[2014 Mid-Year Tests] England

[Shaggy]

The only point I (and I think no10) am making is that NZ's strength does not lie in their front-row.

Going to NZ without your first choice props is not as potentially disastrous as doing so in SA.
You seem to have taken the suggestion that Mealamu, Woodcock and Franks aren't among the very finest in their position as a slight.

Nowhere has anybody suggested that they are "bad".

No, as I pointed out in my reply to both of you, being the absolute best, or finest in their respective positions isn't a requirement is it? ... I never said that, so I haven't taken it as a slight.

In fact I said I respected the England pack, that the All Black pack seemed to hold it's own against most opponents so I wasn't that worried ... if I was implying that they were the finest I would have said they dominated most opponents, which they don't.

I realise that no one said they are "Bad", I think the term you used was "not that good" ... like I said "they aren't that bad"

... If I can dare to suggest, without it sounding defensive, I would say that they are better than "not that good", they did manage to play well enough to help the team to beat South Africa in South Africa last year.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I think "really done damage" is overstating it a bit!
With our first choice front row we'd have gone well (parity and maybe edging a few penalties), without them I expect NZ to be on top in the scrum. They may not have the best front row in the world but it's still one of the best.
The only way you could say they're "not that good" is when you compare them to other parts of their side where they're the best in the world.

 

[Shaggy]

absolutely, and that's exactly my point.



Of course, or course. I just meant i didn't want to send this thread spiraling off into a discusison of how good the NZ front row are - i think we allaccept they are good, just that in comparison to England it's not an area we'd have been fearing.




I agree, the point i was making is they aren't a unit that wil hold a fear factor for England - or at least wouldn't, England will be confident of holding their own, if not dominating at scrum time. There wont' be many scrum penalties in this test series i'd imagine.

Yep, all excellent points ... and you are absolutely right, it shouldn't spiral into a discussion about the relative strengths of the All Black front row, as there is a separate thread for the NZ side of things (although I'd prefer one thread). Anyway, I will shut my big yap ... carry on gentlemen

 

[ratsapprentice]

I think you are just confused about the meaning of the term "not that great" - no10 qualified his first statement by saying "we should hold up there".

In this context it means that if they were "that great" then they would dominate us.

Not - "they are a bit **** aren't they".

The only way you could say they're "not that good" is when you compare them to other parts of their side where they're the best in the world.

That's exactly what it means.

I guess I'll have to be more careful with the phrase in the future - clearly it doesn't mean that to some people.

 

[Shaggy]

I think you are just confused about the meaning of the term "not that great" - no10 qualified his first statement by saying "we should hold up there".

In this context it means that if they were "that great" then they would dominate us.

Not - "they are a bit **** aren't they".



That's exactly what it means.

I guess I'll have to be more careful with the phrase in the future - clearly it doesn't mean that to some people.

Nope, definitely not confused about anything No.10 said ... nor what I've said, what you think I've said, what I've said to clarify what I've said - because clearly it's had a different meaning to some people.

... I guess we'll both have to be a bit more careful with the phrases we use in the future won't we

Anyway ... like I said in my last post, I'm done on this issue ... so carry on

 

[ratsapprentice]

36 is out for 6 weeks.

Which basically rules him out of the tour.
If we assume that six week period starts today - it will end two days before the third test.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

It sucks that 36 is out. So who to play at 12 for the first test? Kyle Eastmond? Haven't been following Bath much this season, has he been playing much at 12 alongside Ford at 10? My only worry is that is a small pairing to start against the ABs and Nonu would be licking his lips at running down that 10-12 channel.

Barritt and Burrell are likely to be tied up in the AP final so it really narrows England's options at 12.

 

[TheSaffycen]

I bet we see Tuilagi at 12, with Burrell at 13.

edit just forgot that Burrell is out, maybe Eastmond/Daly in the centres

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Why would they play Tuilagi and Burrell that way round, when their favoured positions are the opposite?


First test is definitely going to be a strange one - a 10/12/13 axis with potentially 2-4 caps between the three of them.

 

[Crapspray]

The three-quarters had one between them against France didn't they? They almost won that. Two should be plenty.

 

[nickdnz]

I'd think Eastmond and Tuilagi would be a pretty intriguing pairing. Eastmond can create play well and pass as well as any 12 in England I'd say - while Tuilagi is reasonably limited he's decent in defense and can benefit from a well timed pass better than other centres.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The three-quarters had one between them against France didn't they? They almost won that. Two should be plenty.

3/4s is.....centres?
Twelvetrees had, I think, 8 caps at the start of the 6 Nations - hardly an experienced international, but better than 0.

 

[Crapspray]

11, 13, 14. At least that's what I was under the impression of.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I'd think Eastmond and Tuilagi would be a pretty intriguing pairing. Eastmond can create play well and pass as well as any 12 in England I'd say - while Tuilagi is reasonably limited he's decent in defense and can benefit from a well timed pass better than other centres.

If it was Farrell-Eastmond and Tuilagi then that wouldn't be such a problem. But if Farrell is playing in the AP final then he won't play in the 1st test. Ford is likely to start his 1st test for England on 7 June unless Lancaster opts for Cipriani.

 

[Tmartin995]

So Ford at 10 and Eastmond at 12 would mean that New Zealand would get a LOT of front foot ball, particularly off set pieces with Nonu and Savea running down that channel. The back row for England are going to be very busy to try to keep them at bay...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Nothing wrong with Eastmond's defence.
He may be shorter than your average 12, but he's pretty stacked and hits hard.

 

[Tmartin995]

Nothing wrong with Eastmond's defence.
He may be shorter than your average 12, but he's pretty stacked and hits hard.

I'm not saying that they'll miss heaps of tackles. I'm more saying the sheer differentials in the size of the players meant that New Zealand are much more likely to win the collisions and get across the gameline. Also if they pepper them for 80 mins its bound to take away from their attacking game as they'll be physically exhausted from it

 

[Draggs]

I'm not saying that they'll miss heaps of tackles. I'm more saying the sheer differentials in the size of the players meant that New Zealand are much more likely to win the collisions and get across the gameline. Also if they pepper them for 80 mins its bound to take away from their attacking game as they'll be physically exhausted from it

So... Mass?

 

[Peat]

I too am worried about what Tmartin has highlighted. I know Ford and Eastmond have handled every test they've faced together, but they've been in a fairly dominant team in a league fairly short of the likes of Nonu. All Nonu has to do is get over the advantage line and make us retreat and he's done his job. If the team works hard and ensures Nonu always has two defenders we'll be fine - but that creates its own problems, and I'm not sure we can do that all match.

 

[Big Ewis]

So... Mass?

hey listen, okay. I appear, but I sure ain't hell grantin no wishes. So easy on the Mass bell !!!