1. We are better than them. Always have been.
2. The Wembley effect.
3. Sam Burgess is due a big game.
4. Sir Kev will wrap up Luke.
5. Tomkins is overdue to score a couple.

This is more like it! Something positive.

You're trolling on here as well as The Sin Bin now?

Have you had an exceptionally long Sunday lunch involving several bottles of fine Bordeux?

You spent the entire France England match thread bemoaning England and we're expected to take this seriously?

You're a pastiche of yourself.

It's irony right?

Just not realistic!!

Their backs are superior, NZ's forwards are on a different planet, their halves a different stratosphere

1. Really!
2. Fully Agree
3. Agree, let's hope it's this one, but all 17 players need to have game of their lives!
4. Not his job. I want to see Sinfield more involved. He's just going steady along. I want to see him kicking more as well. If chase kicks that ball once on Saturday then Sinfield needs a rocket up his backside.the main reason he is in is for his kicking. He should be demanding the ball on the 5th.
5. Tomkins doing fine plenty creating tries.

No went for a walk in the very muddy countryside. I always like to "train" before a big match. I am not a middle-aged Gareth Hock. I take things seriously.

As to the France match - that was for large parts of it we stank. Didn't you spot the correlation between what I wrote and reality?

His job will be what the coach or match circumstances dictate.

You kick the ball when you have it and defend when you don't. So he can do both. If you think otherwise and your thought process is common in Britain (which I think it is) that may explain why we consistently lose to Australia. Players need to be more than one trick ponies.

Funny I thought RL was a team game...

The markers should be the ones closing Luke down. Not one particular player.

Sinfield obviously had to defend, my point was he shouldn't be concentrating on one particular player. Particularly when Sinfield plays 6 and Luke plays 9.

What you expecting Sinfield to follow every play the ball all over the park while stopping Luke?

Really? All of them. Here's a tip, run at Dean Whare and see how good he is in D. Have a look at Manu Vatuvei's lateral movement and just bomb him at every opportunity for the man mountain whose fingers are made of butter.

England are well capable of beating the Kiwi's and the Aussies for that matter, however they need to perform at the top of their individual capabilities, but also play as a team, something they dont seem able to do so at the moment , wether that is down to the half backs is open to discussion

Also they need to play without fear and basically smash the opposition to the point that they feel fear of the England team, something we havent achieved for decades

Well said sir.

More cohesion is needed. One would have hoped that a similar team and structure would have played several times together now, but alas due to player's ill discipline off the pitch and selection headaches, that hasn't been the case.

the three things ive been looking for from england are cohesion, composure and execution. while the first two were on and off for the group stages, they came together more so against france where only (in my opinion) execution was lacking. too many dropped balls/forward passes. with big game mentality and more preparation, these balls will stick and im predicting (hoping for) the presence of all three of these qualities on saturday.

Double post

Against France, we should have put them to the sword, stuck to what we were doing well but decided to "attempt" to show boat a little bit. Messed up, lost focus, made mistakes.

Australia and NZ would have kept the pressure on and stood on their opponents throats, not letting up. We did for some reason.

With regards to NZ (and other polynesian cultures), they believe in a thing call Mana. Here's a brief description I found of it on the net after maori mates told me about it years ago:-

[iIn Polynesian culture, mana is a spiritual quality considered to have supernatural origin—a sacred impersonal force existing in the universe. Therefore to have mana is to have influence and authority, and efficacy—the power to perform in a given situation. This essential quality of mana is not limited to persons—peoples, governments, places and inanimate objects can possess mana. There are two ways to obtain mana: through birth and through warfare. People or objects that possess mana are accorded respect because their possession of mana gives them authority, power, and prestige. The word’s meaning is complex because mana is a basic foundation of the Polynesian worldview.[/i


One way to get it is to take it from your opponent, whether it be in warfare or metaphorically on a footy field. I can't help but notice the symbolism in the particular haka they perform, where they cut the throats and rip open the chest.

Sorry about the polynesian waffle.

I thought Sam Burgess was one of our best players in the last two games

5 reasons why England can beat the kiwis

1. Their wing/centre partnerships are vulnerable defensively. They can be got at especially from kicks
2. The Kiwis never travel well
3. Whilst big and strong their pack is a bit flat-footed and immobile,
4. They are going to be playing in front of a huge, partisan crowd willing England to win
5. They have yet to be tested so far in this world cup. When Samoa put a couple of sets together the Kiwis went to pieces defensively. The kiwis have yet to be stretched for a full game, we have yet to see them under pressure. England can take them to a place they haven’t yet been in this world cup. The kiwis have walked through defences so far, lets see what they are like when they aren’t bursting through gaps but just looking for territory, lets see their defence with set after set on their line when they need to go to the very bottom of that well.
And an added one that people should know but often need reminding of

6. England are actually a pretty good team.

Completely disagree on points 3, however think you are bang on with point 1.

Agree with point 6 if we cut the errors and penalties out

The point is this to do that you have to win the forward battle and I personally can't see that happening.

When you talk about defence - Charnley is a liability equally as bad if not worse than Vatuvei under the high ball and the less said about Tomkins and the high ball the better.

1 - England are more battle hardened having played 2 of of the 3 other semifinalists

2 - Defence. Most England have conceded is 28 (5 tries). Against Australia. NZ have conceded 24 (5 tries) against Samoa

3 - Defence. NZ have scored through getting a roll on and quick PTB's. They won't outmuscle England and will need a plan A and B to score - I don't think they will

4 - Discipline - NZ have less - the likes of Luke, Foran etc... can be extremely petulant. Don't give them the space they like and they will crumble

5 - Attitude - NZ apparently smashed Scot winning 6 tries to 1. Eng struggled to beat France, winning 5 tries to 1. Eng will be underestimated

In addition, Eng have scored more than 50% of their tries through the wingers. NZ 2nd rows and centres have scored just as many as their own wingers - this would indicated NZ have been able to smash their way through opposition, whereas England have had to create space for their wingers to score. Eng will still create space - will NZ be able to smash through?

Our forwards can match any team and Tomkins has been very solid under the high ball all tournament.

Not just the forwards, our backs can match any team IMO.

I have every faith in England, not just winning against NZ but backing it up at Old Trafford against whoever we might play.

If - and it is an if - our pack and our defence are spot on then NZ's game won't be so different to what we're capable of.

The semis are the same as the last RLWC. Can there be diffeent results in both semis this time?

It would be one hell of a coincidence if they were the same results

Well, it will be intersting to see who has progressed relative to their opponents since then and whether all the hype (of both England and NZ) is justified.