England v Australia

First topic message reminder :

   
England v Australia
29 November 2014
KO 14:30
Twickenham
Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)

*****
Well 3 down - one to go. And this is a biggy. World Cup group rival....a win would be a nice mental strengthener.

So who do we start.

Have the coaches learned some lessons?...Farrell is not in form and not fit.
Also having a playmaker at 10 opens options up.

Can they issue glue to all the players so they can actually catch the ball...specifically in try scoring situations.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Here's a question.

If all the locks were fit and in top form what combo would you pick? And why?

As I have been seriously underwhelmed by Daver Attwood this autumn - I would return to the Lawes/Launchbury combo.

So would you say this AI series has seen Attwood become a starter...leaving a choice between Launchbury and Lawes?

Edit: Didnt see your response LT.

As always what we think is irrelevant to what SL will do. Hell he could always recall Geoff Parling. However the attributes that Attwood was meant to bring, gnarly, old school attitude, heavy traffic ground making and all round physicality I have not seen. Lawes has indeed been quiet, but he has called the line-out well and along with Launchbury does a hell of a lot of work around the paddock. So yeah for me Attwood has not nailed down a place. However Lancaster does tend quite often to retain the man in the shirt.

I wonder if the knock Lawes took against New Zealand affected him. I do wonder how often a drop in 'form' is actually down to carrying an injury that affects their game more than the injury they usually carry (as all players seem to be a little injured all the time).

I feel like Attwood in the forwards version of Twelvetrees. On paper has what we need, but hasn't shown it.

You think they're playing Lawes with concussion?

The more I think about how the backline who started to improve so much in the 6Ns and has dropped off since the more I think Twelvetrees is/was doing his job well.

Australia: 15 Israel Folau, 14 Henry Speight, 13 Adam Ashley-Cooper, 12 Matt Toomua, 11 Rob Horne, 10 Bernard Foley, 9 Nick Phipps, 8 Ben McCalman, 7 Michael Hooper (c), 6 Sean McMahon, 5 Rob Simmons, 4 Sam Carter, 3 Sekope Kepu, 2 Saia Fainga'a, 1 James Slipper

No 7&1/2 wrote:You think they're playing Lawes with concussion?

The more I think about how the backline who started to improve so much in the 6Ns and has dropped off since the more I think Twelvetrees is/was doing his job well.

Not necessarily concussion but that's not the only impact a head knock can have. It may even be completely unrelated to the head knock but related to him needing medic attention early in the SA game. He seems to be getting a lot of their attention this Autumn...or he could be out of form/not up to it/something else

So what about Slater had he been fit. Would he have come in and made that his shirt...he was playing great rugby and captaining?

For me the balance of the second row with Lawes and Launchbury is off...similarly as i feel the two flankers are not balanced.

GeordieFalcon wrote:So what about Slater had he been fit. Would he have come in and made that his shirt...he was playing great rugby and captaining?

For me the balance of the second row with Lawes and Launchbury is off...similarly as i feel the two flankers are not balanced.

If Slater had not been injured against the Crusaders then he may have got a chance on the bench ahead of Kruis. Who knows.

Attwood has been very good ?! Our lineout has been almost flawless, scrum doing very well and our rolling maul has been our best attacking weapon, Attwood has been at the centre of all those things literally and figuratively. I have also seen him with more ball in hand than any other forward with his handling skills play a large part in one of the May samoa tries. He has by far eclipsed Lawes, and for me its now Attwood and Launchberry as we miss Launchberrys athletism, especially with no openside flanker.

I don't know what people expect to see from a lock, Attwood has been a rock that has seen our set piece function brilliantly and he has carried hard with slow stagnant ball shipped on at ankle height from Care and Farrell.

sirtidychris wrote:Attwood has been very good ?! Our lineout has been almost flawless, scrum doing very well and our rolling maul has been our best attacking weapon, Attwood has been at the centre of all those things literally and figuratively. I have also seen him with more ball in hand than any other forward with his handling skills play a large part in one of the May samoa tries. He has by far eclipsed Lawes, and for me its now Attwood and Launchberry as we miss Launchberrys athletism, especially with no openside flanker.

I don't know what people expect to see from a  lock, Attwood has been a rock that has seen our set piece function brilliantly and he has carried hard with slow stagnant ball shipped on at ankle height from Care and Farrell.  

We all see what we want to see I guess. I have not seen Attwood at the heart of anything especially good. His side of the scrum has creaked, his ball carrying in the loose has been ineffective and he has butchered two real try opportunities. He has carried in the tight no more than any other forward and no more effectively. He has been no more central to the driving maul than any other forward. He has done ok, but I do not feel he has done anything special.

I have to admit a Bath bias but I think Attwood has done well, especially in that NZ test. The lineout has gone well, the scrum too, he has carried a bit, made his tackles, he blotted his copybook with the knock on at the end of the Samoa game but then he hasn't been the only one whose handling has let them down this series.

I think Lawes has actually been pretty poor this series and as mentioned above, I don't think he has been the same since that head knock against NZ. He certainly hasn't put as much pressure/ his trade mark late hits on the opposition half backs since.

I would agree that Lawes has been quiet.

he has been excellent in the lineout, and has been useful in disrupting several mauls but he doesnt look at the top of his game - seems a common factor in this England lineup.

Attwood has been good i think.

The whole forward pack has been good barring Big Billy I think. Been impressed with Mullan from the bench too.

Attwood has made a couple of high profile errors but has looked fundamentally able to make the step up to test starter, both physically and mentally. The lineout, scrum and maul have been excellent. I'm a huge fan of Lawes but lock selection will be really tough if Launchbury is back for the Six Nations.

Given how the lineout has been Lawes must surely start? launchbury for me is still a step up in class from Attwood and has the potential to be among the very best.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Australia: 15 Israel Folau, 14 Henry Speight, 13 Adam Ashley-Cooper, 12 Matt Toomua, 11 Rob Horne, 10 Bernard Foley, 9 Nick Phipps, 8 Ben McCalman, 7 Michael Hooper (c), 6 Sean McMahon, 5 Rob Simmons, 4 Sam Carter, 3 Sekope Kepu, 2 Saia Fainga'a, 1 James Slipper

Yeesh that backline

I would have been far happier if they had left AAC out on the wing and brought in Beale at centre. I reckon AAC is a seriously underrated OC, and the lines he picks from centre make him much more useful there than out on the wing.

Added to that Speight being a bit of a beast going forward (although questionable defensively), and I'm going to be watching through my fingers whenever they have decent attacking ball

Genia, Cooper, Beale and Skelton coming off the bench isn't going to be fun either

England team as expected http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/249313.html

England: Mike Brown, Anthony Watson, Brad Barritt, Billy Twelvetrees, Jonny May, George Ford, Ben Youngs; Joe Marler, Dylan Hartley, David Wilson, Dave Attwood, Courtney Lawes, Tom Wood, Chris Robshaw (captain), Ben Morgan
Replacements: Rob Webber, Matt Mullan, Kieran Brookes, George Kruis, James Haskell, Richard Wigglesworth, Owen Farrell, Marland Yarde

Last chance saloon for 36 in my opinion he has to step up to the plate and deliver.

Yep pleased with that side, Farrell for all his critics is a good bench option with his goal kicking for a tight last 20 and the run on side is the best we have put out this AI series. People will point fingers at Barritt still in the side and out of position at 13 but with changes so far to 9,10 an 12 we need some continuity and as always his work in defence and at the breakdown will be the best out there. I think we all would have liked Joseph or Burrell at 13 but at this stage in the series its too late to bring them in especially as the suspect 10/12 channel will be targeted all day for defense.

I agree that with all the changes that have been amde, and the 23 men SL retained that this is the best we can do. Still jacked off that we have not actually seen a genuine 13 playing.

If only we could turn back the clock and select Barritt/Joseph for the NZ game. Ever since we have been tinkering:

Roku dropped out due to injury.
Ford/Farrell axis always intended for Samoa.
Now 36 instead.

If Barritt is our defensive lynchpin - well how about selecting him in his correct position?

Anyway all irrelevant as it will be the 80 minutes on Saturday (that I will not see) that matters.

Londontiger you didn't answer the question - was 36 a leader at Tigers?

You guys think that when the clock hits 60 minutes that Wiggly and Farrell will come on together?
Assuming he is playing well, I would like to see Ford given the full 80 minutes to see how he fares.

Probably.

To be honest having a 9-10 combo who know each other isn't a bad option but I would rather see Dickson-Myler or even Wigglesworth-Hodgson.

Farrell Jr should be dropped completely.

beshocked wrote:Londontiger you didn't answer the question - was 36 a leader at Tigers?

He was not a first choice player - so pretty hard to be. He certainly looked like he coudl be leadership material.

beshocked wrote:Londontiger you didn't answer the question - was 36 a leader at Tigers?

 Hell no but he was only 22 when he left.

 He was very flaky with Leicester either brilliant, or shocking.

 But then I feel he has lost pace since he has bulked up a bit. Considering he covered wing at times for Leicester he would be able to do that now even at AP level.

 His game was inconsistent in every aspect when he was with us. Had all the potential mind you just was one way or another.

 He wasn't a player to bank on if the scrum was falling apart.

beshocked wrote:Probably.

To be honest having a 9-10 combo who know each other isn't a bad option but I would rather see Dickson-Myler or even Wigglesworth-Hodgson.

Farrell Jr should be dropped completely.

Makes sense. Proven combos, especially at 9-10, is probably a good idea.  You think Lancaster is hoping Wiggly will help improve Farrell's game?  
That said, I think we all agree Farrell needs some serious beach time to get healthy.   I also wonder why Lancaster continues with players not at their best form for their clubs.  Brown for one, we know how much better he can be when right, so why play him now?  I don't think England is the place to get players firing, should be at the clubs.

doctor grey it's simply poor management.

I guess Wigglesworth might help Farrell but we'll see.

Fair enough Welly. That's what I thought but obviously being a Leicester fan like Londontiger you have more knowledge on the topic of 36.

Londontiger how did he look like leadership material? I thought it was Allen who ran/runs the defence at Leicester when fit?

beshocked wrote:Farrell Jr should be dropped completely.

The starting line-up is Youngs, Care, May, Twelvetrees, Barritt, Watson

You don't have Farrell, so which three backs would be on your bench to make sure - given those names above - that you have cover for every position if anyone gets injured?

I keep asking this question, not because there aren't answers, but there aren't a lot of good answers, and I'm keen to know what positional risks people are prepared to take in order to see Farrell out of the matchday squad.

Cips or Myler

Welly wrote:Cips or Myler

To cover what?

How come Rokoduguni and Eastmond are both down to play on Friday for Bath but have dropped off Englands radar?

Did they really do that bad as I thought they were both injuried?

Both Watson and May (to a lesser extent) can cover full back.  So Other than a reserve FH and SH, I would have gone with Joseph who could cover both centre and wing.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Welly wrote:Cips or Myler

To cover what?

 Wiggleworth/Care cover 9
 Cips/Myler cover 10 (Barritt can cover 12 as he plays there usually)
 goode/Roko/Yarde/Joesph

TightHEAD wrote:How come Rokoduguni and Eastmond are both down to play on Friday for Bath but have dropped off Englands radar?

Did they really do that bad as I thought they were both injuried?

This does highlight an area of Lancasters managerial ability that puzzles me.

Having said that as of now i dont want to change the wingers....May and Watson look very good...and potential for the future.

Nowell seems to be playing aswell mind for Exeter.

cb wrote:Both Watson and May (to a lesser extent) can cover full back.  So Other than a reserve FH and SH, I would have gone with Joseph who could cover both centre and wing.

I think Joseph is pretty much the only fit player in or around the squad who could conceivably do both - he was on the wing in Argentina - but he's not a great winger and hasn't trained there much for his club, let alone country. If Tom May collected an early broken nose again, then I suspect we'd be in trouble.

Welly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Welly wrote:Cips or Myler

To cover what?

 Wiggleworth/Care cover 9
 Cips/Myler cover 10 (Barritt can cover 12 as he plays there usually)
 goode/Roko/Yarde/Joesph

If that means you'd have Goode, Roko and Yarde covering centre and Joseph covering wing, then I think three of those options look very vulnerable while the other is uncertain at best.

Rugby Fan wrote:

cb wrote:Both Watson and May (to a lesser extent) can cover full back.  So Other than a reserve FH and SH, I would have gone with Joseph who could cover both centre and wing.

I think Joseph is pretty much the only fit player in or around the squad who could conceivably do both - he was on the wing in Argentina - but he's not a great winger and hasn't trained there much for his club, let alone country. If Tom May collected an early broken nose again, then I suspect we'd be in trouble.

Surely its obvious...Barritt would go to the wing.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:How come Rokoduguni and Eastmond are both down to play on Friday for Bath but have dropped off Englands radar?

Did they really do that bad as I thought they were both injuried?

This does highlight an area of Lancasters managerial ability that puzzles me.

Having said that as of now i dont want to change the wingers....May and Watson look very good...and potential for the future.

Nowell seems to be playing aswell mind for Exeter.

I agree about the wingers, but that was more about players taking their chance due to injuries rather than SL making a selection call.
I think Eastmond should have been involved this weekend rather than 36 and Farrell shouldn't have started vs Samoa at Centre when guys like Eastmond JJ (inform centres of the games I've watched on TV this season) were available.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Welly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Welly wrote:Cips or Myler

To cover what?

 Wiggleworth/Care cover 9
 Cips/Myler cover 10 (Barritt can cover 12 as he plays there usually)
 goode/Roko/Yarde/Joesph

If that means you'd have Goode, Roko and Yarde covering centre and Joseph covering wing, then I think three of those options look very vulnerable while the other is uncertain at best.

 What?

 tell me the difference Owen bring to the 23 then?

I think any replacement which is not like for like is always going have some impact on a side, but If I remember Joseph did play wing at times for London Irish (though not for Bath).  I would not think he would be too much of a liability.  With the usual three outfield replacements, not all eventualities can be covered as well as would be liked, but the degradation should not be major.  

On a slightly different note Farrell is not essential as a replacement as other options do exist.

Quick question (sorry to ask again?)

Who will, and who should, take long range penalty attempts?

Leicester fans have commented here before about 36's ability to hit penalties from 50m. Ford seems to struggle from over 40m.

I think if England get a penalty 50m out we will just stick it towards the corner. When 12trees has played previously there seemed to be no inclination to let him have a go at the long range ones.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Here's a question.

If all the locks were fit and in top form what combo would you pick? And why?

Without a doubt Launchbury & Lawes. Attwood has gone OK, but his ball handling and rugby brain have let him down a fair bit in my eyes. There was the drop in the last match, two further times he coughed the ball up against SA and then the hash for a try in that same game. Lawes hasn't been in great form since his egg-head, but when he is his defensive speed is a serious offensive weapon, he's run our lineout brilliantly for the last year or so and he's a real nuisance around the park, particularly in mauls with his long levers. Launchbury's workrate and toil is huge for England and something I've felt we've really missed, he's also got a lot of rugby nous and handles the ball really well with soft hands in contact, something that the Kiwi locks tend to have and prove is essential to make the most of breaks and interplaying rugby.

I was worried about Kruis before the series but actually felt he's done OK, mildly impressed at times with his workrate and athleticism. That being said I'd probably prefer to have a look at Kitchener in the lineout role and when fit again Slater & Garvey for the dogged lock with blindside qualities. Slater is another lock who I think has particularly good hands for the position and a decent rugby brain to use them as well as carrying ability.

I just took a look comparing England's record in the years leading up to the last 4 RWCs. My thought was to see if we were in better or worse shape and if we really on 'on track' to challenge seriously for the RWC crown.

2002: 8-0-1
2006: 3-0-8
2010: 5-1-5
2014: 5-0-6

Seems to me our preparation and results are not dissimilar to 2010. So, please tell me, what hath Stuart Lancaster wrought?

Interesting that much of the criticism of Attwood has been about actual handling skills etc not about his actual role as a heavy duty carrier, tackler, ruck hitter and mauler.

To be honest my first requirements for a lock are to be the physical ones rather than silky hands.

I think he has played well...indeed i think lawes hasnt been so effective. If i had to start them all if fit it would probably be Attwood and Launchbury v Oz.

Rugby Fan wrote:

cb wrote:Both Watson and May (to a lesser extent) can cover full back.  So Other than a reserve FH and SH, I would have gone with Joseph who could cover both centre and wing.

I think Joseph is pretty much the only fit player in or around the squad who could conceivably do both - he was on the wing in Argentina - but he's not a great winger and hasn't trained there much for his club, let alone country. If Tom May collected an early broken nose again, then I suspect we'd be in trouble.

If Tom May is playing we are really in trouble.

Although as things stand it won't matter to the team if Tom breaks his nose

doctor_grey wrote:I just took a look comparing England's record in the years leading up to the last 4 RWCs.  My thought was to see if we were in better or worse shape and if we really on 'on track' to challenge seriously for the RWC crown.

2002:  8-0-1
2006:  3-0-8
2010:  5-1-5
2014:  5-0-6

Seems to me our preparation and results are not dissimilar to 2010.  So, please tell me, what hath Stuart Lancaster wrought?

In 2010, a much more experienced team lost to Ireland, France, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa (the last 3 by 10 points apiece) and drew with Scotland.

In 2014, the losses have been to France, New Zealand, New Zealand, New Zealand, New Zealand and South Africa. The France result was by the same losing margin, the 3rd test in NZ had a big margin, all the rest have been by 3 points or less. And this particular New Zealand team is arguably the best team the world has seen.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Interesting that much of the criticism of Attwood has been about actual handling skills etc not about his actual role as a heavy duty carrier, tackler, ruck hitter and mauler.

To be honest my first requirements for a lock are to be the physical ones rather than silky hands.

I think he has played well...indeed i think lawes hasnt been so effective. If i had to start them all if fit it would probably be Attwood and Launchbury v Oz.

Agree completely. Attwood has been very good this autumn and has proven that he can lead the lineout and provide good ballast in the scrum and mauls. For me he's been standout in the second row department and I wouldn't mind seeing how the Attwood and Launchbury combination would work.

Either way I think we've got 3 top class locks there in Attwood, Launchbury and Lawes, and providing they stay fit that should be the squad locks going forward.