England v Aus - KO 14:30 Sat 17th NOV at HQ - Match Thread/Build Up etc....

[HERSH]

First topic message reminder :

Feel free to discuss this game and any other aspect involving the England Rugby team good or bad as your opinions count and you won't be judged (by me) if you go against England, but do try to give a reason!

Please respect other posters opinions

Game 1: Eng v Fiji
Game 2: Eng v Aus
Game 3: Eng v SA
Game 4: Eng v NZ

England team to face Australia:

Alex Goode
Chris Ashton
Manusamoa Tuilagi
Brad Barritt
Charlie Sharples
Toby Flood
Danny Care
Joe Marler
Tom Youngs,
Dan Cole
Tom Palmer
Geoff Parling
Tom Johnson,
Chris Robshaw
Thomas Waldrom
Replacements: David Paice
David Wilson
Mako Vunipola
Joe Launchbury
Tom Wood
Ben Youngs
Owen Farrell
Mike Brown

[Knowsit17]

Ashton hits a landmark 10 tests since he last scored a try. What a guy!

[mbernz]

A number of things we did badly in that game, but the turning point for me when we started to apply some pressure again was Youngs' decision to tap and go rather than take the points. I've no problem with players chancing their arm if it's on, but the reverse camera angle of that moment showed that Aus had more than enough deep cover to contain the break. Not a great heads up reading of the game.

A Youngs on form and giving it a go I want in the side, but he's not there at the moment and the pressure to perform and try and regain his spot isn't beneficial right now.

[Wi11]

I don't think England were terrible but Aus are a little bit better than us and showed it. Looked to me like we were well beaten at the breakdown.

England did well late on and were certainly unlucky not to score any points after the break. On the other hand, we were very lucky to be ahead after being outplayed in the first half.

From a coaching point of view I wish Lancaster would cut the preplanned substitutions. Farrell is not someone to bring on if you need a try, and Brown is not a winger.

[Wi11]

Wondering if I should have watched a bit more of Aus-France now. If Aus really were terrible last week, they didn't look it this time. If they weren't terrible last week then France must be seriously handy.

[AlastairW]

Ashton hits a landmark 10 tests since he last scored a try. What a guy!

Yeah, he really looked bad today, not his usual drifting in and looking for work once the gain line had been pushed back.

[RogerLewis]

Ashton hits a landmark 10 tests since he last scored a try. What a guy!

Ryan Jones' record is better than that!

[ChequeredJersey]

Well done Australia, the best team won. We looked to be capable of attack in the second half but poor decision making, poorer handling and a lack of ruthless execution in the Aussie 22 really let us down. IMO none of the tries and potential tries were actually tries, but some you get some you don't. Some interesting calls at the breakdown (like where Wood made a tackle, then was pinged for not rolling away despite the fact that he was already back in the backline, hmmm...) but Australia deservedly edged the scrum.

Marler really struggled, in loose and in getting his binding. Mako looked better all around
Youngs was OK, lineouts OK. Paice the same
Cole was good, not as dominant as many had hoped
Parling OK except a howler of a knock-on, nothing special outside of the lineout
Palmer I didn't really see but I missed the first 20. Launchbury looked good when he came on, his retake of a kick was class
Johnson I didn't notice, Wood played the ref very well and cheated a lot at the scrum without being caught. Wood/Robshaw is a combo I like
Robshaw was very involved, actually OK vs Hooper in the rucks I thought Hooper better at playing the ref
Waldrum showed some great hands, but also killed some attacks and should have finished his try or kept the ball for another phase
Care was, I thought very very good. Youngs was OK but he does the Danny step pre-pass even more than Care and less well and he should not have quick-tapped 10 mins from the end. Really costly decision.
Flood was fine, got some attacks running but needs to move onto the ball when he attacks.
Barritt was his normal self
Tuilagi showed hsi good (bruising runs, a couple of good offloads) bad (that dropped catch, some ignored passes) and a flukey try
Sharples looked sharp through the match. Brown looked good but had little to do, made yards on every carry though
Ashton I thought looked very good
Goode was fine, not as easy as last week though!

[Pot Hale]

Well England beaten. But unlike some stupid posters on the Wales v Samoa thread last night (Duty281 and Pot Hale in particular) I'm not here to gloat. Lets just call it karma. I'll be content with a little smile on my face

Polite gloating. Very commendable.

[ChequeredJersey]

I don't think England were terrible but Aus are a little bit better than us and showed it. Looked to me like we were well beaten at the breakdown.

England did well late on and were certainly unlucky not to score any points after the break. On the other hand, we were very lucky to be ahead after being outplayed in the first half.

From a coaching point of view I wish Lancaster would cut the preplanned substitutions. Farrell is not someone to bring on if you need a try, and Brown is not a winger.

Oh yeah, the preplanned subs were not helpful and definitely detracted from our chances of winning

[tatterd]

Don't worry Eng fans - you've put up a better display against Oz than we (Wales) will. On this afternoons evidence they'll hand us our backsides on a plate - and I've got tickets - D'OH!!!

[ChequeredJersey]

That's the frustrating thing, the chances were there, we just (as many predicted after last week) failed to take them!

[tigerleghorn]

Does this mean the French would hump England?

I guess so......but only if you agreed that EVERYONE would hump Wales.

[Biltong]

Congratulations Australia, good win

[Morgannwg]

So why did England lose; because they're a team of babies? Because Ashton is off form? Because you're rebuilding? Maybe we should do a poll.

[thebluesmancometh]

tiger

I'd agree that anyone wouldve humped wales in the last 8 days, that enough?

[tatterd]

Does this mean the French would hump England?

I guess so......but only if you agreed that EVERYONE would hump Wales.

On last night's performance Tiger I completely agree to that

[Morgannwg]

Does this mean the French would hump England?

I guess so......but only if you agreed that EVERYONE would hump Wales.

On last night's performance Tiger I completely agree to that

Me too. I wonder if he thinks he'll get far by slating Wales? I'd probably agree with everything he has to say right now!

[ChequeredJersey]

Well I must say I'm a much happier person now. As you know my team are gash but I knew an England loss would turn my frown.... upside down! Supporting two teams always; Wales and anyone playing ENGLAND.

Now your fans need to show the Wallabies some respect, something you haven't done in a long time.

Classy and entirely lacking in generalisation or vitriol, Morg

[BristolDave]

Australia were clearly better and had their tactics spot on. England didn't help themselves by giving away a load of penalties at the breakdown or by wearing that coloured kit. (Too similar to the one used against Argentina and they were pants that day as well)

[ChequeredJersey]

So why did England lose; because they're a team of babies? Because Ashton is off form? Because you're rebuilding? Maybe we should do a poll.

Because we are not savvy enough at this level and our basic skills aren't good enough

[belovedfrosties]

I'm pretty confused as to the pre-planned substitutions you guys are talking about. Perhaps, the Farrell and Brown ones were but the others seemed ot be in response to the game.

Marler was getting pinged (wrongly imo) in the scrum and Johnson had been anonymous throughout the game. They were replace on 50mins after another aussie penalty. Launchberry game on for an ineffective Palmer and Youngs (older) had taken a knock and was replaced by Paice at the end. The fact that Cole played the entire game to me shows that Lancaster is actually looking at the game rather than a pre-planned schedule that you guys are talking about.

[Pal Joey]

Congratulations Australia, good win

Cheers mate. Congrats on your win up there too.

That musky, pheromone smell of the Boks stumpy tail is getting closer again.....

[ChequeredJersey]

I'm pretty confused as to the pre-planned substitutions you guys are talking about. Perhaps, the Farrell and Brown ones were but the others seemed ot be in response to the game.

Marler was getting pinged (wrongly imo) in the scrum and Johnson had been anonymous throughout the game. They were replace on 50mins after another aussie penalty. Launchberry game on for an ineffective Palmer and Youngs (older) had taken a knock and was replaced by Paice at the end. The fact that Cole played the entire game to me shows that Lancaster is actually looking at the game rather than a pre-planned schedule that you guys are talking about.

Farrell Youngs and Brown were the ones I was thinking of. The fact that Cole played the whole math was good (though it indicates we have nobody who can cover TH near to his level) but the fact we only had 1 sub left on the bench indicates either planned subs or desperately throwing subs at the game in the hope something might work. Neither fills me with confidence and th bench, I feel is a massive weakness in Lancaster's management

[Biltong]

Congratulations Australia, good win

Cheers mate. Congrats on your win up there too.

That musky, pheromone smell of the Boks stumpy tail is getting closer again.....

Thnks LB, but we were shyte once again.

We will probably be smelling your behinds after next weekend.

[tigerleghorn]

So why did England lose; because they're a team of babies? Because Ashton is off form? Because you're rebuilding? Maybe we should do a poll.

Because we are not savvy enough at this level and our basic skills aren't good enough

+ 1

[Duty281]

Decent performance by England, I suppose we can take heart by the fact that we pushed a good Australian side all the way with quite an inexperienced team. We weren't bad, Australia were just a bit better. Annoyingly, that game could have been won. All those times we went for the try when 3 points was on, game management was lacking. The slow start didn't help again. Ideally, Launchbury and Vunipola will start next week for Palmer and Marler.

[ChequeredJersey]

Decent performance by England, I suppose we can take heart by the fact that we pushed a good Australian side all the way with quite an inexperienced team. We weren't bad, Australia were just a bit better. Annoyingly, that game could have been won. All those times we went for the try when 3 points was on, game management was lacking. The slow start didn't help again. Ideally, Launchbury and Vunipola will start next week for Palmer and Marler.

+1.

I also think Robshaw needs some experienced players with him to help lead in those situations. Hartley would help but Wood at 6 is what I would like to see against SA (sorry TJ)

[belovedfrosties]

I'm pretty confused as to the pre-planned substitutions you guys are talking about. Perhaps, the Farrell and Brown ones were but the others seemed ot be in response to the game.

Marler was getting pinged (wrongly imo) in the scrum and Johnson had been anonymous throughout the game. They were replace on 50mins after another aussie penalty. Launchberry game on for an ineffective Palmer and Youngs (older) had taken a knock and was replaced by Paice at the end. The fact that Cole played the entire game to me shows that Lancaster is actually looking at the game rather than a pre-planned schedule that you guys are talking about.

Farrell Youngs and Brown were the ones I was thinking of. The fact that Cole played the whole math was good (though it indicates we have nobody who can cover TH near to his level) but the fact we only had 1 sub left on the bench indicates either planned subs or desperately throwing subs at the game in the hope something might work. Neither fills me with confidence and th bench, I feel is a massive weakness in Lancaster's management

Yeah i see where you're coming from with Brown and Farrell. With youngs though i reckon Lancaster thought he would come out firing, he tends to play well against the Aussies and with Leicester (and england in the past) has dragged them back kicking and screaming into a game.

Out of interest, what would you have preferred him to do? Im guessing just not sub in Farrell, Brown and Youngs? Also not sure how only having one sub left indicates either of those things, if it were pre-planned you'd reckon he'd use all subs, to me it just shows that Cole was still needed on the pitch so was left there, which is perfectly acceptable to me.

[BristolDave]

The forward impact from the bench was ok but they need someone with a bit of flair to come in to the backs. Farrell isn't that person

[ChequeredJersey]

I'm pretty confused as to the pre-planned substitutions you guys are talking about. Perhaps, the Farrell and Brown ones were but the others seemed ot be in response to the game.

Marler was getting pinged (wrongly imo) in the scrum and Johnson had been anonymous throughout the game. They were replace on 50mins after another aussie penalty. Launchberry game on for an ineffective Palmer and Youngs (older) had taken a knock and was replaced by Paice at the end. The fact that Cole played the entire game to me shows that Lancaster is actually looking at the game rather than a pre-planned schedule that you guys are talking about.

Farrell Youngs and Brown were the ones I was thinking of. The fact that Cole played the whole math was good (though it indicates we have nobody who can cover TH near to his level) but the fact we only had 1 sub left on the bench indicates either planned subs or desperately throwing subs at the game in the hope something might work. Neither fills me with confidence and th bench, I feel is a massive weakness in Lancaster's management

Yeah i see where you're coming from with Brown and Farrell. With youngs though i reckon Lancaster thought he would come out firing, he tends to play well against the Aussies and with Leicester (and england in the past) has dragged them back kicking and screaming into a game.

Out of interest, what would you have preferred him to do? Im guessing just not sub in Farrell, Brown and Youngs? Also not sure how only having one sub left indicates either of those things, if it were pre-planned you'd reckon he'd use all subs, to me it just shows that Cole was still needed on the pitch so was left there, which is perfectly acceptable to me.

Well I'm a Quins fan and what O'Shea does is, unless a player is struggling in some way or we can make a tactical decision (impossible with SL's bench), leave the players on and trust in them, making as few subs as possible. In key positions, players are always going to grow into a game anyway

[belovedfrosties]

I'm pretty confused as to the pre-planned substitutions you guys are talking about. Perhaps, the Farrell and Brown ones were but the others seemed ot be in response to the game.

Marler was getting pinged (wrongly imo) in the scrum and Johnson had been anonymous throughout the game. They were replace on 50mins after another aussie penalty. Launchberry game on for an ineffective Palmer and Youngs (older) had taken a knock and was replaced by Paice at the end. The fact that Cole played the entire game to me shows that Lancaster is actually looking at the game rather than a pre-planned schedule that you guys are talking about.

Farrell Youngs and Brown were the ones I was thinking of. The fact that Cole played the whole math was good (though it indicates we have nobody who can cover TH near to his level) but the fact we only had 1 sub left on the bench indicates either planned subs or desperately throwing subs at the game in the hope something might work. Neither fills me with confidence and th bench, I feel is a massive weakness in Lancaster's management

Yeah i see where you're coming from with Brown and Farrell. With youngs though i reckon Lancaster thought he would come out firing, he tends to play well against the Aussies and with Leicester (and england in the past) has dragged them back kicking and screaming into a game.

Out of interest, what would you have preferred him to do? Im guessing just not sub in Farrell, Brown and Youngs? Also not sure how only having one sub left indicates either of those things, if it were pre-planned you'd reckon he'd use all subs, to me it just shows that Cole was still needed on the pitch so was left there, which is perfectly acceptable to me.

Well I'm a Quins fan and what O'Shea does is, unless a player is struggling in some way or we can make a tactical decision (impossible with SL's bench), leave the players on and trust in them, making as few subs as possible. In key positions, players are always going to grow into a game anyway

Thats fair enough then.

i think we are unlucky to have Brown in such good form, Lancaster feels he has to have him in the squad to reward him but he is just not a bench player at all. Would like someone like Joseph, May or Wade (probably not as he only covers wing) on the bench to add something different and threatening

[ChequeredJersey]

Good post I agree with from the Telegraph site:

"Warning, long post

Ok first things first, congratulations, to a depleted but wholly committed Australia, they were stronger at the breakdown, stronger in the collision, savvy at the scrum, and showed more game sense, and thoroughly deserved the win.
This result has hopefully done England a favour, for it is clear now the team sheet needs some tweaking
The most frustrating aspects of this match, as an England fan, were as follows,
England showed that their passing and distribution is second class, too many times the ball was shuffled through pairs of hands in the back line with the final receiver taking the ball from a static position, to run into a lined up defence, which has spent the last 3 to 4 months defending against South Africa and New Zealand, with NZ possessing the most fluid, intelligent attacking game on the planet.

The poor passing was prevalent throughout the match and Farrell with England’s last attacking chance of the match throws and absolute shocker and Tuilagi knocks on.
Too many passes were stoppers, (behind the target) therefore slowing all momentum.
There was no vigour, or zip to the England attack, things must change in my opinion, bring Tuilagi to 12 and put someone with an outside break at 13 Barratt and Tuilagi, are not showing any attacking threat other than the crash ball bang it up the middle, there is no guile, or rapier like incisive breaks.
Also what is more worrying is that England showed a lack of a Plan B or if they did they did not execute it well.

The scrum struggled, all afternoon, Marler up against Alexander, came second, the tight head’s nous and savvy proved too much for Joe, he should have been replaced at the interval in my opinion, as the same penalties were given against him immediately after the break, he was constantly tricked on the bind and had no clue as to counter it.
The only time England got a shove was when Mako had a surge, but as soon as Alexander lost ground he was replaced. England badly missed Cords.

Basically in my opinion what lost England the game was making the wrong choices at the wrong time, tapping penalties, when kicks were the better option to cut down the lead. The try from the tap penalty was the right call in the first half, but going for the corner and the catch and drive when the points were there for the kick, was a risk especially given England were second best in the forwards. Plus Youngs tap into nothing in the 2nd half
I think Wood needs to start for Johnson he was invisible today, and Launchberry has got to be worth a start.
Waldrom had a better game this week but I am still left feeling there are better options, he gave a lot of penalties away, despite showing well on the carry.

The lack of savvy is not surprising, especially when you realise that Nathan Sharpe has more international caps than England’s forwards combined. However that does not excuse, the complete lack of basic skills on display, passing, catching, running from deep, giving the ball carrier options and for Christs sake somebody tell the ball carriers to stop running diagonally on the attack, it shuts off space and allows the drift defence time to shuffle the ball into touch. I saw this time and again, I was coached this at U12 level. Catty needs to throw a few f*%ks into the backs either that or someone needs to throw a few into Catty."

[mbernz]

I'm pretty confused as to the pre-planned substitutions you guys are talking about. Perhaps, the Farrell and Brown ones were but the others seemed ot be in response to the game.

Marler was getting pinged (wrongly imo) in the scrum and Johnson had been anonymous throughout the game. They were replace on 50mins after another aussie penalty. Launchberry game on for an ineffective Palmer and Youngs (older) had taken a knock and was replaced by Paice at the end. The fact that Cole played the entire game to me shows that Lancaster is actually looking at the game rather than a pre-planned schedule that you guys are talking about.

Farrell Youngs and Brown were the ones I was thinking of. The fact that Cole played the whole math was good (though it indicates we have nobody who can cover TH near to his level) but the fact we only had 1 sub left on the bench indicates either planned subs or desperately throwing subs at the game in the hope something might work. Neither fills me with confidence and th bench, I feel is a massive weakness in Lancaster's management

Nothing wrong with the Brown sub for me; I like Sharples but he didn't have a great game, missing 3 tackles and making only 17m; Brown came on and made 55m in 20mins. Youngs came on too early for me though, and Barritt should never have left the field, he was passing & running well and a huge presence in defence (resulting in offensive opportunities).

[belovedfrosties]

The reffing of the scrum drove me crazy, it shouldnt be Marlers responsibility to defend against illegal play, the ref should do his job. He was right there when Alexander grabbed Marlers upper arm and stopped him from getting his bind, yet what does he do? he pings Marler for not binding, binding on the arm is so obvious and so black and white and it baffles me why refs and touch judges cant see it plain as day!!!!!

[ChequeredJersey]

The reffing of the scrum drove me crazy, it shouldnt be Marlers responsibility to defend against illegal play, the ref should do his job. He was right there when Alexander grabbed Marlers upper arm and stopped him from getting his bind, yet what does he do? he pings Marler for not binding, binding on the arm is so obvious and so black and white and it baffles me why refs and touch judges cant see it plain as day!!!!!

Yeah, but we all know you play to the ref so it is Marler's job to adapt. And I'm a Marler fan. Rugby is a game in which cheating has a part to play because it's so hard to referee and if you can't at least counter-cheating, you are going to lose

[belovedfrosties]

In the rucks i completely agree CJ, but you would expect a ref to notice one of the most obvious (and easiest to spot) infringements at the scrum.

I mean if the ref decided to ignore passes that were 10m forwards you wouldnt just say "well thats his interpretation and we should have adjusted to it", you'd say "what the f*** is wrong with this ref???"

For me, the same thing applies with binding on the arm, its obvious and clear cut, so ping it.

[BristolDave]

The reffing of the scrum drove me crazy, it shouldnt be Marlers responsibility to defend against illegal play, the ref should do his job. He was right there when Alexander grabbed Marlers upper arm and stopped him from getting his bind, yet what does he do? he pings Marler for not binding, binding on the arm is so obvious and so black and white and it baffles me why refs and touch judges cant see it plain as day!!!!!

I think on the whole Poite usually gets it right on the scrum although once I think he was wrong. I don't think the scrum really hurt England (apart from control at the base) but more of the breakdown where they were very passive and let the Aussies do what they wanted

[ChequeredJersey]

Fair enough. Poite, like 90% of refs though, has no clue, not even the iota of a clue, how to ref a scrum. Aside from Joubert and a couple of others (Jackson did well too), nobody does because Forwards(aside from Moore, who I want to get back into reffing) don't become refs!

[Geordie]

The two criticial parts for me were:

1) We werent tough enough at the breakdown...
2) Our carriers were getting the ball standing still - Robshaw did it 3 times!!

Launchbury must start...
Waldrom actually did ok...
Johnson, Palmer were absolutely annonymous

Tuilagi was good but still held on when passes were on...
Care crabs too much

BUT...

Hey not doom and gloom...had we kicked those points...it would have beena drawer...and the areas we struggled are ones we have discussed anyway so it needs fixing...get Garvey in the frame ha ha

[thomh]

Why are people moaning about the Brown substitution? I thought he did very well when he came on. Looked a fair bit quicker than Goode today as well.

[ChequeredJersey]

Why are people moaning about the Brown substitution? I thought he did very well when he came on. Looked a fair bit quicker than Goode today as well.

Brown was fine, he's played well 99% of the last 2 years, but he's still no winger

[Guest]

Hardly a shock, France thumping Australia was the worst possible result for Enlgand.

[radelven]

It was interesting seeing Dean Ryan's analysis of the scrum where Robinson and Polota split Cole and Youngs given some of the debate a few weeks back about their height difference in the front row. I'll be paying close attention to see if that happens again against a better scrummaging side like the Boks or ABs.

[radelven]

Goode played quite well, but if the forwards aren't on top and the backs not getting the sort of time on the ball that they did last week against Fiji, is he the right option at FB or do we need a more powerful runner like Brown? Might be a case of horses for courses.

[Geordie]

If our forwards a taking the ball standing still it doesnt matter who we're playing we aint gonna win...and that was a constant feature all game...and did Johnson or Palmer actually make any carries?

Ill be curious to see what the carry stats are from our pack!

[majesticimperialman]

I would love to see Freddie Burns on the bench next week. Will ben Morgan and James Haskell get a game this Ais?

I think Marler should be rested next week, and Vuiploa start instead.

England should not be too down on themselves today they did well against what is the 2nd/3rd best team in the world.

But i do think that some changes need to be made for next week's game.

Maybe it would be better if Brown started and Goode to the bench.

[BristolDave]

I would love to see Freddie Burns on the bench next week. Will ben Morgan and James Haskell get a game this Ais?

I think Marler should be rested next week, and Vuiploa start instead.

England should not be too down on themselves today they did well against what is the 2nd/3rd best team in the world.

But i do think that some changes need to be made for next week's game.

Maybe it would be better if Brown started and Goode to the bench.

+1.

As you say shouldn't beat ourselves up too much as this was against a team who beat Argentina away and recently stopped the AB's scoring a try. They do need to improve in intensity and need someone who can stop teams on the gain line (bit like Haskell in the 3rd test against SA)

[Taylorman]

Well done Oz. Great comeback after last week.

Are we going to see a home union side beat a RC side I wonder?

Does illustrate how strong France have become under St Andre given Oz went 'draw NZ' then 'beat England' either side of the thrashing they got.

[BristolDave]

England also need to learn to pass!!!

[HongKongCherry]

Whilst this game will be a great learning experience for many of the team, ultimately it was a very disappointing performance. Catt appears to have had no influence yet as the attacking phases were generally clueless. There was far too many poor passes taking all pace out of the move and the backs simply ran wide making it very easy for Australia to defend. Barritt was anonymous in attack and as good as Tuilagi is he seems to ruin more moves by not passing.

Marler had a poor game, but at his age he needed this to learn from. Youngs throwing was good again, but every other area was pretty poor. Palmer was completely anonymous and Johnson had a poor game too. For me the worst element, but also the one that should really help serve us in the future, was Robshaw's captaincy. The game management was very poor. This was not a club game and you cannot afford to turn down 3+ kickable penalties to go for the corner. Had the game been managed better we could and should have won the match, but this loss may help to ensure the lessons are truly learnt.

[Sponsored content]