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

[MotorBoat]

tbf, he played better at the end of the season. And I did want to see whether Burns would play better under a better/different coaching team. I just didn't want this game to be the game where we found that out.

So we are missing Corbs, Mako, Hartley, Cole, Lawes, Wood, Billy, possibly Care, Farrell, Ford, Twelvetrees, Wade, Nowell, Foden.

And Hansen thinks that we have the advantage from the timing of this game?

tbf, he played better at the end of the season. And I did want to see whether Burns would play better under a better/different coaching team. I just didn't want this game to be the game where we found that out.

So we are missing Corbs, Mako, Hartley, Cole, Lawes, Wood, Billy, possibly Care, Farrell, Ford, Twelvetrees, Wade, Nowell, Foden.

And Hansen thinks that we have the advantage from the timing of this game?

Well if you look at it strictly from an available personnel perspective then yes it does seem strange to claim England have advantages for the first test, but they do have a couple of advantages & here's why...

1. Psychological advantage - England come into the first test with nothing to lose & everything to gain, it doesn't matter if they lose because that's exactly what's expected of them. Sides which still have a fair amount of talent & yet have nothing to lose are a dangerous proposition for any side, just ask the 99, 03, & 07 AB's squads.

& the thing is, there is a lot of depth in English Rugby at the moment & despite missing 9 or 10 first choice players you're still able to field a relatively strong side, & If you actually look at the players still available in Manu Tuilagi, Mike Brown, Chris Robshaw, Joe Launchbery, & Danny Care ( I realize he's under an injury cloud) then they've just about been the 5 best performing players against the AB's over the past couple of years.

Then conversely look at it from an AB's perspective, anything other than a convincing win will be deemed a failure. Trust me, if the AB's win but struggle to do so, England will be praised in the English media & the AB's will be torn apart in the NZ media. Then, even if the AB's win convincingly they still won't get a lot of genuine credit for it, either from themselves, from the fans, or the media, because we all know they're facing a weakened side. Then of course, there's always the chance they could actually lose... God forbid (nervous tone).

Like honestly, are you truly going to be devastated if England lose that first test knowing that you haven't got your best side out there? The only time I've ever been comfortable with an AB's loss, & I mean the only time (AB's results dictate the mood of the country over here), was when we sent an under-strength team over to SA before the last RWC. They played well & on another day could of won but the loss didn't hurt as much because I knew that it wasn't our best side.

All the psychological pressure is on the AB's. That's one advantage England have in the first test

2. Preparation advantage - The side that'll be playing the AB's on Saturday will have had a full 2 weeks of training together while all the AB's were still playing in Super Rugby this past weekend. Also, the England players playing in the first test have been in NZ long enough now to shake of the jet lag. They'll be fresh & ready to go & would of been thinking about nothing other than the first test for a couple of weeks now. While the AB's have only been together for 3 or 4 days.

So yeah, I know the English media & fans are talking up this first test as an English tragedy but it's not ideal from an AB's perspective either. The scheduling stuff up was the result of the RFU & the NZRU have to bear the consequences of that too, they don't want to be facing weakened sides because the AB's don't set to gain anything from it.

I don't expect you to fully agree with me as I know you're a proud Englishman but surely I make some good points.

 

[goodNumber10]

Well if you look at it strictly from an available personnel perspective then yes it does seem strange to claim England have advantages for the first test, but they do have a couple of advantages & here's why...

1. Psychological advantage - England come into the first test with nothing to lose & everything to gain, it doesn't matter if they lose because that's exactly what's expected of them. Sides which still have a fair amount of talent & yet have nothing to lose are a dangerous proposition for any side, just ask the 99, 03, & 07 AB's squads.

& the thing is, there is a lot of depth in English Rugby at the moment & despite missing 9 or 10 first choice players you're still able to field a relatively strong side, & If you actually look at the players still available in Manu Tuilagi, Mike Brown, Chris Robshaw, Joe Launchbery, & Danny Care ( I realize he's under an injury cloud) then they've just about been the 5 best performing players against the AB's over the past couple of years.

Then conversely look at it from an AB's perspective, anything other than a convincing win will be deemed a failure. Trust me, if the AB's win but struggle to do so, England will be praised in the English media & the AB's will be torn apart in the NZ media. Then, even if the AB's win convincingly they still won't get a lot of genuine credit for it, either from themselves, from the fans, or the media, because we all know they're facing a weakened side. Then of course, there's always the chance they could actually lose... God forbid (nervous tone).

Like honestly, are you truly going to be devastated if England lose that first test knowing that you haven't got your best side out there? The only time I've ever been comfortable with an AB's loss, & I mean the only time (AB's results dictate the mood of the country over here), was when we sent an under-strength team over to SA before the last RWC. They played well & on another day could of won but the loss didn't hurt as much because I knew that it wasn't our best side.

All the psychological pressure is on the AB's. That's one advantage England have in the first test

2. Preparation advantage - The side that'll be playing the AB's on Saturday will have had a full 2 weeks of training together while all the AB's were still playing in Super Rugby this past weekend. Also, the England players playing in the first test have been in NZ long enough now to shake of the jet lag. They'll be fresh & ready to go & would of been thinking about nothing other than the first test for a couple of weeks now. While the AB's have only been together for 3 or 4 days.

So yeah, I know the English media & fans are talking up this first test as an English tragedy but it's not ideal from an AB's perspective either. The scheduling stuff up was the result of the RFU & the NZRU have to bear the consequences of that too, they don't want to be facing weakened sides because the AB's don't set to gain anything from it.

I don't expect you to fully agree with me as I know you're a proud Englishman but surely I make some good points.

I see where you're coming from, but personally i'd rather see a proper test match and not have England get a humping.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Technically there's nothing particularly wrong with mikey burns, he's a very good player, but he's as out of form as you can possibly get. Literally every aspect of his game has been gash all season.
Do not like what Lancaster has said whatsoever. "We don't care if you've been terrible, just try and be better cause I'm starting you regardless." Great message to send out.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Just to back this up, Darwin... Mick's form dropped off a cliff and stayed there throughout the season.

this sums up his season: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdCPolek5Ng

 

[Peat]

So this Michael Burns character..... what is it about him that everyone seems to dislike? I haven't seen much of him apart from at U20 level a few seasons ago (and off the bench versus the AB's in a match that shall not be mentioned). Is he an erratic player ala Quade Cooper, or a more conservative player ala Michael Farrell. What is his defense like? I'm just trying to identify England's weaknesses so I can pass it on to the AB's coaching staff.....

At his best - and at a lower level - Michael Burns was magic. Most notably he had a really good running game, he has the pace and step to look comfortable at full-back, but he'd also developed a very astute tactical kicking game. Throw in a nice pass and decent goal kicking, sensible decision making and he looked like a star in the making. Only real problem was defence, not the biggest or most technical, but he'd worked on it.

Then this year his form nosedived quicker than Mikhail Tuilagi on a NZ ferry. Probably a combination of Gloucester being dog turd and persistent speculation about his future (he's moving to Leicester next season). That is, as everyone else said, the real issue. He picked up a little at the back end of the season but the question of whether he has the form and confidence for this remains.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

We should really emphasise how bad Burns has been. It's not like a nosedive in form where the player just looks out of sorts. Burns looks like a completely different player, and everything he touched went to sh*t. He started to get a little better towards the end of the season, but even then was operating at like 10% of what he used to, and still looked far worse than 36/Mills/BillyBurns.

It's only just dawned on my that if Care is out then we start with a Youngs/Burns halfback combo.
Jesus Christ.



Also, by the time Cipriani gets on the game will be lost and he'll be coming on with the....uninspiring...pack changes. He's gonna have no platform, have little to no impact, the press will love it, and he'll probably not play for England again, with golden b*ll*cks burns getting the nod even though he's w@nk, and the coaches acknowledge it.

 

[goodNumber10]

We should really emphasise how bad Burns has been. It's not like a nosedive in form where the player just looks out of sorts. Burns looks like a completely different player, and everything he touched went to sh*t. He started to get a little better towards the end of the season, but even then was operating at like 10% of what he used to, and still looked far worse than 36/Mills/BillyBurns.

It's only just dawned on my that if Care is out then we start with a Youngs/Burns halfback combo.
Jesus Christ.



Also, by the time Cipriani gets on the game will be lost and he'll be coming on with the....uninspiring...pack changes. He's gonna have no platform, have little to no impact, the press will love it, and he'll probably not play for England again, with golden b*ll*cks burns getting the nod even though he's w@nk, and the coaches acknowledge it.

my god you really dislike Burns don't you? He's out of form granted, but we all know he's a good player and on form he's a far better prospect than Danny Cipriani, two years ago everyone wanted Burns to be the starting fly half, and last summer he delivered in Argentina.

Anyway who's to say Cipriani will have an impact? regardless of what people think he's not a game turner - he's just not.

 

[goodNumber10]

nice Fordyce article on Robshaw:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/27696841

 

[TRF_Olyy]

my god you really dislike Burns don't you? He's out of form granted, but we all know he's a good player and on form he's a far better prospect than Danny Cipriani, two years ago everyone wanted Burns to be the starting fly half, and last summer he delivered in Argentina.

I actually really like(d) Burns - was one of the loudest to call for his inclusion in the EPS/England 23...when his form warranted it.
He has literally been terrible all season. There are zero reasons he should be wearing that England 10 shirt. You pick your international side on who's playing well, especially in such a pivotal role as 10 which requires both skill and confidence. Burns' confidence and form has been something to behold this season, and I struggle to believe 3.5 weeks of training is going to completely turn that around.
If he plays well then I'll be ecstatic, but for Gloucester he went completely AWOL in tough games, and they don't come much tougher than the ABs at Eden Park.
I've also lost a lot of respect for Lancaster for his comments, because they're the exact opposite of what you want from a national coach. He should be looking at how players are playing, and Burns was at his worst mid-season - how can Lancaster turn around and tell him he's starting and to get his head straight....and then follow through with it despite him not doing so.

Anyway who's to say Cipriani will have an impact? regardless of what people think he's not a game turner - he's just not.

What are you on about? Cipriani's the definition of a game changer, with Burns in the form he's in Cipriani's the only 10 we've got that could spark a try from 100m from nothing. He's produced some fantastic tries for us against rock solid defences with either kicks, breaks, or slick handling.

 

[goodNumber10]

I actually really like(d) Burns - was one of the loudest to call for his inclusion in the EPS/England 23...when his form warranted it.
He has literally been terrible all season. There are zero reasons he should be wearing that England 10 shirt. You pick your international side on who's playing well, especially in such a pivotal role as 10 which requires both skill and confidence. Burns' confidence and form has been something to behold this season, and I struggle to believe 3.5 weeks of training is going to completely turn that around.
If he plays well then I'll be ecstatic, but for Gloucester he went completely AWOL in tough games, and they don't come much tougher than the ABs at Eden Park.
I've also lost a lot of respect for Lancaster for his comments, because they're the exact opposite of what you want from a national coach. He should be looking at how players are playing, and Burns was at his worst mid-season - how can Lancaster turn around and tell him he's starting and to get his head straight....and then follow through with it despite him not doing so.

What is he supposed to say? His first and second choice flyhalf is out of the equation - his third choice (burns) has been playing badly and he's taking a guy new to the structures (Cipriani) with him.

I understand why people want him to select on form but that isn't always the best way to go, you go with who fits what you want fromt he team/game.

Sometimes that means making a choice the form brigade don't like. Maybe Burns will capitulate, maybe he won't, but i wouldn't feel any more confident with Michael Cipriani starting.

What are you on about? Cipriani's the definition of a game changer, with Burns in the form he's in Cipriani's the only 10 we've got that could spark a try from 100m from nothing. He's produced some fantastic tries for us against rock solid defences with either kicks, breaks, or slick handling.

He's really not a game changer. He makes those kind of breaks etc... when they seldom have an effect on the game.

We'll have to agree to disagree with the other stuff, I don't think he's a good defender.

Anyway, fingers crossed we're both proved wrong and they tear NZ a new one.

 

[Tony Manx]

I really, really hate to say this but, here goes..................I agree with Olyy! There I have said it.....

I was shocked when I saw the story only today that Burns is starting ahead of Cips, absolutely shocked and this from a man who has been treated by everyone as a God since he has turned England around after the debacle with MJ and Andy Robinson.....Lancaster has always said that form is the king, I believe, but here we are with Cips in the form of his life and Burns without any whatsoever.

The stage may make Burns play like we all know that he can (and may this be true for the sake of England, Leicester and Burns himself), but, for me, it is more likely that he will retreat into his shell and be MIA when the big hits start coming in....will Lancaster do the honourable thing and make an early replacement....probably not!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Michael would be a far better choice than Michael.
I hope that when Michael is back that Michael is on the bench instead of Michael or Michael. I mean, Michael's had a good season, but he's just....steady. Michael's much better.

 

[nzlizard]

It will be hard for the England to miss quite a few core players and expect to come out with a win, no reason why they shouldn't play out of their skins and come a few points short. If this happens when the full strength team is named for the 2nd test it should be a great game with England having a great chance at beating the AB's.

It is hard for any international team to have a handful of players absent and perform at that level, would be the same if we were missing those players and playing England at home, I would expect us to struggle and lose given the ability of the English.

 

[nickdnz]

If my name was Courtney...I wouldn't mind people calling me Michael..

 

[Peat]

Cips would have been a far safer call and one far more in line with what's Lancaster talked about before. You can make the case for Burns but there are big giant holes in it.

Basically it comes down to Lancaster being very conservative and insistent on steeping players in the England environment. It's fine to a point, but like all principles, stretched too far it becomes a weakness. This looks like being one of these occasions. Burns has to go recover his form, then learn how to play test level rugby, and he's got about five minutes to do it in. Cipriani has more test exposure, more SH exposure and more form. But less Lancaster England exposure and that seems to be the deciding factor.

 

[ratsapprentice]

If my name was Courtney...I wouldn't mind people calling me Michael..

...as opposed to "Brodie"... :lol:

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

you go with who fits what you want fromt he team/game.

This is where the argument falls down in my opinion because we all know it's not about fit and any one game. England have avoided picking Cipriani about as long as they justifiably could, longer actually, and now they've conceded insofar as they know they have to take him to New Zealand, but are still showing characteristic reluctance to recognise his form and evolution as a player.

In other words none of this reflects whats right for the particular game, but rather is in keeping with who we know Lancasters preferred options to be, and it's entirely a continuation of what came before in terms of Lancasters reign.

 

[goodNumber10]

I really disagree with that Henry.

Lancaster, as most coaches do, has always shown a sense of loyalty to his players - he has to, to build a squad. He has to identify a collective of guys whom he thinks will make the world cup in 2015 and work with them.

So when he says he is selecting on form he means from within that group so if it's a call between Ford and Farrell and Ford has the form that he'll select him - not that he'd parachute someone in because they've had a better season than someone within his elite players squad and that they'll drop straight into the starting team.

I think people really are misunderstanding what "Selecting on form" means. Cipriani has been rewarded with selection int he touring squad - his form has been recognised and rewarded. Lancaster has shown loyalty to someone within his EPS (burns) because that's what players expect, want and need - sometimes people need an arm around their shoulders..

 

[Big Ewis]

Well if you look at it strictly from an available personnel perspective then yes it does seem strange to claim England have advantages for the first test, but they do have a couple of advantages & here's why...

1. Psychological advantage - England come into the first test with nothing to lose & everything to gain, it doesn't matter if they lose because that's exactly what's expected of them. Sides which still have a fair amount of talent & yet have nothing to lose are a dangerous proposition for any side, just ask the 99, 03, & 07 AB's squads.

& the thing is, there is a lot of depth in English Rugby at the moment & despite missing 9 or 10 first choice players you're still able to field a relatively strong side, & If you actually look at the players still available in Manu Tuilagi, Mike Brown, Chris Robshaw, Joe Launchbery, & Danny Care ( I realize he's under an injury cloud) then they've just about been the 5 best performing players against the AB's over the past couple of years.

Then conversely look at it from an AB's perspective, anything other than a convincing win will be deemed a failure. Trust me, if the AB's win but struggle to do so, England will be praised in the English media & the AB's will be torn apart in the NZ media. Then, even if the AB's win convincingly they still won't get a lot of genuine credit for it, either from themselves, from the fans, or the media, because we all know they're facing a weakened side. Then of course, there's always the chance they could actually lose... God forbid (nervous tone).

Like honestly, are you truly going to be devastated if England lose that first test knowing that you haven't got your best side out there? The only time I've ever been comfortable with an AB's loss, & I mean the only time (AB's results dictate the mood of the country over here), was when we sent an under-strength team over to SA before the last RWC. They played well & on another day could of won but the loss didn't hurt as much because I knew that it wasn't our best side.

All the psychological pressure is on the AB's. That's one advantage England have in the first test

2. Preparation advantage - The side that'll be playing the AB's on Saturday will have had a full 2 weeks of training together while all the AB's were still playing in Super Rugby this past weekend. Also, the England players playing in the first test have been in NZ long enough now to shake of the jet lag. They'll be fresh & ready to go & would of been thinking about nothing other than the first test for a couple of weeks now. While the AB's have only been together for 3 or 4 days.

So yeah, I know the English media & fans are talking up this first test as an English tragedy but it's not ideal from an AB's perspective either. The scheduling stuff up was the result of the RFU & the NZRU have to bear the consequences of that too, they don't want to be facing weakened sides because the AB's don't set to gain anything from it.

I don't expect you to fully agree with me as I know you're a proud Englishman but surely I make some good points.

thanks for answering my post (intentionally or not). That first point does make sense, and there is a bit of a point to be made there in NZ's favor, it's true. I do understand Hansen's stance on this, through his scope.
But at the same time, it's sort of playing Devil's advocate. England are weakened, yet they're empowered by that very weakness...a bit ambiguous from a logical standpoint, although again there is some actual reality in it.

At the end of the day, England (a lesser team) are going into NZ to play the All-Blacks, and that with a diminished lineup. NZ ought to just take care of business and call it all in a day's work and look ahead to test 2, end of story.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I think people really are misunderstanding what "Selecting on form" means. Cipriani has been rewarded with selection int he touring squad - his form has been recognised and rewarded. Lancaster has shown loyalty to someone within his EPS (burns) because that's what players expect, want and need - sometimes people need an arm around their shoulders..

I can see where you're coming from, and at club level I'd understand, but not internationally. If Burns (hypothetically) couldn't handle not starting against the bloomin' All Blacks after being around the EPS for a bit, after the season he's had, then he ain't got the minerals for international rugby.