaining about either.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And you'd be hard pressed to find me saying the rankings are completely accurate at any stage. I've been pretty vocal on here saying they're not.

except when you say they are accurate for Irelands position.

Do you still think England are better than New Zealand ?

I've just said I think england are better than new zealand ld it's what you're complaining about now.
Ah the knock on. Cool.