Sometimes, stereotypes can wear a bit thin. Like the school of thought that says all Irishmen are drunken, brawling louts. I know two and only one of them is. Or the assumption that all Northerners must needs own either a whippet or ferrets. That's nonsense; stoats are just as good at taking burglars' fingers, and greyhounds are just as quick.
Or that the All Blacks always win and play rugby of the Gods. This stems from the pokey jibs and jabs of the uppity New Zealand press, who have (apparently) slammed England's 'go-slow' tactics, specifically at the line-out, and have been backed up by the coach Steve Hansen - at least in public. Their assertion is that England lack the lung capacity (honestly, that's what they're saying, look: here's the article) to keep up with the All Blacks, who play the game properly.
Never mind that England ran more metres or made more breaks in the first test. Honestly, if it wasn't the All Blacks, you'd think for all the world that England have rattled them. Like they've played three games against them under Stuart Lancaster, hammered them once and pushed them very close twice, or something. Like they have refused to roll over and invite the kick to the goolies that all teams must take when paying homage to the southern throne-seated deities of rugby union.
That article goes on to call England cynical and questions whether referee Nigel Owens should have allowed them to decide what they were going to do at line-outs before taking them. How very unreasonable of him.
As far as cynical goes, why don't we talk about Ma'a Nonu's tug on James Haskell? Or Conrad Smith killing the ball a metre from his own line? Here's a replay of the game, said incident being at 1:19:50 on the youtube clock, with some pretty telling commentary: 'bordering on a professional foul.' Er, bordering? Fast forward to 1:26:30 and you get to see Marland Yarde sin binned for something very - some might say 'exactly', 'precisely' or 'identical' - similar much further from his goal line. This time Owens 'HAS to go to the pocket here'. The Ma'a Nonu incident is on 5:20.
The point of all this is not to moan about Nigel Owens (the 'whinging Pom' being another accursed stereotype, Owens being by far and away the best referee on the planet, and the Yarde thing being a stone-wall yellow) but to highlight some New Zealand hypocrisy. They can hardly claim to have been whiter than white themselves. Certainly if the Smith incident doesn't count as 'slowing the game down' I'm not sure what does. It's well known that they 'do what it takes to win' and that sometimes 'goes very close to the line' of what's legal. If they want to do that and they get away with it, no one can blame them, this is professional sport. But don't then hark on about other teams doing something that's actually legal to try and give themselves the best possible chance of winning.
Looking ahead to the second test, England will undoubtedly make changes with the players involved in the Premiership final coming back into contention. With Twelvetrees and Burrell working the midfield so well in the 6 Nations, the talk now is whether or not Lancaster will reinstate that partnership and put Tuilagi on the wing. The plan here being that he will exploit the resultant space to the maximum - if it takes 3 guys to tackle him at the best of times, he usually marmalises the one-on-ones. Like a rogue dragon chasing a lady rogue dragon in heat. It might not be a bad plan. And no doubt the speed-freaky New Zealand public will welcome Danny Care's quick taps and drop goals with open arms. Unless it's against the spirit of the New Zealand game to drop a goal? Who knows. They booed Freddie Burns on the stroke of half time, anyway. Incidentally, Burns had a cracking game and proved a few people, myself included, wrong. Good on him.
Whatever the side, England will have to improve dramatically, because the All Blacks have a history of doing just that. Last year, France thought they had done well to lose by 10 in the first test only to lose by 30 in the second. The year before Ireland ran them close in the second test, losing by 3, before they were dispatched quite unceremoniously 60-0. This side is at it's most dangerous coming off the back of a dodgy performance, and they will be out to put the Poms in their place.
What is refreshing and heartening about England, though, is that they were bitterly disappointed to have lost. This team is clearly sick of the 'plucky loser' tag and is desperate to shed it. They have not gone half way around the world to be beaten by a supposedly better team, they are there to win. New Zealand, I think, know that, and articles like the one above are almost proof of it. Lancaster, one hopes, might well read it and smile to himself. New Zealand resorting to pretty name-calling? Jog it on. And bring on the second test.
Or that the All Blacks always win and play rugby of the Gods. This stems from the pokey jibs and jabs of the uppity New Zealand press, who have (apparently) slammed England's 'go-slow' tactics, specifically at the line-out, and have been backed up by the coach Steve Hansen - at least in public. Their assertion is that England lack the lung capacity (honestly, that's what they're saying, look: here's the article) to keep up with the All Blacks, who play the game properly.
Never mind that England ran more metres or made more breaks in the first test. Honestly, if it wasn't the All Blacks, you'd think for all the world that England have rattled them. Like they've played three games against them under Stuart Lancaster, hammered them once and pushed them very close twice, or something. Like they have refused to roll over and invite the kick to the goolies that all teams must take when paying homage to the southern throne-seated deities of rugby union.
That article goes on to call England cynical and questions whether referee Nigel Owens should have allowed them to decide what they were going to do at line-outs before taking them. How very unreasonable of him.
As far as cynical goes, why don't we talk about Ma'a Nonu's tug on James Haskell? Or Conrad Smith killing the ball a metre from his own line? Here's a replay of the game, said incident being at 1:19:50 on the youtube clock, with some pretty telling commentary: 'bordering on a professional foul.' Er, bordering? Fast forward to 1:26:30 and you get to see Marland Yarde sin binned for something very - some might say 'exactly', 'precisely' or 'identical' - similar much further from his goal line. This time Owens 'HAS to go to the pocket here'. The Ma'a Nonu incident is on 5:20.
The point of all this is not to moan about Nigel Owens (the 'whinging Pom' being another accursed stereotype, Owens being by far and away the best referee on the planet, and the Yarde thing being a stone-wall yellow) but to highlight some New Zealand hypocrisy. They can hardly claim to have been whiter than white themselves. Certainly if the Smith incident doesn't count as 'slowing the game down' I'm not sure what does. It's well known that they 'do what it takes to win' and that sometimes 'goes very close to the line' of what's legal. If they want to do that and they get away with it, no one can blame them, this is professional sport. But don't then hark on about other teams doing something that's actually legal to try and give themselves the best possible chance of winning.
Looking ahead to the second test, England will undoubtedly make changes with the players involved in the Premiership final coming back into contention. With Twelvetrees and Burrell working the midfield so well in the 6 Nations, the talk now is whether or not Lancaster will reinstate that partnership and put Tuilagi on the wing. The plan here being that he will exploit the resultant space to the maximum - if it takes 3 guys to tackle him at the best of times, he usually marmalises the one-on-ones. Like a rogue dragon chasing a lady rogue dragon in heat. It might not be a bad plan. And no doubt the speed-freaky New Zealand public will welcome Danny Care's quick taps and drop goals with open arms. Unless it's against the spirit of the New Zealand game to drop a goal? Who knows. They booed Freddie Burns on the stroke of half time, anyway. Incidentally, Burns had a cracking game and proved a few people, myself included, wrong. Good on him.
Whatever the side, England will have to improve dramatically, because the All Blacks have a history of doing just that. Last year, France thought they had done well to lose by 10 in the first test only to lose by 30 in the second. The year before Ireland ran them close in the second test, losing by 3, before they were dispatched quite unceremoniously 60-0. This side is at it's most dangerous coming off the back of a dodgy performance, and they will be out to put the Poms in their place.
What is refreshing and heartening about England, though, is that they were bitterly disappointed to have lost. This team is clearly sick of the 'plucky loser' tag and is desperate to shed it. They have not gone half way around the world to be beaten by a supposedly better team, they are there to win. New Zealand, I think, know that, and articles like the one above are almost proof of it. Lancaster, one hopes, might well read it and smile to himself. New Zealand resorting to pretty name-calling? Jog it on. And bring on the second test.
