Yep, Retallick had a stormer. Immense.Which Tyler wrote:I'm no expert, but they looked like Itoje was high enough, Retallick just kept reading it, and George wasn't getting the ball high enoughMr Mwenda wrote:Harsh call there. Lost it when the lineout disintegrated. Anyone with more technical knowledge see what hge issue was? Just George losing it?
England vs New Zealand
Moderator: Puja
-
- Posts: 3623
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:46 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
-
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:09 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
Less of the optimism you!Renniks wrote:Can we all, please, take a moment to see that we just held NZ to only 16 points, only 1 try, got Barrett worried to the point he's going for DGs
We also looked a completely different team for 30 minutes of that game to what we have for the past 2 years - even just from an intensity point of view!
Penalty count was a huge improvement too!
The fact we can sit here and whinge about the ref in an NZ game is such a huge turn around from where we were last week!
I have to say, I thought the Lawes call was correct. I wonder if he'd got away with it if everyone had been a step up though, rather than just Lawes stood a good pace in front of everyone else in a white shirt, begging the question.
Of course, he deffo gets away with it if its not a try, which is almost as irritating as Danny Care's very clumsy attempts to buy a penalty.
-
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:01 pm
- Location: Haute-Garonne
Re: England vs New Zealand
Exactly, shame Hartley was replaced by George, who didn't have his best game in an England shirt.Peej wrote:Has to be said, England's leadership went to absolute pot after Hartley went off. No composure, wobbly set piece, poor tactics
What can one say about Farrell? Curate's egg is probably fair. A captain? No!
-
- Posts: 3623
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:46 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
Farrell with 10 missed tackles according to ESPN.
Will that get a mention?
Will that get a mention?
-
- Posts: 724
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:12 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
If you're playing on the edge all the time, you're going to miss tackles! Cough coughWaspInWales wrote:Farrell with 10 missed tackles according to ESPN.
Will that get a mention?
- Galfon
- Posts: 4292
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:07 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
Daws: 'I said it at the time - three points is everything. When you're under the posts you take the points and it's those fine margins that we need to get right..'
It depends who calls the shots...surely EJ has a signalling system to override on-pitch panic ?
It depends who calls the shots...surely EJ has a signalling system to override on-pitch panic ?
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9178
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: England vs New Zealand
Faz... 2 good tackles, and directly responsible for a 9 point swing to the ABs.francoisfou wrote:Exactly, shame Hartley was replaced by George, who didn't have his best game in an England shirt.Peej wrote:Has to be said, England's leadership went to absolute pot after Hartley went off. No composure, wobbly set piece, poor tactics
What can one say about Farrell? Curate's egg is probably fair. A captain? No!
Jonny May would have been a better captain in that second half.
Oh,I also had a plea to make. For those who think Underhill's try should have stood... For the love of god's, we need to act with more class than the Saffers did about their last minute penalty last week.
Last edited by Which Tyler on Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 5895
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:42 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
The disallowed try. Lawes was fractionally offside so a penalty was the right call. Shame that every other backfoot offside in the game wasnt called.
England got lucky last week with the TMO. These things do tend to even out over time.
Our line out wasnt great but throwing it to Maro is only going to work some of the time. Kruis was hardly used and Lawes ignored when he came on. Whoever was calling, needs to have a bit of a rethink.
I thought there was much to be pleased about though. We defended well, our workrate was excellent, out fitness stood up, we scrummaged well and we scored 2 very good, albeit contrasting tries. I cannot recall the last time we've driven a maul like that.
England got lucky last week with the TMO. These things do tend to even out over time.
Our line out wasnt great but throwing it to Maro is only going to work some of the time. Kruis was hardly used and Lawes ignored when he came on. Whoever was calling, needs to have a bit of a rethink.
I thought there was much to be pleased about though. We defended well, our workrate was excellent, out fitness stood up, we scrummaged well and we scored 2 very good, albeit contrasting tries. I cannot recall the last time we've driven a maul like that.
-
- Posts: 5895
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:42 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
Bloody hell. Thats more than i thought. His defence is absolute pish. Of course it wont get a mention, at least not by the fatheads on Sky who seem determined to laud his every good effort and disregard the 50% of his game that is so ordinary.WaspInWales wrote:Farrell with 10 missed tackles according to ESPN.
Will that get a mention?
-
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:09 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
Court of Human Rights threw out the remote controlled shock collars.Galfon wrote:Daws: 'I said it at the time - three points is everything. When you're under the posts you take the points and it's those fine margins that we need to get right..'
It depends who calls the shots...surely EJ has a signalling system to override on-pitch panic ?
- Mellsblue
- Posts: 14561
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: England vs New Zealand
You can’t disagree with a call without lacking class? Watching it in a crowded pub I thought it was ok. I’ll bow to those who had a better view of the telly. I’ll also stick to the fact that 99 times out of 100 the 2 inches (nearly beating NZ hyperbole clause invoked) he is offside isn’t given a seconds thought.Which Tyler wrote:Faz... 2 good tackles, and directly responsible for a 9 point swing to the ABs.francoisfou wrote:Exactly, shame Hartley was replaced by George, who didn't have his best game in an England shirt.Peej wrote:Has to be said, England's leadership went to absolute pot after Hartley went off. No composure, wobbly set piece, poor tactics
What can one say about Farrell? Curate's egg is probably fair. A captain? No!
Jonny May would have been a better captain in that second half.
Oh,I also had a plea to make. For those who think Underhill's try should have stood... For the love of god's, we need to act with more class than the Saffers did about their last minute penalty last week.
-
- Posts: 1943
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:34 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
Got away with it last week, done out of it this week that's the way it goes
Wouldn't be too buoyant if I was England, Underhill sets the tone for 20 minutes and everyone follows after that there's plenty of issues.
Wouldn't be too buoyant if I was England, Underhill sets the tone for 20 minutes and everyone follows after that there's plenty of issues.
-
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:15 am
Re: England vs New Zealand
Losing to New Zealand on an offside decision... I didn't even know that rule got used when they played.
-
- Posts: 1756
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:01 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
Wow that really is shockingly highfivepointer wrote:Bloody hell. Thats more than i thought. His defence is absolute pish. Of course it wont get a mention, at least not by the fatheads on Sky who seem determined to laud his every good effort and disregard the 50% of his game that is so ordinary.WaspInWales wrote:Farrell with 10 missed tackles according to ESPN.
Will that get a mention?
- Mellsblue
- Posts: 14561
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: England vs New Zealand
It’ll be interesting to see how he reacts now he has to make the pressure calls. Past behaviour suggests it won’t be his forte. I’ll never forget his tantrum when Robshaw made the (wrong) call against Wales on the World Cup. As I said to my mate at the time, I’d be disappointed if my eldest behaved like that on the rugby field.Galfon wrote:Daws: 'I said it at the time - three points is everything. When you're under the posts you take the points and it's those fine margins that we need to get right..'
It depends who calls the shots...surely EJ has a signalling system to override on-pitch panic ?
- Mellsblue
- Posts: 14561
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: England vs New Zealand
If that stat was next to Ford’s name.....Peej wrote:Wow that really is shockingly highfivepointer wrote:Bloody hell. Thats more than i thought. His defence is absolute pish. Of course it wont get a mention, at least not by the fatheads on Sky who seem determined to laud his every good effort and disregard the 50% of his game that is so ordinary.WaspInWales wrote:Farrell with 10 missed tackles according to ESPN.
Will that get a mention?
The miss on Bin Smuth was criminal. All we’ll hear about, though, is the tackle on Read (which was bloody good).
The thing that annoys me is that all the things you here about him in commentary, match reports or ratings, of you didn’t know any better, you’d think he was a back row player. Not what I’d want from my 10.
-
- Posts: 3406
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:19 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
NZ did what they’ve done all 4Ns which is close the gaps to make the contest more viable. They succeeded and competed well. We should have made a meal of the gap to ensure that we have more advantage as the throwing side but as usual remained mute. Cute from NZ, poor from England.WaspInWales wrote:Yep, Retallick had a stormer. Immense.Which Tyler wrote:I'm no expert, but they looked like Itoje was high enough, Retallick just kept reading it, and George wasn't getting the ball high enoughMr Mwenda wrote:Harsh call there. Lost it when the lineout disintegrated. Anyone with more technical knowledge see what hge issue was? Just George losing it?
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9178
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: England vs New Zealand
Of course you can - last week, the Saffers failed; I really do'nt want us to fail as well.Mellsblue wrote:You can’t disagree with a call without lacking class?
Agreed entirely - in fact, I think I may have said exactly that already.Mellsblue wrote: Watching it in a crowded pub I thought it was ok. I’ll bow to those who had a better view of the telly. I’ll also stick to the fact that 99 times out of 100 the 2 inches (nearly beating NZ hyperbole clause invoked) he is offside isn’t given a seconds thought.
- Oakboy
- Posts: 6373
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am
Re: England vs New Zealand
Surely, George's place has to be questioned? His lineout throwing cost us the match in the cold light of day. The total yardage lost to his poor throws was the difference between defeat and victory.
Yes, there were loads of other issues but sacrificing field position to that extent just can't be acceptable.
Yes, there were loads of other issues but sacrificing field position to that extent just can't be acceptable.
-
- Posts: 1309
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:31 am
Re: England vs New Zealand
To my eyes it looked like Hartley was having his best game for ages (not saying a lot though). It seemed an odd decision to replace him so soon.
-
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:38 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
Rules lawyers appearing all over the place, putting rulers on Lawes feet, but seemingly ignoring the AB swallow diving into the ruck from the side in the background. If the TMO is going to get involved then surely he should point out the first offence.
Anyway, if you'd offered me 15 v 16 at 2.55 i'd have bitten your hand off.
Anyway, if you'd offered me 15 v 16 at 2.55 i'd have bitten your hand off.
- Mellsblue
- Posts: 14561
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: England vs New Zealand
I’m glad someone else also invoked the nearly beating NZ hyperbole clause. I was feeling like I’d made it up.Which Tyler wrote:Of course you can - last week, the Saffers failed; I really do'nt want us to fail as well.Mellsblue wrote:You can’t disagree with a call without lacking class?Agreed entirely - in fact, I think I may have said exactly that already.Mellsblue wrote: Watching it in a crowded pub I thought it was ok. I’ll bow to those who had a better view of the telly. I’ll also stick to the fact that 99 times out of 100 the 2 inches (nearly beating NZ hyperbole clause invoked) he is offside isn’t given a seconds thought.
-
- Posts: 5895
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:42 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
I thought he was going pretty well. Surprised he got taken off at h/t.Beasties wrote:To my eyes it looked like Hartley was having his best game for ages (not saying a lot though). It seemed an odd decision to replace him so soon.
Losing a l/o isnt always down to the hooker. Sometimes the opposition work things out and get a man up to contest. Our problem was in using Maro almost exclusively. It became quite an easy read, particularly as Maro wasnt taking a step back. I'd put it down to poor calling.
On Lawes, yes it was a tough call. You see dozens of incidents every game of players in front of the back foot and liable to penalty. Except unless its about 10 meters from the goal line it is almost never blown.
Rough with the smooth on these things.....
-
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:38 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
England lost because they aren’t very bright. Poor decisions from Farrell, repeating things that aren’t working in the lineout, and brain farts when in scoring positions - it’s been a trait of this team for a while. No one is thinking, or seems capable of it.
Woodward is a twat, but Thinking Clearly Under Pressure won him a World Cup. This lot clearly couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag.
Woodward is a twat, but Thinking Clearly Under Pressure won him a World Cup. This lot clearly couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag.
- canta_brian
- Posts: 1262
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:52 pm
Re: England vs New Zealand
Blimey you’re brave with that last sentence. The Johnny Wilkinson appreciation society may well lynch you for that sort of sentiment.Mellsblue wrote:If that stat was next to Ford’s name.....Peej wrote:Wow that really is shockingly highfivepointer wrote:
Bloody hell. Thats more than i thought. His defence is absolute pish. Of course it wont get a mention, at least not by the fatheads on Sky who seem determined to laud his every good effort and disregard the 50% of his game that is so ordinary.
The miss on Bin Smuth was criminal. All we’ll hear about, though, is the tackle on Read (which was bloody good).
The thing that annoys me is that all the things you here about him in commentary, match reports or ratings, of you didn’t know any better, you’d think he was a back row player. Not what I’d want from my 10.