RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:As much as I take the piss.....Diggers are you going to do a minute by minute breakdown?

Niet. No time I'm afraid

Lizard wrote:England made the tactical error of going 15 points up too early in the game. It goes to show that the All Blacks still don’t really have a replacement for Crotty - things just work better when he is there without him doing anything noticeable.

Also, you can’t really blame 1 ref’s call when you shit away a third of your lineout ball and miss a quarter of your tackles.

This 100%. Engerland didn’t lose the game on that call, if they had adapted better and not made poor decisions it wouldn’t have mattered. Still, a step up in intensity so far in the AIs after a series of bright starts and dozing off after 20 mins earlier in the year, perhaps there’s something in the beastings after All?

Your first 20 minutes was still your best 20 though.

I think we should give ourselves some credit. We didn’t play brilliantly and there’s lots to work on but when was the last time NZ scored less than 20 points or only one try?

Had the scores been reversed, it wouldn’t have been unfair but I have no quarrel with the disallowed try.

On the other hand, I’m wondering whether a 1 point defeat is the worst possible result we could have had as it suggests we’re better than we are and allows Eddie to continue papering over obvious cracks.

Scrumhead wrote:I think we should give ourselves some credit. We didn’t play brilliantly and there’s lots to work on but when was the last time NZ scored less than 20 points or only one try?

Had the scores been reversed, it wouldn’t have been unfair but I have no quarrel with the disallowed try.

On the other hand, I’m wondering whether a 1 point defeat is the worst possible result we could have had as it suggests we’re better than we are and allows Eddie to continue papering over obvious cracks.

It is a bit like our winning run when we snatched quite a few victories at the death without playing well. I did paper over cracks. However, losing by one to NZ is better than beating Wales with a last minute try. I think we played very well, bar the lineout. I just worry that we are now going to think that limited game plan will win us a World Cup.

Mellsblue wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I think we should give ourselves some credit. We didn’t play brilliantly and there’s lots to work on but when was the last time NZ scored less than 20 points or only one try?

Had the scores been reversed, it wouldn’t have been unfair but I have no quarrel with the disallowed try.

On the other hand, I’m wondering whether a 1 point defeat is the worst possible result we could have had as it suggests we’re better than we are and allows Eddie to continue papering over obvious cracks.

It is a bit like our winning run when we snatched quite a few victories at the death without playing well. I did paper over cracks. However, losing by one to NZ is better than beating Wales with a last minute try. I think we played very well, bar the lineout. I just worry that we are now going to think that limited game plan will win us a World Cup.

It'll be fine, we just need it to rain for the duration of the WC.

Mellsblue wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I think we should give ourselves some credit. We didn’t play brilliantly and there’s lots to work on but when was the last time NZ scored less than 20 points or only one try?

Had the scores been reversed, it wouldn’t have been unfair but I have no quarrel with the disallowed try.

On the other hand, I’m wondering whether a 1 point defeat is the worst possible result we could have had as it suggests we’re better than we are and allows Eddie to continue papering over obvious cracks.

It is a bit like our winning run when we snatched quite a few victories at the death without playing well. I did paper over cracks. However, losing by one to NZ is better than beating Wales with a last minute try. I think we played very well, bar the lineout. I just worry that we are now going to think that limited game plan will win us a World Cup.

Let's say we improve at that limited game plan by 15% between now and the RWC
(Even a return to some injured players could do that easily)

Would that not be enough to beat anyone in the world?

Scrumhead wrote:...when was the last time NZ scored less than 20 points or only one try?

Last year.

NZ’s last <20 score was 21 Oct 2017, losing a dead rubber v Australia.

Last test with 1 or fewer tries was 0 tries in the loss to the 2017 Lions.

Renniks wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I think we should give ourselves some credit. We didn’t play brilliantly and there’s lots to work on but when was the last time NZ scored less than 20 points or only one try?

Had the scores been reversed, it wouldn’t have been unfair but I have no quarrel with the disallowed try.

On the other hand, I’m wondering whether a 1 point defeat is the worst possible result we could have had as it suggests we’re better than we are and allows Eddie to continue papering over obvious cracks.

It is a bit like our winning run when we snatched quite a few victories at the death without playing well. I did paper over cracks. However, losing by one to NZ is better than beating Wales with a last minute try. I think we played very well, bar the lineout. I just worry that we are now going to think that limited game plan will win us a World Cup.

Let's say we improve at that limited game plan by 15% between now and the RWC
(Even a return to some injured players could do that easily)

Would that not be enough to beat anyone in the world?

I agree with your first sentence. I think the answer to the second is a straightforward no.

Having Mako, Launchbury, Robshaw and Billy back would make a big difference to the pack and a fit Tuilagi and Watson would certainly help. However, I don’t think we have the consistency, quality or decision-making/on-field leadership to be world beaters.

Lizard wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:...when was the last time NZ scored less than 20 points or only one try?

Last year.

NZ’s last <20 score was 21 Oct 2017, losing a dead rubber v Australia.

Last test with 1 or fewer tries was 0 tries in the loss to the 2017 Lions.

OK - thanks. More recently than I thought, but certainly a small percentage of their games.

Scrumhead wrote: Having Mako, Launchbury, Robshaw and Billy back would make a big difference to the pack and a fit Tuilagi and Watson would certainly help. However, I don’t think we have the consistency, quality or decision-making/on-field leadership to be world beaters.

Agreed. Also, if we discount Tuilagi (as a long-term sick-note) that leaves 5 significant injury absences. Can any international head-coach reasonably rely on less? It seems about par.


Being even more pedantic, I could argue that Robshaw ought to be fairly easily replaceable if only Jones would make the right selection!!!

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Renniks wrote:I think I remember Te'o carrying a couple of times!

I’m no fan but he carried well when everyone who has watched more than 5 mins of rugby knew he was going to get the ball running back against the grain. That includes the four NZ defenders waiting for him.

Which takes me nicely on to how one dimensional we were. As I said pre-match, our current game plan might win us one if marches against the big boys but it won’t win us the RWC.

We were helped by the appalling weather bringing the level down and allowing us to drag them into a dog fight.

Notable that Ford came on and within minutes, we had worked an overlap twice and Jonny May was free up the middle. If we must have Farrell, we need him at 12 where he isn't the first decision-maker and he can be the option that Ford pulls out the back. That will mean no Slade, but he's hardly laid down a marker.

Puja

I do agree with your point about the weather but also saw this.

Scrumhead wrote:

Renniks wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: It is a bit like our winning run when we snatched quite a few victories at the death without playing well. I did paper over cracks. However, losing by one to NZ is better than beating Wales with a last minute try. I think we played very well, bar the lineout. I just worry that we are now going to think that limited game plan will win us a World Cup.

Let's say we improve at that limited game plan by 15% between now and the RWC
(Even a return to some injured players could do that easily)

Would that not be enough to beat anyone in the world?

I agree with your first sentence. I think the answer to the second is a straightforward no.

Having Mako, Launchbury, Robshaw and Billy back would make a big difference to the pack and a fit Tuilagi and Watson would certainly help. However, I don’t think we have the consistency, quality or decision-making/on-field leadership to be world beaters.

Im not sure we have 15% in us. Winning week in week playing that way is difficult. You need to be 100% every game for all the 80mins, and pray that you don’t go behind. That team won’t score many tries other than up front and a bit of magic from the back three. That’s not enough for me. Let’s face facts, as well as we played, we lost at home in favourable conditions. We also only/luckily beat SA.
Arguably, with the scrumhalfs we have and the insistence of Farrell at 10, it’s our best hope. However, it’s not much of a hope, for me.

15% is an awfully optimistic figure to improve by.
I'm sure we can improve - having our best players available would help - but even when everyone is fit you look at certain positions and wonder if they really are good enough.

twitchy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I’m no fan but he carried well when everyone who has watched more than 5 mins of rugby knew he was going to get the ball running back against the grain. That includes the four NZ defenders waiting for him.

Which takes me nicely on to how one dimensional we were. As I said pre-match, our current game plan might win us one if marches against the big boys but it won’t win us the RWC.

We were helped by the appalling weather bringing the level down and allowing us to drag them into a dog fight.

Notable that Ford came on and within minutes, we had worked an overlap twice and Jonny May was free up the middle. If we must have Farrell, we need him at 12 where he isn't the first decision-maker and he can be the option that Ford pulls out the back. That will mean no Slade, but he's hardly laid down a marker.

Puja

I do agree with your point about the weather but also saw this.

The point is that the slippery ball levels the playing field. The kiwis are more skillful than us and that’s not so obvious when they can’t play such an expansive game.

I agree I just didn't realise it rained so much over there.

Ah,ok. But, yeah, the Kiwis are well used to the slippery ball.

It's the best AI game for a while, but the rain may have helped us more than a little

fivepointer wrote:15% is an awfully optimistic figure to improve by.
I'm sure we can improve - having our best players available would help - but even when everyone is fit you look at certain positions and wonder if they really are good enough.

If everyone improves by 1%, we're sorted.

WaspInWales wrote:

fivepointer wrote:15% is an awfully optimistic figure to improve by.
I'm sure we can improve - having our best players available would help - but even when everyone is fit you look at certain positions and wonder if they really are good enough.

If everyone improves by 1%, we're sorted.

That's not really how percentages work. That would just make the team 1% better.

Puja

Puja wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

fivepointer wrote:15% is an awfully optimistic figure to improve by.
I'm sure we can improve - having our best players available would help - but even when everyone is fit you look at certain positions and wonder if they really are good enough.

If everyone improves by 1%, we're sorted.

That's not really how percentages work. That would just make the team 1% better.

Puja

Guess I was being too subtle

How about if Farrell isn't selected, how much would that improve the team by? Expressed in a percentage, fraction and a decimal please.

WaspInWales wrote:

Puja wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
If everyone improves by 1%, we're sorted.

That's not really how percentages work. That would just make the team 1% better.

Puja

Guess I was being too subtle

How about if Farrell isn't selected, how much would that improve the team by? Expressed in a percentage, fraction and a decimal please.

It would raise the temperature of the team above zero.

Puja wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

fivepointer wrote:15% is an awfully optimistic figure to improve by.
I'm sure we can improve - having our best players available would help - but even when everyone is fit you look at certain positions and wonder if they really are good enough.

If everyone improves by 1%, we're sorted.

That's not really how percentages work. That would just make the team 1% better.

Puja

You’re one cold-hearted SOB, Puja.

WaspInWales wrote: How about if Farrell isn't selected, . . ?

How dare you make such a suggestion? That is not PC. You are in danger of being guilty of Farrelism for even thinking so. Remember, we on RR are all dinosaurs. The pundits cannot be wrong . . . can they?

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
If everyone improves by 1%, we're sorted.

That's not really how percentages work. That would just make the team 1% better.

Puja

You’re one cold-hearted SOB, Puja.

He's Farrellesque