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.

This was kind of an odd match.  Both teams had their shots at it; the ABs did what they do and found a way to eke it out.  But it very fine lines between them.  Just a few quick thoughts:  
Marcus Smith was very good overall.  IFW is incredible and becoming more incredibler.
I thought Lawrence was quite good, and as long as England have two playmakers he doesn't need to be that second receiver/distributor at 12. And that seems to help his game.  
Itoje was also very good.  And T Curry surprised me as I didn't think he had it in him, to be fair.  And have to give credit to Stuart for his scrum performance.  
It's a bit hard to pin down Spencer's game.  He got to the breakdowns quickly and got some passes off quickly, but really posed no attacking threat.  
As a unit the subs were not terribly good.  The front row and the halfbacks particularly so.  Ford didn't seem ready to go and it makes me wonder what they were looking at in training and the decision making process around bringing him on. Or, frankly having him in the 23.  This is not on Ford, but on the coaches.  Randall did not look close to the player he is with Bristol. That is a big disappointment. And, do they practice executing drop kicks any more? It seemed half the population of New Zealand was closing on Ford for his drop kick attempt.
Despite everything, for England it came down to a few defensive errors, dropped passes in promising positions, missing some kicks(!) and just moments like these cost England. And against NZ, you can't do that.

On to next week.....

Yoda wrote:
. Why bring off your best performing back who nailed all his kicks and what impact do players like dombrant and isekwe bring?

Are we pretending the drop goal attempts didn't happen? They both looked like I kicked them.

Marcus Smith looked good in patches, the first quarter excellent after that somewhat muted. The attack didn't spark and we had the possession and territory.

You'd back a fit and firing Ford to bang over that kick and the drop goal, he clearly wasn't fit. I presume he's trained well and England wanted his leadership.

Dombrandt and Isiekwe will be lucky to be in the squad for next weekend. Then again I thought they were lucky to be in this week so who knows.

Hadn't forgotten the drop goals but he threatened the line, kicked a quality 50:22 and can at least tackle. Drop goals aside a very good performance.

What a mess England made of that last few minutes. You couldn't have asked for a better platform to set up a drop goal or eak out a penalty - camped in the 22 for a while, then scrum 10m out in front of the posts! The players looked utterly clueless on what to do and basically did everything you shouldn't do. Surely they train for these types of scenarios?

It's not often the ABs gift you those types of opportunities and England didn't take it!

RDW wrote:What a mess England made of that last few minutes. You couldn't have asked for a better platform to set up a drop goal or eak out a penalty - camped in the 22 for a while, then scrum 10m out in front of the posts! The players looked utterly clueless on what to do and basically did everything you shouldn't do. Surely they train for these types of scenarios?

It's not often the ABs gift you those types of opportunities and England didn't take it!

That was odd, indeed. But you are right in the last couple of minutes it seemed as if they were mostly winging it and either did not know the plan for these instances or simply ignored it!

Why did the crowd boo DMac with his ultimately winning kick? Was it just “atmosphere”, or something wind them up?

Good to see Feyi-Waboso make a mockery of Gatland again though. So green FFS.

This was like a combination of the 2023 World Cup semi-final against South Africa, and the 2015 World Cup pool match against Wales.

As in 2023, the front row started leaking penalties as soon as we made changes. As in 2015, we brought George Ford on to close the game out, but sacrificed the back line coherence which had served us well to that point.

Most of the focus is on taking Marcus Smith from the pitch. On the BBC podcast, Chris Ashton was more bemused by the decision to take Spencer off. If Ford was tasked with controlling territory, then Spencer is one of the best at doing that with his kicking game.

Matt Dawson said the final drop goal routine looked like a lot of England players just waiting for Ford to do his thing, rather than working to give him the best platform by occupying the attention of the opposition.

There aren't a lot of postitives after a loss which should have been a win. Borthwick can feel vindicated in trusting the fitness of Tom Curry and Henry Slade. Will Stuart justified his selection, and Ben Spencer had one of his best games, after finally getting a start.

However, his gamble on Ford didn't pay off, and the the forward replacements were all a step down, with the possible exception of Ben Curry. For all the vice captains on the field, there wasn't a great deal of leadership in evidence. You also wonder whether anyone spoke to Ben Earl, after his no-arms tackle gave France the winning penalty during the Six Nations. The fact he did it again, suggests it might not have been properly addressed.

I guess we have to hope the young front row kids develop quick or we're in trouble....

Hope no-one here still thinks Dan Cole is best scrummager Eng has got, sorry but bye bye time. As soon as front row replaced Eng struggled. OK Dan and Baxter were there as well but at least they have time on their side and Dan so good in loose.
I was pleasantly surprised how well Stuart played, my fear is in past he has blown hot and cold. Hopefully now more consistent and he was good yesterday.
Just have to bring in U20s lads soon.

Oh such woe! I am suffering a little dehydration for some reason whilst wizzing home to Paris on Eurostar. I am getting fed up with paying all this £ to watch yet more poor England performances. Victories over NZ are prized commodities and we blew it yesterday yet again. I need to rewatch the action as you miss so much in the ground, but the last 15 mins felt inevitable. On the other England thread I wrote before the match that I feared Ford would come on to ´close the game down’ even if Marcus was playing well and how risky and unnecessary this would be. I really do think that Carling called it right in the 6Ns when talked about a data straight jacket. I think Borthwick relies on data and/or pre-planned subs without thinking more instinctively about how a game is going. I thought about what wonders it would do for Marcus to play the whole match and lead England to a statement win. So frustrating. I really think Borthwick is a fabulous detailed coach for lineouts etc but not suited for the head role.
And what happened in the scrums in the last 20 mins? Was it all Baxter or was Cole struggling as well? Overall we had no threat at all and never looked like scoring a try. We lacked ball carriers as predicted. I cannot believe that Ted Hill, Willis, Pearson are all ignored whilst Dombrandt and others get an unjustified look in. The 9s were poor and no doubt JVP will now get a chance. Also disappointing again was Freeman especially in the air and he is not making a good impression at international level so far.

I thought Spencer was good, was disappointed how little impact Randall had when he got on.
I think we might see Freddie Steward back in 23, specifically for aerial ability.

As ever hard to see how Dombrandt, Slade, Ford are there. Issue is I don't see SB dropping Slade or Ford.

GB&R has a new match review podcast, featuring Charlie Morgan of the Telegraph and Alex (not Andy) Goode. The first one is a look at yesterday's match.



Goode is another who says the substitutions felt premeditated, when the momentum in the game favoured letting the half-backs stay on longer.

hugehandoff wrote:Oh such woe! I am suffering a little dehydration for some reason whilst wizzing home to Paris on Eurostar. I am getting fed up with paying all this £ to watch yet more poor England performances. Victories over NZ are prized commodities and we blew it yesterday yet again. I need to rewatch the action as you miss so much in the ground, but the last 15 mins felt inevitable. On the other England thread I wrote before the match that I feared Ford would come on to ´close the game down’ even if Marcus was playing well and how risky and unnecessary this would be. I really do think that Carling called it right in the 6Ns when talked about a data straight jacket. I think Borthwick relies on data and/or pre-planned subs without thinking more instinctively about how a game is going. I thought about what wonders it would do for Marcus to play the whole match and lead England to a statement win. So frustrating. I really think Borthwick is a fabulous detailed coach for lineouts etc but not suited for the head role.
And what happened in the scrums in the last 20 mins? Was it all Baxter or was Cole struggling as well? Overall we had no threat at all and never looked like scoring a try. We lacked ball carriers as predicted. I cannot believe that Ted Hill, Willis, Pearson are all ignored whilst Dombrandt and others get an unjustified look in. The 9s were poor and no doubt JVP will now get a chance. Also disappointing again was Freeman especially in the air and he is not making a good impression at international level so far.

I think a lot of people are coming down on the decision to replace the starting halfbacks as at least one of the critical keys to the AB win. To me, totally reasonable. I had said before the match I would have preferred a Randall-Smith combination and then have Spencer-Ford if the game needed seeing off. Well, I was about 50% half-correct with that one: Spencer had started and was playing decently with Smith. To keep them on and working would have been the correct decision.

To be fair, I don't think anyone would have anticipated how poorly England would play as more of the subs came on. And Randall seemed over his head and flustered, and that was surprising and unfortunate. There was no one - apparently - taking control at the end and ensuring England had NZ in the best position for the drop goal. Not even sure who was captain at that point.

Really wonder about selection for the A game next week and the Springbok match the following weekend. The only other 10 in camp was Fin. If he gets the start, which he should, then who would be the backup 10? Furbank? And who would be the 9? And, of course, maybe the flankers in the subs bench need an adjustment or so.

Really wonder about selection for the A game next week and the Springbok match the following weekend. The only other 10 in camp was Fin. If he gets the start, which he should, then who would be the backup 10? Furbank?

What so you are dropping Marcus? Really?

Marcus is starting 10, end of. Fin on bench in place of Ford.
Spencer did well enough to keep place I thought even though I was doubtful prior to match but he was good. Randall a big disappointment as I was hoping he'd bring real spark. Maybe we see JvP bench now.

mountain man wrote:

Really wonder about selection for the A game next week and the Springbok match the following weekend. The only other 10 in camp was Fin. If he gets the start, which he should, then who would be the backup 10? Furbank?

What so you are dropping Marcus? Really?

Marcus is starting 10, end of. Fin on bench in place of Ford.
Spencer did well enough to keep place I thought even though I was doubtful prior to match but he was good. Randall a big disappointment as I was hoping he'd bring real spark. Maybe we see JvP bench now.

Not dropping Marcus at all.  I thought the Australia A match was next weekend, my mistake.

My feeling was that I did not see the benefit of him playing in the A side match.  Fin needs the experience if he needs to come on and the A game is the only time to get it.  The experience will be helpful if someone gets hurt or if he needs to be on the bench.  

But I agree, Smith to start and Ford needs to be replaced by Fin, with no analytically driven automatic substitution at 65 mins, 32 seconds (or whatever). And what to do with the subs front row?

And I agree with you about Spencer and Randall.  I was absolutely surprised Spencer went as well as he did, and also that Randall was as poor as he looked. I wonder if Randall will be given the start in that A game to get him back in the saddle as quickly as possible without playing in a full international.

Ah sorry, when you say A game thought you meant Australia.

For me the main issue is the lack of creating space for the backs.  Where were the patterns to break down the defense?  England had enough ball and territory to win but simply failed to put backs in space enough.  You have some good outside backs but they just didn't get the ball in space enough.

Many ways to do it - tying defenders in with close in runs, using (what squidge calls) the Huipiloto formation where as the 9 takes the ball 4 players go into a diamond formation in the 10 position keeping defenders guessing who takes it at first receiver and who gets the pass from them.  Effective dummy runners etc etc

Most of the game seemed to be simple one out runners or just passing down the line and very predictable which is why England made half the breaks, half the m carried and half the passes of NZ.

Is it the game plan?  Is it the skillsets?  I am not sure but its dull and stodgy rugby

The other thing for me is lack of ambition.  Taking a pen kick to goal particularly the 3rd ( or was it 4th) one where england had all the momentum.  You do not beat the all blacks without scoring tries

NZ YouTube pundit, who had England to win before the match.

Not sure if it's been mentioned earlier but my absolute favourite part of the game was when Furbank(or was it Freeman) gave the pass to IFW he fell and "ACCIDENTALLY" slide tackled the chasing defender.
As a former back I salute that level of sh*thousery and quick thinking

To be fair, I don't think anyone would have anticipated how poorly England would play as more of the subs came on.  And Randall seemed over his head and flustered, and that was surprising and unfortunate.  There was no one - apparently - taking control at the end and ensuring England had NZ in the best position for the drop goal.  Not even sure who was captain at that point.  

Really wonder about selection for the A game next week and the Springbok match the following weekend.  The only other 10 in camp was Fin.  If he gets the start, which he should, then who would be the backup 10?  Furbank?  And who would be the 9?    And, of course, maybe the flankers in the subs bench need an adjustment or so.  [/quote]

I said beforehand that this was probably the weakest bench I have ever seen. So not a great surprise that they had a poor impact. I don't blame George at all as he has not been playing lately so a coaching fault. Far better to have had Finn as the back up 10 as he is match sharp. I agree that Randall was a real disappointment but he deserved his chance, but sadly did not take it and he should now miss out. You point out that no one was taking control at the end and yet we had 4 vice captains on the day! Between Cole, Itoje, Slade and Ford we had enough senior players to know what to do. Of course we should not be discussing this if that last scrum was decent and the DG went over. All very frustrating.

carpet baboon wrote:Not sure if it's been mentioned earlier but my absolute favourite part of the game was when Furbank(or was it Freeman) gave the pass to IFW he fell and "ACCIDENTALLY" slide tackled the chasing defender.
As a former back I salute that level of sh*thousery and quick thinking

I saw that and thought the tmo would chalk it off.

TJ wrote:For me the main issue is the lack of creating space for the backs.  Where were the patterns to break down the defense?  England had enough ball and territory to win but simply failed to put backs in space enough.  You have some good outside backs but they just didn't get the ball in space enough.

Many ways to do it - tying defenders in with close in runs, using (what squidge calls) the Huipiloto formation where as the 9 takes the ball 4 players go into a diamond formation in the 10 position keeping defenders guessing who takes it at first receiver and who gets the pass from them.  Effective dummy runners etc etc

Most of the game seemed to be simple one out runners or just passing down the line and very predictable which is why England made half the breaks, half the m carried and half the passes of NZ.

Is it the game plan?  Is it the skillsets?  I am not sure but its dull and stodgy rugby

The other thing for me is lack of ambition.  Taking a pen kick to goal particularly the 3rd ( or was it 4th) one where england had all the momentum.  You do not beat the all blacks without scoring tries

A lack of ambition plus Slade being very rusty (well played to him in the circumstances) and not having a Manu type runner to get us over the gain line and on the front foot. That would help create opportunities for the more fleet footed.

Ben Youngs and Anthony Watson discuss the last play

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3NjR1jpZLuF0ibNwmG4vu2?si=a0751149825f4a7e

Youngs thinks England overcomplicated things from the start, by lining up Ford and Furbank behind the scrum. As NZ were a man down, he says we should have stacked the left, and had two men on the right.

He credits Randall with getting the ball out of that poor scrum, as the referee could have given a penalty to the All Blacks if it had gone any longer. If we were set the way Youngs preferred, then Randall would have had options to deal with that bad ball, and set us up for a try, to take advantage of the extra man. Instead, he had to spin to find which way Ford and Furbank had gone, so the defence had already shut us down by the time Ford took the ball.

Youngs recalls how Ford said on an earlier episode how the best time to take a drop goal is when no-one is expecting it. After the mix-up at the scrum, everyone on the pitch expected the drop.

Anthony Watson disagrees, saying the set-up was a good option but the poor scrum and breakdown in communication killed the advantage. He thinks New Zealand's line speed could have pressured Youngs' set-up.

Youngs is disappointed we didn't attack NZ more, as he feels their defence would have creaked. He wonders whether the appearance of a new defence coach means England spent more time on that again, rather than attack.

He noted the occasion when Smith went for a drop goal on penalty advantage, when there was an option to play more phases. He suspects that's something Smith was encouraged to do.

Out of a total of 87 carries, our top 3 carriers were Earl (17), Feyi-Waboso (9) and Smith (8). Both men wonder why players like Genge, CCS and Martin weren't carrying it more. Watson notes that Earl was rarely in a mismatch, where he could make use of his footwork, as Sititi did for NZ.

On the substitions, Youngs didn't like Genge and George coming off so early. He wants Genge going deep in matches, and thinks George as captain needs to be in the game longer. He also thinks Spencer and Smith should have been allowed to see the game out. It feels to Youngs like these are premeditated changes, which don't account for the feel of the game.

Watson wonders whether Borthwick wanted Randall and Ford to push the game, rather than close it out. Randall is not someone who you choose to close it down. However, he also believes Smith should have been kept on, as he is good at exploiting tired players later in the game. Watson and Youngs both say they would have disliked being substituted on 63 minutes.

Just to clear up something that seems to be confusing people: next week is NOT the A game; it is a full test against a full strength Australia.

The A game is on 17 November at the Stoop, and will have a completely different squad and set of coaches.

Instead, he had to spin to find which way Ford and Furbank had gone, so the defence had already shut us down by the time Ford took the ball.

He should have known which way they were going. Was the spin to deceive the ABs or was it genuine confusion as to which side to go?

TJ wrote:

Instead, he had to spin to find which way Ford and Furbank had gone, so the defence had already shut us down by the time Ford took the ball.

He should have known which way they were going.  Was the spin to deceive the ABs or was it genuine confusion as to which side to go?

I think the point was that he had to face away from the direction of play to retrieve the ball before the scrum got penalised.

Youngs & Watson for those who prefer YouTube

hugehandoff wrote:

TJ wrote:For me the main issue is the lack of creating space for the backs.  Where were the patterns to break down the defense?  England had enough ball and territory to win but simply failed to put backs in space enough.  You have some good outside backs but they just didn't get the ball in space enough.

The other thing for me is lack of ambition.  Taking a pen kick to goal particularly the 3rd ( or was it 4th) one where england had all the momentum.  You do not beat the all blacks without scoring tries

A lack of ambition plus Slade being very rusty (well played to him in the circumstances) and not having a Manu type runner to get us over the gain line and on the front foot. That would help create opportunities for the more fleet footed.

I don't fully buy either the "lack of creating space" or the "lack of ambition" arguments. England did a pretty good job of getting into the AB 22 right up until the death; what they lacked was the ability to get over the try line. In large part that was down to the All Blacks' willingness to take out players off the ball.

I suspect from how consistently England took the 3 points option that they had expected it, and were probably under instructions to bide their time until the ABs did it once too often and got a warning to force them to back off or even a card. And they got the warning, and then another one...

What England didn't have was an effective backup plan, though when your receivers are being taken out every time they have a sniff of catching the ball there are only a limited number of options. Maybe a Huipolotu formation would have worked, because if you take out one option then there are others... but that has taken Toonie a while to build (and it makes a big difference having a ball player like Huw Jones in the backline - something that also worked very well for Quins when he was there), and Eddie tried to create something like it but it was painfully obvious that the teams he was picking were struggling to get in the right position to give the 10 options.

In some ways, the interception was the worst thing that could have happened for England, because it gave them an apparently defensible lead without much option to build on it. Contrast that with the 2012 victory, where England build a lead through kicking penalties but when the All Blacks came back around half time the team collectively decided that they'd have to chance their arm and score some tries.

On reflection, I think the bench was probably designed with that in mind - much better suited for an open game where England had to attack rather than defend a lead, and much better suited to having Smith at 10 or 15 to exploit whatever space there was. It wasn't a bench to close the game down and grind out a win.

For me the lack of ambition comes from England's reluctance to go through more than a few phases at a time. They tend to maybe go through three phases max before a box kick. What England does it does very very well however, to move to the next level they need to build on their phase play a bit and trust their phase attack a bit more and go out to kill teams off rather than sitting back and defending leads.

Collapse2005 wrote:For me the lack of ambition comes from England's reluctance to go through more than a few phases at a time. They tend to maybe go through three phases max before a box kick. What England does it does very very well however, to move to the next level they need to build on their phase play a bit and trust their phase attack a bit more and go out to kill teams off rather than sitting back and defending leads.

The All Blacks were doing the same, though - a lot of their attacking possession in the first half came from smart kicks, because the England defence was shutting them down on or behind the gain line. The main differences are that they found and exploited a particular vulnerability on the wings, and that England weren't prepared to offend to shut down the attack (a lot has been made of England being offside in defence, but I don't think they were - they were disciplined in forming and holding a straight line, and in a lot of phases they had the closest outfield player checking the ball to trigger the rush rather than reacting to the opposition. Unlike a lot of blitz defences, they weren't creeping forwards and I think that's what kept them in the ref's good books.)

Poorfour - England made very few breaks because they did not manipulate defenses to create gaps.  there are many different ways of manipulating defenses none of which england used.  NZ did - from having multiple potential receivers in a diamond ( the Huipiloto formation) to chips over the top to attacking kicks on the front foot

Watch Squidges analysis of the Scotland attack to see how it can be done.  Scotland do not possess the bludgeon so have to try the rapier.  England only tried the bludgeon despite having a player in Smith who can wield a rapier.  NZ have both and used them well


NZ where not kicking on the back foot in desperation mainly - they were kicking intelligently to create spaces or to create turnover chances

Englands midfield blitz were offside all game - like most teams

I read somewhere that maybe Borthwick has devoted the majority of training time to defence as obviously we have another new coach in that area. Attack may have been neglected, which was the issue up to the Scotland match. It reflects his dull nature, but hopefully Wigglesworth is allowed a little time to get England creating effectively for this Saturday. We really fired zero shots last Sat.

hugehandoff wrote:I read somewhere that maybe Borthwick has devoted the majority of training time to defence as obviously we have another new coach in that area. Attack may have been neglected, which was the issue up to the Scotland match. It reflects his dull nature, but hopefully Wigglesworth is allowed a little time to get England creating effectively for this Saturday. We really fired zero shots last Sat.

Well that is essentially what Erasmus have done when he took over in 2018. First went back to the basics with traditional strengths of SA rugby, set piece, tacticalkicking and defence.Nienaber at the time said it takes 14 matches forplayers to believe in a new defensive system.

After 2019 we missed 2020 so there was a season lost in evolution and building depth.

Erasmus has also managed toexperiment a load of new players in building squad depth, which I think is the most depth we have ever had.

With the basic principles still in place and having added the bomb squad as now part of South African lore, he and Tone Brown is now working on attack minded play and tweaking the defnece to work with the new attacking play.

It takes time to evolve a game plan, fortunatelyfor us Rassie has the time to do it, the question is how much time does Borthwick get? He most likely have to get results sooner than later as Idoubt he will be given two world cup cycles to get it right.

We were behind on all metrics so did well to be within touching distance. We missed loads of tackles because we didn't get the blitz quite right, especially in the first half. NZ did a good job of reading and neutralising our kicking game and their counter attack is still the best in the world. Alot of credit should be given to the kiwis who dare I say it look like much better team with barrett at 10. We are agonisingly close to finding out way but a couple of players away from the magic formula. All we need is a clever innovative coach...

hugehandoff wrote:I read somewhere that maybe Borthwick has devoted the majority of training time to defence as obviously we have another new coach in that area. Attack may have been neglected, which was the issue up to the Scotland match. It reflects his dull nature, but hopefully Wigglesworth is allowed a little time to get England creating effectively for this Saturday. We really fired zero shots last Sat.

Maybe but the team is pretty much exact same as in summer, Mitchell aside so I'd hope that attacking plays may not have changed much in view of concentrating on defence. But that Aside I don't think Wigglesworth is the  greatest attack coach either going on what we have seen.

I agree with Yoda, I think England are only a few players in key positions away from being a really good team. Issue appears one or two not getting a chance.

mountain man wrote:

hugehandoff wrote:I read somewhere that maybe Borthwick has devoted the majority of training time to defence as obviously we have another new coach in that area. Attack may have been neglected, which was the issue up to the Scotland match. It reflects his dull nature, but hopefully Wigglesworth is allowed a little time to get England creating effectively for this Saturday. We really fired zero shots last Sat.

Maybe but the team is pretty much exact same as in summer, Mitchell aside so I'd hope that attacking plays may not have changed much in view of concentrating on defence. But that side I don't think Wigglesworth is the  greatest attack coach either going on what we have seen.

But you still need to practice them. Knowing how to take a high ball is different from actually doing it! Lots of practice and repetitions required. Same with the attack. We have surprised people with our try scoring ability in recent matches so I am prepared to give Wigglesworth a little wiggle room, but Borthwick must continue to prioritise it as much as defence and set piece plays.

Of course need practice but assuming same attacking plays then actually learning them shouldn't be required was what I'm getting at. It's logical to me at least, that if defence is concentrated on then the coaches must be confident the players know attack moves.
Then again defence is pretty same so again how long does it take.
I think it was more the factor England hadn't played together since summer so it almost always takes them a game to get up to speed, can see this in 6N. I suspect they'll be much more cohesive on Saturday. Shame can't play NZ again to see if progress really does happen as Aus will present a different challenge and likely not as tough.