Australia v England, 11 June

First topic message reminder :

      
AUSTRALIA v ENGLAND
11 June 2016
20:00 AEST (UTC+10)
Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane

Live on [tbc]

Referee: Romain Poite (France)
Touch judges: [tbc]
Television match official: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

44 Played 44
25 Won 18
1 Drawn 1
18 Lost 25
940 Points 674

B. Recent Form

3 October 2015 - Twickenham, London: 13 – 33 to Australia

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

C. Teams

AUSTRALIA 

Israel Folau; Dane Haylett-Petty, Tevita Kuridrani, Samu Kerevi, Rob Horne; Bernard Foley, Nick Phipps; Scott Sio, Stephen Moore (captain), Greg Holmes, Rory Arnold, Rob Simmons, Scott Fardy, Michael Hooper, David Pocock.

Replacements: Tatafu Polota-Nau, James Slipper, Sekope Kepu, James Horwill, Dean Mumm, Sean McMahon, Nick Frisby, Christian Lealiifano

ENGLAND

15. Mike Brown; 14. Anthony Watson, 13. Jonathan Joseph, 12. Luther Burrell, 11. Marland Yarde; 10. Owen Farrell, 9. Ben Youngs; 1. Mako Vunipola, 2. Dylan Hartley, 3. Dan Cole, 4. Maro Itoje, 5. George Kruis, 6. Chris Robshaw, 7. James Haskell, 8. Billy Vunipola.

Replacements: 16. Luke Cowan-Dickie, 17. Matt Mullan, 18. Paul Hill, 19. Joe Launchbury, 20. Courtney Lawes, 21. Danny Care, 22. George Ford, 23. Jack Nowell.

SecretFly wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I think that they lived a charmed life in many games Lucky. The only good games they had was against England and the AB's in the final. The rest, they were pretty average. Hell, should have even lost out to Scotland.

...But didn't.  Now there's a trick that comes in handy

England on the other hand, shouldn't have lost to Wales...but did.

The didn't due to a somewhat dubious piece of officiating. England lost due to decision making, that decision making is no longer there. England simply look a much better side under Jones.

eirebilly wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I think that they lived a charmed life in many games Lucky. The only good games they had was against England and the AB's in the final. The rest, they were pretty average. Hell, should have even lost out to Scotland.

...But didn't.  Now there's a trick that comes in handy

England on the other hand, shouldn't have lost to Wales...but did.

The didn't due to a somewhat dubious piece of officiating. England lost due to decision making, that decision making is no longer there. England simply look a much better side under Jones.

How do you come to that conclusion? Robshaw's still captain, isn't he?

I mean that the removal of Burgess who was doing very well and it was his removal that left gaps for the Welsh backs to exploit more. Not taking anything away from the Welsh performance because it was brilliant.

Hartley is now England Captain.

Of course he is!

eirebilly wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I think that they lived a charmed life in many games Lucky. The only good games they had was against England and the AB's in the final. The rest, they were pretty average. Hell, should have even lost out to Scotland.

...But didn't.  Now there's a trick that comes in handy

England on the other hand, shouldn't have lost to Wales...but did.

The didn't due to a somewhat dubious piece of officiating. England lost due to decision making, that decision making is no longer there. England simply look a much better side under Jones.

You get my point though. Australia had a bad day at the office and still conspired to be in a position to sneak a win. The auld Gods of presumed 'better class' bowing at their feet?

England didn't have such a bad game at all against Wales overall, and had they won they might have gone much further indeed - but pressure got to them.

Nothing will be decided on the last World Cup of course but you're basing your understanding of England on mostly home games and mostly on the Six Nations. You could prove right, billy - I wouldn't call it an outlandish prediction at all, but Cheika will prove half the coach I think he is if he loses all three at home.... easily, like you predict.

Australia had more bad days at the office. I really rate Cheika but feel that the Aussies are not as strong as their results in the RWC or rankings suggest.

England 0-3 and I stand by that

From the current squad in Oz, to start saturday;

15 Brown, will break himself trying, still ahead of Goode with big match temperament the defining measure. Expect Goode to start either of game 2 or 3.

14 Nowell, form and desire place him ahead of Yarde by some distance. Yarde could get game 3 if Wade isn't brought across from Africa.

13 Burrell, , he wants it and has a point to prove. No brainer of a selection, also he is a 13 NOT a 12. Joseph has been floundering all year and Te'o is a non starter unless injury decimates us.

12 Slade, this is my gamble. Farrell plays best with a creative 12 outside him and would be wasted at IC where he's obviously not sufficiently able to play the position at the very very highest level. Now Slade has not hit great form since his injury but does have the necessary talent to work the situation both in attack and defense, swapping with Burrell as required.

11 Watson, really has to be the heir to the 15 shirt (sorry Goode). however for the time being is owning the 11 shirt. Others will challenge in time (May etc.).

10 Farrell, Cipriani is in Africa and Burns is injured. Ford's form does not warrant selection, specially kicking from the tee and hand. Farrell on the other hand has done everything asked of him and more (covering 12). His game will always be creatively limited, especially in comparison to his positional competitors, however if played with Slade, the solidity of his general play, defense and error count, when added to his exceptional form from the tee, make him the deserved selection. He is Mr angry mark 2 and of course will need to stay the right side of the line but hopefully will continue his outstanding level of performance.

9 Care, QUICK service. If we are to challenge we MUST reduce the number of times we kick from 9, therefore if Care concentrates of providing QUICK ball to Farrell then, in tandem with Slade he can decide how best to execute.

8 B Vunipola, only exhaustion and injury will challenge his selection.

7 Harrison, genuine 7 with the pace and game to challenge the Ozy Hoopcock combi - Of course he doesn't have Robshaw/Haskell's experience/baggage/knackedness, however now is as good as time as ever to promote his selection. He has had his baptism against the Welsh and so will have a better understanding of what to expect.

6 Robshaw, by a whisker over Haskell who will be gutted and massively motivated(and rested) for game 2.

5 Itoje, England captain heir apparent. Will he take the arm band this tour?

4 Kruis, not my favorite player but that's my issue, absolutely deserves his selection though fully expect others to start on this tour simply down to exhaustion.

3 Cole, looking tired but will want to start as I'm sure will be hurting from the WC.

2 Hartley, this is why EJ is the England coach and Lancaster is/was a pup.

1 Mullen, proudest day in his rugby career. He will bring it. Equally Vunipola will be as gutted as Haskell and keen to show it from the bench.

Bench; 16 Vunipola M, 17 George (congratulations young man), 18 Sinckler (the dice are in the air!),  19 Launchbury returned to form at last, 20 Clifford to cover the back row, will start either game 2 or 3, 21 Youngs, can't blame him for being knackered. 22 Joseph, doesn't deserve it, so owes me big, 23 Yarde, we need to hurt them and score tries when the space appears later in the game.

Slade to cover 10, Burrell to cover 12 and Watson to cover 15.

What about Daly?!

ChequeredJersey wrote:What about Daly?!

Good call, Joseph can watch and learn. Daly to the bench it is!

Itoje has apparently been playing at 6 in training. Clifford surely deserves another start. Some big calls to make.

Itoje apparently starting at 6..

Beat me to it

Pooper / Hoopcock - it doesn't matter however you slice it, these two will poach us alive unless we we compete at the breakdown and the fact is regardless of Itoje's excellent technique, he does not possess the pace necessary to combat their mobility.

Added to which if he is played in tandem with either of Robshaw or Haskell (with Vunipola at 8) then we will slaughtered because our back row will be TOO SLOW!

Does it occur to anyone that EJ is playing the press with false information?

Clifford Itoje Vunipola. Also Robshaw ain't a speed demon.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Clifford Itoje Vunipola. Also Robshaw ain't a speed demon.

It reminds me too much of Rodber, Richards & Clarke who I watched the AB's destroy in 95......I'd take the Back, Hill & Dallaglio dynamic everytime.

I half think it's mind games from Eddie Jones and half believe it.

There's definitely advantages to Itoje over Robshaw at 6, in theory. The problem is if Robshaws not there then someone else suddenly has to do the work of 3 players for 80 mins.

Im not sure if the first test in Australia is the correct place to suddenly realise how much we need Robshaw.

I take it you've all seen that promo video from Fox by now too. It made me laugh if I'm honest, remembering how arrogant some of England's blinkered 'fans' have been like since before the World Cup believe it or not, and then seeing that the Aussies are still the most arrogant by far was gold (see what I did there?) .

mikey_dragon wrote:I don't rate Australia's backs that much without Giteau and AAC. Their pack however has come on leaps and bounds.

Giteau? No way. He's past it. Was very average in the world cup and should have been on the bench and Kurtley should have been starting. He runs sideways far too often. I doubt he'd make any of the Aussie run-on side in Super Rugby except perhaps for the Force. He would be behind Beale, Toomua, Christian L and James O'Connor if he was available. Samu Kerevi, Folau and even Karmichael Hunt would do better at 12 than Giteau. AAC would have been on the wing and that is adequately covered. IMO, the Wallaby backline will be stronger than the one at the world cup. Especially now Folau is 100% fit. I think the Wallaby backline will look something like this;
9. Phipps
10. Foley
11. Horne
12 Kerevi/Hunt
13. Kuridrani
14. Folau
15. Haylett-Petty

Would like to see Folau in the centres though. He has been tearing it up at 13.

eirebilly wrote:Still think England are better than Australia. 0-3 or 1-2 series win for them but I predict a 0-3 series win and comfortable at that.

Interesting.
The All Blacks have only won one of their last 3 tests in Australia and that victory was by a single point. South Africa are the only other side to win here over the past few years. There's little evidence to suggest England will win 3 tests on the trot comfortably. Since Jones took control, they have yet to play any of the top 4 sides in the world. If they do walk away with a series victory, it will be well deserved.

What will be fascinating is how Jones responds if his side lose all three tests. When his Wallaby and Queensland coached sides were suffering regular and consecutive losses he had no answer to stop the rot and was subsequently sacked from both roles.

You're way off if you're viewing this all through a 'Jones' perspective.

Player/Team/selection performance and improvement are the key indicators that should be used to judge our success. Score board outcomes though obviously determine the on day winner and loser, will not provide the stratified material required to judge.

mikey_dragon wrote:I take it you've all seen that promo video from Fox by now too. It made me laugh if I'm honest, remembering how arrogant some of England's blinkered 'fans' have been like since before the World Cup believe it or not, and then seeing that the Aussies are still the most arrogant by far was gold (see what I did there?) .

I remember you accused a few of arrogance when some predicted a 6Ns win.

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Clifford Itoje Vunipola. Also Robshaw ain't a speed demon.

It reminds me too much of Rodber, Richards & Clarke who I watched the AB's destroy in 95......I'd take the Back, Hill & Dallaglio dynamic everytime.

Ok, not sure I'd go for Itoje myself at 6 but I'd certainly be looking to get Clifford involved ahead of Harrison who I wasn't that impressed by. As I said if you want speed Robshaw and Vunipola ain't your men.

I think Jones is spot on looking at Itoje at 6, plus it allows England to select Launchbury at lock, getting two of their best forwards on the pitch at the same time.

I don't think Billy, Itoje and Clifford would be too slow either, and certainly don't compare to Rodber, Richards and Clarke in terms of pace. For a start Launchbury would outpace that trio, let alone Clifford and Itoje. Still, it does re-open (if it was ever closed) the old debate for an out and out 7.

I do think England are building quite a special team here. Worrying!

I don't think Clifford is going to be starting though, if we're going by the packs selected in training, Haskell is still lining up at 7 alongside Itoje and Vunipola

I think the biggest issue we'll have is with line breaks where the support just doesn't arrive quickly enough, its one of the most frustrating things for me

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Clifford Itoje Vunipola. Also Robshaw ain't a speed demon.

It reminds me too much of Rodber, Richards & Clarke who I watched the AB's destroy in 95......I'd take the Back, Hill & Dallaglio dynamic everytime.

I'd take Clarke, Winterbottom & Richards from 93 over Back, Hill and Dallaglio myself. Perhaps the best lions backrow of recent history.

IF Itoje is selected at then it kind of says to me that Launchbury is rated very highly by Jones as he's making allowances to get him in the side.

It also means that our lineout will be very strong.

How much experience does Itoje have at 6....and in all honesty is the role he plays for Sarries etc very different from that he could play at 6? Its kind of merged anyway isn't it.

EDIT:
A back 5 of Launchbury, Kruis, Itoje, Clifford / Haskell, Billy has more strengths than weaknesses...and would mean also Billy isn't the only one who can carry as Itoje, Launchbury and Clifford can all carry.

GeordieFalcon wrote:IF Itoje is selected at then it kind of says to me that Launchbury is rated very highly by Jones as he's making allowances to get him in the side.

It also means that our lineout will be very strong.

How much experience does Itoje have at 6....and in all honesty is the role he plays for Sarries etc very different from that he could play at 6? Its kind of merged anyway isn't it.

EDIT:
A back 5 of Launchbury, Kruis, Itoje, Clifford / Haskell, Billy has more strengths than weaknesses...and would mean also Billy isn't the only one who can carry as Itoje, Launchbury and Clifford can all carry.

Looks a powerful and strong back five to me, could do far worse. Got a mixture of pace power and carriers, something we've been craving for years.

I genuinely think that we are seeing the beginnings of a very good English team. It has been a pleasure to see players like Itoje, Launchbury, Hill and Clifford filter up through the youth system. Itoje in particular had an air of inevitability about him, I saw it the first time I saw him play for England against the touring Australian school boys. Even so,the speed of his rise to the first has surprised me. I keep thinking about how good they'll be when they've had 30-40 caps together. I hate the phrase, but this really could a golden generation for England.

I agree,

The big omission is Robshaw. Do we miss anything without him? Tackle rate, Workrate etc

GeordieFalcon wrote:I agree,

The big omission is Robshaw. Do we miss anything without him? Tackle rate, Workrate etc

The only thing I reckon you'd miss from Robshaw is that he always puts a 7/10 shift in. He's always does what he does well... i.e. first phase tackling. He's very committed and I can't remember him having a personal mare where opposition turned him inside out... outside of captaincy woes that is.

I see the telegraph are saying they expect that - Ioje at 6 and Launchbury in.

They're usually bang on.

Seemingly the press is suggesting this for the first test:

1) Vunipola
2) Hartley
3) Cole
4) Launchbury
5) Kruis
6) Itoje
7) Haskell
8) Vunipola

9) Youngs
10) Farrell
11) Nowell
12) T'eo
13) JJ
14) Watson
15) Brown

GeordieFalcon wrote:I agree,

The big omission is Robshaw. Do we miss anything without him? Tackle rate, Workrate etc

It's a funny thing to say, given his captaincy woes, but we'll miss his rugby nous. He cleaned up a lot of bad ball during the Six Nations, and snuffed out a few opposition threats before they got going. Jones may want Haskell's physicality but he can't read the run of play a well as Robshaw.

Not too sure on Vunipola starting and annoyed by T'eo if true. And I'd love to see Clifford at 7.

I put together a wonderful post this afternoon, full of colour and wit, but something happened and it didn't appear. It would be unfair to the original post to try and rewrite it so, to summarise, England 2nd rows are scary, as is the pace of the back three. I think we be slow but I'm excited about our centres. Brisbane and Sydney can be tough places to play.

Don't see the attraction of Haskell at 7. Better off putting Robshaw there. That back row better hope they can keep the game narrow because Fardy/Hooper/Pocock are so fast in comparison (only close contest is Itoje vs Fardy). Really needed a faster 7 like Clifford or Kvesic (who keeps getting ignored) to compete when the ball is isolated against those 3.

Teo is a good 12 if they want a more bruising presence than Slade and is probably better than Burrell. Acts as a solid defensive lynchpin in that back line as well.

Brown should have had the summer off to get right. He has been off the boil and Jones likes him for his feistiness but Watson to FB with Yarde coming in or Goode as a straight replacement would have been better choices to me.

boomeranga wrote:I put together a wonderful post this afternoon, full of colour and wit, but something happened and it didn't appear.

I feel for you. Done the same myself a couple of times. Usually, I take too long writing, and by the time I click submit, I'm somehow not logged in anymore, and my browser refuses to recall anything. Long sulk follows.

So IF this is the team...which is looking increasingly likely (unless Jones is playing a few games), then are we going to try to batter the Aussies?

Im not sure that's a tactic that will work.

GeordieFalcon wrote:So IF this is the team...which is looking increasingly likely (unless Jones is playing a few games), then are we going to try to batter the Aussies?

Im not sure that's a tactic that will work.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/six-nations-origin-of-51-per-cent-of-world-cup-2015-tries-proved-to-be-lineout-possession-1.2519726

Having 3 jumpers may be key.... that and fielding a decent kicker for pens and conversion!

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I agree,

The big omission is Robshaw. Do we miss anything without him? Tackle rate, Workrate etc

The only thing I reckon you'd miss from Robshaw is that he always puts a 7/10 shift in. He's always does what he does well... i.e. first phase tackling. He's very committed and I can't remember him having a personal mare where opposition turned him inside out... outside of captaincy woes that is.

That's not a fair assessment, or at least not a complete one.

One of the Aussie sites analysed back row players before the RWC and one point that emerged very strongly was just how much Robshaw does. Launchbury is generally (and correctly) viewed as a hard working player but when you add up everything that players do - tackles, rucks, carries etc - Robshaw was involved about 33% more than Launchbury over the course of 80 minutes. To find a player in the England squad who was having as many involvements per minute, you had to look at the likes of Mako - who only have to do it over 30 minutes and not 80. Robshaw doesn't do spectacular stuff very often, but he does an awful lot of cleaning up bad ball, covering for missed tackles, slowing the opposition down at the ruck (without getting penalised that often - unlike Harrison). Also, for a player who's not lightning quick, the number of times he's in the right position to snuff out an opposing break or support one of our own is remarkable.

It really hacks me off that there's this myth that he doesn't do much other than tackle. Hence why I bang on about it. The only player who gets through more work, based on the ones they looked at, was Pocock, though Hooper was at about Robshaw's level - which tells you what sort of task England are up against.

That's not to say that Itoje might not be able to do the same. He clearly has a big engine and a lot of skill, and his workrate is high for a lock but 6 requires a step up again, especially at international level, and he will need to be pin sharp at anticipating where to be. Oddly, I'd feel more confident if Clifford were on the other flank but I can quite see why Eddie is not keen to make a 4th change to the pack for the first test. It'll be interesting to see how it goes.

I do not like the look of the back row being suggested in the papers, and do worry we will get beaten to the breakdown.

Struggle to see how Te'o should start as having missed Monday's training due to sore muscles he had only ever participated in two training sessions with his new "countrymates".

Poorfour wrote:(without getting penalised that often - unlike Harrison)

Sample size one, because you're not basing that on his Saints season.

I feel sorry for Itoje if people think that he is the secret answer to England's breakdown black hole.

He is very fast for a big feller and has some skills on the floor but he is correctly classified as a lock who should be trying to sharpen that core skillset still further. I am in favour of have a proper fetcher and also in not selecting players to compensate for the weaker aspects of other players who are coach's favourites.

I am worried that Haskell may be in no man's land in defensive phase play here. John Hardie has changed Scotland's loose forward unit in less than a season and I think that Clifford could be the real deal if he is just allowed to play.

I also share the view that it seems to have become fashionable to diminish what Robshaw brings. In the last-but-one Six Nations, Robshaw won more turnovers over the course of the tournament than any other player, a fact which generated precisely zero press attention because it didn't seem to fit with the received wisdom of what CR 'does'.

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:So IF this is the team...which is looking increasingly likely (unless Jones is playing a few games), then are we going to try to batter the Aussies?

Im not sure that's a tactic that will work.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/six-nations-origin-of-51-per-cent-of-world-cup-2015-tries-proved-to-be-lineout-possession-1.2519726

Having 3 jumpers may be key.... that and fielding a decent kicker for pens and conversion!

With the model of line-out Borthwick has moved England to the 3rd jumper isn't a necessity anymore. Judging by the 6 Nations line-out we're following the old Matfield model of throw 9/10 balls to the same jumper (Kruis for England now) in the middle of line-out and backing the players to nail their drill.

Movement using multiple jumpers and throwing to the tail are great to throw the opposition off and change things up but are also most liable to get messy and bring the weather into play.

I'm interested to see how the new maul rules effect both sides though. The Oz and England maul have looked most efficient when they've had Pocock/Billy V standing in the scrum half spot then immediately stripping the ball from the jumper and 'sliding' to the back of the maul to protect the ball. With this 'sliding' now a penalty offence I'm interested to see how both packs react to it.

LondonTiger wrote:

Struggle to see how Te'o should start as having missed Monday's training due to sore muscles he had only ever participated in two training sessions with his new "countrymates".

It does smack of Vanikolo, Hape and Burgess all over again doesnt it.
Parachute in a player with undoubted skills who hasnt had to got hrough the system then get surprised when
a) They struggle to develope an understanding with those around them
b) The rest of the squad gets p*ssed off about them shortcutting a place in the side


England has become a graveyard for this type of selection. Maybe with some of the previous examples we had reached a point with injuries where desperation calls were justified. But in this case England are only missing Tuillagi.
Slade should be narked.

Which isnt to say its 100% garunteed to be a disaster, just that its a hell of gamble to take with the squads positive energy and sets him up as an easy scapegoat.

Good to know EJ is picking up tips from Stewie – if Lawes can be a good lock but a poor 6 I don’t see why Itoje shouldn’t.

As for the centre combination, could we not just get Slammin' Sam back?

Barney McGrew did it wrote: could we not just get Slammin' Sam back?

He could cover 6 & 12

Hey people knock Sam, but Id love to see what would have happened if he had stayed on the pitch v Wales in October.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Hey people knock Sam

yeah unfortunatley several of them were Welsh tacklers

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Good to know EJ is picking up tips from Stewie – if Lawes can be a good lock but a poor 6 I don’t see why Itoje shouldn’t.

As for the centre combination, could we not just get Slammin' Sam back?

Eddie is working on it behind the scenes. Don't be rushing him!!

Right now he's at the initial stage. He's sending lots of fliers to Sam's address with his picture on it declaring "It's ME, Eddie! I'm not Lancaster. I AM the new England coach - Promise."

Itoje to take the kicks and play at fly half