England Versus Australia 18th November 2017 3pm k.o.

First topic message reminder :

A resurgent Wallabies arrive in town with a great opportunity to halt their run of defeats to England. They are in much better current form and are looking sharp. EJs is trying to test out a few new players and rotate his Lions with a long term RWC view. He has said he will take the odd defeat along the way if it helps develop the side longer term. I think this Sat could be one of those defeats.

I do agree with seeing how some different players cope and do not disagree with his approach. Therefore, we need to see Williams, George, Watson (at 15) all start. If Teo was fit I would also go Farrell at 10 and Teo at 12 with Slade at 13 (deserves 1 more go despite being poor on Sat).  

Once these AIs are over then I think the time for experimenting is done and we then play each match as if it is our last. This will enable the combinations to bed in and be battle hardened for RWC 2019.

Team: Watson, May, Joseph, Farrell, Daly; Ford, Youngs; M Vunipola, Hartley, Cole; Launchbury, Lawes; Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes.

Replacements: George, Marler, Williams, Itoje, Simmonds, Care, Slade, Rokoduguni.



Australia: 15 Kurtley Beale, 14 Marika Koroibete, 13 Tevita Kuridrani, 12 Samu Kerevi, 11 Reece Hodge, 10 Bernard Foley, 9 Will Genia; 1 Scott Sio, 2 Tatafu Polota-Nau, 3 Sekope Kepu, 4 Rob Simmons, 5 Adam Coleman, 6 Ned Hanigan, 7 Michael Hooper, 8 Sean McMahon
Replacements: 16 Stephen Moore, 17 Tom Robertson, 18 Allan Alaalatoa, 19 Matt Philip, 20 Ben McCalman, 21 Lopeti Timani, 22 Nick Phipps, 23 Kurtley Beale, 24 Henry Speight*

*one to be omitted

Australia will win this, not easily but they will.

And yes Georgia will push Wales B

Just reviewed on YouTube the 2014 eng v fra game and Goode is directly at fault for 2 tries. He allows Huget around the outside of him..doesnt put him down or prevent the offload and then fails to deal with the kick ahead. The Fickou try he fails to do anything..just allows the man past him.
These aren't opinions they are verifiable facts....
Nowell wasn't great but to blame the loss on him is the worst sort of specious reasoning.
Goode was useless in defence....we gave away silly penalties and missed chances..Tom Youngs overthrew a line out....but no it's all down to Nowell...complete rubbish.

greenandpleasantland wrote:Just reviewed on YouTube the 2014 eng v fra game and Goode is directly at fault for 2 tries. He allows Huget around the outside of him..doesnt put him down or prevent the offload and then fails to deal with the kick ahead. The Fickou try he fails to do anything..just allows the man past him.
These aren't opinions they are verifiable facts....
Nowell wasn't great but to blame the loss on him is the worst sort of specious reasoning.
Goode was useless in defence....we gave away silly penalties and missed chances..Tom Youngs overthrew a line out....but no it's all down to Nowell...complete rubbish.

Yep. Goode was out of position but that was the game when I started having real doubts about him as an international. Compare and contrast with Nowell 'having a 'mare'' but bringing down Picamoles in full rampage mode.

Ah gents draw a line under it all please.

Back to the game....
Australia looked pretty good v Wales we'll need to find our intensity levels again as the one on Saturday wasn't good enough. Hopefully it was just rusty ness of the first game.

What is peoples opinions of the carriers in the pack. Underhill has replaced Haskell and Haskell was a hard carrier. Underhill barely had the ball on Saturday. Robshaw isn't a big carrier, nor kruis and I'm not convinced Lawes is either.

So that meant Hughes , Mako and Hartley did most of the work making the hard yards. Is that enough?

Yeah. We will beat them by Farrell being a better tactical kicker than Foley and strong defence.

So what squad are you all hoping to see this weekend? I think a loss against Australia would perversely do more harm than one against Samoa so I'd play it relatively safe.

1. Mako, 2. Hartley, 3. Cole. 4. Lawes, 5. Itoje, 6. Robshaw, 7. Underhill, 8. Hughes
9. B.Youngs, 10. Ford, 11. May, 12. Farrell, 13. Joseph, 14. Daly, 15. Watson

16. T.Youngs, 17. Marler, 18. Williams, 19. Launchbury, 20. Simmonds, 21.  Care, 22. Slade. 23. Rokoduguni

Against Samoa I'd definitely like to see how Farrowski compares to Forell, potentially with Slade at 13.

Haskell can be a big carrier, but I don't remember him doing all that much carrying under Eddie's reign.

I looked at the stats for his last 10 England games and the general pattern was that he was making 4-5 carries a game for 2-3m each - Robshaw's carrying stats looked pretty similar, for the games where they were both involved.

Generally, Billy/Hughes, the centres and the locks were doing most of the carrying.

So the key thing is probably to have two in form locks who can carry hard, rather than having a second big carrier in the back row.

Why has Genge been dropped ? I thought he was the new JesusItojie36?

Rumours are Lawes, Launchbury second row, and Slade at 13. Brown not to have made it.

Poorfour wrote:Haskell can be a big carrier, but I don't remember him doing all that much carrying under Eddie's reign.

I looked at the stats for his last 10 England games and the general pattern was that he was making 4-5 carries a game for 2-3m each - Robshaw's carrying stats looked pretty similar, for the games where they were both involved.

Generally, Billy/Hughes, the centres and the locks were doing most of the carrying.

So the key thing is probably to have two in form locks who can carry hard, rather than having a second big carrier in the back row.

Im surprised his carrying stats were so low actually. Probably still higher than Underhills was on Saturday mind.

If we are going with Launchbury and Lawes...then its not much better. launchbury can carry well but im still Jurys out on Lawes.

Poorfour, the reply summing up BS as a poster is rather excellent. I think you hit the nail on the head in every aspect without ever getting personal

greenandpleasantland wrote:Just reviewed on YouTube the 2014 eng v fra game and Goode is directly at fault for 2 tries. He allows Huget around the outside of him..doesnt put him down or prevent the offload and then fails to deal with the kick ahead. The Fickou try he fails to do anything..just allows the man past him.
These aren't opinions they are verifiable facts....
Nowell wasn't great but to blame the loss on him is the worst sort of specious reasoning.
Goode was useless in defence....we gave away silly penalties and missed chances..Tom Youngs overthrew a line out....but no it's all down to Nowell...complete rubbish.

I don't think I've ever said that it was ALL down to Nowell. I said that his mistakes were big ones and costly. Doesn't mean it was just him why we lost but why always defend the mistakes? Completely ignore them?

Yes scapegoat Goode, ignore Nowell as usual....  ignore his mistakes... that's what annoys me, ignoring the mistakes.

Don't tell me knocking on and not catching a ball aren't mistakes - they are. Even if you think they aren't you are wrong.

We could even be fair and say that Nowell was guilty for the first try and partially guilty for the 2nd (with Goode), 3rd Goode. Now that's me being reasonable.

Can you be as reasonable as that or not?

Instead of defending Nowell's mistakes I'd rather you said you know what - you've got a point. That knock on did lead to the France try and Nowell and Goode's lack of communication led to that 2nd try.


You expect me to compromise but won't budge an inch yourself.  That's unreasonable.

Of course you have to look at the context of the mistakes - Nowell is a young inexperienced man, picked in an away game vs France in France, 1st cap, 1st game of 6 nations.

It is not much of a surprise he made mistakes. His first touch was a mistake and responsibility should have probably been someone else, miscommunication with Goode due to lack of familiarity, new back three having to be switched during the game.

Ultimately I lay the blame at Lancaster for making the call in the first place to throw Nowell in the deep end. It wasn't fair on Nowell to do that.

greenandpleasantland wrote:Just reviewed on YouTube the 2014 eng v fra game and Goode is directly at fault for 2 tries. He allows Huget around the outside of him..doesnt put him down or prevent the offload and then fails to deal with the kick ahead. The Fickou try he fails to do anything..just allows the man past him.
These aren't opinions they are verifiable facts....

See now I think the Fickou try was Burrell's fault. In Burrell's defence, by this stage he's defending out of position on the wing, but instead of trusting his inside man, he bites in to make a tackle he doesn't need to which creates an overlap. After that it's a 2 on 1 vs Goode so it's a bit harsh for my money to say Goode was at fault. I don't want to derail this thread with discussion about that try, but I bring it up because you said something that is subjective is a verifiable fact. Gotta be careful with that or the discussion just degenerates into two people talking loudly at each other because they are both adamant they have the "facts".

The only match for which stats for Underhill seem to be available is last week's - 2 carries for 0m, but 21/3 for tackles (compared to 19/3 for Mako and 24/1 for Lawes).

Surprisingly, the second best carrier in the pack (after Hughes) was Robshaw with 7 for 14. Mako was 9 for 9 and Lawes 11 for 14 (though the early break from Lawes's offload probably contributes most of Robshaw's yards).

Yes because of course the more carries you make = effective carrier? Right?

Surely it's more important to get over the gain line?

Now if there was a stat showing the gain line per carry that would be more illuminating.

Robshaw is not a big ball carrier, I wouldn't say his carries were particularly effective.

beshocked wrote:Yes because of course the more carries you make = effective carrier? Right?

Surely it's more important to get over the gain line?

I know the tendency at the moment is to make everything binary, but is it that simple? Sometimes it's just about tidying up crappy ball, resetting, recycling and giving the team a platform? Does he consistently manage to tie in multiple defenders?

I agree breaking the gainline is very important, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other things to consider.

Everyone knows Cheika is a foul mouthed petulant cry baby in the coaches box so it was funny when EJ said his 93 year old mum phoned him after the Argie game and told him off for swearing.

beshocked wrote:I don't think I've ever said that it was ALL down to Nowell. I said that his mistakes were big ones and costly. Doesn't mean it was just him why we lost but why always defend the mistakes? Completely ignore them?

I don't think you've ever said that in so many words, but you repeatedly bring up "Nowell's mistakes lost us the France game" as a stick to beat both Nowell and Lancaster with and a justification for claiming Nowell had a shaky start to his international career, without ever as far as I can recall volunteering that other players might have been at fault too.

Yes scapegoat Goode, ignore Nowell as usual....  ignore his mistakes... that's what annoys me, ignoring the mistakes.

Don't tell me knocking on and not catching a ball aren't mistakes - they are. Even if you think they aren't you are wrong.

We could even be fair and say that Nowell was guilty for the first try and partially guilty for the 2nd (with Goode), 3rd Goode. Now that's me being reasonable.

Can you be as reasonable as that or not?

Instead of defending Nowell's mistakes I'd rather you said you know what - you've got a point. That knock on did lead to the France try and Nowell and Goode's lack of communication led to that 2nd try.

You expect me to compromise but won't budge an inch yourself.  That's unreasonable.

We're not defending Nowell's mistakes. We're objecting to the idea that Nowell is solely to blame for the loss, which is how you've come across for the past 4 years. This is the first time I can remember where you've budged even slightly on your own position.

It's a long time since I've seen the game, but wasn't there also some miscommunication with one of the locks for that first knock on? Very rarely is a try the result of just one individual's errors.

Of course you have to look at the context of the mistakes - Nowell is a young inexperienced man, picked in an away game vs France in France, 1st cap, 1st game of 6 nations.

It is not much of a surprise he made mistakes. His first touch was a mistake and responsibility should have probably been someone else, miscommunication with Goode due to lack of familiarity, new back three having to be switched during the game.

Ultimately I lay the blame at Lancaster for making the call in the first place to throw Nowell in the deep end. It wasn't fair on Nowell to do that.

I think you're attaching too much importance to both the circumstances and the mistake. Nowell made a mistake. He was very unlucky that it was his first touch, and very unlucky that it led to a try. Players make several mistakes a game; mostly they get away with less dramatic consequences. Nowell had a pretty good game thereafter, notwithstanding the second try he was involved in conceding.

The team struggled to keep its defensive alignment given all the substitutions, and yes Nowell was part of that. But any team with that little experience would have struggled to cope. Lancaster throughout his tenure consistently ended up fielding teams with less experience than his opposition. Partly that's because he was very unlucky with backline injuries, and partly because he had to start almost from scratch in bringing through a new team. You blame him for not winning a game that he could have won - but you and he seem to have had different expectations going into the game. Lancaster's priority was to develop the team while winning as many games as possible; you seem to be prioritising winning over everything.

If you want to blame someone for an inexperienced team being out there, it's probably fairer to blame Johnson than Lancaster. If Johnson had started the rebuilding rather than relied on 2003 veterans, Lancaster would have had more experience on the pitch to begin with.

Poorfour wrote:The only match for which stats for Underhill seem to be available is last week's - 2 carries for 0m, but 21/3 for tackles (compared to 19/3 for Mako and 24/1 for Lawes).

Surprisingly, the second best carrier in the pack (after Hughes) was Robshaw with 7 for 14. Mako was 9 for 9 and Lawes 11 for 14 (though the early break from Lawes's offload probably contributes most of Robshaw's yards).

Yeah I think that's an area Underhill will be looking to improve. His tackling is top class. But I still feel Curry is a much better alround player at 7.

Many of those stats don't highlight what area of the game they are in. Are they in heavy duty traffic, open space etc. but that's difficult to breakdown.

its something ill be watching closely on Saturday.

Whats your thoughts on Mako. Is he getting the right balance of link play and carrying duty?

cascough wrote:

beshocked wrote:Yes because of course the more carries you make = effective carrier? Right?

Surely it's more important to get over the gain line?

I know the tendency at the moment is to make everything binary, but is it that simple? Sometimes it's just about tidying up crappy ball, resetting, recycling and giving the team a platform? Does he consistently manage to tie in multiple defenders?

I agree breaking the gainline is very important, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other things to consider.

cascough that's a fair comment. You are right but if you are tidying up crappy ball repeatedly surely you have to look at why the ball is crappy in the first place?

It is complicated I agree. If you get tackles targeting you too it's more difficult. I agree that how you position yourself to retain possession is important too.

beshocked wrote:

cascough wrote:

beshocked wrote:Yes because of course the more carries you make = effective carrier? Right?

Surely it's more important to get over the gain line?

I know the tendency at the moment is to make everything binary, but is it that simple? Sometimes it's just about tidying up crappy ball, resetting, recycling and giving the team a platform? Does he consistently manage to tie in multiple defenders?

I agree breaking the gainline is very important, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other things to consider.

cascough that's a fair comment. You are right but if you are tidying up crappy ball repeatedly surely you have to look at why the ball is crappy in the first place?

It is complicated I agree. If you get tackles targeting you too it's more difficult. I agree that how you position yourself to retain possession is important too.

Well, if you look at Hughes for example, it might be crappy because our scrum is going backwards and he has to pick it up with a man on him. Maybe Robshaw carries after he's just had to dive on a ball in open play. Stats are nice but need context.

Assuming that the team is announced at 11? The carrying was still poor for me last week. Full.compliment of locks and normal 6s...Will Jones be tempted to have Lawes Launchbury and Itoje on the pitch again?

scottrf fair comment true but we don't really have access to that context. That's up to the coaches.

I guess you could if you wanted to watch one player exclusively then see what the context of the carries but of course the coaches will probably look at everything in high detail.





Poorfour I bring it up mainly now as a bad selection by Lancaster. It's more of a criticism of Lancaster than Nowell now.

Nowell has developed into a good international player. I don't argue with that. 2015 onwards I've been impressed.

Of course players develop at different rates.

I know other players made mistakes but highlighted the Nowell ones because it's an example of recklessly throwing a young player into the deep end.


It comes across as defending the mistakes but if you aren't fair enough.

Yes you are right - miscommunication.

Indeed Nowell was unlucky and you are right an individual mistake like a knock on is not often that costly.

It's like with most mistakes, if they are costly they are highlighted more unsurprisingly.


The problem was with Lancaster he lost too many games, that were winnable. I think it's fair to say he wasn't lucky with injuries but not many coaches are.

Wales had worse injuries woes in that RWC pool game but still prevailed.


Jones has had injuries too.

Lancaster had more experience in 2014 than 2012. I thought 2012 was a good year in the circumstances. Now he had a real lack of experience then.


Coming back to England-Australia - it will be interesting to see what the tactics of both sides will be.

beshocked wrote:scottrf fair comment true but we don't really have access to that context. That's up to the coaches.

I guess you could if you wanted to watch one player exclusively then see what the context of the carries but of course the coaches will probably look at everything in high detail.

I guess we shouldn't be as critical in their selection of hookers then.

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:scottrf fair comment true but we don't really have access to that context. That's up to the coaches.

I guess you could if you wanted to watch one player exclusively then see what the context of the carries but of course the coaches will probably look at everything in high detail.

I guess we shouldn't be as critical in their selection of hookers then.

Let's not go around in circles with with this - record breaker with most bench appearances without a start...

Go round in circles???? You are the master at this BS

I know other players made mistakes but highlighted the Nowell ones because it's an example of recklessly throwing a young player into the deep end.

It's reckless when you don't agree.

It's was absolutely criminal when SL didn't select Itoje.....although if he did, it would be recklessly throwing a young player in the deep end.

The most pointless thing in the world is getting into a debate with you BS(and I find myself unable to resist). You're such a fickle poster and something only fits when you decide it to. You use the same argument to attack a player then use the same prerogative to defend one of your Sarries heroes.

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/england-name-side-take-australia/

Slade dropped unfortunately. Brown doesn't make it.

Sgt Pooly fair point - I do repeat myself a lot but I feel the stubbornness is a two way thing.

Well when a brave move works it's applauded, when it doesn't... the person who did it gets more scrutiny.

Lancaster isn't the first coach to make poor decisions and won't be the last.

I talk less about Mccall's errors because they are less frequent.

Though I could highlight at least one for you - vs Munster away, Mccall dropped MOTM Hodgson of the previous week and drafted in a crocked Farrell - that was a risk that failed.

You don't need to be some coaching genius to realise it was a stupid decision that was more likely to fail than succeed.


Against Saracens, Racing Metro drafted in a crocked Carter in the final of the ERCC, it didn't pay off.

If gambles work, they can be a master stroke... fail though... and they can be costly indeed.

Now of course in every scenario you can understand why coach X did it but let's just say - you know what coach X got it wrong and move on.

Picking Itoje would have been bold but when comparing it to other selections, it's less risky.

Lancaster picked Burgess, selecting Itoje would be conservative in comparison for the reasons I said.

You think different scenarios are the same.

You say I defend my Sarries heroes, in certain circumstances yes I am too defensive but have been critical too.

I know the flaws of the players. None of them are perfect, I know that.

Dropping Kruis is not something I am against, he needed to perform better to retain his place.

Ah you see if he hadn't blocked me we could have got to the hissy fit over george and Itoje earlier.

England team up

Watson gets a run at FB, at least beshocked has something to smile about

Swings and roundabouts then. Ha. He's blocked.you as well hasn't he? It'll take him a few moments more. Becoming obvious jones has his core.team now. Not worried about rushing players but building results confidence and an aura. Hard game all the same which we could lose but I feel we'll see a more focused england this week.

He has .. don't think he appreciated my comment about me being better suited to being on thin ice than Jamie George

In fairness, I'd be better suited than practically any rugby player, my 12 stone 4lbs is far less likely to fall through the ice than any professional player

Can't wait for this game to KO. Real test for England (at last!)

Well looking at the squad - my thoughts

Starting Front five - doesn't look strong enough. Don't think the balance of the pack is right.

Worried if Jonny May is fit enough.

Backline looks more assured but surely won't be enough if the pack doesn't perform better.

Bench looks good and might just be able to swing it in England's favour.

Going to be tough though.


Bambam you are right. I am pleased Watson is starting. I've taken you off ignore.

I guess I should reflect on the pleasing parts of the selection rather than the

At least Mako retains his place.

I do think it's also strange that England dropped the bench player who had the best impact last week vs Argentina but.... we'll see if Slade can do something special from the bench.

You heard it here first. If we win it'll be down to george and Itoje.

Itoje to get a red in the 18th minute........................


...just joking my English pals and buddies that voted for us

Even Itoje would struggle to come off the bench and get red carded within 18 mins

We’ve got three or four areas we really think we can target Australia in,” he said. “We’ve practised those pretty hard this week, like any team there are weaknesses, no team is secure so we’ve worked hard to exploit those areas, now we have to be good enough to do it and I’m confident we are.”

England welcome back Owen Farrell into the starting XV, while fellow Saracens team mate Maro Itoje is among the finishers and Jones says he has had to take a sensible approach to using players involved with the British & Irish Lions in the summer.

“We’ve taken a view that we want the Lions players to be looked after,” he said.

“When I look at the number of Lions players who are injured, we have Ben Te’o, Jack Nowell and Billy Vunipola out, and that is result of players playing continuous rugby.

“Players need to have recovery and regeneration, we’ve tried to manage Owen and Maro in the right way and their club Saracens have been brilliant about it. They’ve had a reconditioning period and we both think they are ready to come back into the squad.”

Back row battle

Jones says he expects Farrell to have a big impact on Saturday and also picked out the battle at number seven as an intriguing contest at the weekend.

“Owen is a great player and has been nominated for World Rugby player of the year, he’s an important player for any team that he plays in, whether that be Saracens, the Lions or England,” said Jones.

“He comes back into the team, is full of energy and desperate to wear the England jersey. We’re so happy to have him back in the team.”

Jones added on the expected battle between Sam Underhill and Michael Hooper: “Michael Hooper is a 77 capped player so it should be a good test for Sam Underhill.

“Underhill has three caps and is starting his career while Hooper is at his absolute maturity and we expect him to take the game to Underhill.” 
From rfu twitter.

oh yeah...................

I've taken a view I want to look after the Lions players.... but I'll tire out Lawes, oh and Watson can start every game too.....

Players need to recover..... sure... Doesn't quite work if you don't rest every Lion.

Has Lawes had a break this season?

I would have started Watson but you can't talk about saying you are looking after players then playing them continuously.....

No 7&1/2 wrote:“We’ve taken a view that we want the Lions players to be looked after,” he said.

“When I look at the number of Lions players who are injured, we have Ben Te’o, Jack Nowell and Billy Vunipola out, and that is result of players playing continuous rugby.

Lawes starts again...

Hopefully Lawes will get next week off, Isiekwe/Ewels can easily come in against Samoa

Watson I'm unsure on. Not sure how to balance his need for rest with the opportunity for him to get a real run at FB for a couple of games if Brown is out next week

Jones words don't match action shocker!

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:“We’ve taken a view that we want the Lions players to be looked after,” he said.

“When I look at the number of Lions players who are injured, we have Ben Te’o, Jack Nowell and Billy Vunipola out, and that is result of players playing continuous rugby.

Lawes starts again...

Wondered whether he'd actually do it. Jones had a reputation in Japan for beasting players, and it doesn't seem like he's really learned how to lay off. Ideally, some England players needed a break last year, rather than touring Australia but you could argue the series win was a price worth paying. Don't see him resting players for South Africa, so the bulk of his squad is going to play four long seasons ahead of the Cup

It's a 2 way street though with resting players. Predominantly it rests with the clubs.

It's about sharing the load. Both club and country have responsibility to look after the players.

Lawes has had 495 minutes in the AP this season.


Itoje has had 444 minutes but played 1 less game.

Itoje has also has had a bit of break now which will do him some good. Both club and country working together to do this.

Unfortunately with Lawes - neither Saints or England want to rest him so you have a situation where both overwork him.

I think it would be fairer to discuss Jones' treatment of Lawes after the 3 games

If he sees Lawes as his best lock on form (debatable, but certainly an argument) it makes sense that he'd want to start him against the two stronger teams, and rest him against Samoa

If he plays Lawes against Samoa I'd agree with the criticism of Jones

Depends a bit on things we don't get to see though. They'll have stats on how quickly the players are back on their feet how many rucks etc. Fine balance between fit fatigue injury etc but quite comicated I'm sure.

I was annoyed at the time that Mallinder didn't pull Lawes off when we were getting beasted by Clermont.