England XV vs New Zealand First Test

First topic message reminder :

1. Joe Marler (Harlequins)
2. *Rob Webber(Bath)        Dave Ward (Harlequins)
3. Dave Wilson (Bath)
4. Joe Launchberry (Wasps)
5. Dave Attwood (Bath)
6. Tom Johnson (Exeter)
7. Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)
8. Ben Morgan (Gloucester)

9. Danny Care (Harlequins)
10. Danny Cipriani (Sale)
11. Jonny May (Gloucester)
12. *Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester) Kyle Eastmond (Bath)
13. Manu Tuilagi (Leicester)
14. Marland Yard (Harlequins)
15. Mike Brown (Harlequins)

16. Dave Ward (Harlequins)        Joe Gray (Harlequins)
17. Matt Mullan (Wasps)
18. Henry Thomas (Bath)
19. Ed Slater (Leicester)
20. James Haskell (Wasps)
21. Ben Youngs (Leicester)
22. Freddie Burns (Leicester)
23. Kyle Eastmond (Bath)        Henry Trinder (Gloucester)

*Injury concern...

Thoughts?

Oh I definitely think it looked a little sordid on the slow motion replay, but chewed makes a good point in that Yarde didn't really have any reason to trip him because he was so close to him anyway. Besides, if you're going to go for a sneaky trip on another player, it would be best to do it less obviously!

One moment that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere (may have missed it) is the incredible tap tackle by Henry Thomas when NZ ran their penalty with a few minutes to go. Not sure who it was on (possibly Kaino) but they cut an inside line and Thomas somehow flies across and makes the tap tackle - looked like it saved a certain try.

Great effort.

ebop wrote:Kaino fluffed it big time!

I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and it could well have been an attempted clearance from Yarde. But when I watched the game again, and given the spotlight has been on Owens' performance (unfairly I think), it just stuck out a bit as one of those marginal could go either way moments. Didn't even notice it during the game to be honest.

Yeah on another day we may have seen a couple of yellows for NZ and a few decisions here and there were a bit off but you get those days. I think a few people were more surprised they came from Owens who is normally spot on; though you can't really argue with his reasoning for each decision much. England players made more telling mistakes thant the ref.

Nachos Jones wrote:I just think that if he is considering moving Tuilagi to the wing then he is trying to get Twelvetrees in the centre and for that to work, he will need Farrell at 10 as those two work well together.

Twelvetrees would be equally, if not more, familiar with Burns of course. Expect Farrell to come in anyway though.

BamBam wrote:

ebop wrote:Anyone notice the leg trip by Yarde on Smith at 55 minutes as Smith was running to regather the ball for the certain try? That would have changed things.

Haha, I did think that was a bit on the dodgy side but he got away with it

And upon getting away with that, you're whinging about what the ref did to you....

  

Who's whinging?

BamBam.

Where?

The Saint wrote:

BamBam wrote:

ebop wrote:Anyone notice the leg trip by Yarde on Smith at 55 minutes as Smith was running to regather the ball for the certain try? That would have changed things.

Haha, I did think that was a bit on the dodgy side but he got away with it

And upon getting away with that, you're whinging about what the ref did to you....

  

My problem with Owens is not that he missed things or made mistakes. It is that he clearly saw things and then made the wrong decisions.

• He missed a trip by Yarde. All refs miss things.
  
• He saw Nonu pull back Haskell gave the penalty but not the yellow that should have followed.
  
• He saw Fekitoa hold on to May a yard from the line, gave the penalty but not the yellow.
  

And most bizarrely of all

• he saw Burns knock the ball back and even told Robshaw that "the fact the ball went back is irrelevant" and gave a knock on.
  

All refs make mistakes. That will always happen and is excusable. When refs clearly see an offence and do not apply the laws fairly and equitably that is not excusable.

The Saint wrote:

BamBam wrote:

ebop wrote:Anyone notice the leg trip by Yarde on Smith at 55 minutes as Smith was running to regather the ball for the certain try? That would have changed things.

Haha, I did think that was a bit on the dodgy side but he got away with it

And upon getting away with that, you're whinging about what the ref did to you....

  

The Saint wrote:BamBam.

I did say this yesterday, but please find me a post where I have "whinged" about the ref losing us the game

The knock on was strange but he clearly thought Haskell wasn't in a position to support Robshaw to any great extent (disagree personally but hey ho) and he did explain the May incident as he felt it wasn't a cynical foul but one where the player honestly thought May was off the ground. Again even if it wasn't cynical you could say it stopped a potential chance so on another day.

thomh wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:I just think that if he is considering moving Tuilagi to the wing then he is trying to get Twelvetrees in the centre and for that to work, he will need Farrell at 10 as those two work well together.

Twelvetrees would be equally, if not more, familiar with Burns of course. Expect Farrell to come in anyway though.

 Not this season.

  

Care and Farrell if both are fit
They worked well together in 6N
This will be our best option to get over the line
Burns played well but as someone has already pointed out we were a bit unsure when we reached their 22
Familiarity will be our best chance

just watched the match as was away all weekend. entertaining stuff. my thoughts in general were:

- NZ looked nervy and pressurized
- tactically naive decision to target Burns with Nonu every time as it gave Burns confidence and ate away at Nonu's as this failed to get anywhere
- Nz bit lucky to not have received a yellow, and Nigel Owens seems to have expanded the IRB guidance for passes to catches (direction of movement of hands being the relevant factor, not what happens to the ball). Unless i missed that law/interpretation change for catches, he has clearly made a mistake. Aside from that i thought his reffing was as usual conducive to a proper contest.
- Yarde's yellow was a tiny bit harsh, because he actually stripped the ball from Ratallick in the tackle, so technically he wasnt even holding onto retallick. i only saw this on the 2nd replay so there would have been no way for Owens to spot it in real time.
- NZ kicked the ball too much. made them fairly predictable, and on a day when Brown's catching hits the heights we know he is capable of, this tactic will see NZ get themselves into trouble.

On the England side:
- fantastic defense. very well organised and incredible pressure.
- unfortunately we looked a bit clueless ball in hand in the last 30 minutes. untried combinations to blame here i think.
- manu and eastmond looked like a good pairing. with burrell and 36 coming back we are in great shape in the centres.
- England's substitutions lacked any impact at all compared to NZ's.
- Cips made a nice cameo. And Burns played very well indeed especially tackling Nonu and positional kicking.
- the gulf between Ben Youngs and Care is still wide. two key unforced handling errors from Youngs turned the match - 1 led to the Yarde yellow card.
- England's scrum still doesnt fill me with massive confidence
- robshaw is a giant. McCaw definitely looked second best to me on the day.

Have read some comments here that NZ will have suffered from players still having their "franchise" systems in their head so would have struggled to re-adapt to AB rugby. This is lame. This is typical of the AB fans and players who think the result only depends on the ABs. Professional rugby players live and breathe systems, moves and combinations. And the ABS had 900 caps vs Englands 280 or thereabouts. That tells you everything you need to know about which side should have had more fluency in combinations all over the park.

Anyway, next weekend should be another good one. England have such competition from places that the intensity and aggressive tackling line speed is going to be the same for the whole series, and so i anticipate we will continue to see plenty of errors from NZ although prob not as many as Saturday.

Couple of fresh faces eager to prove themselves, and a weeks off since the AP Finals should set the stage for another proper test match. How exciting.

Also i fully hold my hand up for thinking Eng were going to get beaten by 20 or more on Saturday. Nice to be wrong though

quinsforever wrote:

Have read some comments here that NZ will have suffered from players still having their "franchise" systems in their head so would have struggled to re-adapt to AB rugby. This is lame. This is typical of the AB fans and players who think the result only depends on the ABs. Professional rugby players live and breathe systems, moves and combinations. And the ABS had 900 caps vs Englands 280 or thereabouts. That tells you everything you need to know about which side should have had more fluency in combinations all over the park.

Know what you're saying mate but most the points about NZ were negative and most points you made about England were positive. Yet NZ still won. The big question is who has the biggest scope for improvement? NZ with two key guys out but with rust out of their system? Or England with new blood and quality but risking undoing some good work with new combinations.

England believe they can win. But NZ know they can even when they are in those dark places. Sure, they'll get in too deep a hole sometime this season and fail to get out of it. But Irish tests in Dublin and Christchurch, last week, and even the World Cup final show that they can. That knowledge coupled with the aerobic fitness does make a difference. As well as the 900 caps. Not all of those caps were walkovers. I thought England were a bit passive in the leadup to Smith's try. I couldn't say like Ireland were at the time despite being at the game-was too busy looking up at the sky intermittently, swearing and apologising to my cousin for buying him the ticket for his birthday. Some present. But the replays showed both Ireland and England were just passive enough to let NZ in.

England's defence is very aggressive and disciplined but can be broken down. Savea could be crucial here and if Vito or Read play their all round skill (esp passing) can make a difference. Offloading destroys rush defences and while NZ don't have SBW it has been integrated into the gameplan. England need to get in the way of the support runners. But this must be done well otherwise NZ break. And we all know how clinical they are.

The Yarde one did look like a clumsy right back clattering a winger in roundball, and possibly would have been a yellow if it had happened in Brazil. Not intentional, but lucky to get away with that one.

I thought Owens was poor. He didn't decide the game, but he made several mistakes. As Exiled said, it wasn't what he missed as much as how he interpreted some of the things he saw that was confusing.

Regardless of the referee, England lost a test they could have won. Youngs error for Yarde's yellow card was criminal, but the decision not to boot the ball deep into NZ territory at 15-15 when we were down to 14, which eventually led to Marler's getting pinged and the Conrad Smith try, was baffling to me. The two rucks before Marler's we were lucky not to get turned over and then Marler was so isolated when he took it in we were never going to get that back.

Big calls for Lancaster for next week, but again he's come out of a situation with credit to his name the way he handled the absences and then his post-match comments. Bring on the second test.

Inexperience is probably the reason the ball wasnt booted downfield at 15-15
Someone should have made the call,didn't happen or maybe it did
Just wasn't/couldn't be executed

Disney, NZ were good value for the win. But given I thought they would win by 20 that's why you might read my comments as positive on England and negative on NZ. It's all relative to my expectation pre-match.

England had great set piece, but never really looked like scoring apart from the forward knock by brown and the chip through that Should have seen NZ yellow. NZ unfort kept dropping the ball in key attacking positions, which was pretty unusual for them.

Anyway, as I said, thought NZ deserved the win. But was very pleasantly surprised that eng were still in it at the death

disneychilly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Have read some comments here that NZ will have suffered from players still having their "franchise" systems in their head so would have struggled to re-adapt to AB rugby. This is lame. This is typical of the AB fans and players who think the result only depends on the ABs. Professional rugby players live and breathe systems, moves and combinations. And the ABS had 900 caps vs Englands 280 or thereabouts. That tells you everything you need to know about which side should have had more fluency in combinations all over the park.

Know what you're saying mate but most the points about NZ were negative and most points you made about England were positive. Yet NZ still won. The big question is who has the biggest scope for improvement? NZ with two key guys out but with rust out of their system? Or England with new blood and quality but risking undoing some good work with new combinations.

In fairness and to a point the stats show England to have been marginally the better team (territory, possesion, set peice). Only difference is NZ converting their chance against 14 men and us failing to do that against 15.

Cheers Quins yeah in the context of your prediction I definitely see where you're coming from.

I dunno about the set piece really, England shaded the scrums, NZ shaded the restarts and was even stevens at lineout time. England shaded the physical battle but Kaino kept NZ in it-thought the backs were even (Conrad and Aaron Smith, Eastmond and Burns being the pick).

So much room for improvement from both sides, such a scrappy gritty game and you could probably say neither side were good value for much. Both were quite adept at spoiling the other's party. Though NZ's party is further from the engine room than England's and if Savea is fit that'll make it interesting.

The yellows may not have made a difference score wise and with how messy everything was but England deserved better in that regard-and should have had NZ down to 14 at least once. At least Owens explained it to Fekitoa but like Burger's gouge, just because it's at the start of the game doesn't make certain actions deserve certain consequences less.

quinsforever wrote:

Have read some comments here that NZ will have suffered from players still having their "franchise" systems in their head so would have struggled to re-adapt to AB rugby. This is lame. This is typical of the AB fans and players who think the result only depends on the ABs. Professional rugby players live and breathe systems, moves and combinations. And the ABS had 900 caps vs Englands 280 or thereabouts. That tells you everything you need to know about which side should have had more fluency in combinations all over the park.

Quins, the franchise play was about 'cluttered minds'. Hansen said cramming the players minds with a whole new set of information, calls, attack lines etc that were different from what they were employing successfully for the last 6 months had an impact.

But hey. based on your comment the incoming English players should have no problem adjusting from the club final to test rugby then? I mean...assuming professional rugby players  'live and breathe systems, moves and combinations'...especially finalists I take it.

Looking forward to seeing if your lame theory holds true, the transition being 'seamless' I take it.

I'd say we more than shaded the scrum Disney, it was a extremely dominant English scrum performance.

Equally with the restarts, NZ were excellent here.

I'd say we shaded the line out with one or two steals.

Ha guess it's in the eye of the beholder eh-I didn't think NZ were that bad. From what I recall Smith got most of his pill away ok. But I haven't had time to go over the whole test. Front row is a worry for me though. Owen Franks hasn't kicked on after a very impressive start to test rugby and Woodcock is a bit up and down-playing a bit more on reputation. They are great around the park but that's what Australia were saying about their props in the bad old days. The scrum is the core function and needs to be steady. Though this is where Brad Thorn would have come into his own. Wouldn't have gone anywhere-one prop said having him behind you was like having a V8 up your @rse!

Credit Carter for that NZ trend of low restarts. Turns it into a game of murderball. Had Read been fit that stat would have been even more dominant such is his prowess in the air.

I thought your scrum was dreadful! I was praying for knock ons in Saturday.

We have a decent unit but I thought you made us look world beaters. Franks is ok but Woodcock just adds so little these days, Coles seems lost in the set piece too.

I thought Ben T might have broke through by now?

Yeah the ABs make the restarts the pseudo third tight phase after the scrum and lineout...just another way of contesting 50/50 ball restarts. Odd others ides dont make it a huge prio.

It's perfecting it Taylor I imagine.

Kicking the ball deep usually ends up with us getting an attacking line out in the opp half.

If we attempt a short one and lose out (which will probably happen), we hand the opposition decent ball close to the half way.

With the props-I know we play an aerobic game which reaps dividends in the last 15 but there is a possible tradeoff-lose the scrums for an hour yet dominate the game for the last 15? Australia have shown how much a rubbish scrum can stifle you. NZ's nowhere near as bad as Oz a few years ago but you have to guard against that-NZ don't want that to become their achilles heel like their lineout was in the early 00s.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I thought your scrum was dreadful! I was praying for knock ons in Saturday.

We have a decent unit but I thought you made us look world beaters. Franks is ok but Woodcock just adds so little these days, Coles seems lost in the set piece too.

I thought Ben T might have broke through by now?

I think Dave Wilson was having such a good time in the scrum he kept popping up at first receiver and dropping it. I think England were dominant in the scrum, but could only really translate that to a material effect when we had the ball and could hold it in. New Zealand were good at getting their ball away quickly with minimum damage, I'm not sure if we managed to turnover an All Black scrum or not.

Taylorman wrote:Yeah the ABs make the restarts the pseudo third tight phase after the scrum and lineout...just another way of contesting 50/50 ball restarts. Odd others ides dont make it a huge prio.

Kicking a restart doesn't have to be any different to rolling a ball into the scrum or throwing the ball into the lineout, it can be used as a way to contest possession. However as said, New Zealand are one of the few teams to regularly use it to contest possession, most just aim for the corner and look to pen the opposition in with the chase.

I read somewhere that 50% of the time a team will concede points (try or a kicked goal) within 3 minutes of receiving a restart. Which makes defending and even attacking restarts so important. The worst thing when you score points is to let the team come straight up to your end and hit straight back on the scoreboard, so if you can get your exit drills right then you can rebuild your momentum. However, as a team that conceded if you attack the restart you can gain ball in opposition territory and you're one player going off their feet away from taking 3 points back.

England will definitely need to put in some work at receiving contested restarts this week, as otherwise any time England score they're likely to come straight back under pressure as New Zealand force an error at the restart. I wouldn't say contesting restarts themselves is something England could work on this week for the second test, but it may be something England could look to bring into their game with athletic forwards such as Launchbury, Lawes and Wood.

Planet rugby named Manu,burns,robshaw and webber in their team of the week

DaveM wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

It panned out pretty much as I predicted which didn't lesson the annoyance.

You mean a scratch England side competed extremely well with the best side in the world at the most difficult venue in the world, and SL and his coaching teams' reputation was further enhanced?

And?

disneychilly wrote:Ha guess it's in the eye of the beholder eh-I didn't think NZ were that bad. From what I recall Smith got most of his pill away ok. But I haven't had time to go over the whole test. Front row is a worry for me though. Owen Franks hasn't kicked on after a very impressive start to test rugby and Woodcock is a bit up and down-playing a bit more on reputation. They are great around the park but that's what Australia were saying about their props in the bad old days. The scrum is the core function and needs to be steady. Though this is where Brad Thorn would have come into his own. Wouldn't have gone anywhere-one prop said having him behind you was like having a V8 up your @rse!

I tend to agree with you. My feeling was England shaded NZ at the set piece, but it wasn't too bad. They managed to put the NZ scrum under pressure, but most of the time NZ got usable ball and enough stable scrums to give hope. I don't think we've adjusted to the new regime as well as some nations. Added to that we don't have as much depth as say England or South Africa. I doubt it's going to change. We convert a lot of loose forwards to props in their teens, we lose a lot overseas (At least 10 contracted to semifinalists in the 3 main club tournaments in Europe). It means the professional game in NZ is a mixture of new talent, developing talent and small cream of players near their potential. Having said that I'm backing Cron to tighten the scrum up over the week.

blackcanelion wrote:

disneychilly wrote:Ha guess it's in the eye of the beholder eh-I didn't think NZ were that bad. From what I recall Smith got most of his pill away ok. But I haven't had time to go over the whole test. Front row is a worry for me though. Owen Franks hasn't kicked on after a very impressive start to test rugby and Woodcock is a bit up and down-playing a bit more on reputation. They are great around the park but that's what Australia were saying about their props in the bad old days. The scrum is the core function and needs to be steady. Though this is where Brad Thorn would have come into his own. Wouldn't have gone anywhere-one prop said having him behind you was like having a V8 up your @rse!

I tend to agree with you. My feeling was England shaded NZ at the set piece, but it wasn't too bad. They managed to put the NZ scrum under pressure, but most of the time NZ got usable ball and enough stable scrums to give hope. I don't think we've adjusted to the new regime as well as some nations. Added to that we don't have as much depth as say England or South Africa. I doubt it's going to change. We convert a lot of loose forwards to props in their teens, we lose a lot overseas (At least 10 contracted to semifinalists in the 3 main club tournaments in Europe). It means the professional game in NZ is a mixture of new talent, developing talent and small cream of players near their potential. Having said that I'm backing Cron to tighten the scrum up over the week.

I think NZers want to be runners, tacklers and ball handlers rather than grunters and pushers at heart, regardless how big or strong they are. We're not into producing gym jocks for the sake of it so don't 'do' 'prop' the way South Africa and England do. We have the odd few but its not an 'industry' in NZ in the same way as loosies or backs. That could cause us problems in the long run, and it already seems to be now.

Nah, you're just doing it wrong. Take a look at Kyle Sinckler. There's a physique born to prop, if ever there was one. Except he's a converted fullback - and still has the kind of speed a prop should never have.

England have a big enough player pool that they are likely to be able to do that sort of thing on a regular basis now the academies are working properly. That could be a problem for nations with a smaller player pool.