RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1)
-
@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.
-
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?
-
@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.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@No-Quarter said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
I was also surprised we didn't try and play Rieko into some form given how much of a game breaker he is.
Was he due to play in the cancelled Italy game?
With hindsight that cancellation may have been costly. Feels like BBBR would have been much the better for another 60 minutes game time.
-
@No-Quarter said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
What about that box kick by Smith when we finally got attacking ball on their 22. What in the god damn fuck.
I can't EVER remember seeing that before?!
-
@Tim said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Duluth "A disrespectful question", "If you want to go outside I'll give you a rugby education".
Shut the fuck up you arrogant prick. You lost, the team was shit, you wear it.
He has the tamest press in the world normally. Oh no, someone asked him if the All Blacks "turned up with the right mindset?" They didn't, they choked under the pressure.
Not choked IMHO. Rattled and whenever they started to get momentum something happened to break it. Was it me or was the elapsed time on that game very long = plenty of 'rest' periods?
-
@pakman said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@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.
Well they forced theirs on to us.
-
@booboo said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@pakman said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@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.
Well they forced theirs on to us.
And we asked for more!
-
@SammyC why?
He has never played like that against us before, sure he is a beast in the English Premiership, but often players look huge at the next level down, but dont the step up. He has had glimpses, I thought he was average in the Lions, but this one he showed his full range for 80.
I mentioned earlier in the thread during the game he showed what all the 'hype' was about, he was outstanding; we are all entitled to our opinion, shit you read any thread on here with people from the same provinces/super franchises who disagree with how good/poor someone there is...that doesnt make anyone arrogant IMO, we all see things differently, we all expect/want different players to play certain ways, need only look at the player polls to see a wide range of opinions on peoples perceptions of who plays well or not.
His performance, along with others wearing the white jersey was one out of the box, aside from a couple of players in black who may have equalled thier opposite, we were comprehensively outplayed by England.
Next week will show if that was a one off or the start of somethign special for England.
-
-
-
-
Will be interesting to see how England go in the final ,
Obviously they targeted the AB game big time ,
And some times its difficult to back up a big performance in consecutive weeks
-
@Billy-Webb said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@gt12 said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Billy-Webb said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
I honestly don’t think it was a case of NZ not being “hungry” enough.
England simply didn’t allow you to play. They were that good on the night.I strongly disagree. We had opportunities to just try and get territory, then from there, try to build pressure - get penalties - and try to break them down. Instead, with every piece of possession we got, we took terrible options, usually kicking it straight back to them. Had we buckled down after the first try, and said, fuck it, let's just play it in their half, we'd have put ourselves in the position to have challenged. But we never put them under any pressure - in their half - and the only time we did, we got a lucky try. I'm fucked if I know who was running things out there, but whoever it was shouldn't wear a black jersey again, And if the do, I hope they have nightmares about this game. We got fucking hammered .
Fair enough comment. There were some poor options taken. But I see that in the context of England putting so much pressure on the ABs.
England/Eddie got into out heads. We were rattled from the onset. Then they played more conservatively as game went on. In response, we kept forcing things.
I don't think the psychological impact of the two disallowed tries has been discussed. The net impact in reality was we kept them out on two occasions they were right in the red zone. a win of sorts. However, I'm guessing in reaction the ABs just got more desperate/less composed.
In the end it was the pressure which ABs PUT ON THEMSELVES which did for us! England's key input was important, but in essence passive -- by not trying anything too heroic it let us have full rein to over-egg the pudding.
Also sense England were looking to slow game down, which seemed to spur us to push even harder on the gas pedal.
But we had time on our hands. Compare with ABs against Dublin 2013 and going all the way back to Michael Lynagh in 1991 RWC quarters against Ireland.
Lessons to be learned.
-
@gt12 said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Nepia said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC: England v New Zealand (SF1):
Cane would have made a difference.
Also think he adds a lot in the leadership department - sadly lacking today.
Yeah, it's utter BS to pretend Cane wouldn't have made a difference when starting even if the result stayed the same - we have a much better chance of a win if he starts.
Agreed.
But S Barrett is the fall guy for a very shit Read performance and captaincy.
Unfair IMHO.
Excellent point.
I think Read has been a great All Black, but he is no legend - his five missed tackles (ESPN stats) tell the story of a guy who is either injured or past it. If he was amazing last week against a shit Ireland, how can he be amazing - with those stats - against England? He ran OK (25 metres off of 8 runs), but his captaincy tonight was pretty appalling - he and the team looked lost. He's been surviving on being McCaw's successor and tonight showed that it's all for shit. We were under pressure., but this wasn't 2011 8-7, this was a hammering, and he was front and center missing tackles.
Maybe he was carrying an injury?
