Australia v England, 18 June

First topic message reminder :

      
AUSTRALIA v ENGLAND
18 June 2016
20:00 AEST (UTC+10)
AAMI Park, Melbourne

Live on [tbc]

Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa)
Touch judges: [tbc]
Television match official: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

45 Played 45
25 Won 19
1 Drawn 1
19 Lost 25
968 Points 713

B. Recent Form

11 June 2016 - Suncorp, Brisbane: Australia 28–39 England

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; James Slipper, Stephen Moore (capt), Sekope Kepu, Rory Arnold, Sam Carter, Scott Fardy, Michael Hooper, Sean McMahon.

Replacements (three to be omitted): Tatafu Polota-Nau, Toby Smith, Greg Holmes, James Horwill, Dean Mumm, Wycliff Palu, Ben McCalman, Liam Gill, Nick Frisby, Christian Leali'ifano, Luke Morahan

ENGLAND

Role reversal it's normally you putting boot in for a past under par performance!

So long as Haskell has his current stripped down role, I can see the consistency continuing. Sure there may be the odd brainfart - but all players have those.

The problem will occur if we have to start deviating from the current role.

Not sound logic to call it a fluke. It’s just as valid to say he’s improved or his role has been simplified to allow him to flourish. If he suddenly becomes inconsistent then you might call it a fluke. Until then it’s just another possibility. Although after at least 7 good games and a number of MOTMs I’d say it’s a bit tenuous.

Under MJ he started to look like he might become a decent no 8 to replace Easter, then he moved abroad. And has also been used as a 6 and a 7. I think he wasn’t used to his strengths sufficiently under SL’s rather muddled view of a BR player’s ‘universal’ role. Give him a simplified game-plan and see how he becomes a major cog in the BR wheel. I don’t think he’ll ever become a truly world class flanker as he’s a little bit limited. But he plays the tackler/carrier/disrupter role really well. And he fits England’s current game-plan.

If we agree that Haskell's previous form has basically been 50/50 in terms of good and bad performances, then the chance of 7 strong games in a row is 1 in 2^7 or less than 1%.

It's not impossible that it's a fluke, but the odds are it's how he's being coached and used.

7 games is not a fluke.

I'm happy to give credit where it's due. I've been very critical of Haskell in the past. I think he's been outstanding under the Jones tenure.

Barney McGrew did it wrote: But he plays the tackler/carrier/disrupter role really well. And he fits England’s current game-plan.

Again it does make me wonder what could/should have happened with Burgess if Lancaster had left him alone rather than panicking about his 12 options for the world cup. Given him a season at Bath to run around smacking into people. Lost his job because Slade wasnt actually as good as people think he is, and that Burgess wasnt the sole reason England were shirt at the world cup. Jones wouldve come in with him instead of Harrisson.... Or maybe he wouldve dropped Robshaw and picked Burgess who wouldve got red varded in the first game and we wouldve missed both of them for the second test and be losing 0-2 by now.
So yeah ..what couldve been eh.

It's the same thing Barney. Never said he hasn't Sgt, but as I think we can all agree it's unusual for such a run of games for Haskell. Not sure I buy into the simplified game either. What's he not being asked to do now?

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's the same thing Barney. Never said he hasn't Sgt, but as I think we can all agree it's unusual for such a run of games for Haskell. Not sure I buy into the simplified game either. What's he not being asked to do now?

Times tables, run and speak, put the ball at the base of the post.

Gooseberry wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote: But he plays the tackler/carrier/disrupter role really well. And he fits England’s current game-plan.

Again it does make me wonder what could/should have happened with Burgess if Lancaster had left him alone rather than panicking about his 12 options for the world cup. Given him a season at Bath to run around smacking into people. Lost his job because Slade wasnt actually as good as people think he is, and that Burgess wasnt the sole reason England were shirt at the world cup. Jones wouldve come in with him instead of Harrisson.... Or maybe he wouldve dropped Robshaw and picked Burgess who wouldve got red varded in the first game and we wouldve missed both of them for the second test and be losing 0-2 by now.
So yeah ..what couldve been eh.  

Not sure I get the bit about Slade, who is class.

I think Haskell's just been given free reign to play his own game, which he's embracing.

His form the last 7 games has been absolutely sublime, and he seems to be playing how everyone has anticipated he's able to.

His form prior to EJ's reign was hit and miss. I don't think we should make excuses for him not having more caps or being relied on more. Maybe it was the style that didn't suit him, maybe he wasn't comfortable with his role, but he's never shown this form before. He's a total machine at the moment, and long may it continue.

I've always said Haskell looked like Tarzan played like Jane. But now he's playing like god damn King Kong.

I don't think its rocket science. A really good 7 does not much else but defend. They tackle all day long and usually come off the field with bruises around the forehead area and the dirtiest shirt in the team. A 7 that comes off the field with anything resembling a clean shirt has not been doing a 7s job. Eddie has told Hask to go out there and tackle, tackle, and tackle again. Knock 'em down at every opportunity. That's what good effective 7s do. A really good 7 will stop a team in its tracks almost on his own. All the fantasy about lineout and link play for a 7 is very much secondary. Eddie knows what 7s should do and he should be commended for that because most of the previous England coaches had not the faintest idea. We must also commend Haskell for taking to the role like a duck to water.

I've always admired Brand (let's DOMINATE) Haskell, but the admiration in the past has been tempered by exasperation.

Now it seems he's turned from a bouncy Labrador attacking any pie on sight to a Mastiff, still consumed but hunger but now only going for a pie that has throat in it.

Long may it last


ps - do you think he's had a bit 'goalpost aversion' therapy, hasn't attacked one in months now...

Also nice thing about Haskell is that although he has given up some penalties, 3 over 2 games given the number of tackles (ESPNSCrum says 38 ) plus all the ruck work etc is a pretty handy return.

Most of his tackling is absolutely textbook too.

englandglory4ever wrote:I don't think its rocket science. A really good 7 does not much else but defend. They tackle all day long and usually come off the field with bruises around the forehead area and the dirtiest shirt in the team. A 7 that comes off the field with anything resembling a clean shirt has not been doing a 7s job. Eddie has told Hask to go out there and tackle, tackle, and tackle again. Knock 'em down at every opportunity. That's what good effective 7s do. A really good 7 will stop a team in its tracks almost on his own. All the fantasy about lineout and link play for a 7 is very much secondary. Eddie knows what 7s should do and he should be commended for that because most of the previous England coaches had not the faintest idea. We must also commend Haskell for taking to the role like a duck to water.

Hooper... Very fine center/wing though....

lostinwales wrote:Also nice thing about Haskell is that although he has given up some penalties, 3 over 2 games given the number of tackles (ESPNSCrum says 38 ) plus all the ruck work etc is a pretty handy return.

Most of his tackling is absolutely textbook too.

I read that after a year or so at Wasps, he realised he wasn't much good at tackling, so he went and asked Joe Worsley to teach him. That's paying off now.

I think a Number 7 is more about just tackling. Otherwise Worsley would have been a world class 7, rather than just a very good 6.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's always had great games in the past under all the managers; his top form isn't a fluke. the fact we haven't seen the characteristic awful game is the fluke. If he keeps it going well done to him he's finally grown a brain.

Not sure about it. Isn't he still a bit of a penalty machine? Clearly to a lesser extent than previously...

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's always had great games in the past under all the managers; his top form isn't a fluke. the fact we haven't seen the characteristic awful game is the fluke. If he keeps it going well done to him he's finally grown a brain.

Not sure about it. Isn't he still a bit of a penalty machine? Clearly to a lesser extent than previously...

See above

Pretty sure Haskell was penalised once in the 2nd test, within the first minute. He didn't' get penalised at all after that, which is pretty amazing considering the amount of work he got through and how influential he was.

bluestonevedder wrote:Pretty sure Haskell was penalised once in the 2nd test, within the first minute. He didn't' get penalised at all after that, which is pretty amazing considering the amount of work he got through and how influential he was.

EPSNSCRUM says 1 penalty 1st test and 2 in the 2nd - which is quite frankly astonishing given his (and England's) recent reputation at giving away penalties.

The rugby world defense analysis 1st posted somewhere here really shows up the discipline England are showing around the breakdown. Coupled with Hartley's adept handling of the referee (!) it becomes easier to see why we are getting the rub of the green on 50-50 decisions.

lostinwales wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's always had great games in the past under all the managers; his top form isn't a fluke. the fact we haven't seen the characteristic awful game is the fluke. If he keeps it going well done to him he's finally grown a brain.

Not sure about it. Isn't he still a bit of a penalty machine? Clearly to a lesser extent than previously...

See above

Noted - that's quite remarkable actually...

I don't buy into all the 'he's grown a brain'. He was never given a decent enough run in my opinion.

He had an excellent 6Ns I believe before the MJ WC, then got dropped during it. Despite being the form back row. Prior to that he was rarely in the poorer half of the pack in his performances, and on occasion one of the top two or three.

He was dropped for a crocked Moody and a horribly average Wood. He just needed to be played, and played as a 6 - I know he's technically a 7 now but he's not, he's tackling, rucking and carrying. He's a 6.

If Haskell had played like this previously he would have been nailed on; as it is he never has bar a 1 off here and there.

Haskell has had six yellow cards in his international career. That's the most of any England player.

http://stats.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/records/player/most_yellow_cards.html?id=1;type=class

I wonder if the 23 that featured in the first test had the most international YCs of any England team - 22.


Funny that Calum Clark has managed a YC in what will probably be his only test.

http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=yellow_card;qualmin1=1;qualval1=yellow_card;team=1;template=results;type=player

No 7&1/2 wrote:If Haskell had played like this previously he would have been nailed on; as it is he never has bar a 1 off here and there.

I think it's a mixture of Haskell maturing as a player and being deployed in a system that requires him to concentrate on what he does best. Under Lancaster he was expected to be able to handle he ball and jackle whilst we tried to play like a SH team. Eddie has recognised Haskell's limitations and merely arranged a game plan that requires him to not attempt to utilise those skills.

LondonTiger wrote:I wonder if the 23 that featured in the first test had the most international YCs of any England team - 22.


Funny that Calum Clark has managed a YC in what will probably be his only test.

http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=yellow_card;qualmin1=1;qualval1=yellow_card;team=1;template=results;type=player

Callum who?

Lancaster did do a tremendous amount of work in laying the foundations for this team but some of his favourites look increasingly questionable in hindsight.

LondonTiger wrote:I wonder if the 23 that featured in the first test had the most international YCs of any England team - 22.


Funny that Calum Clark has managed a YC in what will probably be his only test.

http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=yellow_card;qualmin1=1;qualval1=yellow_card;team=1;template=results;type=player

I wish the data could also somehow reflect post-match decisions. For instance, Grewcock has only one red card but he was cited and banned for a red card offence in another match. It's tricky, because Simon Shaw's 2004 red card in that same match was overturned on a technicality (the ref used the TMO to identify Shaw when that was not permitted).

lostinwales wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I wonder if the 23 that featured in the first test had the most international YCs of any England team - 22.


Funny that Calum Clark has managed a YC in what will probably be his only test.

http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=yellow_card;qualmin1=1;qualval1=yellow_card;team=1;template=results;type=player

Callum who?

Lancaster did do a tremendous amount of work in laying the foundations for this team but some of his favourites look increasingly questionable in hindsight.

It's a bit harsh to call them favourites. The likes of Clark, Dowson etc got a few games between them but never played a string of games. Another way to ask it is: who out of Lancaster's core squad has now dropped out of contention for reasons other than age? I think it's just Wood and T Youngs, both of whom justified their selection at the time.

Barritt? - he's only 29. Possibly Attwood although he's in the wider squad (Captain of Saxons).

The other name that comes to mind is of course Ben Morgan.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If Haskell had played like this previously he would have been nailed on; as it is he never has bar a 1 off here and there.

During a period where plenty in our pack were only decent once or twice

Haskell seemed to suffer from everyone's super high expectations. He was never allowed an average game by the fans who's rip into him for being stupid, 'brand Hask', 'gym monkey'. I don't think any other player gets the amount of character assassination that Haskell got.

Others were allowed poor games by Haskell was often dropped by the next game.

It's also worth noting he's no longer playing all over the backrow, for the super flaky Stade Francais and getting benched. He's now the focal point for a resurgent Wasps and looks on top of the world.

I think theres revision of history going on!

He's obviously a confidence player. Jones is telling him he's great and he's in the team, it's working.

I think Jones is going for the same type of performance again on Saturday as Harrison is a bit more robust than Clifford hence a more like for like replacement.

He'll be given the same role, just tackle hard and frequently, hit a high number of breakdowns EFFECTIVELY and and try to get some turnovers....then simply repeat those instructions.

Will be interesting to see how well he can follow those instructions as he's not quite as physical and abrasive as Haskell...but he's still impressed a lot of people this season.

World Rugby referees boss Alain Rolland reviews big matches and sends out a circular to officials looking at contentious decisions.

According to the new Green and Gold podcast, he thinks some of Joubert's decisions went against Australia

- Moore's shoulder charge was no worse an offence than England's, so did not warrant a reversal.

- Australia had not gained sufficient advantage at the end of the second half, so should the penalty award should have remained

- Foley did not take out Farrell when running back.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/world-ref-boss-joubert-was-wrong/

Rugby Fan wrote:World Rugby referees boss Alain Rolland reviews big matches and sends out a circular to officials looking at contentious decisions.

According to the new Green and Gold podcast, he thinks some of Joubert's decisions went against Australia

- Moore's shoulder charge was no worse an offence than England's, so did not warrant a reversal.

- Australia had not gained sufficient advantage at the end of the second half, so should the penalty award should have remained

- Foley did not take out Farrell when running back.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/world-ref-boss-joubert-was-wrong/

Bet there is no mention of stuff like Moore's flying headbutt to Cole's ribs, cos you know, those Wallabies are pure as driven snow and all that and its just some nasty nasty conspiracy

It's a worrying development when refs can be criticised publicly (even if it's an 'exclusive' = leak) by their overseer. Yes, I'dbe very sore about some of the decisions last week if I were an Aussie, and Rolland in his current role may well have had grounds to offer constructive feedback, but this kind of detailed public critique is not going to help referees Feel powered to make important but potentially controversial decisions. Btw, wasn't the Farrell/Foley pen actually given on the say-so of the TMO, not Joubert's own decision? Very slippery slope, say I.

I'd have thought Rolland should be the last person to criticize other referees.

kingelderfield wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I like that Hartley is keeping them very grounded aswell though!

He's spoken very well after each game.

What a game. Have to say I was screaming for the subs and couldn't believe he left it so late.

There is so much improvement to come.

Probably not the greatest game to watch as a neutral, but wow in the context of everything that surrounded the game it is a massive massive result.

Ozy will improve. They missed a trick without the 2nd play maker and should have had more muscle in the pack, so maybe this will provide them the opportunity to change.

I'm expecting changes next week for us, though the prize of 3 zip will concentrate the selection.

Well played England.

Ozy now have their 2nd play maker plus the monster in the 2nd row....any chance we'll see a 19s tone wing as well?

Lots of gambles. I see now that Australia have Coleman as reserve lock. I know nothing of him but he must be seen as a talent to have got selected. But he has no caps, and the first choice lock combo consists of a guy who won't last 80 minutes and a guy who didn't last time he had a chance.

I guess Fardy can fill in as emergency lock too which means he will be doing the job of 4 guys not just 3.

lostinwales wrote:Lots of gambles. I see now that Australia have Coleman as reserve lock. I know nothing of him but he must be seen as a talent to have got selected..

Some tipped him as a John Eales-type prospect but he couldn't get a starting spot at the Waratahs when Cheika was coach. He moved to the Force where he has caught the eye again.

Best of luck England and your fans, I hope you get the whitewash

Oz collapse, pen against England .. odd.  Cole was binding on shirt so how did he get pinged for pressure on the arm?

oops wrong thread