[EOYT] England vs New Zealand 16/11/13

[TRF_Olyy]

Farrell making all his kicks in such a high pressure game is a *big* plus for England. They know they can really count on him by now; sheer confirmation there.

Not really. Fair play he made his kicks yesterday but he was rubbish at times over this test series.
Compare to Halfpenny who misses one or two kicks a year for Wales.

 

[Big Ewis]

Not really. Fair play he made his kicks yesterday but he was rubbish at times over this test series.
Compare to Halfpenny who misses one or two kicks a year for Wales.

nah come on, he's been good at int'l level, especially in big games or close ones where those kicks count the most.
He made 7-9 against the AB's last year, all 6 penalties. And 6of6 this match in 2013 overall.
Sure he's not as perfect as some have been out there, but he hasn't had a catastrophe from the boot yet like some will go into a miserable slump, and he'll usually be up there in strong %'s. And I haven't seen him miss sitters yet, I don't think, like all notorious kickers have at some point. He's fairly consistent too.

 

[rugby_mad]

I don't know what match you were watching, but it clearly wasn't the one I was watching.

Scrum 1: 10 min - England feed
England tried to wheel the scrum but NZ drive straight through them, popped Hartley, demolished them, and won the turnover

Scrum 2: 15min - England feed
Free kick to NZ for England "hit and chase"

Scrum 3: 21 min - England feed
Penalty to England for NZ illegal "whip wheel"

Scrum 4: 23 min
This was the scrum that led to the try, but it should not have been allowed. The video shown to the TMO didn't go far enough back (another couple of seconds) to show that the England scrumhalf kicked the ball forward in, or into, his own scrum.

If the ball was out of the scrum, then all the England players ahead of him were offside...should have been a penalty to NZ

If the referee decided decided that it was accidental offside, the scrumhalf still returned the ball into the scrum... should have been a penalty to NZ

If the referee decided that the ball was not out of the scrum, then the scrum-half kicked the ball while it was still in the scrum...should have been a penalty to NZ

Scrum 5: 29 min - NZ feed
NZ clean heel and win

Scrum 6: 36 min - NZ feed (Read off with YC)
Penalty to England for Mealamu standing up

HALF TIME

Scrum 7: 41 min - NZ feed (Read off with YC)
NZ pushed back but still won ball

Scrum 8: 42 min - England feed
Free kick to England for NZ "hit and chase"

Scrum 9: 43 min - England feed
Big push by NZ. England tighthead prop goes straight to the deck, should have been penalty to NZ for collapsing

Scrum 10: 73 min - England feed
Wheeled (hard to tell by which team) but England won ball cleanly anyway.

Scrum 11: 76 min - NZ feed
NZ clean heel and win

And you think all this was a bad day at the office for the NZ front row?

i have watched the match again and your stats on scrums are fair, but lets not forget both Woodcock and Frank were sub at half time and 2 minutes into 2nd half respectively (if i recall correctly), in came Crockett and Faumuina which i thought they did better, plus i suppose the front row don't just get assess during scrum time but also their attack and defense in test match.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Overall, I think England came out of the match with a lot of credit; it wasn't the massacre we or the Kiwis were expecting. Revenge or otherwise. But it's been clear from the the 6N and these 3 matches that England's back line isn't functioning, with or without Barritt and Tuilagi. We can definitely add pace on the wings with Wade and Yarde, but the midfield conundrum is not going away soon. 36 is not going to play any better with Farrell at fly-half: Farrell just does not attack the gain line enough to make 36 thrive; 36 needs a Burns type fly-half, who can attack the gain line, but Burns is just so clearly out of form at the moment. I've never been convinced by Flood.

With Farrell likely to be the WC 10, is SL likely to turn to Burrell? It's a shame we didn't pencil in playing a Pacific Island team next week to try out fringe players next week. Now when can we do this? Next year there are few opportunities in the 6N, 3 June tests v NZ and 4 back to back November tests v the SH sides.

For NZ the last two matches have shown just how clinical they are; why they are no. 1 in the world and that RWC 2015 is not a foregone conclusion; it never was, but still I think this was another reminder how hard it will be to win back to back ***les.

Pity about DC, one of my favourite players of all time, he's just far too injury prone now. Good luck to him in his sabbatical, maybe this will give him the time to do the right conditioning so he his body can at least see him through to one last WC. He's suffering too many leg injuries: both achilles, calfs, groin.

ABs, surely, to go on and claim win no. 14 next week v Ireland and complete an unbeaten year.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

There's....another 10....who attacks the gain line fantastically well and throws some incredible passes, is pretty rapid, decent kicker, massively improved defence....​Cipriani

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

There's....another 10....who attacks the gain line fantastically well and throws some incredible passes, is pretty rapid, decent kicker, massively improved defence....​Cipriani

TBH if he is on form, I'm all for having him in the team despite what happened last time. Hell Hartley used to be a penalty machine (in one game he alone gave away more than half of all the penalties England gave) and had terrible discipline. Whilst far from a clean player, he has matured and I can't think he stands out as an ill disciplined player any more. If Cipriani is playing well and has matured, I say he deserves a shot. We really need to fix the link between our forwards and backs.

 

[wayner]

There's....another 10....who attacks the gain line fantastically well and throws some incredible passes, is pretty rapid, decent kicker, massively improved defence....​Cipriani

At first I thought you meant that guy playing for Toulon whom the French call - Jeannie.

if Bakkies can play for the Boks then surely Wilkinson could be playing for England.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

if Bakkies can play for the Boks then surely Wilkinson could be playing for England.

He's retired from international rugby and is on pretty poor form this season.

 

[Tony Manx]

TBH if he is on form, I'm all for having him in the team despite what happened last time. Hell Hartley used to be a penalty machine (in one game he alone gave away more than half of all the penalties England gave) and had terrible discipline. Whilst far from a clean player, he has matured and I can't think he stands out as an ill disciplined player any more. If Cipriani is playing well and has matured, I say he deserves a shot. We really need to fix the link between our forwards and backs.

I agree and always have! But you need a Barrit alongside to ensure that the defence does not suffer.............

He's retired from international rugby and is on pretty poor form this season.

Correct!

 

[Larksea]

was an ok game, AB's overcame a lot of adversity mainly from the ref. 30 - 22 was the score but IMO the game was not that close, 3 well constructed tries to 1 scratchy/lucky one and for a long period of the game England got away with a lot of stuff the All Blacks were getting penalized at one point England got away with a blatant obstruction right under their own posts then the AB's got penalized for obstruction only a minute or so later, basically a 6 point turnaround. No surprise to me that early post match conversation focused on the refs calls.

Ab's game plan got quite frustrating, they kicked a LOT to get out of their red zone and I guess that was important with the Ref nailing them for any technicality he could come up with but they were so good with ball in hand I just felt like all they needed to do was be patient and hold the ball and they would cut England to shreds, they made ground and breaks easy every time they held the ball but because field position was the #1 priority they simply did not take many chances to actually run it.

Gutted carter came off early, he is still better than Cruden and barrett. I don't think hes more injury prone now I think hes just been unlucky and probably took on a group of big forwards that were keen to hurt him too early in the game.

Good team effort, no bad performers for the AB's and lots stood out with importat plays, Retalick was a nightmare at lineout time and Whitelock was good as well, McCaw, Read and Messam had strong games, I still think its a mistake taking messam off early he seems to build into games, has a measured first 40 and conserves his energy then in the 2nd half his game lifts as opposition forwards tire and generally makes his biggest impact post the 60min mark, he's the same for the chiefs. I guess you need to take one loosie off to use your bench and he would be down the pecking order compared to Read & McCaw, the whole team is down the pecking order compared to them.

All the backs played well too, I thought TKB had his best showing in test footy off the bench. Cruden had a better showing and all the others had very good games and made important plays.

the biggest thing I saw in this game for the AB's was what could be their "big game" game plan. They basically would not run the ball till they had possession over the half way mark, Smith kicked ALOT and mostly England responded well but a couple times they did not and got punished. In the end even with a super conservative gameplan they managed three really well constructed trys.

 

[Tony Manx]

was an ok game, AB's overcame a lot of adversity mainly from the ref. 30 - 22 was the score but IMO the game was not that close, 3 well constructed tries to 1 scratchy/lucky one and for a long period of the game England got away with a lot of stuff the All Blacks were getting penalized at one point England got away with a blatant obstruction right under their own posts then the AB's got penalized for obstruction only a minute or so later, basically a 6 point turnaround. No surprise to me that early post match conversation focused on the refs calls.

Ab's game plan got quite frustrating, they kicked a LOT to get out of their red zone and I guess that was important with the Ref nailing them for any technicality he could come up with but they were so good with ball in hand I just felt like all they needed to do was be patient and hold the ball and they would cut England to shreds, they made ground and breaks easy every time they held the ball but because field position was the #1 priority they simply did not take many chances to actually run it.

Gutted carter came off early, he is still better than Cruden and barrett. I don't think hes more injury prone now I think hes just been unlucky and probably took on a group of big forwards that were keen to hurt him too early in the game.

Good team effort, no bad performers for the AB's and lots stood out with importat plays, Retalick was a nightmare at lineout time and Whitelock was good as well, McCaw, Read and Messam had strong games, I still think its a mistake taking messam off early he seems to build into games, has a measured first 40 and conserves his energy then in the 2nd half his game lifts as opposition forwards tire and generally makes his biggest impact post the 60min mark, he's the same for the chiefs. I guess you need to take one loosie off to use your bench and he would be down the pecking order compared to Read & McCaw, the whole team is down the pecking order compared to them.

All the backs played well too, I thought TKB had his best showing in test footy off the bench. Cruden had a better showing and all the others had very good games and made important plays.

the biggest thing I saw in this game for the AB's was what could be their "big game" game plan. They basically would not run the ball till they had possession over the half way mark, Smith kicked ALOT and mostly England responded well but a couple times they did not and got punished. In the end even with a super conservative gameplan they managed three really well constructed trys.

Yaaaawwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.............

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Gutted carter came off early, he is still better than Cruden and barrett. I don't think hes more injury prone now I think hes just been unlucky and probably took on a group of big forwards that were keen to hurt him too early in the game.

No point blaming England's forwards for Carter's Achilles injury. According to Hansen:

"He has hurt his Achilles, not the one he ruptured years ago but the other one," confirmed Hansen.

"It has been rumbling away for a while and he's obviously very sore. It's not ruptured I wouldn't think, but we won't know that until we get some scans.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...rter-set-for-scan-as-injury-spoils-100th-test

Carter is getting a lot of leg injuries for the last 4-5 years, so it's not down to luck. But I agree, it was a shame he went off, as I wanted to see the best fly-half of our generation play. I doubt he will play v Ireland; just not worth rupturing the other Achilles, otherwise he'll just spend his 6 month sabbatical in rehab. Hope he can use the time to get his conditioning right so he can avoid further leg injuries when he returns. The guy deserves at least one more shot to play in a WC final; hopefully against England. But yes, ABs will need Cruden and Barritt to step up in absence and in case he does not make it to the WC. But when he is on song, boy he is a hell of a player.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Funny how it's almost exclusively NZers who are going on about referee bias. Here is what actually happened: NZ have got so used to getting away with murder in the breakdown that as soon as they are pinged for their regular infringments, they cry referee bias. The problem isn't the referee, the problem is you've got used to getting away with FAR too much. Yes there were some calls in Englands favour but there also were calls that weren't in our favour (eg our first disallowed try).

ABs lie all over the ball, come in from the side, hold on and don't release all the time but get away with it because you're the best. Stop whining. Whilst the Aussies genuinely did have reason to be annoyed at the ref, you really don't.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

was an ok game, AB's overcame a lot of adversity mainly from the ref. 30 - 22 was the score but IMO the game was not that close, 3 well constructed tries to 1 scratchy/lucky one and for a long period of the game England got away with a lot of stuff the All Blacks were getting penalized at one point England got away with a blatant obstruction right under their own posts then the AB's got penalized for obstruction only a minute or so later, basically a 6 point turnaround. No surprise to me that early post match conversation focused on the refs calls.

Ab's game plan got quite frustrating, they kicked a LOT to get out of their red zone and I guess that was important with the Ref nailing them for any technicality he could come up with but they were so good with ball in hand I just felt like all they needed to do was be patient and hold the ball and they would cut England to shreds, they made ground and breaks easy every time they held the ball but because field position was the #1 priority they simply did not take many chances to actually run it.

Gutted carter came off early, he is still better than Cruden and barrett. I don't think hes more injury prone now I think hes just been unlucky and probably took on a group of big forwards that were keen to hurt him too early in the game.

Good team effort, no bad performers for the AB's and lots stood out with importat plays, Retalick was a nightmare at lineout time and Whitelock was good as well, McCaw, Read and Messam had strong games, I still think its a mistake taking messam off early he seems to build into games, has a measured first 40 and conserves his energy then in the 2nd half his game lifts as opposition forwards tire and generally makes his biggest impact post the 60min mark, he's the same for the chiefs. I guess you need to take one loosie off to use your bench and he would be down the pecking order compared to Read & McCaw, the whole team is down the pecking order compared to them.

All the backs played well too, I thought TKB had his best showing in test footy off the bench. Cruden had a better showing and all the others had very good games and made important plays.

the biggest thing I saw in this game for the AB's was what could be their "big game" game plan. They basically would not run the ball till they had possession over the half way mark, Smith kicked ALOT and mostly England responded well but a couple times they did not and got punished. In the end even with a super conservative gameplan they managed three really well constructed trys.

I really enjoyed the game, there were three distinct periods in the game, US then them and then Us again. ref made a few weird decisions but i don't think it ruined the game.

I also didn't think their try was lucky, they had been attacking our line for a few minutes and if things had been the other way around we would be saying we had built pressure...so that's what i think they did.

I am also a bit old school in that i still default to the old "benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team", i would have given the one they pushed over, given the English bloke was on the bottom and they had easily cleared the line i think there was more evidence it was a try than it wasn't. i'm getting a bit tired of spending five minutes looking at replays trying to work out how many blades of grass the ball needs to touch to be a try...unless you can see its not a try then give it

full credit to England, thought they shook off our early attacks and came back harder and faster than we were expecting. your back line actually looks pretty good, just think they need some "moves" to open the opposition up. we're lucky and have a couple of guys that can do it on their own, when you don't have those you need to just be a better team. some nice set piece moves and i honestly think you have the the speed to finish them

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Agree with the above re England try and am willing to go further;

I literally can't believe there are people talking about a lucky England try when as Jabby mentions, it is 99% likely the try was scored in the prior sequence. The england team had gone back to half-way for the penalty, such was their certainty that the ball had been grounded. When the pack knows, I feel that's a good sign and Joubert should have used common sense and intution and asked "Is there any reason not to award the try..." because based on the body positions of the England pack, we know that the only barrier is finding a camera angle to definitively prove it. Therefore without even considering the launchbury try for a second, I know that we deserved that 7 pointer.

With that sub-rant over, I don't really see how either team could particularly disagree with the result. New Zealand looked dangerous as and when, but England looked after the territory game well after the first 15 minutes and therefore contained the situation. Ultimately New Zealand got a 7 pointer pretty much whenever they entered our 22 and that threat and precision alone deserves the victory.

Meanwhile England were in the game until 20 minutes to go and that's all we could have hoped for at the beginning of the game...
Now, when that restart was taken after we had gone into the lead for the first time, New Zealand showed their steel and composure to all-out ability to regain the ball and mount the 'winning' attack. The "What if" for England is surely one of, had we retaken that lineout and cleared our lines, what then? Could we have won?

The answer surely is, yes, maybe we could have. We didn't and that's fair enough - again I believe New Zealand were worth the win, but I also feel that England deserve some credit. In a year when the All-Blacks have won every game, I feel we deserve credit for being in the game and competing across most facets of the game. Some(not all) posters from the south need to show a bit more humility in victory. Just because you support the best rugby nation, doesn't mean we really are interested or care if "France impressed me more than England"... as if you're a Masterchef judge who has to pick one or the other. Meanwhile some non-english western european posters need to quit with the asanine commentary English(And Irish!) rugby and its strengths.

Anyway, I had an absolute ball watching this game in clerkenwell and loved the "cauldron-feel" of the game, with the skills on display(mostly New Zealand ) and the big hits(on both sides) For England, a number of players have really pushed on n my estimation and in many cases settled by doubts around them. I SWEAR tht both Launchbury and Lawes have improved their carrying and this is making a big difference for us. Vunipola's go-forward is worth around 6 points per gaame minimun by the way that it makes defences scramble like crazy and concede penalties. I'm happy with the current back-row but massively optomstic that one day perhapps soon we'll have an open-side to bring the best out or robshaw/wood,, and with Billy/Ben at 8 we will have one serious back-row.

However what has struck me from theseinternationals is that in many games the difference between the teams s the quality of the scrum halves. In the North, France asde, we have ****e scrum halves. Why! Dickson was poor on saturday though I feel he deserves another chance. He's a great 'machinist' and against all teams besides NZ, that can be enough.

I would also agree with comments about the bench; the tigers contingent did not cover themselves in glory and this alone was enough of a difference between the sides. I simply do not know what to think about Farrell. On paper I dislike him as a player, but he's a much needed fighter and always brings more out of our guys than Flood ever has. Twelvetrees and Brown are keepers but I hope Tomkins has had his last game in an England shirt.

I literally cannot wait for the six nations.. I don't believe any of this rubbish around one team has talent but not belief, another has belief by not talent... there are four teams there who are in it to win it and on a similar level. That's what makes the six nations in my opinion a better tournament than the rugby championship.

 

[Larksea]

I don't blame the English forwards cor carters injury I think carter made a mistake taking the forwards on the way he did so early in the game, he put himself in a position with an increased injury risk for him.

And I don't think the ref Ruined the game I just think he helped keep the scores closer than maybe it should have been. If anything made the game more interesting. maybe its not a bad thing to happen every once in a while for experience, one thing this All Blacks team has started to do over the last few years is win away games like this where the refs seem inconsistent and favor the opposition. i think the AB's have learned from games like this they have had in the past going back to that big one in 07. Making field position the absolute #1 priority like the ABs did is obviously a good tactic. This game will give them some more experience in this situation.

 

[j-dawg]

Kiwis moaning about the ref sound quite sad. I saw obstruction from the all blacks that wasn't pinged and Foden's interception try was dissallowed on the basis of an English infringement, exactly the kind of infringement you are moaning about being pinged for yourselves! When you get away with it you say 'oh, we're just playing the ref' but when you get caught and penalised you throw your own s*** out the cage like a bunch of demented old circus monkey.

 

[Sam Owen]

The Kiwis should really stop moaning about the reff. Everything's been discussed, now beginning to be repeated and on its way to a forum war, NZ vs Europe.

Reffs have always slightly favoured the underdog otherwise it'll be a boring game.

Craig Joubert is a very good reff.


NZ BEAT ENGLAND. so let's move on

 

[smartcooky]

...it is 99% likely the try was scored in the prior sequence. The england team had gone back to half-way for the penalty, such was their certainty that the ball had been grounded. When the pack knows, I feel that's a good sign and Joubert should have used common sense and intution and asked "Is there any reason not to award the try..." because based on the body positions of the England pack, we know that the only barrier is finding a camera angle to definitively prove it.

Its nice in theory (and I do agree that the first "not awarded try" was almost certainly a try), however, you should not be hanging the blame for not awarding it on Joubert. If the blame should lie anywhere, it should be with the wording of the TMO protocols themselves, or perhaps, Nigel Owens.

A referee cannot ask the "second question" (Is there any reason I cannot award the try?) unless he has seen (or is 100% sure) that the ball has been grounded in goal by an attacking player, or has been advised by an Assistant Referee who has seen (or is 100% sure) that the ball has been grounded in-goal by an attacking player. In this regard, Owens advised Joubert that the ball was short. His exact words were.....

[TEXTAREA]"When the ball went to ground it was definitely short before. Check afterwards, but it was definitely short before."[/TEXTAREA]

Now that is a very firm opinion from the Assistant Referee reporting that he saw ball grounded short, especially, he repeated and stressed the bit about the ball being "definitely short". This leaves Joubert with absolutely no wiggle room. He didn't see it himself, and his Assistant Referee is saying that he did see it. I cannot see any way, at least within the current TMO Protocols, that Joubert could have justified to the Match Observer, asking the second question. Nigel Owen's advice really only left him with the first question "Try or No try?", and for the TMO, that means he MUST see the grounding.

 

[nickdnz]

Yaaaawwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.............

If his summation of the game is boring to you - try another forum which doesn't discuss the game. Saying 'Yaaaawwwwnnnnn" makes you sound like a petulant tw*t.