QF1 - Match Thread - England v Australia - 19/10/19 - K/O 08:15 BST

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

Thought I'd get these made nice and early for a few reasons - but one being that we're already now looking ahead to the QFs with several teams having finished their group stage, so it's all heating up for the proper knockout stuff...barring any more disruption.

England



Team: Daly; Watson, Slade, Tuilagi, May; Farrell (capt), Youngs; M Vunipola, George, Sinckler; Itoje, Lawes; Curry, Underhill, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Cowan-Dickie, Marler, Cole, Kruis, Ludlam, Heinz, Ford, Joseph.


Australia



Team: Beale; Hodge, Petaia, Kerevi, Koroibete; Lealiifano, Genia; Alaalatoa, Latu, Sio; Arnold, Rodda; Naisarani, Hooper (c), Pocock.

Replacements: Uelese, Slipper, Tupou, Coleman, Salakaia-Loto, White, To'omua, O'Connor.



Venue: Oita
Referee: Jerome Garces
AR1: Romain Poite
AR2: Mathieu Raynal
TMO: Ben Skeen

[SecretFly]

There is a lovely old school purity about that philosophy though.

Cheika is a poet really.

[Guest]

Yeah sure, deflection rules when you get things wrong through just wanting to oppose a view...any view...

Sorry, what point were you trying to make here? Honestly hard to understand.

[Guest]

Who have you got Bam?

Garces. He'll just be bitter about Brexit and the fact that our women shave their armpits, so he's definitely going to be against us

Haven't been with many young women recently then?

[Guest]

Interesting stat: England haven't given away a single high tackle penalty all tournament. The caveat of course being Francis was retrospectively issued a yellow card (could have been worse), but it's a good start given the current climate.

It means 'Farrell's law' is still firmly in place. Must have been some dirt he has on Allain Rolland...

In all seriousness, yes, shows signs they've adapted. But also held the ball a lot, played 3 teams who were relative walkovers, and therefore haven't had the opportunity/need to put in borderline tackles. We'll see if that changes against Australia. Can bet there might be a high shot or two from the Wallabies. They've been poor so far.

[Big]

In all seriousness, yes, shows signs they've adapted. But also held the ball a lot, played 3 teams who were relative walkovers, and therefore haven't had the opportunity/need to put in borderline tackles. We'll see if that changes against Australia. Can bet there might be a high shot or two from the Wallabies. They've been poor so far.

Agree that it looks like they've adapted. It makes a change to be talking about a couple of dodgy hits on Farrell rather than a couple of dodgy hits by him - though I'd prefer it if there were no dodgy hits by anyone. It might be different against more challenging opposition, but to an extent I'd say that tackle technique is tackle technique. If the coaches have managed to get the initial tackler going lower then I would hope it's sufficiently well drilled in that they will do it now regardless of pressure. There's always the risk of a player being caught off-balance and just getting it wrong, but we shall see.

[No 7&1/2]

Bar francis the most recent high tackles which stick in my mind which england have perpetrated were results of trying choke tackles.

[LondonTiger]

Who have you got Bam?

Garces. He'll just be bitter about Brexit and the fact that our women shave their armpits, so he's definitely going to be against us

Haven't been with many young women recently then?

That


Sounds


Creepy

[Poorfour]

Interesting stats in the Times today (sorry, paywalled and I was reading from a paper copy, so can't cut and paste and doing it from memory).

The essence of it was that:
- Underhill and Curry give away about the same number of turnovers as Pocock, but far fewer than Hooper
- They win very slightly fewer turnovers than the Aussies (the numbers for all of them here are in the 0.7-1.0 per game range, except that Hooper gives away 2.1 turnovers per game)
- They carry a similar amount to Pocock, 10-15m per game, but Hooper makes 40m or so
- They make more tackles than either, 15-16 vs 10-12

It speaks a bit to the different roles - England have several other big carriers in the pack, but it's interesting to see how similar the stats are.

[propdavid_london]

As you say the way England are using Curry/Underhill is slightly different to Pocock and Hooper.
Pocock particularly seems to have been given a free reign to go for turnovers, although is still looking for form in this WC after limited game time prior to tournament. (I am sure he will find it for this game though).

[Old Man]

Pocock in my viewis nowhere near his previous form, he has never been a great carrier and is now slower than most tortoises out there. He has also been negated as a pilferer, not many turnovers made this RWC.

If England run at him he has to tackle and have even less opportunities to steal ruck ball.

[LondonTiger]

Interesting stats in the Times today (sorry, paywalled and I was reading from a paper copy, so can't cut and paste and doing it from memory).

The essence of it was that:
- Underhill and Curry give away about the same number of turnovers as Pocock, but far fewer than Hooper
- They win very slightly fewer turnovers than the Aussies (the numbers for all of them here are in the 0.7-1.0 per game range, except that Hooper gives away 2.1 turnovers per game)
- They carry a similar amount to Pocock, 10-15m per game, but Hooper makes 40m or so
- They make more tackles than either, 15-16 vs 10-12

It speaks a bit to the different roles - England have several other big carriers in the pack, but it's interesting to see how similar the stats are.

[propdavid_london]

Really interesting -
Australians are the turnover kings
England are the tackle machines

[Cumbrian]

From my own point of view, what I hope for is Curry and Underhill get at least parity with Pooper and our front five stave in their counterparts. If Underhill and Curry get on top, it could be a very uncomfortable night for the Wallabies.

I know that Pocock isn't the player he was a few years ago, but to be talking about having a 21 year old openside to match him is like every England fan's Christmas come at once.

I do sort of worry that Baggins is being used as a tree cutter in the Lydiate/ Worsley mould, I think he has the potential to be be a better and more rounded player than that.

On paper England should win this, I don't think I would take a single Aussie player over his English counterpart (Perhaps Isi Naisarani if Billy isn't fit). Sport is funny though, in the heat of battle these things often mean nothing.

[Soul Requiem]

The turnover stats are a bit misleading when Australia have played Wales, a very efficient team at the breakdown and England haven't needed to look to get over the ball that much so far. The tackle stats just to show that Underhill and Curry are at the forefront of the English defence while Hooper and Pocock tend to get hidden.

[LondonTiger]

The turnover stats are a bit misleading when Australia have played Wales, a very efficient team at the breakdown and England haven't needed to look to get over the ball that much so far. The tackle stats just to show that Underhill and Curry are at the forefront of the English defence while Hooper and Pocock tend to get hidden.

The stats cover the entire year to date. So England have played Wales 3 times (though not with Curry and Underhill together)

[Soul Requiem]

The turnover stats are a bit misleading when Australia have played Wales, a very efficient team at the breakdown and England haven't needed to look to get over the ball that much so far. The tackle stats just to show that Underhill and Curry are at the forefront of the English defence while Hooper and Pocock tend to get hidden.

The stats cover the entire year to date. So England have played Wales 3 times (though not with Curry and Underhill together)

Sorry my mistake, the Curry turnover stats are a little surprising then but the rest is as expected.

[Poorfour]

So, net/net on turnovers (TO Won minus TO conceded):

Pooper (1.0 + 0.9 - 2.1 - 0.5) = -0.6 per game
Cunderhill (0.8 + 0.7 - 0.4 -0.6) = +0.5 per game.

Very interesting. It's the old Armitage / Robshaw debate all over again. Is it better to win more turnovers at the cost of conceding more, or concede fewer at the cost of winning fewer?

[Old Man]

So, net/net on turnovers (TO Won minus TO conceded):

Pooper (1.0 + 0.9 - 2.1 - 0.5) = -0.6 per game
Cunderhill (0.8 + 0.7 - 0.4 -0.6) = +0.5 per game.

Very interesting. It's the old Armitage / Robshaw debate all over again. Is it better to win more turnovers at the cost of conceding more, or concede fewer at the cost of winning fewer?

I suppose it depends on how much possession you have.

[robbo277]

From the stats it looks like Hooper is set wider in attack and given more chances to run in space, which leads to him getting turned over more.

In defence, Australia seem happier to let others make the tackles to free up their jacklers for turnovers, while England's flankers make more tackles. England don't play a massive turnover-based game, they prefer to have bodies on feet, get a good line press, suffocate in defence, force a kick and attack on transition that way.

I don't think it really gives us much in the way of who's better, just helps shape tactical analysis.

[propdavid_london]

This is all true, and by no means are the back rowers the only guys on the pitch capable of turnovers!
Cant speak so much for the Aussies as not seen too many games - But George/Sinks/Itoje also stand out as guys that have been known to snatch a few.
But as you say Robbo - the England tactic is about line speed (getting back on their feet within 3sec of a tackle) and making sure there aren't too many guys committing to the breakdown and plenty out wide in defence.
Its that lack of guys committing bit....that's where guys like Pocock has been quite effective in the past.

[robbo277]

But there's committing in defensive rucks (which we don't always do) and committing in attacking rucks (which you kind of have to!)

You either need to commit in numbers or your first man has to be highly effective. I wonder if that will be Underhill's primary role as the 7 who doesnt jump in the lineout - smash every ruck on first phase a la Haskell 2016.

[Guest]

Interesting stats in the Times today (sorry, paywalled and I was reading from a paper copy, so can't cut and paste and doing it from memory).

The essence of it was that:
- Underhill and Curry give away about the same number of turnovers as Pocock, but far fewer than Hooper
- They win very slightly fewer turnovers than the Aussies (the numbers for all of them here are in the 0.7-1.0 per game range, except that Hooper gives away 2.1 turnovers per game)
- They carry a similar amount to Pocock, 10-15m per game, but Hooper makes 40m or so
- They make more tackles than either, 15-16 vs 10-12

It speaks a bit to the different roles - England have several other big carriers in the pack, but it's interesting to see how similar the stats are.

What do you mean 'give away' turnovers. As in are literally stripped of the ball, or are pinged for trying to turn over the ball?

Agree all 4 have quite different roles. Hooper and Pocock significantly so, and it can work well, but Pocock looks off it.

[Guest]

Interesting stats in the Times today (sorry, paywalled and I was reading from a paper copy, so can't cut and paste and doing it from memory).

The essence of it was that:
- Underhill and Curry give away about the same number of turnovers as Pocock, but far fewer than Hooper
- They win very slightly fewer turnovers than the Aussies (the numbers for all of them here are in the 0.7-1.0 per game range, except that Hooper gives away 2.1 turnovers per game)
- They carry a similar amount to Pocock, 10-15m per game, but Hooper makes 40m or so
- They make more tackles than either, 15-16 vs 10-12

It speaks a bit to the different roles - England have several other big carriers in the pack, but it's interesting to see how similar the stats are.

Interesting...but...

...perhaps reading too much in to those stats won't help. 2019 'tests' includes warm up games. It includes the 6Ns v a reduced Rugby Championship.

There are interesting trends there, an Hooper has been a huge carrying force for the Wallabies in the tight, so if England stop him, they nullify a main asset of the Oz captain...but we just haven't seen enough of Underhill and Curry together or individually, particularly the former, to know how they'll play. And that makes it interesting.

I also still don't understand what turnovers conceded means...

[Guest]

Who have you got Bam?

Garces. He'll just be bitter about Brexit and the fact that our women shave their armpits, so he's definitely going to be against us

Haven't been with many young women recently then?

That


Sounds


Creepy

Haha, maybe, but in my experience it's a solid 33:66 of women who dont shave v those who do. Combo of laziness, more body acceptance, and seeing it as #woke.

[Cumbrian]

Interesting stats in the Times today (sorry, paywalled and I was reading from a paper copy, so can't cut and paste and doing it from memory).

The essence of it was that:
- Underhill and Curry give away about the same number of turnovers as Pocock, but far fewer than Hooper
- They win very slightly fewer turnovers than the Aussies (the numbers for all of them here are in the 0.7-1.0 per game range, except that Hooper gives away 2.1 turnovers per game)
- They carry a similar amount to Pocock, 10-15m per game, but Hooper makes 40m or so
- They make more tackles than either, 15-16 vs 10-12

It speaks a bit to the different roles - England have several other big carriers in the pack, but it's interesting to see how similar the stats are.

Interesting...but...

...perhaps reading too much in to those stats won't help. 2019 'tests' includes warm up games. It includes the 6Ns v a reduced Rugby Championship.

There are interesting trends there, an Hooper has been a huge carrying force for the Wallabies in the tight, so if England stop him, they nullify a main asset of the Oz captain...but we just haven't seen enough of Underhill and Curry together or individually, particularly the former, to know how they'll play. And that makes it interesting.

I also still don't understand what turnovers conceded means...

I guess from the traditional linking point of view. Hooper often stands/ carries in the wider channels and I can only assume that he gets turned over more than the others because he is further away from supporting forwards.

[Old Man]

turnovers conceded is losing possession in a tackle

[Guest]

On paper England should win this, I don't think I would take a single Aussie player over his English counterpart (Perhaps Isi Naisarani if Billy isn't fit).

Genia over Youngs? Koroibete over May? Toomua over Ford?

There are a few close match ups here. Clash of styles. England look better on paper...until they don't. If Australia keep the ball in play, in hand, and play at pace, I can see a few English players really struggling. First real test match since Wales, really, in the 6Ns?

[Guest]

turnovers conceded is losing possession in a tackle

That's what I assumed, but bit vague. I'd be more interested to see penalty count.

[Old Man]

turnovers conceded is losing possession in a tackle

That's what I assumed, but bit vague. I'd be more interested to see penalty count.

Losing possession in contact can mean, penalised for holding on, pilfered, lost forward in contact, or ripped

[Soul Requiem]

I'm interested to know which England players start lagging in matches?

[Guest]

Yep, I understand all that. Just an odd stat to go for if you're focusing on basics as I'd think penalty count is more interesting/important. I'd expect Hooper knocks the ball on a LOT more than the other 3 simply by the nature of how he plays - but here, it could imply being isolated and stripped/poached on the floor. It's too vague, it covers too many basic skills. As I said, these are journo stats at their best/worst - stats for the sake of stats.

[Guest]

I'm interested to know which England players start lagging in matches?

the big ones

[Soul Requiem]

I'm interested to know which England players start lagging in matches?

the big ones

Who and when?

[Guest]

Who? The big ones. When? Towards the end of the game.

Obviously.

[Soul Requiem]

So you don't have any specifics of it happening in the past then?

[robbo277]

On paper England should win this, I don't think I would take a single Aussie player over his English counterpart (Perhaps Isi Naisarani if Billy isn't fit).

Genia over Youngs? Koroibete over May? Toomua over Ford?

There are a few close match ups here. Clash of styles. England look better on paper...until they don't. If Australia keep the ball in play, in hand, and play at pace, I can see a few English players really struggling. First real test match since Wales, really, in the 6Ns?

Australia looked ponderous against Fiji until Genia came on for White and sparked them into life. But Genia started against Wales and this time White looked sharper after they switched. I don't think any of the 4 scrum-halves are World XV contenders, just steady-ish players right now. Youngs is probably the closest at his absolute best, which he has been slightly below since his return from injury.

Ford has been one of our best players so far this World Cup. I wouldn't have Toomua or Foley over him. 2015 Foley maybe, but (luckily) it's not 2015 any more.

Koroibete is more likely to get in on the other wing than instead of May. May is so important for the way we want to play with the kicking game. But Watson is also a very good winger - and some would even pick Nowell ahead of him.

A lot of it comes down to whether you are putting Australia players into the England line-up or you are creating a composite XV. Because for the former you need the Australia player to be obviously better, for the latter it's just who is probably a slightly better player. How do you compare Kerevi and Farrell? If you want your 12 to do what Farrell does, Kerevi obviously gets nowhere near. But if you were creating a composite team then maybe you'd prefer Kerevi in there? Maybe you'd want Farrell / Kerevi / Tuilagi as your midfield?

I think there are a lot of very close calls. But I think 8-9-10-12 we look better and more settled. I don't think Vunipola, Youngs or Farrell have shown their very top form at this tournament, but they have all played effectively and there is enough leadership and direction in there to ensure England can keep playing to their plans and hopefully keep cool under pressure. Contrast that to Australia and they've been chopping and changing that axis this tournament, and although talented I'm not sure whether they'll have that same direction - which could be key in knockout rugby.

Flankers have been talked a lot about and are quite even, as is tight 5. This Aussie tight 5 is looking about as good as I've seen it ever look. But I'm happy with the players England have and the way they're playing, so confident they can at least match their opposite numbers to allow our superior playmakers the breathing space they need to control the game.

Outside backs, Tuilagi is looking close to his best and enjoying his rugby, which is a massive boost for England. The back 3 are all dangerous ball in hand and Daly looked secure against Argentina, defying some of his critics. Australia have some good players, but without Folau there's less of a threat of someone putting in a gamebreaker of a performance to counteract the advantage England should hopefully have elsewhere (as described above).

I think our bench looks marginally stronger as well. You could make a case for starting for any of Mako (assuming Marler starts), Cole, Lawes, and the 2 back subs, with Heinz and Wilson/Ludlam probably the only 2 who are a slight step down from their starting counterparts. Looking at how Australia lined up against Wales I think they are to a man weaker on the bench - with the possible exception of the half-backs. But I think that is more the case of them having 4 okay half backs, than 4 really good half backs.

If there's parity up front and the Australian half-backs click, then it will be some match-up and Australia definitely have the talent to turn us over. But if England's forwards can get on top of the game and our playmakers can pull the strings and get us into the right areas, it should be quite a comfortable win for us in the end.

[Cumbrian]

On paper England should win this, I don't think I would take a single Aussie player over his English counterpart (Perhaps Isi Naisarani if Billy isn't fit).

Genia over Youngs? Koroibete over May? Toomua over Ford?

There are a few close match ups here. Clash of styles. England look better on paper...until they don't. If Australia keep the ball in play, in hand, and play at pace, I can see a few English players really struggling. First real test match since Wales, really, in the 6Ns?

Perhaps Genia, not the other two though. I believe Ford is the best 10 we've had since Wilkinson (slim pickings I know) and May has become one of the finest wingers in the world over the last few years.

I'm more worried about England's performance, I think if the England pack turn up it won't matter what Australia do. Which I suppose really relies on England not being under-cooked.

England also look better on the results sheets too.

Don't get me wrong, Australia are a dangerous beast, but we've had their number for a long time now and that is without (what was) their best back. Nothing about this is a foregone conclusion, but I am as confident as I ever can be (as an England fan!)

[robbo277]

Yep, I understand all that. Just an odd stat to go for if you're focusing on basics as I'd think penalty count is more interesting/important. I'd expect Hooper knocks the ball on a LOT more than the other 3 simply by the nature of how he plays - but here, it could imply being isolated and stripped/poached on the floor. It's too vague, it covers too many basic skills. As I said, these are journo stats at their best/worst - stats for the sake of stats.

I think it's quite a quick neat start to understand, but is flawed. For the record, I believe if you carry into contact and concede a holding on penalty that would also tally in your "turnover conceded" column.

But yes, if you're looking for the opposite of turnover won it won't be turnover conceded. Penalty count is a decent metric, if you win 2 turnovers but give away 3 "hands-in" penalties, then you haven't had a good day at the ruck.

I'd say own ball secured % would be a good one to have with back row and possibly second row as well. So if you are one of the attacking support players at the ruck, what % of ball does your team retain? The penalty is often against the ball carrier (holding on) even if from a team perspective the fault lies in that first support player not effectively clearing the opposition player competing for the ball.

[BamBam]

Penalty count and turnovers won are good stats, but like all stats don't tell the whole story.

2 penalties given away in the opposing 22 are bad, but they're a whole lot better than giving away penalties in our own 22. A turnover won on our goal line after a long defensive stand is worth more than a turnover within 10m of the halfway line

[Guest]

Anyway, something more productive would be looking at recent games.

2016:
England 37-21 Australia




Not too much I remember from this game, a bit too long ago, but Australia clearly have a strong start after the summer tour, with England back in the game through a hacked through mistake and the kicking game again working its magic. Not too many English players still playing now as this was probably England at their peak of resurgence under EJ.

2017:
England 30-6 Australia



You'd assume it was a hammering - yet it wasn't. At all. 17 points came in the last 8 minutes - 10 of those in the last 2. Sopping wet weather and England scoring points almost directly off Australian mistakes. Lots of good running rugby from Australia but some botched final passes, being held up over the line, and some lazy tracking in defence all led to the snatch-and-grab tries from kicks that England really started hammering home around this time. We've already seen how Japan profit massively on small, seemingly recoverable errors from Ireland and Scotland. England are poachers as well but so are Australia. It will likely be a very different game to this one, but even so, an interesting marker point.

2018:
England 37 - 18 Australia



A game remembered as much for Farrell's shoulder charge/non-yellow card and penalty try as much as anything else. Oddly not shown in this highlight package. Where fine margins define games, that was certainly a game defining refereeing decision. Otherwise, this was a game where England's recovery was in full flow - a typical first 2-3 minute try, forward power, an attacking game based on kicking, and the production line ticking over with newer or returning faces. Australia disappointingly disorganised by their standards. No Israel Folau to work his magic now, either, but probably the most comprehensive win for England. Forward power the difference.

A few things stand out:

1. Jaco Peyper. Not reffing this game, some strange/odd/poor decisions as I really don't rate him as a ref, but also he's a homer, for sure - as evidenced in the 'your player dropped the shoulder also' chat. He reffed 2016 and 2018 games.
2. Home advantage. Obvious enough. England's 2016 clean sweep in Australia is a big tick against their name, but a lot of newer faces, and a lot of water under the bridge since then.
3. Conditions. Wet and cold v damp and warm in Japan. Shouldn't be boiling any more (Rugby Fan?) out in Japan, but imagine it will still be moist. Big, big difference to the effectiveness of a game that profits from handling mistakes - as so many English tries did - or the bouncing,bobbling ball in the back field on a soaking wet pitch.
4. It's a RWC. It's not an autumn international. It's not a summer tour the first year after a RWC cycle (where Oz reached the final, and England were still burning after the group exit -it was still their same season, don't forget, and with a new coach). Those conditions also add to this being a bit 'different' to what's gone before.

I've said it before when English fans were going on about how they'd rather play Australia than Wales. For me, Australia are still a very, very good team. That confidence is perhaps skewed a bit by the fact Wales play England in the 6Ns - where it matters - and Oz face them at the end of their season in friendlies. Add in a few other things, like favourable wet conditions, Cheika's coaching inconsistency, and I just feel there's perhaps a slight 'instinctive' feeling about all this for English fans. An instinct that thinks Australia are going to wilt in the final 10-20 minutes or whatever like they would in an end of season game; or that they'll be dispatched with similar ease.

I'm not so sure. I really don't know which way this game is going to go, but I can see some real attacking ability in this Australia side, and paired with an almost 'clunky' yet effective tight 5, based on lanky lineout jumpers and burrowing Islanders in the front row, it makes Australia an attractive team to watch, and presumably a tricky opposition to play. If they don't turn up from the 1st minute you'd have to back England to win, but as so much of what England have done 'right' has been based on Wallaby mistakes, I'd be amazed if we see any sort of repeat of the last 3 AI games, in style and scoreline. Or, if England are to score big - which is definitely a possibilty - I think they'll have to work much harder for it, and attack with more intelligence and effectiveness than they've needed to.

My pick of the games this weekend. Really looking forward to it.

[robbo277]

Penalty count and turnovers won are good stats, but like all stats don't tell the whole story.

2 penalties given away in the opposing 22 are bad, but they're a whole lot better than giving away penalties in our own 22. A turnover won on our goal line after a long defensive stand is worth more than a turnover within 10m of the halfway line

I'd say a penalty conceded in your own 22 is a whole let better than a penalty conceded in the opposition 22.

A penalty conceded in your 22 could have stopped a probably 7 pointer. That could lead to a kick (saved 4 points) or a scrum / lineout (a second chance at stopping 7 points). Either way, you gain a lot from it.

A penalty in the opposition 22 is awful. The most likely thing is that they're going to secure their possession and then boot the ball back to you, either down the 5m line and give you a chance to run it back or clear it into the crowd. Either way, you get the ball back and a chance to attack. You concede a penalty in the opposition 22 and they get a chance to stop, have a breath and then boot the ball out - and get to retain possession as well. I'd say conceding penalties in the opposition 22 is the cardinal sin, it releases so much pressure.

[BamBam]

Guess that could be a view, but I think I'd rather have my flanker giving away a penalty trying to affect a turnover in the opposing 22 than giving away an easy shot at goal in our 22!

Time on the clock is obviously important too, but just goes back to my original point that stats lack context

[Poorfour]

I don’t think anyone is underestimating Australia, but I think that they play in a style that England are better able to counter than they are a fully functioning Wales.

Wales’s defence can suffocate the life out of England’s attack, and they can make enough points on breaks and grinding out penalties to close out the game. Wales have also historically been strong late in the game when the subs are on and it opens up.

Australia have more of a free flowing style, and have now added a powerful pack to the talent in the back line. But I think the Wales game showed vulnerabilities against fast breaks in particular, and their forward replacements are weaker. 

What they did show was an ability to play to the 80th minute, but England have been good on fitness and have a stronger bench, particularly if it remains damp and setpiece is important. 

But as I’ve said before, the fascination is mostly that these teams are packed with combinations who’ve not played together before.

[No 7&1/2]

Game management isnt it. Sometimes you need to push the laws sometimes you dont. You accept that pushing them can lead to that pen and you take the risk. The best teams get away with those decisions more often. Seen that length of the field Ashton try a few times this week, palmers playing of the ball on the floor helped swing that game englands way but could easily have been a pen. Yiure also less likely to get away with fouls in the opposition 22 as if they lead to a try they're likely to be checked anyway.

[robbo277]

Anyway, something more productive would be looking at recent games.

My three abiding memories of these games.

2016: that Youngs dummy was something special. I think you need the reverse angle to fully appreciate it, but it was very "old school 9" and the Aussie winger is still looking for the ball now.
2017: a lot of TMO and a lot of decisions went with England, but if you look back I think most, if not all, were the correct call. Hooper was offside on the kick, Moore did obstruct Robshaw, the ball for Daly's try was in play, Beale did slap it down. I think those TMO calls, with a healthy slice of luck going England's way too, does help impact the scoreline and play on the Aussie sense of injustice. It was a scrappy game in atrocious conditions, so low error count is going to be at a premium.
2018: I'll be corrected if necessary, but I think the end of the game was the first time we had Ford/Farrell/Tuilagi at 10/12/13, and they combined for the last try. Ford taking it flat, Tuilagi cutting in on a hard line, ball out the back to Farrell on the loop who scored the try. Saw that as a bit of a template of how England could line up from then. It didn't really take hold in the Six Nations, but that looks to be our configuration now.

[Rugby Fan]

...I've said it before when English fans were going on about how they'd rather play Australia than Wales. For me, Australia are still a very, very good team.

Have you found many England fans who have said Australia are not a good team? It's not a question of thinking Wales are a threat but Australia are a gimmee.

[LondonTiger]

Guess that could be a view, but I think I'd rather have my flanker giving away a penalty trying to affect a turnover in the opposing 22 than giving away an easy shot at goal in our 22!

Time on the clock is obviously important too, but just goes back to my original point that stats lack context

Cannot remember the game, but it was last season. We have opposition pinned in their right corner after a perfectly weighted box kick and the great chase by May. 

Farrell concedes a dumb penalty, so instead of a rushed clearance they ease their way to half way. Itoje is then pinged for playing the jumper in the air and opponents kick and get a 5m lineout. 

An in at the side in the maul sees a kick at goal and 3 points. The last man is slated for conceding a penalty and 3 points, but the other two are far worse as they were unforced penalties.

[lostinwales]

Would it be fair to say that for all Australia's attacking brilliance their defense can be somewhat brittle?

As for the match ups Miaow mentioned. Genia and Youngs are both at a similar level, OK but into the last phases of their careers. Tomua is more of a 12 than a 10, good player but he just is not going to be able to produce the same kinds of tricks as Ford.

May vs Koroibete? Depends on what you want from your winger, but May is a really complete player now as well as being the top try scorer in international rugby since Jan 18. He's as much a fixture of our 1st choice 15 as any other player in the squad.

[LondonTiger]

...I've said it before when English fans were going on about how they'd rather play Australia than Wales. For me, Australia are still a very, very good team.

Have you found many England fans who have said Australia are not a good team? It's not a question of thinking Wales are a threat but Australia are a gimmee.

Me. I think Australia are a team that is not very good, but is capable of some good play. A good team does not lose as many matches by two clear scores as Australia have in the last few years. 

Of course they can win on Saturday, but imo not likely.

[LondonTiger]

Toomua is a highly talented player, but a long way from being a genuine international quality 10. With Cheika wanting a bruiser at 12 his role will either be to start at 10, a job he has struggled at, or come of the bench as an impact sub, something he has shown a talent for.

[Sponsored content]