By Darren Walton
November 16th 2008 @ 6:45am
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
Wallabies win breaks Twickers drought
The Wallabies served up some sweet revenge with a gritty 28-14 victory over England in Saturday’s Cook Cup Test at Twickenham.
An inspired second-half revival and a record goalkicking performance from five-eighth Matt Giteau were enough to give the Wallabies their first win over England at rugby’s spiritual home since 2004.
The backs-to-the-wall triumph, after the Wallabies had fallen 14-12 behind in the 51st minute, was a payback of sorts for England’s shock World Cup quarter-final win over Australia in France 13 months ago.
And it was an especially satisfying win for the maligned Australian scrum, which scored a clear points victory over the vaunted English pack which had mauled the Wallabies front row in Marseille, and equally so at Twickenham in 2005.
In a powerful display, the Wallabies forwards - led up front by props Al Baxter and Benn Robinson and hooker and man of the match Stephen Moore - were awarded three scrum penalties, and, tellingly, also secured two scrums against the feed.
England loosehead Andrew Sheridan, the architect behind his side’s World Cup win in Marseille, cut a dejected figure after being replaced with 13 minutes remaining, his pride battered and his side’s scrum on its knees.
The match was in the balance at halftime, with Australia clinging to a 12-11 lead after England had clawed their way back into the contest in the key five minutes before the interval.
Giteau booted Australia to an early 6-0 advantage with two penalty goals in the opening six minutes.
South African referee Marius Jonker called time off in the 17th minute to bark out some instructions to the two front rows following a series of scrum collapses.
“You need to get the scrum up and take responsibility,” he ordered.
England upped the tempo midway through the half and only a Giteau trysaver on hooker Lee Mears denied the home side the game’s first five-pointer in the 20th minute.
England eventually posted their first points through a 35-metre drop goal from fullback Delon Armitage two minutes later before two further penalty goals to Giteau in the 26th and 32nd minutes pushed the Wallabies out to a 12-3 lead.
England were denied a try by the video referee shortly after when replays were unable to determine if Sheridan was able to ground the ball in a desperate tackle from Wallabies halfback Luke Burgess.
But Australia could not keep England No.8 Nick Easter out in the 35th minute as the hosts narrowed the gap to four points.
A penalty goal to five-eighth Danny Cipriani a minute before the break set up a tense second half.
England hit the lead briefly through a second Cipriani penalty, but Australia responded in style, producing some enterprising counter-attack to take play deep into the opposition quarter, where Giteau slotted another penalty to nudge the Wallabies back in front.
He added a sixth - equalling Michael Lynagh’s record as the most by an Australian in a Test match against England - to leave the Wallabies ahead 18-14 on the hour.
Mortlock’s 48-metre effort gave Australia further breathing space before the Wallabies drove the nail in England’s coffin with a converted try to fullback Adam Ashley-Cooper 12 minutes before fulltime.
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(47)
mtngry said | November 16th 2008 @ 8:31am | Report comment
For Politics the line is,”It’s the economy stupid”. For Rugby, its the scrum.
I wonder if the English press will complain about the refs scrum calls or crucify the new English manager?
sheek said | November 16th 2008 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Well, I didn’t see the game. Got up at 6am, turned on the computer, & there it was - 28 to 14 Australia. Wow, I thought, that scoreline looks like 3 tries to one.
Wrong, one try apiece, & 7 penalties to Oz. I thought we watched rugby for the tries mostly? No matter. Great win by the Wallabies considering the history of the recent past. The scrum aimed up, & the team held its nerves. Can’t complain about that!
Benjamin said | November 16th 2008 @ 8:40am | Report comment
mtngry, Stephen Jones is already making snide comments about Johnson which if you read the full articles are clearly quite illogical and misinformed. My guess is that he’s been marginalised by the current set up. I think some of the calls against Sheridan could have gone either way because he was binding on Sheridan’s arm but ultimately Australia won the scrum war so no point crying over spilt milk. I’d be surprised if the media called it anyway.
Sheek, it was a new kicking record by Giteau. Better a W than an L.
Mark H said | November 16th 2008 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Now England know what its like to be booted out of a game. Ugly, poor comms in the middle but a wins a win.
LeftArmSpinner said | November 16th 2008 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Well, a very good win and hopefully more signs that the renaisance is underway. I’m hoping that we are witnessing the birth of another rugby dynasty on the back of young, committed skilfull and tenaciously competitive players and team spirit.
As with the Tri Nations wins, young, emerging teams start with glimpses of brilliance but inconsistent performances. So too with this team to date. later, they emerge from this period and progress to greatness and consistency.
The most pleasing aspect was the tenacity that evey player showed, even the players I have been critical of recently.
Sharpe chased and tackled, the props led at scrum time and played the full 80, the backrow was better with more ball and with Palu who showed, finally, his S14 form in attack and defence, at test level. Smith was Smith.
Burgess and Giteau had a mixed bag but never stopped trying and that is all you can ask. Both were great in cover defence. Communication needs to improve between them. Giteau may not be the answer at 5/8, but this is a small problem. Importantly, Giteau did the goal kicking job very well.
Mortlock was inspirational in word and deed, finally, and in both attack and defence. Cross and Hynes were great in a tight match, particularly at the breakdown, each with at least one turnover.
AAC and Mitchell were safe without being great. Mitchell didnt have much opportunity. AAC should run the kicks back more often, as long as he has the support from the back row.
England are a completely new team and also full of youngsters. Given their short preparation, This could also be a team that will grow to be great. The backrow were excellent at the breakdown and the pack were very good in attack. Cipriani is special. THe centres and back three all played committed rugby. No defensive turnstiles here.
Perversely, maybe England need to find some young props to blood for RWC 2011.
Finally, England now play a game that is suited to the full suite of ELVs. Thank God they are still focused on the battle (seeking control for control’s sake) not the war (fast, open, flowing and entertaining rugby).
ulysses said | November 16th 2008 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Benjamin - agree some scrum calls could have gone either way; but scrum calls can always go either way if you have packs relatively even and a ref without preconceptions. By the end, Jonker could be heard over the commentary telling England repeatedly to take the hit and not pull back.
Anyway - could you comment further on Eng selections? The replacements Haskell and Shaw in particular looked like they should have been starting? Easter looked slow and almost ponderous from 8? Borthwick active but without a lot of impact…?
On the other side, Palu seemed much more effective coming on as a replacement at 50 min mark for mad-dog Brown. Seemingly able to be more dynamic in hits and runs. But always easier in a pack with its tail up.
Mortlock got better as the game went on - but a very rough start with dropped passes, incl one in a great position on Giteau’s break from the English lineout, charged down kicks, silly penalty given away for blocking Sackey on a chip, etc. Really wonder if he will be there next year …. ?
AAC - not bad - although the dropped ball to set up England’s try was bad - Dean’s has given him a good long go - but is he the answer…? Love to see Mitchell a chance at full back when presumably Lote comes back or Ione/Turner get another go.
And we must admit it - Nathan Sharpe had a great game; one of his best for a long time. Strong at the kickoffs mostly, ruled the lineouts, must have been pushing in the scrums! and best of all - did NOT get the ball in his hands too many times, but rather did his real job.
So Benjamin - you were pretty confident in early postings of wins over Aus and SA by England. How do you see next week’s SA game now?
Wallabies for next week against France … will need to play Giteau, Mortlock, Cross again in the midfield - no other first line options on tour. And despite the great win; the midfield was pretty ordinary again just like in Italy. Cipriani and Flutel looked much more likely.
TommyM said | November 16th 2008 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Ulysses- SHARPE!! I think that’s the best game I’ve ever seen him play. He was everywhere in the loose and the tight. Superb in the lineout and showed great skills throughout. I(and I’m sure many others) had totally written his Wallabies carrer off earlier in the year. I think the beard and Friar Tuck have to stay!
What a bizarre game. Total role reversal. I though England played the better attacking rugby and looked more threatening throughout most of the game, while being dominated in the tight. Incredible. Fantastic signs for the Wallabies though, as our backs are surely only a few neuronal connections from connecting though and then hopefully we’ll see a slick back line funning from good clean ball. Definitely think this game highlighted the need for another playmaker i.e Barnes at 12 though. Just not enough communication and poor distribution. Agree with many that Giteau needs to go back to 12 and Barnes (next year) to 10.
Thought the English were clearly trying to continue the same theme with the scrums at the start- milking penalties from a supposedly weak Aussie pack. As soon as Jonker cottoned on and started penalising them, they stopped, and miracle of miracles, we pummeled them. That scrum on 63 minutes and later having Sheridan go off hurt made my heart soar
Onwards and upwards for an improvement in the backs next week and a GRAND SLAM!!
Also must say- Burgess had an absolute shocker I though. Ponderous. Kept grabbing the ball before looking and getting himself isolated with it.
Palu definitely had a massive impact- amazing what he can do when he’s actually playing to secure a spot! Let’s hope he keeps it up.
TommyM said | November 16th 2008 @ 9:38am | Report comment
uh,’ running’ that should read…
Benjamin said | November 16th 2008 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Ulysses, I agree. Scrum interpretation is a problem but Australia won today. Their tight five had an excellent day and it doesn’t hurt to admit that. England were found out and they need to address that asap. It will be interesting to see how the Australian scrum develops because the way it has progressed bodes very well for the 3N next year, especially as the SA scrum has had some problems this tour.
Borthwick was selected as captain for his ‘leadership’ and his lineout work. Fair enough but then he shouldn’t be anywhere near the ball. He is a poor, poor runner and always takes it upon himself to truck it up - often getting driven back and ruining any chance of quick ball. His decision making was poor and the lineout was shaky. He isn’t big enough for 4 nor athletic enough for 5. Todays game must surely be his death knell. Simon Shaw must get a game at 4 and Kennedy must be reinstated. Palmer was included for his ruck work and was basically invisible so he should drop out. The problem is that Wasps have had a poor season and aren’t really the form GP players, however Haskell put himself about a bit and deserves a start. I would still stick with Easter as the front five’s work put everybody on the back foot. He plays with Care at Quins and so they have an 8-9 relationship.
I think that if Johnson is going to play entirely new backs he might as well do the same in the pack. I would drop Vickery and Borthwick and play Stevens and Kennedy. In an ideal world I would have had Julian White and Danny Grewcock on the bench just for that grunt and experience but at least Johnson has come out and said that Smith is attemtping to impose new patterns. The problems with static ball today arose through lack of trust and experience. That will develop.
Palu was the epitome of impact sub today and deserves a start. I thought Brown was invisible. McMeniman had a good game also.
Benjamin said | November 16th 2008 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Ulysses, just saw your last para.
I’m not sure really. I still think that had Johnson selected a different team and Simpson-Daniel been fit England could have beaten Australia. He chose a lighter pack for a loose game and Australia didn’t allow that to materialise, having said that England still had over 60% of possession so the forwards must have been doing something right and the backs showed wit and verve. At the 60 min mark it was anybodies game and Australia did score through juvenile English errors, if that can be remedied then it’s a level playing field theoretically. I’m not sure how that will translate to the SA game though. I really don’t rate the Springboks currently but if the England pack isn’t altered then their big back row will wreak havoc. Who knows? Today would have been a big learning curve for the team and now it’s all to play for. Depending on the selections I would back England.
westy said | November 16th 2008 @ 10:56am | Report comment
I wrote elsewhere the exquisite irony………….England would have faired much much better with the full array of SH ELVS. The referee not only at the end of the game was warning England not to pull back in the scrum but he says early in response to a English query “So are you” To the referee’s credit and not the crowds he refereed what was in front of him.That is early on 2 competitive packs where it is true penalties may have gone either way….but that was the point .The English assumed a superiority. As the game went on the Wallaby front row got better and better………..the true test became apparent when they finally did bind and hit properly……the scrum just before the English try 5 metres out from the Wallabies line and it was the the Australian scrum that held solid and effectively wheeled the scrum … it was the Wallaby pack that had the drive…by the second half………the English pack were adopting an old Wallaby strategy of trying to milk scrum penalties or illegal scrummaging.
Paradoxically it may be England that needs to find new props for the next World Cup.
Mortlock is getting older. But he played a tremendous captains game. That tackle that drove Flutey back and his bullocking run near the line brought back early memories. This game was important to him Giteau’s goalkicking under pressure was very good.Sharpe well what can one say to a three point performance and best player on the park. Moore ’s lineout throwing was good. One should not forget also the play of the front row in general play. Palu is certainly our impact player.
England’s backline play was more enterprising ….but errors at the breakdown and turnovers due to good defence were critical.
The point of those of us who argue that Giteau is our future 12 is that we are a side I think that needs two playmakers….a primary one and a secondary one……….Giteau is the secondary one. Our organisation is terrible when Giteau is not available or isolated……….Burgess does not seem to get a call from anyone …and sometimes the positioning of forwards of the ruck impeded wide ball or forced him to hesitate. We look much better with a go to man with inside or outside runners .Burgess was like a startled rabbit at times unfortunately isolating himself at times.
bennalong said | November 16th 2008 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Phew! What a win! What an impoertant win for the side.
Robbie Deans is a confidence coach. He inspires confidence in self and he shows confidence in his players. It seems to me what was lacking was the teams confidence in the team. That dreadful loss in South Africa seemed to put doubts in everyones minds—including the rugby public.
But this game gives us a confident set piece platform and it won’t let us down. Forewards confidence? (Tick)
That leaves the backs…………………………..
In another string after the game I was critical of GITEAU at five eight. I can’t resile from that. But he’s out of position and his work last night was fantastic.
We now have a kicker (Tick) …………………………………………Good on you Gits ! ! !
I said in the other string that our attack frequently ended quickly with a penalty in the English half (converted tick tick tick…..)
I think this gives a false impression of our back line attack which was actually quite good.
Most important, our defense in broken play was fantastic with every man committed to stop an impressive display of foreward momentum by the English……………….. (the tackle count again displays the way our movements were terminated by a penalty giving a false impression that they were the attacking side)
But more often than not that impressive display was halted by a committed, scrambling Wallaby defense ! (Tick)
This is the stuff that makes a team great. This is Rugby. A team annealed by a great win AWAY
GO YOU WALLABIES ! ! ! !
Justin said | November 16th 2008 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Was the crowd after the final whistle booing AUS or ENG?
sambobly said | November 16th 2008 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
I think the Wallabies back line attack was stifled by the constant stream of penalties given away by the english. When the Wallabies were getting a roll on the English would cynically foul, which is the reason for the lack of fluid back play and also for Git’s steady stream of goal kicking opportunities. If this game was played under the half arm sanction ELV then I think the Wallabies would have still won by a similar margin, but they would have scored more tries.
On another note, how good was that scrum in the 63rd (?) minute! It warmed me to the cockles of my heart.
The Link said | November 16th 2008 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
The pack held well, defence kept them in the game and Sterling was the difference, a great player.
Burgess is not of test standard and his lack of passing skills and vision was embarrassing at times. Enthusiasm only gets you so far.
Ryan Cross doesn’t appear up to it as well, but he’ll have to do for the time being.
A game Australia would’ve lost more times than not over the last 5 years, question is can they back it up?
Mike said | November 16th 2008 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Well for a mostly rough performance, that left me ecstatic. Mostly due to the scrummaging result. I knew the Wallabies were a better scrum than that, and as time has gone on, the media are making the performance of 2005 sound worse and worse. People also forget that they didn’t seriously dominate us in the WC quarter, they were better for most of it sure, but they beat us then because they caned us at the breakdown. This is why I was not surprised to see the scrum perform so well against a team considered a bogey.
Sure, having a southern hemisphere, non-Aussie-hating ref helped. But the boys have worked hard, and got their just reward.
Stephen Jones…? Meh. He’s never known what he’s talking about….
Just want to add a little bit of my own logic to the scrum collapsing issue. Often, scrums just collapse, and nobody actually tries to collapse them. Sometimes both teams collapse them. Unfortunately, refs become laden with baggage as do the rest of us, on account of whatever it is the media wish to harp on about. So when a ref who has never packed down in a scrum in his life, sees a scrum go down, most of the time he can only guess why.
That said, if everyone had been claiming you collapse the scrum because you are weak and no good at scrummaging, would you seriously ever TRY to collapse one?? I don’t think so, you’d be trying to prove them wrong. Conversely, if you had publicly slated an opponent for continually collapsing the scrum, would you not also be inclined to collapse it yourself with a reasonable belief that the ref would assume it is your maligned opponent who is doing it, not you?? Of course you would.
Lastly, I was still fuming at our continual (and recently acquired) habit of kicking the ball back to them whenever we get it into our hands!! No wonder the tackle count was so lop-sided. When they had the ball in hand, they tried their best to keep it there… we just kept kicking it back.
Nuff said, sucked in to them.
Doctor Best said | November 16th 2008 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
When the Wallabies won I cheered and came out of my chair. Then I thought, wait a second, I posted a prediction on this forum a few days back - no way could the Ws beat England, I said. In fact, I offered to eat my stethoscope if they did. Well, being a man of my word, I was forced to. But I didn’t eat it raw like licorice. I chopped it up fine, sauteed it in a little garlic butter, with a pinch of thyme and a soupcon of oregano, and served it with a fluffy rice pilaff. It wasn’t bad. If I get the next game wrong, I’m planning to serve my tongue depressor in a sauce soubise.
ulysses said | November 16th 2008 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
I know we love to get stuck into Stephen Jones here - but read his Sunday Times piece today. Pretty fair summary from an English point of view, and quite enough gracious compliments to the Wallabies to be going on with.
re Burgess - not sure. He did look hesitant quite a few times and get badly caught, but I think that is more as Westy put it because Gits wasn’t there and so there was no other organisation or options for him to go to. He had to look and look, then run a bit, duck back inside, and get smashed. Not really his fault - and better play than throwing a 50:50 ball to a player further away from the supporting pack. Give him Barnes at 10/12 as well as Gits and his game will improve as well.
ohtani's jacket said | November 16th 2008 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Congrats to the Wallabies and all of the Aussies here.
Harry said | November 16th 2008 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Firstly and most importantly, congratulations to Al Baxter who has been maligned far and wide - including on this site and I am one of the biggest maligners - who can raise two fingers to the lot of us (particularly the pommy press) today after a superb performancwe both in the scrum and around the park. Also to Hugh McInjury who i thought came of age as a test starting forward today (was he injured at the end? We need him fit for the Frogs at least). Ans also another favourite target of abuse of Roarers, myself included, Nathan Sharpe, he had a fine game.
By geez our backs were ordinary though - apart from the goal kicking.
Still a great and uplifting win and for us Wallaby supporters there is real indication of progress - I am confident the backline’s attacking capabilities will improve once Cooper, Beale, O’Conner etc get another season of S14 and if Barnes can stay on the field to support Gits. Burgess once again only so-so.
Harry said | November 16th 2008 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Westy agree that is why we need Barnes at 12 or Cooper/Beale to step up and be a starting Test 10
Yikes said | November 16th 2008 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
I don’t think the scrum penalties were inappropriate. The loose head must bind first, and it was clear that the Pom loose head was missing the bind quite often. Baxter was quite low and didn’t help on occasions, but first things first.
A quick defense of Burgess - I thought he had a shocker, but like ulysses I don’ think it was all his fault. As has already been mentioned, there did not seem to be much phase play organisation for him to work with, BUT the big thing for me was that he was not always protected by his forward pack.
Too often he was being played by fringing ruck players who should have been dealt with by a solid clean out. Sometimes we would secure possession with the clean out, but not secure clean possession. We were lucky that a couple of times these fringing players were fringing a little too much, were offside and got penalised. But often Burgess was easily interfered with and this effected good service.
Worlds Biggest said | November 16th 2008 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Stephen Moore played well but was he the Official Man of the Match ??. Sharpe was outstanding and by far the best player on the field. The scrum finally aimed up, front row played well in general play also. Chisholm and McMenimen were quiet. Brown was solid but not a natural ball carrier like Cliffy. Smith was his usual self. Burgess had a shocker and really needs a mentor to refine his game. He is talented but over plays his hand way too much stuffing around doing the Gregan side shuffle at the base. Giteau controlled things well with great kicking. Mortlock had a big 2nd half, Cross was solid but seems too one dimensional. The back three did there jobs, Hynes cover defence excellent, AAC needs to run it back a lot more. Mitchell didn’t see much ball. Paul made a big difference when he came on, Mumm didn’t get a lot of time. Why didn’t Dingo get every sub on ?. Cordingly should have come in with 20 to go, TPN with 15 to go Cooper & Ioane with 10 to go. Understand he wanted to secure win but at least get them all on when the game was won. We didn’t play that well so a great win. England played well in stages and had us on the ropes at the end of the first half. There turn overs were just unbelievable. Still they have some real young talent. Bring on France in Paris, another big test for our guys.
Worlds Biggest said | November 16th 2008 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
Just had a thought and not trying to take shine off the win, however Dingo left 4 subs on the bench of an absorbing contest. Given every player that get’s on the field are guarenteed 10-12 k each perhaps some cost cutting was factored in. That is a saving of between 40-50 k in match payments for the players that didn’t get on. Call me pessimistic however the ARU are cash strapped corect ?.
ulysses said | November 16th 2008 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Have to disagree with you Worlds Biggest re the subs or lack thereof. I think one of the best things about Deans is that he doesn’t automatically chuck all the subs on with 20 or less to go - he judges it. He gave the front row the chance to play the full 80 minutes and feel what it is like to dominate the other front three in the last 20 mins. A rare feeling for them and I suspect a huge boost to their self-confidence and self-belief. They were going so well - why risk TPN and Dunning for godsake. But he did bring on Mumm and Palu to refresh the back 5 - and Palu looked much better as a second half impact sub than a starter. Bringing on Cooper for Cross (presumably) would have been a big risk defensively when they were trying to close the game out - so correct call. Ione - maybe. And yes, Cordingley may have been good with Burgess getting a little flustered. But Cordingley is gone in 3 matches time, Burgess is the one they (currently) want there at RWC11 - so it makes complete sense to give him every minute of real game time possible. Remember he has not even had one full season of starting S14 so far.
I really love the fact that Deans, although coaching the full squad, seems to put more status and responsibility on the starting 15 to do the job; with the 7 reserves not automatically getting on the park just to add to their tally of caps. They only get on for a specific reason or need.
Worlds Biggest said | November 16th 2008 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
Fair points raised, I just feel the experience would have been great for TPN and Cooper much like it was for Giteau in 2002 when that game was in the balance. Isn’t this why youngsters are taken away on Tours in the first place. There are no midweek games to blood them so off the bench in Tests is the only avenue for them these days. Ioane for Hynes would have been fair and while Cordingly is leaving I still would have brought him on as Burgess was struggling. Yes he is the future presumably unless there are other options. However if he isn’t performing on the field why comprimise the team performance. It’s all immaterial now though & Dingo has his reasons and it was justified.
tarpo said | November 16th 2008 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
Worlds Biggest, If the ARU are that strapped for cash, Lote must have a Tourist clause written in to his contract, nice holiday!
Ulysses, spot on, give the guys that started the chance to finish. When Gits was thrown on debut as a raw 20 year old with the match in the balance at Twickers it did more damage than good, for the team as well as the individual, he had a Barry Crocker-remember?
I was screaming for Cordingly with 20 to go, Burgo was making too many mistakes (his fault or not).
Would have considered Ioane for AAC moving Micthell ( who was busy & effective) to FB.
LeftArmSpinner said | November 16th 2008 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
The aussies back line ran two moves all game and nothing complex. A sign of the times, the personnel, and the lack of possession. This can improve.
I have changed camps and now think that Giteau needs to be at 12 long term with a big 13, to do the crash ball runs that Mortlock did last night. Barnes, Beale or Cooper need to get some time in 10.
I thought the tackling was brilliant from every Wallaby. Head on-covering-aggressive-brutal-dominant.
Finally, the kicking game from Fullback needs to be revisited. As others have said above, gives away too much possession if the opposition back three can catch. Armitage was great. Maybe against smaller opponents, it might work. Surely , the back row can predict and link up with backs if the fullback runs the ball back. AAC has the skill and footwork, but currently, lacks the confidence or is scarred of creating a turnover.
LeftArmSpinner said | November 16th 2008 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
forgot to mention that the starting 15, excepting Brown played at full “volume” until the game was won in the last 6 or so minutes, despite the huge number of tackles. maybe Deans recent camp has addressed fitness!!!
Graeme Syms said | November 16th 2008 @ 6:04pm | Report comment
Freddy Allen, captain of the WW II grand slam winning KIWIS, and later ace All Black Coach, coined the phrase “3 P’s” - first position, second possession then pace. To those three we can now add a fourth P; power. But power is relatively ineffective if it is not synergised. Fred’s Kiwis were battle hardened troops with endurance and stamina built up over six years of hard fighting in the Middle East, Sicily, Italy and Germany. Fred later grandfathered endurance & stamina as pre-requisite training before his 3 p’s - and that doctrine is now built into the very fabric of all NZ elite rugby training.
Hats off to Robbie Deans’ endurance & stamina building training persistance with the current Wallabies. Not an easy task to break our old habits of “pacing yourself ” as we have in the recent past. Against a fit England, we had more men at the breakdown and with manifested energy there in the 60 & 70th minutes than we have seen since the John Eales era. And the best is yet to come!
Arky said | November 16th 2008 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
Wasn’t your day Benjamin - funny to see the wallabies using the opposition error rate and field position to produce the goods. As the Sheek said it was what we typcially see from England. Wallabies forwards were all over the English pack - thought the hand in the scrum showed how desperatly the English pack were hanging on - and will only be more so with the likes of Horwill and Elsom. Fitness also took toll on the English. Early days but Deans is well and truly on the right track.
ulysses said | November 16th 2008 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
LAS - point of detail - Mumm replaced Chisholm about same time as Brown/Palu sub I think. But your overall point re fitness stands - especially for front row as per my comments above.
Nick Farr-Jones said | November 16th 2008 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
A scrappy game with plenty of turnovers and lack of discipline, but an excellent win for the Wallabies, especially our forwards.
Finally, a referee who rightly doesn’t blame our pack every time the scrum collapses, and finally a fair contest in the scrum.
Having watched our scrum get slaughtered by the Poms in the last three encounters, it was so sweet to see Vickery and Sheridan both being destroyed by our “new” pack. The best part was when (after the ref warned the Poms not to pull back), Vickery was forced to take the hit and he had to call time out because he was seeing stars!
Our lineout was also much better. Sharpie has been born again with his new look and probably should have got man of the match. Let’s hope he never shaves again. Palu had a huge impact off the bench. The entire front row did an incredible job. I thought Benn Robinson played his best match I’ve ever seen.
The Backs: didn’t do all that much and their defense was lacking a bit at times, although credit should go to the awesome footwork and elusiveness of the new English fly-half, and the two English wingers. Flutey was also quite good and has a killer sidestep. The kicking let England down and they could probably find a better kicker than Cipriani.
Burgess had another shocker. His indecisiveness and lack of vision are causing all kinds of problems. However we can’t put all the blame on him. He needed forwards putting their hands up waiting to take hit ups.
Ashley-Cooper’s kicking game needs more work. He needs to take a few lessons from Chris Latham, whose offensive kicks were more accurate and creative and he’d actually catch his own midfield bombs.
I have to disagree with “The Link”, I think Ryan Cross is awesome. He’s bulked up since leaving league and both his defense and offense is powerful and awesome.
Mortlock had another great game. His tackle on Flutey was one for the highlight reel, but even better was his signature tackle-breaking run near the English tryline in the first half.
Ten’s coverage was okay, and the commentator was very fair and eloquent. I think I prefer him over Gordon Bray. I can’t say the same for Ten’s presenters Ben Tune and Bill Woods. They both looked so tired and dull. Woods was very negative and lame, while Tune was boring, lifeless, unenthusiastic and had absolutely nothing interesting to say. Compared to the ABC’s Toby Lawson, these guys looked extremely amateur.
LeftArmSpinner said | November 16th 2008 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
I thought he came on after the try. my apologies. But, imagine the game we could have had if we had played the full ELV’s!!!! The English were hoisted on their own petard!
Ian Noble said | November 16th 2008 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
I wrote another blog before the game
“The Wallabies have the upper hand. Deans and his crew have had the 3Ns to refine their combinations and look at the scrum. The comments by the journos are smokescreens, they know this England team is under construction and hasn’t been tested at Test level.
I suppose in many Deans has more to lose than Johnson. Johnson is just starting the process of sorting out the wheat from the chaff and he needs time and consistency of performance over a number of games to see who will make the grade. A defeat whilst not desired may be more beneficial in the long run, as a win can paper over the cracks with the overhype about new dawns etc. To be frank I can’t recall such an inexperienced English team for a Home international. It has potential but there are too many unanswered questions and this weekend will certainly answer some but not all.”
The Wallabies performance reminded me of England 2003, Wilko kicks the goals, read Giteau, and score the occasional try. I was at Twickenham and it was an efficient peformance. England made too many elementary errors and were punished. The Wallabies made three times more tackles than England and their defence was immence particularly at the end of the game when England were camped in the Wallaby 22. Fitness was not an issue for both sides, England lacked that extra element required at Test level to break open defences, they came close but not close enough.
As for the ELV’s, quite frankly had little impact and in many ways England tried to play a more expensive game than the Wallabies, otherthan the Wallaby kcking game out of hand was better then England’s and is probably a trait of a team coached by Deans.
If I took a straw pool of the majority of English fans they would like to see the same team picked for the game v SA and given more time to see if they can reach their potential. Johnson might be forced to make changes through injury and he might give Flood more game time at 10 and bring Kennedy back into the 2nd row as England’s lineout was shambles. All in all well done to the Wallabies but England came with too many gifts.
Bob McGregor said | November 17th 2008 @ 12:40am | Report comment
It was a satisfying but ugly win with England only staying in the match by continually infringing. At long last the myth of the English scrum invincibility [2007 RWC] has been laid to rest and it was there for all to observe. I’ve argued on this site many times that the disinformation put about on our scrum was mainly a smoke screen and when the scrum laws were applied by the referees our “luck” would improve accordingly. Such was the case. Of further interest was fact that had Mortlock kicked the PG in Marseille – actually much shorter than the one he kicked yesterday – England would have gone out of RWC 2007 then and not overachieved by making the final.
Great to see the laws applied and the Wallaby forwards step up to the challenge. Indeed they certainly provided the platform for the supposedly “unexpected” win. Most will recall I’ve argued for patience with Deans as we were thereabouts and but for a few poor options against the AB’s in Bledisloe 3 and 4, OZ could have won both the TN’s and the Bledisloe series.
Having said that, I continue to despair about the poor options and execution of our back division and it is obvious we need another playmaker to back up Giteau urgently. Barnes was the man but his susceptibility to injury is a continuing worry. However, I’m sure Deans has something in mind and perhaps the reason he blooded the young guns against Italy.
Our tactical kicking and execution remains a problem - especially the high ball where I continue to champion the idea it should not be used UNLESS we have at least a 50% chance to compete for the ball in the air. Our inability to use and execute the sliding kick within the 22 is like-wise of concern. Perhaps an additional 2 tries could have been scored against England had we used this tactic. Although Burgess’s kicking game was better against England, his passing was below standard and but for an exceptional pick up by Giteau our only try may not have been forthcoming. No doubt the English pack and half upset him by being off side most of the time but he has to get used to that and not overplay his hand. Probably reason Deans left most on the field to help them cope with their ability to close out matches.
Cross is not the answer at centre as he was unable to off load and continued to crab across field and most of his runs came to nought. He continues to make a mess of defence as well. Perhaps O’Connor should be tried?
Coming tests against France, Scotland and Wales will not be easy. With an ounce of luck Scotland would have beaten the Boks. Losing Patterson early and then the injury to their playmaker 5/8 probably cost them the match. They sure play with passion and we must have similar intensity for our remaining matches.
Benjamin said | November 17th 2008 @ 12:44am | Report comment
erm.. Bob, you could also say that Australia stayed in the match due to England’s persistent infringements.
Arguing that the Australian scrum was unfairly maligned in the past is incorrect. The Australia scrum was bad but has improved, and not due to reffing but to hard work and persistence.
Colin N said | November 17th 2008 @ 1:05am | Report comment
Bob, what you are effectively saying is that the Australian scrum was badly managed and was only percieved to be dominated because England got all the decisions (in 2005 etc.), right? Oh dear. Both teams were infringing at the scrum but England got penalised. Both Sheridan and Baxter didn’t bind at most scrums. Also you could arguably say that Australia hit too early, which according to the laws is a free-kick, but that was debatable.
Benjamin said | November 17th 2008 @ 1:12am | Report comment
Colin, Australia won the war. It was nice to see that Vickery was gracious enough to admit that.
I think the game yesterday highlighted the shortcomings of the EPS agreement. I would wager that Johnson would have chosen a different squad having viewed the Italy v Australia test. A lot of the players: Sheridan, Hartley, Kennedy, Croft, Haskell, and Rees are in for the long haul, thus given that players like Mears, Vickery, Borthwick and Noon are not I can’t help but wonder what could have been were Johnson able to have picked the meanest pack available: Flatman, White, Shaw, Grewock, Worsley etc, if only for this series. I recognise that there is no pain no gain but in this instance the pain may have been greater than necessary.
Colin N said | November 17th 2008 @ 1:27am | Report comment
Benjamin. oh I agree, but to say that we only looked better in the scrum in 2005 and 2007 because the scrum laws weren’t applied properly is nonsense ( which what Bob is saying). Anyway, onwards and upwards to South Africa . With the way SA are performing atm, it should be a fairly confortable win, but knowing South Africa, they’ll probably put in a stunning performance
Benjamin said | November 17th 2008 @ 1:34am | Report comment
Colin, I’m not critical of Johnson - or more appropriately, Brian Smith - because a) he clearly has a long-term plan and b) because some of the games under Robinson and Ashton were so bad as to make me tearful. At least yesterday showed a team with new ambitions, my only issue is that the squad could have been a better mix of experience and inexperience. That wasn’t the best pack in England so I’m sure that the 6N will be different however NZ and SA will test the tight five to the limit - unless of course changes are made. John Wells has a big week ahead of him. I do not think that SA are a good team but they have a strong defence and a tight five that should have the edge over yesterday’s men. Anyway… it’s all experience and something that the team will remember. As long as the England forwards hit their rucks and don’t give away silly penalties then there is clear room for improvement.
Bob McGregor said | November 17th 2008 @ 1:38am | Report comment
Colin,
Didn’t mention 2005 - only reference was to RWC 2007. By then the English pack was way past its best.
Any fair minded judge would acknowledge that England’s pack dominated the International scene from RWC 2003 to 2006. Along with Wilkinson and Healy they were one of the better 10 man Rugby teams I can recollect over the past 50 years.
Colin N said | November 17th 2008 @ 1:47am | Report comment
England still dominated the Australia 8 in 2007. The problem with the 2007 game is that Australia actually tried to compete with England and were thus over-powered.
Also, we have been terrible for the last five years and had to resort to 10 man rugby in 2007 because we couldn’t play an expansive game. If we had been any good between 03 to 06 then we would have won more games.
Benjamin said | November 17th 2008 @ 2:15am | Report comment
Bob, the English pack of 2007 was a rare combination picked solely to overwhelm teams physically. I am of the opinion that the 8 from Marseilles would have beaten the 03 pack both in general play and in the scrummage. It certainly wasn’t a pack way past its best because it had never been selected before.
Why would you mention Healey in the context of 10 man rugby? If England played 10 man rugby how could Healey have ever received the ball? Further, I think you forget the halycon days of Greenwood and Robinson.
Matt said | November 17th 2008 @ 6:06am | Report comment
Many good things in the game, but AAC is out of his depth at 15, and Ryan cross looks very one dimension. Never thought we would miss Barnes so much.
Ian Noble said | November 17th 2008 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Benjamin
I think Bob McG has forgotten that England’s No 9’s through the period of England’s dominance was the duo of Dawson/Bracken. I hope given time that Care and Ellis will be as effective, although I saw a very impressive young No 9 at Quins playing for Wasps today, Joe Simpson if he develops he could be very useful, i think he has another season in the U20’s.
Justin
I waa at Twickenham yesterday and couldn’t understand why there was some booing at the end it made no sense as England had been beaten fair and square. The only rational thougth was that some of the young kids in the crowd were frustrated as England had camped in the W’s 22 for nearly 10 mins at the end of the game for no reward. The W’s defence was immence.
Benjamin said | November 18th 2008 @ 4:11am | Report comment
Ian, funny you should mention Simpson but I was getting changed in the gym a few weeks ago and Simpson waltzed in and got changed next to me. He doesn’t look particularly athletic but he had a few good moments against Harlequins yesterday. He looks like the love child of Les Cusworth and Derek Quinnell.