RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1)
-
@MiketheSnow
You probably had the added advantage of being sober watching it...as the game wore on I attacked another bottle of red and tried to drown my sorrow and it all became a blurr...it felt like they were alot more defensive than attacking overall to me at the time...cheers...I'll watch the replay again with your observations in mind. -
@MiketheSnow and should have had a couple more...on another day that maul try would have been given with the accidental knock missed.
As I said in another thread, up there as one of the best English performances I ahve ever seen.
-
@taniwharugby Well there haven't been that many. Now they have to show they can do it all the time if they want to maintain the number one slot that we've enjoyed for the past ten years.
-
@Billy-Webb said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
I know that Beuden has a lot of pace. And Jordie isn't a slouch.
But does anyone have any insight to Scott Barrett's speed?There is a moment in the first half where Tuilagi intercepts and England get Johhny May into space out wide. Only cover defence is Scott Barrett. He has the angle to work with, but I would have bet the house that May takes him on the outside for a sure England try.
But Barrett shuts him down and forces him inside. England knock on. Try saved.
I think I read a little while ago that S. Barrett has the best medium-longer distance times in the squad.
-
@Bones said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Victor-Meldrew have to disagree on the Coles break. He totally ran away from any support and didn't even look to come back inside to find his team mates.
to be fair to Coles he only knows one way head and shoulders down and storm forward. He would have been expecting the support to be there behind him but it wasnt
-
I'm not hurting. It sucked but it was inevitable. We can not get better without failure.
The maul knock was bullshit and opens the door to yet more over-involvement from the TMO. Its the dark arts. What happens in the maul stays in the maul...
I was more disappointed with Barrett/Mounga than anyone else. They were completely ineffectual when having the 2 of them on the field was supposed to be a decided advantage. Richie is young. He can grow into that role. He seems like a thinker to me and that's a good thing. Barrett, however, is not a player that thinks things through as much as you hope he would. He's not a dumbshit but he's 90% playing what's in front of him rather than calculating how to get us back into it. Its the exact opposite of what's happening with A Smith.
-
Two things bothered me at the time.
- Very passive defence and a lot of missed tackles. I think we were too concerned about possible cards rather than recognising the refs were terrified of continuing the same approach used the in pool fixtures.
- We created a lot of space and almost never sought to exploit it.
-
@antipodean yeah the missed tackles was a huge thing, id say up there as one of our worst defensive performance...obviously the cohesion, lines, off-loads by England were superb, but we dont miss that many tackles.
Yeah last week showed the refs were either under directive or in themselves decided the finals were different to pools and needed to be reffed differently.
-
@taniwharugby said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@antipodean yeah the missed tackles was a huge thing, id say up there as one of our worst defensive performance...obviously the cohesion, lines, off-loads by England were superb, but simply don't miss that many tackles.
I don't think the defensive structure actually helps either - far too much movement and complication. This gave a smart analyst plenty of opportunity to identify where we wouldn't be able to fold if the direction of play was different to what we expected.
I can't help but think a lot of it was developed to have us in a position to counter attack. The problem being we've not been getting a lot of that type of ball.
-
@antipodean yep, they were able to manipulate us into the areas they wanted (for attack or defence) while we were unable to disrupt anything for them to even get a foothold in the game.
Still a bit confused about our complete lack of pressure on thier lineout, that it appeared was one of the key areas we were wanting to pressure them, instead, they put more on us there.
-
On the missed tackles, we actually missed more tackles in the SA game (28) than in this game (20). The tackle success rate was much better too.
The problem for me was that the ABs were passive and we didn't see many dominant tackles. That meant England was always on the front foot.
-
-
@Nepia and they were doing exactly what we should have, the little pop just before contact (as we did last week) to exploit the gap and gain those extra metres, but like you say, we were passing deeper and skipping the man we should have hit.
HOw were we so easy to read? If we had done those same close in pops as we did last week, we would have made a load more metres, especially as it seemed they were instead waiting for the wider deeper runner...maybe Eddies talk of someone spying on them was a ruse to ignore the fact he was spying on us
-
@Higgins said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@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.
You're so right. It felt like ABs were getting bashed, because we were so much on back foot. BUT IN FACT England converted most of their LEGITIMATE opportunities to points and we DIDN'T.
The obstruction try was never legal and it seems Retallick FORCED the maul mistake the other try was called back for.
The lesson we seem to have to learn every decade or so is that every once and a while a well coached team with good players will come up with a plan to make our Plan A ineffective/risky. Trying more of same is in fact digging ourselves into a hole, which is what England were so adept at helping us do. Eddie's finishers were in fact excellent at that role.
So we need to have several players with the nous to counter.
Was at game and without seeing recording dangerous to comment, but my instinct is we'd have been a lot better with a big midfielder to start. In this side that would have been SBW, and him running between Ford and Farrell could have been interesting. Add in Rieko running the diagonal as decoy/power option.
However, as has been said thousands of times, the right to go wide needs to be EARNED.
We needed go forward in pack in first half, and hard to know how we'd have achieved that. Ofa at TH might have been good, or maybe even Angus. Seems a given Cane needed to start to shore up breakdown, so other question is how much difference it might have made if Ardie started at 6. Worked well against Boks. Other option Frizell, but highlights to me how much Jerome missed.
But all said and done, at least one of their converted penalties was a very dubious call by Nigel, and at 7-13 we'd absorbed their best punches and they were digging in to hold us out.
We needed composure. Twenty to play. Converted try needed. No need to force the game. Viewed that way we SHOULD have found a way to win from there.
Could have really done with Crotty on at the 60 mark to bring some grey hair to backline. And Bender would have been a much safer option than Jordie when the chips were down.
Sam Whitelock keeps his shit. Penalty drilled to corner. Let's say ABs score an unconverted try.
I might have rose tinted glasses, but at 12-13 I really think we'd have gone on to win.
So much for what ifs. The harsh reality in the words of G. Gregan, Esq. is , 'Four more years'.
Going to bronze final and much as it's a damp squib, I really hope ABs show what they should have done on Saturday and send Shag and Kieran off with the ending they so richly deserve.
-
-
@kev said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Winger don’t have too many problems with backs. Apart from kicking game which is tactical. The forwards were average tonight. No hard hitting and ruck presence without Cane. Ardie is a runner. The ABs were cleaned out at lineouts and beaten up by energy of English who outlasted them.
If you are referring to Reiko he has been full of mistakes and really has let the selectors down.
According to Scrum.com ABs won 9/11 lineouts and Poms 18/20. Sure they won 20 and we won 11, but that equates the throw in!!
Itoje won one lineout maul, as did BBBR. All scrums with head. England one penalty which seemed more owing to the ground than Laulala offending.
For me it was in the loose where our forward problems lay. Whilst acknowledging we picked a pack to TAKE DOWN their lineout, which WAS a conspicuous failure.
-
@booboo said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
Just apropos to nothing.
Did this match remind anyone of our 2011 semi final?
Where the match was massively one sided and dominated by the eventual winners but the score stayed close enough to be in doubt?
Reminded me disturbingly of 2003, where Eddie also did a number on us.
-
@booboo said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
Where the match was massively one sided and dominated by the eventual winners but the score stayed close enough to be in doubt?
Yep and too an extent 2003. All three had an early try in the first ~5 minutes which was seemingly insurmountable. 2011 matched 2019 for physicality though IMO - Australia actually may have made more running to be fair.
-
@No-Quarter said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
Well shit, that all went extremely pear shaped.
England did to us what we did to Ireland last week, only when we get that dominance up front we score a lot more points. They came out firing and put us on the back foot from the get go then never let up. Massive credit there, that was a huge performance. Have they played their final though?
For us, after the initial onslaught we did somewhat get ourselves back into the game, but just pushed too many 50/50 plays and kept coughing it up at crucial times.
Cane was huge for us last week to nullify the Irish pack in the first 40. He's always been someone that thrives in the tight exchanges early on, so benching him was a pretty baffling deicison TBH. SB was OK but Cane provides a point of difference.
I love me some Jordie but he was only meant to be a squaddie. BFA on the bench would have been smart, especially given how early it is in Mo'unga's career. I would have subbed Richie early in the 2nd 40 and put Beauden back to 10. Experience matters in knock out matches and we needed calm heads after going behind early.
I was also surprised we didn't try and play Rieko into some form given how much of a game breaker he is.
But all of that is really just details when the forwards get smacked around like that. The English pack was amazing and Itoje showed just how good he is on the biggest possible stage.
It's been 12 years since we got knocked out of a RWC. I wasn't super confident we could get up a 3rd time, though the Irish game did give me some hope, but at the end of the day England were too good on the night. If you think back to 2015 we struggled to get up for the semi final against an SA team that had just lost to Japan. This time around we hit a far superior side.
So all in all I blame Ireland for losing to Japan and putting us on the wrong side of the bloody draw.
Am I just rationalising, or I do I remember Shag saying in the knock out stages experience was irreplaceable, in which case Bender and Crotty on bench should have been a GIVEN?
Feels like we were extremely arrogant just to assume we could FORCE our Plan A past Poms.
