Up front - they were superbly matched. Nothing given or taken
But it really was the backs. Every time New Zealand's back line got the ball they looked dangerous - lethal. They always looked like they might score. England - particularly in the first half - way too flat, too slow, not running onto the ball enough.
That improved noticeably after half-time - but still did not match New Zealand, who were able to snuff out almost every England passing move.
Discipline - and poor kicking - nearly cost New Zealand - they really lost their rag with the referee, who will have done wonders for trans-Tasman relations.
But its a New Zealand win. Signing off from The Stoop before the batteries die...
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Atrocious, disgraceful refereeing performance from Sarah Corrigan.
ReplyDeleteWell, no. If you had seen the rest of the tournament - and in particular read http://www.scrumqueens.com/features/531-consistency-key-for-referees.html- you would know that she refereed in exactly the same way as all other officials throughout the competition. The games were refereed as if they were men's internationals, with all the rule interpretations that applied. The problem was that some countries were used to this - especially the Six Nations countries, who play to these rules all the time - but others were not. England had one yellow card all tournament, Scotland I think the same. Countries who play only rarely had a very different experience - New Zealand and Australia at least 8 (I haven't counted them all yet), Kazakhstan 10, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe referee only refereed New Zealand. Almost identical, persistant offences around the breakdown were committed by England players yet no yellow cards.
ReplyDeleteNZ were always going to pile into breakdown, England had no answer, the only assistance came from the referee
Had NZ not played such long periods without 15 on the field, they would have far out scored England.