England ratings vs Aus

by formerly known as Sam Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:11 pm

1. Marler - 6 - good in the loose but struggled in the tight, scrum time really didn't go his way as the Wallabies adopted the Quins tactic of binding on the arm with great success.
2. Youngs - 7 - was everywhere, tackled, carried and threw well in the lineout. A couple of dodgey tackles (head in the wrong place) aside a good game.
3. Cole - 7 - not his best day at the scrum despite doing ok, contributed more than the backrow at the breakdown but not enough metres carrying.
4. Palmer - 5 - far too quiet, worked hard without impact.
5. Parling - 6 - good in the lineout and made a lot of effort for little reward.
6. Johnson - 7 - best of the backrow and strangely subbed. Made the most impact at the breakdown but his ball in hand work was ineffectual.
7. Robshaw - 4 - didn't put hos shoulder in the scrum choosing to hang ODF the side and pull on Cole's shirt instead. Too upright going into contact and lay on breakdown as opposed to competing in it.
8. Waldrom - 6 - willing carrier but a crucial knock on and a lack of impact on defence ate disappointing.
9. Care - 2 - his kicks were awful, his passing was agonisingly slow and his only positive decision was the quick tap. He injected no tempo and has woefully out of his depth.
10. Flood - 6 - positive in attack and committed in defence but not savvy enough and should have taken the 3 pointers.
11. Sharples - 6 - worked hard but not really in the game. Needs to stop stepping out the line.
12. Barritt - 5 - good in defence but poor and too deep in attack.
13. Manu - 8 - covered well in defence and offered genuine go forward in attack.
14. Ashton - 5 - anonymous.
15. Goode - 6 - threatened good things and was a positive influence but needs to look for the tactical kicks a little more.

Bench:
16. Vunipola - 6 - same as Marler.
19. Launchbury - 7 - offered a dynamic ball carrier and some more grunt.
20. Wood - 6 - tried hard and got in the 9s face, replaces the wrong flanker.
21. Youngs - 7 - raised the tempo well and controlled the game much better than Care but still not sharp enough.
22. Farrell - 3 - only contribution was an awful pass.
23. Brown - 5 - ran straight into contact time and time again. Managed to milk a penalty with his only attempt at a kick.

by RogerLewis Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:14 pm

Ratings almost as bad as Wales!

by Geordie Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:20 pm

I counted more than 3 times when Robshaw took the ball standing still...not what you want....

Launchbury MUST start next week....

by Morgannwg Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:22 pm

Overrated is only consistent rating England have. Shown up by a crippled Aus team missing some world class players and a fantastic captain; Aus 8 out of 10, good win.

by ultra Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:25 pm

Don't agree at all about robshaw and johnson......was screaming to get johnson off and robshaw was dependable and the only go to man when things were static. Care had ONE bad kick.
Australia were simply slightly better in most aspects of the game. Fair play!!

by ultra Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:28 pm

Infact swap your johnson / robshaw scores for god's sake!!! Johnson made a couple of important tackles and rucked proper;y once or twice!!

by thomh Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:28 pm

Care had two bad kicks that led to 8 points

by formerly known as Sam Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:43 pm

Johnson made a couple of important tackles and rucked proper;y once or twice!!

Making him mote useful than Robshaw who went backwards in contact, stood at first receiver before passing slowly to a stationery team mate and most annoyingly of all couldn't bloody bind and push at the scrum. There was simply no excuse for not pushing at the scrum.

The only replacement I was begging for at half time was Care. He was so lethargic that he sucked all the pace out of our attack. He cost us 8 points and kick repeatedly straight to Barnes. Unless an up an under is contested then it is a waste of time.

by Geordie Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:49 pm

I dont think anyone covered themselves in Glory today...but sadly Johnsons days as England 6 will be over...Palmer also repalced by Launchbury.

Id actually go with Lawes and Launchbury in the engine room if lawes is fit and start wood at 6.

Id leave the rest the same...but we have to get some forward momentum..we need our carriers taking the ball AT PACE...not stood still...school boys could defend against that!

by ChequeredJersey Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:56 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:1. Marler - 6 - good in the loose but struggled in the tight, scrum time really didn't go his way as the Wallabies adopted the Quins tactic of binding on the arm with great success. Fair, I'd give him 5 max
2. Youngs - 7 - was everywhere, tackled, carried and threw well in the lineout. A couple of dodgey tackles (head in the wrong place) aside a good game. Fair
3. Cole - 7 - not his best day at the scrum despite doing ok, contributed more than the backrow at the breakdown but not enough metres carrying. Fair
4. Palmer - 5 - far too quiet, worked hard without impact. Fair, I'd give him 4
5. Parling - 6 - good in the lineout and made a lot of effort for little reward. Fair
6. Johnson - 7 - best of the backrow and strangely subbed. Made the most impact at the breakdown but his ball in hand work was ineffectual. Barely knew he was on the pitch, 5 max
7. Robshaw - 4 - didn't put hos shoulder in the scrum choosing to hang ODF the side and pull on Cole's shirt instead. Too upright going into contact and lay on breakdown as opposed to competing in it. Thought he was solid, maybe my bias showing. 6. Definitely better than Johnson
8. Waldrom - 6 - willing carrier but a crucial knock on and a lack of impact on defence ate disappointing. Fair
9. Care - 2 - his kicks were awful, his passing was agonisingly slow and his only positive decision was the quick tap. He injected no tempo and has woefully out of his depth. Considered that this might be a joke thought he was one of our best players and sure this was nothing to do with my bias. Counted one poor kick, much much much better than Youngs in every aspect of the game and added pace 7, min 6
10. Flood - 6 - positive in attack and committed in defence but not savvy enough and should have taken the 3 pointers. Fair
11. Sharples - 6 - worked hard but not really in the game. Needs to stop stepping out the line. Fair
12. Barritt - 5 - good in defence but poor and too deep in attack. Very harsh, thought he was good in attack and defence and di well with what he got, at least 6 maybe 7
13. Manu - 8 - covered well in defence and offered genuine go forward in attack. Very generous, poor basic skills, lots of power but was very lucky to be awarded his try. Strayed in defence from what I could see and certainly no better than a 6, maybe 5
14. Ashton - 5 - anonymous. Harsh, thought he was OK, 6
15. Goode - 6 - threatened good things and was a positive influence but needs to look for the tactical kicks a little more. Agree on score, mostly because he was solid, didn't threaten much though
Bench:

16. Vunipola - 6 - same as Marler.
19. Launchbury - 7 - offered a dynamic ball carrier and some more grunt. Fair
20. Wood - 6 - tried hard and got in the 9s face, replaces the wrong flanker.
21. Youngs - 7 - raised the tempo well and controlled the game much better than Care but still not sharp enough. 4 max, thought he added nothing, couldn't pass to hand, couldn't kick, knocked on a crucial time, lost the match with an awful decision. The worst player on the pitch easily.Needs to go back to Leicester and Dickson to bench next match.22.
Farrell - 3 - only contribution was an awful pass. Harsh, but the comment stands, 5 or 4
23. Brown - 5 - ran straight into contact time and time again. Managed to milk a penalty with his only attempt at a kick. Agree the penalty was a bit much. Made yards in contact taht nobody else was doing and made the right decisions for me. 6 or 7

Sam, I like you but I'm actually incredulous that you gave Care a 2 and Youngs (Youngs! He had the worst game I've ever seen him play) a 7

by ChequeredJersey Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:57 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:1. Marler - 6 - good in the loose but struggled in the tight, scrum time really didn't go his way as the Wallabies adopted the Quins tactic of binding on the arm with great success.
2. Youngs - 7 - was everywhere, tackled, carried and threw well in the lineout. A couple of dodgey tackles (head in the wrong place) aside a good game.
3. Cole - 7 - not his best day at the scrum despite doing ok, contributed more than the backrow at the breakdown but not enough metres carrying.
4. Palmer - 5 - far too quiet, worked hard without impact.
5. Parling - 6 - good in the lineout and made a lot of effort for little reward.
6. Johnson - 7 - best of the backrow and strangely subbed. Made the most impact at the breakdown but his ball in hand work was ineffectual.
7. Robshaw - 4 - didn't put hos shoulder in the scrum choosing to hang ODF the side and pull on Cole's shirt instead. Too upright going into contact and lay on breakdown as opposed to competing in it.
8. Waldrom - 6 - willing carrier but a crucial knock on and a lack of impact on defence ate disappointing.
9. Care - 2 - his kicks were awful, his passing was agonisingly slow and his only positive decision was the quick tap. He injected no tempo and has woefully out of his depth.
10. Flood - 6 - positive in attack and committed in defence but not savvy enough and should have taken the 3 pointers.
11. Sharples - 6 - worked hard but not really in the game. Needs to stop stepping out the line.
12. Barritt - 5 - good in defence but poor and too deep in attack.
13. Manu - 8 - covered well in defence and offered genuine go forward in attack.
14. Ashton - 5 - anonymous.
15. Goode - 6 - threatened good things and was a positive influence but needs to look for the tactical kicks a little more.

Bench:
16. Vunipola - 6 - same as Marler.
19. Launchbury - 7 - offered a dynamic ball carrier and some more grunt.
20. Wood - 6 - tried hard and got in the 9s face, replaces the wrong flanker.
21. Youngs - 7 - raised the tempo well and controlled the game much better than Care but still not sharp enough.
22. Farrell - 3 - only contribution was an awful pass.
23. Brown - 5 - ran straight into contact time and time again. Managed to milk a penalty with his only attempt at a kick.

by formerly known as Sam Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:12 pm

Sam, I like you but I'm actually incredulous that you gave Care a 2 and Youngs (Youngs! He had the worst game I've ever seen him play) a 7

Care just seemed to disrupt the flow. He was so slow at the breakdown and his kicking was aimless. It might not have helped that I watched the game with my rugby team and had the scrum half sitting next to me yelling "pass the f@cking ball" at every England ruck.

Youngs added what England needed which was a serious increase in tempo. I happen to agree that Youngs should be back at Tigers as I don't think he should have been called up so soon after injury. After that Care should be relegated to the bench though, he was average last week and woeful this. Something needs to change at 9.

by ChequeredJersey Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:14 pm

May have been a bit knee-jerk in my ratings, sorry

Sorry, I forgot Care's 2 kicks going to tries, drop his mark to 5. Youngs was still abysmal (missed his only attempt at a tackle too)

Here are the stats-

http://www.espnscrum.com/australia-tour-2012/rugby/match/153975.html

Robshaw does more than TJ in every aspect of the game, though obviously he played longer so there's actually probably not much in it, but statistically, both were OKish. No stats for breakdowns of course, where we definitely lost out.

On these stats our wings' defence was awful, just awful

by radelven Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:17 pm

Can't say I agree with a number of the OP's ratings.

Thought Youngs had a pretty average game, not even close to being as effective carrying compared to last week, 2 mssed tackles and split from his prop by Robinson.

Thought Parling who I'm normally pretty indifferent to had a good game in the tight. One of our best defenders with 14 tackles.

Waldrom worked hard, our most effective carrier in the forwards and the top tackler in the team. Nice hands on more than a few occasions and unlucky with the attempt at a try.

No way was Care that poor, and certainly better than Youngs, whose decision making was not up to scratch and handling off what it should be.

Barritt was probably one of our better handling backs, ran well and was essential in defence.

Tuilagi had some decent runs, but his decision making was terrible at times. More than a few occasions he should have passed when he didn't and definitely some questionable handling (not the pass that was Farrell's fault and needs to be subbed out for Burns though).

by ChequeredJersey Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:24 pm

Guardian's ratings:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/17/england-australia-teams-rated

by majesticimperialman Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:31 pm

Morgannwg wrote:Overrated is only consistent rating England have. Shown up by a crippled Aus team missing some world class players and a fantastic captain; Aus 8 out of 10, good win.

A cripples Aus team. errrmmmmm Well Morgannwg they are the 2nd/3rd best team in the world.

Unlike Samoa. Who Wales "LOST" too yesterday. Whistle

by ChequeredJersey Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:34 pm

majesticimperialman wrote:
Morgannwg wrote:Overrated is only consistent rating England have. Shown up by a crippled Aus team missing some world class players and a fantastic captain; Aus 8 out of 10, good win.

A cripples Aus team. errrmmmmm Well Morgannwg they are the 2nd/3rd best team in the world.

Unlike Samoa. Who Wales "LOST" too yesterday.

Don't retaliate

by Manu's Boxing Coach Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:53 pm

1.Marler- 5-As said before struggled in the scrum but was unlucky as Alexander was constantly binding on his arm. In loose however his carrying like the majority of the pack was sub standard
2.Youngs-6- Lineout throwing was impeccable, but missed a few tackles and wasnt as prominent as last week
3.Cole-6- Not one of his best, but worked hard on the floor but didnt carry well enough, a common theme in the England pack today
4.Palmer-5-Solid line out but again no real hard yards gained, just had the one gallop to his credit
5.Parling-7- I was impressed with Parling today put pressure on the Aussies at line out time and IMO was one of the better carriers despite his lack of size actually used some feet unlike others
6.Johnson-4- Really anonymous, Wood and Haskell are ready to pounce on his no 6 jersey. Does not have the physicallity required unfortunately would be dropped from the squad for SA if it was down to me.
7. Robshaw-5-A few moments when his close quarter offloads came off and caused the Aussies problems, but the majority of the time they were shut down. No real influence on the floor and was to static while carrying. Also poor decision making at penalties. He will have far better days.
8.Waldrom-6-One of the better carriers in the pack, but you still dont get the feeling this is the man to wear the shirt of England for years to come this spot is very available for Morgan. The drop over the line was also dissapointing.

9.Care-7-A few poor kicks but a few good ones. His tap and go set up the try but struggled to put tempo into the game at the back of a poor pack performance and often looked hurried
10.Flood-6- Again looked slightly flustered, but kicked well and played generally ok.
11.Sharples-5-Didnt get much ball but defensively was poor stepped in too many times
12.Barritt-7-Defended well and showing that he has more attacking nouse than previously seen. Good performance.
13.Tuilagi-7-Covered well when Sharples stepped in a few times, and finished the try well. England need to use him more to get England more momentum and stop the backs becoming lateral. Likewise with Barritt
14.Ashton-6- Didnt do much but didnt get much to do, On the odd chance he did get the ball he looked dangerous and was industrious throughout
15.Goode-7- Made some very nice jinking runs and gained England ground. Good solid performance

16.Paice-5- Hit his men at lineout little time to make impact
17.Vunipola-7- Came on made yards and was good in the scrum. Very nice bench performance
18.Wilson-Did he come on?
19.Launchbury-7-Great athleticism around the field made a real impact and gave England some extra dynamism
20.Wood- 7-Was far better than Wood and put in a proper backrow performance. This man is definitely international standard should start next week
21.Youngs-6-On the back of the other subs brought a bit more tempo into the game in the last 20. Was still too frenetic and made the wrong decisions at costly times
22.Farrell-3-His one contribution was a negative one unfortunately
23.Brown-6-Came on and carried well I thought but didnt make any significant yards. It seems he is only on the bench to cover Goode at FB but is still an adequate wing replacement just wont change a game

England were too frenetic and didnt play with enough clarity and should have taken the pens when on offer. However there were good spells of play even off a poor pack performance. Carrying in the pack and work on the ground needs to be worked on during the week. Dont forget we actually could have won this and for once the gameplan in place is the right one a few tweaks in selection and an improved performance from the players on the pitch that we know they can produce then we can beat SA next week. COME ON ENGLAND!

by Guest Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:00 pm

Hi guys. Welshman in peace. Not wanting to start an England v Wales argument again, but I'm quite interested in the Adam Jones v Dan Cole v whoever argument for the Lions TH jersey. Way off yet, I know. However, as the Oz front row may be the one we see against the Lions I was just wondering how Dan Cole did? Didn't see the game (no Sky sports) but was reding the updates. Sounded like Aus did OK in the scrums?

by ChequeredJersey Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:02 pm

Cole was ok, nothing too good or too bad, mostly AUS won a lot of penalties at the scrum, mostly because Marler couldn't bind because Alexander's binding was pretty illegal all the time but it's his job to adapt to that.

by Guest Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:07 pm

Ok, cheers CJ. I'm a big fan of Adam but would be happy to see Cole for the Lions. Was hoping to hear of him dominating the Oz front row, but he can't do it all on his own I suppose!

by **LondonTiger** Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:08 pm

For me Youngs (B) and Care were much of a muchness. Both made in my view the wrong decision to run the ball in front of the posts. Care's was rescued by an iffy decision by the TMO otherwise it would have been the same result - a Tiger knocking on when trying to stretch for a line just out of reach.

At times we are all guilty of dissing a player from another team to make our own look better. It happens a lot on here with Goode v Brown, Youngs v Care, Flood v Farrell v Burns.

As to todays marks I would start with a base of 5.
Parling gets 2 more as he was solid in the tight and really prominent tackling and driving the ball forward.
Waldrom gains 1pt (though looking at stats - our top tackler - deserves 2 more) as does Launchbury
Marley, youngs (T), Farrell lose 1 mark each.
Sharples for me had a shocker defensively, his positioning was poor at times (understandable maybe) he rush out of the line to no effect and missed more tackles than he made.

by Morgannwg Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:08 pm

majesticimperialman wrote:
Morgannwg wrote:Overrated is only consistent rating England have. Shown up by a crippled Aus team missing some world class players and a fantastic captain; Aus 8 out of 10, good win.

A cripples Aus team. errrmmmmm Well Morgannwg they are the 2nd/3rd best team in the world.

Unlike Samoa. Who Wales "LOST" too yesterday.

Yes they have been for a long time now. A shame you couldn't give them credit for that before though. I guess now you've paid the price eh, being an 'England fan' and all. Please rate your team, that's the topic, not Wales. Dangerously obsessed with the pink cowboy hat brigade or what.
picard

by Armchairexpert Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:09 pm

Starting in the front row, while the England tight head put in a solid shift at the coal face the composition on the loose head side was all wrong. Our new hooker had a tough second outing and we can only expect him to improve, he is after all still young. His replacement late on brought pace to the team.

The starting second row might have good hands but these big men really need to launch themselves into attack as demonstrated by our young sub.

In the back row our captain certainly guarantees a few steals but I thought our defence round the fringes with Johnson was limp only stiffening up when Wood came on. For the second game in a row I am afraid our No. 8 was just tommy tank.

At scrum half played we were weak and became downright careless late on.

Our fly half looked a little out of his depth at times and frankly sometimes just wet.

The mid field might not be flashy but is defensively safe as houses.

Aston worked hard but looked burnt out at the end of the match. While our left wing was sharp, his subbing at least added colour to the team.

The full back was good.

by Sgt_Pooly Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:10 pm

Although I don't think Care was that bad I do agree a little with the OP. His service isn't great and he spends more time complaining than just getting the ball out.

Youngs had a few shoddy moments but we looked a better outfit with him on the park, he just speeds things up.

by ChequeredJersey Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:11 pm

I enjoyed that

by Armchairexpert Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:12 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:I enjoyed that

Thank you!! (Not sure why it the thread was merged here though, perhaps someone missed the point.....)

by yappysnap Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:39 pm

Some slightly odd ratings by the op, i'd go with:

1. Marler - 4 - comprehensively outplayed in the scrum and still not managing to make an impact in the loose, needed to be subbed at half time.
2. Youngs - 6 - Threw well but offered little ball in hand and slipped off a key tackle.
3. Cole - 6 - Solid all round but we expected more of Cole in the scrum and he didn't have last weeks impact at the breakdown.
4. Palmer - 5 - Really can't expect to be starting next week on that performance, one of the many Eng players that were anonymous today.
5. Parling - 7 - For the first time brought his Tigers form to the red rose, carried and tackled well and kept the lineout solid.
6. Johnson - 4 - Just didn't get in to the game, I specifically watched him this week and he just wasn't at the races.
7. Robshaw - 5 - Played well as a flanker but as a captain was very poor, waisted kickable penalties and didn't get any kind of grip on his team.
8. Waldrom - 5 - Ran well when he was in space but looked out of his depth in contact, wasted a key try scoring chance.
9. Care - 7 - Brought pace and dynamism to the team but also kicked poorly twice, tackled well, passed well and covered well.
10. Flood - 6 - Started well but was quickly figured out by a smart Oz defence wasn't helped by a total lack of options around him when he made breaks though, needs to practice tactical kicking more (look at Beal!).
11. Sharples - 5 - Poor defence and limited in attack, to be fair though he was given nothing.
12. Barritt - 5 - Solid tackling but needs more bite to it, attack was average at best, probably not international class.
13. Manu - 7 - Had a very good game for Eng, probably our best back and would be so much better with a bit more balance around him.
14. Ashton - 3 - Soooooo.
15. Goode - 5 - Bit of a come down after the heroics of last week, he just didn't get in to the game and looked out of place in defence too, struggled tackling at times.

Bench:
16. Vunipola - 7 - Solid in the scrum and powerful in the loose.
19. Launchbury - 7 - Probably our only dynamic forward other then 16, has to start next week.
20. Wood - 6 - Looked eager to make an impact but needs to be a little more controlled, compliments Robshaw well and is a nuisance.
21. Youngs - 4 - Looked clueless at times, ran one way then the other and his tap and go was poor, knocked on twice as well.
22. Farrell - 4 - Showed he really isn't a bench option, but then we all knew that didn't we?
23. Brown - 5 - Offered very little when he came on, i'd like to see him start against SA but unless he seriously ups his game he can't stay in the EPS.

England played poorly but then we were massively inexperienced compared to Oz. We seriously need to work on our passing and our game awareness, the most worrying part of that display was the shocking basic skills shown by the players, reminded me a lot of the bad days of MJ's tenure. And we're meant to be better then that aren't we??

Changes for next week? In the pack Launchberry and Wood start, Haskell comes on to the bench. In the backs Monye comes in for Ashton.

by **LondonTiger** Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:54 pm

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Please explain to me why Youngs tap and go was any worse than Cares. Both terrible decisions.

Also Manu and Care both overmarked.

by anotherworldofpain Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:57 pm

Care took his tap before the penalty was actually awarded and from the wrong spot. It should have been called back. Shocking refereeing.

The problem was that the captain didn't assert himself and opt for goal.

by Artful_Dodger Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:00 pm

anotherworldofpain wrote:Care took his tap before the penalty was actually awarded and from the wrong spot. It should have been called back. Shocking refereeing.

The problem was that the captain didn't assert himself and opt for goal.

I agree, England didn't win this match cause they weren't astute enough to realize that they could win the match by raking up a few 3 pointers. Robshaw says "hindsight" is a great thing, but then again so is having an intelligent captain, isn't it Rob. Lancaster has backed Robshaw's decisions to go for the try's but then a coach will always back his captain post match.

by **LondonTiger** Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:03 pm

anotherworldofpain wrote:Care took his tap before the penalty was actually awarded and from the wrong spot. It should have been called back. Shocking refereeing.

The problem was that the captain didn't assert himself and opt for goal.

England seemed to go looking for tries very early. the two tap and goes were so similar in action and end result - with tigers players coming up short and losing the ball as they attempted to over-reach for the line. How TMO gave the try I do not know.

Interestingly SCW stated on commentary that Youngs had to tap and go as the captain had already shown that he was not interested in kicking for goal. I disagree - but hey I guess he knows more than me.

I will be accused of defending "my" player - but Care and Youngs were much of a muchness - and it was merely co-incidence that briefly England's backs looked threatening in between Youngs coming on and Barritt going off.

by yappysnap Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:05 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Please explain to me why Youngs tap and go was any worse than Cares. Both terrible decisions.

Also Manu and Care both overmarked.

Because Care passed to a man in a better position and it led to a try? Youngs didn't and wasted it, I don't mind a player taking that option but you have to make it work. Also when Care did it we still had 45 mins of a game to go and he was on the 22 and the game desperately needed an injection of pace, Youngs did it with about10 mins left and was on the 10m line at the time and England had already been attacking well and building pressure.

Yea they probably both are 6's rather then 7's. I guess you agree with the rest though?

by anotherworldofpain Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:05 pm

SCW on the commentary also said that "WHEN HE WAS IN CHARGE" England backed themselves to play with more pace than anyone else in the game....

So we can take it that he has lost a grip of reality altogether and is now reinventing history in some classic modern spin.

by yappysnap Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:07 pm

I don't think you're being biased at all Tiger.

I think both 9's suffered from our forwards rucking down at the all rather then over it and this stopped them getting any momentum.

by **LondonTiger** Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:10 pm

yappysnap wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Please explain to me why Youngs tap and go was any worse than Cares. Both terrible decisions.

Also Manu and Care both overmarked.

Because Care passed to a man in a better position and it led to a try? Youngs didn't and wasted it, I don't mind a player taking that option but you have to make it work. Also when Care did it we still had 45 mins of a game to go and he was on the 22 and the game desperately needed an injection of pace, Youngs did it with about10 mins left and was on the 10m line at the time and England had already been attacking well and building pressure.

Yea they probably both are 6's rather then 7's. I guess you agree with the rest though?

So with 90 seconds to go before half time, England desperate for points to turn momentum, Care spurns an easy kick and gets very, very lucky with a generous TMO.

With 7 minutes to go, England trailing by 6 Youngs does not get lucky.

At least there was a slither of logic behind Youngs decision. (Tiny one). In reality both were brainless.

by **LondonTiger** Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:11 pm

Oh and no i disagree with several ratings - but I already gave mine.

by yappysnap Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:23 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
yappysnap wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Please explain to me why Youngs tap and go was any worse than Cares. Both terrible decisions.

Also Manu and Care both overmarked.

Because Care passed to a man in a better position and it led to a try? Youngs didn't and wasted it, I don't mind a player taking that option but you have to make it work. Also when Care did it we still had 45 mins of a game to go and he was on the 22 and the game desperately needed an injection of pace, Youngs did it with about10 mins left and was on the 10m line at the time and England had already been attacking well and building pressure.

Yea they probably both are 6's rather then 7's. I guess you agree with the rest though?

So with 90 seconds to go before half time, England desperate for points to turn momentum, Care spurns an easy kick and gets very, very lucky with a generous TMO.

With 7 minutes to go, England trailing by 6 Youngs does not get lucky.

At least there was a slither of logic behind Youngs decision. (Tiny one). In reality both were brainless.

I guess what it comes down to is if we'd kicked at goal rather then take the lineouts Youngs wouldn't have needed to run, and his balls up wouldn't have been so bad if he had.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:37 am

anotherworldofpain wrote:SCW on the commentary also said that "WHEN HE WAS IN CHARGE" England backed themselves to play with more pace than anyone else in the game....

So we can take it that he has lost a grip of reality altogether and is now reinventing history in some classic modern spin.

There's a bit of licence in his comments but, in the 2000-2001 season, England played some of the best rugby I've ever seen.

One of the curiosities of scheduling is that England's four year golden period under Woodward saw six matches against South Africa (first lost, next five won), five against Australia (all won) but only two against New Zealand (both won).

New Zealanders usually pay nothing but respect to the England side which won the World Cup but, perhaps as a consequence of not meeting them on the pitch for over three years (October '99 to November '02), I sometimes find that they don't really know just how well that team was playing at its peak.

by fa0019 Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:37 am

Youngs at hooker reminds me a little of lee mears... He's just too small for test rugby and looks a liability. He's too short, too weak... Steve Thompson would eat him for breakfast. He got knocked back in defence, dropped tackles, gave away penalties on the floor, was a bit weak scrum time... Just not test class I'm afraid.... And the things he's lacking just aren't that easy to possess.... England are fortunate Bismarck is injured... If they thought he bested Hartley over the summer it would be a massacre if he faced youngs.

Same with Marler a bit..... A prop is first on the field to scrum, everything else is a bonus.... Oz du randt never got his reputation from being a fancy ball runner.

He needs to work heavily on his technique and get a lot bigger, he looks a little on the light side... Jannie du plessis will be looking forward to him all week.

The backline aren't using tuilagi's strengths enough either... Give him the ball at full pelt nothing else... That's how nonu plays, that's how the boks play, if they want penetration they need front foot ball from him then set him up properly.... The last time he did that was when he was on debut and cut Wales' midfield apart.

7 is a big problem for England. Can England beat teams regularly with burger, pocock, macaw, warburton, dusautoir etc dominating possession? Look how the boks struggled before they brought back louw.

As refreshing as England have been under robshaw... IMO croft is a better 6 then robshaw and England need an open side if they're going to progress...perhaps it's better to give Hartley captaincy, make robshaw fight for his place at 6 and bring in a guy like armitage.

by mbernz Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:03 am

LondonTiger wrote:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Please explain to me why Youngs tap and go was any worse than Cares. Both terrible decisions.

Also Manu and Care both overmarked.

Neither were great in my opinion and Care definitely got lucky, but Youngs' was worse because it simply wasn't on in that instance, with Australia's defence in a better position to deal with any break.

For Care the penalty was right in the middle of the pitch and the side he attacked was less populated, with a flat Australian defence that hadn't started to retreat because he had the ball in his hands when the penalty was awarded, plus he had very close and well aligned attackers to get the ball wide quickly, meaning it was more on for them to turn the defence and break the line.

For Youngs the penalty was over to one side and he attacked the open side and middle of the pitch. Consequently there were more defenders and they were deeper, with the defenders in front of him not going to be caught cold because they had already retreated a decent amount due to the penalty being awarded after the Aussies kicked it through, so the ball had to be retrieved and handed to Youngs before he could go. Also the attack should really have gone wide straight away to make it more viable, by passing short with players in front ready to tackle meant the attack was always more likely to need multiple phases, losing the majority of any impetus.

by Big Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:48 am

fa0019 wrote:
Same with Marler a bit..... A prop is first on the field to scrum, everything else is a bonus.... Oz du randt never got his reputation from being a fancy ball runner.

Agree, but he is only 22 - and very very good for a player of that age. Aus were being pretty smart at the engage and he will find ways to deal with that over the next couple of years. With a bit more experience I think he'd have found a way to deal with the arm pulling and we would have been fine. In fact if we had a run of 3 tests against Aus I'm pretty sure it would be sorted by next week.

by formerly known as Sam Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:43 am

Tuilagi had some decent runs, but his decision making was terrible at times. More than a few occasions he should have passed when he didn't and definitely some questionable handling

When? England for the majority of the game attacked a well drilled defence. Making the extra pass merely moved the responsibility for taking contact. Manu nearly always broke the first tackle and made ground, why offload to a flying winger in no space who won't.

Please explain to me why Youngs tap and go was any worse than Cares. Both terrible decisions.

Manu wasn't on hand to save the attack. Manu made the try by tearing through a couple of defenders and carrying them over the line. Youngs tap had Waldrom who couldn't quite make it. England were inching their way to the line before Brown went in upright and got stripped a metre shy of the line.

A little worrying some of these England body positions. Robshaw spent all day throwing his chest at defenders shoulders and Brown followed on from Cole and Youngs last week for leading with the ball. If you enter contact right shoulder first then the ball should be on your left hip. Far to many England players have been getting that wrong.

by HongKongCherry Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:53 am

Sam, I'm quite surprised by some of your ratings. They are either unduly harsh or very generous. For my 2 cents I'd go with:
Marler - 3 (poor scrummaging & ineffective in the loose)
Youngs - 5 (good throwing, little else)
Cole - 5 (didn't go backwards at the scrum at least!)
Palmer - 4 (who?)
Parling - 6 (good at the lineout & at least tried to take the ball forward)
Johnson - 4 (who again! I'm a fan of his, but this was his worst game for Eng)
Robshaw - 3 (agree on scrummaging & ball carrying, plus very naïve captaincy)
Waldrom - 6 (can't fault his effort, but maybe be rather telling the day he misses the try Morgan scores a hatrick)
Care - 7 (even with his dreadful kicks he was England's best back. Defensively he saved us several times)
Flood - 5 (too deep & too far away. For the most capped player in the team he showed no leadership)
Ashton - 5 (rarely got the ball due to the awful crabbing)
Barritt - 4 (who? Defensively sound, but offers nothing in attack)
Tuilagi - 4 (pass, pass, pass!! If rugby were an individual sport he'd be one of the best, but its a team game so not passing and running diagonally is no good)
Sharples - 5 (same as Ashton had no space on the rare occasion he saw the ball. Needs to work on defensive allignment)
Goode - 5 (far less work as 2nd receiver, which may have contributed to the awful attacking play. Very talented player & we need him to step up and take control)

Whilst my ratings are low, the only changes I'd make for next week is Launchbury for Palmer and Wood for Johnson as both have earned a start. In general there were a lot of mistakes made by inexperienced players. They need to learn from this and if they do it will make them far better players.

by formerly known as Sam Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:09 am

Care - 7 (even with his dreadful kicks he was England's best back. Defensively he saved us several times)

He didn't sweep leaving a massive gap that the Wallabies happily chipped into space behind the line. His positioning was poor throughout.

Tuilagi - 4 (pass, pass, pass!! If rugby were an individual sport he'd be one of the best, but its a team game so not passing and running diagonally is no good)

To who?

by kiakahaaotearoa Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:23 am

Never understand these ratings. Typically they seem to go up when a side wins and go down when a side loses. But on what basis are you judging them out of 10? How do you differentiate between a flyhalf and a prop? In terms of fulfilling their role or their contribution to the game? Often people give higher ratings to somebody who got noticed for individual brilliance or scoring a try. But there are so many different criteria players are being judged on, these can be at best vague estimates of a player's worth. I would rather just have the descriptions of what you think the players did or how they contributed and leave these arbitrary numbers out of it.

I mean what score did you give the England team out of 10. A 5 as they lost but could have won? A 6 because tactics let them down and they didn't take points when they were offered or do you get harsh with them and give them 4 for the same reason?

by HongKongCherry Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:29 am

Without being facetious, Tuilagi is an OC so there should be, and was, players on his outside and inside. Time after time he took the ball and just ran into the channel of the player outside him. He may have taken defenders in, but the space had gone and a number of moves lost momentum once the ball came to him. Take his try, which we were fortunate to be awarded. He needed to straighten and fix the man and he could have then passed to either Sharples outside him or Ashton inside. Instead he took the more difficult option, which we were very fortunate that it worked. If we're going to continue with Goode as a 2nd receiver it is time Tuilagi moved to 12 and the likes of Joseph came in. Alternatively move him to wing, but at 13 he butchers more opportunities than he creates.

On the Care front, having watched the game again this morning I do have to agree that at times his positioning was poor, but at other times he simply couldn't have been there. In the instances when he was at fault his pace made amends to get back to help the first defender. So I'm not sure I would lower my rating, but at a push it would only be to a 6.

by Barney McGrew did it Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:03 pm

We have to face the facts – without our 1st choice side we’re fairly average at the moment. Marler/Youngs/Cole are way off Corbs/Hartley/Cole; our SR is unimpressive – we need Lawes back to his best; if all our BR options were available, fit and in decent form we would not be playing Johnson/Robshaw/Waldrom – we need Croft, Woods, Haskell, Morgan to step up. And we need an improvement in IQ – if the oppo keep chip kicking, someone cover it; if 3 points are available – take them. It would also help if, when our FH makes an albeit occasional break, there was someone on his shoulder (like Ashton used to do all those years ago). The SL side is still a way below Jonno's side of 2010 - at least they're young enough to improve.

by Hood83 Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:54 pm

HongKongCherry wrote:Without being facetious, Tuilagi is an OC so there should be, and was, players on his outside and inside. Time after time he took the ball and just ran into the channel of the player outside him. He may have taken defenders in, but the space had gone and a number of moves lost momentum once the ball came to him. Take his try, which we were fortunate to be awarded. He needed to straighten and fix the man and he could have then passed to either Sharples outside him or Ashton inside. Instead he took the more difficult option, which we were very fortunate that it worked. If we're going to continue with Goode as a 2nd receiver it is time Tuilagi moved to 12 and the likes of Joseph came in. Alternatively move him to wing, but at 13 he butchers more opportunities than he creates.

On the Care front, having watched the game again this morning I do have to agree that at times his positioning was poor, but at other times he simply couldn't have been there. In the instances when he was at fault his pace made amends to get back to help the first defender. So I'm not sure I would lower my rating, but at a push it would only be to a 6.

I keep saying this but for everything you gain from Tuilagi, you lose something else. His passing, vision and off-loading are not good enough to threaten international teams. And as the Aussies have now shown both us and the Welsh, a smaller back line can easily nullify a bruising centre combination when they're taking the ball at a stand still.

It was a hugely dispiriting performance, however in my mind we found out a few things, apologies for the length of this rant:

1. The advances we made at the breakdown are not enough. We went backwards in that area in this game and I am still not convinced we have any players or coaches regularly advocating a genuinely quick clear out game. We are still far too ponderous and lack aggression. Can this be taught?
2. We do not have enough ball carriers in the forwards. This is compounded by no forwards taking the ball at pace. Why have we retreated to the static driving of old. It doesn't work.
3. Bulk is not the be all and end all, but in the close exchanges, it does matter. Tom Youngs is a powerful aggressive guy...for his size. But that size is about 2 stones lighter than Bismarck and Stephen Moore. Hartley is no world beater because he isn't particularly dynamic, but he doesn't often get boshed backwards. Unfortunately we still seem to create players that are either a) quick and athletic or b) big and powerful. Is there something wrong with the way we physically develop players? Marler is another example. Good prop, good workrate, mobile, but not that heavy and not quite powerful enough at this level. I said before I think Corbs is the main man, i think Mako might be the second choice...
4. Which brings me on to the selection policy in general. Why not Sheridan, why not S Armitage. If SL's argument is 'only if we have no better options', then i think now is the time! Sheridan was never as good as he promised, but his form at Toulon looks excellent and frankly, Marler is nowhere near his level.
5. Do we need a 7? I'm not precious about having a 'fetcher', but the idea of a genuine link man between forwards and backs is appealing. Against a team like the Boks, my concern is that a player like S Armitage would get dominated, but they did alright with Brussouw for a while. Maybe it's a horses for courses but if any opposition required a 7 type player, it was Australia. I like Robshaw, i have no problem with 2 6.5s and I think his breakdown work is underrated...but it is still clearly a step down from the absolute best.
6. Our 2nd row does not have the right balance. Two all round athletes, no problem with that, but neither Parling or Palmer offer hard yards. I really really want to see Garvey given a chance sooner rather than later. Please God can Lawes fulfil his potential and stop breaking (incidentally someone still needs to tell him to stop making contact so up right)
7. Our back row isn't right. Johnson and Waldrom are not international level. Johnson is too small, sorry, he is. Waldrom is too average. From what i've seen this year, no one has played better than B Vunipola at 8.
8. Our centres. Where to start. Tuilagi is a weapon, but it is a blunt instrument. If there is one thing that has become abundantly clear this year it is that the SH teams have no problem nullifying crash-bang-wallop backs. People keep saying we need to use him better, but until he develops a better off-loading game and passing, how can we? If he sucks in defenders we need to get the ball out quickly, which means quick rucking, something we STILL can't seem to do. If not, he needs to offload better, to players who can actually support. My preference is JJ at 13, he can kick, pass, and has better pace. He won't go over anyone, but he offers a more varied threat. I think Tuilagi could be turned into an international winger, but he doesn't look like developing into another Nonu, sadly. Plenty of time i suppose. Barritt...oh jeez. Nope, sorry, don't think he's up to it. Our centres are based on defence first, attack second, it limits us horribly.

My biggest issue is this - If we want to play stodgy static pick and drives, pick the players with the power to do it. Otherwise, please make sure players are hitting the ball at PACE! Preferably pick a team balanced with power and dynamism.

by yappysnap Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:24 pm

Good points Hood, but to be honest I only think there are a few players that could be swapped out, the real problem if there is a problem is in the coaching.

by Sponsored content