Rugby
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 297 comments are related to the topic:
England v New Zealand
England v New Zealand
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 297
|
By:
Wilko may be the best English 10, but never a playmaker.
|
|
By:
England aren't renowned for playmaking 10s. I'm struggling to think of one. Stuart Barnes? England aren't renowned for playmaking at all. The SH are always best at everything.
|
|
By:
It's Freddie Burns that is the Spencer-style maverick, but then his defending is patchy and he makes errors. I think he's a better option than Flood, who doesn't really do anything particularly well.
The point of Wilkinson was that he did all the basics, plus had a half-break. Rarely did he do anything that you would be called exciting, but he set others up well. Not flashy, but good enough to make consecutive world cup finals. |
|
By:
When you are English you get used to having nothing more than a steady 10 at best. Wilkinson was never the most expansive and outside of him who have Eng ever had who was a good 10? Don't forget for every Carter/Larkham there is a Cooper/Michalak. I'll take a steady game winner any day.
|
|
By:
Wilko is MILES better than Farrel. And a nice bloke too. Farrell is a toerag.
|
|
By:
'I'll take a steady game winner every day' . What does that mean?
|
|
By:
One who makes his kicks essentially.
|
|
By:
As I said just train flanker to kick goals and stick him at 10. Consider this. All these goal kicking gurus from the NH have about a 10% success rate against SH teams. Maybe it's time NH rugby thought of a way to to be the best instead of second rate.
|
|
By:
Being the best doesn't necessarily mean you have to have an expansive 10, you need the full works outside too. For England that just never happens bar the turn of the century team. Fra/Wal and to a lesser extent Ire have been blessed with some wonderful backs in modern times, but then they don't seem to have won many world cups either.
|
|
By:
I don't have the answers either! Engaland went well today but sometimes the AB's play at a speed and accuracy that no one can match.
|
|
By:
Back in April I watched a club game in Dunedin. The backs were nothing special but the work of the forwards was astonishing. There were no bludgers. They play hard.
|
|
By:
But Eng did show they can compete with an NZ team in a proper match with a few decent lads to come back in. England won't be matching the backline play of NZ any time soon, but we know only too well at the highest level it can often come down to defence, fat lads and 3 pointers.
|
|
By:
We often think we can beat NZ too. Doesn't happen often! No team has won as many games against NZ as Australia but they are still only about 1/3.
|
|
By:
Considering that this NZ team was being talked of as the best ever and the best in any sport anywhere in the known universe before yesterdays game (by sections of the UK press anyway) that must mean, based on last year and this game, that when this Eng team gel they are assured of that accolade and must rank in the top few teams ever?
No, me neither.......... |
|
By:
I don't know the England 9 Dickson but after watching his last two games I'm impressed. Doesn't seem to run like Care or Youngs which is ok by me because he is fast to the breakdown and clears well. I rate him.
|
|
By:
surely if there is one thing we have learnt then it is that even a top class team is rarely, if ever, as good as the hype.
i thought england played very well in general but probably not as well as they can. if they had not started a bit sluggishly then who knows. france & england both showed that while beating the AB's is still a mighty task they are certainly not infallible. |
|
By:
The England attack is woeful. They won't be beating NZ any time soon till they get it sorted. In fact all the NH teams I've watched so far are very ordinary in attack. Breakdown good,set piece good,defence good,but attack almost non existant.
|
|
By:
No doubt one of them will limp in the final again and then run a SH hotpot mighty close.
 |