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)

The thing I really didn't understand was bringing Ford on for Eastmond and moving Farrell to 12 when we were chasing the game. I know it will have been premeditated (a big weakness of Lancasters tactics) but a centre partnership of 12.Farrell 13.Barritt just isn't going to drag us back into the match when we were getting dominated in that second half. I know the scoreline was close but NZ were in complete control at that stage.

As well as he did in defence and the graft (as always) Barritt really needs to be at 12 if he's playing. He just hasn't got the pace needed from an international outside centre. Not trying to be facetious but there was one point with a kick through in our 22 when he was outpaced by Coles. We just cant have our 13 being beaten by a hooker if we want to keep improving our back play!

KC - I think it was more to do with having 2 kickers in the 3s. Farrell was under pressure & not kicking particularly well in the wet conditions.
I'm not necessarily saying it was the correct call but I believe that was the reason.

The right change in my book. It was tipping it down and we had, had no field position for virtually the whole second half due to a superior kicking game from nz. The second kicking option was to try and get some field position.

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.

Just to enlarge on the periods of play with a man down;

This year the All blacks have played 12 tests, in those tests the All blacks have been yellow carded 7 times, in those 7 periods they have not conceded a try, but scored three.

aucklandlaurie wrote:This year the All blacks have played 12 tests, in those tests the All blacks have been yellow carded 7 times, in those 7 periods they have not conceded a try, but scored three.

It's an important psychological weapon to have. One NZ Herald writer brought up the 2003 England team's ability to hold out the All Blacks with 13 men. One reason they did that back then, is because New Zealand were too over-eager to take proper advantage.

At the week-end, England were definitely guilty of being too over-eager in the passage of play after May's try. I doubt this New Zealand side would have squandered pressure in the same way. Come the yellow card, though, it wasn't over-eagerness. Instead, it's almost as if England felt weighed-down by the pressure of expectation to score while they had the extra man. When they failed, it seemed to push them further on the back foot. That's the kind of occasion when you want more of our players showing leadership qualities but they just don't have them.

On that note, I see there are a few calls to drop Wood from the team in favour of Haskell. I find that a bit worrying since, when I've raised the question of who replaces an injured Robshaw as openside and captain, the resounding answer here has always been "Wood". If we think he might be off the pace at the moment without the captaincy, then I'm even more nervous if we need to to switch positions and take on extra responsibility.

If Haskell is played instead of Wood, then who assumes the captaincy if Robshaw is injured? Haskell does the job at Wasps but I'm not sure he's up to the task at Test level. Hartley is a clear contender but Lancaster likes to replace his hooker, and did so again on Saturday. Also, he might not be every referee's cup of tea, to say the least. Marler doesn't yet look especially comfortable with the role at Quins so that leaves Brad Barritt or one of the half backs.

Wood is a class player no doubt but his game is not explosive it's doing the unseen stuff and the basics like tackling hitting rucks...being a grafter.

I think people are just wondering how influential he is in that role whilst also wondering the benefits of two similar players at 6 and 7.

Kaino does the basics, grafts etc but offers much more and has more influence on the game.

I think that's why people are calling for Haskell.

I guess if you play Haskell then Wood goes to the bench and Morgan drops out, leaving Billy to do the full 80 mins

Interesting the comments about England played during the YC period. I just thought of Saracens and Ulster from last year. Sometimes its harder than you would expect to play against 14.

Also England Ireland - trying to remember if it was last 6N or the one before. England YC but they get hold of the ball play smart and control it, getting a penalty in the process.

Teams obviously practice defending as 14 men but I wonder how much work they do attacking vs 14.

I have no problem with Haskell starting but that decision raises the captaincy question which I feel England have avoided addressing for too long. I don't want Robshaw replaced, I just want to know what plans we have if he isn't on the pitch for any reason. Theoretical plans are no plans at all.

As lostinwales says, selecting Haskell could means giving up the two specialist number eights. I wouldn't mind that, because I think the policy restricts our chances of varying the game tactically .

Haskell can at least play across the backrow, and I wouldnt worry too much if Robshaw had to do a spell at 8 also.

Well then look at Ewers or similar options.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:KC - I think it was more to do with having 2 kickers in the 3s. Farrell was under pressure & not kicking particularly well in the wet conditions.
I'm not necessarily saying it was the correct call but I believe that was the reason.

I accept that he may have wanted a second kicker but at the same time Eastmond is meant to have the ability to fulfill that role when needed. If that was his logic it feels a bit like an admittance that Eastmond wasn't up to scratch in that regard, neither was Farrell on Saturday though.

One of the main reason the kickers were under pressure was also because of the lack of penetration from the mid field. If we aren't making head way or causing problems we'll have to resort to putting boot to ball, making it much easier to pressure the kickers.

king_carlos wrote:One of the main reason the kickers were under pressure was also because of the lack of penetration from the mid field. If we aren't making head way or causing problems we'll have to resort to putting boot to ball, making it much easier to pressure the kickers.

Bang on. We didn't threaten the defensive line enough to pull in players from the back. So it was easy work for them to receive the ball and counter-attack with numbers.

Also, is it me or do rarely make ground with our carries, whereas every team against us seems to make ground with every carry?

HammerofThunor wrote:

king_carlos wrote:One of the main reason the kickers were under pressure was also because of the lack of penetration from the mid field. If we aren't making head way or causing problems we'll have to resort to putting boot to ball, making it much easier to pressure the kickers.

Bang on. We didn't threaten the defensive line enough to pull in players from the back. So it was easy work for them to receive the ball and counter-attack with numbers.

Also, is it me or do rarely make ground with our carries, whereas every team against us seems to make ground with every carry?

Agree on the first point. The second is slightly harsh on ourselves IMO. I would certainly prefer us to have more big carrying options in the pack (been saying it for years) but our defense, especially in the channel between the break down and fly half where forwards look to make the tough metres tends to be very good indeed.

The main problem I see in this regard is that getting over the gainline requires strong carries and rapid ball retention. At the moment it just feels that many of our forwards are selected almost solely for one or the other. Contrast that with NZ and you see the big difference between our packs, in that all of Whitelock, Retallick, Kaino and Read make metres and smash through rucks all game every game. That all round ability going forwards just feels to be slightly lacking at present from our forwards.

Rugby Fan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:This year the All blacks have played 12 tests, in those tests the All blacks have been yellow carded 7 times, in those 7 periods they have not conceded a try, but scored three.

It's an important psychological weapon to have. One NZ Herald writer brought up the 2003 England team's ability to hold out the All Blacks with 13 men. One reason they did that back then, is because New Zealand were too over-eager to take proper advantage.

Yes that's probably true but that's not the reason sides don't capitalise on the AB's one man down. Sure the AB's show greater resolve but more its simply because the opposition do dumb things. Kicking the ball to the AB's as England did last weekend- how on earth is that going to give a side an advantage? That 10 minutes should have been started by holding the ball and running the AB's ragged until it became obvious after 7 or 8 minutes that 14 cannot beat 15. That's how it should always work. How that's not obvious I don't know.

So I'd rather be over eager in trying to take advantage than doing things that have no hope of advantage. Rather that than not doing anything at all.

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:This year the All blacks have played 12 tests, in those tests the All blacks have been yellow carded 7 times, in those 7 periods they have not conceded a try, but scored three.

It's an important psychological weapon to have. One NZ Herald writer brought up the 2003 England team's ability to hold out the All Blacks with 13 men. One reason they did that back then, is because New Zealand were too over-eager to take proper advantage.

Yes that's probably true but that's not the reason sides don't capitalise on the AB's one man down.

I agree! That's what I went on to say in the next paragraph.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:This year the All blacks have played 12 tests, in those tests the All blacks have been yellow carded 7 times, in those 7 periods they have not conceded a try, but scored three.

It's an important psychological weapon to have. One NZ Herald writer brought up the 2003 England team's ability to hold out the All Blacks with 13 men. One reason they did that back then, is because New Zealand were too over-eager to take proper advantage.

Yes that's probably true but that's not the reason sides don't capitalise on the AB's one man down.

I agree! That's what I went on to say in the next paragraph.

I suppose one thing is that some sides are better equipped at taking advantage of the one down. The AB's play a game that tries to run a 15 side side down through running them ragged anyway let alone 14. When they get a side down a man they just up the tempo. Others aren't necessarily in that position to just turn it on when they need to...I suppose the point is, in this game they need to be. Yellows are are real scenario in today's game and must be planned for- man up or down.

The way I see the AB's is by largely picking very mobile and skilled ball carriers in the tight 5 they effectively have 16 or even 17 players on the field anyway, relative to sides that pick a tight 5 with the set piece as premiuim priority.

The amount of ground a Coles or Retallick might cover over Bismarck or Matfield- and I havnt measured it, I believe is worth another set of legs on the paddock.

And this game is about making use or shutting down the amount of space and time available. The more runners you have going into those areas the more chance you have of either opening them up, or shutting them down.

Taylorman wrote:...The way I see the AB's is by largely picking very mobile and skilled ball carriers in the tight 5 they effectively have 16 or even 17 players on the field anyway, relative to sides that pick a tight 5 with the set piece as premiuim priority.

The amount of ground a Coles or Retallick might cover over Bismarck or Matfield- and I havnt measured it, I believe is worth another set of legs on the paddock.

I don't know that the advantage lies in getting around the pitch more. The wouldn't have much, if anything, over the English pack in that respect. The real skill All Black forwards show is knowing when to run to join a ruck and when to be elsewhere. When Read and McCaw appear in the backline, it's because they stayed out, not because they ran to a ruck and back out again.

Brian Moore noticed the same thing. He pointed out that England often had the right numbers to defend, but there would often be a NZ forward in the mix when we had backs, we usually meant the ball got recycled quickly to cause further problems.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...The way I see the AB's is by largely picking very mobile and skilled ball carriers in the tight 5 they effectively have 16 or even 17 players on the field anyway, relative to sides that pick a tight 5 with the set piece as premiuim priority.

The amount of ground a Coles or Retallick might cover over Bismarck or Matfield- and I havnt measured it, I believe is worth another set of legs on the paddock.

I don't know that the advantage lies in getting around the pitch more. The wouldn't have much, if anything, over the English pack in that respect. The real skill All Black forwards show is knowing when to run to join a ruck and when to be elsewhere. When Read and McCaw appear in the backline, it's because they stayed out, not because they ran to a ruck and back out again.

Brian Moore noticed the same thing. He pointed out that England often had the right numbers to defend, but there would often be a NZ forward in the mix when we had backs, we usually meant the ball got recycled quickly to cause further problems.

Yes but that leads to the thinking that the AB's are simply smarter which I don't believe accounts for their overall success.

I believe the average kiwi rugby player at the International level is more athletic, skilful in terms of the basics- running, passing, tackling etc, simply because NZ plays a 15 man game that requires every individual to adopt a higher level of 'open' ball game- the period's when the players are individuals rather than position specialists. At the heart of every AB is inherently running, catching and passing the ball.

The set plays, breakdowns, lineouts although requiring high levels of skill are still methods of restarting the game to get the ball in play, not the means to an end. And yes NZ are smart in those areas because we have to be. We don't go for the biggest pros, tallest locks, we go for those with the ball skills and who can hold their own at set piece time.

We play that sort of game in NZ at all levels. Its why we get the comment that we do the basics so well, which is exactly that- 15 rugby players all doing a lot of the same things well. And by doing that, we get to fill up those spaces more frequently.

In others I see the heart of the game being long periods in the gym, or setting 100 scrums at training etc, mostly leaving the ball in play work to the loosies the backs...while they do the 'real work'. Its that thinking that sets them behind the AB's.

Good to see even Englands best supporting my view:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/10732818/Unsung-blue-collar-workers-make-the-ABs-great

"Fitzpatrick said Woodward and Wilkinson were most impressed by the ability of the All Blacks tight forwards to remain involved in the game outside their usual core roles.

"The skill level - that's the thing the likes of Jonny Wilkinson and Clive Woodward are wanting to watch in terms of the Brodie Retallicks and the Sam Whitelocks. Sitting in the box those are the names they are talking about more than Sonny Bill Williams or Julian Savea.

"They were also saying the names of [Charlie] Faumuina and [Patrick] Tuipulotu; those sort of players who seamlessly fit into the team. Dane Coles and the Franks boys, they can all run and pass, plus do the basic jobs really well."

That to me is the difference.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well then look at Ewers or similar options.

Not vs SA