Just watched it myself. Gutted for them also. Ireland have never beaten the All Blacks, hard to believe they will get a better chance than that.

Still, at least my U11's won 20 - 0 this morning.

I've finally found the courage to watch it again might skip the last minute though.

Me too.i cant beleive how many 'if only' moments there are in the last 10 minutes!

Still,very proud of the efforts of the lads.cant fault any of them and they did us proud.gives us all hope for the future international wise.

Rather than focus on the last minute, where we really lost the game was the 10 mins in the 2nd half when we gave 5 pretty soft and in some cases questionable penalties.

Yes this is what I said yesterday. Seen some match stats today and the two teams are quite even, one telling stat was England had to make 36 more tackles than the Kiwis. In a match played in that style having to defend to what equates to 6 extra sets showed in the legs in those final few minutes. So much of that extra defensive work came in that opening period of the 2nd half.

Rubbish. Ok, so NZ had 4 men and England had 3, with G Burgess on Sinfield's inside. There were enough to defend easily - all it would have taken was for all 3/4 to move in fast, hold their line and drift at the diagonal as the ball and/or players moved wide. The slide/drift defence is a basic of RL and had worked well pretty throughout the game. In no time the attackers run out of room. Offer them a solid wall and the touchline and they've nowhere to go. Anyone shooting out the line risks leaving a hole for a runner or getting stepped, which is exactly what happened. You're travelling too fast to recover.

Sinfield played magnificently yesterday and it's a terrible shame his error led to the try. But it did. However, as I also said a game is won over 80 minutes. G Burgess conceded a poor penalty - and others throughout the game made errors and the last 5 minutes saw a string of poor decisions. England should never have been in that position.


Comfortably? NZ are far too good to beat 'comfortably'. Yes, I agree we were in position to push on and secure the win, and for a few poor decisions and a couple of dropped balls (Lockers in particular, though the passes were poor), we'd have been there. England played superbly and came within a whisker of beating the World Champions and arguably the form team. There's a lot to be proud of.

Sinfield putting pressure on Johnson stopped the ball going out wide where we were outnumbered and made him go inside......where George Burgess was.....and his effort was non-existent. Yes Sinfield could've stopped the try with a tackle but so could G.Burgess, watch the footage back and both he and Sam are slightly hesitant and ball watching instead of drifting right away.

Plus even if we tackle him it's still 4th tackle with 15 seconds left so no guarantee they wouldn't have worked the ball over to our under pressure left side and scored.

Yes, but if Sinfield hadn't shot so far ahead, Burgess wouldn't have been so far behind. That said I do agree George was horrendously slow moving up. The safest rule in defence is generally that the line should only move up as quickly as the slowest man to avoid holes. Of course that's a simplistic view but in general rings true.

Are you another one who's never heard of a drift defence? NZ having one extra man more tight on the wing does not mean a scoring overlap was on. The defence only has to hold a solid line and slide a few metres and they have nowhere to go.

Fact is, he made the decision to sprint out and missed his man, who scored. It's a terrible shame as he was superb yesterday and has been throughout the tournament, but there it is.

Yes the defence should drift, watch the video. Sam Burgess starts off stood next to the post, he makes it to 8/9 metres out and is still pretty much in line with the post....had he taken 2 steps right instead 2 extra forward he could've reached Johnson too.

Sinfield didn't make the tackle but he cut out the outside option and let's face it neither Watkins or Charnley are renowned for their defence at times, he just needed those back on his inside to be there.

I think that by watching on repeat in slow motion people are forgetting that we'd played 80 mins of brutal high tempo rugby . There were times where I thought that SoL and Sam Burgess were broken but they kept getting back up.

So now it's the Burgess boys' fault. The best stepper and possibly most agile runner in the game against an exhausted 19 stone prop covering a massive defensive hole? Remind me, who was it missed his tackle?

The outside option was probably the better option - Charnley and Watkins had defended at least 2 wide attacks successfully already by drifting, and had tackled well all game, and as defences slide the attack runs out of room and options. You're seriously trying to tell me Sinfield made the correct decision? In case you missed it, he got stepped and his man scored. It was the wrong decision.

This blind defence of him is ridiculous. I don't care that it was Sinfield - if anyone else had made that run and missed his tackle I'd be saying the same thing. You don't shoot out the line - ever. As we saw.

I don't even blame him for the loss. England should never have been in that position, and his performance far outweighs one poor decision. But he still made the error on that particular play to concede the try.

seems like its not just NZ rugby league that got away with a jammy result at the end; the rugby union team have done the exact same against Ireland. Penalty with 30 seconds to go and charge down field to score after the 80 minutes had expired.

Don't know what it is with sport in NZ and AUS but they just never go in and keep showing that desire to win right up to the final hooter; something that British teams in any sport seem to lack. The focus and ability to keep going for the entire duration of the game.

Not saying It was the correct decision, merely pointing out that it didn't have to be a fatal one if George makes the tackle. Yes he may be 19 stone but he was on the pitch for 33mins in spells (Sinfield 80) and completed 20 tackles (Sinfield 30).

All I've done is look at the key talking point again and noted their was more to it than just Sinfield missing. You seem to not be able to accept this which is fine but still what I've pointed out is there in the video.

Sometimes you can shoot out, Watkins did it a few times against Inglis in the first match, the mistake comes when you do it and get no where close. Sinfield actually got close enough to tackle him that's where he really went wrong, the missed tackle not the charge out but as I pointed out their was one back up defender who missed too and another one who could've possibly reached had he stepped more to the right instead of forward.

They rarely accept defeat in this hemisphere.....I remember years and years of the BBC sports personality of the year being a runner up.

I accept there was more to it - but had Sinfield held the line with the others there would have been no need for anything else to it. As soon as he went full pelt he left George Burgess horribly exposed against probably the best stepper in the competition. He missed the tackle precisely because he charged out - he was travelling too quickly to react and was exposed 1-on-1. And no he didn't get close enough to make the tackle, as proven by him being stepped.

Comparing G Burgess's work rate with Sinfield is irrelevant - he's a completely different player with a different role, different conditioning, pace, agility, body mass, fitness, etc. I've already acknowledged he moved up too slowly - but I doubt that would have made much difference with the size of the defensive hole. He's not an 80 minute player and he's not conditioned to be.

As for Sam Burgess - he was 2 men down the defensive line from Sinfield. You simply cannot use him a an excuse. He did what an A marker should do, and actually did drift to his right from under the crossbar to just outside the posts. George was the one slightly out of position when Sinfield missed his tackle. You're clutching at straws bringing Sam anywhere near this. And actually had George moved straight in at speed Johnson wouldn't have had to step anyone to score, he'd have been straight through.

Shooting out the line is always a huge gamble. It drives me mad when wingers do it thinking they can stifle an overlap - when it reality the touchline is their best friend. Watkins used great judgement and timing against Inglis but few coaches would recommend it as policy. Missing a tackle like that can be fatal 80 metres up the pitch, never mind on your own line.