New Zealand vs England 6th July Dunedin

doctor_grey wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

RDW wrote:Brave defence from England undone by a brainless no arms tackle.

But penalty not taken in time! Why is there no shot clock anymore?

There was: it was clearly there in the bottom left of the screen behind the posts.

The All Blacks get a pen to end the game but England will know they could have won that. I think next week will be close as well.

The game was right there.  Jeez, Furbank realised it was not on and tried to take it up field. But Slade had  to to realise they were on a two-on-four and go support the runner rather than running wider.  That was just not thinking.  And it possibly/potentially cost a test match.

doctor_grey wrote:Ultimately, This was a real test match as the commentators mentioned on more than one occasion.  And easily could have gone either way.  Both teams missed kicks at goal and had some opportunities.  So congrats to the ABs for a hard fought, tough-as-nails encounter.  Rightful winners.

Sometimes a one point loss like this can be worse than a total beatdown.  Will be interesting to see how England respond.  

formerly known as Sam wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

RDW wrote:Brave defence from England undone by a brainless no arms tackle.

But penalty not taken in time! Why is there no shot clock anymore?

There was: it was clearly there in the bottom left of the screen behind the posts.

The All Blacks get a pen to end the game but England will know they could have won that. I think next week will be close as well.

The game was right there.  Jeez, Furbank realised it was not on and tried to take it up field. But Slade had  to to realise they were on a two-on-four and go support the runner rather than running wider.  That was just not thinking.  And it possibly/potentially cost a test match.

Furbank panicked and just ran it into contact. Slade stayed out to provide an option but they did just need to recycle. Tired players at the end of a physical game.

Not quite the result we wanted but getting some valuable experience into some of the younger players. We've had more experienced teams go to NZ and get nowhere near the ABs. Bring on the second test.

doctor_grey wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

RDW wrote:Brave defence from England undone by a brainless no arms tackle.

But penalty not taken in time! Why is there no shot clock anymore?

There was: it was clearly there in the bottom left of the screen behind the posts.

The All Blacks get a pen to end the game but England will know they could have won that. I think next week will be close as well.

The game was right there.  Jeez, Furbank realised it was not on and tried to take it up field. But Slade had  to to realise they were on a two-on-four and go support the runner rather than running wider.  That was just not thinking.  And it possibly/potentially cost a test match.

Furbank panicked and just ran it into contact. Slade stayed out to provide an option but they did just need to recycle. Tired players at the end of a physical game.

Not quite the result we wanted but getting some valuable experience into some of the younger players. We've had more experienced teams go to NZ and get nowhere near the ABs. Bring on the second test.

Panicked?
Oh, c'mon.  Furbank got the ball which, frankly, should not have been passed to him in the first place, took three steps, and was in a one-on-three with Slade looping around wider for no discernable reason which was also defended.  Furbank was screwed as soon as he got the ball because the only support he had wasn't paying attention to what the defence was doing.  And there went the test match.

Duty281 wrote:Really good effort from England.

Itoje was a colossus, Cunningham-South was superb, and goalkicking aside I thought it was Smith's best game in an England shirt. They struggled with NZ's intensity at the breakdown for the first thirty minutes or so, but adapted well. Ultimately the bench was a little underpowered and mostly inexperienced, which was the difference.

RDW wrote:Fun test match albeit a bit scrappy, which is no surprise. NZ really tightening things up in the 2nd half after a loose first half. 16-15 probably a fair result - ABs had a lot of ball and attacking opportunities, mostly foiled by brave English defence. England on the other hand were brave but lacked much in the attack beyond their tries. It's all fair and well doing the clever attacking grubbers or chips but at some point you've got to back yourself to score.

Poorfour wrote:

RDW wrote:Fun test match albeit a bit scrappy, which is no surprise. NZ really tightening things up in the 2nd half after a loose first half. 16-15 probably a fair result - ABs had a lot of ball and attacking opportunities, mostly foiled by brave English defence. England on the other hand were brave but lacked much in the attack beyond their tries. It's all fair and well doing the clever attacking grubbers or chips but at some point you've got to back yourself to score.

England scored more points per visit to the 22 than NZ did - 2 to 1.6.

I think the kicking was a deliberate tactic to unsettle the AB defence, and it was more effective than it might have looked. Mackenzie only just got to the one he dotted down in goal - a slightly different bounce might have led to a try - and another one led to the lineout that created Itoje’s try. England kicked less as the game wore on, but were making better progress ball in hand.

Poorfour wrote:I’m ok with how England played. The NZ defence is too good, and England’s squad too green, to rely on phase play against them. One hallmark of Borthwick’s strategies has been precision kicking to exploit the space in each opponent’s defensive system.

In a year or so’s time you could see a full pack with Genge, Chessum and a fitter CCS carrying more against a defence like that, but I think they need more time together to make that stick against the best opponents.

doctor_grey wrote:

Poorfour wrote:I’m ok with how England played. The NZ defence is too good, and England’s squad too green, to rely on phase play against them. One hallmark of Borthwick’s strategies has been precision kicking to exploit the space in each opponent’s defensive system.

In a year or so’s time you could see a full pack with Genge, Chessum and a fitter CCS carrying more against a defence like that, but I think they need more time together to make that stick against the best opponents.

In a couple of years we will have Finn Carnduff on one flank and Henry Pollock on the other.   Whoever is coaching England at that time will have stepped into a pretty groovy situation.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Poorfour wrote:I’m ok with how England played. The NZ defence is too good, and England’s squad too green, to rely on phase play against them. One hallmark of Borthwick’s strategies has been precision kicking to exploit the space in each opponent’s defensive system.

In a year or so’s time you could see a full pack with Genge, Chessum and a fitter CCS carrying more against a defence like that, but I think they need more time together to make that stick against the best opponents.

In a couple of years we will have Finn Carnduff on one flank and Henry Pollock on the other.   Whoever is coaching England at that time will have stepped into a pretty groovy situation.

Pollock is very talented and very quick. I have doubts over his physicality and think he might be one of those guys with an amazing highlights reel but gets overlooked as he's not getting through enough of the grafting. Hope I'm wrong on that though. Carnduff looks at home at senior level already and will probably fill out naturally over the next year or so. Should see plenty of him at Tigers this season.

I actually disagree with Poorfour that the NZ defence was too good. We broke it down and caused problems when we got through some phases in their half with both of our tries coming from multi phase. The kicking game I don't have a problem with I'd just like us to use it as a last resort a little more and back ourselves ball in hand a touch. We've got a great back three who are all threats ball in hand, with both halfbacks more than capable of leaving defenders looking silly. Lawrence is more than capable of a bullocking run.

doctor_grey wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Poorfour wrote:I’m ok with how England played. The NZ defence is too good, and England’s squad too green, to rely on phase play against them. One hallmark of Borthwick’s strategies has been precision kicking to exploit the space in each opponent’s defensive system.

In a year or so’s time you could see a full pack with Genge, Chessum and a fitter CCS carrying more against a defence like that, but I think they need more time together to make that stick against the best opponents.

In a couple of years we will have Finn Carnduff on one flank and Henry Pollock on the other.   Whoever is coaching England at that time will have stepped into a pretty groovy situation.

Pollock is very talented and very quick. I have doubts over his physicality and think he might be one of those guys with an amazing highlights reel but gets overlooked as he's not getting through enough of the grafting. Hope I'm wrong on that though. Carnduff looks at home at senior level already and will probably fill out naturally over the next year or so. Should see plenty of him at Tigers this season.

I actually disagree with Poorfour that the NZ defence was too good. We broke it down and caused problems when we got through some phases in their half with both of our tries coming from multi phase. The kicking game I don't have a problem with I'd just like us to use it as a last resort a little more and back ourselves ball in hand a touch. We've got a great back three who are all threats ball in hand, with both halfbacks more than capable of leaving defenders looking silly. Lawrence is more than capable of a bullocking run.

Both Carnduff and Pollock have weight to put on.  I'd guess they will each add about 1 stone over the next few years just as they fill out.  If that additional weight gain is properly managed, slowly and incrementally, it should be about right for their body types  +/- a few lbs. and improve their strength, effectiveness, and quickness, as well as their ability to absorb all that  contact whilst not hurting their quickness or agility.  

I have never seen Pollock shirk his breakdown duties and more often than not comes out as a clear winner.  With that little extra weight, mostly as muscle, should make him very well placed for a long England career.  Carnduff too.  Of course his physical gifts show extremely well at that level, but one glaring aspect of his game is reading play and being in the right place at the right time.  That is a rare characteristic which can only help his development.  

George Furbank – 7
Both the No 15s had that new fullback smell. Put in a couple of big early hits, including a screamer on Ioane, that set the defensive tone and was brave and calm under some testing high balls. Few chances to make a statement with pill in hand.

Immanuel Feyi-Waboso – 5
Part of an inexperienced England back three, bagged a deserved try on one of his rare chances. All Blacks attack looked most dangerous in the outside channels.

Henry Slade – 6
Pushed the defensive line hard, trusting outside backs to fill any holes. When rare chances to use the ball in space came up, he never looked as comfortable or fluent as the men opposite him. Happiest in the collisions.

Ollie Lawrence – 6
Brummie midfielder led the line on England’s defence. A classic tough, white-jerseyed No 12.

Tommy Freeman – 5
The bloke Reece couldn’t name during the week. Tackled a heap.

Marcus Smith – 7
Has had moments of brilliance for England in the past, and despite some early wobbles, he impressed with game management and vision on a night when his side were largely on the back foot and short of possession. His confidence and vision weren’t enough to open up the All Blacks but they kept England in it. Missed eight kickable points.

Alex Mitchell – 4
Quite likes kicking the ball and is a smart distributor, too. But lack of running threat was a bonus for All Blacks defending around the rucks. A halfback with a nose as sideways as Mitchell’s doesn’t shy away from head-on tackles - proved it last night.

Ben Earl – 5
Highly rated No 8′s direct carrying style suits the DNA of his team. But those carries made little ground last night and he was brutally skinned (in a way no world-class No 8 should be) by Perofeta for Savea’s try.

Sam Underhill – 6
Kiwi crowds tend to look down their noses at British No 7s but Underhill is a hard-working yeoman and a real defensive asset.

Chandler Cunningham-South – 6
Old boy of Hamilton Boys and Westlake was a sharp and tough ball carrier for England, showing a little of the best of big forwards from both hemispheres. Instrumental in the build-up to Feyi-Waboso’s try.

George Martin – 6
A key brick in the white wall and handily mobile for a big unit. England’s locks competed well in the air and scrapped hard on the deck.

Maro Itoje – 8
That rarest of things: An Englishman who would look great in a black jersey. Big lock is a helluva player and often turns it on when playing the All Blacks. Excellent try and crucial lineout steal in 57th minute.

Will Stuart – 5
Part of a beaten scrum but a pack that held parity.

Jamie George – 6
England’s skipper lectured the Georgian referee and defended like a brute.

Joe Marler – 5
Funkily follicled front rower is a wily scrummager and won the first kickable penalty with sharp trickery. Invalided out early and replaced by cherubic debutant Finn Baxter who delivered well despite the brutality of the clashes and the match finishing past his bedtime.

RESERVES:
Theo Dan – 5
Fin Baxter – 6
Dan Cole – 6
Alex Coles – 5
Tom Curry – 5
Ben Spencer – 5
Fin Smith – 6
Ollie Sleightholme – 5

doctor_grey wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Poorfour wrote:I’m ok with how England played. The NZ defence is too good, and England’s squad too green, to rely on phase play against them. One hallmark of Borthwick’s strategies has been precision kicking to exploit the space in each opponent’s defensive system.

In a year or so’s time you could see a full pack with Genge, Chessum and a fitter CCS carrying more against a defence like that, but I think they need more time together to make that stick against the best opponents.

In a couple of years we will have Finn Carnduff on one flank and Henry Pollock on the other.   Whoever is coaching England at that time will have stepped into a pretty groovy situation.

Pollock is very talented and very quick. I have doubts over his physicality and think he might be one of those guys with an amazing highlights reel but gets overlooked as he's not getting through enough of the grafting. Hope I'm wrong on that though. Carnduff looks at home at senior level already and will probably fill out naturally over the next year or so. Should see plenty of him at Tigers this season.

I actually disagree with Poorfour that the NZ defence was too good. We broke it down and caused problems when we got through some phases in their half with both of our tries coming from multi phase. The kicking game I don't have a problem with I'd just like us to use it as a last resort a little more and back ourselves ball in hand a touch. We've got a great back three who are all threats ball in hand, with both halfbacks more than capable of leaving defenders looking silly. Lawrence is more than capable of a bullocking run.

Both Carnduff and Pollock have weight to put on.  I'd guess they will each add about 1 stone over the next few years just as they fill out.  If that additional weight gain is properly managed, slowly and incrementally, it should be about right for their body types  +/- a few lbs. and improve their strength, effectiveness, and quickness, as well as their ability to absorb all that  contact whilst not hurting their quickness or agility.  

I have never seen Pollock shirk his breakdown duties and more often than not comes out as a clear winner.  With that little extra weight, mostly as muscle, should make him very well placed for a long England career.  Carnduff too.  Of course his physical gifts show extremely well at that level, but one glaring aspect of his game is reading play and being in the right place at the right time.  That is a rare characteristic which can only help his development.  

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Just announced of the Saint website, Manny Iyogun called up as a replacement for Joe Marler!

Now we have some very very inexperienced front row options.

Marler sustained a foot injury on Saturday.

Rugby Fan wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Just announced of the Saint website, Manny Iyogun called up as a replacement for Joe Marler!

Now we have some very very inexperienced front row options.

Marler sustained a foot injury on Saturday.

The RFU England Twitter account today wished Joe Marler a speedy recovery. Then, two hours later, the next tweet wished him a happy birthday.

https://x.com/EnglandRugby

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:"I would prefer Pollock's game time this upcoming season to be limited at the top level as he fills out into whatever will be his ideal weight and strength.  As with the vast majority of 19 year olds he is still growing and filling out, and certain injuries at this point can become major issues sooner rather than later.  The old adage that if a player is good enough, the player is old enough is total nonsense.  He could really be one of the best England flankers for a long time, he has that kind of upside.  But that means now is not the time to mess him up.  And that applies to the vast majority of the U20 squads for all countries.  Players develop at different rates.  Many U20s look good but can't make the transition to the next level.  We should never allow injuries sustained to be part of that problem."

Doc, I can testify to the truth of your comments, at 15 I was 6'4" and 14 stone, but too young to play for my local colts side which was strictly 16+. However the rules did  not apply to senior rugby and being the size of most locks in those days, very late 60's, I was allowed and picked to play as a lock in the town second team and even a few games as injury cover games for the 1st. By back is still suffering.

Mind you, at 15, making monkeys out of adults was great fun, I may not have had the strength of my opposite numbers, but I was faster than most wingers.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Pretty poor capitulation in the end. Attack still looking poor. Tactics moving backwards as subs came on. That was the only chance to pick up a win but the lack of ambition means that's our level now.

Geordie wrote:I think Guy Pepper will have a say in that England 7 shirt...the boys simply outstanding in every facet.

SB won't need a team talk just put that player rating on the wall.  

Great to see Manny being called up....Baxter and Him are two of the future Looseheads to take us forward....

doctor_grey wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:"I would prefer Pollock's game time this upcoming season to be limited at the top level as he fills out into whatever will be his ideal weight and strength.  As with the vast majority of 19 year olds he is still growing and filling out, and certain injuries at this point can become major issues sooner rather than later.  The old adage that if a player is good enough, the player is old enough is total nonsense.  He could really be one of the best England flankers for a long time, he has that kind of upside.  But that means now is not the time to mess him up.  And that applies to the vast majority of the U20 squads for all countries.  Players develop at different rates.  Many U20s look good but can't make the transition to the next level.  We should never allow injuries sustained to be part of that problem."

Doc, I can testify to the truth of your comments, at 15 I was 6'4" and 14 stone, but too young to play for my local colts side which was strictly 16+. However the rules did  not apply to senior rugby and being the size of most locks in those days, very late 60's, I was allowed and picked to play as a lock in the town second team and even a few games as injury cover games for the 1st. By back is still suffering.

Mind you, at 15, making monkeys out of adults was great fun, I may not have had the strength of my opposite numbers, but I was faster than most wingers.

Jeez, mate, you were bigger at 15 than I am now!  
But we do pay the price for having had a lot of fun.  

doctor_grey wrote:

Geordie wrote:I think Guy Pepper will have a say in that England 7 shirt...the boys simply outstanding in every facet.

SB won't need a team talk just put that player rating on the wall.  

Great to see Manny being called up....Baxter and Him are two of the future Looseheads to take us forward....

Very happy for Manny.  He represents Saints so well and I think he has a good future in front of him.  In the old money (better than the new), Manny is 6'2", 250 lbs.  At 23, I would have wanted to give him some more seasoning, but the reality is that he is as ready as he can get and this should be his time.  He seems a good young man and I absolutely wish him the best.  

Playing the ABs in NZ is not the best way to lose one's virginity, but what the f**k?  

formerly known as Sam wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:"I would prefer Pollock's game time this upcoming season to be limited at the top level as he fills out into whatever will be his ideal weight and strength.  As with the vast majority of 19 year olds he is still growing and filling out, and certain injuries at this point can become major issues sooner rather than later.  The old adage that if a player is good enough, the player is old enough is total nonsense.  He could really be one of the best England flankers for a long time, he has that kind of upside.  But that means now is not the time to mess him up.  And that applies to the vast majority of the U20 squads for all countries.  Players develop at different rates.  Many U20s look good but can't make the transition to the next level.  We should never allow injuries sustained to be part of that problem."

Doc, I can testify to the truth of your comments, at 15 I was 6'4" and 14 stone, but too young to play for my local colts side which was strictly 16+. However the rules did  not apply to senior rugby and being the size of most locks in those days, very late 60's, I was allowed and picked to play as a lock in the town second team and even a few games as injury cover games for the 1st. By back is still suffering.

Mind you, at 15, making monkeys out of adults was great fun, I may not have had the strength of my opposite numbers, but I was faster than most wingers.

Jeez, mate, you were bigger at 15 than I am now!  
But we do pay the price for having had a lot of fun.  

Well I achieved the 14 stone bit... my left knee and shoulder both less than good but you've got to live and use the body at some point.

Whilst I do generally agree with drip feeding players into the senior set up you've got to ensure they pick up game time otherwise their development stalls and you run the risk of them moving elsewhere. Careers should be built with length in mind but the harsh reality is they can end swiftly as Pollock and Carnduff's former under 20s teammate Bradbury will be well them.

doctor_grey wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:"I would prefer Pollock's game time this upcoming season to be limited at the top level as he fills out into whatever will be his ideal weight and strength.  As with the vast majority of 19 year olds he is still growing and filling out, and certain injuries at this point can become major issues sooner rather than later.  The old adage that if a player is good enough, the player is old enough is total nonsense.  He could really be one of the best England flankers for a long time, he has that kind of upside.  But that means now is not the time to mess him up.  And that applies to the vast majority of the U20 squads for all countries.  Players develop at different rates.  Many U20s look good but can't make the transition to the next level.  We should never allow injuries sustained to be part of that problem."

Doc, I can testify to the truth of your comments, at 15 I was 6'4" and 14 stone, but too young to play for my local colts side which was strictly 16+. However the rules did  not apply to senior rugby and being the size of most locks in those days, very late 60's, I was allowed and picked to play as a lock in the town second team and even a few games as injury cover games for the 1st. By back is still suffering.

Mind you, at 15, making monkeys out of adults was great fun, I may not have had the strength of my opposite numbers, but I was faster than most wingers.

Jeez, mate, you were bigger at 15 than I am now!  
But we do pay the price for having had a lot of fun.  

Well I achieved the 14 stone bit... my left knee and shoulder both less than good but you've got to live and use the body at some point.

Whilst I do generally agree with drip feeding players into the senior set up you've got to ensure they pick up game time otherwise their development stalls and you run the risk of them moving elsewhere. Careers should be built with length in mind but the harsh reality is they can end swiftly as Pollock and Carnduff's former under 20s teammate Bradbury will be well them.

Your last bit first - I think one of your points is that it is hard to know the perfect time to permanently move someone up to the top squad, or even a frequent member of the XXIII.  And sometimes we have to throw them into the deep end, either because of talent despite whether they have filled out, team has no other options, or as you say get them needed game time.  Look at Pollock.  That is a kid with a frame that needs some more beef. The talent is clearly there, so I would get him some minutes but prudently spread out.  So limited playing time at the top level as I said above.  Ultimately, there is no perfect answer, so we have to go with whatever expertise we bring to the table.  And this screams out the need for the old A sides.  And from a selfish point of view, I used to like going to the Gardens on a Monday night for a tenner and watch some of the next generation or guys coming back from injury.  

Regarding your injury or body's woes, if you told me about them I could have over charged you for a solution.  Seriously have you had or are you considering surgery?  I sometime joke about it, but is no laughing matter...

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Up for a new knee (possibly 2), currently running on cortisone. The specialist says I still have more movement in my natural knee than I would with a replacement, so best to wait until it goes the other way, meniscus is just shredded hence cortisone and also arthritis and some ligament damage. Seems okay at the moment, even managed to break into a swift run across the road the other day. You know it is there, but not nearly as painful as before. My back is not that BAD, but has suffered not just the rugby at too early an age, but two major car accidents where they have had to cut me out of the car, (being my size is useful sometimes, I walked away from both) therefore have issues at the Coccyx, if I do any heavy work, I get minor bleeds which just look like large bruises, which I suppose they sort of are. I have a number of scattered compressed vertebrae and some restrictions further up, but it has done 70 years of service so I am a lot better off than some.

Rugby Fan wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Up for a new knee (possibly 2), currently running on cortisone. The specialist says I still have more movement in my natural knee than I would with a replacement, so best to wait until it goes the other way, meniscus is just shredded hence cortisone and also arthritis and some ligament damage. Seems okay at the moment, even managed to break into a swift run across the road the other day. You know it is there, but not nearly as painful as before. My back is not that BAD, but has suffered not just the rugby at too early an age, but two major car accidents where they have had to cut me out of the car, (being my size is useful sometimes, I walked away from both) therefore have issues at the Coccyx, if I do any heavy work, I get minor bleeds which just look like large bruises, which I suppose they sort of are. I have a number of scattered compressed vertebrae and some restrictions further up, but it has done 70 years of service so I am a lot better off than some.

So, you are saying you are still available for selection.

All the best, mate.