England to whitewash Australia
-
<p>It is an option. Depends on the ref we're getting. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>On attack, England played flop-ruck as they're accustomed to doing up north, and Poite let them. Was always going to be fine margins there, and with Pocock out I think we look at minimising the attack on their ball, and concentrate on ball running a bit more.</p> -
Speaking of Brown, how shocking was that knock on? He should catch those blindfolded and drunk.<br><br>
Btw, I was impressed with Foley. He has some serious pace and skill. He's becoming world class. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="586960" data-time="1465696691">
<div>
<p>Speaking of Brown, how shocking was that knock on? He should catch those blindfolded and drunk.<br><br>
Btw, I was impressed with Foley. He has some serious pace and skill. He's becoming world class.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yep, he's the new Two Dads. It was like haha they pick that guy - then all of sudden he becomes awesome.</p> -
<p>Finally caught up on the game. Definitely thought it was a step down in intensity and skill from the NZ/Wales game.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Australia standing almost Deans-era deep in attack tonight. Led to a lot of running, nice backline swings but very few gains over the advantage line. Made Foley look like a genius even though he was required to make very few decisions in traffic. That said those handful of under pressure decisions he made were quality. Unfortunately outside of Folaou very few weapons to work with. Foley's tactical kicking also impressed.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Loose trio watch and I think that is where England basically won the game. Their ability to effect turnovers and force crucial penalties against their late/lazy opposites. The mix as mentioned before the test just doesn't seem to work for Australia and even with Fardy having an uncharacteristically poor game - Pocock still appears to be the weak link. His injury likely may be a blessing in disguise for Australia.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Scrums were a bit of a mess and I'll leave that to the professionals.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Really get the feeling England are nudging back to their 2012-3 for, and hopefully Jones is able to maintain focus and close this series out next week.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Still back Australia to come back from here. Hansen is being lauded as a genius for pioneering 23 man rugby. Yet Cheika gets no credit for his new 24 man style of rugby with Nathan Grey. Absolutely comical, but unsurprising given this coaching staffs rap sheet when it comes to interactions with other players/officials.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Richie8-7" data-cid="586851" data-time="1465680063">
<div>
<p>Calm down. England were bloody good but on reflection, I didn't explicitly say it, so maybe you are entitled to your little sulk. I'll say it more clearly, I'm amazed a team with this quality were so poor in their own world cup.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Do you think Australia were at their best?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Not a sulk mate, more of a sigh. But to answer your questions while there are many of the same personnel the team is really quite different and much more settled. Also we now do not have the whole Sam Burgess issue screwing us over. We do to have coaching by numbers, in particular subbing 2,3 & 9 at the 60 minute mark every game.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Were Aus at their best? Well of course not, certainly at forward but how much of that is down to the England 8 not allowing them to be at their best? I mean, it's not like you can just take the opposition out of the equation is it? Aus looked bloody good in the backs on attack and scored some bloody good tries. So on the whole I think credit where credit is due. England put in a good performance to beat a damned good Australian side.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Both sides have room for improvement though and next week is going to be full on. Nervous as hell but can't wait.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Oh and the England back row that I was so worried about did pretty well against the Pooper. Still worried about it though.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="587082" data-time="1465717464">
<div>
<p>Not a sulk mate, moe of a sigh. But to answer your questions while there are many of the same personnel the team is really quite different and much more settled. Also we now do not have the whole Sam Burgess issue screwing us over. We do to have coaching by numbers, in particular subbing 2,3 & 9 at the 60 minute mark every game.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Were Aus at their best? Well of course not, certainly at forward but how much of that is down to the England 8 not allowing them to be at their best? I mean, it's not like you can just take the opposition out of the equation is it? Aus looked bloody good in the backs on attack and scored some bloody good tries. So on the whole I think credit where credit is due. England put in a good performance to beat a damned good Australian side.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Both sides have room for improvement though and next week is going to be full on. Nervous as hell but can't wait.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Oh and the England back row that I was so worried about did pretty well against the Pooper. Still worried about it though.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree with all of that. Not sure where you got the idea that I didn't rate the win. Well done on it. I also agree with the screw ups at the world cup. That is part of my disbelief about what occurred. What we saw last night was what I expected at the world cup and why England were my most feared team. Of course England were part of why Australia looked below their best. But not the whole reason, unless England somehow screwed with Foley's head to make him miss kicks (I know pressure does funny things but he's nailed ultimate pressure kicks before like in the world cup quarter final).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm predicting Australia 2-1, but what I say has zero impact. If it's 2-1 or 3-0 England you can say I told you so all you want. I think Australia losing Pocock is not a massive loss - in fact, it may make them stronger. He's possibly the most overrated player in my lifetime.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="587019" data-time="1465706770"><p>
Finally caught up on the game. Definitely thought it was a step down in intensity and skill from the NZ/Wales game.<br><br>
Australia standing almost Deans-era deep in attack tonight. Led to a lot of running, nice backline swings but very few gains over the advantage line. Made Foley look like a genius even though he was required to make very few decisions in traffic. That said those handful of under pressure decisions he made were quality. Unfortunately outside of Folaou very few weapons to work with. Foley's tactical kicking also impressed.<br><br>
Loose trio watch and I think that is where England basically won the game. Their ability to effect turnovers and force crucial penalties against their late/lazy opposites. The mix as mentioned before the test just doesn't seem to work for Australia and even with Fardy having an uncharacteristically poor game - Pocock still appears to be the weak link. His injury likely may be a blessing in disguise for Australia.<br><br>
Scrums were a bit of a mess and I'll leave that to the professionals.<br><br>
Really get the feeling England are nudging back to their 2012-3 for, and hopefully Jones is able to maintain focus and close this series out next week.<br><br>
Still back Australia to come back from here. Hansen is being lauded as a genius for pioneering 23 man rugby. Yet Cheika gets no credit for his new 24 man style of rugby with Nathan Grey. Absolutely comical, but unsurprising given this coaching staffs rap sheet when it comes to interactions with other players/officials.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I think that comment about the Aus backline is a wee bit unfair. I was at the game and when the Aus backline got pace on the ball (hat tip NTA) they carved up. England just played smarter rugby and for long periods prevented Aus from getting proper attacking opportunities. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Richie8-7" data-cid="587094" data-time="1465719322">
<div>
<p>I agree with all of that. <strong>Not sure where you got the idea that I didn't rate the win.</strong> Well done on it. I also agree with the screw ups at the world cup. That is part of my disbelief about what occurred. What we saw last night was what I expected at the world cup and why England were my most feared team. Of course England were part of why Australia looked below their best. But not the whole reason, unless England somehow screwed with Foley's head to make him miss kicks (I know pressure does funny things but he's nailed ultimate pressure kicks before like in the world cup quarter final).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm predicting Australia 2-1, but what I say has zero impact. If it's 2-1 or 3-0 England you can say I told you so all you want. I think Australia losing Pocock is not a massive loss - in fact, it may make them stronger. He's possibly the most overrated player in my lifetime.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Might have been this bit "<span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Australia looked a bit off their game though, I still pick them to win the series once they get going. Having a goal kicker like Farrell is so crucial. A rare off night for Foley certainly didn't help."</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Maybe I just read too much into it.</span></p> -
<p>Well done England. Bastards.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thought they were goign to get pumped but fair play they held firm and with a bit of luck, crap scrum refereeing, superb goalkicking and shifts in tempo they deserved the victory.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Next week will be very interesting.</p> -
<p>Gracious as ever Mike ;)</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="587137" data-time="1465725465">
<div>
<p>Gracious as ever Mike ;)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>England played very well in parts and quite average in others.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Deserved winners, some well constructed tries. Don't think the balance is there though. Haskell and Robson went well. They may not against the likes of Hoopah, Fardy and McMahon/Macallman which is a better balance IMHO.</p> -
<p>Yeah, we got out of jail a few times, mainly through unlikely interventions from Haskell and Itoje. Just some outlandish snaffling of the ball when we could have been in trouble. Little things like that can mean the difference between winning and sucking it up all week. I don't think we were a much better team than Aus and nor do I think we played as well as we could (Aus neither). I was most impressed by the way we didn't crumble when Aus were putting us to the sword early doors. I like the way we now seem to be building a tough battle-hardened squad that can develop together. I haven't seen this properly for a long time. Lancaster tried but then got very muddled and, IMO, undid a lot of his good work. Hopefully for Percentage Eddie, the success he's had will deflect this sort of thing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Like you, I'm concerned about the back row balance and as Aus will have to re-jig their back row to something more traditional it might be the time for Jones to bring on Clifford instead of having two locks on the bench. I don't see another alternative given the squad we have.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As someone else on here said earlier, Haskell had his best game in white. Does this mean he's finally fulfilling his potential after 70 odd caps? Late developer? Or has Eddie pushed the right buttons?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Still not a 7 though :yes:</p>
