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.

At no time did Australia look like they were going to win?!!!!!

Seriously???

I am the only one who was clawing the chair Everytime their backs got the ball!!!!

Our backs never threaten like that. Thats the difference. If they had a near balance in the pack they would have kicked our a$$es.

Let's be honest here guys.

They will improve massively in the next year....will we??

Very pleased for England - they deserved and win, and actually needed it too.

I don't think that Australia will be too down. They were one forward pass away from sneaking the win and when you look at who is due to come back from injury or exile (Stephen Moore, David Pocock, Wycliff Palu, Tatafu Polota-Nau, Scott Fardy, James O'Connor, Karmichael Hunt), coupled with the fact that they will be fresher by the time the RWC comes round, it will be a different Wallabies team that turn up next year.

England's forwards with the Wallaby backs would be one hell of a team.

George Carlin wrote:Very pleased for England - they deserved and win, and actually needed it too.

I don't think that Australia will be too down. They were one forward pass away from sneaking the win and when you look at who is due to come back from injury or exile (Stephen Moore, David Pocock, Wycliff Palu, Tatafu Polota-Nau, Scott Fardy, James O'Connor, Karmichael Hunt), coupled with the fact that they will be fresher by the time the RWC comes round, it will be a different Wallabies team that turn up next year.

England's forwards with the Wallaby backs would be one hell of a team.

Some news just hot off the press...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/wallaby-david-pocock-arrested-in-maules-creek-coalmine-protest-20141130-11x5w3.html

Don't think it will have any affect on his rugby career though.

Hope you are right, George.
If Cheika ain't worried; then neither am I. Good call on Karmichael Hunt too. Forgot about him.

Is it worth me watching my recording, or just highlights?

I'd watch the full game LT.

There's actually a lot of good stuff from both sides and the touches from Ford and Youngs in the backs are pretty impressive at times. Oz as well do well to hit back blow for blow when ever we scored.

GeordieFalcon wrote:At no time did Australia look like they were going to win?!!!!!

Seriously???

I am the only one who was clawing the chair Everytime their backs got the ball!!!!

Our backs never threaten like that. Thats the difference.  If they had a near balance in the pack they would have kicked our a$$es.

Let's be honest here guys.

They will improve massively in the next year....will we??

We controlled the game.. I wasn't worried at all. Our back play during the 6n's was the best out of the 6n's . I have no concerns once our players get fit.

Well done England, that was a convincing enough win. Your team has looked very strong in this series, so if they can work on other areas they will become a force in world rugby I think. That was another blow dealt to the Wallabies and it surely puts England in a position to continue this business of dispatching those clever convicts in the RWC; I wish Wales had learned to do so by now. I'm not yet sold on your wingers like a few of you are though, particularly that May guy. As for midfield I think going forward you're probably looking at Ford/Farrell, Farrell/Burrell/Twelvetrees, Tuilagi/Burrell - not bad options to have at all.

GeordieFalcon wrote:At no time did Australia look like they were going to win?!!!!!

Seriously???

I am the only one who was clawing the chair Everytime their backs got the ball!!!!

Our backs never threaten like that. Thats the difference.  If they had a near balance in the pack they would have kicked our a$$es.

Let's be honest here guys.

They will improve massively in the next year....will we??

There was a degree of control though, Ford left points on the pitch that would have seen us well clear after 10 minutes into the second half. I also think there was a guilt edge chance missed when Garces saw a 'knock on' in the first. The thing about saying 'if they had a better pack....' is that they, well...don't, you beat what is in front of you and let the opposition worry about the rest. Let's not forget that England have had a very rough autumn injury wise too.

However, like you I was nervous when they attacked us out wide. Some of our tackling was poor, Ashley-Cooper had a good game but we helped him look good with poor defence. Maybe when we get our best outside centre back and settle on an inside centre to go with him we won't be as vulnerable to their fancy Dan backs!

I don't think England need to improve massively, I think that they are close and just need a few areas of the team to click and they'll be well set.

On balance I am not trying to be cocky but I am confident of being able to beat them next year too.

I'm with Geordie on this.  I never felt the match was in the bag, until, well, it was in the bag late on.  The Wallaby backs are really good and cut great lines.  Though our defense was strong, all it would have taken is one break, and the Wallabies did come close a few times.  That great break by Ashley-Cooper later on in the second half was off a pass so forward it could have been NFL, but they had other opportunities.  And, by the way, that dude is seriously good.  

I believe we were the better team.  But, when we are better, we need to be able to put teams away earlier.  They have a number of good players coming back, but so do we.  So next year will be a different cup of tea.  Hopefully, the end result is the same.  

By the way, did we have anyone who ran good lines like the Wallaby backs? Or, at least took the ball at pace (or a reasonable facsimile thereof)?

So who would people prefer at centre in the 6N's??

12. Burrell/Eastmond/Barritt/Twelvetrees/Farrell
13. Manu/Burrell/Barritt/Joseph

?

For what it's worth i'd start with Burell and Manu.

doctor_grey wrote:I'm with Geordie on this.  I never felt the match was in the bag, until, well, it was in the bag late on.  The Wallaby backs are really good and cut great lines.  Though our defense was strong, all it would have taken is one break, and the Wallabies did come close a few times.  That great break by Ashley-Cooper later on in the second half was off a pass so forward it could have been NFL, but they had other opportunities.  And, by the way, that dude is seriously good.  

I believe we were the better team.  But, when we are better, we need to be able to put teams away earlier.  They have a number of good players coming back, but so do we.  So next year will be a different cup of tea.  Hopefully, the end result is the same.  

By the way, did we have anyone who ran good lines like the Wallaby backs?  Or, at least took the ball at pace (or a reasonable facsimile thereof)?

Yes, Eastmond, Joseph and Burrell have all done simiar for club and country. I don't think any one is expecting that kind of running game of Twelvetrees and Barritt though, that's just not their style.

emack2 wrote:England in contrast have gone from a 3-0 loss to NZ,then the hype we will win our group
then its Final of or winning RWC.[which of course they may well do]

Because theres no opposition on our side of the draw,then suddenly after losses to Nz,Sa,
streaky win over Samoa there no hopers,now of course all has changed with todays victory.

Eh? It wasn't a great performance against Samoa, but it wasn't that bad (or lucky).

yappysnap wrote:So who would people prefer at centre in the 6N's??

12. Burrell/Eastmond/Barritt/Twelvetrees/Farrell
13. Manu/Burrell/Barritt/Joseph

?

For what it's worth i'd start with Burell and Manu.

I'd tend to agree to start Burrell and Tuilagi. Burrell runs good lines, runs powerfully, can distribute fairly well, and plays good D. Could be a nice combo with Tuilagi. Anyone know the health/medical info with Tuilagi?

The Loaded Dog wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Very pleased for England - they deserved and win, and actually needed it too.

I don't think that Australia will be too down. They were one forward pass away from sneaking the win and when you look at who is due to come back from injury or exile (Stephen Moore, David Pocock, Wycliff Palu, Tatafu Polota-Nau, Scott Fardy, James O'Connor, Karmichael Hunt), coupled with the fact that they will be fresher by the time the RWC comes round, it will be a different Wallabies team that turn up next year.

England's forwards with the Wallaby backs would be one hell of a team.

Some news just hot off the press...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/wallaby-david-pocock-arrested-in-maules-creek-coalmine-protest-20141130-11x5w3.html

Don't think it will have any affect on his rugby career though.

Hope you are right, George.
If Cheika ain't worried; then neither am I. Good call on Karmichael Hunt too. Forgot about him.

Just read the article. Pocock is 20-frickin-6?

I'd have Eastmond and Tuilagi. Not as robust defensively but Eastmond distributes better than Burrell and has better feet. I think Burrell/Tuilagi is too similar personally.

Either of those would be good to me.

It's good to know we always have Barritt as a replacement as well who can drop in and do a very good job.

Telegraph's player ratings are pretty much on the money to me (in brackets are any I would change):

Mike Brown - Used his left boot to good effect. Has got better throughout series. 7 (Quiet game and failed to link with the other backs 6)

Anthony Watson - Still raw, but the potential is obvious. Kick-chases were good. 6

Brad Barritt - Important thrust for Ben Morgan's try and, as ever, solid, often heroic, in defence. 6

Billy Twelvetrees - Still not the answer. Struggled defensively as Australia sliced England open too easily. 5

Jonny May - Dropped a difficult pass in first half when clear. Saw little ball. 6

George Ford - Kicked very well out of hand and decently off the tee. Justified place. 7

Ben Youngs - Some of his kicking was superb, but some of his passing was poor. 6 (Tackling and pressure on Oz 9 was key as well 7)

Joe Marler - England's scrummage was excellent and he made his share of tackles too. 7

Dylan Hartley - Overthrew one lineout early on but otherwise England's line out was solid. 7 (1 not straight as well I think and quiet going forward 6)

David Wilson - Another who has had a fine series. Only over the ball has Dan Cole been missed. 7

Dave Attwood - Not as prominent as he has been, but still part of hefty scrummaging effort. 6

Courtney Lawes - Tackled quite magnificently, including one stupendous effort to prevent Adam Ashley-Cooper scoring. 8

Tom Wood - Cleverly put Ben Morgan in for try and tackled efficiently. 7

Chris Robshaw - One of his finest games over the ball, especially when winning a wonderful turnover penalty under England's posts. 9

Ben Morgan - Did very well to take both tries and always carried powerfully. The No 8 shirt is his. 9

yappysnap wrote:I'd watch the full game LT.

There's actually a lot of good stuff from both sides and the touches from Ford and Youngs in the backs are pretty impressive at times. Oz as well do well to hit back blow for blow when ever we scored.

I may have to as from the written reports Youngs seems to have been, according to different journalists, poor or pretty good, while Ford varies from average to very good.

Speaking as a (genuine) neutral, I have watched Twelvetrees a number of times and it is still very difficult to see him as an international quality player. Compare him to Ford, who seems to have time on the ball and looks born to do it. Is Eastmond really not better?

LondonTiger wrote:

yappysnap wrote:I'd watch the full game LT.

There's actually a lot of good stuff from both sides and the touches from Ford and Youngs in the backs are pretty impressive at times. Oz as well do well to hit back blow for blow when ever we scored.

I may have to as from the written reports Youngs seems to have been, according to different journalists, poor or pretty good, while Ford varies from average to very good.

Depends which part of his game you paid closer attention to, methinks. His passing was generally slow, but fewer high passes than Care has thrown recently. His kicking and overall awareness seemed to me to be good.

By the way, no one has mentioned that great England maul in the last 10 minutes which led to the last penalty kick. Must have gone from mid-field to the 22. Credit to Wiggly for directing traffic with that one.

Ford was good I thought, youngs kicked well but I always feel he sets a slower tempo than care... Not always his passing, more that he's more deliberate and less instinctive, half a second slower to get the ball out. I've always thought our backs perform better with care at 9 for that reason. Having said that, I'm basing that on the care of last season, on form youngs may well now be first choice.

Care and ford would be my first choice if both on form.

George Carlin wrote:Speaking as a (genuine) neutral, I have watched Twelvetrees a number of times and it is still very difficult to see him as an international quality player. Compare him to Ford, who seems to have time on the ball and looks born to do it. Is Eastmond really not better?

]

Agreed. I had high hopes for 12T but I'm just not convinced now.

I still think Youngs' pass is poor - slow and high, and he dithers too much. Care's been poor but I'd far prefer him there.

Lot of harsh stuff on here. England played one of the most professional error free games where they stuck to the game plan in the first half. Oz upped their intensity in the second half. England played to their strengths and got the win. Very professional. Ok 36 looked off the pace overall for my money but did a few things well.

If a team plays like they train then good things happen. Care isn't off form neither is Farrell. They just didn't stick to the plan.

Attwood looks like a dog but plays like a Cat most of the time. Lawes, Morgan and Barritt put in a full shift and looked well spent when they came off. Compare that to Attwood who looked fresh as a daisy. He needs to get involved a lot more.

milkyboy wrote:Ford was good I thought, youngs kicked well but I always feel he sets a slower tempo than care... Not always his passing, more that he's more deliberate and less instinctive, half a second slower to get the ball out. I've always thought our backs perform better with care at 9 for that reason. Having said that, I'm basing that on the care of last season, on form youngs may well now be first choice.

Care and ford would be my first choice if both on form.

Agree with that but would add that I like the fact that Youngs and Care are competing for the place as a bit of competition is healthy. I enjoyed the match yesterday and thought that England more or less had control all the way through although the Aussies always looked dangerous. The 6Ns and Eng/Wal/Aus in the world cup is looking very interesting. Back to European rugby next week...

Didnt think the passing from young's was as bad as folks are making out on here. As a team we're not good enough at reorganising our attacking line, you can see when young's looks up and delays whilst they reorganise themselves.

Can't talk about oz being a top 3 side anymore. I see they're ranked 5th now. Well done to Ireland who now occupy the number 3 spot. Are we at last seeing the rise of the NH?

My current top 5 would be:

1) New Zealand
2) Wales
3) Ireland
4) South Africa
5) England

Steffan wrote:My current top 5 would be:

1) New Zealand
2) Wales
3) Ireland
4) South Africa
5) England

Same for me, except France would be at 5 instead of England.

Steffan wrote:My current top 5 would be:

1) New Zealand
2) Wales
3) Ireland
4) South Africa
5) England

Not convinced by that. I'd drop them down to 4th or 5th and shift the rest up a place. That's if they're actually better than the Wobblies, and seeing how poor the Springboks were yesterday I'm not convinced by that.

NZ
SA
IRE
ENG
WALES
FRANCE
OZ

No, Wales should be 2 nd as they are now regularly beating the SH.

Ire, SA, Eng - joint 3 rd

Fra & Aus - somewhere around 10 th.


Scotland - dark horse st.

The Saint wrote:

Steffan wrote:My current top 5 would be:

1) New Zealand
2) Wales
3) Ireland
4) South Africa
5) England

Same for me, except France would be at 5 instead of England.

You're all too conservative and polite.

The truth of the AIs dictates that truth must be spoken, even if it offends the All Blacks.

1) Wales
2) England
3) South Africa
4) Australia
5) Scotland
6) France
7) Ireland  (we've had our day in the sun, we got ourselves sunburned... it's all downhill from here.  We've had our 'WC' and it was a premature strike, yet again)
8) New Zealand (choakers!)

Has everyone been eating exotic mushrooms?

Peter Jackson wrote:My current top 5 would be:

1) New Zealand
2) Wales
3) Ireland
4) South Africa
5) England

I saw that list in Empire magazine too. Great filming locations.

Pete Jackson know his epic landscapes

englandglory4ever wrote:Can't talk about oz being a top 3 side anymore. I see they're ranked 5th now.  Well done to Ireland who now occupy the number 3 spot. Are we at last seeing the rise of the NH?

I thought we were 4th?

LT, the telegraph ratings are pretty spot on for me, maybe a touch generous to Twelvetrees

Steffan wrote:My current top 5 would be:

1) New Zealand
2) Wales
3) Ireland
4) South Africa
5) England

Ah, never gets old!

ChequeredJersey wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Can't talk about oz being a top 3 side anymore. I see they're ranked 5th now.  Well done to Ireland who now occupy the number 3 spot. Are we at last seeing the rise of the NH?

I thought we were 4th?

LT, the telegraph ratings are pretty spot on for me, maybe a touch generous to Twelvetrees

Oz (not us) are 5th

I think Barritt deserved at least a 7.

Why for tackling? That's pretty much his one job, it's like giving Joe Worsly MoM on the losing team for tackling (a lot).

yappysnap wrote:Why for tackling? That's pretty much his one job, it's like giving Joe Worsly MoM on the losing team for tackling (a lot).

His tackling was spot on and he hit the line at speed* that set up the move for Morgan's first try.

*something other players could learn a bit about.

IIRC Barrett ran a dummy it was Wood that set up the try

yappysnap wrote:IIRC Barrett ran a dummy it was Wood that set up the try

The move before that.

yappysnap wrote:IIRC Barrett ran a dummy it was Wood that set up the try

Barritt made a carry on the previous phase. Picked a great diagonal line.

We won. Just imagine what the comments would have been like had we lost

Decent win for England, but that is all.

On the evidence of this year, England will be going into the World Cup a year light of where they would like to be. Still a general lack of cohesion, exacerbated by the injury crisis, a few too many errors in general, and a back-line lacking in an abundance of creativity and spark.

Having said that, England do have a fantastic pack, a world-class line-out and home advantage for 2015.

If the draw goes the way it should, then England can be expected - as they will be favourites versus Australia, Wales, Scotland, and one of Ireland or France at Twickenham -  to make a third World Cup final in twelve years.

Which will be nice!

I just hope Lancaster can nail down some consistent team selection in the upcoming Six Nations.

lostinwales wrote:We won. Just imagine what the comments would have been like had we lost

Quite. While the Aussies always looked dangerous they were never ahead in the game.

England now have basically two packs worth of top class players, almost all of whom are reasonably young. This is an excellent place to be, and in a year's time the pack will probably be stronger as they get more game-time and England can pick on-form players as the injuries clear up. Given it is a home WC I think having the best pack in the world (which I think England will have) will give us a real chance as long as they stick to the plan (incidentally, if England had played against SA and NZ like they did yesterday presumably they would have won, as they were much better than in the 3 point defeats).

Behind the pack things are a bit further behind, but there are some good things, namely:

- Ford has shown he can cut it, which means Farrell will have to be playing very well before he's given a chance at 10 again. He'll no longer just be the default selection.
- May and Watson look like they may be first choice now, and will learn a lot from the 6 Nations
- Brown is playing a bit better, and SL has shown he'll pick on form at SH.

The main problem remains the centres. I think the inside centre will be one of Farrell, Eastmond or Twelvetrees, with outside centre being Tuilagi if fit, otherwise Burrell, and then Barritt. It's a shame Joseph seems out of favour. The important thing is to pick a combo for the Wales game and to try to stick to it through the 6 Nations.

England are not going to develop Australian style back play in the next 12 months, but they can get a lot better, and with that pack I think we'll have as good a chance as anyone by next autumn.

That's nice. A win over the AB's can now be 'assumed' based on a win over Oz (who 'incidentally' also lost to the Boks, Ireland, France, NZ (x2) and Argie already this year) and who have lost their best performer playing 'during' all these losses this AI's in Kurandrani, and who have a new test coach of less than a month old.

Nice assumption Dave...didn't quite get to the rest sorry...had to pick my chair up...I'm sure it was good though.

Taylorman wrote:That's nice. A win over the AB's can now be 'assumed' based on a win over Oz (who 'incidentally' also lost to the Boks, Ireland, France, NZ (x2) and Argie already this year) and who have lost their best performer playing 'during' all these losses this AI's in Kurandrani, and who have a new test coach of less than a month old.

Nice assumption Dave...didn't quite get to the rest sorry...had to pick my chair up...I'm sure it was good though.  

Steady on. Who 'assumes' an NH side will beat NZ?

Having said that, NZ only seem to win the WC at home. It's up to you to prove otherwise.

Taylorman wrote:That's nice. A win over the AB's can now be 'assumed' based on a win over Oz (who 'incidentally' also lost to the Boks, Ireland, France, NZ (x2) and Argie already this year) and who have lost their best performer playing 'during' all these losses this AI's in Kurandrani, and who have a new test coach of less than a month old.

Nice assumption Dave...didn't quite get to the rest sorry...had to pick my chair up...I'm sure it was good though.  

Calm down, it's all hypothetical. England were terrible in the second half against NZ, with no control of territory and a shocking kicking game. For the first time this autumn we got that right, and if we can keep doing that then we'll be a lot harder to play against. Given the margin of victory was slim an England side getting the basics right for once would obviously have a much better chance of winning. It doesn't mean they definitely would though and I withdraw the word "presumably".

I hope that helps you keep your chair upright.