Why this feels different...

@canefan said in Why this feels different...:

@Kruse said in Why this feels different...:

@gt12 said in Why this feels different...:

It was horrible walking past all those fucking crowing English fluffybunnies to leave the stadium.

THIS!
I sat down outside the stadium for about half an hour to get my shit together (unsuccessfully), and you could still hear bouts of that hateful “swing low” coming from inside.
Absolute fluffybunnies.
But with good reason to celebrate... their team was bloody good. The filthy bastard fluffybunnies.

I must say, all of the pommie fans I talked to, in the stadium and outside back in Tokyo were very nice. In turn we were very gracious. The guys sitting in front us were almost apologetic and couldn't believe they won. Well played

Yep. One of the best things about rugby.
I'm still not going to stop throwing up a little in my throat every time I see a StGeorges cross for a few days but.

@nzzp Yeah, what I was worried someone might do to us in 2015 (mug the ABs in the forwards), England did 2019.

I know the ABs will have done plenty of analysis, but it feels like maybe we walked into the unknown last night having played England only once in five years. And expected to just carry on with that game - hence picking Scott Barrett. Suddenly an England side we didn't know started playing a game we hadn't seen, and no one could come up with any answers for it.

It's funny, if you'd asked me what would hurt more, the All Blacks or Black Caps coming up short in the WCs, I'd have said the ABs all day long.

But here we are. I'm still genuinely not over the CWC. That one really hurt for so many reasons, namely:

1. It felt like a once in a lifetime opportunity for the BCs to get a WC.
2. They played well enough to get it done, but were cruelly denied by:

• An absurd deflection for 4 from Stokes bat at an absolutely crucial time.
• The umpires then inexplicably gave 6 runs instead of 5 which meant England were able to draw.
• The Super over then heavily favoured the English as they got to bat first so their set batsmen just kept going.
• Despite that we did enough to win, except hang on a second, the ICC has, for reasons unknown to anyone that knows even the first thing about cricket, decided boundaries hit is more important than wickets lost.

The combination of the multiple injustices and the very rare chances the BCs get to win tournaments has made that result impossible to swallow.

This ABs loss has none of those things. We were just outplayed by a team that played much better rugby on the night. In fact for us to win we would have had to steal that against the run of play, rather than really deserving it. We've also won the thing 3 times, and will get many more chances to win it again.

Don't get me wrong, it does hurt and I'm pretty bloody pissed at some of the decisions from the coaches and selectors that fed into this comprehensive defeat, which have been well covered already.

2007 hurt the most for me because I'm too young to remember 1987, so had grown up supporting the best team in the world that kept falling over at WCs. After getting so utterly screwed by one of the most incompetent reffing performances ever I was starting to doubt we'd ever win the damn thing again. Thank fuck for 2011 and 2015!

@No-Quarter Well said, sporting wise I don't know that I'll ever be over the 2019 CWC.

I'm probably going against the grain a bit here but on reflection this one hurts more than 2007 for me. There were factors that went into that loss that didn't happen here (forward pass, no penalties, both 10s limping off) and I don't have a problem with the 12 selection (Lucky Luke was just better at the time and was easily one of our best on the park in the match).

This match we selected poorly (no point going over them again), were out coached and then out played. We got beaten up and never looked like winning and we had a team that could win that match (I'm finding it odd that in the aftermath some are now pretending England were always going to win when that clearly wasn't in the air before the match).

What I do think is that I'm just a (wee) bit more mature and can handle the loss better than I did back in 95-07.

I'm not really a cricket fan so didn't feel the pain of that loss like others did, but my mate last night said the cricket loss was worse, but he woke up this morning and said that he feels equally as shit today.

@Rembrandt said in Why this feels different...:

Yep nailed it there. Nothing like those other losses. Beat by a better team on the day, in fact we were damn lucky as the scoreline flattered us.

Now get to watch the rest of the cup stress free.

Now if we don't perform in 2023 then that loss dread is probably sure to come back

I dunno, this feels a bit like 2003 - right down to the manner and margin of the loss and the opposition coach involved. England likely to be the tournament champs also.

My hope is that, like 2003, this heralds a fresh start for the coaching team and a change in attitude as to how we approach the game.

Well on the bright side Foster is unlikely to fuck over any of my teams anymore

@sparky said in Why this feels different...:

My point is that the cattle were there for NZ. Eddie spotted four years ago the players he wanted in his pack for the RWC knockouts and made damn sure they were fit and hungry what it mattered most. Lesson there perhaps for the next AB coach.

Eddie has hoped the Vunipola boys and Tuilagi would be fit for the RWC for the majority of his time in charge - Mako and Billy were out for large chunks of 2017/2018, Manu missed 2015-2019.

When England played without them, they often struggled when their forwards were contained. In 2018 England had a 46% win ratio, losing to SA, NZ, Ireland, France, Scotland and Wales.

While Eddie has done a lot of good work, he took some big risks. Would we have tolerated Hansen losing games and hoping McKenzie was fit knowing there was a big hole to fill if he didn't recover?

Its different because I'm older and more mature (I think). I'm not gnashing my teeth at the world but I'm maybe more disappointed in ourselves than in previous failures.

It's very disappointing as I don't feel like they turned up.

2003 called and said Mitchell and Dean's want their strategy back.

In the aftermatch interviews, both Retallick and Beauden lamented not taking our opportunities. By which I assume fluffed counter attacks.

I'm lamenting that we ignore half our team in our strategy and assume teams will provide us with gilt edged counter attacking opportunities. I want an approach that puts destiny in our own hands, not an approach that turns an opponent's off day into a nightmare.

Very disappointing. Acceptable with a young naive team and coaching group in 2003, but inexcusable now.

More comprehensive than 2003 though, which at least had an early 12 to 14 point sliding doors moment to leave you wondering about 'psychic energy'. Saturday was comprehensive to the extreme.

England played a superb game of knockout football. Even that doesn't do it justice as it is good play regardless of whether it was knockout.

Selections, and rotation, dont bother me at all. Just red herrings. The strategy and mental game bother me.

@Rapido said in Why this feels different...:

Its different because I'm older and more mature (I think). I'm not gnashing my teeth at the world but I'm maybe more disappointed in ourselves than in previous failures.

******It's very disappointing as I don't feel like they turned up.

---

2003 called and said Mitchell and Dean's want their strategy back.

In the aftermatch interviews, both Retallick and Beauden lamented not taking our opportunities. By which I assume fluffed counter attacks.

I'm lamenting that we ignore half our team in our strategy and assume teams will provide us with gilt edged counter attacking opportunities. I want an approach that puts destiny in our own hands, not an approach that turns an opponent's off day into a nightmare.

Very disappointing. Acceptable with a young naive team and coaching group in 2003, but inexcusable now.

More comprehensive than 2003 though, which at least had an early 12 to 14 point sliding doors moment to leave you wondering about 'psychic energy'. Saturday was comprehensive to the extreme.

England played a superb game of knockout football. Even that doesn't do it justice as it is good play regardless of whether it was knockout.

Selections, and rotation, dont bother me at all. Just red herrings. The strategy and mental game bother me.

Your'e not the journo who asked that question to Hansen in the post match interview after the loss are you?

I don't agree at all..they turned up all right and wanted it as much as England but they were stunned by the English strategy to get the first king hit in first then nulify the best attacking side in the world by playing 20 players on the field for the rest of the game. As Reid said we gave it everything we had but couldn't play the game we wanted because they wouldn't let us. The first try rattled the ABs and they never recovered where as it gave the POMS the confidence they needed: Get in king hit first. Tick. Now stop the attack. Tick. Win the Semi. Tick.

@Rapido said in Why this feels different...:

It's very disappointing as I don't feel like they turned up.
...
I'm lamenting that we ignore half our team in our strategy and assume teams will provide us with gilt edged counter attacking opportunities. I want an approach that puts destiny in our own hands, not an approach that turns an opponent's off day into a nightmare.

Very disappointing. Acceptable with a young naive team and coaching group in 2003, but inexcusable now.

Felt very like Dublin last year -we just didn't fire a short.

I'm a bit loathe to criticise the coaches too much though. They got the team up for two massive games already at this world cup. Even in the game on Saturday the selection and likely tactics weren't terrible - we shuold have been playing territory and attacking their lineout. Really don't know why they didn't execute though, was terribly disappointing.

Every time we got the ball, we just kicked it away and didn't contest, or just turned it over with poor ball security.

Also, it's clear the NH has caught up. Last RWC they were behind; they've taken their knocks, gone away and got better. Fair play to them, well done. Now we need to lift our game again to get back in front.

Come on Bokke!

@nzzp seen this being shared on social media

@nzzp said in Why this feels different...:

Also, it's clear the NH has caught up. Last RWC they were behind; they've taken their knocks, gone away and got better. Fair play to them, well done. Now we need to lift our game again to get back in front.

Come on Bokke!

France, Scotland , Italy and Ireland still vary from average to dogshit. England and Wales have done well though.

@jegga said in Why this feels different...:

@nzzp said in Why this feels different...:

Also, it's clear the NH has caught up. Last RWC they were behind; they've taken their knocks, gone away and got better. Fair play to them, well done. Now we need to lift our game again to get back in front.

Come on Bokke!

France, Scotland , Italy and Ireland still vary from average to dogshit. England and Wales have done well though.

Japan....

@Kirwan said in Why this feels different...:

@jegga said in Why this feels different...:

@nzzp said in Why this feels different...:

Also, it's clear the NH has caught up. Last RWC they were behind; they've taken their knocks, gone away and got better. Fair play to them, well done. Now we need to lift our game again to get back in front.

Come on Bokke!

France, Scotland , Italy and Ireland still vary from average to dogshit. England and Wales have done well though.

Japan....

which is more of an achievement , beating the eternal quarterfinalists or South Africa? I know they made the quarters this time but the likes of Scotland and Samoa have declined since the last rwc.

Like others, I'm way more disappointed in the way we lost rather than the loss itself. We were dominant for so long, because we always seemed to be innovating, changing course when necessary, building pressure, exploiting strengths. The guys knew where the other guys were, that there would always be someone at his shoulder. The backline was well-marshalled, the loosies annoying the shit out of the other team, the forwards setting a solid platform.

But we've been missing that edge in the past few years, and I think a couple of good wins painted over the cracks of decline. I just hope they do a full clean out of the coaching box, sort out a new senior leadership team that can calm and steer and refocus the young guys on the pitch if things start turning to custard. Individual moments of brilliance are great and all, but if the team is in the situation of relying on them with not much else, we will get owned again in future.

I have lived in Australia for just under 7 years. So perhaps I'm numb'er than I would have been had I have still been living in NZ. But I don't think it's that.

Rugby is going through some serious changes. Safety-wise good. As a spectator sport not so good.

And as a spectator, I'm over the lack of commonsense refereeing. If there is accidental head contact either call as such or penalise the player. But carding a tackler for being unable to pull out of a tackle, that would have been fair that the attacking not dropped in position is fucked. It's not preventative discipline in any way shape or form. That tackler is going to continue to make solid, safe contact in the next game. It's just a freak accident.

The TMO can't go altogether but that maul knock-on was a disgrace. If the on-field referee doesn't call for the TMO to look at a handling error then the TMO should not intervene. If it's foul play then all good. But if a knock on is missed by the main ref then it's force majeure. Whatever will be will be. The biproduct of less TMO intervention is a more astute onfield official.

Lastly and as some have said. The game can not grow with one team dominating the WC. It would have become boring for everyone even NZers.

And of course, we can not get better without fucking up.

If we had played at the top of our game, do we think we would have won?

England were just that much stronger and harder. The main thing I noticed is that on just about all 50/50 plays, England came up trumps. I'm not talking about ref calls, I'm talking about loose balls, untaken kicks offs, poor passes to nobody etc. Every single time, England had the men in the right place to get the ball / turnover / retain posession.

Everytime we broke out (and we did break out), the player would find themselves in a position of 1-2 All Blacks and 5-6 Poms. Hence, loads of turnovers.

For these, and other reasons, I firmly believe we could not have won regardless on the weekend. The fact we were within one score at the 60 minute mark was purely due to how good we actually are, and a pretty dubious TMO call.

If I want to be a real shit loser, the only thing I could possibly say is that I felt the cancelled games were better for England than us - we needed that game, and with them being so big / strong, an extra week to freshen up really helped their cause.

But I don't think it affected things that much. They were better.

Fair play, move on.

Blame Foster.

@MajorRage I tend to agree. They were dominant. I think although we beat SA I think the boks played a stupid game. When they played in the forwards they also dominated. Without our moments of magic that game could have gone the other way. Our forwards have been weak for a while and they have been showed up this year including against Oz. I can not think of any other players that could have improved on what we had.

@Tim Amazing that Scott McLeod did nothing to close that gap.

Krusty knew it was there, Cueball knew it was there, Eddie knew it was there, the whole Rugby World knew it was there.

Looks like they successfully targeted Reece for intercepts of off-loads, and for being out of position to receive kicks. Experience, or the lack there of.

@Tim They also targeted Beauden for the same thing which was equally successful.

@Canerbry said in Why this feels different...:

@Tim They also targeted Beauden for the same thing which was equally successful.

Neither Richie M, nor Beauden Barrett has good games on defence.

Suspect that was a lot to do with problems in the defensive pattern and the fact we got spanked at the breakdown.

@sparky The Dogroll selection was a howler.

@Canerbry The RFU millions have bought them George Smith as a specialist breakdown coach.

Mourie, Ice, the GOAT or Razor could have done that role for the ABs. I wonder if they were even asked.

@ACT-Crusader said in Why this feels different...:

What doesn’t feel different are the “reasons” for the loss being made on this forum.

Rewind 12 years ago and you could replay many of the same tag lines being put out last night and today with those following the France loss.

Forward pass aside, our tactics in the 2nd half in 07 were baffling and frustrating. Heard that today.

We missed experience - tick.

Leadership went missing and not just from the captain - tick.

Arrogance from coaches - I recall many saying Henry was so focused on the 2 AB XVs in 2006 that we never settled on one.

Strange selections leading in - Nonu and Weepu missing, Toeava in.

But Ritchie was at the START of his AB captaincy...

@canefan said in Why this feels different...:

@Bones said in Why this feels different...:

@canefan it was basically anti game plan. I think the state of the lineout is probably an apt description for the performance. Pathetic execution and appalling accuracy.

The plan was there, the selection was fine.

It was like all of the lessons we learned from 2007, with the senior player group and shared responsibility, were ignored. When the game went against us we couldn't right the ship

What usually happens is the guys who learned the lessons retire and the next generation need to learn them for themselves. Just wish it didn't have to be in RWC knock outs!

@Canerbry said in Why this feels different...:

Blame Foster.

Piss off. I blame Deans.

2007 hurt a lot more. We had an absolutely superb set of players in the squad that year:

@sparky said in Why this feels different...:

2007 hurt a lot more. We had an absolutely superb set of players in the squad that year:

View embedded content

If there was a squad that was a lay down misère to win the RWC, it was that. Easily the most skillful squad I've seen assembled at a RWC. The rugby they played from France in 2004 to the tournament was a joy to watch.

This is not even in the same universe as those losses. ‘95 - 2007 losses were devestating , all of them, never saw them coming. Even in hindsight the French losses still feel awful. ‘91 the previous games were underwhelming and injuries/selections in the backs definitely put a question mark pre game. This one hurt mainly because there generally seemed to be a real turn going on with selections and wins particularly over Australia/SA/ Ireland and that really built my hopes up perhaps a little like 2003 but it was always clear that this England team posed a real threat. Looking at the whole picture when you consider the loss of our legends in 2015 and the continuing player and coach drain New Zealand still punches massively above its weight, but with each success it only raises the expectation ever higher which is probably where I was, but never the gut punch of those other losses.

For me personally, it feels different because I always suspected it could happen.

Going into this world cup I felt any of SA, England, Ireland Wales or NZ could take this. On their day any of those teams could beat any of the others. We just have not had the consistency in our performances of late.

I won't deny the way we took care of Ireland gave me hope. But after the first 20 minutes against England I had already come back down to earth and realised that while we have a good team. We are not as totally dominant as we once were.

And you know what? I am okay with that. No one stays at the top forever. We went 24 years between drinks with the world cup. We will be back.

From a football angle, this one feels so much like 03 to me ,

Before the tournament starts there were hints we might be a bit flaky ,

Seemed to be an over emphasis on Attack and a lack on forward play ,

A convincing quarter final made us feel at ease,

then comes the semi where we get smashed in the forwards and our attack barely gets going due to it

@gt12 Fantastic post. Your pain is evident, but your analysis is crystal clear. Kudos

I'm all chill about the result. It appears a lot of people are. No one really talking about it in the office.

I think I needed this result as Rugby was starting to get a bit blah for me with a turgid Super Rugby, a rubbish NPC format and us mostly winning all the time.

I said at the beginning of the year I would have a Cricket WC over a Rugby WC. The Cricket WC stung while I haven't really given this a second thought.

Will I watch the 3rd playoff? Prolly not. Will I watch the final? Prolly not too.

I am amped for the England cricket tour though!