Australia v England, 18 June

First topic message reminder :

      
AUSTRALIA v ENGLAND
18 June 2016
20:00 AEST (UTC+10)
AAMI Park, Melbourne

Live on [tbc]

Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa)
Touch judges: [tbc]
Television match official: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

45 Played 45
25 Won 19
1 Drawn 1
19 Lost 25
968 Points 713

B. Recent Form

11 June 2016 - Suncorp, Brisbane: Australia 28–39 England

3 October 2015 - Twickenham, London: 13 – 33 to Australia

29 November 2014 - Twickenham, London: 26 – 17 to England

2 November 2013 - Twickenham, London: 20 – 13 to England

17 November 2012 - Twickenham, London: 14 – 20 to Australia

13 November 2010 - Twickenham, London: 35 – 18 to England

19 June 2010 - Telstra Stadium, Sydney: 20 – 21 to England

12 June 2010 - Subiaco Oval, Perth: 27 – 17 to Australia

C. Teams

AUSTRALIA 

Israel Folau; Dane Haylett-Petty, Tevita Kuridrani, Samu Kerevi, Rob Horne; Bernard Foley, Nick Phipps; James Slipper, Stephen Moore (capt), Sekope Kepu, Rory Arnold, Sam Carter, Scott Fardy, Michael Hooper, Sean McMahon.

Replacements (three to be omitted): Tatafu Polota-Nau, Toby Smith, Greg Holmes, James Horwill, Dean Mumm, Wycliff Palu, Ben McCalman, Liam Gill, Nick Frisby, Christian Leali'ifano, Luke Morahan

ENGLAND

Lawrence Dallaglio or Billy Vunipola starting at No8?

Guys, stop all this give X a go or Y a go or Z because he needs to show what he can do. Eddie will choose who he thinks is the best and most reliable player to do what they are being asked to do and hence win the NEXT match. Not the match next November, the NEXT match. That's what coaches who want to win do. As Eddie says, if he listened to the fans he would be sitting in the stands with them not coaching the national team.. I like Eddie and have faith in him. He's winning and that's just about all that matters.

Part of his job is to have an eye on the future and how best to integrate players while maintaining short term results. A forum allowing fans to give their own views won't impact on him, you're right.

For the second test I think we'll see the side that finished the first half in the first test. If we wrap up the series at the weekend the  experimentation may occur. Ford will start with Farrell and Te'o will make the bench. Brown has enough credit to retain his place and given the physical  nature of the game plan we'll keep the five two split on the bench.

rozakthegoon wrote:Blimey the oz press whinge a lot!

1) Funny, but I'd bet the Australians were not complaining too much about the ref last time he looked after England-Oz
2) The Bob Dwyer stuff would be funny if it was remotely original.
3) The Joe Marler twitter response is however nice and simple and funny (Bob Dwyer is a w*nker)

formerly known as Sam wrote:For the second test I think we'll see the side that finished the first half in the first test. If we wrap up the series at the weekend the  experimentation may occur. Ford will start with Farrell and Te'o will make the bench. Brown has enough credit to retain his place and given the physical  nature of the game plan we'll keep the five two split on the bench.

We had a 5/3 bench at the weekend. Are you suggesting we will go 6/2 as Oz were, or stay 5/3 with no specialist back row cover?

I'm torn between 2 teams:


15: Brown
14: Watson
13: Joseph
12: Farrell (k)
11: Nowell
10: Ford
9: Youngs
8: Vunipola
7: Haskell
6: Robshaw
5: Itoje
4: Kruis
3: Cole
2: Hartley (c)
1: Mullan

Mako, George, Hill, Launchbury, Clifford, Care, Goode/Slade, Nowell

OR


I'm torn between 2 teams:


15: Goode
14: Watson
13: Joseph
12: Farrell (k)
11: Yarde
10: Ford
9: Youngs
8: Vunipola
7: Haskell
6: Robshaw
5: Itoje
4: Kruis
3: Cole
2: Hartley (c)
1: Mullan

Mako, George, Hill, Launchbury, Clifford, Care, Teo, Yarde

Some good players like Daly and Harrison won't make it but I don't think this is the right situation for them. They will get a go in the Autumn

However, I think our overall gameplan should be at least subtly different. Aus will have trained to counter last week's gameplan (and make some changes of their own having lost Pocock but gained Kepu and LLF properly). We should minimise the worth of that by not being predictable. Not an overall, just something prepared to change things up a bit.

LondonTiger wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:For the second test I think we'll see the side that finished the first half in the first test. If we wrap up the series at the weekend the  experimentation may occur. Ford will start with Farrell and Te'o will make the bench. Brown has enough credit to retain his place and given the physical  nature of the game plan we'll keep the five two split on the bench.

We had a 5/3 bench at the weekend. Are you suggesting we will go 6/2 as Oz were, or stay 5/3 with no specialist back row cover?

Yep you're right, remembered we had two locks but not that there were no backrow. I'd like Clifford on the bench but can see us keeping the two locks as we prepare for another bosh fest.

The aussies are screaming like a stuck pig. They have only got the ref to help them now and are doing their best to influence him. Should the cheaters forfeit the game? I mean, if you don't want to play by the rules then what's the point?

englandglory4ever wrote:The aussies are screaming like a stuck pig. They have only got the ref to help them now and are doing their best to influence him. Should the cheaters forfeit the game? I mean, if you don't want to play by the rules then what's the point?

I don't think they'll influence the ref. Jones is canny, and the ref was quiet lenient in the last match on things like Sio's scrummaging and Moore's general backchat

They won't influence Joubert - he will just run off at the first sign of trouble.

Joubert is far more likely to be influenced and after the display from Sio (does he not understand he has to push straight) the Aussies are panicking. England didn't even get the rolling maul going.

The Aussies have a number of creative players they could bring in to the midfield. They went down a big route last time, guile could be their friend in the next test.

I would look to keep Ford and Farrell and bring Goode into fullback. Remaining starting lineup stays the same.

I too would look to have proper backrow cover on the bench in the form of Clifford and also have Slade come onto the bench. That's just me though.

I would at some point look to bring Nowell on for Goode, and have either Watson or Nowell at 15.

TightHEAD wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:Changes to England:

- Ford and Flood to start.
- Bench: Teo, to change style to a bash it up the middle, or Slade, as we know a bash it up the middle doesn't work (without Tuilagi).
- Bench: Did Lawes bring much. Good player, but I'd rather see Clifford.

Edit: Meant Farrell. I saw Flood play for Toulouse against Oyannax. Bizarrely, he was a sub, and the Toulouse penalty kicker managed to make Ford look like the world's best kicker.

We need to start Big Phil Vickery too.

I do think Aus playing LLF (or Giteau if they can) at 12 would vastly help their cause

I'd like to see Slade or Daly on the bench, allows for more flexibility without ruining the game plan, which is what the introduction of Teo would do.

Otherwise I'd keep the bulk of the team the same. Perhaps Mullan over Mako for the starting spot though, Mako just seems to lose so much impetus starting.

Marler may be in trouble again, he called Bob Dwyer a Meat trombone soloist on Twitter after some of his comments about England cheating.

He'll have to answer to the RFU.

Meat trombone soloist is a brilliant way to change it!

yappysnap wrote:Marler may be in trouble again, he called Bob Dwyer a Meat trombone soloist on Twitter after some of his comments about England cheating.

He'll have to answer to the RFU.

Isn't this just true?

I mean, Marler should be more careful given Gypsy-gate, but is anyone disagreeing with him?

ChequeredJersey wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Marler may be in trouble again, he called Bob Dwyer a Meat trombone soloist on Twitter after some of his comments about England cheating.

He'll have to answer to the RFU.

Isn't this just true?

I mean, Marler should be more careful given Gypsy-gate, but is anyone disagreeing with him?

They should give him a medal for that one

LondonTiger wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:For the second test I think we'll see the side that finished the first half in the first test. If we wrap up the series at the weekend the  experimentation may occur. Ford will start with Farrell and Te'o will make the bench. Brown has enough credit to retain his place and given the physical  nature of the game plan we'll keep the five two split on the bench.

We had a 5/3 bench at the weekend. Are you suggesting we will go 6/2 as Oz were, or stay 5/3 with no specialist back row cover?

I would stay with the 5/3. I think they will run hard at our backs and we might need the additional cover.

One interesting wrinkle for this match: the pitch in Melbourne has been cutting up pretty badly for Super Rugby matches this season.

The groundsmen claim they have rectified matters for the Test, but we've seen elsewhere that pitch problems are rarely resolved so easily.

Scrums could get very messy at the weekend.

Brainteaser time!

England need to show some more of this.....



Answers on a postcard.

Plank-like behaviour?

Well, plenty of pommie granite displayed at the weekend.

We could do with less of this though:

We have a winner!

Well done, LondonTiger!

LondonTiger wrote:Well, plenty of pommie granite displayed at the weekend.

We could do with less of this though:

Less whining!

Even worse, Cheap Australian Wine

Q. Where do Irishmen get rice?
A. From their Paddy Fields.

Q: Who is the most dangerous Irishman in the world?
A: Rick O'Shea

Wallabies team
1) James Slipper
2) Stephen Moore (c)
3) Sekope Kepu
4) Sam Carter
5) Rory Arnold
6) Scott Fardy
7) Michael Hooper (vc)
8) Sean McMahon
9) Nick Phipps
10) Bernard Foley
11) Rob Horne (vc)
12) Samu Kerevi
13) Tevita Kuridrani
14) Dane Haylett-Petty
15) Israel Folau
Extended bench to be narrowed down on Friday: Tatafu Polota-Nau, Toby Smith, Greg Holmes, Dean Mumm, James Horwill, Ben McCalman, Liam Gill, Wycliff Palu, Nick Frisby, Christian Lealiifano, Luke Morahan.

No Simmons. No heavyweight 8. New props. And apparently Horne wasn't that concussed after all

Oh yeah - and same starting back line

Scott Sio completely dropped! Seems a bit harsh but I have full confidence in Cole handling Slipper with no problems

McMahon is a talent, but is he really an 8?

I'm also quite glad that they've not put in Lealifano

Probably a little worried that the ref would have the one sided mauling of Sio firmly planted in his mind no matter what. Harsh to drop him completely.

lostinwales wrote:Oh yeah - and same starting back line

It was the Wallaby back line which caused most of our trouble, so we'd better find a way to handle it to win at the weekend.

BamBam wrote:Scott Sio completely dropped! Seems a bit harsh but I have full confidence in Cole handling Slipper with no problems

McMahon is a talent, but is he really an 8?

I'm also quite glad that they've not put in Lealifano

Was thinking the same thing about McMahon- I'm not sure he's an international 8. Certainly it is a fast backrow, but it isn't particularly big. Australia could get blown away at the breakdown again unless they're planning on using their superior speed to beat us there.

Front row changes don't spook me.

Biggest thing will be Jouberts reffing of the breakdown and scrums, Oz are going to want as little contest at the breakdown as possible and fast scrums with the ball straight in and out again.

England will want the opposite of both those things. If the ref lets a proper (read semi legal) contest at the breakdown occur then I think we'll control that. Likewise if he's hot on the scrums and wants them to be a contest then we should control them too.

It's that sort of thing which was the downfall in a lot of Englands performances under Lancaster. I'm thinking of the guy with baeutiful hair. I think this team has more experience and is generally a bit better. Rather than Lancasters approach to play with a straight bat I expect Jones and his team have already been expressing how they think the game should be reffed (if and when they get access to Joubert). It would be great if no matter how it's reffed we jut take responsibility and get the job done.

Little less confident than last week but still think we should squeeze home.

It is the Australian back line that causes the problems.

Where you really have to wonder is the pack. I don't know much about McMahon but from what I have read he is effectively a less good version of Pocock.

The new props are experienced and good players but if they are better than last week's opening pair then why didn't they start last week? Sio was a handful in the loose. I know Kepu also has a good reputation here but can't help thinking that there is going to be a trade off somewhere which may mean Australia will be weaker.

If England can control the ball and drag the Australian pack back into a fight, especially at the breakdown, it could be happy days.

lostinwales wrote:It is the Australian back line that causes the problems.

Where you really have to wonder is the pack. I don't know much about McMahon but from what I have read he is effectively a less good version of Pocock.

The new props are experienced and good players but if they are better than last week's opening pair then why didn't they start last week? Sio was a handful in the loose. I know Kepu also has a good reputation here but can't help thinking that there is going to be a trade off somewhere which may mean Australia will be weaker.

If England can control the ball and drag the Australian pack back into a fight, especially at the breakdown, it could be happy days.

McMahon is more in the mould of Hooper I'd say. A strong, aggressive, and quick carrier and pretty adept at the breakdown

Much less threatening pack. Kepu is an upgrade but doesn't seem fully fit.

McMahon is a fast, abrasive carrier, but no Pocock.

Same game plan, play the percentages....grind them down.

As mentioned, we didn't see much rolling maul on Saturday. Will the Aussie changes effect that?

I assume with their fast back row they'll be aiming to run it wide again. They might play a bit deeper this time and perhaps do the odd kick over the top to keep England back.

It would be useful to have Clifford on the team, but can't drop Hask or Robshaw.

As an England fan I am very happy at the moment that Kerevi keeps his place, Faz should start at 12 and is a good defender.

England are used to defending against 'big booper' 12s, Roberts etc. I would be more worried against someone like Giteau/Lealifano because we don't have as much experience against those type of players.

Interesting read http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/scrum-analysis-brisbane-test/

Apparently Sio is immune from any blame whatsoever

bluestonevedder wrote:Interesting read http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/scrum-analysis-brisbane-test/

Apparently Sio is immune from any blame whatsoever

And yet somehow Cheika has decided to drop him altogether even though its a different (SH) ref for Saturday.

Better reviews of the scums in the comments below that article tbh. There is an issue over what scrums are for and playing for penalties. We did play for penalties but then they were easy to achieve and those are the rules. It would have happened less if Australia had a decent prop and some muscle in the 2nd row

bluestonevedder wrote:Interesting read http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/scrum-analysis-brisbane-test/

Apparently Sio is immune from any blame whatsoever

What a complete joke of an article.

Sio spend half the game with his face planted in the turf as he was unable to make the scrummage a contest. Cole has obviously schooled him in the dark arts!

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Interesting read http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/scrum-analysis-brisbane-test/

Apparently Sio is immune from any blame whatsoever

What a complete joke of an article.

Sio spend half the game with his face planted in the turf as he was unable to make the scrummage a contest. Cole has obviously schooled him in the dark arts!

Exactly. Such myopic journalism it's unbelievable! What happened to someone just being considered a strong scrummager?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Interesting read http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/scrum-analysis-brisbane-test/

Apparently Sio is immune from any blame whatsoever

What a complete joke of an article.

Sio spend half the game with his face planted in the turf as he was unable to make the scrummage a contest. Cole has obviously schooled him in the dark arts!

This is the worst paragraph:

Poite has been put in a corner – he can’t keep having the scrum collapse or someone’s going to have to pay. He’s clearly hovering over who to blame though – it’s been one penalty apiece. So he re-sets.

Er, alternatively he chose a re-set because that's the thing to do if the scrums are settling and he wants to look at who's doing what.

Which is what 99% of other refs do.

If that piece shows anything, it's that Australia did not adapt to their referee or their opposition. Whose fault is that?

Or, and here's a crazy notion, the fact that Cole has more than three times as many test caps as Sio made some sort of difference.

Englishman Nick Bishop, who has worked with a number of international teams, including England, also thought Sio was harshly treated.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/06/15/how-the-5050-calls-decided-the-1st-test-and-some-reasons-to-be-cheerful/

He says 50-50 calls went against Australia but he writes as if they weren't 50-50 calls at all, but really English offences.

I tend to agree with some of the commented on both sites that Sio was over-extended. Then again, I'm bound to prefer arguments which support the way I'd like things to be.