Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Are England better than the Kiwis?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#21 Pacific RL

Pacific RL
  • Players
  • 16 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:15 PM

The kiwis in my opinion are ahead of England and are more than a match for the Aussies as recent world cups and tri/four nations tournaments have proven. The new Zealand warriors playing in the NRL and every NRL club having large contingents of kiwis in both their first grade squads and under 20's squads helps massively, plus there are a number of amazingly talented kiwis establishing themselves in first grade rugby in the NRL like Kieran foran, Shaun Johnson, Kevin Locke, Sam kaisino and others just on the verge like glen fishiahi, Jason tamalolo, roger tuivasa-sheck.

Your probably going to struggle to select 13 NRL players who were born in Samoa, Tonga and Fiji, most of them were born in NZ and Australia. Tuivasa-Sheck is going to be a star and good on him for picking rugby league over union.

#22 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,366 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:15 PM

The trouble England have in the rankings is that there's weighting added based on the position of your opponents.

So because the other Northern Hemisphere teams are weaker than the S Hemisphere teams, England get less ranking points for a win. And none for the Exiles matches
St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.

Moderator of the International board

#23 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,464 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:24 PM

Who's better? Difficult one......if only there was someway of being able to decide this. Some kind of confrontation or "match" with a scoring system so the two teams could directly face one another in a competition with fixed rules. After a certain period of time, one could be the 'winner'.


Narh. It'll never catch on.

 

A Fev Blog

 

 

 

 


#24 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 2,988 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

New Zealand have troubled Australia many times and won 2 major titles in recent years although they are the only couple of wins from around 20 games.
England have never really troubled Australia in a big game for years and have often been flogged badly.

The matches between Australia and the Kiwis are often brutal affairs where the last man standing wins as in the Four Nations first game draw a few years ago. (best match of the series)
Australia have never really been in trouble against England in recent times and always seem to have another gear or three to move up to when they hit the afterburners.

#25 Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer
  • Coach
  • 6,073 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 03:52 PM

For some reason our strengths are much more effective against the Kiwis than the Aussies, while they might be able to argue the opposite, so that even though we are say 80% as good as the Aussies, compared to the Kiwis' 90% say, they appear to me at least to be only 90% as good as us over here. I wonder whether there is something either in our style of play or even psychologically that makes us much more dangerous against them?

#26 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 20,594 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:27 PM

I wonder whether there is something either in our style of play or even psychologically that makes us much more dangerous against them?


Psychologically, the fact that we've beaten them a lot more than the Aussies over the years would be a factor, certainly.

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#27 dhw

dhw
  • Coach
  • 669 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:48 PM

The trouble England have in the rankings is that there's weighting added based on the position of your opponents.

So because the other Northern Hemisphere teams are weaker than the S Hemisphere teams, England get less ranking points for a win. And none for the Exiles matches


But New Zealand have won only twice of the last 17 times the two teams have played (which is identical to England/GB record), surely no matter how barmy the RLIF rankings are you do not gain points for losing. The major difference in rankings is pretty much down to the World Cup win because result wise there is not much between NZ and England/GB.
On the other hand England will pick up points against the likes of Wales and France.

#28 Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer
  • Coach
  • 6,073 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:55 PM

This debate does highlight the possibility that we could win the World Cup if the Aussies play the Kiwis in the semis. I assume we have to beat them in the first game for that to happen?
In 1995, iirc, the Kiwis were a whisker away from beating the Aussies in the semi (didn't a Ridge dg scrape past the posts?). Again, we'd have fancied our chances about beating them in the final.
So, the plan has to be - win the first game (possible - we catch them cold, and we are less likely to freeze against them in a group game than a final) - let the Kiwis reprise their 4Ns/WC win in the semi - beat Kiwis as we know how to do in final - a golden era dawns for TGG!

#29 Southstander13

Southstander13
  • Coach
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:56 PM

I do think England and New Zealand are pretty even, and it seems that home advantage has a big effect.

Similar to New Zealand, I think England have the potential to beat Australia. As has been mentioned, NZ have a pretty poor record against the aussies that resembles our own, but they have managed to win a couple of big games that means they are the current World Cup holders!

I think the big win they managed in the Tri Nations final (was it still Tri nations back then?) against Australia was the big win that they needed to show themselves that they could do it. Thats what we need now, one big win and we'll be fine!

#30 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,445 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:57 PM

NZ if they have a full team out. But sadly they seem to have atleast 4 or 5 key players missing unless its the WC. The problem like England is they dont have the strength in depth that Australia do and often thats the reason why Australia beat them. This probably also sees NZ being so inconsistant with missing so many players. The other big difference is NZ mentally are not as tough as Australia and its an English problem too. Once the head drops thats it, while Australia always have the belief they can win even when behind.

#31 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 4,118 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:23 PM

I'm still awaiting for my reply from petero regarding few kiwi players regarded being classed as the best in the game.

This is how I see it regarding Aus/NZ/England; The main difference between the sides is the 6 7 9 for each of the sides. Australias are exceptionally consistent, they perform on the biggest stage on every ocassion. You'll notice who the 6 7 and 9 of Aus have played for in origin for the last seven years and the success they've has. They will peform at this exceptional level for a guarantee. Then there's the England halves of recent, they haven't been good enough consistently and have been outclassed by their Aussie counterparts. I think this may be different next year aslong as Sinfield organises the team, setups the plays and kicks the ball too his Leeds standard and that's it. Apart from that give the ball too Widdop. Sinfield can not be the option it HAS too go to that should be shared between Widdop and himself, Widdop is a good kicker. Sinfield will have less pressure on him as they will identify Widdop as the threat. Roby just scoot when necessary, get through a tonne of work and allow Burrow to do his thing when he comes on. This combination can work and be close enough too the Aussies for them not to completely outclass us like in previous years and at least give our forwards a chance. (Check in previous games between Aus and Eng and see the 25 minutes where the pressure built up has resulted in them running riot at the end)
This has been the case in recent seasons why we haven't come close especially after 2008 when our forwards have been classed as a 'match.'

Then there's the NZ halves. They're inconsistent unlike the Aussies. But they have the ability to play just as good as the Aussies. In the finals Marshall and co just seem to step up and play with no fear I realise they can beat them (unlike Eng) So in the finals they give themselves a chance in the last 20 minutes unlike England, and they just seem to have knicked it late in the game.

The best 5 forwards of each sides are very similar with Englands just knicking it. The three quarters are similar with Englands slightly worse. But the 6 7 and 9 of Aus are more consistent so thefore they win more games and NZ's have decided to step up in recent finals.

This is how I've seen it from the last 5 years, I honestly don't think there is much between the strongest 17 of each side apart from the halves.

#32 HappyDave

HappyDave
  • Coach
  • 3,236 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:29 PM

New Zealand have troubled Australia many times and won 2 major titles in recent years although they are the only couple of wins from around 20 games.
England have never really troubled Australia in a big game for years and have often been flogged badly.

The matches between Australia and the Kiwis are often brutal affairs where the last man standing wins as in the Four Nations first game draw a few years ago. (best match of the series)
Australia have never really been in trouble against England in recent times and always seem to have another gear or three to move up to when they hit the afterburners.


I disagree. The best game of the G4N 2009 was the England/Kiwis game.

England were competing against the Aussies nicely at Wembley last year before the Ref from NZ ballsed it up in the 2nd half.
"I've never seen a woman with hairy ears... And I've been to St Helens" - John Bishop

#33 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 2,988 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:24 AM

I disagree. The best game of the G4N 2009 was the England/Kiwis game.

England were competing against the Aussies nicely at Wembley last year before the Ref from NZ ballsed it up in the 2nd half.


The game you saw as the best was a mistakeathon from NZ and they gave away that many early penalties they had no chance.
The draw that Aus and NZ had in the first game was an arm wrestle to the death with neither team giving any quarter.

What did the NZ ref do wrong at Wembley?

#34 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 4,118 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:27 AM

Briscoes try wasn't it?

#35 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 2,988 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:28 AM

I'm still awaiting for my reply from petero regarding few kiwi players regarded being classed as the best in the game.

This is how I see it regarding Aus/NZ/England; The main difference between the sides is the 6 7 9 for each of the sides. Australias are exceptionally consistent, they perform on the biggest stage on every ocassion. You'll notice who the 6 7 and 9 of Aus have played for in origin for the last seven years and the success they've has. They will peform at this exceptional level for a guarantee. Then there's the England halves of recent, they haven't been good enough consistently and have been outclassed by their Aussie counterparts. I think this may be different next year aslong as Sinfield organises the team, setups the plays and kicks the ball too his Leeds standard and that's it. Apart from that give the ball too Widdop. Sinfield can not be the option it HAS too go to that should be shared between Widdop and himself, Widdop is a good kicker. Sinfield will have less pressure on him as they will identify Widdop as the threat. Roby just scoot when necessary, get through a tonne of work and allow Burrow to do his thing when he comes on. This combination can work and be close enough too the Aussies for them not to completely outclass us like in previous years and at least give our forwards a chance. (Check in previous games between Aus and Eng and see the 25 minutes where the pressure built up has resulted in them running riot at the end)
This has been the case in recent seasons why we haven't come close especially after 2008 when our forwards have been classed as a 'match.'

Then there's the NZ halves. They're inconsistent unlike the Aussies. But they have the ability to play just as good as the Aussies. In the finals Marshall and co just seem to step up and play with no fear I realise they can beat them (unlike Eng) So in the finals they give themselves a chance in the last 20 minutes unlike England, and they just seem to have knicked it late in the game.

The best 5 forwards of each sides are very similar with Englands just knicking it. The three quarters are similar with Englands slightly worse. But the 6 7 and 9 of Aus are more consistent so thefore they win more games and NZ's have decided to step up in recent finals.

This is how I've seen it from the last 5 years, I honestly don't think there is much between the strongest 17 of each side apart from the halves.


That is an on going myth.
Isn't Sinfield being nominated as the best player in the World at the moment? he is no spring chicken, how does that work? I thought Roby was close to the best Hooker in the game?
Englands forwards are not better, and the backs are nowhere near, if they were they would have won or come close more in the last 5 years.

Edited by AndyCapp, 12 December 2012 - 10:40 AM.


#36 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,877 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:41 AM

That is an on going myth.
Isn't Sinfield being nominated as the best player in the World at the moment? he is no spring chicken, how does that work? I thought Roby was close to the best Hooker in the game?
Englands forwards are not better, and the backs are nowhere near, if they were they would have won or come close more in the last 5 years, the facts are England has been demolished by Australia more often than not over an 80 minute game.

I tend to agree, the results speak for themselves! I would say that in the last year or so our team does appear to be getting stronger.

Our backline does look the best it has for a good few years, with Tomkins, Hardaker, Hall, Briscoe, Charnley, Watkins, Atkins, Hardaker etc. all being genuine talent. Halves may still be an issue, for me I'd be happy with an approach like Warrington where the halves are there to steer the team around the pitch rather than expecting too much from them individually, which seems to be what McNamara was doing this Autumn. Bringing Chase back into the team risks that balance for me, but then he did okay in his one game, and I thought he was better than many last year.

Our forwards will always hold their own, the problem often is that due to the lack of ruthlessness by our backs we often have very few points and are on the back foot. Our poor kicking game has often gifted field position to Aussies too.

As for the Kiwis, they are a solid enough team, have some very big players and can play some great RL at times, but I don;t think England should fear them, they have so many mistakes in them, in general they do lose it under pressure. I do think it is harsh to suggest that England only beat the Kiwis because they under-perform, I thought in last year's game particularly England played a great game, very controlled with no shortage of skill.

#37 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 3,721 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:49 AM

england absolutely don't "fear" new zealand....don't worry about that......lol

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#38 Ex-Kirkholt

Ex-Kirkholt
  • Coach
  • 1,606 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:15 AM

Isn't Sinfield being nominated as the best player in the World at the moment? he is no spring chicken, how does that work?

He may or may not be the best player in the world (I think : NOT) but what does his age have to do with it ?

Edited by Ex-Kirkholt, 12 December 2012 - 11:15 AM.

Looks like it wer' organised by't Pennine League

#39 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 2,988 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:03 PM

He may or may not be the best player in the world (I think : NOT) but what does his age have to do with it ?


I meant he has been around for some time, he did not just become a good player in the last year, my comment was in relation to the quality of England's Halves by the other poster.

#40 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 2,988 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:05 PM

england absolutely don't "fear" new zealand....don't worry about that......lol


The rare times England play in New Zealand they should have a healthy respect for them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users