England smacked in the face

This was a game in three parts really.

For the first 20 minutes England were full of huff, puff and effort. They were competing, winning even, at the break-down, in the line-out but they weren't really able to pull away - in fact at the end of that time it was 6-6 and and despite the seeming superiority where it normally matters, the All Blacks didn't really look flustered.

Then came the next 55 minutes. NZ stepped up about 3 gears, adjusted on the pitch to what the English were up to, coped and overwhelmed England. Not at every phase - England won line-out ball of New Zealand often enough to say it's an area where they're stronger. Rees kept competing with McCaw, and kept the turn-over count close, but the timing and position of the turn overs was never in his favour - England turned the ball over in or just outside their 22 several times and only once were they not punished by conceding a score - usually a try.

The last five minutes, in fairness belonged to England again. The All Blacks took their foot off a bit, and Donald (impressive though he is) didn't dominate in the same way that Carter did.

37-20 flatters England to be honest. 7 of those points were from a classic "14 point try" to use a cliché. New Zealand were on attack, with a 2:1 overlap about 10m from the line. Ojo decided to go for broke and made the intercept by about half-a-finger's length. With the headstart he had because Tuitavake, the winger on his side, was at full pace in the other direction, Sivivatu was in a tackle somewhere and Muliaina was over on that wing he made it home, totally against the run of play.

The second try to Ojo was at least worked for. Tuitavake was pretty much blameless in the first Ojo try. Henry will not be happy with his effort in the second one - Ojo comfortably beating him to the cross-kick you might get away with, when the opposite winger (admittedly "only" from mid-field rather than the opposite wing) ALSO beats you to the kick, well the coach will question your defensive qualities - probably in four letter words.

On that few inches, you might have had 44-13 or worse. 44-13 would have been a fairer reflection of the game really, although you have to think if the All Blacks had got there, they'd have cracked the half-century too. They really were that good.

There was an interesting comment at the end. The Kiwi public believe that England will come with a big physical challenge, which they did for quite a bit of the match. They also believe that England don't have the imagination to win. Again it would seem they were correct. Very few teams keep up with New Zealand at the turn-over. To do that, and to be stealing their line-out ball appreciably often, and still deserve a thrashing - there's got to be something wrong somewhere. You might choose to point at the forwards for keeping the ball and driving slowly a metre at a time, and being driven backwards by the same amount too. But every time the backs got the ball, really New Zealand looked at least as comfortable defending out wide as they did in close. The other way around, the forwards probably made more breaks, but the backs just ran the white line ragged.