England U20 vs New Zealand U20 JWC final

First topic message reminder :

England:

1.Vunipola
2.Haywood
3.Thomas
4.Launchbury
5. Matthews
6. Jones
7. Kvesic
8. Gray

9. Cook
10 Ford

11. Wade
12. Farrell
13. Daly
14. Short
15. Ransom

Bench: (16-22) Rob Buchanan, Will Collier, Sam Twomey, Matt Everard, Dan Robson, Ryan Mills, Marland Yarde.


New Zealand

1 Solomona Sakalia
2 Codie Taylor
3 Ben Tameifuna
4 Steven Luatua
5 Brodie Rettalick
6 Brad Shields
7 Sam Cane
8 Luke Whitelock (C)
9 TJ Perenara
10 Gareth Anscombe
11 Charles Piutau
12 Lima Sopoaga
13 Francis Saili
14 Mitchell Scott
15 Beauden Barrett

16 Sefo Setefano
17 Michael Kainga
18 Dominic Bird
19 Carl Axtens
20 Brad Weber
21 Rhys Llewellyn
22 Waisake Naholo

Congrats to them again.

Well done England. Took em to the edge. No other side in the World could.
Congrats BB's. Good choice of ref - as per.

Looked like fitness played a part as English errors mounted up along with NZ breakdown supremacy in the last 20.

England played bloody well and looked adventurous. Hope some of these guys make it into the full team soon as I liked how enterprising the backs were.

Anscombe was awesome under pressure and reminded me of Morne Steyn. If the English kicker had done the same it could very well have been different.

Congratulations NZ.....again!

Was hoping England would pull it off but New Zealand are brilliant at this level.

I would like to say well played Baby Blacks.

And a very well done to England 2 cracking teams in the final match.

If i have any grievence it is Gareth Askham( New Zealand fly half)
Either he should of been punished for 2 early tackles(tacke the man with out the ball)or his timing was spot on....And the scrum, how did NZ not get penalised for for the scrum going up.

But having said that it does take away the final result of the game.
New Zealand won fair and square.

Well played to both teams.

majesticimperialman wrote:
Either he should of been punished for 2 early tackles(tacke the man with out the ball)or his timing was spot on

Rule of thumb if you aren't sure even after instant replay its play on.

majesticimperialman wrote:I would like to say well played Baby Blacks.

And a very well done to England 2 cracking teams in the final match.

If i have any grievence it is Gareth Askham( New Zealand fly half)
Either he should of been punished for 2 early tackles(tacke the man with out the ball)or his timing was spot on....And the scrum, how did NZ not get penalised for for the scrum going up.

But having said that it does take away the final result of the game.
New Zealand won fair and square.

Well played to both teams.

England smashed their scrum all day for no reward, they stood up so many times. Considering the set piece was a major part of our plan, it was really unfortunate that the ref decided not to see these obvious offences. Look, I'm going to leave the carping at that. Well done the BB, I'm sure some of those lads are going to go on to be fantastic internationals.

That was an absolutely cracking game!

Congrats to the Baby Blacks for the win and to England for keeping toe-to-toe for the majority of the game. Some outstanding performances there. Anscombe was immaculate.

Launchbury and Kvesic were suberb and the English scrum was (again) very solid. Vunipola had good offloading and strength.

England started to tire and make mistakes in the last 15 and Ford's radar went a bit haywire but a lot of that was down to pressure as the BBs turned the screw. A few telling moments were the difference such as the scrum on the BBs 5-metre line that they eventually got a penalty from. A try there and who knows?

I think the BBs just deserved to pinch it, but a great contest. I'm disappointed England couldn't quite do it, but elated by the way the boys played. These sides are definitely 1 and 2 at this level.

I've loved this tournament. Shame it's over now

Well done England, you were robbed by a NZ team that lived on 80% hype for most of this tournament. Ref was bloody appalling.

disneychilly wrote:Looked like fitness played a part as English errors mounted up along with NZ breakdown supremacy in the last 20.

England played bloody well and looked adventurous. Hope some of these guys make it into the full team soon as I liked how enterprising the backs were.

Anscombe was awesome under pressure and reminded me of Morne Steyn. If the English kicker had done the same it could very well have been different.

I hope so too. It's about time we got back to competing with the likes of Ireland. hopefully the talent at this level can help us too do that.

Pot Hale wrote:Well done England, you were robbed by a NZ team that lived on 80% hype for most of this tournament. Ref was bloody appalling.

Na they lost because they didn't take their chances and they didn't kick their points.
Still at least for Wales that 92-0 loss is looking like an anomalous result. How can Wales lose 19 - 26 to England in the U20 Six Nations, yet lose to New Zealand by such a margin, then England run New Zealand so close?!?!?

Indeed, Ford missed crucial kicks and Anscombe did not, there's the difference.

Still, I think Eng have come a long way at this level. NZ are in a class of their own and Eng were not stuffed like many.

Gentlemen,I hope this board is not going to degenerate into 606 type wumming.
Going on about selection policy,of England is as boring as the All Backs are all
Pacific island poachers,or all blacks are RWC chokers.
Beg to differ,and leave it at that.

Well done bith sides,England ran them close as I stated earlier the scrum was a NZ weakness,
But just like Australia the wore England down in the last 20minutes,you have
go flat out the full 80 and beyond to beat them.
You take all your scoring chances or end up on the short end,that was`nt robbery superior fitness told.

Great game, its clear that the England team is on par with that of the BB's. I'm still shocked how despite England total dominance in the scrum the ref failed to ping the NZ pack for standing up, going to ground, and letting their flankers unbind and leave the back of the scrum at will. On antother day with another ref England would have won that game.
The most promising thing for me is that many of the England players are either 1 or two years younger than their NZ counterparts. The NZ team will be totaly disbanded and reformed for next year where many of the England team will have anther one or two years together. For these younger English players to go toe to toe with NZ is great news for the future.

Definitely not robbery. I felt England played more rugby, but NZ showed their class by capitalising on more of their opportunities, that's the mark of champions. The main thing I hope the England players take from that game is not to fear NZ. If they had played with a more level head at times and trusted in their phases I think they could have pushed them even further.

Congratulations to NZ again, very deserving winners.

Pot Hale wrote:Well done England, you were robbed by a NZ team that lived on 80% hype for most of this tournament. Ref was bloody appalling.

That's a ridiculous statement. Lived on 80% hype? They created said hype by thumping all and sundry before. Add that to being perfect at this level and you can't say they're overrated. Teams with great records are often criticised as being overrated. Wonder why that is.

Ref did make some errors but both sides were hard done by on occasion.

AlynDavies wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Well done England, you were robbed by a NZ team that lived on 80% hype for most of this tournament. Ref was bloody appalling.

Na they lost because they didn't take their chances and they didn't kick their points.
Still at least for Wales that 92-0 loss is looking like an anomalous result. How can Wales lose 19 - 26 to England in the U20 Six Nations, yet lose to New Zealand by such a margin, then England run New Zealand so close?!?!?

I agree, I don't think that result is really reflective of the quality of the Welsh team. I didn't see the game, but I can imagine that the Welsh lads gave up at some point and the BB punish ANY drop in intensity/ concentration. It might just be down to the fact that the Welsh lads don't have the mental resilience yet.

The most "appalling" bit of refereeing occurred when England were awarded a try when the winger ran into touch first surely?

Full time score of 33-15 might have been a more genuine representation of where the teams are at.

A spirited performance by England, but again more proof that:

a) forwards don't win matches
b) you need to turn up with more than a set piece and a percentages kicking game to win against a quality rugby team.

Congratulations to the unbeaten, 4 times world champions but yet apparently "over-hyped" Baby Blacks

TheGreyGhost wrote:The most "appalling" bit of refereeing occurred when England were awarded a try when the winger ran into touch first surely?

Full time score of 33-15 might have been a more genuine representation of where the teams are at.

A spirited performance by England, but again more proof that:

a) forwards don't win matches
b) you need to turn up with more than a set piece and a percentages kicking game to win against a quality rugby team.

Congratulations to the unbeaten, 4 times world champions but yet apparently "over-hyped" Baby Blacks

That would be touch-judgery would it not - as opposed to refereeing? A brief moment in time missed by the bat of an errant TJ's eye?

In the one area of the game that NZ were clearly bested, England got nothing due to some poor refereeing.

No matter, the most important element to take away from the game is that our kids can compete with yours - wont be long now... make the most of it.

So proud of the lads, they played all the rugby. Completely different from the last two finals where England were totally outclassed, this one could have gone either way. I said before the game that New Zealand would teach England how good you have to be to beat the ABs and that's exactly what happened. England were bl00dy good, but still couldn't do it.

No complaints about the result, in the end it was the extra power and experience of this much older BBs team that saw them through. That's not a dig by the way, New Zealand is the only place that has the strength in depth to rely on a single year group every season rather than having to draft up younger players, in itself a sign of the strength of the game in that country.

Watch out for England next year, a lot of those guys will be back bigger and stronger and a lot more experienced.

"That would be touch-judgery would it not - as opposed to refereeing? A brief moment in time missed by the bat of an errant TJ's eye?" no, assistant referee, hence refereeing.

England had a good scrum, but NZ managed to handle the pressure. If anything I thought England got away with crooked feeds to both lineout and scrum all day, add that to the non-try you were awarded and I have to say you got the rub of the green from the officials.

"much older and more experienced" ??

It's all U20's! they can't have been that much older or experienced. Try to keep the sour grapes under control there England fans. You performed creditably and made a game of it, but just lacked composure. Your goal kicker in particular, seemed to choke under the pressure.

TheGreyGhost wrote:"much older and more experienced" ??

Were you trying to excerpt from this?

Montague Withnail wrote:a lot of those guys will be back bigger and stronger and a lot more experienced.

You still haven't quite grasped quoting yet have you.

John what was said was:

in the end it was the extra power and experience of this much older BBs team that saw them through

Which to be fair is kind of a dopey comment. It is a tournament designed for youths of a certain age. The extra experience and age is a bit of a grasping at straws.

It was New Zealands ability to run from all over the park. So clinical, can score from anywhere.

Good game, I really enjoyed it.

It's still not what GreyGhost put into quote marks though.

Guys like Kvesic, Daly, Ransom, Mills, Robson and Twomy have had one less year in the system. It makes a big difference at that age, at least in my opinion anyway, I know there was huge difference in my play between my last year at school and my first year at university and there is a significant physical change as well. In Ford's case it's two years, he's still eligible for the U18s.

As I said, it's impressive that New Zealand almost never feel the need to promote the younger guys.

Well done BB's. Come home and show the big boys how to keep winning.

Well done to the England team. Excellent pressure on our boys particularly in the second half and the try under the post should have been just reward at that point. With more replays another TMO might have awarded it given it appeared to at least scrape the ground.

Long long spells where we didnt have the ball to compete. Reminded me of the last England AB's game and the semi against Oz in 2003 where we were just starved of the ball.

A lot can be learned from that match.

Well done to both teams. Worth getting up at 4.30am for thats for sure.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that the NZ team is much older and more experienced. they may be slightly older, but they all have to be under 20. they are actually at a distinct disadvantage to all the northern hemisphere teams when it comes to experience. The European sides have regualr age group competitions that the southern teams don't. Whist the NZ team is still building, this was an English team, the core of which had played together over the last 5 years and had a 6 nations tournement to build on. Many, if not all the english tea, are part of academies, and a number of them play for their senior teams.

The teams were good. England were good enough to win the game. Lets keep it real.....

Just a nice preview of the moaning that will go on when England get knocked out in October.

Sigh.

I thought it was a good game. Full marks to NZ for not naming any nationals of the opposing side in the team

Geez Grey...sometimes I wonder...has 5 early exits not taught you anything...?

maestegmafia wrote:

hmmm

Wales just beat Ireland at U 20s 38-24

England beat Ireland U 20s 33-25

Mathmatically that means England aren't likely to loose by a 90+ margin but it could be close.

It must annoy you so much that England U20's did lose by the smallest ever margin to NZ U20's of any any team in the history of this tournament.

A brilliant match,I thought the referee on the whole had a good match England
played exceptionally well.
There were two decidely iffy tries,one for each side The first English try Wade
was plainly in touch[4 seperate replays proved it].The match commentators said nothing.Bu t Ieuen Evans correctly stated it should have gone to the TMO.
Last Nz try early tackle by Anscombe mso should have been disallowed.
Despite Englands heroics,fact is once NZ got there nose in front it stayed that way.England had a decided edge at scrum time,but the lineout throws to the tail by both sides was decidely poor.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

England had a good scrum, but NZ managed to handle the pressure.

Yes, it's a good way of handling the pressure by standing up at every scrum.

TheGreyGhost wrote: If anything I thought England got away with crooked feeds to both lineout and scrum all day

Just like NZ did, plus NZ stood up at most scrums and weren't penalised for it.

TheGreyGhost wrote:add that to the non-try you were awarded and I have to say you got the rub of the green from the officials.

Really ? Even with the try that was disallowed even though the ball was CLEARLY grounded over the line before the NZ player took possession of it ?

TheGreyGhost wrote:Your goal kicker in particular, seemed to choke under the pressure.

Something the full NZ side has been guilty of for the last 24 years.

A spirited performance by England, but again more proof that:

a) forwards don't win matches

---------------------------------

Thought this was a pretty churlish comment. I can see why the full England team has got stick for 10 man rugby before, and some of our age grade teams, but this team clearly tried to play some rugby. In some senses you could argue that the ABs were the ones looking to keep it tight and play the percentages.

Either way, it was a good and close contest. Well done ABs and those supporters who didn't feel the need to gloat or undermine the achievements of England.

Oh, and i don't think it influenced the result, but i agree that the scrum was terribly reffed.

Can't tell you how sad some of the comments on this thread post match leave me feeling - this was a good game, played to what I thought was a pretty high standard by two highly committed teams, with the right team winning the match in the end. As a neutral i thoroughly enjoyed this spectacle of rugby and some of the daft jibes and remarks leave me wondering just how much some posters know about rugby?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Can't tell you how sad some of the comments on this thread post match leave me feeling - this was a good game, played to what I thought was a pretty high standard by two highly committed teams, with the right team winning the match in the end. As a neutral i thoroughly enjoyed this spectacle of rugby and some of the daft jibes and remarks leave me wondering just how much some posters know about rugby?

tell me about it, i kinda hoped it would of been left at 606v1!

Yeah was a good match. Pity the same old idiots ruin the discussion of it. Regardless of the match some people cant help churning up the same rubbish.

"Really ? Even with the try that was disallowed even though the ball was CLEARLY grounded over the line before the NZ player took possession of it ?"

I don't think it was "clearly grounded", with or without a capital letter. He seemed to roll it onto the arm of the defender who did well to hold it up. It may have been the case that the ball scraped the ground, but when the referee calls "try or no try" you need definitive evidence of a try being actually scored, not just a firm belief that one probably was.

I thought it was a shame that the ref called for a TMO review of the first NZ try, and not the first England try which both involved the scoring player being very close to the touch line, and in fact both involved players being out of play. Not that it affected the result, and full credit to him for scoring the try.

Y I Man wrote:Enough of the insults guys, place nice or I start sending nasty pm's

Like Thatcher?

Great effort guys,

Makes me proud to be English the futures bright for English rugby

The try disallowed,the ball was clearly grounded SHORT of the line,the second attempt was on the Nz` players arm and body.correct decision.
Cut out the quibbles a brilliant match,Nz under the pump at scrum but great defence,and goal kicking got them through.
Like other sides in the past by england, SA et al.

I thought England started well. They were playing a well executed territorial game and putting NZ under a lot of pressure.

They were lucky to get the call on the first try, which clearly involved a foot in touch. On the balance of play, they probably deserved a try.

New Zealand by the same token were unlucky to be denied a try in the corner after some accurate counter-attacking play from a flustered clearance on what was the first visit to England's 22.

New Zealand showed great composure in slotting the penalty attempt and then striking on the counter attack.

Beyond this point is where it went wrong for England.

I've seen plenty of posts claiming that England "dominated the game" or "played all the rugby". In reality what happened is that they failed to show the composure under pressure that the BB's had earlier in the game.

The English game plan seemed to either change, or go out of the window. The patient pressure based game evaporated almost immediately in favour of trying to run the ball from everywhere. They were clearly chasing the game in what appeared to be an anxious and desperate way.

The BB defence was stoical, and really not challenged by fairly predictable waves of attack. NZ absorbed the pressure for the most part, and simply took their opportunities to punish England for penalty infringements in their own half, and scored counter attacking tries with great precision when the opportunities arose. This was never more apparent than in the clinching try, which came from mistakes made by England whilst trying to attack from depth.

Had England remained composed and persisted with their pressure game, they may have had enough to win.

As it was, England were lucky to escape 33-22, with the BBs butchering a late counter attack with a two man overlap, by opting to kick the ball into touch, a scoreline of 40-22 would appear to be an absolute hammering.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

As it was, England were lucky to escape 33-22, with the BBs butchering a late counter attack with a two man overlap, by opting to kick the ball into touch, a scoreline of 40-22 would appear to be an absolute hammering.

Ifs, but and maybes.

New Zealand were much more clinical than England and deserved their victory. But England could easily have won on another day and with another ref. They played some great rugby.

In the end the decisive difference between the teams was goalkicking – even without the ref rewarding their scrummaging superiority as much as I would have liked, England had chances to kick points and didn't take them. I'm not sure this is a case of Ford going to pieces under the pressure of a final – he's missed a few easy kicks throughout the tournament. A weak point of his game – but a weak point he's compensated for in other areas, and one we can forgive given his youth and obvious promise.

For an u20s game I thought the quality was very high. How good was England's handling?! One of the most enjoyable matches of rugby I've seen for a while.

Eustace H Plimsoll wrote: How good was England's handling?!

Not good enough apparently.

Not good enough apparently.

I don't think that's what let us down... I was really surprised since earlier in the tournament all the players seemed to have "jubblies for hands"*. But in this game they seemed to have swapped the jubblies for normal hands, or at least covered the jubblies in some sort of adhesive substance... ... That's an image I won't be getting out of my head for while


* Cumbrian

Edit: Excellent swear-filtering.

A great match but England must think that was a lost opportunity - so much posession, some great back play but perhaps lacking the composure to finish the job off. How can NZ win with so little ball and a poor set piece in scrum and line out? - That is the real clinical question. England were phenomenal for the most part and NZ poor as a result of Englands dominance and pressure - and then you look at the score!!! An opportunity lost but the England lads have done themselves proud.

Personally i feel that not many people here give enough recognition/credit to the coaches and trainers of these two teams....
Down here we are all very aware of mark Anscombe but who/where do the English coaches come from ?