[RWC2019][Semi-Final 1] England vs. New Zealand (26/10/2019)

[HERSH_606er]

To be honest these days I'd struggle to name the All Blacks XV, just don't get to see them that much.

I'm more confident about this game now, probably to do with the fact I'll be working when the final is on so its guaranteed to be England in it now!!!!

 

[Cooper]

Am I wrong, or do England have the defensive stats of any team so far? In terms of points scored against us? We surely have let less try's slip than the ABs, which arguably gives us the better defence?

You are wrong

We have both conceded the fewest amount of tries (3) and conceded the exact same amount of points (34), quite a funny stat!!

 

[MikeTheNative]

Am I wrong, or do England have the defensive stats of any team so far? In terms of points scored against us? We surely have let less try's slip than the ABs, which arguably gives us the better defence?

NZ have only conceded 3 tries so far.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

That's a fair assessment I'd say. Moody probably the better ball player than Laulala. Both scrum alright.

Ta'avao is a real weakness at scrummaging off the bench. Honestly I'd rather have Franks there. Haven't seen enough amazing play in the loose from Ta'avao to suggest it outweighs his lack of stability at scrum time.

You would have thought if Hansen thought Ta'avao was such a weakness come scrum time they would pick Tu'ungafasi as the tight head replacement on the bench and Moli as replacement loose head. Can't say I've looked closely at Ta'avao when it comes to scrumming.

 

[HERSH_606er]

NZ have not really been tested to be honest.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

NZ have not really been tested to be honest.

I don't agree really, South Africa was a proper test which New Zealand dealt with extremely professionally, if without ever looking at their best. It's not easy to beat South Africa as we saw in The Rugby Championship..

 

[MikeTheNative]

NZ have not really been tested to be honest.

Overall they did have an easier group to be fair but you could also argue that England had their hardest group game (France) cancelled, it's swings and roundabout's really.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Overall they did have an easier group to be fair but you could also argue that England had their hardest group game (France) cancelled, it's swings and roundabout's really.

Aye, if anything we're relatively untested - biggest games against a 14man Argentina (who aren't that good with 15), and a poor Aus side with the worst gameplan I've ever seen.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

When I've travelled, I've often had people say to me, "I hear rugby is like a religion in NZ" - It's not, there's large amounts of the population who like it, but follow it very casually. Our crowd numbers for domestic games are extremely low, even for Super Rugby, rarely you will see a stadium packed out unless it's the finals. I'm often surprised at people impression of rugby in NZ.

isn't that how religion is practiced in every western society

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Aye, if anything we're relatively untested - biggest games against a 14man Argentina (who aren't that good with 15), and a poor Aus side with the worst gameplan I've ever seen.

I couldn't believe Cheika's response to the tactics question in the press conference? "Nah mate, we like playing running footy and I'll play that way or go home"
Bye then mate...

 

[Cooper]

I couldn't believe Cheika's response to the tactics question in the press conference? "Nah mate, we like playing running footy and I'll play that way or go home"
Bye then mate...

The ARU wanted Cheika so desperately after the Waratah's won the Super Rugby that they practically let him create his own contract with so many clauses that protected him from getting the sack. So by the end of it, he was doing and saying as he pleased.

 

[Which Tyler]

Aye, if anything we're relatively untested - biggest games against a 14man Argentina (who aren't that good with 15), and a poor Aus side with the worst gameplan I've ever seen.

Yup - NZ had to play well against South Africa - certainly better than we had to in the pool stages; and then they had to play better against Ireland than we had to against Australia - though there isn't all that much in that, but it is the most recent match.
If either of these teams is undercooked, it's us. IMO

 

[Every Time Ref]

I'm in a WhatsApp group with loads of kiwis who are also big cricket fans, they are obsessively discussing all possible tiebreaks in the event of a draw, they really do not want to be blindsided by obscure rules again!

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Okay, so EJ is sticking to my mantra of Ford or Slade for victory. I'm assuming he thinks this team will be more defensively solid than the one against Australia, without sacrificing too much creativity. I would have preferred more continuity either way, which is something that at least the ABs have in their backs - so that narrows the gap in my mind a little.

I dont like Lawes over Kruis or Taylor over Coles, so those decisions cancel each other out. Hrrrrnn.

England by 4 (and I want at least tries in total in the match)

 

[Mr Ruggleby]

Okay, so EJ is sticking to my mantra of Ford or Slade for victory. I'm assuming he thinks this team will be more defensively solid than the one against Australia, without sacrificing too much creativity. I would have preferred more continuity either way, which is something that at least the ABs have in their backs - so that narrows the gap in my mind a little.

I think the logic is actually the opposite of this. Farrell, Manu, Slade was a more defensive choice because it didn't provide a "soft target" for Kerevi to run over and Slade is better positionally than Manu when defending the 13 channel. In this game we have gone for a more expansive approach with two out and out ball players next to each other which will guarantee width and put the ball in the hands of our danger men out wide. I also think a large part of this strategy is about getting Manu running in the 13 channel where he is at his best (both generally and vs NZ) and is much harder for the back row to neutralise off first phase. Also I think Ford coming in at 10 offers more creativity in attack than just Faz, not less.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I think the logic is actually the opposite of this. Farrell, Manu, Slade was a more defensive choice because it didn't provide a "soft target" for Kerevi to run over and Slade is better positionally than Manu when defending the 13 channel. In this game we have gone for a more expansive approach with two out and out ball players next to each other which will guarantee width and put the ball in the hands of our danger men out wide. I also think a large part of this strategy is about getting Manu running in the 13 channel where he is at his best (both generally and vs NZ) and is much harder for the back row to neutralise off first phase. Also I think Ford coming in at 10 offers more creativity in attack than just Faz, not less.

Fair points, i can't say I'm an expert in Manu and Slade defensively, I was just assuming Farrell & Tuilagi will be more solid at centre than Slade / Tuilagi and that Ford is reasonable defensively.

Oh yes, i have Ford as way more attacking than Farrell. My reason for banging on about the need to play Ford or Slade is their creativity. An England with Farrell at 10 and non-distributors at 12 & 13 (like we have seen for most of EJ's tenure) would not be getting much of a sniff of victory in games like this if the opposition turned up and scored a couple of tries.

 

[ncurd]

I'm assuming he thinks this team will be more defensively solid than the one against Australia, without sacrificing too much creativity.

eh? I'd say he was doing the opposite.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I feel like I've been made to watch an alternate QF for England to everyone else. 578 metres gained by the Wallabies is not a solid defensive performance by England (and that presumably doesn't count the 60m try that was chalked off). I doubt the ABs will get that in this fixture, hence why I am expecting a defensive improvement. We shall see!

 

[Cooper]

I feel like I've been made to watch an alternate QF for England to everyone else. 578 metres gained by the Wallabies is not a solid defensive performance by England (and that presumably doesn't count the 60m try that was chalked off). I doubt the ABs will get that in this fixture, hence why I am expecting a defensive improvement. We shall see!

If you think we are going to make less metres than the Aussies, you're in for a very rude awakening!

 

[WarriorKelv]

Thing is I think New Zealand have shown their hand a good hand mind you but I don't think they can get any better. England you sense were just starting against Australia after a sluggish start. Basically I think England have another gear to click into New Zealand haven't but are still good.