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.

Ok I've given it some thought, and i cant think of a single reason as to why a 40 point defeat would have been better. Please enlighten me...........

You should stick to banging on about how brave terrorists are, RL is clearly not your thing.

Serious question - did you go to the game? And did you go with a number of non RL fans as I did? I'd be interested to hear how a 40 point beating in front of a 70,000 crowd would be better than what was served up.

As one guest said - that has to be the best sport played out at the new Wembley yet.

You've just explained precisely that Sinfield was out ahead of everyone else. Point proven. It may only be 2-4 metres, but it was enough. It doesn't really matter where Watkins & Charnley were, they're not the ones sprinting hell for leather and missing their man. They could still have reacted and drifted.

However, it's likely either Sinfield had made the call to rush, or they had seen him go fast and reacted. Either way, that decision proved to be the wrong one. As I've explained at length, the better option is to go fast about 8-10 metres, hold, and drift. Offer a solid line and invite the attack onto you, not a zig-zag of over-committed defenders with holes to run at, which is the worst thing you can do.


Charnley and Watkins could easily have covered a wide cut-out pass. In the time it would take to loop a pass so far they could have closed down the touchline no problem. Only those with little or no knowledge of RL defences would think a try was inevitable - it certainly wasn't. You're showing yourself up with that statement.


It was mentioned in response to his comparison to Sinfield. However, as I've already stated - and I'll repeat myself as your memory is clearly faltering - yes, George moved too slowly and was out of position. But...and concentrate now...if he had moved up quickly he would have been inside Sinfield, who got stepped on his outside, and therefore nowhere near Johnson, who would have had a clear run in. Johnson actually only has to step George due to his slow advance! And remind me, who was it left him exposed 1-on-1?


A metre drift (as you see it) is still a drift. Regardless, Sam Burgess is simply not an factor in this play. Clutching at straws.


"I'm not trying to blame others [ibut[/i...George...Sam...and let's mention Watkins and Charnley..." anyone else? Could you actually bring yourself to utter the words "it was Sinfield's fault"?

To blame Sinfield shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the game and the decision-making process in it.

Sinfields decisions wasn’t to rush out and miss a tackle or drift and defend it. In that position NZ were the favourites to score. The most likely outcome of that play was NZ scoring, they had quick play, numbers, and weren’t far out at all.

What Sinfield is looking at is space on both sides of him, the ball going to Johnson, Johnson having men either side of him and a limited amount of options. If Sinfield doesn’t rush out and hangs back and drifts then firstly he needs to know which side to drift to because drifing out to cover the wing/centre partnership would have left a huge gap on the inside, drifting in side would have left a cut out ball to the winger and a stroll in, try. England were in a bad position where whichever option Sinfield chose, the most likely end point was NZ scoring. A ‘shooter’ was the best option, it was the option you want your defence to take, it just should have been coming from inside Sinfield rather than Sinfield. The problem with that is a good run on the back of a good PTB had sucked in 4 men and our defence was stretched.

It was a patient well-executed set, against a tired defence, with on the back of quick ball, it would have taken brilliant defence to stop it.

If there is one place we can apportion ‘blame’ it probably is there. NZ scored of a good set, they got a penalty from Gurgess’s high tackle but props make high tackles, it happens.

The Kiwis with secondds to go ran a quick, quality set of 6, twice. They didn’t panic they ran their sets as they practiced. When a kick to the corner, even going to touch 10-20metres would have likely won England the game, we didn’t organise a set to get our best kicker on the ball, in a bit of space to get a decent, not even necessarily brilliant kick away to close the game down. Instead we were panicked in to a poor kick from Widdop that went pretty much straight up. That’s maybe 30metres we lost in territory by not having that ‘close down’ game plan. That is something to learn from and work on.

I was bemused when the last tackle kick was straight down the middle for NZ to return it with momentum. Kicking it to touch or even dead would have allowed us to regroup in defence.

Disagree, running out at full speed always makes it easier to be stepped and with two props on inside they were never going to cover the gap. Running out half speed and making NZ player make a decision giving team chance to slide would have been a better play. If he passes inside the two burgesses would have been there, passes outside worse case scenario is they score on wing leaving a difficult kick. Easy to say in hindsight but if you are going to rush out like that you have to make decent contact with attacker, Sinfield stuffed it.

You also have to have confidence that if he does step inside you, that someone is going to be coming across to cover. Sinfield did. They weren't.