England vs New Zealand 8th November

First topic message reminder :

Thought we might as well have a thread as we'll have the team announcements soon.

I see Myler is out of contention with a mild hamstring strain. Not serious enough to warrant a call-up for Cipriani or Burns, though. Attwood's wife is due to give birth any day, so that clouds the picture a little on his availability.

Hansen is apparently considering Carter and SBW for Twickenham, injury permitting.

England team to play New Zealand

M Brown (Harlequins); S Rokoduguni (Bath), B Barritt (Saracens), K Eastmond (Bath), J May (Gloucester) ; O Farrell (Saracens) , D Care (Harlequins); J Marler (Harlequins), D Hartley (Northampton), D Wilson (Bath), D Attwood (Bath), C Lawes (Northampton), T Wood (Northampton), C Robshaw (Harlequins, capt), B Vunipola (Saracens).

Replacements: R Webber (Bath), M Mullan (Wasps), K Brookes (Newcastle), G Kruis (Saracens), B Morgan (Gloucester), B Youngs (Leicester), G Ford (Bath), A Watson (Bath).

All Blacks (test caps in brackets)

15. Israel Dagg (45)
14. Ben Smith (35)
13. Conrad Smith (83)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (20)
11. Julian Savea (30)
10. Aaron Cruden (36)
9. Aaron Smith (36)
8. Kieran Read (70)
7. Richie McCaw (c) (134)
6. Jerome Kaino (54)
5. Sam Whitelock (60)
4. Brodie Retallick 34)
3. Owen Franks (65)
2. Dane Coles (24)
1. Wyatt Crockett (33)

Reserves:

16. Keven Mealamu (121)
17. Ben Franks (39)
18. Charlie Faumuina (24)
19. Patrick Tuipulotu (5)
20. Liam Messam (37)
21. TJ Perenara (8)
22. Beauden Barrett (26)
23. Ryan Crotty (10)

Game went pretty much as expected, with New Zealand asserting their superior class towards the end. Was fairly disappointed with New Zealand's first try being given; I still have not seen an angle which shows it being grounded correctly.

Overall, fairly pleased with how a patchwork England did. Delighted that May got his first try, and expectant of three wins to polish off the year.

Whitelock came in from offside, though I'll admit I couldn't see whether the ball was over the line. 

Does anyone know exactly when the ball becomes live at the base of the ruck? I thought it was hands on or when it is completely behind the last man's back foot, but I clearly am wrong

The penalty try should have beens reset for me, but I understand the logic behind it with lots of penalties and the previous resets likely being partially due to time wasting

ChequeredJersey wrote:Whitelock came in from offside, though I'll admit I couldn't see whether the ball was over the line. 

Does anyone know exactly when the ball becomes live at the base of the ruck? I thought it was hands on or when it is completely behind the last man's back foot, but I clearly am wrong

The penalty try should have beens reset for me, but I understand the logic behind it with lots of penalties and the previous resets likely being partially due to time wasting

if it touches the tryline it is no longer a ruck. its a wierd one. but given that owens said "it touched the line..." then it has to have been a try. if it hadnt touched the line it was clearly still in the ruck and offside. i wasnt sure it had but they didnt review that as owens decided it was a knock on! bit wierd. basic vectors make clear thats not possible.

Taylorman wrote:

thomh wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:

Well done to NZ though, they deserved to win, in particular they handled the sin bin period very well.

yes I found the English tactic of kicking to NZ during that period puzzling. The best way to take advantage of 14 men is to run them ragged in defence until the player down is exposed. Don't see how giving us the ball does that. But like many of our tests lately...we got there...just...but no cigar. Hopefully that helps us next year...as we're going to need it.

Yeah mate, very odd,I know it was raining but surely that's the time to have a go, there seemed to be a real lack of brains at half back. I thought your guys looked pretty good to me, not going to make many of their highlight reels but always looked like they were going to win I thought.

Sadly true. At half time we were ahead but I remember saying that I just couldn't visualise us winning from that position. We'd wasted chances and when NZ got the ball we were looking vulnerable. 

The coaches talk about improving 'accuracy' and taking chances as if that's merely small details, but ultimately the reason that NZ manage to do that is that they're more skilled and composed than us. 

Our forwards are possibly the best around, but NZ's backs are on another level completely right now.

we seem to get stronger when we're a man down and that just isn't logical really. Sure the other 14 might feel they need to step up but if thats the case why werent they at that level with 15?

gotta say though May's try was a gem. Never heard of him before this match but one for the books. Love it when an individual goes for it 100% with ball in hand. Not enough of it. Sure made us look silly.

May scores some absolutely stunning tries at club level, but despite a few caps hasnt really produced at int. level. A combination of, in the past, not backing himself, plus a tendency to actually run sideways looking for space rather than take contact tends to irritate lots of people. There is no guarantee (he could easily go back in his shell or get labelled as difficult/not good enough defensively etc) but of all the back 3 wannabes that we have around in England at the moment he could turn out to be the best of the lot.

Good work quins, agree with your assessment. Pretty balanced. Forgot about the Cruden try. That was suspicious so between that, whitelocks non-try and the penalty try, we could say it was up and down for both teams.

That May try was a cracker

The brouhaha about Coles' YC seems a bit OTT imo, but probably deserved YC nonetheless. People saying he could have broken ankles is reaching a bit, as he 'didn't break any ankles'. Still, silly thing to do, and we weren't surprised that Hartley was involved. He likes to wind it up.

It's funny what people are saying about McCaw though, because our commentators tended to rave about his deeds as being brilliant. Our guys are generally not that one-eyed (eg Marshall especially), so I take his word for it when they say he was doing good work. Do English commentators bang the desks in disgust when McCaw does these things. It's relative, as it is with all these decisions, and that's why we never agree with anything about what happens. I have two eyes, but I do rely on the commentators a bit to explain the technicalities and subtleties sometimes.

The Owens calling try, no-try, try thing was odd and didn't change things, but it is still a bit odd as it's not how it's done. But hey, we'll hopefully see swings and round abouts with this kind of scenario.

Thanks Tman for backing me up on the pom thing, but seeing as it is offensive to some for some unknown reason, I will not use the 'p' word on this forum again out of respect. It's odd getting lectured on a word that is in our culture though, but hey, no problem.

Look forward to the next time we play you guys, there's always a bit of something to get our teeth stuck into.

national commentators cant help being a bit biased. i'm sure ours are as culpable. i think marshall wears his AB jersey when he's commentating

mccaw was very very good today, but i felt, and our commentators also felt that on a couple of occasions he i) played the ball off his feet which lead to a big counterattack and ii) blocked the ruck in front of the ball, not having joined it through the gate (ie he just stood up an got in the way without competing for the ball even though he was on the wrong side of the ball, and didnt get pinged for it.)

mccaw is a bloody nuisance (meant as a compliment)

quinsforever wrote:national commentators cant help being a bit biased. i'm sure ours are as culpable. i think marshall wears his AB jersey when he's commentating

mccaw was very very good today, but i felt, and our commentators also felt that on a couple of occasions he i) played the ball off his feet which lead to a big counterattack and ii) blocked the ruck in front of the ball, not having joined it through the gate (ie he just stood up an got in the way without competing for the ball even though he was on the wrong side of the ball, and didnt get pinged for it.)

mccaw is a bloody nuisance (meant as a compliment)

Put that way I can understand that as 1) being a former back who doesn't get half the things he does anyway and 2) a kiwi, I tend to take what he does for granted. My reaction to comments about McCaw is usually a naive 'well why don't you just get your player to do what he does' kind of thing. He'll be rated our greatest player if he isn't already but no You tube reel will ever do him justice in the way say a Lomu will.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

ebop wrote:Good question, where is Toby? I miss that guy. And where the heck is Kia, miss that guy to.

Calm down Geordie, twickers is a formidable place to play at and ref at. It was a close game and England played well but I think they can play better. So what you want, is that I shall refrain from saying anything else other than 'England are great'. Would that be better for you?

Your insinuating England get everything at Twickenham. Do you not think other teams don't get calls at their major stadiums??

No Geordie, what I'm insinuating, is that home advantage exists for everyone but some have better home advantage due to the nature and size of the crowd (82,000 in the case of twickers), the quality of the big screens, home broadcasters playing opponent indiscretions on the big screen over and over to get crowd reactions to influence referees, and the crowd reactions themselves. This was evident today and it worked well like it did in SA. Im not having a pop at England as it sounds like you're trying to put me in that box. All countries do it, it's just some crowds/fans/stadia are better at it. You should revel in it, it's what builds fortresses I guess. This is why I'm picking England to win the RWC.  It's yours to lose buddy

quinsforever wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Whitelock came in from offside, though I'll admit I couldn't see whether the ball was over the line. 

Does anyone know exactly when the ball becomes live at the base of the ruck? I thought it was hands on or when it is completely behind the last man's back foot, but I clearly am wrong

The penalty try should have beens reset for me, but I understand the logic behind it with lots of penalties and the previous resets likely being partially due to time wasting

if it touches the tryline it is no longer a ruck. its a wierd one. but given that owens said "it touched the line..." then it has to have been a try. if it hadnt touched the line it was clearly still in the ruck and offside. i wasnt sure it had but they didnt review that as owens decided it was a knock on! bit wierd. basic vectors make clear thats not possible.

Quins I assume his assessment was that the ball was pushed forwards rather than downwards pressure being applied? If he dived in on his belly that seems entirely possible as his arm would be perpendicular to the ground as he reached for the ball.

nathan wrote:I don't think Farrell was anywhere near as bad as some are making out. Yes our kicking was rusty and care can be blamed for some of this but the whole team was rusty

I thought he was poor and kicked away good attacking ball in the NZ half 2 or 3 times when a pass was on. For me he was the weak link

quinsforever wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Whitelock came in from offside, though I'll admit I couldn't see whether the ball was over the line. 

Does anyone know exactly when the ball becomes live at the base of the ruck? I thought it was hands on or when it is completely behind the last man's back foot, but I clearly am wrong

The penalty try should have beens reset for me, but I understand the logic behind it with lots of penalties and the previous resets likely being partially due to time wasting

if it touches the tryline it is no longer a ruck. its a wierd one. but given that owens said "it touched the line..." then it has to have been a try. if it hadnt touched the line it was clearly still in the ruck and offside. i wasnt sure it had but they didnt review that as owens decided it was a knock on! bit wierd. basic vectors make clear thats not possible.

the only way it could be as the ref called it was if whitelock hit the ball upwards like a golf chip shot?

I don't get how people have missed the English finger that pushed the balled down before white lock dived in, surely it was grounded on the line by an English player first and so should of been a scrum to new zealand

Ball*

nathan wrote:I don't get how people have missed the English finger that pushed the balled down before white lock dived in, surely it was grounded on the line by an English player first and so should of been a scrum to new zealand

I certainly after watching multiple replays did not see and English hand anywhere near the ball as the ball was on the line. and that is not the reason it was called no try.

nathan wrote:I don't get how people have missed the English finger that pushed the balled down before white lock dived in, surely it was grounded on the line by an English player first and so should of been a scrum to new zealand

Thought Care was using his foot to work the ball back.

Either way Owens got the decision wrong:

If the ball was in the in-goal area and knocked on, as he stated, should have been a 22 drop out.
If the ball was short of the line and knocked on, then Whitelock was offside and should have been a penalty.
If England had applied downward pressure on the ball on the line should have been a Scrum 5 to NZ.


For me, should have been a try - but Owens had a really poor day with so many high profile decions he either got completely wrong or he dithered like crazy, thankfully not affecting the result as the better team won.

ebop wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

ebop wrote:Good question, where is Toby? I miss that guy. And where the heck is Kia, miss that guy to.

Calm down Geordie, twickers is a formidable place to play at and ref at. It was a close game and England played well but I think they can play better. So what you want, is that I shall refrain from saying anything else other than 'England are great'. Would that be better for you?

Your insinuating England get everything at Twickenham. Do you not think other teams don't get calls at their major stadiums??

No Geordie, what I'm insinuating, is that home advantage exists for everyone but some have better home advantage due to the nature and size of the crowd (82,000 in the case of twickers), the quality of the big screens, home broadcasters playing opponent indiscretions on the big screen over and over to get crowd reactions to influence referees, and the crowd reactions themselves. This was evident today and it worked well like it did in SA. Im not having a pop at England as it sounds like you're trying to put me in that box. All countries do it, it's just some crowds/fans/stadia are better at it. You should revel in it, it's what builds fortresses I guess. This is why I'm picking England to win the RWC.  It's yours to lose buddy

How is it ours to lose?
NZ anesthesia current holders and world leading team?

What do you call a kiwi on his feet during a ruck?
Steve Hansen.

I have England as joint favourites with NZ for the WC. they have been building to this for years, home advantage and a settled squad and coaching staff.

LondonTiger wrote:
For me, should have been a try - but Owens had a really poor day with so many high profile decions he either got completely wrong or he dithered like crazy, thankfully not affecting the result as the better team won.

A very sporting and unbiased assessment. I agree, I thought it was a try

NZ favs by some way- Not just because they are the best but also because there is a group with 3 contending teams within- so one has to go out..

Nonsense group IMO..

England will become bookies 2nd fav , if they are not already - being at home and being competitive against all comers is the reason for that- This is the best team we have had for 11 years.

SA come in next- then equal wales/aus/ireland

no one else stands a chance.

You can see when the camera zooms in to the ball an English hand comes down and the finger hits the ball. If the ball was on the line (which it had to be if whitelock was to be onside) then it would of touched the ball down.

Just reading a NZ journo saying that England should be a far better team when we get our injured players back, one of the injured players being Lancaster!

mystiroakey wrote:NZ favs by some way- Not just because they are the best but also because there is a group with 3 contending teams within- so one has to go out..

Nonsense group IMO..

England will become bookies 2nd fav , if they are not already - being at home and being competitive against all comers is the reason for that- This is the best team we have had for 11 years.

SA come in next- then equal wales/aus/ireland

no one else stands a chance.

Nonsense - after Scotlands demolition of argentina we must be favourites now! ;-)

yeah ermm no.

TJ wrote:

Nonsense - after Scotlands demolition of argentina we must be favourites now!  ;-)

10 points must be your biggest win in years so I can see why you think all that. Delusional, but funny none-the-less.

I would have thought that TJ's wink smiley made it clear that it wasn't meant seriously...

Rokodoguni was awful. Drives me insane seeing wings jog after kicks, he needs to get ditched and maybe come back when he wants to put some ****ing effort in.

Rant over.

Game as expected really, happy we compete with NZ but frustrating not to get the win. Unconvincing showing from the players with no one standing out. May is getting way too much credit for some shocking defence. Robshaw had a rare bad day at the office, very unlike him to get rattled.

Kruis/Attwood looked formidable at scrum time, no worries about locks at the mo!

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Whitelock came in from offside, though I'll admit I couldn't see whether the ball was over the line. 

Does anyone know exactly when the ball becomes live at the base of the ruck? I thought it was hands on or when it is completely behind the last man's back foot, but I clearly am wrong

The penalty try should have beens reset for me, but I understand the logic behind it with lots of penalties and the previous resets likely being partially due to time wasting

if it touches the tryline it is no longer a ruck. its a wierd one. but given that owens said "it touched the line..." then it has to have been a try. if it hadnt touched the line it was clearly still in the ruck and offside. i wasnt sure it had but they didnt review that as owens decided it was a knock on! bit wierd. basic vectors make clear thats not possible.

the only way it could be as the ref called it was if whitelock hit the ball upwards like a golf chip shot?

Or a perfect horizontal vector

thomh wrote:I would have thought that TJ's wink smiley made it clear that it wasn't meant seriously...

WOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You mean he was having a larf???? There's only one thing worse than thinking you can win the WC if you're not the ABs, AUS, SA or ENG...and that's being funny about the idea!!!!
Tell that TJ to cop himself on and take his mirth elsewhere.

:-) Scots fans have only two modes - " we're doomed" or "we can beat the world!" Its funny and well worth extracting the urine from

Have to say I thought the first half and especially the first quarter was a job well done by England. Didn't expect May to just run around and score! I don't particularly rate May, but man he has pace to burn; just a shame that the rest of the game he didn't seem to do much.
Was impressed with Kruis, Eastmond and especially Attwood. I though Farrell did ok, but SL showed the lack of faith in his deputies by not allowing Ford on at Farrell's expense. Why did he have to hold Ford's hand? I am normally a big supporter of Wood's but I thought his form wasn't up to much yesterday. I think if Haskell hadn't been struck down with a virus, he would have been starting. He has a bit more "dog" about him. Not sure that he's as much of a penalty machine as he used to be - maybe he's improving with age! Care and Brown certainly had bad days at the office with their kicking - If I was SL I would be tearing my hair out about this. Good to see both Mullan and Brookes doing well.

Changes for SA? I think that Eastmond should stay. If Haskell's fit, I would play him at 6. Wood needs to regain some form. I think otherwise I would leave the team as it is. There's no sense in too much tinkering. We just need to make sure we can keep up the intensity we showed in the first 20 minutes. Do that, along with solid basics and we're good enough to beat anybody.

Changes for next week would only be Haskell in for Wood, otherwise keep the starting team the same for SA.

Really think our back row was massively out played on Sat and Wood is the player we can positively change, look at the impact his opposite number had, that's the kind if thing we need from our 6

For me I think England need "something" else - a bit of creativity a bit of sparkle a bit of the unexpected. Is Farrell the man to supply this? I remember him kicking away the ball in the NZ half a couple of times when it could have gone thru the hands. For me its this intangible thing England are missing but I do not know how they would go about finding it.

certainly kicking the ball to the NZ back 3 did not work at all.

yappysnap wrote:Changes for next week would only be Haskell in for Wood, otherwise keep the starting team the same for SA.

Really think our back row was massively out played on Sat and Wood is the player we can positively change, look at the impact his opposite number had, that's the kind if thing we need from our 6

I agree re a fit Haskell getting a go, I completely disagree that we were massively outplayed. Ruck went pretty well frankly, only thing they did better was they got the momentum late in the game (due to momentum elsewhere) and were good at dragging care into the ruck

Aw shucks...they wanted Care to join them in the group hugs. Caring bunch are the ABs

ChequeredJersey wrote:

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Whitelock came in from offside, though I'll admit I couldn't see whether the ball was over the line. 

Does anyone know exactly when the ball becomes live at the base of the ruck? I thought it was hands on or when it is completely behind the last man's back foot, but I clearly am wrong

The penalty try should have beens reset for me, but I understand the logic behind it with lots of penalties and the previous resets likely being partially due to time wasting

if it touches the tryline it is no longer a ruck. its a wierd one. but given that owens said "it touched the line..." then it has to have been a try. if it hadnt touched the line it was clearly still in the ruck and offside. i wasnt sure it had but they didnt review that as owens decided it was a knock on! bit wierd. basic vectors make clear thats not possible.

the only way it could be as the ref called it was if whitelock hit the ball upwards like a golf chip shot?

Or a perfect horizontal vector

Whitelock was offside when he touched the ball short of the line. The fact that the ball touched the line later at which point he was not offside is irrelevent. It should have been a penalty to England.  If ref, wrongly, thought it was on the line, then it was a try.  Owens' decision was bizarre. Not his best day after allowing Cruden try. Still best ref though.

I can't remember who said it on here so I can't give appropriate credit, but with all our injuries we aren't going to find our best centre pairing in this series. It's a good chance for Eastmond, but Barritt is nothing more than a stopgap.

However, unless a recall for Twelvetrees is on the cards (and I see no reason why he would get in above Eastmond, Burrell, Tuilagi and, hopefully, Burgess), then we will not have a kicking option in the centres, so regardless of who we end up with in 12 and 13 shirts, I think Mike Brown should be joining the line as a second receiver to give us an option to use a wiper kick with his left foot when we're deep in our territory. It will take the pressure off of Care and Farrell a bit in the kicking stakes.

Rokodoguni was seriously unimpressive, and I wouldn't mind seeing him drop out of the matchday squad completely. Upset not to see Wade in the EPS, but I would start with Watson and possibly bring Nowell, Yarde or Foden onto the bench. I guess it will depend how Roko reacts in training, and Lancaster may keep the faith, but if I were in the hot seat I'd be assessing other options.

Wouldn't be opposed to seeing Haskell come into the equation. He looked good on tour in the summer and losing his spot now could force Wood to take his game up to another level before the Six Nations and the World Cup.

The tight five and replacements all acquited themselves well, with the set-piece working well. However, I think we lose a little round the park without Corbiesiero and Cole, who both contribute more than their excellence at the set piece. With those two out for the forseeable future, I wouldn't be looking at changing anything in this area for the South Africa game.

My 23 for South Africa:
Marler, Hartley, Wilson, Attwood, Lawes (Kruis), Haskell, Robshaw (C), Vunipola.
Care, Farrell, May, Eastmond, Barritt, Watson, Brown.
Webber, Mullan, Brookes, Kruis (Kitchener), Morgan, Youngs, Ford, Yarde.

With the centres we have, I think we are going to struggle to get over the gainline on first phase against a defence as well-drilled as the Boks' will be, so the focus has to be on gaining field position and then using our forwards to exert pressure on the South African set-piece. The kicking game has to be smarter though, and we can't just kick long and aimlessly.

Agree about Rokoduguni! In all honesty his one job yesterday was to chase Care and Youngs box kicks, All I could see was 1/2 arsed chasing! I know we didn't exactly have any attacking platform for him but it makes me think Nowell should've played

For me Eastmond and Roko were both strong in defence but offered little to nothing in attack. In fairness to Roko he simply didn't see the ball to do anything in attack and based upon his club form he should definitely be retained for next week. Eastmond is the form 12 and I doubt Bomber will chop and change and so should start throughout the AIs but he is not the answer at 12 yet.

TJ wrote:For me I think England need "something" else - a bit of creativity a bit of sparkle a bit of the unexpected.  Is Farrell the man to supply this?  I remember him kicking away the ball in the NZ half a couple of times when it could have gone thru the hands.  For me its this intangible thing England are missing but I do not know how they would go about finding it.

certainly kicking the ball to the NZ back 3 did not work at all.

In fairness, England were fine in the first half. Second half wasn't the time for running rugby with a bit of sparkle as it was hammering it down.

We can't talk about dropping people after one less than stellar first cap.

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:For me I think England need "something" else - a bit of creativity a bit of sparkle a bit of the unexpected.  Is Farrell the man to supply this?  I remember him kicking away the ball in the NZ half a couple of times when it could have gone thru the hands.  For me its this intangible thing England are missing but I do not know how they would go about finding it.

certainly kicking the ball to the NZ back 3 did not work at all.

In fairness, England were fine in the first half. Second half wasn't the time for running rugby with a bit of sparkle as it was hammering it down.

I agree England played well.  I just think they lack that "something special" that can unlock defences with a piece of great play. The difference between winners and runners up at the WC?

TJ wrote:

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:For me I think England need "something" else - a bit of creativity a bit of sparkle a bit of the unexpected.  Is Farrell the man to supply this?  I remember him kicking away the ball in the NZ half a couple of times when it could have gone thru the hands.  For me its this intangible thing England are missing but I do not know how they would go about finding it.

certainly kicking the ball to the NZ back 3 did not work at all.

In fairness, England were fine in the first half. Second half wasn't the time for running rugby with a bit of sparkle as it was hammering it down.

I agree England played well.  I just think they lack that "something special" that can unlock defences with a piece of great play.  The difference between winners and runners up at the WC?

i thought Mays try was pretty special.

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:For me I think England need "something" else - a bit of creativity a bit of sparkle a bit of the unexpected.  Is Farrell the man to supply this?  I remember him kicking away the ball in the NZ half a couple of times when it could have gone thru the hands.  For me its this intangible thing England are missing but I do not know how they would go about finding it.

certainly kicking the ball to the NZ back 3 did not work at all.

In fairness, England were fine in the first half. Second half wasn't the time for running rugby with a bit of sparkle as it was hammering it down.

I agree England played well.  I just think they lack that "something special" that can unlock defences with a piece of great play.  The difference between winners and runners up at the WC?

i thought Mays try was pretty special.

It was. I just think that that bit of extra something is what Engand are missing to be a great team - but I have no idea how to find it.

TJ wrote:

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:For me I think England need "something" else - a bit of creativity a bit of sparkle a bit of the unexpected.  Is Farrell the man to supply this?  I remember him kicking away the ball in the NZ half a couple of times when it could have gone thru the hands.  For me its this intangible thing England are missing but I do not know how they would go about finding it.

certainly kicking the ball to the NZ back 3 did not work at all.

In fairness, England were fine in the first half. Second half wasn't the time for running rugby with a bit of sparkle as it was hammering it down.

I agree England played well.  I just think they lack that "something special" that can unlock defences with a piece of great play.  The difference between winners and runners up at the WC?

i thought Mays try was pretty special.

It was.  I just think that that bit of extra something is what Engand are missing to be a great team - but I have no idea how to find it.

Simple, put players in the position that May was a lot more often. Space, time and pace...how hard is it? And stop complicating things for a start.

Well we have Brown and Manu

If brown has more protection and better players around him(that are not injured he makes a better impact)

and well Manu really makes the difference when fit and at full strength- he can gain close to the line from a stand still- which in fairness is actually more akin to what the kiwis do against the better sides. They finish those chances and other teams dont as much.

I was pleased to see Alex Goode out of the 23 as I don't think he offers anything in attack...that said he would have been the perfect full back for the second half when our kicking was awful, it was raining heavily and we needed some territorial advantage. He probs would have caught that pass from eastmond too that brown dropped. Still happy with brown, we will shake off the ring rust and do better next game.

The same team will start next week bar the enforced lock changes and there id be curious to see what attwood and Kitchener could do. It would be huge.

Harsh on Roko being criticised in his first cap against Savea...when he did a sterling job on him.

Likewise eastmond will create the spark but he needs help from his 10. Farrell won't be dropped but he should be.

I also think wood needs a huge game next week. He's a grafter a lineout option but i think he needs to impose himself more on the game. I keep hearing he's like hill ie he does the unseen stuff. He just isn't as influential enough doing that game.

I'd consider playing Haskell. Morgan/Billy always a 50-50 call for me, but think variation in the backrow is ok as we know the balance still works. Depends how fit Haskell is post meningitis and to be fair Wood has some credit in the bank

TBH with all their issues I thought England went better than I (or most people on here judging from the 20+ pts predictions before the game) expected. Losing Lawes early on was a bit of a blow as his ability to smash people back in the tackle was missed, we barely won the gainline when NZ were in possession.

I'm not a fan of the revolving door policy so Roko deserves another chance. Didn't have a great time of it, but it wasn't exactly the dream debut, with England spending much of the second half camped in their 22.

Agree with the consensus on Wood, I think he's a terrific player, but he had a poor game on Saturday, didn't get involved at all. Maybe worth trying something a bit different in Haskell there, though I suspect Lancaster won't.

I actually thought Farrell did OK (better than he's done for Sarries this season certainly), but again, when you spend most of the game defending in your own 22 the creativity of your FH is never going to be in great evidence. Eastmond did some nice things, some less nice, but wasn't shown up in defense (as feared) so deserves to keep his spot. Barritt was, well, Barritt. Read that Burrell is still out, so we might as well keep him in, Burrell and Tuilagi are clearly England's two first choice OCs at this time, and I'm not sure it makes sense to throw in a new guy for the sake of it.

Ultimately I would bring in Haskell for Wood, but I suspect ENgland will go unchanged (if Lawes recovers, otherwise Kruis to start, Kitchener on the bench - at least we've found out England have seriously good depth at lock eh? Launchbury, Lawes, Slater, Parling all missing and England still have some very good options, beats the Borthwick-Kennedy days )

The '20 points' was based on a dry weather game. At the point May was running in his try it was dry and England were firing. When the AB's started to control almost the entire ball it was bucketing down so they resorted to the multi phase, disciplined- slow but sure approach. England ran out of options and the game just slowly but surely slipped away.

The AB backline was picked for a dry weather assault (as it always is) and one thing the AB's has learnt is you can't spin it endlessly in the wet. Its too easily defended.

Whether they would have won by 20 in dry is possibly doubtful, but that won't be determined here.