A young England side produced a “scintillating”, “epic” and “stunning” performance at Twickenham.
The English papers were effusive in their praise, offering up such compliments as “A statement of intent about the way this emerging side want to play, it was quite breathtaking, in conception and execution” and “a performance that confirms them as genuine contenders for the next World Cup”.
Participants in rugby forums across England violated all of their bandwidth limits in a week long frenzy of self-aggrandisement.
The young England team had arrived and their odds of winning the upcoming Rugby World Cup had been slashed after thrashing one of rugby’s southern hemisphere heavyweights.
But this was not England’s 38-21 win over the All Blacks last week. It was England’s similarly compelling 35-18 win over the Wallabies in 2010.
Given the way 2011 turned out, is this apparent England renaissance really any different from the numerous false dawns since the last time England actually delivered on their vast player resource and fat financial riches?
Or did they just catch a knackered SANZAR team on an off day? If England couldn’t hold together their form from 2010 to 2011, then do they have any hope of carrying 2012 form all the way to 2015?
TheGreyGhost
Guest
What's your evidence Ted? I stand by my comments on Twickenham international day crowds. They're not made up of the same folks who turn out to club games predominantly. For starters, there's a reason why all England internationals are played at the same venue and not shared around the country. How many Newcastle fans do you think get down to Twickenham regularly? Fewer than the players, I suggest. There's a reason there is a 4* hotel in the stadium. That is not occupied by grass roots rugby fans...The RFU is a commercial enterprise first, and a rugby union second. That's a fact.
Mike
Guest
I doubt that England will be worried one iota about this game. It truly was a great performance. They will be more worried about whether they can repeat the performance in future. No point speculating about that now, we will know next season.
TheGreyGhost
Roar Rookie
Was it such a great performance though? Or is there a sense of hyperbole here? After all England blew a 15-0 half time lead in just over 5 minutes. were gifted two tries and despite overwhelming territory and possesion advantage managed only to match the try count at 3 each. England should be worried about their inability to convert clean ball into tries. They won't always be able to rely on a hand up from the referee as they had in this game for dozens of ruck penalties. South Africa are a similar pickle. They lack creativity and struggle to score tries. More than anything NZ will be pondering their defense that leaked 3 tries against Scotland, 3 against England and one apiece to Italy and Wales. 8 tries. Not so long ago NZ prided themselves on not conceding any tries at all on the NH tour. Definitely a "work on" for them, especially in the propensity to yield intercepts.
sposer
Guest
Yeah got the wrong year haha thanks!
sposer
Guest
Viscount, i didnt see much dignity from the uk when nz won the cup.all i read anywhere in the uk was how joubert favoured us and we didnt deserve it. Besides i say well done to england,great too see them play so well, i hope they carry it through the 6 nations.
sposer
Guest
Okay so i got the year wrong,it was 2008 nz v aus.Surely you must have realised what i meant.just highlighting how much can change in a week.
richard
Guest
No mate, Samoa get all their talent from nz, just like Australia.
Mrs Nora. V. Irus
Guest
My ears are burning....
richard
Guest
MAJB @1.52AM on Dec. 7 that still doesn't reflect well on England. NZ, for example has around 140,000 players all up, of which it has only 30,000 senior players. Frankly,considering England's massive resources, their rugby is a joke.
richard
Guest
The boks may not have changed their gameplan in a hundred years, but that would come down to the skill-set (or lack of it) in their backs.The AB's on the other hand have changed from a traditional game played up front - like the boks - to a game based on fast ruck ball and counter - attack.This started to happen in the late 1970's, a time when the first wave of pi's started to make their mark in nz rugby. The modern way the ab's play reflects the racial make- up of the team.Where I foresee problems with the current side, is that Hanson wants to play this fast-paced game, without laying the proper foundations up front.You saw the results of that in the England test.
"Ted"
Guest
Peeko - you are persistent - no doubt you want to tell me the 80000 club crowds were also for lacrosse - or maybe you know of a Randwick Eastwood game with 50000 . 80000 is a Melbourne AFL number - not NRL . If you want to compare Qld Uni vs Brothers go ahead but Super Rugby is not domestic club rugby . Heinekin Cup rugby has consistently higher averages . And no rugby outside of the old Olympic Stadium in Oz can pull 80000 consistently and then only for tests against top 4 teams .
peeeko
Roar Guru
Ted, the average game gets 12,000 fact. that is a lot less than the NRL average and the Super rugby average is 26,000 (more than double)
"Ted"
Guest
Peeko - Saracens played Harlequins at Wembley for world record club attendance of 82500 Earlier in season the same two teams played at Twickenham with 80000. This part of debate is now closed I think .
peeeko
Roar Guru
i think you will find that the average crown size for an english premiership match is about 12,000 the 75,000 is a double header
Ben.S
Roar Guru
Didn't say he was a good journalist. He's a clown, but then there's a lot of clowns masquerading as rugby journalists these days...
"Ted"
Guest
Hey Grey Ghost - no point going to battle here - you need to take responsibility for your own comments or blame the whole piece on Orwell . Any reader can see theses are your own comments .the first line says it all . To support this opinion that all 80000 at Twickenham are not Rugby fans you quote Orwell . sadly he didn't make the last several hundred games at Twickenham as he died in 1950 - even you might concede the social structure was different then - and given his education at Wellington and Eton under his real nam Eric Blair and his lifelong socialist but anti both establishment and communism views clearly put any quotes in the political box and not that of a rugby fan. Since then fans have pissed in their pants on the terraces in the 70s and watched a great rugby stadium be built section by section in the 90s and 20s on back of Debentures - non repayable of course . All the time eating up loose seats . But full it is - for all matches - even Fiji gets good turnout. At wembley new stadium they get crowds of 60-80 k for club games - not finals . Grey Ghost - you have got the English fan base wrong - they are well alive - and they do grow out of the large number of registered players who together with their families get older and watch not play . Large parts of England are on Saturday mornings swamped by kids of every age turning out wit h parents and volunteer coaches - It is graduates of this system that predominate at Twickenham - even the West Car Park - not this fictitious body of non rugby fans that you claim dominates attendance . Finally I do respect your right to opinion no matter how controversial - or chip based - but the more controversial the more you owe supporting evidence for a forum as esteemed as Roar. You need to get over that at the English fan base is larger and more Loyal than ours and thank .... That their player performance has never reflected their player pool . May it last beyond 2015!
Yes, the more things change, the more the fundamentals stay the same.
sheek
Roar Guru
Biltongbek, True. Interestingly, the Boks especially, & to a lesser extent the ABs, have hardly changed their game plan in 100 years. You know what's coming, yet so few are able to overcome it. Says a lot about culture, tradition, rugby smarts & an excellent basic skills set.
TheGreyGhost
Guest
The quote that I provided is from George Orwell. It's quite a well known talking point in the UK press and if you google for the expression you will see that the make up of the fan base at Twickenham on test days is a well worn point amongst British fans and journalists. I attend an awful lot of rugby here, both club and international and I frequently have this conversation. There is a lot of frustration amonst genuine fans about the inability to see the international side play the important tests and the make up and behaviour of the crowd. It might be a controversial point (Ted, below, who I can't reply to), but I'm certainly not a lone voice in the wilderness making it. As for "misleading" or your threat to me as a "rookie" well tough biscuits mate, if the forum isn't here for debating real and interesting and sometimes controversial points then what good is it? Some self referencing naval gazing mutually reaffirming waste of bytes? I certainly hope not! And as a "rookie" I've worn quite a few personal attacks for my opinions already, something I don't have an issue with, but if you've got a problem surely it should be with those who attack the poster, rather than the post.
IvanN
Roar Guru
It was a great performance, but i dont think they will be able to maintain that level every week. Another point to note, The Kiwis had in the previous games on tour had a practice run on their attacking play. They conceded 3 tries to Scotland and it seemed as if their intent was to fine tune their attack play. England couldnt score against a resolute defense like the Boks, they were forced into error and buckled. The Boks having done this with some key personnel missing. Next year we should see the Boks develop their running game, HM has the players at his disposal. When the Boks are able to boast the best pack in the game, with a backline that can run well - I dont see why they wont challenge NZ for the #1 rank. England are on the up, thats for sure. But i dont see them beating the Kiwis, Boks or even Australia that often.