Farrell shows he belongs on IRB shortlist

One thing I'd note about this years AB's is that, while they haven't always fired on offence, they have usually had a very good defence. It wasn't until the Scotland match that a team managed to score 20 points and more than 2 tries against them and other than Scotland and England they kept every team below their season average. There's not gonna be many sides that can keep the AB's to under 20 points, so if they can keep the opposition under 20 they're well on their way to a win. The matches against Argentina and SA in NZ show how important a tight defence was to the AB's.

I reserve my decision on Hansen., and the men around him. I have visions of him taking this side from 'great' to 'good'. But for the team, there really was no competition in 2012 if stats are to be considered (and I say if, one could always argue to the contrary) All Blacks played 14, won 12, 1 draw, scored 466 points, conceded 193. Average match score 33-14. 50 tries to 17. Next highest for wins is Australia, 9 from 15 and 1 draw. Proving tries don''t matter - outscored 15 to 21 in that regard - perfectly rationed at average one per game. Overall points? over 200 less, with 259 v 303, an average 'win' in the negative, 17-20. Wales ended the season with an average match score 19-19. Does that make them an average team? 5 wins from 12 may tip them to 'below average'. World Champions England won 6 from 12, 1 draw SA 7 from 12, 2 drawn matches France 6 from 10, 1 draw Argentina who many had high hopes for, 3 wins from 12, 1 draw Ireland and Italy, 3 wins from 10 Scotland 3 from 11

Congratulations Dan Carter... World Player of the year for the 2nd time. All Blacks Team of the Year and Steve Hansen Coach of the year... big surprise that is.

Short answer - No. What it does tell me is the "We don't have the cattle" argument is complete BS. With a bit of focus on the basics and a coherent game plan the Wallabies could be anything.

No need to go off on one mate. Just watch the game again, particularly wood and Morgan, watch the continual bridging and ruck monkeying. The second feature was that clancy was allowing the tackle assist to make a turn over without releasing. The English commentators were fairly generously calling this guy "the second arriving player" but in most cases this wasn't correct. NZ are a finely tuned machine, but they're tuned to the current laws and not the breakdown laws they struggled with even when they were current in 2008, when a team playing a similar style: south Africa handed them thei arses 3 times in a row because the counter stoke game doesn't work if it's so easy to effect a turn over.

Yes they cheated. When no one was looking they played with 20 men......

"If only for a reason that's completely irrelevant" I think you mean.

Farrell deserves the award, if only for sticking it to all of those "experts" on here that said he was rubbish and would get schooled by Carter and the All Blacks. Seeing someone rise up to the challenge is a great part of the game.

No, he said England played the ref better at the breakdown, which is a pretty big difference. It's also pretty consistent with Neuen's statement "The team who adjust the quickest is the one with the advantage, NZ did it better than most all year long except in this game where England were able to adjust quicker".

Nope. He didn't. He pretty much said England won the game because they out cheated NZ at the breakdown. Truth is they pretty much won the game all over the park. Just more of the same from his greyness .....

That's pretty much what he said, Neuen.

yeah jiggles but as dwyer pointed out, are they getting any better? its all good to be holding your own and winning ugly but they apper stagnant while the rest of the world experiments with tactics and get better.

LIKE

And you were able to judge sitting in front of the tele where the referee was standing 5 meters away? He was strict around the breakdown and we saw 6 tries and some quick ball for both sides. Penalty count was even its just that England took theirs and NZ not. Do not blame the referees because they get evaluated and then get told to adjust something which will make them inconstant where players will have to adjust every game, The team who adjust the quickest is the one with the advantage, NZ did it better than most all year long except in this game where England were able to adjust quicker,

It was noravirus poo

I agree about the 'unsupported body positions' bit - there was one turnover an English prop won on their own 22 where he had one foot about 6 inches off the ground (clearly using the pile of players to hold himself up). However, NZ didn't click to this and weren't contesting the breakdown enough and were beaten physically at the tackle area.

What poo. England's victory over NZ was fashioned at the breakdown. Where George Clancy allowed England to compete in unsupported body positions in the style of 2008/9. Fair due to England, they made the most of being able to muck-up AB ball and win turn overs, however unjustly. Aaron Smith needed a kick up the bum for spending 65 minutes appealing to the unflinching Clancy rather than just clearing the ball out. And NZ collectively needed a kick up the bum for not committing more players to the ruck. This was a return of the deficiencies shown in Ireland #2 and Bledisloe #3. Reminiscent of NZ's inability to repel the Welsh 13 man lineout. NZ *need* to find a solution to a team willing to commit more players to a phase than they deem should be necessary. I'm sad to say that like the captain of the titanic, everything that Richie McCaw believed was wrong. But keeping calm and trusting their systems, NZ were sleep-walking into the catastrophe that ensued. They lacked the ability to think outside the box and realise they were playing a game in that uncomfortable era of 2008/9 when NZ were vulnerable, and they needed to think of a solution on their feet, before their legs went on them. Owen Farrell was what he always is, a pawn in a bigger game. He kicked some nice goals. But his impact on the game was nothing in comparison to the England pack who were sublime. I believe illegally sublime, in that I don't recall any of them entering a ruck legally, or staying on their feet let alone supporting their own body weight. But you have to play the referee, even if he's apparently had a stroke and forgotten the law interpretation directions of the IRB for the last 5 years.

Jiggles spot on regarding your comment about the Wallabies.

So Farrell looked class behind a winning pack and Carter had a day off behind a losing pack?

Bit early to call 2015 but I agree with your comparisons of England now to the Wallabies circa 2010-2011. Both teams can play well but it's mainly got to do with the mental space they occupy on game day. Interestingly if there is one positive for the Wallabies this year it's that I think they're turning into a very strong team mentally. They won a few games they should've lost and fought their way out of tight situations while playing poorly. It's the skills, selections and tactics, as ever, that's holding them back.