Eng v Aus match thread + build up

[DeludedOptimistorjustDave]

First topic message reminder :

Chance to chat about the game.
I think it will be a real cracker with England to take it by around 8 points or more.
I know every game is important but the management must have this penciled in as a must win because they can win it if they play it right.

[Cyril]

EVERYONE knows that in rugby you should allways work the ref out and play to him.. I have been on these forms before when other fans have talked about reffing against the English(the welsh game). and I allways tell them the same thing.

Agree with you teams must play to the referee, but lets be fair, the two crucial decisions were refereeing errors, not something played by the English team.

Which 2 specific errors are you talking about? I class the foot in touch as an assistant error, but was in Englands half, in no way is that a handed try because of that.

The obstruction was looked at by ref, 4th official and a number of posters here who deemed it ok, as Moore had the room to make the tackle, it was a tough call either way (similarly to BOD's line for the Lions on JOC) but no way a game losing error.

Be it a linesman or the referee, it is still not something you can adapt too.

The obstruction is either obstruction or itis not, there is no such thing as half obstruction.

BOD didn't play in this game, my point is relevant to this game, not other games.

It wasn't obstruction then. It was viewed several times by the ref and the TMO and they both agreed the try should stand.

The foot-in-touch decision was incorrect of course, but just an error. Probably happens quite a bit and is missed. It cancels out Cueto's in 2007 I guess

[Biltong]

EVERYONE knows that in rugby you should allways work the ref out and play to him.. I have been on these forms before when other fans have talked about reffing against the English(the welsh game). and I allways tell them the same thing.

Agree with you teams must play to the referee, but lets be fair, the two crucial decisions were refereeing errors, not something played by the English team.

This is a load of tosh really isn't it. One missed touch call it's true but the 'obstruction' decision was reviewed by the ref and the tv official and both agreed there was nothing to prevent the try being awarded. Remember both these people are highly experienced trained officials. They didn't get it wrong they got it perfectly correct.

Listen mate. It is not tosh just because you disagree with it.

Two facts which you cannot dispute and therefor it isn't tosh.

The Wallabies would have had a 5 meter line out from the English goal line, which mean't Brown would not have run 30 meters upfield and then England could clear the ball. So the field position came from the error when England scored the try.

clancy on air said " there is obstruction but not enough"

You choose to say that is good enough, I choose to say there is no such thing as half obstruction, it either is, or it isn't.

Differing point of view, it does not devalue my comment as tosh.

[butterfingers]

EVERYONE knows that in rugby you should allways work the ref out and play to him.. I have been on these forms before when other fans have talked about reffing against the English(the welsh game). and I allways tell them the same thing.

Agree with you teams must play to the referee, but lets be fair, the two crucial decisions were refereeing errors, not something played by the English team.

Which 2 specific errors are you talking about? I class the foot in touch as an assistant error, but was in Englands half, in no way is that a handed try because of that.

The obstruction was looked at by ref, 4th official and a number of posters here who deemed it ok, as Moore had the room to make the tackle, it was a tough call either way (similarly to BOD's line for the Lions on JOC) but no way a game losing error.

Be it a linesman or the referee, it is still not something you can adapt too.

The obstruction is either obstruction or itis not, there is no such thing as half obstruction.

BOD didn't play in this game, my point is relevant to this game, not other games.

It seems like your point is relevant to the action, of which there are numerous actions very similar to the obstruction and as such are very relevant to this one. In both cases there was deemed no obstruction by professional referee's and differing 4th officials who run the replays over and over with a rule book to hand.

I don't buy into degree's of obstruction either, it is or it isn't and in this case the professional refereeing teams said it wasn't, and as such it wasn't. The BOD obstruction was probably as tough a call, and both came back the same way, our opinions are all well and good but the officials employ the law not us.

The foot in touch was an assistants mistake, nobody disputes that, another case of assistant mistake is the Phillips same ball lineout try v Ireland, would you say England were handed a try like Wales were directly from the foot in touch mistake? I wouldn't personally

[butterfingers]

Bil

Your starting to sound hostile mate, we're all friends here (mostly ) You seem really well respected here, but claiming your opinion is 'fact' and therefore cannot be tosh is incorrect, the 'fact' is there was no obstruction, and a mistake made by a touchjudge, everything else is just opinion.

Don't rise to the bait   

[mystiroakey]

Taylor has it spot on. if you dont want a marginal decision going against you then make sure of the play!!

[Biltong]

EVERYONE knows that in rugby you should allways work the ref out and play to him.. I have been on these forms before when other fans have talked about reffing against the English(the welsh game). and I allways tell them the same thing.

Agree with you teams must play to the referee, but lets be fair, the two crucial decisions were refereeing errors, not something played by the English team.

Which 2 specific errors are you talking about? I class the foot in touch as an assistant error, but was in Englands half, in no way is that a handed try because of that.

The obstruction was looked at by ref, 4th official and a number of posters here who deemed it ok, as Moore had the room to make the tackle, it was a tough call either way (similarly to BOD's line for the Lions on JOC) but no way a game losing error.

Be it a linesman or the referee, it is still not something you can adapt too.

The obstruction is either obstruction or itis not, there is no such thing as half obstruction.

BOD didn't play in this game, my point is relevant to this game, not other games.

It seems like your point is relevant to the action, of which there are numerous actions very similar to the obstruction and as such are very relevant to this one. In both cases there was deemed no obstruction by professional referee's and differing 4th officials who run the replays over and over with a rule book to hand.

I don't buy into degree's of obstruction either, it is or it isn't and in this case the professional refereeing teams said it wasn't, and as such it wasn't. The BOD obstruction was probably as tough a call, and both came back the same way, our opinions are all well and good but the officials employ the law not us.

The foot in touch was an assistants mistake, nobody disputes that, another case of assistant mistake is the Phillips same ball lineout try v Ireland, would you say England were handed a try like Wales were directly from the foot in touch mistake? I wouldn't personally

Butter finagers, again, I don't care what happened in other games, they were discussed at the time. Mistakes happen, some are more crucial than others.

England won by 7 points, they had luck on their side tonight, that's why I said earlier, this game is one for the record books and that's it. I do not understand why you go onto the defensive because I tell you my point of view on the facts.

Facts are not debatable. Interpretation on the match can vary as each have their own opinions.

The match is over England won, that won't change. Best is to move on and just accept the ball bounced the way of England tonight and that is the end of it.

[TJ]

there was clear obstruction - the tmo and ref agreed. that is a fact. they decided it was not enough to affect the outcome of the play - that is opinion

[Biltong]

Bil

Your starting to sound hostile mate, we're all friends here (mostly ) You seem really well respected here, but claiming your opinion is 'fact' and therefore cannot be tosh is incorrect, the 'fact' is there was no obstruction, and a mistake made by a touchjudge, everything else is just opinion.

Don't rise to the bait   

I am not hostile at all, but you won't find me telling you that you are talking tosh because I don't agree with you.

[Biltong]

Taylor has it spot on. if you dont want a marginal decision going against you then make sure of the play!!

In a perfect world you would make sure you don't play with margins of error, but then in a oerfect world officlals won't make mistakes either, eh?

[No 7&1/2]

Why was the mistake for the feet in touch worse than the missed forward pass in the 1st half? Because England defended it better than Aus. They took advantage of their luck while Aus didn't. I don't think you can say it was won because of luck only.

[mckay1402]

Just watching the highlights and based on these I don't think Chris ashton deserves his England shirt. Didn't offer as much threat in attack as he used to and is a liability in defence. Time for new blood I reckon

[Biltong]

Did I say they won because of luck only?

[butterfingers]

I'm not disagreeing we had the rub of the green, infact there really isn't a serious man here who says we never, however to say we won because of 2 refereeing errors is pretty disrespectfull to a young team who had to work hard to overcome a SH nation, and one that has had the measure of us for a few years now.

Facts are not debatable, like the fact that there was no obstruction. I'm on the defensive though, I am really chilled, yet you don't seem to want to answer my questions and telling me to 'move on' is contrary to what the forum is about. I love getting insights from other nations supporters, it's essentially why I am here, if it were time to move on I wouldn't be chatting on the forum mate.

I can understand a SH frustrtion, similarly to what I go through when the Celts cannot produce what I think is their true form against SH teams at times, it's a strange willingness for your hemisphere to get one over on the other, happy to trounce each other come club or int time, but a small support come tour time.

[No 7&1/2]

'Just accept the ball bounced the way of England tonight' does suggest that to me. Like I said both teams had lucky or unlucky decisions, England took advantage of theirs. Just because Aus didn't in that 1st half doesn't alter the fact the ref missed it.

[butterfingers]

not on the defencive!   I knew that second cider was a bad idea, I'm having a mare  

[TJ]

butterfingers - boththe TMO and REf said there was obstruction. No question. there was obstruction this is a fact. Both however ggreed it was not enough to penalise. that is an opinion. the opinion of the people who count but remains an opinion

[Taylorman]

England are supposedly ranked ahead of Australia so a home win should be expected. As na england fan od be disappointed at how much luck was required to get over the line and how shambolic the display was in general.

Are you still talking about England, or projecting your disapointment over the RWC final and how there will always be a question mark over the only time you managd to get given the cup?

It's ok, we've all forgiven NZ, it wasn't their fault the biggest Hoer performance by a ref occured on the RWC final in NZ, if only they had the bottle to have got anywhere near Frances performance they would have a RWC free and clear like we do  

butterfingers that is a comment completely in tandem with those of GE's. You should both have a dedicated post just for the two of you...though even then you'd probably not get a word in. And on the same trashy level, England still have Barnes, and if the French were hard done by in losing the title even after losing to tonga and a much bigger NZ loss in pool play, then consider it payback for 07, for Joubert was a saint compared to a ghost white and literally scared barnes.

It was trashy, I apologise, it probably won't be the last time he gets a rise though, and it was meant tongue in cheek. Similarly you rising to my comment and being pretty trashy back, hard to bite the tongue isn't it when your nation is trolled?

Yeah that is annoying. My take is England were first up, had key players out and frankly a couple in there I'd never heard of. Oz similarly were well conditioned, had worked out where they were at, had faced bigger foe and should have taken this. That England were able to absorb what they threw at them, including a crucial and potentially game breaking try, and the come back after the half and pressure oz not only into mistakes but also into the loss speaks volumes for the England effort.

GEs sniping from his usual pre- programmed agenda is disappointing and results in a prolonged and unnecessary toxic environment where ...yes...even English fans should be able to voice the satisfaction of their side winning what in most respects in this case was not the most likeliest of wins.

Some of us dont get to choose where we are born and get to support and although we all have our preferences and get carried away at times at the expense of others, this continuous level of trolling feels like the non stop rolling over the skulls by the tank in the Terminator flasbacks.

Unnecessary, unsociable as suggests a certain level of psychiatric assistance is required...

But on a lighter note...well done England...not flashy, but impressive in terms of resolve.

[Biltong]

Ok, this is my last post on the subject tonight, it seems I am going in circles and you boys are reading into my posts only what you want.

Both team were poor, their execution in various eareas were under par tonight.

England had an issue in the line out, Australia had an issue in the scrums.

Both teams turned it around later in the game.

England's handling and offloading was poor tonight.

Australia was poor at the breakdown.

The match was very even, neither team really looked like taking control.

Did the bounce of the ball favour England? Yes it did, was that the spark that ultimately gave them momentum? Hell yes.

Did they exploit the opportunities when it counted, certainly yes.

They won, nothing else to say.

[Exiledinborders]

Lots of comment above on the referee favouring England. Yes Mike Brown was in touch. However in the first half Australia should have been sin binned for repeated penalties. The ref warned them but when they offended twice more rather than issuing a card he just warned them again.

Overall England deserved the win. If Farrell had his usual kicking boots on England would have won quite easily.

[hugehandoff]

Biltong and other Moderators. Surely you guys need to take a harder line much much earlier to prevent these threads descending into pointless WUMs and juvenile banter. We, mostly, want to discuss this Eng V Aus game and yet the sheer volume of blatantly antagonistic comments really make it a complete waste of time.

A bit like a ref who never brandishes his yellow card. Good debate on this game is made very hard by a number of posters. I do not mind criticism as I am one of England's biggest critics, but the comments posted during the game were written mostly to wind up the Poms.

[mystiroakey]

The fact that most of us get over things quite quickly make these forums ok, but that doesn't stop the fact that there is a virus amongst us that escalates things massively. We all know what that virus is

[Duty281]

The obstruction was coming from the Australian player's FRONT. The play from Farrell was coming through the SIDE. Correct decision made.

I don't suppose I'm allowed to talk about how Australia should have had a player binned, because then I'd be a whinging pom, right?

[butterfingers]

butterfingers - boththe TMO and REf said there was obstruction.  No question.  there was obstruction this is a fact.  Both however ggreed it was not enough to penalise.  that is an opinion.  the opinion of the people who count but remains an opinion

Well I see Farells try in the history books and therefore an obstruction was not given, is that not fact?

I didn't hear what the ref said personally and am not interested tbh, if he sid there was a slight obstruction but Moore was able to play the ball carrier then to me that says it was a tough call. Similarly Youngs was in Folaus way for a restart, Young definately obstructed Folaus path but never once looked at him and in no way obstructed him to gain an advantage, so there was no penalisable obstruction.

I think there are obstruction all over the park, getting to the wrong side of the ruck, diving on top of a pile of bodies over the try line when there is nothing you can do to stop grounding except obstructing the cameras view, running 'support lines' in front of players, crash ball dummies into the defence, holding onto the ball when youve conceded a penalty, I think they are all obstructing the opposing team in some way, it's wether thay are penalisable (is that even a word?)that counts.

[Duty281]

Biltong and other Moderators. Surely you guys need to take a harder line much much earlier to prevent these threads descending into pointless WUMs and juvenile banter. We, mostly, want to discuss this Eng V Aus game and yet the sheer volume of blatantly antagonistic comments really make it a complete waste of time.

A bit like a ref who never brandishes his yellow card. Good debate on this game is made very hard by a number of posters. I do not mind criticism as I am one of England's biggest critics, but the comments posted during the game were written mostly to wind up the Poms.

This. Well said, sir.

If you come on here after an England win, any decent comments get lost in the wave of the anti-English brigade keen to snipe.

[Biltong]

Hugehandoff, you are talking about GE.

Everyone on this site knows his posting style, everyone knows he looks for someone to respond to his comments.

If he blatantly insults someone, or blatantly breaks house rules, we as moderators can act.

Being anti Anglo, or anti Welsh or South african does not give us any reason to ban a poster.

If we could ban someone anti any particular country we would have banned half the posters on this forum.

If you don't want him to carry on, don't respond.

[Biltong]

The fact that most of us get over things quite quickly make these forums ok, but that doesn't stop the fact that there is a virus amongst us that escalates things massively. We all know what that virus is

A negative post has an incubation period much like a virus.

If you leave the virus be, it eventually dies. The same applies to negative comments intended to destroy debate.

[butterfingers]

Ok, this is my last post on the subject tonight, it seems I am going in circles and you boys are reading into my posts only what you want.

Both team were poor, their execution in various eareas were under par tonight.

England had an issue in the line out, Australia had an issue in the scrums.

Both teams turned it around later in the game.

England's handling and offloading was poor tonight.

Australia was poor at the breakdown.

The match was very even, neither team really looked like taking control.

Did the bounce of the ball favour England? Yes it did, was that the spark that ultimately gave them momentum? Hell yes.

Did they exploit the opportunities when it counted, certainly yes.

They won, nothing else to say.

I don't think any true England fan could disagree with a word of that analysis, but digging further would explain why England fans are happier than to write this game off as a 'turd' (someone used previously).

Again Taylorman my apologies, GE has a way with insults that make you want to wind him right back up  

[Taylorman]

Perhaps biltong but sometimes its a bit like having a loud drunk with a gripe in a room of good hearted people- sometimes the only answer is either leaving the room or kicking the drunk out...ignoring doesnt work.

Ignoring in this respect is we need to step over certain posts, scroll over certain comments, flesh out the good parts of a response from the troll response. Its hard work at times and a lot to expect for the majority. It makes for an overall non enjoyable experience.

I like you and most 'have their moments' on this site and thats the beauty of having strongly opinionated folk. But we also know when to pull back and show some restraint, respect, knowing that we actually 'need' others on this site to hear our opinions. We share a common interest, love, hobby, sport, and as such expect a safe environment to share.

Perhaps the rules need modifying in terms of the 'culture' this site hopes to promote, and maybe we all might just learn something.

[Biltong]

Taylorman, unfortunately I don't make the rules mate.

[tigerleghorn]

Perhaps biltong but sometimes its a bit like having a loud drunk with a gripe in a room of good hearted people- sometimes the only answer is either leaving the room or kicking the drunk out...ignoring doesnt work.

Ignoring in this respect is we need to step over certain posts, scroll over certain comments, flesh out the good parts of a response from the troll response. Its hard work at times and a lot to expect for the majority. It makes for an overall non enjoyable experience.

I like you and most 'have their moments' on this site and thats the beauty of having strongly opinionated folk. But we also know when to pull back and show some restraint, respect, knowing that we actually 'need' others on this site to hear our opinions. We share a common interest, love, hobby, sport, and as such expect a safe environment to share.

Perhaps the rules need modifying in terms of the 'culture' this site hopes to promote, and maybe we all might just learn something.

Thank you so much for your input Taylorman. It really is so frustrating to read the same old rubbish and wums from GE day after day. Of course Biltong is right, he should be ignored but he is the itch that cannot be scratched and he knows it!

Perhaps the board rules should be reviewed to exclude this type of anti-social trolling. Thanks for speaking up TM!

[hugehandoff]

I just genuinely think it detracts from people's enjoyment in using this site when WUMs are posted by 1 or 2 people every couple of minutes. We are all prepared to take the feedback from other countries as the neutral perspective is very informative, but when the volume of posts is such that you just cannot be bothered anymore I think it is a shame. It was not just GE, but DeludedDave as well. They both have some excellent points to make, but their sheer volume of posts is clearly designed to WUM and I think that is putting a lot of other posters off. That is all.

[Taylorman]

yeah i know, and its not a criticism, just another view- like getting something off your chest before- as its morning here- getting up and enjoying the day.

On another note did catch Lomus 'Anger within' last night and a riveting two hours if you havnt seen it yet.

The one thing I learned is with 95 although we had the greatest ball in hand player of the 20th century - in my view- on our side, the Boks went one step further. They had the greatest man of the 20th century on their side...simply cant beat that.

[tigerleghorn]

Btw, just what did he manage to do to get excluded in the past that he hasn't done yet again in this latest incarnation?

[Bristolian]

An ex of mine used to say "I don't make the rules" every time she saw me scratching me head at what had just been said(!).... Anyhoo....

Scrappy old game, after about 20 minutes me and my friend both said it felt like the game hadn't started. It never really got going. I think this helped England, as we were the team playing for the first time in our season and looked like it, and a free-flowing game would've suited Australia, who are supposedly 'battle-hardened'/'match-fit', whatever you want to call it. I wondered aloud why we couldn't have played Argentina first up....

England looked like a team playing their first game of the season, Australia looked like a team trying to force a win to make up for a bad run of results.

We did seem to get a few calls in our favour today, as has been discussed as nauseam on this thread, but I would say the Aussies were lucky not to see a yellow in the first half for repeated penalties, at least five in a row from the scrum.

On the whole though, I felt the (just about) better team won today, for the second half performance if nothing else. Last international I watched before today was the last RSA v NZ game. This wasn't quite of the same quality, but leave the audience wanting more eh?

[Taylorman]

On the whole though, I felt the (just about) better team won today, for the second half performance if nothing else.

Thats for sure. Anyone who felt oz should have won that match is dreaming. Second half saw them squeezed out of it.

[Bristolian]

Taylorman, I would say 'squeezed' is a good way of describing it. England's scrum was the one area of clear difference between the teams and they competed better than I've seen them do for a while at the breakdown. Yes they broke a few rules along the way (at the breakdown), but I challenge anyone to show me a team that won a Test without doing the same (better than the opposition).

[Exiledinborders]

I just genuinely think it detracts from people's enjoyment in using this site when WUMs are posted by 1 or 2 people every couple of minutes. We are all prepared to take the feedback from other countries as the neutral perspective is very informative, but when the volume of posts is such that you just cannot be bothered anymore I think it is a shame. It was not just GE, but DeludedDave as well. They both have some excellent points to make, but their sheer volume of posts is clearly designed to WUM and I think that is putting a lot of other posters off. That is all.

Also earlier on TJ was a pain but I think his mummy sent him to bed an hour or two ago.

[butterfingers]

On the whole though, I felt the (just about) better team won today, for the second half performance if nothing else.

Thats for sure. Anyone who felt oz should have won that match is dreaming. Second half saw them squeezed out of it.

I'd certainly agree, but it was interesting to see Aus looking as nervous as they did, they had the opportunity to go 10 points up and may have settled and played some good ball after that, the miss was crucial, and then our score really just see them off. Aus are in a pretty poor state right now, they are similar to us in that they have a bit of a makeshift backline and players are constantly moving around, AAC is a rock solid and quality 13, Genia is a world class 9, and Folau a huge threat out wide, building a backline around these guys shouldn't be as difficult as Mckenzie is making it, Folau is back to FB, AAc is now a winger, a brand new centre combo, Cooper in now after a long time out, Cummins back in the 15 from nowhere, and Lilo dropped to the bench.

I worry come world cup time though, with Tomua, Kuridrani, Mogg, Folau, Timani all having 20 caps or so, Genia, Cooper firing again, and addition to Beale and JOC possibly that is going to be one of the classiest and potent backlines in the world, with Mowen, Horwill, Slipper, Hooper all developed on and Pocock back it may spell 2015 trouble for us and Wales.

[lostinwales]

.....
Yeah that is annoying. My take is England were first up, had key players out and frankly a couple in there I'd never heard of. Oz similarly were well conditioned, had worked out where they were at, had faced bigger foe and should have taken this. That England were able to absorb what they threw at them, including a crucial and potentially game breaking try, and the come back after the half and pressure oz not only into mistakes but also into the loss speaks volumes for the England effort.

GEs sniping from his usual pre- programmed agenda is disappointing and results in a prolonged and unnecessary toxic environment where ...yes...even English fans should be able to voice the satisfaction of their side winning what in most respects in this case was not the most likeliest of wins.

Some of us dont get to choose where we are born and get to support and although we all have our preferences and get carried away at times at the expense of others, this continuous level of trolling feels like the non stop rolling over the skulls by the tank in the Terminator flasbacks.

Unnecessary, unsociable as suggests a certain level of psychiatric assistance is required...

But on a lighter note...well done England...not flashy, but impressive in terms of resolve.  

Can I just say what a great comment this is?

I haven't yet had a chance to see the game, but I cant help thinking that the thing the wallabies are known for is being able to attack. They scored plenty in their last game against NZ for instance. Yet here they didn't. They scored one try and a couple of kicks. They may have been fortunate with some of their own scores but somewhere England got something very right.

[Taylorman]

It seems with big close matches there always seem to be ref incidents that appear to underlying the result. As a neutral, though expecting oz to win for various reasons I put their second half performance as the reason they lost.simple handling errors, errors under pressure etc.

If you're able to ignore whatever the ref is doing and focus purely on a sides performance then its obvious oz were the poorer side here. They looked frustrated, lacked cohesion, rushed plays etc where interestingly england played more as a unit, covered anything oz threw at them and as I said squeezed them out of it.

My stance is focus on the ref in terms of your own sides performance and you miss the point, the learning. Same happened with the boks at eden park. The redcard focus removed so much opportunity to really analyse performance.

Meyer was astute enough to see that and made the required changes for Ellis park. Its tough to do and obviously easy for neutrals when you've no emotional buy in to the result.

I think Ewen Mac will be completely and utterly devastated after that. He just can't put a side on the field that is capable of performing his game plan without any confidence.

[Duty281]

England 14-0 Australia in the second half, wasn't it?

Squeezed would certainly be the right word.

I'd also agree with Bristolian that the game took a while to get going - it just felt very flat for much of the first half, and even when England were 7 up towards the end of the game, there wasn't much continued pressure from the Australian team.

Flat game, and two flat performances. England will get tonked by 20+ if they play that way against the World Champions.

[quinsforever]

Cany anyone remind me which New Zealand supporter on these forums was predicting a poor game for Mike Brown?

pretty much all of them

[quinsforever]

Bury that head down a little deeper...don't listen to the voices whispering the words of doubt that your subconscious know to be true...oooooohhhhhhh!

I don't think it's anything other than obvious and honest to say England were rank ordinary today and assisted immeasurably by some fairly consistently questionable refereeing - none moreso than in aiding England score two "tries" in a game they undeservedly won by just 7.

rank ordinary, and yet they won. looking forwards to seeing what happens vs ABs with a bit more familiarity and fluency. by the way you are a total loser. what kind of a kiwi trolls all over a Eng v Aus match thread. my brother in law is a kiwi and when i showed him this thread he was unabashedly, ashamedly apologetic. you, my lame friend, are an embarrassment even to your countrymen. well done. 

[Taylorman]

Taylor has it spot on. if you dont want a marginal decision going against you then make sure of the play!!

In a perfect world you would make sure you don't play with margins of error, but then in a oerfect world officlals won't make mistakes either, eh?

Exactly true biltong but look at the balance of the discussion. One (mine) about the risk the player took- that kick could have easily gone in as others did- compared to pages of coments about the refs decision.

In a game known more than any other for refs to get things wrong theres a need for players to take the 50/50 calls out of the refs hand- and this is one of the easiest, yet with a 100% aim of kicking it out, everyone was doubting it from the second it left the boot including the important partipants- the kicker, defender and linesman.. Its just about being smarter. Out means out, not 'if i squeeze the angle slightly more it just might float over the line at the corner and I'll get a cheer'...

I know its a minor point but at this level players just need to retain as much control of every facet of the game that they possibly can.

[quinsforever]

Taylor has it spot on. if you dont want a marginal decision going against you then make sure of the play!!

In a perfect world you would make sure you don't play with margins of error, but then in a oerfect world officlals won't make mistakes either, eh?

Exactly true biltong but look at the balance of the discussion. One (mine) about the risk the player took- that kick could have easily gone in as others did- compared to pages of coments about the refs decision.

In a game known more than any other for refs to get things wrong theres a need for players to take the 50/50 calls out of the refs hand- and this is one of the easiest, yet with a 100% aim of kicking it out, everyone was doubting it from the second it left the boot including the important partipants- the kicker, defender and linesman.. Its just about being smarter. Out means out, not 'if i squeeze the angle slightly more it just might float over the line at the corner and I'll get a cheer'...

I know its a minor point but at this level players just need to retain as much control of every facet of the game that they possibly can.

great point taylorman. the Aus problem is that they are showboaters and their financial central contracting encourages the whole "star" mentality. it's high risk, and if you rely in refereeing interpretation then you can't complain if it doesnt go your way.

[GloriousEmpire]

Sorry but this is rubbish. What you are saying is that everyone should play conservatively, using only a basic skill set in case the referee makes an error.

That's hardly going to advance the game globally is it? What so let's all play 10 man rugby with a big of aerial ping pong to make it easy for George Clancy and the other incompetent dim witted dull eyed half wits who control the game?

Sorry but this is an argument devoid of any merit whatsoever.

[Hood83]

Ok, this is my last post on the subject tonight, it seems I am going in circles and you boys are reading into my posts only what you want.

Both team were poor, their execution in various eareas were under par tonight.

England had an issue in the line out, Australia had an issue in the scrums.

Both teams turned it around later in the game.

England's handling and offloading was poor tonight.

Australia was poor at the breakdown.

The match was very even, neither team really looked like taking control.

Did the bounce of the ball favour England? Yes it did, was that the spark that ultimately gave them momentum? Hell yes.

Did they exploit the opportunities when it counted, certainly yes.

They won, nothing else to say.

I can't see how anyone could disagree or argue with this. I'll add, I thought we were damned lucky and pretty dire throughout.

[GloriousEmpire]

It seems with big close matches there always seem to be ref incidents that appear to underlying the result. As a neutral, though expecting oz to win for various reasons I put their second half performance as the reason they lost.simple handling errors, errors under pressure etc.

You are missing the point somewhat here. Australia had the game reasonably in control. There was a 5 minute spell where the officials lost the plot completely and Australia found themselves suddenly chasing the game. It was the decisions they made as a consequence of chasing the game that made them appear out of control. Now a more mature side would have continued to remain calm and trust in their systems and probably would've prevailed against what was a pretty ordinary England, but nonetheless it was the situation that Australia found themselves in that dictated their behaviour rather than the other way around.

I defy anyone to rewatch the sequence of play where Brown "keeps in the ball in" and England make their way down field without managing to complete a single pass-catch without the ball being hopelessly knocked on without being staggered at (a) the utter bizarre way that Clancy and his cohorts ignored the succession of knock ons (not to mention initial touch finder error) and (b) the lack of basic skills and cohesion that prevented England players form passing the ball to each other. It was just honestly the most ridiculous and embarrassing few phases of rugby to have disgraced an international match in some decent time.

[quinsforever]

since nz in rwc 2011 final versus the far better, more adventurous, less offside, french.

[quinsforever]

Sorry but this is rubbish. What you are saying is that everyone should play conservatively, using only a basic skill set in case the referee makes an error.

That's hardly going to advance the game globally is it? What so let's all play 10 man rugby with a big of aerial ping pong to make it easy for George Clancy and the other incompetent dim witted dull eyed half wits who control the game?

Sorry but this is an argument devoid of any merit whatsoever.

yawn. same tedious drivel.

building up the "we played beauteous rugby" excuse in case you lose in 2 weeks?

international rugby is not about expanding the game, nor aspiring to some fictitious moral high ground of the "right" way to play the game. its about winning, full stop. england won. they didnt play well, which for me make their victory all the more exciting as england havent played together as a full side since getting whupped by wales.

[Sponsored content]