[2014 Mid-Year Tests] New Zealand vs England (1st Test)

[SomeOke]

I think you will find that most of the more level headed would agree that Owens had a bad game for him and it was a talking point after the game on TV which is unusual.

My understanding is that where you clearly prevent a try using illegal means, you get a card.. Nonu and Fekitoa did exactly that as Owens penalised them and there was every reason to believe that a try would otherwise have been scored. If there was no penalty, there would not have been a yellow and the argument as to whether or not a card should be given for a "different type" of foul is surely a non argument.

Here is my argument - Yarde deliberately made a foul to stop a try, Fekitoa tried to affect a turn over. One player was trying to do something illegal which I would say is what cynical is, while the other was trying to do something legal.

 

[reddeviljp]

Unlucky for England but I think Lancaster will still shift it around a bit for next week's test:

Hartley in at 2
Wilson and Marler may survive but Corbisiero is due a performance.
Lawes and Launchbury second row.
Wood, Robshaw and Morgan at the back with Vunipola and Haskell to the bench.
Danny Care but possibly starting with Burns - Farrell unlucky but Burns had a great game.
May will probably survive at 11
Tuilagi and Burrell at 12 and 13
Ashton to replace Yarde at 14
Mike Brown at 15.

IMO that is a formidable team with plenty of attacking width and options from the bench and I would expect another close encounter.Wouldn't like to predict the score but I sense this is the one England have to and would like to win to set up a stellar finale.

 

[Rich Taff]

Watching again (and more awake), I think most of the 'poor decisions' were down to the touch judges (missing the pull backs etc). Owens is good, but he can't watch everything at once, and the touch judges have a far wider range of sight.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Unlucky for England but I think Lancaster will still shift it around a bit for next week's test:

Hartley in at 2
Wilson and Marler may survive but Corbisiero is due a performance.
Lawes and Launchbury second row.
Wood, Robshaw and Morgan at the back with Vunipola and Haskell to the bench.
Danny Care but possibly starting with Burns - Farrell unlucky but Burns had a great game.
May will probably survive at 11
Tuilagi and Burrell at 12 and 13
Ashton to replace Yarde at 14
Mike Brown at 15.

IMO that is a formidable team with plenty of attacking width and options from the bench and I would expect another close encounter.Wouldn't like to predict the score but I sense this is the one England have to and would like to win to set up a stellar finale.

Corbs has not travelled to NZ; he will continue his rehab in England. Wilson and Marler are a must to start, as our other props too green to start.

I thought Eastmond did well, and deserves another chance at 12, alongside Manu. Burrell on the bench or Foden.

Ashton - yuk; not for me. Keep Yarde and May. Sir Clive suggested Tuilagi at 11, but I' m not a fan of starting centres on the wing. The ABs will just bombard him with high balls.

The rest I agree with.

 

[McTallshort]

Its just my problem with the British sports media. I've actually lived in both countries for substantial periods of time to realise what both variations of supporters and media are like. But this game was just a cop out, the only losers in this game were New Zealand, it didn't matter the result, it was strictly lose/lose.

If the ABs beat England by 40+ (example), "second string team, we will see if they can do that next game..", if the ABs beat them by 15 or less, " we can take them, they aren't as unbeatable as the media somehow make them out to be...". Imagine if they lost? The ridiculousness would be unthinkable. After the first game it would be "England: World beaters, favorites for Cup".

I couldn't honestly get excited for this game, in fact I was enjoying the AUS vs FRA game a lot more. Simply for what I stated above.

Biased media is understandable, but you can't help cringe at biased supporters. I actually have critisised NZ a lot more for the way of the win, than England's loss. But, I stick by the fact that NZ were still missing several players who are the best in the world at their positions (or at least voted by the populous in that way) and benefit NZ immensely.

Are we saying then that bias is a problem in the British media but not in New Zealand?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Thinking about it more I would like a team of
1) Marler
2) webber (He did nothing wrong to get dropped and Hartley hasn't played a full 80 in how long)
3) Wilson
4) Lawes
5) Launchbury
6) Haskell (Made the most tackles which will be needed more against Read)
7) Robshaw (best 7 on the park)
8) Morgan
9) Care (If fit) Dickson (if care is not fir)
10) Burns
11) May (Finally back himself)
12) Eastmond
13) Manu
14) Yarde
15) Brown

16) Hartley
17) Waller
18) Sinkcler (Thomas is pointless)
19) Parling (Tough on Attwood but parling played well)
20) Vunipola/Wood (Vunipola would make more attacking impact) (Wood would be more stable)
21) Dickson/Youngs (depends if care is fit)
22) Farrell
23) Burrell/Foden

Although Lancaster will pick differently.

Twelvetrees will play in the midweek team I reckon considering when is the last time he played rugby, compared to others available.

 

[Tony Manx]

Here is my argument - Yarde deliberately made a foul to stop a try, Fekitoa tried to affect a turn over. One player was trying to do something illegal which I would say is what cynical is, while the other was trying to do something legal.

Result was the same......an illegal act prevented a try and intent does not come into it!

Watching again (and more awake), I think most of the 'poor decisions' were down to the touch judges (missing the pull backs etc). Owens is good, but he can't watch everything at once, and the touch judges have a far wider range of sight.

That may be the case for the knock ons but not the yellow cards inconsistency....?

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Sir Clive Woodward, Will Greenwood and Michael Lynagh on sky sports chose the following England team start the 2nd test:

1. Marler
2. Hartley
3. Wilson
4. Launchbury
5. Lawes
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Billy V

9. Care
10. Farrell
11. Tuilagi
12. 36
13. Burrell
14. Yarde
15. Brown

Mostly it was Sir Clive's team. Interesting to see SCW pick Tuilagi on the left wing. Thoughts?

 

[Maverick1987]

Here is my argument - Yarde deliberately made a foul to stop a try, Fekitoa tried to affect a turn over. One player was trying to do something illegal which I would say is what cynical is, while the other was trying to do something legal.

If Fekitoa was LEGALLY and that's the key word LEGALLY trying to turn the ball over the penalty would have been against England for holding on therefore in Nigel Owens eyes Fekitoa was doing something wrong and stopping the ball from coming quick and preventing an obvious try scoring opportunity .

Yellow card in my book

 

[McTallshort]

Sir Clive Woodward, Will Greenwood and Michael Lynagh on sky sports chose the following England team start the 2nd test:

1. Marler
2. Hartley
3. Wilson
4. Launchbury
5. Lawes
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Billy V

9. Care
10. Farrell
11. Tuilagi
12. 36
13. Burrell
14. Yarde
15. Brown

Mostly it was Sir Clive's team. Interesting to see SCW pick Tuilagi on the left wing. Thoughts?

Really wouldnt drop Morgan he seems to find gaps where Billy finds bodies deserves to start the 2nd test IMO

 

[kesh]

Thinking about it more I would like a team of
1) Marler
2) webber (He did nothing wrong to get dropped and Hartley hasn't played a full 80 in how long)
3) Wilson
4) Lawes
5) Launchbury
6) Haskell (Made the most tackles which will be needed more against Read)
7) Robshaw (best 7 on the park)
8) Morgan
9) Care (If fit) Dickson (if care is not fir)
10) Burns
11) May (Finally back himself)
12) Eastmond
13) Manu
14) Yarde
15) Brown

16) Hartley
17) Waller
18) Sinkcler (Thomas is pointless)
19) Parling (Tough on Attwood but parling played well)
20) Vunipola/Wood (Vunipola would make more attacking impact) (Wood would be more stable)
21) Dickson/Youngs (depends if care is fit)
22) Farrell
23) Burrell/Foden

Although Lancaster will pick differently.

Twelvetrees will play in the midweek team I reckon considering when is the last time he played rugby, compared to others available.

Pretty much the same, only i would start Hartley and Wood would be in, just, Read wont be back, although Haskell been in would be par also. Farrell because it's Farrell and i prefer a more combative No.10.

Got to agree with what some of the kiwi posters are saying, Read, Carter and Savea are bigger loses in terms of quality gulf. Webber is 3rd/4th choice but alot have been calling for him to start for awhile. Same with Eastmond, Parling. There isn't a big enough difference in the selections and if you could clone and play the first test team against the team with everyone back i don't think they'd be much of a difference. Corbs and Cole are injuried, so that doesn't count, they'd add a little to the side, they both started in 2012 and at this level those fine margins do count. But overall it isn't that big an issue and it's a excuse that's taken the gloss out of the game.

Just glad to see Eastmond finally in there and knowing Lancaster he'll stay there until he disappoints or someone puts there hand up to dislodge him, which although i'm fan of 36 and think he adds to the team with his attributes, i like what Karl adds more. His got that Robinson edge about him (though wth is going on at Bath??), his more dangerous. Who would you rather defend? 36/tuilagi or a Eastmond/Tuilagi combo?

 

[j'nuh]

Sir Clive Woodward, Will Greenwood and Michael Lynagh on sky sports chose the following England team start the 2nd test:

1. Marler
2. Hartley
3. Wilson
4. Launchbury
5. Lawes
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Billy V

9. Care
10. Farrell
11. Tuilagi
12. 36
13. Burrell
14. Yarde
15. Brown

Mostly it was Sir Clive's team. Interesting to see SCW pick Tuilagi on the left wing. Thoughts?

Mostly agreed. but with a few points:
1. What does May have to do to get some recognition? I know Yarde is better than what he showed, but May was one of the best players on the pitch from either side. Apart from that one mistake, he ran well, tackled well, played the full part. Dropping him for an out-of-position centre? I honestly do not get it.

2. I can see why Vunipola would come back, but it might be worth giving him a rest and bringing him on from the bench. Morgan looked really up for it.

3. Webber was great. Would keep.

4. Not a criticism, but I have no idea who I want to play 13. Would be happy with Burrell or Tuilagi.

 

[kesh]

Mostly it was Sir Clive's team. Interesting to see SCW pick Tuilagi on the left wing. Thoughts?

Wont happen, but would like to see it against the Crusaders and see how it works out. Burrell should be in and accommodated for.

Going to be interesting to see what Burt goes with in this second test.

 

[Peat]

Result was the same......an illegal act prevented a try and intent does not come into it!

Bingo.

I just watched it back - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct0fYHkt7Vs - and I see no pure intent to it at all. Others will disagree, but I don't see how a player can claim to be going for a legitimate jackal when he never releases the player to begin with. That's illegal, he knows its illegal and I'd love to hear Mr Owens' opinion on watching it back.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I couldn't honestly get excited for this game, in fact I was enjoying the AUS vs FRA game a lot more. Simply for what I stated above.

I don't get this. I enjoyed watching the AB v England game far more than Aus v Fra because the former was a contest. I lost interest in the Aus v France game because the French were so abject and Australia were threatening to turn it into a cricket score.

That's why All Blacks v England will be worth watching and I will look forward to it more than Australia putting another 30/40 points past France.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Yarde was poor and his lack of experience is mildly worrying - but he's not going to get it any other way. He has more test level attributes than Ashton, he has a higher ceiling and just as much domestic form. He should be backed to keep improving while he's on a relative high and if he isn't, then he should be replaced by a player showing equal aptitude for test rugby, which is not Ashton. Is there any argument for Ashton other than he was good a long time ago and he's scored a good amount of tries in a highly dominant team?

No there is no other argument other than Ashton has been playing well. My point i was making was not just on Yarde, all wingers we have used including Nowell and May have been average at best IMO. I see Yarde play and i think what has he got ? Like genuinely what has he shown ? Personally i had Roko to be starting instead of him but as he isn't selected the only other winger is Ashton. Ashton was under intense scrutiny for many valid reasons (form, defence, looking like he just didn't give a **** sometimes) but then because it is Yarde everyone seems to be okay with sub-par performances, this was his biggest test and it isn't easy for anyone but he didn't show me that he was any better than Ashton.
Also sorry about my comment and acting like a total c,unt.

If you're gonna voice your opinion, you shouldn't complain that you have to back it up. Don't play the victim if someone else simply disagrees with your post. Prove your point.
No point in discussion if our thoughts were homogeneous.

Stahp. Just stahp.
If you can't see the difference between where Ashton is and where Yarde is in terms of development and expectations, then you need to remove your blinkers.
In fact, what in the dickens has Ashton got to do with Yarde's performance? Nothing, that's what. I'd suggest you stop mentioning him but its a little late for that.

Yeah really seemed like it was trying to continue a discussion, when i first read it i just interpreted it as him telling me to shut up about Ashton and that my point didn't mean jack ****. Which technically it doesn't but i still felt it was undeserved as i was just saying my opinion.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Wont happen, but would like to see it against the Crusaders and see how it works out. Burrell should be in and accommodated for.

Going to be interesting to see what Burt goes with in this second test.

Yeah the England team to face the Crusaders will obviously be. 3rd string team.

Maybe try Tuilagi on the left wing after he's started at 13, bring Burrell on as sub for May to replace Manu at 13. My only reservation would be that defensively we don't know what Manu would be like on the left wing. We don't really want a repeat of the last few mins v France this year when Burrell was outmanoeuvred for the French winning try.

 

[McTallshort]

I don't get this. I enjoyed watching the AB v England game far more than Aus v Fra because the former was a contest. I lost interest in the Aus v France game because the French were so abject and Australia were threatening to turn it into a cricket score.

That's why All Blacks v England will be worth watching and I will look forward to it more than Australia putting another 30/40 points past France.

This! People who only like high scoring games should watch 7s or even basketball and stop complaining.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Mostly it was Sir Clive's team. Interesting to see SCW pick Tuilagi on the left wing. Thoughts?

Seems mental too me. New Zealand found alot of space behind Yarde and May so putting a centre out there is going to help ? And what is he like under the high ball ? I'm sure he would cause the defence a problem but would he also hinder his own defence ?

 

[Big Ewis]

obviously the NZ ENG game was less painfu....errr more entertaining to watch...but that Nick Cummins try, dayum. That was the one really excellent try they could've scored over any team, no matter how great the defense. The Wallabies are looking bettah and bettah with every test. Glad early 2013 is behind them now.