Yeah, they lacked energy, right from the start when they ran the ball in as hard as they ever have and the australian defenders hit them harder, eventually resulting in a knock on after a few hit ups.





If they'd lacked energy, they'd have lost by much more.

So you don't think NZ's bruising encounter with England will have had any effect on the Kiwis? Compare that game to Australia's demolition of Fiji, where half the game Australia were walking back to the other end of the field following a try. Australia were no doubt the fresher side.

Not really, no. Those players get beat up week in week out in NRL.

:22fhucwt

Fair point. Although SBW did say."

Maybe not like your average NRL game.

The Kiwis were poor, and it wasn't all Australia's doing. Funny thing is if that was England instead people would be saying we were awful and Australia were probably only at 75%. As its the NRL filled New Zealand team then the Southern Hemisphere lovers will make excuses that they wouldn't do if it happened to England.

Really? I thought, right from the start they looked laboured and ran it in fairly slowly. Resulting in the excellent Australian defence getting forward quickly and dominating, eventually resulting in a knock on in New Zealand's first set.
The lack of support runners for New Zealand was evident from the start also, indicating a lack of energy. That lack of energy doesn't necessarily have to have come from the tough game the week before. Plenty of ex and current players and coaches have talked about how you can be drained by an occasion, we often see this in finals. In my opinion, New Zealand suffered from this and Australia didn't.


So why did New Zealand knock on in their first set?

Yep. If England had lost by over 30 points to Australia or New Zealand, especially in a final, it would have been yet further proof of the yawning gap between us and the NRL.

Anyone who thinks that a NZ team who had 32 points put past them without reply, who didn't score a try in the whole game, who were dominated in both attack and defense at every point in the game, weren't poor need their head examining.

I'm not saying the the Aussies weren't great, they were. But they were made to look better by a team who looked defeated from the off.

A fantastic World Cup. Australia were mercurial yesterday. Aside from the trains yesterday was awesome.

NZ were relatively poor. The Ockers were superb.

Would we have done much better? Probably. would we have beaten them? No chance.

NZ did not threaten England particularly. Their tries in the second half came off penalties that put them on our line and the one in the first half was an absolute miracle. In organised attack during that match they didn't look like scoring. It was absolutely no surprise that they didn't score a try against Australia. England showed the Aussies exactly how to shut NZ down and that's what they executed perfectly. I love it when people on here whose idea of being a competitive sportsman is a game of 5 a side every now and then come along and talk about how the England game won't have taken anything out of NZ. Most of the people who actually have played in international games seemed to have a different opinion - but what do they know? The only possible advantage NZ might have had was that Australia were "undercooked". But we saw that was not the case. After a long, long hard season the easier games kept the Aussies fresher IMO.

Australia - NZ games have a habit of being blowouts. NZ's at times off the cuff style is sometimes effective at rattling the Aussies but mostly the mistakes they make allow a ball control team like Australia to completely wear them down and run the cleaners through them.

And just a remark to those who are confidently predicting England would have lost by more, had no chance etc. Why? The evidence for that is only our historical record. We were the better side last week and dominated in the forwards, we did the same to Australia in the opening game where Roby clearly outplayed Cameron Smith (Issac Luke was diabolical against England and Australia). England have shown a real ability to trouble Australia and NZ out wide, some better finishing in both games would have resulted in different results - but they did create opportunities. Then there is the crowd. There was nothing there for NZ, but OT would have been bouncing at every drive and every big hit. I can't say for sure what would have happened any more than anyone else, but I don't think I'm being ridiculously optimistic when saying England had a real chance.

Jury's out for me. Only one team took the game to Australia during the WC and while they did enough to win that game, by their standards they were fairly ordinary. In the other games, including the final, they looked good and won at a canter but this tends to happen at all levels of the game when any side faces such lightweight challengers. Whether England would have fared any better in the final had they beaten NZ is a moot point.