[2014 EOYT] England vs New Zealand

[TheSaffycen]

lets not forget who is missing:

Corb
Youngs T (though i'm more than happy with webber)
Cole
Launchbury
Parling (again though - prefer Attwood)
Haskell
Tuilagi
Burrell
Yarde

NZ were at full strength bar DC and Nonu, and are off the back of 3 months together.



na, he's just bad at trolling.

If you add these 4 players in then the game is different, probably not the score though. Corbs, Hartley and Cole is a world class front row, then our bench is much stronger. Haskell has been monumental for the last 18 months and adds more impact in attack and defence. Tuilagi on his day can beat NZ.

 

[Darwin]

Clearly you're new to rugby?

Nah he's clearly right. The only way a pitiful side like England could possibly get close to the mighty AB's is if the AB's playing shockingly and England play the best rugby ever

lets not forget who is missing:

Corb
Youngs T (though i'm more than happy with webber)
Cole
Launchbury
Parling (again though - prefer Attwood)
Haskell
Tuilagi
Burrell
Yarde

NZ were at full strength bar DC and Nonu, and are off the back of 3 months together.

We were also missing Woodcock (who we really missed) and Cane (who is a key bench player), but overall I agree England were clearly more effected by injuries than the AB's.

 

[goodNumber10]

We were also missing Woodcock (who we really missed) and Cane (who is a key bench player), but overall I agree England were clearly more effected by injuries than the AB's.

yeah, that's fair enough - i'm not pointing it out to say we would have won or anything, but you have to accept that England had a tough mountain to climb this week, they came up short but there is a lot to be positive about if they iron out the one or two issues.

 

[j'nuh]

My worry is...

is this it?? Have the last 3 years all been for nothing??

Not really. This was a pretty good performance but had a lot of regulars missing, especially in the pack: Corbs, Vunipola, Youngs, Cole, Launchbury, Parling, Croft, Tuilagi and losing Lawes in the first half. There are also a lot of players out there who haven't had much experience yet and should grow into the squad. Quite a few players with single-digit caps.

I'd expect improvement before the next WC, so I think there's a lot more we can give in this WC cycle. But I expect that this squad will hit its heights in the next cycle.

Lancaster definitely needs a plan to utilise more locks. We have Launchbury, Lawes, Parling, Attwood, Kruis, Slater, Kitchener, Matthews, Itoje and Stooke as potential options, probably others too, in the next WC cycle. I think some of these players need nudging into playing 6, where we aren't quite as blessed.

 

[fattyforward]

Cole? Really - I totally disagree - a penalty waiting to happen at scrum time

Better in the loose - yes - but 3 - 6 points in penalties every game due to pinging at the scrum.

Our 2 hookers were the best we have.

Launchbury/Attwood debatable - Lawes the best - possibly in the world.

Eastwood showed class today - but we have lots of good centres - but no good centre partnership.

Back 3 looked good to me - but not my field of expertise if I am hoenst.

Biggest problem - Robshaw!
Great guy, Good Captain, but nowhere near best openside.

Why are we cutting off our noses - bring Stefan in!

 

[William18]

Many posters seem to be suggesting that NO was influenced by crowd.

Could I suggest he was more influenced by reviewing his 1st half decision - most notably the debatable 1st NZ try - which HE DID NOT REFER!!

He realised he had got over confident and then started doubting himself.

I am admittedly biased, and watched in crowded clubroom, but I am still to be convinced it was a try - yet some NZ posters suggest he was biased - ignoring the fact he awarded it without checking!

As for yellow card - absolutely right - Hartley doing what one would expect - ****ley wind up. If Coles had turn around and slapped him - fair enough - but he kicked/stamped on Care's ankle - lucky to just get a yellow. I would doubt anyone who has actually ever played would disagree.

Penalty try - a bit too soon - but how many penalties do you give away that close to the try line before you give PT?

Overall, Ref. made mistakes - but doesn't everyone. He made a few although probably equitable overall.

Unusually, some went against New Zealand - and they're not used to that. If you really want to see bad Reffing - look at last world cup final - shockingly biased!

We are not saying the referee was biased. No New Zealander has actually said it. All we are saying is that the home crowd should not be able to boo, chant and holler and get the referee to review a call he made.

 

[Beau Geste]

Tend to agree with Darwin's long post and I also think that Fatty Forward's post is good.

I thought Owens had a poor game for both sides. He should have gone to the TMO for Cruden's try because I still thought he was short and any try where the player 'burrows' over should go to the TMO. Faumuina's try was clearly over the line; the penalty try was nonsense.

As for Owens being influenced by the crowd: don't think so, it would be very un-Welsh to help the English.

For me, it was won by the AB's back row and the general AB style of not panicking. Read, McCaw and Kaino really outshone the England back row.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Just a couple of points on the reffing...

- Whitelock's attempt to ground the ball - either the ball was short of the line, in which case Whitelock would have been offside and knocked on, or the ball was on the line and had already been grounded by an English player.

- Coles' yellow - it seemed to me that Nigel felt obligated to card based on Coles specifically "kicking out" in retaliation, what he said makes me think that there is either a law or a directive that he was basing his judgement on.

- Faumuina's try - the ref can refer the decision to the TMO after he has already awarded the try, but not after the kick has been taken. I know this because Nigel himself clarified the issue after we had exactly the same incident occur in the premiership final.
Was he influenced by the crowd? Almost certainly... was he also probably influenced by the massive image of the ball being grounded short of a white line? Again almost certainly.

 

[goodNumber10]

We are not saying the referee was biased. No New Zealander has actually said it. All we are saying is that the home crowd should not be able to boo, chant and holler and get the referee to review a call he made.

Then what the ***** is home advantage for if you expect everyone to sit quietly and golf clap.

Owens saw what he saw and the try review was courtesy of the TMO asking to check... pretty sure Owens words were, "you want to check? ok", the TMO then said straigth away that he was wrong.

 

[j'nuh]

Cole? Really - I totally disagree - a penalty waiting to happen at scrum time

Better in the loose - yes - but 3 - 6 points in penalties every game due to pinging at the scrum.

Our 2 hookers were the best we have.

Launchbury/Attwood debatable - Lawes the best - possibly in the world.

Eastwood showed class today - but we have lots of good centres - but no good centre partnership.

Back 3 looked good to me - but not my field of expertise if I am hoenst.

Biggest problem - Robshaw!
Great guy, Good Captain, but nowhere near best openside.

Why are we cutting off our noses - bring Stefan in!

Cole isn't that bad at scrum time? He's put many looseheads on toast in the past. He's not known for his scrummaging, but he's not that bad either. Would certainly be a great option to close a game out with for the last 30 minutes.

Agreed on the rest though, except for Robshaw and Armitage. Robshaw is a great player who, coupled with a good fetcher, has a lot of use in the team. Armitage is not worth the can of worms he would open.

 

[kovana]

So much whinging in this thread so far...

 

[Mikel92]

Tbh I think that's quite harsh on England's defence . You had 80 odd possession for the second half and won the half by just 6 points . Care and Farrell didn't do enough to relieve the pressure on the forwards

I agree England did well defensively, but to be fair, with 14 men and in heavy rain (which both teams had to deal with), it was never going to be a try-festival in that period. In certain conditions it's almost better not to have the ball.

 

[RoosTah]

Just seen the game. England were no different from their NZ tour this year; came out all guns blazing, but couldn't build enough of a lead and seemed to just wilt under the more consistent and well paced game and pressure of the ALL BLACKS.

Good game to watch, although I probably enjoyed the England v NZ league match from yesterday more just because it was more evenly matched and was helter skelter until the last minute.

 

[Mikel92]

Rubbish. The ruck was on the goal line, and the hindmost foot of the hindmost England player was on the goal line (player arrowed in yellow). That means the goal line IS the offside line, and every single England player (arrowed in red) defending on their left was in front of the goal-line, so they were ALL offside.

If the England players had been on their goal-line instead of 1 - 2 metres in front of it, the extra room the NZ team has means a try was probable

Don't worry too much about it, lol. I've tried explaining the law regarding the placement of the ball once a player is tackled and J'nuh has a fundamental misunderstanding of that too. Place or Pass or Release ..

* On 8 November 2001, the International Rugby Board (IRB) issued the following Note on Interpretation of Law 15.5 (d) â€" the tackled player.
* Law 15.5 (d) states: “A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, providing this is done immediately.â€

The any direction except forward was my point. You can't just have another go at it.

 

[j'nuh]

Don't worry too much about it, lol. I've tried explaining the law regarding the placement of the ball once a player is tackled and J'nuh has a fundamental misunderstanding of that too. Place or Pass or Release ..

* On 8 November 2001, the International Rugby Board (IRB) issued the following Note on Interpretation of Law 15.5 (d) – the tackled player.
* Law 15.5 (d) states: "A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, providing this is done immediately."

The any direction except forward was my point. You can't just have another go at it.

Look a bit further down the Laws, there is an exception for when the player is near the goal line:

Law 15.5 (g) states: "If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down."

 

[goodNumber10]

Look a bit further down the Laws, there is an exception for when the player is near the goal line:

Law 15.5 (g) states: "If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down."

just ignore him mate.

 

[fattyforward]

We are not saying the referee was biased. No New Zealander has actually said it. All we are saying is that the home crowd should not be able to boo, chant and holler and get the referee to review a call he made.

I apologise for my lack of clarity. The point I was making was that NO had realised that he had cocked up in 1st half by given with his gut instinct. He then when with same instinct in 2nd half, and, suddenly thought - hey up - I could be wrong!

It wasn't the crown reaction - it was crowd reaction coupled with the knowledge he had boo-booed earlier - leading to self doubt.

If 1st try had been correct he wouldn't have referred later.

Would we have the same complaints if he had referred the 1st try?

The key point is - was the correct decision in the end?

In 2nd case - Yes!
NZ Try

In first case - Hmmmm!
Not sure!

 

[Mikel92]

Look a bit further down the Laws, there is an exception for when the player is near the goal line:

Law 15.5 (g) states: "If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down."

Yes, I'm not disputing they are allowed to reach out. But they aren't allowed to come up short, then have another go, then another go, then another go.

Being close to the goal-line doesn't mean "be as crazy as ya want". You can reach out, but if unsuccessful then the player must place the ball any direction except forward.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

lets not forget who is missing:

Corb
Youngs T (though i'm more than happy with webber)
Cole
Launchbury
Parling (again though - prefer Attwood)
Haskell
Tuilagi
Burrell
Yarde

NZ were at full strength bar DC and Nonu, and are off the back of 3 months together.



.

The problem with this point in bold is that you only had to look Ireland's win today against a side who had also been together for 3 months to know this doesn't wash.

 

[fattyforward]

Yes, I'm not disputing they are allowed to reach out. But they aren't allowed to come up short, then have another go, then another go, then another go.

Being close to the goal-line doesn't mean "be as crazy as ya want". You can reach out, but if unsuccessful then the player must place the ball any direction except forward.

Tend to agree but it's all about interpretation. Some times you get lucky, sometomes you don't.

As a rule of thumb - in all sports, the best team tend to get the marginal decisions.

NZ clearly the best, and generally get the 50-50 calls their way.