ENGLAND
15. Mike Brown: 5.5
Yet to rediscover that ability to consistently beat the first defender that made him such a danger last year. Still safe as houses in general.
14. Semesa Rokoduguni: 6
Unable to dazzle as he has in the Premiership, Roko looked solid in defence but often nervous when given a chance with ball in hand. Was monstered by Savea a couple of times – welcome to international rugby.
13. Brad Barritt: 6
Tackled his heart out in the midfield – standard – but did preposterously little with ball in hand. In fairness, though, did any English back other than May?
12. Kyle Eastmond: 5
Shackled Sonny Bill Williams well but was pinged at the breakdown twice and charged down in the build-up to a crucial try. Summed up England’s frustratingly poor kicking game in the second half. Missed George Ford’s ability to attack the gainline.
11. Jonny May: 7.5
The screams of ‘back yourself Jonny!’ every time he got the ball had become defeaning – on Saturday we saw why. He finally did so, and with spectacular results. Struggled after the break in a back-line that saw neither possession nor territory.
10. Owen Farrell: 5.5
Slotted his kicks at goal but there was little else of note to his performance. The old criticism of standing too deep is rearing its head again, and when you consider how the men outside him struggled it’s tough to disagree.
9. Danny Care: 4.5
A typically livewire performance in the first half, all his good work was undone by some shockingly bad box-kicking in the second forty that simply meant England couldn’t gain a platform from which to play.
1. Joe Marler: 6
Had very few scrums to deal with but was always a willing carrier of ball. Did everything that was asked of him before exiting for Mullan
2. Dylan Hartley: 8
England’s top tackler with 18 and oversaw a flawless lineout. One of England’s best performers.
3. Dave Wilson: 6
A largely similar game to Marler. The lack of scrums makes it difficult to rate a prop’s performance.
4. Dave Attwood: 8
The sight of Attwood dummying and galloping up the pitch was England’s one highlight from the second half. A mountain in the loose and a key cog in an excellent lineout once Lawes went off.
5. Courtney Lawes: 6
Had little impact on the game in his 22 minutes on the pitch.
6. Tom Wood: 5.5
Tackled all day, as is his wont, but only carried the ball once in 80 minutes, for a return of zero metres. When you consider how much Kaino carries, you begin to understand why England can’t get on the front foot when Vunipola is shut down. Was pinged at the breakdown a couple of times too.
7. Chris Robshaw: 7
He may not have made many more metres than Wood (four) but he did at least offer himself as a carrier on eleven occasions. Made 16 tackles which is commendable, but when you need two scores with four minutes left on the clock, is repeatedly opting for a scrum the right option? Not convinced.
8. Billy Vunipola: 6.5
There were a few lung-busting attempts to break the gainline, one of which was successful, but with no Tuilagi or Tom Youngs, and Lawes leaving early, he was almost literally England’s only ball-carrying weapon. Too much responsibility and eventually an easy target.
Replacements: 5
George Kruis made an industrious debut, but most replacements entered in the second half when England were chasing the game with no territory or possession. Ben Youngs’ passing was noticeably inaccurate at times.
NEW ZEALAND
15. Israel Dagg: 6.5
Made some good metres but most were in response to poor England kicking, when he had a whole field to run into. A reasonably quiet game.
14. Ben Smith: 7
In a game that wasn’t one for the wingers, he still managed to touch the ball 19 times and more often than not looked dangerous when doing so.
13. Conrad Smith: 6.5
The defensive linchpin in New Zealand’s line will not have enjoyed being skinned by Jonny May in the first half, although there are very few players who can live with that sort of acceleration. Didn’t miss a tackle for the rest of the game though.
12. Sonny Bill Williams: 7
One of New Zealand’s biggest weapons was largely shackled by England, and yet he still managed to beat five defenders and make two clean linebreaks.
11. Julian Savea: 6.5
As with the rest of New Zealand’s backs, it was a relatively quiet game for Savea, whose most eye-catching interventions were a couple of ginormous hits on opposite man Rokoduguni.
10. Aaron Cruden: 8
His goal-kicking was a bit hit and miss, but he showed what a difference a genuine running threat at fly-half gives you. Varied his game brilliantly.
9. Aaron Smith: 7
Intelligent decision making set up Cruden for his try, and an otherwise solid, if unspectacular, performance from Smith.
1. Wyatt Crockett: 6
Very little to report really – as with the England props, never got a chance to show scrummaging prowess.
2. Dane Coles: 5.5
Showed his ability in the loose with a delicious offload as he was being bundled into touch, but loses a point for a needless yellow card for lashing out with his foot. Lineout wobbled at times too.
3. Owen Franks: 7
Gets a mark up on the other props for outstanding work rate in the loose, finishing with 11 tackles in just 47 minutes played. Engine.
4. Brodie Retallick: 6
One glorious leap at the restart saw New Zealand spectacularly regain possession, other than that a quiet game for the giant lock.
5. Sam Whitelock: 7
New Zealand’s second top tackler with 12 made and, crucially, none missed. Lineout troubles won’t have pleased him, however.
6. Jerome Kaino: 7.5
Weighed in with a crucial burst up the touchline in the build-up to Cruden’s try, and made yards every time he carried the ball.
7. Richie McCaw: 9
May have given away a couple of penalties at the breakdown but was so influential otherwise it didn’t matter. His side’s top tackler, and weighed in with the crucial try. A masterful, arguably game-winning, second forty.
8. Kieran Read: 7
Was kept relatively quiet by his high standards, but still managed to make more metres than anyone on the England team bar Jonny May. Threw in a few delightful offloads for good measure.
Replacements: 7.5
New Zealand are strange in that they use their replacements very early in the second half, but it shows the confidence they have in the ability of those coming on. To a man, they helped increase the stranglehold they exerted on England in the second forty minutes.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
As you know by now, we are hilarious, and you should be following us on Facebook and Twitter.
I think England are really very ordinary and if they cant beat a very poor Boks team this week end then back to drawing board!!!
Hmmm…that would be the ‘very poor’ Boks team that recently handed New Zealand their first loss since 2012 would it?
Can’t make up my mind whether the players cancelled each other out to an extent or were both teams below par.
My feeling is that it was obvious that the players having good seasons generally played well, but those who were out of form struggled under the pressure. Farrells lack of game time showed. I think that if you had given marks to the coaches, SL would have got one of his worst yet. However, he was hamstrung by injuries. Do any other countries seem to have the same permanent injury crises as us?
Ireland have 18 internationals out injured (19 if you include the now injured Payne) and they took apart the same SA side that destroyed NZ. Every international side has to deal with a raft of injuries, that’s the modern game.
Agreed. England have no more injury worries than most sides over time. They also could do with managing them better e.g. I love Corbs. I think he’s the best loosehead around on his day. But he has a proven track record of being lucky to get a few games on the trot. You can’t, unfortunately, rely on him.
Ceadog pointed out where Ireland are. Wales had 1st choice centre last weekend, we moved a FB to wing and a wing to centre. Within 30 mins our 1st choice FB was out with suspect concussion. We’ve got 1 fit 10 playing this weekend in terms of guys with regular and recent caps. This isn’t excuses – this is just saying that Eng in no way have a better/worse injury problem than anyone else.
Harsh on Robshaw who I thought was brilliant. EnglandRugby tweeted this morning with stats of 20 tackles and two turnovers for him – which ones are correct? Wood was anonymous, and not in a classic Richard Hill way, in an uneffective way! Haskell for Wood and Youngs for Care are the two changes I’d make.
England were poor but let’s not all panic based on one performance. Farrell needs to stand flatter,but he can do this. Haskell as an extra carrier will create more space for Vunipola to be more effective.
Still believe 3 from 4 this Autumn should be the aim, but as I’d said last week, 2 from 4 wouldn’t surprise me.
Marler and Wilson were good, seems the game plan involves them trucking the ball up a fair bit, and on that basis I would want them making a few more metres in contact. Hartley was good, but missed the tackle on Kaino that led to the Cruden try.
Attwood was excellent, played like a man who knew he had been given his chance through injury, and really took it. Kruis reverted back to Sarries defence on one occasion, and NZ punished England, but certainly not dreadful for a first cap.
Quite disappointed with Wood and Robshaw. I’m sure they got through a mountain of work, but 4 metres ball in hand between them? I’ve said for a while that they aren’t effective ball carriers and it put far too much pressure on Vunipola.
Care and Farrell started well, but it didn’t stay that way for long. I think it was immediately after the sin-binning of Coles that Care hit 3 woeful kicks in succession. Both them and the flankers seemed to be playing as if they are guaranteed their starting shirts. Only saving grace for Care may be that whilst Youngs’ kicking was better, he threw some truly horrendous passes.
Eastmond, bearing in mind his last outing in an England shirt, I thought did pretty well, certainly better than Farrell and Brown. SBW was quiet when Eastmond was on the pitch. The charged down kick was bad, but his pass to Brown in the corner was good.
Barritt didn’t do much in attack, however, he did give the pass to May, and I would wager that Tuilagi would have taken it into contact had he been playing. I think he is probably aware that he is playing due to injuries, but I don’t think he let anyone down.
May’s try was brilliant, probably the best individual effort Twickenham has seen since Ashton against the Aussies. However I think he needs to display more urgency getting back to support Brown on kicks, there were a few times when B Smith went past him, which given his pace shouldn’t be happening.
Roko was quiet, but then again so was Savea. I’d take that for a guy on debut. Savea ventured infield as the game progressed looking for the ball, would like to see that from Roko in the future.
Brown for me hasn’t been good since the 6N, and was another who was playing as if his position wasn’t under threat. Papers reported him as saying he was angry at the loss, so I’m expecting a real backlash next week.
Incredibly harsh scoring of Eastmond, especially putting him below Farrell. Much better tackle stats, fewer awful kicks, and far better in attack. Though he had a great game and was one of the best backs on display.
I cannot beleive you are marking Eastmond less than Brown, Farrell and Barritt!
Brown “Still safe as houses in general” – WHAT GAME WERE YOU WATCHING? Brown was terrible. Killing ANOTHER guilt edged try opportunity (created bt Eastmond), poor communication with May on a number of occasions, and a brainless penatly when Engldn’s defence had finally put ABs on the back foot. This wasn’t a one offf either.
Very harsh on Eastmond, who was given very little service from the poor and unfit Farrell. He can’t do much when he’s flanked by OF and BB. I’ve been very much behind Lancaster, but his selection over the last handful of games is really beginning to make me question him?
In agreement that overly harsh on Eastmond. He took the ball to the line and twice flashed flat passes to runners in space. Brown was one and I think the other was Barrett or May sneaking round the outside of defender. They were the only two occasions we looked threatening as a back line and its precisely what he was picked to do, cover Farrells inability to go to line and pick passes.
The defence was also clearly focusing on Eastmond (not much threat from Barritt and Farrell, certainly not two man jobs), you could see them closing in on him. His presence out on the wing kept Ben Smith those few inches further away from C. Smith, leaving the hole that Jonny rocketed through. I’d say Eastmond was probably our 2nd best back out there overall.
Well, JH has prev said that these ratings can only be subjective, so you Eastmond supporters take heart. SBW was hardly dominant v him. For me Money Bill was pretty anonymous… & I thought he butchered a try nr the posts when he ran left, into his support, rather than right & passing left to create SPACE for the same. Nice tats, but always thought him a bit thick. Interesting how fickle support for players can be. How recent was it that May couldn’t buy a prayer in support? Now the ST Lead (really?) sports writer, Walsh, has him down as a future world beater… on the back of 1 game!? And that’s not to mention Attwood, whom, I was told, was only 4/5 in the pecking order. Seems to be upwardly mobile at last? Also, as prev mentioned elsewhere, to the ‘RM is finished’ detractors, yr ejaculations were a mite premature it seems. For me still though, it’s not so much the players who need be looked at, but Lancaster. He’s been saying for over 3 yrs now that ‘We’re getting it right’, or whatever, but he ain’t. He needs to stop the earnest & ‘erudite’ spinning & start winning… like Joe Schmidt e.g. He has to up the skills & running lines & inject more speed of thought & deed into not only his backs, but his fwds too. A view of a few ITM prov matches will show fr & 2nd rows running & passing like backs. It’s in these areas that NZ ultimately (usually) prevail… for 80. Having said that, England do NEED a playmaker @ fly1/2 to kick (not literally) start the line & although the talk is about Ford, ‘whatever happened to all the heros’… er, I mean Danny Cipriani? Didn’t he travel to NZ recently? Did Farrell EVER carve anyone like DC did Ireland? And Cip’s more exp now. This the same ol’ I know, but surely England need to do more than shuffle players. Are they still 3 in the rankings? And maybe my Norovirus blogs of the 2012 match has a little of the ring of truth to now after 5 loses on the bounce v NZ? IMO England need to stop thinking they’re better than they are & quickly get their team up to speed skills wise. It’s the Saffas nxt week, so what an OPPORTUNITY.
Totally agree re Eastmond, he needs to stay but with a different backline to bring the best out of him. Although I would like to see Ford not sure against SA is the right chance for him. Prob would keep Barritt and Brown for same defensive reasons although against Fiji we should see what our attacking guys can do!!!
I will have to disagree with some of the England players ratings. I don’t think Care was the worst player on the field but i do agree he was bad.
Farrell was exposed for his lack of rugby time. George Kruis gave the All blacks a try after flying out of the line. Woods i think was silenced by Kaino because when Kaino left, Woods suddenly started appearing all of a sudden,coincidences i think not.
Lancaster needs to make changes because of he’s Consistency, which i did not see from certain players. Sometimes i think if we had flash that would’ve made a difference. The way england played during the 2nd half Kvesic would have been very useful.
I was quite surprised to see some subs come on quite early or some quite late. I feel that webber should of come on earlier & Brookes, Mullan i was surprised came on early and Watson for Rokodoguni.
Rokodoguni should get another start against the Boks, Woods should get dropped for Haskell maybe that will bring life back into him. Care i’m not sure if he should start, Mike Brown looks like he’s needs rest because i’m not sure if he will bounce back after seeing the summer tour.
What we are lacking atm is menace and dynamism, some real match winners, some players who scare the s*** out of the opposition, now do have those but atm they are either out of form (brown, care), new to the scene and need more caps (rokodeguni), not been picked (cipriani, armitage) or injured (croft, vunipola, youngs). I think starting ford would be a start, back line immediately looks more potent, plus I think it could really benefit bath teammates of the backbone and help when Watson comes on/ starts.
If lawes isn’t fit we really need some muscle in the pack to make yards, Morgan, vunipola and robshaw as a back row anyone? With Haskell to come on?
We are running out of time and Lancaster needs to make some tough calls, for me I’m sorry wood and Farrell but you got to go.
I see a media bandwagon has started for Farrell at 12 with Ford at 10. Eastmond a scape goat again. Pathetic, but expect better from Rugby Blog.
Where have we suggested that?! I wasn’t impressed with Eastmond but I don’t think he should be dropped.
To clarify, it’s the MSM who are the object of my ire. But just disappointed that Eastmond by getting a lower score than Brown, Barritt and Farrell is being as much scape goated by TRB as he is in the MSM.
What did the above 3 do better than KE? Thought Brown and Farrell were utter dross on Saturday.
i hope to god we don’t see farrell and barritt in the centres, which i think is what woodward is advocating. lets give eastmond a run of games, i think he deserves it, the risk is also significantly reduced of throwing ford in with eastmond his club colleague outside of him. obviousy i haven’t seen them train but if brown is ‘tired’ which also seems to be a view stipulated by the media then throwing watson in isn’t such a gamble with his other bath colleagues in there as well.
its not quite panic stations, and these are NOT excuses but considerations which surely must be taken into consideration regarding the last match;
-all blacks had been in camp two and a half months, england a week and a half
-injuries (i know, boring and cliched, but any side misses 8 lions or whatever it is)
i am of the view though that even if we had all the injured players back and an extra month in camp we probably still wouldn’t have won however, not with that back line.
Come on lancaster!! the players are there!!
Harsh on Eastmond, although I agree with the comment about missing Ford. The fact that every inside centre struggles is more a testament to how deep Farrell stand and how bad a decision maker he is.until we get a ten who can at least check the defence by challenging the gain line every midfield player is going to struggle.
The lack of ball carrying ability was worrying, we missed Manu or Burrell, any body to take it up. Hartley was terrific but I think Youngs ball carrying is more important to England at the moment as it is what we lack in the forwards. Robshaw played well but again if you are going to play Wood, who I like then the seven has to make some yards. Another call for Armitage who is good at making the hard yards.
Once again hard on Eastmond, with Farrell on one side and Barritt on the other, the defence really only had one target.
Would love to see SL and his coaching teams ratings. Subs too slow, no dynamism after the half time talk, picking the same old, poor decision making on the pitch and , glossing over the consistent losses with the now all too familiar “we are not far off and we are improving”. Not from what I can see. Have improved, undoubtedly. Improving still? Can’t see it. (Gats gets the same stick from me because of the same old tired cliche – I only give him a little more slack as I can’t see a) a better coaching option b) better players he could be picking).
For the last 18 months Gats has been labelled a busted flush, found out, etc. Eng supporters have told me that SL will take Eng from behind Wales to miles ahead of them. I’ve seen him do what Gats did – take a dysfunctional group, weed out the bad influences, put better structures in and blood new players. All good stuff. Except now he’s not looking so golden, he’s hit a similar impasse to Gats. Once you get a team to “good”, which most top end countries can do, especially ones with Englands resources, how do you get them to “excellent”? All of the management accountancy style media fluff doesn’t help overcome structural problems – who are the centres? Why is Farrel the nailed on 10? Is Robshaw the best 7 in England? Why isn’t Foden in the squad at least? Does a couple of big hits per match make Lawes a nailed on starter?
Is it a coincidence that Farrel’s best international games have come under a different coach?
Agree with most of this to a degree. SL improved huge amounts from where we were in 2012. In my view we continued to improve right up until the 6 nations and now I find myself doubting him. We certainly have not improved since the 6 nations where I thought we were largely very good. To defend SL slightly – since then, we have played NZ four times and that’s it. Three of those games were away, and we were only blown away once.
The difference is that SL has had two and a half years and has got as far as Gats has in 6 years.
Agree slightly on selection. To answer some of them. Yes Robshaw is the best England 7 playing in England (which is the criteria, let’s not have that debate). Foden, whilst I rate him, has actually not started the season that well. Farrell is not a better 10 than Ford but we can not start Ford without another kicker on the field because, like it or not, he has bottled it in much smaller games at International test matches. On Lawes – he is a brilliant line out forward and a good carrier too so I don’t think he is selected based on his hits (particularly with Launchbury and Parling out currently).
Saying all that – I am not happy with SL’s nonsense that we are getting closer to NZ. In the last 5 times we’ve played them we have got no closer. Things have to improve against SA this week.
Jacob’s got a good point here. Since the 6 nations, where we generally played well and beat everyone except the French,we’ve only played New Zealand, a team that have only lost 5 matches in the past 5 years!
Let’s see how England go against South Africa and Australia before making any judgements about how far (or not) Lancaster has come
I can see some merit in what you’re saying but … I’d say Gats got as far as SL did in two years (let’s remember that arguably Gats took on a worse team, given we were dumped out of the WC, in the group stages, by Fiji – Sl was given the 6Ns champs). So in 2/2.5 years they got as far as each other – except Gats won 2 titles in that time as well.
Understand what you’re saying about the quality of the oppos. I think it puts Wales/Eng on a similar footing – we won all our home games in the 6Ns. Since then we’ve lost to SA twice and Aus. The Eng/Wal match was close enough that if played again I think anyone who assumed a win for either side would be biased. Similar for Ire/Eng and Fra/Eng.
I’m still on that old horse of wondering why, in the current settings for NH sides, and Aus and SA really, so many people are still assuming an Eng v NZ world cup final. A lot of it seems to be based on SLs “we are improving and getting better”. It’s 12 months out. 3 wins from the next 3 are needed to really say they’re getting better.
Completely agree with you about the NH sides – I would largely lean towards the home side on most occasions, which in the WC does make me believe England should do it.
Not convinced Gats situation was that bad – Wales had won the Grand Slam not that much earlier so the players were there. England were awful in the 2011 WC so I think anything SL did just got us excited as England fans.
On the WC final prediction – I understand it (but I don’t necessarily agree with it). If, now this is the HUGE if, England win the group, they won’t play SA or NZ until the final. England will play Samoa/Scotland and then Ireland in the knock outs before reaching the final. Whilst I would not say we are guaranteed to win any of those games, we have beaten all of those sides the last time we played them at home (Australia, Wales, Scotland/Samoa, Ireland). SA and NZ (assuming they win their groups which is very likely) will play each other in the semi final of the other side of the draw.
I hope that explains that the prediction is based on some logic and not blind faith in England.
I think Ronnie is spot on with his comment, Farrell will always limit the ability of a ball playing centre like Eastmond due to the depth he receives the ball – we lose 5 metres every time he is first receiver!!
I think the bigger problem is clearly the coaching staff are happy with the way he plays which, for me, shows that we are not trying to improve our attacking game at all. I also agree with Brighty and others that we have not continued to evolve for a while now.
The other issue is playing deep puts more pressure on the ball carriers and the back row stats show we are way behind other nations in this regard…4 metres between 6 and 7 is horrendous. If SL keeps Farrell at 10 then he needs to bring in someone like Haskell to help.
P.s. I also don’t want Farrell at 12 would rather see Joseph come in alongside Eastmond and Kitchener replace Lawes (if unfit)
Stu
Spot on regds Farrell (& that’s never changed IMO, but now, has PERCEPTION of him @ last? @ least here with some?) & ‘…the bigger problem is clearly the coaching staff’. You said it. Blimey, even the fella with the 1 eyed patch seems to doubt SL!
Banastre
‘all blacks had been in camp two and a half months, england a week and a half. England need to do same then. How is the ? though.
As for ‘injuries (i know, boring and cliched, but any side misses 8 lions or whatever it is)’, you said it.