[2014 Mid-Year Tests] New Zealand vs England (2nd Test)

[Big Ewis]

Manu Tuilagi on teh wings:
http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_9342745,00.html

I think it adds a whole lot more power to the wing for England, May and Yarde are quick but have been contained well, especially Yarde who just gives away too much height. May had a bit of room to operate and ran a bit, so keep him. Plus that way England can play Burrell and, say, Eastmond at center. It frees up space for the midfield.
On the other hand, I read a comment stating that England are most dangerous against NZ with Tuilagi at center, and it's true he punctures and does all his damage there, and he wouldn't get as much ball on the wing and would be contained more easily.

And for NZ, goddamn, a third row of: Kaino-McCaw-Read, and a back three of Jane-Savea-B.Smith.
Dayyyummmms

 

[donmcdazzle]

I think they will be looking for the win but I don't subscribe to this being absolutely essential for the world cup. The World Cup is at home, this England Squad have already beaten them at home - they will know they can raise their game to a level they can beat them with - and lets face facts their is really only one way for NZ to go they are top of the world right now someone will take that place at some point, the top 4 will all be confident of taking each other out come next year.

i'm more worried about Australia.

So when was the last time we weren't ranked number one then? It will happen, but you sound like we are just about to fade away. What's our record these last couple of years? About 40 wins and 2 or 3 losses?

australia haven't beaten us in years, not sure why they're a bigger concern.

I actually am really enjoying being written off by everyone, sounds like its SA or England who are favourites for the World Cup! Enjoy the choker tag when it doesn't happen for one of you.

 

[goodNumber10]

Of course killing the opponents ball with lazy running, tugging shirts, coming in the side of the ruck (all of which both sides did) is detrimental to a game of rugby. These are all penalty offenses, and if the ref is doing his job correctly teams should be punished for these actions. All I'm suggesting is that the ref should likewise prevent teams from continuously wasting time at every break in play. There is no need for a front-rower to go down at ever stoppage in play. There is no need to have a 30 second conference before every lineout. Perhaps this is common practice in English club rugby (I don't know as I don't watch it), but it is unlike anything I have seen at Super Rugby level this year, and I can't recall and AB's test in the last few seasons when the game has been slowed down to the extent it was on Saturday....

He can, it's well within his remit to tell them to hurry up and penalise them for wasting time.

My point in all of this (and i in no way am aiming this at you Darwin) is it's laughable to aim criticism at an England side for being negative when New Zealand enforce their own negative tactics designed solely for disrupting the England quick game.

As a coach if i teach my players to play negative tactics i cannot then criticise another team for employng negative tactics either int he same area or at a different one.

If New Zealand were so intent on giving the people a nice flowing cohesive game they would have not enfringed on quick ball and just got back int eh defensive line... I'm not saying england are saints, they disrupted ball as well - Robshaw in at the side for example and Yarde's Yellow, but you play the game how it suits you, and to focus on one element and not the over all negative tactics employed by both teams does - in my opinion make the article just trashy garbage.

Like you I'm rather confident going into this match. Indeed I'm probably more confident than I was going into the 1st test! We played very poorly in the 1st test but still won - we should be better this week. Much better. If we get rid of Dagg and get Savea and Read back (or play Vito at 8) I think we will be far better. We do need to tweak our game-plan a bit too (stop kicking the bloody ball would be a good start) and it would help if we would catch the ball, but it wouldn't surprise me if we won by 20 this weekend....

I tend to agree with you but lets not forget you were poor against a weakened england side. the biggest problem for England is that next week si going to be like a first test for them again.

 

[goodNumber10]

So when was the last time we weren't ranked number one then? It will happen, but you sound like we are just about to fade away. What's our record these last couple of years? About 40 wins and 2 or 3 losses?

australia haven't beaten us in years, not sure why they're a bigger concern.

I actually am really enjoying being written off by everyone, sounds like its SA or England who are favourites for the World Cup! Enjoy the choker tag when it doesn't happen for one of you.

Think you're missing what it is i'm saying pal.

New Zealand are Number 1, they can't go any higher, they can't keep an unbeaten streak going for ever - hence there is actually physically only one way they can go.

I'm also more worried about Australia because they tend to bring it in the NH world cups, and are in our group and will beat you this summer for sure.

I don't think anyone is writing you off, i just don't think you understand logic.

 

[William18]

He can, it's well within his remit to tell them to hurry up and penalise them for wasting time.

My point in all of this (and i in no way am aiming this at you Darwin) is it's laughable to aim criticism at an England side for being negative when New Zealand enforce their own negative tactics designed solely for disrupting the England quick game.

As a coach if i teach my players to play negative tactics i cannot then criticise another team for employng negative tactics either int he same area or at a different one.

If New Zealand were so intent on giving the people a nice flowing cohesive game they would have not enfringed on quick ball and just got back int eh defensive line... I'm not saying england are saints, they disrupted ball as well - Robshaw in at the side for example and Yarde's Yellow, but you play the game how it suits you, and to focus on one element and not the over all negative tactics employed by both teams does - in my opinion make the article just trashy garbage.




I tend to agree with you but lets not forget you were poor against a weakened england side. the biggest problem for England is that next week si going to be like a first test for them again.

Most of our media is crap, most of your media is crap. Do people actually read Newspapers still? I read online news sources to get news. I use it to find out sports results and how many people died in Syria yesterday. I would strongly disagree with someone who said that reading an article in a major newspaper was more informative that reading a page in any thread on here.

 

[Gena_ZA]

Think you're missing what it is i'm saying pal.

New Zealand are Number 1, they can't go any higher, they can't keep an unbeaten streak going for ever - hence there is actually physically only one way they can go.

I'm also more worried about Australia because they tend to bring it in the NH world cups, and are in our group and will beat you this summer for sure.

I don't think anyone is writing you off, i just don't think you understand logic.

On the flip side their is no reason why they can't be number one forever, equal amount of logic applied. A single lost test now and then will not alter their position.
Us Boks have been saying for years we will catch them, and so again this year. Unless one other team start playing bloody well and the AB's gets beaten a hell of a lot it is not going to change anytime soon

 

[RoosTah]

On the flip side their is no reason why they can't be number one forever, equal amount of logic applied.
Us Boks have been saying for years we will catch them, and so again this year. Unless one other start playing bloody well and the AB's gets beaten a hell of a lot it is not going to change anytime soon

Haha yes that's an angle we often forget actually. An Irish friend of mine lamented to me that the "law of averages" argument hasn't really worked for them too well in the last 100 years when it comes to matches against the All Blacks. Reminds me a little of the English commentators when the Kangaroos play England/GB too - every match they're saying "THIS" has to be the one where we break the drought at long last (and I've actually even started going for England in those games... they've been saying it for that long).

 

[goodNumber10]

On the flip side their is no reason why they can't be number one forever, equal amount of logic applied. A single lost test now and then will not alter their position.
Us Boks have been saying for years we will catch them, and so again this year. Unless one other team start playing bloody well and the AB's gets beaten a hell of a lot it is not going to change anytime soon

Laws of probability will show it will not happen. England, SA and Australia have all been ranked number one at some poitn since the inception of the ranking system.

That doesn't mean NZ will suddenly be gash, but the point i'm making is there will be a mishap at some point and why should it not be form the only team to beat them in the last 30 games or so?

It's also a year and a half away to the world cup, i don't think winning this test really matters in the context of the World Cup - team development yes, but it's more important we put a couple of teams away in November.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Important to notice what's happening at the Junior World Cups year on year; The Baby Blacks are no longer completed dominant and I would expect this to reflect itself a number of years down the line at senior level.

 

[goodNumber10]

Important to notice what's happening at the Junior World Cups year on year; The Baby Blacks are no longer completed dominant and I would expect this to reflect itself a number of years down the line at senior level.

it all comes down to how talent identification is managed and players brought through, and other countries, notably England and SA are getting better at it.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

My Team
1. Marler, 2. Webber, 3. Wilson, 4. Launchbury, 5. Lawes, 6. Haskell, 7. Robshaw, 8. Morgan, 9. Care, 10. Farrell, 11. May, 12. Burrell, 13. Tuilagi, 14. Yarde, 15. Brown, 16. Hartley, 17. Waller, 18. Sinckler, 19. Attwood, 20. Wood/Billy, 21. Dickson, 22. Burns, 23. Eastmond/Foden

what I think Lancaster may go for.
1. Marler, 2. Hartley, 3. Wilson, 4. Launchbury, 5. Lawes, 6. Wood, 7. Robshaw, 8. Morgan, 9. care, 10. Farrell, 11. Tuilagi, 12. 36, 13. Burrell, 14. Yarde, 15. Brown, 16. Webber, 17. Waller, 18. Thomas, 19. Parling, 20. Vunipola, 21. Dickson, 22. Burns, 23. Foden.

I just don't see why Haskell should be dropped when he made nearly twice as many tackles as the second highest tackler for England, (13 Robshaw 2nd with 7) and made the 2nd most turnovers.

I choose Attwood over Parling because Attwood would be better imo with either young TH.

 

[barkinghooker]

I like the attacking idea of Manu at 11. He will suck in an extra defender or two. Hopefully some quick ball to Eastmond to hop through some space. Also Manu at pace from a poor kick chase could be devastating. But from a defensive view I'm not that confident as he'll probably need to kick but instinctively won't.

My Team
1. Marler, 2. Webber, 3. Wilson, 4. Launchbury, 5. Lawes, 6. Haskell, 7. Robshaw, 8. Morgan, 9. Care, 10. Farrell, 11. May, 12. Eastmond ,13. Tuilagi, 14. Ashton, 15. Brown, 16. Sinkler, 17.Waller, 18.Hartley, 19. Attwood, 20. Wood, 21. Vunipola, 22. Dickson, 23. Foden.

I'd go for a 6/2 split. The Abs looked comfy when they made changes in the forwards and our bench wasn't good enough.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I like the attacking idea of Manu at 11. He will suck in an extra defender or two. Hopefully some quick ball to Eastmond to hop through some space. Also Manu at pace from a poor kick chase could be devastating. But from a defensive view I'm not that confident as he'll probably need to kick but instinctively won't.

Or the All blacks target 13 hard and fast to cut off the ball to Manu therefore limiting his threat.

 

[Peat]

Important to notice what's happening at the Junior World Cups year on year; The Baby Blacks are no longer completed dominant and I would expect this to reflect itself a number of years down the line at senior level.

Not necessarily. All sorts of things can go wrong when a player transitions from age grade to senior, and you can have poor teams and still produce 4-5 stars a year.

For me, the biggest hope in dealing with the All Blacks is that I respect their pack less and less. It's obviously still a fine unit... but Retallick, as fine an athlete as he is, isn't Brad Thorn, not yet, and the likes of Messam and Vito (when played) are no better than what we can put out. They've got a problem at hooker and Woodcock should be eased out. McCaw is beginning to resemble BOD's final years - still a touch of greatness, but the average performances are beginning to pile up.

The number of countries that can go toe to toe with their pack seems to be increasing. Once you can go toe to toe with the pack, you're in with a chance. If you can actually beat their pack... I've said it before, I really want to see how SA go against them.

 

[RoosTah]

Just been watching Sonny Bill Williams dismantle Melbourne in the NRL, and it reminded me that Nonu playing crap for the All Blacks may not be such a big problem for them next year with him heading back... He was pretty devastating for the ABs in 2012 before heading back to League. He'll be more than enough to handle any of the big centres running around in international rugby. SBW is a different class of athlete to most other guys, so it'll be interesting to see the effect he has.

 

[Big Ewis]

SO. Who's got England for this one ? :crazy:

 

[RoosTah]

SO. Who's got England for this one ? :crazy:

England are definitely up to winning this, there's no doubt about it after Saturday.

As I said before, whilst having the extra talent in the team now the only thing I can see being a negative for them is that these guys will be coming into the team after not having played together for a while, so they may be a little off themselves. That could hurt them if the All Blacks play closer to their potential...

 

[Bada-Bing!]

McKenzie has made noises since coming in that he may consider picking foreign based players for the World Cup depending on how things pan out. Douglas is our form lock this year, so I reckon he'd have to be in contention if he keeps playing the way he has if McKenzie takes that approach.

To be honest I never know how to rate props, because I just don't get the position as a rule. As a former back I just don't feel qualified to comment on their dark arts.

On the RWC, whoever comes in second is in for a bloody torrid time... with them likely having to knock off both the Springboks and the All Blacks to make the final by the looks. Should either Australia or England find themselves in that position, it'll be a heck of a tough road to the final.

It won't happen, just like England won't select Stefan Armitage: it will just set a precedent and a whole load of Wallabies will just leave for Europe; thinking they can get the bigger pay packet and get to play for the Wallabies every WC. McKensie will have even less control over when he gets access to his Wallabies.

 

[ratsapprentice]

If the NRC is facing an uphill struggle as it is... allowing Aussie stars to move abroad would make the NRC's task akin to walking on the ceiling.

 

[Big Ewis]

England are definitely up to winning this, there's no doubt about it after Saturday.

As I said before, whilst having the extra talent in the team now the only thing I can see being a negative for them is that these guys will be coming into the team after not having played together for a while, so they may be a little off themselves. That could hurt them if the All Blacks play closer to their potential...

don't talk to me you Wallaby-supporting motherfûcker !! Screw you and all of Australia !! WAHHHH !!!!

And yes well, the truth for me is that England were pretty close to their highest possible level on Saturday, while NZ wasn't. England wouldn't have been a whole lot better in their defense or attacking form as they played well as a team and it doesn't come down to specific players being on the field in that regard. Lineout was good, scrum saw good too, game was well conducted by the 10, the 10's kicked penalties well......Although surely Vunipola will truly add a dimension to the game, and Lawes will strengthen that pack...
For the English attack, besides Wilson dropping everything he touches I don't see a whole lot of improvement, they were good last time, like I said.

But NZ on the other hand do have lots of room to improve: Savea adds an entire dimension on his own, as seen in Twickers 2012 for instance. And Read is more than just a 'good no.8', he's a back and a forward at the same time and the reigning best player in the world. Sliding big Jerome Kaino to 6 where he's comfortable and adding Read to the lineup changes that 3rd row dramatically. And there's no way NZ play with rust in this next one - England have very good defense but NZ will be sharper on those attacks and they could easily find comfort eventually in the game if they manage a nice try early.

I think this is the test where England score their first try of the series, and NZ show more of who they really are and get a few tries themselves.