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.

You accept there was more to it but then discredit and make excuses to go back to simply "Sinfield shouldn't have shot out of the line on his own". The thing is......he didn't. Anybody can watch the try and pause it as Sinfield is stepped (which does mean he was close enough to tackle BTW, people don't step players who don't have a chance of reaching them) and he is on the 15m mark, Watkins 13m, Charnley 11m. All three are clearly over the 10m mark so no he didn't go alone, (if Watkins had been lets say only 5m out then he's probably got a shot of stopping Johnson but he isn't because they do go TOGETHER) the defender on his inside didn't drift across quick enough and only started hustling when Sinfield had been passed. So it was actually George who couldn't make the tackle as he was travelling too fast at this point instead of being that extra couple of yards across already.

And as all three go if Sinfield does hang back slightly then again on pause you can see all Johnson would've had to have done is loop one over to Nightingale, who probably gets several yards in to touch down not too dissimilar to the Johnson spot as, previously mentioned, George didn't hustle quick enough, the pass would've eliminated Charnley and Watkins out of the play and Tomkins couldn't sweep as he'd been involved in the previous tackle. So actually there was need to try stopping the pretty inevitable try that you can't see even though it was 4 Kiwis vs 3 English and George was too slow out of the blocks to make a difference if they'd have gone out wide.

Also you was the first to mention George's 19 stone frame as a possible excuse so why can't I state some fitness/fatigue related stats about the game? You do mention he's not an 80 minutes prop, I know that why I highlighted he played just over 30 mins in two spells. Sam Burgess and Graham both did much more minutes and more work yet were going around like machines still. And if you can do 'probables' regarding the almost unscoreable try had they gone out wide then I'll do my own. Had that been Graham or Sam in George's starting position that final PTB then they get across and stop him.

And probably is a bit harsh on Sam Burgess as A marker but point of order, NO he doesn't drift. He starts out just on the inside of the post and by the time he's 8m out he's in line with the post. 8m forward and 1m right isn't drifting when the ball is clearly going so far right from the posts with no black jumper anywhere near Johnson's other shoulder back towards the posts, he should've ideally been 3m right of his starting line in that time.

Before yourself and others say I'm trying to blame people I'm not, the effort was outstanding, especially Sam Burgess. I'm merely giving a description of a detailed closer look at that try. If you just look at things and notice the obvious and not the little things that's what those little 1% that people complain about go missing then wonder why we don't achieve them as much over here.

Difficult to criticise any player making a ' heat of the moment ' mistake as in the high tackle or shooting out of the line, however Englands last kick should have been better, but its all history now

I agree with this. What happened in that match was that the Kiwis were playing at 98% of their capacity and England at 102% of theirs. That's why, in the little crucial things that turn a game, the Kiwis had the edge. They just had that little bit more headroom in what they were doing, were just that little bit more comfortable.

The Kiwis were still just inside their comfort zone, so could handle the pressure better. England were outside theirs, so they were always stretched.

It looked close. It wasn't really. Play that game ten times and the Kiwis win eight or nine of them.

What utter nonsense.

And there we have it.

Slipping right into the complacent "we're nearly there" mode of thinking.


It was a truly disastrous result for England. It would have been far better to lose by 40 points.