All Blacks vs Poms - 3rd test

[eastman]

I disagree with this sentiment.

You're saying the All Blacks should have selected Ranger more often previously when he was less good than Smith to keep him in the country.

Smith has been a far more complete player for far longer than Ranger. Ranger goes missing far more and has more deficiencies in his game. He also re-arRangers defenders which is a benefit he has.

They've now got Fekitoa coming through in the 13 jersey who could be incredible.

I'm not sure if Smith really was better over the last few years. One of Smith's most lauded qualities is that he plays like an extra flanker over the ball, Ranger is equally good in this area. Ranger can defend as well perhaps his organisation is not as strong though.

I just feel the upside of having Ranger in the team is a lot greater than Smith. I haven't seen Smith break a tackle in a couple of years (an exaggeration, he played well last week but he's not a threat).

Put it this way- I bet opposition teams are happier to mark Conrad Smith than Rene Ranger.

 

[Braveheart81]

Conrad Smith is one of the best players at reading the game. He knows where to be and when. His test winning percentage is better than McCaw, Carter, Nonu, Mealamu and Read.

He's not the flashiest player but I think he's a big part of their success.

I'm sure teams are happier not to be marking Rene Ranger because he's infinitely more likely to hurt you than Conrad Smith. By the same token, players would prefer not to be running at Motu Matu'u because he's likely to snap them in half.

The question of whether teams think they'd be more likely to beat the team with Ranger in it than Smith is perhaps more important.

 

[Dan54]

No, I'm pointing out that now is hardly the right time to start lauding all our players as either the best, or up there with the best. If what we've seen so far this year are the best or up there with the best, rugby is in dire straits.

Qwerty's observation was a fair one, I thought.

I not saying the best either MR, never have, but all I asked if these players not up near the top who are players that are? I know Gwerty was saying Read is good and lock pair are up there, but as rest are average. I haven't really seen any test teams take the world by storm , so maybe the game is in dire straits.
I actually think this pom team is pretty good, certainly wouldn't be a stretch to imagine them 3-4 in world, and if we beat them, but our players are bad as indicated, as you say the game may have problems. So what is the answer, a team of not that flash has beens shouldn't win any tests!!

 

[qwerty51]

Using Qwerty and MajorRage's rational, Brown is well down the list because he's been very poor in the last two matches.

Brown would be 4th in my books behind Folau, Smith, le Roux and then Dagg, Halfpenny after him. Had a great laugh when the English proclaimed him the best in the world after the Six Nations.

 

[FrankLind]

Are the current England team a myth.

According to Bartman on the Fern they are.

http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugb...-article-england-–-are-they-really-that-good/

As per usual, when this international rugby season kicked off, with the Super teams not doing that well, and players not being in great form, it was all doom and gloom for the All Blacks. The mighty Orc’s from England were going to smash the All Blacks to all corners of the park and take that mighty mythical myth off the men in black.

But really, when you look back, was that ever going to happen?

Lets look at a few cold hard facts about this English team that managed to beat the All Blacks in Mr Lancaster’s first test in charge (A seem to recall Supercoach Dingo Deans first effort against the All Blacks was pretty handy too, before the next 6 years, but we won’t go there).

Let’ also put that test from 2012 into context a little too. At that stage of the tour, with the All Blacks being ‘Susie revisited’, any of the home nations would have knocked them off. They were ripe for the picking, and got picked, fair dues to any half decent international team, and fair dues to England, who are just that.

There’s the rub – half decent international team. That is what England is, and I can’t understand the wonder and the awe we have for this team. Expect for that win over the All Blacks two seasons ago, they have done nothing. They have won the 6 nations once in the past ten years (2011), and not won it since the last RWC. But they beat the All Blacks, the only team to do so since Adam was a Cowboy, so we hold them in awe, look out, look out!

Well bollocks. They’re crap. They’ll next beat us in 2023. They’ll push us close in England, but they’re just not good enough, they don’t have that rugby nous that Kiwi’s seem to have locked into their DNA. Hell, they’re even resorting to poaching (har har har), a term we no longer seem to hear from the tosser English media since their team has started to turn a little island style, I’m loving it.

OK, maybe not crap, but they’re not the next big thing since sliced bread. They look like a good team, more bulging biceps than the Mr Olympis show, but all that brawn with the lack of brain sees them winning nothing of significance often. When you watch the third test tomorrow night at Hamilton, check out the physiques of the teams, just by that comparison the All Blacks should be flogged by 50. England LOOK like a rugby team should in the movies. The All Blacks look like a bunch of Kiwi’s out to play a bit of footy on a Saturday arvo. Not since Jerry Collins have we really had a set of ‘guns’ to compare! Too much gym time making the muscles big, and not enough time on functional strength for their sport? Whow knows, but they look bloody impressive.

So good on them, it’s been an interesting tour, but the only myth we have seen during this series is the one that England rugby is seriously challenging the All Blacks. I think they need to start winning the 6 Nations, and regularly beating the Boers before they can start talking about challenging the All Blacks. The last time they beat our Bokke brothers was in 2006! I can’t help but noting, they are ranked even below AUSTRALIA at number 4.

So put away your worry beads, and start worrying about England again in 8 or 9 years, that’s when they’ll pick up another lucky win. Tomorrow night, expect a comfortable win for the All Blacks, even more so if professional TMO George Ayoub gets some of his calls right. That bloke was a useless bloody ref, and is now a piss poor TMO. And I know I have spelt his name wrong, but don’t care to look it up, as he is a pillock.

 

[cyclopath]

I tells ya, you guys are the most awesomest of ever.
@FrankLind - if you want 100% validation, the Fern is your spot. If you want a counter-view or two, you'll get it here. Simples.

 

[FrankLind]

I tells ya, you guys are the most awesomest of ever.
@FrankLind - if you want 100% validation, the Fern is your spot. If you want a counter-view or two, you'll get it here. Simples.

I don't mind a counter view.
I actually don't know if it is right or not - but he gives reasons for what he thinks.

I actually think it is an interesting counter to the conventional narrative that England are as good as everyone is saying they are. And that is what makes a forum, different views.

I guess we will see come Saturday.

 

[I like to watch]

I think it's great to hear that the only times they have ever been beaten in their history,is a result of food poisoning.
I just can't believe they don't bring their own food supplies on tours!

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

This on stuff.co.nz a coupla hours ago:

"Standout England lock Geoff Parling is out of tomorrow night's third test against the All Blacks in Hamilton.

"Parling was ruled out with a hamstring injury and is replaced in the starting XV by Joe Launchbury with Dave Attwood coming onto the bench."

8th change to their 23 from Dunners, Launchbury not a bad bloke to bring in tho.

 

[BDA]

@Franklind - England have a very good team at the moment. NZ are still clearly better than England,. the question really is how much better are they. IMO this England team seems to have closed the gap over the last few years, but so have the boks (who to be fair seemed to bother NZ more than any other team last year). Hopefully OZ can close the gap too

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Can't agree with many of MajorRage's points except the one about the ABs playing well for 20 mins and England for 160mins.

Series over - 20 mins is all it took.

We have lost an Ashes series on the basis of about 6 overs.

To win a series, you just need the luck, or skill, to be better in those decisive 6 overs, or decisive 20 minutes.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I think it's great to hear that the only times they have ever been beaten in their history,is a result of food poisoning.
I just can't believe they don't bring their own food supplies on tours!

It worked for Warnie, ... ... ... until he took some pills from his mother.

 

[ACT Crusader]

I'm not sure if Smith really was better over the last few years. One of Smith's most lauded qualities is that he plays like an extra flanker over the ball, Ranger is equally good in this area. Ranger can defend as well perhaps his organisation is not as strong though.

I just feel the upside of having Ranger in the team is a lot greater than Smith. I haven't seen Smith break a tackle in a couple of years (an exaggeration, he played well last week but he's not a threat).

Put it this way- I bet opposition teams are happier to mark Conrad Smith than Rene Ranger.

Ranger no doubt was excellent over the ball - gave away penalties, but I loved his endeavour when the ball hit the deck. But as a centre his attacking game was not great. He was IMO a far better winger attacking than a centre. He was superb in space and going one on one. He wasn't a great decision maker in attack and that is why the AB coaches used him on the wing.

Kahui was a far better centre than Ranger

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Not even close between Smith (C) and Ranger IMHO. Conrad is the far superior player as a centre: good spot tackler, excellent hands, ability to read the play almost better than any outside centre I've seen, good at the breakdown and precision running lines. Not the kind of bloke to blow you apart physically, he's more rapier than sledgehammer, but extremely effective. Ranger has his moments, no doubt, but for overall consistency in that position Smith is the better player. Ranger is handy on the wing though.

 

[Hawko]

Not even close between Smith (C) and Ranger IMHO. Conrad is the far superior player as a centre: good spot tackler, excellent hands, ability to read the play almost better than any outside centre I've seen, good at the breakdown and precision running lines. Not the kind of bloke to blow you apart physically, he's more rapier than sledgehammer, but extremely effective. Ranger has his moments, no doubt, but for overall consistency in that position Smith is the better player. Ranger is handy on the wing though.

The order of merit would read:

1. Conrad Smith
2. Richard Kahui
3. Big gap
4. Rene Ranger

 

[Moono75]

Kieran Reid another concussion against England and AB's can kiss world cup goodbye.

 

[USARugger]

they don’t have that rugby nous that Kiwi’s seem to have locked into their DNA.

This is definitely one way of putting it but it does get to the point - sort of.

England seems to lose games between the ears and from 9-15. Sort of an old narrative but I think it still holds plenty of water with the current English squad.

Too much gym time making the muscles big, and not enough time on functional strength for their sport?

This is just a dumb, dumb statement. Does he really think they are working on their biceps in the RFU strength and conditioning program?

Has he ever watched this English pack at ruck time or in general play? They are fucking monsters.

They're definitely taking the GloboGym approach to building a forward pack but their guys from 1-8 aren't exactly lacking in skills relative to their position.

Sure the English scrum has been a bit shaky at times and may have relied more on Rowntree's coaching nous than real scrummaging ability but multiple injuries to first-choice props will do that to every nation but fuckin' Georgia.

I've been nothing but incredibly impressed with the performance of England's forwards in between the set pieces over the past ~18 months - they've come a really long way under Lancaster as a unit and as individuals.

I think they're really lacking world-class players in the backs but this English forward pack is nothing to be trifled with.

I can't believe I'm defending English rugby.

 

[terry j]

I can't believe I'm defending English rugby.

Don't be ashamed UKRugger, oops I meant don't worry about it USARugger.

 

[Dan54]

I tells ya, you guys are the most awesomest of ever.
@FrankLind - if you want 100% validation, the Fern is your spot. If you want a counter-view or two, you'll get it here. Simples.

One would say same Cycl, because if Frank doesn't agree with your point you suggest he goes to Fern site, always thought you better than that!!

 

[cyclopath]

One would say same Cycl, because if Frank doesn't agree with your point you suggest he goes to Fern site, always thought you better than that!!

Really? Having spent a fair bit of time on both sites, I'd say it was about what you get on each. He referred to a post pointing out that the ABs are not all going so well as Kiwi-baiting, then posted one lifted from there dismissing England as rubbish.
Critiquing the ABs is not baiting, it's pretty valid, as most of the Kiwis on here would agree. Calling England rubbish is playing to an eager audience.
Which was the point.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD