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 sure all the neutrals on here and across Britain and the world will throw their support behind the host nation?

englandglory4ever never left England down? Are you kidding me? Easter is the one who used the £35k down the toliet comment and was part of the 2011 shambles.

I actually agree he's a great club no 8. Unfortunately his lack of pace is more of an issue at international level. Morgan and Billy have been a massive upgrade on Easter whose really not that good at international level.

Well an in form Morgan is an asset, the current Morgan is a bit of a worry as he was uninspiring vs Fiji.

Do you really want to bring on one of the slowest no 8 in international rugby as an impact player?

Especially when the likes of Wigglesworth and Burgess aren't exactly lightning fast either?

nlpnp

As for Haskell - Haskell has played enough games at 8 for him to be familiar with that position....

he might have done nothing wrong in your opinion but what did he do right?

He didn't bring leadership, he didn't tie in defenders and power through Welshmen, in comparison to Billy he was a poor replacement.

He was one of the benchmen that didn't rally the troops and help close out the game.

It's even worse that Easter is 37!

The trouble with Haskell is that he has built up too much muscle and is slow too.

I'd pick Easter or Waldrom over Haskell at 8 anyday.

Easter will do what we need. Safe hands, truck it up a few metres, look for the offload and if not get it recycled efficiently. His trademark big fend with one arm and deft offload with the other is just as effective as any showboating rampage into isolation.

In fact the *last* thing we want to do against Pocock/Hooper is have a big number 8 smashing up through the line because they are going to kill us at the breakdown as we are still very poor at quickly securing attacking rucks.

I agree. Easter is a specialist 8. I also agree he is a bit slow but for the last 20 minutes he'll do a better job than any other.

Sorry Beshocked but in this case we all did agree that the Saracens player was the best guy for the job but then he got broke.

Not worried about Easter. He is smart enough to get to the right places on the field despite being a slow moving fatty. He isn't going to make those devastating runs from deep that we get with BV and Morgan (when he's on form) but he is going to make yards here and there, tie in defenders and offload the ball

lostinwales I am just worried because I don't think the other no 8s are good enough at the moment. Morgan IMO isn't back to his best. Easter's lack of pace worries me and Haskell just hasn't impressed IMO.

Hope I am proved wrong.

mid gen of course what you want vs Pocock and Hooper is one of the slowest forwards on the pitch who won't be able to get to the breakdown quick enough........

Discipline is another worry. Yet again the amount of brainless penalties against Wales hurt England. Gifting 3 pointers to Biggar.

England will need to be savvier and smarter.

Haskell is a last choice type 8. He's adequate there but only to be used if others are injured. In a squad of 31 to be down to your 3rd choice 8, he's not going to be world class. I imagine Haskell would be a better option than most could put out.

Sgt Pooly Haskell has played plenty of times at 8. He's a powerful lad. He should be able to bring the same attributes that Billy and Morgan bring to England at 8.

To be honest I think Lancaster has picked Easter because he's worried that Morgan could well break down before the 60 minute mark and he certainly knows that Morgan would struggle to play 80.

Easter might well be fine for 20 minutes - we'll see but his services might be called for earlier.

Personally I think Pocock and Hooper will have a field day with our no 8s.....let alone chat about English discipline....

beshocked wrote:lostinwales I am just worried because I don't think the other no 8s are good enough at the moment. Morgan IMO isn't back to his best. Easter's lack of pace worries me and Haskell just hasn't impressed IMO.

Hope I am proved wrong.

mid gen of course what you want vs Pocock and Hooper is one of the slowest forwards on the pitch who won't be able to get to the breakdown quick enough........

Discipline is another worry. Yet again the amount of brainless penalties against Wales hurt England. Gifting 3 pointers to Biggar.

England will need to be savvier and smarter.

You could argue that a big guy who can control the pace of the game and look after the ball is exactly the kind of guy you want against two lightweight scavengers. We'll find out soon enough

Easter will not be controlling the pace of this game LIW

Sgt Pooly Haskell has played plenty of times at 8. He's a powerful lad. He should be able to bring the same attributes that Billy and Morgan bring to England at 8.

Those are specialist 8's Beshocked, Haskell rarely plays there these days as he's not got the skill set that is required.

To knock Haskell (our 3rd choice 8) for not being as good as Billy and Morgan in a position he rarely plays is a bit bizarre to say the least, rather him than Wood anyway.

In a squad of 31 you can't have 3 specialists in every position, do the maths....it doesn't fit.

Things Easter does arguably bring which we are lacking in spades:

Experience
A rugby brain

On that basis I am happy with his selection.

Frankly the farce of not having someone who can cover 13 on the bench is a much bigger concern.

Sgt Pooly he hasn't played 8 much these days but he's still got a lot of experience at 8. He's played a lot at 8.

Don't know why you are making excuses for Haskell he's an experienced rugby player with more caps than Morgan and Billy combined. Should be able to do well.

He's played at 8 as cover for injury, or off the bench !!! Has anyone ever picked him at 8 as the first choice starter?!!

Morgan will be fine. He's had his warm-up game against Fiji and now he can hit his straps. Number 8 is actually a position where England are pretty well stocked - Billy V and Morgan can do the business there for some time to come.

I think the need for Easter is largely down to the lack of punch in the England pack more generally. England have basically nothing in the way of meaty ball carrying - in fact the best ball carrier so far, Billy V excluded, has been Tom Youngs purely because he can get so low and drive over the ground. Cole and Marler are ok without being fearsome, Launchbury again is ok but Parling isn't much use in heavy traffic, and neither Wood nor Robshaw are going to punch holes. It perhaps explains why Lancaster is taking such a massive gamble on Burgess.

Still, Australia are in a rather similar boat, so I expect the two packs will probably cancel eachother out to a degree, unless Morgan can recapture form.

BamBam wrote:

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

Yes that was the incident. Why on earth didn't Watson either wrong foot Faletau or try and beat him on the outside?

Kicking it meant he had to beat 3 Welsh players to the ball. Should have been able to outpace Faletau, just didn't back himself.

Disagree there, he made more territory with the kick than he would have running the ball. There was no space on the wing (and he had too much ground to make up) and cover on the inside. Outpace a guy 3 metres in front of him with nowhere to go?

beshocked wrote:

BamBam wrote:

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

Yes that was the incident. Why on earth didn't Watson either wrong foot Faletau or try and beat him on the outside?

Kicking it meant he had to beat 3 Welsh players to the ball. Should have been able to outpace Faletau, just didn't back himself.

In 5m of space, with Faletau having the angle on him? Really?

I don't think any Welsh player would have caught Watson if he got past Faletau which he probably should have if he ran full pace up against Faletau who was running back to cover.

Could have beaten him on the inside or outside - there was enough space.

Just didn't back himself. My point is he shouldn't have kicked it - should have backed his pace. He slowed himself down to kick - you don't think that makes a difference?

You're telling me a winger shouldn't try and beat a no 8?

BamBam wrote:

beshocked wrote:

BamBam wrote:

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

Yes that was the incident. Why on earth didn't Watson either wrong foot Faletau or try and beat him on the outside?

Kicking it meant he had to beat 3 Welsh players to the ball. Should have been able to outpace Faletau, just didn't back himself.

In 5m of space, with Faletau having the angle on him? Really?

Okay I'll put it this way - is it easier to try and beat one Welshmen when you should be running close to full pace and that Welshmen is a no 8 or try and beat 3 Welshmen to a kicked ball. Even if Watson had gathered the ball he still had Welshmen there.

Very few players might have got past Faletau given the angle and distance. As it was it should have gone much better, particularly had Farrell not been penalised for what looked like a marginal late tackle.

beshocked wrote:Okay I'll put it this way - is it easier to try and beat one Welshmen when  you should be running close to full pace and that Welshmen is a no 8 or try and beat 3 Welshmen to a kicked ball. Even if Watson had gathered the ball he still had Welshmen there.

Rugby isn't just about beating people. Territory is important. Kicking is the obvious and correct play no matter the winger there - it would be difficult to get past.

lostinwales are wingers are allegedly "world class". That was an opportunity. If Watson beats Faletau in all likelihood he scores and England would have probably won.

Faletau was running back, his positioning wasn't perfect, Watson could have wrong footed with the right angle and a burst of pace.

The result of the move was a penalty for Wales.

Bear in mind Watson's decision to kick slowed him down, him running at full pace could have made the difference.

scottrfr rugby is about taking your opportunities and that was a big one.

Kicking in this situation was a poor option because Watson had 3 Welshmen to beat instead of 1.

Only 1 if he kept ball in hand - a winger vs a no 8.

We'll never know I guess. I don't think he beats him very often there.

beshocked wrote:lostinwales are wingers are allegedly "world class". That was an opportunity. If Watson beats Faletau in all likelihood he scores and England would have probably won.

Faletau was running back, his positioning wasn't perfect, Watson could have wrong footed with the right angle and a burst of pace.

The result of the move was a penalty for Wales.

Bear in mind Watson's decision to kick slowed him down, him running at full pace could have made the difference.

Well .. you're right to say that the result of the move was a penalty to Wales.

However, if Farrell didn't put in a needless late tackle, the result would have been an England lineout on about the Wales 22.....

You're back to picking on the wingers because they aren't Chris Ashton, with your insinuations that everyone thinks the wings are world class. Toby Faletau may be a number 8, but he's not exactly in the Dean Richards mould. Did you not see him arriving very closely behind Watson after the kick?

That would indicate he has a fair amount of pace, and with the angle and 5m of space I think Watson made the right decision

What I would say about Watson is that he isn't a natural winger for my money. He's a great athlete and a wonderful broken field runner, but for me the sooner he gets moved to 15 the better. I appreciate Mike Brown is "Mr Consistent" and in great form, plus this England side needs his spikey character in order not to win the award for being the most bland rugby team ever to have played, but for me Watson is the future at 15. Not completely convinced by him on the wing.

Anyway, Christian Wade needs to be selected after this World Cup is over. England can't ignore his talent for much longer, provided he can keep himself fit.

Wade... good club player. enough said.

fa0019 wrote:Wade... good club player. enough said.

Well, he's no Jack Nowell, Manu Tuilagi, Ben Foden, Matt Banahan or Mike Brown as a winger. That's true.

If they are international class wingers, then it's certainly true to say that Wade isn't in the same bracket.

BamBam wrote:

beshocked wrote:lostinwales are wingers are allegedly "world class". That was an opportunity. If Watson beats Faletau in all likelihood he scores and England would have probably won.

Faletau was running back, his positioning wasn't perfect, Watson could have wrong footed with the right angle and a burst of pace.

The result of the move was a penalty for Wales.

Bear in mind Watson's decision to kick slowed him down, him running at full pace could have made the difference.

Well .. you're right to say that the result of the move was a penalty to Wales.

However, if Farrell didn't put in a needless late tackle, the result would have been an England lineout on about the Wales 22.....

You're back to picking on the wingers because they aren't Chris Ashton, with your insinuations that everyone thinks the wings are world class. Toby Faletau may be a number 8, but he's not exactly in the Dean Richards mould. Did you not see him arriving very closely behind Watson after the kick?

That would indicate he has a fair amount of pace, and with the angle and 5m of space I think Watson made the right decision

Oh ffs Bambam stop banging on about Ashton, Ashton might not have backed himself either.

The Ashton who scored that magnificent try vs Australia isn't the same one today.

I am not claiming Ashton would do any better.

Just disappointed in the English wingers and expect better because they are supposedly "world class".

It's an opportunity wasted. Why should the wingers not cop any flak?

I like it - another opposition player that after they thwart an English winger is then revealed to one of the fastest rugby players in the world...

Faletau is not the Welsh version of Usain bolt.....

lostinwales wrote:Very few players might have got past Faletau given the angle and distance. As it was it should have gone much better, particularly had Farrell not been penalised for what looked like a marginal late tackle.

I think the penalty was actually for Watson diving on the player on the ground - which I have to say was just plain wrong - as the Ozzie commentators on the clip seemed to agree ...

Heaf wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Very few players might have got past Faletau given the angle and distance. As it was it should have gone much better, particularly had Farrell not been penalised for what looked like a marginal late tackle.

I think the penalty was actually for Watson diving on the player on the ground - which I have to say was just plain wrong - as the Ozzie commentators on the clip seemed to agree ...

Yup, one of many moments of inane almost tourettes that came upon me (as it strangely does during most internationals). Hits the ground a split second after Amos, both going for the ball and gets a penalty against.

And we've got another one of the cheese eating, white flag waving surrender monkeys in charge tomorrow.

And if Brad ****ing Barritt has another 4/10 game then we will lose. We've been carrying him and the best thing SL could do his is yank him off after 20 minutes rather than having to wait until his pre-defined substitution window to get him off. I always liked the idea of Burgess being in the 31 but christ, how many of us now would wish that he was starting at 12 tomorrow (out of the options available)??

Agree why are all you lto claiming Watson is a deity????

Coxy001 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Very few players might have got past Faletau given the angle and distance. As it was it should have gone much better, particularly had Farrell not been penalised for what looked like a marginal late tackle.

I think the penalty was actually for Watson diving on the player on the ground - which I have to say was just plain wrong - as the Ozzie commentators on the clip seemed to agree ...

Yup, one of many moments of inane almost tourettes that came upon me (as it strangely does during most internationals). Hits the ground a split second after Amos, both going for the ball and gets a penalty against.

And we've got another one of the cheese eating, white flag waving surrender monkeys in charge tomorrow.

And if Brad ****ing Barritt has another 4/10 game then we will lose. We've been carrying him and the best thing SL could do his is yank him off after 20 minutes rather than having to wait until his pre-defined substitution window to get him off. I always liked the idea of Burgess being in the 31 but christ, how many of us now would wish that he was starting at 12 tomorrow (out of the options available)??

Then it should be his last one ever....mind regardless he should not be in the squad Post WC anyway....

* sigh. I think Watson may well have a huge future, but I'd rather we went with Nowell/May at the moment

No 7&1/2 wrote:Agree why are all you lto claiming Watson is a deity????

God I know its unbelievable....surely its May who is the god

No 7&1/2 wrote:Agree why are all you lto claiming Watson is a deity????

That's Beshocked for you. He also often claims that Wales players like North and Lee are deities - have to say I agree with him on that one .

If Brad Barritt has another 4/10 game then I want him strung up from the post by his tackle - post game win or lose.

In that case he'll probably get a 5/10 TH - English fans starting to get a bit like the welsh with their wingers, one minute they are world class and the best back 3 in the world and the next thing they are clueless. The bad news is, there's not that much difference between all of us.

RubyGuby wrote:In that case he'll probably get a 5/10 TH - English fans starting to get a bit like the welsh with their wingers, one minute they are world class and the best back 3 in the world and the next thing they are clueless. The bad news is, there's not that much difference between all of us.

No my Welsh friend, English back 3 players are only world class and can do no wrong if their names rhyme with Miss Bashton

Rest of them are turd off the bottom of a shoe

Our wingers are class, they just never get the ball.

We have 3 very good wingers in my opinion but they are all young and still inexperienced at this level. They are going to make mistakes.

They have the potential to be top class and just need to work with them and provide them with a midfield and pack that will give them genuine opportunities.

In fact they have proven that if you give them half a chance they can score.

EDIT: And a manager with feckin tactics!!

They did during the 6 nations when Barritt wasn't present.

England lost because they lacked leaders, there were daft substitutions, we stopped playing, we had no threat at 13 (and no replacement) and we gave away too many stupid penalties.

So let's focus on the big issues which this team continues to have and not argue about what Watson should have done.

18 months ago England had issues with their centre pairing, we still have issues, IMO this is the biggest failing of Lancaster's tenure, along with the substitutions.

beshocked wrote:I don't think any Welsh player would have caught Watson if he got past Faletau which he probably should have if he ran full pace up against Faletau who was running back to cover.

Could have beaten him on the inside or outside - there was enough space.

Just didn't back himself. My point is he shouldn't have kicked it - should have backed his pace. He slowed himself down to kick - you don't think that makes a difference?

You're telling me a winger shouldn't try and beat a no 8?

I think you're being pretty harsh on Watson. Firstly it was definitely the right choice to kick and he did out pace TF, but because of the angle of the kick he had to run around what was in effect a blocking line. The only thing Watson did wrong was to fall on Amos. https://youtu.be/nq3zOS5neJE?t=8m13s

Burrell and JJ worked as a centre pairing for England, OK maybe not world class but it did allow our wingers to be a threat.

how does the saying go 'show me a world class winger and i'll show you two centres!'

Who else is looking forward to that special moment on the 60 min mark when JJ is subbed off regardless of form, to allow for the dream team Burgess/Barrett to finish the game...

I see guscott has been running his mouth for the BBC...

what a load of pish he is spouting.

England's problem in this RWC has been paying too much attention to what their opponents are doing instead of what they are doing. A couple of years ago Lancaster looked like he had a good game plan and was executing it well.

Now we get to this RWC and it seems he and his coaching staff have forgotten what got them there in the first place.

They shouldn't be changing their game plan IMO they should play to their own strengths instead of trying to nulify Australia's strengths.

A question to our English bretheren, is your massive pool of players a hindrance instead of a blessing?

I saw Arsene Wenger once defend subbing a player who was on fire as he was just coming back from injury and their medical team had worked out that there was an optimum time for returning players to be on the pitch before they became statistically much more vulnerable to further injuries or relapses. Not saying that lancaster or any other coaching teams for that matter would delve that deep into stats and player recovery but personally I'm not expecting Joseph to last the match and when he does leave I hope he's not injured. Burgess is a rubbish sub though as he seemingly only cover centre...and 6.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I see guscott has been running his mouth for the BBC...

what a load of pish he is spouting.

England's problem in this RWC has been paying too much attention to what their opponents are doing instead of what they are doing. A couple of years ago Lancaster looked like he had a good game plan and was executing it well.

Now we get to this RWC and it seems he and his coaching staff have forgotten what got them there in the first place.

They shouldn't be changing their game plan IMO they should play to their own strengths instead of trying to nulify Australia's strengths.

A question to our English bretheren, is your massive pool of players a hindrance instead of a blessing?

It can be yes. Generally it is (fairly obviously) an advantage. The problem is that if someone has a drop in form they can often not get long to re-find it before they are dropped again.

I'd also agree about playing to our strengths. I actually don't mind the 1st XV that has been selected I am just bothered by the bench, which is massively uninspiring and opens up the possibility of Barritt at 13. I think we should have either started with Burgess or left him out. If he starts (with JJ), then put Slade on the bench. If not then we need either Nowell or Slade on the bench. If JJ's injury recurs early on then we are up the creek!