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.

Alex_Germany wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ford was second highest tackler on the pitch with 9 after haskell with 18

He gets targeted. It would be interesting to see tackling stats for the older Jonny Wilkinson. I'd expect the tackle could to be quite low as attackers would try and avoid him.

You could argue that if the 10 is the highest tackler, the 7 isn't doing his job. However, in this case, they were targeting Ford despite Haskell.

I think England's system is a bit different. They often have 7 outside 10 rushing up from the 12 channel with 6 coming across to cover anything the 10 can't handle. Ford did well defensively - and it shows in Robshaw's low tackle count.

I was impressed with Yarde's defending as well, particularly how much he was using the space and trusting the defender inside him.

Farrell's only fault I could really see was in not trusting, I think it was Burrell, to nail his man and getting caught between the 13 and 11, thus leaving the winger free to run in

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Farrell's only fault I could really see was in not trusting, I think it was Burrell, to nail his man and getting caught between the 13 and 11, thus leaving the winger free to run in

Failing to find touch from a penalty just before that instigated the attack that eventually saw Faz get his defence wrong.

After that point he played well.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:He doesn't call it though that would have been Lawes I assume?

Going back to the world cup, Parling called exclusively to himself to make it easy for Youngs, either way it seemed predictable.

Unless we were in the opposition 22 then we without fail through to a backrow at the tail (normally Robshaw). So easy to pick off when it's predictable as you say. With Kruis and Itoje such strong jumpers there's two great options to hit and it's more difficult to predict our throws. At the RWC Parling or Lawes were about the only option with Launchbury not being the best lineout option (though he is improving).

Faz did look uncomfortable with the new centre combo outside him. He was more settled with Ford in at 12. England didn't settle at all inside the first 20 plus minutes and didn't hit their stride at all until the inspired substitution. I'd keep that midfield as it unless Manu was available and then I'd look at him at 13. Maybe Slade onto the bench for the second test?

Anyone who wonders what Robshaw brings to England should watch how he set up the position which ultimately led to Yarde's try.

He was the only man to follow up the penalty which Farrell missed, and so he was able to tackle Pocock almost as soon as he collected the ball. Eventually, the Wallabies had to kick it out to their water carrier, which gave us field position for the maul which led to Haskell's break.

I feel a bit sorry for Burrell. He wasn't in tune with the defence and that is probably the end of his international career.

Now it's one of
1) 10. Ford 12. Farrell, replacement Slade
2) 10. Ford 12. Farrell, replacement Teo
3) 10. Farrell, 12 Teo, replacement Ford

I think I'd go for option 1, though 2 allows a bigger tactical switch.

However, after nearly throwing away a lead against Wales in the 6N when Tuilagi came on, option 2 may not be best.

Who's a better goal kicker if Farrell is injured: Ford or Slade?

Alex_Germany wrote:I feel a bit sorry for Burrell. He wasn't in tune with the defence and that is probably the end of his international career.

Now it's one of
1) 10. Ford 12. Farrell, replacement Slade
2) 10. Ford 12. Farrell, replacement Teo
3) 10. Farrell, 12 Teo, replacement Ford

I think I'd go for option 1, though 2 allows a bigger tactical switch.

However, after nearly throwing away a lead against Wales in the 6N when Tuilagi came on, option 2 may not be best.

Who's a better goal kicker if Farrell is injured: Ford or Slade?

I too would go for option 1. I suppose Ford, Teo replacement Farrell is possible but unlikely.

Long term I see Harry Mallinder at twelve as he has both the power and rugby skills. He needs another few months experience I think. Maybe he could come off the bench in 6N.

Rugby Fan wrote:Anyone who wonders what Robshaw brings to England should watch how he set up the position which ultimately led to Yarde's try.

He was the only man to follow up the penalty which Farrell missed, and so he was able to tackle Pocock almost as soon as he collected the ball. Eventually, the Wallabies had to kick it out to their water carrier, which gave us field position for the maul which led to Haskell's break.

Apparently the water carrier was Nathan Grey and there are some 'complaints' in the Oz media that Brown gave him a shove for his troubles. Would have been a terrible shame had Brown used an elbow....

lostinwales wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Anyone who wonders what Robshaw brings to England should watch how he set up the position which ultimately led to Yarde's try.

He was the only man to follow up the penalty which Farrell missed, and so he was able to tackle Pocock almost as soon as he collected the ball. Eventually, the Wallabies had to kick it out to their water carrier, which gave us field position for the maul which led to Haskell's break.

Apparently the water carrier was Nathan Grey and there are some 'complaints' in the Oz media that Brown gave him a shove for his troubles. Would have been a terrible shame had Brown used an elbow....

IRB should bring in some strict rules surrounding all these people constantly wandering round the pitch.

My suggestion would be if there is any deliberate cheating of the sort indulged in by Nathan Grey a player of the choosing of the opposing team is red carded. I suspect we would never see any repeat.

Grey interfering with a live ball like that is directly analogous to England having 16 men on the pitch during the 2003 RWC, only with added intent and impact. There was an extra player capable of influencing play.

And we heard no end of flak for the RWC incident, buy somehow Brown is at fault for this.

Poorfour wrote:Grey interfering with a live ball like that is directly analogous to England having 16 men on the pitch during the 2003 RWC, only with added intent and impact. There was an extra player capable of influencing play.

And we heard no end of flak for the RWC incident, buy somehow Brown is at fault  for this.

Good analogy and explanation regarding the 2003 RWC.  In that game there was no intent to commit foul play, but with Grey (no relation), there appears to be intent to prevent a quick throw or to get under Brown's thin skin.

Brown gets flak because he is stupid and has difficulty controlling himself.  Nathan Grey (no relation) knows this, of course, and tried to suck Brown into something..........stupid.  And he almost succeeded.  Incredible that a grown man allows himself to get sucked into silly stuff which could cost his team a penalty and possibly the match given the situation and field position at that time.  

We all know during a match there can be the usual meet-and-greet between players.  Happens.  Even then, a level of self control is needed.  But with someone - anyone - on the touch line out of play, regardless of virtually any provocation, I struggle to find a word other than 'stupid'.  

Now this has nothing to do with Grey (no relation) deliberately interfering with a live ball.  Without question, he or his team should be penalised.  Full stop.  But Brown should still keep his hands to himself and mouth shut.  How often is it the one who retaliates who gets the penalty?  

Wow, this was a good rant, eh?

Got to disagree with you there, Doc. Brown has a reputation, but the reputation isn't borne out by the facts. Brown is certainly feisty and not above a bit of shoving and shouting, but it simply isn't true that he's stupid and lacks control.

Stupid and lacking control would be someone like Hartley, who's spent over a year of his career being banned.

Brown's disciplinary record? Statsguru lists him as never having been carded in an international game. They don't list penalties.

Given how close to the edge he plays, that rather suggests quite the opposite of being stupid and out of control.

TBH had Brown been penalised for the Grey incident I'd have lost faith in rugby. Grey tried it on, a very cynical bit of play, and got a well deserved shove (not even that hard) for his troubles. If we start giving penalties for every small bit and pushing and shoving (you see worse than that after most scrums collapse) it gets rather silly.

A few lessons learned from Saturday's game, including:

- you don't need a specialist fetcher, necessarily, providing you have a few players who can compete at the breakdown. I think England made as many turnovers as Australia, maybe more, but by several different players: Itoje got a few, Robshaw one early on, Cole got one, and I think maybe Launchbury too.

- Farrell's goalkicking is vital. Obviously given Ford's travails against Wales it makes a rather cruel contrast, but Farrell just gives you that bit of confidence, and opponents know they'll be punished for any infringements inside their own half...

Some exceptional performances by England – Haskell, Farrell, Ford, Itoje, Cole, Joseph, Haskell (I think there were 2 of him on the pitch), and definitely Robshaw. Actually there were very few average performances tbh. But let’s hear it for EJ – a great game-plan and some clever substitutions.

Just seen this:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/video/2016/jun/12/eddie-jones-england-can-still-improve-after-victory-over-australia-video

Apparently, "England didn't play well" according to EJ.

I think he's exaggerating a bit - trying to bring the players back to ground. But also I think he sees room for improvement, which will be needed.

Australia will definitely up their game and are less likely to be thrown off their stride by England's pressure, though they will have to adapt to not having Pocock's phenomenal work rate on the pitch.

You have to assume that Eddie will start with Ford and Farrell: it works. I can't imagine he will change too much given the performances people put in, unless he wants to mess with Aussie heads. The interesting question is whether it's Te'o or Slade on the bench.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:I feel a bit sorry for Burrell. He wasn't in tune with the defence and that is probably the end of his international career.

Now it's one of
1) 10. Ford 12. Farrell, replacement Slade
2) 10. Ford 12. Farrell, replacement Teo
3) 10. Farrell, 12 Teo, replacement Ford

I think I'd go for option 1, though 2 allows a bigger tactical switch.

However, after nearly throwing away a lead against Wales in the 6N when Tuilagi came on, option 2 may not be best.

Who's a better goal kicker if Farrell is injured: Ford or Slade?

I too would go for option 1. I suppose Ford, Teo replacement Farrell is possible but unlikely.

Long term I see Harry Mallinder at twelve as he has both the power and rugby skills. He needs another few months experience I think. Maybe he could come off the bench in 6N.

I'd go with Youngs, Ford, Yarde, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Goode with Care, Slade and Nowell on the bench.

Brown has been off form for some time, whereas Goodes form has been exceptional for Sarries this year. It would also allow for another play maker/brain in the backline which is no bad thing. The last time they employed 3 playmakers was against France in the in RWC warm ups and they were in total control that day with the options/chances they created.

Ideally I would like Watson there coming into the line at pace but it is too much of a risk yet as I'm not sure if he's ready for it. As for having a physical presence getting go forward, you can always look at bringing the wingers into the line, especially from blindside much like Bath do with Banahan.

The pack, keep the same.

[quote="Mad for Chelsea"]

A few lessons learned from Saturday's game, including:

- you don't need a specialist fetcher, necessarily, providing you have a few players who can compete at the breakdown. I think England made as many turnovers as Australia, maybe more, but by several different players: Itoje got a few, Robshaw one early on, Cole got one, and I think maybe Launchbury too.
quote]

That was basically what SL thought. On some levels it must have been very frustrating for him watching the game. If he stayed, and been able to 'freshen up' his coaching team I wonder how different Saturday's game would have been.

Well it was a fantastic game of rugby, and well done England for turning the game around twice. Moving Farrell to 12 improved both our attack and defence. Joseph did well, and it's great to see England's forward's basics are back (I enjoyed the scrum).

Presumably there will be limited changes. This is surely Goode's chance. With Ford, Farrell and Goode in the starting line up I'd have thought it makes more sense to have Teo rather than Slade on the bench. Finger's crossed we ought to be better this week e.g. by not giving them a 10 point start.

I feel a bit sorry for Burrell - he just hadn't adapted to the new system. I wonder if that's the end of his international career (with Farrell, Teo, Slade, and Tuliagi and with Mallinder coming through you have to suspect it will be tough for him to get another chance.)

finally managed to watch whole game. apologies if this has all been said before, but my thoughts were...

huge tackling physicality. haskell in particular. timing perfect and not once high.
burrell was awful. tackling late, verging on high, and out of line with the rest of the rush defense. he wont ever play under eddie jones again i think.
farrell. very good. and his defensive display, combined with kicking means he may have cemented his partenrship with ford for now with farrell at 12.
ford. best game in white for a long time.
youngs. also best game in white for a long time. only a half step before passing. and combative in tackle.
brown did fine. one poor knock on, but otherwise hes a strength. teams dont like to kick to him, and that for me is a huge positive. his tackling was very strong.

forwards. did well. in set piece and in open play. for haskell, itoje and robshaw to win so many turnovers against the vaunted Aus back 3 is impressive.

But most of all, the differences this time (as compared to RWC) were Hartley, and Lancaster. A hooker who meant the scrum had dominance, and a coach (jones) who has huge tactical nous and balls (taking burrell off took both).

Just watching the game now courtesy of U-tube. Can't help thinking that all the calls for Goode are wrong. Brown may have made a couple of howlers (the knock on when under no pressure obviously) but he still ran with venom and made a tackle or two the likes of which Goode could only dream of.

This Australian team will continue to stretch England out wide and they have a lot of big physical runners. I don't want to have to rely on Goode as a last line of defense against these guys.

Brown isn't the player he was, but he's not that bad. Given the gladiatorial nature of Saturday's contest and the likely repeats next two weekends we still need Brown the fighter.

If lancaster had i) not dropped Hartley for a matter of "principle", and ii) not taken burgess off at 65 min after Burgess had dominated Jamie Roberts, just in order to give a promised 15 minutes to Ford...

who knows what would have happened in the RWC...

but i'm sure glad he did. because this england side have the tools. and i believe Jones has the smarts, and the rugby union pedigree (as opposed to all the league coaches around), to make the best of them for the next few years.

lostinwales - we agree on Brown.

If goode is fb, i think the aussies may kick to him more. with our aggressive defense, i want australia to try to run the ball....

Poorfour wrote:Got to disagree with you there,  Doc. Brown has a reputation, but the reputation isn't borne out by the facts. Brown is certainly feisty and not above a bit of shoving and shouting, but it simply isn't true that he's stupid and lacks control.

Stupid and lacking control would be someone like Hartley, who's spent over a year of his career being banned.

Brown's disciplinary record? Statsguru lists him as never having been carded in an international game. They don't list penalties.

Given how close to the edge he plays, that rather suggests quite the opposite of being stupid and out of control.  

OK mate, reading my comment again, you're right, I overstated it a bit. But, to me, to even give a hint of Nathan Grey getting to him simply can't happen in a big time test match. And to absolutely know someone or some people in a match will try to mess about with him and then to react when it happens..........

I agree about Hartley acting the exact same way. I'm sure Eddie clearly explained the facts of life to him.

quinsforever wrote:If lancaster had i) not dropped Hartley for a matter of "principle", and ii) not taken burgess off at 65 min after Burgess had dominated Jamie Roberts, just in order to give a promised 15 minutes to Ford...

who knows what would have happened in the RWC...

but i'm sure glad he did. because this england side have the tools. and i believe Jones has the smarts, and the rugby union pedigree (as opposed to all the league coaches around), to make the best of them for the next few years.

quins,

Jones is one smart cookie and England have landed a corker. He may not be everyones cup of tea either inside or outside of England with the way he handles the media but by handling it the way he does he is happy to deflect the attention away from the players and onto himself.

As much as Brown's performance on Saturday is being knocked, it's still better than anything Goode has ever produced against a quality international side.

Grass isn't always greener guys

Ok Brown uncharacteristically dropped a high ball while in acres of space. He is still the most experienced and reliable FB we've got by a country mile. FB is primarily about being safe in defence. Brown is 99.9% of the time and that's exactly what you need.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:As much as Brown's performance on Saturday is being knocked, it's still better than anything Goode has ever produced against a quality international side.

Grass isn't always greener guys

Perhaps Sarries fans can say more - but I think he's played well against quality international sides. They beat Toulouse twice, with Fickou who is a world class centre.

I've seen videos of Goode missing tackles, but then Brown let Foley through for his "try".

I haven't seen a lot of footage of Goode, nor seen him in training. Eddie Jones has, so I'll go with his judgement.

Toulouse aren't an international side

Ireland and NZ were the best performances for Goode.

I wouldn't call Ireland a quality international team

I forgot about the NZ game. I remember thinking at the time...even Goode looked half decent!

Well there's 2/20 games......

You could argue Brown has had very few poor games in the white shirt.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

pheonix wrote:Farrell is a one-trick pony at test level. He can't kick out of hand, pass long or tackle, just kick penalties. If you watch the 6 minute highlights (with all the penalty kicks taken out) he only features once, when he misses a tackle on Folau to let him in for the try. If that was Ford he'd be crucified.

Are you Beshocked's nemesis, the three things Farrell can do are:

Kick out of hand, tackle and pass long, see just about any Sarries game and watch. The one thing he does not do well is create although that is improving.

Got to be the worst wum of this century

As an aside, the England demolition of Scotland in the JWC bodes very well for the future, some players really putting their hands up for an upgrade into senior international rugby.

Well said well past it

My nemesis? Don't think I have one.

If he's an one trick pony -it's not a bad trick is it?

Farrell has his flaws like every player but he's doing fine at the moment. Might surprise you but I don't like Farrell but I think he's a good rugby player. As long as he performs on the pitch,people won't mind what he's like.



Sadly I missed this game - don't have sky but sounds like the players I have doubted like Haskell and Ford played well.

Well done Eddie Jones and co.

To mastermind a win in Australia, very impressive.

DaveM wrote:

I feel a bit sorry for Burrell - he just hadn't adapted to the new system. I wonder if that's the end of his international career (with Farrell, Teo, Slade, and Tuliagi and with Mallinder coming through you have to suspect it will be tough for him to get another chance.)

I wouldnt feel that sorry for him. He only got picked at all because Tuillagi was injured. Feel sorry for the Tuillagi.

I thought the Wallaby scrum was a disgrace. They clearly had no intention of scrummaging legally right from the start. Sio seemed to want to stuff his face in the ground rather than push against Cole. They were a disgrace. In fact they were deliberately trying to con the ref and it worked to start with. Surely that makes thema bunch of cheats.

International front row in cheating shocker

Don't stick up for them bambam. They're cheats. They obviously went in to the game with a plan to cheat and con the ref. Still I suppose it's convict by name and convict by nature. What else should we expect from a penal colony?

For the bench for the next match assuming its Ford/Farrell combo I don't see how Teo could be considered if Burrell isn't up for it , at least Slade has familiarity with the team/system ( played twice ) whereas Teo has echoes of the Burgess saga and zero familiarity.
Ref Lancaster he picked descent teams but his tactics and substitutions were poor

englandglory4ever wrote:Don't stick up for them bambam. They're cheats. They obviously went in to the game with a plan to cheat and con the ref. Still I suppose it's convict by name and convict by nature. What else should we expect from a penal colony?

No need for that comment.

Will be interesting to see how Australia handle having no Pocock for the next two games.

It's a real shame as he's probably the best back row out there, perhaps barring Reid. Boost for England considering we were getting the best out of the breakdown anyway. Will be intesteresting to see how that changes them along with our midfield. T'eo or Farrell, big decision.

I think the decision is Ford or Te'o, and its a pretty easy one for me to stick with Ford!

They coped with the physicality of the Aussie midfield pretty well, and I'd expect Lealifano to be back in the side next weekend, think we need to extra kicker and playmaker to match them

And personally, Slade to the bench.

On that one, I think I disagree ..

If its not working with Ford and Farrell, I'd rather have the option of going with the change of gameplan with Te'o .. I don't see what Slade would offer as an alternative

On the other hand, I'm very keen to see how a Farrell-Slade 10-12 partnership would go!

Te'o is a rock defensively so I wouldn't expect the same issue that we had with Burrell. I'd like to see Te'o get a shot from the bench.

Congratulations England, I thought the win was well deserved. Special mention to George Ford as well coming off the bench so early in the game. His game management and eye for space are top class.

One change I would make is to not have Lawes on the bench. I think you have to pick either Kruis or Lawes to start, and then have Launchbury on the bench. I think Clifford would have made more impact, coming on for Robshaw.

beshocked wrote:Will be interesting to see how Australia handle having no Pocock for the next two games.

No doubt Sean McMahon will slot into the back row somewhere. Not sure whether he can play 8 though. More in the mould of Hooper than Pocock so they could have an absolute live-wire of a flanker pairing!

funnyExiledScot wrote:Congratulations England, I thought the win was well deserved. Special mention to George Ford as well coming off the bench so early in the game. His game management and eye for space are top class.

One change I would make is to not have Lawes on the bench. I think you have to pick either Kruis or Lawes to start, and then have Launchbury on the bench. I think Clifford would have made more impact, coming on for Robshaw.

Agree with this. I wasn't impressed with Lawes and he just hasn't looked 'hungry' in an England shirt for a while. The bench spot could be better used with Clifford or Harrison.

Harrison vs. Hooper would be an epic confrontation.

rosbif wrote:For the bench for the next match assuming its Ford/Farrell combo I don't see how Teo could be considered if Burrell isn't up for it , at least Slade has familiarity with the team/system ( played twice ) whereas Teo has echoes of the Burgess saga and zero familiarity.

Agree, but ....

Swapping Burrell out completely changed the way England played. Starting with Ford / Farrell, and then bringing on Slade, won't change the way the game is played. Bringing on Teo or Burrell will.

Could it be, we start with distributors, but then think a "bosh merchant" is needed? After all, it worked the other way round on Saturday.

englandglory4ever wrote:I thought the Wallaby scrum was a disgrace. They clearly had no intention of scrummaging legally right from the start. Sio seemed to want to stuff his face in the ground rather than push against Cole. They were a disgrace.  In fact they were deliberately trying to con the ref and it worked to start with.  Surely that makes thema bunch of  cheats.

I had the Australian broadcast where I live and for most of the match one of their commentators was claiming Cole was boring in on an angle in every scrum. He repeated it again in their post-match wrap up. Cole did do that a few times early from what I saw, but not very much. I presume once Cole knew he had his man he realised it wasn't necessary. And one of the times he made the comment the scrum was shown from an overhead camera and Cole was completely straight. I thought their TH was doing the same thing early but still lost the battle.

Really? Considering having Teo on the bench? He's still basically unproven.

There are exceptional players that hit the ground running - but that's what they are - an exception. Maro Itoje for example.

bluestonevedder I'll be honest I don't know much about Sean Mchahon but looking at his height and weight stats he looks like he might get overpowered by England.

Australia must find a way to deal with this big England pack. It's one of the most powerful packs we've had in a while in my opinion.

Certainly when you think that the likes of Wood,Parling and T.Youngs were packing down for us in the RWC.