England to whitewash Australia
-
<br><br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cookie" data-cid="591806" data-time="1466860529"><p>Wow 3.0. I wonder if Aus have ever scored 5 tries and lost before?<br></p></blockquote>
<br>
2000 versus ABs at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney. I think? Maybe that was only four -
<p>It's a weird feeling.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We played pretty well, all things considered. It was a fucking great series filled with bloody good rugby. And we lost every game.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I was at the SFS tonight and it was great- such a good game to watch. Just the wrong result!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>No one player had a shocker, we can't blame the scrum, or the ref, or the coach. There are no easy scapegoats here. Just... England played better. Their execution in our half was remarkable, their composure and option-taking was flawless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Give us Ireland, or Wales, or France and we might have won 3-0.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well played England. One of the greatest touring NH sides ever.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="591241" data-time="1466770350">
<div>
<p>I don't agree with this entirely. The difference between 2-1 and 3-0 is huge. As Mr Percentage said, to win the series 3-0 is like the business end of the RWC, you have to win all three hard matches to take the trophy. For England to win this series 3-0 will be a huge boost and will carry momentum on. For Aus to lose 3-0 is possibly the polar opposite. Would Cheika survive a 3-0 series loss? Especially after playing some pretty dumb rugby? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see England being a bit more adventurous but this is one time I'd be more happy seeing us play duller rugby but winning.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Hindsight being 20:20 and all that, England deserved to win by playing with a deal more enterprise than last week. Had they defended more competently the scoreline could have been more stark.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is what I was alluding to; you've demonstrated enough to win a series, but by playing with more attacking endeavour the sword has been firmly shoved through the breastplate. Or with a different bounce of the ball, one could reasonably claim that it was the end of a very long season, series already won, having a go etc. But to England's credit they kept the foot on the throat.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Looks to me like the Wallabies were genuinely lucky to make it past the quarter final stage at the World Cup and this is a reasonable reflection. The game plan they're playing to is weird, or poorly executed. The selection roundabout prevents any semblance of momentum for players.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="591820" data-time="1466866421">
<p>Looks to me like the Wallabies were genuinely lucky to make it past the quarter final stage at the World Cup and this is a reasonable reflection. The game plan they're playing to is weird, or poorly executed. The selection roundabout prevents any semblance of momentum for players.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think what it shows it the margins in top level rugby are fine.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You take Giteau, Douglas, Beale, AAC and Pocock out of our World Cup team, and we fall back a peg or two. And you add Itoje, Vunipola, Kruis, Hartley and a renewed Haskall to England (as well as better coaching) and they rise about five pegs.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I genuinely believe this was a close series, and it each game rested on 2-3 big plays. England deservedly stepped up in those moments, and that's those fine margins. In the RWC it was us stepping up.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I like our game plan. In attack it worked tonight, it worked bloody well. Was just our defence and discipline in our own half that killed us.</p> -
<p>All three games with the result in doubt up to the last few minutes is spectator gold so fair play to both sides for an bloody great series (yeah i know, easy to say when on the right side of the scoreline :yes: ). Most of the more enthralling rugby was played by Aus but most of the smarter rugby was played by England, though each had their moments elsewhere. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Commiserations to Nick, Barbs and Mick your guys were really... aw no fuck it. Ha! We won.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Great series but a bloody difficult watch for any committed fan.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Disgusted of TW" data-cid="591632" data-time="1466850338"><p>
If Itoje knocks that ball on to to HP's thigh, and it goes forward off the thigh, is that not a knock-on by HP? Whatever. Good score by Oz, but Nowell should have taken Folau. Great start to the match.</p></blockquote>
Knock on is off hands and arms.<br><br>
Forward off body is ok.<br><br>
Forward off thigh is a kick. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Disgusted of TW" data-cid="591694" data-time="1466853372"><p>
Law 12 definition from World Rugby laws:<br>
"A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.<br>
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.<br>
If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is a knock-on.<br>
If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent's hands and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier's hands, that is not a knock-on."<br><br>
So as you said Nick, just with more words.<br><br>
I think I had something at the back of my mind where off the knee was a knock on, not a kick. Then again, our Welsh brethren will remember Mark Ring who occasionally used to chip over the defensive line off his knee and gather the other side (hard to read from the defender's pov). Paul Turner used to do it too, I think. Great trick. I think maybe that was ruled "a throw forward on to the knee", and therefore a knock-on. However, back to the present day. Game on.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I see we've dealt with that :).<br><br>
There is something about chip kicking with the knee... think it got banned sometime somehow.<br><br>
Recall Spencer doing it back in the day. And a Saffa in Super rugby (Marinos?). -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="591907" data-time="1466894898"><p>I see we've dealt with that :).<br><br>
There is something about chip kicking with the knee... think it got banned sometime somehow.<br><br>
Recall Spencer doing it back in the day. And a Saffa in Super rugby (Marinos?).</p></blockquote>
<br>
Kick is knee or below. Which makes thigh a weird kind of no man's land :think: -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="591909" data-time="1466896055"><p>
Kick is knee or below. Which makes thigh a weird kind of no man's land :think:</p></blockquote>
<br>
Ok. Ta for that. But still not a knock-on when bouncing off the body in general play. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="591909" data-time="1466896055">
<div>
<p>Kick is knee or below. Which makes thigh a weird kind of no man's land :think:</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>In many different cultures.</p> -
<p>Fun game to watch - back and forth - if that was a decider it would have been epic, it did have a bit of a dead rubber feel.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Wallabies were better but in addition to their weaknesses (e.g. lineout/unbalanced forward pack, field kicking) they shoot themselves in the foot, soft needless penalties and soft mistakes (Phipps pass to Folau's ankle).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On the other hand England have great winning confidence - they've now won 9 on the trot if you count the Welsh warm up game? - they are composed and have belief in what they are doing so stick to the task and again come out with the win. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="591899" data-time="1466892133">
<div>
<p>I think what it shows it the margins in top level rugby are fine.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You take Giteau, Douglas, Beale, AAC and Pocock out of our World Cup team, and we fall back a peg or two. And you add Itoje, Vunipola, Kruis, Hartley and a renewed Haskall to England (as well as better coaching) and they rise about five pegs.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I genuinely believe this was a close series, and it each game rested on 2-3 big plays. England deservedly stepped up in those moments, and that's those fine margins. In the RWC it was us stepping up.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I like our game plan. In attack it worked tonight, it worked bloody well. Was just our defence and discipline in our own half that killed us.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Discipline particularly. Farrel's stats are amazing - he must be the best kicker in the world at the moment and the difference in score was attributable to his ability to punish errors.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree that Giteau or Beale would have made a big difference to the structure of the attack in the backs.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I still don't understand what Chieka was thinking taking Toomua off the field. Nor what he's trying at number eight.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Still, regardless of the closeness of scores, a clean-sweep in a three test series is telling.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Disgusted of TW" data-cid="591776" data-time="1466856454">
<div>
<p>I'm happy to kick that can down the road. If Eddie can deliver a big Autumn series and a second 6N (by no means a given), a big group of battle hardened English will get to test themselves in NZ with the Lions. Then, but not before, England should be ready to take on the ABs.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>There is two angles to that ,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>While im sure England should get better , </p>
<p> </p>
<p>NZ are rebuilding right now , im not sure if vulnerable is the right word , but they are re structuring and undecided on their best team, </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Im expecting in 12 months time they will be far more settled and cohesive , so it could be well be , they are there for the taking more so now than they will be later </p> -
<p>It's very much looking like England will have a good chance to improve over the next couple of years. We've had good results but have to recognise that we've ridden our luck at times. We're not world beaters as yet. The level of improvement has been impressive, although coming from a low (RWC) base in terms of results more than performance in general. It's a bright time to be an England fan but until we can beat the other top teams regularly then we have no bragging rights.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>NZ are, as Kiwinmelb says, in a astute of rebuilding. Not such an issue because the succession planning that Hansen and co have put in place means that they can lose four world class players and leaders and hardly break stride. Very impressive. NZ will inevitably get better as the newer combos are cemented and then gel. England have the greater level of improvement to aim for, which makes the next couple of years potentially very interesting but the thing is, will they achieve the level of improvement that we hope they are capable of? That, to me is less likely than the lower degree of improvement that NZ have due to their higher starting level.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Easy to talk of all this but no so easy to achieve. But as I say a bright time for England after many dark years.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pakman" data-cid="592082" data-time="1466965071">
<div>
<p>Has any team previously scored 40 points in a top tier test and LOST?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>2000 NZ v South Africa, 40-46</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2004 Wales v Argentina, 44-50</p> -
That Fijian winger is so fat! Has he been playing in Top14 or something?
