SF1 - Match Thread - ENGLAND v NEW ZEALAND - 26/10/19 - K/O 09:00 BST (PART 2)

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

Because everyone else is getting a bit excited and the first thread is going to spill over during the match.

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]

I think it's more that England are in a RWC final rather than the 'beating the ABs' cup.

No doubt some are displaying schadenfreude due to, ahem, certain posters'/poster's contributions on here.

[Taylorman]

Nah - England didn't play fair - they used negative tactics like tackling the ABs rather than stand around admiring their moves ... and accidentally scoring within 90 seconds, I mean how negative is that?

Who said anything about not being fair?
Come back when the funnies are out of your system and talk rugby rather then trying to be a cheap comedian huh?

All good heaf. You’ll get there.

[Taylorman]

I think it's more that England are in a RWC final rather than the 'beating the ABs' cup.

No doubt some are displaying schadenfreude due to, ahem, certain posters'/poster's contributions on here.

Good to see you’ve taken your meds. Pity about that side effect that makes you talk German though.

Good game was it Miaow? Perhaps they’re still tired from the Uruguay match?

Hope they’re not still tired vs this poor AB side. Imagine getting thrashed by them.

[Cyril]

Taylorman, you were a good sport yesterday. It was a cracking test match. Why are you playing the sook now?

[Heaf]

No it's just sad that some AB fans can't except it when they lose - you claim you're over it etc but keeping trotting out this nonsense about England winning through negativity when they just beat NZ in every aspect - including positive creative play.

Always an excuse when they lose as their arrogance doesn't allow the idea the other team were simply better on the day - oh they may say it, but there's always a caveat ....

[Guest]

Did you have to google schadenfreude T?

Get back to bed. As I said, up before 5 and still up after midnight's bad for the brain.

https://www.sleepdiplomat.com/professor

[Taylorman]

Taylorman, you were a good sport yesterday. It was a cracking test match. Why are you playing the sook now?

Cyril, you are like broken record. When you want to talk rugby, be happy to. But if all you can do is be personal and name call, then we have nothing to discuss. I’m am discussing rugby, not being a sook. If you can’t handle that discussion then get some shut eye. I mean do you know what time it is over there? You need sleep. Another piece of advice from your neighbours.

[Taylorman]

Did you have to google schadenfreude T?

Get back to bed. As I said, up before 5 and still up after midnight's bad for the brain.

https://www.sleepdiplomat.com/professor

Drongo, it’s 1pm in the afternoon. It’s you that should be asleep. It’s shows. Talking German after meds is not a good sign.

[Taylorman]

I hear England might be fined for forming the V. How ridiculous. We may as well stop doing it altogether. The English response was a great example of how these silly rules around it can still bring respect to both sides.

It was respectful, challenging and impressive. Long may it continue. If England are fined I wouldn’t be surprised if NZ offer to pay it.

[Pal Joey]

I hear Wales are going to form a "CER I GRAFU" for the bronze medal match.

"Go scratch yourself" or "Go away"

Source: The Cardigan Bay Online Observer

[Taylorman]

Now there was a horse!

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Can we stop the whole meds and holier than thou stuff? I wouldn't want to have to ban people whilst most of the forum was asleep, it would ruin half the fun

[majesticimperialman]

I hear England might be fined for forming the V. How ridiculous. We may as well stop doing it altogether. The English response was a great example of how these silly rules around it can still bring respect to both sides.

It was respectful, challenging and impressive. Long may it continue. If England are fined I wouldn’t be surprised if NZ offer to pay it.

If England are Fined for the way they (took the challange) then maybe the Haka should be a thing of the past/banned all together.

It would be a shame to ban it. as it would not be New Zealand with out it.

[Taylorman]

Yeah it’s one option. The moaning about its getting sickening as well. For some the threat is real. Hilarious.

[Gooseberry]

Did you have to google schadenfreude T?

Get back to bed. As I said, up before 5 and still up after midnight's bad for the brain.

https://www.sleepdiplomat.com/professor

Most of us got plenty of sleep during the match yesterday thanks to Wales' placid attacking game.

[eirebilly]

I am very confused as to where the negativity in the England performance was. I thought they were very positive in there approach to the New Zealand game and out All Blacked the All Blacks.

[Gooseberry]

As I said on another thread England didn't need to get of 2nd gear, the game was done once we scored the try.

Disagree about 2nd gear. We were close to top gear the whole time. NZ created two chances in the game. The Rettallick run that led to Goodhue tackled into touch and the Sevu run that saw him bundled/barged into touch. Both were shut out (though indirectly second led to the NZ try).

England created more chances in the game, by a mixture of fine interplay between forwards and backs, and crushing defence. TMO and some final passes going astray kept the scoreboard lower than it could have been. 5here was some excellent defence by NZ too.

Biggest difference was England won the kicking game to such a large margin that eventually NZ stopped kicking and tried to run their way out of every situation. Arguably the biggest achievement England managed was to force NZ to stop playing like NZ and start playing like Australia.

England do not play like NZ. As Wayne Smith says, instead of copying others, be the best version of you that you can be. England played like England, mixing power and pace, kicking and passing.

It was a phenomenal performance, but one that means nothing if we cannot back it up on 2nd.

Yes but top gear doesn’t get the peacock feathers out pumping and glistening LT. TH needs those to walk down the street, chest out, proud

Wayne Smith was right, which is why Hansen needs to accept what he did was a regression of that thinking. He ripped out the experienced players within two months of the tournament. Of course we all bought it, but he said beforehand he’s going all eggs in one basket. It was a common discussion that things might fall off when Smith left.

You were singing the praises of the genius of the man for backing youth up till 2 minutes into the game! Maybe Hansen shouldve followed Jones' lead and backed the old experienced hands like Hartley, Robshaw, Haskell, Care, and Brown ... 

As for England being negative, it wasn't them that picked a second row forward in the back row to stack the lineout and beef up the breakdown. A move which you claimed was a mastertroke to help New Zealand play their fast attacking game.

Hansen got it wrong no question, but England got it very right. And its pretty clear his decisions on the selections were in part driven by a fear of England and a desire to nullify them rather than concentrating on their own game. 

As for the preening take it as a compliment, beating NZ is a always a big deal for NH sides exactly because its historically been a very difficult thing to do. I dont think anyone believes (except some New Zealand fans after the Ireland game) this is close to the best NZ side theres been in the past couple of decades, but its by no means the the worst either. It s a huge win for England against the bookies odds and should they go on to win it noone can say they dodged any bullets, they will have beaten the best sides in the tournament. 

You cant have it both ways though, either New Zealand are still special but got beaten by a better side on the day or they are rubbish. The game in a years time could well be very different, its fair to point out that beating the All Blacks twice on the bounce is almost unheard of for any team in recent years let alone a NH one. 

Again as a compliment to the All Blacks the final now feels like an extra game tacked on for the sake of it. I doubt (hope!) the team isnt feeling like that and over hyped from this win, it may be a cliche but it does feel like the biggest threat to England winning the cup is them letting the intensity drop.

[Taylorman]

Yep, not saying England didn’t get it wrong. We all bought into a Hansen’s deal because it was winning. He was wrong, I was wrong. That’s how post match analysis works. And I maintain Barrett was brought in for his pace and open play, lineout was a bonus, which is what Hansen said, but that seems to fall on deaf ears. And there’s no way Cane would have headed May off, injured or not.

LT was correct when he said you don’t sacrifice the breakdown and that’s where we got hit. Curry and Underhill stole and killed our ball. We needed Cane there for that early. We also needed experience on at the death, not Jordie Barrett, for me completely unqualified for a World Cup semi.

And Ive said they got beaten by the better team on the day, several times, again, falling on deaf ears. I list our concerns. That’s what my interest is. I’m not going to spend time gushing over a England’s, there are plenty here capable of doing that don’t ya think?

We misread this completely, we got played by Jones, who with Mitchell conjured up an replica of the 2003 loss to Oz. Jones is now the master of bringing down favourites in world cups.

And THATS why he was hired. To win that match, and this tournament.

Just a shame Hansen has to go out with that on his record which since he took over Henry has been great. That’s rugby, and we’ll regroup, get a new coach, I see SBW wants PI and/ or Maori represented on the panel which I agree with. Not a lot of choices there...Joseph, Rennie maybe.

Fosters chances just took a hit, Scott Robertsons have probably gone up but neither has coached overseas, a pre-requisite it seems, which comes back to Gats. His experience in being the underdog on many an occasion would be useful, and with world cups aplenty and Lions tours he’s done more than anyone else.

Right now Id probably go with Foster for continuity, with Gats and Robertson, one of them to take over after two years.

[Soul Requiem]

I think Curry and Underhill showed that experience is no substitute for raw talent, very easy to blame selection but regardless of who played New Zealand would still have been smashed back for 80 minutes with England in that kind of form.

[Taylorman]

I think Curry and Underhill showed that experience is no substitute for raw talent, very easy to blame selection but regardless of who played New Zealand would still have been smashed back for 80 minutes with England in that kind of form.

Happy to disagree. Wrong players, wrong game plan. It was 12 points. On another day that test was winnable, but not that day.

I wouldn’t describe Underhill and Curry as experienced either. At all. If anything they’re good because they have that raw talent. Curry was u20s two years ago. It’s very rare to find two top rated flankers at 21 and 23.

[Gooseberry]

I think Curry and Underhill showed that experience is no substitute for raw talent, very easy to blame selection but regardless of who played New Zealand would still have been smashed back for 80 minutes with England in that kind of form.

Happy to disagree. Wrong players, wrong game plan. It was 12 points. On another day that test was winnable, but not that day.

I wouldn’t describe Underhill and Curry as experienced either. At all. If anything they’re good because they have that raw talent. Curry was u20s two years ago. It’s very rare to find two top rated flankers at 21 and 23.

No question England lucked out a bit, and that there was some smart selection,  but they also had a specific programme for developing players with their skillset.

[Heaf]

I am very confused as to where the negativity in the England performance was. I thought they were very positive in there approach to the New Zealand game and out All Blacked the All Blacks.

Me too  - in fact I asked TM to explain and all I got was a load of waffle about the NZ selections and then when I asked what that had to do with England supposedly being negative all I got was more arrogant 'you don't understand rugby' type comments etc ...

But to be fair let's see if it's just me not understanding TM's answers when I asked him to justify his England playing negatively position ...

ME:

"Educate us all then and explain what NZ were trying to do that England weren't doing?"

TM:

"already have.
But for the misinformed.

At Eden park we dropped the experience of Franks, Ben Smith and the form of Reiko for three new players to big test match rugby. None had started in RCs nor World cups etc though Laulua mah have at some point.

That resulted in a 36-0 win over oz.

Thinking there is youth a vitality tops experience. Versus Ireland, he did it again, dropped Crotty and Ben Smith right out,bring in Goodhue, another who hasn’t done the rounds much.

Vs Ireland, the fast game plan was working. Ireland were not good enough to hold their own and the pace on the ball and in the collisions meant we were able to score seven tries, most from creative movements as we first stretched then broke down the Irish and Farrell defence.

So again, emp,owing the ‘kids’ worked. Who needs experience when they’re running free like that.

So he does it again. Takes a Cane off versus England in an effort to make the open play even faster, totally ignoring the fact that Mitchell has been brought in, and as losing coach of the AB side in 03, and dumped by NZ rugby after it, clearly had views on why his side lost and how he can help Eddie and England here.

So the ABs went in with a whole bunch of new players and left fit, and in form, experienced World Cup winning players, out.

All on the basis of two months ago. Meanwhile, Eddies been plotting this for two years. He knew he would meet the ABs

So they simply negated the ABs time and space and it meant we had inexperience on when the tough got going.

Had players like Ben Smith, Crotty, even Owens and a less extreme open game plan been deployed we would have had a better chance.

That is a NZ viewpoint of the loss. It’s being commonly discussed here. We certainly accept the loss, we just need to get back up, and start again. It’s not a sign of our rugby deteriorating, but it is a sign we need new ideas."

ME:

"TM that was all very interesting about NZ selection errors but doesn't explain why you say England were negative just because they were adept at shutting down NZ - that's just one part of the game surely. Pourfoor put it much more eloquently a few posts earlier."

TM:

"That’s because you are not looking at things from a NZ point of view. Have to say, the analysis skills on this site aren’t very high. More bickering and name calling than actual analysis. Armchair fans with little technical appreciation of either the complexity of the game, nor its trends, and certainly not its potential.

I’m no expert either, but Ive certainly seen forums that are."

End of quotes - anyone any the wiser how that justifies his view that England were negative, uncreative and boring?

[Soul Requiem]

The selection of Barrett at 6 and the persistence with youth was considered a masterstroke before the game as Hansen doesn't make mistakes but after the game his selection was to blame instead of the fact the better team simply won. There's nothing worse than a bad loser.

[Gooseberry]

Bad winners are worse, dont make me link back to the 6 nations thread vs wales

[Scottrf]

Beauden Barrett kicked it every time he got it and England are negative.

[rodders]

Well done England, that was a phenomenal performance, arguably the best I've seen England play.

The ABs just couldn't deal with the pace and intensity England hit them with and defensively they were incredible. NZ were pretty poor but most of that was down to England's pressure.  

England have to be favourites now but I wouldn't write of a Boks side who look like they have a few more gears in them and will be better equipped to deal with the power England have than NZ.

If I was to put my money on someone though it would be England, Eddie Jones has done an incredible job whipping them into shape... although it pain me to admit it....

[Collapse2005]

The selection of Barrett at 6 and the persistence with youth was considered a masterstroke before the game as Hansen doesn't make mistakes but after the game his selection was to blame instead of the fact the better team simply won. There's nothing worse than a bad loser.

Cane, three more SH TMO nor more experience wouldnt have helped. England were much better.

[BamBam]

Taylor has mentioned the coaches experience of beating NZ in 2003 a few times, but I still struggle to see the relevance other than NZ being one of the participants.

The laws have changed multiple times since then, athleticism has arguably gone up by just as many fold and obviously no one other than Jones and Mitchell was involved

Why is it relevant?

[Collapse2005]

Beauden Barrett kicked it every time he got it and England are negative.

NZ have always kicked the ball as much as wveryone else. Its just that they tend to choose good moments to run it and when they do it often is for huge pay off as they do it so well.

[Gooseberry]

Beauden Barrett kicked it every time he got it and England are negative.

NZ have always kicked the ball as much as wveryone else. Its just that they tend to choose good moments to run it and when they do it often is for huge pay off as they do it so well.

They kicked less and a much lower percentage than England did. 

But its also worth noting that many kicks are not defensive territorial ones, there was a number of attacking chips, cross field kicks etc as well as Daly and Ford nailing it into the corners from their own half. 

Its still a game of football. I dont see kicking as entirely negative. It was refreshing to see England not shutting up shop and just looking to eat the clock from 60 minutes with endless pick and drive.

[Collapse2005]

What were the percentages?

[LondonTiger]

England kicked from hand 32 times, NZ 24.

England made 184 passes, NZ 211

England ran 147 times, NZ 154

England had 56% possession, 62% Territory. I still feel that NZ started running everything from deep, despite putting Jordie on as an extra kicker, because they had lost the kicking battle.

[Guest]

Did you have to google schadenfreude T?

Get back to bed. As I said, up before 5 and still up after midnight's bad for the brain.

https://www.sleepdiplomat.com/professor

Most of us got plenty of sleep during the match yesterday thanks to Wales' placid attacking game.

That sounds more like narcolepsy. The game was tense. That, and maybe you're just getting on a bit? Not sure who the 'us' is?

[Guest]

I am very confused as to where the negativity in the England performance was. I thought they were very positive in there approach to the New Zealand game and out All Blacked the All Blacks.

They wore white instead of black, a rose instead of a fern.

[Gooseberry]

What were the percentages?

32		Kicks From Hand		24
184		Passes		211
147		Runs		154

Eng left side 

 Roughly 9% kicked to NZ roughly 6%

The metres run says a lot about Englands long kicking game though .. Eng 406 to NZ 639, yet England dominated territory. Reflects Englands deep kicks and NZ choosing to run back but getting caught in their own half. Barrett ran 21 times for 105 metres (the highest numbers in either team), he wasnt just kicking.

[Gooseberry]

Did you have to google schadenfreude T?

Get back to bed. As I said, up before 5 and still up after midnight's bad for the brain.

https://www.sleepdiplomat.com/professor

Most of us got plenty of sleep during the match yesterday thanks to Wales' placid attacking game.

That sounds more like narcolepsy. The game was tense. That, and maybe you're just getting on a bit? Not sure who the 'us' is?

Not "them". Im sure it was fascinating to follow on Ceefax.

[Guest]

And Ive said they got beaten by the better team on the day, several times, again, falling on deaf ears. I list our concerns.

Yeah but you erase that 'goodwill' you might create by then trolling away and calling England negative etc. You don't mitigate WUMmery with a passing nod to the other team's quality. NZ got thumped and you still tried to claim the old 'moral victory' card...

[Guest]

I think Curry and Underhill showed that experience is no substitute for raw talent, very easy to blame selection but regardless of who played New Zealand would still have been smashed back for 80 minutes with England in that kind of form.

Happy to disagree. Wrong players, wrong game plan. It was 12 points. On another day that test was winnable, but not that day.

I wouldn’t describe Underhill and Curry as experienced either. At all. If anything they’re good because they have that raw talent. Curry was u20s two years ago. It’s very rare to find two top rated flankers at 21 and 23.

That's what he was trying to say - experience doesn't mean very much in the face of talent like Curry and Underhill. Cane, Read etc. weren't up to the job in the end - some more prep work might have done them some good in that regard, to nullify some of the English stars.

[Guest]

Did you have to google schadenfreude T?

Get back to bed. As I said, up before 5 and still up after midnight's bad for the brain.

https://www.sleepdiplomat.com/professor

Most of us got plenty of sleep during the match yesterday thanks to Wales' placid attacking game.

That sounds more like narcolepsy. The game was tense. That, and maybe you're just getting on a bit? Not sure who the 'us' is?

Not "them". Im sure it was fascinating to follow on Ceefax.

Ceefax ended years ago. Poor joke.

[TightHEAD]

Stop de-railing the thread, or go to the Wales v SA match thread Yawn, zzzzz

[Poorfour]

It'd be interesting to see 1st half vs 2nd half stats - one of the pundits mentioned at half time that NZ had already kicked the ball 18 times when their average for a whole game was around 30.

If that's correct, it suggests that they did nearly all their kicking in the first half, and resorted to running for nearly all of the second half. That's quite a stark indication of how much bother their gameplan was in.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that England's defence was up fast enough, play after play after play, that New Zealand had nowhere to go.

Defence-based games can be very negative and boring if all they are doing is absorbing pressure and waiting for a mistake. (Though of course that's been a very successful strategy for the All Blacks for a very long time - but they get praised for what they do with the ball once the mistake is made).

But there's defence, and defence. England's defensive strategy was so aggressive that it was a positive factor in its own right.

[lostinwales]

Looking at Barrat's running stats it would be interesting to see how that compares to his normal workload.

Looks to me that he ended up with the ball a lot of times (21 + number of times he kicked) and that at an average of ~5m/run either the defense was up on him fast or he was dealing with shorter kicks.

[Guest]

Stop de-railing the thread, or go to the Wales v SA match thread Yawn, zzzzz

Your is hanging out again, TH. Time to size up in trousers.

[TightHEAD]

Mods have we 606v2 rugby fans got to put up with him all week?

The garbage he is coming out with isn't even rugby related!!!!

[Collapse2005]

What were the percentages?

32		Kicks From Hand		24
184		Passes		211
147		Runs		154

Eng left side 

 Roughly 9% kicked to NZ roughly 6%

The metres run says a lot about Englands long kicking game though .. Eng 406 to NZ 639, yet England dominated territory. Reflects Englands deep kicks and NZ choosing to run back but getting caught in their own half. Barrett ran 21 times for 105 metres (the highest numbers in either team), he wasnt just kicking.

Interesting thanks.

[Guest]

It'd be interesting to see 1st half vs 2nd half stats - one of the pundits mentioned at half time that NZ had already kicked the ball 18 times when their average for a whole game was around 30.

If that's correct, it suggests that they did nearly all their kicking in the first half, and resorted to running for nearly all of the second half. That's quite a stark indication of how much bother their gameplan was in.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that England's defence was up fast enough, play after play after play, that New Zealand had nowhere to go.

Defence-based games can be very negative and boring if all they are doing is absorbing pressure and waiting for a mistake. (Though of course that's been a very successful strategy for the All Blacks for a very long time - but they get praised for what they do with the ball once the mistake is made).

But there's defence, and defence. England's defensive strategy was so aggressive that it was a positive factor in its own right.

You also have to consider the difference in kicks. How many of those were Aaron Smith box kicks to touch instead of crossfield kicks to score, grubbers in behind, chip passes etc.? Think that's a forgotten point - did NZ make a single attacking kick all game? Maybe 1? 2? Everything else was a clearing kick. NZ have never had to play that way - now they know, they/their fans have no leg to stand on when it comes to NH teams kicking it when they're getting dominated up front!

[Heaf]

Mods have we 606v2 rugby fans got to put up with him all week?

The garbage he is coming out with isn't even rugby related!!!!

To be fair he has been responding to some of the nonsense posted by TM saying England were negative ...

[Guest]

As if TH can hold the moral highground over nonsense and derailing, either...

[pledgeX]

Has anyone got the tackle counts per player for this game? Or does anyone know the best place to find such stats?

[Scottrf]

https://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/playerstats?gameId=292934&league=164205

Player stats>Defending.

[Sponsored content]