• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The Day England Humbled The All Blacks (And Buried A Few Stereotypes)

youmerugby

Academy Player
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
20
Country Flag
New Zealand
In light of the latest England squad announcement and after Lancaster's recent comments re. learning from the All Blacks (Article here: http://bit.ly/16cKAP4) I compiled some observations from England's 2012 EOYT victory over NZ. It will be interesting to see the approach this year as the All Blacks will be gunning for revenge.

[video=vimeo;77114146]https://vimeo.com/77114146[/video]
 
All Blacks had been ill and tired coming off a long season, thats why we beat them.

It's not like we have really improved our backs play since that game at all. The stereotypes still apply and aren't going to go away when we select Youngs and Farrell who kick more good possession away than any other team ever ever ever.
 
Combination of our team playing well and All Blacks not - even Goode upped his game and looked half-decent!
Also highlighted to importance of Corbisiero and (an on form) Morgan.
 
In light of the latest England squad announcement and after Lancaster's recent comments re. learning from the All Blacks (Article here: http://bit.ly/16cKAP4) I compiled some observations from England's 2012 EOYT victory over NZ. It will be interesting to see the approach this year as the All Blacks will be gunning for revenge.

[video=vimeo;77114146]https://vimeo.com/77114146[/video]

I have read the article and I find his comments interesting .In summary he asks the question is there a best team in sport? He answers that question by giving the example of the All blacks being under dogs against the Springboks but they found a way to win.His seems to be focusing on the mental and tactical aspect of the game which is good.I believe he will however find an all black team that believes"it can walk on water " And have a coach who has taken them to the next level.They can play any type of rugby to suit the conditions or their opponents.It should be a cracking game and hopefully an awesome spectale.
 
I'm actually excited about the End of Year Tour for the first time in ages...
 
"One swallow does not a summer make"
- Aristotle (circa 370 DC)

Not even using a tired All Blacks team as an excuse, the fact that England chucked it around a bit and won against them at Twickenham, does not bury any stereotypes. When they do it consistently, from match to match, home and away, perhaps winning the Six Nations in a canter, and scoring 3 to 4 tries per match, then they will have something to talk about.

However, the fact that they did what they did shows that the talent is there, and that they are capable of playing that way and at that level, but they weren't under any real pressure that day. The real test will come when they are under real pressure, and still run the ball to win.
 
Last edited:
new zealand were playing crap that game i was sure the all blacks where drinking the night before the match
 
I don't buy the "NZ were ill" just like I don't buy the 1995 food poisoning bull*****. They're fit professional athletes, not superheros, if you have food poisoning you can barely move let alone run out against South Africa, play a full game, plus extra time and only just lose... NZ lost to England because they were tired after a long season, perhaps lacking in motivation/already in holiday mode and that coincided with a fit and motivated England with nothing to lose. In the big scheme of things it doesn't really mean much, 2 months later England reverted to type and their turgid 10 man rugby, scraping wins against teams they should pump.
 
I don't buy the "NZ were ill" just like I don't buy the 1995 food poisoning bull*****. They're fit professional athletes, not superheros, if you have food poisoning you can barely move let alone run out against South Africa, play a full game, plus extra time and only just lose... NZ lost to England because they were tired after a long season, perhaps lacking in motivation/already in holiday mode and that coincided with a fit and motivated England with nothing to lose. In the big scheme of things it doesn't really mean much, 2 months later England reverted to type and their turgid 10 man rugby.

Was the food poisoning announced before the game or afterwards? I think in both cases it was announced before the game? I am not sure.Nevertheless as you have stated England have not looked menacing after that victory.
 
I don't buy the "NZ were ill" just like I don't buy the 1995 food poisoning bull*****. They're fit professional athletes, not superheros, if you have food poisoning you can barely move let alone run out against South Africa, play a full game, plus extra time and only just lose... NZ lost to England because they were tired after a long season, perhaps lacking in motivation/already in holiday mode and that coincided with a fit and motivated England with nothing to lose. In the big scheme of things it doesn't really mean much, 2 months later England reverted to type and their turgid 10 man rugby, scraping wins against teams they should pump.

So Jeff Wilson and Craig Dowd were just acting when the were seen vomiting on the sideline then? ;)
 
"One
swallow does not a summer make"


- Aristotle (circa 370 DC)



Not even using a tired All Blacks team as an excuse, the fact that England
chucked it around a bit and won against them at Twickenham, does not bury any
stereotypes. When they do it consistently, from match to match, home and away,
perhaps winning the Six Nations in a canter, and scoring 3 to 4 tries per
match, then they will have something to talk about.



However, the fact that they did what they did shows that the talent is there,
and that they are capable of playing that way
and at that level, but they weren't under any real pressure that day. The real
test will come when they are under real pressure, and still run the ball to
win.



Totally agree with this Cooky. Yes England did have a good
day,
but for me it didn't detract from the fact we lost the
games against the Boks & Aussies. I was not overjoyed just because we beat
the AB's for once.

The subsequent 6N games of England were in complete contrast of Wales.
Consistancy is one thing, but improving from one game to the next can also be
good. England beat the Scots well and followed with a good but lesser
performance over the Irish. Then the two scraped games with Italy & France
before the mauling by Wales....all in a downward spiral.

Wales on the otherhand had a crap AI's, crap 1st 40mins 6N, and then an upward
curve
in performance to the Grand Slam.
I know which one i'd prefer.
 
All Blacks had been ill and tired coming off a long season, thats why we beat them.

It's not like we have really improved our backs play since that game at all. The stereotypes still apply and aren't going to go away when we select Youngs and Farrell who kick more good possession away than any other team ever ever ever.

that's a very, very humble post from you man, and don't take away everything from England man. Although what you're saying is exaggerated, I must confess to you my utter appreciation for your humility ! European sides only beat the Blacks ever so rarely (first since the great 2003 side for England !) and to say it's all a myth and the Blacks were merely tired is all, even though it's wrong is admirable.

Combination of our team playing well and All Blacks not - even Goode upped his game and looked half-decent!
Also highlighted to importance of Corbisiero and (an on form) Morgan.

that's right. And I agree with the Goode thing too. He looked like absolute crap in other int'ls, and he looked good in this one.





Totally agree with this Cooky. Yes England did have a good
day,
but for me it didn't detract from the fact we lost the
games against the Boks & Aussies. I was not overjoyed just because we beat
the AB's for once.

The subsequent 6N games of England were in complete contrast of Wales.
Consistancy is one thing, but improving from one game to the next can also be
good. England beat the Scots well and followed with a good but lesser
performance over the Irish. Then the two scraped games with Italy & France
before the mauling by Wales....all in a downward spiral.

I like that you bring about the notion of 'context'. In retrospect, England did lose its previous two matches that Tour before erupting against an "atypical" All-Blacks side. And then, putting up only one fine match against Scotland at home that had just no answer against the English forwards and simply could not win, in the 6N. Winning margins were narrow against a decaying French side at home, and Italy; a small victory in Ireland, and then a historical loss in Cardiff.

So about context:
It's interesting how had England beaten Australia and the Boks, albeit by as thin a margin as they've actually lost those - and then managed the Grand Slam in March; with on the side the Lions winning their first series in aeons and England smashing the Pumas B away - England would immediately be regarded as one of the best sides ever. Which is interesting, because that's just flatout wrong.
We would all look at that performance against the Blacks as a classic of a great England era, surrounded by bonafide wins and forever sealed in all eternity by the Grand Slam they'd have brought back home, also a first since the great 2003 days.

In stead, I've read an Englishman on these boards say about that English 6N side they'd have been the least lacklustre GrandSlam winning side of all-time. And yet, they were a handful of points away from making it a nice 3-zip against the SANZAR big 3 in Nov., and had they been on a better day somehow they may have taken the trophy home in Cardiff - with the exact same side, I'm not changing reality with this hypothesis.
 
Whilst NZ were definitely not on form that game, I'd still like to see many other sides put in the performance England did that game. We get a lot of bashing about how the win wasn't "deserved" as if all we had to do was walk onto the pitch and the win was guarenteed. I'm pretty sure no other European team barring maybe Wales would have beaten that AB team in the same circumstances.

However to say that win was in any way representative of England would be misleading. Ashton nosedived (rather than swandived) after that game and the rest of the team returned to very slow rugby with the added bonus of trying our very best to lose posession whenever possible.
 
the fact that England chucked it around a bit and won against them at Twickenham, does not bury any stereotypes. When they do it consistently, from match to match, home and away, perhaps winning the Six Nations in a canter, and scoring 3 to 4 tries per match, then they will have something to talk about.

So using your logic, does this apply to NZ's "choking" stereotype at World Cups? Or does the 2011 win bury that for you? :unsure:
 
So using your logic, does this apply to NZ's "choking" stereotype at World Cups? Or does the 2011 win bury that for you? :unsure:

IMO there is no such thing as choking in sport, otherwise, one team wins and the other 19 choke.

The term "choking" is merely a mis-perception by the uninformed

So I guess the answer to your question would be, no!
 
IMO there is no such thing as choking in sport, otherwise, one team wins and the other 19 choke.

The term "choking" is merely a mis-perception by the uninformed

So I guess the answer to your question would be, no!

I don't recall ever seeing anyone define (or even use) choking in such a way that this would be the case.

When a team under-performs in big games (and what's bigger than World Cup finals?), or even is significantly outperformed, I consider that to be choking. Now I've only seen three World Cups, only two of which I've watched passionately, and I'd hardly say NZ choked against France in 2007 - there were too many factors at play there (or, just one big one). But that doesn't mean choking as a concept is poor, it just means it can be applied poorly.
 
Mebbe the ABs need a royal food taster...ya know, like the kind kings have to make sure the food's not poisoned. When you're sitting on top of a kingdom you have to take such precautions. ;)


das
 
I don't buy the "NZ were ill" just like I don't buy the 1995 food poisoning bull*****

Jeez, I wish people, especially uninformed people like you obviously are, would just stop bringing this up when you know absolutely nothing about it

The All Blacks were suffering from severe food poising in 1995, that is an indisputable, and proven fact. There were too many independent witnesses to their condition for this to be denied. In the 48 hours leading up to the final most of them were very, very, ill. The South African former head of security for Nelson Mandela, Rory Steyn, who was assigned as head of security for the NZ team, saw them in the hours leading up to the game. He described it as being "like a battle zone", and with his previous experience in the South African Police he would not use such an expression lightly...

- extracts from Steyn's book "One Step Behind Mandela"
[TEXTAREA]We raced back to the hotel and when I got up to the doctor's room it looked like a battle zone – like a scene from a war movie. Players were lying all over the place and the doctor and physio were walking around injecting them. I was a police officer, I worked with facts. What my eyes told me that night was that the team had deliberately been poisoned.[/TEXTAREA]

[textarea]I had to endure accusations of complicity in this, from New Zealand officials, and I was very angry that this was allowed to happen in my country – to people in my care. South African rugby fans remained skeptical of this theory and preferred to put it down to sour Kiwi grapes. To my fellow South Africans I want to say this: Stop all those cheap jokes about Suzie, the food poisoning and whingeing Kiwis. It happened. There is no doubt that the All Blacks were poisoned two days before the final.[/textarea]


The FACT that they were suffering from food poisoning is INDISPUTABLE. Whether or not they were intentionally poisoned, and if so who by, is up for conjecture. There is naturally no proof of this, and there never will be unless those involved spill the beans. However, I have a theory about what happened, based on a fair bit of research.

IMO, South Africans didn't know anything about it, and didn't have anything to do with what happened. I put it down to illegal Indian betting syndicates, who used a tasteless, odourless substance made from crushing the dried berries of a plant called "Indian Poke" (Phytolacca acinosa, which grows extensively, throughout Southern and Eastern Asia). It is known by the slang term "Indian Trick"; it mimics the symptoms of gastroenteritis, and eliminates from the body within 12 hours leaving no detectable trace, but leaving the victim with severe stomach pains, cramps, vomiting and diarrhoea for 24 to 48 hours after ingestion. This substance is well known on the sub-continent as being used for nobbling everything from cricket and hockey players to greyhounds and racehorses. There is some anecdotal evidence of "anomalous" betting trends in the period leading up to the final that would tend to support the theory.

Those who think that Indian Betting syndicates would not extend their influence to sporting events in South Africa, I have two words for you....... Hansie Cronje!
 
Last edited:
Top