Hardly the humiliation I expected from the All Blacks, but......
Mr.Will
Perhaps they are saving it for France next week - I think thats sensible of
them if they are!
England I expected to be totally thrashed but as good ole Fitz said "it was
a good test for 50-60 minutes".
Moody is brilliant, and how great to see Shaw back on the field. He is a
definite keeper.
Put NZ under pressure alot in the first 60, and kept us in the game, but
that about it from England.
No real idea how to attack or create anything sadly.
I know everyone has been raving about having Wilko back, and I guess in the
current climate there is nobody we have good enough to take his spot if he
is fit, but I reckon all through the series he has seemed to lack any
urgency. I remember thinking this when he dropped the goal against Oz in the
first game, and how his penalty kicks to touch seem to be quite short as
opposed to going for the corner and being precise about it.
That said Dan Carter seemed to miss easy kicks etc etc.
England, one try and one win in 3 games kind of says it all!
Mr.Will
Pure Salt
"Mr.Will" <wi...@mr-will.co.uk> a �crit dans le message de
news:6%UNm.8635$Cs2....@newsfe13.ams2...
thinks of Englands attack potential.
Pretty dull stuff although I only saw the second half.
Osbourne Ruddock
news:6%UNm.8635$Cs2....@newsfe13.ams2:
> not exactly an outstanding New Zealand side either.
It hasn't been an outstanding AB side all year. We won something like 30-6
last year and 19-6 this year, I think that probably tells the right story
for both teams.
--
Cheers, Os
Ponce Allbutt of Manacle
....no colored cards involved....
Mr.Will
"Ponce Allbutt of Manacle" <michael...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:703bd2ca-0621-45b8...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
....no colored cards involved....
--------
Dont turn this into a racial issue now.......
Mr.Will
Road_Hog
....no colored cards involved....
Learn to spell you dim cunt. Coloured.
Simon S-B
"Mr.Will" <wi...@mr-will.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6%UNm.8635$Cs2....@newsfe13.ams2...
Shock horror - a side picked for damage limitation limits damage. Never
looked like threatening, and won't do until either JW stands flat or
Geraghty replaces him. The management will go 'ooooh improvement' (and no
doubt Klitty as well) but the fact of the matter is they ripped of the SA
tactics, and whilst the forwards implemented it quite well (if you ignore
Payne being buttfucked in the scrums) the backs were woeful. What is
Englands style? How do they play? We need some coaches who can answer that,
instead of just looking at who they are playing, looking at how they were
last beaten and trying to copy that with a massively confused pool of
players.
Shaw and Moody know what it takes to win at the highest level, and their
performances reflect that. Where the hell is the development coming from?
Did playing Deacon help advance English rugby at all? Worsley? Johnson
cannot keep going back to his and his shite-for-brains coaches old mates.
Rob Andrew - sack the useless twat. All he had to do was go out on a
Wednesday, watch a few Uni games, and invite the best players to join clubs.
That way at 21 they don't fall out of the game. That's it - his remit
solved, and at least we could have said that he'd done something vaguely
useful. As it is he really hasn't. What's the point in having time with the
players with this bunch of coaches?
If MJ doesn't stop being such a nepotistic twat and show us what the hell
the direction is, then he can fuck off as well.
Paul
says...
>
> ...
> Shock horror - a side picked for damage limitation limits damage. Never
> looked like threatening, and won't do until either JW stands flat or
Spot on:
>>
After a week in which England's coaching regime came under fierce
criticism, Martin Johnson watched his team lose 19-6 to New Zealand at
Twickenham then robustly defended his players and coaches. Manager
Johnson insisted that, even if it was not evident on the field, his side
were making progress off it.
"I'm proud of the effort the players and coaches have put in all week,"
Johnson said. "It's been a tough week with all the criticism flying
around but I thought they came out and played well.
"We all know the barometer. If you play well and win, it [opinion] goes
too far one way, and then too far the other way if you lose. That's the
world we live in. If you've had a bad performance everyone wants to jump
on the bandwagon. We've got to judge ourselves. I said to the guys after
the game 'Be proud of your efforts'. But, ultimately, today was an
opportunity lost."
England scored only one try in their three November games � defeat to New
Zealand and an Australia team who were held by Ireland and beaten by
Scotland, and victory over Argentina. But a battered-looking Steve
Borthwick, who had one of his best games as captain, echoed Johnson's
sentiment.
"On the one side we're devastated with the loss," he said, "but on the
other side we're proud of the effort we have put in because there have
been a lot of people taking pot-shots at us and trying to split the
group. The one thing I have been happiest with about this team is how
tight we've been through this series."
Johnson felt England lost out to New Zealand in two key areas, the
primary one being the breakdown. "Ultimately that was the difference
between the two teams. We had our half-breaks and they would get snuffed
out at the breakdown. We have to get better at that area."
Another difference between the teams, said Johnson, was finishing. "We
had plenty of chances to score tries, scrums on their line, line-outs on
their ine, plenty of ball in their 22. We had chances again at the end,
but we lost composure."
Now the autumn series is over Johnson offered explanations, if not an
excuses, for England's performances. "It's tough when you come in and
you're getting ready for a series, and there are disruptions, guys coming
in who didn't expect to be there. It's been a very, very tough time. The
leaders of the team have really stood up and been counted.
"As a group we have gone forward. ..."
>>
etc etc. Johnson will say he's proud when England get the wooden spoon
in the 6 Nations.
Paul
johnmhill
> "Mr.Will" <w...@mr-will.co.uk> wrote in message
100% agree. MJ says he is keeping his buddies. What a dick
JH
Mr.Will
"Simon S-B" <bait...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:heav7q$spn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> "Mr.Will" <wi...@mr-will.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6%UNm.8635$Cs2....@newsfe13.ams2...
>> not exactly an outstanding New Zealand side either.
>>
>> Perhaps they are saving it for France next week - I think thats sensible
>> of them if they are!
>> England I expected to be totally thrashed but as good ole Fitz said "it
>> was a good test for 50-60 minutes".
>>
>> Moody is brilliant, and how great to see Shaw back on the field. He is a
>> definite keeper.
>> Put NZ under pressure alot in the first 60, and kept us in the game, but
>> that about it from England.
>> No real idea how to attack or create anything sadly.
>>
>> I know everyone has been raving about having Wilko back, and I guess in
>> the current climate there is nobody we have good enough to take his spot
>> if he is fit, but I reckon all through the series he has seemed to lack
>> any urgency. I remember thinking this when he dropped the goal against Oz
>> in the first game, and how his penalty kicks to touch seem to be quite
>> short as opposed to going for the corner and being precise about it.
>> That said Dan Carter seemed to miss easy kicks etc etc.
>>
>> England, one try and one win in 3 games kind of says it all!
>>
>> Mr.Will
>>
>
> Shock horror - a side picked for damage limitation limits damage. Never
> looked like threatening, and won't do until either JW stands flat or
> Geraghty replaces him.
Well I think the bigger shock for me was that New Zealand didnt look that
great.
I think previous NZ teams would still have torn apart the side that we had
out yesterday.
I agree with pretty much all you wrote by the way.
Osbourne Ruddock
news:2XeOm.52417$fF2....@newsfe26.ams2:
>>>
>>> I know everyone has been raving about having Wilko back, and I guess
>>> in the current climate there is nobody we have good enough to take
>>> his spot if he is fit, but I reckon all through the series he has
>>> seemed to lack any urgency. I remember thinking this when he dropped
>>> the goal against Oz in the first game, and how his penalty kicks to
>>> touch seem to be quite short as opposed to going for the corner and
>>> being precise about it. That said Dan Carter seemed to miss easy
>>> kicks etc etc.
>>>
>>> England, one try and one win in 3 games kind of says it all!
>>>
>>> Mr.Will
>>>
>>
>> Shock horror - a side picked for damage limitation limits damage.
>> Never looked like threatening, and won't do until either JW stands
>> flat or Geraghty replaces him.
>
> Well I think the bigger shock for me was that New Zealand didnt look
> that great.
Um, haven't checked out many All Blacks game this year then?
After the games against South Africa earlier this year I was thinking
Wales and France had great chances to beat us this year. Thanks Goodness
we had a couple of games against Aus in between to get us a little
confidence and composure back.
We are a fairly average side this year, and I will be surprised if we win
next weekend.
--
Cheers, Os
Mr.Will
"Osbourne Ruddock" <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCC5A570A5Dst...@130.133.1.4...
No I didnt check out that many - Im limited to the marketing
really........."its the ALL BLACKS, with that Haka" is about as much as I've
followed.
It is average considering it is an All Black side isnt it?
Mr.Will
Apteryx
It is below average for the AB's. Currently the have a Win/Loss ratio of
69% for the year. That would make it the 58th best of the 85 years in
which the ABs have played at least one test. If they beat France, it
will rise to 71% and 57th best. If they lose, it will fall to 64% and
67th best.
Apteryx
JohnO
> Mr.Will wrote:
> > "Osbourne Ruddock" <strike...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9CCC5A570A5Dst...@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Mr.Will" <w...@mr-will.co.uk> wrote in
I wonder though, if these days they play more games against top tier
opposition, so the comparison to past years is unfair?
Osbourne Ruddock
news:tKhOm.215790$kH2.1...@newsfe04.ams2:
>>>>
>>>> Shock horror - a side picked for damage limitation limits damage.
>>>> Never looked like threatening, and won't do until either JW stands
>>>> flat or Geraghty replaces him.
>>>
>>> Well I think the bigger shock for me was that New Zealand didnt look
>>> that great.
>>
>> Um, haven't checked out many All Blacks game this year then?
>>
>> After the games against South Africa earlier this year I was thinking
>> Wales and France had great chances to beat us this year. Thanks
>> Goodness we had a couple of games against Aus in between to get us a
>> little confidence and composure back.
>>
>> We are a fairly average side this year, and I will be surprised if we
>> win next weekend.
>>
>
> No I didnt check out that many - Im limited to the marketing
> really........."its the ALL BLACKS, with that Haka" is about as much
> as I've followed.
>
> It is average considering it is an All Black side isnt it?
>
Average for the All Blacks, yeh. We were outmuscled and generally
outplayed by a strong but not flashy SAf side in the 3N. We're lacking
pace with guys like Mils, Roko and (often) Sivi not stretching the
opposition or breaking the line. Selections have been mystifying at
times. Our decision making hasn't been great a lot of the time and we
spend far too long flicking dodgy passes backwards and forwards with no
plan or forward momentum.
Was anyone else depressed at that 14 phase side to side shuffle before
turning the ball over early in the 2nd half (I think?)? England just
seemed to be standing around watching us go nowhere.
--
Cheers, Os
Apteryx
I think if anything, the reverse is true. Before the era of RWCs, the
AB's almost never played any international sides other than Aus, SA,
Lions, and the 5N, and when they did, didn't accord the matches test
status (I think the only exceptions were a test in 1981 against a then
strong Romania, and the first AB tests against Argentina, in 1985).
"Best" is always an evaluative judgement, so stats can only take you so
far. But in some of the years where NZ has a worse statistical record
than 2009, it was because the only tests played were against SA in SA.
Or, in the case of 1949, the worst year (statistically) on record, they
played and lost 4 tests against SA in SA, and also accorded test status
to 2 games played and lost against Australia while the best 30 white
players were in SA. They even managed what I imagine will remain the
unique feat of losing two "tests" on the same day, 6,000 miles apart.
Apteryx
Andrew Dunford
"Osbourne Ruddock" <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCC791BDC66Es...@130.133.1.4...
Yes, that was one of the most horrible passages of play I have seen in ages.
And not just because NZ lacked penetration and ideas, but also because it's
an indictment on the shape of the modern game that England were able to just
set an enormous defensive line on each side and not commit many players to
ruck and maul.
It took a very long time for NZ to discover they could break England by
taking it up the middle.
Andrew
DC
> I think if anything, the reverse is true. Before the era of RWCs, the
> AB's almost never played any international sides other than Aus, SA,
> Lions, and the 5N, and when they did, didn't accord the matches test
> status (I think the only exceptions were a test in 1981 against a then
> strong Romania, and the first AB tests against Argentina, in 1985).
>
> "Best" is always an evaluative judgement, so stats can only take you so
> far. But in some of the years where NZ has a worse statistical record
> than 2009, it was because the only tests played were against SA in SA.
> Or, in the case of 1949, the worst year (statistically) on record, they
> played and lost 4 tests against SA in SA, and also accorded test status
> to 2 games played and lost against Australia while the best 30 white
> players were in SA. They even managed what I imagine will remain the
> unique feat of losing two "tests" on the same day, 6,000 miles apart.
What is the record for the last 50 years -- since 1960 -- for years with
minimum 3 tests?
Or last 50 years, 3 tests, against SA, Aus, 5N & Arg?
Apteryx
As it turns out, although there were many years before 1960 when the ABs
played no tests, there have been none since. And only two years when
they have played less than 3 tests (1969, when they hosted Wales for the
first time in 2 tests, and 1975, the famous "wet test" against
Scotland at Eden Park). Of the remaining 48 years since then when they
have played at least 3 tests, 2009 is for the moment the 35th best. The
13 worse years are (from best to worst) 1992, 1977, 1982, 1979, 1986,
1980, 1994, 1976, 1973, 1971, 1960, 1998, and 1970. If they beat France,
they will finish one place up (ahead of 2000) and if they lose, they
will fall 3 places to below 1982.
1960, 1970, and 1976 are of course years in which they toured SA. In
1971 and 1976 the won 1 and lost 3. In 1960, it was won 1, lost 2, drew
1, but 1976 comes out higher than 1960 because in that year they also
hosted Ireland for 1 test.
> Or last 50 years, 3 tests, against SA, Aus, 5N & Arg?
That is too much like hard work. But I do have an overall stat for NZ
against those counties less Argentina but plus the Lions in the last 50
years. They have Played 308 Won 227 Lost 70 Drawn 11. The overall
Win/Loss ratio (ie, ignoring draws) against these teams is 76.43%, which
is substantially better than this years 69.23% so far. The AB's overall
Win/Loss ratio in all tests in all history is 77.27%, but since 1960 it
is 79.42%.
Apteryx
DC
> DC wrote:
>> Or last 50 years, 3 tests, against SA, Aus, 5N & Arg?
> That is too much like hard work. But I do have an overall stat for NZ
> against those counties less Argentina but plus the Lions in the last 50
> years. They have Played 308 Won 227 Lost 70 Drawn 11.
> The overall
> Win/Loss ratio (ie, ignoring draws) against these teams is 76.43%, which
> is substantially better than this years 69.23% so far.
I would say that is fairly close -- winning 15 games out of 20, vs. 14
games out 20.
It is probably within margin of error if you're using past results to
predict results for any given year.
