NZ vs England - round 2

[Mellsblue]

The attack has been poor. A few pretty first phase moves is not enough, surprisingly. I’m not sure Lawrence is the answer and I’ve become certain Slade isn’t.

[Banquo]

The attack has been poor. A few pretty first phase moves is not enough, surprisingly. I’m not sure Lawrence is the answer and I’ve become certain Slade isn’t.

Yep we need to use our talented back three options better, two good tries notwithstanding.

[FKAS]

No idea why we took Smith off.

Because he looked tired and was kicking the ball away? Looked good once he'd had a quick break on the sidelines. Nit sure Fin Smith added a great deal sadly. Looked solid but there was his chance to show off his box of tricks.

You’d have to take quite a few of the backs off for kicking the ball away if that’s the case. Poor decsion, imo.

In hindsight perhaps but we also went through a period of near dominance where Marcus couldn't get the scoreboard moving on at the rate required. Lack of patience and poor execution, not all of it Marcus but certainly some of it. Freshening up the 10 to try and give us something different was a good shout as the tide was turning very much in the Kiwi favour.

[FKAS]

The attack has been poor. A few pretty first phase moves is not enough, surprisingly. I’m not sure Lawrence is the answer and I’ve become certain Slade isn’t.

Yep we need to use our talented back three options better, two good tries notwithstanding.

Lack of patience, we don't go through enough phases. There's not enough phases for their defence to shorten and bring our back three into the game more in the wide channels.

[Banquo]

The attack has been poor. A few pretty first phase moves is not enough, surprisingly. I’m not sure Lawrence is the answer and I’ve become certain Slade isn’t.

Yep we need to use our talented back three options better, two good tries notwithstanding.

Lack of patience, we don't go through enough phases. There's not enough phases for their defence to shorten and bring our back three into the game more in the wide channels.

Also lack of penetration tbh. Not enough dents up front either, though in fairness Martin did a shift.

[Mellsblue]

Because he looked tired and was kicking the ball away? Looked good once he'd had a quick break on the sidelines. Nit sure Fin Smith added a great deal sadly. Looked solid but there was his chance to show off his box of tricks.

You’d have to take quite a few of the backs off for kicking the ball away if that’s the case. Poor decsion, imo.

In hindsight perhaps but we also went through a period of near dominance where Marcus couldn't get the scoreboard moving on at the rate required. Lack of patience and poor execution, not all of it Marcus but certainly some of it. Freshening up the 10 to try and give us something different was a good shout as the tide was turning very much in the Kiwi favour.

Was that M. Smith’s fault or repeated silly errors from all? If we’re using hindsight it’s a poor decision as F. Smith did even less to get the scoreboard moving.

[Banquo]

George must be absolutely shagged out. Topped the tackle count two weeks in a row.

[Mellsblue]

The attack has been poor. A few pretty first phase moves is not enough, surprisingly. I’m not sure Lawrence is the answer and I’ve become certain Slade isn’t.

Yep we need to use our talented back three options better, two good tries notwithstanding.

Lack of patience, we don't go through enough phases. There's not enough phases for their defence to shorten and bring our back three into the game more in the wide channels.

Perhaps a function of so many turnovers last week. See also so many KADABs.
Tbh, you need to be able to put your back three in space regardless of whether the defence are too tight/ short of numbers. Give 1:1 chances and all three wingers will make their own space.
Centres and attack coach need a rethink, imo.

[Mellsblue]

George must be absolutely shagged out. Topped the tackle count two weeks in a row.

Captain’s stint. Still quality even if he’s lost a kilometre of pace.

[Beasties]

Fair play to the ABs - they turned up the heat when they needed it. Still, England could have nicked that game with better decision making. Poor old Steward looked out of it at this level with his lack of gas and agility. England really needs a good 12 with power/hands/rugby brains. The balance of the starting back row does not look quite right.
But they gave it a good thrash.

I really felt for Steward out there today. He was made to look like a cart horse by clever NZ play, and he’s a better player than that. What completely baffled me was that Borthwick took Smith off and left Steward on. We really missed Furbank today and his constant threat.

Fair play to NZ though, they really kept the pace up and forced tired mistakes out of Eng as the second half ebbed away. Frustrating, but work in progress.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Decent game. Both teams made it scrappy for each other. ABs disrupted our ball and flow well. Couple of contentious decisions, but that’s rugby.

Main concerns were the bench again and having so much territory for spells in both halves and getting next to fuck all from it. Not a million miles away, but still some big flaws to iron out.

Decision making was dire in the last 20 and we gave them too many easy outs.

Agreed; add in some ropey execution, especially at the line, but more than just that.

Still better overall though.

[Banquo]

Decent game. Both teams made it scrappy for each other. ABs disrupted our ball and flow well. Couple of contentious decisions, but that’s rugby.

Main concerns were the bench again and having so much territory for spells in both halves and getting next to fuck all from it. Not a million miles away, but still some big flaws to iron out.

Decision making was dire in the last 20 and we gave them too many easy outs.

Agreed; add in some ropey execution, especially at the line, but more than just that.

Still better overall though.

Yep keener to play with some pace and ambition.

[Oakboy]

The NZ back row was so good that I'm struggling to assess ours. Was Underhill injured?

[Mellsblue]

The NZ back row was so good that I'm struggling to assess ours. Was Underhill injured?

Usually the answer to that question is yes but this time I don’t think so.
T Cuzza should’ve been left at home to holiday and rehab.

[Puja]

The NZ back row was so good that I'm struggling to assess ours. Was Underhill injured?

Usually the answer to that question is yes but this time I don’t think so.
T Cuzza should’ve been left at home to holiday and rehab.

Felt like he was tbh. Didn't notice a positive impact from him when he came on.

Puja

[Scrumhead]

Yep. No impact across either test apart from giving away a sloppy penalty last week.

Should have been left at home. To be fair, I don’t think anyone here was advocating him being picked.

[Banquo]

Yep. No impact across either test apart from giving away a sloppy penalty last week.

Should have been left at home. To be fair, I don’t think anyone here was advocating him being picked.

Negative impact bench bar Sleightholme and possibly Cole.

Baxter and Sleightholme big bonuses on tour.

[Scrumhead]

Yep. Excluding Baxter, the bench was very poor in both games.

[Oakboy]

The NZ back row was so good that I'm struggling to assess ours. Was Underhill injured?

Usually the answer to that question is yes but this time I don’t think so.
T Cuzza should’ve been left at home to holiday and rehab.

Agreed. I think Coles for CCS at 6 is a massive drop in standard. Having both Earl and Underhill in the back row remains debatable. I still believe that Roots as a physical impact replacement should have been ahead of Curry (in current condition). Picking Dombrandt and both Currys for the tour was a mistake.

I'd not be surprised if quite a few squad members miss out on the AIs.

[Banquo]

Yep. Excluding Baxter, the bench was very poor in both games.

I guess the upside is that you can see upgrades for most of the bench. Genge, Chessum, JVP for a start.

[Banquo]

The NZ back row was so good that I'm struggling to assess ours. Was Underhill injured?

Usually the answer to that question is yes but this time I don’t think so.
T Cuzza should’ve been left at home to holiday and rehab.

Agreed. I think Coles for CCS at 6 is a massive drop in standard. Having both Earl and Underhill in the back row remains debatable. I still believe that Roots as a physical impact replacement should have been ahead of Curry (in current condition). Picking Dombrandt and both Currys for the tour was a mistake.

I'd not be surprised if quite a few squad members miss out on the AIs.

Coles v CCS shouldn’t even be a comparison tbh, very different players.

A CCS and Earl combo with an 8 tbc would be worth a look. Earl was a curates egg in NZ I thought.

[Puja]

The NZ back row was so good that I'm struggling to assess ours. Was Underhill injured?

Usually the answer to that question is yes but this time I don’t think so.
T Cuzza should’ve been left at home to holiday and rehab.

Agreed. I think Coles for CCS at 6 is a massive drop in standard. Having both Earl and Underhill in the back row remains debatable. I still believe that Roots as a physical impact replacement should have been ahead of Curry (in current condition). Picking Dombrandt and both Currys for the tour was a mistake.

I'd not be surprised if quite a few squad members miss out on the AIs.

I actually think both of these games were made for Dombrandt. Some fast-paced England play, needing a hard-running carrier off Smith's shoulder, and needing extra solidity at the breakdown - that's exactly the situation where you would want him coming off the bench.

Puja

[Banquo]

Usually the answer to that question is yes but this time I don’t think so.
T Cuzza should’ve been left at home to holiday and rehab.

Agreed. I think Coles for CCS at 6 is a massive drop in standard. Having both Earl and Underhill in the back row remains debatable. I still believe that Roots as a physical impact replacement should have been ahead of Curry (in current condition). Picking Dombrandt and both Currys for the tour was a mistake.

I'd not be surprised if quite a few squad members miss out on the AIs.

I actually think both of these games were made for Dombrandt. Some fast-paced England play, needing a hard-running carrier off Smith's shoulder, and needing extra solidity at the breakdown - that's exactly the situation where you would want him coming off the bench.

Puja

He’d have been a better bench pick than curry tbh.

[fivepointer]

SB got it wrong with T Curry. There's a case to be made that neither Curry should have gone, we play Earl as a 7 and bring in T Hill and T Willis. Think that would have given us a better balance.
The SH selection should have included JvP.
Other than that, I think the squad was the right one and we should be pleased to have done some things very well.
Really frustrating that we fell off in the last quarter in both games and that the bench impact was almost entirely negative.

[Oakboy]

SB got it wrong with T Curry. There's a case to be made that neither Curry should have gone, we play Earl as a 7 and bring in T Hill and T Willis. Think that would have given us a better balance.
The SH selection should have included JvP.
Other than that, I think the squad was the right one and we should be pleased to have done some things very well.
Really frustrating that we fell off in the last quarter in both games and that the bench impact was almost entirely negative.

Spot on. I think the SH debate is interesting. A few years back the majority opinion on here was anti-Mitchell. He went from nowhere to RWC replacement and now he is arguably up there with Itoje as our most important player. SB has to put work into the back-up options. JvP and Quirke need to hit the ground running for their clubs in the new season.