RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1)
-
@Jonty-lean Because the English were standing in our backline
-
@reprobate said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
Goodhue best AB on the field; first AB subbed off. Cane dropped for Barrett. A few young guys are panicking cause we are behind in a knockout, so we bring on jordie... Fucks sake.
this
-
@MrDenmore said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Jonty-lean Because the English were standing in our backline
You obviously don't understand the offside rule. England has to be be behind our hind most players feet. I.e. our fullback
-
Hanson and co got their selection badly wrong. Reece is just too small. Bridge was ordinary. With Barrett as well the back three was unbalanced. So if Reece is on 1 wing (I just don't rate him though) select a power winger on the other one
It was a poorly selected team and the England coaches totally and utterly out-coached and out-selected Hanson and co
-
@jegga said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@PN said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
Hahahahahaha he's probably passed out drunk on the floor of the Lake Ferry pub by now.
Anyone know what it costs to get a monstrosity like inked that on you?
Easy fix.
ABs too.
-
-
@jegga said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@PN said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
Hahahahahaha he's probably passed out drunk on the floor of the Lake Ferry pub by now.
Anyone know what it costs to get a monstrosity like inked that on you?
He can always pass it off as “participation years, and they just left some off”
-
Game was lost up front.
We picked a team to dominate the lineouts and instead England picked us off repeatedly and we barely pressured them - won one I think.
As it turned out, we'd picked a bench designed to accelerate momentum, rather than shift it when we were going backwards. I thought subbing Goodhue and Bridge were silly decisions, when they were among our best players - Goodhue especially was excellent. None of our subs looked like turning the game - Coles was decent enough.
Not good enough. Congratulations England.
-
@Tim said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
I'm just fucking stunned that the idiot dropped Sam Cane and Rieko Ioane! First names on the team sheet.
Ioane no way. But ben Smith should have been on the bench
-
I know many people will want a Spanish Inquisition wanting to apportion blame on either coaches or players, but you know what ,on this night of all nights, I reckon you just have to pay homage to Eddie Jones and England boys..they pretty much put together an 80 minute performance which had us rattled throughout most of it..let’s hope the boys can get up for this 3rd place game and at least send Read and Hansen out on a winning note..
Full credit to Eddie Jones for his very gracious coms during his interview. -
Oh well , just as well that jaguars prick isn’t around trolling
-
@antipodean said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
Warren Gatland and Tony Brown, come on down!
I would like to see Joseph and Brown
-
@Billy-Tell He's so much better than Bridge. When has that clown beaten a defender with pace in this tournament?
-
@Tordah said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
Imagine the Boks winning tomorrow and then England winning the final - beating Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in the finals, we'd never hear the end of it!
And Argentina
-
@MrDenmore said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Jonty-lean Because the English were standing in our backline
Yeah, but we figured out how to nullify that by delaying the pass in midfield....after 70 minutes. An experienced combination (Smith/Nonu) would have countered that earlier.
Don't get me wrong, Goodhue and ALB are great, but we've buggered about with the midfield since 2015 and it showed tonight.
-
-
@antipodean said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
The reality is , the scoreboard doesn’t reflect the dominance , it probably saves us from the embarrassment it could have been
Agreed - easily a thirty point drubbing.
They were clearly miles the better team but that was more as a result of closing the ABs down rather than creating all that many scoring opportunities (even allowing for two tries correctly, disallowed). To say it should have been a thirty point drubbing is very subjective when they never really looked like scoring that many points.
Having said that I actually agree that they probably were about thirty points better when all is said and done but they weren't good enough to make it show on the scoreboard.
-
We didnt lose because of our backs. Our forwards got monstered. In the scrums, in the lineouts and at the breakdowns.
This is the most comprehensive defeat my middle age brain can remember
