Eng v Aus match thread + build up

by DeludedOptimistorjustDave Tue 29 Oct - 23:09

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.

by lostinwales Sun 3 Nov - 20:36

GE should be a referee. And yes he has completely derailed this thread but apparently thats OK

Australia still lost because they didnt score enough points and that is nothing to do with Clancy and his assistants

by Heaf Sun 3 Nov - 20:36

Taking Poorfour's quick lineout example not only had someone touched it but it was a completely different ball as the other one had been kicked into the crowd ... How is that subjective opinion?

by Poorfour Sun 3 Nov - 20:38

GE, even if I concede you on the scrum points and don't argue that the citing commissioner in the Lions game was hopelessly inadequate in his review of the evidence (IIRC, he didn't even allow the Lions to submit any evidence), there are at least three examples there that are not subjective opinion:

1) Prop admits after the game that he repeatedly collapsed the scrum and that's subjective opinion?

2) AR allows a quick lineout when the conditions under which a quick lineout are allowed have been decisively not satisfied and that's subjective opinion?

3) A player is tackled, flipped through about 140 degrees and dumped on his head by an opposing player, and that's subjective opinion?

The last one in particular is more than comparable to Brown. An incident happened (I know, because I was sat about 30 feet from it), it happened in front of the ref, the IRB position is very clear: a tackle that lands a player on his head, neck or back is unequivocally a red card.

The referee missed something that not only could have changed the course of a game (as with Brown), but something that was an instance of dangerous play that could have crippled a player for life. Incontrovertibly worse. And since the referee was on the spot, considerably less excusable.

Now stop wumming.

by tigerleghorn Sun 3 Nov - 20:48

GloriousEmpire wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:Who could have seen Brown's foot in touch? Both feet were literally clipping the line, no officials were nearby and Brown himself probably didn't know his feet were in touch or he would have had them an inch further out. That's not a shocking error, we all just think it was because we have the benefit of tv angles, close ups, replays and slo mo
Rubbish. It was clear as daylight. I saw it the first time around. What about the succession of knock ons? Those could've been seen from space. And that obstruction? Visible from mars.

Eng v Aus match thread + build up - Page 19 1347041234

by **Pal Joey** Sun 3 Nov - 21:35

Hound of Harrow wrote:Lb

Not a great game from either side, especially England in the first half, where I felt out new combinations were still getting to know each other. We put your guys under a lot of pressure in the second half and forced lots of errors.

Aus will improve...too many good players for that not to happen.

Cheers Hound - yes, the Wallabies did crumble too easily under pressure. We've been promised 'improvement' for a while now. I'm just not as convinced it will occur in this series... or the next.

Italy will see an opportunity to upset the apple cart I'm sure. Last time was a very near escape from what should have been a convincing win.

Nice win for the Wasps too!

by hugehandoff Sun 3 Nov - 21:44

Linebreaker....any good props on your horizon yet? Two good props and the foundations would be laid for the resy of your side to play. The ARU must have some scrum specialists scouting furiously to find some good young talent?

by englandglory4ever Sun 3 Nov - 21:50

Having watched it again the notion that Brown's foot in touch directly led to the Robshaw try is just not true. There was 2 minutes of playing time between the two incidents which is an eternity in rugby terms and about 8 minutes of actual clock time. During which an injured Fardy was removed from the field while play was stopped. GE needs to get over that. This coupled with a perfectly good try by Farrell means Aus was beaten fair and square.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 3 Nov - 21:58

Not really handoff, apart from Scott Sio and Dan Palmer... who I thought had very decent SXV seasons last year.

Alexander and Slipper not only can't scrum and stop their opponents in their tracks... they are consistent penalty machines. Their body language looked shot 5 mins into that game. How many more chances will they be allowed to continue to do this I have no idea.

by Taylorman Sun 3 Nov - 22:06

englandglory4ever wrote:Having watched it again the notion that Brown's foot in touch directly led to the Robshaw try is just not true. There was 2 minutes of playing time between the two incidents which is an eternity in rugby terms and about 8 minutes of actual clock time. During which an injured Fardy was removed from the field while play was stopped. GE needs to get over that. This coupled with a perfectly good try by Farrell means Aus was beaten fair and square.

Agree, How anyone can claim a missed line call on your own line is solely responsible for losing a match is beyond me, now that its established farrells try was fine.

GE's calls come solely from not wanting to concede that England deserve this, or any match...ever, and will search to the ends of the earth and time itself to find reasons to back that up as his or her sole mission in life.

Ref made a mistake. Yes. Did that make the diff in winning an losing. No to unlikely at best.

To then drivel on post after post about it is nonsensical.

by lostinwales Sun 3 Nov - 22:09

Looking at the stats on scrum.com its amazing how even they are. But in every category except lineouts England were slightly ahead (OK 4 clean breaks to 3 for Oz, but..)

Top tackler Robshaw with 14
Next was Farrell with 12 (1 missed)...

by tigerleghorn Sun 3 Nov - 22:21

Taylorman wrote:
englandglory4ever wrote:Having watched it again the notion that Brown's foot in touch directly led to the Robshaw try is just not true. There was 2 minutes of playing time between the two incidents which is an eternity in rugby terms and about 8 minutes of actual clock time. During which an injured Fardy was removed from the field while play was stopped. GE needs to get over that. This coupled with a perfectly good try by Farrell means Aus was beaten fair and square.
Agree, How anyone can claim a missed line call on your own line is solely responsible for losing a match is beyond me, now that its established farrells try was fine.

GE's calls come solely from not wanting to concede that England deserve this, or any match...ever, and will search to the ends of the earth and time itself to find reasons to back that up as his or her sole mission in life.

Ref made a mistake. Yes. Did that make the diff in winning an losing. No to unlikely at best.

To then drivel on post after post about it is nonsensical.

Over to you then GE

by GloriousEmpire Sun 3 Nov - 22:31

tigerleghorn wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
englandglory4ever wrote:Having watched it again the notion that Brown's foot in touch directly led to the Robshaw try is just not true. There was 2 minutes of playing time between the two incidents which is an eternity in rugby terms and about 8 minutes of actual clock time. During which an injured Fardy was removed from the field while play was stopped. GE needs to get over that. This coupled with a perfectly good try by Farrell means Aus was beaten fair and square.
Agree, How anyone can claim a missed line call on your own line is solely responsible for losing a match is beyond me, now that its established farrells try was fine.

GE's calls come solely from not wanting to concede that England deserve this, or any match...ever, and will search to the ends of the earth and time itself to find reasons to back that up as his or her sole mission in life.

Ref made a mistake. Yes. Did that make the diff in winning an losing. No to unlikely at best.

To then drivel on post after post about it is nonsensical.

Over to you then GE

I've already said Fardy's loss was a turning point.

But those 2 minutes of game time included:

1) the incorrect call on browns touch saving effort
2) three dropped passes resulting in obvious and uncalled knock ons
3) a line out in which Armitage knocks the ball on before Genias kick is charged down

It's not just one error. It's a litany of incompetence that contributed to a try which England had looked unlikely to muster until that point.

At that point Australia lost composure, undoubtably unsettled by the torrid time they were getting from Clancey in the scrum had now spread to all facets of the game. They simply weren't getting a level playing field and yes, they panicked.

But no team should have to face those kind of odds.

by **Biltong** Sun 3 Nov - 22:33

I think it is important to communicate issues better at times.

The way I see the brwon foot in touch incident, it isn't the try England scored that should be blamed, but rather the fact that the officating error took away and attacking advantage to Australia.

by Heaf Sun 3 Nov - 22:34

Linebreaker wrote:Not really handoff, apart from Scott Sio and Dan Palmer... who I thought had very decent SXV seasons last year.

Alexander and Slipper not only can't scrum and stop their opponents in their tracks... they are consistent penalty machines. Their body language looked shot 5 mins into that game. How many more chances will they be allowed to continue to do this I have no idea.

Any idea how Max Lahiff is getting on?

by GloriousEmpire Sun 3 Nov - 22:35

Yep. Agree. Imagine an Australian try at that point.

20-6

Hard to imagine Australia would've gone helter skelter from there.

by englandglory4ever Sun 3 Nov - 22:43

[quote="GloriousEmpire"]Yep. Agree. Imagine an Australian try at that point.

20-6

Yep and imagine the Aussies were beaten by a good defense just like they were in the last minute of the match. Just imagine if I won the lottery. Just dreaming mate get over it.

by quinsforever Sun 3 Nov - 22:48

GloriousEmpire wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:Who could have seen Brown's foot in touch? Both feet were literally clipping the line, no officials were nearby and Brown himself probably didn't know his feet were in touch or he would have had them an inch further out. That's not a shocking error, we all just think it was because we have the benefit of tv angles, close ups, replays and slo mo
Rubbish. It was clear as daylight. I saw it the first time around. What about the succession of knock ons? Those could've been seen from space. And that obstruction? Visible from mars.

your obstruction of sensible debate here is undeniable but would have had equal impact on that try being scored.

if it didnt impact the try being scored, and the referee, and TMO made that very clear, then it's just not relevant. about as relevant as the winger obstructing the opposite winger when the ball is 50m away from them. so yes it might be obstruction, but not obstruction of someone who could have stopped that try being scored Smile

by lostinwales Sun 3 Nov - 22:49

And looking again the '5 knock ons' - There were 2 possibles. Lawes fumbled but the ball went back and popped up for Dickson - no knock on nothing wrong there. The other was right after England took the fast penalty. It isnt so clear from the TV angle but its when BV goes for the ball and misses. The likely scenario (and I'd bet its what Clancy thinks also - being right there and everything) is that the ball came off BV's legs.

And right or wrong about the foot in touch - Brown's run which came right after was bloody good.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 3 Nov - 22:52

Heaf wrote:
Linebreaker wrote:Not really handoff, apart from Scott Sio and Dan Palmer... who I thought had very decent SXV seasons last year.

Alexander and Slipper not only can't scrum and stop their opponents in their tracks... they are consistent penalty machines. Their body language looked shot 5 mins into that game. How many more chances will they be allowed to continue to do this I have no idea.
Any idea how Max Lahiff is getting on?

Not sure. I think he will start next season. He looks a decent prospect.

by englandglory4ever Sun 3 Nov - 22:56

Come on GE. There were no knock ons that weren't seen by the officials during the time after play was stopped for Fardy. The ref and 2 assistant refs say so. You weren't in line with play at anytime. You just make up what you think you saw while watching tv. The ref was there you weren't. Give up now and get some rest this is taking a lot out of you. Having to change your story all the time must be stressful for you.

by GloriousEmpire Sun 3 Nov - 23:02

englandglory4ever wrote:Come on GE. There were no knock ons that weren't seen by the officials during the time after play was stopped for Fardy. The ref and 2 assistant refs say so. You weren't in line with play at anytime. You just make up what you think you saw while watching tv. The ref was there you weren't. Give up now and get some rest this is taking a lot out of you. Having to change your story all the time must be stressful for you.

I didn't say there were knock ons that weren't seen by the ref, I said they weren't called - which is my point.

by GloriousEmpire Sun 3 Nov - 23:07

quinsforever wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:Who could have seen Brown's foot in touch? Both feet were literally clipping the line, no officials were nearby and Brown himself probably didn't know his feet were in touch or he would have had them an inch further out. That's not a shocking error, we all just think it was because we have the benefit of tv angles, close ups, replays and slo mo
Rubbish. It was clear as daylight. I saw it the first time around. What about the succession of knock ons? Those could've been seen from space. And that obstruction? Visible from mars.
your obstruction of sensible debate here is undeniable but would have had equal impact on that try being scored.

if it didnt impact the try being scored, and the referee, and TMO made that very clear, then it's just not relevant. about as relevant as the winger obstructing the opposite winger when the ball is 50m away from them. so yes it might be obstruction, but not obstruction of someone who could have stopped that try being scored

Rewrite history all you like. But as Jeremy Guscott agrees, Farrell isn't capable of scoring that sort of try.

The way he ran into the gap created by "insufficient obstruction" is proof enough that there was obstruction.

by englandglory4ever Sun 3 Nov - 23:14

We now know that the Robshaw try was good. And we also know that the Farrell try was good because it was reviewed by the officials. That means England won fair and square. I'd be a rich man if I had a pound for every ref decision I disagreed with. But both those tries were good. Bad luck Aus better luck next time.

by quinsforever Sun 3 Nov - 23:23

GloriousEmpire wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:Who could have seen Brown's foot in touch? Both feet were literally clipping the line, no officials were nearby and Brown himself probably didn't know his feet were in touch or he would have had them an inch further out. That's not a shocking error, we all just think it was because we have the benefit of tv angles, close ups, replays and slo mo
Rubbish. It was clear as daylight. I saw it the first time around. What about the succession of knock ons? Those could've been seen from space. And that obstruction? Visible from mars.
your obstruction of sensible debate here is undeniable but would have had equal impact on that try being scored.

if it didnt impact the try being scored, and the referee, and TMO made that very clear, then it's just not relevant. about as relevant as the winger obstructing the opposite winger when the ball is 50m away from them. so yes it might be obstruction, but not obstruction of someone who could have stopped that try being scored
Rewrite history all you like. But as Jeremy Guscott agrees, Farrell isn't capable of scoring that sort of try.

The way he ran into the gap created by "insufficient obstruction" is proof enough that there was obstruction.

well if jeremy guscott says it is so then it must be. couldnt you find a knowledgeable kiwi or australian to back you up though? i've heard you and others rubbish guscott enough that your now calling him as witness for the losers reduces his credibility somewhat.

by nganboy Sun 3 Nov - 23:56

I liked how someone pulled GE up for blaming refs when the result didn't suit them?
Can we please put our hands up all those who have never complained about the reffing in any games on this website?
anyone?

by GloriousEmpire Mon 4 Nov - 0:05

englandglory4ever wrote:We now know that the Robshaw try was good. And we also know that the Farrell try was good because it was reviewed by the officials. That means England won fair and square. I'd be a rich man if I had a pound for every ref decision I disagreed with. But both those tries were good. Bad luck Aus better luck next time.

Yeah that's right. Browns foot wasn't in touch...just like cueto and wilkinson.

Man, when the English media were calling for twickenham to be made
Into a fortress I wonder if they thought it was the match officials who would heed their call!

by thomh Mon 4 Nov - 0:12

GloriousEmpire wrote:
englandglory4ever wrote:We now know that the Robshaw try was good. And we also know that the Farrell try was good because it was reviewed by the officials. That means England won fair and square. I'd be a rich man if I had a pound for every ref decision I disagreed with. But both those tries were good. Bad luck Aus better luck next time.
Yeah that's right. Browns foot wasn't in touch...just like cueto and wilkinson.

Man, when the English media were calling for twickenham to be made
Into a fortress I wonder if they thought it was the match officials who would heed their call!

Brown's foot in touch had very little to do with Robshaw's try. It was the wrong decision, but there was a clearance kick, a breakdown penalty, a quick tap, and lineout and a charge down in between the two events. You might as well say that the try shouldn't have counted because Clancy missed a crooked feed at the scrum 20 minutes earlier.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 4 Nov - 0:15

Erm. Nope. If the call had been correct, England would've been facing defending their own line rather than given a penalty and a chance to attack with Australia down to 14 men.

by The Saint Mon 4 Nov - 0:15

nganboy wrote:I liked how someone pulled GE up for blaming refs when the result didn't suit them?
Can we please put our hands up all those who have never complained about the reffing in any games on this website?
anyone?

Yeah but nowhere near to the extent that GE is doing it. Him and others have posted some unbelievable rubbish.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 4 Nov - 0:18

Let's count how many posts were made by sudden French fans post 2011 of the English persuasion and validate the rubbish content of them shall we? I reckon more ill educated nonsense was typed
About that than any other single game this decade.

by ChequeredJersey Mon 4 Nov - 0:22

Let's not talk about Cueto's foot. I'm still bitter

by thomh Mon 4 Nov - 0:23

GloriousEmpire wrote:Erm. Nope. If the call had been correct, England would've been facing defending their own line rather than given a penalty and a chance to attack with Australia down to 14 men.

Yes, and the direct result of the wrong call was that Australia collected a clearance kick around the half way line with a chance to counter. The fact that they then gave away a penalty, screwed up a lineout and got a kick charged down has absolutely nothing to do with the Brown call.

The call was wrong and cost Aus a good attacking opportunity, but to claim that it was the wrong decision that cost Aus 90 yards and ultimately a try is just nonsense.

by ChequeredJersey Mon 4 Nov - 0:28

Genuinely. The Brown foot thing may have influenced this match, we will never know but it certainly shifted momentum, but the Cueto thing wrongly robbed us of a similar chance in a RWC fricking final. But the decision that was given is the one that stands. C'est la vie

by Hound of Harrow Mon 4 Nov - 0:43

It:'s a bit late I know, but my newspaper still has the score as England 20 Australia 13.

Nothing wrong with the 2nd try try; Hartley was running back in a straight line and Moore had ample opportunity to move to cover Farrell.

The 'Brown incident'....that was the best running line that Yarde made all game - blindsiding the TJ.

Wink

by BigTrevsbigmac Mon 4 Nov - 6:47

One of the most important features of the game for me was preventing Australia getting any points in the second half.
Especially after their free scoring in the last 2 games that is an achievement in itself.

When was the last time Oz were 'nilled' in a half?

by doctor_grey Mon 4 Nov - 6:54

Good question, BigTrevsbigmac. Not sure. The team did play strong without the ball.

by englandglory4ever Mon 4 Nov - 9:10

GE doesn't understand that sometimes things don't go his way. Sorry but the Robshaw try was good. Nothing you say will alter that fact. Try being a true sportsman for once. This great game is built on sportsmanship where you win and lose with grace. Just listen to the Aussies skipper's comments after the match to understand what a true sportsman is like. This constant whining and whinging from GE is not in the spirit.

by Bathman_in_London Mon 4 Nov - 9:29

Hound of Harrow wrote:It:'s a bit late I know, but my newspaper still has the score as England 20 Australia 13.

Nothing wrong with the 2nd try try; Hartley was running back in a straight line and Moore had ample opportunity to move to cover Farrell.

The 'Brown incident'....that was the best running line that Yarde made all game - blindsiding the TJ.

Haha arguably the best bit of back play in the game!

by lostinwales Mon 4 Nov - 9:46

Watching the highlights one thing really struck me about Australia. Over the last few years I have been so used to seeing them get the ball moving and feeling a sense of dread that someone was going to do something amazing and that they would score. I didnt get that at all from Saturday. They looked ordinary.

by Scrumpy Mon 4 Nov - 9:49

lostinwales wrote: I didnt get that at all from Saturday. They looked ordinary.

Very true, makes you wonder how the cream of the NH lost a game to them in the summer!

by goneagain Mon 4 Nov - 10:47

I take it that we aren't going to hear any England fans mention the imaginary refereeing deficiencies of the 2011 RWC final ever again.

by thomh Mon 4 Nov - 14:41

lostinwales wrote:Watching the highlights one thing really struck me about Australia. Over the last few years I have been so used to seeing them get the ball moving and feeling a sense of dread that someone was going to do something amazing and that they would score. I didnt get that at all from Saturday. They looked ordinary.

Last year was particularly bad with Care's kicking game being loose, but I agree even when we didn't chase or kick well on Saturday they still didn't really look like creating much on the counter, other than that one where Yarde got the ball stripped and Brown/Youngs had to put the tackle in on Cummins.

by Geordie Mon 4 Nov - 15:13

Are people really still engaging in an utterly pointless debate with GE?

Time to move on folks...Argentina next up

by **Rugby Fan** Mon 4 Nov - 16:02

The match at the weekend was reminiscent of England's 2005 win over Australia at Twickenham. The scoreline of 26-16 is also similar.

England then were still struggling to find some shape under Robinson. Here's our 2005 line-up:

Lewsey; Cueto, Noon, Tindall, Cohen; Hodgson, Dawson; Sheridan, Thompson, Vickery; Borthwick, Grewcock; Sanderson, Moody, Corry (capt).
Replacements: Barkley, Mears, Stevens, Deacon, Jones, Ellis, van Gisbergen.

I think that's as much of a mixed bag of talent as Lancaster fielded. Also, that 2005 game gave Australia their worst losing streak (at the time) since 1969, so there's another similarity in the relative strengths of the two sides.

The players from that match who went on to feature in the 2007 final? Vickery, Sheridan, Corry, Moody and Cueto. Mind you, most of the guys stepping in to the team two years later had more caps.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 4 Nov - 16:19

England played some good rugby in 2005 and deserved thier victory.

"
Australia, who have now equalled their worst run of results since 1969, showed some impressive signs going forward but the scrum disintegrated under pressure.
"

That's a comment following the 2005 game. Nothing changes, huh?

by thomh Mon 4 Nov - 16:21

Remember as well though that the England team quite a few guys who had won the World Cup two year before and were on the way down. The team from Saturday are almost exclusively on the way up.

They say you only scrape passed Australia twice...

by lostinwales Mon 4 Nov - 16:21

GloriousEmpire wrote:England played some good rugby in 2005 and deserved thier victory.

"
Australia, who have now equalled their worst run of results since 1969, showed some impressive signs going forward but the scrum disintegrated under pressure.
"

That's a comment following the 2005 game. Nothing changes, huh?

Maybe but I'd struggle to find much in the way of 'impressive signs going forward' Folau excepted

by GloriousEmpire Mon 4 Nov - 16:30

lostinwales wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:England played some good rugby in 2005 and deserved thier victory.

"
Australia, who have now equalled their worst run of results since 1969, showed some impressive signs going forward but the scrum disintegrated under pressure.
"

That's a comment following the 2005 game. Nothing changes, huh?
Maybe but I'd struggle to find much in the way of 'impressive signs going forward' Folau excepted

Oh I didn't even clock that. I have a built in mental filter for nonsense written in the bbc about English rugby. I just caught the Australia bit

by fa0019 Mon 4 Nov - 16:42

GE - if you don't appreciate the scrum and forwards play why don't you go and check out the rugby league world cup.... union is obviously not your game.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 4 Nov - 17:17

Scrum is a farce. We should do away with it and have a tap restart

by Sponsored content