You explain that to the Irish. Or the South Africans.
Actually, **** it, all the Tri-Nations. Just because they weren't as flamboyant as Carlos Spencers' All Blacks doesn't mean there wasn't some brilliant running rugby form that team, regardless of what the NZ press like to tell you.
I like to think I formed my own opinions from watching every English game, rather than the NZ media. I didn't like Carlos Spencer either, but considering NZ had Cullen, Howlett, Wilson, Lomu and Rokocoko playing between the 1999-2003 RWC, maybe I have unfair expectations on comparing attacking rugby
. On your video, only the Ben Cohen try at the beginning was what I'd call "scoring from anywhere", almost every other try was well worked. I'm not even trying to claim England weren't a good attacking rugby team, it's just that they were good at working tries out slowly. It's an interesting side note that no English player has scored more than 2 tries against the AB's in their entire career.
Stats for AB's loss in 2002:
Tries All Blacks: Lomu(2), Lee, Howlett.
Goal Kicks: Blair 2 conversions, Mehrtens 2 conversions.
Tries England: Wilkinson, Cohen, Moody.
Goal Kicks: Wilkinson 2 conversions, Wilkinson 3 penalties, Wilkinson drop goal.
Score: 28-31
Stats for AB's loss in 2003:
Tries All Blacks: Howlett
Goal Kicks: Spencer conversion, Spencer 2 penalties.
Tries England: (none)
Goal Kicks: Wilkinson 4 penalties, Wilkinson Drop kick.
With respect, these stats do not show England as the attacking genius you make them out to be. They were organised, clinical and disciplined which made them the best team in the world at that time, but the All Blacks always had a better free running attacking game.
yeah too right,mat rogers rated them more dangerous than the ABs because the ABs scored off mistakes where the england team could score through you having no fault of your own
Who gives a toss what Matt Rogers thinks? If you want to hear the opinion of a real centre: