New Zealand v England 3rd test & the 2nd test review

First topic message reminder :

1000 posts and the 2nd test thread is blocked time to move onto the 3rd test in Hamilton.

What are England's chances of securing a win?
Could NZ win convincingly?
Will it be close again?
Who will play?
How much will the referee affect the game?

Let the banter begin..................

Oh, and feel free to discuss test's 1 and 2.

englandglory4ever wrote:This match showed that the coaching staff are naive. Burns. Ashton and eastmond were not good enough for this level. Coaches should've known that.

Said as much before the game. Burns and Eastmond have seven tests between them. They got away with it first test because the ABs were too busy trying to stop dropping balls etc. and not putti ng pressure on them. But a pair that experienced isnt going to hold up to this sort of AB form.

englandglory4ever wrote:This match showed that the coaching staff are naive. Burns. Ashton and eastmond were not good enough for this level. Coaches should've known that.

Well Ashton has been around long enough for us to know one way or the other but its folly to write off the other two after 3 caps or so. Few players drop into test rugby fully formed, as it were.

Taylorman wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:This match showed that the coaching staff are naive. Burns. Ashton and eastmond were not good enough for this level. Coaches should've known that.

Said as much before the game. Burns and Eastmond have seven tests between them. They got away with it first test because the ABs were too busy trying to stop dropping balls etc. and not putti ng pressure on them. But a pair that experienced isnt going to hold up to this sort of AB form.

I think Eastmond will be good enough, he's got the talent and I think and hope the temperament. Just not the experience. Burns, not sure, seems a confidence player. My concern was how deep he got and how much slower he was defensively today. Didn't seem to respond well to AB pressure.

Ashton's defence, I think, is now categorically not good enough for this level. We have other wingers waiting that are perfectly alright if nothing special. We don't need him as a starter. If his defence improves, perfect, but at the moment he's a liability.

Haven't seen the game, was it any good, or closer than the score looks?

From the first 2 tests momentum seemed to be being gained by NZ as they get into their grove, whereas Lancaster was happy to make changes and ruin any sort of continuity.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:What happens now when Dagg returns to fitness? Surely Ben Smith has earned the right to stay at 15. Has Jane earned the right though to stay at 14. That's the only way that justifies Dagg in the side because Smith is like Conrad Smith: a scrawny player not much to look at but is a street magician conjuring up 'how did they do that' statements.

Man you have a soft on for Jane. He is the epitome of scrawny player not much to look at but is a super duper magician conjuring up "how did he do that " statements. Come on he was excellent today. Dagg schmagg and Piatau schmiatau - that's what I say.

Actually I think the key difference was that today we didn't kick 40% of our possession away - we ran it!

Second what's all this Love sacks about putting teams to the sword? If we hadn't got that last try we wouldn't have scored a point in about 50 mins of rugby. We had to score something so that we didn't end up with a Poopie second half

Sorry I don't think this criticism for the selection is warranted.

Some players let themselves down today. Burns was a mistake? Which of the plethora of world class 10s were we going to play instead?

Likewise on the wing? Which of the myriad defensively rock solid and dangerous wingers were we going to pull out of the bag?

mid_gen wrote:Sorry I don't think this criticism for the selection is warranted.

Some players let themselves down today. Burns was a mistake? Which of the plethora of world class 10s were we going to play instead?

Likewise on the wing? Which of the myriad defensively rock solid and dangerous wingers were we going to pull out of the bag?

Tipsy ojo?

nganboy wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:What happens now when Dagg returns to fitness? Surely Ben Smith has earned the right to stay at 15. Has Jane earned the right though to stay at 14. That's the only way that justifies Dagg in the side because Smith is like Conrad Smith: a scrawny player not much to look at but is a street magician conjuring up 'how did they do that' statements.

Man you have a soft on for Jane. He is the epitome of scrawny player not much to look at but is a super duper magician conjuring up "how did he do that " statements. Come on he was excellent today.  Dagg schmagg and Piatau schmiatau - that's what I say.

Actually I think the key difference was that today we didn't kick 40% of our possession away - we ran it!

Second what's all this Love sacks about putting teams to the sword? If we hadn't got that last try we wouldn't have scored a point in about 50 mins of rugby. We had to score something so that we didn't end up with a Poopie second half

Classic. Never heard of soft on before. Jane definitely had a good game. My point was do we look better with a Dagg Smith Savea back three or a Smith Jane Savea back three? Jane showed he can't play on the left wing - got his fend going - but Piutau can and he can cover fullback. That makes him very useful. Jane can play fullback and right wing. It's good to see he showed he can still contribute. But it's all about getting the best team out on the field and Ben Smith showed last year he is a genuine right winger and this year he's shown he's a genuine fullback. I say keep him at fullback but all I'm asking is Jane our best right wing option as clearly as Savea is our best left wing.

Simple, first half England didn't turn up, couldn't collect a restart to save our lives, back foot and mistakes from then on in. All the rubbish being written about burns, apart from the missed restart kick, he was the one bright spark in the 1st half.
Second half England showed up, remembered the fact that they did have a game plan, played it well and demonstrated how much strength we have in depth coming off the bench.
The ABs will be looking forward to but certainly not confident about the next encounter at HQ.
Both teams will be up there battling for the RWC no doubt and with home advantage I'm feeling far from despondent.
Well played NZ, you again showed why you are the current world number one!

Piataus obviously not going to lie down and has youth on his side. I'd prefer him to Jane next year. Agree with Smith at fullback. Dagg needs to play himself back in. He's only effective when on top of his game.

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Simple, first half England didn't turn up, couldn't collect a restart to save our lives, back foot and mistakes from then on in. All the rubbish being written about burns, apart from the missed restart kick, he was the one bright spark in the 1st half.
Second half England showed up, remembered the fact that they did have a game plan, played it well and demonstrated how much strength we have in depth coming off the bench.
The ABs will be looking forward to but certainly not confident about the next encounter at HQ.
Both teams will be up there battling for the RWC no doubt and with home advantage I'm feeling far from despondent.
Well played NZ, you again showed why you are the current world number one!

Both teams battling for a world cup? Really? Outside of NZ and SA at present I don't think there is any battle coming from anyone right now.

I personally have England, Wales and Australia as evens not to qualify from their group.

What about our aging hooker problem? Mealamu is an old warrior and served us extremely well but he gave away 3 line outs today. Has his cauliflower ears fully sealed up and he can't hear the line out calls anymore?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:It's all way over the top on Eastmond as well. The Telegraph's reporting on it was apalling.

Yes he was out of line with Tuilagi several times but that's not all Eastmond's fault. Tuilagi was moving back from wing and Eastmond actually completed serveral tackles, as he had done very well in T1.

Those saying he's not up to it are way wide of the mark.

There were several bad performances in the 1st but defensively Eastmond caused the majority. He obviously deserves more chances but it brings a bit of perspective of the criticism 36 got. Can't remember the last time Lancaster subbed so early for performance. You could say NZ let up in the 2nd but I think it was more to do with fact they couldn t stroll through our midfield at will.

I'm not saying he wasn't at fault at all. Of course he had huge responsibility there and he got it wrong, as did Tuilagi. Yes Burrell shored up the mid-field when he came on but that was allied with a much more aggressive forward performance.

Eastmond has proved in T1 and various other occasions that he can defend at 12. He got it wrong tonight but that doesn't mean he's a) too small or b) can't play international rugby.

Quite right although think this nails down 36 for AIs. Pleased with Yarde 2nd half though he really needs to work on his tackling.

Yep, looks as though 36's position is safe for now. Although with Lancaster he could be calling on Barritt again...

Can twelve trees play in the same team as Farrell though?

Is a Farrell twelve trees axis seriously going to worry anyone or committ defenders?

Neutralee wrote:Can twelve trees play in the same team as Farrell though?

Is a Farrell twelve trees axis seriously going to worry anyone or committ defenders?

Farrell, on the form of his 6N performances can play well with 36. As long as he's prepared to take it to the line then the game plan works. If he backs off, stands too deep and shovels the ball on then the whole scheme comes crashing down.

To my mind 36 might be better paired with Burns/Ford but that's not going to happen as long as Farrell has a pulse.

Chjw131 wrote:

Neutralee wrote:Can twelve trees play in the same team as Farrell though?

Is a Farrell twelve trees axis seriously going to worry anyone or committ defenders?

Farrell, on the form of his 6N performances can play well with 36. As long as he's prepared to take it to the line then the game plan works. If he backs off, stands too deep and shovels the ball on then the whole scheme comes crashing down.

To my mind 36 might be better paired with Burns/Ford but that's not going to happen as long as Farrell has a pulse.

Totally agree, burns offers twelvetrees space and time to do what he does best.

Farrell though, even when he takes the ball to the line is just no threat, backs are more than happy to shuffle on and jet forwards deal with him. Weirdly he has hugely dynamic 8 options and a ball player outside him, you'd think he'd play flatter more and commit to the break more with confidence.

I think in Care England can afford a less responsibility laden 10, why try to play with speed through 9 and play your most static 10 option?

Neutralee wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Simple, first half England didn't turn up, couldn't collect a restart to save our lives, back foot and mistakes from then on in. All the rubbish being written about burns, apart from the missed restart kick, he was the one bright spark in the 1st half.
Second half England showed up, remembered the fact that they did have a game plan, played it well and demonstrated how much strength we have in depth coming off the bench.
The ABs will be looking forward to but certainly not confident about the next encounter at HQ.
Both teams will be up there battling for the RWC no doubt and with home advantage I'm feeling far from despondent.
Well played NZ, you again showed why you are the current world number one!

Both teams battling for a world cup? Really? Outside of NZ and SA at present I don't think there is any battle coming from anyone right now.

I personally have England, Wales and Australia as evens not to qualify from their group.

If it was in the Southern Hemisphere I might agree with you, but look at the stats as to what home advantage does. I picked England for the WC a while back and while we might not go into it as favourites I expect us to be there or thereabouts. Its a young team and is more likely to be better than worse by World Cup time. Not sure how many others that will apply to, though the Aussies seem to be on an upward curve. I don't see it a as a two horse race. Besides the ABs usually find a way to F**k up a World Cup... They nearly managed it last time when none of the opposition was up to much;)

milkyboy wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Simple, first half England didn't turn up, couldn't collect a restart to save our lives, back foot and mistakes from then on in. All the rubbish being written about burns, apart from the missed restart kick, he was the one bright spark in the 1st half.
Second half England showed up, remembered the fact that they did have a game plan, played it well and demonstrated how much strength we have in depth coming off the bench.
The ABs will be looking forward to but certainly not confident about the next encounter at HQ.
Both teams will be up there battling for the RWC no doubt and with home advantage I'm feeling far from despondent.
Well played NZ, you again showed why you are the current world number one!

Both teams battling for a world cup? Really? Outside of NZ and SA at present I don't think there is any battle coming from anyone right now.

I personally have England, Wales and Australia as evens not to qualify from their group.

If it was in the Southern Hemisphere I might agree with you, but look at the stats as to what home advantage does. I picked England for the WC a while back and while we might not go into it as favourites I expect us to be there or thereabouts. Its a young team and is more likely to be better than worse by World Cup time. Not sure how many others that will apply to, though the Aussies seem to be on an upward curve. I don't see it a as a two horse race. Besides the ABs usually find a way to F**k up a World Cup... They nearly managed it last time when none of the opposition was up to much;)

I don't buy into those types of myths, generally nz are best but have had some bad luck in the fact they've been put out in most world cups by flashes of genius or fortuitous.

Home advantage will boost England, but twickenham is by no means a fort these days, and there are so many youngsters in this England team continuity is an issue. They don't stand a chance of world cup success at present.

It was tongue in cheek, but not sure what myths you're referring to, nothing fortuitous or genius about their loss to Australia in 2003, they were pretty lucky to beat a poor France side in 2011, when they were clearly the best team in a poor competition.

Twickenham isn't a fortress at the moment but home advantage is no myth.

Whichever, forums are for opinions and debate, happy to disagree.
Changed my mind anyway... Wales for the World Cup.

Wales for the...

I disagree lol

I get what your saying, but at this moment I just don't see England as a threat

Did my post say wales? I typed South Africa obviously. Damn spell checker!

milkyboy wrote:Did my post say wales? I typed South Africa obviously. Damn spell checker!

  

Neutralee wrote:Wales for the...

I disagree lol

I get what your saying, but at this moment I just don't see England as a threat

I'd have to politely, disagree! England were very unlucky not to come away with a 6N grandslam and with Ireland were comfortably ahead of the field in that competition. They'd beaten Australia the autumn just before and have gone to NZ and overall done very well in a three Test series at the end of a long season.

Combine the generally accepted upward curve in performance, results and playing style with England's record at World Cups and knock-out rugby and I think you'd have to be an extremely brave individual to put England down as 'not a threat'.

On the flip side I do feel South Africa and NZ are a distance ahead of the field. I've always said from way back that the litmus Test for this England pack is South Africa. We got done over there in two Tests a couple of years ago and we'll have to be right at the top of our game to go toe to toe with SA this autumn. In fact i'm sure we haven't beaten them in eons.

The other point i'd make about NZ is that no RWC final/semi final is ever pretty and they're nearly always extremely close games. That means just about anyone's in with a shot if they make it that far.

Chjw

You may well be fit, there are so many talented players, but with lancasters style of chopping and changing all the time I don't see these players becoming rounded enough.

Take yarde for example, great talent going forward, but not quite the full package, will he be kept and worked on to become a key member, or will another option tempt Lancaster to try them out instead.

Lancaster only tends to change when there are injuries. Several of the 1st choice players were brought back in when available. After that it was all about injuries.

Neutralee wrote:Chjw

You may well be fit, there are so many talented players, but with lancasters style of chopping and changing all the time I don't see these players becoming rounded enough.

Take yarde for example, great talent going forward, but not quite the full package, will he be kept and worked on to become a key member, or will another option tempt Lancaster to try them out instead.

I think mixing the team around at this stage is a good thing. You will never have your 1st choice XV available at the beginning of a WC, let alone throughout it. The 6N is when I expect the first choice an extended run.

yellow and pen try.

wrong thread!

Anyone else very disappointed in brown, he had 1 good game in the 6n and was lauded as world class but has done nothing to back it up

I think brown got 3 mom in the 6 nations
He didn't cover himself in glory this tour but would put that down to fatigue
Should still be first choice in the autumn

actually brown won man of the series in the 6N, and was MOTM in 3 matches i believe. and also player-of-the-AIs for England.

but yes, he was very disappointing by his own high standards in NZ.

Neutralee wrote:Anyone else very disappointed in brown, he had 1 good game in the 6n and was lauded as world class but has done nothing to back it up

Not sure if you're just having a bit of fun here but that's some way off how I remember it. I hate to admit it because I think he's a hot headed little wind-up merchant who let this 'forward in a backs body' Love sacks get to his head, but he was the stand out player in the 6n and England's top performer in the AIs.

Maybe the rise in expectations put a bit too much pressure on him. Can't be easy going from being widely regarded as a good club player but not much more, to being talked about (by the easily excited English media) as possibly being the best 15 in world rugby. Unfortunately for him he would've looked bad even if he had been on his best form, that Frak Smith is just on a different planet atm   

Barritt doesn't excite anyone, but from what we've seen as alternatives, a defensively solid, link man who does the basics right might well be the best of what we have available.

Some of our troubles have been individual errors but many have been positional/formation based, which you could argue is a game time/practice field thing, and clearly not helped by the lack of continuity... Down to the coaching staff to back the right horse and stick with him, whoever that might be.

My guess is they'll want to see more of Burrell with Manu. Though the odds on burgess/Manu for the WC might have shortened after this tour... Even if bath play him in the back row!

Brown looked very tired but at the same time we need to give credit to NZ tactically I feel.

They took Brown out of the game by box kicking shorter ensuring they could get men under the ball and prevent him getting in the air. When he did get the ball they swamped him in defence and hit him low. He breaks tackles when big guys try to go high because he looks small. NZ simply didn't do this, they marked him terrifically in defence and put him on the ground at first opportunity pretty much every time he got the ball.

Good homework from the AB set up.  

milkyboy wrote:Barritt doesn't excite anyone, but from what we've seen as alternatives, a defensively solid, link man who does the basics right might well be the best of what we have available.

Some of our troubles have been individual errors but many have been positional/formation based, which you could argue is a game time/practice field thing, and clearly not helped by the lack of continuity... Down to the coaching staff to back the right horse and stick with him, whoever that might be.

My guess is they'll want to see more of Burrell with Manu. Though the odds on burgess/Manu for the WC might have shortened after this tour... Even if bath play him in the back row!

Defence wins games….ask Wales, and Barritt's strength is defense.

I also think he and Manu work well together and clearly Manu is the lynchpin of England midfield.

But again, the real issue is, pick a combo and stick with it, through thick and thin, with a 4 man cadre to cover injuries. Guscott/Carling, Greenwood/Tindall, Horan/Little…..legendary partnerships. So what will it be?

SecretFly wrote:Not good enough against the ABs in that mood is kinda relative though, geoff.  Is it not?

Not many sides would be asking so many questions of defence

Not for me I just don't think Eastmond has the game to defend at this level.
I will be delighted if he lines up against Ireland.

For me he not even the best 12 at Bath let alone England

England 12 problem is

Barritt cant attack
Eastmond cant defend
Burrell is average at both
Twelvetrees is flaky

I'd go with flaky and try and eliminate errors.
He is the only one, of the 4, with the skill set needed

I would need to see more but what about Joseph at Bath - good enough?

geoff999rugby wrote:England 12 problem is

Barritt cant attack
Eastmond cant defend
Burrell is average at both
Twelvetrees is flaky

I'd go with flaky and try and eliminate errors.
He is the only one, of the 4, with the skill set needed

I would need to see more but what about Joseph at Bath - good enough?

Your peoblem goes a little further than that in defence. Although Yarde is rather impressive with ball in hand he is very suspect on defence, he doesn't commit to a man and gets turned inside out a lot, Ashton himself isn't exactly a rock on defence either.

What about Cipriani, Farrell, Manu….you get a natural footballer at 10, two playmakers and a great defender at 12 who can definitely attack.

Not disagreeing with that - wings are dodgy - I was just looking at a particular problem.

By the way not MY PROBLEM - I'm in Ireland   

Where to start. In the 1st half England were a disaster and in the second half performed damage limitation.  Players missed tackles but the system seemed totally shot.  England seemed to be egging New Zealand on to go wide, which they did easily and then seemed to have a three on zero.  Surely experienced players should be able to work out that they left the door open and not wait for an (almost) Salvea hat-trick to point the way.

The overall selection has not been inspiring and the management team does not seem to able to respond quickly or to notice opportunities.

England lost because New Zealand were a lot better and I think fitter.  England struggled to live with the pace.

Several English players had below par performances, for example Brown has been nowhere near his previous form, Marler I think had his worse game for England in a very long time,  Hartley was not very conspicuous.  Launchbury looked very jaded but did a few good things. Burns and Eastmond were not good, but it was always likely after the 1st test that New Zealand would work them out.

Lancaster needs to assess whether some players will never reach the required standard or whether this was just a blip (I lean more towards the latter view).  Though some of the players will cop some flak, I think the management are not immune from blame.

Lancaster seems to work in a very linear way.  For example, Slater outplayed Attwood against Canterbury but Attwood was on the bench.

A few bright points: - firstly this was very good examination of England with no hiding places.  Secondly players like Yarde showed he can attack but needs to work on defence and tackling.  Robshaw and Wood I think played well in the circumstances.  Some of the fringe players were not terrible (Brookes was not bad in the scrum as a replacement and Webber I think was better than Hartley).

Overall I think England need to become smarter and of course better.

Pretty happy with the result obviously. Really happy that players like Jane had a good games.

Really liked the 3 test series. I have a lot of respect for Lancaster Farrel and co. I think England were competitive for much of the series. I think they are a good side, a young side, and the experience will be good for them. This tour did a lot for England rugby's standing in NZ. Great tourists.

Good for us. I think we'll need to improved to win the RC. We've got a few world class players coming back which is good.

Amazing how after a decade of Henry style AB teams that comments are still being made about AB sides being fitter. We always seem to be fitter and for one side to always be he fittest over that period is astounding. Why arent teams fitter? For me its about a trade off and the fitness of the front 5 primarily, then the back 3 loosies.

At this level backs dont need to be aeorobically fitter so we have to assume their fitness is the same. The focus of other sides on size and strength to combat the set pieces means theirs a tradeoff in getting their bodies around the field faster. In NZ we make sure our forwards are rugby players first and formost, then drill them in the specialist positions. That is why you usually see the following outcomes in matches vs the ABs in terms of the front 5:

- comments like our scrum got hammered
- our tackle numbers and rates are usually higher than most sides
- our carry rates, handoffs, meters are usually more than most sides.

That is the reason NZ sides are seen as 'fitter'- our tradeoff is while we expect to compete at set piece time, thats really all it is, a means of getting the ball back so we can move it, where having a mobile, skillful front 5 provides much more presence, impact, and opportunity around the field. That is why we like to run the ball, stretch the opposition, run forwards into the ground.

Its the essence of 15 man rugby. To an extent it applies to the loosies as well, particularly SA who usually opt for bigger, contact type forwards. Players like Alberts, great as a carrier and destructive in the contact, but not able to get around the field in the way a Read. Kaino or McCaw might.

Its not about fitness, its about strategy, the need to play an open game to mobilise the front 5 in a way other sides can't live with, and its about trade off at set piece time. We're efficient at scrum time but we're never 'monsters', thats because we can't afford to be. As well as pushing and jumping, we need the front 5 running, tacking and passing as well. Big time. And to do that they must be fit and must have the skills.

Thats where the 'fitness', 'smarter' impressions lie. We make other sides 'look' secondary because of our ability to have the mobility and skills across the entire 23, not just the traditional attacking positions. Increasing the time the ball is in play is therefore critical to this strategy, because it gets the opposition front 5 in a higher percentage of situations for which they have not specialised or trained for. They think their work starts when the scrum is about to set. Ours think their work starts when the scrum ends. Thats the difference.

Biltong wrote:Quins, you are a poor loser, you love to bring the referee into the game, did the same yesterday with the U20 match when SA was leading, but got very quiet when the penalties flowed England's way enmasse.

What are you on about with the AB's being flat track bullies?

I admire a team that puts the sword in when they are ontop.

Better than being a poor winner, every time.

TM. I'd say we were able to play a game that suited us. We competed up front. But it's the ability of our players across the 15 to move the ball into space that's the key. Other teams are improving at this but have other strengths relative to us.

I think it's a good series for England. The lack of a win may not be a bad thing in the long run. They've had 5 looks at the AB's, and exposed 44 players to our style since the last world cup. They get the summer to dwell on the series and prepare for another bash. At the end of the day Lancaster only has to get it right once and that's in 2015.

They'll be getting a feel for what doesn't work and what does and what might. Who's up to the task, who isn't. What additional skills attributes they want to develop over the next 15 months.

For us. I'm interested as to how we cope with the SA set piece and maul. If they are really dominant here, it'll allow the to play the attritional/positional game they love.

blackcanelion wrote:TM. I'd say we were able to play a game that suited us. We competed up front. But it's the ability of our players across the 15 to move the ball into space that's the key. Other teams are improving at this but have other strengths relative to us.

I think it's a good series for England. The lack of a win may not be a bad thing in the long run. They've had 5 looks at the AB's, and exposed 44 players to our style since the last world cup. They get the summer to dwell on the series and prepare for another bash. At the end of the day Lancaster only has to get it right once and that's in 2015.

They'll be getting a feel for what doesn't work and what does and what might. Who's up to the task, who isn't. What additional skills attributes they want to develop over the next 15 months.

For us. I'm interested as to how we cope with the SA set piece and maul. If they are really dominant here, it'll allow the to play the attritional/positional game they love.

yes thats right. We can't win with this must score tries gameplan all the time and we have been able to stick with the tight game when we need to, and thats got us through all those tight games recently. The blowouts happen when we get that space and Burns first kick off really set the scene. Scrum on half way from the first minute with the attack mindset on away they went.

That pass from A Smith to Nonu was huge- who needs inside backs with that sort of pass.

Scratch wrote:

Biltong wrote:Quins, you are a poor loser, you love to bring the referee into the game, did the same yesterday with the U20 match when SA was leading, but got very quiet when the penalties flowed England's way enmasse.

What are you on about with the AB's being flat track bullies?

I admire a team that puts the sword in when they are ontop.

Better than being a poor winner, every time.

I am sure you meant to say ungracious winner

I think there's prossibly something to Jane's comments. He thought England players probably had half an eye on the break. I suspect it's there an subconscious. Statistically, the last game of the year is difficult for us. I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true for the Boks and Wallabies. The last game for teams touring here in June is also often difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if there's something psychological in it.