England vs New Zealand

[Mikey Brown]

I understand some don’t like it but I feel like seeing the Haka would be incredible.

Swing low is obviously better than the anthem, but singing it over the Haka feels kind of lame. It’s not like the NZ crowd can counter it by being more silent, or they are interrupting our anthem.

[Oakboy]

I understand some don’t like it but I feel like seeing the Haka would be incredible.

Swing low is obviously better than the anthem, but singing it over the Haka feels kind of lame. It’s not like the NZ crowd can counter it by being more silent, or they are interrupting our anthem.

Not sure how I feel about any of it. I suppose the NZ anthem WAS treated respectfully. Does anyone outside NZ view the haka as of anthem status? It seems to me to be just another hangover from amateur traditions. Presumably they need permission to do it in the build-up to every match because the teams must appear on the pitch several minutes earlier to allow for it.

[Stom]

To get back to the match...

What was impressive, for me, was the way in which we reacted to bad luck (and poor mistakes). We didn't fold like England of yesteryear, but stepped up. Ford has a lot to do with this, imo, but it's a whole squad thing, and I think we need to give Slowly Building credit for the culture he has built.

Also, I was delighted with Itoje's captaincy. He is such a mature player, he can talk with the ref cleanly, he demands respect, and he gets responses from his own players. Plus he's just a superb rugby player.

We had some issues defending the wider channels sometimes (well, often), but our scramble was good enough to overcome it. I felt that Roebuck in particular was scared of showing the outside, and then got done on the inside several times. Would the same happen to Arundell or someone else with out and out pace?

Some greater accuracy and we'd have absolutely thrashed NZ.

[oldbackrow]

I understand some don’t like it but I feel like seeing the Haka would be incredible.

Swing low is obviously better than the anthem, but singing it over the Haka feels kind of lame. It’s not like the NZ crowd can counter it by being more silent, or they are interrupting our anthem.

The Haka isn't their anthem though is it? England don't do an 'extra' challenge after the anthems so why would the NZ crowd need to respond?
Yes watching the Haka is a great experience, except nowadays it's virtually every week rather than a couple of times a year.

[Mikey Brown]

I understand some don’t like it but I feel like seeing the Haka would be incredible.

Swing low is obviously better than the anthem, but singing it over the Haka feels kind of lame. It’s not like the NZ crowd can counter it by being more silent, or they are interrupting our anthem.

The Haka isn't their anthem though is it? England don't do an 'extra' challenge after the anthems so why would the NZ crowd need to respond?
Yes watching the Haka is a great experience, except nowadays it's virtually every week rather than a couple of times a year.

I wasn’t trying to claim it’s their anthem, it just seems weird to sing over the top of it.

Did the Haka only used to be done for select games?

But yes, to Stom’s point about leadership it was great to see. Maybe it helped to see how the Scotland game the week before had gone with a similar back forth. Similarly we have a preview of Argentina and how Scotland completely crumbled with their late impacts from the bench.

[twitchy]

Everyone is copying SA.

[Scrumhead]

In terms of 6:2 benches and positional versatility, that’s probably true. It’s not being done in the same way though. With the possible exception of France, no-one can match their player pool of massive physical specimens.

Borthwick is loading his bench with versatile players that bring impact, but it’s not like the South African’s at all. We don’t have the beasts you need to play a power game, but we do have lots of pace and mobility. In other words - similar concept but totally different execution.

It’s no different to trends in football formations. Everyone plays 4-4-2, the 3-5-2 etc.

[Mellsblue]

Just need to be setting the trend rather than following…

[Oakboy]

Just need to be setting the trend rather than following…

True but define 'trend'. Our 6:2 is a new approach in terms of the type of player coming on. Circumstances disrupt too. Might Ford not have done 80, for example, had Steward not been injured?

I hope Pollock will get a start soon but beyond that SB IS making better use of his playing resources than any other HC we've had. Arguably, for the first time ever, we have at least two feasible choices for every shirt. They are not all equal strength choices (nobody can step into Itoje's shoes) but we are getting there.

SB deserves credit for significantly improving his coaching staff quality too.

[morepork]

England looking pretty good tbh. Well done Slarti Bartfasty.
Are NZ turning into the old England?

[Which Tyler]

Slarti Bartfast.

I think we have a winner

[Mellsblue]

Just need to be setting the trend rather than following…

True but define 'trend'. Our 6:2 is a new approach in terms of the type of player coming on. Circumstances disrupt too. Might Ford not have done 80, for example, had Steward not been injured?

I hope Pollock will get a start soon but beyond that SB IS making better use of his playing resources than any other HC we've had. Arguably, for the first time ever, we have at least two feasible choices for every shirt. They are not all equal strength choices (nobody can step into Itoje's shoes) but we are getting there.

SB deserves credit for significantly improving his coaching staff quantity too.

This is uncharacteristically positive of you, Dors. And on a Monday.

I’m not sure it is a new type of player. Bringing on your best front row is straight of of Rassie’s playbook, as is bringing on high energy backrow players.

I’d disagree on us having two feasible choices for every shirt, depending on how you define feasible. 9 & 12 don’t need me to state my case, plus I’d add 2. I love George but if there was anyone waiting in the wings who could play test standard rugby he’d have been pensioned off by now so as to get his successor ready for the next World Cup. I’d also argue 15. Were relying on too flawed players in Steward and, to lesser extent, Furbank and the aging Daly who had a few good matches at 15 and is now our great hope at 32/33 despite never really impressing for England at 15.

Fixed your typo re Bortheick’s assistants

[Oakboy]

Just need to be setting the trend rather than following…

True but define 'trend'. Our 6:2 is a new approach in terms of the type of player coming on. Circumstances disrupt too. Might Ford not have done 80, for example, had Steward not been injured?

I hope Pollock will get a start soon but beyond that SB IS making better use of his playing resources than any other HC we've had. Arguably, for the first time ever, we have at least two feasible choices for every shirt. They are not all equal strength choices (nobody can step into Itoje's shoes) but we are getting there.

SB deserves credit for significantly improving his coaching staff quantity too.

This is uncharacteristically positive of you, Dors. And on a Monday.

I’m not sure it is a new type of player. Bringing on your best front row is straight of of Rassie’s playbook, as is bringing on high energy backrow players.

I’d disagree on us having two feasible choices for every shirt, depending on how you define feasible. 9 & 12 don’t need me to state my case, plus I’d add 2. I love George but if there was anyone waiting in the wings who could play test standard rugby he’d have been pensioned off by now so as to get his successor ready for the next World Cup. I’d also argue 15. Were relying on too flawed players in Steward and, to lesser extent, Furbank and the aging Daly who had a few good matches at 15 and is now our great hope at 32/33 despite never really impressing for England at 15.

Fixed your typo re Bortheick’s assistants

12 - (Dingwall), Atkinson, Lawrence, Slade, Woodward, Farrell.
15 - (Furbank), Steward, Carpenter, Marcus, Slade, Arundell, Freeman, de Glanville

Not top notch options but solid back-up ones. I'd cheerfully play Quirke at 9.

2 is an issue but I'd back Tuipulotu to be there by 2027.

The biggest back-up gap is 2nd row and the worst flow blockage from the under 20s.

Pollock may not endear himself to some, but he does indicate that forwards can be realistically competitive at a younger age than traditionally accepted.

You accuse me of being positive. Sorry about that but I'm more optimistic than at any time since 2003. And, I did not rate SB when he succeeded the horrible Australian.

[Mellsblue]

True but define 'trend'. Our 6:2 is a new approach in terms of the type of player coming on. Circumstances disrupt too. Might Ford not have done 80, for example, had Steward not been injured?

I hope Pollock will get a start soon but beyond that SB IS making better use of his playing resources than any other HC we've had. Arguably, for the first time ever, we have at least two feasible choices for every shirt. They are not all equal strength choices (nobody can step into Itoje's shoes) but we are getting there.

SB deserves credit for significantly improving his coaching staff quantity too.

This is uncharacteristically positive of you, Dors. And on a Monday.

I’m not sure it is a new type of player. Bringing on your best front row is straight of of Rassie’s playbook, as is bringing on high energy backrow players.

I’d disagree on us having two feasible choices for every shirt, depending on how you define feasible. 9 & 12 don’t need me to state my case, plus I’d add 2. I love George but if there was anyone waiting in the wings who could play test standard rugby he’d have been pensioned off by now so as to get his successor ready for the next World Cup. I’d also argue 15. Were relying on too flawed players in Steward and, to lesser extent, Furbank and the aging Daly who had a few good matches at 15 and is now our great hope at 32/33 despite never really impressing for England at 15.

Fixed your typo re Bortheick’s assistants

12 - (Dingwall), Atkinson, Lawrence, Slade, Woodward, Farrell.
15 - (Furbank), Steward, Carpenter, Marcus, Slade, Arundell, Freeman, de Glanville

Not top notch options but solid back-up ones. I'd cheerfully play Quirke at 9.

2 is an issue but I'd back Tuipulotu to be there by 2027.

The biggest back-up gap is 2nd row and the worst flow blockage from the under 20s.

Pollock may not endear himself to some, but he does indicate that forwards can be realistically competitive at a younger age than traditionally accepted.

You accuse me of being positive. Sorry about that but I'm more optimistic than at any time since 2003. And, I did not rate SB when he succeeded the horrible Australian.

So, we differ on what is classed as feasible.

Dors, I love that you’re feeling positive. It warms my cockles. I also feel quite positive I just think there’s a long way to go to build a bomb proof squad (see what I did there).

[Stom]

This is uncharacteristically positive of you, Dors. And on a Monday.

I’m not sure it is a new type of player. Bringing on your best front row is straight of of Rassie’s playbook, as is bringing on high energy backrow players.

I’d disagree on us having two feasible choices for every shirt, depending on how you define feasible. 9 & 12 don’t need me to state my case, plus I’d add 2. I love George but if there was anyone waiting in the wings who could play test standard rugby he’d have been pensioned off by now so as to get his successor ready for the next World Cup. I’d also argue 15. Were relying on too flawed players in Steward and, to lesser extent, Furbank and the aging Daly who had a few good matches at 15 and is now our great hope at 32/33 despite never really impressing for England at 15.

Fixed your typo re Bortheick’s assistants

12 - (Dingwall), Atkinson, Lawrence, Slade, Woodward, Farrell.
15 - (Furbank), Steward, Carpenter, Marcus, Slade, Arundell, Freeman, de Glanville

Not top notch options but solid back-up ones. I'd cheerfully play Quirke at 9.

2 is an issue but I'd back Tuipulotu to be there by 2027.

The biggest back-up gap is 2nd row and the worst flow blockage from the under 20s.

Pollock may not endear himself to some, but he does indicate that forwards can be realistically competitive at a younger age than traditionally accepted.

You accuse me of being positive. Sorry about that but I'm more optimistic than at any time since 2003. And, I did not rate SB when he succeeded the horrible Australian.

So, we differ on what is classed as feasible.

Dors, I love that you’re feeling positive. It warms my cockles. I also feel quite positive I just think there’s a long way to go to build a bomb proof squad (see what I did there).

I agree with you. However, for all his faults at 15, were Smith's faults challenged against NZ? Maybe once. Is that because he's improved, or because we were in control, and therefore the faults weren't evident?

Dingwall actually looked like an international rugby player.
Lawrence didn't do anything stupid.

Yes, 9 is a problem.
2, I'm not sure, because I think George is incredible. Just needs to be managed.

We're building something really good, we just need to put in the few last pieces. And that's great, because we're not peaking too early: we're still in development, the jigsaw isn't complete.

But there's only a few pieces left, and Borthwick is currently lifting the couch to find the missing piece.

[Puja]

Double-posting here because I know not everyone reads the m-b-ms and this is an interesting stat that I picked up from doing it:

A last note on England's lineout. The stats say 14 lineouts, 8 won, 6 lost for 57% success rate, which is obviously not ideal, but one of those losses is from Roebuck's offside for the Ford non-try, which seems exceedingly harsh to put on the statistics that way. Of the 5 actual lineout losses, 3 of those were consecutively in one period from minute 7 to 22 in the first half, when New Zealand had worked us out. England then rearranged things on the pitch, without changing personnel, to take 80% for the rest of the game, all of them clean ball that we could attack off (counting the Roebuck offside as a successful lineout, as there was nothing wrong with the actual lineout). This game has gone down in the general opinion as an England lineout calamity - I'm seeing it as we worked a problem out on the fly and overcame it. Much happier with that than I would be with a 90% success rate where we went unchallenged.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Good work, Puja. I don’t know quite what to do with that information but it’s interesting. JNGF’s dream of England booting Itoje from the team must have felt so close.

[Danno]