Record Set Straight

Let's face reality.

Lancaster's England are hugely one dimensional. Build in the model of Woodward's 2003 team, they come straight and hard and without subtlety.

The Backline is plodding at best and rely on recycled quick ball to maintain linear momentum.

Last year a sick All Blacks team weren't up to the physical challenge of the relentless direct approach.

This year, despite fatigue they proved a fit All Blacks team have the muscle to repel the overwhelming route one approach and the finesse to take the chances and score enough tries to win.

For England now a huge challenge. Can they get even *more* physical? Or do they have to change direction totally and look to build a team with more to offer?

I actually think we did quite well. There are of course negatives but we came back from 17-3 down to 22-20. I bear in mind we had 6 top players missing and whilst some are not good enough for this level, we didn't do badly.

Also, don't give us any garbage about fatigue. They are seasoned professionals. If they ain't fit enough, they get dropped.

England did very well and of course a "one dimensional" and "direct" gameplan is going to suffer without the likes of Manu Tuilagi, Tom Croft and Brad Barritt.

Ah the sweet sound of excuses.

Why did anyone actually bother posting on this...

Lets face it- you sir are a joke..

GloriousEmpire wrote:Ah the sweet sound of excuses.

I know, thought you had used them all in your op.

Don't worry. Next year you'll have Barritt back and all your Backline issue will be solved

I actually expected a bit of humility from you tbh GE.

This is bad taste dude

Too early for honesty?

Come on mate we almost done ya.. Give us one positive!

Great come back. From 17-3 down early. It reminded me of last week when England cruised out to a lead and then took the foot off the gas.

GE's giving what he would've got oakey if England had won. Actually a watered down version no doubt.

That doesn't excuse it but I find it bewildering you expected anything else. He's not shy to voice his opinion, particularly against England.

Setting the record straight implies something has been incorrectly recorded … last year England won, this year NZ won - can't see any errors in the facts there …

Another load of tosh from GE intended to annoy people - he really should try to grow up a bit

Well have fun GE.

enjoy your win....wum

GloriousEmpire wrote:Let's face reality.

Lancaster's England are hugely one dimensional. Build in the model of Woodward's 2003 team, they come straight and hard and without subtlety.

The Backline is plodding at best and rely on recycled quick ball to maintain linear momentum.

Last year a sick All Blacks team weren't up to the physical challenge of the relentless direct approach.

This year, despite fatigue they proved a fit All Blacks team have the muscle to repel the overwhelming route one approach and the finesse to take the chances and score enough tries to win.

For England now a huge challenge. Can they get even *more* physical? Or do they have to change direction totally and look to build a team with more to offer?

  

123456789 wrote:England did very well and of course a "one dimensional" and "direct" gameplan is going to suffer without the likes of Manu Tuilagi, Tom Croft and Brad Barritt.

Ah. England never beaten right? Perhaps they should've realised their chances if executing the game plan relied on players who weren't available and a norovirus that also wasn't....and used another approach?

I missed it, GE how bad were we? I'm going to guess our backs were getting frost-bitten hands.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:GE's giving what he would've got oakey if England had won. Actually a watered down version no doubt.

That doesn't excuse it but I find it bewildering you expected anything else. He's not shy to voice his opinion, particularly against England.

I suppose the question is why would he have got it kia, and someone like you wouldn't have? All wummery aside, I bet the OP is 100% right about our 1 dimensional approach. That's what we're going to get from Lancaster and his team of tyros.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

123456789 wrote:England did very well and of course a "one dimensional" and "direct" gameplan is going to suffer without the likes of Manu Tuilagi, Tom Croft and Brad Barritt.

Ah. England never beaten right? Perhaps they should've realised their chances if executing the game plan relied on players who weren't available and a norovirus that also wasn't....and used another approach?

What happened to the reasonable GE of last week? Were you hedging your bets in case of an AB loss?

Still, good to know that we're still dealing with the same old rse .








/

Fair do GE you are great at winding these lot up   

I don't know why you all bite back though, quite stupid really.

I'm confused. I think the OP is quite honest and reasonable.

England were very 1d weren't they? And it didn't come off because NZ defence were much tighter and sharper on the execution of the broken play guerrilla attacks.

3 tries to 1 says it all. NZ gave England the ball for 60 minutes and trusted their defence. England cracked the line once.

NZ had the ball half a dozen times and walked away with three tries and won the match.

I'll have to watch this now, any idea of where I can find a replay? Sounds like our forwards duffed them up and we lost entirely due to T Youngs iffy throwing and by not picking any backs.

I'm not saying your wrong

It's clear you like to wind some English fans here and it's fun to watch
Really England did play well today some phases and areas were one dimensional but they didn't give up after New Zealands two tries in the early stages. Which a lot of teams tend to do.
They showed composure today and battled it out and they deserve a bit at least a bit of prais for that. They

Yes but just one try, and again from the forwards...

I make that just one try scored by England's backs in the entire AI. I'm discounting the refereeing blunder that awarded Farrell a score in Farsical circumstances.

That must be a worry.

Again England flooded the breakdown today, and again got the rub if the green with some confusing calls from Joubert who seemed to lose track of what the multitude of England ruck attendees were doing and find it easier instead to focus on penalising the one or two All Blacks attendees.

Despite England being allowed to be offside in defence for most of the game, NZ calmly dealt with that by exposing the dog legs created by the on rushing English line.

Superior composure and ability to execute under pressure saw NZ swoop on three glorious try scoring opportunities. It must make the likes of Ashton and Brown absolutely fed up to see such clean ball zipping out to the outside backs!

123456789 wrote:England did very well and of course a "one dimensional" and "direct" gameplan is going to suffer without the likes of Manu Tuilagi, Tom Croft and Brad Barritt.

and Yarde and Wade.

To be honest i couldnt care less if a one-dimensional strategy is employed in a given match, reflecting the balance of available players.

as long as when yarde, wade and manu come back we take advantage of their talents, i have no problem playing a game that reflects actual team strengths.

anything else is naivety.

I can't help but comment that NZ will not be playing the entire "Empire". You do know that it wasn't an English "Empire", don't you, GE?

Great Test match, well contested and work to be done yet.

Looking forward to the next game.

Are you telling me Queen Victoria was Welsh? or Scottish? or Irish?

No.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Are you telling me Queen Victoria was Welsh? or Scottish? or Irish?

She certainly wasn't English...... Born to German parents, spoke German as her first language and married a German.

The current queen is in fact more Scottish then she is english. Her fathers side is very Germanic/Danish, her mother family are Scottish nobility however.

Bloody foreigners, flooding the country and taking all the best housing eh? then lounging around on benefits and not paying any tax!

Almost entirely inconceivable that she was never capped for England then...

ZZZZzzzzzzzzz

Ha! Well probably not an overstayed like the Tuilagis....

Whats your roots GE?

natural. It's just a bit sun-bleached on top.

Maybe just a legitimate like yourself GE?

This thread it getting off topic.

The point is: should England start to worry about where their next try is coming from? It's starting to look like the class of 2003 all over again. But I don't think the laws really tolerate that style any more, and opposition sides are now too clever at breaking down the rush defence - as was shown today when an All Black prop side stepped the umbrella and found himself in open space with one man to beat.

I think though GE that this New Zealand team should worry a little. England for 40 mins from 20 to 60 dominated the game and the breakdown... And this is with no recognised openside. They had corbisiero, croft, barritt, wade, yarde and tuilagi out injured. Put those players in and they would have become a far greater attacking threat.

Guys like mccaw ain't getting younger and 2 years is a long time in rugby.

England need shape to their backline but they knew their limitations and in a one off game you play to your strengths. Had Hartley stayed fit they would have probably kept good lineout ball and that was where the game turned back to NZ.

For a team that is meant to be the greatest in history, the most dominant in history a England side with an average age of 24 with only 30 caps on average too and about 5 first choice players out gave them a real scare. you would expect in tight situations for the more experienced teams to come through at the end and that's what happened. But this England team is only going to get better... And with NZ with 4 guys in the side with over 100 caps without key personnel changes I think they won't be the side lifting the rwc in 2 years time.

Jeez, the class of 2003?

Surely the current crop aren't that bad?

Just when you think you're getting somewhere...

It reminds me of the interesting Kiwi I once new, or thought I knew.

Yeah, turns out he was an Aussie.  

Never met an interesting Kiwi.  

Who'd have thought it?

Douche

Rhymes with touche?

Speak as I find, kid, speak as I find.

Douche

How can I emphasise "interesting"?

Not sure, but repeating yourself wont cut it.

Douche

 

Anyway. This is about as interesting as England's Backline play. So let's move on.

Given that the men with numbers 11..15 for England were largely irrelevant to this game. What would be the point in blaming the absence of different anonymous under used men to actually explain today's failure in any adequate way?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Douche

Ad hominem.