SF1 - Match Thread - ENGLAND v NEW ZEALAND - 26/10/19 - K/O 09:00 BST

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

Again, making these early for the sake of ease and consistency.

ENGLAND

Team:Daly; Watson, Tuilagi, Farrell (capt), May; Ford, Youngs; M Vunipola, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Lawes, Curry, Underhill, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Cowan-Dickie, Marler, Cole, Kruis, Wilson, Heinz, Slade, Joseph.

NEW ZEALAND

Team: Beauden Barrett; Sevu Reece, Jack Goodhue, Anton Lienert-Brown, George Bridge; Richie Mo'unga, Aaron Smith; Joe Moody, Codie Taylor, Nepo Laulala, Brodie Retallick, Sam Whitelock, Scott Barrett, Ardie Savea, Kieran Read (capt).

Replacements: Dane Coles, Ofa Tuungafasi, Angus Ta'avao, Patrick Tuipulotu, Sam Cane, TJ Perenara, Sonny Bill Williams, Jordie Barrett.



Venue: Yokohama
Referee: Nigel Owens
AR1: Romain Poite
AR2: Pascal Gauzere
TMO: Marius Joncker

[Guest]

Winning by boundaries is a bit embarrassing though right?

Not as embarrassing as losing by boundaries.

Haha

Guns is back, how are you going buddy?

[Collapse2005]

Thinking about cricket - England largely won due to a MotM performance by NZ born Ben Stokes (he has now been nominated for New Zealander of the Year )

Would be pretty amusing if England win this semi final with a MotM performance from NZ born Mako

Would be even funnier if it lead to NZ poaching some English-born players (never happen I know).


Quite honestly, I have to say I'm not expecting England to win. I will be satisfied if we manage a respectable margin of defeat (unlike the Irish).

England have been undoubtedly good in this tournament...I just think NZ look better.

I don't think there is any shame in bowing out in the semis to the reigning world champions.

I think this England side has the goods to win. They just have to have the belief that they can. Ireland looked beaten before the game started.

When Argentina won the world cup in football in 1986 they were celebrating in the tunnel before the game kicked off such was the belief they had. Maybe thats the level of confidence England need.

[Collapse2005]

Winning by boundaries is a bit embarrassing though right?

Not as embarrassing as losing by boundaries.

Haha

Guns is back, how are you going buddy?

I never left, how was your hangover? Made quite a fool of yourself after the Ireland game.

[Guest]

Winning by boundaries is a bit embarrassing though right?

Not as embarrassing as losing by boundaries.

Haha

Guns is back, how are you going buddy?

I never left, how was your hangover? Made quite a fool of yourself after the Ireland game.

That was just your pride hurting mate

[Collapse2005]

Not at all, I enjoyed watching you make a fool of yourself. It was entertaining.

[Guest]

England didn’t win the CWC CVC, it was a draw

So far - but you know CVC will win in the end...

[Guest]

Less embarrassing than beating France by 1 point with the help of the ref

Yeah, if only we'd won by 1 point with the ref hindering us, instead...

...oh no, my mistake, that happened as well because Peyper is atrocious and hurt Wales all game with some horrible calls and non calls.

[robbo277]

England didn’t win the CWC, it was a draw

Aside from the bit where they won and are world champions.

He's just preparing for the inevitable England win by penalty shootout tomorrow.  After we've then won the final against SA/Aus, he can then claim that as we technically drew with them they are joint winners with us.  It's a bit lame but it's the only hope NZers have

Forget penalties, I'm hoping for a washout so we can count back to the pool stage and England's superior record of 17 points to 16...

[No 7&1/2]

Not long to go now.
Dawson on the bbc seems to be going down the route of if england are at their best they will win however they are likely to make more mistakes than NZ. First match of this world cup I've been excited for.

[Guest]

ebop, are you Europe-based or are you really posting in the dead of night from NZ? The waking hours of our Kiwi contributors puzzles me somewhat, I have to say.

[SecretFly]

So according to Dawson, England are demonstrably better than NZ but just might lose on error count?

But if NZs best is winning and not making so many errors does that not infer they are genuinely best?

But you have to believe to get the job done so....

[No 7&1/2]

Suppose it depends if he believes englands peak is better but just less consistent. It's how I read it anyway fly.

[SecretFly]

ebop, are you Europe-based or are you really posting in the dead of night from NZ? The waking hours of our Kiwi contributors puzzles me somewhat, I have to say.

You are getting evidence of just how much this game (rugby) + ABs means to these guys. This is their Football, Cricket, Grand National and Dancing With The Stars all rolled into one. The flame never dies.

[Guest]

Like the haka reference, Fly.

[lostinwales]

Less embarrassing than beating France by 1 point with the help of the ref

Yeah, if only we'd won by 1 point with the ref hindering us, instead...

...oh no, my mistake, that happened as well because Peyper is atrocious and hurt Wales all game with some horrible calls and non calls.

Peyper was atrocious but think his calls went both ways. Getting the important try in that fashion is proof enough

[Big]

I can't see it matters when folk post - I've known plenty enough night owls and plenty of NZers not living in NZ.

Anyway, it is close now, and I am excited about the game. Head says New Zealand win, heart doesn't really care too much, but gut says England to win. I'm going with gut feeling and predicting a win for England. Not much separating the sides but all the pressure will be on NZ. I don't think they'll be phased by Eddie's comments, but if they've looked at any of the NZ press since the expectation back home may eat at them or worse get them complacent.

[TightHEAD]

How long will the Kiwis pause at the start of the Haka?

Really think England should just throw a ball around or do a Campese.

[Guest]

Just wondering - is ebop the not-actually-Kiwi lover of the All Blacks, or was that another poster? Obviously puts things in perspective if the former.

Weather could be decisive and I feel the wet turf gives England a really solid chance. It probably keeps the scoring down and that means errors will be even more costly for either side.

[whatahitson]

England fan here.

I am really looking forward to this game and I think we can beat New Zealand if the team plays to their potential but they are a good team and you never know. I was hoping to go out for the group games but ill health meant I have had to watch the rugby from home so it would be nice if we win the world cup and I think if we beat the all blacks we will win the final as well.

My prediction: Owen Farrell to kick a forty metre penalty to win the game in the final minute.

[SecretFly]

Just wondering - is ebop the not-actually-Kiwi lover of the All Blacks, or was that another poster? Obviously puts things in perspective if the former.

Weather could be decisive and I feel the wet turf gives England a really solid chance. It probably keeps the scoring down and that means errors will be even more costly for either side.

Nope. You're thinking about....em........what was his name....
.... emack. The man who refused to use full stops.

[SecretFly]

England fan here.

I am really looking forward to this game and I think we can beat New Zealand if the team plays to their potential but they are a good team and you never know. I was hoping to go out for the group games but ill health meant I have had to watch the rugby from home so it would be nice if we win the world cup and I think if we beat the all blacks we will win the final as well.

My prediction: Owen Farrell to kick a forty metre penalty to win the game in the final minute.

Some ex International coach would probably disagree with you. But don't call him!

[mikey_dragon]

Just wondering - is ebop the not-actually-Kiwi lover of the All Blacks, or was that another poster? Obviously puts things in perspective if the former.

Weather could be decisive and I feel the wet turf gives England a really solid chance. It probably keeps the scoring down and that means errors will be even more costly for either side.

Nope.  You're thinking about....em........what was his name....
.... emack.  The man who refused to use full stops.

Refused to zoom out on his touch screen 
As well   It often meant reading difficult
Sentences like these ones

[mikey_dragon]

Less embarrassing than beating France by 1 point with the help of the ref

Yeah, if only we'd won by 1 point with the ref hindering us, instead...

...oh no, my mistake, that happened as well because Peyper is atrocious and hurt Wales all game with some horrible calls and non calls.

Peyper was atrocious but think his calls went both ways. Getting the important  try in that fashion is proof enough

You mean getting an advantage through destroying their scrum, and then scoring a fair and legal try? A lot of English keep struggling with the laws it seems. Reminds me of Chris Robshaw.

[Heaf]

Less embarrassing than beating France by 1 point with the help of the ref

Yeah, if only we'd won by 1 point with the ref hindering us, instead...

...oh no, my mistake, that happened as well because Peyper is atrocious and hurt Wales all game with some horrible calls and non calls.

Actually I was talking about the 2011 final - not always about Wales mate

[Hoonercat]

Oz kept England at bay for the first twenty minutes. NZ slaughtered Ireland in the first twenty.

Theres your comparison right there oif you want one.

Completely different styles, completely different opponents.

England were 14-3 up after 20 minutes after relatively little effort - wouldn't call that Australia keeping them at bay. England defended and kept Australia out, let them blow themselves out for a while with only 3 points to show, and, as that began to take its toll, pounced on the turnover ball - exactly the same as NZ did v SA a few weeks ago. England were content to keep their shape, let Australia overplay with the ball, and punish them when the inevitable mistakes came - they'd seen that they would produce them in every group game they'd played, and it proved true.

NZ knew that to give Ireland the ball would be a nightmare as they're good at holding on to it, battering away, grinding the game down, and winning penalties - or at least, were, up until 6 months ago. Still not bad though, and had Ireland had early possession, the game might have gone differently. NZ knew an early start would kill the Irish resolve, which it did, and that they were unlikely to go up several levels and run the ball, which they didn't/couldn't. England knew to keep it tight v Australia, use their extra bulk, and the Australian resolve would slip away as England's score built - as there has been a consistent pattern to this over the last 4 years with the second half results being rougly 24-6 each time to England.

Pointless comparison, really. The tactics would have been literally opposite - NZ, it was essential to keep ball, take the Irish set defence out of the game, and take the scoreboard early; England, it was less essential to give Australia the ball, but the knowledge was there that they would profit from turnovers, and to not give them territory but rather force them to attack from deep and possibly overplay and make mistakes, as they did.

Why not mention the SA v NZ game in the pools?

3-0 to SA after 20 minutes.

2 sucker punch tries from SA'n mistakes on 24 and 27 minutes after NZ scored their first points on the 23rd minute via a penalty to level the scores.

SA possession: 53%
SA territory: 59% (61% first half)

So NZ started very slowly and backed their defence against SA. Considering England are closer to SA in style/pack size but with a more potent and much more varied attacking game from 1 to 15, why are you using a clearly over the hill Ireland as the example?

I'd be comparng the England game to the SA game, and wondering if England cut out the mistakes to avoid turnover tries, and profit from their stat % dminance they may or may not achieve, whether NZ can stay in touch and/or adapt to win the game coming from behind?

Yeah SA were stronger than Ireland, a lot stronger. hence the tighter match. That set our tournament. Id say England are similar and they could win.

All Im saying is in the knockouts, something Hansen knows more about than anyone left, bar probably Jones, is Hansens thrown all his eggs in one basket.

ABs have one way to win. And that will be to put a score big enough on England that they cant recover from.

If they dont, which means England have been able to repel that gameplan, England wins. If its five points either way with ten to go, I dont see NZ winning.

So for me, the key, is to stop the rot that Ireland couldnt. As simple as that. The other possibility is England could roll over NZ. Thats also possible, but I havent delved into that analysis as, understandably, that doesnt interest me. If that happens, it happens.

Eddie's selections suggest that he has exactly the same plan, the first half is going to be all about attack and putting the AB's on the back foot. No point kicking to touch as the AB's will dominate the lineout and kicking it straight down their throat is never going to end well. I think Billy will have been told he's only on for 50 minutes so go out there and smash holes in the defence, hence Wilson on the bench. Sinks and Mako starting rather than Marler and Cole also suggest an attack-based first half because logic dictates that if we are going to struggle at the lineout then we should at least make sure the scrum is dominant, but Eddie has instead gone for a front row who are more renowned for their open play. Lawes over Kruis brings more dynamism while Curry and Underhill will be tasked with securing quick ball at the rucks.
New Zealand's defence hasn't had a workout since South Africa over a month ago, will be interesting to see if England can open it up. I'm not overy confident that they can, and the danger is that heads will drop if they've given their all for the first 50 and come away with little to show for it, knowing how strong the NZ bench are.

[No 7&1/2]

Billy vunipola s 50th cap tomorrow. Hopefully he can grab a couple of tries like may the week before.

[Taylorman]

Taylorman

But that's still an extra 80 minutes for ireland, not just physically, but emotionally.

The question is, would you be happy to play 3 matches in 11 days, compared to your opponents 2?

It's ludicrous not to consider an extra match in the same timeframe anything other than a hindrance, especially given how slow and lethargic all 4 teams looked!

Nah can’t agree with that in the case for Ireland. They weren’t tired due to playing Samoa and Russia over 16 days, come on. They got nine days then seven days, ample. Regardless of NZ missing a match. They’re emotionally drained after playing Russia a week before the All Blacks? Come on.

They’ve played normal pool every other tournament and ABs for example came out last time in 2015 looking as fresh as they did against Ireland, even more so. You’re saying every other tournament since 87 has left teams generally lethargic after pool play? When usually two of them are the easiest they’ll play in the four year cycle?

Wales played Oz, then had a ten day break before playing Fiji. Then, as per the draw, and it happens every tournament, some teams play within four days after that. Wales played Uruguay, and thrashed them, as they did Fiji.

Then they got a full sevens days before facing France, the easiest match of the 8 according to the expert analysis.

If you’re saying playing Uruguay seven days earlier, then Fiji, four days before that, after a ten day break after Oz left them ‘lethargic’ then I say they were nowhere near fit enough.

They’ve now got another seven days rest. Are you saying they’re still suffering from playing Uruguay two weeks ago then France a week ago? I wouldn’t.

[lostinwales]

Best England team in a RWC since 2003. Good coach getting the team into the best place going into this game that they can.

We won't know if it will be enough for a few more hours, but cannot ask for more than this.

[whatahitson]

England fan here.

I am really looking forward to this game and I think we can beat New Zealand if the team plays to their potential but they are a good team and you never know. I was hoping to go out for the group games but ill health meant I have had to watch the rugby from home so it would be nice if we win the world cup and I think if we beat the all blacks we will win the final as well.

My prediction: Owen Farrell to kick a forty metre penalty to win the game in the final minute.

Some ex International coach would probably disagree with you.  But don't call him!

This has gone sailing over my head unfortunately! Do you mean Stuart Lancaster?

[Luckless Pedestrian]

Enjoy the rugby this weekend, everyone. It's the love of the game that's brought us all here, regardless of who we support and what timezone we're in.

[BigTrevsbigmac]

You to LP

[LondonTiger]

Less embarrassing than beating France by 1 point with the help of the ref

Yeah, if only we'd won by 1 point with the ref hindering us, instead...

...oh no, my mistake, that happened as well because Peyper is atrocious and hurt Wales all game with some horrible calls and non calls.

Actually I was talking about the 2011 final - not always about Wales mate

Burn.

[Heaf]

Less embarrassing than beating France by 1 point with the help of the ref

Yeah, if only we'd won by 1 point with the ref hindering us, instead...

...oh no, my mistake, that happened as well because Peyper is atrocious and hurt Wales all game with some horrible calls and non calls.

Peyper was atrocious but think his calls went both ways. Getting the important  try in that fashion is proof enough

You mean getting an advantage through destroying their scrum, and then scoring a fair and legal try? A lot of English keep struggling with the laws it seems. Reminds me of Chris Robshaw.

For the record Mikey I was talking about the ABs in the 2011 final.

Although I am intrigued which law you're saying the English don't understand. I'm not saying the ball travelled forwards but there seems to be some suggestion that if it had it would have been allowed as it was stripped, but I'm not so sure as I think the no knock-on refers to the attacking player losing the ball to a strip - although the law seems ambiguous to me so it's a genuine question.

[stub]

Yeah, good luck Wales - hoping we meet you in the final!

[Taylorman]

Yeah funny how the ref helped NZ in the 2011 final. Never seems to be a lot of detail on how though, just this broad general swipe.
Reality is probably more that everyone was expecting NZ to March it then 20 minutes to go everyone, especially the neutrals, started backing France, the closer to the end, the more they wanted Joubert to penalise the ABs. By full time the masses were convinced the Ref, and not Frances ability to get over the line, was more convenient to blame.

Too bad too sad.

So without checking, which moment, minute did Joubert favour NZ? I bet that’s a collective unknown. No one actually does have a moment, and if they do it’s not widely known, they just prefer to go with the masses.

[Duty281]

Best England team in a RWC since 2003. Good coach getting the team into the best place going into this game that they can.

We won't know if it will be enough for a few more hours, but cannot ask for more than this.

Wholeheartedly agree.

[Taylorman]

Hope that’s the case after the match then. If England get dealt to are they better than 2007?
Not saying they will but it can be a premature statement. You get judged by where you finish after the tournament, not during it.
This was supposed to be Irelands...best chance ever, world number one when the tournament started.

Afterwards...they’ve had a bad year, signs were there.

Amazing how the story changes.

[Duty281]

The result may end up being an inferior one, but England’s 2019 team is much superior to the 2007 side. Don’t think there can be any doubt about that.

[stub]

Yeah, strong team that has been well coached. It is as good a chance that we’ve had for a long time.

[Taylorman]

I agree, but things have a funny way of turning out. Often it can be the way a particular match turns out. Ireland side is also the best they’ve ever had, certainly from the rankings and four year cycle, but it won’t be seen as the best chance theyve ever had, yet, it actually was.

[stub]

Don’t you think the Irish team had gone over the top Taylor?

[Guest]

Yeah funny how the ref helped NZ in the 2011 final. Never seems to be a lot of detail on how though, just this broad general swipe.

Mate, even you can't be that one eyed. Plenty of evidence and commentary mmediately after the fact how utterly poor Joubert was. There are several that you can argue either way, but the one that did it for me was where he blew a free kick 35m out for a clear penalty offence. Absolute bottle job, unfortunately, as he was a decent referee until the pressure came on.

[Taylorman]

Yeah I’ve seen these. Completely biased view with an agenda to prove the case. These were not discussed on the night and you could do the same level of analysis in any match and find most of the instances found here. My point is there was no single moment referred to that changed the match, just a series of allegations, none of which don’t normally happen in the course of a match and don’t get penalised. If every match were scrutinised this match the result of every match would be in question.

Amazing the lengths some will go to after the fact.

[Taylorman]

Don’t you think the Irish team had gone over the top Taylor?

What does gone over the top mean?

[Soul Requiem]

They might not have been discussed in New Zealand but Jouberts performance was dissected over here straight away.

[Taylorman]

They might not have been discussed in New Zealand but Jouberts performance was dissected over here straight away.

Yes, as was Garces v the Lions, something I got hauled over here recently. As was Barnes in 2007. What we’ve learned is it gets you nowhere. Don’t wanna lose due to the ref? Don’t score less points. That’s what we have learned through all this. You can’t control the ref.

Fact is, it’s never about the ref, it’s about who you want to win.fans are far more biased than any ref, so they’re the absolutel worst people to determine a refs ‘fairness’.

[Guest]

Taylor why are you ignoring the details I posted?

Ignorance isn't an excuse now. There were plenty of details discussed.

[Taylorman]

I’m not ignoring it, I’ve seen obsessed fans post these before, it tells one side of the story and it is biased. And like you telling me not to contribute something I’m not going to discuss the merits of fifty points raised from a biased fan of a final 8 years ago. Weve had more than our fair share of biased refereeing and you dont give a toss about that. My point stands, we move on.

[Guest]

You're properly toxic mate, I'll give you that. I hope this mindset only applies to rugby.

[Taylorman]

You see, there you go, starting the downward trend into personal drivel when you don’t get your way as others have pointed out. Throwing toys again. Harden up bro, there’s a couple of good matches to look forward to.

[Sponsored content]