England Versus Australia 18th November 2017 3pm k.o.

First topic message reminder :

A resurgent Wallabies arrive in town with a great opportunity to halt their run of defeats to England. They are in much better current form and are looking sharp. EJs is trying to test out a few new players and rotate his Lions with a long term RWC view. He has said he will take the odd defeat along the way if it helps develop the side longer term. I think this Sat could be one of those defeats.

I do agree with seeing how some different players cope and do not disagree with his approach. Therefore, we need to see Williams, George, Watson (at 15) all start. If Teo was fit I would also go Farrell at 10 and Teo at 12 with Slade at 13 (deserves 1 more go despite being poor on Sat).  

Once these AIs are over then I think the time for experimenting is done and we then play each match as if it is our last. This will enable the combinations to bed in and be battle hardened for RWC 2019.

Team: Watson, May, Joseph, Farrell, Daly; Ford, Youngs; M Vunipola, Hartley, Cole; Launchbury, Lawes; Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes.

Replacements: George, Marler, Williams, Itoje, Simmonds, Care, Slade, Rokoduguni.



Australia: 15 Kurtley Beale, 14 Marika Koroibete, 13 Tevita Kuridrani, 12 Samu Kerevi, 11 Reece Hodge, 10 Bernard Foley, 9 Will Genia; 1 Scott Sio, 2 Tatafu Polota-Nau, 3 Sekope Kepu, 4 Rob Simmons, 5 Adam Coleman, 6 Ned Hanigan, 7 Michael Hooper, 8 Sean McMahon
Replacements: 16 Stephen Moore, 17 Tom Robertson, 18 Allan Alaalatoa, 19 Matt Philip, 20 Ben McCalman, 21 Lopeti Timani, 22 Nick Phipps, 23 Kurtley Beale, 24 Henry Speight*

*one to be omitted

Launchbury had a hell of a game, very impressive in the tight and the loose.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:A good game yesterday and a good win for England. I just wonder if D Care might be better starting the game rather than off the bench. he seem too liven the game up passes the ball quick at the break down than young does.

Isn't this another version of the "George should start" debate?

In the modern game two hookers are going to play and two scrum halves are going to play.  Therefore the question is not who is best but which one is best suited to the tighter starting game and which the looser finish. I think Eddie Jones has it right.

The proof has been eaten with the pudding 21 out of 22 ain't bad

Youngs and Care have chopped and changed form on a regular basis over the years. They have swapped starting and bench slots endlessly as one has had a couple of dodgy games and the other stepped up but neither has aboslutely written themselves off or consistently outshone the other for an extended period.
As it is Youngs is very much the man in now, and hes had an extended run in the starting shirt with Care providing the back up. Taking Jones' "finishers" concepot where the bench is almost an equal paert of the team rather than " plan B" this has worked just fine.
This weekends game was not a good time to judge Englands attempts at playing a fast flat passing attacking game, the conditions just didnt play to it. Theres no question that Care injected to life into a stalled England backline, but then hes bought on specificaly at the time the game is opening up and theres better opportunities to do that and with a license to take risks that maybe Youngs wasnt. His indiviual score was brilliant but both players are capable of that, and provide a genuine opportunistic threat.
I dont see it as quite the same as a "Hartley vs George" or "Launchberry vs Itoje" debate. Its two very similar players both of whom have bags of experience and have proven themselves as good international SHs. Certainly with Hartley the captincy and leadership question does play a big part whether Beshocked thinks it should or not. Both Youngs and Care are in the senior player bracket, although maybe when it comes to leadership and trust Yongs has a slight edge with less of a reputation for being an idiot.
But really for me they are pretty interchangable. You could swap them based on the form Cares shown in opne game, but equally the "if it aint broke dont fix it" is quite valid.

Gooseberry that's the point though - Care and Youngs have both started and been on the bench.


Yet generally England are worse with Hartley on the pitch.... but it's the tactics you hear his fanclub crying!

You are right it's different because all of them bar George have been given the opportunity to start for England.

Care has started for England, Itoje has started for England. I don't feel like either Youngs or Launchbury are undroppable deities.

Launchbury has had to play on the bench for example. He's had to fight.

Jones hasn't started George once.

You'll say but he's a "finisher", it's an important role supposedly. No one wants to play second fiddle.

I doubt Care thinks, you know what I only want to play for a small amount of time.

You talk about the captaincy and leadership but the game was in the balance till late on, not for the first time I should add.

Hartley is getting credit for leadership when he's not even on the pitch!

Should Care thank Hartley's leadership for his own performance? No of course not, that would be ridiculous.

Eddie seems very clear, from the papers this morning, that he wants Care on the pitch when the game is opening up and there will be gaps and space to exploit. And Care seems pretty happy about that. Two assists and a try is as good a return as you could wish for in twelve minutes' work, and a couple of the teams of the week have Care in as the 9.

Hartley topped the turnovers for England on the weekend with 4.

beshocked wrote:Gooseberry that's the point though - Care and Youngs have both started and been on the bench.


Yet generally England are worse with Hartley on the pitch.... but it's the tactics you hear his fanclub crying!

You are right it's different because all of them bar George have been given the opportunity to start for England.

Care has started for England, Itoje has started for England. I don't feel like either Youngs or Launchbury are undroppable deities.

Launchbury has had to play on the bench for example. He's had to fight.

Jones hasn't started George once.

You'll say but he's a "finisher", it's an important role supposedly. No one wants to play second fiddle.

I doubt Care thinks, you know what I only want to play for a small amount of time.

You talk about the captaincy and leadership but the game was in the balance till late on, not for the first time I should add.

Hartley is getting credit for leadership when he's not even on the pitch!

Should Care thank Hartley's leadership for his own performance? No of course not, that would be ridiculous.

Seriously, give it a rest now. I don't mind your posts generally but surely even you must be bored.

Erm, didn't England's weakest period come when Hartley had just left the pitch?

This is one of those cases where the best option at captain is not necessarily the best player in the position. And once again, George's superiority over Hartley at being a hooker don't outweigh what Hartley brings in managing the team and the ref.

One of the criticisms levelled at England has been the lack of depth in leadership. We just don't have many players with captaincy experience in the squad, unless you want to go back to Robshaw...

Anyway, Eddie apparently declared that Hartley was his "tournament captain" for the next two years through to RWC 2019. So George doesn't look likely to be starting any time soon.

Farrell would make a fine captain. He's a leader, good under pressure and an intelligent player.

scottrf I am indeed bored with Jones treating Hartley like a deity. Sadly this looks to continue.

Poorfour weakest period? You mean England putting away Australia with 3 tries?

The game was only settled in the last 10. It was still in the balance.

I feel you are giving credit to Hartley for work done by others - it's a normal occurrence seemingly.

No I don't think Hartley magically made Launchbury perform better or was controlling Care's movements off the bench.

Should credit for the defence go to Hartley? Perhaps the goal kicking of Farrell?


Farrell might be an intelligent rugby player but he's not intelligent.

You are right though he'd be a suitable replacement - he's Jones' kind of captain.

He's not someone I would want as captain because I don't like Farrell but as a rugby player he's suitable.

No comments.on vunipola? In open play and setpiece?

beshocked wrote:scottrf I am indeed bored with Jones treating Hartley like a deity. Sadly this looks to continue.

Poorfour weakest period? You mean England putting away Australia with 3 tries?

The game was only settled in the last 10. It was still in the balance.

I feel you are giving credit to Hartley for work done by others - it's a normal occurrence seemingly.

No I don't think Hartley magically made Launchbury perform better or was controlling Care's movements off the bench.

Should credit for the defence go to Hartley? Perhaps the goal kicking of Farrell?


Farrell might be an intelligent rugby player but he's not intelligent.

You are right though he'd be a suitable replacement - he's Jones' kind of captain.

He's not someone I would want as captain because I don't like Farrell but as a rugby player he's suitable.

Ah honestly man...can you please stop saying things like Deity etc. Honestly you sound like a 12 year old kid who's just had his lollypop taken off him and had a slap in the face for good measure

besides...Hartley was much better than George was on Saturday! But we'll not discuss that shall we!

propdavid_london wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:For me it's not Robshaws side its the other side of the flank that is the issue.

I still haven't seen anything to tell me Underhill is the man for the 7 shirt. Certainly not ahead if either Curry!
Obviously he's in there for his power and tackling but I didn't see much enforcing of that power v Argentina.

Underhill might not make it as a Test player if he keeps smashing his body up in tackles. I've seen a few people question hsi technique, which might make him a regular visitor to the HIA room.

Completely agree Rugby Fan - If he cant last the game or 60mins then he is going to be wasting a spot for a player that can.  I am surprised that he hasn't managed to sort technique out so far.  I know he is young but he's likely been playing since minis.

I worry he might be a back row version of Manu Tuilagi. Selected when he's fit - which means other players miss out on a chance - but not fit often enough to be a reliable squad asset.

I don't know what you do about that, since we don't have a crystal ball to know who will get crocked. Doesn't seem fair to overlook a player because he might not last. I've never fully forgiven Andy Robinson and Brian Ashton for failing to play Sinbad during some of his purple patches, because they wanted him to "prove his fitness". Then again, England haven't got the luxury of having players skip club games, which has helped Warburton be available for Wales, despite his injury record.

Rugby Fan wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:For me it's not Robshaws side its the other side of the flank that is the issue.

I still haven't seen anything to tell me Underhill is the man for the 7 shirt. Certainly not ahead if either Curry!
Obviously he's in there for his power and tackling but I didn't see much enforcing of that power v Argentina.

Underhill might not make it as a Test player if he keeps smashing his body up in tackles. I've seen a few people question hsi technique, which might make him a regular visitor to the HIA room.

Completely agree Rugby Fan - If he cant last the game or 60mins then he is going to be wasting a spot for a player that can.  I am surprised that he hasn't managed to sort technique out so far.  I know he is young but he's likely been playing since minis.

I worry he might be a back row version of Manu Tuilagi. Selected when he's fit - which means other players miss out on a chance - but not fit often enough to be a reliable squad asset.

I don't know what you do about that, since we don't have a crystal ball to know who will get crocked. Doesn't seem fair to overlook a player because he might not last. I've never fully forgiven Andy Robinson and Brian Ashton for failing to play Sinbad during some of his purple patches, because they wanted him to "prove his fitness". Then again, England haven't got the luxury of having players skip club games, which has helped Warburton be available for Wales, despite his injury record.

The difference being we have two players in the Curry bros who are (in my personal opinion) far better alround options..

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:scottrf I am indeed bored with Jones treating Hartley like a deity. Sadly this looks to continue.

Poorfour weakest period? You mean England putting away Australia with 3 tries?

The game was only settled in the last 10. It was still in the balance.

I feel you are giving credit to Hartley for work done by others - it's a normal occurrence seemingly.

No I don't think Hartley magically made Launchbury perform better or was controlling Care's movements off the bench.

Should credit for the defence go to Hartley? Perhaps the goal kicking of Farrell?


Farrell might be an intelligent rugby player but he's not intelligent.

You are right though he'd be a suitable replacement - he's Jones' kind of captain.

He's not someone I would want as captain because I don't like Farrell but as a rugby player he's suitable.

Ah honestly man...can you please stop saying things like Deity etc. Honestly you sound like a 12 year old kid who's just had his lollypop taken off him and had a slap in the face for good measure

It's true, he's a deity but as it's futile to discuss it so i'll stop now.  I am bored of it myself. We are at an impasse. The only person who can break the deadlock is Jones. He hasn't yet - will he ever? Unsure but I'll stop speculating every single England game.

Have a comment on vunipola.

Better not quote the comments Jones made about Hartleys captaincy on Saturday or Beshocked might explode

Underhill is playing because there is a slot free and he was fit and Tom Curry wasn't (although I think in EJ's thinking Underhill is ahead). I do wonder why Ben Curry isn't in the mix but that is a separate conversation.

Anyway Underhill is about development and playing the role asked of him. If he is filling the role EJ wants then he has a good chance of staying in the team, regardless of what we think. I am also worried about the injury thing but maybe he just needs to get more games at this level under his belt. I thought his overall game vs Argentina was good and he was OK on Saturday until he got his head in the wrong place. I would compare and contrast with Harrison's performances in Australia and Underhill is much much better.

Also worth pointing out how much better Lawes was this week rather than last. Nice to see him leaning over when running with the ball. Reduces the chances of him coughing the damn thing up or getting stripped. Launchbury was great. Itoje has developed that 'aura' and there was a real lift to the team when he got on the pitch. Good times

Gooseberry wrote:Better not quote the comments Jones made about Hartleys captaincy on Saturday or Beshocked might explode

I saw it -it just proves my point.

beshocked wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Better not quote the comments Jones made about Hartleys captaincy on Saturday or Beshocked might explode

I saw it -it just proves my point.

Your point being irrelevant.

beshocked wrote:Poorfour weakest period? You mean England putting away Australia with 3 tries?

The game was only settled in the last 10. It was still in the balance.

Please read what I actually wrote before trotting out your stock responses. I said just after Hartley left the pitch and George came on. Australia had their best period of pressure at that point.

Daly's try was scored immediately before George came on. Which was followed almost immediately by a scrum penalty against England, and then a period of Australian pressure including their second 3-pointer and the disallowed try. The direction of the game only changed again when Care came on around 70 min.

That's not to say that George is mainly to blame for the pressure, or Care mainly responsible for the turnaround (though he definitely deserves a lot of credit for all three tries) - but swapping Hartley for George did coincide with one of Australia's best periods in the game, so it's not all wine and roses when he takes the pitch.

beshocked wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:scottrf I am indeed bored with Jones treating Hartley like a deity. Sadly this looks to continue.

Poorfour weakest period? You mean England putting away Australia with 3 tries?

The game was only settled in the last 10. It was still in the balance.

I feel you are giving credit to Hartley for work done by others - it's a normal occurrence seemingly.

No I don't think Hartley magically made Launchbury perform better or was controlling Care's movements off the bench.

Should credit for the defence go to Hartley? Perhaps the goal kicking of Farrell?


Farrell might be an intelligent rugby player but he's not intelligent.

You are right though he'd be a suitable replacement - he's Jones' kind of captain.

He's not someone I would want as captain because I don't like Farrell but as a rugby player he's suitable.

Ah honestly man...can you please stop saying things like Deity etc. Honestly you sound like a 12 year old kid who's just had his lollypop taken off him and had a slap in the face for good measure

It's true, he's a deity but as it's futile to discuss it so i'll stop now.  I am bored of it myself. We are at an impasse. The only person who can break the deadlock is Jones. He hasn't yet - will he ever? Unsure but I'll stop speculating every single England game.

How is he a deity?? AND STOP USING THAT WORD!!!!

Why should Jones change it...when they've only lost one game in 22!!!

Poorfour wrote:

beshocked wrote:Poorfour weakest period? You mean England putting away Australia with 3 tries?

The game was only settled in the last 10. It was still in the balance.

Please read what I actually wrote before trotting out your stock responses. I said just after Hartley left the pitch and George came on. Australia had their best period of pressure at that point.

Daly's try was scored immediately before George came on. Which was followed almost immediately by a scrum penalty against England, and then a period of Australian pressure including their second 3-pointer and the disallowed try. The direction of the game only changed again when Care came on around 70 min.

That's not to say that George is mainly to blame for the pressure, or Care mainly responsible for the turnaround (though he definitely deserves a lot of credit for all three tries) - but swapping Hartley for George did coincide with one of Australia's best periods in the game, so it's not all wine and roses when he takes the pitch.

Whilst what you say might be fair surely you prove that Hartley didn't leave England in a comfortable position when he came off?

The game was still in the balance and England came through on top in that last 20 minutes.

Not as if Hartley came off with England 20 odd points up.

It seems pretty obvious that the first 15 is in there to grind the opposition down and the finishers are more explosive and in to exploit a tired/weakened by inferior substitutes opposition.

For all the talk of the 'lucky' margin and the tries scored at the death, it is worth realising that this is what England are being designed to do. The last 10 minutes are not separate from the previous 70. They are instead a direct consequence of the previous 70.

It is Australia we were playing...3rd best team in the world...who beat NZ recently.
They're a good side.

It was a really good team performance. The fact that's sticking.in his throat because not enough saracens started is telling.

In terms of what England have done over the last couple of matches, it reminds me a lot of two other sides.

The first is the England side of the mid-90s, who were hard to beat but would huff and puff and rarely until the last quarter. At which point they'd substitute Carling or de Glanville (then captain) for Guscott, who would rip the opposition apart and score or create two or three tries to win the game comfortably. It took my younger and less rugby-literate self ages to work out that the reason they didn't put Guscott on from the start was so that he was fresh and fired up to exploit a tiring defence.

The second is the 2011-2015 All Blacks, who also had a lot of close matches until the last quarter only to come up with a hatful of tries, or just a winning score, in the closing minutes. (The 2015-2017 vintage is similar - but looks very slightly more vulnerable). Also like the All Blacks, England look to be working on being comfortable playing without the ball - I don't think they had the edge on possession in either of these AI games - and seem to have been behind the Wallabies on pretty much every stat except the scoreboard.

We won't know how much England have closed the gap on the All Blacks until next year, but if they continue in this vein of controlling the game and then exploiting the opportunities late on, it'll be an interesting game. I'm also now looking forward to Scotland v England, a lot.

Poorfour wrote:In terms of what England have done over the last couple of matches, it reminds me a lot of two other sides.

The first is the England side of the mid-90s, who were hard to beat but would huff and puff and rarely until the last quarter. At which point they'd substitute Carling or de Glanville (then captain) for Guscott, who would rip the opposition apart and score or create two or three tries to win the game comfortably. It took my younger and less rugby-literate self ages to work out that the reason they didn't put Guscott on from the start was so that he was fresh and fired up to exploit a tiring defence.

Guscott was only a substitute 3 times in his 65 appearances for England. And two of those were when Phil DeGlanville was inexplicably the England Captain in '97. Still, they did rip Wales and Ireland to shreds during that time, so it must have left an impression on you!

Gwlad wrote:who was the really annoying woman commentator who Brian was doing his best to ignore who described a throw in to the lineout as a put in and that sliding over the line was like the mud slide we all wanted to have as a kid...I mean WTAF? Can it be that we now have to tolerate ill informed amateurs calling the top level of the sport as well?

We’ve had Stuart Barnes for years. I’d call it progress.

milkyboy wrote:

Gwlad wrote:who was the really annoying woman commentator who Brian was doing his best to ignore who described a throw in to the lineout as a put in and that sliding over the line was like the mud slide we all wanted to have as a kid...I mean WTAF? Can it be that we now have to tolerate ill informed amateurs calling the top level of the sport as well?

We’ve had Stuart Barnes for years. I’d call it progress.

But that woman was RIDICULOUSLY irritating. I would even have preferred Jonathan "NUMBERS!" Davies...

Mr Bounce wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Gwlad wrote:who was the really annoying woman commentator who Brian was doing his best to ignore who described a throw in to the lineout as a put in and that sliding over the line was like the mud slide we all wanted to have as a kid...I mean WTAF? Can it be that we now have to tolerate ill informed amateurs calling the top level of the sport as well?

We’ve had Stuart Barnes for years. I’d call it progress.

But that woman was RIDICULOUSLY irritating. I would even have preferred Jonathan "NUMBERS!" Davies...

She was, wincingly so. There's one with a similarly shrill whine who commentates on cricket - it's like having your missus nagging you while you're trying to watch.

Just re-watching the game (after beer-addled viewing in the pub).

Cheika and Hooper really deserve each other as coach and captain. Bitter losers both. They might be a good coach and player respectively but probably would find a better match in football. I've always really liked the Aussie rivalry too, but they are so pathetic in adversity. Great that we've moved so far ahead of them in recent years.

Eddie Jones has eaten Cheika for breakfast once more. Lovely.

Edit: just watched the post-match press conference with Cheika and Hooper. Cheika was a complete knob and Hooper was pretty balanced.

Cheika is basically Mourinho in meltdown. Aus need to remove him asap. He is destroying their rugby side. There is an outside chance they could lose to Scotland at this rate, although I expect their players to rally despite him and scrape a win by 7-10.

Edit: Hooper doesn't seem to understand the offside laws, which is a bit worrying for a captain.

The thing that struck me was the faces Cheika was pulling while talking about a "no excuses culture". And how, in lieu of actual whining, he just implied it, instead. What hope of building that culture when the coach behaves like that?

Cheika breaks doors for a living... he broke a 380,000 euro door in Dublin a few years ago.  Leave him alone.  He got issues with tantrics.... I mean tantrums.  So what?  

This culture of 'Behave yourself, son' is nauseating.  Jones, a fellow hotheaded Australiano had to apologise last week for a few f**ks and whatnots he lipped during a game and now Cheika is being investigated coz he was in a right bad mood after a rugby game.

:laugh:Jesus Christ!, This Heavily policed PCism is driving the game into disrepute.  Despicable behaviour indeed!