England vs Australia, 3 October

First topic message reminder :

    
ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA
3 October 2015
KO: 20:00
Twickenham, London

Live on [tbc]

Referee: Romain Poite (France)
Touch judges: George Clancy (Ireland) & Marius Mitrea (Italy)
Television match official: Shaun Veldsman (South Africa)

A. Head to Head

43 Played 43
18 Won 24
1 Drawn 1
24 Lost 18
661 Points 907

B. Recent Form

29 November 2014
Twickenham, London
26 – 17 to England

2 November 2013
Twickenham, London
20 – 13 to England

17 November 2012
Twickenham, London
14 – 20 to Australia

13 November 2010
Twickenham, London
35 – 18 to England

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

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

7 November 2009
Twickenham, London
9 – 18 to Australia

15 November 2008
Twickenham, London
14 – 28 to Australia

6 October 2007
Stade Vélodrome, Marseille, France
10 – 12 to England

C. Teams

ENGLAND

15. Mike Brown (Harlequins, 41 caps)
14. Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 13 caps)
13. Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 14 caps)
12. Brad Barritt (Saracens, 25 caps)
11. Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 18 caps)
10. Owen Farrell (Saracens, 33 caps)
9. Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps)

1. Joe Marler (Harlequins, 35 caps)
2. Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 26 caps)
3. Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 54 caps)
4. Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 26 caps)
5. Geoff Parling (Exeter Chiefs, 27 caps)
6. Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 40 caps)
7. Chris Robshaw (captain, Harlequins, 41 caps)
8. Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby, 30 caps)

16. Rob Webber (Bath Rugby, 15 caps)
17. Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 25 caps)
18. Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints, 14 caps)
19. George Kruis (Saracens, 8 caps)
20. Nick Easter (Harlequins, 52 caps)
21. Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens, 25 caps)
22. George Ford (Bath Rugby, 15 caps)
23. Sam Burgess (Bath Rugby, 4 caps)

AUSTRALIA

1. Scott Sio (12 Tests)
2. Stephen Moore (c) (97 Tests)
3. Sekope Kepu (58 Tests)
4. Kane Douglas (18 Tests)
5. Rob Simmons (55 Tests)
6. Scott Fardy (25 Tests)
7. Michael Hooper (vc) (47 Tests)
8. David Pocock (51 Tests)

9. Will Genia (61 Tests)
10. Bernard Foley (22 Tests)
11. Rob Horne (28 Tests)
12. Matt Giteau (97 Tests)
13. Tevita Kuridrani (25 Tests)
14. Adam Ashley-Cooper (vc) (109 Tests)
15. Israel Folau (34 Tests)

*Reserves to be confirmed

I'm conflicted on Lancaster. He strikes me as a rational and sensible bloke. When he speaks I generally find myself in agreement. England were building nicely into this World Cup and seemed to be in a good place in terms of having a fairly settled shape.

However, come this World Cup he seems to have forgotten all that has come before and occured on a rugby pitch, and become this "game by game" pragmatist. It's almost like the Martin Johnson era all over again. Gone is the shape and the desire to dictate the game to the opposition, and in it's place is this practical and efficient team, built to negate the opposition and "manage" the game.

I'm a big fan of Barritt. He has good basics and is a really good and organised rugby player. He is also a 12. Quite how Lancaster ended up with a Burgess/Barritt midfield combination for this game I'll never know. Combined with that was the decision to build his team around George Ford, and then come the crunch revert back to Farrell. Again, Farrell is a very good rugby player but it all just smacked of panic, despite several pundits going out of their way to explain the logic. If you have to call upon experts to explain why a team selection is "clever", then you've probably got it wrong.

I can't think of another top international team that would so drastically change its shape game to game. Ford and Joseph are completely different players at 10 and 13 to Farrell and Barritt. When NZ lose Nonu in comes SBW. When Smith is injured in comes Fekitoa. Carter is out, in comes Beuden Barritt. They seem to design a team, style and way to play based on the strenghts of their 1st XV, then looks for reserve players who can best fit into that template so as not to disrupt the rhythm of the team. Lancaster is blooding combinations for the first time at this World Cup, and you could see when the replacements came on that the structure and shape of the team went awry. All good players, but not all playing off the same hymn sheet.

I'm afraid I can't see past an Australia victory at the weekend. Their pack is so much improved, their breakdown skills far better and the backline more polished than anything England have beaten in a while. The Aussies have beaten NZ and South Africa this year. I think England will be knocked out, which I will be genuinely sorry to see.

I'm not so sure Guns, he was much better at 13 than 12, and I prefer the extra dimension Slade would give over more muscle, we've got plenty of that in Barritt and Burgess

Although in hindsight, if Joseph was going to be injured and Slade isn't trusted, I'd rather have seen Burrell at 13 than Barritt

BamBam wrote:I'm not so sure Guns, he was much better at 13 than 12, and I prefer the extra dimension Slade would give over more muscle, we've got plenty of that in Barritt and Burgess

Although in hindsight, if Joseph was going to be injured and Slade isn't trusted, I'd rather have seen Burrell at 13 than Barritt

100% agree. Barritt may be able to cover 13 at club level, but you need more than he can offer to be a successful international 13. It is an attacking position and England had previously built the backline to include a strike runner from 13. Look back at England performances over the prior 12 - 18 months and you'll see that much of the attacking edge coming through the 13 channel from either Joseph, Tuilagi or Burrell.

The decision to include Barritt in the squad was a good one for me, but as a conservative foil for Ford and Joseph. A water carrier to knit the attackers around him together, and to run the defence. A grafter. Against Wales Lancaster had Burgess at 12. A fine athletic specimen for sure, but not a balanced player to work between Barritt and Farrell. Yes, it worked pretty well and you could argue that it proved to be the right call until the substitutions robbed the team of shape, but it's the lack of clear focus and planning that ultimately hindered England. Lancaster had this Plan B idea of having Ford and Farrell together to "manage" the game (which reminded me of Sir Clive's "genius" idea of picking Jones/Wilkinson together for the Lions) but which were just not equipped for the sustained power running Wales were clearly building towards.

England need players who can seemlessly continue Plan A in the squad.

I think Farrell was superb on the weekend and its no surprise he'll retain his place.

Burgess went well, defensively I thought he was excellent, he was only out of position once that I can only remember? In the first half where Scott Williams got on the outside the midfield and made a clean break... I thought they used him well as a decoy in attack, the english back 3 got their hands on the ball out wide with space on numerous occasions but couldnt really conjure anything.

Barritt wasnt great, hes not a 13 when hes at his best imo. He went well considering, part of the containment of the welsh midfield for the most part of the game, although come the last 20 minutes he was struggling to live with the pace. Saw nothing really from him in attack really.

Surely the common sense decision would have been to bring Joseph back in at 13, kept Farrell/Burgess at 10/12 and maybe swapped one of the wingers, probably Watson as May scored the try (although didnt do much else) for Nowell and put them on the bench. Burgess would be a good tonic for Kuridrani imo whereas Barritt will contain him defensively but hes not gonna bring the pain on offense like Burgess can.

Just a welshmans opinion, of course.

p.s. My main worry for england would be the collective mental strength and conditioning, last week was their biggest game as a team yet, at home, against a Wales side they'd beaten pretty comfortably away in the 6nations, and yet, they capitulated. This next game against Australia is even bigger, can they find the right gear to perform? Warburton galvanised his troops in the face of adversity and lead front the front after the welsh injuries, watch him and faletau lead the fight back out of their 22 smashing back english tacklers and all of a sudden the welsh started getting over the gainline consistently, leading to english penalties etc. Then they start throwin the ball about off first phase and catch Barritt out on his feet, get outside him and the rest is history. It was at this time I genuinely expected England to up the pressure, the injury to Billy V & B Youngs didnt help at all. Any pace or dynamism went out of their play when those 2 and Burgess left the field.

GunsGerms wrote:After 2 good 6 nations compaigns leaving Burrell out was insanity.

He had one good campaign at 13 and one poor campaign at 12. It wasn't insanity.

Comfort wrote:I think Farrell was superb on the weekend and its no surprise he'll retain his place.

Burgess went well, defensively I thought he was excellent, he was only out of position once that I can only remember? In the first half where Scott Williams got on the outside the midfield and made a clean break... I thought they used him well as a decoy in attack, the english back 3 got their hands on the ball out wide with space on numerous occasions but couldnt really conjure anything.

Barritt wasnt great, hes not a 13 when hes at his best imo. He went well considering, part of the containment of the welsh midfield for the most part of the game, although come the last 20 minutes he was struggling to live with the pace. Saw nothing really from him in attack really.

Surely the common sense decision would have been to bring Joseph back in at 13, kept Farrell/Burgess at 10/12 and maybe swapped one of the wingers, probably Watson as May scored the try (although didnt do much else) for Nowell and put them on the bench. Burgess would be a good tonic for Kuridrani imo whereas Barritt will contain him defensively but hes not gonna bring the pain on offense like Burgess can.

Just a welshmans opinion, of course.

p.s. My main worry for england would be the collective mental strength and conditioning, last week was their biggest game as a team yet, at home, against a Wales side they'd beaten pretty comfortably away in the 6nations, and yet, they capitulated. This next game against Australia is even bigger, can they find the right gear to perform? Warburton galvanised his troops in the face of adversity and lead front the front after the welsh injuries, watch him and faletau lead the fight back out of their 22 smashing back english tacklers and all of a sudden the welsh started getting over the gainline consistently, leading to english penalties etc. Then they start throwin the ball about off first phase and catch Barritt out on his feet, get outside him and the rest is history. It was at this time I genuinely expected England to up the pressure, the injury to Billy V & B Youngs didnt help at all. Any pace or dynamism went out of their play when those 2 and Burgess left the field.

Can't argue with any of that. Would be nice to see Nowell being a pain for the opposition and I'd also swap out Watson for him.

Can I just say.....
Come on you Aussies!!!!!!!

lostinwales wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:After 2 good 6 nations compaigns leaving Burrell out was insanity.

He had one good campaign at 13 and one poor campaign at 12. It wasn't insanity.

It wasn't insanity, but what isn't clear to me is whether he lost his place to Slade or Burgess. The reason why that is important to my mind is that Lancaster didn't seem to have a strategy for replacing Joseph, or at least a strategy that preserved the attacking shape of the team.

In contrast I think the way that Gatland has built his squad and coped with the numerous injuries has been masterful. I will never understand the constant criticism Gatland gets as a coach.

GunsGerms wrote:After 2 1 good 6 nations compaigns at 13 and a poor one at his actual position 12 leaving Burrell out was insanitya possibility.

Fixed that one.

"I will never understand the constant criticism Gatland gets as a coach."

It comes with being a successful coach - The criticism he got after dropping BOD for JD in the final Lions Test just about summed it up. A powerful 24 year old for a brilliant but passed his best 34 year old. The fact that it was a record margin was ignored by his detractors. He's not interested in being liked and I'm sure he takes the criticism as a compliment most of the time.

That was a mistake in that final Lions test, fortunately didn't cost us. But alas there's already a Wales thread or 2.

funnyExiledScot wrote: I will never understand the constant criticism Gatland gets as a coach.

My criticism of Gatland stems from his inability to adjust his game plan when it isn't working / doesn't work.

I like the man, especially his ability to get under the skin of other coaches, the media et al.

However tactically he has been too stubborn on occasions.

Apologies for hi-jacking the thread.

RubyGuby wrote:" A powerful welsh 24 year old for a brilliant but passed his best Irish 34 year old.

Fixed it for you ruby

I like Gats btw - good wee jibe he got about his boys being fitter than the English after the game - take the one Farrell!

No 7&1/2 wrote:That was a mistake in that final Lions test, fortunately didn't cost us. But alas there's already a Wales thread or 2.

So his mistakes result in a record margin of victory - That's some coach eh!

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote: I will never understand the constant criticism Gatland gets as a coach.

My criticism of Gatland stems from his inability to adjust his game plan when it isn't working / doesn't work.

I like the man, especially his ability to get under the skin of other coaches, the media et al.

However tactically he has been too stubborn on occasions.

Apologies for hi-jacking the thread.

RuggerRadge, your first statement is why some Wales fans criticise him. Your second statement is why all Wales fans love him . Tactically yes he is also stubborn but Gatland believes Wales are good at it, hence his reluctance to change up. I agree we should occasionally change it up.

What I don't understand is his criticism from non-Wales fans. As somebody alluded to it was probably at its worst in 2013. His track record with club and international teams is something that cannot be criticised, he has one outstanding CV.

Well I for one really wish Gatland/Edwards had joined Scotland rather than Wales back in the day, and I honestly believe he would have made England a far more compelling force than any of the coaches England have had since he took over at Wales.

If England don't beat Australia, does anyone think Lancaster will keep his job? If not, who is the frontrunner to take over?

funnyExiledScot wrote:
If England don't beat Australia, does anyone think Lancaster will keep his job? If not, who is the frontrunner to take over?

No chance and Andy Farrell.

No, they've always been quite ruthless with England coaches. I think they've been quite lenient in comparison throughout the Lancaster era. Next in line is surely somebody like Mark McCall or Jim Mallinder?

Andy Farrell has yet to be responsible for a team. He's never won anything as a head coach.

Would England really repeat the same mistake and go with another coach lacking any sort of managerial experience?

Jim Mallinder would be my pick

BamBam wrote:Haven't noticed you commenting on his kicking straight to Faletau though

Ford kicking straight to Zebo on the other hand ...

Well actually on the Lancaster article I mentioned the no 10's inability to do a decent restart - yes that includes Farrell's botch job with the restarts vs Wales.

I just hope whoever starts vs Australia sorts out their restarts.

The pressure on England to perform is now massive.

RubyGuby wrote:"I will never understand the constant criticism Gatland gets as a coach."

It comes with being a successful coach - The criticism he got after dropping BOD for JD in the final Lions Test just about summed it up. A powerful 24 year old for a brilliant but passed his best 34 year old. The fact that it was a record margin was ignored by his detractors. He's not interested in being liked and I'm sure he takes the criticism as a compliment most of the time.

In the end it didn't matter, the record margin didn't come from anything JD2 did. That's nothing against him, he did his job but had BOD been in that team it would have been the same result.  The match was won by the forward dominance and the use of fresh players vs. a tiring AUS pack.
He's the coach, he makes the decisions, lives and dies by them. Many thought it was the wrong decision, I did at the time so kudos to him for making it but at the same time it didn't impact the match.... as much as you can say... maybe BOD would have dropped 4 tackles and leaked 4 tries??? Improbable but true its an unknown situation as it didn't happen.

Apologies for another Welshman crashing this discussion, but this game is obviously as of much interest to us as our game with Fiji. This group is such a bu@@er, it really is! I’ve been running the various sums and permutations in my head for weeks, and so far, the pool has basically turned out as I’d expected (apart from Oz failing to get a BP against Fiji). As for the way it finishes… Who knows, but even after the final whistle on Saturday, I tried to cheer up my English mates by assuring them that they’re still likely to emerge from this group and while sadly I think Wales may not. Of course, England have two substantial advantages in this group – firstly, the lack of any short turnarounds, but far more importantly, the fact they play Uruguay last, which will be a veritable trolley-dash to make up any points-difference needed, if it comes down to it. If England beat Australia on Saturday – then they’re basically through whatever else happens.

Just to stir the pot a little – I find it interesting there hasn’t been much discussion of Marler and his scrummaging on here yet. As a Welsh fan I found it frustrating (to say the least!) that England’s “dominant scrum” was mainly derived from the same angular-driving infringement Marler (and Robshaw) somehow got away with against Fiji. It seems there’s a bit of a fuss going around about it now in the media, (see Jonathan Kaplan’s tweets/Telegraph article etc.). You’d imagine Poite (and other refs) will be aware of this and have his eye out for it on Saturday… but who knows!

Apologies, but I just learned something that makes the scheduling of England’s drubbing of Uruguay slightly less relevant than I had previously thought. I had assumed that if teams were tied at the end of the group stage on pool points, then points difference would be used to decide the qualifier… but apparently head-to-head result is used before points difference. News to me!

Marcus....in relation to Marler and the shameful Aussie tactics in the press to try and negate our much superior scrum I am truly disgusted.

Seriously it is down to the refs to ref all apsects of the game fairly, but the scrums have always proven to be very difficult. Remember when Adam Jones used his 'experience' to get lots of scrum penalties off Marler? When the Beast did the same to Vickery in the Lions 1st test Brian Moore was clear in that if the ref is not sorting it then the rest of the team have to i.e. have a massive dust up to send a clear message to the opposition prop and the ref that all is not well.

England appear to be a very unintelligent team without genuine leaders as they are very slow to react to the refs style and always give loads of penalties away. Not really Lancaster's fault here as they constantly review and train with proper refs.

MarcusHalberstram wrote:Apologies, but I just learned something that makes the scheduling of England’s drubbing of Uruguay slightly less relevant than I had previously thought.  I had assumed that if teams were tied at the end of the group stage on pool points, then points difference would be used to decide the qualifier… but apparently head-to-head result is used before points difference.  News to me!

That's right. I must say I prefer points difference as a way of separating the sides, but I can see the logic.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

MarcusHalberstram wrote:Apologies, but I just learned something that makes the scheduling of England’s drubbing of Uruguay slightly less relevant than I had previously thought.  I had assumed that if teams were tied at the end of the group stage on pool points, then points difference would be used to decide the qualifier… but apparently head-to-head result is used before points difference.  News to me!

That's right. I must say I prefer points difference as a way of separating the sides, but I can see the logic.

Head-to-head is surely a better, fairer way of separating sides rather than points difference as the latter can involve a Tier 1 side destroying one of the minnows who could have basically given up by then rather than playing them when they're still competitive. Even though, in Pool A, that would be an advantage to England (probably) it doesn't sit quite right with me.

Luckily, for England, it's simple. Beat the Aussies and progress. Lose and go out.

munkian wrote:Barritt was absolutely awful. Absolute dog poopie.

Says something about Wales then I spose if he was that awful.

hugehandoff wrote:Marcus....in relation to Marler and the shameful Aussie tactics in the press to try and negate our much superior scrum I am truly disgusted.

Seriously it is down to the refs to ref all apsects of the game fairly, but the scrums have always proven to be very difficult. Remember when Adam Jones used his 'experience' to get lots of scrum penalties off Marler? When the Beast did the same to Vickery in the Lions 1st test Brian Moore was clear in that if the ref is not sorting it then the rest of the team have to i.e. have a massive dust up to send a clear message to the opposition prop and the ref that all is not well.

England appear to be a very unintelligent team without genuine leaders as they are very slow to react to the refs style and always give loads of penalties away. Not really Lancaster's fault here as they constantly review and train with proper refs.

You're absolutely right, of course, hugehandoff - and I guess so long as England are getting away with it, it's one of the "dark arts" and almost to be commended (through gritted teeth)! Just frustrating for the rest of us who can see it!

Cyril wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

MarcusHalberstram wrote:Apologies, but I just learned something that makes the scheduling of England’s drubbing of Uruguay slightly less relevant than I had previously thought.  I had assumed that if teams were tied at the end of the group stage on pool points, then points difference would be used to decide the qualifier… but apparently head-to-head result is used before points difference.  News to me!

That's right. I must say I prefer points difference as a way of separating the sides, but I can see the logic.

Head-to-head is surely a better, fairer way of separating sides rather than points difference as the latter can involve a Tier 1 side destroying one of the minnows who could have basically given up by then rather than playing them when they're still competitive. Even though, in Pool A, that would be an advantage to England (probably) it doesn't sit quite right with me.

Luckily, for England, it's simple. Beat the Aussies and progress. Lose and go out.

Maybe not, Cyril... If Wales manage to get 6pts from their last two games, then England would need to get a BP win against Aus to go through - a straight win wouldn't be enough. You can mad thinking about all this.

MarcusHalberstram wrote:

hugehandoff wrote:Marcus....in relation to Marler and the shameful Aussie tactics in the press to try and negate our much superior scrum I am truly disgusted.

Seriously it is down to the refs to ref all apsects of the game fairly, but the scrums have always proven to be very difficult. Remember when Adam Jones used his 'experience' to get lots of scrum penalties off Marler? When the Beast did the same to Vickery in the Lions 1st test Brian Moore was clear in that if the ref is not sorting it then the rest of the team have to i.e. have a massive dust up to send a clear message to the opposition prop and the ref that all is not well.

England appear to be a very unintelligent team without genuine leaders as they are very slow to react to the refs style and always give loads of penalties away. Not really Lancaster's fault here as they constantly review and train with proper refs.

You're absolutely right, of course, hugehandoff - and I guess so long as England are getting away with it, it's one of the "dark arts" and almost to be commended (through gritted teeth)! Just frustrating for the rest of us who can see it!

Not that dark when it's bleeding obvious to everybody watching. Diagonal put-ins are allowed too, mostly, it seems.

MarcusHalberstram wrote:

Cyril wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

MarcusHalberstram wrote:Apologies, but I just learned something that makes the scheduling of England’s drubbing of Uruguay slightly less relevant than I had previously thought.  I had assumed that if teams were tied at the end of the group stage on pool points, then points difference would be used to decide the qualifier… but apparently head-to-head result is used before points difference.  News to me!

That's right. I must say I prefer points difference as a way of separating the sides, but I can see the logic.

Head-to-head is surely a better, fairer way of separating sides rather than points difference as the latter can involve a Tier 1 side destroying one of the minnows who could have basically given up by then rather than playing them when they're still competitive. Even though, in Pool A, that would be an advantage to England (probably) it doesn't sit quite right with me.

Luckily, for England, it's simple. Beat the Aussies and progress. Lose and go out.

Maybe not, Cyril... If Wales manage to get 6pts from their last two games, then England would need to get a BP win against Aus to go through - a straight win wouldn't be enough.  You can mad thinking about all this.

If England beat Australia (4pts) and Uruguay (5pts) then they end up with 15pts. Even if the Aussies got a losing bonus point vs England and a five pointer vs Wales they would end up with 15pts as well. Advantage England due to the head-to-head result. Or am I getting this all wrong?

Aussies not getting a bonus point vs Fiji could be very, very important. I don't think Wales' results have any real bearing on England unless they lose both and only get one losing bonus point. England could then afford to lose to the Aussies with no bonus points and a 5-pointer vs Uruguay.


England basically need to beat the Aussies or rely on Wales falling to pieces in the last two games.

My head hurts...

mikey_dragon wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote: I will never understand the constant criticism Gatland gets as a coach.

My criticism of Gatland stems from his inability to adjust his game plan when it isn't working / doesn't work.

I like the man, especially his ability to get under the skin of other coaches, the media et al.

However tactically he has been too stubborn on occasions.

Apologies for hi-jacking the thread.

RuggerRadge, your first statement is why some Wales fans criticise him. Your second statement is why all Wales fans love him . Tactically yes he is also stubborn but Gatland believes Wales are good at it, hence his reluctance to change up. I agree we should occasionally change it up.

What I don't understand is his criticism from non-Wales fans. As somebody alluded to it was probably at its worst in 2013. His track record with club and international teams is something that cannot be criticised, he has one outstanding CV.

Mssg to George: Hey George, ref. OP, : the Celts have nicked your thread !

Cyril wrote:

MarcusHalberstram wrote:

Cyril wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

MarcusHalberstram wrote:Apologies, but I just learned something that makes the scheduling of England’s drubbing of Uruguay slightly less relevant than I had previously thought.  I had assumed that if teams were tied at the end of the group stage on pool points, then points difference would be used to decide the qualifier… but apparently head-to-head result is used before points difference.  News to me!

That's right. I must say I prefer points difference as a way of separating the sides, but I can see the logic.

Head-to-head is surely a better, fairer way of separating sides rather than points difference as the latter can involve a Tier 1 side destroying one of the minnows who could have basically given up by then rather than playing them when they're still competitive. Even though, in Pool A, that would be an advantage to England (probably) it doesn't sit quite right with me.

Luckily, for England, it's simple. Beat the Aussies and progress. Lose and go out.

Maybe not, Cyril... If Wales manage to get 6pts from their last two games, then England would need to get a BP win against Aus to go through - a straight win wouldn't be enough.  You can mad thinking about all this.

If England beat Australia (4pts) and Uruguay (5pts) then they end up with 15pts. Even if the Aussies got a losing bonus point vs England and a five pointer vs Wales they would end up with 15pts as well. Advantage England due to the head-to-head result. Or am I getting this all wrong?

Aussies not getting a bonus point vs Fiji could be very, very important. I don't think Wales' results have any real bearing on England unless they lose both and only get one losing bonus point. England could then afford to lose to the Aussies with no bonus points and a 5-pointer vs Uruguay.


England basically need to beat the Aussies or rely on Wales falling to pieces in the last two games.

My head hurts...

Actually, I guess you're right. My worst nightmare (well, other than just getting tonked by both Fiji and Oz!) is that we all end up of 15 points, and that we get shafted on points difference. Sadly may well happen!

Oh, god this week is horrible - why do so many rugby tournaments seem to come down to damned points difference etc. these days?! It's enough to drive fans to an early grave. Still I guess I'm putting the cart before the horse - we all need to try and win some games first!

The ruck which led to Biggar's winning penalty...where were the English? North made the tackle, Gethin/Warbs (both Cardiff) stuck around and won the day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq3zOS5neJE

Cyril wrote:

MarcusHalberstram wrote:

Cyril wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

MarcusHalberstram wrote:Apologies, but I just learned something that makes the scheduling of England’s drubbing of Uruguay slightly less relevant than I had previously thought.  I had assumed that if teams were tied at the end of the group stage on pool points, then points difference would be used to decide the qualifier… but apparently head-to-head result is used before points difference.  News to me!

That's right. I must say I prefer points difference as a way of separating the sides, but I can see the logic.

Head-to-head is surely a better, fairer way of separating sides rather than points difference as the latter can involve a Tier 1 side destroying one of the minnows who could have basically given up by then rather than playing them when they're still competitive. Even though, in Pool A, that would be an advantage to England (probably) it doesn't sit quite right with me.

Luckily, for England, it's simple. Beat the Aussies and progress. Lose and go out.

Maybe not, Cyril... If Wales manage to get 6pts from their last two games, then England would need to get a BP win against Aus to go through - a straight win wouldn't be enough.  You can mad thinking about all this.

If England beat Australia (4pts) and Uruguay (5pts) then they end up with 15pts. Even if the Aussies got a losing bonus point vs England and a five pointer vs Wales they would end up with 15pts as well. Advantage England due to the head-to-head result. Or am I getting this all wrong?

Aussies not getting a bonus point vs Fiji could be very, very important. I don't think Wales' results have any real bearing on England unless they lose both and only get one losing bonus point. England could then afford to lose to the Aussies with no bonus points and a 5-pointer vs Uruguay.


England basically need to beat the Aussies or rely on Wales falling to pieces in the last two games.

My head hurts...

If England's progress comes to depend on Wales losing to Australia - a big if - I wonder how the Twickenham crowd will react. I'd feel very conflicted. While I want England to progress, I'd also like to see Wales beat the Wallabies, especially after their heroics last weekend, and bad luck with injuries.

beshocked wrote:It's not genius.

Okay I'll let you work this one out:

Who selected Nowell on his debut vs France away?  I have said many times it was idiotic to pick Nowell on his international debut vs France away. A poisoned chalice. Who selected May? Who selected the bench?

Why should I have a go at a player who is getting lambasted left right and centre? There's enough people criticising Barritt.

You say he played badly for the whole 80 - no he didn't. Like most of the team he was fine in the first 40 - England were winning then.

No it has nothing to do with Ashton. I have made the assumption now that Ashton's international career is over.

I just highlighted one moment when I felt Watson should have blasted past Faletau and now you're jumping down my throat accusing me of bias.

Billy and Youngs - played well and contributed to the England effort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq3zOS5neJE

8.10 in this video shows the incident I'm on about. Be interested to get your view

Cyril wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

MarcusHalberstram wrote:Apologies, but I just learned something that makes the scheduling of England’s drubbing of Uruguay slightly less relevant than I had previously thought.  I had assumed that if teams were tied at the end of the group stage on pool points, then points difference would be used to decide the qualifier… but apparently head-to-head result is used before points difference.  News to me!

That's right. I must say I prefer points difference as a way of separating the sides, but I can see the logic.

Head-to-head is surely a better, fairer way of separating sides rather than points difference as the latter can involve a Tier 1 side destroying one of the minnows who could have basically given up by then rather than playing them when they're still competitive. Even though, in Pool A, that would be an advantage to England (probably) it doesn't sit quite right with me.

Luckily, for England, it's simple. Beat the Aussies and progress. Lose and go out.

I think you can probably make arguments either way - for example you could say the teams that meet the 'minnows' first have an easier build up and may go into the big matches fresher/with fewer injuries etc ... for example would it have been better for England to meet Wales as the first match before JJ got injured?

Plus say for example team A beat everyone convincingly except team B, who they narrowly lose to after an off day or a bad ref call/unlucky bounce of the ball, whereas team B manage only narrow wins and a loss - should team B go through on the head-to-head rather than team A who have performed better overall?

By using the head to head method, you are judging the teams on a game played on the same ground, under the same weather conditions, the same referee etc etc.

But there are other conditions that won't be the same as mentioned and having the same ref isn't necessarily equal for both teams depending on interpretation etc ... I still think PD is better to give an overall performance in the pool but ultimately you can make arguments both ways as there are so many variables.

And another variable might be that one team won the match between the two subject teams?

Cyril wrote:

MarcusHalberstram wrote:

Cyril wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

MarcusHalberstram wrote:Apologies, but I just learned something that makes the scheduling of England’s drubbing of Uruguay slightly less relevant than I had previously thought.  I had assumed that if teams were tied at the end of the group stage on pool points, then points difference would be used to decide the qualifier… but apparently head-to-head result is used before points difference.  News to me!

That's right. I must say I prefer points difference as a way of separating the sides, but I can see the logic.

Head-to-head is surely a better, fairer way of separating sides rather than points difference as the latter can involve a Tier 1 side destroying one of the minnows who could have basically given up by then rather than playing them when they're still competitive. Even though, in Pool A, that would be an advantage to England (probably) it doesn't sit quite right with me.

Luckily, for England, it's simple. Beat the Aussies and progress. Lose and go out.

Maybe not, Cyril... If Wales manage to get 6pts from their last two games, then England would need to get a BP win against Aus to go through - a straight win wouldn't be enough.  You can mad thinking about all this.

If England beat Australia (4pts) and Uruguay (5pts) then they end up with 15pts. Even if the Aussies got a losing bonus point vs England and a five pointer vs Wales they would end up with 15pts as well. Advantage England due to the head-to-head result. Or am I getting this all wrong?

Aussies not getting a bonus point vs Fiji could be very, very important. I don't think Wales' results have any real bearing on England unless they lose both and only get one losing bonus point. England could then afford to lose to the Aussies with no bonus points and a 5-pointer vs Uruguay.


England basically need to beat the Aussies or rely on Wales falling to pieces in the last two games.

My head hurts...

I like the head to head thing...its a bit ridiculous to have a team go through over another who they lost to just because they ran up a bigger cricket score in a non competitive game. In a two way tie it works great.

The 15 points scenarios though ... you end up with paper rock scissors. England beat aus so they go above, Aus beat Wales so they go above, Wales beat England so they go above, England beat ...oh. In a three way split thats when the points difference could come in and has the potential to screw Wales.

Of course if Wales do lose against Fiji that really opens things up, all 3 teams still have their fate in their own hands. Its a hell of a group as expected.

Aus team to face England

Scott Sio,
Stephen Moore (c),
Sekope Kepu,
Kane Douglas,
Rob Simmons,
Scott Fardy,
Michael Hooper (vc),
David Pocock,
Will Genia,
Bernard Foley,
Rob Horne,
Matt Gitaeu,
Tevita Kuridrani,
Adam Ashley-Cooper (vc),
Israel Folau

aucklandlaurie wrote:
And another variable might be that one team won the match between the two subject teams?

Or that team A that beat team B was beaten by team C that was beaten by team B

Let's say Wales get beaten by Fiji today - is this representative of which is the better team overall or would the previous matches and injuries that Wales have picked up along the way be a large factor?

I would prefer any way which gives England the better chance; I'm going for points.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I would prefer any way which gives England the better chance; I'm going for points.

And in your position thats more than understandable.

To be honest I hold a sense of optimism which is obviously fatal and will come back to bite me leading to a spiral of depression should we lose. At least this is basically a knock out so we know what to do with the added bonus we get to have one more game where Slade will finally get a game and we'll definitely thrash the other team.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

munkian wrote:Barritt was absolutely awful. Absolute dog poopie.

Says something about Wales then I spose if he was that awful.

Its says something about how bad at substitutions Lancaster is by bringing Burgess off.

munkian wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

munkian wrote:Barritt was absolutely awful. Absolute dog poopie.

Says something about Wales then I spose if he was that awful.

Its says something about how bad at substitutions Lancaster is by bringing Burgess off.

Both are true...

TightHEAD wrote:Aus team to face England

Scott Sio,
Stephen Moore (c),
Sekope Kepu,
Kane Douglas,
Rob Simmons,
Scott Fardy,
Michael Hooper (vc),
David Pocock,
Will Genia,
Bernard Foley,
Rob Horne,
Matt Gitaeu,
Tevita Kuridrani,
Adam Ashley-Cooper (vc),
Israel Folau

I don't fancy Burgess against a player as clever as Matt Giteau, and the England breakdown skills which were so badly hammered by the ref against Wales are going to need to be razor sharp to compete against Hooper and Pocock. Don't support you weight on your hands Dan Cole (or at least don't make it so obvious!!).