[2014 Mid-Year Tests] New Zealand vs England (3rd Test)

[TRF_Olyy]

Parling has pulled his hamstring - Launchbury replaces him, with Attwood coming onto the bench.

Old news!

 

[Peat]

It has been discussed alot around here and it is a problem if you're a winger. But we are way more attacking nowadays, players are told to put the ball through the hands more instead of kicking territory, it's the main reason Farrell has improved.

Just because the ball goes through the hands more doesn't mean it reaches our wingers in any fit and usable state.

Either someone in the centres will spot a gap and go for it... or they'll spot a non-gap and go for it... or they'll keep passing without fixing and present the winger with the ball and two men five yards from the touchline.

If we can get over doing that and put wingers into space, Ashton may be useful. If we can get over the "wingers create width" thing and have Ashton coming off his wing frequently to track those breaks in the centre, he could be very useful. My guess is he will receive the same attacking opportunities as the other wingers, and I've never seen Ashton excelling in that sort of situation.

I get angry about the selection, but its nothing specifically against Ashton per se. He is a tidy player in the right circumstances. But those circumstances seem to be the exact opposite of what England want. He's the quintessence of square peg in round hole. It would be a beautiful surprise if this game turns out any different, but I see no evidence for that other than "Surely Lancaster wouldn't be mad enough to keep picking a player totally unsuited to his game plan".

Which is why I find it puzzling that people refer to his club form (not necessarily you Saffycen). That's never been the issue. The issue is that one of Ashton or Lancaster needs to adapt style a lot. And yes, I am really unhappy that we've gone for him before evidence of this adapting has occurred, because basically Lancaster seems to be doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results... the definition of insanity no less.

A few thoughts on the ABs side (if that is allowed):
- Great to see the Kaino/McCaw/Read trio re-united. People shouldn't expect miracles from Read though as he had played basically no rugby for 2 months. I like what Messam could potentially offer from the bench too..
- Barrett is unlucky not to start this week - he probably would have if Smith wasn't injured. Cruden is slowely building but is still a long way off his top form.
- Jane gets a reprieve, but unless he plays very well this week his international career may well be over. He has been very quiet for the Canes this season, and had an absolute shocker last weekend. When Piutau returns for the Rugby Championship he looks like the one most likely to drop out off the squad (I don't rate Dagg either, but the selectors love him...).

STFU NOOB ^_^

I'm curious to see how Read will go. Even if he shows flashes of himself that'll be a big issue for England. I feel Vito would have been more of a game changing sub off of the bench than Messam.

I've seen people suggest that Fekitoa and Nonu are too similar and will be easier for England to read than no Smith, is that something you'd agree with? Part of me feels that Barrett at 15 and Smith replacing Jane would have been the right call for this, Barrett would add a different threat coming into the line.

A Smith/Savea/Piutau back three would cause issues.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I'm curious to see how Read will go. Even if he shows flashes of himself that'll be a big issue for England. I feel Vito would have been more of a game changing sub off of the bench than Messam.

I've seen people suggest that Fekitoa and Nonu are too similar and will be easier for England to read than no Smith, is that something you'd agree with? Part of me feels that Barrett at 15 and Smith replacing Jane would have been the right call for this, Barrett would add a different threat coming into the line.

A Smith/Savea/Piutau back three would cause issues.

The problem with missing Smith is that his decision making is consistently accurate, both on attack and defense. We don't know if Fekitoa has the same ability in that regard. It isn't so much he is a better passer than Fekitoa, just that he makes the right pass all the time. It will be interesting to see how Nonu and Fekitoa go. If nothing else at least we can send up two big targets to make yards and get us some quick ball.

Barrett is a pretty average fullback, but a really good 10. We are a bit light on good wingers with Piutau out so Jane was the right call, hopefully he isn't as bad as last week and we'll be ok at the back.

 

[Darwin]

STFU NOOB ^_^

I'm curious to see how Read will go. Even if he shows flashes of himself that'll be a big issue for England. I feel Vito would have been more of a game changing sub off of the bench than Messam.

I've seen people suggest that Fekitoa and Nonu are too similar and will be easier for England to read than no Smith, is that something you'd agree with? Part of me feels that Barrett at 15 and Smith replacing Jane would have been the right call for this, Barrett would add a different threat coming into the line.

A Smith/Savea/Piutau back three would cause issues.

I do apologize for intruding on the Chris Ashton appreciation thread with an inappropriate post. As it happens I'm delighted with his inclusion

Personally I think they should have started Vito. Not necessarily because of Read's concussion issues (rightly or wrongly I think we should trust the medical professionals), I just expect Read to be very rusty. Vito is in fantastic form too, and I think he would thrive if used in the role the AB's use Read. I agree Vito can make a good impact off the bench, but I think Messam could excel in that role too. His line speed on defense would be very handy late in the game, and he seems to have an innate ability to get in support in the wider channels, which could be very valuable if the match opens up (he would have scored twice last Saturday, but C Smith threw him a poor pass, and A Smith forgot to pass him the ball).

Personally I don't think a Nonu/Fekitoa midfield will be easier for England to read than a Nonu/Smith midfield - indeed the opposite may be true. Conrad Smith is in many ways quite predictable. He will take the ball and straighten the line. If the pass is on he will make it, if not he will take the contact. It is simple, but incredibly effective. Fekitoa offers a completely different style of play. With him at centre I feel the AB's are a lot more threatening in the middle of the park, but a lot less threatening out wide. When Fekitoa gets the ball he will either try to step his man on the inside (and offload to a inside runner), or take his man on the outside with his pace / fend. When he tries to go on the outside the AB's attack will be a bit more lateral, and the wings will have less space (unless he beats the player on the outside then veers in-field, which he can do). One thing that the English players will have to learn quickly is that they need to get a shoulder on Fekitoa to stop him - if not he will just pump his legs and keep going!

IMO putting Barrett at 15 and Smith back on the wing would be a big mistake. You would have the best players on the field, but not playing in their best positions. If the Dunedin test told us nothing else it was that Ben Smith is so much more valuable at fullback than he is on the wing. I don't particularly rate Barrett at fullback either - he is a bit shaky under the high ball, and seems to get caught out of position a lot. I would have started Barrett at 10 as I think he has deserved his chance to start.

 

[Peat]

Interesting tussle then. If I was Lancaster & Farrell, I'd be telling Tuilagi to get into Fekitoa's face very quickly and see if he can keep his decision making abilities under pressure. From what you guys are saying, there's a fair possibility that they won't function so well. Of course, there's also a fair possibility that Fekitoa will keep those abilities and get the pass away, massively exposing our wings... so probably best not to overdo it. I think Tuilagi should be able to stop him pretty consistently, the risk is in the offload. I'd guess his instructions would be to show Fekitoa the outside, let him eat space, then take him around the chest and smother the offload. If the All Blacks can use Fekitoa to cut back inside and drag both centres into tackling him, then even if he doesn't get the offload away, that creates a moment of opportunity - and its a really big one if he can.

I feel like a blocker/slider pattern with Eastmond running at Fekitoa might also have possibilities.

I only said part of me thought that on Barrett/Smith It would be a pretty big defensive gamble for an ok increase in attacking firepower. I probably wouldn't run it myself, but would love to see it tried.

 

[donmcdazzle]

Interesting tussle then. If I was Lancaster & Farrell, I'd be telling Tuilagi to get into Fekitoa's face very quickly and see if he can keep his decision making abilities under pressure. From what you guys are saying, there's a fair possibility that they won't function so well. Of course, there's also a fair possibility that Fekitoa will keep those abilities and get the pass away, massively exposing our wings... so probably best not to overdo it. I think Tuilagi should be able to stop him pretty consistently, the risk is in the offload. I'd guess his instructions would be to show Fekitoa the outside, let him eat space, then take him around the chest and smother the offload. If the All Blacks can use Fekitoa to cut back inside and drag both centres into tackling him, then even if he doesn't get the offload away, that creates a moment of opportunity - and its a really big one if he can.

I feel like a blocker/slider pattern with Eastmond running at Fekitoa might also have possibilities.

I only said part of me thought that on Barrett/Smith It would be a pretty big defensive gamble for an ok increase in attacking firepower. I probably wouldn't run it myself, but would love to see it tried.

From what I've seen so far of Tuilagi at centre he seems to be pretty good at the rush defence so I expect the same thing this weekend. It was very effective in the first test. Personally I want to see Fekitoa brought back on the angle towards Eastmond and Burns, try to nullify the rush from the 13 channel a bit rather than grubbering in behind which seemed like our only option in test 1. Fekitoa is pretty quick so if he can brush Tuilagi on the outside he might cause some trouble but Tuilagi is decent one on one so I don't think I'd try to do that too much.

 

[nickdnz]

STFU NOOB ^_^

I'm curious to see how Read will go. Even if he shows flashes of himself that'll be a big issue for England. I feel Vito would have been more of a game changing sub off of the bench than Messam.

I've seen people suggest that Fekitoa and Nonu are too similar and will be easier for England to read than no Smith, is that something you'd agree with? Part of me feels that Barrett at 15 and Smith replacing Jane would have been the right call for this, Barrett would add a different threat coming into the line.

A Smith/Savea/Piutau back three would cause issues.

Vito would be a much better impact sub I agree, not sure what he has done to not get that shot seeing as he's offered great impact every time.

I'm not sure where the Nonu/Fekitoa being similar comes from. For me they are very different players. Neither have a renowned kicking game (which doesn't stop Nonu from pretending he does), but Nonu is really a crash-ball players I say crash-ball as he doesn't break the line nearly as much as he used to. Whereas Fekitoa is reasonably strong, he generally breaks the line by running good lines. He is guilty of running a bit horizontally at times, and he sometimes prefers to go it himself than pass - but overall I'd say they play a pretty different style of game. Fekitoa also has a pretty phenomenal work-rate, where as Nonu can be a bit lazy, particularly in terms of rejoining the line after a tackle.

I think Darwin would wholly disagree with moving Ben Smith back to the wing . I love Barrett, but he really needs to be given his shot at 1st 5/8th, particularly as Cruden hasn't looked back to anywhere near his best since returning from injury.

EDIT:

Ahuh, I was right. Too late to say so.

 

[nzlizard]

Interesting tussle then. If I was Lancaster & Farrell, I'd be telling Tuilagi to get into Fekitoa's face very quickly and see if he can keep his decision making abilities under pressure. From what you guys are saying, there's a fair possibility that they won't function so well. Of course, there's also a fair possibility that Fekitoa will keep those abilities and get the pass away, massively exposing our wings... so probably best not to overdo it. I think Tuilagi should be able to stop him pretty consistently, the risk is in the offload. I'd guess his instructions would be to show Fekitoa the outside, let him eat space, then take him around the chest and smother the offload. If the All Blacks can use Fekitoa to cut back inside and drag both centres into tackling him, then even if he doesn't get the offload away, that creates a moment of opportunity - and its a really big one if he can.

I feel like a blocker/slider pattern with Eastmond running at Fekitoa might also have possibilities.

I only said part of me thought that on Barrett/Smith It would be a pretty big defensive gamble for an ok increase in attacking firepower. I probably wouldn't run it myself, but would love to see it tried.

The centre battle this week will possibly determine the winner this weekend.

 

[Darwin]

Interesting tussle then. If I was Lancaster & Farrell, I'd be telling Tuilagi to get into Fekitoa's face very quickly and see if he can keep his decision making abilities under pressure. From what you guys are saying, there's a fair possibility that they won't function so well. Of course, there's also a fair possibility that Fekitoa will keep those abilities and get the pass away, massively exposing our wings... so probably best not to overdo it. I think Tuilagi should be able to stop him pretty consistently, the risk is in the offload. I'd guess his instructions would be to show Fekitoa the outside, let him eat space, then take him around the chest and smother the offload. If the All Blacks can use Fekitoa to cut back inside and drag both centres into tackling him, then even if he doesn't get the offload away, that creates a moment of opportunity - and its a really big one if he can.

I feel like a blocker/slider pattern with Eastmond running at Fekitoa might also have possibilities.

I only said part of me thought that on Barrett/Smith It would be a pretty big defensive gamble for an ok increase in attacking firepower. I probably wouldn't run it myself, but would love to see it tried.

I definitely agree that giving Fekitoa as little room/time to move as possible would be England's best option. Fekitoa does seem to be pretty composed and has good rugby instincts, but he has very little experience at anything near this level of rugby (13 Highlanders caps + 23 ITM Cup matches for Auckland), so this will be a big challenge for him. I agree giving Fekitoa the outside will be the best option for England, though they need to be careful not to give him too much room. As donmcdazzle points out Fekitoa is very quick, and though Tuilagi is a very powerful guy even he will need to make sure he gets a shoulder on him to bring him down - probably Fekitoa's greatest strength is the fact he can't seem to accept he is tackled....

Heh, egg on my face then!

That's what happens when you question my authority Just to be clear I don't for one second believe Ashton should have been penalized, as it would have been completely inconsistent with the way this match (and every other rugby match these days) was refereed. If players were penalised for this sort of running Aaron Smith would probably be penalized 20 times a match! I was simply pointing out that something that was being hailed as an excellent play (and I agree it was superb work on Ashton's part) was by the letter of the law illegal.

 

[goodNumber10]

For a few seconds, yes Smith was offside. It just wasn't near as obvious as the Ashton case. Aaron Smith was more clearly offside and moving forward too....

You can be offside in broken play. See below:

In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.
Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalised if they take part in the game.
In general play, a player can be put onside either by an action of a team-mate or by an action of an opponent. However, the offside player cannot be put onside if the offside player interferes with play; or moves forward, towards the ball, or fails to move 10 metres away from the place where the ball lands.


11.1 Offside in general play
(a)

A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:

• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).

A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.

hhhhmmmm! fair enough, by the letter of the law it would appear he is offside.

But again i feel it's one that is open to interpretation - as an example McCaw runs those pre-emptive lines off every scrum and surely he could never do something illegal?

Ashton was in a offside position (he was in front of a team mate carrying the ball), and he moved forward/towards the ball therefore the referee would have been well within his rights to penalize him. It is irrelevant that he was eventually onside when he received the ball. These sort of offenses seldom get penalized (and it would be very difficult to enforce as it happens all the time), but it is technically illegal play.

I'm not really sure why you bothered raising the point then if in the end you say "But it's ok because everyone else does it"

If this was enforced to the letter of law every player is offside every time the ball is passed.

The key to me is that he is moving into an on side position to receive the ball - to think he would stand still or retreat until the ball is past an imaginary line is a bit ludicrous.

I'm not quite sure how he has got me, as I think you will find the law is actually on my side

heheh!

Why stop at two players? I propose that we send all 14 players off to run a support line off of one carrier... who cares about anything else?

Just think about it. It's great that Ashton spotted it. But it's his job to do that kind of thing. His whole reputation is staked upon the simple premise that he's a league convert, so he can do the pretty support lines. It's his only niche in the game. If he didn't have that, he would be a below average Premiership player. It doesn't mean every player should have their reputations staked upon this trait. It would also be a totally bad thing if everyone tried to run support lines all the time. You need players in position for inter-phase play. Had Ashton and Twelvetrees both gone for it, and they were tackled, we'd have been short in midfield. As a wing, it's okay for Ashton to gravitate towards the action (which was on his wing anyway), but Twelvetrees has a greater responsibility to what happens in the next phase.

No he doesn't, he has a responsibility to the ball in play and to the scoring opportunity.

I'm not saying everyone should chase the ball like school boys as you are alluding but that purely two players in the exact same spot see two different things and react differently, one takes him out of the game because he doesn't recognise the opportunity, one scores a try.

It's not a critiscism of Twelvetrees as a player (god knows there is plenty of far worse thigns he did on saturday), but if the guy running the support line had been 36, or an all black people wouldn't even be discussing. it we'd all be going "BILLY TWELVTREES EVERBODY!!".

What we wouldn't be finding is ways to criticise the try "look at his dive, he was offside, well that's HIS job".

If Twelvetrees had scored that try would you really be on there saying: "you know he should really have been setting up for the next phase what if....?".

I doubt it.

Ashtons reading of the attacking game is excellent, this example illustrates it well.

Look i realise people don't like him, and i'm not saying we should proclaim him the new messiah, because he's a very naughty boy.

I think he's an absolute plumb myself - but he has some excellent attacking qualities about him that have been missing over the last two weeks. Personally i'm of the opinion we're not going to shut Savea down 100%, and we shouldn't try to (or at least make it the sole focus when selecting).

We should be trying to beat the AB's with streaming play not trying to contain them and sneak a win, and for me Ashton adds to the chances of that occuring on this occasion.

He might get steamrolled by Savea, he won't be the first or last to get done by such an immense talent, but he might also score a blinder of a try that probably wouldn't have got finished otherwise.

we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Patchey]

Why aren't we still complaining about Ashton? This thread isn't for discussing the game itself is it?

From what I've seen of Fekitoa I think he'll be fine. Raw and less refined than Conrad Smith obviously but I wouldn't think of him as an obvious weakness. That said the idea of sending Manu at him early on sounds good, just to see if we can rattle him.

 

[j'nuh]

I'm not saying everyone should chase the ball like school boys as you are alluding but that purely two players in the exact same spot see two different things and react differently, one takes him out of the game because he doesn't recognise the opportunity, one scores a try.

One is a 12, one is a wing. They have differenr roles. Look, it was a win-win for Ashton. The action was on his wing anyway so he was always moving in that direction to get into position, and he wasn't going to be involved in the next phase when the move went right-to-left so he didn't need to be anywhere. As the primary distributor in the team, Twelvetrees has to get into position, he can't be swanning around the field based on speculative what-may-happens​ all the way through the game. Yes, it's all well saying that Twelvetrees could have scored a try had he done what Ashton had done, but the point is that if the move failed, Twelvetrees would have been out of position and the next phase would have failed, shorn of the main distributor in the backline. Both players did what was right for the position they play.

 

[goodNumber10]

Why aren't we still complaining about Ashton? This thread isn't for discussing the game itself is it?

From what I've seen of Fekitoa I think he'll be fine. Raw and less refined than Conrad Smith obviously but I wouldn't think of him as an obvious weakness. That said the idea of sending Manu at him early on sounds good, just to see if we can rattle him.

Well Ashtons playign, and impacts on England's chances so it's at least relevant.

I think Fekitoa is a fantastic player, and I think he'll have a decent debut - look at the quality around him, if he can't come through in that team.... well.

My biggest fear this weekend is that it's a game too far, tough season - two tough weeks on tour top of it. People going down with injuries shows that fatigue is starting to come through, and when New Zealand accelerated the game last week we looked like a tired team clinging on for dear life, whereas previously we've taken the blows and come back swinging - it's great we had a resurgence in the last 15 but we've got to be realistic about these guys workload.

Sadly, I think we could be on the end of a big score purely because we're out on our feet.

One is a 12, one is a wing. They have differenr roles. Look, it was a win-win for Ashton. The action was on his wing anyway so he was always moving in that direction to get into position, and he wasn't going to be involved in the next phase when the move went right-to-left so he didn't need to be anywhere. As the primary distributor in the team, Twelvetrees has to get into position, he can't be swanning around the field based on speculative what-may-happens​ all the way through the game. Yes, it's all well saying that Twelvetrees could have scored a try had he done what Ashton had done, but the point is that if the move failed, Twelvetrees would have been out of position and the next phase would have failed, shorn of the main distributor in the backline. Both players did what was right for the position they play.

You're not understanding my point, it's not about Twelvetrees not following the ball, it's about awareness and sniffing out an opportunity.

As i said it's not a major criticism of Twelvetrees, but it does highlight exactly what people are saying about Ashton's game awareness and support running - it's interesting people are criticising the article for focusing on Twelvtrees, the point is no more than they are both stood beside each other it could have been any other England player. The article is about Ashton, and people are acting as though highlighting what Twelvtrees does somehow negates the excellent work Ashton does there.

Regardless you only need to be a center off primary phase ball - outside of that you do whatever is right for the game as it unfolds - and that is why Ben Smith was playing at 10 and the All Blacks had Whitelock and Coles handling the ball in their first try last week - because they are not slavishly following their roles they are playing whats in front of them and in phase play they slot in where needed not where numbers or structure dictate.

You have to read the game, not just move back to position because something could happen - twelvtrees could have gone and supported and cleared out, he didn't . Fair Enough, doesn't somehow make that article wrong.

It's all about decision making - not about your position. Did twelvtrees make the wrong decision - arguable, but it's not about him it's about Ashton making the RIGHT decision.

I have to deal with this kind of mentality every week with the french guys I coach and it really gets my goat.

"i can't leave my wing, what if the opposition get the ball, who will be defending" "it's not my job to clear out a ruck" - just support the ball and if it breaks down you decide what your role is - clear out, set up as scrum half, 1st receiver etc...

If you're not going to get there THEN you can start setting up.

Mark Ella used to talk about the three touch rule - "if i touch the ball once i'I've passed it, if i touch it twice we will score if i touch three times I will score"

 

[Big Ewis]

holy fk:

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

All his tries there were gifted to him, all he had to do was run, everyone else did the hard work.

All blacks the masters of poaching the best from the South seas.

 

[RoosTah]

Well the kiwis have come out swinging in the blogs countering the "myth of the All Blacks" theory put forward by a couple in the English press.

Bit of a laugh, but very bias and pretty unfair on England:

As per usual, when this international rugby season kicked off, with the Super teams not doing that well, and players not being in great form, it was all doom and gloom for the All Blacks. The mighty Orc's from England were going to smash the All Blacks to all corners of the park and take that mighty mythical myth off the men in black.
But really, when you look back, was that ever going to happen?

Lets look at a few cold hard facts about this English team that managed to beat the All Blacks in Mr Lancaster's first test in charge (A seem to recall Supercoach Dingo Deans first effort against the All Blacks was pretty handy too, before the next 6 years, but we won't go there).

Let' also put that test from 2012 into context a little too. At that stage of the tour, with the All Blacks being 'Susie revisited', any of the home nations would have knocked them off. They were ripe for the picking, and got picked, fair dues to any half decent international team, and fair dues to England, who are just that.

There's the rub – half decent international team. That is what England is, and I can't understand the wonder and the awe we have for this team. Expect for that win over the All Blacks two seasons ago, they have done nothing. They have won the 6 nations once in the past ten years (2011), and not won it since the last RWC. But they beat the All Blacks, the only team to do so since Adam was a Cowboy, so we hold them in awe, look out, look out!

Well ********. They're crap. They'll next beat us in 2023. They'll push us close in England, but they're just not good enough, they don't have that rugby nous that Kiwi's seem to have locked into their DNA. Hell, they're even resorting to poaching (har har har), a term we no longer seem to hear from the tosser English media since their team has started to turn a little island style, I'm loving it.

OK, maybe not crap, but they're not the next big thing since sliced bread. They look like a good team, more bulging biceps than the Mr Olympis show, but all that brawn with the lack of brain sees them winning nothing of significance often. When you watch the third test tomorrow night at Hamilton, check out the physiques of the teams, just by that comparison the All Blacks should be flogged by 50. England LOOK like a rugby team should in the movies. The All Blacks look like a bunch of Kiwi's out to play a bit of footy on a Saturday arvo. Not since Jerry Collins have we really had a set of 'guns' to compare! Too much gym time making the muscles big, and not enough time on functional strength for their sport? Whow knows, but they look bloody impressive.

So good on them, it's been an interesting tour, but the only myth we have seen during this series is the one that England rugby is seriously challenging the All Blacks. I think they need to start winning the 6 Nations, and regularly beating the Boers before they can start talking about challenging the All Blacks. The last time they beat our Bokke brothers was in 2006! I can't help but noting, they are ranked even below AUSTRALIA at number 4.


So put away your worry beads, and start worrying about England again in 8 or 9 years, that's when they'll pick up another lucky win. Tomorrow night, expect a comfortable win for the All Blacks, even more so if professional TMO George Ayoub gets some of his calls right. That bloke was a useless bloody ref, and is now a **** poor TMO. And I know I have spelt his name wrong, but don't care to look it up, as he is a pillock.

http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugb...-article-england-–-are-they-really-that-good/

 

[goodNumber10]

well I for one applaud anyone who can write such a well balanced and reasonable piece of analysis.

 

[Patchey]

All blacks the masters of poaching the best from the South seas.

Good lord man! We only say things like that on threads where Kiwi posters won't see them. Are you mad?


Let's hope tomorrow's squad watching the U20 game for a lesson in keeping ones nerve in a right game.

 

[brumtom]

Great spelling too !

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Good lord man! We only say things like that on threads where Kiwi posters won't see them. Are you mad?

The brave may not live forever, but the cautious never live at all.

Today I live without fear.

Mind you Australia have produced 22 All blacks, followed by Samoa 13, then SCOTLAND with 10!!!!! (that where all the best Scottish players went to), then Tonga with 8, and England and Fiji both have had 8 players nicked by the All Blacks. only 4 irish born players have played for the All blacks.