Re: Did the All blacks Miss Lomu ?

<snip>

> No, silly boy. You've copied us in so many ways - a dominant forward
> pack, aggressive half backs, kicking five eights, burly centres and
> mutant wings. Throw in the more esoteric similarities, like the age of
> the pack etc. and once again, you're following NZ's ruts in the road.
> We did all that last century.  As I've said before, what does Woody do
> now? Try to build for the future by sacking his pack of old men and
> then losing the next 18 months worth of big ones? Or keep them hanging
> on for some short term wins but kiss good bye to the next RWC? Either
> way, it's all going to be pretty amusing for those of us who are old
> enough to appreciate the ebb and flow of "world domination" in rugby.

I disagree with the earlier [snipped] comment that England wouldn't have
beaten NZ - NZ's pack went to pieces in the Aus game and there's every
chance England would have inflicted the same damage. Australia might know NZ
better, but England plays a better forward, kicking and defensive game than
Aus and would have challenged NZ in all the areas they are weak - round the
fringes, in the line outs, midfield defence and penalty kicking duels.

However, I do think you're right about England facing some tough times. Lots
of the departing players are currently irreplaceable - Johnson, Dallaglio,
Greenwood and Hill chiefly.

Hopefully if Woodward gets the timing right, there's enough in the tank for
another decent 6N outing and then 3 years to rebuild a new team in time for
the 2007 RWC. I can't see England managing the transition of new to players
to old without a fair chunk of trial and error and the accompanying test
shockers. If NZ manage to keep their players from this tournament they would
have to be the team to beat. Anything less and there needs to be fairly
serious questions asked about the NZRU and the coaches they select.

-- 
 Ben Longman