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

Rob Hunter the U20's coach is from Rothbury Northumberland and got to the U20's via London Irish, London Scottish, Northampton Saints, The Army and Scotland A (not necessarily in that order)

Wow that s a somewhat substantial cv.anyway I thought that the English team were very well prepared,
I have always had the feeling that some real good rugby brains have coached at Northhampton.. maybe thats only an opinion from 10000 miles away.........

TrailApe wrote:Rob Hunter the U20's coach is from Rothbury Northumberland and got to the U20's via London Irish, London Scottish, Northampton Saints, The Army and Scotland A (not necessarily in that order)

TrailApe, how did Scotland ever let Rob Hunter escape?! He should be coaching Edinburgh instead of Michael Bradley

Tried to make this point but my post seemed to disappear, hmm.

Anyway, just to say that the biggest difference for me was backs (and forwards) that could turn defence into attack instantly. The ability of AB teams of all age grades to spot opportunities and take advantage is light-years ahead of the others it seems.

That said, i thought they'd stomp us so pretty pleased with the game. Was impressed that we could build phases but disappointed they didn't capitalise on small half chances.

So we're all agreed then.

Nottins et al believe this was a Moral Victory for England, who were the far superior team, played all the rugby and were streets ahead in the set piece and broken play, dominated the break down, monstered NZ in the scrum, kicked accurately tactically and played the most sensible heads up finals rugby with sublime handling and unbettered off-loading, but unfortunately got on the wrong side of the score board through a series of unfortunate events.

Are you sure you're not all Welsh? Or related to SCW?

'unbettered'...that's a horribly George Bush-esque word GG

No, think most recognise it was a good close game, closer than expected, but points win prizes. Anscombe's kicking was truly top notch, very impressive.

"Nottins et al believe this was a Moral Victory for England, who were the far superior team, played all the rugby and were streets ahead in the set piece and broken play, dominated the break down, monstered NZ in the scrum, kicked accurately tactically and played the most sensible heads up finals rugby with sublime handling and unbettered off-loading, but unfortunately got on the wrong side of the score board through a series of unfortunate events."


Greyghost - this sounds rather like your summation of what happened to New Zealand at the last 4 rugby world cups.

A very enjoyable and well contested match. Certainly the best of the tournament I saw. Both teams are to be congratulated for their performances, particularly the Kiwis.

On a side note, why do you guys bother replying to GreyGhost's WUM posts? He's clearly just trying to provoke, and seems to be on a one man mission to give the generally excellent Kiwi supporters (particularly the posters on here) a bad name. I'm more of a reader than a poster and my heritage means none of his jibes antagonise me, so maybe I can more easily ignore them, but please, just try to rise above it and don't fuel his fires, hopefully he'll just go away and won't have an adverse affect on this board like he did on old 606 (I've been much heartened by the spirit on here so far).

reality is that I was concentrating more on the preparation of the teams than the outcome of the game.
until half an hour ago ( trailape) I didnt appreciate who had taken the English U20s. sorry Grey ghost Im as staunch (not quite biased)Kiwi as anyone but I cant play tag partner with you on this one,Im coming from a different perspective...

'A very enjoyable and well contested match'

A fair summary. Would be interested to hear from Kiwis who they think will step up from their team to the first team in future - i know it's a bit of a guess, but who were the stars? Ditto, did any of the English guys look to you like they might make the step up?

the english kids did well what the English generally do ,do well ie set pieces etc but what i did think the English backs were doing well was when ball had to be moved to get beyongd thwe defensive line fringe they had a go at it.
I am not familiar with names to name individuals,but froma team perspective they all were on the same page when it came to keeping the ball away from the opposition, and they had (IMO) done alot of work in maintaing thier own D line.
Put it this way England have 30 odd young players who have learnt a lot in the last couple of weeks...

auklandlaurie.

That may be true but we're still pants at the breakdown. Whenever an England team starts hitting rucks with purpose, we look about 50% better. Sadly it rarely happens.

You're rght, we're well drilled in many other facets of the game but it starves us of so much quick ball at all levels. It's the one thing i'd like to see us better coached at at an earlier age. We might win a few games through our scrum, but we'll lose plenty more due to our work at the breakdown.

aucklandlaurie wrote: reality is that I was concentrating more on the preparation of the teams than the outcome of the game.
until half an hour ago ( trailape) I didnt appreciate who had taken the English U20s. sorry Grey ghost Im as staunch (not quite biased)Kiwi as anyone but I cant play tag partner with you on this one,Im coming from a different perspective...

'sallright. Not looking for a tag partner. I started off reflecting on what was in my view a fairly entertaining game. But somewhere along the lines I got side-tracked when the excuse mat started to be rolled out around the refereeing of the scrum (no doubt England won the battle there, but there's a different between having a technically superior scrum and earning a penalty based on that superiority), I thought NZ did pretty well to rally and negate a power English scrum. England got a couple of turn overs, but the BB's managed to shore it up for long enough to at least use it as a platform. England were pinged once for technical infringements on which I can't comment. As far as players breaking their binds before the scrum was complete, I thought both teams were guilty of that, and I thought the English 9 was getting away with tackling the 8/attacking the ball at the base of the BB scrum before it was out. I also thought that the adjudication of penalties against the attacking team's clean out players for leaving their feet when the tackler clearly hadn't rolled away was a slight on the game, but I don't think it favoured either team because it cropped up randomly throughout the game, most noticably in the last minute when a promising BB attack was snuffed out in favour of an English penalty.

England clearly strayed from their pressure & territory game plan, and started to chase the game, attempting to run it from deep in the second 40. Not sure if this was coach driven, or player driven, but it was a mistake that played in to the BB's hands.

Anscombe was legendary with his goal kicking accuracy though. Straight to the AB training camp for that man.

Hood 83
When I wrote my first reply I was going to make a harsh criticism of all your loosies, then thought i would do better to concentrate on the positives,
At times I wasnt sure whether 6 and 8 were playing a left/right game, rather than per haps doing the traditional of having your number 8 chasing your 7.?????? and have that organised hit at the breakdown.
Bottom line you can never start learning the skills/tecniques of being a loose forward to early ,amaybe your loosies are very talented players but do somewhat need the specialist coaching for the position?????

grey Ghost
Yes I saw the comments regarding the refereeing, but the thing is to just ignore them, we all know that, that is rugby and there will be another game nextweek or when ever.
You make a good point in so far as Young Anscombe is concerned,but will he be better then his old man???

There is a giant step up of course from U20's to the senior game. Many a young player has looked to have the goods only to dissolve into mediocrity playing in the big trousers.

TheGreyGhost wrote:There is a giant step up of course from U20's to the senior game. Many a young player has looked to have the goods only to dissolve into mediocrity playing in the big trousers.

The step isn't that huge, most of these lads have already had a more than a few appearances for Super Fifteen franchises and NPC teams...! Both are pretty high levels of senior rugby.

Greyghost, that is true. I'd say that's even more the case with English players who sometimes develop ridiculously early from a physical perspective, therefore masking their deficiencies elsewhere. There's also the guys on the opposite side who never develop physically.

In both cases though i think you can spot it. Hugo Ellis was never going to be big enough to be a stand out 8. Luke Eves was never going to be nimble/skillful enough to make it as a centre (and yes, given that means significantly less skilful than Tindall, it was glaringly obvious).

I could be completely wrong here, and happy to be told otherwise, but i couldn't see Aaron Cruden being a world beater and still can't - Anscombe on the other hand, might have less of the flash and dash but looks better equipped to step up - controls a game well, physical enough, superb temperament.

aucklandlaurie - i don't think that would be harsh, although maybe a little unfair to Kvesic. Everard and others are woeful. A lot has been raved about Alex Gray in the past, personally, i'm not sure. Excellent workrate and good in the lineout, but he needs to fill out. And he's pretty tall for an 8. Plenty of time maybe, but i think the whole England backrow was a little overrated. Compared to the Clark, Fearns and Lawes we had in 2009, i'm amazed it competed so well in the end. I think our front row and Launchbury have a better shot at stepping up.

aucklandlaurie wrote: grey Ghost
Yes I saw the comments regarding the refereeing, but the thing is to just ignore them, we all know that, that is rugby and there will be another game nextweek or when ever.

TGG is STILL going on about the refereeing in a game from nearly four years ago. Just wait and he'll mention it on this thread as well.

Hi ya Laurie,
Welcome... been needing a few more sensible kiwis on these boards.

Whats your take on the Blues chances this week (off subject a little)...

Hood slightly unfair on Sam Jones I think, he hasn't been given the game time for the England U20s that others have but he has shown up very well for Wasps. Certainly Everard is woeful though for this level.

Almost can't believe the tournament Launchberry had, ending as one of England's top players. He wasn't even in the enlarged training squad originally and might never have come in at all were in not for Kieran Low's sad misfortune.

I've been saying all season that he was a lot better the some of the dross Wasps had running out at lock this season (Marty Veale, for pity's sake), but I never expected him to show up like that. Still think England is a tall order for him though, I think back to where guys like Lawes and Attwood were at the same age, it takes a lot, but I would love him to prove me wrong.

Well one things for sure....Alex Gray wont be with us long.....

I do believe England and probably Leicester have a future England Captain on their hands....and an 8 with serious potential.

Ford has been missing goal kicks all tournament - if Farrell had been giving goal-kicking responsibility then the game would have been much closer.

All in all that was a good performance. I'm particularly pleased with how England's breakdown play has improved - it's not long since Wales gave us a hard time. The backs should good skills and pace, and NZ looked decidedly uncomfortable at times.

I also think Launchbury is every bit as good as Lawes and Attwood were at this level. Matthews did well too.

Fair point Montague, Jones looked alright.

Did anyone see the Rugby Dump highlights. I thought they made us look good, it also reminded me that some of the reffing was pretty ordinary. GG's point about our 9 was probably fair, and the penalty that Anscombe hit from about halfway was nonsense. Could go on but at least it didn't ruin it as a spectacle.

There are a couple of could have beens in this match.

1 The try under the post could have been given if the TMO thought then ball touched the ground at one point. To me it appeared to.

thats 7 points.

2 The last try Anscombe could have been penalised and the try not given

thats 7 points

3 Ford could have kicked better and perhaps Anscombe worse but based on the misses- thats at least 6 points that I saw him miss.

thats 20 points

The difference was 11 so put that way only a couple of swings the other way and the match would have been won by England.

Mind you the touch judge- who's primary job its to watch the touch line- could have put his flag up.

thats 5 points

still a 15 point swing potential.

England were definitely in this match and would have deserved a win, not only just on the way they performed but if a couple of things had swung their way.

Taylorman,

I think you're right that England could have nicked it - BUT - there's a reason they didn't and it wasn't just the ref. Hope it didn't look like i was suggesting that.

I was disappointed with the last try but it wasn't too bad, and our first was definitely fortunate. I thought a few of the penos were a little harsh but not enough to swing it. Also, maybe Ford would have hit them all on another day, maybe he'd have missed more. I can't help but feel Anscombe would have kept boshing them over in all situations.

Thought we played well though and a nice rebuttal to people who mock us for a lack of ambition. That said, our U20s in the past have relied on forward dominance so even that has been with good reason. Just hope a few of them step up now.

A few final observations,a good match by England,they prepared by playing and winning several matches before the RWC.
Nz played one warm up match then jumped straight in,England rattled them early.
Then were given a try which plainly was`nt but awarded,after that Nz scored regularly.absorbed pressure and defended in depth and were never behind again.
NZ had trouble at the Scrum from Italy on,and were under the pump there v England most of the match.
Players[NZ]were not so much breaking the bind early as England wheeling and driving through.
England Scrum half should have been wearing Black,he spent more time at the base of the NZ scrum than the BB`s scrum half.
It is one thing to follow the ball in the scrum[legal] but to tackle or try to tackle his oposite number before the ball was out[illegal].
He could have been pinged on nearly every NZ scrum for offside.
Forget the if`s,buts,and maybes two good sides played a great game NZ won by a much closer margin than expected.
2010 the AB`s had a monster scrum,next year who knows maybe MikeCron will take charge of it.

Joe Launchbury has been named England's player's player of the tournament. It could have gone to a number of candidates and any one of them would have deserved it. I'm pleased for Launchbury, he has come out of nowhere and really flourished at this level. Good luck to him, he represents a rising stock of good young English second-rowers including the likes of Lawes, Kitchener, Attwood and Gaskell.

http://www.wasps.co.uk/news/wasps32459.ink?newstype=P

"A few final observations,a good match by England,they prepared by playing and winning several matches before the RWC.
Nz played one warm up match then jumped straight in,England rattled them early."

Anscombe the younger reckons that the BB's were together for 7-8 months -http://www.allblacks.com/news/16576/England-happy-to-spook-Baby-Blacks

I assume that they weren't together continuously for that period, but I'd be interested to know what their preparations really were. I suspect that the foundations have been built over several years rather than a few months.

England, like the rest of the NH teams, played the 6N U-20's over the winter and then dispersed to their clubs, regions, provinces, some getting gametime, some not. England's JWC squad was selected about 4 weeks before JWC and assembled 2-3 weeks before, training with the Saxons.

It's clear that the BB's are ahead of the field - is the BB way the template for other countries to follow, or is it just an inbuilt culture that is impossible to replicate?

Some of the BB`s played at S15 level,Cane and Sopanga started I believe for them.Anscomb and Barret were also involved I think.with some starts.
Whatever it seems the NZ conveyor belt still produces some good players.

Then were given a try which plainly was`nt but awarded,after that Nz scored regularly.absorbed pressure and defended in depth and were never behind again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They very nearly were though. I was very impressed with the way England came back at NZ. Also, if Short hadn't been injured the first NZ try probably wouldn't have happened, the 3rd featured an early (and blatent) hand off, and I doubt those players will ever be as leniently refereed at the scrum again. Over the course of the tournament NZ deserved the win though.

In terms of future England players I reckon Farrell may play in the 2012 6 Nations, Launchbury perhaps as soon as 2013 and then Kvesic (the best young English 7 since Rees), Daly, Thomas and Vunipola and a few others from 2014/5 onwards.

the 3rd featured an early (and blatent) hand off,

You might find you come away with a more accurate impression of the game if you turn off the one eyed biased commentary.

The English commentator was desperate to have this try rubbed out for the reason that you give above, however if you watch the replay both players were pawing at each other, in the way that players do when competing to chase the ball - nothing like a "hand off" at all. If you're going to take issue with any of the tries, surely it has to be England's first where the winger clearly stepped into touch. Not even so much as a TMO request...strange indeed.

To the scrum - yes England were edging it there. However there's a difference between having the edge at scrum time and deserving a penalty. I thought the BBs held up under pressure well, they conceded a couple against the head and a couple of penalties. England conceded one penalty for a technical infringement, no doubt seeing what they could get away with. The quibbles I've heard about breaking binds early seem to apply equally to both teams, and as I've said before the English 9 was regularly pouncing on the ball at the NZ 8's feet before it was out, or tackling him similarly before it was out.

NZ were a little short of patience in the final, and for large periods of the first have were attempting to score from every phase rather than build pressure. In the second they were clearly under direction to kick for territority as England had done effectively for the first 20 minutes, hence England had a large amount of possession. But don't confuse possession, or territory with "dominating the game" or "playing all the rugby" as I've heard here. The BB defence was just solid, albeit the English attack was fairly predictable, either lateral shuffling or mid-field crash ball.

Taking issue with NZ's first try exploiting a downed Englishman seems folly to me. It was genius reading of the game, and laser sharp execution that seized the opporunity and lead to the try. NZ had men down a couple of times in the second half and England failed miserably to exploit it. I think a large part of this was the selflessness of the BB injured players, who tended to get to their feet and mimic a defensive position, rather than lie on the ground rolling around and making their absence obvious.

DaveM

Think Thomas might be the best bet. Needs to improve his scrummaging a fair bit (although , as the final shows, clearly not at this level) but very mobile. Problem is the number of players he may need to get past. His advantage is he should get a decent amount of game time.

Launchbury looks excellent but as with most 2nd rows, we need to see how he develops physically. Very impressed with Vunipola in the end, both brothers looks decent prospects but need better conditioning.

Of the backs, i genuinely think Daly is the most exciting. Ahead of Ford and Farrell. His acceleration and kick through for Wade's second was a great example of how English play exceeded the tired cliches about 'lateral-shuffling' and 'mid-field crash balls'. His try against France i think was also a great step.

In fact, i quite liked our willingness to try grubber kicks when the BB defence raced up and closed us down. When it goes wrong it looks awful but combined with the right mix of looking to break and/or pass round the defence it works well.

I didn't think the summariser sounded very English. Looked an early hand-off to me.

With the scrum I'll just repeat that the NZ pack should not assume they'll get away with scrummaging like that every time.

And NZ did take advantage of the injury by executing with typical flair and accuracy, but there was also a slice of luck that the space was there.

England scored 3, and quite possibly 4, tries and so if that was a solid defence against a predictable English attack then I'd be slightly worried about this group of young NZ players. Of course England were happy to mix their attack, as shown by the final try. Overall there really wasn't much between the teams, and goes without saying that this is the closest England have been to NZ in the u20 era. But can we keep it up?

Hood, I was talking about the order the u20's are likely to appear in the first team, rather than who is most promising. Thomas is very exciting, and whilst England have looseheads coming out of their ears there aren't as many THs, so Thomas is a very important player for the future. Kvesic is also exciting for the same reason - we don't produce many proper 7s.

In the backs I thought Farrell played well at 12 in the final. We don't produce many 12's either, so it will be very interesting to see where England use him (I'm confident they will play him within the next year, barring injury). Ford has wonderful game management, but can he bulk up? Daly may be the most exciting of the backs. But we have a couple of decent young 13's, and with the benefit of a year's physical development I wouldn't be surprised to see Daly at 12 in the next JWC - he's got the skills to be a proper second receiver.

Dave, Farrell has had a great season. He is highly likely to play at 10 again for Saracens during the world cup, but when Hodgson comes back Farrell's chances will at club level will be either off the bench or through injuries (Hodgson or Barritt).

Johnson has absolutely no track record of picking players for England that are not first choice for their club, so when you said he will play for England barring injury, I think the exact reverse is true - it will take a nasty injury for it to happen. Even then, it will only happen if Wilkinson does retire from internationals - not certain yet, and he will still have to compete with Burns (probably first choice 10 for Gloucseter next season) and Myler for a bench slot behind Flood.

If Farrell isn't playing regularly he won't play for England, but Sarries will have a rotation policy with him and Hodgson and, given the highly structured game Saracens like and the huge value they place on defence, I wouldn't be surprised if Farrell is picked ahead of Hodgson for the crunch games.

Therefore I think he'll play for England in the 6 Nations - probably at 10 (Flood looks far from immoveable). I agree Burns has a chance of competing with him though.

Montague Withnail wrote:Dave, Farrell has had a great season. He is highly likely to play at 10 again for Saracens during the world cup, but when Hodgson comes back Farrell's chances will at club level will be either off the bench or through injuries (Hodgson or Barritt).

Johnson has absolutely no track record of picking players for England that are not first choice for their club, so when you said he will play for England barring injury, I think the exact reverse is true - it will take a nasty injury for it to happen. Even then, it will only happen if Wilkinson does retire from internationals - not certain yet, and he will still have to compete with Burns (probably first choice 10 for Gloucseter next season) and Myler for a bench slot behind Flood.

Sarries really believe in rotation . Considering Farrell can cover both stand-off and inside centre I don’t think he’ll wont for game time next season. It is really strange to think how young and inexperienced he is considering he was thrown so far into the deepend this season. I’d quite like to see him at inside centre at some point (accepting how outstanding Brad Barrit has been) because I’d like to see him get his running game going (the only aspect of his game we haven’t seen for Sarries)

Oh Neutral Milk Hotel just came up on my iTunes shuffle rotation. Get in.

Cole isn't first choice.

Whatever excuses you might want to make up about could have, should have, would have tries and TMOs and refereeing, or scrums or whatever the fact is that the BBs keep coming up with ways to win. Undefeated and four consecutive world titles. The talent evident in some of the BBs backs, and the cohesion of the loosies as unit, and their skills as individuals stands head and shoulders of the competition... Four years, and on all evidence, we look forward to Four More Years.

Whatever excuses you might want to make up about could have, should have, would have tries and TMOs and refereeing, or scrums or whatever the fact is that the BBs keep coming up with ways to win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I haven't disputed that. But England have got very close to NZ at youth level, and we've not done that before. It'll be very interesting to see if we can keep this level of performance up, but even if we can't there are some excellent players to inject into an already fairly youthful senior side over the next 5 years.

On another point Cole and Castro started similar numbers of games for Leicester last season I think.

DaveM

Fair points on THs and 7s. Not convinced yet by Kvesic, looks a little on the short side. I suppose it hasn't hurt Brussow has it.

Wouldn't bother about GG, he's not here for reasoned debate.

Hood83 wrote:DaveM

Fair points on THs and 7s. Not convinced yet by Kvesic, looks a little on the short side. I suppose it hasn't hurt Brussow has it.

Wouldn't bother about GG, he's not here for reasoned debate.

Too short for an open-side? I don’t understand why his height is an issue. He is as tall as Richie McCaw and taller than David Pocock. I can understand if people believe that he doesn’t have the talent to go all the way (I’d disagree) but I don’t believe size will have an impact.

Yeah Neil Back wasnt exactly towering...or George Smith...and they werent bad players.

The question is will Johno play an out and out 7.

Seems to me he prefers two guys who are more all rounders at 6 and 7

I actually think being a short 7 is an advantage. Look at Brussouw. His centre of gravity is lower which gives him better balance, essential when having to deal with human missiles coming at you trying to stop you from pinching ball. Being a lineout option is a bonus, but it's not a 7's job to be honest.

disneychilly wrote:I actually think being a short 7 is an advantage. Look at Brussouw. His centre of gravity is lower which gives him better balance, essential when having to deal with human missiles coming at you trying to stop you from pinching ball. Being a lineout option is a bonus, but it's not a 7's job to be honest.

This. I think we sometimes get too caught up worrying about a player's physical size. Obviously you don't want your players knocked aside like they are made out of paper, but they shouldn't be completely ruled out because they aren't 7ft tall granite warriors.

In fact, i quite liked our willingness to try grubber kicks when the BB defence raced up and closed us down. When it goes wrong it looks awful but combined with the right mix of looking to break and/or pass round the defence it works well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's disapointing is that our U20's team realised this and executed the moves, but our senior team had the same rush defence problems against Fra, Ire and SA and never once tried it except I think one kick from Tindall.

Cumbrian wrote:

disneychilly wrote:I actually think being a short 7 is an advantage. Look at Brussouw. His centre of gravity is lower which gives him better balance, essential when having to deal with human missiles coming at you trying to stop you from pinching ball. Being a lineout option is a bonus, but it's not a 7's job to be honest.

This. I think we sometimes get too caught up worrying about a player's physical size. Obviously you don't want your players knocked aside like they are made out of paper, but they shouldn't be completely ruled out because they aren't 7ft tall granite warriors.

Agree, a lot of 7's are some of the smallest but meanest players on the pitch. Our club 7 is nearly as wide as he is short but when he gets latched on to you you need a crowbar to remove him, more then anything else it's finger strength and forearm muscles that count (and being a sneaky git helps)

I don't know that MJ is against having an old school 7, just that he's not been convinced by any of the current options over Moody and Wood - I imagine he'd love to have a young Neil Back to put in the team but the best old style 7 in England at the moment is Rees who appears to be made of bone china then a gap behind him.

I don't think height matters for a 7 - the key things are stamina and strength

DaveM wrote:

And I haven't disputed that.

No one has Dave, you know what this guy's about, best is not to keep feeding him if possible.

Todd hasn't been capped by NZ yet...