June International Test: Australia vs. England [3rd Test] (25/06/2016)

[Nubiwan]

Poor sports and all that

I'm a Brit who (by geography) has something of a choice between watching super XV rugby or Heineken cup, as well as tri nations (rugby championship) versus 6N.

in terms of pure entertainment value, Southern Hemisphere rugby wins every time. The super rugby needs to make sure the level doesnt become too diluted with weaker teams, but I still find the majority of matches far more entertaining and open than many NH affairs.

i was so proud of England's recent series win over Australia, but most still agree, that they are a distance behind the ABs in world rugby. The abs would simply put England to the sword if they deployed similar tactics (certainly as those in the 2nd test) in games.

Also find southern hem coverage of rugby far more entertaining. The crews, particularly in oz and NZ, are simply more engaging and colourful than some of the frankly rubbish commentary in the north. SA coverage is meh, but still quite unbiased. We've never ably replaced bill McLaren in my opinion. "Mountain of a man".

Ive read a bit about bad sports in oz of late, and that might be the case in the press, but my experience with rugby commentators has been that they call it as they see it, and more often than not, I find myself in agreement with former players who do much of the work. Nesbo and Marshall are second to none in rugby coverage and pure wit during games. I also like the Ozzie tv team too, even if Kearns gets a bit biased at times. He ads the right level of bias for me to have a laugh. Make it interesting. But will still let everyone know when an oz prop has a shocker. Ultimately, if their sides lose, they credit the winners, and if there's been an element of fortune, then they'll rightly say so.

i watched the oz coverage of the recent England series, and frankly, to a man, they've all admitted England were better, in all 3 tests, and deserved to win. It's my only exposure to any potential bias, and to be fair, I heard little of it, so care less about what they stick in their papers.

as for what's posted on this board - I haven't been posting here long enough to get to know many principals - but any time your team loses 3 in a row, you're going to have those who gloat, and those who smart, and in each case, unsavoury comments made, and response in kind. That's just humanity folks.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Does it really? Eddie brought Harrison, a young 7 into this squad for the first time and against Wales he gave Kvesic his 1st cap since 2013. I'd say he's far from keeping the shirt warm for Underhill, he's building experience with Underhill's competition.


I don't think this RWC term is the 1 for Underhill. We may see him pick up a couple of caps to get him involved, but from what we've seen so far, I'd say Eddie wants Harrison and Kvesic as his 7s until and for 2019.

I agree on Billy. He makes big impacts every now and again, but I'm not sure that not having a 3rd back rowers work rate is worth it. He's simply too unfit to be an international back rower, and certainly too unfit to play the full 80, which is what Jones has had him doing. Clifford and Beaumont have the same problems as each other in my mind, both break the line, but neither seems to be willing to do the gritty work in defence or at the break down.

Hughes is the answer. Provides as much, if not more impact than Billy but is much fitter and also provides another lineout option. On top of that, he's also a hell of a lot faster than Billy, although, not as fast as Josh and Jack. He's also the best of the lot at the break down and also has a superb off loading game. The back row I'd like to see for the next 6 Nations:

6. Ewers
7. Kvesic
8. Hughes

20. Harrison

I don't think Eddie fancies either Ewers or Kvesic at all - the fact that Harrison, who no one had heard of a few months ago, and Clifford made the plane ahead of them speaks volumes. And from a line out perspective I wouldn't want to see them paired with Hughes.

Underhill is very physical, which is how Jones wants to play, and seems as if he's being groomed for greater things, mentored by Hill etc. Got a good vibe about him but only time will tell.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I didn't mention Eastmond as I was relating the situation to his England form mostly. Obviously Eastmond's dip in form has stunted JJ at Bath.

You raise a good point about JJ needing a 12 that draws defenders, I hadn't thought about that. Faz needs no more than 1 defender, defences would be more wary of a Te'o, a Tuilagi or maybe even a Mallinder.

Although I wouldn't suggest Daly take JJ's place, I do think Daly is able to create more in attack. JJ feeds off of his 10 & 12, Daly can create opportunities by himself.

For now I think the midfield should remain Ford-Farrell-JJ, but after 2017 maybe we should be looking at Ford-Mallinder-JJ. That way, we have a real attacking threat at 12, that is still able to take over kicking duties if Ford's having 1 of his bad days.

I just don't think we (saints) will develop Mallinder well enough quickly. We don't have a very good record at bringing through younger players especially in the backs. I really just don't want Burrell to stall Mallinder's development and game time.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I just don't think we (saints) will develop Mallinder well enough quickly. We don't have a very good record at bringing through younger players especially in the backs. I really just don't want Burrell to stall Mallinder's development and game time.

With Pisi getting on I wouldn't be surprised if Saints went for a semi permanent 12. Mallinder 13. Burrell pairing for next season. At 20, I think the most important thing for Mallinder is just to get game time, I'm not too bothered if, over the next season, that's at 10, 12, 13 or 15. I'm sure he'll always be able to slot in at 1 of those.

With Eastmond departing Bath, maybe Mallinder should think about heading there. It would also mean game time with Ford and Joseph.

 

[Peat]

Some interesting thoughts.

I think our backs are being a little undersold. The unit of Ford-Farrell-Joseph doesn't do anyone any favours and sets a ceiling below what the players could reach in other units. I think the star quality of the players involved would be more obvious in a stronger unit.

At the same time, I think a big part of being a star vs being an impact player is consistency. You don't have to single handedly bury the opposition every game but players who keep mixing in pretty average games with big games aren't stars. Given how young our backs are I'm sanguine that we're going to get some stars out of them, but we're not there yet.

I do see growing consistency in Ford, Farrell and Joseph though. If you watch Joseph's defensive play closely, he's really strong there. There's a bit of a concern in that he's not a true Gustard style 13 with big hits and lots of shooting, but I think both men can adapt. I also like Joseph in that even when we're not giving him the space he needs, he's still lively, he's still working, he's still ready to take the one opportunity that comes his way. It would be nice if his footwork and physicality were sufficiently advanced for him to function better when there's not much space - although he still does good there - but they're not and its not the end of the world in this unit, never mind a bigger one.

The argument between Ford and Farrell is partly a sign that they're not true stars yet, but it also a sign that we're pretty blessed. Farrell has kicked on again this year - he seems a lot better at seeing space instinctually now. I still don't like him that much as a player to run a multi-phase attack against a fairly set defence but that is hardly the end of the world. Its a shame his ball carrying isn't better as in a lot of ways, I think 12 actually looks like it suits him better. And I think everyone knows how strongly I feel about Ford at the moment.

One other positive thing I'd say for both guys - last season might just be the toughest they will ever face in rugby. They're both pretty big parts of a cataclysmic World Cup for England, having their fathers fail can't have been great. You could see their form shake at times. I don't think it ever got as bad as some say it did, but it did definitely shake. And now they've done this. I think it says great things for their mental resilience and will stand to them in the future.


As for young flankers... I think its fair to say Jones isn't really sold on any of the ones available to him at the moment.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I'm very interested to see what Jones does with the flankers, because he's given no real clues as to who he wants in the set up and where he wants them.
I'd have thought that the real options now in each position are: (Excluding Robshaw and Haskell, as Jones is clearly looking past them into the future)
6. Harrison/Ewers
7. Harrison/Kvesic/Underhill/Clifford
8. Vunipola/Clifford/Hughes/Beaumont?

So really, Ewers is the only real 6 out of our young crop. After that I imagine Jones will have Harrison and Underhill compete for 7 and Vunipola and Hughes compete for 8, with Clifford as a sub to cover all 3.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I'm very interested to see what Jones does with the flankers, because he's given no real clues as to who he wants in the set up and where he wants them.
I'd have thought that the real options now in each position are: (Excluding Robshaw and Haskell, as Jones is clearly looking past them into the future)
6. Harrison/Ewers
7. Harrison/Kvesic/Underhill/Clifford
8. Vunipola/Clifford/Hughes/Beaumont?

So really, Ewers is the only real 6 out of our young crop. After that I imagine Jones will have Harrison and Underhill compete for 7 and Vunipola and Hughes compete for 8, with Clifford as a sub to cover all 3.

My money says Itoje will be a factor in this...

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Well done to England. Admittedly disappointed in the Wallabies, not how I imagined the series to go.

 

[Zed]

Pots/kettles ragerancher. You want to take a long hard look at your own sports media sometime and see it from an outsiders perspective. The British Sports media is without any doubt the - worst - sports media the planet.




This is a vulgar cheap-shot.

If I was an Australian, I would find this extremely rude and degrading, and if I was in a bar with you and you came out with this kind of remark, you would find yourself on the floor holding your face.

.

chill mate. Australians are lots of things, but we're certainly not easily offended. In fact I'm offended that you would think we would be offended by the comment.

- - - Updated - - -

The Aussies will have a hard time accusing us English of whinging after how they have acted through this series, nothing but constant accusations of cheating, ref bias and saying we only won because Australia were bad. You would think after the attitude displayed in their media before the tour that they might show some humility but nope

most of the credible media outlets have praised the England team and admitted Australia lost because we weren't simply good enough. Perhaps we could talk about missed penalties in the first two tests, but we were done over in the 3rd test. England won fair and square. I did have a quick read of the Australian today, but it was a bit of a joke, two articles, one discussing the linesman interfering with Australia's line out and the other about the ball hitting the overhead wire leading to England's try.. **** poor sports journalism...

 

[InsaneAsylum]

we hate most of our mainstream media. the standard of journalism has diminished over the years not just sport either, mostly now click-bait crap with spelling mistakes.

Also agreed, most Aussies don't easily get offended. Maybe the LGTBI Feminist Marxist arts/gender studies PhD student would be easily offended or perhaps outraged.

 

[Which Tyler]

And here's some analysis from one of the best rugby journo.s around:
http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries...lands-attack-helped-whitewash-australia-59295

 

[msf]

I think whoever said that Australia has a higher ceiling than England is kind of missing the point. They definitely have (and will always have) a higher ceiling in terms of back play, but that is only one of the ways you can win a match. This series has shown up their set-pieces, their kicking game, and their game sense. The question is, who can improve more, England with their back play or Australia in the three areas I mentioned above? Both need look beyond their traditional games to improve, but the areas that England holds the edge in are more important for winning games of rugby.

Of course, to regularly beat NZ is another thing entirely, but I am quite confident that England will regularly beat Australia for at least the next few years.

 

[Timbo]

Great analysis. Very impressive stuff from England and really highlights the variety in our attacking game.

 

[msf]

In terms of England evolving their game, I think Robson will be key. If he can match Youngs in terms of his decision-making and work around the fringes, then his quicker service should give the backline more space. The other key questions are who plays at 12 and 15. If we play Tuilagi or Te´o at 12 we need a better ball player than Joseph at 13, either Slade or Daly, which should increase Ford´s kicking percentages as they can take on the long (and with Daly, very long) range kicks. If we stick with Farrell, we really need some punch on the wings, either Yarde or Rokoduguni (or even Tuilagi, at a pinch). At 15, Watson, Haley, or (if he plays there regularly) Swiel would add another dimension in both attack and on the counter. The trick for Jones is how he introduces these changes into the team. Does he do it over the next year, despite the fact that the current team are good enough to beat all the teams we will play over that period? Or does he wait until this current line-up fails to beat the All Blacks? What happens if we beat them? We would have a fairly good chance at home, but what about when we have to play them over there or in Japan? The good thing is that we can rest assured that Jones has a plan for all of this, which is a big improvement on Lancaster, where the plan was something like, let´s see if Twelvetrees can hack it? (Two years later) He can´t? OK, back to Barritt! Unlike Lancaster, Jones will have a plan C, D, E...

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Zed]

We would have a fairly good chance at home, but what about when we have to play them over there or in Japan?

- - - Updated - - -

If they're going over to NZ to play 2, 3 games at the end of the NH season I would hope Eddie Jones would be able to force the clubs to rest players before the head out on the tour. The playing schedule for NH players is ridiculous in comparison to SH players who get god knows how many months off.

 

[msf]

If they're going over to NZ to play 2, 3 games at the end of the NH season I would hope Eddie Jones would be able to force the clubs to rest players before the head out on the tour. The playing schedule for NH players is ridiculous in comparison to SH players who get god knows how many months off.

I agree with your point. I just remembered that Jones won´t have to play NZ over there unless he stays beyond the next World Cup. We are going to tour SA in 2018, I believe. So he could just select conservatively to win the home games and the tour to SA, and hope we don´t get have to play NZ at the World Cup on a sunny day. I don´t think this is what he will do, however, as he has said he wants the team to be no.1 in the world, and has talked about improving the attack constantly.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

I think whoever said that Australia has a higher ceiling than England is kind of missing the point. They definitely have (and will always have) a higher ceiling in terms of back play, but that is only one of the ways you can win a match. This series has shown up their set-pieces, their kicking game, and their game sense. The question is, who can improve more, England with their back play or Australia in the three areas I mentioned above? Both need look beyond their traditional games to improve, but the areas that England holds the edge in are more important for winning games of rugby.

Of course, to regularly beat NZ is another thing entirely, but I am quite confident that England will regularly beat Australia for at least the next few years.

England seem to be our bogey team. they seem to be able to focus on and exploit the Wallabies weaknesses like no other team can. In saying that, I feel our line out didn't operate too badly - it has improved since the world cup where it was dismal, from the time we played England to the final. Also our scrums improved slightly over the course of the 3 games. The area that we were mainly exploited by England was line pressure, especially on Phipps and Foley who folded like a cheap plastic deck chair. Foley doesn't have a big enough boot on him which affects our clearance/tactical kicking, as well as place kicking - he needs to go for extra distance which results in him hooking kicks.

 

[msf]

What about the incredibly poor game management? The going for the try at the end of the first test, and throughout the 2nd test? Also, England´s kicking game was far superior, and that wasn´t just down to Foley, but also Phipps and Folau (and not playing a ball player at 12).

 

[InsaneAsylum]

What about the incredibly poor game management? The going for the try at the end of the first test, and throughout the 2nd test? Also, England´s kicking game was far superior, and that wasn´t just down to Foley, but also Phipps and Folau (and not playing a ball player at 12).

yeah all of those - Wallabies need to play smarter Rugby. England proved that you can win games by scoring less trys than your opponent. Wallabies mentality was just "if we score more trys than England we will win"

Foley isn't bad with ball in hand, he was atrocious in Melbourne but improved in Sydney. His kicking game is inadequate though. Having Toomua at 12 took the pressure off Foley's kicking game.

Phipps inaccurate and slow service cost us, Folau is also not a great kicker. if only Phipps has crisp service along the lines of Aaron Smith, and Haylett Petty played at full back, I think that's a much better fit for the Wallabies - trouble is Folau would have to fit in at 13 or 14 as he's far too talented to leave out.

don't get me wrong, I don't think the Wallabies are a basket case - England have improved out of sight in a short space of time, but the Wallabies have a lot of work to do between now and August.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

yeah all of those - Wallabies need to play smarter Rugby. England proved that you can win games by scoring less trys than your opponent. Wallabies mentality was just "if we score more trys than England we will win"

Foley isn't bad with ball in hand, he was atrocious in Melbourne but improved in Sydney. His kicking game is inadequate though. Having Toomua at 12 took the pressure off Foley's kicking game.

Phipps inaccurate and slow service cost us, Folau is also not a great kicker. if only Phipps has crisp service along the lines of Aaron Smith, and Haylett Petty played at full back, I think that's a much better fit for the Wallabies - trouble is Folau would have to fit in at 13 or 14 as he's far too talented to leave out.

don't get me wrong, I don't think the Wallabies are a basket case - England have improved out of sight in a short space of time, but the Wallabies have a lot of work to do between now and August.

I think the Wallabies had a sense of arrogance in this series that cost them. I don't say that to simply reverse the common accusation thrown at us English but there was a lack of respect. Had the Aussies respected the English and taken 3 points when they were on offer, even with Foleys poor kicking, they could have won. As it was the Aussies went for the lineout time and time and time again thinking they could just get the tries. It's the sort of action teams take in few situations:

1) Their lineout and driving maul is excellent and they have already beaten the team with it
2) They desperately need the 7 points in the dying stages of a game
3) They think they are much better than their opposition and don't need to keep the scoreboard ticking over.

I suspect the Aussies were option 3. We saw the disdain for the England team at the start of the tour and it slowly but surely got stripped away, GAGR for example predicted Aussie wins every single game. I do think the Australian team needs to learn to show a bit more respect to their opposition and not approach the game expecting it to be a walkover.