Discussion in 'Rugby Union Discussion' started by Hurricane, Jul 8, 2015.
Well said Fiery!
I am not touching that spread. Each day I login to the tab and there it is, unchanged since yesterday, 21.5 points.
If they made it 18.5 I would be in there.
Ireland +8.5 is a goer.
I don't fancy on betting on England for the 3-0 Whitewash - sometimes teams phone it in on a dead rubber and Wallabies might pull one out of the bag.
I Also think George Ford is a poor 1st 5 so yeah,
I agree, 21.5 points has no value. Total points could be a goer when it comes out - especially being under the roof. I managed to jump on the -18.5.
If you had asked me if Aus/ England would clean sweep the other before the series, I would have said no but this Aussie team just doesn't look likely, I know what you're saying and definitely has an impact but the value is definitely still in that England bet more than the Aus.
Some are starting to offer Ireland +9.5 so that is enticing me but I'll wait and see for that one.
Hopefully we'll hear less about how much better the SH rugby sides are than thr NH now.
Unbelievable achievement that
Except that the ABs are still so much better than any NH team
To be fair you won the 3rd game by playing Southern Hemisphere rugby and nearly lost the 2nd game by playing Northern Hemisphere rugby IMHO.
Regardless of Hemisphere's England is one player away from being the best team in the world. Ford is not the answer and shouldn't be in your starting 15 (but should be the bench guy) you need a world class 12. Pump steroids into him, blood doping whatever, get Manu back in the team. As good as Joseph is at number 13, not only can I not recall him making a line break all series but I can't even remember him making the advantage line on any occassion. Still the boy can tackle and doesn't fuck up. So he is a keeper.
Seriously? I would say they're about 20 players away from that if you match up top ABs v Eng lineups on paper and grass.
Probably. But surely you can acknowledge that last year the SH teams were that much better?
Fiery when they came to NZ a few years ago they nearly beat us in the first two tests and if their coach had put out their best line up at any stage they would have.
Lancaster was a boob.
Their forwards are basically as good as ours Fiery.
Yes our backs are better but they have Farrell and his better kicking makes a difference.
So you're saying our forwards and backs are better yet they are only one player away from being the best side in the world? That doesn't compute.
ABs have improved so much since that series anyway. I realise England have too after their woeful World Cup but they're still a distant second behind us.
The only English player who might force his way into the AB side is Farrell at 12 for Crotty to kick goals.
I agree with most of what you have said that I havn't deleted from your quote but still maintain they are one player away from beating us.
They just beat Australia in Australia. Let me repeat that. In Australia. We struggle to beat Australia in Australia. But wait you say they didn't have Toomua. Well they got him back for the 3rd game and still lost. England it was clear to see were a class above Australia.
We have actually gone backwards Fiery since that tour when England came here. And I stand by that the All Blacks have gone back. Why?
They are missing the GOAT. He is a big loss. They are missing Ma'a Nonu and Conrad Smith. Some people are now saying Nonu is the greatest number 12 of all time from an ABs perspective.
Our current centre combinations we trotted out against wales were shit house when you compare them to the class of Nonu and Smith.
The loss of those three players is huge. So we have gone backwards and England have gone massively forward. And they will keep getting better. Luckily for us the England's forwards coach is a bit of a boob whoever he is because Itoje seems to be learning very slowly what it takes to be effective in a maul. Once he does master that say two years from now he will be the best in his position in the world. He is a future IRB world player of the year you can lock that in.
I actually said there forwards are the same as ours not that ours are better. I said the forwards are on par with each other and our backs are better. But give them a world class number 12 and all of that changes. They are one piece of the jigsaw puzzle away.
It is a real pity that we will not be playing them on the end of year tour. So this battle for first in the world may have to wait for some time.
Complicating the matter is the fact the Lions are coming here first. Surely that will be a heavily England centric team. But what a mouth watering Lions team it will be. Surely their best chance ever to beat the ABs.
England's forwards - all 8 of them with this backline
12 Roberts (or will he be too old)
13 Jonathan Davies
Roberts was actually a bit ordinary on this tour and coughed up some pill. So yeah him or someone else at 12.
Our game adapted to the conditions. The second game was played in the wet with the pitch churning up underfoot - in other words classic winter conditions in the NH, if we'd have gone out and played running rugby on that occasion we'd have lost through the weight of unforced errors alone. We showed an ability to grind out a result in conditions where Australia weren't able to punish us with their wide running game, possibly the only area we can say they were better than us over the three matches.
As for the bolded that might be a fairer representation of the last 2 games, of which one can be forgiven given the style of play, but he was very good in the first game. No English player made more breaks and only Mike Brown made more metres with ball in hand.
I wouldn't say much better. I feel the world cup flattered the SH slightly, and if it wasn't for the showing of Argentina it wouldn't have been made such a big deal. I think Australia's set piece and rucking game took everyone by surprise in the group stages but they required a controversial penalty call to beat Scotland - a team that finished dead bottom in last years 6 Nations. South Africa failed to impress in the pool and only narrowly beat Wales in the knock out stages. Don't get me wrong - I felt the 2 best sides got to the final, but it wasn't as comfortable as everyone liked to make out imo.
Even Clive Woodward, who is about as English-biased as you can get says there is daylight between the two sides, [MENTION=2932]Hurricane[/MENTION]
England 2 years behind ABs: Ian McGeechan
I think we could beat NZ in a one off test in England with NZ as favourites, but I wouldn't see us winning any games on a tour there atm. If you look at the two sides I think Itoje makes it in the second row or at 6 if you want to keep the experience there, Farrell would probably make the side at 12 (he offers the - albeit less experienced - midfield stability you had with Conrad Smith and guarantees 90% goal kicking) and then Billy V might get on the bench. I don't think Watson or Nowell lit up especially down under like I hoped they would and Ford is still behind Barrett.
I would take your front row over New Zealand's for sure. Maybe Haskell if he plays like he did versus Australia as well.
Our two locks are the best in the world. Kaino best No. 6 too.
My essential argument is not based on how many of the English team are better than their NZ counterparts. I am talking about the teams being compared to each other.
I think as a unit the English pack is just as good as the New Zealand pack. And with the shit performance of Sam (I am so thick I infringe four times in the same test) Cane I could see plenty of days where we could very easily get out played up front especially now that we no longer have McCaw. I think people are already forgetting how good Ritchie was and what he meant to the team. He was incredible. Sam Cane isn't fit to shine his shoes.
Then you look at the backs. Yes New Zealand's are better at the moment. But give them a world class number 12 and move Farrell to number 10 and watch out. Then she is all on for young and old.
As it is with Farrell's Grant Fox-like kicking I think even with the current line ups if the teams played a 3 test series it would be 2-1 NZ rather than 3-0.
I can see why we are confident. Going back through the annals...England have only beaten us 7 times ever. Strangely we have only played them 42 times.
Itoje has to be in there somewhere. Whitelock and Retallick are great so Kaino misses out.
Separate names with a comma.