SF1 - Match Thread - ENGLAND v NEW ZEALAND - 26/10/19 - K/O 09:00 BST

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

Again, making these early for the sake of ease and consistency.

ENGLAND

Team:Daly; Watson, Tuilagi, Farrell (capt), May; Ford, Youngs; M Vunipola, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Lawes, Curry, Underhill, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Cowan-Dickie, Marler, Cole, Kruis, Wilson, Heinz, Slade, Joseph.

NEW ZEALAND

Team: Beauden Barrett; Sevu Reece, Jack Goodhue, Anton Lienert-Brown, George Bridge; Richie Mo'unga, Aaron Smith; Joe Moody, Codie Taylor, Nepo Laulala, Brodie Retallick, Sam Whitelock, Scott Barrett, Ardie Savea, Kieran Read (capt).

Replacements: Dane Coles, Ofa Tuungafasi, Angus Ta'avao, Patrick Tuipulotu, Sam Cane, TJ Perenara, Sonny Bill Williams, Jordie Barrett.



Venue: Yokohama
Referee: Nigel Owens
AR1: Romain Poite
AR2: Pascal Gauzere
TMO: Marius Joncker

[Collapse2005]

Its unsurprising that there are envious eyes cast on the English players.

Why cause they are all sooo perfect?

[Guest]

Yawn..............

Missing that French game has given us such an advantage, the lads look fit and up for this game.

Ooh, cheeky, TH...

[TightHEAD]

Whats wrong with that?

[TightHEAD]

I wonder if well just drop kick our way to victory and catch NZ cold?

[Rugby Fan]

Austin Healey nervous about the recall of Ford.

I am surprised by Eddie Jones’ decision to recall George Ford to his starting side and I think the All Blacks will be quite pleased he has made that call.

There are two things that concern me about it. The main one is what impact it will have on England in defence. This is not the biggest back division the All Blacks have fielded but they will run straight at Ford and ask him to make a lot of tackles on the gainline. If he gets knocked back and they make inroads then Jones will be asked real questions.

More than that I fear what New Zealand could do in the wide channels beyond England’s outside centre. Last week that was Henry Slade, and we saw when Marika Koroibete scored for the Wallabies at the start of the second half how dangerous it is if your No13 gets a read wrong and is caught out of position. Australia were clinical on that occasion but New Zealand are a cut above anything England will have faced so far.

This week Manu Tuilagi is the man tasked with the hardest defensive job in rugby, marshalling that outside channel. Manu is in good shape and excellent form but he tends to defend with his shoulders turned in. Ideally you want your outside centre to be able to drift and react to pace with speed of thought and action. For that reason I would actually have considered playing Jonathan Joseph in this match. He is one of the quickest 13s in world rugby and knows everything there is to know about that position. He would have added defensive solidity outside Owen Farrell and Manu.

Instead, Tuilagi has been picked to play there. John Mitchell, the defence coach, clearly wants them to defend zonally and in a straight line, which is great as long as they don’t get outside you or find the edge as then you’re scrambling and struggling to turn and make up ground.

nd New Zealand are primed to exploit any gap in England’s defence. Picking Richie Mo’unga at fly-half and moving Beauden Barrett to full-back has made them even more dangerous, with Barrett a master at seeing an opportunity and accelerating through gaps, particularly through that outside channel. He combines speed of food with speed of mind and that’s a very dangerous combination. England need to put a couple of high balls on Barrett early and smash him as soon as he lands, which I would suggest is what Courtney Lawes has been tasked with.

The second reason Ford’s selection concerns me slightly is that it may limit Farrell’s effectiveness. I thought the captain was very, very good back in the fly-half shirt against Australia. His pass for Kyle Sinckler’s try was world-class and his kicking from the tee was spot on. But what we saw last Saturday was how Farrell likes to kick to alleviate pressure when he’s in possession. It’s his go-to move and that is a lot harder to do when you’re a second receiver at No12 because the opposition will be all over you by the time you get the ball. Considering the All Black team was named a few hours before England’s I wonder if Eddie briefly considered changing tack and not playing Ford to counter that physical threat. If he did we will never know.

There is no doubt that Eddie will live and die by this decision. If England win by five points he’s a genius, and if they lose by five everyone will ask why he changed it. That said,  England can definitely win. If you look at the packs it is like the roles have been reversed. New Zealand have picked a pack to play a traditionally English style of game, based on size and mauling. England’s forwards are likely to play in a more All Black fashion, based on movement and dynamism. It is even-stevens there.

If England are to win then it will be down to a couple of moments of brilliance in attack and they’ve certainly got players capable of those. They can’t pay the All Blacks too much respect and they have to swarm all over them at any given opportunity. Whenever we beat them it’s because we force them into errors and encourage them to play too much rugby in their own half.

If the game does become scrappy then that’s when Ford comes into his own. There is no-one better at analysing what is going on in front of him and manipulating the defence accordingly. The main question is whether he will get the chance to do so.

And while this may come as a surprise to my many, many friends across the Severn Bridge I will be fully hoping for England and Wales to win this weekend. What better end to the World Cup could there be than that? I’d say the two northern hemisphere sides have an equal chance of winning this weekend. Eddie Jones’ selections will certainly go a long way towards determining if England do so.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-world-cup/2019/10/24/decision-recall-george-ford-against-new-zealand-leaves-concerned/

[Guest]

You have to think EJ has prepared for that like NZ will prepare for Tuilagi.

Is it ridiculous to think EJ might look to use some good old fashioned blocking if Ford gets carried back in the tackle, with Curry and Underhill then poised to latch on to the ball carrier as he gets isolated for a second or two? Basically some sort of version of what Scotland did to NZ? You'd have to say it's unlikely to work for the full 80 - NZ will adapt - but it's an option to make NZ carry within themselves a bit more, and avoid running down Ford's channel so close to the forward pack.

[quinsforever]

yes good point about joseph vs tuilagi in defense.

thats why Jones gets paid to make the big calls though.

reality is i dont think its possible to just defend and beat NZ (unless you're Ireland ), so i would have gone with ford, farrell, tuilagi too. keep our attacking big gun options. NZ are going to score. we just have to score more.

[Scottrf]

Austin Healey nervous about the recall of Ford.

I would actually have considered playing Jonathan Joseph in this match. He is one of the quickest 13s in world rugby and knows everything there is to know about that position. He would have added defensive solidity outside Owen Farrell and Manu.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-world-cup/2019/10/24/decision-recall-george-ford-against-new-zealand-leaves-concerned/

@miaow

[Guest]

Austin Healey nervous about the recall of Ford.

I would actually have considered playing Jonathan Joseph in this match. He is one of the quickest 13s in world rugby and knows everything there is to know about that position. He would have added defensive solidity outside Owen Farrell and Manu.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-world-cup/2019/10/24/decision-recall-george-ford-against-new-zealand-leaves-concerned/

@miaow

Tuilagi a defensive liability? JJ has hardly played test rugby for 2 years?

Not sure how this article hurts my point tbh...

[Big]

Fair point on Ford's channel keeping attackers near the pack. I can't see that anyone is going to want to get their players tackled near curry and underhill on purpose. And if they do then I won't complain. Its not like Ford misses his tackles, just not as strong in it as some others.

[Taylorman]

Austin Healey nervous about the recall of Ford.

I am surprised by Eddie Jones’ decision to recall George Ford to his starting side and I think the All Blacks will be quite pleased he has made that call.

There are two things that concern me about it. The main one is what impact it will have on England in defence. This is not the biggest back division the All Blacks have fielded but they will run straight at Ford and ask him to make a lot of tackles on the gainline. If he gets knocked back and they make inroads then Jones will be asked real questions.

More than that I fear what New Zealand could do in the wide channels beyond England’s outside centre. Last week that was Henry Slade, and we saw when Marika Koroibete scored for the Wallabies at the start of the second half how dangerous it is if your No13 gets a read wrong and is caught out of position. Australia were clinical on that occasion but New Zealand are a cut above anything England will have faced so far.

This week Manu Tuilagi is the man tasked with the hardest defensive job in rugby, marshalling that outside channel. Manu is in good shape and excellent form but he tends to defend with his shoulders turned in. Ideally you want your outside centre to be able to drift and react to pace with speed of thought and action. For that reason I would actually have considered playing Jonathan Joseph in this match. He is one of the quickest 13s in world rugby and knows everything there is to know about that position. He would have added defensive solidity outside Owen Farrell and Manu.

Instead, Tuilagi has been picked to play there. John Mitchell, the defence coach, clearly wants them to defend zonally and in a straight line, which is great as long as they don’t get outside you or find the edge as then you’re scrambling and struggling to turn and make up ground.

nd New Zealand are primed to exploit any gap in England’s defence. Picking Richie Mo’unga at fly-half and moving Beauden Barrett to full-back has made them even more dangerous, with Barrett a master at seeing an opportunity and accelerating through gaps, particularly through that outside channel. He combines speed of food with speed of mind and that’s a very dangerous combination. England need to put a couple of high balls on Barrett early and smash him as soon as he lands, which I would suggest is what Courtney Lawes has been tasked with.

The second reason Ford’s selection concerns me slightly is that it may limit Farrell’s effectiveness. I thought the captain was very, very good back in the fly-half shirt against Australia. His pass for Kyle Sinckler’s try was world-class and his kicking from the tee was spot on. But what we saw last Saturday was how Farrell likes to kick to alleviate pressure when he’s in possession. It’s his go-to move and that is a lot harder to do when you’re a second receiver at No12 because the opposition will be all over you by the time you get the ball. Considering the All Black team was named a few hours before England’s I wonder if Eddie briefly considered changing tack and not playing Ford to counter that physical threat. If he did we will never know.

There is no doubt that Eddie will live and die by this decision. If England win by five points he’s a genius, and if they lose by five everyone will ask why he changed it. That said,  England can definitely win. If you look at the packs it is like the roles have been reversed. New Zealand have picked a pack to play a traditionally English style of game, based on size and mauling. England’s forwards are likely to play in a more All Black fashion, based on movement and dynamism. It is even-stevens there.

If England are to win then it will be down to a couple of moments of brilliance in attack and they’ve certainly got players capable of those. They can’t pay the All Blacks too much respect and they have to swarm all over them at any given opportunity. Whenever we beat them it’s because we force them into errors and encourage them to play too much rugby in their own half.

If the game does become scrappy then that’s when Ford comes into his own. There is no-one better at analysing what is going on in front of him and manipulating the defence accordingly. The main question is whether he will get the chance to do so.

And while this may come as a surprise to my many, many friends across the Severn Bridge I will be fully hoping for England and Wales to win this weekend. What better end to the World Cup could there be than that? I’d say the two northern hemisphere sides have an equal chance of winning this weekend. Eddie Jones’ selections will certainly go a long way towards determining if England do so.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-world-cup/2019/10/24/decision-recall-george-ford-against-new-zealand-leaves-concerned/

Selecting Ford may not work in Farrells favour but neither will leaving a Farrell on his own to be the single playmaker, and therefore single target. Ford is there to share the playmaking load’, to have two options at run, kick or pass. If Healy thinks because of the Oz match Farrell can ‘handle’ that area vs NZ then IMO he’s wrong. Oz ran no variations in play and just ran at a brick wall all day. ABs are not that dumb, which is what the Wallabies were.

”There is no-one better at analysing what is going on in front of him and manipulating the defence accordingly. The main question is whether he will get the chance to do so.”

Exactly. He’s answered his own question. Whether he will get the chance to do so? If there’s not one better’, how on earth is leaving him out going to be better. The point is ‘he HAS to do so’. It’s a World Cup semi. No time for doubt now.

It might not work for them, but that doesn’t mean leaving Farrell as the sole playmaker would have either. I don’t think it will matter, but at least it gives them variation.

“ England need to put a couple of high balls on Barrett early and smash him as soon as he lands, which I would suggest is what Courtney Lawes has been tasked with. ”

Geez, good luck with that. Barrett’s one of the best under the high ball and Im sorry Austin, the game isn’t as simple as that, and others have tried that many times, and have sometimes found themselves standing under the posts a minute later.

Be careful of what you ask for.

[Scottrf]

Don’t worry, Austin isn’t our coach, he’s just looking for an I told you so after the match.

[stub]

Yeah, think that’s an accurate summary Scott.

[Taylorman]

Yeah looks like it. Some really poor thoughts in there. It’s really quite simple. Farrell was the better option for a one dimensional Oz. Eddie picked that very well.

Eddie also knows ABs are the opposite of one dimensional, and have found variation in playmaking key to mixing things up on attack.

Eddies simply countering that variation and allowing Farrell more room to operate. If Farrell was it he’d find himself as targeted as Sexton was, and last time I heard, Sexton was reportedly the better 10 of the two. ABs managed to reduce Sexton and Murray to spectators.

[stub]

It promises to be a fascinating match up and Im really looking forward to it. Pretty sure NZ will win but I’m hoping England give them a good test. Im pleased to see Ford and Farrell starting and hope they can create some collective magic!

[TightHEAD]

Austin Healey nervous about the recall of Ford.

I would actually have considered playing Jonathan Joseph in this match. He is one of the quickest 13s in world rugby and knows everything there is to know about that position. He would have added defensive solidity outside Owen Farrell and Manu.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-world-cup/2019/10/24/decision-recall-george-ford-against-new-zealand-leaves-concerned/

@miaow

Bang on the money.

[Big]

...

“ England need to put a couple of high balls on Barrett early and smash him as soon as he lands, which I would suggest is what Courtney Lawes has been tasked with. ”

Geez, good luck with that. Barrett’s one of the best under the high ball and Im sorry Austin, the game isn’t as simple as that, and others have tried that many times, and have sometimes found themselves standing under the posts a minute later.

I think it has always been the case that if you kick to the back 3 of a NZ side you need to do it really blinking well to avoid being punished for it.  But you don't just need an aggressive chase to manage it, you need the right length and height kick timed to perfection with the chasers they have.  The player most likely to land those cruel kicks where receiver gets man and ball simultaneously and can do naff all about it is … Ford. So if that is the plan, it's probably another reason to pick him.

[Taylorman]

...

“ England need to put a couple of high balls on Barrett early and smash him as soon as he lands, which I would suggest is what Courtney Lawes has been tasked with. ”

Geez, good luck with that. Barrett’s one of the best under the high ball and Im sorry Austin, the game isn’t as simple as that, and others have tried that many times, and have sometimes found themselves standing under the posts a minute later.

I think it has always been the case that if you kick to the back 3 of a NZ side you need to do it really blinking well to avoid being punished for it.  But you don't just need an aggressive chase to manage it, you need the right length and height kick timed to perfection with the chasers they have.  The player most likely to land those cruel kicks where receiver gets man and ball simultaneously and can do naff all about it is … Ford. So if that is the plan, it's probably another reason to pick him.

Yep spot on. Ford gives you the best chance of that. Youngs should be an option there as well but I think in all honesty he’ll have a mare. He’s faltered several times against us earlier in the Youngs, Care tag team days. Amazing England still haven’t found a better 9 option after all these years.

But yeah hoping to nail Barrett ‘after’ he’s taken the high ball tops the to do list but saying it and doing it are two very different things. Sometimes it’s as though Barrett’s already plotting his run line before he goes up.

Still, they have to try it. It could provide a turning point.

[Cyril]

Happy with the side pick and confident that the game plan will give England the best chance of a win. Time will tell.

All this talk of multiple playmakers and variety though. When England beat NZ comfortably in 2012 they had Farrell, Barrett and Tuilagi!

[Taylorman]

Games moved on though. This aint 2012 and defensive patterns are far better now. In 2012 England basically ran straight at NZ as Oz did last week, and found the gaps, fairly easily. They won’t find them like that this time. Well, not like 2012.

[majesticimperialman]

Scot Barrett in for Sam Cane. hmmmmm is there a bit of panic in there for Hansen?

Is he afraid that Sam Cane cannot handle Sam Underhill and Tom Curry?

Very surprising for me.

[Taylorman]

Panic? You’d think by now Hansen would be the last person who looks like he’s panicking. The guy virtually sleeps through the tests.
Cane is now seen as too pedestrian on attack. What we lose on the ground we gain over it, and in the air. Pretty simple. Youth and skills gives way to structure and experience.

Since Eden park Hansen’s simply gone with the youthful energy, and, from memory, now nine Crusaders start.

Scott Roberston and OGara will be keen tomorrow.

[Cyril]

With all this talk of youthful energy I’d be interested to see what the average ages across the sides are. Can’t be bothered to work it out though! England back row must be amongst the youngest in the tournament.

[Guest]

The guy virtually sleeps through the tests.

Talking about sleep - do you ever? Are you getting in a solid 4 hours of 606 before work? Genuinely not a WUM, just slightly confused at the times of interaction.

[Collapse2005]

The guy virtually sleeps through the tests.

Talking about sleep - do you ever? Are you getting in a solid 4 hours of 606 before work? Genuinely not a WUM, just slightly confused at the times of interaction.

Good question. Taylorman must work nightshifts.

[majesticimperialman]

The guy virtually sleeps through the tests.

Talking about sleep - do you ever? Are you getting in a solid 4 hours of 606 before work? Genuinely not a WUM, just slightly confused at the times of interaction.

Good question. Taylorman must work nightshifts.

Not doing much work if he is on here all night.

[Taylorman]

I’m up at 5 every morning for work. Last posted around 12.30 last night when I don’t normally. Big deal. You can post from anywhere, not like you need to even be awake for some responses:D

Do NHers not get up early? Or do they have a curfew. Need to harden up if those are ‘absurd hours...to pick up a fone’.

Oh, and yesterday had a day off. That ok? Or should I check with you first?

[Cyril]

Not sure any of the regulars who post on here can point fingers about over-posting or unusual hours!

[formerly known as Sam]

Not sure any of the regulars who post on here can point fingers about over-posting or unusual hours!

very true.

[stub]

T’man is probably just getting excited about Saturday which is understandable. Not sure if he is the most prolific poster? Maybe that honour goes to someone like Miaow?

[Guest]

I’m up at 5 every morning for work. Last posted around 12.30 last night when I don’t normally. Big deal. You can post from anywhere, not like you need to even be awake for some responses:D

Do NHers not get up early? Or do they have a curfew. Need to harden up if those are ‘absurd hours...to pick up a fone’.

Oh, and yesterday had a day off. That ok? Or should I check with you first?

No problem, thanks for the answer. Personally don't touch technology for the first few hours of waking up. Think it's horrible for stress. Can't imagine doing so a 5 in the morning, but there we go. Think it's equally bad using it late at night, but I do fall in to that trap sometimes myself.

[Taylorman]

With all this talk of youthful energy I’d be interested to see what the average ages across the sides are. Can’t be bothered to work it out though! England back row must be amongst the youngest in the tournament.

Yeah its not so much the average age, its dropping key experience when theye been relied on to hold the side together for years.

Smith, 32 for Rees- 22
Crotty, SBW both 32+ and World cup finals winners for Goodhue, 24
Same Cane, and back up to McCaw for years, for barrett, same age but a gulf in experience
Bridge, for Reiko, simlar age but Reiko was in the last two years the worlds best winger.

None of those replacements have test pedigree, the ones they replaced have world cup titles, and are uninjured, some in form.

All of a sudden, 300 caps gives way to 60, 2 or 3 weeks before, or during the knockouts.

No other side is doing that. Theyre looking for tried and true, no risks to be taken at this point.

Hansen has gone in a complete different direction.

[Taylorman]

I’m up at 5 every morning for work. Last posted around 12.30 last night when I don’t normally. Big deal. You can post from anywhere, not like you need to even be awake for some responses:D

Do NHers not get up early? Or do they have a curfew. Need to harden up if those are ‘absurd hours...to pick up a fone’.

Oh, and yesterday had a day off. That ok? Or should I check with you first?

No problem, thanks for the answer. Personally don't touch technology for the first few hours of waking up. Think it's horrible for stress. Can't imagine doing so a 5 in the morning, but there we go. Think it's equally bad using it late at night, but I do fall in to that trap sometimes myself.

Im in IT, partner works at the hospital, works for us. get your point though, postings too easy these days. They need an AA for it.

[Guest]

Not sure any of the regulars who post on here can point fingers about over-posting or unusual hours!

very true.

6700 and 13600 posts respectively.

Huh...

[BamBam]

Flouncing off for 6 months at a time will reduce opportunities for post count

[kingelderfield]

Cant read all the posts, so my apologies, and I'm sure this will have been covered......but surely if you want to go after England you square off their forwards and that starts with the front row, Mako and for me Kyle Sincklers propping ability, or to be fair, weakness........get Kyle at scrum time and a significant stone will be loose in our wall.
All the focus has been on the lineout and Barrett's selection, however the scrum for me is equally important, though maybe less appreciated in the modern game.

[Guest]

Disagree no other team gets rid of experience for a RWC. Gatland's done it in every RWC he's coached - Warburton, Faletau, Lydiate and several backs coming to the fore in 2011 with a new captain; dropping Hibbard and Mike Phillips and a few others for 2015; this year he's gone for more of a mix, but, again, he's dropped experienced props and a 21 year old loosehead absolutely obliterated the famed French scrum that forced the pressure that produced the match winning try - which has been lost in the furore over whether Wales were lucky or not. What a contribution from him - and look at his celebration for the try. That's what it's all about.

England have done it with their flankers, Ireland less so, Scotland sort of. France don't really count as they're in constant flux.

In fact, the only one I can think of in recent years getting it really wrong and sticking with the old heads - other than maybe Schmidt - would be Lancaster not taking the likes of Itoje, and relying on the wrong players to lead them.

I'd say Gatland repeated it with the Lions as well in many ways. Jamie George was a test Lion before he'd started a game for England. Itoje was at the heart of the side. There's less scope to pick inexperience, but Gatland absolutely trusts the mantra of 'good enough, old enough', as long as it meets his standards.

The only difference for NZ is that the standards are generally higher - so where some players begin to fall off a bit around 32, the likes of Robshaw or Hibbard or whoever else - so it seems less obvious/fair/riskier. It's also a decent tactic to do as long as the culture's good, to have the older, experienced heads ready to step in as and when they youngsters either get injured or fail - it's 'better' to try the new thing and adapt with experience than it is the alternative, and have a Colin Slade situation, basically, where the call up doesn't quite handle the added, individualised pressure. You also know what you're getting with old pros.

If anything, I'd say Hansen has taken a leaf out of Gatland's book, he's just tweaked it slightly for NZ by not dropping them out right and leaving it something of an unknown to the last minute. But by and large, Gatland's literally done this with Wales in the last 3 WCs, particularly 2011.

[Guest]

Flouncing off for 6 months at a time will reduce opportunities for post count

There's a consistently homophobic and/or sexist tone to your repeated use of the word 'flounce', Bam. This isn't a new thing - the accusations of 'being a girl' have occurred for years. You really are a toxic inidividual. I don't think I've ever read anything of worth from you on this site, it's just personal vitriol. Like always.

[Taylorman]

(Kingd...)

That's only if you look from an England perspective.

ABs have thrown up in neon lights how they will go after England, and that is to lift the pace and intensity of the game to such a rate that England fall off their normal game. England must slow the game down somehow or theyll be run ragged.

Hansens picked players that are simply going to attack everything, without a doubt. What you see as risk is out the window for the ABs. Its now risk NOT to play a fast game, because we havent selected players to play an attritional, pressure ending duel. Hes pick players to end England as quickly on the clock as possible.

Thats exactly what they did to Ireland.

Hansens looking for a point of difference, and I think he's found a big one, because theres to much conversatism in todays game. Theyve all gone defence bonkers. Theyve all gone risk averse. And when your 20 down after 25 minutes you can bet your gameplan didnt account for that. Irelands didnt so all they could do was toil away.

It could well be that England, like Ireland, will wonder what on earth hit them. Keep saying it but its very clear to me thats on the cards. Im surprised all this talk about lineouts, scrums is even a discussion. Its 15 on 15 exc subs on a field where players run around on. Simple. Overthinking it is already costing sides.

[stub]

Ah, BamBam is ok Miaow. Not sure what history there is in terms of posts between you two but I’m sure BamBam is just fighting his corner.

[BamBam]

Flouncing off for 6 months at a time will reduce opportunities for post count

There's a consistently homophobic and/or sexist tone to your repeated use of the word 'flounce', Bam. This isn't a new thing - the accusations of 'being a girl' have occurred for years. You really are a toxic inidividual. I don't think I've ever read anything of worth from you on this site, it's just personal vitriol. Like always.

Strong words

You can change flouncing for "crying and taking your ball home" instead if you want

[stub]

Taylorman, genuine question, have NZ really clearly stated their game plan regarding England? And if so, why would anyone chose to believe them? Also, I’m not sure that England are as susceptible to being blown away by a super fast game as perhaps they once were...

[Taylorman]

Taylorman, genuine question, have NZ really clearly stated their game plan regarding England? And if so, why would anyone chose to believe them? Also, I’m not sure that England are as susceptible to being blown away by a super fast game as perhaps they once were...

They've stated it with their selections, theyve stated it with the validation that picking the young guns, upping the tempo against Ireland was enough to destroy them.
They dropped experience after losing 47-26 in Perth and chose young guns- and won 36-0.

Versus Ireland they dropped more experience, and thrashed Ireland, also by running them ragged.

My question is, what does it take for the obvious to hit home. I find it 'astounding' that the AB gameplan is not clear and obvious. This isnt some game of cat and mouse, some conspiracy.

Hansen is saying, as he said to Ireland..'we are going to run you ragged so you will not be able to play your normal game'.
And thats exactly what happened.

And even now, the only change he makes is a young, fast, highly skillful ball carrying forward to replace a player that spends most of his time tackling and in the tight.

He's made his intentions so clear its unbelievable its not that obvious.

Talk here should be about how England are going to slow the ABs down- big time. Yet none. No ones even bothering.

Im thinking no one even watched the first hour of the Ireland game. Cos its all there.

[stub]

Ok, yes I see what you’re saying in terms of the selection being the statement.
I know it’s not very English but what if they don’t necessarily fear a fast open game? Or, what if they feel that they can get some control of the game anyway?
I guess that to have a chance of winning against the best you need to have a game for all occasions and all adaptations that the opposition makes.
England will certainly need to do that if they are have a chance on Saturday, as I suspect NZ will have more than one game plan up their sleeves.
It’s going to be fascinating (hopefully)!

[majesticimperialman]

Taylorman, genuine question, have NZ really clearly stated their game plan regarding England? And if so, why would anyone chose to believe them? Also, I’m not sure that England are as susceptible to being blown away by a super fast game as perhaps they once were...

They've stated it with their selections, theyve stated it with the validation that picking the young guns, upping the tempo against Ireland was enough to destroy them.
They dropped experience after losing 47-26 in Perth and chose young guns- and won 36-0.

Versus Ireland they dropped more experience, and thrashed Ireland, also by running them ragged.

My question is, what does it take for the obvious to hit home. I find it 'astounding' that the AB gameplan is not clear and obvious. This isnt some game of cat and mouse, some conspiracy.

Hansen is saying, as he said to Ireland..'we are going to run you ragged so you will not be able to play your normal game'.
And thats exactly what happened.

And even now, the only change he makes is a young, fast, highly skillful ball carrying forward to replace a player that spends most of his time tackling and in the tight.

He's made his intentions so clear its unbelievable its not that obvious.

Talk here should be about how England are going to slow the ABs down- big time. Yet none. No ones even bothering.

Im thinking no one even watched the first hour of the Ireland game. Cos its all there.

The all blacks ran Ireland ragged and put 46 point's on them, but still let Ireland score 2 try's. 

Compare this to England v Australia, England seem to be going through the gears not really running them ragged, put 40 points on them( Australia) That is, and only letting them score 1 try.

So if you compare both games on merit, they are about equal. Do you not think?

[Taylorman]

Game was well and truly over when Ireland scored. They were typical keep the score down efforts... with the ABs effort done, eyes on the next match. Yes, even with the time to go.

1 or 2 tries? You really think that was the diff between the two efforts?

Oz kept England at bay for the first twenty minutes. NZ slaughtered Ireland in the first twenty.

Theres your comparison right there oif you want one. England start that slowly, theyll be toast.

Im not saying they didnt win well, they did. But you cant summarise the difference as two late tries to one. Thats just silly. You have to score them when it counts and Oz sure did that, brought the score right back.

[Cyril]

I thought you said the first try/early play wasn’t really important in terms of being ahead and it’s almost good if the first side put pressure on you and then blow themselves out, Taylor? Just like the Aussies versus England?

You really do want this both ways.

[sensisball]

Ireland were eviserated last week, the culmination of a year of slow but almost inevitable decline.
Australia went toe to toe with England until Beale decide to shoot Australia in both kneecaps with some headless chicken rugby. His team mates then decided to join him in pressing self destruct.Will England be blown away in the same manner? Unlikely. Will the blackness be able to exploit Daly's defensive weaknesses, a lack of defensive power at 12 and a lack of lineout options in the back row? Highly likely .

[stub]

Yep, I thought the Aussies gave it a good go to a point, whereas the Irish were a shadow of what they can be. Too simple to try a suggest a like for like comparison anyways.

[Taylorman]

I thought you said the first try/early play wasn’t really important in terms of being ahead and it’s almost good if the first side put pressure on you and then blow themselves out, Taylor? Just like the Aussies versus England?

You really do want this both ways.

geez, unbelievable. I said the first try in the first minute OR TWO, ON ITS OWN, doesnt matter so much in context of the whole match.

But the ABs ran rampant early and ended up scoring 7 for goodness sake.

Did I say scoring 'several' early was irrelevant. Honestly.

[Sponsored content]