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)

stub wrote:

nathan wrote:I don't think we'll be ready for next year. World Cup after that we could do really well

You could well be right but don't you think that with a few missing players returning the balance could further shift?

I wouldn't be too despondent. First game of the season for England, NZ coming of the back of a great 4N. England matched them for long periods but kicked far too much ball away

Well played England but must be disappointed for not really pushing NZ who seemed to walk it comfortably in the end. Closer to a 10 point win for NZ in terms of dominance, so much more clinical and professional. England should have capitalised more on their line out dominance and the amount of kicks NZ missed.

TJ wrote:

nathan wrote:They didn't use up all the time, there was time for the kick off still. In the second half England wasn't making any inroads into the New Zealand defence and so it was the safer option.

~Safer but could never lead to the win

It stood as much chance as any other option. We got the try (fortuitous) and got the ball back with one final play. Game was always up in all honesty when they failed to score from the lineout with 5 minutes to go. The first scrum was on 3 minutes to go mark and frankly was the only way we would ever score.

tj, that's incorrect, fact. The ball was in player after the pen try so England could of scored another try

England were starved of possession & position in the 2nd half partly due our pathetic tactical kicking. Never got us out of trouble and kept setting NZ up for their attack. Care, Brown & Farrell must take the lion's share of the responsibility for that. As well as not having a IC that can help out enough here.

Rugby Fan - the explanation I can think of is that NZ stepped up the intensity and stopped us playing.

I thought England pretty good in the first half but ABs off their game and too many penalties. England were in their face and really competing making the rucks hard work for A Smith. ABs tightened up in the 2nd half and played some pretty good wet weather rugby for a while.
ABs left a few points on the field via average kicking. I thought we were hard done by with the yellow card against Coles and no yellow for the offside on the try line by England. Bad luck to Whitelock for the no try. Good last 10 mins by England.
Owens was a bit weird today I thought

nathan wrote:tj, that's incorrect, fact. The ball was in player after the pen try so England could of scored another try

in 15 seconds? they wasted 5 minutes!

stub wrote:Rugby Fan - the explanation I can think of is that NZ stepped up the intensity and stopped us playing.

That must be right. If I was a coach, though, I'd want to know where we failed to adapt to that extra pressure

TJ wrote:

nathan wrote:tj, that's incorrect, fact. The ball was in player after the pen try so England could of scored another try

in 15 seconds?  they wasted 5 minutes!

Not true, but not willing to repeat myself, so if interested read back.

So you guys are prepared to settle for a narrow loss rather than going for the win? Thats disappointing

TJ wrote:So you guys are prepared to settle for a narrow loss rather than going for the win?  Thats disappointing

I think your chronology of the match is wanting,

Rugby Fan wrote:

stub wrote:Rugby Fan - the explanation I can think of is that NZ stepped up the intensity and stopped us playing.

That must be right. If I was a coach, though, I'd want to know where we failed to adapt to that extra pressure

I agree - if we're going to beat them we've got to keep them under pressure for more than 50 minutes and not allow them to turn the tables. Big ask against a team like NZ though..

they deserved it. But it doesn't stop it from hurting.

TJ we went for the win- we were 10 points down with 4 mins left - we got the try and conversion in 3 and a half minutes and then had ball position to try and get more points.

no other team could have done more.

TJ wrote:So you guys are prepared to settle for a narrow loss rather than going for the win?  Thats disappointing

How can you go for a win after the game?

Scoring 2 tries in 3 minutes is hard - especially against such a streetwise team. Englands tactics gave them a chance, slight, but they had the ball and a chance to score a winning try.

Great win aucks, taylor, ebob and the rest.

it started really peeing down hard in the end and your intensity start of the second half did the damage- bth teams were guilty of missing chances, but your never lose attitude won the battle- the war is yet to come.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

TJ wrote:So you guys are prepared to settle for a narrow loss rather than going for the win?  Thats disappointing

How can you go for a win after the game?

If they had kicked the pen straight away they would have had 3 mins to score a try to draw. If they had tapped or gone for the lineout and scored a try they would have had a couple of minutes to score again. By opting for the string of scrums they used up all the time

cheers Mystir, I thought Englands Defence, lineout, goal kicking,scrum and restarts were all better than New Zealands, your right the war is yet to come. but if we had lost to day I think we would have given England some confidence and ascendancy going into the war.

Rugby Fan wrote:

stub wrote:Rugby Fan - the explanation I can think of is that NZ stepped up the intensity and stopped us playing.

That must be right. If I was a coach, though, I'd want to know where we failed to adapt to that extra pressure

To be honest they showed their experience then.

Completely unfazed by the score or the man in the bin they went through the motions, did what they needed to do and got the try.

England on the other hand looked like rabbits in headlights at the fact we were ahead, went into our shells and tried to kick everything for some insane reason.

Robshaw was outstanding today but he's still no Mccaw, Smit, Johnson or O'Connell

Given the weather there was a good chance the lineout would be lost. So right call for me. Not only that but there were around 4 penalties given in the 22 which in most cases would have been a yellow.

Wood, Care and Farrell...

TJ wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

TJ wrote:So you guys are prepared to settle for a narrow loss rather than going for the win?  Thats disappointing

How can you go for a win after the game?

If they had kicked the pen straight away they would have had 3 mins to score a try to draw.  If they had tapped or gone for the lineout and scored a try they would have had a couple of minutes to score again.  By opting for the string of scrums they used up all the time

You never know England could have got some penalty ties off some those scrums (it does happen), and won the game, but I do admire your 20/20 hindsight.

aucklandlaurie wrote:cheers Mystir, I thought Englands Defence, lineout, goal kicking,scrum and restarts were all better than New Zealands, your right the war is yet to come. but if we had lost to day I think we would have given England some confidence and ascendancy going into the war.

I think both sides did better on the restarted when they were kicking. Neither were great when recieving. England's lineout was good. England just couldn't make ground meaning the All Blacks could stay back to comfortably take the kick. Considering the injuries and the new (again) centre partnership, it wasn't too bad I suppose.

TJ wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

TJ wrote:So you guys are prepared to settle for a narrow loss rather than going for the win?  Thats disappointing

How can you go for a win after the game?

If they had kicked the pen straight away they would have had 3 mins to score a try to draw.  If they had tapped or gone for the lineout and scored a try they would have had a couple of minutes to score again.  By opting for the string of scrums they used up all the time

If they d have gone for other options and not scored? They went for what they thought and given the try for me were proved correct.

TJ wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

TJ wrote:So you guys are prepared to settle for a narrow loss rather than going for the win?  Thats disappointing

How can you go for a win after the game?

If they had kicked the pen straight away they would have had 3 mins to score a try to draw.  If they had tapped or gone for the lineout and scored a try they would have had a couple of minutes to score again.  By opting for the string of scrums they used up all the time

It looked to me as if they were going for the win by using one of their strengths, so I don't see where you're coming from with this. Unlucky England I guess, but should win their remaining fixtures IMO.

On the plus side - just how good was Attwood?

TJ wrote:If they had kicked the pen straight away they would have had 3 mins to score a try to draw.  If they had tapped or gone for the lineout and scored a try they would have had a couple of minutes to score again.  By opting for the string of scrums they used up all the time

You are just being Captain Hindsight.

We needed a try. We were in a good position to get one - especially given we hadn't been scoring them earlier. At that stage of the game, it was always going to come down to how we played our last set of phases. It was always better to need a drop goal or penalty to draw than a converted try target from them. It also meant another try could win.

thomh wrote:On the plus side - just how good was Attwood?

Really good!

Him, Eastmond and Robshaw all did themselves proud. The rest were pretty 50/50, except Wood and Hartley who were poor

Was Hartley poor? The lineout was excellent all day. They didn't show a replay in the stadium of whatever that penalty the touch judge gave against him was.

Didn't think a huge amount of Eastmond to be honest. Threw a couple of bad left hand passes, one of which Brown still should have taken. Seemed to tackle well though.

Agree Wood was anonymous. Is it time to give Haskell a go, especially against a pack like the Boks'?

Attwood was superb, and I thought Kruis did well too considering everything.

I thought Farrell and Care were both woeful. Needless and aimless kicking from both, and Care kicked away every possession we had from rucks and mauls. Absolutely infuriating.

Why Lancaster insisted on keeping Farrell on the pitch at 12 to accommodate Ford I will never know. Eastmond was more than handling the defensive duties and provides more of an attacking threat than Farrell has in a long while.

Barritt did what was expected. Defended well. Set up May's try with a nice floating pass.

May was great when he got his hands on the ball. Did everything he could without it- chased and defended brilliantly.

I thought the front row replacements were all superb- Mullan and Webber in particular.

Unless Care and Farrell can find something more to offer than completely useless kicks that simply undo all the brilliant work by our pack, they should be benched. Utterly infuriating.

Billy was really good and i think he could have gone on. i take it SL doesnt believe he can last the full 80.

Eddie, don't forget wor keiron.

I thought wood worked hard, was at every breakdown either trying to clear out or steal ball. His 13 tackles were only 4 less than Robshaw. As always he was a prime source of lineout ball including stealing from NZ.

As to Eastmond - did well in defence but offered little in attack. TBH with so much ball being kicked away we saw little from anyone outside the half backs, except for Mays early score.

mystiroakey wrote:Billy was really good and i think he could have gone on. i take it SL doesnt believe he can last the full 80.

Hadn't he taken a knock?

Kieran Brookes GF? He did really well too. Great scrummaging at the end. Want to see him get his hands on the ball too though!

Wood did too little on open play for me, look at the impact of his opposite number. Tackling is one of the most basic attributes to be expected of a flanker, not the only attribute. He took line out ball too but I don't think he's the only one that could do that job.

[quote="LondonTiger"
As to Eastmond - did well in defence but offered little in attack. TBH with so much ball being kicked away we saw little from anyone outside the half backs, except for Mays early score.[/quote]

Agree we didn't see too much of them both but I thought the touches that we did see from the centre pairing were promising, I think the Eastmond/Barrett combo could work for the moment, but please don't put Farrell at 12 again.

yappysnap wrote:Wood did too little on open play for me, look at the impact of his opposite number. Tackling is one of the most basic attributes to be expected of a flanker, not the only attribute. He took line out ball too but I don't think he's the only one that could do that job.

But his job in the team is lineouts, tackles and hitting every ruck and maul. He is not asked to be a runner by doing this he frees up BillyV and Morgan to do the carrying. Selecting anyone else necessitates a change in tactics.

Noit saying we should not make a change - but criticising a player for fulfilling the role assigned to him - to the letter - seems harsh.

Thanks Mystir, felt like a pretty even game overall. Dont think you guys bossed us and the game around or played with as much arrogance as I expected. Sporting arrogance I mean. The twickers atmosphere should frighten the bejesus out of any RWC opponents. Read between the lines on that one.

Not an enjoyable game to watch - not the second half anyway. Too frustrating!
England just coughed up possession too easily.

Not entirely a coincidence we started to lose our way when Lawes went off.

England put in a good shift today from a cold start against a team who have been together for months, 3 points down against the All Blacks 1st game up is no shame.
IMHO you have quality players and one of the best but humblest coaches I have seen. Good luck with the remaining games, you will certainly win something if you can build on today.

ebop wrote:Thanks Mystir, felt like a pretty even game overall. Dont think you guys bossed us and the game around or played with as much arrogance as I expected. Sporting arrogance I mean. The twickers atmosphere should frighten the bejesus out of any RWC opponents. Read between the lines on that one.

Too subtle for me I'm afraid - any more clues on this one ebop?

2ndtimeround wrote:England put in a good shift today from a cold start against a team who have been together for months, 3 points down against the All Blacks 1st game up is no shame.
IMHO you have quality players and one of the best but humblest coaches I have seen. Good luck with the remaining games, you will certainly win something if you can build on today.

Thanks
A good result really when you think we were missing our first choice props, locks and centres.

Haha, come on stub you know what I mean. It's nothing sinister, just home advantage and 'all' that that entails. It's a healthy one based on today's game but I guess all games are different so it's not to be banked on. It worries me if we get to play you guys. It's home advantage, it's natural, but some are better than others. Who could resist 82,000 people? Not easy. If England make the final, it'd be a tricky game to ref that's for sure. Joubert would be the man (sorry biltong )

Are you suggesting England got the rub of the green? If so, are you drunk?

England absolutely did not get the benefit of the referee today - not by a long way. Dodgy place kicking from NZ counterbalanced that and we didn't deserve to win, but Owens was not in our favour.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:England put in a good shift today from a cold start against a team who have been together for months, 3 points down against the All Blacks 1st game up is no shame.
IMHO you have quality players and one of the best but humblest coaches I have seen. Good luck with the remaining games, you will certainly win something if you can build on today.

Thanks
A good result really when you think we were missing our first choice props, locks and centres.

True we are missing personnel but at this level that's no excuse. Truth - painful though it is - we weren't good enough.