Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RSN

Are England better than the Kiwis?

67 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For once, AC has made a point I would like to pick up on. It is "rare" that our players play Down Under - very rare indeed, certainly when compared with the number of tours the Aussies and Kiwis make. I wonder whether that lack of familiarity with conditions - and refs of course - Down Under really hampers us, so that we end up under-performing over there. Maybe we would be much better by the time we had played Down Under 3 or 4 times in a few years. Of course, given the speed at which our top players are mving to the NRL, this disadvantage should reduce over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

absolutely....and that goes with EVERYTHING i've said...

when we play NZ in england we have the upper hand...

when we play NZ in NZ/down under they have the upper hand

but we don't fear them cos theres nothing to fear...we've not got a 40 year losing record against NZ lol.......in fact i've spoke to kiwi fans who hate the fact its like that between us...they can't get their head around how they can get up against the aussies in big games....yet "stumble" against england

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For once, AC has made a point I would like to pick up on. It is "rare" that our players play Down Under - very rare indeed, certainly when compared with the number of tours the Aussies and Kiwis make. I wonder whether that lack of familiarity with conditions - and refs of course - Down Under really hampers us, so that we end up under-performing over there. Maybe we would be much better by the time we had played Down Under 3 or 4 times in a few years. Of course, given the speed at which our top players are mving to the NRL, this disadvantage should reduce over time.

In recent weeks, we've had the RU Autumn Internationals, and on Radio 5, one of the teams (I forget which) was described as "inexperienced" because several players had only about 15-20 caps each.

In RL, that'd be the kind of total a veteran would have!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For once, AC has made a point I would like to pick up on. It is "rare" that our players play Down Under - very rare indeed, certainly when compared with the number of tours the Aussies and Kiwis make. I wonder whether that lack of familiarity with conditions - and refs of course - Down Under really hampers us, so that we end up under-performing over there. Maybe we would be much better by the time we had played Down Under 3 or 4 times in a few years. Of course, given the speed at which our top players are mving to the NRL, this disadvantage should reduce over time.

its rare because the aussies & kiwis can't be arsed hosting.....neither could be arsed hosting anything between 2000-2005....the 2006 tri nations,2008 world cup & 2010 4nations where part of a agreement for them to get more involved...

also england wanted to tour NZ this year...but the kiwis ###### out........thats not our fault....that would have been our 3rd trip down under in 5 years...it took GB 10 years to do that..1996,1999,2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its rare because the aussies & kiwis can't be arsed hosting.....neither could be arsed hosting anything between 2000-2005....the 2006 tri nations,2008 world cup & 2010 4nations where part of a agreement for them to get more involved...

also england wanted to tour NZ this year...but the kiwis ###### out........thats not our fault....that would have been our 3rd trip down under in 5 years...it took GB 10 years to do that..1996,1999,2006

I agree - I wasn't suggesting we were at fault, and hope that the future will be better than the recent past, simply that I think we may not be as bad as we appear when we go Down Under.

One thing that is yet to play itself out is the effect of having potentially a majority of the team playing in the NRL - will that reduce any "fear factor" against the Aussies, or will they know our boys so well we lose the advantage of any surprise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Zealand are definitely better, and no 'results' or 'evidence' to the contrary will convince me otherwise.

When New Zealand win, it's two full-strength teams fighting it out in perfectly equal conditions with no advantage to either side.

When England win, it's because New Zealand were hardly able to field a team, with the Queen refereeing and England having the wind/slope in both halves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its rare because the aussies & kiwis can't be arsed hosting.....neither could be arsed hosting anything between 2000-2005....the 2006 tri nations,2008 world cup & 2010 4nations where part of a agreement for them to get more involved...

also england wanted to tour NZ this year...but the kiwis ###### out........thats not our fault....that would have been our 3rd trip down under in 5 years...it took GB 10 years to do that..1996,1999,2006

What do you have to back that up that they cant be arsed hosting and if you are correct why do you consider this is the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree - I wasn't suggesting we were at fault, and hope that the future will be better than the recent past, simply that I think we may not be as bad as we appear when we go Down Under.

One thing that is yet to play itself out is the effect of having potentially a majority of the team playing in the NRL - will that reduce any "fear factor" against the Aussies, or will they know our boys so well we lose the advantage of any surprise?

absolutely it'll reduce the fear factor...thats exactly how the kiwis have got over it...

i don't think its a question of them "knowing our guys"....they struggle handling sam & jammer week in week out....stats have shown melbourne are a better team with widdop partnering cronk....jack reed is holding his own very well.....i dare say aussies playing against brits every week earn the respect of the aussies and the brits get used to playing against them......but meeting super league players once or twice a year in tests..the aussies think.."who the hell are these" and runs right over them....likewise the super league players have'nt got a clue what to expect...if you get what i mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

absolutely it'll reduce the fear factor...thats exactly how the kiwis have got over it...

i don't think its a question of them "knowing our guys"....they struggle handling sam & jammer week in week out....stats have shown melbourne are a better team with widdop partnering cronk....jack reed is holding his own very well.....i dare say aussies playing against brits every week earn the respect of the aussies and the brits get used to playing against them......but meeting super league players once or twice a year in tests..the aussies think.."who the hell are these" and runs right over them....likewise the super league players have'nt got a clue what to expect...if you get what i mean?

Really?

If you are a good player how would you get run over?

Surely when the JT said he has never heard of Sam Tomkins the advantage is with Tomkins...

How do Boxers get on then that have not met each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will they know our boys so well we lose the advantage of any surprise?

Well, the Kiwi team that won the 4 Nations and the RWC were almost totally* made up of NRL players.

*Thomas Leuluai being the only exception, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017