[2014 Mid-Year Tests] New Zealand vs England (3rd Test)

[Peat]

Then we might as well not turn up next year....

If you only enter sporting contests you feel happy about the prospects of ultimate victory, then yes. Would be one hell of a task to organise a World Cup if that was the prevailing view.

Let's not beat around the bush. As things stand, our team is too unsettled and our attack is too inaccurate to realistically consider beating the Bokkes and the All Blacks in successive games. We might fluke one, but we're not doing both. Our work rate, defensive excellence (well, usually...) and mental strength allows us to hang in there with anyone (usually) and beat most teams, but it's not good enough to beat the very best, and it would be highly optimistic to suggest that's going to change in a year.

We are we were before. We have a strong foundation, but the next step looks bloody difficult.

Tbh, I'm more worried/impressed about the twenty minutes in which the All Blacks completely took away a game from us that we were leading in the 2nd test.

edit: And note - my pessimistic view about England probably explains my mild scepticism about the All Blacks. Shame there's only one and a half teams good enough to test it out!

 

[Tony Manx]

The defending was not just Eastmond but the whole.team. Everyone was missing first up tackles and letting the All Blacks get over the advantage line, even players like Robshaw and Woods. This game was terrible for Farrell snr as his defensive system was completely ripped open. But he cant help if the players aren't up for it. With Eastmond standing so tight to Burns I dont know why he.was ? As the first test showed he wasn't a defensive burden, maybe phycologically he just didn't trust Burns ?

I repeat that there was no one capable of organising the England defensive line in the way that Barritt reputably does and that was the major concern not the individual count!

As regards the RWC, I am not as pessimistic of the English chances........I reckon they can outmuscle the Aussies to deprive them of the ball, the Welsh have shown against the SA how far they are from being a world team and after that, it is one game at a time and anything can happen. In addition, I think that this tour has taught Lancaster a lot about selection issues and the players at his disposal.

If you only enter sporting contests you feel happy about the prospects of ultimate victory, then yes. Would be one hell of a task to organise a World Cup if that was the prevailing view.

Let's not beat around the bush. As things stand, our team is too unsettled and our attack is too inaccurate to realistically consider beating the Bokkes and the All Blacks in successive games. We might fluke one, but we're not doing both. Our work rate, defensive excellence (well, usually...) and mental strength allows us to hang in there with anyone (usually) and beat most teams, but it's not good enough to beat the very best, and it would be highly optimistic to suggest that's going to change in a year.

We are we were before. We have a strong foundation, but the next step looks bloody difficult.

Tbh, I'm more worried/impressed about the twenty minutes in which the All Blacks completely took away a game from us that we were leading in the 2nd test.

Am I right in saying that if we win the group, we only have to face one of the Aussies, SA or AB's to win? Seem to have read it somewhere....

 

[ratsapprentice]

The way I saw it was they'd spotted that Eastmond was standing very close to Burns and quite far from Tuilagi, probably with the intention of filling the gap on the drift - and I feel they sent dummy runners to keep him tied in a little too long to drift out with success at least twice. To be fair, that may be the system rather than Eastmond - but I feel they'd looked at how the system functioned in the first test and decided that Eastmond standing close to Burns was a thing and that they could exploit it.

Yep that happened the first time.
The second time Kyle was shouting and waving his arms at Freddy to come across so that he could close the distance between himself and Manu - Burns was about 5 metres out from the scrum? (could have been a maul).
Those were the two big defensive lapses involving Kyle - the only other error I saw him make was a missed tackle on Fekitoa which he then corrected by making a good tracking tackle on him.

So of the three errors he was involved in: one was minor two were major.
Of the majors: one was his fault one wasn't.

So really he's been subbed for a single defensive error.

 

[goodNumber10]

One would be intrigued in hearing your logic. I don't think he's looked a weakness before today, I don't think he looked like a weakness in the second half, the entire unit looked like they played Kent Merit League in the first half. Not to say I'm definitely right, but as I said, intrigued as to why you think it.

This one also finds you far too kind to the wingers.

edit:



The way I saw it was they'd spotted that Eastmond was standing very close to Burns and quite far from Tuilagi, probably with the intention of filling the gap on the drift - and I feel they sent dummy runners to keep him tied in a little too long to drift out with success at least twice. To be fair, that may be the system rather than Eastmond - but I feel they'd looked at how the system functioned in the first test and decided that Eastmond standing close to Burns was a thing and that they could exploit it.

Just an observation but I find Manu can be a bit of a swinger in defence. If he doesn't get square on he tends to just flap high and swing around their upper body.

It's just lazy footwork and he drifts off his defensive line (though god knows what that was today)

Its easily corrected (lol, listen to me the international defence coach - I was an awful tackler when I played)

 

[Peat]

Rats - if that's what the video says, then fair enough it's not overly Eastmond's fault - but I stand on the position that the system of Eastmond and Burns starting close together was at fault.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Rats - if that's what the video says, then fair enough it's not overly Eastmond's fault - but I stand on the position that the system of Eastmond and Burns starting close together was at fault.

It was - but that only happened once.

The second time Eastmond was given a 30m abyss to defend.

 

[goodNumber10]

Rats - if that's what the video says, then fair enough it's not overly Eastmond's fault - but I stand on the position that the system of Eastmond and Burns starting close together was at fault.

It's only at fault if the rest of the system breaks down.

Either Kyle was to close or Manu was too wide.

Brown was standing back and deep covering the wing with Yarde sweeping.

So I think it was actually Manu who was wrong. I think Ashton should have been lining up and defending on Fekitoa.

I think the intention was for Ashton to fly up and put outside pressure on him which is why he was so narrow on Manu.

Make them cut back to a wall of defenders.

Two big issues was the space and the fact they were not coming off the line.

 

[j'nuh]

re: 12 options, there are still a few options really;

1. Twelvetrees' one game on this tour was on the back of returning from a mid-term injury (a month out). We might consider that and not rule him out just so fast.

2. Eastmond hasn't exactly had a lot of time to prove himself. It may be a one-off; it may be that he needs an aggressive defender at 10 to help him out (i.e. Farrell).

3. Burrell. Not sure I like the Burrell-Tuilagi dynamic going forward, but England don't use their wingers so I suppose it doesn't matter that we have a distributor at 12. I would hate the lack of trying though. Same goes for Barritt really.

4. We turn to youth. Devoto was starting at the end of the season for Bath and there's Sam Hill at Exe.

5. We accept that England just aren't up to scratch, the gap between England and New Zealand is still just too big. We sometimes look to match them in the forwards, but they destroy us in every position 9-15. There is literally not a single player that would make it into the AB team or bench from our backs. In some positions, the ABs could field several players before one of ours would be considered. Maybe we should understand these limitations and not scapegoat the 12, and just pick the form player, whether or not they played well on this tour.

 

[goodNumber10]

The one certainty about 12 is that Brad Barrett will go to the world cup.

I think he took a back seat this tour to experimentation but they will bring him back in for the AI's.

 

[Tony Manx]

The one certainty about 12 is that Brad Barrett will go to the world cup.

I think he took a back seat this tour to experimentation but they will bring him back in for the AI's.

I am pretty certain he will be the number one choice...................!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I am pretty certain he will be the number one choice...................!

I reckon 36 will be first choice, unless he gets injured and misses the AIs or 6N - Barritt, I think, would be 2nd choice about now.

To be honest, I wouldn't be 100% upset to see Barritt there, as long as Burns is on form, or Cipriani is involved somewhere.
Farrell + Barritt is hardly awe inspiring on attack (though can get the job done) but throw in a real attacking 10 and it could work well.

 

[j'nuh]

I most certainly hope not. Whether or not he is the best we could do, he is the very epitome of little ambition, both in terms of his quality and what he would bring to England. Some of the other players could be genuinely good players by the time of the WC - Barritt will always be below average on the international stage because of all the limitations to his game. And we may as well not play our back three in attack if he and Tuilagi line up together.

At 10, I just hope Ford gives us something to shout about eventually.

 

[Tony Manx]

I most certainly hope not. Whether or not he is the best we could do, he is the very epitome of little ambition, both in terms of his quality and what he would bring to England. Some of the other players could be genuinely good players by the time of the WC - Barritt will always be below average on the international stage because of all the limitations to his game. And we may as well not play our back three in attack if he and Tuilagi line up together.

At 10, I just hope Ford gives us something to shout about eventually.

All players have limitations and Barritt has some but he has some good qualities......I am not one that feels that England have to chuck it all around the park and be adventurous. It has not been their style and is not in their DNA no matter how much we would like to see it.....even the French believe that "flair" will not win them games and we need to be solid in defence.......Barritt gives us that.

I would prefer to see them win the RWC final 3-0 than lose it 50-49.............and NZ won in 2011, what was it, something like 10-9?

Edit 8-7!

 

[goodNumber10]

I don't care about the world cup. They can have it for all I care.. It's a one off game and only one team can win it...

I care about us being consistently good enough to trade punches with the current top four.

I care about development, I care about going to the SH with a decent chance of taking a treat series.

The rest is just a nice distraction from the real task.

 

[Peat]

I find it highly unlikely that we will anything major with Barritt at 12. His attacking threat is simply insufficient in a game where you must be able to force open defences somehow. I might be wrong about that with a good attacking fly-half but I am dubious.

He might be the best option regardless of that but I would rather we showed more ambition and picked someone with a higher ceiling, even if they are not all of what we need now.

 

[Tony Manx]

I don't care about the world cup. They can have it for all I care.. It's a one off game and only one team can win it...

I care about us being consistently good enough to trade punches with the current top four.

I care about development, I care about going to the SH with a decent chance of taking a treat series.

The rest is just a nice distraction from the real task.

Yet the RWC is what the top internationals judge their careers by not if they beat the ABs ni a series in the Land of the Long White Cloud!

I find it highly unlikely that we will anything major with Barritt at 12. His attacking threat is simply insufficient in a game where you must be able to force open defences somehow. I might be wrong about that with a good attacking fly-half but I am dubious.

He might be the best option regardless of that but I would rather we showed more ambition and picked someone with a higher ceiling, even if they are not all of what we need now.

That comes down to personal aims ambitions and opinions!

 

[Aristodemus]

Barritt is a very poor option, stifles our entire backline. I think hanging out Eastmond to dry after one performance is more than harsh, especially when the fault seemed to be the system itself rather than individual skill. So many players had very inept defensive shifts today, I still think Eastmond Tuilagi is our best pairing but they need to work on things clearly. Obviously the fact that NZ were clinical made it look pretty bad, we have to take that into account also.

 

[goodNumber10]

Barritt is a very poor option, stifles our entire backline. I think hanging out Eastmond to dry after one performance is more than harsh, especially when the fault seemed to be the system itself rather than individual skill. So many players had very inept defensive shifts today, I still think Eastmond Tuilagi is our best pairing but they need to work on things clearly. Obviously the fact that NZ were clinical made it look pretty bad, we have to take that into account also.

Don't think anyone here is giving up on him I think people are just voicing the impression they are getting from how he's been handled.

 

[Peat]

I don't think it's that people want Eastmond hung out to dry as much as they think the management will hang him out to dry

 

[RoosTah]

Yet the RWC is what the top internationals judge their careers by not if they beat the ABs ni a series in the Land of the Long White Cloud!

Yes and no... beating the ABs at home in a series is a massive achievement. People in Australia still talk about the Wallabies beating the All Blacks in their NZ based 3 test Bledisloe in the 80s there.