England v New Zealand, 2nd November

First topic message reminder :

England have named their team for the match:

England: Furbank; Feyi-Waboso, Slade, Lawrence, Freeman; M Smith, Spencer; Genge, George (capt), Stuart; Itoje, Martin; Cunningham-South, T Curry, Earl.

Replacements: Dan, Baxter, Cole, Isiekwe, B Curry, Dombrandt, Randall, Ford.

No huge surprises, and a lot of the changes have been trailed. It'll be interesting to see if Curry is back to his best, and whether Spencer goes well with Smith. Having Ford back in the squad should help with closing out the game - but the presence of Dombrandt makes me wonder if the plan is to keep Smith on the pitch for longer by moving him to 15 so that they can work off each other.

Seven kick offs for NZ, someone offside at every single one

Marcus having by a distance the best game I've seen from him for England here.

This should be a blockbuster final 20 minutes if the first 60 is anything to go by.

DMcK on. Huge moment. Dual playmakers at 10 and 15. I'd expect NZ to go even harder in attack now. Yep, instantly going blindside, then back to openside. How England's can deal with this in terms of staying aligned with the blitz as players tire will be interesting.

Two massive interventions from Burry. Big hit and then the turnover. Excellent. He's not had a stellar international career so far but he has been very good Sale in pack full of strong second and back rows.

England need to try to slow the game down now. Another score could do this.

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bit lucky he came back after 2 breakdowns to check that as it's against the law ain't it?

Nope 3

Lucks not with getting rid of Borthwick then. Individual brilliance keeping him his job while we look bad.

Poorfour wrote:Seven kick offs for NZ, someone offside at every single one

To be fair, offside has been lax on both sides. The England outside backs who are leading that blitz speed have been farcically offside at times. They're retreating but nowhere near to back onside. As long as they're making an effort to vaguely move backwards before rushing again then the officials seem to be letting it go a lot.

That last lineout from England was about as straight as me too.

There's been stuff let go for both sides. It's been fast and loose.

Cumbrian wrote:England need to try to slow the game down now.  Another score could do this.

That's my thinking. I'd be very tempted by Ford at 10 and Marcus to 15. Use our two best tactical kickers to try to peg them back. Have both drop back for the kick tennis. Then ball in hand, basically play openside and blindside playmakers unless you've got a huge openside to layer the attack.

EDIT: Happened as I typed but Ford for Smith. I think my stream is on a delay reading a few messages. Not the change I'd have made. Marcus has been excellent. His best international game yet.

Itoje has been mammoth today. He really does love playing against NZ.

Arghh. Overturned and fairly. That's an incredibly annoying and dumb infringement from Earl when 8 points up. Set defence. In range. He's had another very good game too.

This should bring it within a try again.

How was that not advantage over?

Gardner missed a knock on by Roigard in the ruck too.

He's missed lots today

Weak tackling by Ford. Telea is tough to put down, but that's a weak last up effort.

Brilliant kick by DMcK.

Finally a YC ...

Bloody hell. Keeps Borthwick in a job then.

Love the little down votes. Should still be able to see the little cry babies in name like the upvotes tho.

Did Gardner say at first that's not foul play?

He's trying REALLY hard here, isn't he? Surely if a player commits two YC offences it is a) a red and b) the non-offending team's choice of which offence they want to play

Awful kick saved by another error from Nz. Woop woop.

Que a scrum pen to NZ for the win now

High tackle on Ford?

And the lack of ambition fro. The coaches has led us to a defeat woop woop.

Oh dear...

Argh. A tough loss after leading three games on the bounce against the ABs. Such an entertaining game to watch. I enjoyed that a lot. Now, back to work, sadly!

Borthwick. Get rid now. Stop supporting such a poor coaching team.

Heaf wrote:High tackle on Ford?

Yeah, but why give a penalty when you can just not? I said before the game that I thought this would be decided by the ref, and I think that proved to be the case.

Bummer --- NZ should have had a YC much earlier when it might have made a difference

Absolutely gutting, felt that was there on a plate.

Bad luck England fans, that was so close. On the whole I think NZ were better but that could have gone either way. Telea was immense, my player of the match.

Poorfour wrote:

Heaf wrote:High tackle on Ford?

Yeah, but why give a penalty when you can just not? I said before the game that I thought this would be decided by the ref, and I think that proved to be the case.

Just like the last two - even Warbs said the same in the build up - surprised that Jonker actually had to put Gardner right on a number of occasions.

Don't want to be harsh on Ford, but he came after no rugby to speak of and missed the clutch kick and the then the drop goal.

Close but no cigar. However England were good and I'm not disheartened, disappointed yes but despondent no.

You have to say that the match turned on Earl with the no arms tackle. We're 8 points ahead at that pint with a potential kick to put us deep into their half.

I'd like to see how things would have gone if we'd had a build up game against Japan first, rather than playing them last in this series.

Didn't even watch it...sadly watching the falcons is making kW lose interest I'm the game.

And now England give up a game against a poor NZ side if the report I've read are true.

I feel that Fin Smith could have made that penalty. And the Telea tackle.

Ford's inactivity has certainly cost us here.

Geordie wrote:Didn't even watch it...sadly watching the falcons is making kW lose interest I'm the game.

And now England give up a game against a poor NZ side if the report I've read are true.

NZ were good definitely not poor. And England didn't give it up just lost, narrowly.

mountain man wrote:

Geordie wrote:Didn't even watch it...sadly watching the falcons is making kW lose interest I'm the game.

And now England give up a game against a poor NZ side if the report I've read are true.

NZ were good definitely not poor. And England didn't give it up just lost, narrowly.

Many reports suggest different

Then maybe watch and decide for yourself?

Does anyone know if the head on head was upgraded to red?

Unfortunately the fears some of us had prior to game came true. Slade not enough rugby likewise Ford. Cole past it.
Have to credit Stuart as he was excellent in scrum though. If Borthwick tweaks 23 then England can challenge SA although that will be a huge challenge.

mountain man wrote:Unfortunately the fears some of us had prior to game came true. Slade not enough rugby likewise Ford. Cole past it.
Have to credit Stuart as he was excellent in scrum though. If Borthwick tweaks 23 then England can challenge SA although that will be a huge challenge.

Nope they won't be. Coaches are sub par.players being let down.

NZ scored three tries to one,  so England can't complain. Where they can have grievance is the non decisions by a SH ref. The bench had minimal impact, would have rather seen Underhill, Cowan-Dickie, Marler and Willis jnr as ball carriers and just kept the ball. Baxter got seriously squeezed and Randall simply isn't big enough. Ford should have nailed either the penalty or the drop goal,  which is disappointing but was just about a fair result if refs aren't going to apply the rules in the dubious interests of perpetual motion.

Recwatcher16 wrote:NZ scored three tries to one,  so England can't complain. Where they can have grievance is the non decisions by a SH ref. The bench had minimal impact, would have rather seen Underhill, Cowan-Dickie, Marler and Willis jnr as ball carriers and just kept the ball. Baxter got seriously squeezed and Randall simply isn't big enough. Ford should have nailed either the penalty or the drop goal,  which is disappointing but was just about a fair result if refs aren't going to apply the rules in the dubious interests of perpetual motion.

Can't complain? If the opposition continually killed your ability to score tries, you wouldn't be allowed to complain about it? New Zealand committed 5 times as many penalties as England, but (reluctantly!) only got one yellow card! If England go through a game where they only get one yellow card when they have hit players off the ball four times, deliberately knocked the ball on twice and been caught offside half a dozen times, I'll agree with you.

NZ were fortunate not to have been carded earlier that's for sure.
Anyway, result stands and overall have to say NZ deserved win. England though not playing since summer can definitely take heart from that, they will be much sharper next match and as it's against Australia should be confident of decent win.
I do though want to see changes to 23. How long will SB remain faithful to Ford and Cole.
I'd like to see Sleightholme, Hill and F Smith in 23.
I also think England can go 5-3 bench for Australia.

Pretty poor display from England in a low-quality game littered with errors. I've generally felt England have put in good performances v top nations under Borthwick, even if they haven't always come out on the right side, but today was both a bad result and a poor performance. Composure lacking at key times and attack was poor.

Three tries to one tells the story, as does England's only try being the result of an interception.

Bright spots are Smith starting to come into his own in the 10 position, after taking a while to get settled, and the blossoming potential of Feyi-Waboso.

Hope for a lot better next week v Australia.

Think you're a bit glass half empty there Duty. NZ were so good in attack Eng were clinging on at times but didn't capitulate. Maybe an excuse but NZ played 8 Tests since summer when England played them.
I thought Spencer, Smith, Lawrence all really good. As were CCS, Earl Stuart.
If England NZ played again next week I'd be reasonably confident.

Duty281 wrote:Pretty poor display from England in a low-quality game littered with errors. I've generally felt England have put in good performances v top nations under Borthwick, even if they haven't always come out on the right side, but today was both a bad result and a poor performance. Composure lacking at key times and attack was poor.

Three tries to one tells the story, as does England's only try being the result of an interception.

Bright spots are Smith starting to come into his own in the 10 position, after taking a while to get settled, and the blossoming potential of Feyi-Waboso.

Hope for a lot better next week v Australia.

Maybe England would have scored more tries if NZ didn't keep tackling supporting runners without the ball or if NZ had been carded before time was almost up?

Stop whinging about the ref FFS - it make you look like bad losers. from this sort of neutrals perspective the ref favoured no one side. England were constantly offside, got very lucky with the scrum pens etc. Refs will always miss stuff and all sides think they are hard done by

Easy Tiger. Think most neutrals would agree ref was quite lenient regards off ball tackles. However, no excuses as NZ deserved win.

TJ wrote:Stop whinging about the ref FFS - it make you look like bad losers.  from this sort of neutrals perspective the ref favoured no one side.  England were constantly offside, got very lucky with the scrum pens etc.  Refs will always miss stuff and all sides think they are hard done by

Well that made me laugh at least

Poorfour wrote:

Heaf wrote:High tackle on Ford?

Yeah, but why give a penalty when you can just not? I said before the game that I thought this would be decided by the ref, and I think that proved to be the case.

It was decided by the England errors and inability to turn pressure into points. I was fairly disappointed by all the England halfbacks on show. The bench options being downgrades on the starters didn't help. Ford at least showed glimpses of what he brings when actually fit but was realistically lacking. Randall looked out of his depth. Spencer not a great deal better.

As feared the bench forwards offered no carrying threat to take the game to New Zealand they were solid and safe which predictably isn't what we needed. Disappointing from Borthwick who was so good at using the bench for Tigers.

I don't think the off the ball tackles would have resulted in any tries. The knock on however looked like a promising attack and could have made a difference. In days gone by none of the NZ skulduggery would have been penalised so at least we we are making progress. Truth is we let in two very soft tries especially their third. Any professional rugby player should be embarrassed with the attempted tackle.

We are as feared before kickoff a bench away from competing with the top 3. Had we had come consistency in coaching then we would have been better but when you lose two key figures it hurts. First half we over chased in defence but much better second half. NZ looked better prepared and I suspect the rugby championship allowed them to sort out a few issues where we looked disjointed at times.

There are positives but the management unfortunately for me have serious questions. Why bring off your best performing back who nailed all his kicks and what impact do players like dombrant and isekwe bring?

I thought Spencer was pretty good, better than I thought he'd be. I was disappointed Randall didn't have impact I hoped he would.
Bench Dan aside was poor really. Got to be changed for next week.