June International Test: Australia vs. England [2nd Test] (18/06/2016)

[Aotearoa_]

That it's pretty disrespectful to Wales.
Hansen should be busy sorting them out; not being distracted by stuf that's got nothing to do with him.

Beyond that, he's welcome to whatever opinion he wants - but it's got nothing to do with him.

Are you being serious?

He was asked his opinion on the Australia vs England test series after a lengthy press conference about the Welsh test.

Australia is a regular opponent of ours and we're playing them in a few months and we played them in a World Cup final 8 months ago. So I think he has every right to discuss their latest test series. I to think Australia played pathetic.

Can't see him offering up an opinion on the matter at the tail end of a press conference an issue, just found his comments interesting and it sounds like a bit of inside knowledge on the relationship between the two.

 

[Which Tyler]

That depends - do you want my opinion, or your opinion repeated to you?

As for Hansen's comments - from what I bothered reading they weren't really about how either team played, but about the verbals between coaches that were nothing to do with him. If he's paying any attention whatsoever to that, then it's disrespectful towards Wales by Hansen AND disrectful towards Hansen by the journo who asked the question. The right answer would be something like "no comment" or "dunno mate, I've been preparing my team for the matches my team are playing; we'll look at how Aus are doing after we've dealt with Wales". Instead, he chose to stick his nose in where it wasn't needed. Of course, he's welcome to his opinion; but it's got nothign to do with him.

FWIW I'd say the same thing if Eddie were to get involved in any verbals between Hansen and Gatland, or Schimt and Coetzee

 

[Aotearoa_]

That depends - do you want my opinion, or your opinion repeated to you?

As for Hansen's comments - from what I bothered reading they weren't really about how either team played, but about the verbals between coaches that were nothing to do with him. If he's paying any attention whatsoever to that, then it's disrespectful towards Wales by Hansen AND disrectful towards Hansen by the journo who asked the question. The right answer would be something like "no comment" or "dunno mate, I've been preparing my team for the matches my team are playing; we'll look at how Aus are doing after we've dealt with Wales". Instead, he chose to stick his nose in where it wasn't needed. Of course, he's welcome to his opinion; but it's got nothign to do with him.

FWIW I'd say the same thing if Eddie were to get involved in any verbals between Hansen and Gatland, or Schimt and Coetzee

True, he probably should have said something along those lines from an outisde perspective. But I think a lot of us Kiwis were disappointed with Cheika's results, who knows Hansen may have given Cheika something to think of in the future.

Your other comments about disrespect to Wales is a bit 'meh' though, I wouldn't get too snotty about that.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Are you being serious?

He was asked his opinion on the Australia vs England test series after a lengthy press conference about the Welsh test.

Australia is a regular opponent of ours and we're playing them in a few months and we played them in a World Cup final 8 months ago. So I think he has every right to discuss their latest test series. I to think Australia played pathetic.

Can't see him offering up an opinion on the matter at the tail end of a press conference an issue, just found his comments interesting and it sounds like a bit of inside knowledge on the relationship between the two.

Of course that's why Hansen gave his opinion that Chieka gave free rein to Jones to bully him in the media and your concern for Australia playing so "poorly"is extremely touching. Not like Hansen was stirring and you're not either.

 

[Nubiwan]

Considering a ONLY MONTHS AGO, Englands confident RWC campaign ended in pool play as the host tier 1 nation DID have a fairly tough pool, and then you compare them to now. The big difference is Eddie Jones.

One poster here mentioned that England are playing good cos theyre playing NH style rugby HAHA. Didnt the RWC highlight the difference between the two hemispheres?..IN the NH might I add is where the SH TEAMS reminded everybody.

As were seeing with a lot of the 6 nations employing SH coaches, its clearly helped. Should have England followed suit a long time ago? perhaps. Its because of ******** Clive Woodward boasting that he never wanted to do what New Zealand was doing, I think that might have a built a bit of reluctance to chase coaches outside of England.

Anyway while the Aussies have mentioned theyre missing players, England have a player who I think could make them even more of a force than they are now and thats Manu Tuilagi.

I honestly wish England played us THIS week. Wales is boring, at this stage Id rather us play England and then the Waikato Chiefs after that.

Jones hasn't made England's style of play any different, nor southern hemisphere like. They still kick the ball away and never seem to back themselves for a few phases from inside their own half. Totally obvious in the 2nd test against OZ. Sphincters were firmly tightened for the last 40 minutes as OZ pressed. Defence has been England's major area of improvement. That, and Australia's poor execution, left England with a rather flattering 2nd test score line.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

In suppose England main factor V NZ is the fact that we are soooo much more physical than NZ.

Should boss them in most aspects of the game and would win as long as the pressure is maintained on them.

Like Super rugby all style no substance.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Jones hasn't made England's style of play any different, nor southern hemisphere like. They still kick the ball away and never seem to back themselves for a few phases from inside their own half. Totally obvious in the 2nd test against OZ. Sphincters were firmly tightened for the last 40 minutes as OZ pressed. Defence has been England's major area of improvement. That, and Australia's poor execution, left England with a rather flattering 2nd test score line.

Yeah in the first test in particular our defence was outstanding! 39 points through tackling alone, incredible

 

[Nubiwan]

What's England and Australians fans thoughts on Steve Hansens comments on the Eddie Jones vs Cheika battle;

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/sport/rugby/michael-cheika-lashes-bullying-claims-steve-hansens-comments-shallow-and-he-knows-better


Video of the comments Hansen made and Cheika's responses.

Clearly Hansen not getting enough coverage whilst his own side play Wales.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah in the first test in particular our defence was outstanding! 39 points through tackling alone, incredible

Yeah - OK. Defence was better in the 2nd test all the same (conceding 4 tries in the first hardly great). Lack of attacking enterprise in the 2nd test was obvious, even scoring 27 points. Cautious cup style rugby approach. My memory is only as good as the last match

 

[Aotearoa_]

In suppose England main factor V NZ is the fact that we are soooo much more physical than NZ for 60 minutes.

Should boss them in most aspects of the game and would win as long as the pressure is maintained on them if the game was 60 minutes long.

But a game of rugby is 80 minutes long and we would end up losing due to the fact they have a better bench and mental capacity than our private school'd chaps.

Like Super rugby all style all substance.

Fix't

 

[Nubiwan]

England's last defeat ? Australia at the World Cup. A decent 9 match run on the go.

 

[Aotearoa_]

Is Eddie going to go for a few changes, or go all out for the white wash? I have a feeling the later, 3-0 in Aussieland is a statement.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Clearly Hansen not getting enough coverage whilst his own side play Wales.

- - - Updated - - -




Yeah - OK. Defence was better in the 2nd test all the same (conceding 4 tries in the first hardly great). Lack of attacking enterprise in the 2nd test was obvious, even scoring 27 points. Cautious cup style rugby approach. My memory is only as good as the last match

England scored 23 points in the second test. Having 20% of the possession (I'd guess) didn't affect how much attacking England did then?

Playing to win à la cup rugby inexcusable for a match to win an international series?

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Is Eddie going to go for a few changes, or go all out for the white wash? I have a feeling the later, 3-0 in Aussieland is a statement.

A bit of both I'd have thought.
I would imagine that in the forwards, Mako and Kruis will be rested, with Mullan and Lawes starting. Haskell's also injured, so expect to see Clifford in for him.
I can see Youngs and Care being swapped, just to get Care a decent run out.
I can't see Ford or Faz being replaced.
Maybe Daly in for JJ.
Yarde in for Nowell due to injury.
I'd like to see Daly for Brown, but it won't happen.

Predicted changes, Mullan for Mako, Lawes for Kruis, Clifford for Haskell, Yarde for Nowell, maybe Daly for JJ, maybe Care for Youngs.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Couple of newspapers reporting Brown rested too.

Which I assume would be a straight swap for Goode, although I doubt Jones would change two out of three back three players.

 

[Zed]

Jones hasn't made England's style of play any different, nor southern hemisphere like. They still kick the ball away and never seem to back themselves for a few phases from inside their own half. Totally obvious in the 2nd test against OZ. Sphincters were firmly tightened for the last 40 minutes as OZ pressed. Defence has been England's major area of improvement. That, and Australia's poor execution, left England with a rather flattering 2nd test score line.

Spot on. Superb defence by England, but we were clueless in attack. We had no plan B. A couple of hitups then throw it wide and hope for the best. As I said earlier, important series win for England, but I can't imagine the ABS quaking in their boots at the lack of attacking enterprise shown by the English and the willingness with which they gave away decent possession.

- - - Updated - - -

Playing to win à la cup rugby inexcusable for a match to win an international series?

I don't think there is anything wrong with playing conservative rugby to win an important game/cup/series, but England's tactics were poor and it's only because we were completely **** in attack that they won. Giving up 70% possession wasn't by design. They continually did these box kicks that simply went straight to Folau who would catch it and we'd attack again. Even the longer kicks were going directly to the back 3. If that had been a top ABs side, England could have had 40 points put on them. England are great at recycling the ball and retaining possession, why kick it away? Makes no sense. It's a tactic common amongst NH teams and perhaps it's innate, they've been doing it since they started playing that they think it's what they have to do. Scotland v Italy a few years ago, Scotland kicked a box kick to the fullback who sprinted 60m and scored. 5 mins later they kicked another box kick to him and he made 30m, they continued to kick to him and he continued to make ground and retain possession. That for me is totally illogical.

 

[Nubiwan]

Spot on. Superb defence by England, but we were clueless in attack. We had no plan B. A couple of hitups then throw it wide and hope for the best. As I said earlier, important series win for England, but I can't imagine the ABS quaking in their boots at the lack of attacking enterprise shown by the English and the willingness with which they gave away decent possession.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't think there is anything wrong with playing conservative rugby to win an important game/cup/series, but England's tactics were poor and it's only because we were completely **** in attack that they won. Giving up 70% possession wasn't by design. They continually did these box kicks that simply went straight to Folau who would catch it and we'd attack again. Even the longer kicks were going directly to the back 3. If that had been a top ABs side, England could have had 40 points put on them. England are great at recycling the ball and retaining possession, why kick it away? Makes no sense. It's a tactic common amongst NH teams and perhaps it's innate, they've been doing it since they started playing that they think it's what they have to do. Scotland v Italy a few years ago, Scotland kicked a box kick to the fullback who sprinted 60m and scored. 5 mins later they kicked another box kick to him and he made 30m, they continued to kick to him and he continued to make ground and retain possession. That for me is totally illogical.

Agree with the lot. NZ would have wiped our arses with the possession we kicked away in that 2nd half. It got annoying we did not try to soak up some clock with a few of our own phases, and take the sting out. Nope, just kicked it back and let Oz mount another attack. And yeah, cup rugby wins games, so sometimes you play for field position, and keep it tight. Slow the game down. Stop start. Worked for England, but it's still annoying. Think England have improved more than Oz these last few years, despite the World Cup defeat, but still nowhere near the ABs. Maybe in a one off, but over 3 matches - no chance.

 

[tdh24]

England found a way to win. Much like Saracens do. They won in a quite different way in the first test. This is really pleasing - it shows that they can adapt on the hoof. They were expecting to attack a lot off first phase but their platform wasn't there. Australia played well in the line out and their scrum dominance was negated by the pitch. Their third biggest attacking source was turnovers and that worked, all be it belatedly. They were playing Australia and were supremely confident in their defence because of what they were experiencing in the game - that the Aussies were not really threatening. The only surprising thing was that they didn't get a really good turnover to counter from earlier. They were also playing the referee who favours the attacking side in the breakdown. Therefore not committing too many players and fanning out made sense. It was intelligent rugby.

The 2003 side always found a way to win, even when they didn't play well. This team seem to have the composure to do that as well. Remember they also recovered from a terrible start in the first game and found a way to come back.

 

[Nubiwan]

England found a way to win. Much like Saracens do. They won in a quite different way in the first test. This is really pleasing - it shows that they can adapt on the hoof. They were expecting to attack a lot off first phase but their platform wasn't there. Australia played well in the line out and their scrum dominance was negated by the pitch. Their third biggest attacking source was turnovers and that worked, all be it belatedly. They were playing Australia and were supremely confident in their defence because of what they were experiencing in the game - that the Aussies were not really threatening. The only surprising thing was that they didn't get a really good turnover to counter from earlier. They were also playing the referee who favours the attacking side in the breakdown. Therefore not committing too many players and fanning out made sense. It was intelligent rugby.

The 2003 side always found a way to win, even when they didn't play well. This team seem to have the composure to do that as well. Remember they also recovered from a terrible start in the first game and found a way to come back.

Good points and winning is everything. I just wish England could show a bit more enterprise than they do. Australia were parked on their door for most of the 2nd half. Defence was superb, but it was difficult to watch. The pitch, for a rugby match, was ridiculous. Perhaps I will watch it again in the comfort of knowing the result. See if I feel any different. Somehow think I will feel the same about all the ball we kicked away, when running just a few phases might have been an option.

if Australia went out and battered England in the last test, then one might be forgiven for thinking they were unlucky in the 2nd test, and found their feet in the 3rd. Bit like the lions last tour to SA, but one might largely blame the boks for showing little interest with the series wrapped up.

even with extensive team changes, you have to hope England sweep the series, or at least make a close contest of the last test. Spending another 40 minutes on their own door step, without the same defensive intensity, or a resounding defeat, would be telling in my opinion.

Australia have the upper hand knowing they simply need to convert posession, like England did, to be fair, whereas England need to stay ultra focussed. Looking forward to it. Some of the hitting has been superb.

 

[Every Time Ref]

We were playing away to the World Cup finalists, second only to possibly the greatest team to ever play the sport. Who we had never beaten in an away series. Who humiliated us in our own World Cup in our own "Fortress Twickenham" last time we played them. Of course we didn't set the world alight with glorious free-flowing rugby. If we did win this series, it was always going to be a gutsy backs-against-the-wall type win.

We won that second test largely through defence. But to say we won the series largely through defence is just plain wrong - read the match thread from the first test. Everyone, bar no-one, is in agreement that England's defence was seriously poor in that game. We won that game because (among other things) despite being defensively poor enough to ship four (arguably five) tries, we were also good enough in attack to put 39 points on them.

We did attack well in the first test, to say we didn't is rewriting history, history from a mere 11 days ago. "Attack" means more than throwing the ball wide into the 13 channel and pacy 13s / wingers sidestepping defenders. England played in the right areas, built themselves a platform from a strong set piece, battered the defenders round the ruck with short carries and put Aus under pressure so they gave away penalties in kickable positions. That is "attack". Even if you ignore the two nice tries created through their playmaker George Ford (which in itself kind of weakens the "no creativity in attack" argument), they still attacked well enough to score 25 points which is a bloody good haul in an international. If you have possession and are using it to amass points, then you are attacking effectively; there's more than one way to attack in rugby and despite our pisspoor defence, in the first test our method was better than the Australians' method.

The second test was a different game, in different conditions, that panned out a different way. So we found a different way to win. Credit to the players and coaching staff for that, rather than moaning that we "didn't play enough rugby".

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think there is anything wrong with playing conservative rugby to win an important game/cup/series, but England's tactics were poor and it's only because we were completely **** in attack that they won.

But in the first test you were really good in attack, and we won that game too, so ...

 

[Zed]

We were playing away to the World Cup finalists, second only to possibly the greatest team to ever play the sport. Who we had never beaten in an away series. Who humiliated us in our own World Cup in our own "Fortress Twickenham" last time we played them. Of course we didn't set the world alight with glorious free-flowing rugby. If we did win this series, it was always going to be a gutsy backs-against-the-wall type win.

We won that second test largely through defence. But to say we won the series largely through defence is just plain wrong - read the match thread from the first test. Everyone, bar no-one, is in agreement that England's defence was seriously poor in that game. We won that game because (among other things) despite being defensively poor enough to ship four (arguably five) tries, we were also good enough in attack to put 39 points on them.

We did attack well in the first test, to say we didn't is rewriting history, history from a mere 11 days ago. "Attack" means more than throwing the ball wide into the 13 channel and pacy 13s / wingers sidestepping defenders. England played in the right areas, built themselves a platform from a strong set piece, battered the defenders round the ruck with short carries and put Aus under pressure so they gave away penalties in kickable positions. That is "attack". Even if you ignore the two nice tries created through their playmaker George Ford (which in itself kind of weakens the "no creativity in attack" argument), they still attacked well enough to score 25 points which is a bloody good haul in an international. If you have possession and are using it to amass points, then you are attacking effectively; there's more than one way to attack in rugby and despite our pisspoor defence, in the first test our method was better than the Australians' method.

The second test was a different game, in different conditions, that panned out a different way. So we found a different way to win. Credit to the players and coaching staff for that, rather than moaning that we "didn't play enough rugby".

- - - Updated - - -



But in the first test you were really good in attack, and we won that game too, so ...

We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory! I think England were simply smarter and more clinical than Australia in the first test. We got points on the board early and should have slowed the game down and controlled it, taking penalties when they were on offer. We just weren't smart at all and the 2nd test we got even dumberer. We turned down two kickable penalties when the scoreline was 13 -7 or something. I think it's all very well having an expansive game plan, but a team needs to adapt and change as the game progresses. Australia should have switched to a more conservative game at times, kicking for territory, keeping it tight, pinning England in their 22. Instead we were running it from our tryline.. Lord knows what surprises Cheika has in store for us on Saturday..