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

[Bada-Bing!]

So Jaco Peyper to referee this match and whose interpretations of the breakdown will determine this match. Good or bad referee from people's experience of watching him?

 

[Maverick1987]

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.

I'm not sure we played to our highest level on Saturday tbh ewis . The bench will be 500x better whatever first team he picks plus having some big big players back in the first XV you can't just replace players like Lawes, Wood, Binny and Farrell

The performance in the first test was a hard working, solid and honest performance but nothing less than what I've personally come to expect from this England under Stuart Lancaster . Dunno if any other England fans agree with me ?

 

[Peat]

I prefer Ben to Bill and Freddie to Farrell tbh. There's a strong case for retaining Eastmond tbh.

But I think we will see a stronger looking England next Saturday, at least on paper.

 

[Big Ewis]

'close to' it Maverick, yes. You talk about the bench and additions to sectors that were already efficient. I'm talking about the playing style, the flow and pace of the game.
Farrell isn't going to bring a million times what Burns brought, on the pitch or from the boot. Wood isn't going to be a ton better than a 13/13 tackles completed James Haskell. And I've already accounted for the overall improvement from additions Lawes and Billy V in my post.
I'm saying England doesn't attack all that much better than what we've seen. They will be a little less rusty but the AB's can improve *a lot* from last week. England can't defend all that much better than what we've seen. Their lineout and scrums will be the same, i.e. very good.

There's certainly a greater potential for improvement on the AB's side than on England's is what I'm saying, in the quality of the game. England obviously add way more players to the lineup, and add more quality individually to the XV. But the AB's can play a lot better than last week, yet England can't. That's what I'm saying.

 

[big ginger 8]

I don't see how you couldn't pick Eastmond, I've been worried that you guys would eventually pick him. He has a spark which Twelvetrees just doesn't possess imo.

 

[Maverick1987]

'close to' it Maverick, yes. You talk about the bench and additions to sectors that were already efficient. I'm talking about the playing style, the flow and pace of the game.
Farrell isn't going to bring a million times what Burns brought, on the pitch or from the boot. Wood isn't going to be a ton better than a 13/13 tackles completed James Haskell. And I've already accounted for the overall improvement from additions Lawes and Billy V in my post.
I'm saying England doesn't attack all that much better than what we've seen. They will be a little less rusty but the AB's can improve *a lot* from last week. England can't defend all that much better than what we've seen. Their lineout and scrums will be the same, i.e. very good.

There's certainly a greater potential for improvement on the AB's side than on England's is what I'm saying, in the quality of the game. England obviously add way more players to the lineup, and add more quality individually to the XV. But the AB's can play a lot better than last week, yet England can't. That's what I'm saying.

Agh fair enough ! Hopefully if Nonu remembers the players swap shirts after the game we should be ok

 

[barkinghooker]

Ewis is right. We couldn't of played much better while the abs could of been more intense. Though with a probable much stronger bench that may still be enough to stay in the game even if the abs up their intensity.

 

[Big Ewis]

in fact I hope for England they play with as much exactitude on attack; they may not. They had just a few handling errors early in Test 1, but overall played a good game on attack, and I thought they handled very well considering the intensity and pace they put into their play.

 

[Peat]

We could have played a lot better imo, there were a few silly penalties, a couple of players a bit underpar, an unusually high rash of bad players from some players, we could have done with more support runners for Tuilagi (paging Tom Croft...), we could have got Yarde onto the ball in midfield more, Ben Youngs' play from the base was poor, and so on...

 

[Maverick1987]

We could have played a lot better imo, there were a few silly penalties, a couple of players a bit underpar, an unusually high rash of bad players from some players, we could have done with more support runners for Tuilagi (paging Tom Croft...), we could have got Yarde onto the ball in midfield more, Ben Youngs' play from the base was poor, and so on...

This is pretty much what I thought . I thought there were times when unnecessary mistakes killed very promising moves . Lancaster needs to settle a back division and run with it till next RWC mine would be

9.Care
10.Farrell
11.Unsure maybe Tuilagi ?
12.Eastmond
13.Burrell/Tuilagi
14.Yarde
15.Brown

 

[goodNumber10]

01: Marler 02: Hartley 03: Wilson 04: Lawes, 05: Launchbury 06: Haskell 07: Robshaw 08: Vunipola 09: Care (have a feeling it will be dickson) 10: Farrell, 11: Yarde 12: Eastmond 13: Tuilaigi 14: Foden 15: Brown

 

[Maverick1987]

01: Marler 02: Hartley 03: Wilson 04: Lawes, 05: Launchbury 06: Haskell 07: Robshaw 08: Vunipola 09: Care (have a feeling it will be dickson) 10: Farrell, 11: Yarde 12: Eastmond 13: Tuilaigi 14: Foden 15: Brown

For the next test Mine would be :
Marler
Hartley
Wilson
Lawes
Launchbury
Wood
Robshaw
Morgan
Care
Farrell
Tuilagi (on wing bugger it why not )
Eastmond
Burrell
Yarde
Brown

Maybe Tuilagi will take a bit of watching on the wing and clear some room for Kyle and Luther

 

[goodNumber10]

the issue with Tuilagi on the wing is that he's out of the game... as jnuh pointed out in the other thread England don't use their wings in the hunter style, they use them as literally wing men to stretch the defence... that's not really where you want tuilagi. He has to to play 13 or ..........



12

 

[Captain Robshaw]

They look pretty good, but I think anyone who underestimates McKenzie is setting themselves up for a fall. Australia are rank underdogs for next year already in spite of outclassing England last year in a match they should have won, and winning their other 4 matches - including a blitz of 6 Nations champs Ireland and Wales, who they'll also be facing in their pool next year.

With Speight to come into the side and Kurindrani showing a lot of power, our backline is going to be pretty bloody handy, with a potential of: Genia-Cooper/White-Foley, Speight, Toomua, Kurindrani (who'll be bloody handy against Tuilagi in the pools) and AAC/Honeybadger, and Folau.

Add to that the likes of Moore and Pocock to come back into the forwards, plus a year of test experience under the belt of the massive Will Skelton, and suddenly we have a pretty handy looking side. Heck, McKenzie may also bring Douglas into the set-up from what I hear, so it's gonna be a solid outfit.

Have to agree, Aussies look in pretty good nick to me.

 

[Maverick1987]

the issue with Tuilagi on the wing is that he's out of the game... as jnuh pointed out in the other thread England don't use their wings in the hunter style, they use them as literally wing men to stretch the defence... that's not really where you want tuilagi. He has to to play 13 or ..........



12

If they move our most powerful player to the wing they HAVE to change the way we play slightly to bring him into the game . I'm not suggesting a give the ball to Manu approach but passing from right to left would be great with eastmond Burrell and Manu in the line . Would cause all sorts of problems especially if they start someone small like Ben Smith on the right wing

 

[Aristodemus]

**** Burrell, Eastmond > Tuilagi ftw!

 

[Tmartin995]

Personally I'd go:
1. Marler
2. Webber (don't see how you can justify dropping him)
3. Wilson
4. Launchberry
5. Lawes (as well as Parling played, LaL in the row are immense)
6. Haskell (top tackler last week - enough said)
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan (Binny looks tired)
9. Care
10. Burns (it's be a shame to waste his good form)
11. May
12. Eastmond
13. Tuilagi
14. Yarde
15. Brown

16. Hartley
17. Mullan
18. Sinckler
19. Attwood
20. Vunipola
21. Dickson
22. Cipriani (we already know what Farrell can do)
23. Foden

I think the backline last week looked sharp, just needed quicker service from 9. Dickson should have come on at least 10 mins earlier. As for Cipriani, I think he'd be the perfect bench 10 in the sense that he can come on if we're trailing and open it up and chase the game, whilst at the same time has developed his game management to see out a lead.

 

[Maverick1987]

Personally I'd go:
1. Marler
2. Webber (don't see how you can justify dropping him)
3. Wilson
4. Launchberry
5. Lawes (as well as Parling played, LaL in the row are immense)
6. Haskell (top tackler last week - enough said)
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan (Binny looks tired)
9. Care
10. Burns (it's be a shame to waste his good form)
11. May
12. Eastmond
13. Tuilagi
14. Yarde
15. Brown

16. Hartley
17. Mullan
18. Sinckler
19. Attwood
20. Vunipola
21. Dickson
22. Cipriani (we already know what Farrell can do)
23. Foden

I think the backline last week looked sharp, just needed quicker service from 9. Dickson should have come on at least 10 mins earlier. As for Cipriani, I think he'd be the perfect bench 10 in the sense that he can come on if we're trailing and open it up and chase the game, whilst at the same time has developed his game management to see out a lead.

After the way wood has played in big big games for Northampton in the past few weeks you can't leave him out . Shame for Haskell though

 

[Darwin]

So Jaco Peyper to referee this match and whose interpretations of the breakdown will determine this match. Good or bad referee from people's experience of watching him?

Peyper is a pretty good referee in my opinion (I rate most of the top South African referees). He is pretty young for an international referee (34) but seems to control the players pretty well.

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.

I think that is fair - it is an area that has been concerning me for some time. Up front Woodcock is well past his best, but is still the best we have, Coles is developing but is not a top class international hooker yet (and there is a big step down to our next young hookers), while Owen Franks seems to have gone backwards these last few seasons (he's still solid, but there a much better TH's in world rugby at the moment). I do think both of our locks are world class. Retallick may not Brad Thorn, but he does many things better than Thorn ever did, and I think is probably as valuable now to the AB's as Brad Thorn was in his prime. Kaino and Read (when fit) are the best in their positions in the world in my opinion, so we don't have any issues at 6 and 8 (as long as Read's head issues don't linger). McCaw at 7 is a worry however. He is another who is past his best - he's still playing good rugby, but there are better's 7's playing. He is still able to compete with the more athletic loose-forwards out there using his vast experience (and bloody minded determination), but how long he can keep this up is the big question.....

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.

There are a couple of reasons we aren't as dominant at this level as previously. Goodnumber10 has identified one (the fact other side have gotten better), but a major reason from a NZ perspective is that we not longer have Dave Rennie coaching (the guy who coached the Chiefs to the last Super Rugby ***les for those who are unfamiliar with the name). NZ sides often struggle size wise at these tournaments. At the lower levels in NZ there is far more of a focus on developing basic skills / rugby nous than bulking up (that comes later) hence we often end up getting destroyed by the bigger forward packs in this tournament. Even when we were dominating the early tournaments our forward packs were often getting hammered by the likes of England and South Africa - the difference was that Rennie had developed a fast-paced style of play that maximised our strengths and minimized our weaknesses. We had highly mobile packs and basically ran other sides off the park. Since Rennie left we have looked a bit lost at this level to be honest. We did win (just) in 2011 (with Anscombe at coach), but we probably our most talented side ever.....

In terms of player production we are still producing just as talented players at U20 level in my opinion. Personally I don't think NZ's decline in fortunes at U20 level will directly lead to a decline in fortunes at the top level....

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.

Yep, I know. Unfortunately the ref didn't do this, so we missed out on seeing quite a bit of rugby in this match as the time was eaten up watching players talking to each other in huddles.

I don't really see the connection between slowing down opposition ball in play (which all sides aim to do, whether legally or illegally) and wasting time. There is probably no point in debating this further (as it is far less interesting than the actual match), I just hope Peyper doesn't allow England to waste so much time again this weekend, as I wouldn't mind actually watching the sides play some rugby

 

[Bon]

I agree, whilst I understand it may be gamesmanship,it was from a spectators point of view irritating. Lot's of people around me were shouting "get on with it"