1. Reverting to type
The sense of relief at Twickenham at the final whistle on Saturday was palpable – not for some time have an England coaching staff and playing group needed a win. And yet it was a funny old game. England had complete dominance up front, in the scrums, line-out, mauls and even breakdowns, where Chris Robshaw was especially superb. Despite all that dominance, there was never any desire to throw caution to the wind and experiment a bit in attack. They were happy to win the penalties and kick them, and play in the right parts of the pitch. You sense this was a product of the past three weeks, when they’ve failed to do just that. Had they bagged a win in either of the first two games, they might have felt the freedom to open up a bit more here, but instead it was simply a case of keeping things tight and getting the result. And to be fair if this result is repeated in a year’s time, no one will be moaning.
2. Missing Manu
In the prolonged absence of Manu Tuilagi (the number of games he’s missing a year out from a World Cup is becoming increasingly worrying) it seems that Lancaster has decided that Brad Barritt is his go-to man. He was solid as a rock again against Australia, making 16 tackles and chopping down anything that moved with the ball in yellow. Again, though, there was a real bluntness to England’s back play. Sure, they didn’t set up to run the ball very often but there were very few moments that got pulses racing amongst the crowd. Adam Ashley-Cooper, who is reasonably far down the list of skilful Australian backs, seemed to break England’s line at will, something the hosts simply failed to do. Other than knowing that Manu Tuilagi must come straight back in when he is fit, there is little certainty surrounding the centre partnership.
3. As they saying goes…
“Forwards win the match, backs decide by how many” – never was this more true than at Twickenham on Saturday. We’ve covered England’s limited gameplan in point one – Australia were the polar opposite. They gave the ball to their backs at any opportunity, and despite looking immensely dangerous at times – the aforementioned Ashley-Cooper and Matt Toomua proved a lethal partnership – you never felt like Australia were in charge of the game. Put simply, they need to sort their pack out. Michael Hooper is a superb player but him aside, there are very few players you’d put your trust in at international level in their pack. There are plenty of steady operators but the likes of Rob Simmons, Saia Fainga’a and Sekope Kepu would not make into many, if any, other tier one nations’ squads. Whether it is a case of finding new players (you sense not, so close to a World Cup) or Cheika finding some way of teaching them how to scrummage, Australia are in dire need of help up front.
4. Kicking on
For the first time this autumn, England’s kicking game was spot on. They chose the right times to kick – and selected the right kick to make – and executed them well. Ben Youngs was a big part of this – his box-kicks were on the money almost every time and it meant the likes of Rob Horne and Israel Folau – both usually so solid when receiving kicks – were under immense pressure and crumbled on more than one occasion. Credit to England’s chasers, most notably Jonny May and Anthony Watson, for turning England’s good kicks into great ones.
5. Big Ben
Ben Morgan has been one of England’s top performers throughout this series, replacing an underwhelming Billy Vunipola for the final two games and never looking back. His two tries against Australia were no less than he deserved, and showed two different traits to his game. The first involved a clever line (although most credit must actually go to the looping Tom Wood and Ben Youngs for creating the space) and then a heap of power to barge his way over, and the second showcased his ability to dribble the ball towards the line at the back of a scrum. When your pack is on top as much as England’s was on Saturday, that was a vital skill. Regardless of whether Vunipola is back fit and firing come February, Morgan deserves to start the Six Nations in the number eight shirt.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
The other thing that we learned from this game and the ones before is that refs will not ping clearly obstructing players from competing for high balls. Lost count of the number of times that England players were deliberately blocked off.
I thought it was just me that noticed that. Fair play to the Aussies, they played to the whistle, but we’re given outrageous latitude by the ref, who I thought had a poor match, typified by going to the TWO for the most obvious of legit tries.
Wasn’t just the aussies.
Staggy
The pen count was 13 – 7 in England’s favour FCOL. Do want a game like the 1 Barnes reffed last Fri night when he sent 1/5 of a team off & killed the match? Besides, no 1 side only infringes. As prev mentioned elsewhere, players can compete for the ball (it’s rugby after all innit?), so long as they don’t run into or veer across another player’s line. Maybe you’ve got yr rose tinted bins on as the majority don’t seem to have yr view do they?
Don. Watch the games please.
Don is a kiwi, therefore any amount of fwd passes, blocks, coming in from the side are justified if it results in attractive running rugby. The be all and end all.
I know Don is a kiwi and any criticism of anything AB is taken as a national insult, but he normally does view most of the rest of the games with an interesting eye (even if I often don’t agree with him!). On this occasion he is just refusing to accept what was clearly in front of him. Maybe you are right Benjit, but let’s see what happens when the aussies block off the kiwi kick chasers and we’ll see if he cries foul then!
I learnt SL says we are on track and internally they did’nt lose any belief in what they are doing.I learnt that he continues to overate where we are.We may be in for nasty shocks in Dublin and Cardiff.The pack will do well to get parity let alone dominance and we all know backs are the least capable of attack in either hemi
Would be interested you hear your explanation for the England pack struggling to gain parity when this has not been the case in match?
also I think saying the worst backs is a massive overstatement. We have a very competitive back three and good options at 10, however, centres and 9 are issues.
The record I think England will lose in Cardiff and Dublin but only by close margins due to Home advantage because all the teams are very close
We also learned that the forward pass is now acceptable.Mmmm… when did the IRFU decide that and why were we not informed?
I am happy with the result
However, we did not learn much that we did not know.
1 – we have a great pack (Big news)
2 – Ben Youngs can box kick (Really)
3 – Ben Morgon or any other N8 plays really well when the pack goes forward (a bit harsh on Billy)
4 – The scrum can win games (seen that before)
5 – Brad Barrit can tackle (nothing new)
6 – AUS pack is useless (Again nothing new)
What of the above did we learn or did we see all over again. The questions of lack of ball carriers, lack of creativity in the pack. The most important thing is we still don’t have decision makers who know when to run and when to play territory.
Ford played well and so did Youngs but I am worried that in some games the half backs are told to run so they do from everywhere, and in some (against AUS) your told to kick and scrum and we do all the time.
Our pack has shown it is good against NZ and SA (more so) however they cannot win these games by themselves, neither can the NZ pack or the SA pack. The key for England is to be able to think on their feet, games will change and we need players that can change the flow when called upon.
I think our coaches are so control obsessed that they will never pick a player who plays it as he sees it. It is once again it is about executing gameplan. NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO WIN THE WORLD CUP. That is nothing new either.
I actually think Ford is a heads up player. Farrell, for all his strengths can be a bit robotic and stick to the game plan no matter what.
I thin the fact that Ford and Farrell are so different could be a good reason to play them together. Farrell is not on his best form. He wasn’t given enough time to get back into form before being selected for England. He should have been given more game time for Sarries after returning from injury.
When Farrell is on form, he could be the ideal 12 to play alongside Ford. Tuilagi, Burrell or even Burgess could be great outside a combination of Ford and Farrell. They have aplyed a lot together for England at various levels now, and as we saw in the Samoa game (yes I know it was Samoa!!) They can play well together and link up nicely. With an attacking 13 to take it to and break the gain line, I think their combination could be our best option.
Was totally with you until your last paragraph. “It is once again it is about executing gameplan. NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO WIN THE WORLD CUP.”
This is where you completely lost me. Every world cup winning team has a very clear structure. England in ’03 had a completely clear strategy. They had the Robinsons of the world that could do something from nothing (as May did vs NZ this year) but in general we played to a very clear structure. SA in ’07 were exactly the same and NZ too in 2011 and now. Look at Ireland this Autumn. Awesome gameplan executed perfectly.
Executing a solid game plan, littered with with individuals that can create a spark, is exactly how to win world cups.
Jacob, to be fair to Ronnie I think that he is really referring to the ability to adapt the game plan when required rather than have no game plan, although I might be wrong!
You might be right to be fair – hence why I’d said I was nodding along to his post until those last few lines.
Adapting mid-game is vital. But I don’t think that means you shouldn’t have a very clear structure in place. Then again I like Farrell at 10 (when he is on form) so I’m in the minority when it comes to how rugby should be played. Personally I’m not that fussed about running rugby, I like it in parts. But I also enjoy a good forward match up, a good scrum and have loved watching Ireland’s kicking gameplan work. That to me is as exciting as a load of miss passes and offloads. i love a good structure in rugby! But as I said, pretty sure I’m in the minority.
Well I’m with you!
Staggy, Ditto. And I’ve told you a 1000 times b4, don’t exaggerate! ‘…any criticism of anything AB is taken as a national insult’. And weren’t we ‘talking’ about the Oz?
Benjit And I get accused of being 1 eyed (incl by, 4 some funny reason, Brighty! Well, I would do if he weren’t STILL holding a gludge {Saffa speak of course} after 100 yrs.), but good to see that subjectivity is still alive & well with you 2 then.
Ronnie (not Biggs from the underworld I trust!?)
‘6 – AUS pack is useless (Again nothing new)’.
Interesting piece of factual info 4 u. Oz won 100% of their scrums, England 90%. I’m not Oz as you’ll have gathered, so no skin off mine, but if you’d also looked @ other match stats, you’d have seen that the pen count was almost double Oz’s (i.e. in England’s favour), as was Oz’s t/over count. These are surely more significant (from both teams’/supporters’ pts of view I’d have thought) than this perception regds the scrum bizzo. I’d rec that you view the other match stats 2, but I don’t want to unduly depress you.
PS I have occasionally been accused of being a ‘troll’ (i.e. presumably being contrary 4 it’s own sake?) {Can u believe that? It’s ok, it was a jokey rhetorical ?, so no need 2 reply} , but yr views are surely somewhat cliched (i.e. 1, 4, 6) & are therefore not particularly constructive (incl for England or it’s coaches; if they actually ‘listened’ to this of course). England have an adequate, or capable, pack (usually do), or wouldn’t they’d have shunted all before them? The scrum can indeed win games, but if you ref to aforementioned scrum, pen & t/over stats for an alt & objective if, SH take on things.
And if you actually watched the game you’d have been the Aussie scrum go back time and time again. That is why stats are misleading. Anymore than it is useful to tell me a back had a great game for all the meters he made if he gains 80 of those meters from an intercept.
The Oz scrum got battered. If they went away thinking, “great, we won 100% on our own ball, aren’t we great scrummagers”, then they are fools. Luckily I’m sure that is not the case.
On that penalty count – I’m pretty sure a whole bunch of them were conceded at that 100% scrum of theirs.
Jacob
Interesting to have a perception to suit yr needs. I didn’t make the stats up (maybe the ST does though?), but hey, why not ignore them when convenient. It’s yr old English weakness again, believing perception over reality. E.g.; I quoted Joe Schmidt’s record v Lancaster’s & some joker (wasn’t you was it?) in return quoted, on a game by by game basis between the 2, a record which ‘looked’ comparable. However, the reality is that JS has WON 1 comp with Cleremont, 3 (maybe 2, whatever?) H Cups with Leinster & a 6N @ 1st attempt. SL’s won nuthin’. That’s reality & the bottom line. Back to the Oz/England game tho, I’ve already been over the pens (which weren’t all @ scrum btw) & their t/overs, which were a tangible diff, but with yr team’s record going down the SH gurgler (i.e. lost 6 is it?), you still persist with this ‘I’m pretty sure’ perception based stuff. Besides, as Hooper said, the Oz scrum held up in the 2nd 1/2. And if England were so scrum dominant, how come they could only win by 9 with in a 2 all try count game… with a 13 – 7 pen count… @ home… & with a NH ref to boot!? Why didn’t they shunt Oz back 10 yds @ every scrum? Additionally yr backs were ineffective (again) whereas Oz carved thru yr lot like shite thru a goose x2. Also, Cheika’s no mug having won an HC with Leinster & a S15 title with the ‘Tahs, so he’s hardly likely to believe in yr ludicrous suggestion; ‘great, we won 100% on our own ball, aren’t we great scrummagers’ baloney. Surely, this 1 dime test result v Oz should concern any discerning English supporter in the wider context of a loomIng 6N & WC? But keep persisting with yr patriotic, brouhaha perception fella. It’s bodes well for the SH that you may represent this broad English view.