Why has it been so long since NZ played England?

[J Dory]

I was looking for the last match on youtube, November 2014. How did that happen? Give us competition between the top teams damn it.

[cashead]

Like the Hillary Shield?

[zer0]

Well, 2015 was a RWC year and 2016/2017 saw the RFU running scared. Pretty simple really.

[Which Tyler]

Because NZ wanted lots of money, and England were only willing to offer some money.
NZ don't want to host England in case England "request" money

[cashead]

England did offer to do a test match this year, but they tried to muscle in on the Barbarians test. Fuck off, like.

[rowan]

Barbarians test?

[rowan]

Because NZ wanted lots of money, and England were only willing to offer some money.
NZ don't want to host England in case England "request" money

I think this is the correct answer. It's really strange they haven't met lately and there were definitely some issues over the match proceeds a few years back. Funny that. Sounds like a familiar story

Would've been a cracking match though. Instead we just got to see NZ rack up a few entirely predictable wins.

[Which Tyler]

England did offer to do a test match this year, but they tried to muscle in on the Barbarians test. Fuck off, like.

Yup, that too; including that the NZRU were right to tell England to f off

[Digby]

I rather like there's a gap between games, it sees people actually wanting to see the match take place rather than going though the motions of yet another game Vs Australia

[rowan]

I think there is too much rugby among the elite nations and this is why I have lost interest in tier 1 between World Cups, for the most part. I understand it's not football and only the big games will fill a stadium, but most of the time I couldn't care less anymore having seen it all literally dozens of times before. Even so, NZ v England would definitely have been THE match of the AIs, if only there had been one.

[morepork]

This year we were pushed pretty hard. Scotland nearly fucking won, and only a Barrett cover tackle saved us.

[Spy]

We're seeing a change where the NH teams are, IMO, better sides than our SH opposition. For pretty much the entire professional era, in fact pretty much the history of rugby, the 3 major SH sides have been more-or-less the best teams in the world (yeah, England 2000-03 notwithstanding). There'd be a battle for the 3N/RC, and heading north at the end of the season was a series of relatively easier fixtures. That's not been the case for the past couple of years. Australia and South Africa are not as strong as England & Ireland, and it was pretty clear that Wales and Scotland are also very decent teams. I think it's an interesting time.

[scuzzaman]

England have managed the rare feat of demoting the gap between first and second in the international rankings. For most of the time the rankings have been in place NZ have been number 1 and the gap between 1st and 2nd has been the biggest gap on the table.

But England are now so close to NZ that the gap between 2nd and 3rd is now larger than between 1st and 2nd, and the largest gap to be seen for a long way down the table.

(The gap between 1st and 2nd, while smaller, is still only marginally so, but it is up the table, not down.)

[rowan]

We're seeing a change where the NH teams are, IMO, better sides than our SH opposition. For pretty much the entire professional era, in fact pretty much the history of rugby, the 3 major SH sides have been more-or-less the best teams in the world (yeah, England 2000-03 notwithstanding). There'd be a battle for the 3N/RC, and heading north at the end of the season was a series of relatively easier fixtures. That's not been the case for the past couple of years. Australia and South Africa are not as strong as England & Ireland, and it was pretty clear that Wales and Scotland are also very decent teams. I think it's an interesting time.

Yes, this was especially apparent at the last World Cup. Everybody said it was going to be an England v Ireland final because the AIs showed the NH was much better than the SH and nobody remembered the Summer tours (or wanted to). So it was obvious to them that even Italy, Scotland and Wales would smash the All Blacks at the World Cup, while England and Ireland were obviously miles ahead of SA and Australia and would duly kick their backsides when it really mattered - at the World Cup.

But England are now so close to NZ that the gap between 2nd and 3rd is now larger than between 1st and 2nd, and the largest gap to be seen for a long way down the table.

Probably because they haven't played them

[cashead]

Who's "everybody?"

[Spy]

We're seeing a change where the NH teams are, IMO, better sides than our SH opposition. For pretty much the entire professional era, in fact pretty much the history of rugby, the 3 major SH sides have been more-or-less the best teams in the world (yeah, England 2000-03 notwithstanding). There'd be a battle for the 3N/RC, and heading north at the end of the season was a series of relatively easier fixtures. That's not been the case for the past couple of years. Australia and South Africa are not as strong as England & Ireland, and it was pretty clear that Wales and Scotland are also very decent teams. I think it's an interesting time.

Yes, this was especially apparent at the last World Cup. Everybody said it was going to be an England v Ireland final because the AIs showed the NH was much better than the SH and nobody remembered the Summer tours (or wanted to). So it was obvious to them that even Italy, Scotland and Wales would smash the All Blacks at the World Cup, while England and Ireland were obviously miles ahead of SA and Australia and would duly kick their backsides when it really mattered - at the World Cup.

I don't recall anyone saying anything like that at all.

[Which Tyler]

Yes, this was especially apparent at the last World Cup. Everybody said it was going to be an England v Ireland final because the AIs showed the NH was much better than the SH and nobody remembered the Summer tours (or wanted to). So it was obvious to them that even Italy, Scotland and Wales would smash the All Blacks at the World Cup, while England and Ireland were obviously miles ahead of SA and Australia and would duly kick their backsides when it really mattered - at the World Cup.

Did... the Orange Cockwomble tell you this? backed up by Brietbart?

[Stones of granite]

I think you'll probably find that Rowan is feeling a little neglected, and has decided to inject some of his famous "humour" into this thread in order to get us to talk about him again.

[Puja]

It's at times like this that I'm glad to not be able to see Rowan's posts. Although it'd be better still if you didn't all quote the more egregious ones!

Going back to the original question, we were discussing this on the EMB when someone was insisting that, if there were no Lions, England would've toured NZ instead and we had to point out that there were other nations who might want a turn first. I think the answer is that England had got a lot of games against NZ (6 in 3 years, IIRC?) by 2014 and there's only so much All Black to go around. After the debacle of 2015, you'd've been laughed at if you'd suggested England would pretend to number 1 this quickly, and so there wasn't any particular urgency to organise Eng vs NZ for 16 or 17 from either side - NZ because they had other fish to fry and England because they didn't particularly want to get spanked.

I quite like us having the gap - it adds anticipation and also gives us more of a chance to build into being worthy of the hype.

The 6N should be a very interesting tournament - if Scotland and Wales can keep their players fit, then it's likely to be the biggest test that England have faced under Jones, even more so than the Australia tour. Of course we won't know where we stand till the November game against the ABs, but I think the prize on the line in the 6N is definitely to be known as best of the rest.

Puja

[cashead]

We're seeing a change where the NH teams are, IMO, better sides than our SH opposition. For pretty much the entire professional era, in fact pretty much the history of rugby, the 3 major SH sides have been more-or-less the best teams in the world (yeah, England 2000-03 notwithstanding). There'd be a battle for the 3N/RC, and heading north at the end of the season was a series of relatively easier fixtures. That's not been the case for the past couple of years. Australia and South Africa are not as strong as England & Ireland, and it was pretty clear that Wales and Scotland are also very decent teams. I think it's an interesting time.

Yes, this was especially apparent at the last World Cup. Everybody said it was going to be an England v Ireland final because the AIs showed the NH was much better than the SH and nobody remembered the Summer tours (or wanted to). So it was obvious to them that even Italy, Scotland and Wales would smash the All Blacks at the World Cup, while England and Ireland were obviously miles ahead of SA and Australia and would duly kick their backsides when it really mattered - at the World Cup.

I don't recall anyone saying anything like that at all.

Hell, I said that Ireland could be dark horses, and failing to go beyond the quarters would be a failure for them, but of course, I didn't account for 1/3 of their starting XV being either injured or suspended during the pool stages. In retrospect, they did well to come so close to beating Argentina in the quarterfinals considering their injury toll and the loss of O'Brien due to an entirely self-inflicted suspension.

[rowan]

Of course you did! Everybody knew it was going to be an all-SH final. What kind of idiot would have thought otherwise? I distinctly recall how absolutely everybody was saying it was going to be an NZ, Oz, SA, Arg finish and nobody even raised the propspect of a 6 Nations team reaching the semis.

Well, nobody except the NH press, of course...

[zer0]

Not even a nibble. Very disappointing. Few years ago I would've netted Beefy and maybe one or two others.

[Puja]

Not even a nibble. Very disappointing. Few years ago I would've netted Beefy and maybe one or two others.

Yeah, if you're going on the WUM, maybe try picking something that's not actually true!

Puja

[scuzzaman]

If there's any merit at all to the rankings system (and yes, that could be debated, but as a mechanism designed to reward consistently superior performance I think it does an OK job, whatever its faults), then England deserve their second place ranking and the reduced gap between 1st and 2nd is a significant event.

After all, Australia and South Africa have both spent significant time in 2nd place, without being able to achieve this rather simple but telling feat.

As mentioned by others above, I'm also of the view that the longer gap between tests makes this match-up a lot more suspenseful and interesting. By way of contrast another game against Australia or South Africa would not be of much interest. I'd definitely catch the YouTube highlights if we hammered them by 100 points, but otherwise, why bother?

[Mellsblue]

After all, Australia and South Africa have both spent significant time in 2nd place, without being able to achieve this rather simple but telling feat.

Isn’t this just because SA and Oz have the misfortune to play and lose to NZ on a regular basis. England, on the other hand, haven’t played NZ even once in their rise to their current points total. If we (Eng) had spent the past two years in the Championship I don’t think we’d be so close.