posted Jun 14, 2008

I never fail to find it quite amazing how the writings of so-called great journalists can distort reality. Two rugby matches with similar results. NZ 37 E 20. SA 37 W 21.
One game was a pounding win for NZ. The other game was won after an heroic fightback.
Is there any bias against England? Of course there is.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2008

perhaps a sign of where england are regarded and where wales are regarded but the extremeties of how both teams' performance was described is really taking it too far

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2008

Kiwi LDC, your footballing analogy has some merit but not a lot. The World Cup is the single significant pinnacle in international rugby, the rest is important in terms of pride, preparation and excitement but is essentially hors d'oeuvre. Therefore there isnt really a footballing comparison, the nearest you can get is to NZ being a team which wins the Premiership a lot but not the Champions League, or maybe with the Spanish national team. Either way, I guess it comes down to being a victim of your own reputation.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2008

dont think that 37 - 20 is a horrendous result especially as we played well at times. Had it not been for the weakest tackle ever by Hodgeson then would have been 30 - 20.

Had Carters pass gone to Smith gone to hand and Ojo never intercepted... then it could have been 50+ to 6.
You cannot blame everything on Hodgeson. England were weak across the park for large parts of the game.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 14, 2008

I think using the "What if" argument is a bit pointless. That's like saying "What if Dave Strettle wasn't tackled"? We can't ever know what might have been (although he could have dropped the ball!), so don't dwell on it. Some players played well, some did not.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 15, 2008

Bambaraloss - Interesting point that. Almost identical scorelines, but a totally different match report.
But on this occasion I genuinely don't think its spin.

I watched both games and Wales were very good value, and were leading going into the final quarter.
That they ran out of steam was more to do with the bench and Stephen Jones kicking, and indeed one refereeing decision than anything else.
At home, with all their players back, and another training camp under their belts, Wales are going to be a very competitive side, in world terms. And another year on, even more so.

The analysis of the England performance, despite the almost identical scoreline, is very different.
First, Ireland did better in all respects last week, scoreline, scoring opportunities, etc, which sets the England result in context.
Second, the England/All Blacks game was all but over as a contest in just 30 minutes. There was only one winner after that.
Third, England were not creating opportunities to score as both Wales and Ireland were doing against their respective opponents. Both England's tries were from Kiwi mistakes.
Its going to be very interesting to see what happens next week.
England absolutely have to improve the performance and scoreline.
If they don't it really is a long way to go, and they don't even look like they know where they are going at the moment.
The All Blacks look to me like they have plenty in the tank yet, but I'm not sure England have too much more to offer, certainly not in attack.

I think this is where Wales are in sharp contrast. They are clearly developing and improving their game, individually and collectively, and the two Tests were a discernable learning curve.
They also have some big players - the so-called game breakers - like Williams and Hook, guys with the X Factor, who make things happen.
England are having a job finding those at the moment. Cipriani has been written up in the media but we haven't seen much yet, and Ojo showed he is a promising talent, but without much experience or a rounded set of skills. Apart from that, who is frightening the opposition. No halfbacks to speak of, and no one else behind. Strettle was badly found out yesterday, and Tindall looked what he is - out of date.
The pack was...well...English! Not much more you can say really.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 15, 2008

So England were not totally bad yesterday?

I don’t think that they necessarily were. The scrum was unexciting but it battled well and the breakdown was not all New Zealand’s. If you have a pack that can win its set pieces and is competitive at the breakdown then you have a platform to win a game, exiting or not.

The real problem as we all know is what happens behind the scrum. I worry that we just do not have the players with bulk, power and vision in the GP. Maybe we need to be thinking about converting some of the more speedy and intelligent backrowers into centres!

The number 10 seems to be a problem but there are plenty of intelligent number 10’s around. The trouble is they are all quite lightweight and their skills and intelligence seem to desert them when a 16/17stone opposition player heads their way.

We also seem to be obsessed with superstars, or at least making of them i.e. Johnny and Danny. What about some good old functional players? Andy Goode poor guy can be a bit flaky but, hell I am sure he could have done better than Hodgson.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 15, 2008

remember this england need team needs time to gel and to put 20 points on the all blacks aint too bad at this stage but there needs to be some serious defensive work done this week. Also i think and i know most of you guys will disagree with me but i feel barkley should play 10 with Toby Flood 12. Though at least we didnt get much more of a battering than the welsh did the previous week.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 15, 2008

I agree with those posters who feel that this result was not too bad for England. I think we should also acknowledge that we have lost to a pretty good side who played well, and there is no disgrace in that.
England have travelled half way round the world with a new team to play everybody's toughest opponent without any acclimatisation or warm-up matches. The forwards at least held their own in all phases of play and frequently got the better of the All Black pack.
The real difference was in the backs where NZ have pace power and inventiveness, while England have honest triers and no apparent plan.
Care added some imagination when he came on and is worth a starting place in the second test.
Charlie Hodgson is a good Premiership player, but inspite of many opportunities has never demonstrated international class. There is not much choice on this tour but at least back home we have Danny and Jonny. Here I would go for Flood. I don't understand how Mike Brown can be considered for England when we have so many better full-back options. Why has Josh Lewsey been ignored in this position? Matthew Tait has speed, flair and class and if not full back must be brought into the centre. Nick Abendenon is surely a better prospect than Brown. On the wing Ojo did well for his 2 tries, but the jury is still out on Strettle.
Questions must also be asked about England's attack and backs coaching. For a long time our forwards have provided a decent supply of ball while the backs show clearly that they don't know what to do with it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2008

@ NeonRemos

To say Ojo had a bad game is a shocking statement. Scored two tries, and he was solid defensively. He has obviously been told to continue to play a kind of blitz defence to incercept that serves him well at L.Irish. Also you'll notice he didn't fully commit to any of the missed intercepts and was still around to offer protection. Not one of the tries were his fault. Even if you deem his missed interceptions as mistakes at least Ojo was prepared to take some risks (and one paid off, with a try scored obviously), which is in stark contrast to a stale and boring England back line.

On the other wing you had Strettle getting battered, granted the tackle was good but an international winger should be scoring there, his feet were out anyway.

Ojo was the only member of the back 3 to come out with any credit and the only one who should keep his starting place. Get Tait in at FB, lets try Varndell on the other wing.

But if you think Ojo had a bad game, then it is my duty to report to you, that you sir, are an idiot.

add comment | complain about this comment