SF1 - Match Thread - ENGLAND v NEW ZEALAND - 26/10/19 - K/O 09:00 BST (PART 2)

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

Because everyone else is getting a bit excited and the first thread is going to spill over during the match.

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

[englandglory4ever]

England's/Saracens' rush defence by committed tacklers nullified the NZ side and stopped their attacks time after time. NZ were undone by a team intent on cutting out their time and space. It required supreme fitness and ability. How England kept that pace up for 80 minutes is staggering. I thought after the first 15 mins the England players would blow up in the second half, but they didn't. SA will have to play very well indeed to beat them if they all are injury free.

[Engine#4]

Taylor has mentioned the coaches experience of beating NZ in 2003 a few times, but I still struggle to see the relevance other than NZ being one of the participants.

The laws have changed multiple times since then, athleticism has arguably gone up by just as many fold and obviously no one other than Jones and Mitchell was involved

Why is it relevant?

Struggling with that too but it's probably something to do with Mitchell being a Kiwi, Jones being a SH coach and the NH in general being the root of all evil.

[No 7&1/2]

Just on that tuilagi missed tackle it was the 72nd minute on a guy cutting back in. Bar that he was outstanding at 13.

[lostinwales]

Just on that tuilagi missed tackle it was the 72nd minute on a guy cutting back in. Bar that he was outstanding at 13.

He was replaced not long after if I recall correctly. Great display at outside centre.

[Gooseberry]

 It required supreme fitness and ability. How England kept that pace up for 80 minutes is staggering. I thought after the first 15 mins the England players would blow up in the second half, but they didn't. SA will have to play very well indeed to beat them if they all are injury free.

I really think thats the point of difference with this England team. Its something theyve talked about for a long time (the first thing Johnson supposedly focused on when he came in). remember back in 2011 when Gatland made a big song and dance about the Welsh fitness regime that seemed to be the turning point for them from being a side that could win grand slams to one that could comepete with the Sanzars. This 2003 England side of "white orcs" set a new bar for physical training in that era, I think this one has substantially raised the bar for the NH. NZ are certainly up there on that score, it was very noticeable against Ireland who just couldnt cope with their intensity. And of course Japan too over achieved largely based on a speed of play that caught many sides on the hop. 
Its vindication for moving on from many of the old guard, even players like Robshaw who was famed for his work rate, the likes of Curry Underhill and Itoje are making him look pedestrian and lazy. 

Have to take my hats off to Jones, hes seen the players that can give him what he wanted and what the previous coaches would have loved, and trusted them to deliver. hes always been searching for those magic players, especially in the back row, who could elevate England to this level and hes struck gold with Curry and Underhill. 

SA by 10 

[No 7&1/2]

A minute and a half later lost!

[Afro]

SA by 10 

And what about by 11, when the final whistle goes?

[Taylorman]

I am very confused as to where the negativity in the England performance was. I thought they were very positive in there approach to the New Zealand game and out All Blacked the All Blacks.

Me too  - in fact I asked TM to explain and all I got was a load of waffle about the NZ selections and then when I asked what that had to do with England supposedly being negative all I got was more arrogant 'you don't understand rugby' type comments etc ...

But to be fair let's see if it's just me not understanding TM's answers when I asked him to justify his England playing negatively position ...

ME:

"Educate us all then and explain what NZ were trying to do that England weren't doing?"

TM:

"already have.
But for the misinformed.

At Eden park we dropped the experience of Franks, Ben Smith and the form of Reiko for three new players to big test match rugby. None had started in RCs nor World cups etc though Laulua mah have at some point.

That resulted in a 36-0 win over oz.

Thinking there is youth a vitality tops experience. Versus Ireland, he did it again, dropped Crotty and Ben Smith right out,bring in Goodhue, another who hasn’t done the rounds much.

Vs Ireland, the fast game plan was working. Ireland were not good enough to hold their own and the pace on the ball and in the collisions meant we were able to score seven tries, most from creative movements as we first stretched then broke down the Irish and Farrell defence.

So again, emp,owing the ‘kids’ worked. Who needs experience when they’re running free like that.

So he does it again. Takes a Cane off versus England in an effort to make the open play even faster, totally ignoring the fact that Mitchell has been brought in, and as losing coach of the AB side in 03, and dumped by NZ rugby after it, clearly had views on why his side lost and how he can help Eddie and England here.

So the ABs went in with a whole bunch of new players and left fit, and in form, experienced World Cup winning players, out.

All on the basis of two months ago. Meanwhile, Eddies been plotting this for two years. He knew he would meet the ABs

So they simply negated the ABs time and space and it meant we had inexperience on when the tough got going.

Had players like Ben Smith, Crotty, even Owens and a less extreme open game plan been deployed we would have had a better chance.

That is a NZ viewpoint of the loss. It’s being commonly discussed here. We certainly accept the loss, we just need to get back up, and start again. It’s not a sign of our rugby deteriorating, but it is a sign we need new ideas."

ME:

"TM that was all very interesting about NZ selection errors but doesn't explain why you say England were negative just because they were adept at shutting down NZ - that's just one part of the game surely. Pourfoor put it much more eloquently a few posts earlier."

TM:

"That’s because you are not looking at things from a NZ point of view. Have to say, the analysis skills on this site aren’t very high. More bickering and name calling than actual analysis. Armchair fans with little technical appreciation of either the complexity of the game, nor its trends, and certainly not its potential.

I’m no expert either, but Ive certainly seen forums that are."

End of quotes - anyone any the wiser how that justifies his view that England were negative, uncreative and boring?

ME...

Perhaps that’s why you keep needing SH coaches to run the teams for you. You just don’t get it.

How do we win you ask. I don’t know, how about we get a SH coach in to answer that?

[Scottrf]

Pool A: NH NH NH SH NH
Pool B: SH SH NH SH NH (only pool where SH did better)
Pool C: NH NH SH SH NH
Pool D: NH SH SH NH SH

[Old Man]

Pool A: NH NH NH SH NH
Pool B: SH SH NH SH NH (only pool where SH did better)
Pool C: NH NH SH SH NH
Pool D: NH SH SH NH SH

There are 6 NH teams who play professional rugby vs 4 SH teams that play professional rugby, hence it stands to reason 6 should beat 4

[Taylorman]

Pool A: NH NH NH SH NH
Pool B: SH SH NH SH NH (only pool where SH did better)
Pool C: NH NH SH SH NH
Pool D: NH SH SH NH SH

Durr, when two of the best three SH sides are in one pool what would you expect.
When ALL the successful NH sides are SH coached what would you expect.
When hundreds of SH players, probably over 1000 after this tournament, will play in the NH, what would you expect?

Easy game this huh? You need our players, coaches, ideas to be effective. You spend hundreds of millions into the SH every year, ‘just to be competitive’.

[Scottrf]

Excuses. NH teams were more successful, those are the facts. NH domination.

[Old Man]

[Guest]

I'm not sure anyone can seriously argue that Australia/NZ isn't where fundamental rugby innovation and the best skills reside. SA has its positives too, but by and large it's less skill based than Oz's use of the different codes and understanding of sport in general, and the Kiwis' fanaticism with rugby, aligned with just very different cultures and attitude to life than you'll find in the NH.

No one can argue that SH coaching hasn't been key in maximising what is - quite clearly - underutilised and undervalued talent in the NH, particularly in England. French nationalism to not hire Gatland - and just hope Shaun Edwards will be enough - will cost them, as they're next in line for wasted potential.

But if you're really claiming the 'W' because a Japanese-American heritage Australian grew up within a few thousand miles of you...hmmmm...

[Taylorman]

Excuses. NH teams were more successful, those are the facts. NH domination.

How so? You have more sides. There were two each in the semis. All SH coached, One each in the finals.

Dominant? If that’s dominant then you’re easily pleased. I’ve seen dominant over NH sides and it looks nothing like that

[Taylorman]

I'm not sure anyone can seriously argue that Australia/NZ isn't where fundamental rugby innovation and the best skills reside. SA has its positives too, but by and large it's less skill based than Oz's use of the different codes and understanding of sport in general, and the Kiwis' fanaticism with rugby, aligned with just very different cultures and attitude to life than you'll find in the NH.

No one can argue that SH coaching hasn't been key in maximising what is - quite clearly - underutilised and undervalued talent in the NH, particularly in England. French nationalism to not hire Gatland - and just hope Shaun Edwards will be enough - will cost them, as they're next in line for wasted potential.

But if you're really claiming the 'W' because a Japanese-American heritage Australian grew up within a few thousand miles of you...hmmmm...

Jones? He played and learned his coaching trade in Oz. That’s what makes him SH. What part of that is not clear? He’s a product of Oz pro rugby.

[TightHEAD]

Just caught up on Scrum V, Jiffy looked so uncomfortable talking about how good England looked vs NZ.

[Soul Requiem]

It quite amusing seeing a AB fan trying to take credit for an Australian coach.

[Taylorman]

It quite amusing seeing a AB fan trying to take credit for an Australian coach.

...and there it is...the inevitable resignation and drop to personal jibes.

[Soul Requiem]

It quite amusing seeing a AB fan trying to take credit for an Australian coach.

...and there it is...the inevitable resignation and drop to personal jibes.

Your posts get quite tiresome after a while, always along the same lines.

[Scottrf]

Excuses. NH teams were more successful, those are the facts. NH domination.

How so? You have more sides. There were two each in the semis. All SH coached, One each in the finals.

Dominant? If that’s dominant then you’re easily pleased. I’ve seen dominant over NH sides and it looks nothing like that

Just pointing out your nonsense really. There's no NH/SH in World Rugby. There's individual unions, who can only take credit for their own achievements.

[Taylorman]

Excuses. NH teams were more successful, those are the facts. NH domination.

How so? You have more sides. There were two each in the semis. All SH coached, One each in the finals.

Dominant? If that’s dominant then you’re easily pleased. I’ve seen dominant over NH sides and it looks nothing like that

Just pointing out your nonsense really. There's no NH/SH in World Rugby. There's individual unions, who can only take credit for their own achievements.

True, they all just happen to have to cross the equator to find a coach. Clubs just happen to cross the equator to find hundreds of players to complete their squads, win their titles.

If there’s no NH/ SH in rugby, why does an area with a far bigger population, need to cross the equator to buy massive numbers of coaches and players.

Can you explain that? What is it about rugby in your areas that makes people say...‘you’re not good enough. I’m leaving the country, and am flying to...Oz, SA, NZ...(take your pick)...to find better players, coaches (take your pick) than you lot, because we want to win, and we can’t do it with the talent we have.

Can you explain that please?

And this...”Only take credit for their own achievements? Ha. You mean our achievements.”

[Soul Requiem]

The sore loser is in full flow now, must be difficult knowing you've got a pretty meaningless game to come while better teams are playing for the world cup.

[Guest]

Tbf I don't see Argentinian coaches in high demand in Europe. Lots of European talent across the other SH teams though - Welsh and Irish coaches with SA for starters. The game and world has gone global. Can't adapt...you die. Simples, as our commercial meerkat faced friend would say.

[Guest]

Also...clubs crossing the equator? These men and women are getting on their bikes, so to speak, and following the money. Weird. You do realise the project player system and the odd coaching job doesn't represent the totality of why people are heading North - it's for more money and a better life, or the pursuit of it? There are very few people not using networks to make the leap of their own volition. The whole of the SH isn't being head hunted...

Dave Denton played for Scotland because he sent an email to the SRU when he left school and moved over to Britain. That was it. Got on his bike, earnt a career in rugby.

Your narrative sounds twisted tbh. Simplistic and twisted.

[Sgt_Pooly]

Not been on the forum for a while but worth a visit after us reaching the final.

Strong performance from England that has been building for some time, although perhaps only the 2nd or 3rd time we've managed to put it together for 80mins and not just a half.

I've been saying this for a few years now, this is just not a great NZ side. Too many average players and players coming to the end of their careers has cost them. No doubt they'll be back but they'll need to dig deep into their reserves and it may take a few years to get back where they're used to.

You can't lose players like Kaino, McCaw, Nonu, Smith and replace them with Cane, Barrett etc (Savea could be a gem but he needs better at 6/8). That backline (Smith and Barrett aside) is pretty poor by NZ standards, perhaps the worst wing combo I've seen in about 10/15 years if I'm honest. Similar with the backrow which is just not up to it, Cane looks so out of place at this level it's untrue and Read is not the pkayer he was 3/4 years ago.

What has been surprising is how NZ have plumped for props who can scrum but offer not that much else around the park...a complete turnaround from the Franks era where mobility and work rate were preferred over set piece work.

Anyway, back to England, very exciting times. SA were the side that worried me the most pre-WC and it's typical we get them in the Final. If one side can match our physicality and even surpass it, it's SA. If SA keep it tight like they did against Wales, I\d fancy us by 10-15pts. If they cut loose, it's on a knife edge.

The future is looking bright past the WC. Most positions have depth in the pack, TH perhaps needs somebody stepping up to challenge Kyle. I think we've shown we don't desperately need a firing Billy and a backup should be looked at post WC, perhaps the lad at Quins?

Scrum half is still an issue, a top 9 would perhaps give this backline a bit more fizz which we miss at times. Manu is a gem and should be wrapped in cotton wool until 2023.

[Taylorman]

The sore loser is in full flow now, must be difficult knowing you've got a pretty meaningless game to come while better teams are playing for the world cup.

Aha, first you engage, try to reason logically, find you can’t, then resort to the loser tag. Ok then.

Poor, but expected.

[lostinwales]

Manu is on record of saying he won't have another RWC in him, but we can hope.

[Guest]

Haha, welcome back Pooly...what a response...

[Taylorman]

Not been on the forum for a while but worth a visit after us reaching the final.

Strong performance from England that has been building for some time, although perhaps only the 2nd or 3rd time we've managed to put it together for 80mins and not just a half.

I've been saying this for a few years now, this is just not a great NZ side. Too many average players and players coming to the end of their careers has cost them. No doubt they'll be back but they'll need to dig deep into their reserves and it may take a few years to get back where they're used to.

You can't lose players like Kaino, McCaw, Nonu, Smith and replace them with Cane, Barrett etc (Savea could be a gem but he needs better at 6/8). That backline (Smith and Barrett aside) is pretty poor by NZ standards, perhaps the worst wing combo I've seen in about 10/15 years if I'm honest. Similar with the backrow which is just not up to it, Cane looks so out of place at this level it's untrue and Read is not the pkayer he was 3/4 years ago.

What has been surprising is how NZ have plumped for props who can scrum but offer not that much else around the park...a complete turnaround from the Franks era where mobility and work rate were preferred over set piece work.

Anyway, back to England, very exciting times. SA were the side that worried me the most pre-WC and it's typical we get them in the Final. If one side can match our physicality and even surpass it, it's SA. If SA keep it tight like they did against Wales, I\d fancy us by 10-15pts. If they cut loose, it's on a knife edge.

The future is looking bright past the WC. Most positions have depth in the pack, TH perhaps needs somebody stepping up to challenge Kyle. I think we've shown we don't desperately need a firing Billy and a backup should be looked at post WC, perhaps the lad at Quins?

Scrum half is still an issue, a top 9 would perhaps give this backline a bit more fizz which we miss at times. Manu is a gem and should be wrapped in cotton wool until 2023.

Sgt pooly, Franks ran forever zero meters vs Oz in Perth. Laulala is far more mobile, which is exactly why he got the nod. Our props may not have actually been mobile from what you are watching, but the intent was to select ones that were.

[Sgt_Pooly]

I was thinking of Franks more like a flanker in his work rate/handling than his carrying Taylor. Never rated him much in the scrum but he was very handy around the park.

Not having a go at all by the way, I just don't think this is a vintage NZ side. Was chatting with a NZ work buddy before the game and he was telling me this one of the best NZ sides ever....had to really bite my tongue as he's a nice guy.

No doubt they'll be back but there's some work to be done.

Similar with England, we're far from this all conquering side currently. Just a bit better than some of the competition It's been a very tight WC when you think about it.

[king_carlos]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rugby-world-cup-england-reap-benefits-of-steve-borthwicks-lineout-phd-g2hq9gmzx

Really interesting article there about the line-out battle in the semi.

Particularly like the analysis they've done of key line-outs at the end of the article.

[Taylorman]

I was thinking of Franks more like a flanker in his work rate/handling than his carrying Taylor. Never rated him much in the scrum but he was very handy around the park.

Not having a go at all by the way, I just don't think this is a vintage NZ side. Was chatting with a NZ work buddy before the game and he was telling me this one of the best NZ sides ever....had to really bite my tongue as he's a nice guy.

No doubt they'll be back but there's some work to be done.

Similar with England, we're far from this all conquering side currently. Just a bit better than some of the competition It's been a very tight WC when you think about it.

Oh look the standards have dropped considerably bar probably England, and that will be much to do with Eddie.

Oz are shocking, and look at Ireland and Wales, both ranked the best side in the world st the start if this tournament. Their performances were an embarrassment to the game. One couldn't play and the other didn't losing to tier two side.

Our standard has dropped as well. You talk about poor backs. I don't see many good ones.

[Heaf]

Excuses. NH teams were more successful, those are the facts. NH domination.

How so? You have more sides. There were two each in the semis. All SH coached, One each in the finals.

Dominant? If that’s dominant then you’re easily pleased. I’ve seen dominant over NH sides and it looks nothing like that

Just pointing out your nonsense really. There's no NH/SH in World Rugby. There's individual unions, who can only take credit for their own achievements.

True, they all just happen to have to cross the equator to find a coach. Clubs just happen to cross the equator to find hundreds of players to complete their squads, win their titles.

If there’s no NH/ SH in rugby, why does an area with a far bigger population, need to cross the equator to buy massive numbers of coaches and players.

Can you explain that? What is it about rugby in your areas that makes people say...‘you’re not good enough. I’m leaving the country, and am flying to...Oz, SA, NZ...(take your pick)...to find better players, coaches (take your pick) than you lot, because we want to win, and we can’t do it with the talent we have.

Can you explain that please?

And this...”Only take credit for their own achievements? Ha. You mean our achievements.”

OK TM - enlighten us all with how you personally have contributed to the achievements of the SH teams?

[Guest]

Behind the paywall, King. Happy to share?

[Heaf]

I am very confused as to where the negativity in the England performance was. I thought they were very positive in there approach to the New Zealand game and out All Blacked the All Blacks.

Me too  - in fact I asked TM to explain and all I got was a load of waffle about the NZ selections and then when I asked what that had to do with England supposedly being negative all I got was more arrogant 'you don't understand rugby' type comments etc ...

But to be fair let's see if it's just me not understanding TM's answers when I asked him to justify his England playing negatively position ...

ME:

"Educate us all then and explain what NZ were trying to do that England weren't doing?"

TM:

"already have.
But for the misinformed.

At Eden park we dropped the experience of Franks, Ben Smith and the form of Reiko for three new players to big test match rugby. None had started in RCs nor World cups etc though Laulua mah have at some point.

That resulted in a 36-0 win over oz.

Thinking there is youth a vitality tops experience. Versus Ireland, he did it again, dropped Crotty and Ben Smith right out,bring in Goodhue, another who hasn’t done the rounds much.

Vs Ireland, the fast game plan was working. Ireland were not good enough to hold their own and the pace on the ball and in the collisions meant we were able to score seven tries, most from creative movements as we first stretched then broke down the Irish and Farrell defence.

So again, emp,owing the ‘kids’ worked. Who needs experience when they’re running free like that.

So he does it again. Takes a Cane off versus England in an effort to make the open play even faster, totally ignoring the fact that Mitchell has been brought in, and as losing coach of the AB side in 03, and dumped by NZ rugby after it, clearly had views on why his side lost and how he can help Eddie and England here.

So the ABs went in with a whole bunch of new players and left fit, and in form, experienced World Cup winning players, out.

All on the basis of two months ago. Meanwhile, Eddies been plotting this for two years. He knew he would meet the ABs

So they simply negated the ABs time and space and it meant we had inexperience on when the tough got going.

Had players like Ben Smith, Crotty, even Owens and a less extreme open game plan been deployed we would have had a better chance.

That is a NZ viewpoint of the loss. It’s being commonly discussed here. We certainly accept the loss, we just need to get back up, and start again. It’s not a sign of our rugby deteriorating, but it is a sign we need new ideas."

ME:

"TM that was all very interesting about NZ selection errors but doesn't explain why you say England were negative just because they were adept at shutting down NZ - that's just one part of the game surely. Pourfoor put it much more eloquently a few posts earlier."

TM:

"That’s because you are not looking at things from a NZ point of view. Have to say, the analysis skills on this site aren’t very high. More bickering and name calling than actual analysis. Armchair fans with little technical appreciation of either the complexity of the game, nor its trends, and certainly not its potential.

I’m no expert either, but Ive certainly seen forums that are."

End of quotes - anyone any the wiser how that justifies his view that England were negative, uncreative and boring?

ME...

Perhaps that’s why you keep needing SH coaches to run the teams for you. You just don’t get it.

How do we win you ask. I don’t know, how about we get a SH coach in to answer that?

So still more irrelevant waffle and no coherent answer to justify your statements that England are negative, uncreative and boring?

[Geordie]

Heaf,
Never argue with an idiot....theyll drag you down to their level....

[Heaf]

Yeh - must have caught me at weak moment, I should have known better ...

[king_carlos]

“Professor Borthwick” was how Maro Itoje described the England forwards coach after he had devised a lineout strategy so sharp, so cunning and so creative that it emasculated New Zealand in an area of the game that the All Blacks not only pride themselves on but had explicitly targeted.

The seeds of the plan were sowed at Twickenham last November, when England lost five lineouts in the second half after the All Blacks had brought on Scott Barrett, a lock, and played him at blind-side flanker.

New Zealand had four jumpers and England’s set piece crumbled. Although they had a late try disallowed for a marginal offside call, England blamed that second half lineout malfunction for their 16-15 defeat.

In some ways, it was the best thing that could have happened. Steve Hansen, usually such a shrewd selector as the All Blacks head coach, took the left-field decision to hand Barrett his first Test start in the back row on Saturday, dropping Sam Cane to the bench.

England knew the All Blacks were coming for them and decided to take the challenge on directly. “We had great buy-in from the whole squad,” George Kruis, the England lock, said.

England’s lineout purred under no real pressure; New Zealand’s coughed, spluttered and fell apart like an old car. From 11 All Black lineouts, England stole two, Itoje forced two more turnovers in the lineout drive and disrupted another to spoil the ball.

“Steve Borthwick has made a career of lineouts,” Itoje said. “He is the professor. If there was a PhD in lineouts, he would be a double PhD.”

Kruis, who came on in the second half to take over the lineout calling, suggested that Borthwick had devised a set of lineout plays for this game; which would fit with England’s overall game plan to hit the All Blacks with pictures they had never seen before.

That began with their V-sign response to the haka, it continued with the little trick play at the kick-off and was extended through England’s lineout strategy, with all its variety and choreography, that left the All Blacks clutching at thin air.

In the build-up to the game, Borthwick had England’s back-up forwards emulating the All Blacks, allowing Itoje, Courtney Lawes and the others to perfect their timing and execution. England would have had up to 50 different calls going into the game; they used four, five and seven-man formations with players switching roles and fooling the All Blacks with the kind of acting skills that would earn graduation from drama school.

“In the lineout, a lot of the time it is the locks who get up but the guys who make it work are the props, the flankers, their movement off the ball, their movement to lift, they are really the guys that make it work and there was a big buy in this week,” Itoje said.

In one fifth-minute lineout, Curry virtually had his hands on his hips as a bystander before spinning as three England players interchanged positions before he spun and was lifted to claim the catch.

“It was something we had to get right,” Kruis said. “We had a hell of a lot of lineouts [20 for England, 11 for New Zealand]. They have a very athletic team, a very consistent team and they very well drilled. We just had to be smart and really learn from the loss in November.

“In that game, we went well for 60 minutes and then pretty much lost the game because we did not adapt quick enough. I would like to think today that we did a good job learning from it.

“Today, we adapted. We had a bank of calls that reflected what we needed to take on. It had to be a varied approach and I think Maro called very well at the start and we finished it off.”

Twice New Zealand secured their own lineout throw only for England to turn them over in the maul. Itoje, who was titanic in every area, won the first as he wrestled past Kieran Read and Barrett and used his incredible reach to tie in Codie Taylor and clamp down on the ball. The second was a double-team effort from Lawes and Itoje after the All Blacks had spilt the ball.

New Zealand abandoned their selection plan at half-time, which was one key victory for England on the way to arguably their greatest win. Barrett did not have that bad a game, but he was hooked for Cane in a bid to reduce the game-shaking influence of Tom Curry and Sam Underhill, the twin open-sides, who wreaked havoc, making a series of dominant tackles as England won the contact battle.

As good as England’s lineout performance was, it was not perfect. Curry mistimed his lift on Itoje, the ball sailed over England’s lock to Ardie Savea and he scored. Borthwick, ever the perfectionist, wasted no time launching an investigation. “He has already quizzed me on it,” Kruis said afterwards. “He is an unbelievably good coach and we are very fortunate to have him involved.”

ENGLAND LEAVE KIWIS DAZED AND CONFUSED AT LINEOUT AND MAUL

DEFENCE
New Zealand had 11 lineouts in the game. England won four of them; two by straight steals and two with turnovers at the subsequent maul, plus they disrupted one lineout and pressured New Zealand on two other occasions.

England disrupt 11min 20sec
New Zealand throw to Scott Barrett, the front jumper, on England’s 22. As the flanker brings the ball down he loses control under pressure from Maro Itoje, who appears to dislodge the ball from his grasp. The All Blacks recover possession but England ruin it as an attacking platform.

England maul turnover 12:22
England do not compete in the air but New Zealand make a hash of the maul and drop the ball. Codie Taylor regathers but is wrapped up by Courtney Lawes and Itoje rips the ball from him.

England steal 16:43
New Zealand call a seven-man lineout on England’s 22. As the All Blacks form the lineout, Jamie George points towards Sam Whitelock at the back — and that is where the ball goes. The throw from Taylor drifts slightly towards England’s side and Lawes, lifted by Tom Curry and Sam Underhill, intercepts.

England maul turnover 17:25
New Zealand throw to the front and form a maul, with Kieran Read placing himself between Scott Barrett, who caught the ball, and Itoje. The ball is transferred to Taylor at the back. Itoje stands tall over Kieran Read and Barrett and swims against the tide. As Aaron Smith, the scrum half, puts his hands on the ball to clear, Itoje reaches forward, drags Taylor towards him and clamps down on the ball to win the turnover.

England steal 27:43
New Zealand try to increase the tempo of the lineout but Taylor’s throw to Read is a little short and Itoje springs up ahead of him, using his huge wing-span to tap the ball down to Curry.

OFFENCE
New Zealand could not get a handle on the England lineout because they were faced with an ever-changing picture. In 20 throws, England used four, five and seven-man formations, with a range of different lifters.

The peel 04:16
England call a seven-man lineout and split into two pods. Youngs is standing at the front, hands up waiting for the quick, short throw. Billy Vunipola is in the traditional scrum-half position. In a split second, Underhill steps out, allowing Itoje to switch from the front pod to the back and lift Lawes. As Itoje lifts Lawes, Youngs leaves the lineout on an arcing run, Vunipola joins and helps to lift Curry, who has spun back to face the front. The ball goes to Underhill who attacks the blind side.

The Mexican wave 51:58
England call a five-man lineout, with Lawes at the front, Curry at No 2 and then a back pod of Dan Cole, Itoje and Mako Vunipola. Cole spins and moves forward with Curry, as if to lift him at the front. Meanwhile, Itoje and Vunipola edge backwards and Lawes peels around from the front and George throws long. Like a Mexican wave, first Brodie Rettalick jumps, then Whitelock jumps and then Lawes helps to lift Itoje and the ball sails into the hands of the lock, who wins clean ball to set up the maul.

One that went wrong 56.24
England opt for a six-man lineout on their five-metre line, with a plan for Itoje to spring up at the front. Curry misses his lift and George’s throw flies over the top to Ardie Savea, who scores.

There's the article, miaow. Really good analysis. Also the usual glowing reports from players on Borthwick's line-out coaching.

[Taylorman]

Yeh - must have caught me at weak moment, I should have known better ...

Finally...

[Taylorman]

Excuses. NH teams were more successful, those are the facts. NH domination.

How so? You have more sides. There were two each in the semis. All SH coached, One each in the finals.

Dominant? If that’s dominant then you’re easily pleased. I’ve seen dominant over NH sides and it looks nothing like that

Just pointing out your nonsense really. There's no NH/SH in World Rugby. There's individual unions, who can only take credit for their own achievements.

True, they all just happen to have to cross the equator to find a coach. Clubs just happen to cross the equator to find hundreds of players to complete their squads, win their titles.

If there’s no NH/ SH in rugby, why does an area with a far bigger population, need to cross the equator to buy massive numbers of coaches and players.

Can you explain that? What is it about rugby in your areas that makes people say...‘you’re not good enough. I’m leaving the country, and am flying to...Oz, SA, NZ...(take your pick)...to find better players, coaches (take your pick) than you lot, because we want to win, and we can’t do it with the talent we have.

Can you explain that please?

aha, as soon as you explain how 'Our' = 'me personally'.

This is simple English. Like Rugby, you also invented that. Is it a struggle keeping up with that also?

Oh...its humour..got it.  

And this...”Only take credit for their own achievements? Ha. You mean our achievements.”

OK TM - enlighten us all with how you personally have contributed to the achievements of the SH teams?  

Sure, as soon as you enlighten me how 'our' = 'me personally'. This is English. Im assuming you're aware of how to use the language?

[Geordie]

Yeh - must have caught me at weak moment, I should have known better ...

Finally...

TM
Just to be clear....your the idiot...

[Taylorman]

Yeh - must have caught me at weak moment, I should have known better ...

Finally...

TM
Just to be clear....your the idiot...

Thanks Gordie, the number of personal attacks is mounting, not one who can carry a logical argument without getting personal.

[Guest]

Thanks for posting.

Someone posted the article written by Kay (?) before the game how NZ got away with one on the lineout last year. Thought they were peerless at the lineout last week - the stutter jumps completely did NZ in. It's a nice tactic.

[Geordie]

Yeh - must have caught me at weak moment, I should have known better ...

Finally...

TM
Just to be clear....your the idiot...

Thanks Gordie, the number of personal attacks is mounting, not one who can carry a logical argument without getting personal.

oh i can carry out a logical argument....unfortunately you havent presented one, just sour grapes hence why i have called you an idiot.

Mate just hold your hand up and admit England taught your beloved Blacks a lesson in high intensity brutal rugby.

Anyway...

[Heaf]

Excuses. NH teams were more successful, those are the facts. NH domination.

How so? You have more sides. There were two each in the semis. All SH coached, One each in the finals.

Dominant? If that’s dominant then you’re easily pleased. I’ve seen dominant over NH sides and it looks nothing like that

Just pointing out your nonsense really. There's no NH/SH in World Rugby. There's individual unions, who can only take credit for their own achievements.

True, they all just happen to have to cross the equator to find a coach. Clubs just happen to cross the equator to find hundreds of players to complete their squads, win their titles.

If there’s no NH/ SH in rugby, why does an area with a far bigger population, need to cross the equator to buy massive numbers of coaches and players.

Can you explain that? What is it about rugby in your areas that makes people say...‘you’re not good enough. I’m leaving the country, and am flying to...Oz, SA, NZ...(take your pick)...to find better players, coaches (take your pick) than you lot, because we want to win, and we can’t do it with the talent we have.

Can you explain that please?

aha, as soon as you explain how 'Our' = 'me personally'.

This is simple English. Like Rugby, you also invented that. Is it a struggle keeping up with that also?

Oh...its humour..got it.  

And this...”Only take credit for their own achievements? Ha. You mean our achievements.”

OK TM - enlighten us all with how you personally have contributed to the achievements of the SH teams?  

Sure, as soon as you enlighten me how 'our' = 'me personally'. This is English. Im assuming you're aware of how to use the language?

Clearly more than you do if you don't understand that using the term 'our' when writing includes yourself.

However I don't have the time nor inclination to give you a grammar lesson or be bothered wasting any more of my time trying to get a sensible answer from you, so I'll take GF's advice and just ignore you.

I'm sure you'll want to have the last word so fill yer boots, I'm not bothered.

[Taylorman]

Yeh - must have caught me at weak moment, I should have known better ...

Finally...

TM
Just to be clear....your the idiot...

Thanks Gordie, the number of personal attacks is mounting, not one who can carry a logical argument without getting personal.

oh i can carry out a logical argument....unfortunately you havent presented one, just sour grapes hence why i have called you an idiot.

Mate just hold your hand up and admit England taught your beloved Blacks a lesson in high intensity brutal rugby.

Anyway...

Ahh, I did Geordie. many times, but you just seem to want to require it on an ongoing basis instead of everything else, not sure why, perhaps to reassure you that it actually happened maybe, for insecurity reasons, I dont know.

Anyway, I'll leave you to it for a while. Seems the heads in the clouds have lost all ability to reason. All good...enjoy...on us!

[Soul Requiem]

Yeh - must have caught me at weak moment, I should have known better ...

Finally...

TM
Just to be clear....your the idiot...

Thanks Gordie, the number of personal attacks is mounting, not one who can carry a logical argument without getting personal.

oh i can carry out a logical argument....unfortunately you havent presented one, just sour grapes hence why i have called you an idiot.

Mate just hold your hand up and admit England taught your beloved Blacks a lesson in high intensity brutal rugby.

Anyway...

I don't even think he knows what his argument is any more.

[Heaf]

Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

[Geordie]

Jeez its like arguing with a pigeon...

[Sponsored content]